CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018, 6:00 P.M.

PRESENT: Chair Diane Brand, Vice-Chair Dan Massaro; Members Adam L. Smith, Matthew Wielinski, Steven Sandbergen, Dennis W. Alspaugh, David R. Pauley and alternate member James L. Roberts ABSENT: Alternate member James (Jim) Graham ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Robert Eschenfelder, City Clerk’s Senior Administrative Assistant Ashley Singh, Director of Planning and Development Gregory Rice, Housing and Economic Development/CRA Director Bob Ironsmith and eighteen people. Chair Brand convened the meeting at 5:59 p.m. Chair Brand explained the rules and procedures of the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and that a public hearing would be conducted. She added that the agency is an advisory board comprised of volunteers who make recommendations to the City Commission. This meeting would be open to the public, and all persons in the audience providing testimony would need to identify themselves and be sworn in by the clerk. Chair Brand advised that although procedures of the board are structured in a quasi-judicial manner, the board itself is not quasi-judicial and has no power to make final decisions on applications brought before them. She then explained the standard public hearing procedure and that at the conclusion of the public hearing, the board would, by vote, give its decision on each matter and the rendition of the board’s order will occur by voice vote at that time and no written decision will be forthcoming. 1.a. Approval of minutes to the Local Planning Agency meeting of October 10, 2018. Vice-Chair Massaro and Chair Brand noted the following corrections: Page 18-9 he thought this was a good idea. Page 18-12 Vice-Chair Massaro asked for the his opinion Page 18-12 they only makes recommendations to the City Commission. MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Pauley and seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the Local Planning Agency Meeting of October 10, 2018 as corrected. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.

City Clerk’s Senior Administrative Assistant swore in all those wishing to speak to or give testimony to any of the agenda items. 1.b. Ordinance 18-31: Amendment to 1991 Main Street Special Public Transportation Zone, requesting the speed limit to 15 MPH on Douglas Avenue between Scotland Street and Skinner Boulevard. Chair Brand introduced the agenda item and determined none of the Board members had ex parte communication with anyone regarding this agenda item. Housing and Economic Development/CRA Director Ironsmith advised: This proposed ordinance is to amend the City’s Special Public Transportation Zone which has been in the downtown since 1991. This zone allows the City to reduce speeds to be more pedestrian oriented, comfortable for parking and safe. Douglas Avenue which is rapidly becoming the next Main Street because of the various projects including the Artisan, Pearly’s, Dunedin Brewery and Woodwright is becoming extremely active and

18-1 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

now the new parking garage is there. Speeds are going through quite fast and there are a lot of mid- block and different types of crossings. The recommendation is to amend the ordinance to include the boundaries for reduced speed from 25 MPH to 15 MPH beginning from Scotland going up to Skinner. Staff thinks this is an important measure. He spoke with each of the LPA members on the phone to explain staff went out of the normal order presenting this to the City Commission first, then the LPA and then it will go back to the City Commission based on the timing and availability of the City Commission meetings in order to get this action in play prior to the peak winter season. A Traffic Consultant was hired with George F. Young, Inc., Jerry Dabkowski; however, he could not attend tonight’s meeting. His recommendation as well as that of the City’s Traffic Committee internally all recommended the reduction in speed. Vice-Chair Massaro verified with Mr. Ironsmith this is only in relation to Douglas Avenue to the CRA boundary south on Scotland. Mr. Sandbergen referred to the staffing, Background: It should be noted that other physical improvements in conjunction with the Douglas Avenue speed reduction may be needed as speed enforcement alone is not always efficient in ensuring speed compliance. Mr. Ironsmith explained that reference is in relation to typically in these situations speed enforcement is not always the best way to go; there will be a reader board there and so forth. It could be a speed table which is not a speed bump, but it is elevated a couple of inches at the crosswalk and there might be some other aspects considered to make sure the physical aspect is there for people to slow down. It is a monitor and review situation. Mr. Sandbergen referred to Item #7. Monroe Street bounded on the east by Douglas Avenue to the west by the Pinellas Trail; he asked about the small section between the Pinellas Trail and Broadway. Mr. Ironsmith stated he would have to take a look at that area and noted it looks like that is currently in the Special Transportation Zone and he thinks that section has always been in the zone as well as Highland, Honey Lane and a few other streets. Mr. Sandbergen asked if there are any signs or indicators because it has always been 25 MPH; how will someone coming into town, when this passes, know. Mr. Ironsmith explained when it goes into effect the reader boards will be put out for notification as it will be a learning curve and the City is not looking to have a lot of enforcement tickets; that is not the role for this. There will be an education period. Vice-Chair Massaro referred to the Introduction page of the George F. Young, Inc. report and verified with Mr. Ironsmith on the graphic everything depicted in red is already in the Special Public Transportation Zone and the yellow is the proposed on Douglas. Mr. Ironsmith commented regarding the success of downtown having been based on walkability, safety and being comfortable to include outdoor seating and crosswalks; this will mirror what is in the rest of downtown. Mr. Alspaugh questioned the current speed limit coming north on Douglas, prior to Scotland and Mr. Ironsmith thought it was 25 MPH or 30 MPH. Mr. Alspaugh was thinking if it is 35 MPH and it is dropped as soon as you cross to 15 MPH there is going to be a period in there and inquired if there would be any kind of a step down for example 35 to 25 to 15 MPH so people are not all of a sudden realizing they are

18-2 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

speeding. Mr. Ironsmith will speak with the consultant regarding a transition. Mr. Smith referred to the report which indicates the posted speed limits along Douglas Avenue are 30 mph, south of Skinner Boulevard, and 25 mph north of Main Street. Mr. Ironsmith commented also that section of Douglas just a little north of Scotland has the parallel parking and has a different feel, so he thinks people will begin to be aware this is a different area and also there is the traffic light. Mr. Wielinski asked if there are any designated crosswalks right now across Douglas between Grant and Skinner. Mr. Ironsmith advised there is one in the middle of the Artisan by Nature’s Food Patch. Mr. Wielinski did not recall there being any signs for crosswalks and Mr. Ironsmith noted there is just the pavement surface there and he agreed it would be best to have a sign as suggested; a pedestrians have the right-for-way type sign. Mr. Pauley verified with Mr. Ironsmith the red areas shown on the graphic in the report are 15 MPH and Mr. Ironsmith noted in the future staff hopes to present the Gateway at 15 MPH also. Mr. Pauley referred to the concern discussed about the Solid Waste trucks blocking the streets and the delivery vehicles as well which is a safety issue and asked if that issue was not addressed when the Artisan was approved. Mr. Ironsmith commented the Artisan did not really come into it, but it did with the Courtyard on Main where they are doing an actual pull off; he thought the issue with the Artisan was all the people moving into the apartments with the moving trucks for a period of time which has calmed down; however, there is still food delivery and the City is asking them to go into the parking area for some of their drop offs. When Mr. Pauley asked how tall the Solid Waste trucks are, Mr. Ironsmith was not sure but definitely more than 8 feet. Mr. Pauley noted the two 10-foot entrances and something he recalled about the Artisan was the trucks would go down that area. Mr. Ironsmith explained they pick up where there is surface parking outside the garage. Mr. Pauley inquired who owns the diagonal parking spaces in front of the Artisan and Mr. Ironsmith explained the City owns the spaces and that the Artisan paid two-thirds and the City one-third for the spaces. Mr. Pauley commented he thought it was a wonderful idea with the new project for pulling off the street and asked if the City recouped those parking spaces since there are a lot of them under that building and used one of those for truck delivery; however, Mr. Ironsmith thought losing those key parking spaces would hurt the overall street and the same intensity is not expected there as there is anticipated with the Courtyard on Main and he noted there are delivery trucks in the streets throughout the downtown and it is part of the environment of downtown. The Public Hearing was opened. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Sandbergen and seconded by Mr. Wielinski to recommend approval of Ordinance 18-31. VOTE: Motion carried 6 – 1 with Mr. Alspaugh, Mr. Wielinski, Mr. Smith, Chair Brand, Vice-Chair Massaro and Mr. Sandbergen voting aye. Voting nay, Mr. Pauley. 1.c. Application DR-18-16: 418 Grant Street Bed & Breakfast: Design review of proposed construction of a 22-room Bed & Breakfast. Chair Brand introduced the agenda item and determined none of the Board members had ex parte communication with anyone regarding this agenda item.

