the operations manager. I'll be taking the roll call for city clerk Ashley Mcdana. >> Chairman Shaw Rule >> here. Member Randy Stout >> here. >> Member Lorie Simpson >> here. >> Member Mike Perez >> here. >> Member Ronald McDonald >> here. >> City attorney Nancy Meyer
>> here. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Little bit of uh old business. We have board minutes to review and it's been a minute since we did the other guys. So we have two of them. Any discussion regarding the first one? Let's go through from
March 11, 2025. >> If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll move to approve the minutes. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And second would be for
November 12th, 2025. Any discussion? If not, a motion. >> I move to approve the minutes. >> I'll take a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. All right, jumping right into it.
Miss Nancy, do you have the floor? >> Pardon me. >> I can't. I'm trying to catch up. This is why I don't like doing this. Oh, comments in the general public. We don't have Okay, >> do I have any comments from the general public?
>> And you do have public here. >> Oh, there's two. Yes, they just have fancy blue shirts. We can't write some. So, we're not going to let this go. >> All right. >> Any comments from >> And then any comments from the board regarding anything >> before we get into it regarding >> not not agenda.
>> Not agenda based. >> Um, well, I think you cover you you hinted at um there's a lot of stuff that we've discussed in here. um that we wanted to try and bring forward that I wanted Yeah. Just wanted to debate to you if we were still on the plan for
that. I know the most importantly for me uh was the vote uh the vote covers. I know we talked about council talked about that that was on my to-do list to draft. I apologize. There's a few things we found recently when we were putting together a nice spreadsheet to help the city manager and I not lose things that
uh did get get fall through the cracks. So, that is on there also will be coming forward. Yeah, that was my question too is I was wondering where we were with the boat covers if we that was approved or >> it it I suspect it will be shortly. They they were also in favor of the item and
I have a non-aggenda question. We're getting ready to be faced with a tremendous financial loss. Governor is about to sign into law homestead act. So, we're going to be
losing all of that times revenue that we have for people who own their homes. Right now, we have residential, multif family, we have commercial and industrial zoning.
But we have a lot of crossover because we have a lot of u people that are renting their properties out on a day basis or a week basis. And we don't seem to have any structure
for that whatsoever. We don't have a a permitting structure for it. We don't have an inspection structure for it. And it seems that if we're going to have to find a way to supplement, sorry about the voice, guys. Uh supplement our
income because of the loss of all the homestead income we're going to have that we really should be looking into how do we how do we charge for this? I mean, I've got two neighbors that are putting their properties out on a
regular basis, and you know, they'll rent it for the weekend or they rent it for the week. Well, that's the same as a hotel, but it's in a residential area, but it's operating not as residential, it's operating as a business. So, how do
we classify this so that we're not taken advantage of? and also some protection for people coming into our community because I think at least at the minimum we should have the fire marshal inspecting every one of these properties
to make sure we're not having people go into black mold or places with no carbon monoxide. We don't have any rules. We don't have any structure whatsoever. And I would like to suggest that we either form a
committee or do something to turn this uh day rental into, you know, quas quasi business. They have to have a business license. They they got to have an inspection, something like that. >> You are correct on all of that and we
can do that. We don't need necessarily any committee. I've spoken about this topic with Veronica in the past and prior city managers. We have not had this conversation yet. Um, there is a preeemption. You can't there's certain things we cannot regulate for they're called short-term rentals, but there's a
lot you can do and you can tax with tax. You can find, you can inspect, you can have certain requirements for the things you're talking about. So, it's just a a product of revising your code um and adding that in there. >> Well, that that house, if you're going to be using that, all of a sudden, it is
a it's a business. It is no longer just a residential. So, we're taxing them as if it was a regular house, but it's not a regular house anymore. >> And most of the um municipalities that I deal with that do have regulations for short-term rentals. There's registration
fees. They, you know, obviously have the fire inspection like you were talking about. There are things you definitely can do to to um regulate. Um it's not going to be a huge it's not such a money maker per se, but it is um a very wise idea. So, you do have the the um control
over that is for safety reasons. You know, making sure there's an evacuation chart in this house from someone that's not from Florida when there's a storm. So, we talked about that. >> We talked about that and putting that verbiage in. >> There's a lot you can do. There's a few things you can't do. Um the state's preempted it, but there's a lot you can
do to regulate that. It's just a matter. So, I'll I'll talk with the city manager and um we'll bring that see if we can move that forward. It's an idea that I've been a fan of since I started here. >> Yeah. I'm afraid I don't want to compete
with the the investors that are putting money into rental properties here. And all of a sudden, we're saying, "Well, we're going to take it away from you, the hotel owners, and everybody else. We're going to let these individuals take and steal your business
and and yet we're not protecting you in the way we should." >> So, part of that relies is is the responsibility of the city itself. in the fact that and I'm one of those people that steals those people's business. Ron, I appreciate that. Um I I
own four Airbnbs. Um as well as regular long-term rentals as well, but the cities that I that I'm in with like Elatcha County as far as Gainesville, I have one in Orlando. All of those cities actually go to Airbnb and VBO and they apply their tax to that which I then
pass on to my actual consumers that stay there. So we don't have that in the city. And I actually brought that forth and said, "Hey, we're not charging a city tax." Pasco County gets their their pound of flesh every single time somebody rents my house. So, but we don't take it here. So, we need to put it together here locally and then pass
that information on to the companies that do that. Airbnb, VBO, whatever the ones you're using, and then they will tax accordingly and then the city would get compensated. So, it's >> and Pasco County shouldn't be paying attention to the tax records. They should be paying attention to Airbnb,
VBO, all of those places because those properties don't qualify as homestead. >> Correct. >> So, you can't homestead a property you're renting out like that. Um, and they do pay some attention to it because we know some folks that have gotten hit by doing that and and finally got caught and need to switch their homestead.
>> Um, and as such then, you know, if that does get voted in, the the homestead change does get voted in, >> we won't it wouldn't pertain to those dwellings. So, all of those Airbnb properties aren't going to get the homestead break um on the taxes.
>> And the city does charge the business tax, which we pay, we do pay that. So, and the city's pretty good at catching it. Um because the residents are just like yourself. If it's next door to my house, the city should know that somebody's getting paid for it. I get it 100%. And I gladly pay my portion of it
when I do it. So, it's that's the way it should be done correctly. But you're right, there's a lot of that's done kind of under the table and it's not the right way to do things. 100%. Great, Nance. We should definitely look into that. >> So, I'll be with the city manager and bring it we'll work together on that.
>> Very good. Very good. Anything else? >> The only thing that we tal we can regulate. How do we how do we regulate in anyway all these young people with now these new electric bikes that are screaming up
and down our sidewalks and uh man I almost got run over by two very young gentlemen on these electric bikes doing 25 miles an hour on on the sidewalk.
>> That's a policing standard. It doesn't really have to. We don't need an ordinance for that. They bicycles aren't even technically supposed to be on a sidewalk. Um they're supposed to be using the road the way the road is supposed to be used. Um and the state is already pushing through legislation to
govern to roll those the roll those electric bikes into motor vehicles. >> Yeah, they are motorized vehicles no matter how you look at them. Well, the problem is is that our rules currently for DOT pertaining to things like mopeds and small scooters, they have a CC limit. So, below a certain CC, they
don't require license. They don't require any any of the additional requirements. Electric doesn't they don't have a CC. So, they're they're skirting those rules. Um it's kind of the same with the waterways. Um a lot of these motorized motorized surfboards, e- foils, things
like that originally came out. there was no governance for them and now the state has passed actually federally they've passed requirements that if it has a motor of any kind whatsoever it has to have FL numbers it has to have registration it has to be governed um so that it falls under the standard rules and I think that's what's going to
happen um I governance is going to come down from the state level on on the ebikes um they're already starting to push that lots of municipalities are starting to adopt but they're kind of adopting early for something that I think the state is going to push anyway.
>> Um that we're going to we're definitely going to get requirements, but it's already against a policing standard. If they're traveling down if they're traveling down a sidewalk on something motorized, they're already violating they're already violating a rule. Um it would be honest to talk with the police department about they need to start
citing those kids. Um they need to pull those kids off those bikes and take them home and explain to the parents that here's a citation for letting this kid ride this on. Here's your first warning. If he gets caught again, it's going to be a citation. Um but that would be a policing matter because it's we don't
the only place that we could we would really govern it I think during ordinance and uh Nancy you have to tell me that but um would be the bike path um like the bike path that runs down across waterfront park and all the way down to um the energy center would really be the
only thing I would think that we would govern because everything else would fall on DOT would fall on the road and become purview to the police department. um we can write an ordinance that says on a on a city bike path you can't use an electric and a lot of places are
doing that. The there's classifications of electric bikes. Um so you have pedal assist bikes that are class one. Um and then they work their way all the way up to a class three which has a button and no pedals and it's effectively a a dirt bike. It's a motorcycle. Um, most places
that have actual bike paths or uh bike trails for uh off-road bikes for mountain biking, you can't use anything above a class one. Um, class one bikes are the only thing allowed on those paths by ordinance for whoever governs those paths. It says that it's got to
just be pedal assist then. And most people aren't going to ride a pedal assist bike to 25 miles an hour. You're still pedaling your butt off to get one of those to uh to that speed. But it's the kids that have the ones that look like dirt bikes. they've got a throttle um and you just hit the button and go 25
miles an hour. Those are the ones that the police department should be policing because now you're you're operating effectively a low- speed vehicle just like a golf cart. You're operating a low- speed vehicle on a on a sidewalk. If one of us drove our golf cart down the sidewalk at 25 miles an hour, the police would certainly pull us over and
ask us which of our waterfront establishments we'd been drinking at. Um so um it's that's really I think something more of guidance from probably city and city management to talk to the the PD about we want to see this taken you know see
this governed the way that it's supposed to be governed. Those things shouldn't be they should be operated like bicycles and that means they follow traffic rules and if they're doing that then they fall under traffic rules from the P from the PD would be my take that would be my assumption.
>> Perfect. I know in our neighborhood we have a lot of underage kids driving around really fast in golf carts. >> They have no idea what the laws are. They've never taken a driving course, so they're going to get hit. But
>> anything else? >> Okay, now moving along to our agenda. Miss Nancy number two. >> I'm here, but this is really Tammy's show today. >> Tammy wants to run the show today. Tammy a lot of talking for my friends today.
So we have a lot of material and thank you all for taking the time to review everything. I know quite likely. So our first discussion is going to be regarding recreational vehicles recreational vehicle type other types of recreational vehicle parking standards
within the city. The purpose of our discussion is to um get your input on whether the city should consider modifying those regulations that govern recreational vehicle and watercraft parking. So, this is a policy discussion
only. We do have a some sort of an application. I'm not I'm not familiar with the process for requesting a zoning text amendment by a private entity in the city. So we have that but we're not going to discuss that specifically today. It's going to be
more of a global discussion and so maybe we'll come out of this with a hybrid maybe you'll want to do one approach another but we'll get there um eventually. So our next slide is so this discussion was prompted by a
request from the Everpoint Collers Association regarding alternative parking standards uh within their subdivisions. And while that request originated from a specific neighborhood, the city felt that it kind of raised a broader
question regarding whether the city's current regulations provides sufficient flexibility to address unique neighborhood conditions. So today we're seeking that guidance. Um if the city decides to move forward, any future amendment would require formal public
hearings before the plan is on the board and also city council. And the key question that we're asking today is whether the city should consider a mechanism for either changing their standards globally
or area specific parking. Oops. Did you skip one? >> The current city There you go. Okay. >> So, currently the city's regulations um in this regard are applied uniformly
across all properties or residential zoning districts in the city. That's in section 127-92 RF. And it generally requires that recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and similar equipment are stored inside
or in rear yard areas. Parking in front yards is restricted and driveway parking is limited to 24 hours for loading and unloading of those vehicles. Habitation is prohibited and the current regulations are straightforward and
they're easy to administer because the same standards apply across the state. Next, so as an example, we're going to look at the Harbor Point neighborhood, which possesses several characteristics that
distinguish it from other neighborhoods within the city. It's a waterfront community. It has a high prevalence of boat ownership. The subdivision has a gated entrance, so there's limited external visibility into the neighborhood. And several lots have
constrained sideyard areas, irregularly shaped lots. And these characteristics have prompted this discussion um and make and whether the neighborhoods like this might warrant consideration for alternative parking standards. And the
question for the board is whether physical characteristics such as these uh can be a factor in developing future regulations. Next. So part of the recreational vehicles and uh parking of recreational vehicles and
boats generally the impacts are very localized in nature. Uh those impacts typically relate to natur impacts in adjacent properties, what streetscape character looks like, and overall what resident expectations are
for standards within their neighborhood. Um unlike issues such as density or traffic generation or infrastructure capacity which can be felt outside of a neighborhood, this is more localized within
the impacts are localized. Just regulations also have the ability to be localized under certain question. Next slide please. The staff has identified four potential approaches.
