##VIDEO ID:nwR-8xc3DWk## Would be nice. We have about a minute. So if everybody go, goes ahead and take your seats, you should not have. I'd like to get this thing started on time, so. Okay, everybody, take your breath. We got about a minute to start. And I think with everybody's participation and cooperation, I think we could get out of here unscathed. But time. Is. I'd like to go ahead and call this meeting to order, roll call, please. Mr. seaman. Mr. Curtis. Here. Mr. Vessey. Here. Mr. Zambellas. Mr. Francis. Here. Mr. Rocklin. Here. Mr. Early. Here. Miss Swenson. Here. That being said, I'd like to go ahead and, have the Pledge of Allegiance. Everybody please stand. If you're wearing a hat, please remove your hat. 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. Please. Please remain standing. Another opportunity for the good citizens of Tarpon Springs to join together. Volunteers residents, staff in a polite, thoughtful chance to work on our future together. Thank you. Thank you. Just for. Just for housekeeping matters. If you have a cell phone, please put it on silent. At this point in time, I want to go ahead and, you know, go over our purpose and the mission, of this board. And first of all, I want to thank thank you for attending our city's planning and zoning meeting. The purpose of the planning and Zoning Board is to conduct public hearings on items that come before it. The Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the evidence in the agenda packet for each item on this agenda this evening, including the application materials and the staff report. The staff will consider that evidence, along with any new evidence or testimony provided in the public hearing. This board will consider all information provided at this hearing in accordance with the quasi judicial procedures which it is bound. I'll ask the city attorney to explain the quasi judicial procedures at this tim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a number of quasi judicial items on this agenda. There's also a legislative item, which is your last item, where you'll be acting as the local planning agency, with regard to the quasi judicial matters, first and foremost, everyone who will testify in front of you will have to be sworn. And I'm happy to swear them all in when you're ready for me to do that, the members here on each item will have to, have exporter held ex parte disclosures. So if they've had if anybody has had any communication with anyone outside of this forum, have done any, has done any independent research, any kind of, anything that would be presumptively prejudicial to the parties here, then the law allows for you to, to disclose that here and give the applicant the ability to question you whether or not you know, they whether they have need for more information on that, the procedure that you will follow with the staff will introduce the item. Then the applicant will go and then you'll go to public hearing. The public comments. And then the, allow for some rebuttal if necessary. Essentially what you're looking for here is competent, substantial evidence that will be applied that you should apply to the criteria as it's established in your code. Okay. In your codes and your staff report, the planning has done a good job of establishing what that criteria is. So what you're looking for is substantial competent evidence either from it can come from experts. It can also come from laypersons. But it has to be factual. If it's from laypersons, not hearsay, not, just opinions, but information that they know something about. So when you when you're listening to your planners for the city, they're experts. If the applicants have experts on transportation or so forth, they're considered experts. Think about that in terms of the criteria that you're being asked to judge the applicant by by. And then if you find that it does meet all of the criteria, then the burden shifts to you all. If you decide that you feel like there is a motion to deny it, then you have to do so based on the lack of competent, substantial evidence. So the key here is to look for substantial, competent, competent evidence presented to you, either from staff or otherwise, and, apply it to the criteria as it's established in your code. Thank you. And just also for housekeeping, when you're making your presentation and you feel that you may need additional testimony or, or bring in other experts, you can request a deferment on this matter and bring it up at another time. So keep that in mind. If you're rigging up a pleading, your you, your application and you find that you may need additional testimony or experts to come in, you have that right to defer. Am I correct on that? Yes, sir. If someone's, desires are deferral, they have the right to request it. Yes. Okay Moving forward. All right, first. First matter on the agenda. Is resolution 24 Dash 23, call for the item, please. Yes actually, it's 23. Dash 156. Yes I think what we'll do here is we. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, let me swear in anyone who's going to testify here today. Okay. All right. Anyone who's going to testify here today on any of the items, please stand. Raise your right hand. All right. Great. Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth. Alright. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And if you would like to do any at this time would be appropriate to do your disclosures. Any ex party disclosures, on the record. I have a couple ex-parte disclosures, and actually one of them was from the last meeting. So I did speak with two property owners. That are I would assume would be affected parties, in the area that was Louis Marchand, who is a property owner down on Island Drive. And, Julie and Jacqueline Russell, I had done some research before, but I haven't done any since. And I did a quick question. If somebody gives two minutes on top of someone's four, do they have to also be sworn in? I think yes, if they're going to donate their time, essentially, if you have procedures that allow for donating of time, then, you know, I would think that the person that's testifying actually has to be the one that's, has to be has to do so under oath. Okay. But if they're getting two more minutes than the person that is donating those minutes would have to also be sworn in, was that they're not providing testimony. Okay. Just checking. Okay. All right then, moving forward. Thank you. Application 20 3-1 56. Anybody else have any disclosures? I didn't see anybody. Okay. I just want to confess. I couldn't hear the disclosures. It was two property owners on the island Drive. One island drive. Oh Thank you. Okay. Pass. And just so this is a continuation from our July 15th. Good evening, Pat McNeice, planning supervisor, so, yes, this is a continued item from your last meeting. I'd like to note for the record that all board members present were present at that last meeting. So I will just quickly go through, kind of a refresher. This is for, this is a request for site plan approval for a commercial fishing offloading and distribution operation at 599 Island Drive. Again, this is over, on the west side of the sponge docks character district on Island Drive. This shows the transect district. It's in the SDC transect district. Aerial view of the site. Oblique aerial view of the site. This was the site in 2019. Just a typical picture of what the commercial fishing activities that were going on at the time, this is what the site looks like now. Current conditions. This is just more current conditions. This is the survey overlay. So the applicant has provided a revised site plan, first of all, I'd like to say that there were three outstanding items that we wanted the applicant to address ahead of the next hearing. Well, they have gone ahead and addressed those items. They've submitted a utility availability statement. They I'm assuming they already got the response from the city on that, they corrected the site acreage on the site plan data table. That is in your packet. The updated plan and they did include the, sediment and grease trap structure with the stormwater or stormwater consultant has reviewed and approved that. So there were two issues that the board had concerns with that we wanted to address, and why we continued the project. Two main issues. One was the solid waste generation. The applicant had basically what amounted to a typo on a concurrency table, and that has been corrected in the staff report. They had a waste generation of 100 tons a year, but it's actually 41.6 tons per year. That's on page six of six of your staff report. The other concern was that applicant's going to be using basically two types of truck transport for this use, one is a box truck type vehicle. The other would be the small to moderate tractor trailer, the applicant has submitted a revised narrative that's in your packet. I went through it line by line, highlighted the areas that were revised by the applicant so you could see what was added. And revised in the narrative. Meantime, they also, revised the plan to include this, apron concrete apron that goes across the site with the site, and then the sidewalk and the loading zone that's on site. This is a closer schematic and this is on your site plan, so the on site loading zone, is completely on the property. The smartcode does not have dimensional standards for loading zones, but we if we want to fall back on our current code, on our land development code, we'll see that this on site loading zone, complies with loading zone size. The loading zone size required by the land development code. So that kind of gives you an idea of what based on what you usually see for these. But there was a concern that tractor trailers would block or impede traffic on Island Drive. So the applicant has provided a, turn off, that gets out of the drive aisles of Island Drive and uses that frontage for loading and off loading and distribution, I believe the, narrative states that that the truck traffic for, for all trucks and applicant is here would be 2 to 3 times weekly. So the applicant's also proposed to reinforce the sidewalk and that whole apron so that there wouldn't be any damage to it, and it would be able to use that, that tractor trailer that, that they show in the illustration. So that's been provided, and staff researched in the meantime how that could be done through the smart code. I was, trying to find a waiver provision for landscaping in the smart code. There is none. But as we talked about last time, this is a special district SDC where actually the form follows the function more than the other way around. So the function the use is what defines the environment on on this layout, and in the SDC it is permitted by warrant to waive the street screen requirement for, parking and loading those types of uses. So that is a warrant. We've added. And we would recommend that the board adopt. So again the site plan complies with the comprehensive plan with the land development code, with the concurrency management system. With that correction to the solid waste generation. And it's expected to be able to meet building codes again. So we're looking at two warrants. The parking warrant, is for the on site parking for the employees. That was something we discussed at the last meeting. And then the second one would be, for the open parking area to be unmasked is what the code says. So you would not need the street screen that can be done. So we recommend approval of that warrant, these were the changes that were made on the plans by the applicant. So those have been addressed and staff is recommending approval with six conditions. This is a summary of the conditions, that flood code, fire code and utility connection codes be met, that the construction plans be consistent with the site plan. Land development codes must be met and that the site plan will expire at six months unless a building permit is issued. Those are. That's a summary, but the full conditions are in your staff report. And on the resolution. So staff's recommending approval, and I'll be glad to answer any questions on this. Any questions from the board? I have a I have a quick question. I I'm sorry. I may have missed you talking about the, I know you talked about the typo, about the waste. That would be generated from this facility. And the typo was 100 to 41. Is that that's right. Tons per year. Which 41? Makes a lot more sense. Yeah, 100 was way off for almost any use in town. What type of waste? Can I ask that we're talking about, that would be, regular, trash. But the applicant could also expand on, if there's anything else. When you, Yeah. And then, drainage. You were also talking about drainage? Yes, I know before. Has that all been addressed? Yes. It has. Their engineer addressed it, and our engineer. Engineering consultant reviewed it and approved it. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the board to staff? I have one comment. I think it was also mentioned in here to goodness is that they're replacing the seawall or improving the seawall. Yeah. Yes they are. I mean, that's not something we spoke about. Something that must have occurred after the fact. But that's actually I'm not sure where that is, but that's just a building permit. But yes, that's something they are doing. Well that's that's because the docks, the two docks though, right. That's that's the dock. Yeah. Separate. Yeah. Yeah. The docks and maintenance dredging were also subject of building permit applications. And I just had th, they found out where to put the dumpster, then, yes. The dumpster is remaining in the same place, and that should work. Okay I guess, if there's any other questions from the board, I'm going to go have the applicant go ahead and, please state your name and address. And are you related to this application, Jason dela Cruz. I live in Seminole, but I own a property in Tarpon. It's my business. And I guess I was just looking to answer her question, which is? It's plastic and cardboard. So when the boats come back in, they don't dispose of any plastic off shore. So they keep track. They keep that in garbage bags. And when they get in and they put it in the dumpster. So we provide a place for them to do that. So they don't they don't, they don't let it essentially till the boats are bringing their trash in instead of anything that's not paper past where we fish you, you can dispose of paper off shore. It degrades. But plastic all has to be brought back in. Okay. Excellent. I have to I have a question as far as as as these boats bring the fish in, will they'll be. There'll be no fishing prep or cleaning of the fish. It's just basically ice them down. Ship them out. Yeah. We don't process at all. All we do is provide to people that process. Okay The board have any other questions? Questions of this applicant. There being none any public comment on this application. And I guess that's the engineer. So you may want to stand by just in case there's any technical questions. Are there any affected parties that are here in support or in opposition of this applicant? Any general comment, any I. There being none. Okay At this point, I'd like to somebody entertain a motion and I would do that, Mr. chairman. Application 20 3-1 56 with including the two warrants from the staff and the indicated changing for landscaping and loading area and any other requirements that Miss McNeice stated, make a motion to approve it. Is there a second? There is a second. Roll call please. Any discussion? Just glad they were able to work it out with staff. I think it just shows that there's some inconsistencies with with the smart code that, you know, we do need to work on. All right. So let's go ahead and, roll call, please. Mr. Cruz. Oh. I'm sorry. Miss Benson. Yes. Francis? Yes Miss early. Yes. Mr. Rocklin. Yes. Mr. Vessey. Yes. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes Okay. Moving on. Thank you. Moving on, we're here for application 24 Dash 48, staff presentation, please. Yes. This one comes from us, from Nikki Armenakis. And we have, Irene Koulianos here. This evening as his agent. We do have, we received today a revised agent affidavit for that, and I put it in your packet. So just want to clarify. She can't speak for the applicant, so this property is, as the attorney, going to open up the application or. I'm sorr. Well, I just want I live on Athens Street, so I just want to make any type of, you know, conflict or. I don't say. You're an affected party. In other words, you're an affected party. Affected party? Well, I don't know, but I just want to make sure that I'm on the record party to then. What? Resolution 2024 Dash 26 conditional Use approval property located at 438 Athens Street. Application 24 Dash 48. And this is quasi judicial and I'd be happy to discuss if you have any conflicts that you feel about. I don't know if it's a conflict, but I think no, I just thought we were going to do the same thing next party. We both own property. She lives on Athens Street, on property on Nassau Street. My family homes on Athens Street. So I don't know if that I know we have issues, questions about what's an affected party. So I just want to get it out there. That's all. Just to be cautious. Yeah. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Like, what are you what are you asking me? No, I'm just saying. Are you an affected party? I don't know. I live on Athens Street, so I'm just a member of the board. You can't be an affected party. I mean, either, you know, I was just. I was just. I think she was asking whether or not we would be deemed affected. Party The answer is no. Right. Go ahead. Go ahead. Pat. Okay. All right. All right. So this is located at 438 Athens Street. This is a request for a conditional use approval to, basically convert an existing structure to a single family home located in commercial general future land use map category. And in the waterfront development zoning district, the current use of the property is a store with an office slash apartment, and the conversion would be to a single family detached dwelling. Here's the location of the site in a waterfront development. Zoning and, just I'll go and talk about this right now, basically, a good portion of the sponge docks was in that waterfront development zoning, until the special area plan was adopted, so the zoning has been on this site since 1976. That the intent of that, WD district was tourist oriented, kind of mixed use to support the, the, the tourist activities at the, at the docks area, when that special area plan was adopted, there were 22 properties. Or there are actually 22 properties remaining in the waterfront Development District that were not included with the Special area plan. And this is one of them. So this is an aerial showing where the site is just south of Mill Street. Oblique. Aerial. And this illustrates and so does the last slide, basically you've got of course, the sponge docks commercial and tourism district. Up to the, the basically the north, the immediate surrounding area of the property is residential, primarily single family residential, mostly older homes built in the 20s or so. This building was built in 1960, this street, this area was platted in 1927. So all, you know, all those features really predate today's code, but it's primarily a residential area in the immediate surrounding area. This is a survey of the lot showing the existing building. This is a small property about 4000ft■!S. It's got sufficient parking for a single family dwelling, it does not conform with the setbacks of the WD. The WD district of the front and the this north side setback do not comply. There are smaller, and if you'll notice, most of the houses, it does conform with the form that is built on that street. It just doesn't meet that district, standard. It is an existing building, so it's allowed to continue as a legal, nonconforming structure, the applicant proposes to renovate the interior, they would not be able to, add to the footprint of the building in, violation of those required setbacks. But they have not proposed to do that. So, again, the waterfront development zoning was intended for tourist oriented development adjacent to the Anclote River and to provide for the economic viability of the sponge docks. So you can see by the list of uses permitted by right, it was really a focused on those types of uses, this is a conditional use. But again, this immediate area is really, really more single family. This was a store. So you can see by the bakery sign over the door. But this was previously a store, my understanding is right now the building is vacant, and again, the applicant proposes to renovate the interior. This just shows the context of the residential area looking kind of south southwest down the street, the property does have the property is located in the Greektown National district. Now, the city has no standards for that district. It's a national designation. The property is also in a flood zone. If the applicant wants to take advantage or needs to take advantage of some flood zone flexibility, that is provided, in for historic structures, they can do that. But they would have to be sure that the exterior, maintains the character of the historic structure. That is a federal code. So the reason there's that, leniency is because FEMA is a federal agency that provides that leniency for a federally designated historic district. Just to keep that clear in our minds. But we do we do participate in that, with our floodplain ordinance. So some of the features that should be retained would be these that I've noted here and taken pictures of. The Okay, and I'll get to that in a minute. So we, we believe that the land development code is met, even though the building doesn't comply with setbacks, it predates the code. And it's a legal, nonconforming structure, the use would be a legal conforming use. Assuming that the conditional use is granted, the project is compatible with the area. Again, it's predominantly single family in the area, this is a small site, so it's kind of tough to establish, a business on it, the business that was there, obviously there was no, you know, parking, you know, voluminous parking on the site. It was more of a neighborhood store type business, and that's fine. But right now it's apparently not viable for that. The commercial general does allow residential. That's the future land use category. If the property is under five acres, which this is, and again, this is not in an environmentally sensitive site. It is in the National Register district. It's not in a local district. And the city has no adopted standards for that national district, the use will not. We don't believe, adversely affect property values. All the adjacent uses on three on at least the three sides or single family across the street is some multifamily. We believe that rehabilitating the structure, giving it an adaptive reuse, will help to stabilize values in the area, the property is served with public services, and the city can continue to serve it. And again, we feel like bringing the property up to current building codes and rehabbing the inside. Will protect the public health, safety and welfare. So staff is recommending approval of the conditional use. A building permit for construction has to be obtained within one year of the effective date and kept active through the issuance of the seal, if you wish to add a condition regarding the building itself, the scale, massing and architectural features, we've written one up for you. If you would like to add that condition. The project was publicly noticed and there were no responses received. And I can tell you how many mailed notices if you have that question of the look, Council had a. Yeah. Mister chair, if, if the city staff is finished. Yes I just want to kind of sort sort out something for a minute, because there's a quick exchange right before she started. And I think we were, talking about different terms, but I think what you were trying to do is, ex-parte disclosures because you said affected parties. But I think what we need to do is disclosures of any ex party communications. No, I think we're property owners in the, in the, in that neighborhood. So that's kind of I think what she was right. It was just a just in the past we've had to disclose if we were an affected party to it. But I mean, I think the rule is as long as it's not going to negatively affect us and we're we're good to talk about it. That's in the past. That's what we did. It was just it was just a notice, an FYI, I wasn't a question, I just. No, no, but I think I think it is important because I understood that everybody was disclosing their ex party communications on all the items at the beginning. Oh I see. If it wasn't, that does anybody need to disclose anything now? No. It's hard to live in Tarpon Springs and not be connected some way or another with an application. If I voted no or something, I wouldn't want to come back and say, oh, she doesn't want this because she lives down the road. Yeah, that's that's well, that's that would be what I would say is an ex party. Just say basically a disclosure. Okay. Just make that as a disclosure. Do you want on that? On the beginning I got it. Yeah. Well then. Right. So why don't we just handle that? I wanted to get the record straight. I'm sorry. Because it was kind of a rapid. I do have some questions for staff, though. Yes, yes, what is the current elevation of that property? Unless it's on the survey, I will try to determine that. I don't know what what it is. So. So the question would be if it's commercial now and it's converted to residential, would it have to meet the, elevation requirements for a home or structure? Living quarters? That's a good question for our floodplain coordinator. Okay. I'm not sure whether it would have to if you're going to do it. My understanding is if you're going to do more than a percentage of renovation, it has to be compliant with 50%, 50%. It has to be comply with the existing. Yeah. Rules okay. So that would include that would include flood elevation. But I don't know about the elevation. Okay, but that, you know, not to not to sink the applicant. But if, you know, I'm very, very familiar with the building, quite frankly. And, you know, the concern is if you're going to convert that into a residential unit, you know, I know right down the street, the houses that are being built now are being built elevated. And so if you're going to convert a commercial piece of property to a residence, it would I would assume that they would have to follow the same, elevation requirements one. Number two, when I looked at the survey, it shows because that building and the house adjacent to it were in common ownership, and it seemed like it was deeded to the to one of the relatives or this, this application, this applicant. It was deeded to him. But if you look at the survey, it shows that the house encroaches three foot onto that property. Yes. And you know, I don't know where where our position is, but when we see a home that encroaches on the adjacent property and that and I don't know how they were able to, separate through the property appraiser's office or whatever. That building from that adjacent property, by creating a obvious, you know, issue, whether you wanted to call it a cloud on the title or whatever the case may be, I don't know if that's something that that falls under our purview, but that is that is concerning because, you know, how do we have something move forward when there's a house encroaching on on the property that belongs to that resident? And I don't know the answer to that. So we did note that there is encroaching, structures. I am not aware that the two properties were combined. This this as far as we know, this is a separate lot. That's how it was treated. If those are it would it was under I think it was under one common ownership. And then it was conveyed out. But yes. So I believe I think the applicant could can attest to that. The other question, are there outstanding code enforcement claims or issues that are still affecting that property, as of last week, I checked with code enforcement. They have had a history, at least on the adjacent. Maybe this one. I'm not sure right no. There are no open cases on this property, you also indicated in your testimony that there's currently being rented in the back as a as a rental. Did you say that in your in your presentation? I never heard you say so. The property appraiser has it listed as a store with office slash apartment. Gotcha. The applicant can can talk about this, but my understanding is it's vacant, but I. I don't know that. I don't know. I thought you said it was. It was being rented, but I wasn't sure. That's. Maybe I misunderstood what you said. And. Right now, I do not see elevations on the survey. Yeah, I didn't I looked on the survey and see an elevation, so I didn't know. But I just want to make sure that that that if we do go ahead and pass this, that that would be a condition that they would have to be, compliant with, you know, FEMA regulations. So we could certainly add that. Well, I mean, so I have a question about that because, my house is in the same district. And so what I've always been understanding has been it's commercial or residential and that's, you know, it has it's a positive thing. So, I mean, if we're encouraging people because I think that's probably the only maybe vacant, building on that road, it does have a lot of problems with, you know, vagrancy. They have had a lot of calls there for police because it is vacant, so like if I was going to change mine now my house is raised, but I don't think that that's the requirement. I think that's for new buildings. Correct. Like if there's nothing there like for those other ones. But not for one that's there. Because I mean that that would mean that and that would discourage people like you said with form follows the function. I mean, if the function is to encourage, you know, this growth of this area, because, you know, blight in the area and stuff, I don't I mean, they might not be able to do it if they have to raise the house. It would be 150,000, 100,000 more dollars I imagine. So I don't I wouldn't be, you know, with that