Good evening. Welcome to the city of Tarpon Springs planning and Zoning Board meeting of Monday, December 15th, 2025.
This is the official call to order. Roll call please. Vice Chair Vessey here. Mr. Rockland here, miss. Early here. Mr.
Collins here. Miss Weaver. Miss. Miss Wade here. We also have Miss Swenson absent. And
Chairperson Curtis is out as well. Miss Rockland, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and reflection, please? Yes, certainly. If you
could please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And if you can remain standing for one second, just a brief reflection. This this time of year is supposed
to be peace and harmony and family and giving. We've seen so much tragedy in the world
just recently, and it kind of takes you off track from the peace and love theme that usually accompanies this time of year. So I just ask to keep
in your thoughts and prayers the the lives of those that have been lost around the world in the last, just in the last week, and certainly those
before that. And just pray that their families eventually find some peace and the ability to love and forgive again. Thank
you. Thank you. I believe that we would be doing some swearing
in right now. Is there anybody to swear in anybody speaking under the quasi judicial? Do
you swear or affirm your testimony before raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the Planning and Zoning Board
shall be the truth, so help you? Yes. Thank you. Sir. Are you ready for the quasi judicial
announcement? Yes, please. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Planning and Zoning Board acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity 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 previously established criteria in the Code of Ordinances in order to make a legal decision regarding
the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at this 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, then 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. Is there any disclosure of ex parte communications or conflict of interest by board members?
Thank you. Chair. So we're ready for our first city staff presentation. Yes. Thank you.
Pat McNeese, planning Supervisor. This is an application for site plan approval for Brothers located
at 1372 Dixie highway on about two acres. This is a request for the addition of a second access driveway. Your code
requires that any change in vehicular access go through the full site plan approval process. So this is a previously approved project. Coming back
for a second driveway to a public road. The original project was approved in May 2023, and construction has been
underway. With the completion of site work and one of three approved buildings. All that work has been received final inspections as of last week,
there are two remaining buildings to be built. The site is located at the southeast corner of Dixie highway in North Pinellas Avenue. This is
just a aerial photograph of the site. There is a driveway to North Pinellas Avenue that is existing, and the applicant
will be building a driveway. Proposes to build a connection to Dixie highway there to the northeast. Area. The site in
this area here there will be some wetland impacts. You can see there's a there's a ditch running along here and wetlands over here. There will be some
limited wetland impacts associated with this that we'll talk about in a minute. But this is the general area, that connection again, existing
vehicular access to north Pinellas. That's an ingress egress. The applicant proposes ingress egress to Dixie highway here. And you can see, as we
mentioned there, there some wetland here, connection here. And the applicant is. Basically
putting in improvements that will keep that hydrological connection under the proposed driveway. The building that's
already built is this 30 200 square foot building here on the north end of the site. This just overlays it onto an aerial photograph. This is a little
bit complicated, but this is the wetland mitigation plan that was approved by Pinellas County. And that is on site
mitigation for the wetland impacts. If you have any questions, the applicant can answer those. I believe the wetland mitigation is is almost
completely installed or maybe completed. The applicant can confirm the status of that. So this second driveway is
consistent with the previously approved development of the site under resolution 2023 Dash 12. It does provide a second
roadway to the site. This is a warehouse light industrial use. And you know you'll have all types of vehicles, perhaps large vehicles using this site.
So the second access does present some flexibility for this site. The project complies with the land Development Code.
