I'm going to go ahead and call the. I'd like to call a meeting of order. First. First order of business. Any cell phones, either put them on silent or shut them off. Thank you. At
this point in time, I'd like to go ahead and do the Pledge of Allegiance. A roll call for the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Chris
Curtis here. Mr. Vessey here. Mr. Zambellas. Please. Here. Mr. Rockline here. Miss Earley here.
Miss Swenson here. Miss Weaver here. Okay. I guess we could do the Pledge of Allegiance now. Do
the flag of the United States of America. The republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Please remain standing as at this point in time, I'd like to have Mr. Vessey give us up some moments
of reflection. For tonight's reflection. I have to admit, I'm happy because we're all here. But I'm sad. I'd like to
dedicate tonight's reflection to a neighbor and a friend and a citizen of Tarpon Springs that was tragically killed in an accident two weeks ago. Kevin
Glass again, my neighbor, was a long time resident of Tarpon. He was an art professor and he unfortunately was struck on his
bicycle riding to work. So I'd like everyone to take a moment and keep him and his now widowed wife in his thoughts. And I
bring up that kind of somber moment, because the work we do here in planning and zoning often touches on transportation, safety, and the best thing for
our residents. And I want this just to be a reminder that, as crude as it sounds, it's not all about the cars, and we have to work in planning and zoning to make sure that we're providing
equal access and protection to our walkers and bikers that we see more and more of all the
time. Amen. Amen. Okay. Item five on the agenda is basically the announcement of a quasi judicial and the swearing in of
speakers. Council. Obviously, this is my second time as chair and I'd like to do you give the presentation on on the of the
quasi judicial day trip today? Absolutely. This is the part of the meeting will be quasi judicial. Quasi judicial proceedings before the Planning
and Zoning Board. In that capacity, the Planning and Zoning Board acts as quasi judicial rather than legislative at a quasi judicial hearing. It
is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact
based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to a previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, in order to make
a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at the hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the
issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, and the board is required by law to
find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of
Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. Do you want me to go ahead and swear in? Please, if you're going to speak
tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the Planning and Zoning Board shall be the truth, so help you? I do.
Thank you. Okay. All right, moving on. Number eight on our agenda. Resolution 20 2515, conditional use for a gaming arcade in the highway business
zoning district. I'll turn it over to staff. Yes. Thank you. Pat McNeese, planning
supervisor. Before you start, is there any ex-parte disclosures or communications with regard to this particular item on the
agenda? Shortly after the last meeting, I did speak with brighter days, just to say just to keep in contact with Pat. So that was the extent of our
conversation. Okay. All right. All right. That's fine. That's not a conflict. Okay. Fair enough. And as and as we move forward, just just for clarity,
a little bit of housekeeping when we get to. I don't want to have to say this. Every time we go to another part of the agenda, just announce it that
you may have a any ex-parte ex-parte disclosures before we start. Number one. Number two, when staff has completed its presentation, the way I want to
try to do things may be a little bit different. When staff is done, I want to start at the end with questions. And we work our way through one time. And then once we work our way through
once, then it'll be free for all when you have to ask any more questions. How does that that that. Okay, because I had a habit of having my back when I'm looking at the podium, and I didn't get the opportunity to
see the side of the, the dais who had questions. So I apologize for that. So this way I think this will work itself out. All right. You're up. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you. This is a application for a gaming arcade at the Olympic Plaza at 40114 US
highway 19 North. And I do want to point out that the applicant's application and narrative mentioned adult arcade. That has a specific
meaning in our code. That is subject to the adult use adult entertainment subject. And he didn't know that. So this
application is not subject to that ordinance at all. This is a. Gaming arcade for skilled
games for adults. I guess. So again, this is on US 19. At the Olympic Plaza in retail and services future land use
category, the highway business zoning district. And you can see I'm sorry to you, Pat, but the
screen before just just just for disclosure it said the agent was Michael Koskotas. That is not me. That's my nephew. So anybody out there think that I'm the agent for the applicant? Just
wanted to clear that. Right. Thank you. Yes, Michael G. Not you. Right. Okay. I should have clarified that to. All right. So
again, this is on US 19 at the corner of mango and 19. Basically the character the area is you've got that commercial
strip, highway business commercial strip on 19. There's an auto I think it's an auto parts store to the north. Or auto repair other businesses, and of course to the south. You
have different retail and service businesses. The mobile home parks to the rear you've
got stonehedge to the basically southwest and Tarpon Shores mobile home park to the northwest, and we'll see if we can get a little better picture
here. You've also got this is a future land use map and older mobile home parcel that was established in the 1950s called
Palm Springs Estates, that is in the highway business zoning. But it's in a residential urban future land use. So that's
adjacent to this plaza as well. Again, another aerial photograph of the site. This is an existing plaza that was built around
1985. This is the proposed approximate tenant space location. So as you can see here, your mobile home park
Stonehedge Tarpon Shores. The site has parking, drainage and built structures. Everything is oriented to US 19 basically with
the shopping center. This is the mobile home community that I referred to. Palm Springs Estates there's a retail store here I think is vacant. And then
next to that is the Dunkin Donuts. Just to give you a context of where the people enter that mobile home community. This is just a
picture of the tenant space. Obviously currently vacant right now, but that would be facing
the parking lot here. It's the tenant space. The applicant provided a basic floor layout.
So it just has the games and the restrooms and the office and prize booth. So to go over your
conditional use criteria, the property in general does conform to the Land Development Code. It meets parking. It's got existing
drainage. So it is basically in conformance with the land development code. There are no. Additional tenant interior
tenant build out proposals at this time. But the applicant is aware that if there's anything that needs a building code for interior work, that they would need to, I'm sorry, a building
permit, they would need to pull a permit for that. As far as the compatibility is. So again, we have mobile home communities
surrounding the area. Behind it. And basically what we've got is a business that the applicant has proposed limitations on the
time of operation from 1 to 10 p.m, 1 p.m. To 10 p.m. They've proposed just supplying soft drinks and snacks to the
patrons. Again, the parking is existing. Trying to think of a proposed. Anything else? They will be. And they are here to
speak. Tonight. They will be. I don't have a copy of their state licensure yet, but they'll be obtaining that. Or they may already have, so they'll speak
to that. We did. Just for your information, send out postcards twice because of the recent
change of Board of Commissioners meetings. And there were 549 postcards because of the two mobile home parks. We had one
inquiry, honestly, to ask, was this really an adult arcade? We said no, it was. That was the only inquiry. So we didn't have really any feedback from the
area residents. Basically, this is an a commercial strip on US 19 and it's in an existing shopping center. So for this kind of use, this would be the
more appropriate location or most appropriate probably in the city for this kind of use. The Technical Technical Review Committee did review this on
January 9th, and our police department did have a couple of concerns with us. Mike Ralston with our code enforcement department. Can you put it up
there? The where you are the TRC comments. Okay, thanks. Maybe I hadn't gotten yeah, I hadn't
gotten that far. Are you talking about the staff report or. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yes. So we're
talking about compatibility. Is the second item. So basically their first concern was hours of operation. They would like it to
close by 11 p.m. The applicant has proposed 10 p.m. If this is approved, we would recommend a condition that limits limits the
hours from 1 p.m. To 10 p.m. They were also concerned about the visibility, as you can see currently. There is no visibility into the space, which
is often seen when someone is moving into a new space. If this is approved, we would like a condition that requires.
Complete no that prevents opaque coverings over those windows. Black out or window treatments that block the view. They would
like a 100% view into the interior by through any window treatments that are there. And just as an example, the Belcher
bingo is located next door just to the east of this space. And that's a good example of one where everything is open. You
can see inside. So that that's what they're looking for on that. So it's basically to help police monitor the use. And to
help with any citizens that might might complain or anything that police can say, yeah, this is operating the way it should
be operating. Okay. This is not on historical or environmental. Environmentally sensitive site. We feel like with conditions to
address compatibility, that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and retail and services land use category.
We feel like this use should not unduly affect property values. It should maintain a current plaza or provide a business in a
current aging plaza. Basically, and should not impact property values or surrounding uses as
long as it is correctly operated according to the recommended conditions. So basically I'll
skip down to city facilities. Obviously this site is already served with city facilities. We would again recommend that the
conditions that we've proposed that these these are written. I'll go through these in a second. That those are reasonable to protect public
health and safety. That they would assist law enforcement to provide some extra teeth. So they can do their job and not
have undue burden placed on our law enforcement facilities. So we are looking and six conditions. First of all, that
the applicant obtain a local business tax receipt, which they have actually already applied for. Operating hours between 1 p.m. And 10 p.m. Prohibiting
opaque or blackout window treatments so that there's full visibility. We would recommend prohibiting serving alcoholic
beverages. The applicant has not proposed that at this point. But we would we would recommend that that be a condition for this
use. And then we this is subject to state law. I couldn't find any age restriction in state law. But the applicant may be able to tell you a little bit
more about that. We recommend that the patrons be at least 18 years of age, unless required to be older by state law, and that that be posted on the door. And
then we do need copies of those state licenses. I don't know that there's any county licenses required. There may be, but all those to be supplied before we
issue the business tax receipt. So with that, again, there were 549 notices. And really no no
comment. And I would like to, before I forget, say that this was originally advertised for the March 4th Board of Commissioners meeting. That meeting date has changed.
Revised postcards did go out. It's going to be on the March 11th meeting. Are there any questions for me on this or for what we're going to do? We're
going to start on this end. And if you have any questions of staff, we'll start from there and work our way this way. We'll skip me and then go to that end
and I'll I'll go list. Thanks, Patricia. I don't have any I don't have any issue with this licensing. I think any concerns I have would manifest themselves
in the permitting and fire safety process, so I'm fine with it. Okay. I have one question. They say that they anticipate
having only 5 to 10 customers on the premises at a given time. Are they going to control that and enforce that? And if so, how and how many employees do they think they're going to have? The
applicant could probably answer the number of employees. The I don't know that they'll enforce a customer limit. They have
under floor plan 20 arcade games and 11 computer games. So the applicant thought that was low. I'm sorry. That's why I thought the numbering might be a little low. Maybe. I'm guessing that's
what they're expecting at any given time during the day, but the applicant may be able to tell you what what they think, their customer response and
maybe throughout the day what their clientele will be. And one more question. Did they ever say they were going to charge any kind of entrance fee or is that not. I thought I read something
in there about that. They did not. Okay. And I don't I don't know if that's regulated by state law, but I, I did have one
question. And it revolves around the requirement that a person be 18 to enter the arcade. I just quickly looked it up. And there is no age requirement for
someone to enter an arcade if it's considered a family amusement center, right? I didn't see one either. That's why we recommended the
condition. Can we do that condition without it being challenged? You can make any reasonable conditions related to
the application. Okay. Thank you. No questions. I just have a similar to Darla's question for
the. And this might be a better question for the applicant, but do we really know what distinguishes this arcade as an adult arcade from a regular arcade? Because as you already
mentioned, it's not the it's not the other type of adult facility. Well, I mean, anything that is a gaming facility or
arcade in highway business has to go through conditional use and, and other things in highway business like commercial, recreation, retail are all by
right. This is conditional use. And I think, you know, it's been in there for a while. I think the concern is that we look at it and make sure it is meeting
what we want it to, and it is intended just for to be compliant with state law and just for amusement purposes. We had to because of that
conditional use, we had to run the game room at whiskey went through this process. That's obviously a kids pinball room. Everybody knew it, but we had to
run it through. So, you know, each one has its own characteristics they can probably describe their operation better than I can. And then this might be a question
for officer Mike. That would be the enforcement of the 18 and over. That would be you guys would have to enforce that just on a random basis, I guess. Yes.
If it if it's placed in as a conditional use, that would go back to why we would want to be able to see in the windows so our officers can go by and make sure that there's not people in
there at two in the morning, there's not children in there, things like that. Okay. And just real quick, do we currently have anything else like that in Tarpon or that you go and check for. It's not a bar or. No, we
haven't had we've had two. I guess you would call them adult arcades that never opened because they did not go through any of this process. They just tried to open up. Oh, and they
were stopped. All right. Thank you. No questions until the applicant. Thank you. Okay. I have one question with regard to the number of customers. That's
not relevant unless it applies to the number of people that may be in for fire code. Correct. Or parking or. But other than that, whether they put five or 20 or
30 customers, it's not relevant to this particular application. Yeah. It's regulated by fire code and occupancy. Okay. I
suppose if you want to condition it probably can't be enforced. I just want us to go by the four corners of the application. Okay. You know, so that being
said, I have no other questions. Okay. I guess at this point, if the applicant wants to make a
presentation, you're up. Hello, everybody. My name is. Please state your. I'm sorry. State your name. And. My name is Salam. I'm a friend of the
applicant. The applicant is Kamal and he asked me to speak on his behalf. I'd like to answer questions if there's anything that's not clear. Yeah.
And I'd like to clarify, is the. Are you the applicant? Could you authorize him to speak? Because I was going there, but that's okay. If you're not speaking for
yourself because Mr. Koskotas was the agent to speak for you. But if you're appointing somebody else to speak on your behalf, you've got to put it on the record, if you don't mind,
just go up there and say, I authorized him to speak for you. And please go, go to the microphone, state your name and say you're authorizing your friends to speak on your behalf. That way it's on the record and nobody's shouting from the from
the from the seats. My name is Kamal al-Salam. I just want my friend to speak for you. Okay.
That's it. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any presentation. Aside from what miss Pat presented. I would like to answer any questions if I can
clarify anything. Okay, I guess we're going to start. Yes. We need names and addresses, please. Oh, yeah. Sure. Your
address please. Address 9552. Trumpet divine loop, Trinity, Florida. 34655. You need him. His spelling of his name. That
would be nice. Sure. Spelling s a l a m. As in Mary. Last name Jaber j a b e r. Okay. Again, we'll start on this end. So the
question has come up about restricting this to 18 years and older. And I'd like your perspective on whether or not this board was to take take that
approach, how it affects your business. I mean, we're the type of games that we're playing is not I mean, that we provide are not for children. I mean, if
it's similar to a Chuck E cheese, but for adults, probably games that adults would like to play, not children. I take my kids to Chuck E cheese for their entertainment. Nothing entertains me at Chuck E cheese.