18-3 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Director of Planning & Development Rice advised: The application is for a 22-room transient accommodations facility; the applicant is calling it an Inn. The reason for not using the term Bed & Breakfast is in the Land Development Code a Bed & Breakfast has to be owner occupied and this facility will not be owner occupied. Mr. Rice referred to the PowerPoint presentation to orient the members of the Board to the location of the proposed project of two parcels making up 418 Grant Street. He advised: The recent history of this project is that it started out as 12 homes, 3 stories on the east parcel and 4 stories on the west parcel. That application came to the LPA and was rescinded and a new plan was developed for this project. Background and Purpose The staffing included in the agenda packet has provided more background on what has happened over the past thirty years in the downtown, beginning with discussions in the mid-1970’s, Directions for the Future – 1984 proposing mixed use development; Community Redevelopment Agency and Area – 1988 and Downtown Core Zoning. Over the next 15 years the City funded major improvements to the public realm and there was revitalization. Mr. Rice reviewed information as detailed in the staffing the establishment of the Monroe Park Townhomes in July 1997, across the street from this proposed project. He noted the information from the Visioning Report of 2005 as detailed as well including the introduction of the A, B and C Streets in the downtown with the details for those streets also provided in the staffing. Mr. Rice advised regarding this application: There are two parcels that make up 418 Grant Street with two different types of streets. The east parcel is a “B” Street; the west parcel is a “C” Street. The “B” Street is allowed 3 stories total with step backs past the 2nd story 10 feet; the entire building can be set back zero to 10 feet. The “C” Street is the same as the “B” Street except there are 4 stories allowed. This is a 2-story building; therefore, the step backs do not come into play. Community Input The applicant held a meeting on September 26, 2018. Invitations were sent to residents and businesses within 500 feet. There were 10 attendees. Notes that were provided included the positive and negative comments. Positive Comments: Overall design and landscape is very “soft” and neighborly; a welcoming addition to the CRA District; parking is adequately provided and out of sight; development will displace Grant Street loading zone which is currently in front of the site; solar power and energy efficient building fits Dunedin’s common core and goals. Negative Comments: Guest noise; 22 rooms seem to be too many for the neighborhood; construction noise and material deliveries; flooding and drainage; no resident manager living on-site; parking for guests in municipal garage. Downtown Core Zoning District and Design Review Regulations 104-24.7.6 -Traffic Impact Analysis

18-4 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

According to the traffic impact analysis report provided by the applicant, the subject property is currently used as a single-family residential. The applicant is proposing to construct a hotel use which will bring 22 lodging units onto the property. Based on the proposal, the applicant conducted an analysis based on the 8th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report and the results are the following: Existing (1) Single-family residential dwelling unit: Calculated Daily Trips = 6 Peak PM Total Trips= 1 Proposed (22) Suite Hotel Units: Calculated Daily Trips = 108 Peak PM Total Trips =9. Traffic impact analysis report provided by the applicant for reference is attached to staffing. 105-33.5.8 -Mobility Management Per Section 105-33.5.8 (F), development projects that generate less than 51 new peak hour trips are required to pay a Multi-Modal Impact Fee in accordance with Section 150: Impact Fees, of the Pinellas County Land Development Code and are not required to submit a transportation management plan or traffic study. The proposed project will not require a transportation management plan or a traffic study. 105-22 Common Open Space Common open space will be created at a rate of 100 sf per 1,000 sf of gross floor area. For this project 2,200 sf is required as a condition of approval. 105-23 Circulation and Mobility The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection from the right-of-way to the entrance of the building. The applicant provided a sidewalk connection from the existing sidewalk in the right-of-way to the entrances of the building. Attached to the staff report are the site plans provided by the applicant for reference. 105-24 Parking, Loading, and Stacking The proposed 22-unit hotel use will require the following number of parking spaces: Hotel, motel, condo-hotel 22 rooms at 0.8 space per room + 1 per 800 sf meeting space = 20 parking spaces required minimum. The applicant provided 22 parking spaces on the site which meets the parking requirement. 105-25 Buffers and Screening This project is not required to provide a buffer in a mixed-use zoning district (Downtown Core "DC"). 105-26 Fences and Walls There will be a six-foot fence on the east, west, and north sides of the project. 105-27 Zoning District Design Standards Supplemental Height Requirements in the "DC" Downtown Core Zoning District 103-40.4.1 -"B" and "C" (split parcel) Street Requirements (staff analysis in bold italics) Graphic provided in the staffing.

18-5 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

1) New construction shall be built directly to the front lot line or edge of public right-of-way and maintain a continuous façade. Meets this requirement. 2) One passageway between buildings (seven-foot maximum width) shall be provided mid-point per block. Passageway construction may be waived at the discretion of the zoning administrator if no demonstrated public benefit is achieved by the provisions of such passageway. NIA. 3) Maximum building height shall be limited to three stories, or 40 feet, whichever is less. The proposed project is two stories with a maximum height of 35 feet. 4) First floor minimum height shall be 16 feet and remaining floors shall be a minimum height of ten feet. Minimum floor heights may be varied at the discretion of the City Commission. Application to the City Commission, through the Local Planning Agency (LPA) shall be made by an applicant for the City to determine if a proposed floor height reduction meets the intent of the zoning district and the applicable standards. The 16-foot height is designed for hotels and/or restaurants. The proposed project requests a waiver to lower first floor height to 12 feet; in this case there are 2 floors of transient accommodation. 5) For multiple story buildings, a ten-foot minimum step back behind the primary façade of the building shall be required for stories above the second story for portions of a building facing or bordering a public right-of-way or the Pinellas Trail. Step back area may be utilized as a balcony, gallery, or similar purpose. NIA. 6) At the discretion of the City Commission, the ten-foot step back may be waived if other architectural features are able to eliminate the "canyon effect" caused by multi-storied buildings with flat, non- dimensional frontage. NIA. 105-28 Building Design Coastal Vernacular - Architectural Review Committee Analysis follows below: Review 418 Grant Street- Applicant was not present; Greg Rice presented the overview of the project. Project Overview- The applicant is proposing a 22-room bed and breakfast use to be located on two parcels located a 418 Grant Street. The property is within the Downtown Core Zoning. The applicant is proposing to have the structure be powered with 100% solar energy. Comments- The committee determined that the style of architecture for this project is Coastal Vernacular. Overall, the rendering is not representative of what is shown in plans/elevations. The renderings need to match what the plans are showing: The stairs leading up to the second floor at the northwest side is missing a landing in the rendering. Fenestration is missing on the 2 units on the second floor on the south side of the rendering. Some of the proposed landscaping is not shown in the rendering as proposed in the landscaping plan as well as the types are not shown correctly. If certain species of plantings cannot be accurately shown in the

18-6 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 rendering, provide a disclaimer on the rendering and indicate the actual proposed plantings will be shown in the landscape plan. A material and color swatch board shall be included in the next submittal to ensure the accuracy of what is being presented to the public. The exterior finishing shall be shown in elevation and rendering or called out as accurately as possible. Proposed materials shall be called out in elevation for future submittal. The committee recommends changing the color of the proposed shutters to a more contrasting color like gray and making sure the color/material of the columns is consistent throughout the rendering of the project. The committee recommends the fence to be white PVC material. Regarding the Landscape Plan-For the Veitchia Merrillii, suggest changing the palms to foxtails for consistency. Is there a concern for the palm becoming susceptible to lethal yellowing disease? Is this palm the same as Adonidia Merrillii? On the east side, there is a holly proposed. The west side of the landscaping should match with the east side. Proposed Sabal Palms must be at a minimum of 10 ft. of clear trunk for better establishment and increase the chance of survivability. Recommend providing more color into the proposed landscaping. There is too much green, not enough varied colors. Zanadoon one location. Decision/Vote- The committee made a recommendation to approve the proposed project, 418 Grant Street, subject to the comments that are provided to the applicant are met as well as reviewed and approved by the LPA. Motion was made by Andrew Pavalis, Seconded by Laura Duplain. Motion Passed 4-0. Mr. Rice advised he received updated renderings which take into account some of the comments by the Architectural Review Committee. 105-28.4 Sustainability Please see attached Sustainability Checklist. 105-29 -Sign Regulations Monument sign only-approved as part of the building permit application. 104-26 -LDO Determination NIA. Mr. Rice then presented the visual of the PowerPoint with renderings from various points of view and pointed out the various elements of the project. CONCLUSION City Staff are recommending a CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of Application DR-18-16. Please see analysis and conditions listed by department/division below. CITY ARBORIST Project Recommendation: The Parks Department (Arborist) recommends APPROVAL of the above application, so long as the following items are addressed during infrastructure review:

