>> CHAIR: WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE JULY LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. WE ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD OF CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS BOARD IS APPRISED OF VOLUNTEERS. THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING
EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA. EXCEPT FOR QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS, TONIGHT'S FORMAT WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. I WILL INTRODUCE EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AFTER WHICH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT IT. MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING
AGENCY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO ASK QUESTIONS. IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OFTEN AN ITEM,
COME TO THE PODIUM, AND YOU ARE LIMITED TO 3:00 MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN LOUD, BOISTEROUS SPEAKING, ANYONE WHO HAS INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS WILL BE REQUESTED TO
RELINQUISH THE PODIUM. ITEM 1A, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS TO APPROVE THE JUNE 10, 2026LPA MEETINGS. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS, DELETIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? >> THERE WERE A COUPLE TO BE
RECUSED, AND ANOTHER ONE WAS THE TIMING, BUT IT'S OKAY. CHAIRNL DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE? >> YES, IT SAYS I RECUSE MYSELF, IT WAS RECUSED, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE WAS TOWARD THE END, AND I
CAN'T REMEMBER -- IT WAS AT D. >> CHAIR: HEATHER, YOU SEE THAT TYPO? >> I CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT. >> THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER ONE. >> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE WITH MINOR CORRECTIONS. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THOSE MINOR CORRECTIONS, DO WE HAVE A
SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? >> MINUTES ARE PASSED WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS.
CHAIRMAN 1B IS QUASI JUDICIAL. WHILE THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD, AND THEREFORE HAS NO FINAL DECISION MAKING POWER, OUR PROCEDURES FOR QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS ARE STRUCTURED IN A QUASI
JUDICIAL MANNER. THE COMMISSION WILL BE THE ULTIMATE QUASI JUDICIAL MAKING AUTHORITY, DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY. THE PROCESS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS, FIRST I'LL INTRODUCE EACH ITEM, AFTER WHICH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT IT.
THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ITEM, THEREFORE, THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS. IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, OR STAFF HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THEY WILL ADDRESS THOSE TO THE BOARD. FINALLY, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC MAY COME FORWARD, THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL NEED TO APPROACH THE LECH TURN, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND UTILIZE THE
MICROPHONE IN ORDER FOR COMMENTS TO BE RECORDED. PUBLIC SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES OF SPEAKING TIME. WE KINDLY REQUEST SPEAKERS ARE RESPECTFUL OF THE CLOCK COUNTDOWN. BOTH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE AND APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDED ANY
FINAL COMMENTS. UPON THE CONCLUSION OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL VOTE ON THE AGENDA ITEM. THAT VOICE VOTE IS THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND THERE WILL BE NO WRITTEN
DECISION ISSUED BY THE BOARD. SHOULD THE BOARD RECOMMEND DENIAL, THEY WILL PROVIDE THEIR BASIS FOR DENIAL. AT THIS TIME, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO GIVE TESTIMONY ON THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN. HEATHER, WILL YOU PLEASE SWEAR
IN THE PUBLIC? [ SWEARING-IN ] >> CHAIR: APPLICATION
LUPZO2026-0001, CITY INITIATED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING REQUEST ALONG WITH A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1241 SAN CHRISTOPHER DRIVE.
ORDINANCE 26-06 AND ORDINANCE 26-07. HAS ANYONE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> CHAIR: HEARING NONE, WE WILL GO FORWARD.
GEORGE? >> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE LPA, GEORGE KINNEY, VERY A SHORT POWER POINT, IS IT SHOWING ON YOUR SCREENS? >> CHAIR: NOT YET.
>> THERE WE GO. THANK YOU AGAIN, AS MENTIONED BY THE CHAIR, THIS IS APPLICATION LAND USE PLAN ZONING, 2026-0001, CITY INITIATED LAND USE REQUEST.
THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE IS BEHIND ME, MATT JACKSON AND ROBERT IRONSMITH. THE STREET ADDRESS, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE RENDERING, IT
'BETWEEN ROBIN HOOD AND LADY MARION. IT'S A FLAG SHAPED LOT, RUNNING BEHIND SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT LINE SAN CHRISTOPHER, INCLUDING BOZARTH WINDOWS AND DOORS. TO THE REAR, YOU CAN SEE IT'S
SURROUNDED BY 15 RESIDENTIAL HOMES BACK THERE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT SAME PROPERTY. AND THEN HERE'S SOME OF THE PROPERTY HISTORY, TO GO ALONG WITH THAT IMAGE.