So I would like to we my client would like to have or my friend, not my client. My friend would like to provide a space for adults to play without any really noise or any, you know,
any kids running around and limiting it. I think that's a reasonable condition. That's it. I do have one clarification. The only reason I said that the
anticipate 5 to 10 is it was in their specific information. And is that what you think? I mean, it's not really what that's what we're expecting. That's what I mean. We've seen other establishments like this in
other cities and that's what we see there. It's we'd love to have more people. We'd love to fill the seats. But yeah, that was just a number we threw out there. Okay. Thank you. I do, I
have a question. How many owners of this facility are there? Is it just you? One of how many? I
have to come from there. From there. How many owners are. Oh. One owner. Oh. So. Yes. One owner. Okay. Okay. And a follow
up to that is. Do you you live someplace locally? He lives in Tarpon Springs. Okay. Yes. He rented a apartment in Tarpon Springs. Okay. The reason I'm
asking is if the police have to contact you and your local, then. Correct? Yes. Yes, he is
local. Thank you. Thank you. No questions from me. Can I just get a clarification on the
owner's name? Camel. Habib. It would be on the. It would be on your. It didn't sound like. That's why I was just checking. Habib. Yes, Habib. Okay. It is. I don't have any follow up
questions. Thank you. Okay. Just. Just a couple of quickies. Obviously, there will be an occupancy load, as was asked prior to the premise, whether it's called a business premise,
whether it's called assembly premise. Will you have somebody at the door to basically take a headcount when that limit. And hopefully you reach that limit that that's a successful
business. But life safety is paramount to profit. Will there be somebody at the door, both for a headcount and also for age
verification if that condition is imposed? If it gets to that point, yes, we will definitely have to provide somebody at the door. Okay. And the other question I had was you have a
office prize booth part there. Prizes. Are they going to be monetary prizes? Are they going to be so they're dolls. No no no. It's electronics. Could be
like AirPods. Could be, you know, could be like an iPad or something. We haven't really selected. Like we haven't really. Put put out the, the,
the reward booth yet. But that's basically the types of prizes. They, they, they, they play with the card. They accumulate points and they can exchange it for certain prizes is basically how it works. Okay. And would they
have that option to exchange that prize for cash. In other words, give them like thousand points for $10 or. No. They can take the card home with them, come back and play with the same
card, or they can accumulate enough points to actually swap them out so they can either play with those credits or swap them out for whatever they have enough points for. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Just to follow
up, it's similar like Chuck E cheese. You said you're getting tickets where you could exchange it for a toy show tickets. This you this you get credits that you can exchange for merchandise. Yes. Okay. Will
there be an on site manager? There's going to be. There's going to be a manager. Absolutely. Okay. I have no other questions. Now I'll open it up across the dais if anybody
has a follow up. Yeah, I have a follow up. One of the conditions that was applied was for no alcohol. Do you have an issue with that? No. No issue. I do
have an issue with the blackout windows, though. So our business hours are 1 to 10. That's a proposed hours. And it's pretty. It's pretty bright in there. We'd like it to be a little
dimmer. Can we at least cover some of the windows? The doors are going to be open, so if the police department needs to pass by, they can come in whenever they want. Can I follow up just really quickly? What direction
does that building that goes? What direction do those windows face? North. North. Yeah. It shouldn't be too. It's still. I
mean, it's a big storefront. It's all glass. When you say you want the. Are you talking about something we could still see through? I mean, if we can. I
mean, do. The church next door has everything blacked out. The schools, you know, the schools are all perforated. I mean, we can perforate if we need to perforate. I can't see them as I
wasn't. I wasn't part of that. But for this application, it would. It would have to be something that our officers could see through easily as they pass through. Can I ask a
question then? Yes. If they were UV protected, as I think what they're looking for is UV protection. So there is UV protect. I would imagine there's UV protection that does allow
transparency. I'm just throwing that out there, not telling you what to do. But you know that would be a resolution. So is your concern seeing at night or
during the day because there's I mean, there's a glare you're not going to be you're going to have to walk in to see it. It's both. But to your point, during the day, an officer could open the
door, but also at night we want they want to be able to see inside. And nobody likes walking up to a blacked out or reflective surface where they cannot see what they're
approaching. So we have three storefronts. Can we cover two of them and leave one of them, or cover one of them and leave two of them just to get a little bit dimmer in there? I mean, I mean,
can you guys discuss that at least question if it's possible? I think that's that's a comment that or a resolution that should be worked out with, with code
enforcement to make sure that that whatever the plan is, that code enforcement is, is satisfies their concern because you don't want to do something and then all of a sudden have a
violation. But if you work with code enforcement and come up with a resolution of what kind of window coverings you could have would satisfy that requirement or that condition, that seems reasonable. Yeah, as
long as we can. I have a question to that point, if I may. Go ahead. Okay. Super. So question to be to staff. The comment would be I think that's a reasonable request. So to
staff Mr. Code Enforcement, can you cite a code on our books that restricts a retail establishment from having UV tinted windows? And if that code is there, are we enforcing it or
is this a selective employment. No, it's a it was during the TRC process. It was something that wasn't my question. My question was does the city of Tarpon Springs have a specific code enforcement statute that says a
retail establishment may not tint their windows? Not that I'm aware of. Super. Thank you. Thank you. I just have one last point about the windows. There's
a percentage of OPC, just like with car tinted windows. And the purpose of regulating that is public safety. Both for first responders as well as the
occupants. You would like to see if something's coming at you. And they would like to see what they're going into. So I think between the police department and the code officer, that some
sort of compromise of this gradient can be reached so that you can get a little bit of dimness and dimness inside. I mean, we have windows here. Granted they're shades, but if
we wanted it darker in here, we would turn the lights down a little bit and make the atmosphere a little more palatable. But I think there's some sort of compromise. And whether it requires a film, a certain film gradient that can
be discussed with the city, and I think you'll arrive at something where you're both a little happy, maybe both a little unhappy, but it'll work. So that's something I would leave to the police department and the code official. Sounds
good. And I would just like to add, I think from staff's perspective, no, there's no regulation regarding windows signage, but with this specific
use, for example, if this owner were having to sell the business to someone else, this type of use really should be open for the police to be able to monitor
it at some level if there's a concern about sunlight. I mean, it's, you know, they're not going to open till one. I'm not sure how much how much direct sun they'll get in there.
There's not really a concern if it's going to be lit up at night with light emanating out too much, because there are no residences there. So from our perspective, we'd like to see
some sort of transparent window treatments, if there are any. I guess my, my comment was and microphone. Oh I'm sorry. Oh,
no. Come on. Thank you. Oh, sorry. It's okay. I guess my comment is basically, you know, we had the analysis by the TRC.
It was reviewed with police officers. What they wanted. I think that if we don't want, you know, if we can't address it or we don't agree with what they came up with, then I guess we
need to send it back and let them know what the applicant wants and see if they're willing to. I don't think we should override. You could you could modify the conditions if you
wish, if you wish to approve this. But I mean, should we or should they? I don't know, but
okay. At this point, unless there's any questions from one more, just one more on the issue of the windows. Officer, we're
saying words like public safety and we want to have vision and everything. But can you give a little background as to in the TRC, like what prompted this request for the windows? Just as
we were discussing it? And Corporal Boone also wanted to be here, but he had to leave for a FMLA situation just in our discussing, and we had had a previous dealing with a similar
establishment that again, never made contact, but their windows were completely sealed off and it took us constantly going by and trying to investigate and
figure out what was going on. And then eventually they never opened. So it was just from that similar process. We wanted to have transparency and be able to
see and make sure nothing was changing from the original application. Does that use a lot of your resources when you constantly have to go back and check? Yes. Thank you. Okay.
Last call. Okay. At this point, I'm going to go ahead and open it up for public comment. If you are an affected party, if you feel you are an affected party, please state that you are
affected party. Otherwise. And public comment is for four minutes. So any public comment? Have you received any
correspondence? No. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close a public comment. And. Do you want
to offer any anything else? Any rebuttal? Okay. Thank you. At this point I'm going to turn it over to the to this board and see if I hear a recommendation.
Chair I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to motion approval of resolution 2025 dash 15 conditional use as submitted
with all conditions accepted. Accept the condition for the blockout windows to be re served
as a reasonable compromise between safety and the rights of the tenant to tint their windows. Whatever that might be.
I know that's a little bit vague on that, but I'm doing my best to be, and I would second that as stated. Okay. There's a there's a motion. There's a
second. Discussion I'll start on that end again. I would just I would just let you know that, you know, you might find some
compromise in, in doing a half tint on the windows, perhaps darker on the top to allow the overhead light to be restricted,
but yet from a halfway point down, maybe, you know, law enforcement could be able to see in as opposed to something that is a transparency issue
throughout the entire window. Thank you. That's all. That's all I have. A quick comment. Knowing all the work that our police officers do and our code enforcement team does, I respect
them and I respect that. That's what they decided to do. So I'm for the clear windows. I kind of feel the same way. Yeah I agree.
In my I want to say maybe two and a half years in the board, I've never seen TRC comments from the police officers, and I know that their resources are already spread thin. So with all these rules, the rules don't mean anything without
enforcement. And it's I think it's a very reasonable request. So I won't support a motion that's I approve the one that was recommended by staff and the
police. Like, what is the tinting? I mean, the window height looks to be about maybe 8 or 9ft. There's a substantial overhang, maybe five feet or so. You're on the south side, which
means you face north, the apex of the sun is relatively low at that point. For intrusion. So like I said, public safety
triumphs all. And whether it's two feet of darker tint or one foot of darker tint, I think the police and fire department and the code officer should have the
say and whatever they mandate. If it's not agreed upon, then I think the condition is not met and therefore we cannot approve the special use. But that that's
a very limiting factor based on your geography and position there. So it's not the exterior light. If anything you can control the interior. So I'm going to leave that between you
and them if you agree with them. You have my support and best wishes. But if you don't like I said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and safety is paramount. Thank
you. Thank you. I guess it's my turn. You know, laws are typically retrospective. You see something that goes on, and then you make a change. That actually should be something that the
city should look at as an ordinance. Construction as far as blacking out windows, because I could see it being a safety issue where a police officer comes to a building, gets a
call, can't see on the inside. Everything is blocked out. And so that could be a safety not knowing what they're walking into. So that I can understand the safety issue. Your concern
or the applicant's concern is, is sunlight. And there is there's sufficient opportunities for UV protection over windows
that allow transparency, yet block out the heat and the heat. And I think if that's what your your concern is, I would suggest
that I think this is what Mr. Vessey is referring to is not is having that condition modified? Correct me if I'm wrong to allow
some window coverings, provided that that, you know, not that it's not blacked out, but but allow them to have window coverings that that allows them
the desire that they need meets their demands yet satisfies code enforcement. And it was kind of a question I'll answer since we're in discussion. I obviously
understand why code enforcement and the police think that black windows are bad. Okay. It's easy, except that I'll repeat,
we don't have any such code. And then therefore, we're allowing the completely subjective opinion of whichever police officer happens to show up to
decide whether his windows are too dark or too not dark. You're going to hold up a stick. Is it going to be the sunlight? That's just not fair. And that's not. That's why it's called code
enforcement, not whim enforcement. Now, I'm not disclaiming the need that there should that there should be some transparency. But we can't give as much as we appreciate code
enforcement and our police force. We can't give them an open book to just decide whatever they want. It's got to be A, B or C, you know? So I just think it's unfair to the
tenant. And then I'll add, well, if we're going to do that and I know Pat said, well there's specific businesses that maybe are suspicious. That's what's being implied here, that we
better enforce it for everyone. So if we're going to have one retail resident get dinged for a tinted out windows, then let's see a restaurant that I go to because I like dark windows because it makes for nice
ambiance. No, we want to see that suspicious activity there at that dining table. I just think that it's unfair. I think it's for this specific business
type. I don't think the code enforcement team, nor the police were taking it as far as you were in this particular moment. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think
they're thinking of the gaming needing to be seen. Not necessarily a restaurant. Okay. We've got a motion. We've got a second. Well, I have a comment
before we vote, because I think there's a little bit of confusion between code. What's a code enforcement and what's a condition. Because obviously if we have a code we wouldn't be putting them in conditions. All
of our conditions would be the code. So this is a condition we are allowed to put conditions on. They don't have to be in the code to enforce. So that's just to clarify that. That's why we
have conditions. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second as it stands for your particular motion. So I'm going to make roll call. And just so you know if it does fail I'd
like to see another motion. Okay. So may I please ask the attorney if that's something we can do? There's a motion and a
second. They are about to vote on it. Yes. That will be the decision. See what happens after the vote. Yeah. Okay. And may I understand that the motion is
approval with all but condition three. Correct. That's it. Yeah. And then we can decide whether or not we want to entertain another motion. Okay. So roll
call please. Are we voting on the one where he. Yes. Yeah. There's only one motion on the floor. Miss Weaver. So I just want to understand a nay vote.
If you vote no, then this this motion fails, and then we have the opportunity to revisit this. If this is what the board wants to do. I'm going to vote. Nay,
miss. No, no. No. Mr. Rocklin. No. Miss Frances. No. Miss. Mr. Vessey. Yes. Mr. I'm going to
vote no as well. That being said, I'll make a I'll make a motion. Please make a motion. Let me state the whole application. Andy. Again. I'm
sorry for application 2480 with all all six conditions as written by staff. Is there a second? Second. Oh. Got it.
Okay. I don't think we need to discuss this any further. I just say we just go ahead and go for a vote. Miss Weaver. Yes, Miss Swenson? Yes, miss early. Yes.
Mister Rocklin. Yes. Miss Francis? Yes. Mister Vessey. No. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Okay. Motion passed. Thank you. I
think you work with code enforcement to figure out how. Best way to give you what you need. Because I don't think it's that difficult to get it done.
Moving on. And thank you. To be our. This is item B under article under six, number B resolution 20 2513. Conditional
use for tourist Home in the Residential Multifamily Zoning district. You're up. Okay. Ali
Khan, principal planner, Planning and zoning. Again, this is a conditional use request under resolution number 2025 dash 13 for the property located at 1529 Riverside Drive. The
property is just over 9000ft■!Sn size. The current future land use is RL residential low and the current zoning is RM Residential Multifamily. The applicants are requesting
conditional use approval for a tourist home or short term rental for this location. The property again is located off of Riverside Drive. It's outlined here in yellow on the screen.