18-7 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Conditions: Infrastructure & Building Plan Review - (future requirements, not applicable during Design Review): 1. 105-35.9 -Permit 2. 105-35.12 -New Construction Tree Permit Requirements (Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan) 3. 105-35.16 -Replacement Trees 4. 105-35.18 -Care of Trees During and Following Development (there is one offsite 12" tree at the northwest corner that must be preserved, meaning the pool may need to be adjusted further south). ENGINEERING None FIRE MARSHAL Conditions: 5. Building will be fully sprinklered. 6. Building will have a fire alarm system. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Conditions: 7. City Commission waiver of first floor height of 12 feet (see LDC Section 103-40.4.3). 8. Common open space requirement of 2,200 sf. 9. A 5-space bicycle rack is required - LDC Section 105-24.4.9. 10. Recycling plan required for the project. SOLID WASTE The Solid Waste Division has reviewed the plan and has the following comments and conditions: Comments: 1. Trash collections are available up to six (6) days per week (Mon-Sat). 2. Garbage service is provided by the City of Dunedin and billed through the City's Utility Billing Department; Recycling services are billed through a separate agreement between the Property Owner/HOA/or its agent and Waste Pro USA (or a different private recycling hauler of choice). Conditions: 11. Weekly garbage and recycling services are required for all mixed use of residential and commercial properties sharing containers. 12. There must be a smooth beveled transition between the walkway/sidewalk pavement and the street so the containers casters can easily roll to the street for service. 13. Florida Statute 403.706(c) requires new developments for multifamily residential & commercial purposes must provide adequate space and an adequate amount of receptacle capacity for recycling by tenants and owners of the property. 14. All garbage and recycling containers must be stored out of public view, except when the City or Waste Pro USA empties the containers on collection day.

18-8 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

15. Collection Trucks cannot block traffic and must be able to pull over in the west direction on Grant Street to provide service, and the Solid Waste Division must have unobstructed access to the containers and the trash room door(s) must be opened by others on service days. INTERVENING ACTION - None. Questions for Staff Mr. Sandbergen verified with Mr. Rice the public sidewalk would not be lost. Mr. Smith verified with Mr. Rice the columns on the two porches are essentially the zero setback. When Vice-Chair Massaro asked why this is not just called a motel, Mr. Rice stated it could be. In response to the question from Vice-Chair Massaro, Mr. Rice advised they are allowed a monument sign if they so choose and there is property left with the side setbacks available for signage. Vice-Chair Massaro verified with Mr. Rice this property has never been before the LPA as a motel; it was before the Board as townhomes. Vice-Chair Massaro commented when he saw “transient accommodations” he had visions of that type of development prior to the changes in the Code that gave the city a very poor reputation; that is why he inquiring about the use of that terminology which he thinks is kind of souring. Mr. Rice advised that he did clarify with the owner/applicant regarding this not being a bed & breakfast and no owner on site that the staffing will be 24/7 with someone on site at all times. He acknowledged his understanding that a person can be driving down the street and pull in and find the clerk and find if there is a room available; however, he wanted the applicant to confirm. Mr. Rice advised he asked the applicant about the concerns this might be a spring break hang out and was told the price point is over $200 per night; therefore, the Planning and Development Department does not think this is going to be a likely location for spring break. Vice-Chair Massaro commented even though this is Downtown Core right there it is mostly all residential properties and inquired if the new development is not single family townhouses. Mr. Ironsmith explained they are single family with the shops in the front. Vice-Chair Massaro noted also there are some existing parcels along Grant Street that are single family residential; however, Mr. Rice advised Grant Street is all Downtown Core. Vice-Chair Massaro clarified with Mr. Ironsmith there are no businesses along Grant Street except the one to the east toward Highland on the south side of Grant Street that he recalled was something like an interior decorator. Vice-Chair Massaro commented he found it hard to believe in that residential area of the downtown area that the City would allow a motel to be built; it surprises him to see that there. His understanding is that staff it telling him since they are recommending approval that within the Downtown Core the use of one of the buildings within that district could be a motel. Mr. Rice acknowledged that was correct as well as a bed & breakfast or a restaurant or bar; the Downtown Core is wide open in terms of the uses allowed. At the request from Vice-Chair Massaro, Mr. Rice reviewed the element of the parcel being split with the west parcel being designated as a “C” Street which the setback is zero - 10 feet, 4 stories allowed and it has to have a step back over the 2nd story; the east parcel is a “B” Street with the same setback and step back requirement, but with a maximum of 3 stories. He noted this is a 2-story building. When Vice-Chair Massaro inquired regarding density and site coverage, Mr. Rice advised Downtown Core allows for 50 transient accommodation rooms per acre; this comes out to 22 rooms and acknowledged all requirements are met for the free and green area around the building and noted the renderings show the building is not built to the lot lines; there is distance from the building to the property line.

18-9 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Vice-Chair Massaro referred to the 105-27 Zoning District Design Standards; #6 and that the staffing indicates the area would not be impacted by this issue. Mr. Rice explained that is correct because the step back is required above the 2nd story; the step back applies to the 3rd and 4th stories depending on the street classification. Vice-Chair Massaro explained he was looking for an increase in the setback. He recalled there has been experience with projects built to the lot line and it was found many people were unhappy with the end result. He noted in the last Visioning the discussion indicated this issue would be addressed again and see if the situation could be corrected; he asked where the City is with that issue. Mr. Rice advised he is drafting the new Code sections currently for review by City Attorney Trask to work into ordinances. The City is looking at three different zones in a frontage area, the furniture zone of 3 feet for lampposts, trash receptacles and so forth; a pedestrian zone of 8 feet that would be the walkway and depending on activity like outdoor dining another 6 feet would be added. If that were in effect it would impact this project by having a wider sidewalk; he acknowledged it would gain a little setback. Vice-Chair Massaro commented on hurrying to get these things done. Vice-Chair Massaro noted the Board no longer sees plans; however, requested hearing some detail like floor plans; his assumption in calling it a motel that it is a room with a bathroom and Mr. Rice acknowledged that was correct. Mr. Rice explained the reason the Board no longer sees plans is the attempt to get the feeling of the Local Planning Agency, up or down and City Commission up or down prior to going to the level of vertical building plans and civil engineering. Vice-Chair Massaro commented knowing somewhere in this report that these are designed as typical motel rooms would have been helpful and he would not have been asking so many questions. City Attorney Eschenfelder explained in order to sort of ground the Board on that point: Attention has to be paid to what category of review each case is. This is Design Review and the Code, as probably the Board members know better than he does, provides that it is a high level conceptual review. As he understands the history of why it is in the Code is because the City wanted an opportunity to slowly look at a project without the developer/landowner spending a significant amount of money getting an architect to design every last thing; so what is going to be put there in general and let the City take a look at it. That is where things are tonight. While certainly a Local Planning Agency is entitled to take into account and make recommendations about the impact of a given project on surrounding property, the focus tonight really should be on the design review criteria in the Code as to this property; whether it fits into the overall Comprehensive Plan situation which is a review to come. The question is good as a term of general policy; however, in fairness to the applicant and where we are in the process and what they are ready to present he wanted to re-ground everyone and, maybe those watching, why staff has presented in the way they have. Vice-Chair Massaro commented he appreciated that; however, a little more information would have been helpful. He reiterated his concern recalling what the city had seen with very difficult transient type of facilities and he does not want the city moving in that direction; had he known this was typical motel rooms he would not have asked so many questions.

