BCC Public Hearing – 7/23/19


>>CLARETHA HARRIS: ITEM 55 IS A LEGISLATIVE PETITION TO VACATE SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL SVGT SMITH AND SHAWNTEE M. SMITH FOR A PORTION OF BAYSHORE DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 4, BLOCK 4, BAYHAVEN FIRST ADDITION SUBDIVISION. IT WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. WE DO HAVE A CARD IN OPPOSITION, AND A CARD IN FAVOR, SO THEREFORE LET’S HAVE A PRESENTATION. ANDREW?>>GOOD EVENING, ANDREW PUPKE, REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR. THE PETITIONERS ARE SEEKING TO VACATE APPROXIMATELY A 12 FOOT PORTION OF A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY, AND IT IS INTENDED TO RELEASE AN EXISTING ENCROACHMENT AND EXPAND THEIR PROPERTY. THIS IS THE AERIAL THAT IDENTIFIES — CAN YOU SEE THAT? HAS THAT COME UP? SO THE AREA IN BLUE IS THEIR PROPERTY. THE AREA IN YELLOW AND RED IS SHADED THE AREA THAT THEY’RE SEEKING TO HAVE VACATED.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>AND THE FENCE RUNS ALONG THAT LINE THERE WHERE THE YELLOW AND RED HASH IS.>>DAVE EGGERS: DID YOU SAY THERE’S AN ENCROACHMENT NOW?>>YEAH, THEY HAVE A FENCE THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OR UTILITY PROVIDERS AT THIS TIME. THE PETITIONERS DID AMEND THEIR REQUEST BASED UPON A PREVIOUS CONFLICT WITH SOME UTILITY LINES THAT RAN CATTY-CORNER ACROSS THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND SINCE THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, IT NO LONGER IS AN ISSUE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THEN, THE PERSON WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST IS JACK CORY. IS HE NO LONGER PRESENT? OKAY. WHILE WE’RE CHECKING THE PERSON IN FAVOR WAS MIKE SMITH. MIKE, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?>>NO.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: NO. OKAY. LET’S JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND MAKE SURE THAT MR. CORY IS NO LONGER HERE. OR — IS HE COMING?>>HE’S IN THE HALL. IF YOU WANT TO COME TO THE PODIUM, SIR. COME RIGHT UP HERE. GOOD EVENING, AND IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND — >>MY NAME IS JACK CORY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. PARDON ME?>>I’M THE GROUP SPEAKER.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY BUT YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. SHE’S GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SET THE TIMER WHICH IS OVER THERE.>>I DON’T HAVE MORE IF I’M THE GROUP SPEAKER?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: DO YOU HAVE FIVE PEOPLE HERE? THAT ARE — >>NO, IT DOESN’T SAY THAT. IT SAYS GROUP.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: A GROUP PRESENTATION REQUIRES FIVE PEOPLE.>>I DON’T HAVE THE PAPERWORK THAT I BROUGHT WITH ME. TO PROVE ANYTHING. I JUST [INAUDIBLE] MY GIRLFRIEND HAD IT.>>PAT GERARD: I’M SORRY.>>AND SHE LOST IT. I’M SORRY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: TELL US WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR — >>THE CONCERNS ARE I DON’T CARE FOR THE COUNTY GIVE THEIR LAND AWAY, BUT THEY’RE TRYING TO GIVE MY LAND AWAY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I’M SORRY, OUR ELECTRONIC TIMER IS NOT WORKING. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD OLD HOUR CLOCK. SO IT’S NOT — YOU DON’T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR VACATION — >>NO, NO, NO. THIS VACATION IS PART OF MY LAND. YOU’RE VIE VACATING MY LAND. THE BOTTOM PART OF IT IS MINE! NOT THE COUNTY’S. MINE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: AND YOU’RE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY?>>I AM RIGHT NEXT DOOR — I AM ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. AND THEY’RE TRYING TO GIVE AWAY THE FEW FEET OF MY LAND. 15×17.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MM-HMM. OKAY.>>I DON’T KNOW IF — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT YOU’VE GIVEN TO THE COUNTY THAT PROVES THAT?>>I THOUGHT, I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE DID WITH IT. I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE. I BROUGHT DEED, AND IN FACT I BROUGHT TWO DEEDS. AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HAVE A THING ON IT TO SHOW YOU THE — SHOW IT TO YOU. WELL, THIS DOESN’T HAVE IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE DID WITH IT. I HAD IT. AND SHE WENT TO THE BATHROOM, THAT’S ALL SHE DID, SHE WENT TO THE BATHROOM AND SHE LOST IT. SHE’S ACROSS THE STREET NOW.>>PAT GERARD: JUST CONTINUE THIS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>DAVE EGGERS: I’M SURE THERE WAS — A SURVEY HAS TO BE DONE FOR US TO DO THIS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE WOULD NEED — >>I’VE GOT SEVERAL SURVEYS.>>DAVE EGGERS: WE’VE DONE A SURVEY, I’M SURE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. WE COULD ACTUALLY, IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOUR GIRLFRIEND IS BACK WE COULD WAIT — >>SHE’S NOT COMING BACK.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SHE’S NOT COMING BACK?>>NO, SHE WENT TO [INDISCERNIBLE]. AND SHE WON’T COME BACK IN HERE. AND IT WON’T DO ANY GOOD BECAUSE I WENT ACROSS THE STREET AND ASKED WHERE THE STUFF’S AT AND SHE LOST IT. SHE HAS NO IDEA. OH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HERE IT IS. HERE’S THE DEED, AND THE DESCRIPTION, AND THE EVERYTHING.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: HAVE YOU SHARED THIS WITH OUR COUNTY STAFF BEFORE?>>I’VE TALKED TO THEM SO MANY TIMES I’M BLUE IN THE FACE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. BUT THEY’VE SEEN ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE?>>THEY HAVEN’T ASKED FOR IT. THIS IS THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT IT WHEN I FOUND OUT I WAS GOING TO HAVE — THEY KEEP GETTING MY LAND. THEY’VE GOT A FENCE AROUND IT. AND I’VE TALKED TO THEM TO NO AVAIL THEY CHASED ME OUT OF THEIR YARD WITH TWO GERMAN SHEPHERDS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MR. ADMINISTRATOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS?>>BARRY BURTON: I WOULD ASK FOR ANDREW TO ADDRESS IT FROM WHAT I DONE TO VERIFY THAT THE SURVEY THEY’RE PRESENTING IS ACCURATE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>I’M SORRY, I’M 81 YEARS OLD AND I HAVE BAD EARS.>>BARRY BURTON: I’M SORRY, STAFF PERSON — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: BESIDE YOU IS YOUR STAFF.>>BARRY BURTON: I WOULD ASK FOR HIM TO ADDRESS IT.>>IF IT COULD MOVE YOUR PLAN FOR JUST A SECOND, SIR.>>SURE.>>THANK YOU. SO THIS IS THE SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. AND AS I SHOWED YOU PREVIOUSLY ON THE OVERVIEW, OR ON THE AERIAL, THIS WAS VERIFIED BY OUR SURVEY DEPARTMENT. THE AREA IN WHICH WE’RE SPEAKING, THE AREA TO BE VACATED, AGAIN, HERE IT IS CROSSHATCHED IS PART OF THE 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS PORTION IT, THERE’S ANOTHER 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY HERE. SO IT IS NOT MR. CORY’S PROPERTY.>>THIS IS MY PROPERTY. RIGHT HERE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO THE 50 FEET — >>THERE’S THE SURVEY. IT’S ALL AUTHENTICATED.>>BARRY BURTON: DO YOU KNOW WHERE MR. CORY’S PROPERTY,ANDREW?>>I DO.>>THAT PIECE IS MINE. AND I HAVE A DEED TO IT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THIS IS AN VACANT LAND THEN?>>I’M NOT ASKING FOR THIS OTHER STUFF TO BE FENCED IN. WHICH IS THEIRS TO START WITH, BUT I WANT MY PIECE. AND YOU’RE TRYING TO GIVE IT AWAY.>>I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER AND WAS VERIFIED BY OUR SURVEY DEPARTMENT AND THE INDICATION IS THAT THE AREA THAT WE ARE — THAT THE PETITIONER, EXCUSE ME, IS REQUESTING TO BE VACATED IS RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT IS NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GIVE AWAY PRIVATE PROPERTY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RIGHT, I KNOW YOU DON’T. SO, WELL I — AND SO THAT LAND THAT WAS REFERENCING IS ACTUALLY 50 FEET, AND THEN COMES UP AND IT’S ALL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY?>>CORRECT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY?>>CORRECT.>>DAVE EGGERS: WHERE IS IT PROPERTY ON HERE?>>THIS PROPERTY IS TO THE SOUTH.>>DAVE EGGERS: TOWARDS PARK BOULEVARD?>>CORRECT. SO, MAY I MOVE YOUR PLAN FOR JUST A MOMENT, SIR?>>YES, YOU CAN.>>THANK YOU, SIR.>>PAT GERARD: UPSIDE DOWN.>>ANDREW PUPKE: SO MR. CORY’S PROPERTY IS BACK HERE.>>YEAH AND AT THIS CORNER HERE, TOO. THAT’S YOU’RE TRYING TO GIVE AWAY. YOU SEE THAT IT COMES DOWN TO THERE. IT DOES NOT COME ALL THE WAY DOWN.>>ANDREW PUPKE: BUT I DON’T BELIEVE THE LIMITS OF — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANDREW, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHICH ONE IS HIS PROPERTY, MR. CORY’S PROPERTY?>>ANDREW PUPKE: CERTAINLY, THIS IS MR. CORY’S PROPERTY HERE. MR. CORY, PERHAPS YOU CAN SAY THE SMITH’S PROPERTY IS ALL IN BLUE. AND AGAIN THE PETITIONED AREA IS THIS AREA IN YELLOW, AND ORANGE, OR YELLOW AND RED.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RIGHT NEXT TO IT TO THE LEFT OF THE HASHED — OF THE RED AND YELLOW, TO THE LEFT OF THAT, THAT’S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY?>>ANDREW PUPKE ALL OF THIS IS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, CORRECT.