The property is in the RM Residential Multifamily Zoning District. The properties to the north and southwest are also in the RM district. The properties to the south are in the R 100
single family residential zoning district, and properties. To the east are, and the R 70 single family residential district. This area is really comprised of a mix of both single family,
detached and single family attached residential dwellings. Tourist homes are very limited in the city, Tarpon Springs of where they're permitted. Really outside the special area plan
and certain waterfront districts, there are only two zoning districts that potentially allow tourist homes, and that's the R m district and the r o residential office district. And even then, it does require conditional use
approval. So they would come before the board for approval. And because the property is located in the ARM district, that's why it's able to come before you tonight. The Land development code defines tourist
home. And the definition is shown here on the screen. Specifically, it does state that it has to be a single family detached dwelling. It's intended to provide temporary lodging accommodations specifically for
six weeks or less. So anything that's rented more than six weeks is permitted, no matter what district it's located in. The definition also limits tourist homes. That they states
that they can't be located anywhere within 1200 feet of any other approved tourist home. That location is measured from the nearest property line of the existing home to the nearest property line of the proposed
home. The subject property, which is shown here on the screen, does meet all of the r m dimensional standards. It does meet the parking requirements for a tourist home. It defaults to a single family residential
parking standard, which is two parking spaces. This property does have an oversize three car garage, as well as a larger circular drive. It can accommodate a total of 6 to 7
parking spaces. There are no approved tourist homes in this area, so it does meet that minimum 1200 foot separation distance. As part of the
application, the applicant did provide a short narrative that outlines some rental parameters that they would provide to potential guests of the tourist homes. It did include some rental restrictions. Uses of the
property, quiet hours, as well as contact information that they can provide to surrounding property owners. And that was provided as part of your agenda. Backup materials. As you saw in
the staff report. Staff or staff did recommend several conditions for this proposed use if it were to be approved. Those conditions are shown here. And these are really modeled after not only
other tourist homes that the board has approved elsewhere in the city, but also Pinellas County's short term rental guidelines and standards. And a lot of these do also. Are have
consistency with what were outlined in the applicant's rental parameters that were in their application. The conditions are that the property shall remain a single family
residence rented as a single living unit. The maximum occupancy shall be no more than ten people. All guest parking shall be accommodated within the garage and driveway, and is not permitted on the front lawn or
street. Quiet hours shall be observed between 10 p.m. And 9 a.m. Daily. The property owner, designee or the responsible party shall be available and shall be able to respond to any
sort of inspections, complaints, or other problems related to the tourist home. Their duties include being available by telephone to handle any sort of issues that may come up with the tourist home. Be willing to come
to the tourist home following any sort of notification from an occupant, owner, law enforcemen, or city official to address any of those issues. They have to have authorization to receive any service of legal notice on
behalf of the owner. For any violations of city laws, ordinances, or terms of conditional use. And then otherwise regularly monitor the tourist home for compliance with any laws ordinance in terms of
the conditional use. The sixth condition is the property owner must also provide an affidavit stating that the following information is posted on the property. It has to have the name, address and phone number
of the tourist home responsible party. It has to outline the maximum occupancy that can be allowed in the tourist home. The maximum number of vehicles that can be parked and where they're allowed to be parked. The days
of trash pickup and recycling in the location of the nearest hospital. Lastly, the applicant would be required to obtain a Tarpon Springs Business Tax receipt, and at that time, we would request the contact
information of the responsible party. And they would also have to provide their affidavit showing compliance with condition number six. And if the tax receipt were to lapse for a period of more than six months,
a new conditional use would be required. Looking at the conditional use review criteria again, as I mentioned previously, the property does conform with the Land Development Code requirements
for the RM district. This also went to the Technical Review Committee. And did receive compliance from the committee. Looking at criteria two and compatibility with the surrounding area. The property
is in the RM district. It is in a residential area that's comprised of single family detached and attached homes. The immediate area has a mixture of different zoning districts. The
R, M, R 70 and R 100 zoning. The tourist home use, as I mentioned previously, is allowed in very few districts. Outside the Special Area plan and certain waterfront districts, it's only allowed by conditional use in
the RM and Ro districts. It is really implied that the mix of housing types and higher density and activity level in the R m district provide an appropriate context for this type of use within the parameters of the
recommended staff conditions. Additionally, with the approved, if this were to be approved, the restriction on the amount of tourist homes that can be in close proximity would essentially eliminate any sort
of other tourist home being approved in this area. As you can see in this map, a little hard to see here, but if this were to be approved by the board, just strictly looking at
the zoning of RM, not looking at whether they're attached or detached single family, it would eliminate any other tourist home being approved in this general
area. The use is consistent with the comprehensive Plan and is not located in a historic district or on a designated environmental site. The proposed home is located in the
residential area and should be considered by the board, and was considered by staff when putting together a list of conditions. The property is will have to continue to be looked at for any sort of city codes in terms of
noise, nuisances and property maintenance. And based on those standards, as well as enforcement of the staff conditions, we believe this property values will not be adversely affected with the approval of one tourist home in
this immediate area. There are existing facilities as well as infrastructure to serve the property. It's already developed. And then with respect to public health, safety and welfare, with the intent to
protect the surrounding residential area. Staff did recommend those conditions that are deemed reasonable for you guys to consider. Again, here are the list of conditions for
you guys to consider. I won't read through those again for you. This application was properly noticed prior to the packets going out. We received a total of 14 responses in
opposition to the request. Those were provided to you in the backup materials of your application of the agenda. We have since received seven additional letters of opposition, and those were provided to you in advance of
the meeting tonight. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We're going to start. I'm going to try to uniform. We're going
to start at the end and work our way to you. Okay. So. Florida has obviously code and
regulation regarding an Airbnb type business. I think this area is lacking tourist housing. And I think if you were to ask the
commercial representatives of this area, they would love to see more of this. I've had experience with this particular issue as a commissioner in
another town. And there is a flip side I know a lot of people are in the audience are opposed to an Airbnb, but there are
times when there's a degradation of property, when owners can't afford to keep the property up. They may not be able to pay their taxes. There are reasons
why. Maybe they need the income. So I might I might be the anomaly here, but I I'm not opposed to this for those
reasons. That's it. So you have those questions of staff then. I don't. Okay. Next. Okay. I don't know where to start. I am very
opposed to this. I first of all, there's a couple of different reasons. I listened to the most recent code enforcement meeting, and at the end of it, miss Wade,
specifically for another reason, stated this. And this is her quote. People complain to them that they are not well maintained. They are significant disruptions to the neighbors.
They're problematic, and they get out of hand. And I know I'm a neighbor to one that had 50 calls to his house, two a side
calls, having a jump in the water in our canal to find a gun. 910 cars out in front might be the exception, but I'm against it. And then also, even though you all might think I'm a
little even crazier than you already do, but there's really no control over the conduct of them in regards to human trafficking. Hotels get education, and they're held
accountable. And I mean, we're going to have another human trafficking session in town. And I fear because I know my neighbors, they had young girls
over all the time with groups of men. And I want to I want to apologize. I what I, what I want to do is I want to we have valid comments and I think we save our I want to save our valid
comments for comments and just use this time for the questions, because comments are important and I understand I got it, but but I want to just start saving
comments for comments. Okay. And just go through the questions because that's that's what I think. That's what we need to do. So I didn't mean to interrupt you, but but we'll get
there. I have questions. Okay. I may have missed it. How many bedrooms are in this home? But there are three bedrooms. But yet ten people. That's the
parameter. We followed the Pinellas County allowances up to ten people. The applicant also indicated that they can accommodate ten people. They also have common or like common areas as far as sofas. And like
the other thing I was confused about and I guess the owner can clear this up. The owner lists the same address as the Airbnb, so I assume the owner is going
to live there with these people. I don't believe the owner can give you more information about that. That's the only address I saw for the owner. Yeah. That's
all I have. Thanks. Hello, Miss Keen. Hello. I have a question, but I did want to just take a quick opportunity. Sidetrack. Is that perhaps at some moment, our
council could review the procedure of our presentation of staff presentation questions. Public presentation questions,
comments and conversation are reserved for after a motion has been placed so that we can openly discuss. So this time is for questions to staff such as
thank you. How did the R.M. Make it. On to the approved approved zoning for Airbnb? Just in concisely, how did RM make it
there? I know I read that, but obviously there seems to be the sky is falling for this RM when it was open and publicly disclosed, and is there a process that it can be removed
from their Airbnb? I mean, I guess there's always a process to amend what uses can and cannot be in certain districts. As I had mentioned, there's very few districts that it's
permitted looking at where it is allowed. R.M. Is, in theory, one of the more intense zoning districts for residential uses. So that would intend to think
that you could have potentially more intense type of uses like a tourist home. And so r m stands for residential multifamily. Okay. But it does allow it basically allows for almost
every residential use single family, detached, single family attached multifamily. But we just found that in this r m district there is only single family, single family attached
detached. Yes. In this in this immediate area. But yes. Okay. And then just to repeat what I understand is that if this were to be approved, that more or
less vacates anyone else ever applying within this particular community. Right. And this and for this map, as you can see here, right in this orange. Correct. In this area, it would
eliminate anywhere in here. And just as a caveat, in sunset Bay, these are all single family attached and based off the definition, even if there wasn't a separation distance, they wouldn't be permitted to do a
tourist home based on the definition alone. Actually, the 1200 feet actually goes a little bit further from here. But yeah, it would eliminate anything in this area. I have another
question, but I need a little clarification on the difference between single family attached and single family detached and how that plays into this conversation. So let me go back
up here this. And if you look in this definition it states so a single family detached dwelling where the primary use is to provide temporary lodging accommodations. There's a difference between detached and
attached. So attached means that they share a wall. And by being single family that means. So they're on like an individual platted lot and they share a
wall. So I. Website. Yeah. Like a townhome that goes back to the RM whether it be multi-family. But in this instance there is no multi-family. It's all primarily
single family. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And then more specifically, do we know where the owner resides. Well, so he owns his home I believe he
resides out of state, but he can speak more to that. Okay. And then follow up on the other question is, so if hypothetically, we were not to
approve this application, any other resident in that RM could apply for the same conditional use if they met the parameters of this definition, they could
apply. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. Can I throw another one in real quick. We're going to go finish and then we're going to come back again. Oh okay. All right. Perfect. That's
I figured that's what it's open when we open it up. But go ahead. I'm trying to keep a process. I was reading some of the emails that we got just
today. And is this owner already operating this as a tourist home? I'm not that I'm aware of, but the they can speak to that. Okay. And then as far as the
conditions, because all the emails that we got, you know, I do have some questions for number five and number eight as far as the process for, you
know, for property values. So can you walk me through a little bit about how that you came to that conclusion? Sure. That doesn't affect property values. So when looking at the one
looking at the separation distance, looking at the establishment of one tourist home in this area, that limits the concentration of this type of use. Yes, that there is several tourist homes in this
area that potentially can create a much larger nuisance. Looking at our staff conditions by putting some parameters on the basically, you know how intense
this could be by limiting the number of people, the parking, the basically the hours of the quiet hours. Also providing, you know, having a contact that the
city has the contact information. And, you know, we can get in contact with somebody immediately if there is an issue. That provides us ways to
enforce if there's any sort of issues. So the main condition is that that basically, as Mr. Vessey said, that nobody else in that area can also have one. That's the main that that was one of the parameters that we
looked at. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I just have one quick question. Thank you very much for the presentation, Miss Keen and the information. I just wanted to clarify, the R 100
district would not be eligible for this type of application. Anybody in that district correct is not permitted. And this site is directly adjacent to an R 100
parcel. Correct. Thank you. If I recall, and we did a comprehensive land use and we I think during that process we had
sections where we talked about tourist homes to be in the tourist area. For some reason I don't know how either. We did not that got past us or that
something that we, you know. But if I remember, our intent was, was it to keep first homes out of residential areas? So these
are this is this is something that's been in our code for some time. This this is something that wouldn't have been changed by talking about the comprehensive plan update or whatnot. This is something that wouldn't have been affected by
the comprehensive plan going into the update. With that, this is a regulatory item in the Land Development Code with zoning. The items that were that addressed lodging or tourist
accommodations are specifically talking about the tourist districts like sponge docks areas, the downtown. There are parameters. There are really no
specific policies and goals in there that talk about, you know, tourist accommodations outside of those areas. So there wasn't anything specific in there that's calls out this particular
use. But it's something that when going through land development code updates and things of that nature potentially could be looked at. The specifics of how we regulate tourist homes, that's something
that I that's that's a bigger thing to talk about. I must have missed it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to start back down on this way. Any questions, any follow up based on other other other questions. What what
is the minimum that this zone could conceivably rent out for the minimum time? Sure. So with to not be considered a short term rental is it's more than
six weeks. So six weeks and one day anyone outside that can be rented. Okay. And I'm just curious, are you are you
familiar with the state regulation regarding the short term rentals? Yes. And are we in line with the state regulation? We preempt the state
regulations. We had we had codes in our ordinances that predate that. So they are in effect. Okay. So we're more restrictive
than the state. Okay. That's all. I, I had a couple quick questions. I noticed something.
This residence is across from the water. And it just hit me. I know if I were staying at an Airbnb with all my friends, I'd
want to get to the water with my kayak or whatever. I just foresee problems. That question.
And that is why I was asking about this. Mr. Toro, whether he lives at the Airbnb, and I think I heard you say he does not. I
would I would defer to the applicant to talk about his residence. Yeah. Okay. He doesn't have to give you his address. Well, so the his property appraiser has the
property owner's address and his mailing address are the same address on there. So I believe he has an address out of state as well. But his permanent residence, I don't know. He
would have to speak to that. Yeah, and. I'm sorry that that is all I had. Thank you. You're welcome. What? Okay. I don't
have any more questions. Thank you. Mr. No, no other questions. Thank you. At this point, if the
applicant here, if they want to make a presentation. I guess we have a missing applicant. Okay.
We got an applicant. There is no applicant presentation. Okay. Public comment now, before public comments starts. I know
we received written, and I want for the record to accept the ones that were the ones that are been been previously filed and the ones that have been filed
today. If go ahead. Pat, you were going to say something I want to I want to accept these into the record. And if you've
already written something in an opposition, you can say you've written something. But we're going to limit discussion to four minutes per person, and
that'll just get us moving a lot sooner or quickly, because there's a lot of, I'm sure a lot of you here for this particular matter. But if you've written something you don't need to, you
know, do it twice. You can come up and say you've written a letter in opposition, and I think we'll accept that as your, your opposition. But other anybody else who has not written
a letter, who wants to, to make a public comment will accept that is and I'm asking counsel is that is that an appropriate way to have it done? However the board so chooses but it is part
of the record, so that is appropriate. Okay. All right. Anybody have anything different the way I want to do this. No I want to clarify, chairman that
like Pat can you add them to the agenda online so that there since we're not reading them into the record, I don't want to have to read all of them. No. Right. Since we're not, can you
add them on to the agenda online? Yes. We'll add them for the Board of Commissioners meeting as well. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Okay. All right. So any any public comment, please come
up, state your name your address. And again you're limited to four minutes once you once you start. Is this already on. Everybody can hear me.
Great. So good evening. Thank you for making this a public forum. Forum so that so that we as residents can come in and provide input on this. My name
is Eric Gardner. I live at 15 one Riverside Drive, about 4 or 5 houses down from the from the subject property. I did submit a
letter. I want to highlight that there was some some fundamental inaccuracies in the summary that you're reviewing tonight and some missing information that I think is really, really
important for you to know. So the first one is, is when you were looking at that map and it kind of highlights where the where the home is. What it doesn't highlight is that across
the street, as you were mentioning, ma'am, there is a, a shared common property that and I informally manage that that shared common property for the
neighborhood. You could think of it as a mini HOA, but but not that formal, that shared common property. We use it. It's kind of a little mini park. It's about 50 foot wide, something
like this. It runs down to the water. We use it to launch kayaks and small boats. Think, John, boats and this kind of thing. Right? But you are exactly right, people. Besides
just the kind of the havoc and the chaos of Multi-families being there and parking on yards and everything like this and, and what that does do to our property values, it does create a burden. But the reality is, is
that when these people show up, they are focused on one thing. They they are just determined to get on that water. They it's what lures them here. They'll do it at any cost. They don't. They
go down there, they break things. They spin their tires. They they cause ruts and the and the soil. They make a lot of noise. I mean, they break it. They don't even tell anybody,
right? And then. And then what happens is, is the. Excuse me, one of the neighbors will notice this thing, right? And they'll they'll run it to me and go, what do we do? So then we go
down, we look at the mess, we evaluate it. I bring in somebody to estimate it. Maybe we fix it ourselves, right? If there's a lot of money involved, then I kind of pulse the neighborhood. I go, okay, how are we going to
take care of this? When we collect monies, we fix it. And this has been a problem with, with longer term rentals that have been there as well as unauthorized users constantly going in there, cutting that
lock, using the water, breaking things, tearing up the property, parking where the owners would actually pay for that lot and pay the taxes every year, can't use it ourselves. And in fact,
when you talk about impacting our property values, that is it's an amazing amenity. It's a beautiful thing. But but it's very hard for us to keep it up
and make it some place that it that is beautiful to go and enjoyable to go when it's constantly being, being trashed and it's nonstop and that's been
with short term. It's hard to imagine that with renters rotating out of there every week and bringing their jet skis and inviting their friends and inviting the other people in town, I mean, this is what happens every single time. I'm
just letting you guys know it's a lot of pain. The second thing is, is people were asking questions about, where is this the owner? He's in Oklahoma. He's in Oklahoma. What I
understand is, is he's he's a really nice young man. But but he's out of state. We don't have cameras down there. There's no way for him to be informed of what's going on. There's no way for him to go down there and
rake it out, or fill in the holes or manage it himself. No, it falls back on us. So. So what I don't want is for this guy. And I hear he's a nice young man, but I don't want his convenience or his profit to
turn into something that creates a situation that is no longer enjoyable for us, that does impact our home values and creates a burden for us to
constantly manage and clean up after these these short term tourists coming in, inviting their friends all the things that they normally do. So I hope
that's that's helpful. Oh, one other thing I need. I'm probably over my minutes, but there's safety risks down there too. There are. Okay. Thanks. Any
other public comments? Hello. My name is William Nolan. My address is 1664 six Citrine
Trail, Tarpon Springs. So I live sort of behind it actually, not so much comments, but I have questions. And one of them is this maximum occupancy shall be no more than ten people. Does
that mean if there's more than ten people in the house during a party during the daytime, that's not to be permitted, and that
they could be called the. I guess it's an agent that has to be called because the gentleman I hear is in Oklahoma. Is that what I'm understanding with the occupancy? You couldn't have a
party with more than ten. Would you like me to answer? This is for public comment. Not necessarily questioning back and forth, but if you're so
concerned, if your concern is utilizing the property for more than ten, I will at this point suggest that go ahead and give him an answer, because that
might I would say that my intent behind that was the occupancy was ten people. But what do you mean by occupancy that sleeping there or are there? You gotta let her answer the question. I
was saying total ten people in the home. That was my intent. It's up to the board if they'd like further clarification of that condition, if they were to move for approval. So we could put further clarification to
make that clear. That was the intent. Okay. I have another comment then. You mentioned before this young lady here, I'm sorry, I don't know your name, that having one home like this
in the area doesn't decrease the home values, but having multiple would. Does that make sense? So having one dump doesn't do anything, but having five would
drop the home values. Is that what you're telling us? No, I don't think that was a comment. Yes it was. She said having multiple would cause a problem. That was absolutely a comment
that was made. I think the comment is you're only allowed one and one. Yes, that's right, but having multiple would be a problem. Having one was not. It'd be outside of the ordinance. Having one would.