18-10 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Vice-Chair Massaro noted regarding the history, this is the first time Mr. Rice had provided this and he was glad to see it in print and he thinks it would be beneficial for the City Commission to understand where we have been, how we started and the progression coming to today. Mr. Wielinski referred to the comments from the Architectural Review Committee and asked which ones had been incorporated into these new plans or schematics. Mr. Rice advised: The stairs leading up to the second floor at the northwest side is missing a landing in the rendering. The landing was added. Some of the proposed landscaping is not shown in the rendering as proposed in the landscaping plan. The Landscape Architect explained part of the problem when doing these 3-D renderings is you do not have every species of every tree and shrub that is just available very easily. She recommended and the applicant followed through was to put in something as close as possible to the actual landscape plan. The committee recommends changing the color of the proposed shutters to a more contrasting color. The colors were adjusted. The committee recommends the fence to be white PVC material. That material was adjusted. There was some very specific criteria for the landscaping. Mr. Wielinski questioned how tall the garage is and Mr. Rice deferred to the applicant. Mr. Sandbergen stated he spent the day reading about bed & breakfasts and was not anticipating this being called an Inn. He asked for a definition of the difference between the two. Mr. Rice explained the definition in the City’s Land Development Code of a Bed & Breakfast is an owner occupied facility that acts like a residential home; obviously it can be quite large with quite a few rooms. In this case it is going to have 24/7 staff but it will not be owner occupied and that is why the change to an Inn or motel. Vice-Chair Massaro in reference the landscape plan and can tell every kind of plant exactly specified in this preliminary plan, but they can’t show him a floor plan; that is his issue. He understands attempting to make things easy for the developer and not costing a lot of money for engineering and architecture detail. A little bit more of an idea of what the Board is approving would be helpful; he does not really care about the specific type of tree or plant going in; though it must be important to somebody because that is what they are providing. Applicant Presentation Attorney Ed Armstrong with Hill, Ward, Henderson of 600 Cleveland Street, Ste 800, Clearwater representing the applicant commented. He advised he had with him two witnesses to present information, Rod Collman, the project architect and Doug Anderson the General Contractor involved in the project. He stated he thought staff gave a very thorough report and he had a couple of comments. He stated: This is a permitted use in the zoning district; that is not in dispute. Excerpts from the City’s Zoning Code that discusses the Downtown Core zoning district: Provides an aesthetically pleasing and efficient multi-use center, downtown zoning is composed of mixed land uses for residential, commercial, and service purposes. It encourages residential uses to be proximate to the commercial and activity center, to provide for the maximum use in return on

18-11 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

the investment by permitted mixed land uses on a parcel. This is the context in which City staff reviewed this potential project. Vice-Chair Massaro has always asked really good questions and that is appreciated. They believe their two witnesses will be able to answer virtually, hopefully every question asked; however, at the end of the day they will come back to the very appropriate questions asked, FAR, ISR, all those things; they complied with the Code and are not seeking any variances. Obviously that is no accident as Mr. Collman and the development team had that code as they were designing the project and it was absolutely designed to comply with what the City’s Code requires. He understands there might be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Code should not say what it says; however, if that is the case then the remedy is for the City Commission to revise the Code. All this property owner and applicant can do is design to the code in effect at the time of submitting the application and they have done that and they know they are entitled to be judged on that basis. As this Board enters into their analysis and deliberation they respectfully ask that the members be mindful of that. Rod Collman, SDG Architecture of 793 San Christopher Drive, Suite A, Dunedin commented he thinks this is not only an attractive building for the Downtown Core and the use, but also a building that is compliant with not only the Design Review, but also the zoning district regulations. He would make some clarifications in reference to the staff report and discuss answers to some of the questions asked. He advised: The eastern half of the property with the “B” Street and 40 feet; on their building height their highest roof element is approximately 34 feet that is above the crown of the road. Their property is almost 5 feet above the crown of the road, so the highest element of the roof above the floor is only 29 feet for a 2-story building. That is much lower than the 40 feet normally measured from the grade; that also applies to the eastern half which is the “C” Street which is 52 feet. The required parking spaces are 20 and they have 22 spaces out of sight below the building. The buffer, even though not required, would be installing a 6-foot vinyl fence around the perimeter. Regarding the setback, they designed the building so that the building mass is actually 20 feet from the property line on the sides allowing themselves the capability for the landscaping. The 2,200 square feet Mr. Rice mentioned for the Common Area is actually exceeded by three times that with approximately 7,500 square feet of open common area. In the Downtown Core that is fairly unique in looking at many of the facilities including the residential in the area. They have corrected all the items the Architectural Review Committee has mentioned in their report. They also brought a project palette architectural element document which he could provide to each of the Board members. The document explains how they have, with different features of the architecture, met the definition of Coastal Vernacular; this document was not required for the package presented tonight; however, he does think it will be in the future and they thought it would be a good idea to bring it forward. (Mr. Collman distributed a copy of the document to the Board members.) The document lists from the regulations recommendations of the descriptions of the Coastal Vernacular elements. The graphics in the document demonstrate meeting as many requirements as they could for the description and it includes their color palette. (The first and second floors are all the same color, the printing of the photograph shows up a little differently.)

18-12 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

The parking garage requires a height of at least 8 feet clearance which will be provided. If they went to the 16-foot required height for the retail businesses that would be 4 additional feet they really do not need. In their effort to keep the mass down they prefer not to have the extra 4 feet. Mr. Alspaugh verified with Mr. Collman the garage is planned at approximately 3 feet below the street, because their grade is up almost 5 feet. Mr. Sandbergen referred to starting off this morning as a bed & breakfast that has morphed into an Inn and asked if there will be cooking in the individual units as in kitchenette type units. Mr. Collman advised the rooms are 400 square feet and are intended to have a separate sleeping area and a sitting area and small kitchenette expected in a higher grade hotel room. Mr. Sandbergen asked then there is no centralized television area, socializing area; it is a hotel situation. Mr. Collman responded he feels it is more of a hotel; however, he did not know the definition of a motel/hotel; he thinks the connotation of a hotel or Inn is a little higher quality than a motel. Vice-Chair Massaro verified with Mr. Collman there will be an employee who will be on site 24/7. Chair Brand commented it is great they are incorporating the on-site renewable energy generation technologies and noted on Page 8 it indicates this structure will be powered by 100% solar energy and offered kudos for that and the entire project as that is what is needed for new construction going forward. She asked how many solar panels and at what angle they actually are planned and Mr. Collman advised they are at the right angle to capture the highest efficiency of the sun and for the number of panels they used the calculations provided by a solar installer and he acknowledged an analysis was initiated by the property owner, not his company. Vice-Chair Massaro verified with Mr. Collman all the second floor rooms have balconies and the rooms on the main floor have patios onto green areas. Doug Anderson, General Contractor provided the following information: The analysis indicated 36kw worth of solar; the structure is being built using insulated concrete foam construction which helps with the solar demand because in itself it uses 70% less than the conventional building. They will incorporate in their design ceiling illumination that will be all LED type recessed. Also, they will be using a tremendous amount of isolation foam for the insulation under the floors and the roof deck. It takes 96 panels to generate the 36kw. He built the home in the path of Hurricane Michael that is being called “the miracle home” and they are using the same design techniques for this building. This will be his third project making the building 100% energy efficient. Regarding the rooms they will be exactly like an Embassy Suites room, almost the same size with a mini refrigerator and possibly a microwave. They will hire a professional hospitality management company to manage this project and it will be staffed with an employee even during the late night hours, 24/7; during the day there will be more than one employee on site. He is anticipating the price point to be about $200.00 per night, so the clientele will be different from the typical motel. When Chair Brand suggested a charging station would be appropriate, Mr. Anderson advised they were planning two because that is becoming more significant. Mr. Smith Inquired about capturing rain water and noted he is not seeing gutters and downspouts. Mr.