>>I HAVE A DEED.>>ANDREW PUPKE: WE WOULDN’T HAVE LOOKED AT MR. CORY’S DEED. THIS IS A PETITION FROM A PETITIONER REQUESTING THIS. WE VERIFY THEIR SURVEY THROUGH OUR SURVEY DEPARTMENT WHICH IS OUR STANDARD PROCEDURE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WHICH THEY THEN LOOK AT THIS SUR SURROUNDING DEEDS AND THEY LOOK AT OTHER DOCUMENTATION TO MAKE SURE IT’S ACCURATE.>>ANDREW PUPKE: YEAH, I WOULD ASSUME SO. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEIR APPROVAL TO US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PETITION IF THERE WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT WAS BEING AFFECTED.>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT EXTENSION KEPT GOING CLOSER TO PARK BOULEVARD IN THAT SAME — WOULD THAT BE ENTERING HIS PROPERTY THEN?>>ANDREW PUPKE: PERHAPS, AGAIN. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT POINT IS, WHERE HIS PROPERTY BEGINS.>>MAN SOLD ME MY PROPERTY SOLD THEM A STRIP. OKAY? AND IT COMES UP, AND IT’S 15 FEET SHORT. AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS AND IT’S 15 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THAT’S MY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO GET IN TO MY PROPERTY.>>ANDREW PUPKE: SO THAT’S ALL COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO WHICH HE’S REFERRING. THAT’S NOT BEEN VACATED. IT’S STILL COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY.>>NO, THAT’S NOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS ENTIRE PIECE RIGHT HERE IS MINE. IT’S 15 FEET BY I FORGET HOW MANY FEET. 15 FEET WIDE, ALONG THE LANE — ON THE SOUTH CONTINGENT BAYSHORE DRIVE, SEMINOLE — >>DAVE EGGERS: SIR, DO YOU HAVE A SURVEY OF YOUR PROPERTY?>>YES, SIR.>>DAVE EGGERS: LET’S SEE YOUR SURVEY. NO, YOU’VE GOT TO PUT IT THERE.>>RIGHT HERE IS THE PIECE — >>DAVE EGGERS: HOLD ON. HOLD ON.>>– HE’S TRYING TO GIVE AWAY.>>ANDREW PUPKE: SO IF YOU WANT TO COME AROUND HERE BEHIND ME.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ALL RIGHT, MR. CORY, THANK YOU. I THINK WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED. I THINK I HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW TO PERHAPS ADDRESS EVERYBODY’S CONCERNS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>JANET LONG: WELL TELL HIM YOUR IDEA.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MY IDEA IS I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CAN, IF YOU — I NEED TO SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC. BUT WE COULD TAKE ACTION ON THIS TO APPROVE IT, WITH THE STAFF JUST TAKING ONE MORE LOOK AT MR. CORY’S PAPERWORK.>>JANET LONG: WELL, IF — IF THIS GENTLEMAN HAS A DEED, AND AND I MEAN I DON’T KNOW HOW WE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING THAT WE DON’T HAVE — THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT.>>DAVE EGGERS: FROM THE LOOKS OF HIS PLAN, IT’S NOT DIFFERENT THAN THIS ONE. HIS LINE CUTS ACROSS TO A POINT THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE LOCATION WHERE WHAT WE HAVE POINTED OUT. THAT DARK LINE THAT GOES ACROSS THE DRAWING IS YOUR LAND BELOW THAT. THAT’S YOUR LAND BELOW THAT.>>YES.>>DAVE EGGERS: AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS TO THEIR PROPERTY. AND THE EASEMENT THAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR IS ABOVE THAT LINE. IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT’S SHOWING IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR, EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT LINE IS WHAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR, IT’S NOT — >>THEY’RE ASKING FOR IT ALL THE WAY DOWN.>>PAT GERARD: NO THEY’RE NOT.>>DAVE EGGERS: NO THEY’RE NOT. THEY TOOK THAT OFF. THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. THAT WAS TAKEN BACK, AND SO IT’S JUST DOWN TO WHERE THEY’RE GOING. THEY’RE NOT GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN.>>HAVE THEM TAKE THEIR FENCE OFF MY PROPERTY.>>DAVE EGGERS: WELL THAT’S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. WHAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR IS COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MM-HMM.>>DAVE EGGERS: YOURS IS BELOW THAT.>>YES, IT IS BELOW THAT.>>DAVE EGGERS: YEAH, SO. — >>I DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT’S ABOVE IT. I DON’T WANT THAT 15 FEET BY 17 FEET TAKEN.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY, WELL THAT’S NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT’S THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY.>>NO, IT’S NOT! IT’S MY PROPERTY. I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR IT.>>DAVE EGGERS: IT’S SHOWING RIGHT THERE. YOU SHOWED US YOUR IS YOU HAVE A. IT’S BELOW THAT LINE. IT’S BELOW THAT REQUESTED PROPERTY. YOUR LINE GOES RIGHT ACROSS THERE. IT’S A DARK LINE — >>I HAVEN’T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WAS ANY DIFFERENT. WHAT THEY SHOWED ME WAS WHAT THIS MAN HERE HAD, AND IT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MY PROPERTY.>>DAVE EGGERS: I’M JUST LOOKING AT ALL THE DRAWINGS THAT HAVE THE BEEN GIVEN TO US. AND YOUR PROPERTY GOES RIGHT ACROSS THERE, AND THEY’RE ASKING FOR ABOVE THE PROPERTY. ABOVE YOUR PROPERTY, NOT BELOW IT. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT WAS — ANDREW, WAS IT ORIGINALLY BELOW IT? OH, IT WAS ALWAYS — IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION?>>ANDREW PUPKE: YES, SIR.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY.>>THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR SWIMMING POOL ON PART OF MY PROPERTY.>>DAVE EGGERS: I DON’T SEE THAT.>>YOU DON’T SEE IT?>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT’S A CIVIL MATTER.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYWAY. MR. CORY, THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THE INFORMATION. I THINK THIS, COMMISSIONER EGGERS HAS RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER? OKAY. IF THERE’S NO ONE ELSE WE WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COULD SOMEONE ASSIST MR. CORY –>>I’M DONE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IN GETTING HIS DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE WISHES OF THE BOARD?>>PAT GERARD: MOVE APPROVAL.>>DAVE EGGERS: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GERARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS. TO APPROVE THE VACATION.>>KENNETH WELCH: I HAVE — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I’M SORRY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?>>KENNETH WELCH: JUST WANT TO CONFIRM AGAIN ANDREW YOU’VE TRIPLE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT ON THIS GENTLEMAN’S PROPERTY, CORRECT? AND THE SECOND QUESTION WAS YOU MENTIONED A FENCE. YOU MENTIONED A FENCE BEING I GUESS NONPERMIT OR INVADING — >>ANDREW PUPKE: THE FENCE IS ENPROPOSING YEAH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CURRENTLY WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON — >>KENNETH WELCH: BUT NOT INTO HIS PROPERTY.>>NO IT’S ON MY PROPERTY.>>KENNETH WELCH: PLEASE LET ME ASK HIM. HAVE WE CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS NOT ON HIS PROPERTY.>>ANDREW PUPKE: THAT WAS NOT PART OF YOUR QUESTION AS PART OF TRIPLE CHECKING. WE TOOK THE SKETCH IN LEGAL THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER. AND IT WAS REVIEWED, AND APPROVED BY OUR SURVEY DEPARTMENT. WHICH IS OUR STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING A SKETCH AND LEGALS BEFORE PROCEEDING FORWARD.>>KENNETH WELCH: OKAY. SURVEY — OKAY. LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS, AND I DON’T KNOW HOW TO READ THIS, BUT YOU SEE THAT THIN VERTICAL 15 FOOT PIECE HE’S TALKING ABOUT. BUT WE’VE CHECKED THAT AND WE’RE SURE THAT IT’S NOT PART OF HIS PROPERTY?>>ANDREW PUPKE: WELL I BELIEVE TO COMMISSIONER EGGERS POINT THAT THE VACATION COMES ALL THE WAY TO THAT FAR DOWN. I CAN’T SAY THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY BUT THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. AGAIN, IF THEY SAW — IF SURVEY SAW A CONFLICT THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT TO US AND THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED US, PARDON ME, TO SEND THE SURVEY, SKETCH AND LEGAL BACK TO THE PETITIONERS.>>KENNETH WELCH: DID WE TALK TO THIS GENTLEMAN BEFORE TONIGHT OR IS THIS THE FIRST TIME WE’VE TALKED TO HIM.>>KWAUND: WE HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM. PROVIDED HIM INFORMATION ON THE PETITION, AT HIS REQUEST.>>KENNETH WELCH: OKAY. THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU. AND JEWEL OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE ANOTHER COMMENT, WHICH IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.>>JEWEL WHITE: AND SURE JUST TO CLARIFY THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE IT. IF YOU DO APPROVE IT, YOU CANNOT LEGALLY VACATE PRIVATE PROPERTY SO YOU WOULD NOT BE TAKING ANY ACTION CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY STAFF AS FAR AS THIS BEING AN OPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. IF BY CHANCE IT DIDN’T, WHICH I’M NOT SAYING IT DOES, INCLUDE PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU CANNOT LEGALLY VACATE IT ANYWAY. SO YOUR ACTION WOULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF ONE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES IT’S PLATTED UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT YOUR ACTION WOULD VACATE.