Conditions are recommended to ensure environmental impacts are avoided, especially with respect to mangroves. Avoidance of utility impacts. And just a
reminder on public art that this is part of the overall project. And I probably should have mentioned. So Dixie
Highway is a county road. North Pinellas, as you know, is a state road. So they did receive their Southwest Florida water
management permits for wetland impacts and whatever they needed to do to keep that wetland and water connection. And Pinellas County gave them a
roadway connection permit to Dixie highway. And with that, wetland mitigation as part of that whole review, this is in compliance with the concurrency
management system, because the original project was this road does not add any additional vehicular trips or anything that would change the level of
service impacts. Those are in compliance. And this is expected to comply with the building code and the fire codes. So staff is recommending
approval of this second vehicular access driveway under resolution 20 2569, with no mangrove alteration permitted
in conjunction with this approval. If they do have to come in for something future, that would be a separate review. So just this this is just to
clarify that this doesn't include mangrove alteration. With this board approval of this driveway, just some
language to cover utilities, just to make sure everything is field verified. No impacts to city utilities are incurred. We do have city utilities in the
area. And then just a reminder that the development must comply with the public art program. Are there any questions on this? Questions
for staff starting on our left. Start. There. Maybe this is more appropriate for the applicant than for you. Why was
this not in the original plans? The applicant and they can address this as well. They were anxious to go ahead and get this site started. Get the the
need of site improvements, put in, start to build the buildings and get things established. And they had to get Pinellas County approval for that driveway. I believe
that was the main holdup. Perhaps water management, but they chose to go ahead and get that site plan approved without the second driveway and and come back at a later date. And
that's what you're seeing tonight. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to confirm that the county or state has approved the wetland modification. Yes,
both the state that would be the water management district and the county. Awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah. And I'm curious is and I think this is
this is perfectly fine what you're doing, but are two points of egress code. Now, would this, would this be, you know, something that if they brought it today, they would
have to have had two points of egress? They would not be required to by the city code. Okay. No. I have a question
about well, my first question, even though I've been the past there so many times, but what is the material on the ground, the material on the ground? I'm
sorry. The material on the site. Is it stone? Is it already concrete? Yeah. Well, this this picture is a little outdated. If you drive by the site, you
will see that the site improvements have been completed. So the the parking lot's been paved. The parking spaces are in. So it's, it's
basically mostly a paved site. The landscaping is in. It's just that only one building has been built out of the three. Does that answer your question? Almost. I'm looking and it
looks like the whole see, I may be looking incorrectly, but it looks like the whole area, a large area of concrete or some
kind of hard surface with this. Hold on. I'm sorry, are you asking what the material for the proposed driveway would be? I'm not. Be my next question.
And how big it was going to be, but I wondered how much hard surface non-porous surface is already there. Oh, how much like impervious surface of the
whole site. I'd have to. It's in compliance with the land development code, but I'd have to get that exact calculation
from the last site plan. I don't exactly recall. And I guess and it might be more appropriate for the applicant, but what wetland remediation
has been done? I was kind of confused. The wetland mitigation and the applicant can elaborate on this was was
planted. There was a a wall site wall that was constructed to contain the site. The fill fill material, the asphalt
buildings parking lot and then outside that wall is a lower elevation planting area where the applicant has been installing some cordgrass and different wetland plants that
are required by the county to enhance the the area of wetlands here. And the ditch area. Has that process already gone across where the driveway
is proposed? Well, there's a culvert under the driveway to allow the water to go by. But yeah, as far as I know, and they can confirm the plantings are on both sides of the will
be on both sides of the driveway. Obviously not under it, but both sides and then under it would be the pipes to let the I think it's a box
culvert to let the water flow. Thank you. Just just one quick question, Pat. I know this has been in front of the TRC and
numerous steps. Was the latest site plan revision also presented to the TRC? Yes. Okay. And the emergency services, police and fire had no problem. I know the egress is a kind of
equidistant from the intersection, but they had no concern. No, they had no concerns. The TRC actually reviewed this particular
particular driveway addition five times. Part of what was we were trying to reconcile drainage, mostly drainage, stormwater. And the county had
stormwater requirements. So it was kind of putting that package together. I think that the applicant had to to kind of work with two agencies to, to make everybody happy. Yeah.
True. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation. It's not required.
But if you want to. Plus you have any questions okay. Does anyone starting on the right. Does anyone have. And if he if we do have questions, if you wouldn't mind stepping up to
the dais and name address and that that sort of thing. Yeah. To the to the microphone. I think the chairman's referring to. So he's got a question.
Right. Yeah. And it doesn't, doesn't matter to me. But that's generally the, the procedure. So if I may this I got the swearing in a little bit out of sequence. We did.
Was that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sworn in. Yes. Go ahead. Mr. Thank you. And I'm aware of the location and the operation and the the scope of things there.
And it seems everything is in in perfect order so far. My only question is the culvert requirement. Did they also somehow build in the fact that
that passage for water has to be maintained at all times, regardless of storm conditions and any sort of infiltration? Otherwise? Yeah, yeah, it
always remain open as a as a four by eight box culvert. Right. It's quite a bit. So if there's some sort of environmental event or something like that that causes a lot of sediment and stuff that you would be charged. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. It'll fall under the ownership, the maintenance ownership. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask you the the surface, is it compact? Oh. I'm sorry, did
I interrupt? You know what? We're going to go from you down. Perfect. Go ahead. Is it compacted stone or. I mean the surface outside the buildings
on on this. It's all asphalt. Just like a regular parking lot would be. It's all asphalt. Okay. The and then the, the three purple areas, which are the buildings, the northern one
is built, the middle one is still grass right now until the slab gets poured. Okay. Thank
you. Continuing down. I'm fine. I have faith in the city staff's assessment. Yeah, I'm
excited for this area. What is? Do you have a tenant for the first building? I was curious, Mike, the developer is moving
in. Okay. Very cool. Boise State fan. Is that the color orange and blue? The orange and
blue. Oh, okay. Well. My brother got it, I think. I think it looks great. I think you guys did a great job. Thank you. That's funny. I was hoping
they'd do it a little more subtle, but that's all right. It's a matter of taste. No, it's appropriate area of the city for this kind of thing.