condition. It wouldn't be comfortable with that. I don't think that's I don't think that's the requirement for current structures. And buildings, but I don't know. Well, if you were to put that condition, the floodplain coordinator could still apply whatever flexibility they are allowed under the, under the, the National Flood Insurance Program. So, so she can so she can apply that. You're right. So outside of this whole historic district context, that's not a you know, that's a national thing. It doesn't really the historic district has no the historic district does not. But the National Register designation allows the floodplain coordinator to implement the flexibility provided by the National FEMA, so and then the other question I had was you mentioned a third condition that you prepared that we could add about some kind of what was that? Well, the second condition was about the architectural features that was recommended. By who? That that was a suggestion of staff. Staff, if you want to do that. Where did that come from? What? What prompted? Well, I think partly because, they would have to do it. And then there's the wording if they want to take advantage of that FEMA break, they would have to anyway. Okay. So it might help to tell you that. And also if you were concerned about this outside of that, if it's something you want to do. But we have no regulations that we can require this. We do not have a requirement for this. So if they opened it back up, as you know, a bakery like it, the sign says they wouldn't have to raise it or they wouldn't have to do anything. As far as raising the structure. Right. I if they if they just I don't know. I don't think so. There is a 50%. It's going to flood regardless of what kind of building it is. Right oh, as far as whether it's commercial or residential, is that going to affect the flooding? Right. This just for, just for, you know, years ago, the city of Tarpon Springs. And you may know this got hammered by FEMA because it was allowing residential structures to be built below the FEMA floodplain. But people had established and the concern is that we don't want to go through that route again. If regardless of, you know, whatever the permitted elevation is, this building, regardless of whether it floods or not, has to be consistent with what FEMA would allow, whether it's an extra, I don't know. Right. Yeah. And I that's why I think conditionally I think it's imperative that that, that that be a condition that it has to be compliant with FEMA. That's, that's city's protection. And if they do have to comply with floor elevation, it could be inside the building. You know, there are ways to deal with that. So, I mean, the I think Renee wants to say something. Well, you know, she'll get an opportunity first. Who is our floodplain manager, Megan O'Brien. And is she here tonight? No. Okay. And, if I may be so bold, be bold. Unfortunately, my daily life deals with elevation, floodplain management, and permitting in regards and the rules are exquisitely strict. And there, frankly, is very little things that can be done. It's mathematics. Either you're in or you're out. So I in fact, I, I'm, I had one question which was who is our floodplain manager. And we know who that is. And are they here. And were they part of the technical review committee? Yes they were. So that person sat in on this application prior to it being presented to us and said, we're okay to proceed. Yes. And that person knows that this is a residence, that because we're not given the elevation and the data, that this may be a resident, that is going to be a workaround. I don't know that it just sounds as if it's a workaround, because certainly conversion from commercial to residential is going to vastly exceed the 50% rule, which is building only, not the total property price. The building probably has a value of 40 grand, 50 grand, and you can go straight to your tax assessor and they're going to give you a letter on that. So in other words, we have approval from our floodplain manager that this application is going to be compliant with review with FEMA for the city of Tarpon Springs. Yeah. We have not received an application for the conversion. What we have is she's informed the applicant of what the flood zone is. We did the applicant did meet with the building department and with us and talk through the issues that they would have to address to be compliant with the building code, but we do not have a number. She did not have an application to review. So doesn't that appear a loose question? Doesn't that appear that we've got the cart before the horse, the building, the building and floodplain coordinator were confident that the applicant, could address the issues. I mean, yeah, they haven't seen bring it on in. True true, true. Yes. Thank you. Rene Vincent, planning and zoning director, cart. Not really. Before the horse, we kind of have two different things going on here. So this is a conditional use application which is required in order for the residents to be established. All the machinations are going to come from the actual conversion to your point, they have to be able to meet FEMA across the board. Whether we condition it or not. So, but because the conditional use process, you got to go to this board, you have to go to the board of commissioners. It takes a little bit of time, they're they get through this, then they'll go through the more detailed building permit application to actually do the conversion. But we know about it. The building department knows about it. Our FEMA floodplain coordinator knows about it. They've been working the problem, so they'll have to comply regardless of what we do here. Does that make sense? It does. Thank you, I do have one more. Go ahead. Forgive me. That's okay. But I and I just wanted to clarification. Is that, if I understand it, the property as built in no way complies with the standard setbacks for residential, in the current zoning, the front and the North east. I guess side setbacks do not comply. And do the residences that are neighboring this property, do they comply just as a loose. Does it look like they all apply? But this they comply. But this one does not. And that. Yeah, that's why I put that, aerial back up. It looks like the front setbacks, at least for the adjacent residences and along Athens, do not comply. It looks like they're closer to the street than. What the w d district requires, which I believe is 20ft. After looking the staff report and would last but not least, because I'm. I'm trying to work on this allowing a residential out of a commercial building. Would this applicant also need to go to the board of Adjustments to get a approval for a residence that has a zero setback line, not for the existing setback, because it's a legal, nonconforming structure. Legal. Nonconforming And then? Then would that mean that if this resident applicant were able to make it through a couple of hoops, could build the maximum height allowable on that lot? Let's say it's 37ft, might even be higher that once they were granted a zero lot line, that they could go straight up on that lot line, say 40 or 50ft with a three story residence. They would not be able to expand the nonconformity. So if they add to the building, whether it's up or out, they would not be able to, they would have to comply with the with the setbacks of the district. Do you see what I mean? I'm trying to I'm just making sure that we're not doing something inappropriate to the neighbors. So just to repeat, you said it, but I just want to hear it again, that there is absolutely no way that the owner could build vertical zero lot line two stories. Not unless they apply for a variance. Okay this and maybe we don't care, but I go back to the. And maybe Renee, if you may know, the answer to this, the fact that that there is an encroachment of the neighboring house three I think it's three feet onto this property. Do we even care? I would consider that a civil matter between the private property owners. So Do I have a question? Me first. Okay. Go ahead. Mines, real quick. Does it matter at all for this application that there's a lien on the property, there is a utility lien on the property. It does not matter for this application. The applicant is aware of it, and they'll have to address it. Okay so my question net net is the net net really that what. This evening we're approving the use of the single family home versus commercial. And that's it because we're not approving anything else right now because we don't have the FEMA. We don't have the. That's correct. If she if there's some reason she cannot convert this, then the conditional use will expire and it will remain the same as it is. Do you have any other any other questions for staff? Thank you. Applicant. The applicant here, and I think you've been sworn in. Okay. Good evening. But does anybody have any. Well, thank you for your for your consideration. I did hear a couple of concerns and the my brother and, and I are working with planning on zoning to make sure that the front of the building is a compliment to the rest of the neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood is very lovely. We want to keep that charm. His mother doesn't live right next door. That's the encroachment property, which I don't know if that's an issue, but with FEMA, I did call for a flood insurance and they they I am working with them. They said it was okay to have residential this will be my brother's main homestead and we're going to, do everything we need to do to make sure everything's in compliance. There is a lien as soon as this is approved, he's going to financially be able to get a mortgage and take care of all the liens. So it's a positive thing for the community. And we really appreciate your time. The only the only comment I have and it's something whether you address tomorrow or years from now, but you'll always have an issue with the house encroaching on that property. If that's not addressed, you know, it kind of makes that that, that has nothing to do with us. But thank you. Yeah, yeah. I just have one one quick question. If you wouldn't mind answering. It was very tough to tell the distance between the bakery structure and the residence next door, the dwelling that encroaches. Is there any plans for eventually having any on site parking there? Do you think that would be feasible with that width to get a car to use as a driveway, or to get to the back yard? Yes, the driveway can fit two vehicles in it, so they do use it. Okay. Right now the 438 is vacant. It's just a shell. So But once they fix it, they'll still be able to have the driveway as two parking spaces, which is lovely since parking is so tight in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? There being none any public comment? Please state your name even though we know who you are. Please state your name and address for the record. Anita Protas, 901 Bay Shore Drive. I'm going to give you a little history lesson about that area. Years ago, when the sponge divers and their families lived there, they didn't have property setbacks or property lines between each house. The Athanasian house on the corner committee's house, the bakery. I think it's your aunt's house that was next to it. And on each side, one big family. Yeah. And when they went to build the houses, they didn't stake out property lines. And if you were from the same island, they gave it to you. And for years. And years it's been like that. And if you go all the way through the area of Greektown, you're going to find houses and yards that way that are connected together. In 1923, when we had the bad hurricane and the water came up Athens Street. They didn't flood their it came right to the clavicles coffee shop. I've got the pictures. If I had known this was here, I would have brought them to you. And where mama's restaurant used to be. It didn't flood there. And, when my husband was president of the Sponge exchange, when it turned over to the Pappas and he had to go and help with a FEMA in the sponge exchange, the architect didn't do what was supposedly done to be done in case it flooded. And that's why we lost our national standing on some of that area. So as far as the property line between two buildings, that's none of our business. That's the property owners business. We can't judge on that. And as far as flood insurance, that's up to the property owner too. And they will have to deal with FEMA because I was in office when FEMA came and we had to raise houses down through the beach areas of Tarpon. And, since then, as families have, inherited the homes down there, they haven't dealt that much with FEMA because they haven't had to. And you know how I feel about that. That's an act of God. We can't control any of that. So where she wants to go and put her home or her brother, they've never flooded. And the families never argued about property lines. And, God help you all when this does start coming in and you have to listen to these families because it's all over in the Greek area, Greektown. So I want you all to know that's what's happened. And a lot of them start building their houses up because they wanted a porch to look over the other neighbor's property to see what was going on. That's exactly why all that started happening. You need to see the pictures at the Historical Society. You need to start reading the history books when these things come up, so you'll know what's happened. Because a lot of those blocks that the houses are families from A and , Kalymnos theme, they all had their little sections, all had their little. You forgot Halki and they've got that one. Yeah. Don't forget us. That comes through. What did you say? You forgot Halki. Oh excuse me. Halki. Yes And as the rich came in where captain hopes big house used to be, it was always high there and they didn't fill it in. And the water used to come down. But those the building never flooded. But okay, any other public comment? Okay. Closed for public comment I guess. Any any staff rebuttals or comments? No. Okay that's the case. I'd like to hear a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Would that be with both staff conditions? Yes, with staff conditions. Okay. I'll second. I didn't read the. Oh, I couldn't read the application. 2448. Okay. Your second. Yes. Okay. Call. Roll. Call, please. Miss Swenson. Yes. Miss early. Yes. Mr. Rochlin. Yes. Miss Francis. Yes. Mr. Vessey? Yes. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Okay. Is it okay to go ahead? Mr. chair, I just want to ask and forgive me, because this is my second meeting with you all, but. And I guess we'll work all this out as time goes. Do you prefer that I read the draft resolution title into the record before you get started? Yeah, it's probably a good idea. It's probably a good idea. You know, I'm usually not. I'm usually not the one with the gavel either, so bear with me. So it's a learning process. But if it's okay, counsel, I like for us to take a just a few minute break. I have to take care of some. Books. So. Okay. This is, item six on the agenda application 24 Dash 46 Council. Thank you, Mr. Chair, this is ordinance 2024. Oh six titled An Ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, Amending the Future Land Use Map of the city. Could I interrupt? I think the third thing on the agenda, the agenda was revised. Hopefully you've got that is the. Oh, yes. Resolution. You have another. Oh. The resolution? Yeah. Yeah. I noticed that there were resolution 2024 Dash 30, application 24, Dash 4624. Okay. You have 25 2430 now. Right 2430. Yes Yes. Sorry. All right. Resolution 2024 Dash 30, a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, approving applications 24 dash 46 requesting conditional use approval and site plan approval to allow for a surface parking lot at 525 Hill Street and the TSC, I'm going to butcher this. Da da da da street. Dodecanese. Dodecanese Thanks. You guys are going to have to give me some lessons here. Avenue, main street transect district providing for findings. Providing for conditional conditions, and providing for an effective date. So that is the draft resolution that will be going to the board of Commissioners. Ex-parte disclosures or anything? Okay. Great Thank you. All right, this is an application for conditional use and for site plan approval. This is at 525 Hill Street on about a half an acre of property located in the sponge Docks character district. And the T5C Dodecanese Avenue, main street transect the proposed use of the property is a permanent parking lot, surface parking lot, the property is listed as vacant. It has been used for parking in the past, and is currently being used as a temporary parking lot. The property was acquired by the city in December of 2023, and was immediately modified with a temporary use permit for parking in time for the epiphany, so there were some modifications to the property, the city would like to establish a permanent public parking lot to include upgrades that meet the current code requirements. This is located in the Sponge Docks character district. On on the northwest corner of Roosevelt Boulevard and Hill Street. It's in the T5C, transect. So, this is how those transect districts lay out. And this is the site here, this is an aerial of the site kind of showing the current condition, which is basically disturbed kind of scarified. Property. There is parking to the north and west that is served some the rusty bellies restaurant, to the south is the o Turtle Cove, Marina Community Clubhouse, clubhouse and parking lot. Across the street is vacant property also owned by the city. The city recently acquired property on these blocks between Cross and Hill streets. And, this portion of northeast corner of Roosevelt and here Hill as well as the subject property. This is an oblique aerial of the site showing, showing the site and showing the parking surrounding it, Turtle Cove is here. And again, this is vacant property that the city now owns. This is the what the parking lot looks like now. This was, modified to provide for a temporary parking lot. That, is under use now and again. It's got that gravel surface, they did, public works, did build a sandbag sandbag site in the corner of the property. They didn't go ahead and install the handicapped parking and the connection for that. We'll talk about this in a minute, but there is a city, trash, disposal here on this right of way already. That's part of the regular city pickup at the dock. The parking lot, as you can see here, this is the entrance on Hill Street, and that is a two, two way traffic, entering exit on Hill Street. This is a 42, 42 space parking lot with two handicapped spaces. The sandbag distribution site here in the corner and bike racks will be going on this street corner here, with access to both sidewalks. So you've got 42 spaces around the perimeter. And some. And in the parallel parking in the center, this is the landscape plan. Parking lots, surface parking lots are required to be screened by the smart code, they can be screened by warrant with a hedge. So the city is proposing a 3.5ft, hedge of sweet viburnum to go along both street frontages. Outside the visibility triangles, the project does conform with the land development code, we've got one condition that we're going to, ask for, to provide to provide a detail for the bike rack, the, the consultant that's preparing these plans for us did provide the lighting and signage design details, but not the bike rack. So that will come in with the building permit. So it will comply with land development code, it's going to provide off street parking. That will support the businesses in the sponge docks character district. So it's within easy walking distance of really kind of the main drag of the tourist area in Dodecanese. It's sufficiently removed from the residential, that it should not disturb, any residential properties. Really? That doesn't start till about 700ft down Roosevelt Boulevard, but it is going to provide for off street parking, which hopefully will be a benefit to the residential area, especially in the less busy, moderately busy times. So we feel that this is compatible and appropriate in the area, the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Special Area plan, the Sponge Docks character district anticipates surface parking lots and parking garages, of the. I believe it's six transects in that district. Parking is a conditional use, so it's really designed to let you and the board look at each individual proposal and decide if it's appropriate for parking down there. So this this is that's why it's a conditional use, this is not in any historic district, and there are no environmental impacts, the we're hoping that the site upgrades and expansion of off street parking will help stabilize, and the property and adjoining property values. The facilities are available to serve the property. Really? We're only the only facility that's going to be supplied at this point will be, potable water. There's no reclaimed down there, but water for irrigation of the landscaping, and again, upgrading this site to all the current codes, making it safer, accessible, attractive, we're hoping will promote the health, safety and welfare of the community as far as the site plan criteria. The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and Land development Code. It is served by facilities and complies with concurrency management. And it's expected to be able to meet all city building codes. So we are recommending approval with three conditions of the site plan. That is, that the bicycle rack meet the required design standards, that construction plans are consistent with the approved site plan and in compliance with the land development Code, and the site plan will expire in six months unless a building permit is pulled, we did, do public notice. The map was in error. So that was again sent out. The second notice was sent out with the corrected map. We have not received any responses. And again I can look and see how many postcards went out. If you'd like to know that. And that completes the staff report. Do you have any questions for me? I have a few questions, first of all, you're you're here presenting the applicant is the city. Yes. Are you representing both the city and the staff, or is there a representative from the city here, we have the engineer, that worked on the plans here to present this evening. Okay, so let me ask a question. So as a parking lot, recently, I guess the other the other day, they had the hippie fest down at the sponge docks. And as some of the vendors and stuff come in, they bring me bring their trailers and motorhomes to stay or with that parking lot, allow a motorhome to be parked there. Is there a restriction on a motorhome? I would say that the city would not allow a motorhomes to be parked in the city parking lot. Okay. Now, if you're talking about a special event, if the city, uses that property for a special event, specific things are allowable with the special event. So if somebody drove a motor home to park there, they would not be permitted to park in that parking lot. No the spaces are not designed for I mean, you know, I'm assuming it would be larger than nine by 18 space. Okay You know. Will there be overnight parking allowed? No no, no. That could be a condition. That is. What was that one of your conditions? I didn't see that as one of your conditions, it's not one of the conditions, but it could be added. Question. Does that affect any of the water drainage or anything when it rains or or floods? Is there any analysis done on that, yes there was. And our stormwater consultant reviewed this project that is in compliance with the drainage code. Okay So it's going to be paved. Is that what you're saying? No, it's going to remain as a gravel parking lot. Okay. Were you done? Okay, I have a couple questions. Pat, would you mind putting up the map back up? And this is part of the property that we that the city that we purchased by referendum in November. Correct? Yes. I think the actual purchase went through in December, but. Yes. Okay. And then can if it's possible, could you highlight because I know you mentioned them, you pointed them out, but could you, can you show all of the property that was purchased for parking for the 1.9 acres, or the 1.8 million? So it includes this site that we're talking about tonight. It includes the parcel across the street, which I'm kind of outlining here. And it includes the vacant parcels on this block to the south east. I guess you'd say, that's the that's what the purchase includes. I mean, by chance, do you know the percentage of this property of the entire property purchase? Like what? This, that that that land is, no. I can try to come up with that as we go, so is there going to be any signage? Yes. And is that included in this? Because I didn't see that. I'm sorry if I missed it. And where and where are those signs going to be? Like, as far as not at not signs on the lot, but directing because this is at the end of the sponge docks. I thought you meant on the lot. No, no, no, I mean, like, how are people going to know that this is there, I can you know, I'm not sure. I mean, we can address that, right? Because it was just by the time people get to that spot, they've already probably passed two paid parking lots. So if I mean, I can we can address that with, with public works, with the plan. We I don't think it was quite clear in here. I don't know if you mentioned in your presentation, but this is the property we just purchased for the purpose of parking for $1.8 million. So I want to make sure people know it's there. Okay. Okay. We can address that. Yeah So have any more questions. Yeah We can address that with the city. I mean I would I will not approve it without a condition like that because I just feel like they're not even if we're not even going to pave the road. I mean, what what did we just bought something that's already been used for the same purpose already, basically. So I think not quite sure what's, what we're doing with the rest of the property. So you can certainly recommend that the city, you know, as far as where signs go on the right of way and stuff, I don't think we can make that decision here, but you can certainly recommend that that be addressed. Going back to your concern, what what signage is going to be there? I mean, obviously if you're going to if a condition is with no overnight parking, that'll be a sign. How do you how is it going to police be policed to make sure that a, obviously you got the police department, that there's no overnight parking number one. Number two, if you've got parallel parking and if somebody wants to take up two spots, it ends up bringing in a larger vehicle or a motorhome or something to that effect. How did that how is that going to be policed? I think it would be policed like anything. Complaint and drive by enforcement. I think probably if there was a prominent sign in the parking lot saying what the rules are, the problem would be solved. I mean, it would make the police their job easier, it would inform the people who are coming to park there. That would be my suggestion. Oh, sorry. I tend to do that. Talk to the people instead of the mike. Sorry. What I suggested was a prominent sign letting know. Letting people know what the rules were. Did everybody hear that? I'm sorry. Like the, you know, like the rules for loading and unloading for trucks, you know, those kind of rules. We can certainly recommend that. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant please step forward? And these. I'm just kidding. I'm kidding. Okay. Any any any any public comment, I well, I don't know if you want to add something more than what we discussed. We have, questions that. Yeah. Sorry. You're put your name on the record, please. Yeah. Good evening, Bruno Raiola with the RMP. We were the civil engineer of record, I think one of the questions was to ensure that the parallel parking is not used by, like, bigger vehicles, currently, there are concrete, traffic separators in there that will ensure that only regular, vehicles park there. So Okay. Thank you. Anybody have questions for the applicant? Okay. Any staff? I mean, any public comment? Evening, Peter LAX, 514 Ashland Avenue, wasn't really prepared to talk on this because I wasn't aware of it till I hear it. And I just want to say, we went to the hippie fest on Saturday. So your questions as far as what the use of that land is, we've already seen part of the potential for it. The parking lot was used for parking, and I think what, Pat is trying to say is for special events, they get the right to use the city can give them the right to use that parking lot if they want for vendors. There were vendors parked along some of the alleys. There were vendors parked along Dodecanese. So just as the city allows vendors to park in certain places, that would only be that. So as the lady recommended you put a sign over night parking after 2 a.m, no large vehicles. You're taking care of that issue. But part of why we voted to approve this was the multi-purposes. This land offers it has the parking. Let's fix it. Nice. And one of the things I noticed, I haven't been down to that part of the docks. And while there's some new shops on the West End and by having the parking lot, I know the main part of the docks is further east. But this way you give people an opportunity to park on the west end and traverse the whole dock. Sometimes when people park down on the east side, they don't make it down on the west side. So we've got this walkable community thing. We want to spread the wealth all along the docks. So to me, this is a good first start. And as far as the rest of the property, I would think we should go to a competent architect of local nature and see if we can't get some ideas. For as far as a music pavilion, some maybe some picnic tables, you can put that on the north side and you can leave the south side maybe open. There's all kinds of things that can be done in the future, but as far as this, I would recommend you allow the city to improve this site so it improves this end of the sponge docks. Thank you. Thank you. Any other. Thank you. Good comments. Any other