Call this meeting to order.

Um if everyone who's able could please stand and we'll do the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the plan of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it's undergoing the reading and roll call, please.

Board Member Gonzalez Hastings here.

Board Member Kelly here.

Board Member McCoachy?

Here.

Vice Chairperson Hanrahan?

Yeah.

Chairperson Cowan?

Here.

City Attorney Salzman.

Here.

Deputy City Clerk Hartman present and alternate board member Bixler has asked to be excused.

Do we need a motion excusing them or uh we're trying to do more formal, so yes, I would say if there can be a motion so we can put it on the record one way or the other.

Do we have a motion to excuse him from this meeting?

I'll make a motion to excuse him.

Okay.

Second.

I'll second.

Okay.

All in favor?

All in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Passes unanimously.

Great.

Okay, at this time, if there's any member of the public that would like to comment on any agenda or non-agenda items, please step forward and you have three minutes.

I'll go first.

I've got five copies here, and fortunately five board members.

Oh hold on one second.

Sir, are you here for the application seat?

Um the quick shift USALC.

Are you the applicant?

No.

Oh, okay.

You're not the property owner.

No, no, ma'am.

Okay.

Um we'll wait until we actually call that forward.

Yeah, okay.

This is general public comment on on items that are not before the board.

Non-agender items.

It could be.

It's up to that's what it is at council.

Yeah.

Okay, anyone else.

Okay, no.

Okay, seeing none, then we're on to the minutes.

Does anybody have any changes to um the June fourth, 2025 minutes?

Yes.

Okay.

I think we should change the regular meeting of it should say planning and zoning committee.

Not city council.

I'll make that adjustment.

Okay, don't that was it?

That's mine.

Thank you.

Are there any other um changes for the minutes?

Okay.

Seeing none, um, can I get a motion to approve the minutes with the one change that was cited?

I motion.

Okay.

I'll second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Passes unanimously.

Okay.

Then the first item we have is the application, and just for the um board's information, I don't know if uh attorney Salzman wants to go through it, but um in dealing with uh applications, it's a normally a quasi-judicial process, and so it's a little different procedure than what we've done on some of our legislative ones.

Um he's given an outline as far as how it'll go and so that's what I'll be following.

Did you want to go through it or talk about it anymore?

Yes, even though this is an advisory board, um you there are due process rights when we're dealing with someone in a uh application as opposed to the other part that you have tonight, which is an ordinance, that's legislative.

So there's not the same requirements in a legislative as there is in a quasi-judicial, and there's certain due process rights.

And we want people to be aware of that, not just up here, but uh out there, because I mean a perfect example is you cannot have someone come up at the beginning to uh talk about the issues for or against it until we've heard the applicant and the city has spoken.

So there are periods of time that we go through, and that's basically what I've provided for you.

Um there's eight steps.

Um the chair will introduce the matter, uh, we'll have the oath of office, and some of these don't have to be in the exact order that we do.

Um remember one of the reasons why we swear people in is that you have to have competent substantial evidence to make your decision, and competent substantial evidence is evidence that's either sworn under oath or is presented in a packet by what's considered an expert.

Uh in that case, your experts here at all the hearings on behalf of the city, we have experts, so we present that to you.

And that's why we also introduce the packet or information from the applicant, because that goes into the record.

And the reason why we talk about competent substantial evidence is that any time a court looks at what you do, it doesn't matter if you approve or disapprove something, that's not relevant to the court in a appeal.

The question is, did you base your decision on competent substantial evidence?

So you could technically, I guess, be wrong on your decision, but the court can't say anything about that.

They just want to make sure that you based your opinion on this evidence, as opposed to just coming in and going, Yeah, we don't want to do that, right?

So that's not good enough.

So that's why we have this criteria and requirement.

Um now the first two we do it a little differently here.

We might be changing it, but normally we have the applicant come first.

Um a lot of cities do it where the city presents first.

Um, and we do it reverse when we're talking about changing that uh because really it's helpful to have all the competent substantial evidence from the experts come up first, and then the applicant can supply the additional information that you may be requesting from them.

We then allow for public comment.

Um now, so the interesting thing about public comment is we want to make sure that it's are you for or against this application, right?

That's number one.

Uh, and then discussing why you're for or against it.

We're not here for general policy decisions, it's on this particular application.

And uh certainly that's what we have to limit it to.

So there's a lot of times people want to get up and they just want to talk in general.

Well, I don't think the city should do these kind of things.

That's not relevant to this application.

The question is, is this a valid application?

Do you want to um, you know, at the end of the day, are you recommending that the city council approve this or disapprove it?

That's really I mean, you're doing their legwork on this, but that that's really what we're looking for at the end of the day.

There is an opportunity for the applicant after public comment to rebut this.

Um, also let me step back for a second.

So the city presents their case, the applicant could ask questions, and obviously you could ask questions of the city.

The applicant presents their case, same thing.

The city can ask them questions, and you can ask questions.

Okay.

So we're trying to get information to base your opinion on.

All right, as long as it's relevant to that.

And why we talk about due process is it's got to be relevant to this case, and we have to protect the rights of the individual who's bringing application forward.

Um, that's the key for us to look at.

And and uh obviously your chair is an attorney, and she's very knowledgeable in these areas, and so we're lucky to have her.

Um so uh you know, I don't have to worry about whether or not she's gonna ask the right question when she's doing you know uh the procedures.

I know she will, but uh other times we don't have that luxury, so we have to be a little more careful on this.

Um this is again quasi-judicial.

So you're acting as judges, uh, and you're basing your decision on the application before you, solely on that and solely not on evidence that's not before you.

So if it would have been nice to know X, Y, and Z, but that's not before you, we're not speculating.

You're basing it on what's presented before you.

If for some reason the applicant doesn't provide the information that's necessary for you to render a decision, in times we could continue that hearing and ask them to bring that information forward.

Um, in other times you could say, well, that you know, we didn't get enough information for us to recommend approval of this application.

The final thing I want to talk about is ex parte.

So there's a lot of confusion on this.

You all come to these meetings with certain expertise and knowledge.

I mean, that's one of the reasons why you're on this board.

Um, and the only issue we want to look at and want you to declare, and the perfect example of that is I go out to the property and I have a conversation with somebody.

Okay, we want you to declare that you had that conversation, the basis of that conversation.

Because all of you should be making your decision on the same information.

And that information is supposed to be presented here, but if you know of something else that you believe is relevant or that you have heard, we need to disclose that.

So everybody has the same information when they make their decision.

Um, the worst thing is is that someone's talked to me, they've influenced me.

I come to a meeting, and I've I make a motion to approve or deny something, and I'm basing it on something that you all are not knowledgeable at.

Or I'm arguing a point, um, and you're like, well, where did you get that from?

You know, those kind of things.

So we want to be careful in that.

That's why we do that.

This is a small community.

You're gonna know the people, probably, you're gonna know the property, probably.

Um, so you you know that doesn't uh disqualify you.

We just have to make sure that you disclose the information.

Are there any questions on the procedure?

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Okay, then at this time we'll um start with the application C25-02, Quick Shaft USA LLC owners at 2624 54th Street, South Gulf Port, Florida, 33707.

The subject property is legally described as north 90 feet of lots uh 85 and 87 veteran city according to the plat or map thereof as recorded in Platbook H1, page 017, according to the Pinellas County Records.

Uh the parcel ID is 33-31-16-93942-000-0811 conditional use application request, conditional use application for a church, including related educational and training facilities.

Uh this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and at this time, um, I would ask that either the city attorney or the city clerk swear in anyone who wishes to speak on this issue.

If you're going to speak, please stand and raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the planning and zoning board shall be the truth?

So help you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And at this point, I'll turn to the board and ask has any board member um had any ex parte communication with the applicant or the staff related to this issue.

No, no, no.

Okay.

Then city staff, you can come forward and make your presentation.

Good evening.

So this church, it was previously in 1958 built as a church.

And then in the 80s and 90s, it became a preschool, happy days preschool next to the what's currently Sunflower School.

It was subdivided last year.

Um and now they would want to change back to a church use with training related exclusively to the church.

Because the building was and the original use was before 1985, they are allowed to have no parking requirements per city codes.