>>JANET LONG: MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO TO MR. CORY’S POINT THEN, WHAT I’M UNDERSTANDING YOU SAY IS THAT THE ACTION THAT WE TAKE TONIGHT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY HIS PROPERTY? CORRECT?>>JEWEL WHITE: ANY PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY, THAT IS CORRECT.>>DOES THAT MEAN I CAN CUT HIS FENCE DOWN? [LAUGHTER] IT’S ON MY PROPERTY!>>JEWEL WHITE: I CANNOT GIVE ADVICE ON THAT MATTER.>>JANET LONG: DID YOU HEAR WHAT SHE SAID?>>NO.>>JANET LONG: SHE CANNOT GIVE YOU ADVICE ON THAT PART. IT’S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA. I DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. I DON’T KNOW. BUT I KNOW WE’RE NOT TAKING YOUR PROPERTY.>>WELL THEN THE FENCE HAS TO GO BECAUSE IT’S ON MY PROPERTY. IT’S ENCROACHING ON MY PROPERTY. MY PRIVATE PROPERTY.>>JANET LONG: WHO PUT THE FENCE UP?>>HE DID!>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO SHED SOME MORE INFORMATION, AND AT THIS POINT WE’RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. THE PETITION TO VACATE PASSES UNANIMOUS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND — >>YOU’LL HEAR FROM MY ATTORNEY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE’RE MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 56.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: AGENDA ITEM 56 IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PETITION TO VACATE. ALL THOSE WISHING TO GIVE TESTIMONY ON THAT ITEM PLEASE STAND AND TAKE THE OATH. [WITNESSES SWORN] QUASI-JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION TO VACATE SUBMITTED BY THOMAS A. MARCH FOR A PORTION OF A TEN FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LIKE IN THE WEST SEVEN FEET OF THE EAST TEN FEET OF LOT 48, LESS THE SOUTH FIVE FEET THEREOF, IMPERIAL POINT UNIT 1, SUBDIVISION. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I HAVE TWO CARDS THAT HAVE REGISTERED IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM. BUT ARE THERE ANYBODY WHO IS IN OBJECTION TO THIS ITEM? THEN I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.>>DAVE EGGERS: MOVE APPROVAL.>>KENNETH WELCH: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELCH. OKAY PASSES UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 57.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: LEGISLATIVE PETITION TO VACATE SUBMITTED BY PARADIGM INVESTMENT PROPERTIES FOR A PORTION OF 118th AVENUE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING EAST OF STARKEY ROAD, AND WEST OF THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF 87th STREET NORTH OAKWOODS INDUSTRIAL CENTER, AND A PORTION OF 87th STREET NORTH LIKE NORTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OAKWOODS INDUSTRIAL CENTER. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING, LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. THIS IS 57. AND I ONLY HAVE A CARD IN SUPPORT. SO IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS? THEN I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 57.>>DAVE EGGERS: QUESTION. COULD I HAVE A QUESTION?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: PARDON ME DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?>>DAVE EGGERS: YEAH, JUST A QUESTION.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT 87th STREET NORTH THAT GOES, IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES UP ALMOST LIKE A LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC THERE. IS THERE A ROAD THAT GOES AROUND THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW? HOW DOES — WHAT IS GOING ALONG THE I DON’T KNOW WHICH — THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY?>>IT’S AN UNIMPROVED AREA. THE CUL-DE-SAC DOES END THE PORTION OF THE STREET THAT IS IMPROVED. THIS WOULD BE THE BACK PORTIONS PAST THE CUL-DE-SAC COMING AROUND TOWARDS THE WEST. IT IS A DIRT ROAD RIGHT NOW. THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING TO UTILIZE THIS LAND FOR ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE PARKING. HE’S EXPANDING HIS BUSINESS IN THE AREA, AND DOING SOME LOGISTICAL CHANGES TO THE FRONT OF HIS BUILDING. AND IS IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR HIS EMPLOYEES IN THE BACK. SO THAT’S WHAT THIS AREA WILL EVENTUALLY BE.>>DAVE EGGERS: WHAT IS THAT 118th AVENUE? IS THAT — >>ANDREW PUPKE: THIS IS 118th AVENUE.>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT IS THE — >>ANDREW PUPKE: CORRECT.>>DAVE EGGERS: AND IT DOESN’T ACCESS ANYBODY’S PROPERTY, OTHER THAN — I MEAN THERE’S NO PROPERTY ON THIS 87th STREET NORTH THAT USES THAT ROAD IF GO OUT TO STARKEY? I KNOW IT’S A DIRT ROAD.>>ANDREW PUPKE: NO, SIR.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY. THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYONE ELSE?>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: JUST WONDERING IF THAT’S BRIAN DERRY, IN YOUR NAMING OF THE ROADS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IT’S STILL ON THE LIST. OKAY. SO, I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC — I THINK I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY. BUT I’LL CLOSE IT AGAIN AND SEE WHAT THE WISHES OF THE BOARD ARE.>>JANET LONG: MOVE APPROVAL.>>PAT GERARD: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LONG AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GERARD. OKAY THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE’RE MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 58.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: LEGISLATIVE PETITION TO VACATE SUBMITTED BY JEFFREY M. CONWAY AND PAMELA G. CONWAY TO VACATE ALL THAT PORTION OF BEACH PARKWAY LYING SOUTH OF LOTS 30 AND 31, AND SOUTH OF THE VACATED UNNAMED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 19747 PAJ 1267, HARBORVIEW NUMBER 2 SUBDIVISION. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 58. I HAVE NO ONE WHO HAS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. I’M STILL OPENING IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?>>I DIDN’T SIGN IN, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I REPRESENT MR. CONWAY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. SO YOU’RE IN SUPPORT.>>I’M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT. AND A COUNTY RESIDENT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY THANK YOU. THEN I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT IS THE WISHES OF THE BOARD?>>KENNETH WELCH: MOVE APPROVAL >>JANET LONG: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELCH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LONG. GO AHEAD AND VOTE. ALL RIGHT UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. NICE TO SEE YOU, MAYOR FOSTER.>>ALWAYS A PLEASURE.>>JANET LONG: YOU LOOK GREAT.>>THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: AGENDA ITEM 59.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: PROPOSED RESOLUTION UPDATING THE MAXIMUM TOWING RATE SCHEDULE IN SECTION 122-42A, OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY CODE. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING, NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. I HAVE A CARD IN OPPOSITION TO IT. SO, WITH — THERE’S FOUR NAMES ALL TOGETHER. SO, FIVE SPEAKERS — FIVE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO GRANT THE TEN MINUTES. BUT IN THE MEANTIME WE’LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE A PRESENTATION. HI.>>DOUG TEMPLETON, OPERATIONS MANAGER WITH CONSUMER PROTECTION. BEFORE YOU IS A RESOLUTION WITH RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM TOWING RATES TO PINELLAS COUNTY TOWING ORDINANCE. pTHE ORN 2000 AND SETS TYPE OF FEES AND AMOUNT OF FEES THAT CAN BE CHARGED BY TOWING OPERATORS. CURRENTLY THERE’S NO REGISTRATION OR LICENSING MECHANISM IN PLACE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, HOWEVER IT DOES PROVIDE FOR REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS BY CONSUMER PROTECTION. AT THE COMMISSION’S REQUEST, WE BEGAN REVIEWING THE FEES WITHIN OUR JURISDICTIONS, LOCALLY AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE. WE ALSO MET WITH INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES FOR INPUT, AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE FEEDBACK ON THEIR CONCERNS, AS WELL. WHEN REVIEWING THE FEES WE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO STANDARDIZED VEHICLE CLASS FOR THESE — FOR VEHICLES, SO IN PINELLAS COUNTY WE HAVE FOUR CLASSES OF VEHICLES. IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THERE MAY BE THREE CLASSES OF VEHICLES, SO THERE’S NOT A ONE FOR ONE COMPARISON, PER SE. HOWEVER CLASS “A” VEHICLES, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE, THOSE ARE YOUR CARS, TRUCKS, 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS, AND MOST JURISDICTIONS, ARE WHAT LIKE I SAID, WE INVESTIGATE, AND THE TYPE OF TRESPASS TOWING COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE. WITH NO CHANGE IN THE FEE SINCE 2000 WE FEEL SOME ADJUSTMENT IS CERTAINLY NEEDED TO THE FEES. MAJORITY OF THE OPPORTUNITY IS IN THE CLASS-A VEHICLE FEE STRUCTURE. TO INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN THE BASE TOW FEE. WE’RE RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE FROM THE CLASS-A BASED TOW FROM $100 TO $110. THE MILEAGE FEEL FROM $3 TO $4 AND THERE’S A 10 MILE MAX IN PINELLAS COUNTY. AND A STORAGE FEE INCREASE FOR CLASS-A VEHICLES FROM $20 TO $25. WE’RE ALSO RECOMMENDING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE MILEAGE FEE FOR CLASS-B AND C VEHICLES AS WELL FROM $3 TO $4. WHEN WE REVIEWED THE CLASS-B AND C TOW RATES AS WELL AS STORAGE RATES WE FOUND OUR CURRENT FEES ARE MORE IN LINE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THOSE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT. SINCE THE INFO THAT’S IN THE LEGISTAR WAS ENTERED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO I DO HAVE UPDATED FEES THAT I’D LIKE TO GO THROUGH REAL QUICK ON WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. SO CURRENTLY CLASS-A FEES ARE $100 IN PINELLAS COUNTY. THE PROPOSED FEE THERE IS $110. IT’S BOLDED. THERE’S HILLSBOROUGH, PASCO, MANATEE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT CLASS VEHICLES VERSUS CLASS A, B, C, AND EVEN WITHIN COUNTIES THAT HAVE FOUR CLASSES OF VEHICLES THE WEIGHTS CAN VARY, ET CETERA. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE pCLAE ECOMMENDING THAT CHANGE TO. THAT’S SPECIFICALLY FOR THE TOW FEE. AND LOOKING AT THE MILEAGE FEE, PINELLAS IS CURRENTLY $3. WE’RE LOOKING TO MOVE TO $4 ACROSS ALL FOUR CLASSES. AGAIN THIS PROVIDES THE DIFFERENT FEES THAT ARE IN PLACE FROM $3 IN PASCO FOR THE CLASS-A UP TO $6 IN POLK, $7.50 IN PALM BEACH. HOWEVER THOSE ARE POLICE DIRECTED TOWS ONLY VERSUS THE TRESPASS TOW WHICH WE’RE LOOKING AT. AND ALSO, PROVIDE A COMPARISON FOR THE STORAGE FEES. AS I MENTIONED THE CLASS-A FEE IS WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT FROM $20 TO $25 RECOMMENDATION. THE MAJORITY OF THE JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR THE CLASS-A FEES ARE VERY CLOSE TO THAT. AND CLASS-B, C AND D WE’RE NOT MAKING RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE FEEL THOSE ARE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING FEES. SO WE’RE LOOKING AT THE FEES WE WANTED TO FIND A FAIR BALANCE BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND THE TOW OPERATORS. WE DIDN’T WANT A MAJOR IMPACT ON CONSUMERS IMMEDIATELY BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREMENTAL ADJUSTMENT FOR THE TOW OPERATORS. THE RECOMMENDATION ALLOWS FOR 15% TO 17% INCREASE DEPENDING ON THE TOW SITUATION. THAT’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE. A BASE TOW FEE CURRENTLY $100. THE MILEAGE FEE IF IT WERE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TEN MILES WOULD BE $130. WITH THE INCREASE IN FEES IT WOULD BE $150. SO IT’S A $20 INCREASE OR A 15% INCREASE ON WHAT THE TOW OPERATOR WILL COLLECT FOR A CLASS-A TOW IF THAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. WITH THE ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN THE STORAGE FEES, IF YOU ADD THAT ONTO THAT EXAMPLE, YOU’D GO FROM A TOTAL OF $150 TO $175. THIS TIME A $25 INCREASE WHICH IS ABOUT A 17% INCREASE IN THE FEES THAT THEY WOULD COLLECT. WE LOOKED AT THE VARIOUS COUNTY LANDSCAPES, AND FOUND THAT IT COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION. THE — OF THE EIGHT COUNTIES THAT WE LOOKED AT, SIX OF THOSE HAD SOME SORT OF LICENSING OR APPLICATION PROCESS WHICH COULD ALSO INCLUDE SITE INSPECTION FEES, VEHICLE INSPECTION FEES, INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA, AND PINELLAS COUNTY DOESN’T CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE. BUT EVEN FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, THE TOWING ORDINANCES ARE OVERSEEN BY DIFFERENT AGENCIES DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU’RE AT. SO IT MAY BE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT MAY BE CODE ENFORCEMENT, IT MAY BE A CONSUMER AGENCY, SUCH AS OURS. SO, AGAIN, YOU HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE, A DIFFERENT LOOK, AND FOR WHAT THE FOCUS OF IN PINELLAS COUNTY AGAIN WE DEAL WITH A LOT OF TRESPASS TOWING, WE HAVE A LOT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES, SHOPPING CENTERS, WHO HAVE CONTRACTS WITH TOW OPERATORS WHEN THERE’S VIOLATIONS, THEY’RE ABLE TO TOW IMMEDIATELY. AND THEY’RE TYPICALLY VALID TOWS. IT’S A MATTER OF SOMEONE NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR APARTMENT COMPLEX RULES OR REGULATIONS, OR IF THEY’RE AT A SHOPPING CENTER AFTER SHOPPING LOCATION AND THEY GO ACROSS THE STREET TO THE BEACH, AND AGAIN IT’S A VALID TOW. IT’S JUST THAT WHAT WE LOOK AT OR THE INVESTIGATIONS WE LOOK INTO ARE WHEN THE FEES ARE EXCESSIVE OR ABOVE WHAT THEY’RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE PER THE ORDINANCE. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A START AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION. WE SUGGEST MOVING FORWARD, THAT STAFF REVIEW THIS EVERY THREE YEARS. IT’S IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THE TOW OPERATORS, HAVE THEM PROVIDE THAT INPUT. OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM THEM. AND THEN INCORPORATE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BRING FORWARD TO THE BOARD IN THE FUTURE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANY QUESTIONS? I’LL START WITH COMMISSIONER GERARD.>>PAT GERARD: I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULDN’T JUST GO TO WHAT APPARENTLY THE STANDARD IS, $125, OR MAYBE EVEN $120. WHY WE WOULD MAKE THAT INCREMENTAL THING WHEN WE HAVEN’T LOOKED AT IT IN 19 YEARS. WHY NOT JUST GO TO $125 AND GET IT OVER WITH?>>JANET LONG: I AGREE.>>I’M LOOKING AT — >>PAT GERARD: THAT WASN’T A COMMENT, I GUESS. IT WASN’T A REAL QUESTION. BUT IT WAS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND. YOUR RECOMMENDATION.>>PART OF IT IS A LOOKING AT ACROSS THE BOARD CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUE HOLDS A RESPONSIBILITY AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, AGAIN, THAT WE’RE BALANCING THAT IMPACT. FOR A FEE TO GO FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, TO JUMP, AGAIN WE’RE LOOKING AT FOR THAT JUST EXAMPLE THAT I PROVIDED, AND IT COULD VARY BUT ANYWHERE FROM 15% TO 17% INCREASE. AND THERE’S OTHER FEES THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AS WELL. BUT WE WANT TO FIND THAT BALANCE. WE KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED. BUT THAT’S WHY WE THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO REVISIT THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND INCORPORATE THAT.>>PAT GERARD: IT WOULD BE, BUT WE DON’T. SO — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER EGGERS?>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION. JUST LOOKING AT THE CLASS-A, I MEAN WE DIDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT CLASS-Bs OR THE REST OF THEM. BUT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, SINCE IT’S BEEN SO LONG. DO YOU KNOW, BY CHANCE, WHEN HILLSBOROUGH AND SAY PASCO, THOSE TWO, ADJUSTED THEIR RATES?>>HILLSBOROUGH ADJUSTED THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WAS DISSOLVED IN 2017, SO THEY ENACTED AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE TOWING SO THAT WAS THE LAST UP.>>DAVE EGGERS: WHEN WAS THAT?>>2017.>>DAVE EGGERS: AND PASCO?>>PASCO JUST UPDATED IN EARLY 2019. THEY UPPED IT PRIOR TO THAT. THEY UPDATED THEIR FEES IN 2009.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY SO THEY’RE PRETTY WELL UPDATED. I MEAN, IT’S NOT LIKE IT’S BEEN 19 YEARS OR 10 YEARS OR — >>YES. OF THE EIGHT COUNTIES WE COMPARED, SIX OF THE EIGHT HAVE UPDATED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. AND SEVERAL OF THOSE WERE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.>>DAVE EGGERS: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER LONG?>>JANET LONG: MY CONCERN IS BEYOND THE FACT THAT IT’S TAKEN US SO LONG TO LOOK AT THIS, THEY ARE STILL, LET’S JUST PRETEND THAT WE MOVED WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, IT STILL DOESN’T MAKE OUR TOWERS HERE COMPETITIVE WITH THE REST OF THE FOLKS IN THE REGION. I DON’T THINK THAT’S FAIR.>>AGAIN, WE CAN, WHATEVER THE BOARD WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT.>>JANET LONG: I’M JUST SAYING I THINK FAIR IS FAIR.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER JUSTICE.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I’VE BEEN HERE SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2012, NOT ONCE HAVE I GOTTEN A COMMUNICATION SAYING PLEASE RAISE THE RATES FROM THE TOWERS.>>JANET LONG: WEREN’T YOU HERE LAST TIME?>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: THE ONLY TIME IT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS WHEN WE WERE DOING THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVED ALCOHOL. BUT OTHERWISE IT’S NOT LIKE THERE’S A HIGH DEMAND FOR RAISING THE RATES.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I AGREE.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: I MEAN, I DON’T — COMMISSIONER PETERS?>>KATHLEEN PETERS: SO MINE WASN’T REALLY A COMMENT. MY QUESTION WAS, IS THERE A REASON WHY — BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE LETTER WE GOT, YOU DIDN’T INVITE THE PROFESSIONAL RECORDS TO COME AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU MAYBE ON THE RATES. AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY WOULDN’T WE HAVE INVITED? THEY’VE BEEN GOOD PLAYERS AND PARTNERS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, FOR DECADES, AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU OPTED NOT TO HAVE THEM ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR DECISIONS?