Just try to elate and think about as you're as you're considering this this type these types of amendments. So these range from the city's existing standards, so maintaining what's on the book today, so kind of a a no change
approach um all the way up to developing very specific standards for specific areas. Um, so and the purpose of the next few slides is not to advocate for any particular approach. We're just kind of laying it out there and it's going to be a robust discussion I'm sure and
we'll take back what information have staff ready for you to look at. So next slide please. The first approach is no change. You would maintain the city's existing citywide standards. The advantage of that is that it's uniform across the
city. enforcement and there's no trust and that's what everybody does. It doesn't um address those specific concerns or characteristics and there's limited flexibility because
>> please can you turn your mic on? Turn the mic on. >> Next slide, please. >> So, approach uh number two is a city-wide amendment. So that's looking at modifying your parking standards for all residential districts. So I don't know if you were somebody was discussing
earlier that there might have been something that you were looking to change relative to recreational vehicle parking. >> I remember and we our our general public might be able to help part of it. Um, I do have on my to-do list, but like I'll bring up all my to-do list items today, but um allowing
I think parking in the front. Same I think same same time frames of parking in the front if there was like proper coverage over I think it was for boats though. >> We had we had some discussions on it that there has been formula kind of waiting. >> Yeah. And that's why I I my
>> this is probably the good a good u predecessor to have that conversation. There was there was some conversations I just can't remember the the details of them. So yeah, >> we'll go through all we can dig into it um in the convers in the discussion. >> So um again the citywide amendment would
apply to your parking standards on the books today. So making modifications to those the advantages, you know, that's simple administration. I wonder why that's not the same as what I Anyway, listen to me. Don't look at that one. Uh simple administration, a
consistent application. Uh the challenge is that, you know, it's not as flexible because it's citywide. Um and there could be potential impacts to neighborhoods that are um not seeking that change. They may be happy with what's on the books today. Next slide, please.
Approach number three is a contextbased criteria. So it would allow flexibility where their objective criteria is met. So if you have like certain neighborhoods that have certain characteristics, you could codify that in your code and those those
neighborhoods would be um able to tap into certain regulations that were established under this. So um it's targeted approach but it does require eligibility standards. So that might might take some doing to come up with those. Uh and the administration for
that purpose is a little more complex. And the last approach is essentially what the Harbor Point neighborhood um is is looking for and that would be a geographically defined overlay um that would have modified standards.
It would be highly targeted to a particular area to those specific conditions. Um but the citywide standards would remain for everybody else within the city. The challenge is that you would need to have the again eligibility criteria. It requires that
legislative action for each neighborhood that wants to come in and get that overlay. Uh and there's the potential for future requests from other neighborhoods. And the next slide, please. Oh, this is you know what? This is not picking up the the latest I'm not quite
sure. It's not picking up the latest um application or um >> version. It's not version. You know what I'm thinking is that maybe the link is not updated. So, okay, don't show that anymore then because it's it's just a
boiler plate that was >> Okay, give me a second. There was different different files on here. So, I can probably see if I can pull up the other one. >> Let me see if I can just email this to you. Here it is. And then I'll just keep talking while
you're Thank you. So I was wondering why I didn't think that that link would be effective. Okay, so issues for board discussion. See if I can do two things at one time, which is probably doubtful. Utah will act out. True story
>> trades >> except okay it's coming now and I'll just carry on. So issues for the board discussion include the content sensitivity. So whether unique physical conditions
justify a deviation from your uniform regulations today, neighborhood support. So for instance, if a neighborhood comes in and wants to have an overlay district, what's the level of support that you'd need? Would it be 60% of the
homeowners within an area or or something less? 50%. Uh precedent, you'd have to consider the potential applicability to other similarly situated neighborhoods. So one neighborhood gets it might be conceivable that other neighborhoods would come forward to get that overlay
as well. Enforcability, the ability to administer, monitor, and enforce area specific standards. With a homeowners association, you can always be more restrictive, but you can't be less restrictive. And that's why the city would need to be able to continue
enforcing its policies relative to um and that would need to be legislatively adopted and that would be the city's policy in that overlay area. And then consistency and fairness, whether similar situations should be treated
similarly throughout the city. And so the board direction that we're asking for today is should the city consider modifying its parking regulations? If so, should those modifications be citywide? Should they be based on objective eligibility
criteria or should they be limited to special areas such as an overlay district? Should the eligibility criteria be established for any specific um any area specific approach? uh what role should neighborhood support play in
evaluating those future requests and are there specific parking standards that warrant further evaluation? The next step would be to take your information, develop that into um some proposed regulations and then processing those through a planning and zoning
board public hearing and also city council public hearings for consideration. And that's that concludes it. So, probably pull it up. And I I do have a copy of the um the standards in front of me, too, if
anybody has any questions. >> Yes, sir. >> Can you kind of lay out what the existing ordinance is for parking situations? >> Yes. And when sound gets in, he can pull it up, too. So, no boats, watercraft,
trailers, or major recreational equipment shall be per permitted to be parked or stored in any residential driveway or yard forward of the dwelling. >> Forward, I'm sorry, >> forward of the dwelling. So, in the front, >> the driveways
>> in the front yard or any vacant lot zoned for residential use. Boats, I'll just say boats and RVs may be parked or stored on a sideyard or rear yard of residential property. However, the parking or storage of boats or RVs shall
be no closer to a street or the road than the front of the dwelling. So, you need to be behind the front of the facade, front facade. Um, no RV or boat shall be stored on a partial lot or a non-ontiguous segment of a residential
lot situated between the public rideway and a body of water. I guess that's when you have your front yard maybe crosses a road and goes like on Granville perhaps.
Um all oh there's provisions for state statutes. So of course you could follow any state statutes related to this. No major uh recreational equipment is hereby oh what's defined as travel trailers, pickup campers or coaches
designed to be mounted on automated automotive vehicles, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, house boats and the like. So recreational vehicles and no uh boats or any of those vehicles
can be used for habitation. no sleeping, no housekeeping, whether it's parked or stored anywhere on the property. So, it's just not allowed. And the last one is uh no RVs, boats, other vehicles shall be
parked or stored on any lot in a residential district within a required front yard provided, however, that such uh may be parked anywhere on residential premises for a period not to exceed 24 hours
during loading or unloading. somewhere in there. I thought you you said that can't park in the backyard. >> No side in the front yards. >> What we were saying about backyards and sideyards. >> You can park backyards and sideyards,
but you can't park forward of the front facade. >> But you said more than that. You said something about backyard. >> There's also corners. So there's also some special exceptions. Corners because you don't have >> corners or front yards. corners or front yards, but then that makes
>> between the property and the water a sideyard setback on the one side. Um, depending on the location of it and that's had some issues in the past too with people that there wasn't a good place for them to put it that it didn't put it next to the water and it was too
close to the water but kind of in a front yard. There's some corners where canals come right up to the abudding road and that creates yet another location that's been an issue in the past. Um, so we I think before I got on B&B, but I think they've tried to
address all of those weird locations in that ordinance, which is why it's kind of disjointed. It's got a lot of little pieces. >> Yeah. But it does state specifically that you may be parked in the front or sideyard. However,
that equipment shall be no closer to a street than the front of a dwelling, which feels repetitive. Repetitive. >> Okay. And when you when you encounter those things in codes, it makes you wonder, am I reading that right or is there
something I'm missing? So, that's why having clear standards is uh is helpful. But, you know, there there's code work. Always needs to be code work. But maybe that's something that we can fix. >> So this whole question is has come up because point Alexis is asking a
question. >> Harbor Point >> Harbor Point. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, Harbor Point had come forward to the city and asking for a special overlay just for their >> Are they homeowners association? >> Yes. >> From just having their HOA
new restrictions. >> It can't be less than. It has to be more restrictive than what the city already adopts. >> They want to let >> Well, they want to make a list. >> Yeah. >> They want to allow they want to allow to do things that our current code says we can't. >> So, this was already brought to the
board. We had this discussion. I don't know if you guys remember this. Lori probably remembers this. We actually said, and Eric, I believe you were here as well, and so was a couple other council members. And there was discussion about a very long lengthy discussion regarding the idea of modifying the code from 24 hours to at
this the initial part of the discussion was to making it so we would get rid of that rule completely because I remember I was very adamant personally as a real estate broker that that would create blight. It could very easily create blight in the city and devalue a lot of properties which we don't want to devalue properties. We want to raise property values and keep increasing our
tax base especially with the new thing with Santa's doing. So, um, and I think there was had been a consensus that we had discussed that we would allow it up to so many days, which is very almost very similar to the application we're looking at. I think it was four or five days or six days or something along
those lines, not to exceed a certain amount of days in the month. Um, >> they were requesting up to six consecutive days, >> which I think is almost exactly the same thing we had discussed here. And the reason why the uh some of the public had come to us and said that we said, "Well, that's fine. just park your trailer in
the driveway for the weekend or your boat in the in the driveway for the weekend. So, what about people who have you're getting your boat ready for scallop season, you got to change the oil in your lower unit. It's there's a week process involved. Like, okay, well, that that makes sense. We just don't want to see them sitting in their yards for three weeks at a time or something like that. And that discussion had been
made and we think we table it because we had so many other things going on. So, >> and I think from my notes from the council discussion, there wasn't a change in my notes, there wasn't a change in the time frame. It was just a change in allowing parking in the front. under certain conditions like proper
operable vehicle that kind of thing. >> Okay. So, like we've had this like we're going back to the same thing, but now somebody's brought it to their attention and they're requesting a change and so we'd have to modify. >> What was the conclusion of your discussion when you had it last? >> I don't have notes from planning zoning.
I my notes are from when council discussed it. It was not a change in time frame, at least in my written notes. Um it was just the um to allow um parking in the front and I'm thinking more boat because I remember talking about the cover of the boat but RV I'm sure was included in that too as long as
it's operable and in good condition that kind of thing. But that probably on the tail of that discussion this neighborhood says well we're kind of uniquely situated. Perhaps that's something that we could accomplish and it wouldn't be objectionable to the
property owners within that neighborhood. And so they're just asking for essentially what you were just kind of what you were discussing. Um but they would have support with their limited amount of I think there's 50 lots out there. >> So I think from for your perspective
today because we're not addressing the application itself. >> Sure. >> Um yes, it's been discussed. Let's just discuss it again. Have some different minds, some different thoughts maybe. Um let's take those notes of what you guys think would be reasonable and the right way to move forward and then we can let
Tammy move forward. Great. >> Thinking of more global changes to the code itself, then we can address those. And if there's a you want to have that property owner come back um in for a formal hearing process, um but that's
something you can also discuss. >> Thank you. Yes. An HOA, the deed restrictions can't be less than the city ordinance. >> Be more restrictive, >> but not less. >> But not less. Now, can the overlay that you're talking about can that be less?