THE 1.17 ACRE PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE JONES BUILDING WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CITY IN JUNE OF 1976, IT'S A 1975 ONE STORY, PREFAB INDICATED
METAL BUILDING. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SERVED BY THE PARKS DIVISION FOR OFFICES, WORKSHOP AND MAINTENANCE STORAGE AS WELL AS OTHER USES FROM TIME TO TIME. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE PARKS DIVISION, AS MOST OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW, RELOCATED THEIR OPERATIONS TO THE CITY FACILITY
LOERKTED ON SOLON AVENUE, VACATING THIS BUILDING FOR GOOD. IN OCTOBER OF 2022, DEBORAH, YOU WERE PROBABLY ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME. THE CITY COMMISSION DECLARED THE JONES BUILDING IS SURPLUS PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE MEETING MINUTES
FOR THAT EXHIBIT I IN YOUR PACKET. THIS IS THE PROPOSAL FOR THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG SAN CHRISTOPHER ARE ALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING LAND USE OF R & S,
RETAIL AND SERVICES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A CURRENT LAND USE OF PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC, THEY INCLUDE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, WATER TREATMENT PLANS, AND THE LIKE. FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SELL THAT
PROPERTY, THOUGH, FOR ANY KIND OF OTHER PURPOSE, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT MOVING THAT OUT OF THE PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC, AND INTO THE PROPOSED RETAIL AND SERVICES. THE REASON R & S IS CHOSEN HERE, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT, WE CAN'T
PUT ANOTHER DISTRICT IN THERE. ANYWAY, THE INTENT AGAIN IS TO MATCH THE PROPERTIES ALONG SAN CHRISTOPHER, IT DOES OPEN UP A NUMBER OF USES, AS I JUST DISCUSSED, WHICH COULD BE CONCERNS FOR SURROUNDING HOMES. WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT HOW WE ALLEVIATED THOSE CONCERNS THROUGH WHAT WE CALL RESTRICTED COVENANT. AND I'LL GET THERE IN A MINUTE. THAT'S BASICALLY IT, ON THE LAND USE SIDE, THE TAKEAWAY FROM THIS SLIDE ON THE EVALUATION PIECE OF IT, THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE BUILDING IS
ABOUT.31, AND THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS RATIO IS POINT 8. SO WE COULD BE CREATING NO NONCONFORMING AS A RESULT OF THAT LAND USE CHANGE. ON THE ZONING SIDE, VERY SIMILAR
TO THE LAND USE SIDE, THIS IS ZONED, THE BOARD PROBABLY KNOWS THEY'RE MUNICIPAL PUBLIC LANDS, BASICALLY THAT IS A ZONING CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO DO ANYTHING WE THINK IS REASONABLE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. THE FXM IS WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED, THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT LINE SAN CHRISTOPHER, AND IT WOULD BE AN EXTENSION INTO THE RESIDENTIAL R-60 AREA. SO AGAIN, IF I'M A RESIDENT THERE, THAT OPENS UP CONCERNS,
BUT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SAN CHRISTOPHER ZONING, AND AGAIN, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT IN A MINUTE, AND HOW WE PULL THOSE USES BACK. ON THE ZONING EVALUATION SIDE,
THE TAKEAWAY HERE, THE SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FXM ZONING. THERE AGAIN WOULD BE NO NONCONFORMITIES CREATED AS A RESULT OF THIS REZONING.
SO THIS KIND OF GETS US TO THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PIECE. HOW DOES THE CITY MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION, WHILE TRYING TO SURROUND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, WEST AN EAST AS YOU LOOK AT THAT SLIDE? THAT IS KIND OF -- IT'S EXHIBIT
F, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, IN YOUR PACKET, BUT WHAT THAT EXHIBIT DOES, IT RESTRICTS THE USES, TO WHAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THAT COVENANT. AND THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY
SERVICE INDUSTRY AND MAINTENANCE. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY DWELLING, GROUP HOME, RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. THAT'S IT, THAT'S THE SLATE OF USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED REGARDLESS UP TO THE FACT THAT
YOU HAVE A ZONING AND LAND USE CATEGORY THAT MAY ALLOW MORE. WE FELT THOSE WERE THE APPROPRIATE COMPLIMENTARY USES TO THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE REAR. SO WHAT'S REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS, YOU'LL SEE IN THE ONE SLIDE TO THE LEFT.
THE FRONT PROPERTY IS CALLED BOZARTH CONTRACTORS, THE APPLICANT WITH SPEAK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP THAT'S DEVELOPED THERE. THEY ARE LOOKING TO BE THE PERSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THIS PROPERTY, THINK WOULD EXTEND THEIR BILGE BACK INTO THE SAN CHRISTOPHER PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I'LL LET THEM TALK ABOUT MORE OF THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THAT BUILDING AND HOW THEY PLAN TO RENOVATE IT. WE ALSO NEEDED THAT RESTRICTED COVENANT TO SELL THE COUNTY, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TRANSMIT THE LAND USE PLAN TO THE COUNTY, THEY HAD CONCERNS AS WELL.
THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED WITH RESTRICTED COVENANT WITH EARLY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY. I WANT TO MENTION THAT MALT AND
MYSELF DID CONDUCT A COMMUNITY MEETING AT THE PROPERTY. WE NOTICED BASICALLY, THE 15 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BECAUSE WE WANTED THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE DOING AS A RESULT TO PROTECT THEM OF
THIS LAND USE CHANGE. UNFORTUNATELY, WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON SHOW UP. BUT THAT PERSON ASKED SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, THE MAJOR CONCERN WAS A WALL THAT SURROUNDS A PORTION
OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST THAT NEEDS SOME REPAIR WORK. AND AS IT TURNS OUT, THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. SO HER CONCERNS, I THINK WERE ADDRESSED AS WE WORKED THROUGH THAT. JUST A COUPLE QUICK BULLETS,
BOZARTH IS INTERESTED IN PURCHASINGS PROPERTY, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE STORAGE SPACE FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS, NO MANUFACTURING ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S R WHAT MAKES NOISE AND
LENDS TO NUISANCE ACTIVITIES. I WANTED TO KIND OF AGAIN HIT ON SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS CONV CONVEYANCE. YOU CAN SEE IT'S A FLAG LOT, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE ENTRY. THE ACCESS DRIVE WAY, IF THIS
GOES AS PLANNED. . THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE REPURPOSED OR REMOVED. THERE IS A SHARED DRAINAGE PIECE BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS, THAT WOULD ALLOW THE ADJACENT PARCEL
TO CONSOLIDATE THE SITUATION. YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKOUT OF THE COVENANT LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS. I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO ROMAN NUMERAL 2.
