Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considers raising RF residential caps after consultant finds existing development exceeds rules
Summary
Consultants told Belleair Beach council that average densities and impervious-area ratios in the RF district exceed current code limits; members moved to raise maximums (proposed up to 30 units/acre, FAR ~1.2, ISR 0.85) and took a call vote though the transcript does not record a numeric tally.
Consultant Louis Surma presented the council with a memorandum (in meeting packets) analyzing current development in the city’s RF residential district. “Our finding is that the average density is 21.04 units per acre,” Surma said, adding that the district’s current code maximum is 15 units per acre and the average floor-area ratio he measured is about 0.524, above the code’s 0.5 limit. He also estimated impervious-surface ratios in the area around 0.85–0.95, higher than the existing 0.75 cap.
During a sustained exchange, residents and council members described older, substantially damaged or remodeled motels and condo properties that already exceed the code limits. One resident who said the Bell Beach Motel has long been a “unique” local property argued higher limits would preserve redevelopment options and the tax base. The resident said rebuilding under a lower cap could “hurt our taxes” and property owners’ value.
A council member moved to adopt a package of changes intended to align the code with what is on the ground: raise maximum density to 30 units per acre, set an approximate FAR of 1.2, increase the allowable impervious-surface ratio to 0.85, and include a 50-foot maximum height. The chair clarified that the consultant’s written recommendation proposed increases for density and impervious area but did not calculate height; Mr. Cern and others noted height would require additional review. The chair then called for a vote; the transcript records a call vote being initiated but does not include a roll‑call tally. The motion was discussed as a way to reduce the risk that a future natural-disaster rebuild would be limited to lower entitlements under the 50% substantial-damage rule.
Next steps: the council’s motion and the consultant’s findings will be included in the code-drafting process so staff can return with refined draft ordinance language (including any necessary cross-checks with county rules and flood-zone measurements).