Nope, sorry. Having one would not affect the property value. Having multiple would. That was what was brought up. Yeah. I you know what public comment is not to be engaged in. I apologize, I
should not have engaged you. This is your public comment, and the last comment I have is for the lady on the end that had was thumbs up on this. Have you taken a look at the houses in that area? There are none that
are run down that need to be maintained by having additional income brought in, you know, not the kind of neighborhood this house is in. You don't have to answer any questions, just public comment, please. As a
reminder, direct your comments to the board as a whole, not to individual board, to anybody, to the person on the board as a whole. That was my question to the board as a whole. Thank you.
Before the next person comes and speaks, I'm going to remind y'all that this is public comment only. This is not to be engaged. It's my fault for engaging you, so I apologize.
It's a public comment only, and if there's disrespect to this board, I will cut you off right when you start talking. I'm just letting you all know. I'm letting everybody know. If you
disrespect this board, I will cut you off right off the bat. Anybody else? Thank you. My name
is John Pratt. I'm at 1533 Riverside Drive, which is directly adjacent to the 1529. I just like to ask a couple of
questions. First question is, is there an ordinance in the town or in the city where basically the distance between houses has any effect on sound or anything
else? Because my bedroom is 20ft from the back side pool of this residence. So I'm concerned about the noise and whether it goes over the 10:00 curfew
that's being suggested. The second is, is the lot number 145 as as Eric pointed out, one of the other constraints is if it's
not used, you know, foreboding, it's still going to be perceived. That's access into water. Now there's as there's safety factors with bathing in
that area. It's not meant to be a beach. There's no beach type effect over there. So the insurance comes into play. Here
is who pays for the insurance to insure these tourists, vacationers. You know that they're adequately covered and it doesn't, you know, become the
ownership. The 16 individuals who own the property, the second the next example is it's labeled private. It's got a label on it.
It's got a chain across it. It is not for public use. So that's another question. That's about
oh, the ten, the limit, the ten people that are being proposed to be used in the house. My question is, is can they live be
bedrooms in a flood zone. Because this is a three bedroom home, but it does have a ground floor. And that ground floor is where the three cars are
located. And it's also a about 1000 square foot area, which is in the also in the flood zone that has been converted into a place where you can enjoy, you
know, a pool table, ping pong, whatever, whatever you like to do for recreation. I just, I it's just the question, can it be used as a bedroom? Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else like public comment? Okay then I'm going to go ahead and close
public comment. And any I guess the applicant is not here for a rebuttal. So I have some now additional questions for staff.
We could okay. Yeah that's comment is closed. We could go ahead if you have questions of staff we can do the left or right. Left to right. So
questions for staff I thought I'm I do. Well we'll do it if you. Yeah. But we open it up for a motion and a second or whatever that we could open it
up and have a discussion if there's a motion. So. So I have actual questions for staff. But if you have a question I just like to go on the record as
saying that with regard to the ordinance that you have described, I think that it's prudent that we recognize that. And regardless of my own
personal belief, I'm here to impose the will of the town and to follow the ordinance. That's why I ask. That's a comment. I just I just want to go through
questions one more time before we open up for additional comments. Any questions I have? Question okay. For the owner.
Oh, drat. Okay, a little levity there. Sure it was, Miss Keene. You're cut off little levity
there. We seem to be circling around the occupancy thing, so I want to clarify that it sounded to me that the number of ten was
maybe just a common sense number that you dropped on. It wasn't what was requested. We don't have a table for it. You just maybe created that number. I personally didn't create that
number. Okay. So during the application process and the TRC process, I asked the applicant how many guests can be accommodated. He said up to ten. I also looked at Pinellas County
for what their guidelines were. They say up to ten. There was consistency. We use them a lot as Pinellas County, a lot for comparison. We've also used that elsewhere in the city as a
guideline. So that's where the ten came from. Okay, yes. But I also understand if this board felt as a conditional use, that we could limit it to six. The
board has they can limit it to what you feel is necessary. So that would be reasonable that we could limit it to six. And then there also seems to be some questions swirling around the
guest situation. So we have the six. The baseline in this question might be directed towards our code enforcement officer that still lurking at the back, if you didn't mind.
Since I wasn't that polite earlier, I'm going to take another shot at it. Because this is this is genuine and it is a
bit of an emotional topic. Is that. If we were to pass it and this were to become an Airbnb and there were to be guests there, and let's say there were
six guests and they were to have a party there, which exceeds the occupancy of six that we provided. And it's not against the law to have a party, but it puts because actually it's code
enforcement in the police that would be called the owners in Oklahoma, as we've determined. So how would you address that and how could you grab on to and go, hey, you can't have 12 people here. It doesn't even
matter for an hour. How might you address that? So I want to be clear that it's two different processes we're talking about from a code enforcement perspective. If it was, the
scenario you're describing would typically be a call for service to the police department. Oh, there's a loud, raucous party which would go on at any home. So as the police arrive, they
would document what was going on. Those officers would then send that to code enforcement and say, hey, on a Saturday night. We responded and there
was a, you know, we observed 17 people having this party. I would then coordinate with planning and zoning, see that they violated the conditional use, and we would initiate a notice of violation and a code
case and bring it to the code board as a violation from there. So it would not be on the spot. Code enforcement doesn't work that way. It would be a team
effort between our patrol officers and code enforcement following up. And pardon my manners, I missed your name. My name is Mike Ralston. Mike, that is a great answer. Thank you
very much. I think that helped clarify a lot for me and probably for anyone else. I don't have any other questions. Can I just add a little bit to
that question additionally, so I know the applicant isn't there, they do have an authorized agent on their application. I don't believe they would have stood up to provide applicant testimony, but they're not here as well.
That agent is also intended to be the manager of the tourist home. They are out of New Port Richey, so there is a somewhat local or nearby agent. They can
be designated as that responsible party. And again, that is where we would have all the contact information. So in addition to, you know, the police department, code
enforcement having, you know, contact, we can contact the responsible party to, you know, intervene if there's some sort of violation to. Did you I'm sorry with what you've been
saying the last minute or two. It sounds like you did meet the owner of this house. You said you had a conversation. So he. He or she came? Yes. Yes, he
attended the TRC meeting and he's been in contact throughout the process. He was aware of the meeting. I don't know why he's not here. I'm well, I don't I don't want to speak why he's not
here. Right. Any any questions? No. Any questions? I do have a question for code enforcement. Oh. Well, my what hours do you
work other than being happy to be here? Yeah, 9 to 5 would work. Typically eight, four, 9 to 5 during the week. And then we do randomized okay. You don't
work nights. You don't work nights. So if somebody is in violation at night you wouldn't know. No. Okay. And you don't go and do a headcount to see if there's ten people if there if
Ted was the number. No. Okay. You don't sit outside and count numbers of bodies that come in and out. Not for that. No. Okay. But that is when the police go, okay. And I know that. Okay. But
these are questions that I had. So. Okay. Okay. Any other any other questions before we go I have a question. So Mike at night if it's noisy past 10:00
or whatever, what what are we supposed to do? I would encourage you to call the non-emergency line and report what's going on. And patrol would come out and address it.
And just to be clear that if something was out of hand, that it's going to be addressed then and there. It's not like the our Patrol is just going to say, oh,
well, you know, you have to get with code enforcement by. I would follow up for the violation specifically of the short term rental, but if there was something arising, then and there are our officers are going
to address it in the moment as is needed. And then I would follow up. Additionally, I just have a quick question. I heard a
horrible rumor. The only had one code enforcement officer mentioned. It's myself and my supervisor, Corporal Boone.
Okay, so. Right. Well, one with the supervisor. Yes. All right. Okay. No, that's okay at this. At this point, we'll go ahead and close the presentation and
turn it over to, to this board for discussion. Before we start a discussion. I think it's appropriate whether we whether there's a motion or not, a
motion, if there's not a motion, this thing will fail. So I'm going to open it up to see if there's a motion. First, I would ask, Mr. Chairman that you have
some kind of vote one way or the other, because this has to go to the commission. Well, if there's no motion that it fails and that would be a vote of no, I would prefer just a motion, a motion
to say no. Yes. Motion to deny. Okay. That makes sense. Propose a motion to deny. Okay. Now
we're open for discussion. And. Unless somebody wants to speak in favor. Of this application,
I'm going to go ahead. And I'm just just to clarify what the attorney should we still give reasons why we're denying or just to or can we just. Well, you've received a presentation
with conditions. You have had public comment from your own comments and questions. I think we've established some concerns and you don't have anybody to rebut it. So I would say the
evidence at least would probably competent, substantial evidence would be supportive. If you so choose the scale, the scale is outweighed one side without a
without an applicant. Thank you. So I have one. One last question before, if the city were to amend the ordinance in the
future, would the existing denials then possibly be able to be approved should they meet whatever the new ordinance would
be? Well, if the city didn't was to amend the ordinance, which would result in the ordinance no longer having any authority whatsoever, then whatever the
state has as law would take effect for all properties. That's right. It's the no touching rule by no touchy. We
keep our rules. We touch our rules. We lose our rules. That is correct. Not very elegant, but no touchy. Yeah. Okay. All right, so the motion and a second. I'm gonna call. Call for
the motion, Miss Weaver, a yes means a denial. I'll vote yes, Miss Swenson. Yes, miss Earley?
Yes, Mr. Rocklin. Yes, Miss Frances? Yes, Mr. Vessey? Yes, Mr. Curtis. Yes, the motion is failed. I mean, I mean, the application has failed. I can
just put on record and let everyone know in the audience the. As Pat mentioned, for the last application, the Board of Commissioners meeting was moved to March 11th instead of March 4th. And anyone that received a
postcard should have received another postcard. But that date. Yeah, at this point in time, I'm going to take a 5 or 10 minute break before we get to the next one, because I suspect the next
one's going to take a few minutes. So we reconvene at what time? Reconvene at 815. Thank
you. All. I have. No, no, no, I'm not I'm not sure I'll let
the nine. Oh now can we. Cancel the hearings? Now? Yeah. I like
Thanksgiving. But I don't think. Yeah. So otherwise. People will start talking and asking
questions I think about. That, you know, the case, some other
people there. For the record. And next item on the agenda is ordinance 25 2020
5-1 under the Land Development Code with regard to special regulations for food truck dispensing vehicles. Pat, take it away. Yes. So this is your
first legislative item tonight. As you know, we went over the ordinance history at at your January meeting. At that meeting
you did review the draft ordinance and recommended denial. You had several concern. Rather than move it forward to
the Board of Commissioners, we actually city manager who is here tonight available directed that we bring it back to you with further revisions. Try to
address some of your concerns and give you another shot at this ordinance. So we did re
advertise for this meeting. I am. Let me see if I changed. Yeah. So we did just for the
audience and for you the Board of Commissioners hearings for this ordinance will be now on March 25th and April 8th. We couldn't make the ad deadline
when they changed the meeting schedule so fast to do it any sooner than that. So. So
basically we have another draft back before you and I'll just kind of discuss two aspects. One would be just the general parameters in which these
temporary food trucks can operate. And then the locational type standards. So you had some concerns with the potential competition with brick and
mortar restaurants, potential for occupation of required parking spaces and the generators. So here we have
again, two food trucks. Up to two food trucks can operate between 7 a.m. And 10 p.m. They must be accessory to a legal primary use the food truck. We
have revised from generator operating hours to require a battery or electric service for the temporary food truck. The.
We left the provision at would not be permitted on vacant land, and that on unimproved land there has to be permanent
restroom facilities for patrons and then multi-day events are allowed, but that still goes to the TRC. And we did leave in
there the removal of limits on a number of events, and we left the three day duration for each event. As far as allowable
zoning districts, the original the current ordinance allows operation of temporary food trucks in three zones, and we expand expanded that basically
to all non residential zones outside the special area plan. So that includes 13 districts. And I'll show you a map of that
real quick. That's basically this map. I can probably well that's pretty large. But basically all those zonings listed. So all the commercial
zonings, all the industrial zones, the residential office zoning and the waterfront development and waterfront industry zoning, and those are
on non residential properties inside the special area plan, we have looked at restricting food trucks to certain character
districts and transects, which I'll show on the map to address your concern regarding possible revisions to focus on drinking
establishments, we are proposing to limit them to establishments that have an on premise alcohol
license. So. I can maybe try to put up a larger map because this is a landscape view, it's kind of hard to enlarge, but we'll
we'll give that a try. So what we have is the grayed out transects are transects where we propose that they not not be
allowed at all. So that's basically the Spring Bayou Character district, right downtown on Tarpon over to ring.
And then basically the residential area of the sponge docks. The rest of the districts, we are proposing that
they be allowed at establishments that would that have on premise licenses. There are two types of licenses,
basically that that are, you know, relevant to this. The green dots represent special food service. Those are
restaurants that get 51% or more of their revenue from food sales, food and nonalcoholic drinks. The red dots are not
special food service. There's nothing in the ordinance regarding special food service, but staff feels that restaurants with special food service are
going to be less inclined to use the food truck option. So we're we're looking at trying to enhance the ability of the existing brick and mortar
businesses to have some options and provide some, some more choices for enhancement of their existing business. We feel like
the special restaurants probably not, are not as interested in that as, like you said at the January meeting, the breweries and some of the restaurants that
have limited there and want to offer something else, like a dessert or something. Okay. So
sorry. So. Those that was the gist of the changes and updates we did since the last meeting.
