Pinellas County - File #: 21-788A

• File #: 21-788A
• Version: 1
• Type: Zoning / Land Use and Related Item
• Status: Failed
• File created: 4/14/2021
• Department: Board of County Commissioners
• On agenda: 5/25/2021
• Final action: 5/25/2021
• Title: Case No. Z/LU-14-09-19 (T T G C, LLC) (first public hearing) A request for a Future Land Use Map amendment from Recreation/Open Space and Preservation to Residential Low and Preservation on approximately 95.96 acres located at 11832 66th Avenue North in unincorporated Seminole. (Companion to Item No. 35)
• Related files: 21-877A

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result
5/25/2021	1	Board of County Commissioners	denied	Pass

Subject:

Title

Case No. Z/LU-14-09-19 (T T G C, LLC) (first public hearing)
A request for a Future Land Use Map amendment from Recreation/Open Space and Preservation to Residential Low and Preservation on approximately 95.96 acres located at 11832 66th Avenue North in unincorporated Seminole. (Companion to Item No. 35)

label

Recommended Action:

Recommended Action

Based upon evidence and findings contained in the staff report and attachments, Case No. Z/LU-14-09-19 is recommended for:

Denial of the transmittal of an Ordinance to the State Land Planning Agency (Florida Department of Economic Opportunity) for a Future Land Use Map amendment from Recreation/Open Space and Preservation to Residential Low and Preservation on approximately 95.96 acres located at 11832 66th Avenue North in unincorporated Seminole.

•                     This is a request for a large scale (greater than 10 acres) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment, and this is the first of two Board public hearings required to adopt the ordinance. The second public hearing will follow State and regional agency review and comment if the Board authorizes the ordinance transmittal.

•                     The applicant is seeking a FLUM amendment on a 95.96-acre property that was the site of the former Tides Golf Club. It is currently vacant.

•                     The applicant is proposing to develop a 273-unit single-family detached residential subdivision.

•                     There are other components of the applicant’s proposal, including a zoning change, a development agreement, and a development master plan. These components will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on the date of the second required public hearing for the FLUM amendment should the BCC authorize its transmittal.

•                     A significant portion of the subject property is in a vulnerable coastal location. 

•                     Staff is recommending denial of the proposed FLUM amendment because it introduces residential density into the vulnerable areas of the subject property where no residential development rights currently exist, which is inconsistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. 

•                     The Local Planning Agency unanimously recommended denial of all components of the request (vote 6-0), based on their agreement with the evidence and findings presented by staff. Seven persons appeared in person at the LPA hearing and spoke in opposition, nine persons appeared virtually and spoke in opposition, and 16 persons ceded their speaking times to give additional time to four of the individuals who spoke.

•                     286 letters, 42 postcards, a written petition with 19,188 signatures, and online petitions with 2,688 names have been received, all in opposition.

Body

Strategic Plan:

Deliver First Class Service to the Public and our Customers
5.2 Be responsible stewards of the public’s resources

Summary:

Summary

The subject property consists of approximately 95.96 acres located at 11832 66th Avenue North in unincorporated Seminole, which is the location of the former Tides Golf Club. The applicant is requesting a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment from Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Preservation to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation. Because this is a large-scale (greater than 10 acres) amendment, State and regional agency review and two public hearings by the Board are required for its approval per Florida Statutes. Should the Board authorize transmittal of the proposed amendment to State and regional agencies, the second Board public hearing would follow receipt of State and regional agency review comments. The FLUM amendment would also be subject to the Countywide Future Land Use Map amendment process through Forward Pinellas, which would take place during the same timeframe.

The proposed use is a 273-unit single-family detached residential subdivision. A FLUM amendment is required to facilitate this because the existing R/OS land use category does not permit residential uses or provide any residential density. The subject property is situated in an environmentally sensitive coastal waterfront location. Primary site access is via a two-lane local street (66th Avenue North) that transverses a long-established residential subdivision to reach the nearest arterial roadway (113th Street). The RL future land use is proposed for the upland portions of the subject property, consisting of approximately 88.88 acres. RL allows up to 5.0 residential units per acre. The Preservation land use category is proposed for the wetland and tidal marsh portions of the property consisting of approximately 7.08 acres. The offshore islands and submerged lands associated with the subject parcel are not included in the request. There are other components of the application package, including a zoning change, development agreement and development master plan, however those are predicated and fully dependent upon the FLUM amendment. The other components will be reviewed by the Board on the date of the second public hearing on the FLUM amendment if it is transmitted for agency review.