Thank you. Any more questions to the applicant? Okay, then. Seeing none, I think we're ready for motion. Unless staff
had some. No rebuttal. Okay, so what you're asking. Yeah. Could you give me the look like maybe you had a follow up? No, thanks. Okay, so all questions have
been answered. Staff applicant. We all understand what's going down. Okay. Would like a motion
on this. Application, please. I move to approve resolution 2025. TAC six nine. Second that with
with requirements that the city has added as. Yeah as it is written. Second any discussion.
Roll call please. Miss Wade. Yes, Miss Weaver. Yes, Mr. Collins? Yes, miss. Early. Yes, Mr. Rocklin? Yes. Vice chair
Vessey. Yes. Thank you for coming. Carries. It is a good looking building. You guys did a lot of hard work there. That
is a lot of hard work. Okay. Looks like we're moving on to 2020 5-70 presentation from
staff. Okay. This pertains to the site you just acted on. This is a request from the applicant for a one year
extension of the original site plan approval. So as we just mentioned, the site improvements have been installed, the site work, the
construction work. So that would be the utilities, the parking lot, the lighting, all those site work items, the wall,
everything has been installed. The vertical construction right now only includes one building. The applicant has written us a
letter requesting an extension based on on multiple factors that we can go into. Or you can have them describe, if you'd
like, of one year. So basically, staff feels that this is a reasonable request. The letter seems to support the request
under the code that was in place in May 2023, when that original site plan was approved, they could ask the Board of
Commissioners for a one year extension for good cause. Staff is processing this under that same code. Since the site plan
fell under that version of code. So we're recommending approval of the one year extension. And since the site basically the
building permits were pulled, the site was built. We have CEOs basically issued or pending any day now for the
building site work. And so we feel that the board would act on this on January 13th, 2026. We feel the one year to January
13th, 2027 would be appropriate. And that's what we're asking for. Your direction and recommendation on granting of this one year extension. And
the applicant can elaborate on what I've told you if if you'd like. If no one minds, I would
like to ask a question of staff. It might be a two part question. Is this extension request tied
to the previous resolution, which is the addition of the new driveway? Are they somehow tied together that triggers this extension request? No,
this is completely has to do with the resolution approved in 2023 without that point. So then to drill in a little bit further since to the casual
observer, they have done a stunning amount of work on that property and have worked consistently from day one. It's amazing how much progress was done. And as you said, they've
already completed what in my mind I is all of the site work, the construction of vertical building. So what is it that is deficient that is triggering
the request for what is it about the site plan, the original resolution that is triggering a one year extension. And I'm just going to go back
to that previous presentation. It's the remaining two buildings, which would be the one, the northernmost building,
3200ft■!S, that's been built, te middle building and the southernmost building have not been built. It would be those everything else is in. Okay. So
now this is just for me. Is this this kind of semantics is that it was a site plan approval that was granted, not a building construction permit.
I I'm curious as to what is it about the vertical construction that is tied to the site plan? Because the site plan is done. Okay, the site construction. So
yeah, it it I think we have to think up new names for these things. So when you all approve a site plan, site plan approval that comes to you then goes to the board of commissioners, no
building permits involved. Yeah, that's called a site plan approval. It includes everything site work or site construction, buildings, building placement,
infrastructure, everything. Once they get that approved, including the buildings, then they can go for their permits, which are going to be separated
into two categories site construction, which is basically the horizontal or ground work, pretty much, and vertical construction. He will
pull individual permits for each building. So he's pulled one. He'll pull an individual permit for for the second and third buildings. And those are inspected by our building
department independently. So that's how it works. So he's only pulled the first building. He has not pulled a permit for the other two buildings. Okay. Does anybody mind if I ask
maybe two more follow up questions. Okay, so what was the original time period that was granted of that site plan? So what was what what triggered
the clock and and where are we now and what was that distance and time? The resolution was approved on May 23rd, 2023.
With the code in effect at that time, they would have had a year to apply for permits. They did that. They kept permits
active. They did the site work and kept everything active, and they just reached the point of of getting final inspections and getting certificates of
occupancy and finishing the site construction in the first building. So they would have had until May 23rd, 2024 to
apply for permits. And they've met that. So that's why we're recommending just starting from this, this approval by the PSC and giving them another year, because that's what they're
asking for. And and I'm going to get ahead because I'm surprised you got as much done as you have by this period of time. Is that in in a realistic world and the realistic
construction world. So if there the request is for one year and it's granted one year, it seems reasonable that if there are two large buildings that have
yet to be constructed, that it will be very, very difficult to achieve that within one year, even though all effort has been made. So would that mean that
the applicant would have to come again, assuming that the third building, it takes a year to build a building and then a third building, would they be granted that or is there, is
that it? They get one request for a year or watch this. Should we be more reasonable? And do we have the power to grant additional time for the
reasonable construction of those two very large buildings? It's just a hypothetical question. Go ahead. Yeah. So I think just comes to mind. There could be two scenarios if they
do not apply for building permits for both of those within a year. January 2027.