>> Yes, because it would be adopted by the city. It would be cityled reg city regulation. >> The overlay could be less than the city. >> Yeah, >> because the city would be adopting it >> as opposed to that particular location that they're talking about. >> It would be a zoning stand special
zoning standards for that particular area. >> Mr. Chris Mayor, 4591 Harbor Point Drive. Um, I am one of those residents at Harbor Point and I know that I was paying attention to the leadership in
the neighborhood and they want to change this. They've got a couple guys that have really nice coaches that bring them in there for a week to get them ready to go out and do things. And they also have uh some very nice boats. I don't know of any junky boats that are in there right now. the very nice boats they bring in
for, you know, five to six days before they take them out. So, um, I'm for it. I think it's a good idea. I think we should probably adopt it state citywide, you know, five to six days. Uh, because we're a voting community and these people, I'm not for putting that boat in
the drive there for six months. Let the cover rob off of it. But I think, you know, somebody is responsible takes, you know, pride in their properties and they have nice boats. I think we should give them the opportunity to be able to keep there for a few days to get them ready or clean up when they're done. >> So my question with for the H from an
HOA's perspect from the HOA perspective is did the HOA bring this to us after they discussed it with all of their residents and everybody out there is is okay with it? >> They have they had a vote. It's only part of the thing >> that I'm aware of in our neighborhood.
There's only one person that is not for this. Everybody else that I'm aware of is for the numbers unless you know something I don't >> they have approval from 72%. >> Yeah. So they had a couple couple names but I think did I think between 72 and up to like 95% they just didn't respond.
They just didn't respond at all. >> No response. >> So we have a great approval for that. >> Okay. I think that speaks to what Tammy said was, you know, if we're going to do this anywhere other than there. Um, like I I would be I would be inclined to say yes
to something like that when you're dealing with an HOA. Um, because they have their own governance and it's on them to come up with that. If the HOA pulls their vote and comes to us and within the their bylaws of how often something they would change in their HOA is covered, then I would be for Okay,
that's their that's their space. It's their gated space. they're doing their thing. Um, just like I wouldn't think that we would want to get involved in if they're going to change park regulations on how they can paint their stuff in their HOA. Like that's doesn't seem like it's something that's really city
purview. Um, and since this is something more along the lines of, you know, the reason we don't allow people to park things right now, the reason the ordinance is there be is because people will park their boats permanently in their front yard and then the tires go
flat on the trailer and and then the motor one motor's torn apart and and then they're there, you know, for every five that are nice boats that are sitting there nice because the city can't typically write an ordinance that
governs what qualifies as nice. Um, we it's easier for us to just go no. Um, we can't do that. Um, so since this is more of an aesthetics thing than it is a public safety thing or something like that,
my my thoughts would be that for an HOA, well, the HOA's main governance is aesthetics is making sure that they maintain a certain style in there. If the vast majority of the people in there are cool with this and they like it and they they want it, um, then I wouldn't I
can't see where I would have a problem. Now, if we want to if we're talking about maybe adopting it more broadly within the city, that's when I think it's going to become a lot of work on Nancy to try and figure out ver and for you guys to figure out how to write verbiage that
protects the aesthetic of the city without being overly restrictive and without being selective, it it becomes a huge issue. Um, I know that's been a running thing within the city is been what citizens that just got a code
enforcement, you know, ticket from we'll call selective enforcement. Well, you're telling me I can't have my trailer in the front yard and that guy's had his boat in his front yard for eight months. Um, and it's growing weeds, you know, um, you know, why is that allowed and you're telling me I can't? Um,
>> well, we have a deluge of people still putting in RVs in front of their properties that after the storm and it's been 19 months. >> Well, and we have folks that are just like anything, we have folks that are taking advantage of that ordinance to put renters in RVs in neighborhoods that
code enforcement is fighting with steadily to try to get that taken care of. Um, and you're always going to have that. We're going to write ordinances and someone's going to be like, "Oh, mouse trap. Let's figure out how to get around that." Um, so I would say I I like the idea of
selective neighborhood um where you can cordon off a very specific space. Um and even if it had even if it has to come back either version whether we whether we decide that we you know we suggest to council that they allow that one as an o
as its own and we leave it that way knowing that we're going to get future applications but we've created a precedence for now you need to come back to the P&Z as a neighborhood with X number of members uh within that
geographic space that want this and are willing to conform to the rules that are governing that. It can only be so long. It's got to be tagged. It's got to be operable. It can't be, you know, obviously there's some caveat to that because you're talking about working on them. If you're going out there for six
days and I've got to pull a power head off of something, um the boat's not technically operable at that point, but the thing that to the thing it's sitting on needs to be. Um, so even if the boat is not operable and we're working on it, the trailer needs to be operable so that you can take it out of there and you can pull it away and put it somewhere else.
Um, you know, just like RVs, you know, anything, it all needs to be capable of rolling and capable of moving. And um, so I I can see either version of it. I could either see the to me the simpler version for us
codewise is to grant it at the overlay level for them and then knowing that we will as a group probably have to address this with other future neighborhoods. But we have a precedent for doing that on a one neighborhood at a time basis.
>> But I think the key to that is what you said is it's an HOA. the governor does not reply. It's the city's not rely doesn't have to be the one that does that. We don't want to make code enforcement's job even harder than there already is. I mean, I wouldn't want his job on a bet and neither whether it be
PAD or anybody else in any other city in this in this state. Um, I think the HOA is the key part, right? Somebody else is in charge of making sure that their their citizens follow the rules. So we have it in place now at
a city level and we're still fighting it. >> So >> and if you if you do an overlay that like like what has been proposed if that's something that ends up happening that will become city code and it will be code enforcement. Now HOA obviously can still do their own enforcement that
they do but that will then become the city that's enforcing that in that area. Won't that leave us open possibly to a future lawsuit from somebody else saying, "Aren't you being a little restrictive? You're allowing you're
allowing one group because they happen to have more money and have a better community to be able to do something. And because I don't have that kind of money to live in that community, you're going to penalize me and let him do it."
That doesn't sound like a fair arrangement to me. I mean, oh well, you're in an overlay because you have an HOA and you're in an expensive community. So, guess what? You get away with it. But Joe over here who needs to
work on his boat for the weekend or for a week and he lives in a smaller community that has no HOA and we're going to say no, you're going to pay a fine if you don't move your boat. It just doesn't seem like there's a a balance here that we might not be facing
some real issues in the future. >> I don't know that you'd need to have an HOA. You just would need to have a certain level of support. Not unlike when a city wants to build sidewalks in an area, maybe they're asking for 50% of property owners to say yes, we want sidewalks before you go in and build
them. So if there's no HOA, who who and how does the overlaid district get who makes those boundaries? >> City and code enforcement would >> So could one single home
request of to be declared a neighborhood and have their own rules? I think that typically you would probably look at um a platted subdivision or maybe a so for instance Harbor Point is one cohesive unit with 50 lots or thereabouts
>> behind gate behind two gates right >> but there might be other areas that are like the I don't know Fort Richie Land Company volume edition too or something that you could square them off Nancy I don't know if you have experience in that area but I think that we
>> that's what that's why you need the criteria it would be be like anything that's in your code that that is a little special or different, there's certain criteria that are required to be met. And if you meet those, then it's still going to be the discretion of, you know, the people listening to make sure that they feel that you meet those
criteria. Um, and that's be something that we'll have to create should there be an interest in doing that. >> I think it's a question of technically you could draw it around whatever you want. >> Sure. >> I'm saying two neighbors to get together.
That's why we would have we would have to create the guideline. Like we would have to say it's an entire it's an entire platted subdivision. It's a it's an entire platted subdivision with 60 with 60% a vote of 60% of the residents. >> If you think about it, you know, it
could be a culde-sac that's somewhat, you know, isolated from other like the visual because a lot of people don't want to look at people. >> I saw you go there. >> I'm sorry. I don't I'm not mentioning anybody's specific situation, but you
know, it could be where somebody lives they're close to the water that's um a natural for them to have boats that not really impacting other neighborhoods. So, the criteria would need to be very specific for uh the planning and zoning board and for city council to be able to make that decision. So, it's it wouldn't
necessarily be um as easy as Harbor Point because Harbor Point is so isolated um and not really visible to any other neighborhoods like you don't drive through it except for the people who live there. Well, I think that's where
we would us putting verbiage in that said that we allowed this because like that needs to be stated that way like that, you know, this this circumstance was allowed because it was a single platted subdivision um with special restrict, you know,
special non-conforming lots already. Um it's already built with built on non-conforming lots with non-conforming setbacks because of the way it was platted. Um it was a special circumstance for that one. any neighborhoods wanting to do this, any other neighborhoods wanting to take
advantage of this would be almost like our what was our future land use map where we made verbiage and said okay if you want to play with this you have to meet these criteria um you know in order to do this um you would need you know
you would need uh 60% of the residents you know signatures from 60% of the residents since they don't have an HOA to come forward after having a vote um 60% of the residents or whatever we say it's going to be. Um a formal petition with 60% of the residents. Um and it
will it will only affect the entire platted platted subdivision within that you know wi within that purview. Um and then they would and then they would move forward. To your point I we run I mean don't we run that consistently? I mean
the difference between east of 19 and west of 19 and we have rules and regulations that govern both sides of those things that there there is special to some degree only because of geography. Um the rules that apply to the water to waterfront
homes don't apply to non-waterfront homes but we have to write code to kind of govern both because we're writing it for one large large thing. You could say that everything that we're talking about doing with sidewalks and lighting and street lighting and things around the waterfront overlay district,
you could be setting yourself up for somebody who lives on the other side on Washington to come over and go, "Well, why aren't you putting nice bike paths and all these fancy things on my street?" I mean, it we're always going to play that game.
It it comes down to it comes down to most of what we do is life safety. If you drive down US19, 80% of the billboards that you're going to see have attorneys and law firms advertising it. We live in the most latigious state in
the union. And guys, if anybody can find a reason to have us run up some big legal bills, it's going to be little Miss Jones or Mi little Mr. Harry who says, "Gee, you're restrictive us
because we're not rich and they are, you know, and I'm just trying to find a way to mitigate any kind of potential. Don't keep adding gasoline to potential tinder here that could end light a match, you know. Um,
sure, Harbor Point's great. That's where most of our tax base is for the higher priced homes in this area. So, what happens to the little people in the back end? He's going to complain and you're going to find some lawyer willing to file a class action lawsuit against us
that's going to run us a lot of money. I have an attorney right here. Ask her if I'm not telling the truth. >> And all of you, I think, have heard me say this, anyone can sue you for any reason. Doesn't mean it doesn't mean it's a valid lawsuit. Doesn't mean you're going to lose. Yes, it's going to cost money to defend it, but that
doesn't mean you don't >> make the policies and take the city in the direction you want to take it. Correct. >> Ultimately, when a decision is made, you know, I'm going to analyze it. I'm going to talk with Tammy. I'm going to talk with Don before it comes back. So, right now, if it's something you're interested in, >> let's talk about it. >> You definitely can have different
criteria for different situations. It doesn't mean there's a law. It doesn't mean there's a valid lawsuit. It's always a lawsuit. >> There's always a lawyer that will take the case. that I >> um but don't you know not have that conversation >> at this point at least for fear of that.
Have the conversation and then see what we get to and then we analyze that. >> Well, we did very well when it came to covering Ryan Burke's property. We went ahead and decided that you had to have at least minimum of five acres in order to be able to handle the kind of construction. If we can structure
whatever the ordinance is in the same kind of manner to kind of help us set a foundation I rather than just say well yeah we're going to let the HOA do it >> but even but even then >> HOA is not going to do it. Yeah, >> overlay is going to allow whomever meets
the criteria that's created and approved by council to have some different requirements that the city code enforcement >> correct >> will be doing HOA again they may do their own thing and have their own responsib this this house on this street is in
this overlay so that boat can stay there if That's what h what happens or no this house is not on that in that overlay and there's a different criteria for that. So as long as the overlay is large enough that it becomes inclusive of some members that are outside this one
restrictly I think but >> then we won't get in trouble right >> what Nancy saying is progress always comes at a cost right so we could sit and we could sit on hunches of what's happened to us prior to people lived here 50 years ago which is what the city's known to be have done this this
board and these councils and the last couple councils we've seen I've been on this board for 23 years and 20 22 years 23 years And we've seen more accomplished in the last five years than the last 15 years prior to that because we sat here, we talked about everything and we never did anything because
everybody was scared we were going to get sued. Well, this is a Florida. They can sue me for crossing the street the wrong way and dropping something, right? It's a it's people get sued anytime. I think we need to look forward to what is the, you know, the best progress, right? We've seen things happen with Ryan
Brooks property. We've all discussed that property for 25 years. We'd love to see things happen. My question to you, Miss Tammy, is what are other municipalities near us in the similar situation? What are they doing compared to the code that we have? For
instance, let me use Gulf Harbors as an example. That is the for the waterfront areas particularly, they're not in an HOA. Well, let me phrase that. They're in a a optional HOA. You can opt into HOA, but they don't nobody collects any money. I'm not sure that they even do.
