Local Planning Agency

PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2026 6:00 P.M. Chair Kevin Benjamin, Vice Chair Paul Stanek, Members James Johns, Deborah Kynes, Michael Broom, Elizabeth Telford, Sally Caron, Alternate Members Tim Young and Sylvia Tzekas Assistant City Attorney Laura Carrera, Community Development Director George Kinney, Community Development Project Manager Kathy Gademer, Planner I Kevin Nurnberger, Project Manager for Kendig Keast Collaboration Steve Sizemore (zoom call), Deputy City Clerk Heather Drake, Business Manager Katherine Lachcik and approximately five people in the audience Chair Benjamin called the April 8, 2026, Local Planning Agency of the City of Dunedin to order at 6:00 p.m. INTRODUCTION Chair Benjamin stated the April 8, 2026, meeting of the Local Planning Agency of the City of Dunedin will now come to order . The Local Planning Agency is an advisory board of citizens appointed by the City Commission. This board is comprised of volunteers who represent the thoughts and concerns of the community. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to make recommendations to the City Commission regarding each item on the agenda. Except for Item 1.b. - tonight's format will be as follows: he will introduce each item on the agenda, after which the City representative will present information about it. Thereafter, the members of the Local Planning Agency will have an opportunity to ask questions of the City representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comment will need to please approach the lectern, state your name and address, and then utilize the microphone at the speaker's lectern in order for their comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time , and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the clock countdown. Citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizen comment shall not engage in loud , boisterous and/or disruptive speech or conduct. Any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium by the Chair. 1. BUSINESS 1.a. Approval of Meeting Minutes, March 11, 2026 Chair Benjamin introduced the agenda item and inquired if anyone had any corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes. Hearing no further comments, Chair Benjamin asked for a motion. MOTION: Motion was made by Mr . Broom and seconded by Vice Chair Stanek to approve the March 11, 2026, LPA minutes. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously . Quasi-Judicial Procedure Chair Benjamin stated that the Local Planning Agency is not a quasi-judicial board and therefore has no final decision-making power, our procedures for quasi-judicial items are structured in a quasi-judicial manner for the benefit of those who come before it. The Commission will be the ultimate quasi-judicial decision-making authority. The item on our agenda tonight that is quasi-judicial in nature is Item 1.b. - and the format will be as follows: he will introduce the item, after which the City representative will present information about it. 26-1

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency Thereafter , the members of the Local Planning Agency will have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide testimony will need to approach the lectern , state their name and address , and then utilize the microphone at the speaker's lectern in order for their comments to be recorded . Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time , and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the clock countdown . Finally, both the City rep resentative and the applicant will be provided any final comments . Upon the conclusion of each public hearing , the Local Plan ning Agency will consider the evidence before it and will vote on the agenda item. That vote is the rendition of the order of the Board and there will be no written decision issued by the Board. Anyone in the audience who wishes to give testimony to these items on the agenda will need to be sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk. The Clerk will now swear in all persons wishing to speak to or give testimony to tonight's quasi-judicial agenda item . Deputy City Clerk Drake swore in all those wishing to speak or give testimony on the following item . 1.b. Application DR-2026-0001 - Request for Design Review Approval for the development of a mixed- use project consisting of 12 townhomes, a retail winery and a 7-room hotel on the 1.05-acre vacant property located at 265 Causeway Blvd and 10,12,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25, and 26 Outlook Way. Chair Benjamin introduced the item and inquired if anyone on the Board had any ex parte communications regarding this application . Hearing none , at this time the Board would hear from the City representative . Staff Presentation Community Development Director Kinney advised this project was approved approximately 2 years ago . The project is back before the LPA because the applicant did not secu re vertical permits in the required time . Much of the information is the same as previously presented . He thereafter shared the staff report and referenced the va rious exhibits, maps , and aerial views to orient the Board and the public to the location and advised: Application Information APPLICATION NO .: REQUEST: PROJECT NAME : OWNER: APPLICANT : Property Information STREET ADDRESS : AREA: FLOOD ZONE : LAND USE PLAN : ZONING DISTRICT : EXISTING USE : DR-2026-0001 Design Review Approval 265 Causeway Blvd JAMAP Home Builders LLC Anthony Pautauros 265 Causeway Blvd & 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23, 24 , 25 & 26 Outlook Way 1.05 Acres Zone AE (EL 10 Feet) Coastal High Hazard Area-Retail & Services (CHHA -R&S) Tourist Facility (TF} Vacant Land 26-2

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Surrounding Zoning & Uses D I RECT ION N O RTH: SO U T H: VVEST: ZON IN G D IS T RIC T N e ighb o rhoo d Bus i ness (N B), r,l ultifarn ily Resident i al (MF - 10) & Tour i st Faci lity (TF} rvl ulti fami lt Res i dential ( l\,1F-1 5) & T our i st Fac ili ty (TF) T our i st Fa c ility (TF) M ultif ami ly Re sid e nt i al ( l\,1F - 15) Project Description Local Planning Agency EX I S.DNG U SES R e ta il ,, Offic e . V acan t L and M ult i fa mi ly Resi de nt i al Mu lt i fam ily Res id ential 11.