And they were probably be doing uh on Wednesday, Sundays, and Thursdays with Bible study and and church services.

I can any questions I can help you.

I would love to.

Is this grandfathered in?

It's conditional use, so if you don't use it for a full year after that, then you have to reapply for it.

Um go ahead.

Do you have any questions?

I do.

No, no, no.

You go ahead, I'll go last.

You'll probably get them all.

No, I so the ordinance, the zoning ordinance was done in 1985.

Because the communicode said 93 for the date for that.

It for the parking uh I may have quoted the date.

Um I was trying to understand why why if that's in there, why we get into which zoning district they're in, and what the lot size needs to be, and what the other information about the um just to give all available information so that if it did go to a appeal of board that you would have everything.

But because they're going back because it was built before the zoning restrictions were put in place, and because they're not changing the square footage and the footprint of it.

The the none of these rules, none of no new rules apply to the building, is that correct?

No new zoning rules apply for the building for that requirement.

I mean, they're relevant to the zoning district, but they're not relevant to this case.

That's correct, yes.

Okay.

I was I was trying to understand why all that was in there.

The one oh I saw I saw the reference to the sprinklers.

So they're gonna be an upgrade on the sprinklers.

Yep, the previous previous the daycare at that preschool at the time had a uh when they left, they took the sprinkler system out because it was their sprinkler system before a new use could come in there, they would need to update that meet that make the code for uh occupancy of religious services.

Okay, and as far as the city is concerned, was it obviously because that's the only thing in there, then that's the only thing that standing in the way as far as the city is concerned.

Yep, that's correct, because there's a previous usage from the Florida building code, it wouldn't change other than needs to meet what it would previously was.

Got it.

And so has the applicant submitted the appropriate business tax receipt and the applicant isn't they are gonna have a tenant that's gonna be doing that.

So once the uh this is approved, and the tenant's planning on taking over, from understanding.

So is the tenant the church?

The tenant will be yeah, the church.

I believe they are uh there's an intent to sell to that that tenant, but until this process gets completed, that's well stopping the sale from understanding.

And and is that determined because they've like have their tax exemption or whatever, as far as demonstration that they're a church?

The the definition of the church is just that it has a spiritual services.

I have to I don't know if I have it in there or not.

I don't have it in my packet, the definition of the church in our city code of ordinances under chap the chapter 22 definitions.

Okay.

And um as you said, they're not changing any of the exterior or any of the interior of the building other than just doing the sprinklers?

That's that's correct.

Okay, and just out of curiosity, what is the occupancy on that building?

It's currently religious services.

My but I believe that it was told by the building official.

No, I mean people have capacity.

I don't I don't know, unfortunately.

Okay.

And uh that's a sale, not a lease.

Is that is that what we're saying?

That's my understanding that's that's what the intent is for.

So they're gonna sell it and then lease it out to the church?

They're selling it to the church itself.

Oh, they're selling it to the church, okay.

Okay.

Are there does the board have any other questions of the city staff?

I do know.

No, I don't okay.

Okay, then if the applicant could come forward and present.

So it isn't here.

The applicant's not here.

Okay.

Then um we're on to public comment.

So um are there members of the public that I I know that you stepped up before that had uh comments on this item.

Sure.

Well, um, after hearing a few of the updated words from uh are you an attorney by chance?

Just okay.

Um I'm not um what is your name?

My my concerns.

I'm just a concerned resident.

Um I think the clerk will need your last name for the minute.

Bailey.

Okay, thank you.

And and um, and um after hearing a few words just recently, and if I'm understanding it right, um it's being sold to the sunflower.

Um I believe it's called Sunflower Church.

I I don't I think he said it's being sold to a church, but not to sunflower.

Oh, that's the present church.

Sunflower is the school that's the same.

The sunflower is the school that they were.

To the big church to the same body, back to the same body or to a to a different church.

My understanding, and please correct me if I misstate this, was that he was saying that originally it was a church, and then Sunflower School was in part of it, and now the sunflower has left, and the church or the the current owner is selling to a new church.

Is that correct?

So Sunflower is occupying the southern building when it was subdivided last year, it's gonna be the vision disciples of ministry that's gonna be taking over the spot.

It's going to be the vision disciples of ministry that's going to be taking over the spot.

There you go.

So it's is it going to be one entity basically again?

No, there are two separate entities.

So one will be on the south and one will be on the north.

Okay.

Is it going to be one church basically?

Just um two different owners.

It's gonna be the school is still gonna be there.

The school is gonna be the sunflower school is gonna still be located in the much larger building.

The church itself will be in the smaller building to the north.

Okay.

There's separate businesses.

Yes, there's separate businesses.

Separate businesses.

Okay.

So basically my concern still remains because basically you've got a 90 by 20 building and 90 foot wide, and with um f um United States codes, we'll we'll just start with parking alone.

Um that allows you to only have 10 parking spots.

When um the owner sold um sold or um they broke up last year, she sold the back portion of her land and only kept the front portion of the parking, which is the um 90 foot of it, which allows basically 10 parking spots.

Um United States codes allows um eight and a half to nine foot per parking spots.

If you divide 90 by nine, that's ten parking spots.

I'm just doing the math, you know, and and if you um do go by the codes for um a church, um the the section um just bear with me for one second.

It's right here.

The church is um every three seats, it's supposed to have one parking spot and the auditorium in the um for every three seats and uh for the church, and that code would be um what about off street?

Oh, it'd be um it'd be section twenty two-six point zero six, and it would be fall under 11c3.

11c 3.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yes, and then for and then um since they're doing education slash training, that falls under 21 and 26 one, and then that's for every um 150 square feet, and it uh um has um 39 over 3900 square feet, which would basically fall well over 10 parking spots, which would put it over basically um upwards of 20 parking spots.

Again, there's not enough parking spots for that um little building or big building and little um amount of parking to have I think church.

I'm sorry, I think what we need to look at is this thing right here where it says the ministry schedule hours are Sunday, so the school's not gonna be operating on Sunday, then Wednesday is going to be Bible study at seven.

The school won't be operating at that time either, and then Thursday it's 6 p.m.

So I I think the kids and the church won't be together.

Is that I'm just my understanding?

So the parking for churches or whether um for the petition on what they're petitioning for, um they partition for church and educational and training um on the petition.

I understand that, but looking at the case.

I'm covering everything.

Look that I mean, at least if this is true, and I have no reason to think it's not, the kids and the church will be overlapping.

churches or whether um for the partition on what they're petitioning for um they partition for church and educational and training um on on the partition i understand that but look at i'm covering everything look the i mean at least if this is true and i have no reason to think it's not the kids and the church will be overlapping is that a good word yeah they will not they won't be there at the same time you see what what I'm saying well okay um either either or it doesn't matter take the church um example or take the educational example there's not enough um parking for either of the examples uh you could take um the and say educational there's not enough parking for an educational building for it is it's for that um scenario it's got to be upwards of 20 parking spots and that it can only and there's only 10 available 90 um square foot divided by 10 or is divided by nine excuse me is 10 parking spots and it's well over 10 um then what about on the street parking um the the very good very good let me read you the codes for that please um that would fall under it would fall right I have that would fall under vehicles for under that would fall under section 226 oh six and then it says requirements for off street parking um vehicles for the service may use this space without encroaching on or interfering with the public use of sidewalks streets and alleyways by pedestrians and vehicles and that would fall under um the 226 point oh six 261 so I mean parking is the big issue oh and by the way I'm um right across the street from the church so it's a um main concern of mine so do we know what the capacity of the church is I mean any idea I mean when it's the church if if you're gonna speak you have to be sworn in and you have to come up here so we can make it part of the record okay um so what I understand your question to be is your concern is that there's insufficient parking whether the building is used as a church or whether it's used for education or both yeah or both it's insufficient all the above okay and um city staff did speak to the parking and I'm wondering if you could maybe answer this gentleman's question with regard to um I believe you said there was a provision in the code yep 22 seconds 22 section oh six of point six a allows for the if the building was existing prior to the uh application of that code they are allowed to maintain as long as they are not increasing the capacity of the current building or enlarging it because they're not incurring any proposed changes to increasing it or enlarging it they the city's interpretation was that it met that requirement as it was previously approved in 1958 for church use okay so if I understand what the city's saying is that the parking um because this was a 1958 building originally the the original use was a church the parking was sufficient at that time under the code so now with no changes to the building being done you're saying that there's there's no additional requirement to meet the current codes parking it was now it's helped economic development so you're not okay with building changes between uses they're not gonna make greatly increase the parking after a building was built so that's the what they do and historically they have used the city this the right of way in front of the building so that which has been allowed since the 1958 when it was established.