18-13 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Anderson explained they have not completely dealt with that as yet; however, noted it is an important element for water recovery and will be more of an aspect in the future. Mr. Smith acknowledged that was not necessary for this review. Mr. Sandbergen asked the length of time to construct a project like this and Mr. Anderson advised it will be 12 to 14 months. In response to the question from Mr. Wielinski, Mr. Anderson advised the other projects he has done like this are in the panhandle. When Chair Brand asked if they both sustained the hurricane, Mr. Anderson related some history of the buildings noting he also previously thought building to 140 mph winds was sufficient; however, the Code really says when it pertains to windows and doors in 108 mph steady state winds with a peak gust of 140 mph for 3 seconds or less; therefore, there were very high winds far beyond the design capabilities of many things. Where the house was in Mexico Beach he built last year, they had 178 knots steady state winds and gusts of 201 mph at Tyndall Air Force Base five miles away, the strongest storm to hit Florida since 1851 and the destruction was massive. Every single ICF structure they built only took minimum damage to screens, soffits and those types of things. Also, on their office building the solar panels remained intact and was generating energy right after the storm. When Mr. Sandbergen asked if he had built a project similar in size to this one, Mr. Anderson explained he had done projects similar in size; however, not particularly an Inn, but buildings far greater in size than this one, mostly in Texas and here they have mainly focused on residential construction and some commercial, several buildings for Defense contracts some of which were around Tyndall Air Force Base. In response to the question from Chair Brand, Mr. Anderson advised his company is just starting a 7 unit townhouse project on Alternate 19 across from Marker 8. Attorney Armstrong stated he had nothing further to add at this point; however, reserved their right to respond to any objections. The Public Hearing was opened. Chair Brand advised it has been determined there will be a 3-minute time limit. Ronald Komosinski of 411 Grant Street advised he is President of the Parks Homeowners Association and he has lived there for 15 years and knows the street extremely well. He is also by profession a realtor for the past 40 years in the Tampa Bay Area, so he understands values quite well. The proposed building looks like a beautiful project; however, he wanted to provide an idea of what their street is made up of and about the people on the street. They have a total of 21 townhomes and villas, not 14. As taxpayers last year they paid $67,450 in property taxes, significant values. Their homes are currently selling from $408,000 to $569,000. There are other residents on this street; there are 6 duplexes on the north side of Grant Street with a total of about 12 residents full time. Their complex has approximately 42 full time residents, so on that that street there are 54 permanent residents. The street is built out except for 3 lots, the first two are next to Pearly’s that have been discussed all evening and those lots are less than .25 acre and together are less than .5 acre. The third vacant lot is to the east almost to Highland Street, that is a little under .25 acre and is on the market currently for $350,000, whoever buys that will probably put a residential home on it. Their concern is not the looks of the project, but it will double the population of the street, during the season basically that place will be filled and even at $200.00 a night there will be college kids coming in, recalling college days he suggested they could put 4, 6, 8 kids in there and split the fee; there are 7 breweries in walking distance, so it will be quite interesting. The only thing they are asking is to consider the residents of that street; they understand being in the Downtown Core, but that property is just too big a blue print for a little under .5 acre.

18-14 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Andrea Dickson of 415 Grant Street stated the residents of Monroe Park have signed a petition because they are not pleased with this project. Chair Brand advised she received the petition through e-mail and the other members acknowledged they had received it as well. Ms. Dickson stated they had a couple of late signatures, but they had over 70% approval for nixing the project. It looks like a wonderful project, but it is across the street from their homes. She has lived here since the late 1990’s and they have a problem with parking there and she thinks this will double or triple the parking and transient style of what will be in that lot which is something they do not like. They do not want the project and prefer to see residential homes, something that blends into the community. Monroe Park is a Planned Urban Development; she has an office attached to her house and she could have it rented out, but she uses it as her own office. Cheryl Blatt of 445 Grant Street asked if the Board members would like to have a $.5 Million property in a motel across the street from them. That is what they are facing, transient traffic with all breweries up and down the street, people will be passed out on the corners; it happened to her neighbor already; he has to turn the sprinkler system on to get them to wake up and leave, better than calling the cops. She suggested the applicant did not want to live across from this property because he sold his unit just before this plan was announced and took a considerable financial loss. That said, it is not going to be good for anyone who lives on the street or owns property. She thinks it is a beautiful property, a great plan; she just does not want to see it on Grant Street. She thinks it might be good for Dunedin and if the price point is upwards of $200.00 a night, great, so is the Fenway and everything else in town. She just checked and that is not a special price and if they can’t get that will they lower the price to fill the rooms. At what point does it become not as wonderful as it was promoted to be and at what point does the owner decide to sell it and there is no idea what comes in the future. She knows it is Downtown Core, but it is still residential and they would like to keep it that way. She was hoping the owner would have moved forward with the townhomes that was the original proposal; perhaps if there were not as many crowded into the property it would have been a going proposition and they would all be happy. She does not see this as a viable option. Beth Waybrant of 458 Grant Street stated they also have property that has the possibility of having a business or office, but they are using it for personal use and not running a business out of their home. She loves the neighborhood and street. It is a beautiful building, but she has a hard time with having a motel down the street. She went to the original planning meeting and it was billed as a bed & breakfast and she thought that if it was like the Meronova Inn she had no problem, it is nice and only a few people coming and going. Then when they went to the meeting it seemed to be more like a motel and not bed & breakfast; they are not serving food and not living on the property and there will be 22 cars every day going underneath. The grade on that street as mentioned is a little higher than the opposite side of the street, so it will be higher than 2 stories when compared to the people who live directly across the street. She moved there because she loves to be downtown and she has no problem with music and festivals and things, but she did not want to live on a street with a 22 room motel. She agreed with the townhouses being a lower number, height would have been okay for a residential use or an actual bed & breakfast. The idea of a motel is kind of scary and she is worried about her property value and doubling the traffic on the street. Dennis Holmberg of 458 Grant Street stated his final destination in being here in Pinellas County for the past 40 years was coming to Dunedin with the Blue Jays. He rented in Dunedin way back when and bought in Dunedin way back when and moved out to Palm Harbor for the last 30 or so years, but the last two years he and Ms. Waybrant decided to move to downtown Dunedin where it is quiet and quaint and

18-15 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 baseball related and everything else on Main Street they really enjoy. This project is a little absurd for the street they live on that is a residential street for neighbors and friends and is quiet and quaint and ties into Dunedin. Building a property like this may as well be moved across from the Marker 8 where he has another property going up as it would be better served on Alternate 19. Just the traffic along with everything else that has been expressed he thinks he is on board with. He thinks it is important to keep it quiet and quaint and residential. It was a destination they chose over three or four other places to move into downtown Dunedin because they would not be buffered by that commercial property with the traffic it would bring into the street; it might be good for the City of Dunedin. He is also concerned that on every piece of property something is being built, squeezed in; although he understands the taxes and profits and everything being gained. As a resident, along with other residents on that street, he thinks they should be provided some consideration for just being where they want to live and associate with others of like personalities in the retirement area of a sort. He is sure there is another area of Dunedin where this could be built. He believes they have no qualms with other residential types like townhouses as long as they are with the style and architectural design on that street. He would like to think consideration would be given to the residents on the street to live a quiet, peaceful, quaint Dunedin life. John Freeborn owner of the property at 360 Monroe Street to the west of this project stated he is also Chair of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee (CRAAC). In his official capacity he is saying their board had reviewed the project and did have unanimous support for the project. The thing the committee was mostly pleased with was the rooms do not have full kitchens so there would be business for the downtown dining establishments. The committee felt as a Downtown Core designated area that it could provide business use that would be compatible with what is there. As a property owner and not as a CRAAC member they feel it is better than the 4 stories that could be there with townhomes; he thought the initial drawings were at least 3 and maybe 4 stories. The solar is a good thing and hopefully would be an inspiration for other projects in the downtown area. Jeanne Hirth of 538 Wilkie Street stated she does not live close to this project. She supports the project because as we speak there are shanty town style accommodations popping up all over the city, illegal garages, sheds, and kids bedrooms for rent all over the city. There is a great need for accommodations for the guests of our city. She thinks it would serve the community and guests well if we were to review and approve dignified, quaint and charming accommodations that are legal such as this. Her expectation is that as a community provides such accommodations for the guests of the city maybe then residents can reasonably expect the City to crack down on the illegal garage/apartment short-term rentals, sheds and vacation accommodations popping up all over the town. Vice-Chair Massaro in reference to these comments asked if that is an issue in the city and Mr. Rice advised it is and that from Airbnb alone the map on the website has over 500 entries; the city has an ordinance that does not allow transient accommodations; they must be a minimum of 90 days rental in traditional neighborhoods. Many of those 500 are in traditional neighborhoods. The City is working with a company to provide a database of those and the City Commission wants a listening session for residents to speak to vacation rentals. The State has allowed it anywhere unless there was an ordinance in place prior to 2011 which Dunedin did; therefore, the City is able to keep that ordinance. The Commission wants to hear from the residents. The most difficult thing for Code Enforcement is to figure out the location as most do not show the front of the house any longer on the website, so it is difficult to find who is doing it and where, but this company says they use twenty different databases and some algorithm to be able show the addresses. It is a current issue. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Brand closed the public hearing.