THEY SHALL REPAIR THE BLOCK WALL, AND THE FENCE AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AREAS ALONG SAID PROPERTY LINES. SUCH WALL, FENCE SHALL BE AGREED
UPON. THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY CANNOT CREATE A NUISANCE, THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO ALL, AND THE -- IN
TALKING TO THE FOLKS THAT OWN BOZARTH, THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THAT RESTRICTED COVER NANTZ. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, WITH THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTED COVENANTS, THAT WOULD BE ORDINANCE 26-06, TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE FROM PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC TO RETAIL AND SERVICES. AND ORDINANCE 26-07 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MUNICIPAL PUBLIC LANDS TO FORM BASED MEDIUM. YOU GUYS KNOW NEXT ACTION THEN WOULD BE FIRST READ TO THE CITY
COMMISSION CAN, AND THEN WE'D GO ON HOLD WHILE THE LAND USE AMENDMENT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE COUNTY, IT WILL PROBABLY BE A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE WE GET THAT ONE BACK, THAT'S A LITTLE TRICKY, WITH THE COVENANT IN IT, WITH THAT, THAT'S OUR STAFF
RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD ASK AS PART OF YOUR VOTE. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO WAIVE THE FEE, IF YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR MOTION, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. WITH THAT, I'LL STOP AND ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIR: SYLVIE YARKS DO YOU WANT TO START? >> I THINK I'M GOOD. >> I'M GOOD WITH MY QUESTIONS.
>>. >> CHAIR: SALLY? >> I'M GOOD. >> I'M WAITING TO HEAR WHAT BOZARTH IS GOING TO DO WITH IT. >> CHAIR: DEBORAH? >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING.
YOU HAVE A RESTRICTED COVENANT. THE PROPERTY SHALL ONLY BE USED AS A SERVICE INDUSTRY MAINTENANCE, CONTRACTING. SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY, THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THEN GROUP HOME, RELIGIOUS
OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, IS THAT JUST ALWAYS THERE? I MEAN, IT SEEMS -- >> IT'S THE INSTITUTIONAL BENIGN USE, SO IT COMPLIMENTS THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL, SO I THINK WE JUST THOUGHT WE WOULD PUT IT IN THERE.
IT'S A PERMITTED USE UNDER XFM. >> IT SEEMED A LITTLE BROAD TO ME, LIKE YOU WERE PROTECTING, YOU WERE WORKING HARD TO MAKE IT A SPECIFIC USE WITH YOUR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT THEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ZONING SEEMED TO MAKE IT A LOT BROADER
THAT POSSIBLY COULD INTERFERE WITH A REALLY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. >> AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT, I COMPLETELY GET THAT POINT, AND I THINK AS PLANNERS, YOU'RE ALWAYS LOOKING AHEAD, HE MAY NOT HAVE THAT PROPERTY FOREVER, IF SOMEONE ELSE ACQUIRES IT.
>> RIGHT, BUT IT RUNS WITH THE LAND. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. >> HE MAY NOT HAVE THAT. AT SOME POINT IT MAY NOT BELONG TO BOZARTH. SO IT GOES WITH THE LAND, SO I
THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT THAT THE ZONING LANGUAGE BE APPROPRIATE. >> YES, WHAT IT WOULD SAY -- YOU'RE RIGHT, IT GOES WITH THE LAND. SO THE NEXT PROPERTY OWNER CAN ONLY PICK FROM THAT LIST AS WELL. >> RIGHT. IS IT TOO BROAD?
MAYBE THAT'S MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION? I SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THEM DON'T FIT, TO ME. BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I BROUGHT IT UP, YOU ALL HAVE CAN THINK ABOUT IT. >> YEAH, IF YOU HAVE A
SUGGESTION, WE COULD TAKE IT BACK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHO HAS LOOKED AT THIS, AND HAS BASICALLY SIGNED OFF ON THE LANGUAGE AS IS. >> YEAH, I MEAN -- THIS IS ALSO GOING TO BE LOOKED AT BY FORWARD PINELLAS.
THEN IT GOES TO THE COUNTY, FORWARD PINELLAS, AND THEN THE COUNTY. >> YES. >> YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL. THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION AFTER THE FIRST READING. MAYBE NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY
ISSUES WITH THIS. >> GOOD? >> I'M GOOD. >> CHAIR: VICE CHAIR. >> I HAVE A FEW. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE -- YEAH,
THAT ONE'S GOOD. LOOKING AT THE LOT ITSELF, AS IT STANDS NOW, IS THAT A NONCONFORMING LOT ITSELF? >> NO, NOT REALLY. >> IT'S NONCONFORMING, THE LOT ITSELF, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FRONTAGE. THE LOT IS, THE USE IS NOT, THE
LOT AREA IS NOT, AND IT MEETS DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. >> SPECIFICALLY, THE LOT IS NONCONFORMING. >> ON THE NPL, IT'S NOT REALLY NONCONFORMING. YOU DON'T HAVE DIMENSIONAL
STANDARDS, AND IT -- IT WILL BE -- WE DIDN'T LOOK AT IT AS NONCONFORMING COMING IN, IT WILL BE RECONFIGURED IF IT GOES AS PLANNED. >> YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S THE DRIVE WAY ACCESS THAT'S NONCONFORMING, THAT'S WHY I MADE THIS ONE THE
ONE WE COULD WORK WITH. WE LOOKED AT A FEW OTHER USES, YOU REALLY CAN'T TRANSFER OR SELL THAT PROPERTY WITH A TYPE OF DRIVE WAY, IT'S NONCONFORMING, YOU'RE RIGHT. >> WELL, AND TO ME, THIS -- I MEAN, REALLY THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE
CITY KEEPING IT, IS TO SELL IT TO BOZARTH, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, WE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS, BUT YES, BOZARTH WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD WIDEN THE DRIVE WAY, AND MAKE IT USER FRIENDLY.
>> SO WITH THAT, FOR THE COST TO BOZARTH, HOW IS THE SALE PRICE OF THE LAND THEN FIGURED IF YOU CAN'T PUT IT ON THE OPEN MARKET AND SELL IT? >> MATT IS WORKING ON THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN APPRAISING TAKE A LOOK AT IT,
WITH THIS DECLARATION, THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING UP WITH A VALUE FOR IT. >> MATT'S WORKING ON THAT. >> IT'S GOING TO BE VIA AN APPRAISAL? >> YES. >> WITH THE DECLARATION RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE. >> OKAY.