So and that goes back to what I asked about the grandfathering is that since it was 1958 is that like being grandfathered in the parking lot on the current places being grandfathered in that by itself because of it was when being how long it would go it was built and at the time it when the new law was established at 22 point section oh six oh six a consider that any building that was currently existing can keep the current parking they have and does if the parking increased they didn't have to increase it just to meet current city codes.

Okay and do we know the capacity of the church yep they have it can hold 45 seats on their proposed uh plan.

So it's 45 seats, that's it.

That's on that's what the proposed um type and interior plan I have received, yes.

Now may I?

No, generally we just take public comment, but um give a little bit more on this, and and you you can say your piece of the 45 divided by three is 15.

And also um back in 1958, it was one entity.

Um, and um the whole parkings um lot was one building, the two buildings were one, but now it's two different buildings, so now it falls under one building of 90 foot wide with 10 um with 90 foot wide with 10 parking spots available.

So um the city um is evidently um miss managing or mistaken.

I don't understand whatever.

But um thank you for your time, everyone, and I'm done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I do have an additional question for city staff.

Um, in interpreting the city's code with regard to parking.

Is there any distinction made with regard to this property?

It appears at one point was an entire property for the church, then it got divided, or then it was the entire property for the school, and now it's being or now it has been divided into two different properties, one which will be the school and one which will be the church.

Would that division of property change the analysis for the parking?

Our interpretation of it wasn't even uh when they went for the previous usage of a school last year, because it did change the use, they did get two variances for that parking.

Um, but because it's the same use in the city, there's no increased capacity.

This the city didn't feel that it it net more requirement that required additional parking.

That's what was already previously on the site.

Passed what was required or what was given in the variance?

So the variance as well as the front area is there have spoken that they plan on using the front area that's currently a mixture of a garden, as there might be use that in the future for future traffic capacity for to have a lot for more parking, but that was a future use that they were not currently sure about and that's in the back of the building?

It's in the front of the building, uh the front defense area.

Okay, what's in the back of the building?

That is sunflower school, but but when the subdivisions that's their the sunflower school's playground area.

Okay.

Do any other board members have additional questions for city staff?

Oh, you just one quick one from what you just said.

The this the playground area is pretty pretty significant.

But that is part of the church property, correct?

It's not it's part of the sunflower property.

Okay.

So do we have like a plan with with the whole lot with the school and the other building and the building we're talking about?

Just the whole block here, so we can see how they lay out and where the alley is and where the streets are and where the parking is and isn't.

Do we have a drawing of that?

I don't have a drawing of that now.

Um that would be so much.

I just want the ordinance up.

Okay, I see I was wrong.

That bit, that bitch.

You can get a good look at PCPAO.

Look at 22606 off-street parking.

Right.

That's what I was looking at.

Yeah.

Street address the street addresses.

22454.

Okay, effective date of this chapter.

That's what does that mean?

The effective date that the ordinance that was passed with that language in it.

As you see in the bat on the bottom, it'll tell you different dates of the ordinance originally from 85.

From 85 earlier.

And then uh the last amendment was made in 2016.

So what's the effective date?

The first date or the last date?

26.

The effective date of the ordinance, it would depend on the section that we're referring to.

When did it go from the did you say it was the church in the 50s and then it became sunflower in 89?

So it was originally the church, then sunflower building was built, and then the church moved over to there, and they became a daycare and preschool for the church.

And then at a later point, Sunflower took over the church building itself in 2022, I believe, when the church left at that time.

So they took over the larger building, and then the happy days pre preschool was in the smaller building that we're currently looking at.

Proposing when was the building divided or the property divided?

It was divided last June of 2024.

Yeah, 24.

Sorry, it's 25 now.

Yeah, because that came before us, right?

That's correct.

Right.

Yeah.

Well, one of the things the board may want to consider since the issue uh has been centered around the parking, is that depending on whatever motion you make or decision you make, you may want to put in there that the uh applicant needs to satisfy uh sufficient parking for their use or show that particular where the parking is going to go from as part of the um uh condition to bring before council.

So if that becomes an issue and you want to do that, you certainly have the right to do that.

Okay.

So back to the effective date.

At the end of that section, there's a whole list of ordinances.

We'd have to look at the history if that is the issue.

So that as a uh an individual looking at it, a non-lawyer looking at it.

There's no way I can tell the effective date of any of these sections in this but I have to tell you that's no different than the um stat state statutes, it's the same way.

You have to actually you would have to do a history search on it, which is the same that I would have to do on it.

Because obviously these effective dates occurred before I was here.

We'd have to go back and pull all of them and look at which sections are uh amended normally.

That's something that if it was an issue would be brought before you by staff if they felt there was an issue.

Okay, what about this right here where it says analysis?

And it says that the code requirements minimum lot side 10,000 square feet, and it says that it meets compliance floor area meets compliance.

Uh I mean it says uh unless something's not right, which I don't think it's that I don't think that's the case, but it says that everything is in compliance.

Is that that was the city's interpretation, yeah.

That is the city's interpretation.

Okay, the city presents their information, obviously uh answers the questions that you have, and you can um approve or deny recommend approval or denial uh based on what you all think and add conditions if you feel are appropriate, so that as long as they're related in this case, parking certainly is related to any kind of approval or denial.

But is it is it realistic that parking could be added in that uh you know on 54th street on that side of the right-of-way and/or on the property itself?

They can't have private parking on the right-of-way.

Right?

It is possible, yeah.

The spots are large enough for uh a two to three parking spots.

So some something probably could be added in that space.

So, how many parking spots are there currently on the parcel just for the church?

The church, because it's fenced in doesn't have any parking spots.

There's no parking right now, right?

Yeah, off-street parking on 54th and on 27th, primarily.

I mean, I I'm still stuck on the related educational and training that's just because the use is that there are there nothing in their attent showed that, but that is the what the conditional use is called, so I include all of the all the information for that.

They plan on just having the Bible study and the church services that uh they described in their input that I put in there.

Okay, thank you.

Just wondering what if they start holding another service decide Saturday is the data, so great.

Does that put them in violation of something and that puts their this authorization if it were granted puts it in jeopardy?

Or because it's the same use and they wouldn't be occupying the same hours that would it would be still with our following or the church if it was approved.

So theoretically they could expand that those hours.

They're just saying what they currently expect.

That's correct.

That it's not a contract.

So is the is the city?

I mean, I understand that they provided those hours.

Are they saying that are they recommending approval based on um a conditional use that will only be used during the hours identified in the packet?

Or is it it's a church and they could have it at the same time the school is going?

That's good.

We didn't as it's a church you can do.

That's right.

So this isn't in stone.

Nope.

That's just what they proposed, so that clearly in their proposal.

Okay.

Yeah, I took that as just background information that could be changed at any time, which is also maybe something you want to put in any kind of motion uh as to making sure that the hours do not conflict with the other school.

I mean, that seems to be you know the parking issue as part of that.

Yeah.

Is that we have any reason why the applicant isn't here?

I didn't know.

No, I know that she wasn't gonna be here.

What I'm inclined to make a motion that we table it and ask the applicant to come and answer some questions about parking about hours and about well, they don't have to come.

I understand that.

Yeah.

I mean, the alternative is to say no.

I have one other question for the city.

Is there um does the city's code allow for like an uh parking agreement between the property owners such that if the school has a parking area and then the church wanted to use that parking area so long as they weren't both there at the same time, they could utilize that parking?

Parking use agreement.

Yeah.

Do we have have we used parking use agreements?

Yeah, we used those in the past, yes.

Uh 49th Street.

Okay.

You could also make your motion conditioned on that.

I mean, these are all important things that you've done, you know, you've looked at if as a problem with this application that you want to see those issues solved.

I go ahead, Joe.

Okay, so it's a woman that is That's who I've communicated with yes.

Can she, if we pass it on to counsel, can she be there?