18-16 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Applicant Response Attorney Armstrong made the following comments: For the people present expressing their concerns a theme seems to be that this is a nice looking project, but they really don’t like it in their neighborhood. That is often heard. As evidenced by the testimony of the City staff and the Applicant’s witnesses the fact of the matter is this project does comply with all applicable City Codes. There was a suggestion that residents pay a certain amount in property taxes; therefore, that should be a consideration; however, according to Design Review Criteria it is not a consideration and irrelevant to the question before this Board this evening. In terms of parking the code requirements are met. There were many comments along the lines of this being a single family neighborhood; however, he would close the way he started. Downtown Core zoning before the townhomes were built on Grant Street across from this property, Downtown Core zoning and the folks tonight objecting he does not question that they are sincere, but they moved into a Downtown Core zoning district accepting that there would be a mix of uses in that area as set forth and promoted by the Land Development Code. Mr. Smith referred to the comment about spring breakers renting places and asked if there is a law for a minimum age to rent something or does this genuinely fall back on the person running the motel; he asks because he does not see Dunedin as a spring break place where they would crowd eight people in these rooms. When he visits the local breweries the people are generally not of that type. Attorney Armstrong noted he was not an expert on motel operation; however, he thought Mr. Smith’s observations are spot on, particularly being this close to the beach. He has daughters in college and they all go where their friends go and the pack in to large beaches; it strikes him this would not be the most desirable location. In terms of the age, his understanding is a minimum of 21, but the hotel operator could probably raise that, he did not know if that raises a discrimination problem. Mr. Smith stated he brought it up thinking maybe the owner could give that thought when considering the management company that it is not being rented to 21 year olds; however, it might be a legal issue. Attorney Armstrong noted from a practical side they do not want to bring in tenants who are going to run off other tenants and spoil their business reputation, which is bad business and is the last thing they need here. If it were going to be that type of establishment they would be putting it on Clearwater Beach that is a huge draw for that type of crowd. City Attorney Eschenfelder stated in reviewing the application documents submitted and it has been discussed in a variety of places including the agenda, the term Bed & Breakfast is used. He believed some of the application materials are framed to say Bed & Breakfast, so it would probably be helpful if the applicant could confirm on the record that he is not seeking any approval for a Bed & Breakfast as defined in the Code. Attorney Armstrong agreed there has been a lot of discussion back and forth about how to characterize the facility. It is clear now that Bed & Breakfast is not appropriate; they will stipulate on the record, that is not what the application is; it falls under the classic heading as it is in most codes as a transient housing, people coming and going, regulated of course, but it is transient housing. Attorney Eschenfelder noted to pick up on the question of renting and so forth his experience and research indicates the owner will be required in addition to the City Codes will have to go the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) to obtain a license to run a hotel from the Division of Hotels

18-17 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 and Restaurants and there is a whole set of regulations there and minimum qualifications. He commented having a recently turned 18-year old who proclaimed he could finally rent a hotel room, he is guessing that 18 is the age in Florida to do that. Vice-Chair Massaro noted the applicant has indicated that they have property rights here and they are proposing a project that falls within the requirements of the Core zoning, they meet the requirements and there are no objections, but there are some conditions set forth by City staff, but none of those seem to be so critical they would deny the project. He commented this Board has to make a decision yea or nay if this property does meet those requirements established within the Core. He is guilty here talking about the history; he goes back to that history and the City did a lot of things to establish these Core requirements, he has been there all along the way. He respects the property owner’s rights, but he also respects the rights of the current applicant to meet the code requirements. He asked if he can say no because he is not crazy about this project purely on that or because it meets the requirements he is obligated because he sits on this Board to say yes because it meets the requirements; therefore, yes. City Attorney Eschenfelder stated: As Attorney Armstrong mentioned folks who bought in knowing the place was zoned as it is. That happens all the time, he gave the example where he lives there is a lot of forested land and there have been occasions over the past five to ten years where all of a sudden tractors come and start tearing trees down for apartments to be built and people who live there looking at the trees are not happy and that is not what they bought into, but the zoning map has always been and “buyer beware” and anyone who buys property is well advised to look at the surrounding zoning. That being said anyone in the position of these neighbors having this facility across from their property would feel the same; it is not shocking. Returning to the duty as a member of the LPA the members took an oath of office to faithfully apply the laws of the State of Dunedin and the State of Florida and Constitution, so what they look to in this Design Review case is the factors set forth in the Land Development Code on Design Review, which is more design focused, does it meet the City’s requirements for the look and feel and is it constructed in one of the vernaculars set forth in the Code. Whether the type of facility is a type of facility that should be in that zoning district is not really what is before this body tonight. As all the members know the zoning for this stretch of the city was long ago established in the Land Development Code as Downtown Core and anyone who was involved in those debates at that time could read the list of authorized uses and as Mr. Rice indicated one of those authorized uses is the transient lodging, hotel/motel. Then it comes to the debate of this facility, the scale and type of use if you look at what is currently there, down the block is single family houses or duplexes and it could forever change the nature of that block, yes it could and one would argue and he is a lawyer and he is not taking a policy decision, but one would argue that when the elected City Commission voted to approve the zoning for this part of the City it envisioned that change would incrementally come and it may well be that additional projects of like scale and size eventually take place if the land is acquired. He recalled it was mentioned one of the lots was for sale for $350,000, so who knows if someone will buy that and combine it with another lot and build something else. Tonight can you vote no just because you don’t think this is a good project, the blessing of being a member of an advisory only body is that your decision will not get the City sued, so if anyone feels in good conscience they can’t vote to approve this and feel that you can tie it to any given part of the Design Review part of the Land Development Code you can vote no and even if you don’t you can vote no, technically speaking you

18-18 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

probably would not be doing your duty, but you can. Politicians vote no all the time for things that they want to. Where it does come into play and this would be for City Attorney Trask to speak to the City Commission is that if and when it does come forward for final actual real policy approval that it can be built; if the Commission says no it will have to be grounded in something in the current Land Development Code that it can legitimately show a judge the reason for saying no. That is why many applicants come in and hire someone like Attorney Armstrong to say okay they did not want the City to point to anything in the Code to say no and then have to ask for a discretionary variance or whatever because that gives them a hook to say no and if it is designed to exactly what the Code says; which apparently they have from the staff evaluation, then the City Commission might be hard pressed to say no. It really is something that sometimes a code is adopted and everyone thinks it is really a good thing because it is conceptual and then you begin to see projects coming on line with unintended consequences and the remedy is not case specific, but to go back and change the Code and fix those things and try to prevent future projects from having negative unintended consequences. Chair Brand commented this Board is all volunteers and they spend a lot of time reviewing these cases one at a time, page for page that they get not on Thursday any longer, but on Friday and in some instances because of Veterans’ Day not until yesterday. This is a big project and her heart breaks for those who might be living across from a transient motel, inn or whatever. She really does not like that; she is a volunteer, she represents the thoughts and concerns of the community; that is all you and all of us. Whether she is meeting Code or not, she is sorry, she cannot legitimately vote for something that she would not want to live across the street from. Mr. Alspaugh stated that he did not know that the Board was potentially not considering Code because not once tonight, and it is part of Code and as everyone knows his favorite topic, compatibility. He does not know that a hotel is compatible right there. It is a beautiful facility and he congratulated the applicant on the solar aspect and all, but is it compatible with that section of town. It meets all the codes other than maybe that. That is where he has to ask, is it compatible with that section, that street. Vice-Chair Massaro commented it is a good point about compatibility and in years past the Board has always looked at compatibility as the mystery area; can we say yes or can we say no and if we say no it is compatibility that we grab onto. In changing his question, it meets the Code because it fits in the Core; what if the argument there by Mr. Alspaugh is compatibility, how does that stand up and maybe beyond this Board, maybe to the Commission. Attorney Eschenfelder explained he wanted to be very careful not to project onto the Commission hearing, if there is one. There is going to be a presentation and the Commission will hear the evidence that they hear and it is a quasi judicial hearing and so here tonight for the LPA recommendation of the Design Review certainly they can “hang their hat”, if they choose to not recommend approval on the fact that in their view the facility is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant will argue to the Commission if and when it comes to the Commission that, well you would not have put in your Code an authorized use of a transient lodging, hotel/motel if you did not think that was compatible. Typically the concept of compatible is when someone is asking for a zoning change or something and then you look at it if it is going to fit. Here they are not looking for a zoning change, so the issue of compatibility as the LPA would typically consider it is not on the table tonight; it is not a zoning change; it is Design Review. Certainly one of the elements of a design review is design compatibility and so the Board can certainly conclude it is not compatible in that respect.