>>WE DID INVITE THEM TWO YEARS AGO IS WHEN WE HAD THAT ORIGINAL MEETING. WE DID INVITE THEM. THEY PROVIDED FEEDBACK AS WELL DURING THAT MEETING, AND — AT THE MEETING. WE PREVIOUSLY HAD MADE RECOMMENDATION. IT WASN’T REVIEWED BY A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. MORE RECENTLY WE WERE ASKED TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD SO THAT’S WHEN WE CONTINUED THAT REVIEW AND BROUGHT THE MOST RECENT RECOMMENDATION FORWARD.>>KATHLEEN PETERS: THANK YOU.>>PAT GERARD: I JUST THINK THEY’VE BEEN VERY PATIENT. I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE I’VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION ABOUT TOWING RATINGS AND I THINK THEY’VE BEEN WAITING FOR US TO DO SOMETHING. SO, LET’S DO IT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE — IF YOU PREFER, THE MARSONS, MARSON JOHNSON, STEPHANIE WATSON JOHNSON, AND BRENDA SHIRLEY, YOU CAN ALL TAKE THREE MINUTES APIECE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE FIVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP. SO I’LL START WITH MARSON JOHNSON.>>MY NAME IS MARSON JOHNSON. MY WIFE AND I OWN ELVIS TOWING AND TRANSPORT. WE’VE OWNED THE BUSINESS FOR 40 YEARS HERE IN ST. PETERSBURG. I’M ALSO THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE STATE TOWING ASSOCIATION. PROFESSIONAL OPERATORS OF FLORIDA. THE MEETING THAT MR. TELLESON SUGGESTED THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS FOR SOME PROPERTY — PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWING. AT THAT TIME THE ATTORNEY WAS ALSO PRESENT IN THE MEETING AND WE HAD TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS SOME VERBIAGE THAT WAS IN THE COUNTY ORDINANCE THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT, AND BE TAKEN OUT. AND THAT HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. WE ALSO, WITH THE LATE COMMISSIONER MORRONI WE HAD DEALT WITH. MISS BOSTOCK, WE HAD TALKED NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT INCREASING THE RATES BECAUSE THEY HADN’T BEEN DONE SINCE 2019. SOME — OR 2000, I’M SORRY. WE JUST FINISHED POLK COUNTY. WE ARE ACTUALLY MEETING WITH ORANGE COUNTY AND SEMINOLE NEXT MONTH WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THERE. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS LETTERS SENT OUT. THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE WORKS. BUT THERE IS. WE’VE MET WITH AND TALKED WITH SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS, SOME OF THE STAFF, THAT IS NOT AWARE OF WHAT’S GOING ON. PASCO, WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS WITH PASCO, HILLSBOROUGH’S THE SAME THING, AND MANATEE, THE OTHER. THE ISSUE WHEN PTC WAS DISBANDED IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THEY KIND OF JUST MOVED EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO AT THE POINT BECAUSE THERE WAS SUCH CONFLICT WITH INSIDE THE HOUSE. I CAME FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ORIGINALLY. I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS THAT HELPED CREATE THE PTC, AND MET WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA, BECAUSE ALL THE POLICE AGENCIES DIDN’T WANT TO OVERSEE THE POLICE OR ANY OF THE ROTATIONS. THAT’S THE REASON THAT PTC WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT THEY OVERSAW WAS ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH ROTATION. IT DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FREE ENTERPRISE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I SENT A PACKAGE OUT YESTERDAY TO ALL OF THE — ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS. IT SHOWED WHAT WE HAD JUST GOT APPROVED IN POLK COUNTY. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS IF WE COULD PLEASE GET THIS TABLED, WHERE WE CAN COME BACK IN, WE WERE NOT INVITED TO THE WORKSHOP THAT JUST TOOK PLACE, OR ANY — WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE GOING ON. I SPOKE TO MY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MIKE SIEMEN AND HE ALSO MADE ME AWARE THAT HE WAS NOT, THAT’S WHY I’M HERE. NOT ONLY TO REPRESENT THE TOWERS IN PINELLAS COUNTY, BUT THIS IS A STATEWIDE ISSUE. THE COSTS THAT HAVE GONE ASTRONOMICAL ARE INSURANCE, THE COST OF EQUIPMENT, AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. WHEN YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT 15 TO 17, THAT DOESN’T DO ANYTHING. WE’RE TALKING 200% OR 300% — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU NEED TO CONCLUDE.>>OKAY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: PLEASE.>>PAT GERARD: WE DON’T HAVE A BEEPER ANYMORE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE’RE TIMING IT.>>OKAY. OUR MAIN THING IS JUST TO HAVE IT TABLED WHERE WE CAN MEET WITH WHOMEVER AND WE CAN BRING ALL THE FIGURES THAT THEY REALLY NEED, ALL THE DOCUMENT IGS, SO THAT WE CAN GET A FAIR PRICE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. THANK YOU. STEPHANIE, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?>>HE PRETTY MUCH COVERED EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED TO SAY. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION DOES WANT TO GIVE US AN INCREASE. I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT PINELLAS COUNTY CONSUMER PROTECTION HAS PUT INTO THIS. BUT I DO THINK THAT MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE A FINAL RATE INCREASE IS GIVEN. I THINK THAT IT’S JUST ON THE SHY SIDE, AND NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. AND COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.>>I’M SORRY, STEPHANIE WATSON JOHNSON ELVIS TOWING AND PROFESSIONAL TOW OPERATORS OF FLORIDA.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: BRENDA SHIRLEY DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? [OFF MIC]>>MY NAME IS BRENDA SHIRLEY, I’M WITH GULF UNDERWRITERS. I DO INSURANCE WITH TOWERS. I CAME TO SUPPORT THEM WITH THE WAY THE INSURANCE RATE HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND IN THE TOWING INDUSTRY. THEY USED TO PAY 20 YEARS AGO LIKE $3,000 A TRUCK NOW IT’S LIKE $15,000 A TRUCK IN INSURANCE. I JUST CAME TO SUPPORT THEM TO LET YOU KNOW THEY NEED THE INCREASE TO HELP THEM FOR THEIR OTHER COSTS IN BUSINESS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT’S ALL THE CARDS THAT I HAVE.>>JANET LONG: CHAD UP CHAIR, I >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF. WE SEND OUT A NOTICE TO THE TOWING INDUSTRY THAT WE WERE HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING TODAY?>>I DID REACH OUT TO MR. SIEMEN LAST WEEK, THE PWF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I BELIEVE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER GERARD?>>PAT GERARD: I JUST HAD A QUESTION OF THE TOWING ORGANIZATIONS. IF WE — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU WANT TO COME BACK? THANK YOU.>>PAT GERARD: YOU SAY YOU WANTED TO TABLE IT. IT’S A RISKY THING, SINCE IT’S TAKEN US 19 YEARS TO GET HERE. [LAUGHTER]>>WE’RE PATIENT.>>PAT GERARD: YES YOU ARE. BUT IF WE RAISED IT TO $125 WOULD YOU STILL WANT TO TABLE IT?>>YES, BECAUSE THERE’S OTHER ISSUES. NOT JUST THE HOOKUP. BUT THE STORAGE ISSUES, BECAUSE OF THE COST, AND WHAT IT’S INCREASED. IT SEEMS LIKE A WHOLE LOT BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT 20 YEARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE’RE COMING, THAT’S WHY I SENT YOU TO POLK, IF YOU REVIEW THAT AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT POLK’S GOT WE’RE STILL, EVEN IF WE WERE TO AGREE AT THAT, WE’RE STILL BEHIND THE BALL AND WE’RE GOING TO BE BACK HERE COMING AGAIN. IT’S LIKE YOU STATED THAT WHY AREN’T WE COMING EVEN ACROSS THE BOARD WITH WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING? THAT’S WHY WE’RE MEETING WITH ORANGE AND SEMINOLE, HILLSBOROUGH, AND PASCO. IN ORDER TO GET EVERYBODY UP WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN PALM BEACH AND WE’RE GOING TO JACKSONVILLE AS WELL BECAUSE A LOT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONS WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ACROSS. BECAUSE THE MAJOR PROBLEM THAT WE’RE RUNNING INTO NOW IS WE’RE LOSING MAJOR COMPANIES. I MEAN, BIG COMPANIES. 40 AND 50 UNIT COMPANIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND IT’S GOING NATIONAL. BECAUSE THEY CAN’T AFFORD THE INSURANCE YOU KNOW. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING OUR INSURANCE WENT UP 325% IN 2017. SO A 5% INCREASE IS NOTHING.>>DID EVERYBODY RECEIVE THE POLK COUNTY RATE?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I DID NOT RECEIVE IT.>>IT WAS E-MAILED YESTERDAY. YESTERDAY MORNING. TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: DID ANYONE ELSE RECEIVE IT?>>YES, THAT’S CORRECT.>>DAVE EGGERS: IT HAD THE ORDINANCE IN THERE AND ALL OF THE RATES THAT WERE PREPARED BY THE STAFF AND THEIR SUGGESTION NEXT TO IT.>>CORRECT.>>AND THEN THE BACK PART OF IT WAS THE POLK COUNTY RATES, WHICH WERE JUST APPROVED. I WANT TO SAY IN MAY. THERE’S NOT A HUGE GAP BUT WE’D LIKE TO BE AT THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE, OR WHAT WE’RE PROPOSING TO A LOT OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.