public comment? I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. And unless the board I mean the staff, do you have any, any, other issues or comments you want to make? No. Okay. Thank you. So that being said, let's let's go ahead and have a motion first. I would make that motion, Mr. Chairman, to approve resolution number 24, dash 30 or 2024 dash 30 with the three aforementioned staff conditions, as well as the provision for some sort of signage and regulation about overnight parking and other signage to, announce the area as available for public parking. I'll second. Okay Discussion. I just wanted to, you know, comment I did. Mr. Dholakia's comments were great because I do you know, even though tonight we're not here to address the other property, I just wanted to I'm not quite sure if everyone knew when we purchased that property. The discussion for the hotel was kind of just in this one area that was like five separate lots, I think. So it was a lot of property, and you know, every time the city purchases something, now we have to regulate it. So that becomes a cost and everything, you know, so in the, you know, everyone's like, well, who's going to we'll put a sign up. Well signs only mean anything if they're enforced. So I mean it's great to have the sign there. But I mean that's what I mentioned about the trucks unloading and offloading. You know that those rules are already there. It's unless we're enforcing it. And then so we're it's a burden that we're putting on our staff again. And the court and I think we have one code enforcement officer. And this comes up in everything, every single thing. Well, what are you going to do? Who's going to who's going to enforce that. It's like one person. So and then, you know, there's been other ideas about the city doing this and the city enforcing this to make to have the city make money. But the cost and the cost benefit analysis is not always there. It's going to cost the city more to enforce some of these things than it's going to bring in money. So I just want to make sure that, you know, the signs don't don't, you know, resolve everything because we have to have them enforced. So every time just I want people to know when the city buys something. We're taking on another cost as well. So I just want to make sure that it's benefiting the purpose, which is the merchants at the at the docks and tourism overall and also the residents. So take that on, and just to, you know, appreciate all the work that the cops and code enforcement do and maybe we need another code enforcement officer. Okay. All right. Good comments. So I'm going to go ahead and call the motion for a vote. Roll call please, Miss Swenson. Yes, miss Earley? Yes. Mr. Rockline? Yes Miss. Francis? Yes, Mr. Vessey? Yes, Mr. Cruz. Yes Moving on. Okay. Next item on the agenda, application 20 2-02. Yes. Mr. chair, I just want to also, remind everyone that in this capacity, as it's a land use amendment, a future land use map amendment that you're acting in the capacity of a local planning agency, and, this is a legislative item as opposed to a quasi judicial item. So this ordinance 2020 406, an ordinance of the city of Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the future land use map of the city of Tarpon Springs, Florida, for a portion of the 64.17 acres more or less of real property located at 42501 US highway 19 North on the east side of the US of US 19 North, that portion being 336 .64 acres, more or less in size from future land use map designation are slash OG, which is residential office general to CG, commercial general and PE preservation to future land use map designation R/0 recreation open space and P preservation providing for findings and providing for an effective date. So if I could just for a moment, just, talk to you for a minute about the difference between legislative and quasi judicial, because we did receive a letter from, attorney Jane Graham seeking intervenor status or affected party status, in a legislative item like this, it's controlled by the statute, Florida statute. Specifically, it does allow for affected parties. But this is very different in this case where you're not going to have, you're not going to have cross examination and things like that, they do have a right to participate in this, in this hearing. And I would leave it up to the board to decide how much time. But it's different than the quasi judicial matters in terms of, how you determine an affected party. The affected party is defined in the Florida Statutes. Okay Okay. Well, that being said, you know, I don't know who's going to testify with regard to the public, but I do want to institute the four minute, limitation on any public speaking. I know, that that, I think under this legislative action, even though that we're allowing the public to speak, it's actually at the, at the, at the, behest of the board to allow that. Am I correct? Yes. So you set your rules and your procedures on how you how much time you give. However, I would just say that, if some if there is a group and someone's here representing a group, in the interest of due process, maybe allow them a little extra time to be able to put their. Because in order for them, to establish their record and to be able to go forward in the event that there is an appeal, you know, they want to be able to get their you don't want to foreclose their right to be able to get whatever arguments they want to get on the record, so long as they're germane to the legislative item and not other items related to this property. Fair enough. Does that make sense? Makes sense. Chair I'd like to suggest that we offer an affected party as a group. A total of 12 minutes, three times the standard, if that is all. In that entire group. To the courtesy to that. Well, to the extent that they are deemed an affected party, if we deem them to be an affected party, I it all depends on what what's the pleasure of this board and if I may, in addition, I'd like to key off the counsel's words as long as the conversation is germane to the topic at hand. And specific to this application, and doesn't delve into already approved or the weeds that are just not relevant to tonight's topic. Yeah we're not here to rewrite history, correct? No. Okay. Does any does the board, what's the board have any comments with regard to that suggestion? No, I'm always in favor of giving more leeway for public comment. Not restricting anyone. Yeah, I am, I am, and I just tossed 12 out there. Anybody could say more or less. I just want I think 12 I think 12 is very generous and I think I think that's the way we're going to go. I don't have the timer. I guess I don't have to figure out to work the time. We'll do the timer. You got the timer? Yeah. All right. Okay, so, Pat. Okay. Thank you. This is application. 2020 202, coming to you from the applicant is the Morgan Group. This is for property located on us 19, it's a 64.17 acre property that has been approved for residential plan development and has been rezoned to a residential plan development, a final development plan was approved under resolution 2021 Dash 60. The proposal is for, future land use map amendment for a total of 36.64 acres from commercial from three categories commercial, general, residential, office, general and preservation to recreation, open space and preservation. The. This shows the layout of the development and the location of the amendment request for the upland portion of the property. That is the pine and Zurich oak habitat that's in the orange on this illustration, resolution 2021 Dash 60, condition seven approving that final plan development required the applicant to request amendment of this area shown in orange, the recreation open space, future land use category. It also required the applicant, to amend the wetlands shown in the shaded area, or to adjust actually is the language in the resolution the preservation category on site so that it matches the actual jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The applicant has met condition number seven by applying for this amendment. This is the future land use map. It shows commercial general residential office, general and a preservationist. The dark green. That's the current map. You can see the surrounding area is residential to the east, and low level commercial and office along 19. Looking at at the future land use map, this is the current future land use map. Most of the amendments you see are parcel based, right. So you'll have a lot or a parcel that has a designation on it. Most of what you see so we know the limits of that parcel because we have a survey of the parcel. When you have categories that are mapped using habitats, what we've got for our future land use map, when it was drawn originally is and it basically an interpretation of an aerial photograph showing, where the interpreter located uplands and wetlands. And it's usually and pretty much based on the water management, aerials and, and land use classification maps that they update every few years. So the site right now has approximately 42 acres in commercial, general and recreation, sorry. Residential office. General It shows about 14 acres in preservation, and it shows about eight acres as, designated. The undesignated would have been pretty much areas interpreted to be open water. So the proposed future land use map has, two categories that have been surveyed and verified on site. The upland, 14.5 acres of upland, would go to recreation open space under this proposal. And that's the light green here. The wetland acreage would match the jurisdictional wetlands, that the applicant must preserve on site. So now, with this map, we would have about 27.5 acres left in commercial general. And residential office. General. We'd have about 14.5 acres in recreation, open space and about 22 acres in preservation. So, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because these areas and as you see from the surrounding area, these areas that are changing are compatible with the surrounding area. There's a preservation and residential, around the area, and they are appropriate designations for the purpose, of what is being preserved on site, under this development. So the intent of those categories is, is outlined in your staff report, these areas that are proposed for amendment are consistent with those intents for, recreational open space and preservation. So a couple more things about this. So this project, the apartment project has been approved, a site work permit has been issued for that project. Again, the applicant was required to apply for these designations. But that project, as approved under the plan, development must preserve the 14.5 acres of upland. And the 22 acres of wetland habitat shown and put it under a conservation easement. So this must be done regardless of the I'm sorry, the outcome of the future land use map amendment, whether it's approved or denied, will not affect the project. So that has been approved. It is, however, a permanent change to the map. So as you know from other applications, you're looking at a future land use map amendment in a broader context. You have a comprehensive plan that is progressing toward adoption, an updated plan that's looking to a planning horizon of 2040. So that's kind of the context that you look at. Future land use map amendments in, so this amendment will, lower the density allowable in those categories. It will remove several allowable uses that are allowed. Now it will significantly reduce floor area ratio and impervious surface ratio. Again, none of that applies to the current development because they are restricted to what was approved with the plan development. But it does apply to, a future designation on the map. I will also mention that this property is in the coastal high hazard area. If this is approved, as you may remember, under the updated comprehensive plan slated for adoption, they would not be able know a future applicant would not be able to raise the density, which would be zero in these two categories. They would not be able to raise the density in the coastal high hazard area. Right now, under our current plan, it would be very difficult, we do have a little bit of leeway there, but in the adopt the plan slated for adoption, that would be prohibited. So that's something to consider. Long term, this is recommended for approval. From the three categories I mentioned commercial, general, residential, office, general and preservation. Two, recreation, open space and preservation. As shown, I will mention also, this is a small scale amendment. Well, let me backtrack. So we once, if this is approved on first reading, we must apply to Forward Pinellas for a county wide map amendment that's outlined in your staff report, the categories on that map are retail and Services, office and Preservation. So we would, be applying for those changes and adjustments for the preservation area. Once this is adopted, it would be, a small scale amendment under the Florida Statutes, 163 of the Florida statutes. So that would be the process that that we're going through on that, again, we did provide public notice as of the date of this PowerPoint. We didn't have, any responses since then, we've received a letter from Mr. Graham, and we've received two emails that were provided to you. I'm sorry, three emails that were provided to you this evening, and that's the extent of the public comment. Are there any questions? I have a few, but just for the record, I'd like to go ahead and I guess accept these into the record. For what? It's what they are. I don't know. They're not necessarily evidence, but, but, you know, they are public comment. So, you know, we are going to allow some public comment. So I would just accept these as, as basically public comment. Now, just so I understand and maybe clarify for me by approving this. All right. Basically that project would take 36 of the of the, of the of the acres out of it into either a conservation or preservation. Am I correct? It would it would make it a conservation or preservation area. It would. So the project itself has to, keep these both these areas as open space. They're restricted on what's allowed there to what's on the planned development. They also have to put a conservation easement over that. The designations would be recreation open space and preservation and with with the current approved development. Yes. The areas would be basically preserved. Preserved? So if this was not approved and some other person came here and had a bigger and broader project, you know, they could, they could unless we adopt the comprehensive Land use plan, somebody come in and have something bigger and greater. Would that be a fair statement? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But to the extent that this development didn't go forward for some reason, they decided not to build. And the and the, comprehensive land use plan was adopted that would reduce the density from its existing density to a lot less. Would that be also a fair statement? Yes. So because there's two things I think going on here. Yeah. Yeah. It would, it would remove, about 75 units is what we've, we've come up with. So that right now in your land development code wetlands and that's, just stated as such, can transfer density at the rate of one unit per acre. I don't know if that'll change or not. Once you get into land development code changes. But right now that's the case. They cannot, build in a wetland basically, but they can transfer density. The recreation open space would drop to zero. There's no transfer of any units from uplands to anything else. If there are zero allocated units on those uplands. So we came up with about 75 unit reduction. So this this would be the best alternative to preserving the land. That's there. That's not being developed. Yes Can I just clarify something. It's You were looking at a piece of land. Oh, I'm doing it again. Thank you. Sorry we're looking at a piece of land adjacent to a development that's already there. That was to be preserved, right? Yeah. With the land is part of the current approved development. Okay, but if it's changed to recreational rather than land being preserved, it could turn into tennis courts, pickleball courts, things of that nature. Is that right? Under recreational. Okay, so the current under the current development could not that would not be allowed because it's not in the planned development and it's not in the approved draft conservation easement that the board of Commissioners approved with the resolution. As far as a future, and you all have seen some of these future land use map amendments before to preservation. As you know, we, put preservation and we require the designation of preservation for a lot of applications, on wetlands, we don't normally do that for uplands unless there's some reason, an example might mean it might be the Anclote River Nature Park that the city owns part of that's in preservation. And part of what's in there is uplands. That's a public park. So that that would have been part of the reason for that. So the, designation that the city identified with the applicant and desired and the applicant agreed and applied for was the recreation open space designation. It's the next lowest impact. Designation. I will say when you when you talk about those uses, the floor area and impervious surface area ratios are fairly low, the configuration of those types of uses might be tough on this layout of recreation open space, but I won't say a future, applicant. I suppose for the vacant property where this planned development has not been built. That they wouldn't ask for those types of things. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple questions, Pat. So, you know, as I'm sure everyone's aware, this has been a controversial project. You know, I'm trying my best to learn everything that we can in planning and zoning. Attorney Dickman has offered he's going to help us with some training as well. But. And I'm just trying to. I always say, can you explain it to me like I'm five? So the way I'm looking at this, I mean, the biggest the controversy was over, you know, preserving the wetlands and, you know, this development going there, obviously. So the way I see it, they're taking away, an option which is commercial general out of the, the zoning that they're, you know, they're amendment they're asking for, and then is I think by this revision, the amendment that would reduce the density that they're currently allowed by 75, the current development. But the property currently has a total of 64.17 acre property, a total of 485 units allocated the development is for 404 units. The development. The current development is restricted to 404 units. They have ability to do more to build more, higher density than their not the current development, but so they're asking to preserve the change that they're asking for is to preserve the wetlands. I mean, the amendment would preserve it more than it is now. I mean, yes, because the current wetland acreage is about 13 or 14 on a future land use map. 14 acres. This change would expand it to the true extent of wetlands, which is 22, 22.1 acres, because when I received these emails. But they they're pretty much word for word the same that were dropped off on our diets, which will be put into the record later, I'm assuming. Right. Yes. That's that. But they didn't say why. So I just I'm just trying to figure out what the opposing view was. Thank you. And just, just, you know, right now there's a there's a pending the adoption of our comprehensive land use that we have it passed. And to the extent that we pass or the city passes, the comprehensive land use that dynamic. What you see, if it's not developed, changes significantly. Correct? Yes I mean, the less density, etc. So, you know, the fourth thought of us moving forward and going through with that, with the land use that we've been working on for quite some time. You know, I think we'll we'll, you know, be a positive to the extent that that nothing happens here. I have a very basic question. Oh. I'm sorry. Oh I'm doing it again. I apologize. I have a very basic question. And maybe I'm missing the huge point that's in my face, but. I'm looking at this and I'm saying to myself, are they that altruistic that they're going to preserve more? They want to preserve more, or why do they want to do this? What is the underlying reason, these areas are already required to be preserved, right? The city put the condition as Mr. Just mentioned, the city put this condition that they apply for these two designations. Oh okay. To, you you were asking earlier about what kind of courts and things they could do basically to, to significantly reduce the allowable uses, reduce the density to zero and the, impervious and floor area ratios, the city, made this a condition of the final plan development. Okay. Thank you. Now, I understand. Thank you. Any any questions from the boar, the applicant. Good evening. Jamie. Mayor of the law firm, Hill, Ward. Henderson representing the applicant, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 3700. And could I ask a question? The affidavit specifically, notes at Armstrong and Cindy Turpin, as the agents could he give you permission to. It didn't designate Hill, Ward Henderson. I just want to be clear with that, good evening, staff. Mr. Chairman and members. I'm Cindy Penny for Penny planning strategies and Mr. Armstrong and I have represented this case previously. As you're aware, Miss Mayor is an associate at the same firm, Hill, Ward Henderson. So she's going to make the presentation, and I'm here if you have any questions about the history, but hopefully we won't delve into that. But I am here if you do have any questions, I'm happy to help on that. Thank you. Thank you. So I just I don't want to repeat what staff has already excellently presented. And I want to say thank you to staff for a very thorough review and a really well written staff report, yes. This is a land use map amendment. That's the scope of what's here tonight. And it is an amendment that we believe benefits the city and is worthy of approval and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I only make two additional points. Just to, to put these on the record. First, we do understand that Miss Jane Graham is requesting intervenor status. We presume that this means a request for standing for her clients and all throughout this project, we have maintained that her clients do not have standing. No judge has ever ruled specifically that they do have standing. And so we do reassert our position here tonight. Again, that they do not have standing. And so we would object to intervenor status. The other just one additional point that I wanted to make is we, there's one change that we are requesting to the language of the staff report on page seven, the fourth paragraph, there's the phrase Anclote Harbor project, and we would instead ask for that to read quote the sentence to start, if a multifamily project consistent with the city approvals is not built, and then the rest of the paragraph would follow. So we are that language more accurately, accurately reflects the approvals that we have. And so we're asking for just that one adjustment to be made to the staff report. And with that, that is that is all that I have. And I would respectfully request this board, recommend approval. Thank you. And as far as the, the comments to the staff report, what are your what are your thoughts on we would accept that change. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Okay. I guess the first thing we need to look at is, the affected parties. And if you're affected, please specifically tell this board how you are an affected party, Peter, lack is 514 Ashland Avenue. And if you actually read the letter, Miss Graham, sent to you all, she fully explained how we are an affected party. Originally in our hearings, the mayor allowed us to proceed as affected party. And we went through the whole appeal process. And the Second District Court of Appeals accepted our appeal, recognizing that we had the ability to speak our issues with regards to parts of this project. I don't think we have that. Let me let me just maybe this will help because it's different than the document that you've adopted as a resolution to help guide you. Is geared towards quasi judicial matters. This is a legislative matter. So I'm going to read the definition of an affected person for you. It's in, section 163 .31 84 under definitions. And affected person includes the affected local government persons owning property, residing or owning or operating a business within the boundaries of the local government. Whose plan is the subject of the review. Owners of real property abutting real property that is the subject of the proposed change to the future land use map and adjoining local governments that can demonstrate that the plan or plan amendment will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within the jurisdiction. Each person, other than an adjoining local government in order to qualify under this definition, shall also have submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or objections to the local government during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing of the plan or Plan amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan or Plan amendment. Now, I know that's a lot, but it is different. So when you talk about quasi judicial, so just like for clarification, if this was quasi judicial and affected party status is different because this is legislative, how you define what an affected party is, obviously is not what the affected party is in a quasi judicial forum. I think that's correct. They're totally different. They're different standards. And I'm not saying you should label someone an affected person or not, but I am suggesting that you because participating in this process is a is a value of the statute. The statute says that the public should participate to the fullest amount as possible. So allowing them to participate is really just talking, giving their objections. At this hearing. There will be other hearings to come as well. And that, if I may add, that in essence will give them the ability to have standing if the judge allows them to have standing. So, Mr. Velasquez, hold on a second. Okay. Based on the definition, I don't know if being an affected party goes that you've reached that threshold. However because we are allowing public comment. You know, you can make your presentation or objections in the form of a public comment and not necessarily an affected status. Would that be a fair. Yeah, but I would like to say at this point is by the time you all finish arguing the 12 minutes I could have given you, I would give you 12 minutes when you start. Okay, I forgive me. Where is miss Jean Graham? Yeah that's another question. That's a good question to ask because she's unavailable. She's attending another suddenly. With all due respect, sir, suddenly you just get to decide that you're representing the affected party. I am the affected party. I'm representing concerned citizens of Tarpon Springs. I'm the president. Miss Graham is our attorney who wrote the letter in behalf of us. Right. Mr. Dulac is just. Just for clarification. As far as I'm concerned, as as chair, you're going to be making a presentation as a as a not not as an affected party because it doesn't meet the standard. If, if she was here, I don't know if she would even meet that standard. So I'm allowing you the 12 minutes. Thank you. With regard to your objection or presentation, but not as an affected party. However, if you want to decide that, I just would like to be able to respond for my 12 minutes because I think I can answer some of your questions. I just want to clarify with the attorney as well, because with Miss Graham's letter, I think there was a little bit of misinterpretation. It was never ruled that there was standing. There was just not a ruling that there there was no ruling that there wasn't standing, but there was no ruling that there was standing. So even even if it was quasi judicial, there was never a judge's ruling that they had standing. It was overlooked. It was almost not judged upon because they didn't need to. So but I just want to make that clarification that that I think the proper course here, I mean and she's she's got this document here, there's a there's a corporate representative here, I believe you said you're the a corporate representative of the parent entity, which is concerned citizens of Tarpon Springs, correct, Inc. Right. So I would just again, not anoint anybody affected party or interested party or anything like that. I would just let them have give them. They are an organization. Let a if, if, if, if it comes to it, let an administrative law judge figure out whether their affected party or not. Yeah, I think I was pretty clear as to what capacity you're. So, Mr. Delacruz, I'm going to let you. Okay? And the clock is going to run to present you some. Yes. Why don't you give it to me and I'll hand it out for you that way. Thank you. Oops Yeah, I'll hang them up. Yeah. It's important that we don't bestow where it's interpreted, but thank you so much. Sir Thank you. So. Would you like to loopers from me? Okay. Start Okay. You're relaxed. 