Safety Harbor staff and developer press for phasing, capacity studies in waterfront master-plan review

Safety Harbor City planning and engineering staff told the developer of a proposed waterfront master-plan revision that additional technical studies and clearer phasing are required before the city will accept critical reports or finalize approvals.

The meeting on Permit P2025-033, led by Michelle Giuliani of the engineering department, focused on three interrelated issues: phasing and a potential development agreement, infrastructure capacity (traffic, water, sewer, stormwater), and coastal floodplain design and protections. "Okay. We'll get started on the site plan major modification for the safety harbor small, master plan Permit P2025-033," Giuliani said at the meeting's start.

Why it matters: The parcels in the proposal lie in areas subject to coastal floodplain rules and in locations that connect to city water, sewer and roadway systems; errors or missing analysis could require later redesigns or limit permitting. City staff emphasized that a clear phasing schedule and engineering details are needed so the city can program capital improvements and confirm the municipal systems can support buildout.

Key points

- Phasing and developer agreement: Planning director Carol Strickland said the submission does not make it clear which improvements are intended for each construction phase and whether infrastructure provided in early phases is standalone or sized for future phases. Staff explained that a developers agreement is optional but "gives certainty both to you and to the city." The developer asked whether a permit extension of up to 10 years could be included; staff replied the maximum development-agreement period is 10 years and that phasing schedules should identify when each phase will come online so the city can predict demand for services.

- Traffic and site access: Staff said the traffic study submitted has not been accepted because it addresses volumes and capacity but "didn't deal with the operational improvements, turn lanes, driveway configuration," and requested a coordination meeting between the applicant's traffic engineer and the city's traffic engineer. City staff objected to a planned public driveway into Waterfront Park from Jefferson Street, stating that the Jefferson drive aisle is "not wide enough" or built for general public traffic; the city asked that the proposed public driveway be removed and retained only for emergency access, with a likely right-in/right-out or right-out-only configuration at Jefferson.

- Utilities and capacity studies: Public works staff said water and sewer capacity must be demonstrated. The project proposes two sewer connections and would rely in part on an existing lift station; staff said the city needs calculations showing existing lift stations and gravity lines can handle the additional flow. City staff also flagged that one lift station is proposed to be HOA-owned and said legal and operational clarifications will be necessary if additional flow is expected later.

- Floodplain, building height and coastal design: Engineering and floodplain reviewers said portions of the site fall in VE (velocity) coastal flood zones and that new structures generally must be elevated, use breakaway walls where required, or place non-habitable uses at ground level. Staff discussed how tower height limits (for example, a 65-foot limit cited for the destination-resort area) are measured from the site-specific design flood elevation (DFE); staff cited a likely DFE around 13.4 feet for parts of the site and noted residential buildings typically require a 1-foot freeboard (example given: a 14.4-foot baseline in some places). The reviewers also told the developer that pool structures in velocity zones usually must be supported on deep structural piles to resist scour.

- Structural fill and scour analysis: The city said structural fill is controlled in VE areas and requested a scouring (scour) analysis. Reviewers noted potential options such as reinforced CMU walls or seawalls but said any protection strategy must demonstrate it will not cause unacceptable downstream impacts and must be designed to prevent erosion during heavy storms.

- Trees, plaza features and sidewalks: The city's arborist flagged a privately owned corner tree with existing storm damage and asked to meet with the applicant to determine acceptable pruning and root protection. The developer described a proposed fountain/art centerpiece near the corner; staff asked for detail to confirm the fountain and any nearby parking deck will not conflict with tree easements. Planning staff also asked for clearer sidewalk details (staff indicated an 8-foot sidewalk should be provided at grade where pedestrian flow is expected) and requested building elevations and materials to evaluate design-standard compliance in the Main Street/town-center character district (section 98-06).

- Other site changes: The applicant said a temporary tent footprint housing a Tiki Grill will be replaced with a permanent building and full-service kitchen; staff advised that the building replacement will require a separate site-plan modification and additional code review. The developer also said two tanks on site might be relocated or removed; staff raised concerns about tanks within the floodplain and noted any relocation would need to be set at appropriate elevations.

What staff requested next

City reviewers asked the applicant to provide: a detailed phasing narrative tied to construction/improvement scopes; a coordinated traffic operational analysis (and a meeting between traffic engineers); sewer and water capacity calculations tied to phasing; a scour/scouring analysis and proposed seawall/retaining solutions if used; clearer sidewalk and easement drawings; tree-protection plans and a meeting with the arborist; and building elevations and details required to confirm compliance with design standards.

Developer response and next steps

Developer William E. Tulumis and his design team said they would refine engineering plans, coordinate with outside traffic and structural engineers, and schedule the requested technical meetings. Tulumis noted prior development agreements on nearby projects and asked whether a master permit that covers buildout with phased construction would be possible; city staff said a master plan with phasing can be considered but that the requested technical analyses must support an approval for the full buildout and to ensure infrastructure is sufficient.

Outcome

No formal vote or permit decision was made. City staff closed the meeting by listing the technical reports and meetings they require before the city can accept key studies or proceed to formal approvals.