Site History:
The subject property is the location of the former Tides Golf Club, a publicly accessible 18-hole, par 72 golf course that was in operation from the early 1970s until the summer of 2018. The 1975 Pinellas County Future Land Use Map first portrays the property with the R/OS land use category, reflecting its use as a golf course at that time. The underlying zoning designations on the property in the 1970s were R-1 and R-2, which were designations typically associated with single-family residential uses. In 1985, an amendment initiated by the County changed the zoning on the upland portion of the golf course property to A-E, Agricultural Estate (since renamed R-A, Residential Agriculture), and to AL, Aquatic Lands on the islands and the submerged portion of the property. The application for that amendment identifies the property as a golf course and states the purpose of the amendment was to make the zoning consistent with the FLUM.

A Special Exception granted by the Board of Adjustment in 1969 allowed the golf course use within the residential zoning districts. Notably, the Special Exception expired following the first 180 days of inactivity after the golf course closed in 2018, however a golf course remains a permitted use in the R/OS FLUM category and is allowable as a Type 2 Use (updated term for a special exception) in the R-A zoning district. The subject property was vacant prior to its use as a golf course. A 273-unit residential plat was approved in 1926 prior to the establishment of the County’s zoning code and Comprehensive Plan but the subdivision was never constructed. A former property owner voluntarily vacated the plat in 1992, so it is no longer in place or material to the subject application, and there was no residential density in place when the current owner acquired the property. Additionally, the subject property was never part of a master planned community and no density transfers have ever taken place. In 2013, a former property owner submitted an application to allow 170 residential units spread over the majority of the subject property, but withdrew the request prior to the Local Planning Agency public hearing following a Staff recommendation of denial.

Significant events within the subject property’s history are summarized below:

•                     1926 - platted for 273 lots as part of Seminole Estates
•                     1969 - Special Exception granted for a golf course in residential zones
•                     1973 - clubhouse built and the golf course opens
•                     1975 - depicted as Recreation/Open Space on the Future Land Use Map
•                     1985 - rezoned to A-E (uplands) and AL (submerged land and islands)
•                     1992 - underlying 1926 residential plat vacated (OR Book 7945 Page 1943)
•                     2013 - application to allow 170 residential units - withdrawn before public hearings
•                     2018 - golf course closed, and the Special Exception subsequently expired

Surrounding Uses:
To the west of the subject property is the County’s 187-acre Boca Ciega Millennium Park. This regional County park, comprised of pine flatwoods, coastal oak hammock, mangrove swamp, salt marsh, bay head and wetlands, is recognized as a “Great Florida Birding Trail” and for its use of all-native landscaping. It is also the location of several important archeological deposits. 

To the north and east of the subject property are single family residential subdivisions, including several immediately adjacent homes. Laurel Street, Oxford Street and Irving Avenue dead end on the east side of the subject property and provide some visual access to the former golf course, which served as an open space vista for the neighboring properties. The nearby subdivisions are designated RL on the FLUM and have existing built densities ranging from 2.6 to 3.9 units per acre. These subdivisions all predate the currently adopted Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, and thus were not subject to the same regulations and review criteria that are pertinent to this current application.

The southern edge of the subject property is a coastal fringe characterized by mangroves, wetlands and salt marsh leading into Boca Ciega Bay. Elevations on the subject property increase significantly from the south to the north and generally to the east, making the northeast corner the highest point with an elevation of approximately 27 feet. The existing residential development north of the subject property overlooks the former golf course below.

Development Rights:
According to the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, the R/OS FLUM category currently in place on the subject property has allowable primary uses listed as public/private open space, public/private park, public recreation facilities, public beach/water access, and golf course/clubhouse. Importantly, there is no associated residential density. The site’s R-A zoning has development standards that require a two-acre minimum lot size, however there is no underlying residential land use density available. Also, as mentioned previously, the historical 1926 platted subdivision was vacated in 1992. To reiterate, there are currently no residential development rights on the subject property. The only development rights pertain to those uses allowed under the R/OS FLUM category, which has been in place for 46 years.

Site Vulnerabilities: Coastal Storm Area, Floodplain and Sea Level Rise
The subject property’s sensitive coastal location means that the coastal storm area, floodplain and sea level rise are important factors regarding the site’s potential uses and redevelopment scenarios. A significant portion of the property is within the 100-year floodplain (see Site Vulnerability Map 1) and about one-quarter of it is in the velocity zone, which FEMA describes as being subject to wave action. This creates conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, most notably:

• Future Land Use Element Policy 4.3.1: “In order to limit the exposure of residents and property to coastal hazards and not increase existing and planned demands on hurricane evacuation corridors and public shelters, the population density and development intensity within the coastal planning area shall be consistent with Objective 1.3 of the Coastal Management Element and the supporting policies”.