Let me see if there's anything else. Okay. So that that that's a summary of those. So let's
talk about a little bit focusing on the docks area where these things can operate. Practically speaking we took just a quick
look. It's not hard and fast, but we took a quick look of what properties might have room for
food trucks to operate. So this shows the western part of the docks. And again, the red dots
are not special food service. The green dots are special food service with the higher food sales. Okay, I will point out
that 3 or 4 of these, I think for this one. Now I'm going to have to remember the names
Turtle Island, Bayou Bistro, Rusty Bellies, and there's one other one finest kind. They have either have permanent food
trucks or they have applied to have permanent food trucks. Okay, so those four are already looking at at doing that. We
feel like this area along Dodecanese and a lot of this area along Athens, really nobody has room. There are three for food trucks. There are three on
premise alcohol establishments in the sponge exchange. That one. There's probably room inside. It's getting in and out.
That is the issue. So. That could I suppose be a possibility, but it's very limited. So that's the western
part of the docks. This is just an aerial view. So you've got wine at the docks. They do have room for food truck. Again. Finest kind has applied for a
permanent one. Was that last who applied for a permanent one. It's called Finest Kind. It was the old gift shop. Yeah. And then of course, Turtle Island.
They they also have a permanent food truck and as well as rusty bellies. This is going further up Dodecanese again. These
businesses along Dodecanese and going up Athens really aren't going to have room for a food truck. This is the eastern part.
So you're looking at the docks Seafood Grill, Yannis, which is changed to I think, Acropolis.
Okay. Acropolis. Dimitris does not have room. These two, the first two I mentioned would would probably have room, but again they are special
restaurants. Blackbeard's same thing. That's a special restaurant as well as tropics. The two over east on the east
side of Pinellas Avenue are technically in the sponge Docks character district. They both have room. This is the Bridge lounge and the pilot House pilot
House being a special restaurant. And this is just an oblique kind of aerial of that.
So. Really, I mean, if this is adopted as is, it would again be fairly restrictive. Almost, I
dare say basically what you've you've got. Now, if we assume that most of the special restaurants are not going to use
food trucks or limited at the docks, we're looking at probably probably wine at the docks as being really one of the only
ones that that would that really is, is most viable for this. So that that's what you're looking at at the docks. And of course the bridge lounge. If, if they
would want to use a food truck as well. So. The question was brought up about parking. The
ordinance does again restrict a food truck from occupying sidewalks. Thruways pedestrian
ways, drive aisles and required parking. We did check the existing drinking establishments to confirm that their parking is
over what's required. So this is just a list of those in the areas that that. Have the
transects that allow would allow food trucks under this proposal. And. We really don't have a, you
know, particular recommendation other than you look at this and give us some feedback and. Make a recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners. Are there any questions? Okay. So I know you have a lot of time in this
particular application. Pat, I just want to if you would clarify for me, for example, brighter days, if they were to
put a food truck in their parking lot and it it then put them not in compliance with the amount of parking spaces that
they were required to have for occupancy. Does that then disqualify them for from having a food truck, or could they put it on a grassy area or somewhere that was not actually a
designated parking space? Yes, they could put it on a grassy area. But they. Yeah. So if they
were to park it to block enough and I just switched to try to make that transit map map bigger. So yeah, if, if they
were to, to put it somewhere where it blocked more than the required or some of the required parking spaces, then. They wouldn't be, they would get an
application past is what you're saying. Well, so this as you remember this is this is a change to the temporary daily operation of food truck. They
have to comply with all those standards and they can go ahead and do it. They don't need to apply for anything. If, you know, if it's if it's something
that someone brings up or complains about or code enforcement goes by and see, then yeah, we can ask them to move it out of the parking
space. Those remember these are going to be coming and going on a daily basis. They will not be able to be there after 10:00 pm.
The areas in question that don't necessarily have their own designated parking are are they disqualified in that respect if they're, you know, something
like Acropolis that doesn't necessarily have a parking area but might have some room on the side of their building, let's say, is that disqualify them
from that? No it doesn't. They could they could put it on the side of their building and the parking is not relevant, is what you're saying. Not if the
restaurant is not. It either is not required to have parking or doesn't have parking now and is maybe non-conforming, but legal.
We would not require them to put in parking spaces for a temporary food truck. Okay. Is, I think, maybe what you're asking. That's that's all that
that clears it up. Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Questions?
No. All right. Questions. All right. Let's go on. I have a
couple questions okay. I have to do some hypotheticals because there's a lot of moving parts in this. And maybe everybody else gets you every detail, but I
don't. So even between the maps and the transects, I got to do some hypotheticals. So hypothetically, there's an auto shop, an alternate 19. Could
that auto shop put a food truck in his front parking lot? If it's in the as proposed, the
ordinance is proposed. If it is in a special area plan, answer is no. If it's outside and it's zoned a non residential zoning, the answer is yes. Excellent I
thought so. Okay good. Got one. Then that would lead to hey I got a dry cleaner that's down on the corner of 18 and Klosterman Road. Not inside this special
area transit plan. He would be able to put a food truck in front of his dry cleaner. Yes. Assuming it's zoned commercial. Okay. And then just to solidify
this. So the adult gaming facility that we just approved over there on Olympus, once he took the tent off his windows, could he have a food truck
parked in front of his gaming facility? He can have one now because that's highway business. Yeah, okay, a hypothetical when
I'm done. Okay. Okay. And then I want to move to this concept of primary only. Operator. Those are my terms. I've read this sentence once or twice, where it
has to be demonstrated that the food truck is in fact owned and operated by the sponsoring business. Does that apply to the giant zone, which includes
everybody, or does that rule only apply to the transect zone? Food and beverage facilities? I
believe it's number 956 .06. Parentheses nine. A mobile food truck dispensary vehicle may only be operated by a primary business owner as an extension of the primary business. Yeah. You're talking now about the
permanent food truck, not the temporary. Okay. We aren't proposing any changes to that section. And, yes, the owner has to pull the business tax for the
future. I didn't get that one. Right. Okay. Great. So but I understand that. So now I have another question about a detail. And I think it's number seven.
It's the bathroom one. And it probably applies to temporary and permanent is that. We have
this sentence that says there's a requirement for bathroom access. So would the temporaries within a transect have to show
access to a public restroom for there to be a food truck there? For the temporary? And then
while you're looking, I'm just going to try to find I'm going to flesh this out. Permanent restrooms is that is the verbiage and I can't pin it
down. And I think what the concept is, if you've got a food truck, you provide the service. You should also provide a restroom. At least that's how I understand it. And then that
restroom has got to be accessible. Unless it's a porta potty right there, it has to be accessible within the business that it's parking in front of.
Yeah, well, it can't be a porta potty. So it's section 5605 F. Number three. Improved land
won't be allowed on unimproved land without permanent on site bathroom facilities available to patrons. Okay, so that applies to both the daily trucks that
come and go and permanent trucks. Obviously the permanent trucks is only part of a food and beverage. We know there's bathrooms there, but for the temporary folks, it says in there that there's supposed to
be access to bathrooms. But is that really the intent and are we going to put do they supply a site plan. Let's say it's in front of the auto shop that I was referring to. We can all
imagine what that bathroom is like back in the back corners of that auto shop. It's got to be available to patrons. So if there's not, if the, you know,
if it's a shopping center that has bathrooms, it's a parcel with a shopping center or, or like a Lowe's or something,
which are all up on 19, you can have a hot dog cart food truck. Now, as long as the people can go, there is a there is an
operating primary business on site. So the assumption is that they have restrooms. Okay, great. So then so we've got a food truck in front of my auto
shop and I go get it myself, a taco. And I ask to use the bathroom. And they say, well, it's in there. And I and I go to that business because it's not the business owner doesn't own that. It's temporary. He's like,
you don't get to use my bathroom. It's for employees only. But the statute says that they must have access to a bathroom at all times. So then I guess this is the last question
is, are we missing something in writing the ordinance? That is really absolutely crystal clear that that food truck has a sign and the business has a sign that says, if you got to go potty,
you got to go into that bathroom. We can add that if it's daily food trucks coming and going daily, it would be tough to enforce. I'm not going
to disagree. I was mentioning, you know, I think if someone complains we can certainly enforce it without doing that. But if and then that's going to lead right to the big Ada bugaboo. On if someone rolls up
in a wheelchair not to get it too muddy. But if we're going to rewrite an ordinance, we might want to get into some of those issues. And if I'm out of place here and somebody else wants to
comment and go, hey, a food truck, they don't have to have have a right to a potty. I would like some more clarification on that. I think that's my last
question. Yes. Thank you very much for your patience. Thanks. Pat. Can you pull back up? Where existing drinking establishments
that slide about the parking. The parking. Okay. Showing all the parking spots for the distilleries and breweries right
here? Yeah. Okay. So to clarify, these are the current restrictions on parking. That's nothing to do with food trucks. Like this is just what they have, right? Required parking
and available parking without this is the current available and required parking. Is that correct? These are these are just drinking establishments in.
Yeah. List the required parking and what they actually have. But there's what. And if I missed it because again I agree with Mr.
We got a lot going on here. So what is the solution for. Because I know I spoke with with brighter days and I know that when they seems to me that when they bought that rented that
property or bought the property, they had that with putting a food truck in mind. So they have like a spot for that. But in some of these places, what I'm
not seeing is how are we fixing the parking problem? If they're going to, where are they going to be putting the food truck? Where's that? And then where is the extra parking going to? How are we resolving that? Because this is just telling us what
parking is currently required and what's available but isn't doesn't have a solution for where this food truck is going to take up space. Are they getting other property? Are they putting it on existing parking
spots? And then how are we solving that problem? Because if that's the case and we haven't even touched that issue in this ordinance. Yeah, they can they can put it so that that's up to
them where they have room to put it. Where are we requiring more parking somewhere. The point of this table is to show that all
these are over parked by code. So if there is a parking spot that they want to use, depending on the size of the truck, 1 or 2 parking spots and they still
have remaining required parking, then they can do that. So do you see what I mean? I'm not sure. So for it would give us an example. So Tarpon distillery
rear courtyard. This is where apparently this is an idea where this where they would put the food truck that they proposed or you guys proposed. Right. We just looked at the aerial. No, no that's right. Yeah. We just
looked at it. We didn't ask the required parking seven. Is that the required parking as it is today or if they get a food truck. No, that's the required parking. They only have
currently. They only require it perpendicularly. They only required seven spots. And if they but they they have ten available. So yeah. So if they put this there then we're, they
could technically technically have three more spots. Essentially. I suppose they could take up three spots. I'm not sure why they do that since they have room. Right. I'm just
trying to figure this out because I mean, like like it looks one thing here, but like on a map, you know, I'm not really seeing where these parking spots are. Yeah. And so then I guess for the special
area plan, won't have to worry about parking because we have all the public parking and the paid parking. Is that clear? Is that what. That's one reason the required parking in special area
plan is lower, right. Just just to clarify that. Yeah. And then obviously they couldn't it couldn't be the handicapped spot that they put the food truck on. So that would be one. And then
for the special area plan, the docks and the downtown are in the special area plan. Yeah. Did we go over the spots for the
downtown? No, I what I heard was your main concern was that the docks. But we'll show you that we did take Tarpon Avenue out
from ring over to the bayou, because really, there's only two establishments that even might have room. Giannis and the brouhaha. Nobody else really has
room but want to take them into account since we're, you know, I know that those are current concerns, but it's going to affect both areas. So just want to make sure those are all
covered. Yeah. And then as far as the red and the green, you're saying those are the only places that anyone could apply in the special area plan? The way this is written at this time in on
premise consumption license, those are the those are the current active on premise consumption licenses. Thanks.
Yeah. Well, thanks. Thanks for all your hard work with this pad and the rest of the folks in the department. It's definite progress in the right direction.
My concern is will there be an individual site plan for every application, and if so, who will that come before for review and approval for temporary food
trucks there will not. Okay, so they'll just be adhering to these guidelines. Yes. Yeah. And as far as. Sighting or observing
how they function, where they function and that it's going to be once again something that falls on code enforcement or because they could just plop it anywhere. And I think that's
happened 1 or 2 places in town from time to time where things just appear. Yeah. Okay. And I will remind you that under the way this is written. So the
convenience stores, the grocery stores where you see people barbecue every once in a while. No, none of that would be allowed under this provision. So
if someone were to complain or whatever, then they would, they would have to, but they would be shut down. There would be some oversight. In other words, there's people who would be
applying. I'm certain of that based on what we've constructed here, would there be some sort of review to say, here's where it's going. Yes. We attest to
having these necessary facilities, and it seems to be okay. What do they just get an approval and they can do as they choose, where they choose, how they choose, the way the
ordinance is proposed. As long as they comply with the standards, they can just go ahead and do it. Okay. We're certainly you know, I think I mean, one thing you can think
about, because it sounds like you're not sure how this is operating. There could be some kind of a I don't think we've done it since I've been here, but but you could recommend to
the board that they do some kind of sunset provision. So run it for six months, run it for a year, something like that. And see, as I just presented, not
many people have room. It's already limited. I think it's going to continue to be limited and manageable. We'll be glad to contact businesses, give them
the courtesy call and say, hey, okay, you know, not parking the truck in certain areas. You're not in compliance and give them that kind of courtesy call as we see them. But that that could be
another option is, is to see, you know, like like we mentioned, this has been in effect, this ordinance for three, three years. We've only got a couple of the permanent
food trucks. So that gives you an idea of how many people actually are interested in doing that permanent food truck accessory food trucks. So we
could see how many actually are going to be able to do. And that's just something to kind of throw out there. So I would just feel more comfortable if there
was some preliminary site plan. And even if you folks in P and Z, you know, review it for compliance doesn't have to necessarily come before us, but something that says looks good
and should work, but not that we have appliances and things that could be hazardous or life safety concerns because people just turn something this way or
that way. I mean, most site plans want to know where dumpsters are going and things like that. To me, this is a little a little more important. As long as it has some eyes on it, you know, it seems to be, to
be fair. I mean, if somebody sends us a, you know, we're people all the time that ask for just a quick courtesy, they'll
scan a sketch in. We'll be g&-pe people that are really concerned with the placement up front so that they know when they have a food truck, this is a good place
to park it. So we just as an example, we ran a temporary use recently for brighter days. They're going to have an event under the current allowance. So
they gave us a sketch of where it's going to be. And we have some fire conditions and things and, and. You know, and I will
say fire marshal will generally just make the statement this is subject to inspections. So he's one he's a life safety guy
right. He doesn't really have to wait for a complaint. He's the one that can drive around. If he sees it's too close. It's got, you know, 15 extension cords plugged in. There's no fire
extinguisher. He can, you know, notify them and shut them down. If he's got that kind of authority. So I think, you know, it's something we could look
look at how it operates. If you all are interested in doing that. Okay. Thank you. And you know, I think you were focusing in on the sponge docks because I
think from our last, our last meeting, I think the other quarter or the, the alternate 19 quarter, I don't think that was much of an issue that we had addressed because correct me if
I'm wrong, the primary reasoning for the establishments wanting a food truck is they were they served alcohol and they wanted,
you know, some opportunity to offer food. And those alcohol related establishments. Is that pretty much a fair statement? I would say most of the people I've heard from are alcohol. So,
you know, and you know, it's not a secret. My biggest objection was, was the Dodecanese area. And I and I appreciate how you
color coded that. Now if would it be. Let's say we agreed on on a approval, but there was a carve out as to that color coded
area that would that something that we as a board could, could basically recommend to, to the commissioners. Okay. So let me
get let me get down to some, some of my concerns and I'll, I'll take gift shops as an example. So, so if I have a gift shop and even though, you know,
I have no parking availability on my premises, but I own the parking lot across the street from my particular business, would could I put a could I put
a food truck there? No. Okay. Why if I if by parking lots it has to be adjacent touching my particular building. So if I have a gift shop and I own I own
a parking lot and a gift shop. Yeah, I understood two separate parcels, so the food truck would have to be on the same parcel as the primary business. Okay, so
if I were a parking lot down the street, I could not put a food truck there. So if you remember the last time we talked about parking lots, so what we've got is are we going to distinguish
parking lots in the special area plan or outside? We're talking about special area plan. We're talking about Dodecanese okay. Yeah. So the answer is no, you
can't, you can't. So I think you just it's that's the answer. Yeah. The answer is that that parking a commercial parking lot
is improved land. It's got to have the on site bathroom facilities on site is permanent. My on site is in my gift shop.
