Pinellas LPA recommends denial of Gandy land‑use change, citing comprehensive‑plan prohibition in coastal storm area

The Pinellas County Local Planning Agency on a vote of the body recommended denial of FLU25‑04, a future land‑use map amendment for 10636 Gandy Boulevard in unincorporated Saint Petersburg, after staff and members concluded the request conflicts with county comprehensive‑plan rules for coastal storm areas.

Staff described the site as an 8.94‑acre property currently operating as Twin City Mobile Home Park with 103 approved spaces in its original plan but far fewer occupied units today. Planning Division Manager Glenn Bailey told the board the park “was established in the 19 fifties prior to land use map and zoning code” and that units were “deemed substantially damaged” after recent storms, making the existing homes infeasible to elevate and retain as‑is.

The staff report recommended denial because the proposed change—from Residential Urban (RU, 7.5 units/acre) and a small area of Commercial General (CG) to Residential Medium (RM, up to 15 units/acre)—would increase potential density well above the limits the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan sets for coastal storm areas. Bailey quoted the plan’s language, saying, “Pinellas County shall not approve any request to amend future land use map to designate parcels of land within the coastal storm area ... that permits more than 5 dwelling units per gross acre.” He reiterated that the site is in the coastal high hazard area, the coastal storm area and Hurricane Evacuation Zone A.

Todd Prisman, representing the applicant, responded that the comprehensive plan must be read “holistically” and urged the board to weigh other plan policies that encourage redevelopment and manufactured‑home preservation. Prisman said the owners have coordinated with county relocation assistance and that 51 residents applied for help, with 42 approved at the time the staff report was written. He also mentioned state options the applicant considered, including a graywater reuse density bonus, and argued the proposal would bring formal stormwater and elevation improvements to a failing site.

Board members pressed both sides on practical issues. Board member Hendricks emphasized housing needs and redevelopment opportunities along the Gandy corridor, while Board member Hamilton raised concerns about narrow ingress and egress to the property. Staff clarified that redevelopment would require bringing the site up to current stormwater and elevation standards and that the county’s land‑use rules limit density increases in the coastal storm area regardless of potential mitigation.

The board first voted on a motion to approve the future land‑use amendment; that motion failed. A subsequent motion, moved by Vice Chair Coleman and seconded by Board member Laurie Johnson, found the application inconsistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and recommended denial to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion to recommend denial passed. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a separate public hearing on Oct. 21, 2025, at 6 p.m. on the countywide docket.

The record includes staff citations to Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan coastal management and hurricane‑hazard policies and references to Florida statutes affecting density‑bonus programs. The applicant may pursue alternatives permitted under the existing RU designation (including a density bonus option under state law for graywater reuse, if eligible) or seek other approaches that do not require a comprehensive‑plan amendment.