•l ult ifa rn ily Re s id e nti a l The owner/applicant again requests Design Review approval to build a new mixed-use development on the property consisting of four (4) new buildings and the other facilities described below. • Two (2) residential buildings, each with four (4) town homes for a total of eight (8) units. Both buildings are three stories in height with two floors of living area and rooftop patios over ground floor parking. • A three-story, mixed-use building with four (4) townhomes and a retail winery. The 4 townhomes will consist of two floors of living area and rooftop patios over ground floor parking. The retail winery unit is two floors, including ground floor parking and a rooftop patio. • A four-story, seven (7) room hotel building with three floors of guest rooms over ground floor parking. • Additional amenities including surface parking, a swimming pool and cabana. Near the proposed project is the Jay Annex a 4-story/7 room hotel building with 3 floors of guest rooms over ground floor parking which complements the Jay Hotel further down Causeway Blvd . Property History The property was formerly developed as a restaurant and lounge. Built in 1986, the previous two-story, 6,936 square foot, 190-seat restaurant and lounge was operated under several names , including the Louisiana Seafood Company, Chatters, Faces Restaurant & Lounge, Blue Waters Grill and The Vineyard. It was demolished in 2005, and the property has remained vacant ever since . Previous Approvals JUNE 4, 2015 City Commission approved the Final Design Review of Application S/D-LDO 14-56 .03 ZIC for a project called Arcadia Luxury Condominiums, a 16-unit condominium development on the property . In sum, the Arcadia project consisted of one 5-story building comprised of four floors of condominiums -4 units per floor - over ground floor parking. Surface parking and a swimming pool were also planned as part of the project. But the Arcadia project never came to fruition, and the property was ultimately purchased by the current owner in early 2023 . The project never came to fruition. The LPA saw this current application April/May 20204 . JULY 11, 2024 City Commission unanimously approved Application DR 23-03 for Design Review of this project at first hearing and waived the second hearing. However, the owner/applicant did not obtain infrastructure review approval and vertical building permits within 12 months as required by city code , so this approval expired on July 11, 2025. This is exactly how it is resubmitted. 26-3

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency Mr. Kinney advised the LPA did not have the benefit of the following information when they last saw this project which are requests for additional information from the City Commission . The applicant did respond to each item . 1. Deal with the potential on-site parking Total parking spaces required : 30 Provided : 66 Surplus 36 2. Meet with Pinellas County about the ir support or approval for the proposed use of the existing driveway access on Causeway Blvd . Pinellas County suggested they would not give access to Causeway Blvd ; therefore the entrance off of Gary Circle - one-way in ; one way out. 3. Provide an area breakdown of the proposed winery 2,255 GSF WINERY Since the approval in July 2024 the applicant finalized the subdivision plat. When it came to the LPA initially it had not been subd ivided and the plat was approved by the Commission , March 2025. Land Use Plan Evaluation The property is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area-Retail & Se rvices (CHHA-R&S) land use plan category . CHHA-R&S is meant to support and be adjacent to activity centers in the CHHA and is compatible with intensive commercial uses along arterial or major collector roadways such as Causeway Blvd . The CHHA-R&S permits retail , commercial , transient accommodations and residential as described in the Comprehensive Plan. This particular request is consistent with that land use. In this case , the property is 1.05 acres and therefore , can support the proposed mix of uses in the project as depicted in TABLE 1 below . . ,. ...,,,.: ,., ., ., .!..:.,, - • !.i al- :f;;;:f .e ■ • "'- •::::I .• ~-· . .. . •1 :.,i. . . - - . ' . •• ~ · i.:. 11 • ...•• .,. R E SID E N T IA L : TO W NI-IC MES 15 du.la 12 dwe ll ing un it s 0 . 80 TRAN S IE N T .A.C CC MM C DATION : HO T E L 40UPA 7 rooms o_,a RETA IL CO M MERCIAL: W IN ERY 0 . 55 FAR i , 796 squa r e feet 0 . 07 TO TAL 1 . 05 Proposed Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) for the project as designed is 0.53 ; less than the requ ired .9. A portion of the lot has to be unencumbered from any permeable pavement or elements of that nature . It is completely consistent with the City 's Land Use provisions from that perspective . Zoning District Evaluation Residential townhomes , hotels and wineries are all permitted uses by right pursuant to the Land Development Code (LDC) Use Mat rix found in Table 103-60 .1. All dimensional standards have been met: --~ ,- '.... ' - ...._ .! .. ·.- " ·<-• 1 .• 1 • • • . - - . ;,: 1:.. :- ,. ::...e i.: 1..1• ·' • 1.· 1 ..1.• ~ - . ·-,. ·. ~ N u t-.•1B E H O F S1 ·o r;: l ES 5 stories max: . 3 & 4 storie s Yes BUH. D IN G HEIG ► · l°r SO ft . m ax . 4 7.25 ft . & 45 . 92 ft . Yes F r~ o N T SE. T 01-\cK , 25 ft . m in . 5 ft . (N ) . ;,,25 f t . (V\I ) Yes S 1oc S E TB.•, C K 10 ft. 111 in . 10 rt . (E). 10 f't . (V•l) Yes R E AR SETOA C K 10 ft . mi n . NIA N l A 26-4

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency Regarding the front setback; there is an exception with a new urban approach ; therefore, this setback is not as deep as the 25 ft. This is preferable from a staff standpoint. In support of the principles of "new urbanism," the front yard setback may be reduced to Ofeet if the building, including porch area, is established on the edge of the right-of-way with screened side parking or rear parking. Mr. Kinney referred to a graphic to depict how this works noting there was conversation at the Commission meeting regarding how close this is to the sidewalk and if it would be problematic . The applicant provide the graphic - street cross section in response and provided the distances . Design Review Standards Staff finds the applicant has satisfied all the standards required for each application as provided in the Staff Report. Compatibility Evaluation Mr. Kinney referred to the map, Exhibit C of the surrounding properties depicting building heights varying from 1-story to 9-story . Average number stories for properties analyzed is 3.4. The surrounding area includes a mix of various uses ranging from low to high density condominiums , town homes and multifamily as well as retail, office, commercial, recreation and water dependent uses. Staff recognizes that this 3 or 4 story mixed use development at the proposed density and intensity is consistent with Objective 2.9 of the Future Land Use Plan. Committee Actions DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) DRC re-reviewed this project on February 25 , 2026 . All of the DRC comments and items have been addressed or are addressed in the conditions of approval recommended below. EXHIBIT Lis the notes of the DRC meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) A formal re-review of this application took place on March 3, 2026 , where the ARC again approved the design of the project. The minutes of the ARC meeting are included as EXHIBIT M. Staff Determination Staff find that Application DR-2026-0001 for Design Review is consistent with the applicable review criteria for approval subject to the following standard conditions : 1. The applicanUdeveloper is responsible for meeting the minimum criteria of the Land Development Code and for acquiring all other jurisdictional permits and approvals . 2. Construction plans shall be consistent with the approved Design Review plans and drawings. 3. Design Review approval shall expire in twelve (12) months from the date of City Commission Design Review approval unless the applicant obtains infrastructure review approval and vertical building permits. Board Questions Ms. Kynes inquired about the winery and whether people go there to drink wine or to purchase bottles . Jonathan Poole of SDG Arch itecture explained it is a wine shop more for tasting and purchasing bottles . There is a small sort of sun deck if people wanted to go up there and have a glass of wine . 26-5