Well, if that's on that parcel, then now you have a gift shop. Okay. If we leave this. In the smart code to on premise
alcohol, then you can't have it at the gift shop. Okay, so if you if you have a gift shop, you cannot have because you don't you don't sell alcohol, therefore you cannot. That's correct. Okay. So it's only
places that serve alcohol can have have in the smart code. Yes okay. All right. Looking at restrooms okay. Would the fact
that the city and let's say you have it in your parking lot, but it's right adjacent to the city, city restroom facilities, would
would that void the requirement that that the applicant meet as far as having on premises bathroom facilities available? Not the way this is written.
Okay. Were those bathrooms facilities have to meet Ada requirements. So if the public is using a bathroom, they've got
to have an Ada bathroom. Are they all up to code and compliant? There may be some legal nonconforming that have never remodeled. ET cetera. I
would venture to say that most or all probably have an Ada restroom, but yeah, that's just a separate code requirement for
okay establishments that serve the public. So they they when they make application for a food truck, we the city goes out and does an inspection to make sure
that they have the appropriate facilities, including any Ada requirements for bathroom before they grant that permit. Yes they
would, but again, the city would not, unless you added in here require someone to remodel to today's Ada standards for a
bathroom for the temporary food truck ordinance. That that would be if they aren't proposing to alter their so well, if you have
to have a facility. What? I mean, if you have to have a bathroom facility, if the ordinance requires them to have access to a bathroom facility on site, yes. Why wouldn't we want to make sure that that bathroom
facility was Ada requirements? I think if it's an alcohol serving establishment, we already would want to some of these some of these buildings are are a lot
older that may not have exactly. Okay. So these things you know grandfathered stuff goes. They they get corrected when they come in for. So under under your
ordinance you require that the food truck or food trucks have to they have to leave. You know, they basically come and go every day. Yes. Okay. And, and the
times of operation are basically outside the times that we have any code enforcement in place.
The time of operation is. So, so if they if they didn't leave at night, if they did not, if they didn't leave at night and stay there. Yeah. 7 a.m. To 10 p.m.
Okay. And then and they show up the when they leave at night or supposed to leave at night. If they don't leave at night, they stay there. How is that enforced? If there's not even a code enforcement officer on
duty? Well, if it's there the next morning, then, I mean, you know, good, good, good example, the one on there's one recently.
And by the way, I neglected the last meeting to let you know that I believe we're still under a state of emergency, that food trucks were allowed to operate under the state of emergency.
You were asking me about the one that's at the Spartan gas station, but using that as an example. Yeah. It was noted that that food truck was left there
overnight a couple of times. So a police officer and code officer stopped by and let her know that she would need to move
that daily. So, you know, yeah, we have the ability to observe that and let the food truck owner and the site owner know that it needs to be moved. Okay,
okay. Can you show pull up, pull up. The better or a larger picture of the Dodecanese? Okay. Can you put like a Google Maps
so we can actually see? Okay. I'm just looking at those spaces where a food truck that there's, there's the criteria that would
satisfy. And if you I'm just with all those the dots green and red. What how many spaces would actually be eligible to
put a food truck in that area, the peach area. Okay. So these are all on premise alcohol establishments. So all the red
all the reds are all the red and green dots are on premise alcohol okay. Out of those. And so let me let me just just narrow it down. I'll try to
narrow it down from the, from those that you see. Which one of those have the space available. Okay. We can try to process of
elimination. It's a lot of dots. Yeah. I'm just trying to see how what what's the real impact. So in the docks area we came up with a with nine establishments
that seem to have room for of those already have a permanent food truck or have applied for one. So that leaves five. In the
peach area. I could see some in the gray area, but the grayish or grayish blue area, but in
the. I'm sorry. Yeah, this is one. Yeah. So I'm not sure what you want to look at. So I just
want to look at how many how many locations down at the sponge docks that if they all apply for food trucks, how many would have that ability? If
you're saying there's nine, there's nine opportunities to put nine food trucks or actually 18 food trucks down down in
those areas? Yeah. If you count the ones that already have one or okay, so there's nine that appear to have room for of them already have a permanent or of
applied. They could they could do another temporary if they wanted to. And four of them are special restaurants. So you're looking at least one at the docks as the only one that's not
a special restaurant. But yeah, we could say there are nine. Okay. So you're you're looking at potentially a total of 18 food trucks at the docks, I suppose. Yeah, potentially.
Okay. And why two. Why not three. It was one. And we didn't think going up to three was I mean you know why two I just I've tried I've tried to think
the difference between one and Charles can speak to this too. I think the idea was sometimes you want, you want two different things, like a sweet and savory
or something like that. There are there are there enough restaurants and opportunities down there for that type of variety? I can't answer that. I
mean, I'm just, you know, I'm not I'm not expecting an answer from you. I mean, we have all different kind of restaurants. I'll tell you the truth, being a
patron of the docks, what's the one by the sponge docks? I think that's kind of a street food kind of place. It would be like that. You could sit down or you could walk around and eat. I
don't know, we're hearing there's a demand for some of that, but I don't I don't yeah, I apologize, I, some of the stuff I probably want to say, I probably want to wait for
comment, so I will I don't think I have any more questions. I'll go back to the to this end and see if there's any more questions before I open up for public for any presentation. A
quick question I met someone the other day who was building the new distillery on Safford. You know where that new distillery is going to be on Safford, just
north of lime. It's in that old courthouse. Yes. The he was hoping to be able to have food trucks. Is that area going to be allowed because he is a distillery he cannot have
kitchen. Yes. Under this ordinance he would be able to. He's on your list of parking. That's the include distillery
okay. Oh that's that one there. So he's on your list of parking. I didn't know the name. Thank you. Any more questions on this side? Any more questions on this
side? Yeah I had I did have a couple of questions. The I think some part of the problem too is when we say temporary, right. Do
we have a definition. And I know that that sounds really simple like the basic definition. But sometimes we do have definitions in our code for certain words, because I know that by definition this is temporary.
But technically they could be there every day from 7 to 10, right? Yeah. Right. So I mean, I think when people think temporary, they're thinking like, oh, this this weekend,
it's not going to be here forever, but it's just that they have to come and go every day. Yeah, right. But they could still be there every single day and they would have to leave.
They could. Right. And so would the burden be on the residents basically to probably police this. Would that be correct then to if our code enforcement is
not working at 10:00 pm? Well, if the food trucks running they could certainly. Okay. So there's always police. If the food truck is running past 10:00
pm, the police could shut it down. And then I'll just leave it at that. Just the police would have to call the police again to enforce the enforce it,
right? Yeah. Right. I mean, it's not I'm just trying to clarify. This isn't the planning department. We're not going to call you and Renee, right? And just be like, hey, this is I just want I'm just clarifying
that it's the police that would have to deal with all of these problems, like all of these issues. Right. The initial response. So the Spartan gas example, we were called and we did assist code enforcement with
with that like because we're getting the message to that young lady. And so when chairman mentioned the public bathrooms because and this is an example.
But I mean, you know, where they are at the downtown and the docks. So if you're a parking lot in an improved land, you get in, you have city parking lots near you. You're just, I guess,
luckier than the people down the road who don't. And then you can use those because that doesn't really seem fair. Do you understand? I'm not sure. No. So
I'm not sure what you're asking. Okay, so the property has to have permanent restrooms, but whether it's a parking lot or.
Okay, so. But then. So let me finish. So Chairman Scudi said would the city restrooms qualify as. No, they would not. So
that's not what I said. But but that wasn't the answer. That's not that's not a city owned separate parcels. They would not I didn't hear I didn't hear that. No. So thank you I don't
have any questions for you. Thank you. Okay. I guess Pat, the city is the applicant. Is that the city's presentation
then, or is there additional presentation a little bit more? I Charles Read City Manager. I just wanted to add after the last session, I asked the planning staff to really look at the docks and what's the
reality. That's why they did the map so and what they found was, as she said, there were nine, nine locations. They weren't all in the peach. A few of them were
on the rusty bellies and so forth were in the purple. So there's in that peach. There's I think seven. And of those, I think two of them have applied
for permanent truck, and I think four of them are restaurants, or so it was, probably has room in their parking lot in the back, but is going to bring in a food
truck. So the reality is there was one location. Why didn't the dogs that in all practicality could or would have a food truck, that the idea that the
restaurants, the 51% food sales would bring in a food truck, although they would be allowed is, I think, not the reality. So at the docks, what we're talking about is could we allow for one
establishment to bring in a food truck and then downtown it's can you can you pull the map back up? Because when you say one eye
that's different from nine. So I already, you know, 18. No. So they're all so if you look I
don't know here. So you know in this area what is it. This is probably Hellas. Yes. This is not that familiar. That's their other restaurant. That's that's
I don't know, you know, Hellas has a parking lot, is halal, is going to have a couple food trucks. This is this area is applied for. This is in the purple, but it's applied for a
permanent food truck. This is the sponge exchange. And she said they could drive something. It's likely to be a hot dog cart going to roll up in there not a
food truck. So the rest of these physically there's no room to drive and park a food truck. So what we're looking at is one of the docks has parking in the back and the side, and they have
a huge patio out front. So the reality is, given the restrictions, there's one location at the docks, the only one dot then. Well, these are
were these are all the alcohol. But the reality you said is there's only one spot, so there should only be one dot. Well this is, this is showing where alcohol establishments can serve
alcohol. So she can make another color dot where there would be just one. The reality is there could be 18, right. That's the reality that there could be 18, correct? Yeah, that's the
reality. I disagree. There's physically some of these won't actually fit like they fill the lot. So there's nowhere to put a truck because that was my
question. And I don't know if I explained it correctly because I asked of all those of all those things that are portrayed, which ones have the opportunity to put
a food truck, if some of those particular locations that you've got dots for, even though they, they serve alcohol or whatever,
if they're not candidates for a food truck, then, you know, am I talking nine locations or am I talking 1 or 2? How many would
you say there are? We said nine, and that's why I said 18 food trucks. So I need I need clarification as to the number.
Okay. So. So there are nine that appear to have room for at least one truck. Okay. Four of those
have have a permanent or have applied for a permanent truck. So in our minds that takes them out. And now we've got five left. Or are those remaining are
special restaurants. We feel it's highly unlikely you're you're saying they could. Sure they could. Highly unlikely that they would want a food truck
that takes four or more out. That leaves one. And that's wine at the docks. So. So code could they. Yes. So for example, Rusty Bellies, which is a very, very busy restaurant. They're always
full. They have a mobile or a food truck that they, they've used for events. But theoretically they could just open that up if they applied for a permit. They are currently permitted to do that now under
the current ordinance. Yes. All right. We have a question. So again right now we're looking at everything as it currently is. Okay. There's nothing stopping a retail store from turning into a
bar. All right. Let's take the properties in front of the lots. Right. There's a ton of room back there. Pretty sure they're in the peach. So one of those or two of those retail stores turn
into two bars. Now they can have four food trucks behind them and they have the room back there. But you're not picturing that right now because we're not. Well, as I mentioned, this is the current I understand, and
I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm what we're just trying to do is propose the question so that we can see the possibilities of where this could go so that people aren't taking this because we don't
change ordinances for one application, for one applicant, or for one person that wants it different. This, you know, the wine at the docks. So I think that's the kind of the point I
think we're trying to make. And, you know, one of the things, one of the things to, I guess, being very, very familiar with the properties down there and make no, you know, just to disclose, I represent almost everybody
down there at some point in time, you know, and I, you know, the client that owns a significant piece of property who's got three, three, actually
four properties that he rents with big parking lot, part of the biggest parking lot out at Sponge Docks right now. Those places are gift shops. If somebody were to come in at ten
and were to come in because they include a large parking of access adjacent to the building, and they decided to turn those establishments to, you know, a
beer and wine place, you know, that whole back parking lot could be full of food trucks, because if you two. Well, no, because he's got four buildings and they're all adjacent to the
parking lot. Yeah, it's per parcel. Yeah. So that's I think when we talk about not that that would happen. Yeah. But but we you know, I think we're charged
with looking at at worst case scenario and comprehensively comprehensively. So again and I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time, I think I think as I well that's the part of my
comment. It's not a question. So I'll just reserve I'll just reserve that as, as going forward with. And I apologize if I went on a tangent without
asking a question because I'm trying to police myself. So, so at this point, unless there's any other questions, I'm going to open it up for public
comment. Unless there's any more questions to the city manager. Okay. Any public comment, please
state your name, your address. Okay. Irene Manolis, 1307 Myers Boulevard I wanted I, I sent in a letter and I thought it was going to be read in tonight. So
I wanted to see if I can give my minutes to my coworker for her to read my letter. And then she has a statement as well. Okay. Your comment is of record. I guess we need to incorporate that into the record, but you're
more than welcome to either read it or say something else. Okay, good. So yeah, can you read it? And then you say your your name and address please. Tanya
Pilarinos, 1307 Myers Boulevard, Tarpon Springs. My name is Irene Manolis. I'm a proud owner of Greek Street Donuts, established in 2020. I specialize in loukoumades, which are
traditional Greek donuts that I serve out of my charming blue and white horse trailer. Since September of 2020, the Planning and Zoning Department has diligently worked to impose various restrictions on food
trucks. They have done their job well and have left no loose ends. For those that don't know, my business has caught the attention of national Greek news, Greek talk shows, local news, local talk shows and
newspaper outlets. Meli has also won Dessert Wars. We placed number six in national dessert competition at a 480 competitors in Atlanta, Georgia. A very big win for us. We are proud to be
the only competitor to dominate the entire competition in Tampa, winning first place in both categories. The purpose of my letter is to deeply express to you that I believe my business should be given an opportunity
to operate at the Sponge docks. I have friends and family that own property at the Sponge docks, and are taxpaying citizens that would love to have us on their property because they understand the impact Meli has. Meli will be a valuable
addition to the sponge docks, attracting a diverse crowd. I am proud to have reached my fifth year in business and we have built a strong and loyal customer base. In the last meeting, it was pointed out that some individuals travel from
Saint Pete specifically for food trucks, and Meli has drawn that kind of attention from all over. I have welcomed tourists from cities such as Chicago, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio who have made it a point to
specifically put Meli on their list of things to do when visiting our town. Unfortunately, I have also experienced a decline in business from out-of-town guests due to the strict food truck
regulations that only permit Meli to operate during special events. So naturally, I miss those customers and opportunities. My small business has played a vital role in
supporting local schools, our teams, churches and so forth. I am blessed to call this beautiful town my home. Investing in this community and giving back whenever possible is of great significance to me. The
strength of our community is the primary reason Meli continues to thrive. Although I do not operate a brick and mortar, that does not make my business any less valuable than others. I am the child of immigrant parents
who arrived from Kalymnos, Greece in pursuit of the American Dream, and I am doing just that. Many of you are familiar with Meli, but if you haven't had the chance yet, please look us up. Meli is a
full of character, charming and unique. We provide a genuine cultural experience that appeals to both visitors and locals alike. As I've mentioned before, the support from the community has been incredible. Our turnout
at events, especially First Friday, truly speaks volumes. The local support is overwhelming and this community loves Meli as much as Meli loves the community. All I am asking is for an opportunity to grow my
brand and my business in my hometown. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other public comment? Can I read mine now or can I read mine? Thank
you. Your four minutes. Okay. My name is Tanya Pilarinos, 1307 Meares Boulevard, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689I help operate and on many Greek street
donuts. Meli Greek Street Donuts is a mobile food vendor with all the necessary licensing and permits required by the by the Department of Agriculture and the State of Florida, and would like to be able to operate at
the sponge docks and in Tarpon Springs. We are only able to operate within city limits during any special event. From my knowledge and helping out on First Friday, there is an influx of visitors and locals in
downtown Tarpon. On that night, all the restaurants seem to thrive and have a record breaking sales, with numerous food trucks that are at that event and are not hurting any of the brick and mortar businesses.