NOW, ONCE IT'S SOLD, THEN CAN THE TWO PROPERTIES BE COMBINED OR SUBDIVIDED, NOT INTO TWO PROPERTIES, SAYING THE 6 PROPERTIES ARE -- I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS WITH THAT ONCE THE SAME OWNER OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES.
>> THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, THE DECLARATION STICKS WITH THAT CONFIGURATION. >> IS THAT PART OF THE CONFIGURATION, BUT IT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF. IF THEY WANTED TO PUT IN TOWNHOMES ON THE TWO PROPERTIES
TOTAL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REZONE THE FRONT PROPERTY AS WELL THEN, CORRECT? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. >> IS THE LAND USE AND ZONING APPROPRIATE FOR THAT FOR -- >> IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE IT'S ZONED FXM. >> ZONING FOR THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS FXM?
>> CORRECT. >> THE CURRENT BOZARTH PROPERTY IS FXM. IT LINES SAN CHRISTOPHER.
>> THINKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE OR ANYTHING, CAN YOU COME UP ABOUT ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> IF IT QUALIFIES FOR DESIGN REVIEW, IT WOULD GOO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
IF IT'S LOT SPLIT. NOW, WITH THAT SAID, THAT CONFIGURATION FOR NPL RIGHT NOW, THEY COULDN'T USE ANYTHING OTHER THAN -- THE USES ARE RESTRICTED BY THE RESTRICTED COVENANT. IF THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THE FXM
PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF FXM PERMITTED USES. >> AND THEN ANY CHANGE TO THE RESTRICTED COVENANT PROPERTY TO ONCE AGAIN SAY, THEY GO RESIDENTIAL. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD
COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION THEN OR WOULD THAT -- >> IF THERE'S A REZONING, OR YOU MEAN, JUST A COMPLAINING TO THE COVENANT? >> NO, NOT A CHANGE TO THE COVENANT. SAY THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, BUT RESIDENTIAL, WOULD
THAT I'M GOING TO USE TOWNHOMES. SAY THEY WANT TO PUT FIVE TOWNHOMES ON THERE, WOULD THAT BRING IT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A FULL DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. >> AND THEN I THINK MY LAST ONE
IS, ABOUT THE FENCE REPLACEMENT AND THE WALL REPAIR, AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE THE MENTION TO WAVE THE FEE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PUT A TIME LINE IN IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT FOR THAT
WORK TO BE DONE. I DID NOT SEE ONE IN THERE. >> THE WALL? >> TO THE WALL OR THE FENCE. WE TALKED ABOUT REPAIR OF THE WALL. >> AT SOME TIME, AFTER THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED? >> OH, SURE. >> I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
>> WE CAN DO THAT. IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME TO GET THROUGH ALL THE APPROVALS, FORWARD PINELLAS, THE COUNTY, ET CETERA. BUT ONCE HE HAS OWNERSHIP. >> I GUESS THAT WOULD BE WHEN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT WOULD GO
INTO EFFECT. > DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN TIME IN YOUR MIND -- >> NO, I'M JUST THINKING OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND -- >> OH, SURE. >> I'VE BEEN ON THAT PROPERTY MANY TIMES, TOURED DIFFERENT FOLKS ON THAT PROPERTY MANY TIMES BEFORE. I REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BACK THEN, THAT WAS AT LEAST
FIVE YEARS AGO. >> HE'S GOING TO BE BUILDING OFFICES IN THERE, AND DIFFERENT THINGS, WE CERTAINLY CAN GET THAT IN THERE. >> DOING SOMETHING FOR THE NEIGHBORS. >> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. HE'S BEEN COMMITTED, PRETTY GOOD TO WORK WITH. >> ON THAT, WHAT WOULD BE A
REASONABLE TIME TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. IS THAT A LEGAL QUESTION THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS TO ADDRESS, IS TO WHAT WOULD BE A LEGAL, REASONABLE TIME. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S LEGAL, WE CAN COME UP WITH A TIME, IN MY MIND, 3, 4 MONTHS. IF IT MAKES SENSE, I WOULD LIKE TO --
>> YES, AND ANY OTHER WORK THEY WANT TO GET DONE OUT THERE AS WELL. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SOMETHING LIKE, IT'S 3 OR 4 YEARS FROM NOW, WHERE THE CITY HAS TO KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR, AND SAY, YOU HAVE THIS IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT?
WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY WHEN I HAVE TO DO IT. >> DO YOU WANT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF YOUR RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE IT A RESTRICTION. WE ALREADY HAVE THE RESTRICTED COVENANT SIGNED. IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> YEAH, SO, ESSENTIALLY, YOU WOULD PROPOSE A REVISION, LIKE WITH YOUR APPROVAL, PROPOSED AMENDMENT, TO THAT SECTION 2I OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, TO EITHER IDENTIFY A DEADLINE FOR THE REPAIR, OR IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A DEADLINE IN MIND, PROPOSE
THAT. >> THAT WOULD BE VERY FAVORABLE AS OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THE CONDITION WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >> YOU COULD DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, SO APPROVE WITH THIS CONDITION, IDENTIFY THE
CONDITION, YOU COULD MAKE IT AS SPECIFIC AS A SPECIFIED DEADLINE, LIKE 6 MONTHS, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE ACTUAL PURCHASE DATE, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COMPLETION OF THE REPAIR OF THE
WALL AND FENCE, OR YOU CAN MAKE IT BROADER AND ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO IDENTIFY THAT DEADLINE. >> NO, I LIKE THAT. I THINK SIX MONTHS IS A GOOD TIME.