Then they cannot ask for another extension. The code doesn't have a mechanism to. It says a one time, one year
extension. It also allows an applicant to propose a phasing plan, so they would either have to propose a phasing plan that's probably doable, or they
just they'd have to come in and bring the other two buildings back to you and the board to get it approved, which would be kind of a paperwork exercise,
assuming. And it would be be quick. But you know, it. It's something that could be done anytime, you know, after that.
So if it comes to that, they can come back and just get the other buildings approved. That's kind of what we're trying to avoid. We suggested that the applicant ask for this
extension and give, because he had mentioned on site when we were doing this, hey, I need more time because different reasons. We said, put that in
writing, ask for it, will support it. I think, you know, because he'd have to come back for the two buildings to a site, plan approval and get a new one.
Okay. So to pull it all together, just for for me, today's request, hypothetically, if it's approved today, we'll just use today's date that
provides a window of one year for them to apply for building permits for both buildings. Yes. And then the natural construction clock would start
ticking at the point of issuance of that permit. So they get one year to apply whatever dates to be granted that permit. And then the
natural construction cycle to build both buildings. Yes. And to keep the permit active. So they'd have to have their inspection by 18 months or 24 months. So right from edge to
edge, they could theoretically have three years to start and complete those buildings, if that's what it takes. Now you're getting into how long it takes to build one of these.
And that would be applicant could probably better answer that. Okay. It was just for me to know because it's important that we make good decisions, realistic decisions at that.
Okay, that's the end of my questions. And forgive me for hogging all that time. We'll go ahead and start all the way at the end on the left for questions for staff. I don't
have a question. I think a lot of their time was spent in getting that land ready. That took a lot of work. The building went up very quickly. I drive by there at least once a week, if not more. I don't
think it'll take them that long to build the next building, so I don't think you have to worry. But things happen. But we've made arrangements for that with our city codes. Thank you. All
questions have been answered. Thank you. As a retired contractor, I. I understand that an extra year could be
definitely necessary, so I have no problem with it. No questions. Thank you. So no questions from staff. This
would be an opportunity for the applicant if they had a presentation to make or to answer any questions from the board. Before we make the
gentleman get up and check in again, are we going to have any questions from the applicant? I have none, I do I do have a question. All right. So we've
got the owner and then I'm guessing that's the engineer to the right. Right. My my question I don't know who would like to answer is we've we talked about a year to two
years up to three years. What is your guys's realistic expectation on the two buildings to go to the microphone. Okay. And please
just for the board members, would you just introduce yourself and address, please? Hello, my name is Michael Rose. My address 1372 North Pinellas
Avenue, Tarpon Springs. Basically, you know, I mean, obviously building this building wasn't easy. The cost everything is through the roof.
And, you know, I would like to do all of them right now, but obviously I need to recuperate a little bit and, you know, regroup. And I, you know, as
soon as I, I'm going to run my business out of there. And as soon as I recuperate, we're going to start, we're going to start and finish it. I just need a little time I don't know, you know, I would like to do it
now, but I don't know how you know how things are going to go, you know, I can't lie. I understand that. Thank you. No
more questions. No questions. Okay. Well. Last chance for questions for staff or the applicant. Owner? Okay. Seeing
no questions. I would love to hear a motion for the application. I'll make the motion. I would make the motion
to. To approve the request to remove the approve the request for a one year time extension of site plan 22, Dash 94 and
conditional use 22 Dash 93. I would second that chairman.
Thank you. Just a clarification. Just for me. Either I don't see it or I can't read correctly
when. Said 22, 94, 22, 93. Conditional use. What are the two elements? I thought it was
just a time extension. Why are there two? The original resolution had two two components to it a site plan and a conditional use.
Conditional use is really, really is dependent on the buildings being built. Okay, so it wouldn't go into effect anyway until the resolution 2023. Dash 12 had two actions
in it. So you really extending that resolution. Thank you very much. And you'd think I'd know that because I was here when we did that application. But I just needed to clarify. So it's just an extension of that
entire site plan that happened to come with two parts. Yes. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion?