Most people think of food trucks and think of big eyesores, but that is not the case with all mobile food vendors. For instance, Meli is a tiny cart that needs minimal space and is esthetically appealing and would
be a great cultural addition to the sponge docks. They bring variety and which attract more customers and would bring more people into our town. As we all know, during the winter time
when the snowbirds are not here, downtown Tarpon and the Sponge Docks is a ghost town. You go by there at 6 p.m. There is no one walking around. With respect to the board's concerns regarding
generators, I'd like to highlight that many owners now have inverter type generators, which are currently the quietest, quietest available on the market, which Meli does have. In July of 2020, the
passage of the House Bill 1193 aimed to enhance opportunities for entrepreneurs. However, the Planning and Zoning Board of Tarpon Springs has made this next to impossible. I believe
mobile vendors have become a vital contributor to the economic growth and community development throughout the United States. Since 2020, planning and zoning has been addressing the issue and no
resolution has come about. It's unreasonable. It's, for me at least, it's unreasonable to criticize something that has not yet been tried in Tarpon Springs. But it's successful in
many, many other communities and in many towns. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi, I'm
Angelina Christopoulos, I live at 1406 Ford Avenue, but I own multiple properties at the Sponge docks. I am not opposed to having trucks if there is
special requirements for them, especially if it's temporary. One of the properties I own is the building that were Saint
Nicholas boat line is my husband's family's business. Sponge Diver Supply sits right next to that. And then I own the building that Dimitri's restaurant is also in. For
instance, if we were to have that on our private property next to sponge divers supply, I don't feel like that would affect any of those businesses else that I own being that they
don't serve anything else like that. We have things down there like not I don't want to call anybody out, but we have kiosks down there that sell things,
smoothies, little things. I don't know how that falls into or what category that falls into, but I don't think they
have separate bathrooms for those. I do have bathrooms on our property, and I'm almost positive that that wouldn't be an issue if we were to take
something on like Mary. I think that esthetically pleasing. I think that's a big issue down there. When I think of a food
truck, I think of the big, huge ones. I don't consider her a food truck. I consider her just a small little dessert cart that can come in and out as she pleases. I know I'm not here
just for her, but I'm not opposed to any of them. I don't think that it should be a competition because as it is, everybody down there says sells
the same kind of food as it is. So I don't know how adding more. Business down there to attract
more people would hurt anything. Thanks. That's all I got. Jane Harrington 1021 Jamaica Way.
You've heard from me before, I'm not going to comment that I was the one who went to Saint Petersburg and it got made fun of. But the whole thing that I
just wish everyone would just step back, don't. So overregulate and you change something, but you tie everybody's hands. They can't do
it. If a gift shop wants to have a food truck, a little one, something that fits, why are we so opposed to change? Difference
matters. And I agree with you that when the tourists leave, the snowbirds leave, the docks and downtown are dead. Maybe
more local people would be going out if there were a lot of different venues to go to, and not everybody has those mega mega trucks. There's a lot of
small trucks. We see them at First Friday. We see them, the little carts and trucks at Second Saturday. Let's open this up so everybody can enjoy it,
not just a place that serves alcohol. Some store, if they have the space, let people do it. If they have the space and if no one likes it, like you're
sure if everybody only wants brick and mortar or this or that, and we've got to protect this or that, then nobody will go in. The food trucks will get the idea and they will leave. But I don't believe any business
is looking to have and break your codes and not have them leave, except for the few that we do know have been staying there for a very long time, but I don't think anybody at the
docks is going to want the same person there every single day who would want that. So I just think it's nice to think in a bigger picture and have an ordinance. And I believe I have
to believe and trust in people that they will follow the guidelines that this fine city sets. Nobody's out to make a terrible place but food trucks,
I think, and change and diversity is the place to go. Thank you. Have a good night. Hi
Margo Lee. I live at 221 North Stafford Avenue. I spoke last time and I was pretty nervous, so I'm trying to be more comfortable this time. But I
work in hospitality. I live in Tarpon, and I don't make enough money here. There's not enough money. In season, it's good. Off
season. It's dead. It's really hard. I was working three jobs last year. Off season. Now I travel to Dunedin. It's a 25
minute drive there and back. And it sucks because Tarpon is great. It's walkable. It's bikeable. That's what locals should like here. And I have to
leave in order to pay my bills. Or I have to work multiple jobs. It's rough in season. It's great. But it's just not. It's not working. Off season. And I
know the docks are great and we want to protect the docks. Downtown is thriving. There are other parts of town. I do live across the street from brighter
days. I do share my parking lot with them. It's totally fine. Like, you know, I support them. I want our little part of town.
Like Stumpy's didn't survive. You know, food is a problem. People want food. They need food and breweries. I work in
Dunedin. Breweries bring people, but they're good at beer, right? It's hard to be good at everything. And restaurants and
the docks are are good at the Greek food and they're good at rusty bellies, is good at what they do. But there are other things that people are good at, like coffee, beer, you know, distilleries, you know, game.
Like, you know, the places in downtown that it's good to have a mix and to bring people in for that reason year round, not just in season. And it will keep
people that live here like going out, working here, not leaving, not moving because it is a struggle for people in town to
live and work here, which I do think is a problem. It's really bad in the summer. It's really hard and we struggle and it will drive us out. And we don't have
a lot of young people here. Our community is getting older and what happens when we age out, you know. So I just think we need to it's not about competition. It's about
everybody thriving, keeping people here, families here, young people here, letting people work and live here. So
that's all I got. And any other public comment? Okay. One more mayor, please. Okay. 595
Peninsula Avenue or 324 East Pine Street. So I just want to give this board just some encouragement to really start thinking outside the box. I'm really disappointed to see where
this is going. It's clear when a couple of board members who and I have a right to criticize this board. I appoint people on here, and I don't have to give a reason to even remove anybody. But the point that I'm trying to
make here, we need to start thinking outside the box. We have a city manager who's going above and beyond to try to make the economic vitality of this community thrive for the future.
10 to 20 years out, as well as well as its current state. And, Pat, I came into the office the day after they had their meetin, and I wrote some bullet points down I gave to Rene to say, hey, try to put these conditions in
and see what this map looks like. So just some general thoughts that I'm hoping this board can come up with together. I said parking lots. No more
than 1 to 2 food trucks. If a food truck can sit on a private property without impeding the city's right away, put it on there. If a food trucks within 1 to 2 minute walk of a public
restroom, put it on there. All these different parameters in place where we could see these numbers. And it's clear a couple board members who, you know, you
can claim to protect the docks. But when two of you have led the conversation to seems like go against this instead of being creative, but at the same time the same to go out, go out and
about and sit there and want an RV overnight. Stay park down at the sponge docks without any code regulating mobile RV parks. It's disappointing. So I ask you
all to be consistent when we're talking about protecting in the romance of the sponge docks. And so what are we going to do here? And Mr. Salzman, am I allowed to
talk about some future ideas that were coming forward with the city manager hopefully present in front of the board soon, if there regarding this issue? Mayor. Yeah. Okay. Well,
nightlife vitality, we're going to have what we call hopefully wet zones. Wet zones are going to need areas where there's food trucks in between. Are you all familiar with wet zones?
Basically carry alcohol and walk around. So a nice area. So maybe a couple that's going to require food trucks. We talk about the Forbes property. Yes. What the residents want. They don't want
no two story hotel or they don't want no two story building. They either want a boutique hotel or they want nothing but food trucks over there in an area for the community to get involved.
And so I asked this board, if you're trying to stifle something, you've already done it. We've already proven just by two of these people up here that, you know, you won't even consider anything. So I asked
you all think outside the box, think for your community. And one board member up here had the nerve to tell one of these truckers, one of these food trucks. They'll never have a
food truck in the sponge docks. Well, I'm here to tell you that's not going to happen. Progress is going to happen for this community. And if it doesn't work, then we can change it. But the problem is, with
some of you, all you want to stick behind your, your, you know, your your so-called morals, but it's jeopardizing the potential economic vitality of this community. You see what
the sponge docks was even 15, 20 years ago? We don't have that. And I'm also considering talking about changing the drinking from 2 a.m. To 3 a.m. That way we can get people here to stay here
more lively. That's going to require food trucks to help service some of these people. So start thinking outside the box. Start helping create conditions. That way this staff can move
forward and decide where they're going to put the food trucks and what they're going to look like. And frankly, let's move forward to get this community going, because right now we're stagnant and we don't give the city
manager a chance. We're not going to get any progress done. Thank you. Okay. Any other
public comment? Okay. Yeah. Board comments. Almost no motion
to at this point. Yeah. Perfect. Isn't that the next step we want to call for? Yeah. Let's call for a motion then. With regard to this particular resolution. Well I would make that motion,
Mr. Chairman, to approve ordinance number 2020 501 regarding the increased availability and locations of food trucks in the city. Their
second. Yes, second. Now let's open it up for discussion. Discussion. Go ahead. Let's
start. So just to be clear, Pat. There, if you had something other than a drinking establishment, you could not put
a food truck on the property. Is that is that the is that the final. Where are you? Are we talking about the special area plan particular approved areas
if you have other than that, on premise alcohol license, which could be a drinking establishment or eating establishment that serves
alcohol on premise. And what was the purpose of limiting it to that? Is there a is there some purpose behind that that was in response to your concerns and
ideas that we limit it to drinking establishments? We thought that on premise alcohol would be an easy way to track it. But yeah, just for just for
a little history as well. I think the, the, the owner or the moving forward with this was a result of the drinking establishments wanting to have food trucks. And I think that's
what prompted, you know, the review or the history of bringing this ordinance or changing the ordinance was a result of their request. Okay.
That's it. Okay. I'll look at me like I really don't have anything to say. And no, I, I totally agree with this. I agreed with it last time as it
was, so I don't have any comments. Well, my only comment is I feel a little
uncomfortable. So I have to say, Mr. Bessey. Oh, I want to thank the staff for listening to our previous comments and doing
their best to weave together something that really tried to make everybody comfortable with that, and I think that was achieved, maybe imperfect and
some different opinions. But golly came forward. We made some comments, we were listened to, came back. I think that's healthy and I like everybody's
effort and passion on it. Thank you. Yes, and I wanted to thank the residents for coming out tonight, obviously, because you, the residents that came out for
Miss saw the previous application. So it's important when you want something to actually show up. And it's good to bring support. And I know a few people on the board know
Irene and everyone loves Irene. And it's anytime we make comments or ask questions, it's because, you know, and I want to point out what the planning director, Rene, mentioned in her
last Greek, the Greektown placemaking presentation. And it was really important that she said that one of the biggest things that the sponge docks is to do no harm. Okay. So it is
never personal. We're just trying to make sure. And I'm really glad that Mrs. Christopoulos commented on the kiosks that are down at the docks, because that is precisely one of the things we're trying
to avoid right now, because there was not a lot of oversight. And I go back and I watch these meetings, and I'll remember that at that meeting, somebody came up and said they were one of the staff members
told the board of commissioners that there were 16 unpermitted kiosks already at the docks. Okay. So that had a lot to do with Mayor Archie's decision to
approve the application at that time. So we were punished, basically for not doing what we should have done and having oversight. Well, I would say
that that was the case. So what I'm trying to say is we are trying to protect that exact type of thing from happening again, and we have to look out for highly unlikely. Well, that might be unlikely, but property
changes hands. People change their businesses all the time, so it's never personal. We're trying to. It's our job when we're up here to look out for, you know, loopholes, look out
for the people. You know, the pitfalls and the worst case scenario. And, you know, and it's not anyone. Every person that's here for this ordinance is because you're just looking out for your thing. It's like,
well, I'm not going to do that. Well, of course you're not. But there are other people that might. So that's what we're doing. That's why we asked those questions. And like I said, it's
never personal. And I do think the staff I know that I talked a lot with Pat, and I'm not saying that there's going to be 18 food trucks, but we're just talking. We're just showing the possibilities. These questions
are to bring those things out. And just to make it clear, the planning and Zoning board up here were advisory. The board of commissioners ultimately makes the decisions on their own. So, you know, they can choose to
listen to us or choose not to, but we're just trying to make everything to protect and not just the sponge docks. And that's why I was asking those questions. Special area plan covers downtown. So I want to make sure that when we further
we go out that that it's that downtown and everything in this special area plan is also covered. I don't want those things left out, because I want those business owners and property owners to be aware that this could affect them as well.
Same way property changes, tenants change over there all the time. So, you know, another one that's a gift shop could turn into a bar. Now that's change. That's already changed.
Those those areas, you know, possibilities. So like I said, it's not perfect. But I you know, I think that, you know, some of the concerns we have were definitely addressed. So I
just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. I could echo my colleague remarks, hopefully. You speaker you like
your microphone okay. I echo her remarks. And, you know, I feel like I've been honored to be given the task to participate in
reviewing all these things for our city and what we have to think about is the worst case scenario. People that would abuse the chance that they've
been given. And in all honesty, I've heard about this little donut truck. I haven't tried it, but I've heard wonderful things and there are great food trucks.
Don't get me wrong, I've been to several. I've heard horror stories as well, so we're just overly concerned because we have
to be. Nobody else will. That's what our job is. So I just want to say to everyone, please don't take offense or think that we are against you when we're
trying to flesh all this out. We have to do it. We have to do it. You may be a great little food cart. The next person may be an
idiot, you know? And so we have to we have to look at that situation and be prepared for it anyway. Thank you. All right.
Yeah. And thanks again, Pat and the PNC staff, the revision and all the consideration given again to the public that showed up. Whether you're affiliated with a food business, with a
food truck or just residential adjacent to stuff, as my colleague said, participation is paramount. Otherwise we can't read your mind. And we depend
upon the rumors and the and those. My thoughts I've seen food trucks work in many locations with zero issues. I've seen a couple problems here and
there. They're usually addressed, corrected. Bad plants are weeded out generally, and if something is not good, people will not participate. It's not worth for the people to stay.