514 Ashland Avenue. President of Concerned Citizens of Tarpon Springs, better known as the friends of the Anclote River. Number of things I'm going to present to you are actually out of your own material, so I'm limited to time, but I'm going to go over a few things now. You didn't see Miss Trapani's presentation up there, but it is in the backup and there are three separate parcels. Parcel 15.991 acres for the southeast peninsula. Parcel 28.568 acres for the Southwest Peninsula and the Anclote River. And parcel 22, parcel three is 22.078 for the acres of wetlands. These are three separate parcels. I would ask when you come to make a decision, you look at each of those individually with each particular aspect. Now in your comprehensive plan, under the future Less Land use amendment, on page 19, it regards to reduce loss and improve health of wetlands and buffers and reduce urban heat islands, increase shade tree plantings. That's one of the things. And you're going to see throughout that part of the land use amendment, with regards to some of these objectives, are, as you are familiar with, some of these things, they're all with regards to preserving or conserving things, it was mentioned with regards to the coastal management area. It would be a HHR area. And as it was mentioned to you, the project can go through as is now what I'm going to refer to, predominantly is a couple things in the staff report, I'm not sure if you can pull up the staff report, but on page three it says preservation of uplands and wetlands are required components of the RPD and habitat preservation requirement enforce independent of final status of land amendment by submitting in compliance of condition seven. So by their applying, they've satisfied the condition. And in page seven it reiterates the restrictions through the RPD and the sea and the reduction of densities if not built. Now, these reductions of densities as you heard, does not affect the current project. Now, what I would like to at this point go through is some of the aspects with regards to what you're planning to do as it was mentioned, recreation open space is not the lowest level, it's the next level. And so here's what I'm basically the point I'm going to make. I have no problem with item three, the wetlands. That is basically they've just re delineated the wetlands. And those are already preservation. Can you go back to the map that showed the land uses. Now one of the things I would like to point out with regards to going to recreation open space, it says intended for areas appropriate to be used for open space and or recreational purposes. These uses can be public or private, natural or man made, active or passive, and in the list of permitted uses, it says public, private open space, public, private park. I'm gonna highlight this one public recreation facility. Public beach water access, golf courses and clubhouses, community gardens, clubhouses and guardhouse, and clubhouses. And that. Now, if you also look under, your page 11 under definitions. What's a recreational facility? Use facilities, focus on offering amusement, recreation, personal instruction and or equipment or facilities for exercise, improving physical fitness such as outdoor swimming pools, skateboard parks, arenas, school of dance, gymnastics, martial arts, athletic courts, skating rinks, batting cages, or other similar activities. So between the recreation open space allowing private golf courses and all these other recreational facilities, you're basically downgrading this land. My recommendation what we're asking for instead of going from recreation, open space, this should be going to preservation. Now why do I say that? Because no matter. And it was referenced in the staff reports about conservation easements that this land would be protected by the RPD and the conservation easement. I'm one of what I gave you on the packet is a copy of the conservation easement. And if you turn to page four, number 14, I would like to highlight this modifications. The conservation easement may be amended altered, released, or revoked only by written agreement between the parties hereto or their heirs, assigns or successors and interests which shall be filed in the public records in Pinellas County. So what does that mean? This conservation easement is not in stone. It can be revoked. So in the future we have a different board, the applicant or the whoever built there. The Morgan Group pickle courts are hot. Now. There's other courts. So on that South east portion, which is partial one, you could have it says 5.7 acres. There's room out there to put courts. And if you really want to look at it, can you go to the next map that, along the northern mountain, one more, one more. Oh, back anymore? Well, the one where it shows the current future, the one which shows all the preservation along the corridors. And you may have to go back so you could even put a little mini putt putt range along the that recreation open space. So there's no guarantee. Now part of also what I submitted to you. And I'm going to try to let me get to that. Now in the next section of stuff where you see, these are all excerpts from the Business Observer, a magazine, a business magazine that covers all kinds of things up along the coast from Pasco to Collier County. So first one, from August 16 to 2020, second of Business Observer Open and sell a little more than a year after opening an apartment community in North Port Wellen Park, the national developer that built the complex has sold it to Wellen Park was sold by Davis Development, which is Harbor Group International Harbor Group out of Virginia. If you look up Harbor Group, they have 56,000 apartments and they were sold by Davis Group out of Georgia. That does the same thing. What is Morgan Group? They do the things next one, from also business. Excellent idea. The Drake 477 unit apartment complex was been sold. The buyer is Bethesda, Maryland based Excelsior Properties, which intends to invest 8 million in capital improvements the previous owner, GMC Brandywine, paid 55. 3 million. In December 20. So these companies are flipping them back and forth. And if you look at the last paragraph, Excelsior Properties is a real estate asset management with a focus on multifamily investments. This is what's going on along the whole coast. Here. People are building units or tripping them. Next one says here big Book of Units. Miami based Starwood Capital sold 7300 unit multi Piper multifamily portfolio of properties in Florida, Texas. Four of them are in Tampa. They paid a total of 1.55 billion for the portfolio. Tampa community sold for a total of 185.5 million. Brookfield the ones who sold it, is a global investment firm. And if you look further down the 408 you Dawson Apartments, sold for 66.7 million. Next sheet. If you go to the left hand lower corner out of the Hillsborough, these are transactions in the property records for over a million dollars. It says, property. The point on Westshore, al sold to eight from the LLC to the AP. If you look it says the previous price 5.2 million 2018. Now it sold for 134 million. That was a raw property being built and then sold the building afterwards. The next sheet, where it says Manatee Apartment Unit, sold 93.5 million. Next sheet apartment units sold on the lower right. Previous in 2006, 4.4 now 9 million. So the point I guess I'm trying to make is one, as these companies flip these units, a new owner can come in and he wants, as you see, they like to improve the amenities. They'll say, hey, let's redo the conservation. Mean, as I read you can you can just rescind it and then they can come in and as you'll hear staff possibly say, yeah, they'll have to go through some RPG changes or stuff like that. But if they have a receptive board to get rid of the conservation element or easement, then it's going to be no problem to put in those other amenities. The other aspect that I have to highlight again is the fact. And if you go to page eight on this, it reiterated that this project is not affected by this change. They're only required to apply for it. They're not required to get it. And then also lastly in the coastal management areas that was mentioned, it says direct permanent residential population concentrations out of the coastal high hazard area. So what are you doing a future land use amendment. You have to look at the future going forward. We don't want people, more people living in there. They're going to get their 404 apartments if they decide to move forward with it. But if they decide not to, at least this way you're protecting future residents from moving into that area because they're supposed to only have five units per acre. Currently And through their amendments, they actually through the whole conditional use, they got like around seven and a half units. So that's how their numbers are 488. And then they come down to 404. But the whole point I guess what I'm trying to say is if you really look to the future, you can preserve this land, but not by recreation, open space. I would recommend denial on parcel on the parcel one I would deny on parcel two and make recommendations that those be all turned in to preservation. Because being in recreation, open space and having a conservation easement does not totally protect the property, having that in preservation doe. So if for some reason they decide not to build, then you've protected that land and any future residents for any potential now, as you mentioned, the fact that it you believe it could be worse. Technically it could be, but I would believe that if this project doesn't go through, I would think that anybody else coming in would see that they probably could maybe have a better chance of coming in with a smaller footprint, which the reduction in density would help provide. I thank you for your time, and I would recommend denial of the parcel one, denial parcel two, and approval of parcel three for the wetlands. Thank you for your time. Well, perfect. Any other public comment? Okay. I need a protest. 901 Bayshore Drive. How long have we been debating this development? The time has come. Board members, you are to look after our community. Your job is also to make this a very beautiful, vibrant growth management community. That's what this development is. We need these people in here. If they don't want people coming in here to live, then their taxes are going to go up here. Their utilities are going to go up. We need these people to help pay the for the basic body of living in a community that we have. You're not going to be here ten years from now. I'm not going to be here probably the next three years. We don't know. But you got to do something to keep your community going. And this is some of the best that we can get. We are the open doorway to Pinellas County, but we're backwards up here. Look at Dunedin. Look at the little communities right after Dunedin. They're thriving. We're not. They even let the city even let them change a building, a historic building uptown that doesn't even match what we've got in our historic community here, riding Tarpon Avenue. And look at it, we're losing and we're losing this, this development and these people who are coming in know what they're doing. I urge you to vote for what they've asked for. Let's get going. It'll never be a park that Mr. Delkus wants, because a park on the highway will not work. They tried to fight it with the traffic. You got the traffic going to a park. Parks like that on the water, drug dealers, rapists, killers. You don't know what's going on there. This will be a community that will make us proud. That will give the community something. And also, he made a statement that the judge ruled in their favor. No. Right. Yeah. You said something about it a while ago. We've been through this. We've been through this. It's time to move on and work with getting something good in this community. Thank you. Any other public comment? So with that, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Does the board have any. I have some comments. I appreciate Mr. Lackey's presentation, and I always commend his passion and his research and attention to detail. But, you know, and I also agree with former Mayor Protas that, you know, this issue has it's time that this becomes resolved. And I think that sometimes when we become, you know, immersed in a project or, you know, a specific, you know, passion or purpose, we tend to lose our perspective. On, you know, where we're what we're fighting for anymore and where we're going with this. So, I mean, I, you know, and I had to I, I try to look at everything fairly. And the way I look at this, it's just, I mean, these are property rights. We, we can fight all day about what someone's going to do with their property in the future. But you know, whether it's the city that owns the property or a private property owner, I mean, they're going to whatever they want to change it to, they can change it to. And I'm an example, is the city just purchased the property that we were looking at earlier, and they purchased that for the purpose of parking. You know, we'll see going forward what that is. But, if they sell it later for something else or swap it, which has become a topic later, well, I don't know if we signed up for that, but. And then once that's done, what what control do we have? So, you know, property rights. Are you know, it's inherent, you know, so I think we just have to, you know, be mindful of that, you know, the examples again, that he gave about all that stuff that's in the future, any and all amendments can be changed. I mean, we're doing the comp plan now. Whatever we pass with the comp plan, every single thing in the comp plan can be changed. Even the charter can be changed. We can reconvene the committee, bring it back, change something. Charters not followed. Most of the time. So I mean, nothing is ever final. And you know, people will always find a workaround. They will always find a way to circumvent the rules and work around. And all we can do is, you know, follow and adhere to the rules as they are. You know, best and do our best to do that. And, you know, that's all we can really do. Can't predict what you know. Every ill intentioned that's out there. That's it. I have one comment, I'm new to this whole Anclote Harbor. What existing amenities already exist within the presently planned, property? Because I know and again, I'm I'm an empathetic person. I know if I was moving into a community like this, I would want, you know, maybe that recreation I had, kids. I'd want them to go outside and enjoy the environment, too, so one of my questions is, what's already there? What's I guess the question is, what's in the current site plan as far as amenities, the pools, do they have lottery? I think you asked the question earlier and the applicant could could answer this as well. There are multiple amenities in the area of the site plan itself. The development area, community clubhouse. I think there's playground, park. Those types of amenities that are incorporated into the layout of the development, your staff report on page three outlines the amenities allowable in, the required open space areas and those amount to water access facilities, one on the Anclote River and one on the dredged, lake is what we're calling it, a loop nature trail, which they actually show, a basic concept layout of that. And then restoration of the wetland and upland area, removal of the invasive exotics. And that's pretty much it for those areas. There are additional amenities in the development itself. I have a I have a comment if I can, I understand why why we're here today and I just I do want to say that based on previous comments from Morgan Group, that they were kind of a small town, kind of group and that they understood Tarpon Springs. I read it in an article, just so everybody knows. That's what inspired me to look up Morgan Group. I would agree with the former mayor. They do know what they're doing and what I want to say to everybody here