There's no rules of engagement there at all. So, what did they do as far as their code is concerned for having boats parked in the fund? >> Well, I can't speak to other I haven't done the research on other codes, but I can tell you the city just >> Pasco rules. >> The city of Clearwater because I've worked there at some point in my life
required everything to be behind the front facade. >> And what is the what is the timeline for people to have something parked in the front while they load their RV for instance, or they they get their boat ready to take it to the Keys? Is is there a timeline attached to that? we can pull some u similarly. >> I think if we have other things that we
can look at and kind of compare to I think it's a key part of this. >> Sure. >> Um and like you discussed, we've we've talked about relaxing this the relaxing restriction. We're not talking about where they can park them permanently, right?
>> We're not changing that. So, we've talked about relaxing the restriction anyway for the entire city. >> Yep. >> So that people can all do that. Um, that's another option here in her in our possible possible things is simply to relax the restriction across the board
to allow anybody to be able to park in their driveway for six days. Um, and then it's then it's it's blanket. It covers everyone. Um, and then we don't have to worry about it. Along with that, we >> your concerns and code enforcement would probably code enforcement would have a
much easier job knowing it's the same for each person. Then we could offer overlays if somebody wanted to have an area wanted to have more restrictive. Oops. >> Yeah. Well, I mean like we could do >> we could make it 24 days and they can they can restrict it down at the HOA
level and go less you know they can give them less time. Correct. We just can't we can't. So we you know we're going to we're going to constantly play this game. But even to your point about the the possible lawsuits when we declared that the PUD required 5 acres in order to take advantage of that future land
use map, we absolutely could have incurred a lawsuit by someone who could only afford one acre. >> And why can't I build a condo? Well, that guy's got a lot more money than me. He's a developer, so you're giving him all of these things. We could play that game forever. The easiest version, to Sean's point, the easiest version of
being on these boards is to simply always say no, >> right? >> Make it as restrictive as possible. Close everything down. We never ever have to worry about anything whatsoever because no, you can't do it. >> We're not letting you. >> A question about the overlays. We >> don't live like that. >> Are there expenses related to creating
an overlay? And that >> probably would be a fee such as like a resoning fee. I I I don't know if there's anything established because you you address those so infrequently. I I can't remember one that you've done where it's been a private >> to address Mr. McDonald's concerns, but
maybe certain neighborhoods couldn't afford it. Are we talking about $100 or >> zoning is $500? >> $500 >> but it doesn't sound like very many people in the city would that we've talked to at all the times that
this has come up even really have a pro like this application points out a very specific use case for them from the pre from from the pret pretense that the city doesn't want to allow this. So they pulled up pulled together
very specific things that meant this is why this makes sense out here, but it doesn't sound like we're really globally kind of that upset about the idea of relaxing this restriction citywide. Um, if you want to put
specific caveats on it, a simple version of it very well might be kind of a hybrid. It could be we want to relax these things. If you fall under, but this would be code enforcement nightmare, by the way. Um, if you fall under the circumstance, the
main circumstance that causes this to be an issue in Harbor out in Harbor Point is that because they're non-conforming lots, most of them do not have a setback beside the house to allow you to put the to put any of these things beside the house. They're too close to the property lines to even do that.
Most of the city we shifted the properties at back in the 70s the houses were built shifted to one side of the setbacks. They have 5 foot on one side and 10 on the other. >> Right. >> Very specifically to allow for you to have room to park a boat in the 10 foot
between your property line and that side of the house. Since then, we've shifted the requirements on the building setbacks that it's 15 feet total in most lots, but it's some varying degree, no less than five feet on one side. Most people center them and make it 7 and 1/2
ft on each side. Well, if you do that and somebody and you've got a fence between you and your neighbor, you're not parking anything beside the house. >> Correct. >> And so, Harbor Point is a perfect example of that. Almost all of them are centered properties. They don't have the room beside them to park them. So if you really wanted to get somewhat
restrictive, you could say for homes that do not have a 9 foot minimum 9 foot setback, which is road road width, a minimum 9 ft between their property line and the house, then they can have more leeway to put something in the front. But I don't know that we need to do
that. I I I think it would be up to council to make the call. But I can't imagine much of anybody in the city other than a very random few number of people that would be against the idea of it just being open to six consecutive
days of prep time in your driveway and then you have to put it back where it belongs. We do it and open it to whoever our residents are, regardless of whether they're in Harbor Point or back in the back area. As long as the vehicle has a
up-to-date Florida state tag and license on it, then why can't we allow it to be there for like for eight days or seven days and give them the opportunity? you're gonna have a lot of smaller homes.
They don't have a a garage even. So therefore, if you're gonna work on your boat, uh you're going to have to do it in your front yard and you're going to have to do it right in your front driveway. And I just didn't want us to look like we
only pandered to those who can afford I've got a 10car garage, guys. I'm not worried about it, you know, but not everybody, a lot of the houses in my neighborhood, they're no garages at all. And if I had to work on my boat and wanted to go get it ready for or my RV
or my trailer and you're telling me, geez, you know, because you can't afford a bigger lot and you know, before you can't afford to go into one of our communities, we're not allowing you to do that. I think one roof for all seems
a hell of a lot more fair to me. And I was the biggest person that opposed it last time when it was brought forth last time just from a from a perspective of what I do for a living. So I've driven down entire neighborhoods where I've gone to go see
a house that was on the Gulf of Mexico, right? Excuse me, Gulf of United States or America where it is now. Um, and I've driven to a $4 million house and I've passed three other places that were there was boats parked in the yard that looked like they died. They came there and died
in 1975. And I and I'm trying to take a client who's driving his Rolls-Royce to go look at this place. And he goes, I don't want to see that on my way in. >> No, >> I don't want us to have the similar problem. We had that problem. There were streets. Blueoint was the worst offender
for the longest time. We had entire streets in the city three councils ago that you could go drive down the street. They the first thing they would say is you he would walk out and tag them for code enforcement. They would come run out say no. We're grandfathered in. Well, that
boat's been grandfathered in since 1975. It has never moved. Well, I don't care. I'm still grandfathered in. I don't want to see that happen again because then it does devalue what we've done and then we have the same problem with taxes, especially if Dantis gets to do what he wants to do. So, and and that's a real
concern. I don't want us to step back. So, I'm okay as long as it's restrictive across and I agree across the board is probably safer for her and for Ron and for for Pat for for code enforcement. Um, but I think we need to be very
concise about what it is and make sure the rules in place so that when code enforcement does go out, they don't have So, well, I moved it yesterday and I brought it back today, but like their even their application says I think it's a maximum number of days, correct? >> Up to six consecutive days, 12 days total a month.
>> So, so that that right there helps alleviate that problem. >> Yeah, everybody. >> And that's my biggest concern >> that they're on the same level. >> Correct. I agree. >> And I'm okay with that. >> I would be fine with that. >> So, would you like us to um bring back to you some regula or some language? Um
we can look at what some other do a little matrix of what other cities are doing in terms of >> personally >> um but look at it more of a global citywide regulation as opposed to a an overlay. I would like to see that
>> and I don't want and honestly the other my other concern is creating precedence that just because you want to do something different in the city in your neighborhood that we don't allow in the city that automatically you think you're going to go file for an overlay and that and it's going to come back up here and it's going to take people's time and
resources for the city to look at this just because I we want to be able to paint our houses this color and our our association won't allow it. Right. So we want we want an overlay. I think it's better to look at from a a global changing for the entire city. >> Yeah,
>> because we do have to adjust, right? We had to adjust when it came to this to science. We didn't allow digital science. Yes, Mr. Chris, I I think that Mike's got a great idea with your leadership. I think that it is awesome to put it out citywide and you know, six days. Listen, this is a voting
community. People come here, they don't come here for any other reason. They like the water. They like the waterfront. They like to go out on the water with their kids. They like to fish. all those things and I think we got to create an environment that that fosters that. I think doing it citywide is a great idea, but we're going to have to be restrictive on it. It's going to
have to be six days or seven days and that's it. And you know, then we have to crack down if they go further than that. >> The other side of that too, um because we are we are the actually the only Airbnb friendly community in Pasco County because Pasco County has rules
against short-term rental. Um, but that's a big boon to our property values because there is a lot of investment that's looking for Airbnbs. That's a lot of money right now. Um, and if you've got somebody coming into the neighborhood for six days or five day rental around scallop season, they're
going to bring a boat on a trailer and it's going to be in the driveway. >> Yep. >> So, they can go use the ramp and put it in and go do their thing. Um, or at least the trailer, they're going to go drop the boat in, tie it up to the floating dock at the back of that Airbnb, and the trailer's going to be in the driveway. Um, and I don't think we
want to. That is the kind of money that's coming into the community that's going to drive those restaurants down on the waterfront. Those are that's the stuff that we do want if we want progress in the city. Um, we're going to need that. We need that revenue. I just definitely agree with our earlier point of move of
of figuring out how to make sure that that's taken care of properly, but I think this ordinance would shift to allowing that in a more consecutive way. Most of the time people aren't staying more than six or seven days. >> And I've actually had rentals, my one
rental over there by the by Waterford Park. Um, they came for scallop season and they brought their boat. The first thing he said to me is, "Where can I park my trailer?" And I said, "Make sure it's behind the front of the house on the driveway because of the code. So, we were covered." And they stayed for two weeks and they paid handsomely to stay
there. And they paid to park their boat. As a matter of fact, at the time it was Guildox with Aaron. So, but they're eating at all those all of those people that are coming in for short-term rentals are typically not cooking, especially not on a day on the water. Yeah. >> They're rolling in and they're hitting Hooters. Yeah. >> Or they're going to Whiskey Joe's. Yeah. They're going to catches and they're
eating on the way in. I mean, I I know I don't I don't go home and cook after a day of voting. >> I don't want to be I'm gonna have you're not catching the next day. Scout next day. >> It's next day. All right. Okay. Somebody
else clean the dishes tonight. Is that good for number two? >> Yes. >> Are we good, guys? >> Good. >> Number three. >> Oh, number three. >> Is that you as well? >> Or is that >> item number three? Item number three. Yes. >> PUD discussion. >> Yeah, PU.
>> Sorry, I agenda. >> I'm jumping ahead of you, Tam. You see that's okay. >> Here we go. Okay. So, um this next topic is a discussion on the draft planned
unit development district uh regulations uh that are that existed within the city code. Next slide, please. You want to make it a large scale so it's visible? Oh, you don't have to. I just thought
maybe it would make it larger. Okay. So, the purpose of this discussion is to look at section 127-58, which is plan unit development district within the city's zoning code. And this is primarily to address a density inconsistency between the comprehensive
plan and the PUD standards and and then to obtain direction from the board before we prepare a formal zoning text amendment to address at least that one maintain. >> The next slide is about next slide please.