>>PAT GERARD: CAN WE ASK THAT THE STAFF MEET WITH THESE PEOPLE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH COMMENSURATE WITH THE REST OF THE STATE. AT LEAST WHERE WE THINK THE REST OF THE STATE IS GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS? IF YOU’RE — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: LET’S SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE WISHES TO DO.>>JANET LONG: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO WHAT COMMISSIONER GERARD SUGGESTED, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE’RE JUST GOING TO BE BACK HERE ADDRESSING IT AGAIN.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL:ING WELL, I THINK THERE’S A BALANCE HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A BALANCE BETWEEN OUR CONSUMERS, AND CITIZENS, VERSUS THE BUSINESS. AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT OUR STAFF IS TRYING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE BALANCE AND LOOKING AT THE FEES. I’M ALWAYS AFRAID OF, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU START COMPARING YOURSELF AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTY WHICH WE’VE ALREADY DONE AND THEN THEY START COMPARING AGAINST YOU, YOU START THE SPIRALING RISE IN COSTS. AND I’LL SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE WISHES TO DO BUT COMMISSIONER JUSTICE?>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: WELL, THANK YOU. I THINK YOU’RE POINT ABOUT THAT COMPARISON GAME WE CAN PLAY FOREVER. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DEFERRING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY. I THINK THAT’S FAIR. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. AND I DO THINK MY HISTORY IN TALLAHASSEE WAS A ALWAYS HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORGANIZATION SO I WANTED TO GIVE THEM A FAIR SHAKE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT’S IMPORTANT TO YOUR INDUSTRY, YOU NEED TO BE HERE. AND AGAIN I HAVE NOT HEARD, NOT ONE SINGLE COMMUNICATION TO MY OFFICE THAT HEY WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THESE RATES. THE COMMISSIONERS YOU MENTIONED HAVEN’T BEEN HERE OR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, BUT I FIND DEFERRING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH STAFF TO GIVE US ALL THE INFORMATION SO WE MAKE THE BEST DECISION.>>DAVE EGGERS: I SECOND THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER PETERS AND THEN COMMISSIONER WELCH.>>KATHLEEN PETERS: I WOULD SAY I’VE HEARD FROM NOT ONLY WHEN I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE DID I HEAR FROM BUT WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING I HEARD FROM THEM AND I’VE HEARD FROM THEM SINCE I’VE BEEN ELECTED. I’VE HEARD PLENTY FROM THE INDUSTRY. AND I DID REACH OUT TO THE AGENDA AND THAT’S WHY I WAS DISCUSSING THIS ON THURSDAY, THE DIFFERENCES. BECAUSE IT’S NOT JUST THE 125, THERE’S DIFFERENT SCHEDULES AND DIFFERENT GROUPS. AND SOME OF THEM WERE $100 DISPARITIES. NOW ON THE MILEAGE THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DISPARITIES. I’M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD MATCH EVERYBODY, I’M ABSOLUTELY NOT SAYING THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM TAKE JUST A — I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN THEM AT THE TABLE WHEN . AND HAD THEY BEEN AT THE TABLE WHEN THEY DID IT I THINK THE CONVERSATION WE’D BE HAVING RIGHT NOW WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. AND SO I WOULD SUPPORT, LIKE A SIX-MONTH DEFER JUST FOR THEM TO NEGOTIATE. MAYBE THEY COULD DO IT IN TWO MONTHS. WHO KNOWS. BUT YOU KNOW, MY INTUITION TELLS ME THE TOWING INDUSTRY IS GOING TO COME BACK WITH SIGNIFICANT RATIONALE AS TO WHY IN 19 YEARS THEY HAVEN’T HAD IT AND NOW THIS IS THE RATIONALE ON WHICH THEY THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. I’M NOT SAYING WE MATCH POLK COUNTY ON ANYTHING. I’M NOT SAYING WE COMPETE THAT WAY. BUT I DO THINK THEY SHOULD BE AT THE TABLE FOR AT LEAST THE CONVERSATION. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN GOOD PARTNERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN AN INCREDIBLY PATIENT THROUGH RECESSION, THROUGH GAS CRISIS, THROUGH EVERYTHING THEY’VE BEEN PATIENT. SO, I WOULD GIVE THEM THAT. THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER WELCH?>>KENNETH WELCH: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WOULD SUPPORT GOING BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, AS WELL. I’VE HEARD ABOUT THIS SPORADICALLY. IT HASN’T BEEN CONSISTENT. BUT I DO REMEMBER A FEW E-MAILS OR LETTERS, BUT NOTHING CONSISTENT. WHAT E-MAIL ADDRESS WOULD THAT HAVE COME FROM BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE IT?>>KATHLEEN PETERS: ELVISTOWING ALL ONE WORD.>>DAVE EGGERS: IT’S SHOWING UP TO EVERYBODY.>>KENNETH WELCH: IT’S IN THE SPAM FOLDER FOR ME. SO THAT’S WHY SOME OF US DIDN’T GET IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. OKAY. I’M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HEAR SUPPORT FOR DEFERRING THIS FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME AND AT LEAST MEETING WITH THE INDUSTRY SO IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION.>>JANET LONG: I MOVE THAT WE DELAY THIS DECISION FOR 60 DAYS AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE TABLE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ALL RIGHT.>>DAVE EGGERS: THEY’RE NODDING THAT’S GOOD. I AGREE. SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LONG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS. TO DEFER FOR 60 DAYS. WE’RE READY TO VOTE.>>JANET LONG: I KNOW, I’M TRYING TO GET IN HERE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY IT’S A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO DEFER FOR 60 DAYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE FOR SUCH A LARGE PART OF OUR MEETING TODAY.>>IT’S VERY INTERESTING.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE APPRECIATE THAT. AND MAYBE A GOOD EDUCATION IN THE PROCESS. AGENDA ITEM 60.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS, AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAMS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING, NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I HAVE NO CARDS FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS US ON THE 2019-2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AGENDA ITEM 60? OKAY I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.>>KENNETH WELCH: MOVE APPROVAL.>>PAT GERARD: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELCH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS. COMMISSIONER GERARD. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY THAT PASSES UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK. I KNOW THAT’S ALWAYS A LOT OF WORK, RUTH, TO YOU AND YOUR STAFF TO PUT THAT WHOLE PLAN TOGETHER TO DECIDE WHICH NOT FOR PROFITS WILL RECEIVE FUNDING, AND IT REALLY IS A VERY WONDERFUL PROGRAM THAT YOU ALL PUT TOGETHER. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. 61.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: ITEM 61 IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. ALL THOSE WISHING TO GIVE TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND TO TAKE THE OATH. [WITNESSES SWORN] THIS IS CASE NO. DMP-09-60-19, APPLICATION OF BAYOU DEVELOPMENT INC. FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONED PROPERTY. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY HEARING. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. I HAVE TWO CARDS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. AND NONE AGAINST. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROJECT? THIS IS AGENDA ITEM 61, BAYOU DEVELOPMENT. THEN I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.>>KENNETH WELCH: MOVE APPROVAL.>>PAT GERARD: SECOND.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELCH AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GERARD. ANY QUESTIONS?>>DAVE EGGERS: I JUST WANTED, AGAIN, I MENTIONED IT ON THURSDAY AT OUR MEETING THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT DESIGNATION OF THAT 9th STREET PASS-THROUGH THAT COULD VERY WELL BECOME AN ENTRYWAY TO THE PARK, OUR PARK NEXT DOOR. IT IS CONNECTED. AND I DON’T WANT PEOPLE COMING AND BUYING PROPERTY HERE AND THEN SAYING, WELL, THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED. IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THOSE FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS VERY — THIS COULD HAPPEN. IN FACT I KNOW THERE’S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OPENING IT UP TO THAT PARK. SO I’M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT GETS PUT IN THE RECORD. BUT IF YOU GUYS ARE DOING THE DEVELOPMENT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE INDICATED TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE BUYING. AND, IN FACT, I DON’T KNOW IF THERE’S ANYBODY HERE, BUT THERE WAS SOME OF THE STAPLE EFFORT MADE FOR A DEVELOPMENT OFF OF FEE POND ROAD WHERE THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY, INSIDE THE PROMONTORY WERE TOLD THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ACCESSIBLE ROAD AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE. SO THERE WAS INDICATIONS IN THEIR, NOT EVEN SURE WHAT DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WERE IN, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE OPEN AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY. AND I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT ANY POTENTIAL BUYERS UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THAT’S MY ONLY COMMENT. AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO TO ASSURE THAT, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A PART OF IT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I SAY JAKE NODDING HIS HEAD. BUT YOU CAN — HE’LL FIGURE IT OUT.