I'm I mean, I know she's she did tell us tell me she was planning on being there.

She was working her schedule for the the January 16th movie and in expectation of to move forward, but my assumption was that she was going to be here tonight.

She wasn't informed about the meeting, but she does has stated she planned on being there for January 16th.

Just a note, I think the company is quick shift and it's written as quick shaft throughout a lot of this.

A couple places anyway.

Okay.

Is there another procedure for that?

The only other thing I would say we still have public comment open.

Yeah, there's still public comment open, so that's the hand this out to you all to fill the phone.

Hold on one second.

You could give it to the clerk.

Five copies for one for each other.

And then, sir, did you want to come forward and speak as well?

Thank you.

Thanks a man.

Um for the record, David Kohler, I'm a resident.

Um right next to it, my backyard backs up.

And I'm um really first just trying to understand a little more before I can really um voice concerns.

What is the current what I under I'm familiar with the owners of the sunshine?

It was the Presbyterian, the Happy Days.

I I'm because I'm right next to it.

Um it was divided, and or now, what is it right now zoned as?

What what is the use zone now of the property?

Zoned all two for residential.

And in all to a special use permit allowed you to have a church.

Okay.

Right, and they're asking for a church.

Okay.

The reason why when I hear the the church is is that I'm just trying to understand what is the definition of my concern is what activities are allowed in a church because I personally am a board member of another church who's looking for a location and we were approached to take on a property in Euclid St.

Paul because the neighborhood wouldn't allow them to have event space, weddings and that.

And so with the developer, we're saying if you guys come in as a church, you can as a church, you can have these other events, and we can somewhat get around with some of the concerns that we're not allowed to do.

So what I'm trying to understand as we look to designate this as a church and with spiritual services, you know, what other activities are allowed and whether it's the um demand on parking, and I'm just trying to um really understand the scope of church and what is a church allowed to do beyond spiritual gatherings.

Holy weddings and stuff.

Well chair, I'll I'll let you decide on how to handle this, but uh this is for or against the application, and so we're not here to really answer those questions.

Okay, so I'm against it.

Thank you.

Very good.

I appreciate the clarity.

So I'm against it.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there anyone else in the public that wants to come forward?

Okay.

Seeing none, we're gonna close public comment.

Um since the applicant isn't here, there is no further rebuttal.

Um if we don't have any additional questions, I think now is a time for deliberation and for just the board to talk to one another about this.

So um why don't we just start at the end and we'll go around and I'll do final comments.

Okay, um I'm sympathetic on the parking.

Uh but it was a church 1958, and the case is made, the city's taking their position.

This is continuing to use it for what it was built for.

Very importantly, uh many neighbors bought their homes or moved in there knowing there was a church or a school or something there.

So it's not like somebody's coming after the fact and saying, I want to put up a church in what used to be a house.

So I'm sympathetic to it, but I think we need to respect the history.

Having said that, uh looking at the looking at the image, uh, there is space there.

And I don't think if there is reasonable parking space available on this lot, I don't think anybody in the neighborhood should be inconvenienced unnecessarily if that is not first turned into parking space.

So my recommendation would be to approve it, uh, providing that they maximize uh on on-site parking uh first, you know, or or make that part of the approval.

Um otherwise, I think the history speaks, you know, speaks for itself.

And uh on the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see the argument to to deny it.

So and I I do see the concern about the insuff insufficient parking spots and uh and that uh you know, even with the 45 seats proposed within the church, and uh and we could require a sufficient parking plan.

Um, I there are some unknowns here, and and I know we could ask for information to um after we we make a decision, but um I'm I don't have a yes or no at this point.

I'm really uncertain about this, this proposal.

Okay, yeah, I I kind of feel like that.

I think the parking is an issue.

I I think historically it's been a church, and and Ms.

Jonathan says it's not something that somebody just came in and put a church in there, but we don't know how this church is going to run and what they're gonna do.

So I'd be inclined to say yes with the proviso that they put as much on-site parking as possible on the lot, and also that they didn't branch out from a traditional church into more of an event space church that was continuously using the facility.

So I don't I don't know how you put that into effect in here, but you know, I think the concern is that if they settle of a sudden we're using it all day every day for different kinds of activities, that then parking would be much more of an issue for all of the neighborhood, and it wouldn't be what I would call a traditional church which has services on Sunday and sometimes on Wednesday evening.

So I I'm kind of yes, I understand the history, and yes, it's always been a church, so I'm inclined to approve it, but I would want to put some constraints on it.

And and for the record, I am disappointed that the um applicant is not here.

I I feel that's to their detriment.

What are you thinking?

I I think that obviously the parking is an issue, but it's been a church since 1958.

If this if the ministry schedule is true to what they have written here, I you know, when you have 45 seats, I don't know how many cars show up.

I I just don't know, but if they could use the parking from the what's what's the school called now?

Sunflower.

Sunflower, it's still sunflower.

Okay.

If they could make some kind of agreement with the school, um, that would be great, but they have they can't be saying this to us and this to council and then pull a fast one.

That that would really be upsetting because I think our decisions are being made on what's presented to us.

And Sunday at 9 30 and 10 30, the school is closed.

Wednesday night, seven o'clock for Bible study, the school's not there.

Thursday for a prayer meeting at six, school's not there, kids aren't there.

So I would have to say that if they can lock into this, I don't have a problem with it.

Um they certainly need to make some kind of agreement with Sunflower about the use of you know the parking, but you know they're in compliance with the city.

So I mean, I rather honestly I rather pass the buck to city council and let them figure it out because uh I mean but they've got to be locked in to the hours of operation that they're stating, they can't just tell us this and then all of a sudden change the game plan because they got what they wanted, and that the lady needs to be there because you know she needs to be answering some of these questions.

You can't just you know that that's not fair, that's not fair to them that live right there.

So if she wants to, you know, man up and show up at council.

I I think that would be great, but she can't leave her neighbors, you know, in a mess.

Does it need to be council that we kick this to if there's another discussion about this?

I I think what we're what they're asking of us is to make a re uh a recommendation that's up or down by council.

Right.

I think council wants to go and pick through everything we have to pick through.

So you're you're doing the groundwork for council, but I think it's important for you to let council know what your concerns are, which is you know, the issues that you've brought up, the parking, the hours, but these are things that need to be addressed in council's discussion with the applicant.

Right, but we've got with your help here particularly.

Could we simply put a couple suggest a couple of provisos on parking?

Absolutely on uh let's say, for example, if they want to expand their hours, they need to come to council and explain why or something.

Would that fall under variance?

That's more of a variance.

I think what I would say is let's assume for argument's sake that you're going to recommend approval subject to the following issues being resolved.

An explanation of how the parking is going to occur, and that what the exact hours are going to be.

And then that would come back before council.

City, we would present it back before council and say to council these are the two issues, and the applicant needs to explain these.

This was a concern of the planning and zoning board, and the applicant needs to satisfy you in these conditions.

That's how we normally would deal with this.

Okay, so we don't have to have the actual verbatim.

No, because you're you're an advisory board, but as part of the advisory board, you're advising, right?

Right.

So you're advising we had concerns with this application.

Here's the major concerns we have.

These issues need to be resolved to the satisfaction of council.

Planning and zoning board had concerns regarding this.

I mean, those are comments that I'll make at the meeting.

Okay.

Um, because and it'll be on the record, obviously, uh, that you know, we will notify them, and when the application goes before the council, it'll be noted that planning and zoning board did X, whatever you do, approve, deny, and these are the conditions that they were concerned, or these are the issues they were concerned.

Right, okay, because we we want to be helpful.

We're we have little enough to do, we don't want to just keep kicking things away.

So if that's the way that's normally done, I feel like well, and and honestly, I think the other part to add is the applicant was not present at the planning and zoning board in order to answer these questions and concerns that the board had.

Right.

That's important to note also.

Uh I'm sorry, that's unless the chair reopens it in this place.

And we've gone through comments, and I'll give you a little insight into what I'm thinking on this as well.

Um I understand that it was all one property and it was used as a church, and then it was all one property and it was used as a school, and then it was divided.

Right.

And when I look at this, and I'm looking at the 22-606, it talks about each building use or structure, you know, after the effective date of this chapter, whatever that is, shall be provided with street off-street parking and services.