THAT BUILDING IS PRETTY MESSY, THE SURROUNDING GROUNDS, THINGS NEED TO BE PICKED UP, WORKED ON. >> I HAVE IT HERE WRITTEN DOWN. WHEN YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR MOTION, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IF I CAN GUIDE YOU THROUGH THAT.
>> SIX MONTHS SOUNDS GOOD. SINCE WE'RE ONLY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, ONCE IT GETS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT A DATE CERTAIN OR SOME DIFFERENT TIME FRAME. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. >> SORRY, BUT --
>> I STILL CAME UP WITH ONE QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR ON THE DRIVE WAY RECONFIGURATION. THE DECK LAR ANT, IT WILL COVER THE DRIVE WAY RECONFIGURATION, AND DO WE ALSO FEEL THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN A TIME PERIOD, SUCH AS THE SIX MONTHS?
>> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THE DECLARATION HAS ANY LANGUAGE TO THE DRIVE WAY RECONFIGURATION, I KNOW HE'S INDICATED THAT HE WANTS TO GET THAT DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO GET HIS EMPLOYEES BACK THERE, AND TO MOVE STORAGE MATERIALS BACK THERE, HE WOULD
NEED TO KIND OF OPEN IT UP, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT MAYBE -- >> YEAH, WE CAN JUST ADD THAT TO THE WALL REPAIRS, AND RECONFIGURATION OF THE DRIVE WAY, TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF SALE DATE. >> OKAY, GOT IT.
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. APPLICANT, BOB, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND SHARE ABOUT ON THIS PROJECT? >> NO, APPRECIATE IT. >> I'M SORRY? >> GO AHEAD. >> I APPRECIATE EVERYONE HERE, THIS MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY,
HAS -- AS GEORGE MENTIONED, IT'S DEEMED SUR PLUS, THE CITY CAN CERTAINLY USE THE REVENUE, THIS KEEPS BOZARTH IN TOWN, THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER TOO FOR THE CITY. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE REALLY WANT TO SEE HAPPEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, BOB. >> LET ME MAKE ONE OTHER POINT. NOT ONLY IS IT REVENUE COMING IN FOR THE SALE PRICE, THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE TAX ROLLS EVERY YEAR AFTER THAT. THE TAXES ON ITS OWN PROPERTY.
>> CERTAINLY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, WE WANT TO KEEP COMMERCIAL HERE IN THE CITY, WE'RE SO RESIDENTIAL BASED, IT'S AN IMPORTANT INGREDIENT FOR US. >> CORRECT. GOOD JOB ON THE RESTRICTED COVENANT, BY THE WAY, NO MANUFACTURING. IT SHOULD BE QUIET.
>> CHAIR: DOES ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEATHER, WE'LL NEED TO SWEAR THEM IN.
[ SWEARING-IN ] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, TOM EICKELL.
I'M NOT RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY, I'M A LITTLE WAYS OVER. AND I JUST DIDN'T REALIZE THIS WAS HAPPENING, UNTIL -- [ INAUDIBLE ]
THERE WE GO,S NOW I'M TURNED ON. THE -- THIS IS CITY PROPERTY, USED FOR CITY REASONS, ONCE YOU GET RID OF IT, IT'S GONE. AND LAND IS EXTREMELY VALUABLE IN DUNEDIN, THE VALUE OF IT
KEEPS GOING UP AND UP AND UP, REGARDLESS OF THE ECONOMY. THE ACCESSIBILITY OF HAVING IT IS JUST DIMINISHING EVERY YEAR, AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I SAY, WELL, IF YOU SELL IT, OR GET RID OF, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE IT BACK.
AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE IT. WHAT'S THE PUBLIC USE THAT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR, STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. WE DON'T NEED IT RIGHT NOW, BUT WHAT ABOUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, OR SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW. IT'S GONE. THAT'S JUST ONE OBSERVATION I
HAVE ON THAT. THEN AS I WAS READING THE REPORT, IT APPEARS TO ME, WHICH -- IT'S GREAT THAT THE CITY IS THE ONE MOVING TO CHANGE IT ALL, FOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, THAT'S WONDERFUL THAT THEY HAVE THAT GOING FOR THEM,
BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT A PURCHASE PRICE, HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING, AS I LOOKED THERE, WE HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT GOING BACK TO THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN GET TO IT, YOU CAN USE IT. WE HAD ANOTHER ISSUE, I HAD TO DEAL WITH ON PINEHURST ROAD, AND
AFTER IT PASSED THROUGH YOU ALL AND PASSED THROUGH THE COMMISSION, THERE WERE -- THEY WERE GOING TO DO SHORT TERM RENTALS, IF I RECALL THAT ONE. AND AFTER THAT ALL WENT THROUGH, THEY TURNED AROUND AND PUT IT ON THE MARKET FOR $2.87 MILLION,
OKAY? MASSIVE INCREASE OF VALUATION, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURCHASE PRICE,I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VALUATION IS GOING TO BE AS A TAXPAYER OF DUNEDIN, MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO THROUGH FOR THE BENEFIT OF
BOZARTH, WE GET FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY, OKAY? THANK YOU.
>> LYDIA JOHNS, I'VE BEEN IN THIS AREA FOR 25 YEARS, MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THE CITY EVEN CONSIDERING SELLING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT?