>> Oh does it not go automatically? >> Yeah. It's okay. Okay. So about PUB districts generally um they are for uh project specific regulations. So it establishes permitted uses through a PUD
resoning. So it establishes all of its own regulations within itself. Um uh they're project specific standards. So developing standards that are tailored to the unique characteristics of a site and the development that's being proposed. Um they feature integrated
development. So the uses, the site design, the circulation, all those components are reviewed as a whole uh as a coordinated development plan which is called a PED concept plan. And there's flexibility in design. So in some cases
where your what we call uklitian zoning districts uh may not allow for a certain front yard setback or certain configuration of uses, a PUB allows you to bring forward innovative alternative site layouts and development patterns
that might be approved when they offer public benefits. Next slide, please. So the approach to the revisions um were to of course to address that comp plan density and consist consistency. Um the revisions preserve
flexibility and the customized nature of a planned unit development zoning. They clarify the existing provisions on the books today. Improve organization readability and administration and they above all they avoid any added burden on
development. We want to steer clear of any Senate Bill 180 um implications. So essentially the standards that you see um are kind of a repackaged just to be a little bit more readable um more
implementable over time but there are a few things and I'll point those out that we're doing that are also not burdensome on development. So the next slide is the maximum density standard. So, the Cody River Landing future land use category
was adopted in I believe 2024 and it allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre and it requires the development within that land use category to proceed through a planned unit development zoning. So, the PUD district limits
residential density to 18 dwelling units per acre. So you can see where it's not high enough to really be able to implement that Cody River Landing future land use category. Next slide please. Um the next thing that is for your
consideration, it was brought up a second ago regarding the five acre minimum. Today the planned unit uh development district requires five acres in order to be eligible for a planned unit development. So this draft retains
that 5 acre minimum but as an option for your consideration is that it allows consideration of smaller sites when the city council uh recognized that as um when it's approved by the city council as part of a PUD res. So in that case it
would be a more flexible alternative for smaller infill and redevelopment um opportunities. It would reduce barriers to the use of the PUD for those qualifying infill and redevelopment projects and it always allows the city council to evaluate whether a smaller
site can actually achieve the PUD uh district objectives. Next slide please. Just as an example um next slide please. >> Sorry my bad. >> So the next example is a one. It's a a
n3 acre redevelopment site in downtown Safety Harbor. And you can see on the front there's a three-story um building which has retail on the bottom and offices up up on top. And then in the back down the street which is also part
of this same 93 acre development are three stories of um luxury apartments. So those are 28 28 I think 28 residential homes in the back. So it's just a kind of a repres or an illustration of what you can do on one
acre essentially. Now this isn't a downtown parking's a little bit more of a unique situation because you do have some on street parking. the developer actually provided the angle parking in the back and then you can see in the I think if you go to the next slide s
you can see those two buildings there and the the parking is actually interior of the lot aside from the um street parking just a representation and the next slide
there's also a question regarding the special exception use prohibition um there is something that's in your your current PUB standards today that says that special exception uses are not permitted in a a planned unit
development district. And the draft revision is proposing to delete that. And the reason is that permitted uses are established when you approve the planned unit development resoning and the concept plan. So the use approval is already addressed within the development
of those regulations and special exceptions by their nature are tied to a specific I'll call it the uklitian or standard zoning district. So upon your PUD resoning those underlying zoning districts are replaced. They're no they're no longer referred to anymore.
So the special exception use doesn't feel like it's doing anything in this particular case um except for being a little bit confusing to me anyway. So something for you to think about as we press on. So our discuss discussion topics. Next please. Um should the
maximum density be tied to the applicable future land use category or should it be stated specifically within the planned unit development district? Today it says the maximum is 18 units per acre. And that's because all of your land use categories in the city were up
to 18 units per acre. uh it doesn't need to be restated, but it was felt at the time I guess it was um worthwhile to put that in there. Now you have some land use categories that are 18 and one land use category that allows up to 40. So clean way to do that would say refer to
your underlying future land use category for the maximum density. So that's something to otherwise we're going to have to say maximum density is 40. Um I guess you could do that too. So uh so is the deletion of the special exception
prohibition appropriate given that permitted uses are established by the PUB reszoning. So individual PUDs have their own list of uses um that apply. The next consideration is should flexibility be provided for qualifying
infill and redevelopment projects below the 5 acre minimum site area requirement. The next topic is do the provisions addressing the existing PUDS and future modifications provide sufficient clarity
and continuity. So those were for PUDs that are already on the books and what what applies to them going forward. And then also how do you modify a PUD? So if you have a PUD on the books and somebody says I would like to have different types of uses. if it's um if it meets
the criteria for being substantial, it would need to come back to the planning zoning board and also the city council to have that um modification and that's on the books today. It's the same the same that's um always been there. And then lastly, do the revisions improve
the readability, clarity, and ease of administration of the PUD district? So, next is the recommendation and that's for the the board to provide staff with um comments regarding the
draft revisions, identify any desired changes or refinements to provide policy direction on those key issues that I mentioned and then direct direct staff to prepare a zoning text amendment for formal public hearing consideration. And
I will add that we do have a PUD application that was received um I think late the week before last. So um that PUD which is in the Cody River Landing future land usees category uh would need to have this adjustment done to allow it
to move forward. We would bring this back to Go to the next slide please. So we would bring that back to the planning and zoning board um by next month if if that's possible. I think it is. Uh we would incorporate your direction, package it
all up and bring it back and then start those public hearing processes and that's all that I have. So ready to answer your questions. >> So are we are we looking at this because of the application as well?
the application that's coming in in order for it to be we we can't allow anything above 18 units per acre and I believe they're coming in at around 23 units per acre if I'm not mistaken. So they would not be uh consistent with your planned unit development. We
wouldn't be able to apply PUD but they're required to have PUD because of the future land use category. So there might be some consistency >> we must we must update at least the density. So that's up to you too. If you want to just up update the the density
and leave the rest of the revisions on the table, that's that's uh something that you could also consider. >> What did we do at the waterfront district? It was 18 and we raised 40 prevents us from doing that again. So,
right now it has a future land use category that allows up to 40, but now we're addressing the zoning because the future land use category requires that it be a PUD resoning. So, in order for them to be able to
achieve what they want to do, which is 23 units per acre thereabouts, they would need to have that 18 units per acre that's on the books today increased to 40. So, and that's harder to do than just
>> than what you're proposing here or >> so what so what I did was to go through your we've been looking at this for a few months. So, I've gone through it and looked at your code to see if there was anything that that could be updated to be modernized to be better organized to
be more readily interpreted when we're doing when you guys are doing your work when staff's doing its work. So what I'm saying is at minimum we need to have the density increased. The other strike through and underline, we can leave those on the table if you'd like. If
there's like bits and pieces that you like versus don't like, we can What I'm saying is you can slice and dice this how you'd like accept the density. We must proceed with the increase of the PUB maximum density. So, circling back.
>> I was going to say if I could propose maybe putting back the discussion points and maybe just take them one at a time and that might be easier than >> So, circling back around to when we when we dealt with landing, there was discussion the question was brought to I
believe your office regarding what did the other communities waterfront communities in particular allow for maximum density and at the time I think we had discussed that I think Tarpon Springs was the most and I think it was 35 or 40 units per acre. Um but everybody else was sitting between 25
and 30 and so we were actually very we were very restrictive in the city comparatively at 18. >> That's correct. >> So if we adjusted ours for future development because I know of several parcels that
people are going to try to build on. The thing is is that you have you have adopted a future land use category that allows up to 40 units per acre and the properties must have a planned unit development zoning. So we must have a
zoning that's consistent with that category. >> So that there's no really there's no discussion about the interim unless you're ready to change the comp plan and reduce that down to something that you're if you're thinking between 18 and 40. But we've already established that
40 units per acre is Cody River Landing Future Landing. >> Cody River Landing, but that's not the rest of the city, >> right? But so if this if this development for instance over off of Edid, right, which I know there's a large parcel of there. >> This is only in the Cody River Landing F
Cody River Landing future land use category. Those are the only ones that would be able to tap into that 40 units per acre. If you put 40 units per acre in the zoning code, it could give the impression if I get a PUD, I can go to
40. But if you do it the way that I've stated it in the revisions, it says refer to your land use category for what your maximum density is. And that's what I would recommend. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Sounds like we're just making it match. >> Yes.
>> It should have been done simultaneously, >> right? Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm reading through I'm reading through all the red and and then look listening. I mean, it sounds this is just us catching up with zoning map to match that because we do have the caveat that yes, we're we're changing PUB standards, but only within
the future land use bank. >> Where's the linkage to our utilities to be able to know what we can handle on this? I mean, we've already got a a water system that's taxed because it's not upgraded. And now you're act saying,
well, yeah, we can add 40 units here. We can have so many eight units an acre here, but where's the correlation for us to get with the utilities department and say, hey, we don't really have the water to supply that. >> We do that during the PUD%. >> So we the whole reason to have a PUD
standard is that the people can come in and they can go, okay, I can build up to X, but in order to activate that, I now have to go through the PUD process where we that's when we get to go in and go, that's fine. We're willing to allow you to build to X density, but this is what
it's going to do to our utilities. This is what we're requiring you to put into our utilities in order to get approval for this. So, it's same thing we uh when they built the the parcel between Avala Bay that caught on fire, the parcel between Avala Bay and the and Pelican um
when they wanted that guy came in and wanted to develop that. Um part of the discussion between the building department and that developer was that's fine. We'd love to see you develop that and turn that into something, but you're going to continue Richie,
which used to drawn as though it goes through there. you're you're going to put that road in and you're going to put all the appropriate drainage in to drain that corner back out across to where the water is. Here's all the things the city wants for you to be allowed to do that
development in that space. Um, and that's what we're always that's what the state the entire state should be doing that. That's the problem we have is that we have development going on in places that no one's paying attention to how it's going to affect watershed and everything else outside of that neighborhood. And now you're seeing the
state start to step in and go, "Oh, we need to think about this on a broader scale." And that's what we did when we did the future land use. That was why she put so much time into it was to make sure that we were covering every possible place that someone could try to sneak something in without having to go
through sitting down and going with the city and talking about how's it. Okay, great. You're going to put this thing in. You're going to bring all these residents in. Guess what? You're upsizing the mains >> from the wells. We have though is a good percentage of our utilities, our city
utilities are servicing other areas that we have absolutely no control over what somebody's going to develop. It's going to put a higher tax >> what on our property where we really have trouble servicing our own community because guess what I mean? We've got
water all the way up into Hudson right now that we're having to supply. So, anybody who wants to go into Pasco County and say, "Hey, I want to put another 600 units up here, I'm over here helping redevelop River Ridge Country Club." That's 184 acres.
We have 8,000 new homes going in over there, but the county is controlling all of it, even though some of it would normally be classified as Newport Richie. and they've got no say at all in how all this is going to be handled. Uh
we're in that same position right now. You've got so much potential development outside with our own city limits that has to be serviced by our water company and our wells. Well, that's why we're working this specifically is that's why we made this part of the overlay. Um but
that's what the other the other part that we brought in was talking about that that's the annexation portion, right? is that we're trying to annex in those properties, trying to bring those properties under our code enforcement, all the things that we currently service with utility. I mean, that's I think one of the next points, but yeah,
>> every building permit has if it's issued at the county or if it's issued to the city, somebody needs to look to see if there's available capacity. The state of Florida requires that there be water available for that on day one. So, you can't get a certificate of occupancy if there's not water. For larger projects,
we do a development like a buildout and we do the multiplication and we see is there capacity there and that's that's a routine across from site plan all the way to a building permit to to determine is there water who's providing the
water. If the county is doing their permitting, they will get in city is the provider of the water. They will coordinate with the city to say is there water there? So, um, especially if it's a good development. >> Yeah, I don't see any reason why we
wouldn't. >> No, it's it just needs to happen. >> Yeah, this just needs to be added to address that so that it matches that >> what all that time we already did. >> So, we'll go ahead and refer to the underlying future land use category for the maximum density allowable in the
PUB. Okay. The next one, um, do you think it makes sense to do to do away with the special exception prohibition because the the set of uses that are allowed in a PUD are established as part of the reasoning. So those they're
essentially making their own list of categories. >> I don't think it needs to be redundant >> and you'll have time. >> There is redundancy in that obviously. Uh the next one, what do we think about keeping the five acre minimum site
requirement with the ability to of city council to be able to lower that for >> agree 100% >> qualifying? That was I think that was for the entire group that was the consensus across the board >> and then um the other ones were more
generic. So do the provisions exist uh addressing existing PUDS? I know that the standard within the code today refers to a an an ordinance that was adopted maybe in I don't know when it was but um we'd have to like a look at
that. I don't think there's any um burden that would be placed on an older PUD having to comply with this because it's really not changing any of the standards. If anything, it's just giving it a higher density um and just clarifying some things. So, I don't
think there's any implications for what was approved in the past and what would be on the books today, but we can we can delve into that more deeply if we need to. Um, >> Tam, you talking about from a from the acreage reduction?