Okay, fine.

And then it says such off-street parking and service facilities shall be maintained and continued as an accessory use as long as the principal use is continued.

But I think the principal use, I'm not sure it's continued when we've divided the property.

And so I don't I understand that the neighbors are familiar with how the parking goes, and you know, they bought into that neighborhood with it operating that way.

Um, I agree with your comments on that.

But I also have concerns over the the parking, and I'm wondering if we've dealt with this property as a whole historically, and the property has been maintained as a whole, then if the property is divided, either they have to address that parking issue, or they have to continue.

My thought is continue to deal with it as a whole.

So come up with an agreement where fine, while you're operating, you have the parking that's available, and when we're operating, we utilize that same parking with a shared use agreement for that property, so that that way there isn't a greater impact on the community by potentially having the school have its parking and the church now have nothing and have to put all of that onto the street.

That's my thought.

And that was my question is how many parking spaces are uh dedicated to the school.

They didn't give us that information.

All of them, and I think well, and I think that's the concern, right?

And maybe as as the chair has said, maybe one of the conditions you bring forward is there must be a parking use, shared use agreement in place to satisfy this concern, plus explain how you can have adequate parking.

Yeah.

I mean, if you if you wrap right around, there's a lot of parking.

If you take street parking around the school and all that, there's not a problem.

I mean, relative to what we see, not compared to downtown, it's nothing.

Um but there has to be that cooperation, you're right.

So potentially instead of saying your hours must be exactly these and no others, maybe that what would be preferable would be that they would be non non-conflicting with the school.

Right.

I can have it at midnight, what I don't, but do it non-conflicting with the school with an agreement parking agreement.

And I'd also like to see maximizing any potential parking on the site.

Um because why not?

Sure.

Yeah.

But you know, I'd like to move personally, I like the idea to move it along and come up with something with these recommendations rather than kick it again down the road.

Yeah.

I don't think it's yeah.

Well, at this point, um, I'm looking for a motion.

So let's make a motion.

Let me work on this.

Let's make a motion to approve it under the condition that we maximize on-site parking for the church, and we have a cooperative agreement with the other entities on the same property, or in to share parking so that they're not in conflict with each other.

Does that and and the hours of operation such and cooperate on ASO operation such that they're not competing for the parking spaces?

So I think you're saying that they basically provide sufficient parking, whether that be through a shared agreement, improvements to the property itself, or some combination of there.

So yes.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I second that.

Okay, and I think this one has to be a roll call, though.

Yes.

Okay.

Board member Gonzalez Hastings.

Yes.

Board Member Kelly.

Yes.

Board Member McCoachy?

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Hanrihan?

Yes.

And then Chairperson Cowen.

Yes.

Passes units.

What's the date this is supposed to go before council?

Yeah, but that lady's got to be there.

Yeah, I mean, she can't be leaving her neighbors, you know.

No, January 16th is a Friday.

It's the 20th.

January 20th at uh 6 o'clock here.

Just so everybody knows.

To be fair, I mean, we'd like to hear from the owner of the property, the owner is the one seeking.

Well, normally uh honestly, if there's not a representative at before council, it's not usually something that will be entertained unless it's something that has already, you know, been discussed before council.

Just to clarify, do they need to have that in place before they go to council, or they want the recommending it with that to council?

Well, there I I think that was our recommendation to council to council.

Thank you.

I mean, clearly, counsel could say you all need to do this and bring it back to us, maybe council, um, to be heard so that we're satisfied with that.

They're gonna know what planning and zoning has said and the concerns that you have, and that's gonna they're either the applicant needs to satisfy those concerns to them on the 20th, or they're gonna say you got to bring us this stuff, and and we're not gonna make a decision until you do.

Yeah, I'm just considering that you have the future owner is is going to be the party that the city will be dealing with going forward, but it's not the party right now.

So you know, well, if it's if it's an agreement as this kind of agreement, I mean they wouldn't be able to do what the same thing without meeting those that are.

It would have to be in their contract, right?

Right.

Exactly.

Okay, and with that, we're on to item number four, which is an ordinance is a proposed ordinance, um amending section 22 zoning article six supplemental regulations for all districts, um, creating 22-6 S14 certified recovery residents.

Um with that, do we have a zero staff presentation?

Yes, good evening.

The uh certified recovery recovery residences that actually has come from the state.

It's a directive, it's something that we have to adopt.

Um the uh ordinance, it has uh all the information and the uh language uh provided by the state.

Um it uh uh the ordinance provides um some definitions of the uh four different levels of service uh for the residences, um on the second page uh down towards the bottom, uh there's uh section B.

Um the second page uh down towards the bottom, uh there's um section B.

Um that first paragraph uh explains that the city cannot restrict these uses within any of the zoning districts that are within the city.

Um but it also goes on to uh provide um uh some uh findings that we uh will be able to review and uh one of those major things that that that we can review is like a site plan.

Uh they have to they have to meet the the zoning code uh with the setbacks and and building coverage and building height and stuff like that.

Um but uh uh according to the state they still have have the right to to uh open up a facility, but like I said, they have to uh meet the zoning code of whatever uh zoning district it happens to be.

Um other than that, um if if you all have any questions, no the zoning code that they have to meet.

I'm just curious, uh these are residential facilities, so would they be meeting residential code or some other commercial code that it would be the the residential code um in our in our um commercial zones um uh let's see CL CL1 uh allows it as a conditional use, but in C1 and C2 it is not permitted.

So they they would not be able to uh go in that those because uh our code is written so that if the use is not specifically listed, then it's not uh permitted.

Okay.

Wow.

So what entity certifies these properties?

I'm sorry.

Um there's I'm just looking at the credentialing credentialing entity, the um in the um see this is um 226 um 14 um and the second page after definitions, and they go through the definitions of 11 level one, level two, level three, level four, um recovery residence, and then there's um uh bottom third of the page is the credentialing entity, the nonprofit organization that develops and administers the professional facility or organization certificate programs.

Is the state those are the two definitions that the state has provided, yes.

But it but it could be any uh any credentialing entity.

I mean this is generic.

This isn't for any specific it is um there's an application process.

The city would have to create the application um for uh for an entity to uh open up a certified what is it, the certified recovery residences.

Right.

And was there something about I didn't see if I missed it then uh about density about how many people might be in one of these homes?

Um was there a was that in here?

Um and I missed it.

Would it sort of be a normal residential density or yeah the the I see where the levels don't provide they didn't seem to mention that uh just right different levels of uh care they need or well again that could be part of the application process so that they would have to let us know uh how many residences will uh will be in that facility?

Because I I'm not clear how much latitude we have anyway.

Uh not much, I guess.

Yeah, not much.

But it just seems something you'd like to know.

Uh are we suddenly gonna have you know 14 people in a you know 1100 square foot house, you know, that normally you wouldn't expect that level of density.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Would there be occupancy limitations based on like the fire code or gilding hood or anything with regard to these?

Yeah.

Because it's I I would I would think there would be some sort of uh occupancy load because this is not a residence as a single family um duplex or apartment complex.

This is what happens when we get state mandates.

Yeah.

That uh all these issues are not resolved in advance.

Right.

And then we have to deal with them and it affects your home rule.

So these could be single family homes, right?

I mean, somebody could just buy or rent a single family home and apply to have it become one of these right.

Um they would have a uh manager on site.

Right.

But but yeah, they they uh they could put the uh the people that are in that facility, then would uh have a bedroom.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean that applies to the other.

We can also coordinate with our fire department on on occupancy load too.

Right, and level one doesn't require a manager manager.

Yeah, do we have zoning rule in the city about the number of unrelated people that can live in a single family house?

I I know something.

I believe there is, yes.

Um I don't know off the top of my head, but I mean I guess if the state mandates it overrides that's the problem.

That's right, yeah.

Yeah, I mean that really is that affects your own rule, like I said.

Right, right.

And and so when you said they have to meet all the zoning rules, that includes parking, the parking requirements for the occupancy.

There's nothing in our zoning code that specifically addresses one of these.

We would have to take a look at the different uses that are in our parking code and try and match the closest to what's being proposed.

I mean, there's certainly like they couldn't park all over the yard kind of thing, things like that.