18-19 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Chair Brand clarified she does love the project and it is no offense to those who have done a lot of work; she really appreciates it. It is as Vice-Chair Massaro and Mr. Alspaugh have said the compatibility. Mr. Smith commented speaking on the compatibility he can see it is not compatible with the place across the street; however, behind the places across the street is a bed & breakfast so it is compatible with that particular place. There is a restaurant on the corner that is not compatible with the residential. Back to compatibility the Board thought all things were allowed, he believed it was 1988 when the Downtown Core was created; Monroe Park was built in 1997. He can understand the frustrations of the residents; however, he can also see the need for an Inn. He thinks the use of the word “transient” has caused somewhat of a problem from the beginning. Alternate Member James Roberts asked if he was allowed to speak and Chair Brand thought he could not as he was not sitting on the dais tonight; however, Attorney Eschenfelder advised that Mr. Roberts can speak, just not vote; he could participate. Mr. Roberts stated he also studied the documents and listened to all the testimony. Many of his questions have been covered very well. His point is he came tonight thinking the discussion was going to be a Bed & Breakfast which is a really benign concept, people coming in for a day or three days with a little yogurt and fruit in the morning in the common room and maybe some wine and cheese before going out to dinner which is how bed and breakfasts mostly operate. Then it became an Inn that is almost a benign concept, but for the first time tonight he heard there were cooking facilities in the rooms, bathroom facilities and sleeping facilities. The question is, are we seeing here an opening for longer term rentals/accommodations. It seems to him from what he has heard with the definition of this type of facility, economics are going to control and there might come a time when the owner during the off season would look to do some of those longer term rentals which are not necessarily bad, but that means opening up to a somewhat different kind of concept than the original benign concept. The second thing is he thought he saw something in the documents about some common area, eating space; his question is whether or not that space is going to be open to the public, can an organization have a meeting there bringing in their own food and beverages. If that is the case is there an obligation for additional parking if that room is held out for public use. These were his concerns. Mr. Smith asked for clarification regarding the cooking facilities and Mr. Rice explained the difference is in a hotel there cannot be a full kitchen which usually is defined by a stove. That means a full dwelling unit which a 400 square foot room like this is not. Mr. Rice noted also it is “common open space” that is the code required for outside, not a space for people to gather; he is not aware of any kind of meeting room. MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Wielinski to recommend approval of Application DR-18-16, Design review of proposed construction of a 22-room Bed & Breakfast at 418 Grant Street. Chair Brand noted that is how the staffing reads. City Attorney Eschenfelder noted it is the application as revised by Mr. Armstrong so it is a hotel/motel. RESTATED MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Wielinski to recommend approval of Application DR-18-16, Design review of proposed construction of a 22-room hotel/motel as stated by Attorney Armstrong at 418 Grant Street. Chair Brand stated she understood Attorney Armstrong to say “transient lodging facility”; he did not say hotel/motel; transient facility. Attorney Eschenfelder asked the best term under the Land Development Code and Mr. Rice advised going

18-20 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 off of the Comprehensive Plan which defines transient accommodations in every zoning district; in his staff report under Requested Action it is: Design review of proposed construction of a 21,780 sf/22 room transient accommodations facility. RESTATED MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Wielinski to recommend approval of Application DR-18-16, Design review of proposed construction of a 21,780 sf/22 room transient accommodations facility at 418 Grant Street to include the conditions established by City staff. VOTE: Motion fails 5 - 2 with Mr. Wielinski and Mr. Smith, voting aye. Voting nay, Mr. Pauley, Mr. Alspaugh, Chair Brand, Vice-Chair Massaro and Mr. Sandbergen. 1.d. Application ZO 18-17: Rezoning of property from Downtown Residential (DR) to Downtown Core (DC) located at 927 Highland Avenue. Chair Brand introduced the agenda item and determined none of the Board members had ex parte communication with anyone regarding this agenda item. Director of Planning & Development Rice advised: Background and Purpose The 2005 Visioning Report recommended the Downtown Core zoning districts of which there were four be consolidated. The City staff has worked on this for voluntary rezoning from 2014 to the present. Some owners as depicted on the graphic in the staffing did not want to have their properties rezoned to Downtown Core. Mr. Rice explained in the staff analysis they looked at what they think is happening in the future. What is being seen is the Gateway property and the Dunedin East End Plan (DEEP) and consideration of looking at the Mease Hospital warehouse that used to be the post office and the Surgical Center going in. In looking at this project staff is recommending approval of the application in that eventually they believe the entire area will become Downtown Core. 104-23.13 REZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA 1. Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or fact. At the property owner’s request, the purpose of this case is to continue rezoning of this portion of the city for Downtown Residential “DR” to the more flexible Downtown Core “DC”. The graphic provided in the staffing depicts the number of properties that have been rezoned. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s stated goals, policies and objectives. The requested rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Dunedin 2025 Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. As pointed out in the staffing, multiple parcels have been rezoned to “DC” in the Howard Avenue/Highland Avenue area of the downtown. 4. Whether the City and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development.

18-21 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

Level of service standards for transportation and all utilities will not be affected by this rezoning request. Mr. Rice provided a street view of the property. 5. Whether the proposed rezoning will have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation and trees. No impact. 6. Whether the proposed rezoning will have significant adverse impacts on other property in the vicinity of the subject property. No. Highland Avenue, like North Douglas Avenue, is transforming into an extension of Main Street. 7. The suitability of the subject property for the existing zoning classification and proposed zoning classification. This application supports the 2005 Visioning recommendation to consolidate zoning districts in the downtown core. Questions for Staff Vice-Chair Massaro verified the rezoning is for this single parcel. Mr. Sandbergen inquired if the single family residence is occupied and Mr. Rice advised it has been owner occupied and also a rental property. Mr. Wielinski referred to the Downtown Zoning Map and Mr. Rice explained the items labeled “DR” and the rectangle is around those properties remaining “DR” and the dots are on the properties along the Howard and Highland area that were rezoned. He pointed out the specific subject property. When Mr. Rice suggested bringing up the Property Appraiser’s website for a better view of the property, Attorney Eschenfelder advised to the extent this is a quasi judicial proceeding that no one should really be reaching to the internet as individual members and viewing evidence; however, Mr. Rice can be asked to pull it up so all the members can see it. In response to the question from Mr. Pauley, Mr. Rice advised the size of the property is 146’ X 60” and the members determined that would be .2 acres. Mr. Pauley inquired if the property behind that was the post office zoned Municipal; Mr. Rice advised that it is and currently is the Scottish American Society and the City does own the property. Mr. Wielinski with Mr. Rice the property to the south is already “DC”, but the property to the north is not and also the property to the east is also Downtown Residential. Applicant Presentation Kathryn Carlson of 927 Highland Avenue advised: They have owned this property since 1996 and lived in it; it is a duplex and her grandfather lived in half. It became too small for their family so they found another house in town and lived there. Now the children have gone off to college and they decided they could live in that house again. While they were moving back they found the paperwork half finished from 2015 that she was supposed to submit to change the zoning. They lived there for six months and decided they cannot live there anymore, so they are going to rent it out again. She thought she was supposed to do this in 2015 and did not, so she is doing it now. It also adds