>> No, no. Like for instance, um, you know, was there something some filing requirement, application requirement that we changed? So if somebody comes forward and they want to modify their PUB, do they have to do some higher
level of analyses or whatever, but nothing's being proposed in here that would be uh an additional burden because we're trying to keep under that Senate Bill 180 thing. This is essentially just saying that we're we're reconfiguring, reorganizing, but everything that is of
consequence is the same. You know, there's no added requirements. There's we're of course increasing the density, >> right? >> But that's not a burden. That's a >> well for for that area down there. Just so you all know, if you if you monkey with that acreage in the water for older
district, you can have 40 units per acre under PUD. So if you lower the the the acreage for the PUD, say one acre, you'd have a 1acre parcel that could have 40 units of density in it. So and that was the reason that construct was put in originally was is to protect and not have things that are overly dense. you
need to have five acres in order to get some kind of density uh because you the public's not going to get a lot of a private acre property if you put a 40 unit development per acre down there. So think about that as you look at that. >> Let me see what that
safety harbor >> seeside right now has in their real estate thing which they shouldn't. They're saying that you can access this acreage and they cannot for that property. But for instance, what happens if um somebody has um 4.99 acres?
>> They couldn't get it right. >> They just couldn't get it. They have >> the idea is to send enough property to get five acres and then you will >> that's that's the concern. The problem is is infill, right? That's why it is what if you've got if you've got something being developed this direction
and something being developed that direction and the piece of property between them is only three acres. Yeah. Now you've got something nice and big being built this direction and something nice and big being built this direction and this can't access it. This can't be part of that same flow and same same
setup because it's a parcel that doesn't meet this requirement. But it would be require the city to actually go through and verify why that needs to be done. Not just >> And also keep in mind that parking is a big constraint on a site, a oneacre
site, you can only go as high as your parking will allow you. So it's really constrained by that unless there's a shared parking garage or something like that. Um but we can we can I understand what you're saying. So, um, we we could
provide more detail when we get into it if that's a direction that you want to go in. We're just throwing >> you have an existing, for example, trailer park. >> We've got a couple of those that we've looked at as far as redeveloping for more tiny homes. Uh, they're already
grandfathered in. Their density levels are already established. They each have individual water meters. They each have their own individual uh, electric meters. They're all set, but they're not the 40 foot wide minimum land width of
the lots >> obviously that we already have. >> Those are grandfathered for trailers, but we're trying to get rid of mobile homes and put in more >> more stable structures. Mhm. >> Would that go ahead and just still be
allowed at the same density it exists today if you were going to redevelop it or does that have to come in as a brand new PUD to be reconsidered with a whole different ratio of units per acre? >> If they were going to come through for a
PUD, they would have their underlying future land use category. It would be 18 units per acre. no change because they're not in the Cody River Landing District. Cody Cody River Landing is a category that's available only within
Cody River Landing and it's only applied to those properties that have asked for a future land use plan amendment. So, we only have a few properties right now that are coming in for their PUB resoning that have a future land use category. That's Cody Riverland. Those
are the only ones that tap it can tap into the 40 units per acre. Everything else in the city is going to be the same. It's eight up to 18 units per acre. If there's a mobile home park, um I'm not quite sure what the non-conforming use requirement or a non-conforming
Yeah. lots requirement would be. I need to look I need to look at that specifically. But if they wanted to come in for a PUB, they would be limited to whatever their future land use category is in terms of residential, and that would be 18 units per um yeah, 18 units
per acre. Also, whenever we say maximums, those are maximums. Everything else ratchets away at that. How much parking you need, what are your buffers, what are the environmental. So, it's just a it's a a total cap and everything else needs to play together to actually
work out what can be what can be um accomplished on a development site. >> Let the record show um Mike FZ has to step out now that 237. >> Yeah, sorry. I've got a I've got construction issue going on that
unfortunately needs me. Thank you. Apologies. Sorry. >> Thank you. Bye. Bye. >> Sorry about that, guys. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> One other comment if I could. Um on the PUD that's been submitted to the city, is that PUD just a portion of eight and
a half acres that the first phase? Because I understand that PUD is for the entire 8 and a half acres. And the reason I asked that is because >> it is >> they if they're at 23 per acre, it's only on that one small um area. If you if you spread that across eight and a
half acres, you're going to be under the 18. So, do we have a timing issue on there being able to move forward with that change or not? >> So, we just I I only know that the the number I heard was 23 units per acre or
22 >> and that's on the the 5 acre parcel. 4 point something acre parcel. I don't I don't know for certain because we just before they were showing us the residential and then the rest of it came in recently. So I haven't like crunched the numbers yet to see what it is but it could be.
>> So in so that's my question basically in general let's say that they actually have eight and a half within that PUD construct >> and they're only developing that first phase and they're 23 in that first phase but they're actually if you spread across 8 acres they're 16 or whatever it is. >> They have some residential on the other parts too.
>> Are they showing that though? I don't >> in there. Okay. See, I can see it myself. So, >> I know I need to like crunch through that. So, but even if that's the case that they come in at less than 40, somebody else could come in at 40. Right now, we have a regular we have a fixed
plan that says 40, but we have nothing that we can implement it with in terms of zoning. >> No, that needs fixed for sure. I just from a timing perspective, I know they're pushing forward other things. I just want to make sure that we aren't >> Yeah, we're we're going to beat we're going to beat them to the Yes, that was the intent. That's why we're doing this
now, so we can beat them to the finish line. >> Okay. >> Do you need anything else for the PUD? Any more questions? >> Oh, yes. >> There was one more point, I think. Right. >> Okay. So, we're going to we're going to take away the special exception. We're
going to do a little bit more research on that five acre and see what the full implications of that are. Um, and then I'll also spend some more time thinking through if a dated PUB came forward with like a modification of what that would mean. I don't think there's any change
in that though. And that's it. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> How would the ex thinking about changing the five acres where they could ask the council to make an exception to the five acres? Okay.
But does that have to go through the planning and zoning board first? I would say yes. It would have to go through planning and zoning. >> Absolutely 100%. Okay. >> And it could be something as minor as a
and the reason I started thinking about it because that little parcel that's south of Treadway is not included in this overall scheme. So concept plan and I was like, well, this is going to be out there by itself. It's got future land use category, but it's unusable.
Oh, the one right next to the fire. >> Yes. >> Little parcel. Yeah, they include that. >> I don't think that's in there. >> That's interesting. >> Yeah. So, anyway, we more to to uh be provided later. Thank you. And we'll go on to our next one, which is the
voluntary annexation policy and procedures manual. Let me get my slides up. Okay. Let's go to the next slide s. Thank you. So the purpose of this discussion item
is to introduce uh the draft annexation policy and procedures framework and the phase annexation approach to discuss that um to discuss everything of course but discuss the phase annexation approach in particular and obtain your
direction um for any modifications to the documents for city council consideration and actually for the plan and zoning board consideration going forward because you would would they Don would They say yes they would because you guys are the official annexation
board. Is that correct? The charter. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Switch your hats now. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So the next slide please. So why annexation? So to expand and strengthen your municipal tax base to be able to
align your city boundaries with your municipal service areas because not all cases are your m your municipal service areas within the city. uh to support redevelopment and economic development objectives to improve longterm term
fiscal sustainability eliminate any irregular boundaries and uninorporated enclaves were appropriate and to establish a proactive annexation strategy that rather than just a casebyase approach.
Next slide please. So what does the uh manual do? Next slide. Part one is the draft um policy framework. It has annexation goals and priorities that the city would um would
direct their actions. It would target specific geographies and phasing within the um uh annexation area. Um it would have fiscal and service u delivery expectations and then it would have
decision-making criteria for city council. Part two, next slide includes the administrative procedures. So, what staff would use staff and legal um to determine eligibility
under chapter one uh chapter 171 Florida statutes and also uh within the city code to look at fiscal and service analysis to look at land use and zoning coordination and then also what the public hearing and implementation
procedures because those are specific to annexations per chapter 1714 statute. Next slide. So the key principles of this manual would be to focus on voluntary annexation. So that would be an
agreement with a property owner and the city to uh to include those properties within the municipal boundaries of the city of Fort Richie. Uh to require a fiscal and service feasibility review. So to understand what would be needed to
be able to to serve those to fully serve those parcels and making sure that the property owner is aware of all of the um the costs associated with coming into the city uh to coordinate annexation and future land use and zoning. Those
properties that come into the city would be coming in with county and also um county um future land use and zoning. So, as they came into the city, we'd need to do amendments to to get them on the city program uh to ensure that
annexations provide long-term benefits. Uh not all not all properties are the same. Some are um requ have more needs than others. Uh but it is important that uh with the statutes that you cannot um you have to annex reasonably compact
areas. So you can't necessarily jump your way around to get to like the more uh lucrative or um u I guess the better properties they call it cherry-picking. So it needs to be more of a compact arrangement. Uh you need to avoid uh
service uh creating service inefficiency. So you need to make sure it makes sense from a water and sewer and streets and all the different types of services that the the city provides. And then uh promoting those logical compact municipal boundaries. So it's
always like a question. I know Fort Richie and Newport Richie in general, you've got these giant unincorporated areas that are called Fort Richie, but there's a city out of and you know, I don't know that annexation is going to resolve that issue, but it can resolve for some people as to understanding are
we in the city, are we not in the city by kind of rounding off those boundaries. So the next slide is the proposed annexation strategy. We're looking at a phased implementation approach that includes a phase one and then future phases. The phase one would include
industrial parcels, commercial parcels, strategic enclave areas, and any properties that are utility adjacent uh that are also contiguous with the city limits. For future phases, the city's thinking of looking at US 19 corridor
opportunities, additional enclaves and boundary um kind of rounding off processes, and then looking at residential and mixeduse areas that that may require more detailed analysis and consideration. So the next slide is the phase one
annexation areas and the advantages of this compact area that's um generally east of Congress Street and set my glasses and south of Bridge Road. I was thrown by East West. I don't know why I have a problem with that. uh the
implementation advantages uh fewer compatibility concerns, proximity to municipal services and infrastructure, a positive uh fiscal return and you did have a spreadsheet I believe within your packet that you could see some of the
the financials associated with that. It supports redevelopment and economic development goals of the city. improves the municipal boundary uh continuity eliminating um well the phase one would also include these enclave areas
throughout the city. I believe there are 200 parcels that are included in a spreadsheet within your your packet. Um and then it would be a manageable implementation effort. So, kind of like as the city starts to just get going on these, it's like we can kind of see how
it goes without like biting off more than um you could possibly chew at sometimes. So, this is kind of a a strategy to get us going. The next slide is parcel evaluation factors. So for each
parcel we would look at its uh eligibility under chapter 171 relative to compactness and and um contiguousness with the city. Um oh what's the second one there? looking at service delivery
implications, utility considerations, fiscal implications, redevelopment potential, whether there's interest by the property owner, very important, and then looking at the long-term um public benefit. So, the next slide is for the planning
and zoning board discussion. Does the draft framework establish a clear and workable annexation process? Are the proposed annexation priorities appropriate? Should industrial, commercial, and the
enclave areas remain the initial focus? Are the fiscal and service review requirements appropriate? And our additional annexation areas or criteria recommended. And the next slide is what our recommendation is is that the planning
and zoning board review and discuss the draft policies and procedures. look at the phase organization approach, provide any comments or directions um that you can offer and then we would package the revisions up um bring it back to you at
a um is that for that's a public hearing as well for the adoption. Yeah, >> public hearing with planning and zoning board and of course a public hearing with city council >> and that's what I have. And then of course um the city manager is very very
involved in this and so I'm sure he can answer any of the tough questions that I can. >> Yeah, just just to give some some thought as we go through this kind of thought of this as a strategy as we move forward for annexation is one it's it's important for Fort Michigan for many reasons.