I mean, there's still nuisance and parking requirements.

So they couldn't just create this, you know, uh code violation.

That's sort of back to the density thing again, right?

If you have a normal level of density, then you don't you're not gonna have that problem.

Right.

I and I think you're you're correct, and I think that goes when the application comes in, it has to be reviewed for all those things and those conditions.

Yeah.

I was curious about if there are any tax implications with these recovery residences.

I'm assuming that's not been covered either, right?

Not as far as we know.

I mean, we get as I said, they they draft this legislation and tell us we have to implement it, and they don't give us all the conditions.

Okay.

As long as it wouldn't stop it from existing, I think you can implement all the reasonable conditions, right?

You know, you just not pro nothing that would prevent this from being in the city, assuming it can meet all the other requirements.

It's kind of like the adult use ordinances where you have to have a place, you don't have to guarantee that there's but you have to say you have the ability, you just can't say no that these places can exist in your city.

We're not guaranteeing that somebody's gonna sell you property to allow you to do it.

And then I just had a question on the application contents.

And is that supposed to be applicable to both the original application for the certified recovery residents, or only when they're asking for a reasonable accommodation?

And the reason why I ask is because if you look at number three, it says a description of the accommodation requested and the specific regulation or policy from which relief is sought.

So it sounded that language to me sounded like it was asking for a reasonable accommodation, and so I didn't know if the application applied to just a general application for a certified recovery residence, or whether or not it was only when you were asking for a reasonable accommodation, or are those always the same thing.

That looks like it looks like an internal variance, right?

And that's what I think I mean, I think that's what they were the legislature was doing in saying you can handle accommodation.

Right, administratively handle the accommodation without going through the variants and public hearing.

But it but right there is a provision that I would say that if somebody came in and let's just say hypothetically was asking for a split room or something like that, that you could come back and say, well, yeah, we'll allow you to do that subject to you the maximum amount of parking you could do is this.

So if it's something like that, it's it's something that can be negotiated.

You know, you look at their accommodation and then you determine how that if it's reasonable and how to deal with it.

But the what they're making it in essence is they're telling us that we have to handle it administratively instead of going before the board of adjustment.

And who who creates this application?

Is it city staff?

Are they gonna have to work and create an application with all these rules and who it'll be city staff in those rules and who agrees that council?

It says city cities planning staff or says cities planning and reading the city.

And we'll probably hopefully I don't know if this is true, hopefully get one from the state or from another municipality that's already a city that's done the work.

We'll probably ask Jennifer what they're doing in the county and uh and get it from them.

I mean that's that's that's common for us to ask other cities what they've done and cities and in the county too.

Uh they've been generous in in sharing um forms and and applications.

Well, presumably the county has to do this as well because there's area that unincorporated, so the county's gonna have its own process.

And a lot of times we look at what the county's done and right, and and I mean we don't reinvent the wheel if we don't have to.

Right, right.

It's just all very vague, but uh I noticed the credentialing was touched on the ownership.

I didn't see anything.

Would we imagine these to be I I don't know much about them, but are we talking about it?

For profit entities that might want to bring these in that aren't currently I mean, are there some here that we don't even know about?

Um I'm not against them in any way, actually.

I just uh I'm just curious because if they're if they're for-profit, that's gonna speak to density issues and cost cutting and all that.

Um do we know anything about who's on the other side of the table here?

You know, who might be the one handing in the application for him?

Is it a a public company with you know or black rock or something?

I haven't heard anybody address that.

They've been just addressing what's in the what it's like on our side.

Yeah.

Do we uh this is sort of a vague question, I guess.

Do we have any background in what prompted the legislature to do this?

Well, that's part of my question because then things usually come up because somebody wants it, and I'm glad if it's addiction treatment people, but very often, particularly in Tallahassee, it's not it's people with money.

Right.

So that's why I'm wondering if there is this is a being driven by a for-profit, you know, industry.

Yeah.

I that makes you wonder that, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

So what do we gotta do now?

So I think we just have to review it, and if we have any um recommendations with regard to either recommending it for approval, or we can say that there need to be revisions and recommend what those revisions are or conditions, or um I mean we even have a choice law?

Well, technically, I mean we don't have to recommend it, but the c commission or the council's gonna have to take it up anyways, because state laws requiring right.

We were kind of discussing that before the meeting.

It's like do we really have a choice to screw it?

Well, can we put things in here like you know, that that needs to be they need to specify the occupancy level and the parking and the I mean I think we can we can put that in there as long as it's not ultimately restricting the ability to have these, you know, you know, if it's a if something that you would treat the same way as a reasonable request for another liked facility, then I think that's fine.

When you're putting in restrictions that would not allow this to occur anywhere in the city, then that would be prohibited.

Let me ask you something.

Remember the funeral home?

What is that place?

Now it's an office space for a medical facility, but just the office space.

It's not for drug addiction.

It's for a drug addiction company, but it's not the company itself is so that's their office.

Okay.

Okay.

So would a light kind of facility be like a nursing home or a rehab facility?

I mean that'd be.

I mean, if we if we do we have rules for those?

Sure.

We do have the ability to look at their site plan.

And they would have to meet our requirements for that particular zoning district where they're proposing their facility to be located.

Parking is one of them.

Okay.

Is there a typically a you know square feet per person type thing in in those in those regulations?

You know, again, controlling the density.

No, I had no um not in what's being proposed from the state.

Right.

But I mean, if we could we put something to say we have, you know, approve, but must meet this criteria and maybe mimicking, like you said, nursing homes or some other something that we can point to.

I think you would want to do that more in a direction on the uh on the site plan approval, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, I mean, it's I mean it indicates here that the um you know that the certified recovery residents must comply with land development code and be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and other applicable laws.

So we do have that coverage.

Yeah, and I I want to say that generally when you're dealing with like occupancy issues, it's the fire code that's the big one that like in how they treat group homes or different kinds of facilities, and so I'm wondering if they wouldn't have some kind something to address that.

Uh I'm sure the fire department does because they they look at the different types of occupancies and and they've got their uh they've got their own codes for occupancy loans.

Right.

And frankly, we need it for enforcement purposes also.

Right.

Because we have to know what terms and conditions, you know, should there be a problem?

What are we what are we basing it on, right?

Yeah.

If you have if you're restricted to have X amount of people and you have twice as many, then how can we enforce that if unless we have that particular standard in place, either by site plan approval or by state statute or by building code.

Right.

I mean, where else could where else could these reasonably cause a problem?

I mean, I mean, noise or whatever that's already dealt with, right?

Um parking.

That's got you know, it's there, but at the end of the day, it's just too many people.

Right.

And I think Jennifer really answered that question because the fire department has the authority to go in and say you cannot have these many people, or you cannot have these rooms set up the way they are.

Um you know, lock-off rooms and things like that, uh that because they can't come in and and handle it in case of an emergency.

Okay.

Because he sounded very residential, like a bedroom per each person.

They I mean they sound pretty good.

Right.

Um you just want to make sure the reality somehow matches that, you know.

And we we can also make this application to go through our site plan review committee.

Okay, which includes the fire department.

Right, fire department has to sign off when you do that.

That works, site plan review.

We're trying to get some control in there.

Can you see that?

Talk to your legislator.

I do.

I don't know.

Vote early and vote often.

That too.

Okay, so unless anyone else has any more comments on this, I think we're looking for a motion, and there is one in um, there's a suggested one in the packet, but I also heard that you may want to add a condition that this um process include uh a site plan approval process.

Right, but yeah.

I would I would so move.

Okay.

Okay.

And do we have a second?

I second it.

Okay.

And then I think do you need a roll call or can we do all in favor?

I I don't think you need roll call on this because it's uh legislative matter and it's just you know what is recommended.

Right, it's a recommendation.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, it passes unanimous.

And with that, we're down to any other business.

Does anyone have any other business?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

And I tried to get this on agenda.

I'm I'm trying to understand how to put things on the agenda before the agenda goes out, but clearly I failed.

I I'd like city staff to talk to us about how density, you talked about dense how densities calculated.

So I started looking at things, and we have we have this table.

This is in the comprehensive plan, the new comprehensive plan.