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency When Ms. Kynes expressed that her concerns are always if something does not work out is it easily adaptable to another retail usage and Mr. Poole stated it would be adaptable to another retail use. Vice Chair Stanek asked if there were any changes from when this came to the LPA two years ago and it went to the Commission. Mr. Kinney noted basically those are summarized here. There was additional parking to accommodate the winery resulting in more spaces that when the LPA had seen the project. He recalled the LPA has seen the curb cut to the Causeway and by the time that reached the Commission the County had responded that they would not offer that curb cut so, it was redesigned as the Board was seeing it now. It is basically a sort of dead end. It has all been reviewed by the Fire Department and they are comfortable with access and being able to make their necessary turns. The third piece was getting more granular on the winery, exactly the floor area for each floor and the discussion of how it was to be used. Vice Chair Stanek referred to the concerns about the Trail being close to the wall and what he has seen either did not show that much distance between . Mr. Kinney recalled the LPA had concerns about the building being too close to the sidewalk and the applicant provided the graphic to show the setbacks for the wall, the front surface area and everyone seemed comfortable with that once that rendering was provided. Chair Benjamin recalled concerns about the plantings and that bicyclists were not going to hit those as they rode by; however, it looks like there is the clearance and that it was sufficiently addressed. Chair Benjamin inquired if there were any unusual circumstances for the delay and if there is any risk of further delay going forward and was advised the reason was due to financing. Mr . Kinney advised going forward staff plans to put a tickler in the files about 3 months out to remind the developer the 12-month window is coming . Also, the City offers a one-time extension allowed by Code through the City Manager. There will be notice to the developers that time is coming. Applicant Presentation The Applicant had no further presentation. Public Hearing Chair Benjamin opened the item to public hearing . Hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Benjamin closed the public hearing . MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Broom and seconded by Ms. Kynes to recommend that the Commission approve Application DR-2026-0001 , Design Review Approval for 265 Causeway Blvd. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously . 26-6

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency 1.c. Presentation of Module 3 of the recommended and draft Land Development Code updates. Staff Presentation Community Development Director Kinney advised the Local Planning Agency for this item is the Task Force to the Land Development Code Rewrite . As noted previously, not a lot of new material is being added ; it is mostly reorganizing and getting it all into one place. There are a couple of new concepts heard during the Module 2 discussion; there is little for Module 3; however, Project Manager for Kendig Keast Collaboration Steve Sizemore will review the Module 3. Project Manager for Kendig Keast Collaboration Steve Sizemore (via Zoom) referred to the PowerPoint presentation attached to the agenda item with the following highlights and comments. This is the last module prior to consolidating everything for what will eventually become the public review draft and the final draft prior to public hearing . Land Development Code Update Module #3 Draft Background !Code Update Goals (Detailed - Page 4) Community Development Project Manager Kathy Gademer assisted with the presentation: MODERNIZE code with best practices & legal compliance IMPLEMENT goals and objectives of Comp Plan. ORGANIZE regulations into a simplified, logical, and unified code TAILOR development standards to achieve quality, resilient outcomes that support community character STREAMLINE review procedures to be clearer, illustrated, and less time-intensive CREATE format for a more user friendly development code including more graphics and tables Project Introduction I Tasks and Timeline (Graphic - Page 5) Module 2 - Drafting (Development Standards - Dec . 2025 - March 2026 Module 3 - Drafting (Subdivision Regs., Procedures - Dec. 2025 - March 2026 - Today Public Review Draft & Mapping - March 2026 - April 2026 Adoption Phase - May 2026 - July 2026 MODULE #3 PROVISIONS (Page 6) Article 7: Development Review Bodies Article 8: Development Review Procedures Article 9: Nonconformities Article 10 : Enforcement, Violations, and Penalties Article 11: Word Usage Module #3 I NEW APPROACHES (Page 8) Mr. Sizemoore advised generally nothing has been changed in terms of substance. There are a few changes, minor updates and helpful language; however, there are new things introduced. • Consolidates Elements that Many or Most Review Procedures Share • Less Chance for Duplication or Inconsistencies • Establish Clear Criteria for Decision-Makers ■ Provides Options for Applicant • Meets Goal of Providing More Administrative Decision-making • Clarifies Roles , Procedures, and Cross-related Elements 26-7

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Module #31 Contents (Details - Page 9) • Development Review Bodies • Development Review Procedures • Nonconformities • Enforcement and Remedies • Word Usage Module #31 Article 7, Review Bodies (Details - Page 10) Local Planning Agency No Changes , key is each section has a definition of the roles and powers , bringing in what is existing in the current Code where it was not clearly defined . • Administ rat ive Rev iew Bodies • Elected or Appointed Review Bodies Module #31 Article 8, Development Review Procedures (Details- Pages 11-15) TYPES OF APPLICATIONS : Types of applications are exactly the same . • Administrative Staff approved ; no public notice and a hearing ; follow objective standards • Legislative Changes to policies or rules; requires public notice and a hearing ; final decision by the City Commiss ion. • Quasi -Judicial Applies rules or policies to specific sites ; requ ires public notice and a hearing ; appeal by court of competent jurisdiction Division 8.2, Common Review Procedures (Details - Table Example - Page 14 In the current LDC many procedures repeat some of the same elements such as public notice , submission requirements , decision criter ia and so forth. Instead of all that , pulling all those elements into one common one and organizing in a form that is in sequence with how the approvals are rev iewed . Then putting together a Development Review Summary Table that has everything in one place so all the procedures point back to the table . The benefit is it can be printed out for quick reference and also at a later time when there is a need to update there is no need to go into the various parts and redline and update ; it is all in one place. • Pre-Appl ication Conference • Application Submittal , Fees , and Completeness • Common Decision Cr iteria • Review considerations for all types • Public Notice Requirements • Timing , contents, and recipients of notice • Public Meetings and Hear ings • How public hearings are to be conducted • Post Decision Provisions • Modification or revocation of an approved application • Appeals • Inactive and Expired Applications and Renewals 26-8