Do we want to talk or even if we're able to extend that one year or is that a hard week? One year can't be extended on our end. Is that correct? If
you want to recommend or tell the board that you think that a phasing plan is appropriate, the applicant would have to ask for that phasing plan and tell them what they want. I think
you could say that you're open to phasing plan. I don't know. You could you could give them your guidance or direction as to whether you think phasing plan is appropriate. I guess
I'm I'm open to whatever is easier for the applicant and knowing what they've done, knowing how well they've taken care of it and built it up. Like if they need more time,
like there's I don't see a reason for us to see this again in a year if they need to build building number three, that's what I'm saying. So but I'm not
the applicant. I'm just it's my opinion to say, hey, if we can make it easier tonight so we don't have to do this again, I think that I mean, if you want
to, you could if you approve the resolution, you could also we could also relay the comment that if that the applicant you would support a phasing plan and then that would give the
applicant some time to think about it before he goes to block on the 13th and see if he wants to propose one. I would only caution against that, because we don't want to set a
precedent of issuing permits that are then open for extended time. When they come for the permit, they are should be pretty much ready to get started. And we don't want a bunch of open projects
throughout the city, so it does give a little impetus to get moving on things, and it wasn't that hard for them to pull all this together and ask again, I understand what you're wanting
to be good to somebody that's being good in the city, but I don't want to set a precedent of open ended permits and not having jobs get finished in a
timely manner. That would be my concern. Yes, and I would add that once a permit is issued,
there are building code. And, you know, timeline time limits that cannot be varied anyway. They can't they can't, you know, they have to have inspections
at specific time points. And that can't be varied. So they wouldn't be able to lag on the building permit after it has been applied for or been issued.
Okay. But in theory, if we delayed it two years, they could apply for it in 18 months and then still have those timelines. That's that's what
I'm trying to say. You can make a recommendation to extend the time period for the Board of Commission commissioners to consider that without being a
little more open ended on that time and to to her point is, we wouldn't make a this would be case by case basis, not a right.
Not a precedent. Thank you. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that was my question. Thank you. Yeah. Do you wish to alter your amendment or your motion. Is
this 2020 2570 resolution? Well, before we do that and I don't and I believe that that was this motion. First I want to say thank you. That was the
thrust of my questioning right there is that it just seemed from a practical standpoint, that the expectation of the site plan, both horizontal and
vertical, was really tight. And and then obviously we all saw with our eyes the amount of effort to get done and they're done, and that providing some
more realistic time for the application of those two other buildings. And then back to the end, as staff said, they're not open. We're not issuing permits.
That's the building department. We are extending a site plan application, frankly, that that that suggestion is more realistic of of how things work and how go. So I, I thank you
for doing that and would support that. It's only a recommendation that's not part of the resolution. So it wouldn't change the resolution at all or the motion that
stands. We could simply add a recommendation that the Board of commissioners, because we're not the end. We're just making a recommendation that and we're ahead of the owner here a
little bit, trying to do the right thing. You might not even want it, but I think that maybe. If you're if you're going to
speak, you you do have to speak at the microphone. Please. Yes, I'm on the same page as that. I appreciate that, you know, you know, my health is not so great
either. So, you know, I need to regroup a little bit here and, you know, definitely want to finish the project. But, you know, a little more time would
be nice to help me out. So this way I won't be under so much pressure. I mean, do you want just a year? Do you want two years or three years? Nice to
have two years. You know, it might be sooner, but I don't want to lose my right to to to do this because I, I've seen, you know, a couple of my friends in the same scenario
and they let their permit drop and, and then, you know, they're pulling their hair out. I don't want to wind up in the same scenario. I work very hard to do this. And, you know, right now I just got to
recuperate. I got to run my business and just recuperate and become stronger to finish it. I, like the the chief said we were only recommenders. Yeah,
I understand that and I appreciate that. Thank you for I think it's the right thing to do. Just give me a little more time. I mean, you got to be as reasonable because, you know,
putting these buildings up the site were killed me over there. I had to build a wall. Me and my guys did the site work. We built the wall, you know, bring the the dirt up in layers. It
was just a lot, a lot, a lot. Yeah, I know it was not. It was major project. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. So there seems to be some consensus.
Would there be any more discussion if. Who made the first motion, would you be interested in just adding the recommendation the motion stands at seconded. And then
just maybe adding a recommendation that the Board of Commissioners considers a two year cycle. Yes. Would you go ahead and say that in the microphone, just in addition to
my my motion, I don't know whether I'd actually be requesting to amend it or just simply to add a recommendation that the applicant be given two
years, or that the BoCC consider giving the applicant two years in order to accomplish this. And I would second that amendment. So
slightly revised motion with that recommendation. A second, any additional discussion roll call, please. Yes, Miss Weaver?