We have zoning districts, and then we have different kinds of districts, like um the RLs and RS and RU's, and then we have the zones, the 1A and 1, and I'm trying to understand how they interact and how you calculate density for a specific area.

So I understand how if you've got a new development, say you've got 10 acres, and somebody wants to develop 10 acres, and the density is you know, five houses per acre, whatever that they can put 50 houses on that 10 acres, and they can choose to put those 50 houses on, say, eight of those acres and leave the other two as open space.

And so you don't necessarily take the whole area and divide it by the number of houses to figure out how big the lot should be.

What I'm trying to understand is how all these different densities interact and how things work in a city where most of our development is in vill.

We're talking about lots that get divided, lots that get to put together, and building houses in between existing houses.

How do how do we decide what meets the density?

And so, and I'm also struggling to understand why we have these two different zoning issues, the the Rs with the R U and the R L and what have you, and then the residential zones, residential one and one A.

Why do we have these two different things?

And while I'm about it, the other question that bugs me every time I look at these maps, is down the bottom here, and particularly in our zoning map, all of this area here is water.

Okay.

Why why is this in the city and maps?

And is it in the two point whatever square miles that the city has, or is this outside of the city to so how big is the city?

Well, this is this is tidal flats, basically, right?

Is that submerged land?

That's water.

This is water.

If you you go down there, this is I don't know what our do I mean I I don't know the answer to that.

I would have to defer to them as to what the uh description and why the maps are reflecting.

And these two water areas sometimes they don't seem to match.

Well, how would submerged land appear on that?

Well, this could be submerged land.

Um my question really is when we calculate density, and when we count we say how many square miles are in the city, is this included?

Not the I think we're what 2.5 miles square miles, but then if you add the submerged land, we go up to like three square miles.

Something uh I'm right?

You need to talk to my husband.

Wow, just like that.

Yeah, because we're like right 2.5, but if you add the submerged land, we're like three square miles or 3.1, something like that.

I remember that's correct from the vacation of that land, because I did a lot of research on that.

No, you you're correct.

But uh for waterfront properties, um, submerged lands are not counted uh towards construction correct.

But you own it if you yes, okay.

And you can do nothing with it.

Well, um you can wade.

Can you even like put a boat a bolt?

You can put a dock there.

Some right, some areas you can, yeah.

Some you cannot.

So it all depends on, I mean, the particular area.

Yeah.

Because we have muck in certain areas, you know, we've dealt with that issue.

Um, and some of it is owned by the property owner, some of it's owned by the city, so it depends on the area.

So is that in our 2.8 or is this in our 2.8 miles square miles or out of it?

Um the the water is out of the uh uh calculation of the upland area.

We have what, like 11,000 people now?

Something like that.

116 was the last I saw.

Okay, so we have 11,600 some odd people in a 2.5 mile radius, and that's not adding the submerged land, which right and I don't know if the answer to that is that that map meets the description that's in the charter.

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know if you know the answer to that.

It's the map that that Mary's looking at.

She's looking at the zoning map and the land use map and the red hashing, and is that just the jurisdictional boundaries of the city?

Right.

And it's an all these are all in the back of the comprehensive plan.

Yes.

These are all the different variants.

Well, I think that's what it has.

I think it's based on the the charter description of the city.

Right.

Which must include some water period.

And what I'd like to see, and I don't I don't have the computer technology to do this anymore.

I'd like to see this map, which is the high hazard area, because you know, people have been throwing around changing densities and going to OTU, and and I think we need to start understanding how these densities are calculated and what we want to do.

I'd like to see this superimposed on one of these maps.

So I could see which of these zones, which how this goes on these high hazards and on the zoning map, because I think that's going to come into play.

I think that's online.

I think you can do that.

I think I can find you that isn't there.

A limitation now.

The GIS or something like that.

Increasing permanent residential density in a high hazard zone.

In our comprehensive plan that we don't do that in Pinellas County, though.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I but I mean I think that's why I want to know want to know where that line comes.

Well, that and it is in these some of these issues are going to be coming before you, as you know from some of the when you consider some of these um reductions or intensifying the ADUs, those things.

I mean, that that's gonna come in before you because you have to make a decision.

Is it you know, based on this property, how many, you know, what square uh addition are you going to allow, and how many people can be in there?

Those are Richards, you're right.

You have to decide, and is that gonna be in the whole city or certain zoning areas, or how are you gonna look at that?

Right.

Do you do you do you take the block around it and say, okay, this block can only have five houses per acre, and and you've already got full point eight, so you can only have you know 0.2 of a house in this block.

And you have to be careful because you cannot do spot zoning, so it has to be almost like and I would just throw out there R1.

So all R1 can have X, assuming that the lot meets this minimum, right?

So that's what you can do.

It's almost like a it's almost like the setbacks, you know, you know, when you're looking at these additional structures, because that's what we're doing.

We're putting on another structure.

So there are setback requirements which will include density, are you gonna recommend moving those setback requirements, all those other things?

I mean, there's a lot of moving parts with this.

Right, right.

I believe they I believe ADUs are not part of the density calculation now.

I mean, no, but they're part of the uh uh still meet the zoning setbacks, yes, right.

If the yeah, if that's how we choose I mean we're gonna some of the communities have looked at um ADUs as an accessory use in an accessory structure to the property.

That's how they've gotten around the the density issue.

Right, right, right.

But are you gonna allow 800 square foot?

You can allow minimum size, and what's the minimum size that you're gonna allow it?

Is it does it depend on the size of the property?

I mean, that's what I was saying.

Like if we look at it as an accessory structure, we deal with those all the time, and the setbacks are the issues because you can't certain properties you can't do it without variances at least, right?

Because you're gonna zero lot line on some of these.

Right.

And I heard today that the that's an the ADU bill and ADU bill is back being filed at the legislature, and so we may get another.

Hopefully, it'll be written better than I have a friend.

She matter of fact, she called me today.

She got her um her tax bill because she did an ADU in the back of her house.

Her tax bill went up like almost three thousand dollars because it added so much value to her house.

Oh that's interesting.

Yeah.

What city was it?

St.

Pete.

St.

P.

Yeah.

Yeah, I wonder if it broke like the Save Our Homes cap or something.

If it probably did.

Yeah, if it if it had to do with that rather than just the incremental increase in value.

But she I mean they're typically 150,000 to build.

They that shouldn't add, you know, more than that.

I don't I didn't ask her what she had paid for the ADU, but maybe it's a really nice ADU.

I don't know.

Right.

But when you add all the store, yeah, it's really it's it's awesome.

Got its own garage.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, but I so she did it legally.

Okay.

She got all her permits through the city of St.

Pete.

They made her dig trenches.

They she had to put parking, she had to do everything.

And then today she calls and she goes, I just got my um my bill for the mortgage.

It went up.

She was she was it like a little over $7,000.

Well, and that's and see things like that we haven't seen yet, so we don't know how these things are gonna play out.

Yeah, well, that's uh and those are concerns that people need to know before they add these things.

Right.

Yeah, she was yeah.

But St.

Pete did St.

Pete did really a lot of work on that.

I know I know they it wasn't a matter of a moment to pull their their stuff together.

So well, I know they've been trying to add yeah uh affordable housing for a long period of time, they've been very aggressive with it.

So that's yeah, it seems to be pretty successful.

This is one of the worst things I've heard, though we need to hear about that, but I would think we would study what they've done uh before we start randomly starting over.

Well, and that's one of the things we do, honestly.

We look at the other cities that have have implemented, we try to find out what the problems are, try to bring them in and make sure that we don't have those same problems and institute all the good things that are in there so that you know, but that's all it's all done by history, right?

Yeah, and and that's the problem with some of these things.

If we don't have a history, then we're shooting in the dark, and we don't know if we're passing legislation that's gonna come back and bite us because we don't know what those issues are.

But perfect example.

Yeah.

I mean, her she has her um tax bill in her mortgage, four hundred and fifty-three dollars more a month, yeah.

And then it becomes counterproductive if she was using that property to rent it out as affordable housing, right?

It's not it becomes not wise for her, but it's not affordable, right?

Yeah, that's not affordable for her.

No, but I I mean I or it becomes not affordable for a tenant because if the minimum is now four hundred and fifty dollars a month.

Plus property insurance cost plus plus.

So would you be able, would you ask her, is she gonna look into and fight that and research that?