• Coastal Management Element Objective 1.3: “Pinellas County shall restrict development within the Coastal Storm Area and shall direct population concentrations out of the Coastal Storm Area”.

• Natural Resource Conservation & Management Element GOAL 6: “Pinellas County will preserve, protect, restore and manage the natural resources of its floodplains to maintain or enhance water quality, plant and animal diversity, and aquatic productivity, to protect the flood storage value and purpose, and to protect the public and minimize property damage”.

• Natural Resource Conservation & Management Element Objective 6.1: “Pinellas County shall continue to protect floodplains, floodways, and all other natural areas having functional hydrological characteristics in order to minimize adverse impacts on the natural system, public safety and investment, and floodplain function and purpose”.

The entire subject property is located within the Coastal Storm Area (CSA) (see Site Vulnerability Map 2). The Comprehensive Plan defines the CSA as “the area delineated in the Coastal Management Element, which encompasses all of the following:

(1) the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA),
(2) all land connected to the mainland of Pinellas County by bridges or causeways,
(3) those isolated areas that are defined by the SLOSH model to be inundated by a category two hurricane or above and that are surrounded by the CHHA or by the CHHA and a body of water, and
(4) all land located within the Velocity Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency” (Coastal Management Element Policy 1.3.2).

If 20 percent or more of a parcel of land is located within the CSA, then the entire parcel is considered within the CSA. For reference, the Comprehensive Plan defines the CHAA as “the area defined by the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model to be inundated from a category one hurricane, as reflected in the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas” (Coastal Management Element Policy 1.3.1).

Per Policy 1.6.1 of the Future Land Use Element, “Development or redevelopment in storm impact areas shall be restricted based upon the Natural Disaster Planning objectives and policies in the Coastal Management Element. The policies associated with those objectives shall be consistent with the criteria in the National Flood Insurance Program, and the County’s Flood Damage Prevention and Floodplain Management provisions of the Land Development Code”. Policy 1.3.5 of the Coastal Management Element prohibits the approval of any request to amend the Future Land Use Map on properties within the CSA to any land use category that permits more than 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. While the requested land use amendment does not exceed the 5.0 units per acre threshold, the Comprehensive Plan also does not assure that requests at or below 5.0 units per acre are appropriate and will be granted, because such requests must also be weighed and balanced against other Comprehensive Plan policies and directives.

Approximately two-thirds of the amendment area is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. The locational characteristics within the adopted FLUM category description of the proposed RL category cites that the RL category is appropriate in areas within the 100 year-floodplain where preservation, open space/restricted, or recreation/open spaces are not feasible. The land is currently designated as R/OS and Preservation, and the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that retaining those designations on areas within the 100-year floodplain is not viable, as development could solely be proposed on and directed to other areas of the property while the 100-year floodplain is maintained as R/OS and/or Preservation.

Regarding sea level rise, projections show much of the southern portion of the subject property being affected in the coming decades (see Site Vulnerability Map 3). The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that planning for sea level rise is important to the long-term viability and sustainability of its coastal resources and land uses. Objective 4.6 of the Coastal Management Element states that “In an effort to ensure long-term viability and sustainability of its coastal resources and land uses, Pinellas County will remain apprised of and plan where appropriate for rising sea levels”.

Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter Impacts:
The subject property’s coastal location means that hurricane evacuation and shelter impact considerations are very important. The parcel elevation ranges from 4 feet to 27 feet per the Digital Elevation Model, rising from south to north with the highest elevation on the northeast corner. The SLOSH model indicates that the parcel is impacted by storm surge in all categories of storms (see Site Vulnerability Maps 4 & 5). Development on the property would increase storm shelter demand, especially for Category 3 and higher storms on the Saffir-Simpson scale. A Category 3 storm would impact over two-thirds of the property. Florida Statutes, per Section 163.3178(8), require mitigation for hurricane shelter and evacuation impacts. Importantly, the current SLOSH model does not factor in sea level rise, so any future storm impacts will likely be exacerbated.

Transportation Impacts:
Based on a transportation analysis provided by the applicant, it is estimated that the proposed 273-unit subdivision would generate approximately 2,619 daily trips, with 199 at AM peak hour and 266 at PM peak hour. About 40 percent of trips are projected to be from the north via 113th and 116th Streets and 60 percent to the south via 113th Street. The Primary access point into the project is proposed off 66th Avenue North utilizing the historic entrance to the golf course. Because the project would generate more than 555 daily trips, the Pinellas County Land Development Code requires a second vehicular access point to a nearby paved roadway, which is being proposed by the applicant at Irving Avenue.