18-22 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

value to the property should they decide to sell to their children. The Public Hearing was opened. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak Chair Brand closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Massaro clarified with Mr. Rice and Mr. Ironsmith the past goal to rezone these properties to Downtown Core is a positive. Various members of the Board noted as more properties are rezoned Downtown Core there is the possibility of a hotel/motel being built next door. Mr. Ironsmith commented when he came on board in 1995 there was no residential. Monroe Park is a deal he put together in 1997 that was the first residential the town had seen in years and it was a success. After that they dealt with Jack Norton who owned a piece to the east still on Grant Street and they did another residential. Now for the past three to four years all that has been seen is residential. This is why he was happy about some office with the Courtyard on Main; it is good to have a balance and you want to be sensitive to neighboring properties in the context, but looking at the whole downtown as not just residential and to have some commercial and stores also. Vice-Chair Massaro inquired if it is possible to have some discussion about one of the applications that occurred tonight; can there be any additional conversation about that without anyone getting into trouble. Attorney Eschenfelder advised that is a seemingly simple question that might be complex. He explained if the conversation is process oriented or more stepping back and looking philosophically at these kinds of cases or whatever that is perfectly fine; if it is revisiting the facts of that case you would not want to do that. MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Vice-Chair Massaro to recommend approval of Application ZO 18-17 at 927 Highland Avenue. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Pauley, Mr. Alspaugh, Mr. Wielinski, Mr. Smith, Chair Brand, Vice-Chair Massaro and Mr. Sandbergen voting aye. Voting nay, none. Thoughts, Ideas & Questions from the Board Vice-Chair Massaro commented he thought some of the concerns the Board members had today with a project that really did fit within the Core that maybe they should be looking at things of this nature, these kinds of potential conflicts. As they have done in these past meetings where they have had to review ordinances and zone codes, talking about setbacks and changing some things, maybe they should get on the topic of items for conversation would be use within some of the more residential areas where uses within A, B and C Streets; that was a big concern of his, how we have uses within the Core area. He does not know under what forum they could have this discussion. He noted Mr. Rice had mentioned something about drafting some new ordinances or code changes. Mr. Rice stated the code changes he referenced were fairly minor; he thinks this is a topic that will require a look from the Board and possibly a workshop. He thinks what is being said is all the uses in the Downtown Core zoning district permitted use table, he thinks Mr. Massaro might be at the beginning of saying they are not. Vice-Chair Massaro commented maybe dial them down to street locations or something where they are not out of the core, but are street specific. Mr. Alspaugh commented he thought this really shows that when we make a decision that can have incredible long range impact where when Downtown Core and all this was established, no one ever thought there would be a night like this one; not that it is bad, he thinks it is great struggle with these things. However, when we make any kind of decision, proposal or plan we sometimes forget it is for fifteen

18-23 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 or twenty years in the future. Vice-Chair Massaro noted Mr. Rice and Mr. Ironsmith put together a great history and going through those, they were evolutions and one kind of evolved from the other. He agreed that what is done today is something we think is positive, but tomorrow it could have a negative impact. Mr. Ironsmith commented this is an important board and they are seeing a lot of different and difficult decisions coming before them. Downtown is a very strong market right now and very desirable. He noted another thing to keep in mind is things evolve and things change on the long time horizon. It does take a lot of thought and you do try to plan ahead. When he looks at the Downtown East End Plan, which this Board will see in various pieces and the Gateway, he hopes to bring to the LPA in the late spring next year as well as improvements to Skinner Boulevard. He thinks people do not realize the city still has a lot of un- utilized and redevelopment parcels still left in the downtown. He always tries to make sure of having a common vision of the identity of downtown. He and Mr. Rice work a lot with the quaint, but it is also a vibrant and active downtown. He is absolutely surprised how busy the downtown is in the summer; it is no longer the off season. When he came here in 1995 off season in the summer, Monday is slow and that’s the way it is and that is not the case now and that causes some conflicts with the residential aspect. Mr. Smith commented the “not in my back yard” is never going to be lost; people are going to come and be angry when we want to build. Mr. Ironsmith referred to the earlier comment regarding the Artisan and trucks pulling off; he forgot to mention part of the agreement was not doing away with the angle parking there. He agreed there would be challenges with trucks, parking, conflicts between commercial and residential, but as Mr. Smith said it is all a sign of success. Mr. Wielinski commented this applicant who was looking to the future and was right in changing the zoning for increased property value; residents have to be aware if they are in the Core to expect the commercial. Mr. Ironsmith commented it is an urban downtown and that was always the vision back in the 80’s. Mr. Wielinski commented he did not know why that vision is trying to be changed and Mr. Ironsmith stated he certainly was not. Mr. Wielinski said he was not either, but the Board sort of showed they were doing that tonight. Attorney Eschenfelder commented coming back to the point Vice-Chair Massaro was making, it might be healthy for the Board to have a workshop with Mr. Rice. One of the pieces of zoning failure that he has looked at as being a resident for a long time here in Tampa Bay is Ybor City because if you look at what that was and the gem that it was with a lot of the same characteristics and buzzes as downtown Dunedin and what it became because of overly generalized zoning laws that created property rights and so forth is a street of bars. That is great for some people, but that sort of mix there can get lost. This is a policy decision the City Commission looks to the LPA to help them figure out. There are inventive zoning rules that can be used to try to tailor the mix and make sure there is that mix for example if you have a hotel can another hotel be within 1,000 feet and sort of those kind of ways because when you get to the highest and best use in an area like this with a hot market is the investor and everyone would act the same way if they owned a prime real estate property looking to what the market is going to give the most dollar per square foot, that is what they are going to propose to build and if it becomes block after block of apartments or hotels, that might be good for that land owner, but is that what the City of Dunedin wants; probably not even though all those fit within the general Downtown Core defined zoning. It might behoove the LPA to have a workshop and talk about tweaking the code to get some of that mix. Accommodations are needed; people visit the city and some of them drink too much and it would be good for them to spend the night

18-24 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018 here, so having a hotel is not bad, but do you still want the mix which might be a discussion the Board wants to have. Mr. Rice stated the code changes he is working on are specifics for different zoning districts like the FX-M and Planned Residential Development, some of the things that have caused difficulties. The attempt now on the corridors, much of the action taken over the past has been from kind of map view and now going down to the parcel level to look at what exactly is behind each one of these FX-M parcels. Perhaps it is at the same point in the downtown where you can’t just look at it from 30,000 feet and say that is Downtown Core and might have to go street by street and parcel by parcel to look at what the LPA and the City Commission are willing to approve there. He thinks that is what Attorney Eschenfelder is referring to in that there are ways to do that perhaps with overlays or many other ways. He thinks there will need to be the street by street; parcel by parcel look instead of the whole Downtown Core. Vice-Chair Massaro asked how that gets set in motion. Mr. Rice thought the best place to start is with a workshop for the LPA and the Commission to begin looking at this as there have been a couple of projects deemed to be not compatible with the area. Mr. Rice stated he and Mr. Ironsmith would speak with City Manager Bramley who usually watches the LPA meeting; it is a process. Vice-Chair Massaro reiterated he would like to look deeper into the Core uses and seeing whether or not in this day and age the need to be molded one more time, maybe. He thinks the Board tonight sort of sent a message that way. Mr. Smith asked if there could be any discussion regarding the term limits that were discussed. Mr. Ironsmith stated his understanding was there would be a workshop and Mr. Rice commented it was moved to December 4. Chair Brand asked if that means if a term ends in December and that meeting is on December 4 that would be the end. Mr. Rice advised Development Project Coordinator Giebel is the coordinator for that topic and he will ask her tomorrow about it and send out an e-mail about what is coming next. Ms. Singh commented that with the topic being a workshop item there will not be any action taken, so nothing will be done and December 4 and December 6 are the only meetings in December. She advised the LPA reappointments are currently on the December 4, 2018 agenda. Attorney Eschenfelder advised also that would require a code change and the City Attorney’s Office would have to draft the code; it would have to be advertised and so forth. Chair Brand commented it was nice to have four members of this board be able to attend and speak to the item of term limits at the Work Session on October 30th, Mr. Alspaugh, Mr. Massaro, Mr. Sandbergen and herself. They were the only ones from committees and boards with that many people to represent them. Each of them spoke. She commented it would be difficult in listening to staff and looking forward to getting together for a workshop and this forward thinking and anticipation of all these other opportunities for the Board when in the back of her mind it breaks her heart because these members might not be here to participate. Chair Brand announced the next regular meeting of the Local Planning Agency will be Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall. Mr. Wielinski moved for adjournment and Mr. Sandbergen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 P.M.

18-25 Regular Meeting Local Planning Agency November 14, 2018

______Ashley Singh, City Clerk’s Office Senior Administrative Assistant

18-26