DUNEDIN — The developer of a proposed four-story townhome project at 444 Skinner Blvd. withdrew his application April 28 just before city commissioners appeared poised to reject it, ending — at least for now — a bid to bring the tallest residential building yet to a stretch of road the city has long struggled to revitalize.
The five-unit project from Land Devs called for three stories of townhomes over ground-floor parking, rising to 42 feet. Commissioners were following a rare staff recommendation to deny the application on the grounds that the building would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Community Development Director George Kinney and CRA Director Robert Ironsmith, in a joint recommendation, told commissioners the proposal was “inconsistent with the criteria for physical compatibility of the proposed application with the surrounding environment.”
“A four-story product would be disruptive to the consistency of that public urban realm,” Kinney said. “In fact, most of the more recent redevelopment in this area is limited to not more than two stories.”
Existing development around the site is a mix of mostly one- and two-story buildings, Kinney said. A three-story mixed-use building sits on the adjoining property to the north, and commercial, single-family and multifamily uses lie south of Skinner Boulevard. No four-story buildings exist or are planned in the immediate area, north or south of the newly redesigned street.
“A four-story, 42-foot-high multifamily residential building as proposed on this property, together with the potential development patterns of the very limited vacant lands in the area, would be considered incompatible with the existing building heights, densities and intensities — and any anticipated future redevelopment in the surrounding area and neighborhoods,” Kinney said.
The developer’s attorney, Brian Aungst Jr., pushed back, calling the parcel “an underutilized vacant site that’s been underutilized and non-conforming for decades.”
“This project is conforming, and it activates the vacant parcel,” Aungst said. “That’s what the (Local Planning Agency) was intrigued by.”
Aungst said the LPA chairman called the project a potential “catalyst for redevelopment” and noted the city has “somewhat struggled to replicate the success of the rest of the downtown core” along Skinner Boulevard.
He also pointed to city codes that allow buildings up to 46 feet with commission approval. The developer sought permission for a 42-foot, four-story project along with a waiver of the 10-foot minimum setback. Aungst said the entire building was set back 10 feet “to avoid the canyon effect.”
Across the street, he noted, both Main Street Exchange and the Douglas Parking garage were approved at 46 feet. “The compatibility analysis should be applied uniformly,” he said.
Aungst said the project adheres to height regulations and that “architectural enhancements address any potential visual or massing concerns.”
“The project’s total building height incorporates select architectural elements such as parapets, solar infrastructure and rooftop articulation that are expressly permitted to exceed maximum height limits by up to 20%,” he said. “These features were included to respond to prior city staff input and contribute materially to the building’s architectural quality and visual interest. Even with these architectural enhancements, the total height of the project remains below the 46-foot limit allowed for buildings eligible for Design Review approval.”
The arguments did not persuade the dais.
Vice Mayor Robert Walker said he saw potential in the project as a revitalization catalyst and credited the developer for being willing to invest in infrastructure improvements on the lot.
“Where I am stuck right now is on the compatibility issue,” Walker said. “There are several things here that are irregular. I look at the renderings, and it is significantly different than the surrounding area. The size and shape as it currently stands is problematic.”
“It just seems to me, regardless of the set of circumstances, that we are trying to ramrod this through,” he said, urging the developer to reconsider “the major sticking points” and return with a revised plan.
Commissioner Jeff Gow echoed the compatibility concerns. “I hope you stick with this project, redesign and find that sweet spot,” he told the developer.
Commissioner Tom Dugard said he was torn.
“Our data tells us, over and over again, that our citizens are feeling crowded — that we’re jamming too much into our nine square miles,” Dugard said. “Surveys we do — we’re growing too fast, overdevelopment — we get it all the time. On the other hand, this building, if we put it up, will bring revenue to the community and flood control. These are positives.”
“This one’s a tough one. I got two voices on each shoulder telling me which way to go,” he said. “I’ve got to listen to the residents who are feeling crowded, and I got to listen to the opportunities you’re presenting. Both are pluses.”
Commissioner Steven Sandbergen agreed something should go on the lot but said this was not it.
“It’s got to be compatible with the neighbors. This particular project, in my opinion, is not,” Sandbergen said. “I see something for that property, and I hope it happens, but this particular presentation is something I can’t get on board with.”
Mayor Maureen Freaney was blunter.
“To be compatible is the life and breath of protecting the charm of the city. Does it fit?” Freaney said. “This isn’t hard for me. This doesn’t fit. Incremental balanced growth is what we need to do for Skinner.”
After hearing the commissioners out, the developer withdrew the Design Review Application, with plans to redesign and reapply.