>> CHAIR: BOB, MAYBE YOU CAN COME UP -- >> IN 2022, THE CITY DECLARED THIS PROPERTY AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, CAN YOU TALK AS TO HOW THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE, AND DO WE FEEL FOR THE EXTENDED FUTURE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF
MUNICIPAL LANDS FOR STORAGE, EQUIPMENT REPAIR, GROWTH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. >> CERTAINLY, SO BASICALLY, WITH SURPLUS LAND, A MEMO IS CREATED, IT GOES TO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, CITY MANAGER, ALL THE DEPARTMENTS TAKE A LOOK AT IT, IT'S UTILITIES, STREETS, BUILDING, WHATEVER, EVERYONE
TOOK A LOOK AT IT, AND SAID, WE DON'T NEED THIS PROPERTY ANY MORE, THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH. THIS GOES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION DECIDES, YES, THAT IS DEEMED SURPLUS. THE NEXT STEP IS LOOKING AT TRYING TO SELL IT, THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAD WHEN WE LOOK TO SELL IT IS WHAT WAS
TALKED ABOUT, FOR MR. STANNEK ISN'T THE PROPERTY WIDTH CONFORMING, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT. WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, BOZARTH MADE THE MOST SENSE, THEY'RE A PRETTY GOOD EMPLOYER, WE WANT TO KEEP THEM IN THE CITY.
WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE RESIDENTIAL THAT'S AROUND THERE, THAT'S WHEN WE CAME AND WORKED WITH THE ATTORNEY TO DO THE RESTRICTED COVENANT TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY WOULDN'T HAVE A USE THAT WAS
234E NEGATIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ONLY HAD THE ONE PERSON COME OUT FOR IT, SO ALL THE REASONS WERE THERE TO SELL IT, FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE TOO. TECHNOLOGY CONTINUED TO IMPROVE, JUST DIDN'T NEED IT FOR STORAGE. JUST DIDN'T NEED IT FOR
DIFFERENT THINGS, THERE'S OTHER ADEQUATE STORAGE ON BELCHER ROAD, IT WAS DEEMED SURPLUS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH SELLING THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AS FAR AS WHAT IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THAT'S WHY WE DO AN APPRAISAL, THE APPRAISAL HAS
TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT AND ALSO, LOOK AT THE -- THAT THIS IS NONYOU CONFORMING, BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE WOULDN'T WANT TO BUY IT, WITH THE WAY THE DRIVE WAY, THE INGRESS AND EGRESS IS HERE TODAY. WE LOOKED AT SOME ASPECTS,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR ONE, WE LOOKED AT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, NONE OF THEM REALLY MET THE TEST, AND WERE A GOOD FIT FOR THE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHEN WE WOUND UP WITH BOZARTH. >> AGAIN, IT SOUNDS TO ME,
BOZARTH HAS BIDS ON THIS, THE PRICE HAS NOT ANNOUNCED, IS THIS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO WHOEVER WANTS TO BUY THIS PROPERTY OR BOZARTH HAS FIRST BECAUSE THEY'RE A SHARED SEWER SYSTEM AND ONE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY. >> JUST WHAT YOU SAID, BOZARTH
IS IN A GOOD POSITION BECAUSE OF THE SHARED DRIVE WAY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR, AND THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO IN ORDER WITH THAT SALE. >> I'M FAMILIAR AWITH THEM, I ALSO KEPT THEM IN BUSINESS, SELLING PROPERTIES.
I'M CONCERNED IF THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT FOR STORAGE OR SOMETHING ELSE. >> THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A FEW OFFICES IN THERE, AND USE THEM FOR STORAGE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MANUFACTURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THERE. >> IS THAT A GUARANTEE? >> BASED ON THE AGREEMENT, THEY
WILL NEED TOO USE IT FOR STORAGE. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONCERN, SURE. >> THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IN ITEM 4, THEY CAN'T CONDUCT ANY -- IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT, CAN'T CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY, REGARDLESS
OF THE TYPE OR DURATION, THAT WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE NUISANCE. NO NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CARRIED ON, WHICH MAY BECOME AN ANNOY ANSWER OR NOUISANCE TO THE EXISTING
SURROUNDING RETAIL BUSINESSES OR PROPERTIES. >> I WOULD ADD, IN ROMAN NUMERAL 1, WHICH SPELLS OUT THE PERMITTED USE. >> IT DOES SAY NO MANUFACTURING IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT,
RIGHT? >>. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> COULD YOU ADD IT INTO THE RESTRICTED COVENANT, NO MANUF MANUFACTURING? DO WE MAKE THIS A CONDITION THAT WE DID DISCUSS YOU THIS? >> YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO DO A LITTLE MORE.
TO ME, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE PERMITTED USES ARE, AND MANUFACTURING IS NOT ONE OF THEM. >> IT WOULD BE A NUISANCE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, UNDER ALL THAT THING IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT -- >> THE ONLY WORRY I HAVE WITH
THAT, COMMISSIONER -- BOARD MEMBER KYNES IS THAT THERE'S SO MANY PERMITTED USES IN THE FXM CATEGORY. YOU'RE JUST PICKING OUT ONE IN THAT POINT. WE'D ALMOST NEED TO GO THROUGH EVERY YEAR AND SAY, THIS IS
NOT -- FROM THE REVERSE ASPECT, WE SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW, THESE FOUR OR FIVE THINGS, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOOKING AT EACH OF THESE OTHER ONES, WHETHER THEY CREATE A NUISANCE, DON'T CREATE A NUISANCE. IF YOU WANT TO ADD A CONDITION THAT JUST SAYS NO MANUFACTURING,
THAT'S FINE. >> WE COULD JUST SAY A CONDITION THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ENSUED, AND WE WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THERE WOULD BE NO MANUFACTURING. THAT'S OKAY, RIGHT? >> CERTAINLY NOT A PROBLEM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
>> DO YOU THINK SO, OUR ATTORNEY? >> LEGALLY, YES, THE CITY COULD ADD THAT AS A PART OF THEIR CONDITIONS THROUGH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. I ACTUALLY TEND TO AGREE WITH
THE CITY THAT SPECIFYING ONE SPECIFIC USE MIGHT AVAIL ITSELF TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION DOWN THE LINE, WE JUST -- I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE,ING THREE DECADES FROM NOW, AND THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER MAY
HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. HOWEVER, OF COURSE, THE CITY IS MORE THAN WILLING TO SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC USES THAT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. >> I'M NOT REALLY THINKING ABOUT SPECIFYING AS A USE, BUT IT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN HERE, THAT
BOZARTH AGREED THERE WOULD BE NO MANUFACTURING, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT HE AGREES, CORRECT? THE -- IT RUNS WITH THE LAND, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND SO MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS DOES THE
NUISANCE AND NOXIOUS CAUSES, YOU THINK THAT COVERS IT, RIGHT? >> I THINK WE LOOKED AT THE NOISE, OBVIOUSLY, IMPACTING A NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK IT WAS BROAD. I'LL DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY -- >> I READ THIS AS A POSITIVE.