Yes, Mr. Collins? Yes, miss. Early. Yes. Mr. Rocklin? Yes. Vice chair Vessey. Yes. Okay,
then. Moving right along. Ordinance 2025, Dash 20 Staff
presentation. Okay. Okay. Good luck. Happy holidays. All right. So for your last item tonight
end of the year. Congratulations. You made it. We have a proposed amendment to the city special area plan. This is specifically to the Downtown Character District. As
you all know, the special Area plan establishes the maximum maximum residential and lodging densities, as well as the intensities, which is the floor area ratio or the f a r for
each character district, which does include the downtown character district. So we're all on the same page as far as what the terminology means, the maximum density provides the
limit of the number of residential and lodging units, and that's based off of the size of a property. And that's in terms of dwelling units per acre. F.a.r limits the total
square footage of a non residential project, and how big that project can be based off of the size of the property. So the equation essentially is the square footage of a property multiplied by the f a
r allowance. And when you do that equation that gives you the total amount of square footage a project can be. The Downtown Character District is intended to encourage mixed use
development, support our existing as well as future businesses, and ultimately promote our vibrant and exciting downtown. And one way to do this is providing
residential density and lodging in and around the downtown core. So to do this, we are recommending to amend the code to give an option for projects
located within the Downtown Character District to utilize an all inclusive F, a R, and this would allow them to do an f a r calculation in lieu of
having a maximum number of units for residential projects, as well as hotel projects. We have some specifics in that, in
that a residential project would be able to take advantage of this change if it's also located in the T5B transect zone. So on this map, which is in the memo is the orange area
here. And that's basically along Tarpon Avenue between Pinellas Avenue and Ring Avenue. So residential projects could take advantage of the all inclusive f.a.r in this location. And then hotel
projects could take advantage of the all inclusive for any, anywhere within the downtown character districts. Anywhere in the blue outline. So in
addition to supporting potential new projects in this area, this proposed amendment will also remediate existing historic non-conforming properties. I also provided in
the memo a chart of the four existing properties along Tarpon Avenue that have residential units on the second floor. As you can see, every single one that predates our
code. And I believe the land development code and I say have been here for all time, exceed and in some cases far exceed our permitted density. So by this change going into effect
would eliminate that nonconformity. And that's always a good thing to do. So this would help that situation. This potential change would also help to enable the
proposed Forbes property project for the hotel on Tarpon Avenue. And then the last thing I'll point out is that the downtown character district, that boundary lies outside of
the coastal high hazard area. So it's not going to increase any potential residential density within the sensitive area. So what we're looking for for you guys tonight is a
recommendation on the potential change to the Board of Commissioners. And I am happy to answer any questions. We did provide the proposed amendment, which is only one page in the
special area plan, with the recommended language changes. But with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Starting
on the right. Any questions for Miss Keane? Yes. Thank you very much for the explanation. And it's it's it's a proposal that's probably long overdue with the existing non
conforming properties as well as things that have been proposed for the future of the downtown area. This new f.a.r
raising it to 2.0 as a maximum, in no way mandates that they must build to that density. Right. It's that's it's the ceiling not correct. Yeah.
There's no requirement to do so. And just for clarification, we're not looking to increase the FA's in any manner. We're keeping them the exact same.
We're just stating that you can utilize your f.a.r as opposed to sticking to the density allowance. Right? Right. My only and I see no problem with
it. My my concern is the streetscape of Tarpon Avenue. And not having this create a an
approval for monolithic type, you know, end to end maximum setback or minimum setback for each of the stories and things like that. I think that should
be something left up to the historic district. And, you know, the powers that be as far as the design. So other than that, I have I have no concern with it. And I think it's it's
long overdue because generally the FA's for commercial areas are greater. And you have to kind of, you know, adapt and
overcome the complexities of standing still in, in the same place, yet expecting some sort of growth and, you know, benefit to the town and its
residents and its associated businesses. So and one thing I forgot to mention is there are other considerations that kind of limit a project by opening, you know, you know, getting rid of density doesn't necessarily
mean that, you know, someone can shove a bunch of different, you know, 100 units into a building. There's other factors that come into play. We have building code requirements. There's fire code requirements. The smart code has other
standards. You know, there are setbacks. There's height limits. There's stormwater considerations. You have to take into place. There's other things that limit a project. And then from a developer's standpoint, you know, the general market will dictate,
you know, what can they market for a project. So there's other things that go into play as well. So I wanted to make sure that you were aware of that as
well. Thank you. Starting on my left, more questions of staff a real basic question. Can you just very simply explain maybe
using an example? You know, we're talking about the FA for area ratios versus the density standards. So I purchased a
building downtown in this location. Why am I happy now that density that we're going density versus why am I so
happy. Okay. Well I will use I'll use this I'll use one of these examples just since the calculations already up here. So for example, someone purchases the property at 111
East Tarpon Avenue and they are, you know, it's an existing building downtown. And they're they have a second story and they're they want to propose four units for residential units in an existing building
downtown. When you calculate out the density that comes to 23 units per acre, they can't do that. You're only allowed to have 15 units the acre based off the code. So by having an
all inclusive f.a.r, they're able to do that now because it fits within the FA allowance, assuming it fits in the FA allowance. Actually it would in
this situation they can do that. They're not limited by that density. Number density is a really interesting calculation. I in some cases in my in my mind, from a planning perspective, I feel like it's
kind of a it's just it's kind of a guessing number in some situations, especially in a downtown. I mean, a perfect example is this property here.
