Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Leaders focus on knotty Upham Beach problems

As larger redevelopment issues grind along, the dilemma in one district defies easy answers.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published January 29, 2006

ST. PETE BEACH - While the major aspects of the city's redevelopment plan await the outcome of lawsuits, city commissioners have had time to focus on a small, problematic district, but can't seem to create a policy that pleases all the small-business owners there.

"This is one of the toughest districts we have because there are so many different uses," said Commissioner Deborah Martohue of the area near Upham Beach, a mix of motels, homes, apartments and condos mostly built decades ago. "It's difficult to reconcile the compatibility."

The city wants the area revived but the haphazard configuration makes it hard to use uniform incentives that encourage development for different types of owners. A compromise passed Tuesday met mixed results.

"I can't see where this plan is going to be an incentive for me to redevelop," said Leslie Hughes, the owner of Sun-Dial Motel, a business with 22 units on one third of an acre of land. Hughes said she wants the city to give her the ability to redevelop as a motel, something once under consideration but presently unavailable without significantly reworking city plans. "As much trouble as the City Commission is having passing this plan, how long is it going to take" to change it again?

But city planners say there is not much they can do for a property owner like Hughes. Her motel does not conform to regulations, having been built before they were written. The most expansive plan the city ever suggested would not allow her to redevelop as many units as she has now, though her building could be reconfigured and made more modern.

At best, she could have built 13 motel units on her property or eight residential units. The city's present plan would allow no motel units but only five residential because her property is so small. Under the latest plan, if she had a half-acre, as some other motel owners do, she would still only be allowed 12 residential units, which, for some, is enough.

"As long as I can sell some homes and make some money, that's what we're in business for," said Alan Ball, owner of the Serendipity Motel, 11 units plus a house on a half-acre. Ball had once asked for transient redevelopment as Hughes does, but is satisfied now that the city lowered the threshold for expanded residential housing to a half-acre.

"You don't get tourists in Upham Beach," said Ball, a Briton. "All we get there are snowbirds, Canadians, and they're refugees from the cold, not holiday-makers. They don't spend money."

Upham homeowners have expressed their concerns about tall buildings, though the new plan would allow nothing taller than four stories, which homes can be also. Some condo owners were worried they could be displaced but were reassured. Still, Upham is slated for strictly residential use, which some find ironic, given that the city emphasizes tourism as a major driving force in its overall plans.

"This does not address (the property owners') original concern," said Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter of the lack of tourism in the Upham plan. "This does not solve their problem. This dooms this district."

Ruttencutter suggested the commission hold off voting on an Upham plan because it couldn't be enacted until lawsuits are settled. But some property owners complained that there have been so many iterations of what will happen in Upham that they need some finality.

"There's a lot of people in this city who can't move forward, not just this district," Martohue said, referring to delays from opposition to the city's plans. She also repeated that the city's plan is to create a framework for development, not to guarantee all property owners make money. "Local government is not here to solve everyone's business or property problems."

In other commission action:

Commissioners passed a "planned-development" district allowing commercial property owners in some parts of the city to request expanded development rights for specific mixed-use projects. Opponents to the city's overall redevelopment strategy have said this planned-development action is illegal and inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan, but city officials said that is not the case.

Commissioners voted unanimously to extend City Manager Mike Bonfield's contract by two years and grant him a raise to $110,028. Bonfield started work in January 2002 and his contract was set to expire in a year. His extension runs to 2009 with a possible two-year extension on that, with commission approval. Bonfield's starting salary was $89,000, but he has received cost-of-living and merit increases annually.

Commissioners praised Bonfield for his work during the contentious process of approving the city's redevelopment plan. Even Ruttencutter, who gave Bonfield the lowest grades of all commissioners, praised his handling of residents' complaints and work requests.

"He makes us all look good," Ruttencutter said. "Right now, he runs the city better than any of the city managers I've worked with in the 18 years I've been here."

Commissioners amended the personnel rules to officially add a public information officer to the city manager's staff.

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