THERE'S TWO TYPES OF COVENANTS, THERE'S NEGATIVE COVENANTS AND POSITIVE COVENANTS. ESSENTIALLY, THE CITY IS OUTLINING THOSE POSITIVE COVENANTS, THE ACTUAL USES THAT WILL BE ALLOWED AND THE PROPERTY, THERE'S NO LIST OF A
NEGATIVE COVENANT. SO TO ESSENTIALLY PICK AND CHOOSE ONE SPECIFIC NEGATIVE COVENANT AND ADD IT INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT READS AS A POVTIVE COVENANT. >> WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY DISCUSSION ENSUED AND WE
DISCUSSED THIS, AND IT WAS A POINT OF CONCERN, THAT'S IT. THAT'S FINE, WE'RE NOT EVEN ADDING IT AS A CONDITION, THINK KNOW, WE DISCUSSED IT, THEY CAN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK -- HOW -- WHAT HARM WOULD
THAT BE IF WE DID DISCUSS WHETHER -- >> WE CAN PUT THAT AS PART OF OUR COMMENTS. >> RIGHT, JUST PART -- JUST A -- WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT. >> YEAH. >> IF I'M JUST -- IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION, IS THERE A WAY WE CAN
PUT A TERM ON HOW LONG THEY MAY KEEP THE PROPERTY ONCE IT'S BOUGHT OUT BY BOZARTH OR WHOEVER IT IS, THEY CANNOT SELL IT WITHIN FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS. >> A RESTRICTION ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY? >> HOW LONG THEY CAN KEEP IT.
>> I MEAN, THE CITY HAS KEPT IT FOR SO MANY YEARS. I'M CONCERNED, THE PREVIOUS PERSON SAID THE PROPERTY AROUND THE OLD SCHOOLHOUSE, THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD SOME RENTALS AND THEY SOLD IT, RIGHT?
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, MATT JACKSON, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH JESSE, MET ON SITE WITH JESSE AND THE REALTOR, THEY'VE BEEN IN PRARGS AT THAT SITE SINCE 2018, AND THEY ARE -- AS BOB MENTIONED, THEY ARE A
CONTRACTOR WHO INSTALLS WINDOWS AND DOORS. >> I'M VERY AWARE. >> THE INTENT IS TO OCCUPY THIS OTHER SITE FOR OFFICES, STORAGE OF MATERIALS, WITH NO INTENTION ON REDEVELOPING THE SITE, IT'S
JUST TO -- A CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS, JUST RETAIN THE BUSINESS AND ALLOWING THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS THERE, THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION OR INTENTION ON CHANGING THE USE OF THAT BACK PROPERTY. >> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, BUT THEN AGAIN THAT CAN BE CHANGED.
>> CHAIR: AT THIS POINT WE'RE BEYOND YOUR THREE MINUTES. >> I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING TOM BROUGHT UP, MAKING SURE THE CITY GETS FAIR VALUE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT APP APPRAISED. >> CORRECT. >> CAN YOU TALK THROUGH THAT
APPRAISAL PROCESS, IS IT SINGLE, MULTIPLE? CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED AND HOW WE MAKE SURE WE GET THE MARKET VALUE -- >> SINGLE APPRAISAL, WE HAVE SELECTED SOME THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE SHORT LIST THAT WE UTILIZE.
HE'S TAKEN THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE PRICE, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE NONCONFORMING DRIVE WAY. HE WILL COME UP WITH A PRICE, SO THERE ISN'T A SECOND APPRAISAL, THERE'S ONLY THE ONE APPRAISAL,
TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. >> YOU SAID HE'S ON A SHORT LIST, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS HE HAS, AND HOW HE WAS PUT ON THAT SHORT LIST? >> THE MAI TYPE APPRAISAL, HE'S BEEN USED IN THE CITY IN THE PAST. >> CAN YOU TALK MAI.
>> I FORGOT WHAT THAT IS, IT'S A HIGHER DEGREE OF CERTIFICATION, THE FLAME WILL COME TO ME. WE GO OUT TO BID, I THINK WE HAD 3 -- WE WENT OUT FOR QUOTES, WE HAD 3 QUOTES, AND HE WAS THE LOW QUOTE, WHICH THE CITY DOES FOR SOMEONE TO PREPARE CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR US. >> ALONG WITH THAT, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THERE WAS NEVER -- BECAUSE THEY'RE AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, MAKES SENSE, BUT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO GO OUT TO BID, TO
BID OUT THIS PROPERTY? >> WE LOOKED AT IT, WE EVEN HAD DISCUSSION WITH BOZARTH, WILL YOU SELL A PIECE OF YOUR PROPERTY WITH THE CITY, SO WE COULD MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE FUNCTIONAL. HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO IMPACT
HIS PARKING AND CIRCULATION. I MENTIONED HABITAT, WE LOOKED AT OTHER USES, BUT IT DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY, YOU HAVE THE NONCONFORMING USE. I THINK IT'S A 12 FOOT DRIVE WAY OR 15 FOOT DRIVE WAY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. IT WAS VERY NARROW.