Um, I won't name them all, but what I looked at is I is is is I I worked with the team here to kind of look at what would be an annexation strategy that would that would be feasible, acceptable, and real
realistic, you know, as we start this process. Um, kind of outlined a couple of areas that that introduced themselves as being immediatable to being annexed, which was the industrial district. Now there's been a gap in communication since then due to elections and other
things. So just waiting to finalize that. But partners that want to participate in this and then looking at enclaves that actually touch the city and making them part of that process which will allow us in our strategy as we develop this thing is is be able to build this thing and be able to because
there's going to be some what we refer to as you're going to be learning as you go on the model. a lot of the this this this process here, but we figured this would be the simplest and easiest way to go through this process. And then I look at it also as a campaign plan too to
promote annexation as we move forward. So, as we take, let's say, um, the industrial district, maybe there's that main road that runs through there that we can do some improvements on, be able to get there, do some improvements. So, when people see that we're annexing, they're actually getting
value by being a member and of the community and the city. So, that's just kind of, you know, just in a nutshell kind of how I've kind of looked at it. And then as we annex those those portions and that 203 properties that enclave onto us, then start looking at
the uh the 19 corridor and the benefits that you know that that support the city as we move forward there. Not only the fact that we provide services, but also there's opportunity to bring you know those uh unincorporated areas into you
know Fort Richie and and as of right now we do provide services. there's not really a demand on it, but is that we do it in a phased process um as mentioned by by Tammy here. I think that's something that's that's that's suitable and feasible and it goes back to also
there's going to have to be services provided and as we work that process so that you know as the city grows the services grow with it but if we grow appropriately within the annexation strategy we will never outrun our service requirements. So as we build it,
it supports to serve and then we just continue to develop the process. And my vision as I as I sat and thought about it um would be, you know, kind of everything kind of north of Massach north of Massachusetts,
uh east a little and then north of 52 and then to the to the west coast and then looking at what we could gather in that area. I know it's a lot. It's ambitious because I believe it's $9 billion in in taxable revenue is what it came out to be. So I'm not sure what the
turnaround with that what that would have been tax avalorum back to the city as far as funding. But it's also a large piece of annexation require you know at some point you would you'd probably outgrow Newport Richie at that point. So, this discussion's been had multiple
times the long as I've sat here, we've had this conversation because one of the one of the responsibilities of a successful PNZ board is to go out and find citizens that want an annex annex in the city,
right? We've never done that, even though it's been brought to our attention multiple times. We've had the conversation. The last time we had this conversation, which I believe was last year, we had this conversation. It was I brought a very real scenario that had happened locally. There's a parcel
across the street from us, >> literally across the street from us that I sold that parcel to a client of mine and it was a industrial/commercial parcel and he wanted to annex into the city. So I brought him in, had the conversation and the first thing the city was says, "Great, we're going to
hand you a check. You hand you a bill for $10,000." And he was like, "What are you talking about? Bill for $10,000?" He said, um, you have to connect to our services. And he had just put a brand new septic on this property. And as such, to be able to annex the city, he had to connect to
sewer. And there was no conversation even had at that point. He was like, great, have a nice day. I'm not going to give you any more tax money and write your check for $10,000 when I just spent $9,000 putting a new septic g. And there was nobody that could answer the question for me or the or the client,
right? >> And so I brought that to to everybody's attention last year. We need to find a way to kind of work with those citizens, right? So, is there a way that we can slowly phase them in or we can find out as their existing systems for instance are failing then we tie them into our
our to our programs, you know, because they're going to we're going to find that especially as we head south towards Massachusetts because I agree that entire corridor should belong to us. We should be there, right? all the way from 19 from basically if you drew a straight line from Congress all the way to 52
that should be sitting here too right after 19. But I think we're going to find that is going to be a real that's going to be a real hurdle for us if we don't figure out a way to work through that. And I don't think we got any further with that. Do we? >> Yeah. >> I think this is the first Well, the reality of it is this is the first time that you've actually had somebody apply
a strategy and put together%. So with this, we've actually got a policy and a strategy and procedures in place that we can work with and that we can work with, you know, the PZ board in order to adjust because like you said, this is going to be a phased process and there's
things that have to be done in order to phase the process in or there will be no growth. >> Correct. >> Because we will we will basically tie our hands in the entire process of moving forward. But at some point, you know, as we do this, at least build in our policies that after a certain period
of time, you know, you have to you have to convert over or we we work away for that process to occur. But from just I kind of take from a big picture down looking and then from there like you said there's those other small items
that are going to be those I gotas as we try to do the annexation piece of getting those properties to commit because I've had residents come and say I want to annex and we look at them like you know you're really not in Fort Richie you're like >> three streets down and two over but we'd
love to bring you in but we can't >> but being able to have a process where we can but then where you say like they have septic tanks. There's a lot of septic tanks in this area. You know, I've come to realize that with just a lot of the community members that I've dealt with. Um, we've got to have something that allows
us to, you know, to to network them in. And then eventually, whether it be new construction occurs, road development, let's say we're working storm water, storm water management development, maybe in those processes, we're able to provide those services that at least
have a linkage to. Um, but those are those are some of the larger strategy things we look at as we do grow this. And that's going to be that that process. But what we wanted to do is provide you a strategy, at least realistic goals, and then a
phase process to at least show you, hey, this is this is something moving forward that you can physically touch, physically move, and physically adjust so that we can go from being poor Richie to being poor Richie. >> Correct. >> Agree 100%. Well, Colonel, one of the
things that Matt mentioned to us when he was doing this is that when we provided water to these outlying areas, those developers had agreed in writing to become part of the city of Port Richie.
Now, whether it's in a contiguous manner or not, they'd already made that agreement. Now, I know that was a long time ago, but that sets a predicate for us to say, "Hey, you know, you had an agreement. You're supposed to come in. Can we not
go ahead and find a way to enforce that and bring them in without this? Let's go through all this voluntary annexation." >> Once they become contiguous, >> be pardon. >> Once they become contiguous to the city limits, you can process the annexation
because they have an agreement that's already in place. But if they're not contiguous and you don't have a special annexation area outlined with the county, um that could allow you to >> How can we find out which agreements were still in place at that time?
>> I would have to go to city staff and ask them because I was not part of that. >> Look at that. I I know nothing of any agreements that have been made >> that that that are physically on hand. I'd have to go to S for that for for any historical agreements, but I I I
honestly believe this is something that we're going to have to start over. >> You're talking about that you when they took on your utilities, part of that taking on our utilities was that they agreed to annex. Remember we talked about that, Nancy? And you question the legality of being able to do that so far back forward and and Matt met with the
county manager who already said, "We'll be glad to get rid of all the enclave properties. Just take them over." >> Yeah. So that's should eliminate a lot of that friction. But >> told us all here that >> you still have to do this process like you don't need the written policy but
you still have to go through the ordinance and do those things to that. >> You can't be can't create agreement with a bunch of people that did that did hook up, but if if this gentleman's hooked up and this one's
not, he's contiguous to us. We can't get him till we get him. If you do have an agreement though to hang your hat on, once it becomes contiguous, you can do this process. You don't have to worry about getting >> approval from the property owner because they've already approved. They said,
"We're coming into your city once we become contiguous." >> Taylor, >> it depends on what the agreement is. >> Does their agreement say it has to be contiguous? >> We haven't seen the agreements. question along with what he's talking about with the water.
Right now, when we're providing water outside of the city, is there like a long-term contract attached with that that we're agreeing we are under contract to provide water for 20 years? >> Water, you're on the hook for water. I don't think >> it's a perennial contract that we're
obligated to provide water. >> Yeah. One of the bigger challenges is and as we look at annexation because because potential for us to annex annex portions of the county that have county water supplies, they're going to continue to be on county water because
it's the the cost of changeover would be exponential that the city couldn't afford to do and it wouldn't even be worth annexation. So what you're saying is >> once they're in our system, they're in our system. I mean, for them to change out would be astronomical for them to go into county water, unless county built
pipes right next to us and decided that they wanted to compete for that utility, which I don't think they want to do. >> And then if they're outside of the city, do they pay the same rates that are inside the city? >> 25% up charge. >> There is up charge. Okay. So, could that be an incentive for them to be annexed
to give them a >> reg to take that away? So, >> but we could we up to Annie and say we're going to discontinue water if you don't annex. >> Can't do that. >> You can't can't agree with the utility. >> Who says that? >> I'm sure the state says that >> once you provide the utility, you have
to continue to provide the utility unless >> we still benefit from the utility. So, I don't want to get rid of the utility. >> Yeah. >> And we're making money off it. So, we are. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to think of a >> to strengthen the package offering to >> Well, it and and that's the important piece and that's and that's and that
becomes part of the strategy. That's that's where city manager and team we all get together and we build that. You know, why is it important to be part of for Richie? Because, you know, the reality of it is if you look at their own county taxes, they're paying 7 to 10%. They come for Richie, they're going
to pay 13%. So, how do I offset that cost in their mind to the benefits they get, you know, as being a member of the city? One, you get a fire department that's dedicated that can provide you rapid services opposed to county services. I beat county services by four minutes every time. I've got an on on
location police department, professional, ready, rapid, easily deploy. They're there. Matter of fact, if you're a business owner, guess what we do every every evening? I've got my law enforcement officers going out and checking all your business. Make sure that they're locked, secured, nobody's trying to rob. That's for for a business
point of view. Uh for our residents, you know, what are we providing our residents? You got to look at that. You know, part of our CRA development. And if CRA continues and we're able to expand that, you know, if they become part of that development piece that falls into CRA development, they're
going to see projects and and development in their areas. you know, uh, being a part of our community. Guess what? All those roads that were neglected and you got, you know, areas that are that are really bad. Hey, guess what? Now that you belong to a city, we now have responsibility for your
infrastructure, your support, and and the repair. So, guess what? Somebody's going to have to come out here and take a look at this and invest in fixes. So, it it it takes a lot of the burden of what they have and and helps that. And I'll tell you an example. uh previous
job I had um we were very efficient at hurricane recovery. So efficient that we were the first ones complete after the hurricanes occurred by months. >> Wow. >> But the problem was is everybody around me was uninorporated. And then they were like, "Hey, how come you haven't come
pick up my stuff yet?" And I said, "Well, it's because you're not arrested, but if we decide to annex, we would love to come pick up your stuff." So it was a benefit to them to jo to become a part of city just because of the hurricane damage and and and and the resources we put in place for recovery for them. And
it was like, "Hey, when you hear this being mentioned, remember you want to vote into this because when something bad happens to you, I've got your back and I'll take care of you in those unincorporated areas where we already are supplying water.
Can we legally uh deny adding any additional water for developments in those areas unless they become annexed? >> You could you could have an agreement. I mean, if somebody doesn't have water
today, but they want to have water tomorrow, you could have a policy that says in order to I I'm pretty sure that's how those agreements work, right? I think the code already has that language that if they have the water, they agree to same circle. They agree to
be annexed, but we can't annex them until they're contiguous. >> Unless, >> right, >> unless we created a moratorum to stop without and then having, you know, putting that in place, pending agreements with each individual developer under review. That's and none
of that language is in the code. So basically, if someone was to develop tomorrow, we're obligated to provide that service. If we're the closest line and the city of Porici can provide to that customer, then we need to do that. I mean, by law, we would have to unless we unless we put something in place and
write it saying that we're going to do this starting moving forward because of the demand. If the demand now becomes an issue, >> which this has happened in other places, but I think I believe Brooksville is is already um in the process of establishing it um and Zephr Hills has had an issue has has had an issue with
it before. Well, Zephr Hills has already stopped any residential permits at all. >> Yeah. So, they're >> they're already under that because they're exceeded demand. >> So, and and and the thing is that getting back to what we talked about earlier, um you know, usually usually when a developer comes to the table, you
know, we'll ask them for, you know, flow analysis, stuff like that on top of what we're already doing in our our numbers. So, the thing is that we're only permitted to pump out, you know, to to pump so much a month. We can't exceed that by law by by the permit that the
city has, we can't go past that. So even if even if we have the water in our wells, we have to we are only allowed to go up to what our permit requires. Right now we're under that. So and I don't think that any recent development is going to cause a ma a major change in that. But but it will become a problem.