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Division 8.3, Administrative Approvals Local Planning Agency Remain generally the same with one key addition is moving Plats based on the State Statute change into Administrative Approvals . Limited Use Permit is new. Division 8.4, Legislative Procedures - No change Division 8.5, Quasi-Judicial Development Procedures - No Change Module #31 Article 9, Nonconformities - (Details - Page 15) • Division 9.1, Classification & Conversions of Nonconformities The only new is Nonconforming Lots and how those are defined and what occurs with that. There is also the Conversion of Nonconformities guides the same as current and is being reviewed to make sure it is consistent or if there is something better defined . Module #31 Article 11, Word Usage (Details - Page 16) • Division 11, 1, Rules of Construction, Acronyms, and Abbreviations • Meaning of "shall" versus "may" • "And" versus "or" • Delegation of authority "The Director shall ... " • Rounding of numbers • Meaning of acronyms used in Land Development Code • ADA = American Disabilities Act • LPA= Local Planning Agency • Division 11.2, Definitions NEXT STEPS (Page 19) Completed drafting the entire document; staff is reviewing; it will be reviewed with the City Attorney and making sure everything is ready for the adoption phase being entered into now. Next Steps for Drafting Phase (Subject to Update) (Details - Page 20) Deliverable: Public Hearing Draft April 2026 Late Spring 2026 Board Questions for Staff In response to the question of when the document will become available to the public, Ms. Gademer advised staff is at the end stages of compiling all the draft policies and reviewing them with the City Attorney and once the final draft is received and the meetings are held with the various committees and then it will come back to the Board. Mr. Kinney anticipated it would be a few months at least and he will be putting a time frame for the review. Ms. Kynes inquired about the public meetings and Ms. Gademer advised a public workshop will be planned with the City Commission . Mr. Kinney added there will be a project page through Communications then there will be a formal process with an LPA recommendation to the Commission and two hearings by the City Comm ission. He clarified that the town hall type open meetings have already been done from a public input standpoint and the public meetings with the Commiss ion will be well advertised . 26-9

Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Local Planning Agency Vice Chair Stanek inquired regarding how specific the definitions for the roles for Review Bodies that would include the LPA. He noted what comes to mind is compatibility and if that is part of that. Mr. Kinney explained some of the Compatibility elements will be brought in from the Comprehensive Plan which will be in multiple sections, not just the definitions for roles . The plan is to make Compatibility treated the same as other Design Review Standards . Staff would like to bring the Compatibility element for presentation to the LPA on a future agenda . Vice Chair Stanek inquired what has changed with Plats . Mr. Kinney explained under State law Plats have to be approved Administratively now; it does not go to the City Commission for approval. He noted where he has worked before it has been Administrative . Vice Chair Stanek commented he was glad to see the Lot Nonconformity being addressed. Chair Benjamin expressed appreciation for all the work being done on this update that will be a major improvement for everyone's understandability and help in moving forward building the community . Public Input Chair Benjamin opened the item to public input. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak , Chair Benjamin closed the public input. Board Comments/Recommendation - None ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. NOTE: The meeting was completely recorded , and the recording is in the official file . Kevin Benjamin Chair of the Local Planning Agency Attest: M~ Q City Clerk 26-10

1. BUSINESS 1.a Approval of Meeting Minutes A. March 11, 2026 LPA Meeting 1.b Application DR-2026-0001 - Request for Design Review Approval for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 12 townhomes, a retail winery and a 7-room hotel on the 1.05-acre vacant property located at 265 Causeway Blvd and 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 Outlook Way. 1.c Presentation of Module 3 of the recommended and draft Land Development Code updates. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY CITY HALL, 737 LOUDEN AVE APRIL 8, 2026 6:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Review and approval of draft meeting minutes. EXHIBIT: A. 3/11/2026 LPA Meeting Draft Minutes Staff has determined that this application meets all of the applicable review criteria for a recommendation of approval to the City Commission by the Local Planning Agency. EXHIBIT: A. Staff Report EXHIBIT: B. Application for Design Review DR-2026-0001 EXHIBIT: C. Aerial, Land Use & Zoning Maps EXHIBIT: D. Aerial Maps of Surrounding Properties & Uses EXHIBIT: E. Civil Drawings EXHIBIT: F. Greenspace Plan EXHIBIT: G. Architectural Drawings EXHIBIT: H. Sustainability Matrix EXHIBIT: I. Public Art Application EXHIBIT: J. Parkland Impact Fee Application EXHIBIT: K. Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT: L. 2/25/2026 DRC Meeting Notes EXHIBIT: M. 3/3/2026 ARC Meeting Draft Minutes EXHIBIT: N. Proof of Public Notices EXHIBIT: O. 7/11/2024 CCRM Minutes EXHIBIT: P. 3/20/2025 CCRM Minutes EXHIBIT: Q. Resolution 25-09 & 265 Causeway Subdivision Plat 1

LPA presentation, discussion and feedback related to recommended changes to the Land Development Code rewrite. The LPA acting as the LDC rewrite taskforce will review Module 3, which includes modifications to Development Review Bodies, Development Review Procedures, Nonconformities, Enforcement, Violations, and Penalties and Word Usage. EXHIBIT: 2026 0409 LPA LDC Module 3 PPT.pdf ADJOURN DUNEDIN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & DECORUM RULES Note: Please put cell phones and pagers on silent or vibrate during the meeting. This meeting is televised; therefore, you may appear on TV at any time. Public Appearance: CITIZEN INPUT is for comments from members of the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda for this meeting (please give name and address and limit all comments to a maximum of three minutes). AS FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA individual speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes. A representative of a group consisting of 5 individuals who are present during the meeting may speak on behalf of the group for up to 10 minutes at the Chair's discretion. To do so, the individuals must have waived their time to the representative by providing their name and address on the back of the comment card. Public Hearings: During public hearings the Chair will open the agenda item to the public for comment. If you wish to comment come to the microphone at the podium and give your name and address for the record. This meeting is for agenda items only. Other issues should be presented to the City Manager or City Clerk for discussion at a future Commission meeting. Appeals: Per section 286.0105 of the Florida Statues - If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, agency or commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, per Florida Statute 286.0105. The City of Dunedin does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, political affirmation, marital status, sexual orientation, and disabled status in employment of the provision of services. Disability Provisions: It is the policy of the City of Dunedin not to discriminate against disabled persons in employment or the provisions of services. If you have a disability that requires accommodation, please notify the ADA Coordinator 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting at (727) 298-3042. COPIES OF THIS AND ALL COMMISSION AGENDAS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 737 LOUDEN AVENUE, ON THE MONDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING DATE. COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT WWW.DUNEDIN.GOV. 2