This is 165 East Tarpon Avenue, is the the corner of Safford and Tarpon. There's six residential units in that building. It's not a big property. I'm sure you all are
aware of that building. It doesn't seem overwhelming or scary or anything when you calculate it. The density is 75 units per acre. Now, if someone
came before you with a project and said, hi, I would like to develop this at 75 units to the acre, you would say, get out of here. At least I would think you would. But if someone said,
hi, I would like to develop this and put six, you know, reasonably sized units in this existing building downtown, it's a little more easier to comprehend. So especially in
downtown situations, historic downtown situations with existing buildings, this is a really great way to to tackle density, in my opinion, without, you know, blowing things up,
especially when you have we have other standards in play that really limit how big a building can be. I don't know if that really. I think I went
beyond what you were asking. It was. But thank you. Does this have any effect on short term
rentals, Airbnb, things like that. It would not. And we will. We regulate short term rentals the same as resident like single family residential. I
would have to I need to look at the code and see how I have to look, how short term rentals are regulated in the in the T5. Sorry, in in this district, I'm
not sure it would be just like residential density. So it would be the same manner. But they have to be a residential unit is how we calculate it. So
and and just to clarify too, in in this case most districts most transects, it's a conditional use to have a short term rental. There's only one
transect that allows it which is the T4, c district. And that's primarily north of downtown. I'm not sure how far down that goes, so most often
that would be conditional use that would come before the board. And I know you mentioned well, thank you for that answer. I know you mentioned earlier that you couldn't just have an
abundance of units. My question is, would this open it up to like one of those buildings become a hostel though 2030 beds up on the top floor,
potentially based on this? I don't think it will happen, but I'm saying, are you throwing yourself? No, because we we have that would probably fall into like a boarding house type
use. Yeah. And that's called out also in the code as a use. And I don't I believe one if it's there, it's a conditional use and it's it's regulated
differently. Awesome. That's that's all I had. What's that. Oh okay. And boarding house is not allowed in T5 D. So that would eliminate that concern.
And then what was the other one. Short term condition. Yes. And then short term rental is conditional use. Awesome. Thank you so much. Yes. Thanks, Pat.
No questions for staff. I have a couple short now that I read. I think one of them is even answered, but I always have to
hear things twice. I want to. Continue with journalist's question about live example.
And that's the. Forbes property. Is that how we call that Forbes property, which has been a topic, a very important topic.
But before we dive into that, what would context sensitive hotel development, what does
that mean? Context sensitive hotel. That's one of our fancy planning terms. I know, I want to know, context sensitive is
basically development that takes into consideration what development looks like around. Context sensitive is basically what you get with a form based
code. Our smart code is basically a form based code. You know, when we are updating our smart code, we're going to try and do more form based type
regulations to really get that context sensitive development. So it's looking at how the area is already developed, what is the character of the area and
not like, you know, what is a cornice and the esthetics of, you know, those minute details. It's the scale, the massing. That's the context that it's looking at. So the code really
helps to put that into place. But then, you know, this type of change is also helping us to utilize those existing buildings in their existing
form. Okay, okay. I want to give a credit to Miss Rocklin is and to you that this proposal does clean up some
obvious issues with the the density issue, because we use that term acre when there are no acre parcels downtown, nobody can do the math that
fast to condense it down. Okay. So sometimes we find that in planning and Zoning Board, we get proposals for amendments to
our codes and requirements and such after the fact. Once a development has been approved or is moving down the road, and then we find that it doesn't comply with our existing code
and compliance is the for project. Exactly. That is that as it's been submitted and approved and gone forward, that in fact it doesn't fit our
current code. So as the proposal came forward, it did exceed the lodging density. I have the calculation here right
now, that property would allow nine units, nine lodging units on that property. The original proposal had was looking at 12 with a potential to go up to 24.