is I have a fear that we don't. And I guess to be honest, I don't feel trusting. I don't there's nothing here that that makes me trust. And I'm sorry to say that. And it all stems from Morgan Group being as huge as it is, being disingenuous and way back. And that has stuck with me. I read it in an article, I guess based on previous comments and pardon my voice, I'm so sorry, based on previous comments. There's a difference between conservation and preservation. Conservation is forever, and preservation is not. Is that right? Or have I got it backwards? Okay, if you're just talking about those two terms. Yeah, I don't I don't know if you're talking about you're talking about recreation. Yeah. I don't know conservation. No conservation and preservation okay. The preservation is the land use category. And yet that means it has to be preserved. If you're referring to the conservation easement that they're required. Yes. Okay. So and that was brought up obviously. I think, one of your members here just, just stated, you know, in the future there are more different boards, different things can, can, as we all know, can change, in order to, basically make that conservation easement go away, they would have to amend the plan development and, also, basically the executed recorded conservation easement would have to meet the terms that, that is in the draft easement. And I won't go into those because that that easement really isn't, isn't before you tonight. Well basically I'm sorry. Okay. But but yeah, in the meantime, if those things happen and the future land use map has been amended to recreation, open space and preservation, that would would define what would change in the planned development. So, that I'll just say it that way rather than what is on it now commercial general land office. So does so would a new designation make this property more marketable? I can't answer that. I cannot answer that. Okay, okay. I just I'm sorry. I'm just, you know, your comment, I'm procedurally now you're back to like asking staff, you know, a whole bunch of things. And it's making me a little uncomfortable at this point in the procedure. Does it make it more marketable? No, because you're taking you're taking development rights off of the property that exists today. Okay. So this is not necessarily and my comment and I don't know if, if maybe this gives you a little bit more, you know, comfort. Yeah. Okay. So you know I've got a copy and I don't know who provided it for you. I think Mr. Delacruz did the, the, the negotiated conservation easement and this is more for the protection of those who come before, ahead of us, whether it's a board of commissioners or planning and zoning and what it talks about under. And I don't know if that could be a recommendation as far as condition or we just have to accept it as it is. It says that this this easement can be amended, altered, release, whatever. By the parties and, and one of the things I've always felt is if, if the city is going to start making changes based on what we decide or what the board of commissioners decide, that that hurdle has to be a little bit higher. And what I mean by that is an amendment to this agreement. And this is, I guess, for the attorneys or the city. So it's I see a commissioner here that that any amendment may require or would require if they wanted to make that as part of a change, a supermajority of the board of Commissioners as, as to be able to amend the negotiated conservation easement, which means it's not the onus of a property owner, it becomes the burden of the board of commissioners if they want to deviate, to amend it, to amend the conservation easement, to whether it's to modify it, amend it, revoke it, alter it. And that I think gives I think some of the citizens the a little bit more of a comfort zone and again I didn't negotiate this. I'm, I'm sorry. Please forgive me. We are so off track of where we're supposed to be. I understand that, please. No no, no, that's a comment. That's fine. We're not in comment. We were in discussion in closing, and we don't have a motion on the table for discussion. We're just way in the weeds here. Let me just see if I can circle close the circle on this. You are at deliberation stage. You've already closed the public comment stage. You can ask questions of staff. That's not not out of the question. If you have questions. But, you know, let me try to explain it. So this is it's hard to get around the fact that it is tied to a project or an approval that already took place. However because this is a condition of that approval, what's before you is this future land use map amendment, okay. And it's a legislative item, I know that it's really difficult to get away from the underlying activities that took place prior with the easement and so forth. But if you want some conception of it, so it's your future land use map is a very generalized, map that says this is an within your future land use element of your conference plan. It'll say, what are the types of things that can happen within that? That's your zoning, okay. You can further restrict property with these types of agreements, which are conservation. And I would say that in order to amend these, it couldn't be done administratively because I would say that it would have to be amended in the same manner in which it was approved, which is through a public hearing process. Has this been executed? No. It has. Okay Has it been fully negotiated? Yes it has to be. It has. This is no burden on the on the property owner. This puts the burden on the city. If they wanted to amend it, it is I'm going to I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with the city attorney that document, if it needs to be it is part of the planned development. So to amend that you're part and parcel amending part of a planned development, and it would have to go back to the board of commissioners to do that. Right. So there's substantial amendments to things like that. And then Non-substantial Non-substantial things can happen. There's small things that can happen administratively. This is a substantial part of that approval. It would certainly have to go back through the public hearing process. But again, I know it's hard to get away from it, but this is really what's in front of you, is the idea. I understand it because this that particular burden does it onus the developer at all? It only to the city. It's not on the table for discussion. Can I can I jump in here. It's a discussion I would like us to get back in order please I have one question for Renee. Renee, I know, I just I know we're out of this, but just so they have this is a condition that they have to do. Correct. They have. Okay. They have to ask for this. And if we can't condition it so we can't say that, you know, we want it to be just that. So if we say no I mean they have to ask it. They don't really I mean, it doesn't matter to them. Almost like the conservation easement still required. Then it just gives them keeps it commercial. Correct? Okay. So I mean, that's what I'm trying to get at. Is that right? They say no to this then. Then it's we're offering anybody they sell it to later more I mean I think that that's right. Exactly. So Megan, in other words, making the land land use place. No no comment from the from the. Yeah. I just want to make sure you guys are clear about this. So she's absolutely right. So by amending the comprehensive plan future land use map, you're solidifying in a legislative way something that is agreed to in a in a document that's part of a prior approval. But I think you just have to it's not something that's going to happen just because your city manager decides to change it. It doesn't happen that fast. I mean, there's lots of things that would have to happen for those changes to take place. There's lots of layers of restrictions. I don't I don't mean to sound stupid, but maybe I am, but, you know, we're not looking at changing the land use. I don't think that that didn't come out of my mouth. Well, that's what this that's what what? The easement. What? The easement says under under paragraph 17. I know you think I'm going far afield, but I'm going to go there anyways. Okay. Under 14 it says this agreement, the easement agreement can be modified. Okay. All right. Either party I know, but what I'm saying is this is if it wants to be modified, let it be modified. But if the city is going to agree to modify it, let the owners of the city require a supermajority of the commissioners before they have the ability to modify it. We don't have the ability to put that condition on them. All you can do is recommend that the board and that's I'm not putting that as a condition, but I but Renee, I'm making the comment because we have a city commissioner sitting there. Okay. So shouldn't the notion so the comment is for no mechanism to do it. I understand that, but but if somebody's listening okay, commissioners listening to it. So let's make a motion to adopt. I'd like to make a motion please. As long as all the discussion is done. Does anyone have any more questions of staf? No, no. Is there a second, second? I've lost my screen. Okay. I'd like to approve. Excuse me. I'd like to make a motion to approve application 20 3-156, known as resolution number 2024. Dash 23 as applied by staff. And that's ordinance. Thank you. Okay Any comments? We need a second. I think we had a second. Second. Yeah Second. Can I just have a quick point of order. We had requested one change to the staff report and the staff didn't object. Is that with the staff report is not part of the legislation. You can work that out with staff when it goes up so they don't need to. All right. As as part thank you. As part of the motion that was recognized in earlier discussion that that minor scrivener's error would be corrected. Okay. Discussion. Y'all heard my discussion. Yes. And your point is very valid. Chair. Okay. I think everybody's point was valid. Okay. And that's a comment for those who are listening. That's the that's what I was trying to get across I think that they heard it okay. That's what I was trying to get across okay. I would just feel so much better internally, heart and soul, if this was entirely dedicated to a preservation area. I think it adds hoops and hurdles to anything down the road that may happen. And who knows what will happen when it will happen, but any future changes will be more arduous to take place. Recreation and open space. It's got a lot of benefits. I can't deny that. But again, in this case, if there was a reduced and curtailed definition of the uses so that it would be as unimpacted as possible to the community at large, there are residences that are within earshot of there, so, you know, opening the door to wide, sometimes you let things out, sometimes you let things in so that my recommendation is somehow some way, if we can curtail the list of use, permitted uses, and possibly get as much possible dedicated to preservation rather than the recreational open space. Otherwise, it's, you know, largely a necessary evil, but it just doesn't sit right in my heart, that's all. Because we're we're once again, we're giving more than we're getting. And I think there's been a lot given in this case, irregardless of the past determinations. So that's my $0.02. All right. Any other discussion before roll call? I would say ditto to those remarks. All right. Roll call. Miss Swenson. Yes miss early. No, Mr. Rockline. No. Miss Francis. Yes, Mr. Vessey? Yes, Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Thank you, Mr. 9.5 right. You got it or anything? It's, you know, it's pros and cons to him. Yeah, I know it's just I'm a 5149. No it's just that one tenth of one thing I know it just it one one vote components does make a difference. And we're always going to get beat on the easement anyway. You understand the point. That was made. Part of your procedures allow you to as a simple majority. I don't know if this is ever there's ever an opportunity for this to come back, but you can you can have a representative from the planning board. What's Mike, you didn't close the meeting down? It's the meeting. No. The meeting. Wait, wait, wait. Meetings still open? Yeah. No public comment? Yeah. No, but some people are coming. Oh. I'm sorry. We're still. We're still in a meeting. But this is this is a board comment, so. No, it has not been adjourned yet. The meeting has not been adjourned yet. I would like to hear more of what counsel was. My only point was that, you know, in reading your resolution 20 2-02, which is your procedures, you do have a the ability, if you wish, by a simple majority to authorize, someone to make those points to the Board of commissioners. And I know what you're saying. But again, when you're dealing with a legislative item of a future land use map, they can't condition it. They can't make conditions onto it. But you can communicate. You're allowed to they communicate those things to the commission. And I didn't make this as a I didn't want this was not a condition. This was I know I know you're making and everybody and Renee it wasn't a condition if I, if I could before you, adjourn the meeting, if I could have a minute, please. Sure, before you adjourn, I do want to request a little time. Maybe at your next meeting, maybe 15 minutes, you know, I've got a number of different procedural documents that deal with your quasi judicial scripts and procedures and things like that. And, I'd like to kind of go through some of that stuff with you and also, talk a little bit about, comprehensive planning and the Community Planning Act and standing and affected parties. There's a lot of like, different labels and names and things like that, that I think would be helpful for me at least, to have a conversation with you, maybe 15 minutes on your agenda to talk to you about that so that, you know, I can help you, help you with your meetings as you go forward. I appreciate that. Appropriate. I think that's a fine idea, and I apologize, staff, I forgot to ask if you had any comments. No, I skipped you. I skipped you before I went to board council. Coincidentally, I asked for time at the next meeting also, and so I'll follow up after you. I had some topics to, before we adjourn. I did want Renee. I wanted to thank staff and for, giving us the opportunity for that planning workshop. Yeah, I was going to say, if any of you that have not signed up for that still want to do that, this evening and at that link, because today is the deadline, go ahead. But yeah, we've got the city is going to reimburse us. So it's like $45. And then just send it to you. Planning Commission September 3rd workshop. Yeah. Like basic, highly recommend you all do that if you can, if you have the time. It's a very helpful, workshop. Yeah. Thank you for your indulgence with me. I'll. I'll. Well, listen, I miss I miss Merrill, you know, I'm sure it would have run a lot smoother. No, you did a great job. You did a great job. You did. But, so, you know Merle Merrill. All right, any other comments before I adjourn? We have three spots left. All right. Thank you. We're adjourned.