WE LOOKED AT IT, TO SEE IF HE COULD SELL US A PIECE. HE WAS NOT INTERESTED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE WALL, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD FIX. AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A TIME FRAME ON FIXING THE WAY, COR CORRECT?
SIX MONTHS OR HOWEVER. WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF THEY DON'T DO IT? >> THEY'RE IN BREACH OF THEIR COVENANT AGREEMENT. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? >> ESSENTIALLY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN GO FOR AN INJUNCTION, YOU TREAT IT AS A CONTRACT.
>> SO THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE COURT AFTER THEM? NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE SELLING IT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, THE CITY WILL HAVE REMEDIES UNDER THE RESTRICTED COVENANT AGREEMENT UNDER THE -- >> YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE? >> YEAH, WHATEVER THE REMEDIES
PLOYED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND UNDER ESSENTIALLY COMMON LAW. AND ONE OF THEM WILL BE AN INJUNCTION AND SO FORTH. >> THIS HAS BEEN MORE OF A LONG TERM DISCUSSION WITH BOZARTH. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST
CAME UP. THAT'S WHY I SAID, WE LOOKED AT WHETHER HE WOULD SELL A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO US, COULD WE DO ANOTHER USE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LONG IN THE PROCESS, HE'S COMMITTED TO DOING THE BEST THAT'S OUT THERE, CLEAN UP THE SITE, FIX THE FENCE, IF YOU TOOK
A WALK AROUND THE PERIMETER, YOU WOULD SEE THE CONDITION IT'S IN TODAY IS PRETTY POOR, HE'S GOING TO MAKE IT A MUCH BETTER ENVIRONMENT OUT THERE. >> CHAIR: SO GOING BACK ON ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT TOO, EVEN IF THERE WAS NUISANCE USES OR NOISE COMPLAINTS, WOULD THAT FOLLOW MORE OF A CODE COMPLIANCE THING FIRST? THE COMPLAINT WOULD GO THROUGH THAT? >> I THINK THE VIOLATION PROVISIONS ARE IN THE COVENANT. >> YES, LOOKING AT SECTION 10
THAT TALKS ABOUT IN THE EVENT THE COVENANTS CONTAIN -- THE VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECT WITHIN 5 CALENDAR DAYS, UNLESS SUCH CORRECTION IS POSSIBLE. THE CITY MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH LEGAL REMEDIES THAT ARE NECESSARY INCLUDING USE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO CORRECT SUCH VIOLATION, SUCCESSORS SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ANY COSTS, WHETHER SUCH FEES ARE EXTENDED OR COSTS INCURRED, OR DEMANDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS. I THINK THERE'S A FEW OTHERS
THAT SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM. IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS COVERED. >> THEY'LL HAVE A PERIOD ESSENTIALLY, WE FIND A VIOLATION, WE HAVE TO NOTIFY TEM, THEY'LL HAVE LIKE FIVE DAYS TO CURE IT, IF THEY DON'T.
WE HAVE REMEDIES TO GO IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND ESSENTIALLY ENFORCE OUR AGREEMENT.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT. ANY OTHER FURTHER INFORMATION YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE DETERMINE IF WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? >> NO, I'M ALL GOOD, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION, ANY QUESTIONS
BEFORE WE WORK TOWARD MAKING A MOTION? >> I JUST HAD ONE REAL QUICK, KEVIN, TALKING ABOUT ONCE AGAIN THE LOT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON -- REALLY THE ONLY THING IT CAN DO, THE LOT, BECAUSE IT'S NONCONFORMING, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS
KEEP IT AS A CITY PIECE OF PROPERTY OR SELL IT TO BOZARTH, REALLY THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS, BECAUSE OF ITS NONCONFORMITY. >> I WOULD SAY THOSE ARE THE TWO REALISTIC OPTIONS, THERE'S CERTAINLY -- SOMEBODY COULD BUY
THE PROPERTY AS IS, AND TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK. WE'RE NOT GOING TO PREVENT A DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE THE TWO MOST REALISTIC OPTIONS, WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> GOOD.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT IT -- YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE THING?
>> AND I'M GOING TO ADD SOME STUFF. >> YEAH. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION LUPZO2006-0001 CITY
INITIATED LAND AMENDMENT AND REZONING REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTED COVENANTS FOR THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT 1241 SAN CHRISTOPHER DRIVE, ORDINANCE 26-06, LAND USE
PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC TO RETAIL SERVICES, ORDINANCE 26-07, REZONING FROM MUNICIPAL PUBLIC LANDS TO FORM BASED MEDIUM.
AND THAT THERE BE A WAIVER OF THE APPLICATION FEE, AND THAT THERE BE A SIX MONTH TIME LIMIT FOR REPAIRS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. >> I THINK YOU DID GREAT. >> WHAT REPAIRS. >> YOU EVEN READ ONE OF MY CONDITIONS. >> I THINK YOU DID GREAT.
>> I WANT TO ADD ONE MORE CONDITION TO THAT THAT WE HAVE THE SIX MONTH TIME LINE TO REPAIR THE WALLS, AND TO DO THE DRIVE WAY RECONFIGURATION, WITHIN 6 MONTHS AFTER THE
CLOSING DATE. AND ALSO, THAT WE WAIVE THE $2,000 APPLICANT FEE TO THE CITY. AS PART OF THAT MOTION. >> OKAY, SO IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? >> AN AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION.
>> WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIR: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENTS?
>> I'VE ALREADY CAUSED ENOUGH TROUBLE. >> CHAIR: LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, DO WE AGREE TO THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> CHAIR: ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOD SPEED GOING-FORWARD, AND GOOD LUCK WITH THAT APPRAISAL.
OKAY. GOT IT, WITH THAT, WE ARE DONE.