It will become something if it, you know, continues to expand. So we'd have to definitely look into something in the future. Can the city council go ahead and and set that moratorum that you just suggested so that if you're not part of our city, we uh we don't have to honor
tapping into our water supply because of the demand and the future demand we will have. >> I'm sure they'd have to go, you know, consult with legal to make sure that to stop something. Moratorium is to pause while you actively investigate, research, analyze what you're doing. So
it wouldn't just be we're not doing it. it would be we're not doing it and here's all the studies we're going to do and whatever you know whatever needs to be done which is obviously going out to bid paying contracts hiring experts that can analyze those issues so until you're ready to do that you don't even talk but
>> there's also there's also two issues that that that that we need to address is one capability for that growth do we still have the capability as we expand and that's one of the things we're going to have to look at in the near future because if we're very successful we're going to outrun our water plan. It's
just it's just going to happen. Um but in the same breath as there's communities that need water, that's a utility fee that we collect. So, you know, to turn it off, you know, that you're tying my hands by
saying, you know, you can't have that money, which, you know, the city desperately needs, you know, every bit of revenue that it can obtain. Now I I would like to be able to get that revenue with a certificate of hey annexation once we are able to get you within our continuous lines because
that's the end state and so it'll be real easy to bring in but um our utilities do bring in a significant amount of funding that supports the city. So, you know, I really wouldn't want to turn anybody away because when
it comes to no more tax, no more abalum tax or property tax available, you know, in in certain price ranges, you know, at least I have services of, you know, water services that are at least supplementing some of that cost. >> I guess I misunderstanding because we
obviously service water well outside the city all the way up 52. Are you saying currently that those properties that are taking our water that's outside the city are geographically separated from the city? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So there's a there's a there's a line of geography that prevents us from be able
to access any of those. >> Yes. Right now >> there's a substantial line. >> A substantial line. >> There's a lot there's a lot of properties between that between that. >> So we we don't have outside of city water customer that's abuing city property. I find it hard to believe. No,
we do have that too, but there's but there's a lot outside of that as well, right? >> There may both without looking >> without looking directly in a map. There may be there might be, but like right now we were just we were just talking about that there's there are properties
right now within the city that are county and to take care of all those annex those properties in first and then begin, you know, expanding your outer circle. Now there there is um there may be there may be where as far as we go north we go our border line
is like um where the red red used to be that's our most northern line like where that restaurant was. Could we do we service water to that Firestone deal or whatever it is? Right. >> Yeah, we service water all everything on the west on the west corridor going all the way up the ranch road just north of
ranch road is what we service. So >> So that's continuous and so we have agreement in place with they took our water service if they would annex in seem like we get those at any time if that's valid still. >> Yeah. But you would have to start with the immediate property that's right on right on our board. >> And again line water line is connected
physically all the way through there. >> Yeah. and then continue. But yeah, but you'd have to annex those properties and work and stay continuous, if I'm correct, work your way up. >> Can't be linear. You can't run down the street. You have to kind of It has to be a reasonably compact area. So, you kind of you build, but um for instance, back
in the day, city of Clearwater ran out US19. It's a countryside and they they use US 19. So, there's rules about what's reasonably compact, but >> Well, right. I think given it again I think that's probably separate from an an a utility agreement that you've
already established that you will annex in. You shouldn't have to take everything around it if it's right. >> Well, you just have to be contiguous. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Has to be touching has to be >> I think we have that situation. We look at that >> in some Yeah. some
>> I have a question. I don't know who would answer. Has a city look close enough at the the financial benefit of annexing a piece of property? Would they have some kind of a pretty good idea what additional revenue would
come in? And then using that information, could we possibly offer a piece of property property owner an financial incentive? you know, even like, you know, half half price on your
in your property taxes for a year or five years or something like that. Well, I think I think that's something that we would have to work with because >> right now that state we're we're in a state of flux right now, especially with governor and everything because if you
look at the 203 properties that touch us that we want enclave that that physically would come and be annexed, >> their medium price is under $200,000, >> right? So if you look at 50,000 and
150,000 being non-t taxable, you know, revenue to us next year, the year after, am I really getting anything out of that or am I just or am I just generating space at this point? So it it's hard to say right now for me to give you an honest answer on on what the the cost
would be, but when I looked at little Massachusetts to little to 52 to west, that was $9 billion in in taxable um uh property tax. And so I looked at that and I said, "Okay, what that percentage is?" And it came a couple hundred million dollars that would would have
came back to the city that we would have invested ourselves in. But you know, what's that cost to us? What does what is is that enough? What does that mean to us? And does that help us provide the services and everything that we need to do if we did incorporate all that space? But to be able to give you the specifics
right now be very challenging and I'd be wrong. I'd be wrong on my first. I think the focus needs to shift from a value standpoint on let me help you save money because we're going to give you a discount. We shifted just using real estate for example. I literally have
customers that I show houses in the city of Port Richi and I I tout what our services are and what they get for that difference because the first thing they say is well if I go buy a house on Westshore in Gulf Harbors I'll pay 7%. But if I go buy a house on Harbor Point I'm paying, you know, 13%. What do I
get? Well, you get a fire department that responds faster. You get a police department that actually shows up. You you know I mean you get a building department where you can walk in and talk to a person. Yeah. I mean, you have all of those things that there's a value ad and you have to push the value ad. The same thing with annexation. You the guy across the street, he's like,
"Great. I I'm already paying the water bill. I'd like to go ahead and annex the property in there, so that propertyy's covered for my tenants in case there's a fire." >> Well, we're going to respond anyway because it's close to us. I get that. But we don't have a responsibility to respond to him.
>> And he wanted that being put on him. The problem was, of course, he walked in the door. He says, "Well, it's $10,000 to join to to add to the services." That was there was a disconnect. I couldn't I couldn't cross that chasm. But for the average person that we're going to go after, we have to push what they're
getting from us by having us as I said. >> So, >> so it did blow down the money. It sound like >> Well, the money offered to them for $5,000. >> I agree. Well, that's that was a services issue. It wasn't a taxable issue. You're talking about taxes. He was more than willing to pay the difference in taxes for the services. We
had to connect them to our wa to our water supply. I mean to our sewer system and that just didn't work for him after he just wrote a check for nine grand to fix this. >> But why do we have to? I mean >> because that's a that's the rule. And Veronica was following the rules. She said unfortunately annex you got to join. You got to be a variance on that
so we can bring these people in. I mean I've got the same thing. I've got a property up uh on Sandra Drive right up in 19. I have Fort Richie water. I have a Fort Richie address. But I am in the county
and that whole community over there is all septic no matter how you look at it. >> Right. >> And because of Come on, it's one of my houses over there. It's you talking about a house in $140,000 range. Trying to come up with $10,000 to do a hookup
is egregious to anything that we'd have to be able to get out of it for most of that community. Can we offer variances on those things to allow them to say, "Hey, you're grandfathered in. You have it. As long as it's serviceable,
you don't have to change. You know, you're getting our water already. You're getting Duke Energy already." I mean, why are we going to have to force you to put into our sewer system? >> It wouldn't be I'm sorry. It wouldn't be a variance in the legal sense of a variance. That's not
>> That's not what that would qualify for. We could look at whether the code can be changed and there may be a state statute that requires connections. I don't I'd have to look into that if it's just a code a city preference code provision. Maybe that's something you can modify. We would have to look at that >> because I know across the state of
Florida. I mean that that that that's going to be a problem set anywhere any county that you're in in Florida because most most of your most of your communities outside you know they get their water from somewhere but they're all in septic. It's just a fact. So how do you get them and how do you make them inclusive? Well, that may come back that we may have to look at some of our
policy. We may have to look at the state, see where the state provides variance with communities that that that are in county that are that that are looking incorporation because I'm sure there's there's law there. And then looking at how we evolve that into our annexation strategy to be able to make
it inclusive, even if it says, hey, you got 10 years to be on city water. I mean, to be plugged into the sewer system because that's basically what it comes down to. you're you've already got the water, but you're plugging into the sewer system unless you're on a well, >> right? >> Or is there a special assessment they could pay over there? Like there's ways
to modify. >> There's ways to modify. >> So, the problem was that that at that juncture staff was limited. Their hands were tied and said, "Unfortunately, this is the process and the customer didn't want to he didn't want to look any further." So, but if I went to him tomorrow and said, "Hey, we've worked through it. Would you like to inexit the
property?" He'll sign tomorrow. But I think I think what you've got now is you got a council that's creat you know what there's there's opportunity in everything that we do and and I think they see that and it just comes down to you know how we develop
that opportunity for that annexation when we have situations like that because it's everything's doable >> right >> you just how much risk you want to take in order to make that and is that risk worth the benefit you once we accomplish
you know that strategic goal we're going after and I think at the end of the day I think it it will I mean when when when you finally get the addexation and you get the contiguous design of what poor Richie should be for the area that it's in I think I think
the benefits are going to be pinful >> correct from a policy perspective on policy couldn't that be written in there as far as because you could have business uses like a gentleman's club we don't allow them in the city now we've got one right north of us if they were annex that business in um obviously they
wouldn't be able to come in with our current code couldn't annex that annexation policy take care of those things like the business type and all the different things that were outside of our code >> I don't think I understand the question >> well if you annex something in that doesn't fit >> right
>> right um obly you're bringing it in >> have an exception for if you're being annexed >> right if you're part of an annexation sewer if you have sewer you're accepted >> that's why I said we could look into that I don't know there may be state require governments that don't allow that. >> I don't know. I don't you have to change a code
>> in order to annex, >> right? >> No, but if and that's what if the if the policy that your your client ran into was a internal this building policy obviously that can be looked at. If it was something in the code policy that can be looked at and the ultimate question is it something coming down from the state that's requiring it and
once we have that answer then >> well there's a very specific answer. I just my computer have some kind of provision in place to handle those things. There's going to be exceptions. >> Wasn't Wasn't there a state requirement
at some point to for to bring in sewer along the waterfront? I don't know. >> I don't I know I feel like there's some state issues within this conversation. I just don't have my computer died on us and I don't know off the top of my head. So, we'll look into it. But this this
was to to to to get you guys started and and comfortable with the process. So with the voluntary portions of it that are currently available to the city, you know that you know with council approval and everything that we can start executing the expansion and then as we
we learn as we go because this is going to be a learn as we go process because this is the first time the city's grown since it its inception. So, what it'll allow us to do is as we do get these opportunities, we're going to see it all unfold and and and and
hopefully it it unfolds exactly as we map it out. And our and that's our job is is is to make sure for council and for you guys that we're mapping it out, you know, strategically so that it's successful as we move along so there's no real big hiccups. And if there are, we bring the hiccups to you. You guys
tell us which direction you want to go and make the adjustments. I mean, I think that the the benefits outweigh massively from a commercial and industrial standpoint for those people that are in those those type of properties and they'll fall like dominoes once we get the first one lying
out correctly. So, residential is a tougher issue, but serviceability, especially if there were agreements in place like Tammy said, if it's contiguous, which is what we have to get to, >> I think we're okay. I think with the I think with the tax thing it could
possibly pass too. I think I mean it's twofold, right? Do we want them because they're not going to be accreative. We're it's going to be a service drag, but they're going to be less apprehensive of joining because they're going to want those services because they're not paying for it anyway, right? So, I think that probably helps from
growth. But, >> and look at the countyy's increasing their taxes anyway. So, >> right. >> Eventually, we're going to >> How fast can we how how fast can we override this >> this uh >> septic tank issue because he's got clients. We'll jump right in. I mean,
that's something it's ready to go. I'll I'll sign that deal. >> Look at the statute. >> There will be an answer. I just need a computer that's working the time to look at it. >> Typically, it's a it's a state goal to get properties off of something. >> And I think that's going to be your
problem. I have a I have a feeling that there's going to be some state. >> I think the road paving is a big selling point because in the county it's assessed and in the city it's not >> and they don't get it. >> And also the police and fire is huge incentive and like embassy area they
have a lot of crime in that area. They would love to have police and fire more readily available. >> I'd like to go slowly to that one so I got my services increase. I can get that on. >> Exactly. >> No. Agreed 100%. Okay, great. >> All right. Do you need anything else
either of you? All right, then called it. My agenda is good. >> I will entertain any other motions as we near three. >> Motion to >> I have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> thank you guys. And it was a long one, but we had a lot
of catch up on. It's been a minute since we were sat there.