Per the submitted traffic study, most trips are likely to use 66th Avenue North to 113th Street where there is a traffic signal. While level of service conditions will remain acceptable based on a technical evaluation of the traffic impacts of the proposed amendment, there will still be an increase in traffic within the neighborhood, which on 66th Street North will amount to several hundred additional vehicle trips per day.

Land Use:
The Comprehensive Plan clearly encourages the retention of non-dedicated (privately-owned) R/OS designated land. Objective 1.5 of the Recreation, Open Space & Culture (ROSC) Element states “In recognition of the limited amount of available open space remaining within the County, Pinellas County shall prohibit the conversion of dedicated recreation/open space land uses, and encourage the retention of non-dedicated recreation/open space land uses”. The Comprehensive Plan is also protective of scenic vistas. Objective 1.4 of the ROSC Element states that “Pinellas County will protect its open spaces and scenic vistas for their contributions to quality of life” and Policy 1.4.3. says that “Pinellas County will encourage and incentivize the retention and reestablishment of open vistas, where appropriate, with particular emphasis on coastal areas and lands surrounding parks and environmental lands”. It is important to note that as a privately-owned R/OS designated property, the subject property is not a part of the County’s recreational level of service calculation. However, that does not diminish the importance that the vulnerable areas of the property serve as open space.

As mentioned previously, the Comprehensive Plan describes locational characteristics that are appropriate for each of the FLUM categories. The locational characteristics of the proposed RL category indicate that it is appropriate for areas within the 100-year floodplain “where preservation, open space/restricted, or recreation/open space are not feasible”. A significant portion of the subject property is within the 100-year floodplain, and it has a long history of being utilized for recreation/open space purposes. The golf course use is gone and the applicant claims it is no longer financially viable, but the retention of open space on the vulnerable portion of the subject property is important and provides environmental and storm-related mitigation value nonetheless, particularly in a near built-out county where such resources are scarce.  

Summary Recommendation:
Staff’s recommendation is to deny the requested FLUM amendment. The primary consideration for this recommendation is based upon Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies as demonstrated by the following points:

•                     The proposed FLUM amendment to RL involves locations within the 100-year floodplain, velocity zones, Coastal Storm Area, and areas of expected hurricane storm surge inundation. There are Comprehensive Plan policies that address limiting within and directing residential development out of such areas. While the Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit land use amendments that would allow a certain amount of residential density within the Coastal Storm Area, it also does not assure that such requests are appropriate and will be granted, because they must also be weighed and counter-balanced against other Comprehensive Plan policies and directives.

•                     Under the current R/OS land use designation, which has been in place on the FLUM for 46 years, residential development is not allowed. Although the applicant’s proposed density is not over the 5.0 residential units per acre threshold in Coastal Management Element Policy 1.3.5, the applicant’s RL FLUM category proposal allows the introduction of residential units within the vulnerable areas of the subject property where none are currently permitted. Staff finds that the introduction of residential densities in an area where no population density is currently permitted is incompatible with the County Comprehensive Plan’s objective to direct population concentrations away from such vulnerable areas into less vulnerable areas of the subject property. With flood considerations and associated extreme weather and sea level rise concerns looming, it is difficult to support the introduction of population density into a vulnerable coastal area where residential development has not been permitted for 46 years.

•                     A significant portion of the proposed amendment area is within the 100-year floodplain. The locational characteristics of the requested RL FLUM category indicate that it is appropriate for areas within the 100-year floodplain “where preservation, open space/restricted, or recreation/open space are not feasible”. The subject property has a long history of being utilized for recreation and open space purposes. While the applicant claims that the golf course use is no longer financially viable, the retention of open space in the vulnerable area of the subject property is important nonetheless and provides intrinsic value for environmental and storm mitigation purposes in a near built-out county where such resources are scarce.

Body

Background Information:

The Local Planning Agency recommended denial of the request during its April 6, 2021 public hearing (Vote 6-0).

Surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property were notified by mail. Signs advertising the public hearings were posted at the subject property.

Fiscal Impact:

N/A

Staff Member Responsible:

Carol Stricklin, Director, Housing and Community Development

Partners:

N/A

Attachments:

LPA Report with Case Maps & Attachments
Site Vulnerability Maps
Ordinance
Public Notification Map
Legal Ad
Ad Map
Staff’s Exhibits & Maps
Applicant’s Exhibits & Maps
PowerPoint Presentation
Correspondence