A publication of the Pinellas Planning Council
October 2001
In This Issue:
- PPC Study Explores Redevelopment Strategies
- Florida Court Orders Demolition of Inconsistent Development
- Annexation News
- Upcoming Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule
PPC Study Explores Redevelopment Strategies
The Vinoy Condominiums in Downtown St. Petersburg provide an example of successful redevelopment.Pinellas County is fast developing the last remaining parcels of vacant, “greenfield” land, a condition referred to as “buildout” — a rarity in fast-growing Florida. There is broad-based consensus that redevelopment is necessary or economic stagnation will result. And the need to address the many facets of redevelopment has been recognized by both the public and private sectors. It is also recognized that even without guidelines, redevelopment is already taking place and will continue. Therefore, it was imperative that issues should be identified and guidelines created that would support the countywide vision of “Pinellas, A Community of Quality Communities."
Realization of the need for guidelines resulted in a cooperative effort between the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Economic Development Department (PCED) to study the issues and propose strategies through consultant assistance and shared project financing.
Integral to the project was formation of an “Oversight Committee” composed of the PPC Executive Director, a leading member of the local planning community, and the PCED Director. Public participation was facilitated through creation of a “Steering Committee” composed of county and municipal elected representatives and members of the business community. That committee played a major role in defining redevelopment issues and identifying strategies.
Creation of the document titled Redevelopment Issues And Strategies For Pinellas County is the first phase of a multi-phase project. Subsequent phases will include public educational efforts, development of model code provisions, and promotion of incentives for public/private partnerships. Redevelopment has no set time frame. It will have no foreseeable end state in Pinellas County because it will be the predominant and on-going development characteristic of the future.
Properties with older development, like those shown on the left, provide an opportunity for redevelopment with desirable uses and improved amenities, such as those shown on the right. A broad definition of redevelopment activities is proposed, but a distinction is made between two types of activities. First, projects that take place as part of publicly-adopted plans are referred to as “partnered” activities. Second, those that are built, but are not associated with public plans or those that occur randomly, are identified as “independent” redevelopment efforts.
The document identifies, on a countywide basis, specific redevelopment issues and strategies, and proposes actions intended to address them. The document provides a framework for actions intended to address long-term redevelopment issues in Pinellas County. It proposes a laundry list of activities both short- and long-term that need to be undertaken in order to prepare for and react to redevelopment. The proposed strategies are not presented as mandates or requirements. Rather, they are offered as a menu of options which may be used as local jurisdictions deem appropriate. Examples are not only illustrated — the issues associated with them are presented. This feature can provide assistance to local jurisdictions which may have to deal with redevelopment projects similar to those in the document.
An innovative feature is the examination and analysis of some local and out-of-state land development codes to identify redevelopment-friendly characteristics. The examination was required because the majority of existing codes in the county were written for suburban-type, greenfield development, but they continue to be applied in an urban, redevelopment setting. The result is that often the attempt to find a proper “fit” between a redevelopment proposal and existing code provisions is elusive. For some jurisdictions, this situation results in land use regulation by variance — neither an efficient nor effective way to address redevelopment. To assist local communities, a checklist is provided that can be used to examine codes for their redevelopment orientation.
Subsequent to PPC approval, the document will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in their role as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA). Upon CPA approval, the strategies recommended in the document will become the official blueprint for countywide redevelopment actions. The follow-up work phases implementing the recommendations are already approved in the PPC work program and budget for fiscal year 2002. If the proposed strategies are adopted and sufficient political and financial leadership is forthcoming, the impact of the document will continue far into the future.
Recently, a state appeals court ordered the demolition of an apartment complex in West Palm Beach, because construction of the complex adjacent to an existing single-family development was found to be in violation of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
Florida Statutes, Chapter 163, Section 163.3194 states that all development orders, in this case an approved site plan, must be consistent with the adopted local government comprehensive plan.
In the mid-1990s, Martin County approved a site plan for the development of nineteen two-story apartment buildings. The county’s comprehensive plan contains policies stating that any multifamily development constructed adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood must be comparable and compatible in scale to the adjoining homes.
The adjacent homeowners appealed the planning staff’s recommendation of the site plan approval for the Pinecrest Lakes apartment complex. However, the County Commission granted approval of the site plan, and the homeowners sued in circuit court. The homeowners lost in circuit court, but appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeals. During the appeal, the developer sought and was granted building permits, proceeded to construct five of the nineteen approved, eight-unit apartment buildings, and rented them.
The homeowners warned the developers that if they proceeded to build while the case was still pending in court, and the homeowners prevailed, that demolition of the apartment complex would be sought as a remedy.
On September 26, 2001, the appeals court, in the case of Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Karen Shidel, ruled in favor of the homeowners saying that Martin County had indeed approved a project in violation of its comprehensive plan. The court then ordered the demolition of the apartment complex, even though the developers argued that their loss of $3.3 million out-weighed the $300,000 decrease in value to the adjacent homes.
The appeals court ruled that consistency with the comprehensive plan supercedes any financial inequity suffered by the developers, otherwise any developer could buy his way out of complying with adopted comprehensive plans.
This case serves as an important reminder that consistency with the local comprehensive plan is not to be taken lightly, and that development approvals must be in accordance with the policies of the adopted plan. Additionally, through its decision, the court provides a warning to both developers and jurisdictions that proceeding with construction while litigation is still in process carries with it substantial risk.
We are quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of the new voluntary annexation process exclusive to Pinellas County (Ord. No. 00-63). Staff has reviewed over 214 voluntary annexation petitions since November 7, 2000, with only eight determined to be not in compliance. Six of those were withdrawn by their respective cities, and two went through the full review process provided for in the ordinance.
In other annexation news, the Sheriff’s Office recently contacted the PPC because of our role as a clearinghouse for all the voluntary annexations in the county. The Sheriff’s Office is interested in obtaining the most up-to-date city limits in order to determine what their service responsibilities are in relationship to changed municipal boundaries.
Also, the “Truth in Annexation” project has been in use for one year. This spreadsheet program allows local governments to compare the costs for a resident considering joining a municipality with current unincorporated county costs. A new edition of the program, to include current millage rates and fees, is scheduled for release by the end of November and will be distributed to local governments.
| Planners Advisory Committee |
Pinellas Planning Council |
Countywide Planning Authority |
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
• Mayor Tom De Cesare
Chairman(Group A Communities: Madeira Beach*, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island) • Vice-Mayor Nadine S. Nickeson
Vice-Chairman(Safety Harbor) • Councilmember Chuck Williams
Treasurer(Pinellas Park) • Commissioner Janet Henderson
Secretary(Dunedin) • Mayor Frank DiDonato, DC (Tarpon Springs) • Mayor Robert DiNicola (Group B Communities: Belleair Shore, Belleair Beach, Indian Rocks Beach*, Indian Shores, North Redington Beach, Redington Beach, Redington Shores) • Councilmember Bill Foster (St. Petersburg) • School Board Member
Dr. Max Gessner(Pinellas County School District) • Commissioner Calvin D. Harris (Pinellas County) • Commissioner Ed Hart (Clearwater) • Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph.D. (Largo) • Mayor William B. Smith (Group C Communities: Belleair, Belleair Bluffs, Gulfport, Kenneth City*, Seminole, South Pasadena) • Vice-Mayor David Tilki (Oldsmar) * Councilmember serves on this governing body.
|
|
|