I mean, that's a data point that if you're able to report on that, that'd be great.

Um for us to know when when we start doing people need to know that.

It's a single data point, but we do need to know the consequences.

Yeah, that doesn't that sounds like a boober.

They're pretty good at that tax office.

They're really nice every time like that.

It's not uh you'd get a good conversation out there anymore.

Right, you know, so you know if you added these structures have value.

If you add a hundred thousand dollar structure, you gotta add a hundred thousand dollars to your property.

So how how do we how do we calculate density was she using or infill lots?

She was right.

How how is does the city have like a process, uh a step-by-step, an algorithm?

Uh instead of zoning.

Well, the first thing we look at is where is it located in the city?

What is the overlying land use?

What is the zoning?

Okay, which more facilities.

Which chart is the overriding land use?

It's it's the future land use map.

Okay, so that's the one we use.

Okay, so we look at this, and this tells us how many and then the and then this little cheat sheet that we use very often.

Um you can go to whatever the um land use classification is of the uh uh specific lot that you're looking at.

And then and then usually what we do is we'll we'll go to the property appraisers uh website.

And then um, if it's um an easy an easier one.

Um if if the property happens to be within the residential low medium, um the the units per acre is 10.

So what we do is we we've converted the units per acre to units per square foot of lot size.

So in this case, um on this property then, you would require uh 4,356 square feet in lot size per dwelling unit.

So if you have a lot size that's um say 7,000 feet, it's not big enough for a duplex.

So you could only have a single family house there.

Because the lot does not meet the density requirement of the land use plan.

Okay, so we don't look at overall density.

We look at spot density for a specific lot is what you're telling me.

We're not we're not this so much per acre is really the minimum lot size.

There's nothing else in it.

Correct.

Yeah, what we're looking at lot specific sizes.

Okay.

So why do we have these different classifications?

This really bugs me.

It's required.

Well, and and some of this doesn't seem to match, because this is this up here is I don't know, all these different yellows.

I have trouble.

They're almost the same, yellow.

They're almost the same yellow, yeah.

If you could have more contrasting colors, that would be great.

Uh, we get that map from the from the county.

So I would have to see if they can uh maybe figure out a different color scheme.

It's some of these, some of these, some of our zones are in multiple categories, classifications, and some of them are not, and some of them I think should be a not.

Sorry.

But I I think I don't know.

As we go into this, what can we do to do affordable housing and what can we do to get more housing?

Assuming we need more housing.

Um I think we need to understand how leads pieces interact.

And this high hazard zone interacts.

Because we know we don't want to increase density any we cannot increase density anywhere in here.

In in the flood zone, I would be extremely worried about uh flood insurance and uh being lowered in the CRS program, which would lower the percentage of of the Well uh a comprehensive plan says we won't increase that.

Right, which is right, which is not the right thing to me.

Which has nothing to do with ADUs.

I just want to make clear.

No.

But it has to do with where you're gonna be able to put ADUs.

It's gonna it's gonna deal with where you're gonna be able to put ADUs because we're I'm sorry to say it will deal with where ADUs can go, which is what we have to talk about.

Right.

But as far as I understand it, the element in the comprehensive plan deals with density is not about ADUs.

So in other words, we are free to address ADUs in in density discussion.

That is I think that's what I got from however you regulate ADUs based on the size of the property and setbacks and size and all of the ADU, right?

Right.

I as one who's strongly in favor of not limiting them in the flood zone.

Uh limited.

Not limiting them in the flood zone.

Because just to get off track, you any new ADU would have to be FEMA compliant.

Well, that's what I was just thinking of the same thing before you said that.

So they're going to all have to be built up.

If it's FEMA compliant, I I will tell you from personal experience, a FEMA compliant home built right now in the flood zone is a much better investment than a 1925 bungalow two blocks out of the flood zone, you know, in terms of you know the it's well you're you can see it in all the flooded areas, and I can tell you where I live up in Palm Harbor where all the floods occurred, all those houses are are knocked down and they're all building up the FEMA compliant houses, but it's very expensive.

So you're you're you're losing if if the goal is to um get affordable housing, if you do it in the flood zone, how can it be affordable?

Well, my point being if you're if you're in the flood zone and you have to build FEMA compliant to say you should not be you're not allowed to have an ADU I see what you're saying is is a further um imposition.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Is is a further um imposition, you know.

Uh but I just don't know it's counterproductive to have an ADU in a place that's so expensive.

If your goal, I mean, I guess if your goal is to have another uh family member, you know, that's one that's one thing, right?

Like a mother-in-law, right?

They they're more than just affordable housing.

But affordable housing, you can't, it doesn't become affordable.

Yeah.

And you've also got to worry about being able to evacuate.

So if you have extra people or extra families, you have their evacuation.

It creates our right, it creates an evacuation issue.

Yeah, but I mean, you we also have we're we're also building bigger and bigger and bigger houses.

Yes.

Because wealthier people, that's what they want.

And you could theoretically have the same issue.

I mean, you know right.

This is a whole whole overall, that's why it can't be piecemeal.

It has to be a whole overall analysis because it it's you know, it's great to have this one issue, yeah, but it does affect all these other issues, so it's a bigger um discussion.

True.

I have a question since he didn't know.

So five acres that were on the water that got wiped out.

Did they ever close on that?

Um Mr.

Rogers has purchased that property.

And he's he's he's the new owner of the property.

I heard there was a demolition permit, is that true?

Or the application for demolition.

Was it closed?

The application.

There's an application for one.

Okay.

There is an application for demolition.

Wow.

And do we know about the cats that were there that I've been feeding?

I probably make admissions.

Well, you're on the record.

No, not what cats.

What cats?

Mark, do you know what they're building?

I I heard homes or whatever, but um there's there's been a proposal for six structures.

Yeah.

And uh I don't how many units?

Twenty-five, I believe.

Twenty twenty-five units.

Okay.

That's about what we thought would happen.

All homes?

Sound like it's multi-family.

Multi-family.

Yeah, it's like multi-family, uh 25 dwelling units in six buildings.

So that yeah, so that's like four, five between four and a half per building.

So it's multi-family.

And as condos, I guess.

So that's five and five to five an acre, right?

Yes.

We got married on it.

And they have over five acres of land there.

It's got to be on this map, right?

It's down here.

It's an orangey killer.

That place was destroyed.

And people left their cats there.

And yes, I've been.

I don't care.

Well, what are you gonna do?

Call PETA.

PETA will come after you.

Five.

Not worried.

Okay, I've got my back.

Do we have any other business that we need to discuss?

Yes.

Um, I actually just wanted to remind the board that the form one uh has been opened, it opened on December 31st and it goes to July 1st.

So just get it done within that time frame.

If you have, great.

If you have not, um, just please do that.

And if you ever have any questions, you can always give us a call and we can walk you through that.

Because there's a fine if you're late.

Well, I'm sorry.

Email or something.

Well they emailed me something.

They used to they used to send it to us.

They used to mail it.

I think they emailed me something last year.

I think they give it you at least a reminder.

That's that I know that to like.

Because I I usually get the reminder.

What's it called?

But we like to let you know.

Yeah, you know, so I can always send you a link of how to go where to go to and how to how to get that file.

There's an example on there.

So if you just want to email me tomorrow, I can send you all that information.

Not a problem.

Or if you have any questions, you can always give me a call.

Oh there.

I will have a look.

We don't want you going to jail.

Yeah.

And I did it online left.

Yeah, it's all online now.

No, you have to do it online.

You're absolutely right.

It's a it's a financial disclosure.

It's a financial disclosure.

Do you have the link?

I don't have the link on me, but I can always.

If you haven't done it before and you have a you have an issue, just call the clerk's office.

Yeah, like I said, I I can send out you through it.

It's the whole walkie right now.

It's got all the directions on it.

Conflict of interest yes it's it's yeah it doesn't ask amounts it just asks like where is it with the state or with the county or it's with the state you're hungry.

I mean it asks like percentage if you have a percentage ownership of say a financial business institution greater than some huge relatively large amount.

Yeah and it's like if you got stopped with more than $10,000 made me realize I did but that's that's all the business I had I just wanted to know they got that much all right well if there's nothing else then the meetings adjourned