That was submitted with the understanding that it does not comply. However, the city did put out in the proposal, put out a project even you know if
it isn't compliant. We're looking for what you know. We're looking for a project that could work in this space and enhance our downtown. So
the city, in some respect, invited some creativity. Now, that doesn't mean, you know, this could not be approved. So then they may have to modify their project or the project
could go away. I will also say that this is not something that has not been on the Planning department's radar for quite some time. We have talked about this in our department. Internally. We density is
always a challenge for us to tackle. So within the downtown, this is always been something that we have discussed about a potential option in certain
areas where it makes sense. So it's not unheard of. And it's not necessarily coming because of this, but it is an opportunity to potentially bring it to the board for consideration. It was an
opportunity to bring it. Of course, it just was an ironic coincidence. Correct. I feel like they always come to us that way. Okay. And then last but not least, back to that
Forbes project. You may not have this, would it? With this new use of abandoning density and using the far with that
Forbes project fit nicely into that far just off the top. So so the far. Yes. Right now the project fits within the 2.0 allowance. Far it's the number
of units is what's restrictive. So the all inclusive far would allow the number of lodging units that they're looking to get, but it would not exceed the far that we have in place
today. Now the by right with the code allows for two stories. If they go for three stories, it's still conditional use. It still has to come through for conditional use approval to get that third story. But what this
allows is them to go above nine lodging units. That's all that this allows, basically helps them. Okay. And then last but not least, all things that we
do in our life and here that we're trying to do the right thing. There's always an unintended consequence that we don't see today that pops up years and years later, and
suddenly we're like, wow, didn't see that one coming to the best of your ability. What would be an unintended consequence or a possible you know, we might have to think
about that happening. Maybe it's another property that could go vertical and and really cause some grief. Do you have any ideas of unintended consequences that have happened
in other communities, or could happen here with the adoption of this far? So. I feel as if
as far as, you know, residential, the residential aspect is very limited where we're opening up that opportunity right now because it is just these couple of
blocks. And as you know, most of it's all developed with our historic buildings. I think it's very unlikely that there will be a significant change to the the massing there. I
suppose, an unintended consequence, and I think an unrealistic unintended consequence is if we had a bunch of hotels that just all of a sudden start popping up in
this other area, but any new development, if it we require site plan approval, it comes before boards to look at a site plan. In a lot of these areas,
you know, we have conditional uses for majority of the areas as well. So I'd have to. Can you look at the. I want to just double check that before
stating look at the. Uses. Yeah I just want to look. Oh but I'd have to look I'm sorry. I'd have to look at the transit zone map and some of this other area just to see. But in some
of the transects, like hotels aren't allowed by. Right. So on top of a site plan approval, you'd have to get a conditional use approval. So we have a lot of, you know, steps in the
process in place that, you know, gets a lot of eyes on the project, but I'd say unintended consequences. Maybe we'd get a
lot of tiny hotels in the area. Thank you very much. Now, don't quote me. There could be something else. But, you know, that's just what I can think of right now. What was that phrase
again? Contextual, context sensitive. Context sensitive? Yes. It sounds to me like it should be content sensitive
context. It's the context of the area. It's development sensitive to where it is for days because I'm still thinking it should be content. Okay. Any
additional questions for staff in regards to this ordinance? You resolution one question. You did say that the hotel would approve nine units and
this would allow it to be approved for more there. But you didn't list a top level. There is no top level like if as long as it's approved with all the continual use. Is what
you're saying right? This would basically take the number of units that limit away, but with the understanding, you know, there's still a box of how you know, the lots only so big they
can only go so high with the code. There's building code requirements, fire requirements. There's a lot of things that kind of limit how many units you can actually get. However, with that said, their proposal
is, I believe, up to 24 rooms. I think it's somewhere between 12 and 24, whatever they land on between that. But there's a lot that goes into fitting that. Awesome. Thank you. And there's and they're still working on
those designs. And obviously that's going to come through a full site plan approval process.
Any more questions. Thank you. Miss King a motion I'd like to make a motion to approve. Draft ordinance 2025 Dash 20, which
is the amendment to the CRA area plan. And I would second that. Any discussion. I think
that was a great presentation. Thank you. Any more discussion? Roll call, please, miss Wade?
Yes, Miss Weaver? Yes, Mr. Collins? Yes, miss. Early. Yes, Mr. Rockland? Yes. Vice chair Vessey. Yes. Thank you. Okay.
Item number eight, board and staff comments. Any staff comments tonight? I would just say the item about security
training. We would like to do that. I'll just pull all of you what we'd like to do. What Major Crawford would like to do is do it at a workshop session.
Not open to the public, maybe be 20 minutes. So I'll just pull all of you. Maybe after the first of the year we can
get together and do that training. Okay. Any any board comments? Well, I would
certainly say happy holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, whatever it is that you celebrate that you and your family enjoy the benefits of
this town, which I think are increasing year after year and very happy that I chose here to live and associate with fine folks such as yourself and very
fine city staff. And I look forward to health and happiness for all of us to continue that endeavor. Thank you. Amen. Well,
then, 738 close it up. Santa Claus is coming. This has been.