>> Chair: WELCOME TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF DUNEDIN. WE WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, I WANT TO THANK HEATHER FOR HER FIRST FULL OFFICIAL MEETING. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair: FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING WITH US. SO WELCOME, WELCOME. [APPLAUSE] AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE A SPECIAL DAY. IT'S MR. STANEK'S BIRTHDAY TODAY. THEY REMINDED ME AFTER I REMINDED THEM EARLIER. SO YES, THANKS. ALL RIGHT. REAL QUICK, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IS AN ADVISORY BOARD OF CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THE BOARD IS COMPRISED OF VOLUNTEERS WHO REPRESENT THE THOUGHTS AND THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA. EXCEPT FOR ITEM 1B, TONIGHT'S FORMAT WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. I WILL INTRODUCE EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA AFTER WHICH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT IT. THEREAFTER, MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE. FINALLY, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC MAY COME FORWARD. THOSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE COMMENT WILL NEED TO PLEASE APPROACH THE LECTERN, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN UTILIZE THE MICROPHONE AT THE SPEAKER'S LECTERN IN ORDER FOR THE COMMENTS TO BE RECORDED. INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES OF SPEAKING TIME AND WE KINDLY REQUEST THAT SPEAKERS ARE RESPECTFUL OF THE CLOCK COUNTDOWN. CITIZENS SPEAKING ON AN AGENDA ITEM OR DURING CITIZEN COMMENTS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN LOUD, BOISTEROUS AND/OR DISRUPTIVE SPEECH OR CONDUCT. ANY SPEAKER WHO HAS CONTINUED INAPPROPRIATE OR IRRELEVANT COMMENTS WILL BE REQUESTED TO RELINQUISH THE PODIUM. OKAY. ITEM 1A, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS TO APPROVE THE MARCH 11th, 2026 LPA MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> Chair: OKAY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [AYES] ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD AND, THEREFORE, HAS NO FINAL DECISION-MAKING POWER. OUR PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS ARE STRUCTURED IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL MANNER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO COME BEFORE IT. THE COMMISSION WILL BE THE ULTIMATE QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT WHICH IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE IS ITEM 1B AND THE FORMAT WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. I WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM AFTER WHICH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT INFORMATION. THEREAFTER THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE. THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ITEM THEREAFTER THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS. FINALLY, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC MAY COME FORWARD. THOSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY WILL NEED TO APPROACH THE LECTERN, STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND UTILIZE THE MICROPHONE. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES OF SPEAKING TIME AND WE KINDLY REQUEST YOU ARE RESPECTFUL OF THAT CLOCK COUNTDOWN. FINALLY, BOTH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE AND THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE ANY FINAL COMMENTS UPON THE CONCLUSION OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WILL CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT AND WILL VOTE ON THE AGENDA ITEM. THAT VOICE VOTE IS THE RENDITION OF THE BOARD AND NO WRITTEN DECISION BY THE BOARD. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO GIVE TESTIMONY TO THESE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN BY THE CITY CLERK. THE CLERK WILL NOW SWEAR IN ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK TO OR GIVE TESTIMONY IN TONIGHT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENDA ITEM. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. [SWORN] >> Chair: THANK YOU, HEATHER. OKAY. 1B, APPLICATION DR-2026-0001. REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 12 TOWNHOMES, A RETAIL WINERY AND A SEVEN-ROOM HOTEL ON THE 1.05-ACRE VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD AND 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 AND 26 OUTLOOK WAY. HAS ANYONE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM? [RESPONSE] ALL RIGHT. GEORGE, STAFF PRESENTATION. YOU'RE UP. >> YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR BENJAMIN AND MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. GEORGE KINNEY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FOR MANY OF YOU, THIS PROJECT MAY LOOK A BIT FAMILIAR. IT WAS APPROVED ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. AND IT'S BACK BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SECURE VERTICAL BUILDING PERMITS IN TIME. A LOT OF THE INFORMATION YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A REALLY NEW -- IS REALLY EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS RATHER QUICKLY IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE BOARD AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT IS HERE BEHIND ME. PROJECT LOCATION IS 265 CAUSEWAY. YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT ANTHONY PETERAS THERE, THE STREET ADDRESS AS MENTIONED BY THE CHAIRMAN. THE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 1.05 ACRES. AND I'LL WALK THROUGH THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE EXISTING LAND USE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND YOU CAN SEE IT THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD. BEHIND IT ARE A NUMBER OF APARTMENTS. AND YOU'LL SEE WHEN WE GET TO THE COMPATIBILITY PIECE, YOU'LL SEE THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THOSE PARTICULAR PIECES. TO THE NORTH SIDE, AGAIN IS MORE APARTMENTS AND SOME RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS TO THE NORTH. BY WAY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AGAIN, THIS IS A DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO BUILD A NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. IT INCLUDES -- AND IF YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THE RENDERING TO THE RIGHT, THE LARGER RENDERING TO THE RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE BUILDING "A" AND "C" ARE IDENTICAL AND INCLUDE FOUR TOWNHOMES FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNITS. BOTH BUILDINGS ARE THREE STORIES IN MIGHT WITH TWO FLOORS OF LIVING AREA AND ROOFTOP PATIOS OVER GROUND FLOOR PARKING. THE BUILDING ACROSS FROM BUILDING "C" IS BUILDING "B." THAT ALSO INCLUDES FOUR TOWNHOMES. IF YOU RECALL, IT END CAPS WITH THE WINERY. THE FOUR TOWNHOMES WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TWO FLOORS OF LIVING AREA AND ROOFTOP PATIOS OVER GROUND FLOOR. THE RETAIL WINERY IS TWO FLOORS INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR PARKING AND ROOFTOP PATIO. YOU SEE THE J ANNEX, THAT IS A HOTEL BUILDING WITH THREE FLOORS OF GUEST ROOMS OVER GROUND FLOOR PARKING. IIT COMPLEMENTS THE J HOTEL THAT IS A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. ADDITIONAL AMENITIES YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IN THE GRAPHIC INCLUDE SURFACE PARKING, A SWIMMING POOL AND A CABANA. JUST BY WAY OF HISTORY, FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC, THIS PROPERTY WAS FORMERLY DEVELOPED AS A RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE. YOU CAN SEE IN THE SECOND BULLET THERE, IT WAS BU BUILT IN 1986, ALMOST 7,000 SQUARE FOOT IN SIZE, 190 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT. WENT UNDER SEVERAL NEWS INCLUDING THE LOUISIANA SEAFOOD, CHATTERS, BLUE WATER GRILL AND THE VINEYARD. IT WAS DEMOLISHED IN 2005 AND HAS REMAINED VACANT EVER SINCE. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PREVIOUS APPROVALS ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THIS ONE. IN JUNE 4 OF 2015 THE CITY DID APPROVE A FINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CALLED ARCADIA LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS WHICH WAS A 16 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. THAT CONSISTED OF A FIVE-STORY BUILDING AND COMPRISED OF FOUR FLOORS OF CONDOMINIUMS, FOUR UNITS PER FLOOR OVER GROUND FLOOR PARKING, SURFACE PARKING AND A SWIMMING POOL WERE ALSO PLANNED AS PART OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION. AS I KIND OF MENTIONED, KICKING OFF THE MEETING, THIS PROJECT WAS LAST SEEN BY THIS COMMITTEE BACK IN -- ACTUALLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY A MONTH BEFORE JULY, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND APRIL OR MAY THAT THE LPA WOULD HAVE SEEN IT. THE CITY COMMISSION DID ULTIMATELY APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS YOU SEE IT. AND THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS RESUBMITTED. THE OWNER AND APPLICANT, AS I MENTIONED, DID NOT OBTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW APPROVALS THAT THEY NEEDED PRIOR TO THE 12-MONTH EXPIRATION SO THAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY ARE BACK. BUT EVERYTHING IS BASICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME. THE STORMWATER SYSTEM IS THE SAME. STREET NETWORK IS THE SAME. THE CONFIGURATION IS THE SAME. THE HEIGHT, THE ARCHITECTURE, IT'S ALL EXACTLY THE SAME AS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. NOW, THE LPA DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THIS LAST TIME YOU SAW IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS UP. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION ASKED FOR IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WENT UP TO THEM FOR THAT APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT DID RESPOND TO ALL OF THESE. ONE OF THE FIRST ONE WAS TO DEAL WITH ON-SITE PARKING. AND THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE WERE 30. THEY ARE PROVIDING 66 SO THERE'S A SURPLUS OF 36 SPACES ON THE SITE, WHICH IS WELL MORE THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE. THEY WERE ASKED TO MEET WITH PINELLAS COUNTY REGARDING ACCESS. AND BASICALLY PINELLAS COUNTY SUGGESTED THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ACCESS TO CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE ENTRANCE OFF OF GARY CIRCLE, ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. AND THEN THE THIRD PIECE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAKDOWN ON THE WINERY AND YOU CAN SEE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN FOR THE WINERY AS NUMBER THREE. ALL OF THOSE WERE SATISFIED BY THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION APPROVING IT BACK IN JULY OF 2024. AND THEN SINCE THAT APPROVAL IN JULY, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY WENT -- ALREADY FINALIZED THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. AS YOU RECALL WHEN IT CAME TO YOU INITIALLY, IT HAD NOT BEEN SUBDIVIDED BUT IT'S BEEN APPROVED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IN MARCH OF 2025. VERY QUICKLY ON THE LAND USE PIECE OF IT, I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, THE LAND USE IS COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, RETAIL AND SERVICES. THIS PERMITS RETAIL COMMERCIAL TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL AS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS ASK IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT LAND USE. THERE'S A BREAKDOWN IN THE TABLE OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN AN ACRE. THE PROPOSED ISR, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, A PORTION OF THE LOT HAS TO BE UNENCUMBERED FROM PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AND DESIGNED AT .53 LESS THAN THE .9 THAT IS REQUIRED. IT IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND USE PROVISIONS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES, HOTELS AND RETAIL WINERIES ARE ALL PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT IN THE TOURIST FACILITY ZONING CATEGORY WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS. IT IS OUR TOURIST FACILITY ZONING CATEGORY. ALL THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE UNDERNEATH THOSE TWO BULLETS. THE TF ALLOWS FIVE STORIES MAX. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A THREE TO FOUR-STORY PRODUCT MERE. BUILDING HEIGHT IS 50 FEET MAX. LOOKING AT A LITTLE -- AS HIGH AS 47 FEET IN THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY. AND YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS THAT ARE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY, ALL OF WHICH ARE COMPLIANT BY THE APPLICATION. ONE THING I WILL SAY ON THE FRONT SETBACK, THE FRONT SETBACK, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARD TABLE THAT REQUIRES A 25-FOOT SETBACK, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT IF YOU DO A NEW URBAN APPROACH AS IS CONTEMPLATED HERE. SO THIS SETBACK ISN'T AS DEEP AS THE 25, BUT THE CODE ALLOWS FOR THAT ABILITY AS LONG AS YOU TUCK THE PARKING TO THE REAR AND TO THE SIDES AND IT'S NOT BETWEEN THE CAUSEWAY AND THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WHICH IS ACTUALLY PREFERRABLE FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT. I SKIPPED A SLIDE HERE. THERE WE GO. JUST TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE HOW THAT WORKS -- AND THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING, YOU KNOW, HOW CLOSE IS THIS TO THE SIDEWALK. IS IT GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC? THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED THIS STREET CROSS-SECTION IN RESPONSE TO THAT. THEY PUT ON SOME OF THE DISTANCES SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE 42-INCH HIGH PATIO WALL, THAT'S KIND OF ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. THE DISTANCE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 3 FEET BUT THE DISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IS MORE THAN 8. THE NEAREST VERTICAL ARCHITECTURE FEATURE IS 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND MORE THAN 10 FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN THE PRIMARY GROUND FLOOR FACADE IS 8 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND MORE THAN 13 FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK. SO THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO MAKING SURE WE WEREN'T CROWDING THAT SIDEWALK AND PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE ABOUT FAIRLY FREELY. I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. THESE ARE THE -- AS THE BOARD KNOWS, THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS THAT MUST KIND OF BE TICKED OFF FOR EACH APPLICATION. AND THEY HAVE DONE JUST THAT, COMMON OPEN SPACE, CIRCULATION, MOBILITY, PARKING, LOADING, STACKING, OFF-STREET PARKING. AND I WON'T READ THROUGH THE REST OF IT BUT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN SATISFIED. THEY WERE SATISFIED ORIGINALLY AND THEY ARE SATISFIED CURRENTLY. JUST A PIECE ON THE COMPATIBILITY, THIS IS OUR COMPATIBILITY MAP. WE ANALYZED APPROXIMATELY 11 PROPERTIES AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA VARY FROM ONE STORY TO NINE STORIES. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF STORIES FOR THE PROPERTIES ANALYZED IS 3.4. THE SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDES REALLY A BIG MIX OF ALL KINDS OF USES RANGING FROM LOW TO HIGH DENSITY CONDOMINIUMS, TOWNHOMES, MULTI-FAMILY AS WELL AS RETAIL, OFFICE, RECREATION AND WATER DEPENDENT USES. SO ACCORDINGLY, STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT THIS THREE OR FOUR-STORY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPOSED DEN DENSITY AND INTENSY IS CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE 2.9 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY, JUST SOME COMMITTEE ACTION. SO THIS DID GO BACK TO THE DCRA IN FEBRUARY 25 OF '26. ALL DRC COMMENTS AND ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. IT THEN PROCEEDED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THEIR FORMAL REVIEW ON MARCD THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT. AND IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN SEEING MORE OF THE DESIGN, I HAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE FILE HERE THAT I CAN BRING UP. SO FROM A STAFF DETERMINATION STANDPOINT, STAFF FINDS THAT APPLICATION DR-2026-0001 FOR DESIGN REVIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT REVIEW CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ACQUIRING ALL OTHER JURISDICTIONAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS. TWO, CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PLANS AND DRAWINGS. AND THREE, I'LL BET YOU THEY DON'T FORGET THIS ONE THIS TIME -- DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SHALL EXPIRE IN 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF CITY COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL UNLESS THE APPLICANT OBTAINS INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW APPROVAL AND PERMITS. THAT IS MY PRESENTATION, MR. CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON IT. >> Chair: THANK YOU, GEORGE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? START HERE WITH JAMES, DEBORAH. YOU'RE FINE? DEBORAH? >> THIS IS SORT OF A NON-GERMANE/GERMANE QUESTION. BECAUSE I'M WONDERING WITH THIS MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT, HAVE WE FINALL GOT TO THE JOLLEY TROLLEY ON THE CAUSEWAY? WELL, I MEAN WE WANT MULTIMODAL AND WE KEEP PLANNING FOR MULTIMODAL. AND I HONESTLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANSWER. >> YEAH, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT FOR YOU. >> THAT'S FINE. I MEAN I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT FEATURE AS WE SEE MORE. >> AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT FEE AS PART OF THIS, IT'S ACTUALLY THE MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PAY. >> RIGHT. AND I GET THAT. BUT IT TRIGGERED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WORKED FOR YEARS TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT KIND OF TRANSIT OUT THERE. SO THAT WAS ONE. AND THEN ON THE WINERY, I JUST HAD ANOTHER SMALL QUESTION. SO YOU GO THERE TO DRINK WINE. OR DO YOU GO THERE TO BUY A BOTTLE? YOU HAVE TO REFRESH MY MEMORY. >> I'M JONATHAN POOLE, SCG ARCHITECTURE. IT'S A WINE SHOP WHERE IT'S MORE FOR TASTING. YOU GO IN AND TASTE THE BOTTLE OF WINE. IF YOU HIKE IT, YOU COULD THEN PURCHASE IT. YOU WOULD THEN GO HOME. OR THERE IS A LITTLE LIKE A SUN DECK THAT IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU'D GO UP THERE AND HAVE A GLASS OF WINE. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR REFRESHING MY MEMORY. THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION -- BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE IDEA AND IT'S NOVEL. BUT I'M ALWAYS INTERESTED IF SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK OUT IN AA USAGE, IS IT EASILY ADAPTAGE TO ANOTHER RETAIL USAGE? >> YES, IT WOULD BE ADAPTABLE TO ANOTHER RETAIL USE, CERTAINLY. >> THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. >> Chair: THANK YOU, DEBORAH. SALLY. >> GOOD. >> Chair: ELIZABETH, MICHAEL. VICE CHAIR STANEK. >> THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. SO, GEORGE, YOU MENTIONED THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION TWO YEARS AGO, CORRECT? BUT WAS THERE ANY CHANGES FROM WHEN IT WAS AT THE LPA TWO YEARS AGO TO WHEN IT WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION? AND DO WE KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE? >> YEAH. SO BASICALLY THOSE ARE SUMMARIZED HERE. I GUESS THERE ARE CHANGES BECAUSE THERE WAS A CHANGE TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE WINERY. SO THAT WAS A CHANGE. BUT WE HAVE MORE SPACE. WE BASICALLY HAVE MORE SPACES NOW THAN WE HAD WHEN YOU HAD SEEN IT. THE SECOND IS I THINK YOU HAD SEEN THE CURB CUT TO THE CAUSEWAY. BY THE TIME THAT GOT TO THE COMMISSION, THE COUNTY RESPONDED AND SAID THEY WOULD NOT OFFER THAT CURB CUT TO THE CAUSEWAY. IT WAS REDESIGNED WHERE YOU SEE IT NOW, WHERE IT'S BASICALLY A DEAD END, IF YOU WILL. BUT ALL LOOKED AT BY OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH BEING ABLE TO GET IN THERE AND MAKE ALL THE TURNS THEY NEED AND ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF. THE THIRD PIECE OF IT WAS THE CALCULATIONS JUST GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE GRANULAR ON THE WINERY. EXACTLY WHAT THE FLOOR AREA WERE FOR EACH FLOOR AND THEN AS WAS DISCUSSED, HOW IT WAS TO BE USED. THOSE WERE THE THREE BIG PIECES THAT THE COMMISSION SPOKE ABOUT THAT THEY ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THAT FIRST READING. >> OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS NOTICIND ON THE ELEVATION LOOK AT IT. AND I KNOW WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PINELLAS TRAIL AND THEN HOW CLOSE IT WAS GOING TO BE TO THE WALL. AND IT LOOKS LIKE, BASED ON WHAT I SEE HERE, THAT EITHER IT DIDN'T SHOW THAT MUCH DISTANCE IN BETWEEN -- YEAH, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. >> THAT'S THE CAUSEWAY SIDEWALK. >> RIGHT. >> SO I THINK EVEN THIS BOARD, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT BUILDING BEING A LITTLE BIT TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK. SO THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THAT, TO SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE SETBACK DIFFERENTIALS -- BASICALLY THOSE SETBACKS FOR EACH OF THOSE THINGS, THAT WALL, THAT FRONT SURFACE AREA, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT IT SEEMED TO BE -- EVERYBODY SEEMED TO BE FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH ONCE THEY GOT TO THAT RENDERING. >> I LIKE THAT. YEAH, I THINK THAT WILL MAKE IT VERY NICE FOR EVERYBODY AND SAFE FOR THE RIDERS ON THE TRAIL. MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WAS JUST MORE CURIOSITY. SINCE YOU'RE BRINGING THIS ONE BACK, WHAT DOES IT COST TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE CITY TO GO THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT STEPS? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. >> IT'S $2,000 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. >> OKAY. >> AND THERE'S A LOT OF CITY STAFF WORK OBVIOUSLY THAT GOES INTO THAT, TOO. IT'S A BARGAIN. [LAUGHTER] >> I WILL SAY IT IS FROM BEING ON THE CITY STAFF SIDE. BUT YES, I WAS JUST -- YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU, GEORGE. >> Chair: THANK YOU, PAUL. I HAVE TWO THINGS. ONE, GEORGE, I WANT TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLANTINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT A BICYCLIST BEING UP HIGHER WASN'T GOING TO LITANY OF THE PLANTINGS AS THEY RODE BY. >> I MAY HAVE THE PLANTING PLAN. >> Chair: IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THE CLEARANCE. IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THAT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AT OUR LAST DISCUSSIONS. PERFECT, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. THE REASON THIS IS COMING BEFORE US, SO THE VERTICAL BUILDING PERMITS WERE NOT SECURED IN TIME. WAS THERE ANY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DELAYED IT? AND IS THERE ANY RISK TO THAT GOING FORWARD? OR ARE WE GOOD GOING FORWARD? >> SECURING FINANCING. >> Chair: FINANCING, GOT IT. >> AND I JUST REMIND THE BOARD, TOO, I ACTUALLY ALREADY TALKED TO KATHERINE ABOUT THIS. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS A RESULT OF THIS, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A TICKLER IN OUR FILES ABOUT THREE MONTHS OUT TO REMIND THE DEVELOPER THAT 12-MONTH WINDOW IS COMING. AND WE ALSO OFFER A ONE-TIME EXTENSION TO THAT, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A ONE-TIME EXTENSION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. SO AS PART OF THAT OUTREACH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AHEAD, WE'RE GOING TO START NOTIFYING THE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT'S COMING. >> Chair: FANTASTIC, GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPLICANT, ANY PRESENTATION YOU WANT TO MAKE? WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. AT THIS POINT THEN, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT TO PUBLIC INPUT. DOES ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT. ANY FURTHER APPLICANT OR STAFF RESPONSES TO ANYTHING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT? >> NO, SIR. I THINK WE'RE GOOD UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. >> Chair: NO, GOOD. OKAY. THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND OR OPPOSE THE COMMISSION APPROVAL OF APPLICATION DR-2026-001, DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR 265 CANADIAN 265 CY BOULEVARD. >> I MOVE. >> SECOND. >> Chair: I THINK DEBORAH WAS THE FIRST SECOND. DR. BROOM WITH THE MOTION. GOT IT. WE WILL GO FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [AYES] ANY OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. MOTION MOVED FORWARD AS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS AND GOD SPEED WITH YOUR PROJECT. >> WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS COME TO FRUITION. >> SO DO WE. [LAUGHTER] >> Chair: OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, 1C IS PRESENTATION OF MODULE 3 OF THE RECOMMENDED AND DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATES. GEORGE AND KATHY, YOU ARE ON. >> I'M GOING TO TRY AND STAY QUIET ON THIS ONE. [LAUGHTER] KATHY IS THE PROJECT MANAGER. AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- WE MIGHT NEED ONE SECOND TO PULL UP OUR CONSULTANT. >> STEVE IS ALREADY ONLINE. >> HE'S ALREADY ON. >> CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? >> THERE WE GO. YEAH, WE'VE GOT YOU. >> LOUD AND CLEAR. >> SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LPA, TO PRESENT MODULE 3. AGAIN, YOU ARE SERVING YOUR HAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR THING -- SERVING AS THE TASK FORCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE. YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, YOU HAVE HEARD THIS A FEW TIMES AS WELL. WE ARE NOT ADDING A LOT OF NEW MATERIAL HERE. IT'S MOSTLY REORGANIZING AND GETTING IT ALL IN ONE PLACE. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NEW CONCEPTS THAT I THINK YOU HEARD SOME OF THOSE DURING THE MODULE 2 DISCUSSION. I THINK VERY LITTLE FOR MODULE 3, BUT STEVE IS GOING OVER MODULE 3 LIKE HE DID FOR MODULE 2. DO YOU WANT ME TO TURN IT OVER TO STEVE? >> GO AHEAD. >> AS YOU ALL KNOW, KATHY IS OUR PROJECT MANAGER. WE'RE GOING TO STEVE AND LET HIM JUMP INTO MODULE 3. >> THANKS, GEORGE. STEVE SIZEMORE [INAUDIBLE] COLLABORATIVE. >> HOLD ON A SECOND BEFORE YOU START, STEVE. SO WE PROBABLY -- I DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN THE BACK. BUT CAN WE HAVE THE POWERPOINT AND STEVE IN THE BACKGROUND IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. WE'RE RUNNING THE POWERPOINT FROM HERE. HERE WE GO. >> THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. STILL GOT YOU, STEVE? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE POWERPOINT BUT I HAVE IT GOINGS ON MY SIDE AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. >> SOUNDS GOOD. >> STEVE SIZEMORE, KENDIG KEAST COLLABORATIVE. WE ARE GIVING YOU THE MODULE 3 PROVISIONS FROM THE DRAFT LDC. THIS IS THE LAST PART BEFORE WE CONSOLIDATE EVERYTHING TOGETHER TO WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT AND THE FINAL DR BEFORE IT GOES TO PUBLC HEARING. SO KATHY, IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THROUGH. >> I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING UNTIL I HIT THE DATA FOR MODULE 3. AS THE COMMISSION KNOWS THAT THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. WE ARE MODERNIZING, IMPLEMENTING, ORGANIZING, TAILORING, STREAMLINING AND CREATING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IS CONSISTENT FOR EVERYBODY. HERE WE ARE NOW, WE'RE IN MODULE 3. WE ARE AT THE -- MODULE 3 IS THE REVIEW PROCESS AND PROCEDURES. OKAY, STEVE. SO WRITE NOW, WE'RE DOING ARTICLE 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 AND THIS IS THE PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BODIES, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, NONCONFORMITIES, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATIONS AND WORD USAGE WHICH IS YOUR DEFINITION SECTION. >> YEAH. AND THIS IS -- IF WE ARE ON THE SLIDE WHERE -- >> WE'RE ON SLIDE 7. >> SLIDE 7. >> THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRAFTING MODULES. >> YES, OKAY, ADVANCE. NEW APPROACHES. >> YES. >> OKAY.