These kind of things are kind of self self-evolving self driving. It doesn't have to be perfect from the start, but I think we do have to start somewhere and cautiously allow it to grow and
cultivate it and adapt when needed, and ask the participants to adapt when needed. And as I said before, my biggest concern is, is the site plan so that it's as much right as possible
from the start and people don't have to alter things. Nobody's encumbered with rearranging stuff. And of course, nothing bad happens public safety wise. So the more you know, the more
you measure. Once before you cut, will you measure twice before you cut? Once I think is better off. So with with the site plan or some sort of oversight to what develops, I
don't see any problem with it. And when there is a problem, it usually is pretty easily rectified and addressed. So those are my comments and thanks again. Thank you. I guess my
comments are as follows. You know, one of the things that that I look at is obviously the bricks and mortar, the fact that you've got people that own
these, these buildings, they pay high taxes where they are, some of them, they can't afford to flood insurance because it's too expensive. The building floods and they have to rebuild, put
their own money in it. And the fact that that some of you and I know one of the one of the persons spoke who owns property down there, you know, but, you
know, and they, they do they do rent to a restaurant. You put a food truck next to your to the restaurant that you own, and it takes away from your tenant who's paying high rent. It could take away from their
profitability because you put a food truck next to a restaurant that, that they that, that you're renting out. So let me ask the question to staff is when somebody makes application
or they're the property owner, does the tenant, can they make the application? If I'm renting a property and since I've got since I've got it under lease,
is it the owner of the property or can the tenant make application? The tenant can make applications with the owner's authorization. Just like any application we have in the city.
So that case scenario, if I've owned several properties, I have them all leased out. Unless my tenant wants to put a put a food truck there, they're going to, the owner of that property will
be precluded because they're not operating the business. They're just renting out the property. Would that be a fair statement? Not sure I followed that. So if I have three, if I have five
properties or two properties and I rent them out, okay. And there's a and I own obviously there's enough space to put a food truck. If I rent it out to
the tenant, the tenant can apply for the food truck because he has he's used he's the business owner. But if the property owner is not the business owner, the
property owner cannot apply for a food truck. Sure he can. It can be one or the other. So but the property owner would authorize the tenant to. So an
owner or a tenant could apply. Sure. Okay. So an owner can can compete with their tenant. Well okay. First of all, if we're talking temporary food trucks,
there's no application involved. If we're talking about the permanent food trucks, well I'm talking about the temporary. Come in. They can come and go
unless it's a temporary event where the food trucks staying for 2 or 3 days. The. I'm not talking about special events. Yeah, okay. Yeah. No special
events. Okay. As written there. Because even though there's no application. Because because even though we say it's not permanent, but if somebody is there seven days a week from seven to whatever, you're
supposed to be there, that's almost permanent because they're there every day. That'd be fair. I mean, you know, with that, you know, if that's the kind of thing occurs, I'll just say kind
of off the cuff. That staff's going to look at that. So these food trucks have to go back to their what's called commissary and dump their wastewater. Okay.
They. It's I mean, some of them might do that every night. And most of them I think we've got one business tax for one food truck that has its commissary in
Tarpon. There's probably more, but I would say there's not very many. So they're going to Clearwater, they're going to Dunedin, they're going to Palm Harbor. They're going somewhere to dump their waste water. So
yeah, if we see that happen, we're we're going to kind of question I mean, we're trying to like like I always say you can't write a it's hard to write a code to cover every eventuality.
And it gets very detailed. That's why you have a professional staff. Because codes, it's hard to think of it. You're saying you're thinking of
the worst case scenario and that's good. But it's hard to cover everything you can think of. So. But yeah. So okay. Sorry. So but no there's no
application for the temporary food truck as written. So. The way the ordinance reads, they have to have bathroom facilities
on site. Yes. Permanent. Okay. And they at this point there is no Ada requirement in the ordinance. Not in this ordinance. Okay. And they have
to serve alcohol on premise, on premise. They can't just sell it. They cannot be a gift shop. They have to serve alcohol on
premises. Okay. And they have and it's a maximum of two units or two food trucks per app, per
site. Yes. Okay. As long as it meets the parking criteria. Yes. Okay. And the reason we put
alcohol because that was the intent of the ordinance was to provide or food service for
these for the alcohol related businesses. Yes. If I mean we could. But I just that's the purpose of the order. We could
narrow that to just drinking establishments if it's that's what we heard last meeting. But okay. So. So then the question
becomes, I guess I'm going to call for the motion because the way the way we have a motion. Motion. No, we'll call for the vote I mean okay, okay. Because
I want to make sure that we understand that just like the last time, if we vote to approve, we vote to approve the way it is without us adding any conditions. So I'm going to
before and I just want to just throwing it out there. If anyone if it doesn't pass, if anyone would want to make a motion for possibly the special area plan,
only having one food truck and then outside maybe two. Yeah, I was looking for I was looking for some accommodation for the area. If anybody wants to
discuss that, although it's not the motion, we have to we have to get past this vote first. So we have a motion, we have a call for the vote. And then we could have a discussion if we want to add conditions other than
because this this was a motion, as the ordinance reads, and not with any conditions that we've added. So Weaver. Yes, Miss
Swenson? Yes, miss Shirley. Yes, Mr. Rochlin? Yes, Miss. Frances? No. Mr. Vessey. Yes, Mr. Curtis?
No. But. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Next item on the agenda. I'm gonna have to use the bathroom. Now. We want to take a five minute
break. Let's take a five minute break, because this was a long one, okay? We have another item.
Yeah, we got two more items. No. SEC. Delay.
Do you want. Oh. That's the solution. I heard there was one in. Exactly. Yeah. I'm gonna get you a bigger hammer. Well, I you know, I don't want to, I need to
I need a thing to do it with. I'd like to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. We're here on ordinance number 2025, dash zero two, Land Development Code amendment amending the
special regulations for docks, piers and Shoreline Stabilization Structures. This is a legislative matter that do
we let me ask you this, because D and E are sort of the evidence or the presentation may be similar. Is that something that can be combined or do we have to
do them as far as the presentation. And then we can discuss each one separately. Or I could explain both ordinances if you'd like. Is that okay with with with council. Absolutely.
And then we could we could vote on each one individually or that way there's no duplication of presentation or questions. Thank
you. Okay. The this is ordinance 2020 502. The proposal is to revise the existing allowance of
docks on vacant residential lot, to have electric utilities. So it's basically the requirement staff feels it's a little bit
outdated. Now the ordinance was passed during a time when there was more issues with liveaboard
boats on vacant lots that that would hook up the utilities. So we feel like there's not a lot
of vacant waterfront residential properties left. And so we've had some requests from time to time from people who just want
to now put a boat davit or a boat lift on your dock on a vacant lot, just as a side note, the city utilities does not
provide water and sewer service to vacant lots, so that is a policy, a longstanding policy of theirs. So we're only talking about electric services, and
we're also proposing a recorded restrictive covenant acknowledging all of the conditions of dock on a vacant
lot. So that would provide acknowledgment directly by an owner that, yeah, I'm not going to have a liveaboard there and so on. So that's the proposal
for 2020 502. And then for 2020 503, this was an revision of the temporary banners section of our
sign code. The Board of commissioners wanted to give additional opportunity to new businesses that are doing like a
grand opening to allow these flutter or feather signs. I won't read the definition. I'm assuming everybody knows what I'm talking about right now.
They are completely prohibited by our code, so this would allow those signs for a period. Of
time, 45 days. And it would allow. Them to be in commercial and industrial zoning districts, up to five of these flags at
certain spacing apart and not obstructing visibility or access ways giving enforcement, law enforcement, basically city
staff the ability to determine what an obstruction is. It has to be on the property, and the business would have to have their business tax receipt to be
able to put these flags up. Businesses can do banners. Now. This would provide the feather flags. They couldn't do both, so
they'd have to pick one either the banner or the feather flag. That's 2020 503. And that
completes the presentation. Any questions on either of these? Yeah, we'll start at the end. So
just to be clear on the dock proposal, if it if it's not let's say a buildable lot due to
setbacks is a dock allowed on that property. Isn't there some isn't there some non buildable lots on mirrors on the north
side of mirrors that are waterfront? They're very limited. I'm not sure they're in a residential zoning. I think I
know what you're talking about. There are a couple of lots. The ones that are near North Pinellas or South Pinellas Avenue. Would this allow docks
to be placed on a non buildable lot? I'm just curious. I don't know that it's bad or good at this point. I just it doesn't distinguish whether it's
buildable or not. But it has to be a residentially zoned okay. I have a question in my questions
for clarification because I did read the original ordinance in regards to what we're amending, and the original ordinance couldn't find it here. Specifically referred to single
slip docks shall not have. What I think maybe is lacking. And you could clarify in the new ordinance, is that the purpose of the power is not just to
supply shore power, it's specifically for a boat lift or a davit. I think they're kind of the same thing. But the original ordinance says there shall only be a dock. It doesn't say there will be a dock and a dab it. So
perhaps the language of the new ordinance should, because that's the intent, should specify that said property owner that has said existing dock. It's not to
build a new dock, it's just for an existing dock that they can install a boat lift on that dock. And then then therefore that boat lift could have the shore power it needs per permit.
And I'll take that one step further, as just a suggestion is that if you have a vacant lot that doesn't have power, they'd have to have a tent power pole, they'd have to have a meter, they'd have to get that metered
out to that. So that process is kind of ignored in this ordinance. Maybe it should be. Maybe it shouldn't be, but I just I'm concerned that if you just say, hey, they can't have
electricity, that doesn't say that they can have a boat lift, but that would be part of the docking facility. We don't distinguish the parts of. Yeah, the original ordinance, it says
something different. If it doesn't modify that ordinance. Okay. That's just me. Yes. Just read it, you know. Yeah. If there's some part in the language that you feel like we
need to revise. I'm not sure. So I as I. Okay. So I guess my question would be is the intent to allow someone that just has a dock, that they don't have power, they don't have the lift,
that if they have that dock, that they can build a boat lift and then power it from shore. That's what most people want the
electricity for. And it would have to pull a permit for the electricity, an electric permit
to get that installed. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I just had one question. You said there's limited areas where this this
would affect. Do we know how many? No point. No, I didn't count the remaining water for residential lots. I, I probably
you know the. So in the last couple of years planning and zoning especially gets lots of calls on the remaining vacant lots in Tarpon. And most of them
are. Yeah problem lots like you mentioned, the ones that are difficult to build on because of setbacks or whatever. So very
few of those are residential lots, but I do not have a number for you. Okay. Thanks. Okay. I
have I have a couple. Imagine a scenario. I own a piece of property and I and I want to put up a pickleball court and I want
it to be lit. I call it progress energy. And I just want to put put lights on it. Would I be allowed to do that if there's no
structure on it? No. A pickleball court in a residential lot is not a principal use. It's an accessory. Okay, so we'd have
to. Yeah. The way the so the way we're looking at this is that. At this point they cannot run
any utilities to for the dock at all. No. Right now we're telling people if they want to run a, a boat to have it or lift, they
have to bring a generator to the site and run the generator to operate the lift. There's
nothing preventing them from doing that. Yeah. Could I ask a quick question? Sorry, this I'm sorry I was this this goes back
this particular this goes back to 91. Yes. And I did put the in your packet is the original. Yeah. Ordinance. That allowed
docks on vacant lots in the first place. René did a little bit of research and found that apparently the idea was people thought it would make the lots
more marketable at the time. And I will tell you, in the 90s, I was in the keys for Florida Keys for a long time, about 15 years,
all through the 90s. There was definitely problem with Liveaboards pulling up to vacant and residential. You know, beside someone's house. And there are a lot more problems
than than there is now. It's heavily policed. It's not something, you know, disposal of waste and things are all a problem. And it really is
restricted now. And I imagine those sorts of things were probably occurring in tarpon as well. I'm I'm just trying to
guess. Okay. Oh okay. All right. My question was just was, you know, when I look around the
Craig Park and the bayou, you know, how they have the boat docks across the street from residences? Yes. Okay. Would that be similar to what we're
talking about? In a way, those on the property there across. Yeah, those are dock lots. Most of them, they go they are
actually part of the parcel. Okay. Residential parcel. I mean most people probably know that, but I, I was wasn't sure. Thank
you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions that okay. I know that
the public comment I guess you're here for this particular matter. So I is he did I speak
or or. I, I don't know I believe he's here for public comment. Yes. On I don't know if we're done with the presentation. Oh I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm done with
the presentation. I think I've seen I think we went around the second time with questions and I didn't hear anybody. So that's. Yeah. Okay. All right. I have a dock. I need electricity to run
the lift. Name, name and address, please. Please, no name and address. Your name and name and address. Oh, that is O'Connell, 1573 Ember Lane,
Tarpon Springs. Is it? I see, so your comment is I got a dock I need, I need electricity. Okay. My hearing is really bad. Fair enough. I think we heard you.
Okay. Was a short public comment. So unless there's any other matter, I will close public comment. So does anybody
want to make a motion? I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman, to approve ordinance 202502.
Powering enabling power to the vacant lot docks. Second. Oops. Roll call please. Yes, miss
Jensen? Yes, miss. Early. Yes, Mr. Rockline. Yes, Miss Francis? Yes, Mr. Vessey? Yes. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. And just in case
they leave, this ordinance will be now heard by the BOC on March 25th and April 8th. We had to move the originally advertised date. So they have to wait till
March 28th to get the border county city Commission approves it. Then you're you're you're golden. Yeah. April 8th April
8th is the second reading. Yes. There's two readings at the Board of Commissioners. The first one will be March 25th.
The second one will be April 8th. Okay. You don't have to. I would say April 9th. You can
come in for your permit. Okay. Are there any questions? I think we've heard the presentation for the next one as well. Correct. So do you have any questions on
does anybody have questions on on the this following ordinance. No no no okay. Any public comment I don't see anybody. So
I'll close I'll close for public comment I'll entertain a motion. Okay. Well I'll certainly make that motion to approve ordinance
number 2020 503. The flutter and feather sign improvements to our code. I'll second that one. Okay. Roll call, please. Miss
Weaver. Yes, miss Swenson? Yes, miss Earley? Yes, Mr. Rocklin? Yes, Miss Francis? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Okay.
Board and staff, comments. Staff. You have any comments? We originally had a smart code update on the agenda. Obviously that has been postponed because
Renee is not available. So we'll get back to that as soon as we can. Any. Do you have any comments other than I think the
board went through some really hard subjects tonight and did a great job. I really appreciate everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Any any board comments? Yeah I
believe listen, I'm actually one who talks too much. But I first of all I want to thank staff for keeping me. This is very helpful. So it keeps you on
track. But the other thing is I guess I have questions for this for this board is obviously the way I conducting the meetings is a little bit different than what
we've been used to. And I don't know, I need feedback if this is a good way of doing it. Okay.
Can I make a comment on that? Yes. In a previous board that I served on, they did use this format. It worked out very well. The only difference they did was
every other time they opened it up for comment, they switched sides. Oh, I'll I'll keep that. You know what? Good idea. That's true. Okay. Yeah. So I don't
have to go first. Every time you remind me of the next meeting, I will follow that advice. Are you going to be in the middle? Okay. All right. Because. Ready? Ready. All right. Suck it hard,
dude. That was a tough one for a starter. Nice work. Yeah. Thank you. Well, I guess I got voted a couple of years ago. You're
welcome. Thank you guys for being so.