Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Developer withdraws smaller Publix project

The builder wants voters to decide if they want the project or not. The supervisor of elections demands a ballot change.

By SHEILA MULLANE ESTRADA
Published January 29, 2006

INDIAN ROCKS BEACH - Voters will have the final say in March on a proposed Publix supermarket and condominium development - maybe.

A proposed compromise, a smaller project, was withdrawn Tuesday when a spokesman for the developer, AG Armstrong, said the company wants the voters to decide whether they want the project.

But the city had already filed a lawsuit seeking to block the referendum entirely, arguing that if approved it would "infringe upon and usurp powers, rights and functions" of the city granted by the state Constitution and law, as well as the city charter.

In addition, the city contends that the referendum question is "vague, worded improperly, ambiguous on its face and therefore illegal."

AG Armstrong hopes voters will approve construction of a multiuse, three-story building in the block bounded by Gulf Boulevard, First Street and 25th and 26th avenues. The referendum asks voters to approve the planned unit development and grant "variances and other approvals" required.

The project would encompass up to 30,065 square feet of grocery store space, 29 ground level parking spaces, second-level structured parking for 119 vehicles, and 24 condominiums.

The city is asking for a permanent injunction to prevent the referendum from going forward. Complicating the issue was Friday's deadline from the supervisor of elections to remove or change the referendum language on the printed ballot.

Meanwhile, AG Armstrong pledged Tuesday that if voters approve their referendum, the company will build the smaller project first proposed weeks ago. The developers had offered to postpone, if not cancel, the referendum if the city agreed to enter "good faith" negotiations over the reduced project. That did not happen.

Under the withdrawn proposal, the development would include a 28,880-square-foot grocery store, 12 instead of 24 condos, and larger green space at the rear of the property where it borders a residential neighborhood.

Further complicating the issue is a lawsuit filed against both the city and the developer by a city resident who alleges that the project violates both city zoning and planning codes.

AG Armstrong first proposed the Publix project about a year ago and has had little luck getting the approval or even interest of city officials.

After the project was rejected by the city's board of adjustment, it was allowed to be considered as a planned unit development but has not progressed much since then.

Residents appear to be split over the project, arguing that it would provide a needed amenity to the area, or that it would be too massive and attract too much traffic.

Just how it could be approved without changes to the city's zoning codes and comprehensive plan is debatable. The property currently is split between business and residential zoning.

Under city zoning, a planned unit development involves "two or more buildings" (this is one large building) and allows only a mix of residential, resort hotel and light commercial facilities in CT and RM-2 districts. A major commercial use, like a Publix, is only allowed in the Commercial General business zone.

"Whatever happens, we will develop the property," says Bill Chamberlin, director of site acquisitions for AG Armstrong.

If the Publix project is not approved by voters or the city, the site will become a mixed-use strip commercial center and condos, he said.

[Last modified January 29, 2006, 01:27:17]