|
Being Creative, Not Arbitrary
It’s the mass, not the height, city residents told the Safety Harbor City Commission in December. Refreshingly, the commission listened and responded appropriately. Discussion of a moratorium on buildings more than 25 feet in height is finished. The harder task has just begun. Now the city has to find a way to define the amorphous “character” issue that was at the heart of the debate. What kind of construction is out of character or disruptive to the quaint character of downtown Safety Harbor? After all, a diversity of building styles and uses is an essential element in defining the city’s current character. Mandating cookie cutter design is anathema to what residents clearly said they wanted to accomplish.
The public hearing on the moratorium proposal brought a diversity of opinion, but a surprising unanimity about ultimate goals. Interim Mayor Andy Steingold noted the discussion was an eye-opening experience. After encouraging a quick timetable to discuss the height moratorium, Steingold said, “To preserve the quaintness of our community doesn’t necessarily mean (limiting) height.” The commission voted unanimously to drop further consideration of a building height moratorium. The next step will be to work within existing zoning and planning rules with some form of an architectural review board. Community Development Director Matt McLachlan suggested it could be composed of local design professionals who would develop design guidelines for residential and commercial construction. “We need to tell developers what we want rather than them telling us what they’re going to build,” concluded Commissioner James McCormick.
Although current rules allow relatively intensive development in the downtown commercial district, including building to front and side lot lines, residents and commissioners agreed such intensity is inappropriate in residential areas, especially in the old downtown area. Residents have good reason to be concerned about oversized homes being built side-by-side with quaint cottages. Several new homes both north and south of Main Street would be ordinary in most of the city’s subdivisions, but seem huge on the tiny lots that are typical of the city’s original plats. Most are set back from side lot lines only as much as legally required. For all practical purposes, they have no yards. However, even homes like these can be designed so they don’t visually overwhelm or clash with their neighbors.
As we stated last month, the city still has a variety of tools, including parking and drainage requirements and tree preservation rules, that can be used creatively to prevent excessive development. An architectural review board could be a useful addition to those tools, without needing more arbitrary rules such as a mandatory, 25-foot height limit. What is finally being discussed is what has long been needed, a proactive attempt by the city — elected officials, staff and residents together — to define what development is desired. Builders and developers will no longer have to guess what might be approved and can focus on planning how to best provide what will be accepted, welcomed and ultimately profitable.
|
Front Page 
Op-Ed 