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY. OKAY SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. AND WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO, WE’LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. WE’RE MISSING COMMISSIONER JUSTICE SO WE’LL SAY IT PASSES 6-073 THANK YOU. NEXT IS AGENDA ITEM 62. AND I DO HAVE ONE CARD IN OPPOSITION.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: ITEM 62 IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. ALL THOSE WISHING TO GIVE TESTIMONY IN THAT ITEM PLEASE STAND TO TAKE THE OATH. [WITNESSES SWORN] THIS IS CASE Z ORB 07-06-19 APPLICATION OF CHIMAYO LLC FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM R-4, ONE, TWO, AND THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RMH, RESIDENTIAL MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOME, AND RPD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TO RM, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RM-CO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT, AND THREE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION WERE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY HEARING. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. SINCE THERE IS OPPOSITION, LET’S HAVE A BRIEF STAFF PRESENTATION. AND THEN THE REGISTERED CITIZEN HAS FOUR OTHERS, SO SHE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE TEN MINUTES.>>GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS CASE, AND THEN THE NEXT CASE AFTERWARD ARE BY THE SAME APPLICANT, AND ARE KIND OF CONNECTED. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I’LL BE HERE FOR BOTH TOGETHER. THIS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 6.9 ACRES IN SIZE, CONSISTS OF 27 SEPARATE PARCELS, ALL OF WHICH ARE VACANT. THE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL URBAN. WHICH ALLOWS 7 1/2 UNITS AN ACRE. THERE’S NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THAT DENSITY. THE ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT IS WHAT’S BEFORE YOU TODAY FROM R-4, RMH, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME AND RPD WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ON 4.7 OF THE ACRES, AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON 2.2 OF THOSE ACRES. THAT WOULD LIMIT THAT PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO ONLY THE USES OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX. YOU CAN SEE THE AREA HERE. WE INDICATED THE AREA IN BLUE THAT HAS THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON IT, AND THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IN JUST STRAIGHT RM WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. PROPERTY IS TO THE SOUTH OF GANDY BOULEVARD ON ABOUT THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF SAVONA BOULEVARD — SAVONA DRIVE, AROUND SNUG HARBOR DRIVE ROAD TO THE WEST OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE ALL THE LOTS HERE. VACANT LOTS, CONSISTS OF FOUR DIFFERENT AREAS. THERE’S A LOT OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BETWEEN THESE. THE SURROUNDING USES, WE’LL START TO THE NORTH, THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF RICARDO PLACE NORTHEAST. TO THE SOUTH IS ALL WETLAND AREA. TO THE SOUTH OF THE SMALL TRIANGLE THERE’S A COUPLE OF DEVELOPMENT, EITHER MOBILE HOME OR SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THAT RUNS ALONG MERTOLA DRIVE NORTHEAST. VARIOUS SINGLE-FAMILY OR MOBILE HOMES ON THESE LOTS. LARGE TOWNHOUSE BUILDINGS DOWN HERE. JUST TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY IS A RETENTION AREA, OWNED BIP PINELLAS COUNTY. AND OFF TO THE NORTHEAST IS A TOWNHOUSE THAT’S UNDER DEVELOPMENT. DIRECTLY TO THE WEST THERE’S A SMALL THREE PARCELS OF INDUSTRIAL AREA, AND THEN JUST NORTH OF THOSE IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES IN AND AROUND THIS AREA. AGAIN THE REQUEST, THERE’S NO CHANGE TO THE LAND USE. ONLY A REQUEST TO THE ZONING CHANGE. HERE’S JUST A CLOSER AERIAL OVERVIEW. THIS IS LOOKING WEST, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PARCELS HERE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITES FROM SAVONA DRIVE. PROPERTY IS VACANT, WOODED, THIS AREA HERE IS PINELLAS TRAIL EXTENSION THAT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAVONA DRIVE. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THIS PICTURE, AS WELL. IF WE GO DOWN TO THE PARCELS OFF MORTOLA DRIVE NORTHEAST, AGAIN THEY ARE WOODED AND VACANT. TWO EXAMPLES OF THE PROPERTIES HERE. IF WE SWING BACK AROUND TO THE NORTH THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS THERE’S 11 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH ON THAT RICARDO PLACE. AND OFF TO THE NORTHEAST IS A 27 UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT THAT’S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND THEN BACK DOWN TO OFF OF MORTOLA DRIVE THERE’S 12 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. TO THE WEST ACROSS SAN MARTIN BOULEVARD THERE’S THE SMALL AREA OF INDUSTRIAL USES. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS TO THAT NORTHERN 2.2 ACRE PIECE WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOMES, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX. IT WOULD TAKE OUT THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, OR CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS FROM THAT AREA. AGAIN THERE’S NO CHANGE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY RU AT 7.5 UNITS PER ACRE. THERE’S THE POTENTIAL FOR 53 UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED. AGAIN WE FIND THAT THEY’RE APPROPRIATE. THE LOT SIZES AND DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY IN THE RM, WITH THE RM YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE, THAT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT AND THE SMALLER LOT SIZES GIVES A FLEXIBILITY WITH DEVELOPMENT. THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING THE USES, OR AGAINST THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IS APPROPRIATE. IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WE FIND THAT IT’S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I’LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.>>DAVE EGGERS: I HAVE A QUESTION.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YES, COMMISSIONER EGGERS.>>DAVE EGGERS: YOU SAY IT’S ■ COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA TALKING ABOUT THE RNCO. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. RIGHT NEXT TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES. SO BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THEN THE TRAIL AND THEN THE LAND, LET ME 345IK SURE I GET THE RIGHT ONE HERE. MAYBE THAT WAS THE OTHER SIDE, BUT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD ALL THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF THAT PROPERTY ARE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, CORRECT?>>YEAH. ON THE OVERHEAD, IS THE OVERHEAD UP. ALL THESE PROPERTIES THESE ARE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES. THIS IS THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED HERE THAT IS LIMITED WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON IT. CURRENTLY IT CONSISTS OF 15 PLATTED LOTS ON HERE. SO RIGHT NOW UNDER THE R-4 EACH CAN DEVELOP 15 HOUSES. THE CHANGE TO RM-CO, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO UP TO TOWNHOUSES, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX. BUT NOT APARTMENTS OR CONDOMINIUM.>>DAVE EGGERS: BUT YOU COULD PUT 53 UNITS?>>NOT ON HERE. THE 53 IS IF YOU TAKE THE RU WITH THE TOTAL ACREAGE. BETWEEN ALL OF THESE — >>DAVE EGGERS: OH, OKAY SO ONLY 15 ON THAT AREA THERE? WELL 15 LOTS ARE WHAT’S THERE CURRENTLY. IF THEY WERE TO REPLAT AND ALLOW SMALLER LOT SIZES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GET MORE IN. BUT THAT’S, YOU KNOW, SITE PLAN.>>DAVE EGGERS: SITE PLAN. DON’T TOUCH. DON’T TOUCH. I UNDERSTAND. WHEN YOU OPEN UP THAT POSSIBILITY, IT’S NOT 15 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT’S GOING TO GO THERE? COMPARED TO WHAT’S THERE RIGHT NOW. SO I’M NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU SAY IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH IT. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS CONFUSED ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE.>>OH, COMPATIBILITY WE LOOKED AT WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WAS TAKING OUT THOSE HIGHER APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD BE LARGER BLOCK, THEY CAN GO UP TO 75 FEET IN HEIGHT. SO, INSTEAD OF HAVING A BIG TOYERING LOT THERE, A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, OR A SERIES OF DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES, IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY THAN LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX.>>DAVE EGGERS: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, THANK YOU FOR NOW. ALL RIGHT, SYLVIA GRISWALD — OH, I’M SORRY. WAIT. I NEED TO HAVE THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES. SORRY ABOUT THAT.>>COMMISSIONERS, 200 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, IN ST. PETERSBURG, NOM 451. LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT WE COME FORWARD TODAY WITH THE FULL AND COMPLETE SUPPORT OF YOUR ZONING STAFF AND THE FULL AND COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THE LPA WHO VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. TO MAKE EMPHASIS, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN DENSITY HERE. THERE’S NO FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU. THE DENSITY WILL REMAIN THE SAME. WE’RE NOT SEEKING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY IN ANY REGARD. AND AS THE STAFF JUST SHOWED YOU, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THIS BEING A LITTLE BIT OF A WIDE AREA. IF WE COULD GO TO THE OVERHEAD, PLEASE. IS THAT UP FOR YOU?>>KENNETH WELCH: MM-HMM.>>SO, THIS REZONING INCLUDES ALL THIS AREA, ALL OF THIS AREA, AND THESE TWO AREAS HERE. SO THIS WOULD BE A WIDE AREA RESIDENTIAL. CURRENTLY ZONED R-4. RM WE MOVED TO RM IN WORKING WITH THE STAFF BECAUSE IT ALLOWS OPTIONS, AND ALLOWS A LOT OF VARIABILITY IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THE SITE AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PUZZLE OF RETENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS AND ALL THOSE SORT OF THINGS, IT GIVES YOU VARIABILITY, AND ALSO ALLOWS MORE OPEN SPACE. NOW DURING THE PROCESS STAFF EXCISED FROM US TWO IMPORTANT CONDITIONS. WHICH IS WHY WE’RE IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. SO THIS IS THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. ONE IS THE PROPERTY EXTENDED INTO THIS AREA, STAFF ASKED IF THAT WOULD BE REMOVED. WE SAID YES WE WOULD DO THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND ELEMENT, WHICH WAS JUST MENTIONED TO YOU, IS THEY ALSO RESTRICTED IT FROM CONDOS APARTMENTS THAT WOULD STACK UP, BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE. SO WE DID AGREE TO THOSE. IN THIS AREA HERE. SO THAT WE FELT AND THE LPA FELT THAT MADE IT A LOT MORE COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL. IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT ADJACENT TO THE SITE RIGHT HERE IS A TOWNHOME PROJECT GOING UP, THESE ARE JUST A COUPLE QUICK PHOTOS OF IT. SO THAT’S CERTAINLY WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE AREA, IMMEDIATE AREA AND ADJACENT TO THE AREA. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THIS IS CONCEPTUAL OF WHAT POTENTIALLY IS PROPOSED. THIS IS A PROPERTY, WORKING WITH TONIGHT. YOU DID SEE WHAT’S PROPOSED IS A VERY UPSCALE NICE LOOKING TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. RM DOES ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY VARIATIONS FOR LOT SIZES. DOES ALLOW FOR TYPICALLY MORE OPEN SPACE. SO IN TERMS OF TOTAL DENSITY THERE’S NO CHANGE OF TRAFFIC. ANY KIND OF WATER ISSUES OR POTENTIAL FLOODING ISSUES WILL BE BETTER ONCE THE SITES ARE ENGINEERED FOR IT RATHER THAN JUST BEING PURELY VACANT LANDS NOW. SO IN REGARD TO YOUR STAFF REP REPORTS WHO NOTE TO YOU JUST ON THE COMP PLAN CHAPTER 1.2.3, 1.2.4, THAT BOTH ON ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE USES THIS SITE IS COMPATIBLE AND WOULD WORK WELL WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO WITH THAT WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.>>DAVE EGGERS: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE DENSITIES ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE.>>THE DENSITY CAN’T CHANGE.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY. SO, THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WILL BE ON THAT PIECE TO THE NORTH, THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED WILL BE NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.>>SO MY UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, OR NO FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, THE DENSITY WILL BE THE SAME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CONFIGURE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THERE DEPENDING UPON HOW THOSE LOTS COME OUT AND HOW THE PLANNING COMES OUT. BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A BIG CHANGE, OR ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MY QUESTION IS ONE OF THE LETTERS OF CONCERNS THAT WE RECEIVED AS PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE, THIS ALL BE ON A SEPTIC SYSTEM? IT SAYS THAT — OR DO YOU KNOW?>>ACTUALLY, I’M NOT SURE OF THAT ANSWER.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU DON’T KNOW?>>PAT GERARD: THEY DON’T DO THAT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.>>DAVE EGGERS: DEPENDING WHERE IT’S LOCATED.>>GOOD EVENING, RENEA VINCENT PLANNING DIRECTOR. THIS PROPERTY SIMPLY CANNOT DEVELOP IN THIS MATTER ON SEPTIC. IT’S IN THE CITY OF ST. PETE’S UTILITIES AREA. THEY’LL HAVE TO BRING UTILITIES INTO THE SITE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE HAVE SOME HOMES IN THERE THAT ARE STILL ON SEPTIC. AND SO THEY’RE, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT THROUGH THIS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IT WOULD BE A NICE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT.>>IT MAY. IF I CAN ADDRESS ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER EGGERS BROUGHT UP. THE MATH ON THE DENSITY RIGHT NOW IN THAT NORTH PIECE, IT ESSENTIALLY DOESN’T GET ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT JUST ON THE MATH OF ABOVE THE 15 PLATTED LOTS THAT ARE THERE NOW. I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THE RM REQUIRES A 10%, MINIMUM 10% SET-ASIDE OF OPEN SPACE AND THE R-4 THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR SET ASIDE OF OPEN SPACE. SO THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A FEW THINGS FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS THAT WILL SET ASIDE SOME OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD LOSE IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME IN AND JUST PUT IN A SINGLE FAMILY PLATTED LOTS.>>DAVE EGGERS: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. I DO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE LPA WAS A 5-2 VOTE. YOU SAID IT WAS UNANIMOUS.>>I SAID THERE WAS GOOD SUPPORT, I BELIEVE. I DIDN’T MEAN TO IMPLY ANYTHING — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WELL, I INTERPRET THAT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? AT THIS POINT. OKAY, THEN WE WILL — I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY MINUTES YOU HAVE LEFT.>>PAT GERARD: 16 MINUTES AND 36 SECONDS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. ALL RIGHT IT’S NOW TIME FOR SYLVIA GRISWALD.>>PAT GERARD: SHE HAS TEN MINUTES.>>GOOD EVENING.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.>>SYLVIA GRISWALD 1198 RICARDO PLACE, 33702. I LIVE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO PROJECTED DEVELOPMENTS. AND IF I COULD, OUR SITUATION IS UNIQUE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, THERE’S TEN LITTLE HOUSES, AND THERE’S ALL THESE BEAUTIFUL, GREEN TREES. AND IT KILLS US TO SEE THE THOUGHT OF THOSE TREES GOING BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH WILDLIFE, AND IT’S SUCH A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR BIGGER CONCERN IS WHEN YOU GET DONE BUILDING ALL THESE THINGS. THIS IS GOING TO BE US. SORRY. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THEM. ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. SO YOU’RE BASICALLY GOING TO BOX US IN. SO THESE ARE OUR HOUSES AND THIS IS WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU LET THEM BUILD ON BOTH SIDES OF US. AND AGAIN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT TEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIKE A HUGE DEVELOPMENT. AND I GUARANTEE THERE’S NOT ONE OTHER PLACE IN THIS COUNTY THAT YOU HAVE TEN HOMES SURROUNDED BY THESE BIG DEVELOPMENTS. AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW THEY SAY OPEN SPACE. THE OPEN SPACE IS WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS. THE OPEN SPACE IS WHERE THE RETENTION BONDS ARE. YOU PUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOWNHOME. AND THIS IS US. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT LEAST YOU HAVE A LITTLE SPACE IN BETWEEN TO LET THE LIGHT COME THROUGH. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO THIS, AND THEY’RE CONSTANTLY TOWNHOMES WHERE IS THE LIGHT COMING FROM? WE LOSE ALL OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, AND I’LL BE SPEAKING IN THE NEXT SEGMENT, TOO, BECAUSE THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT, TOO, BECAUSE I LIVE ON THAT STREET. I BELIEVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, I’D LIKE TO SEE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION. AND THIS IS THE OTHER THING THAT THEY FAILED TO SHOW YOU, IN THAT AREA, OKAY. THESE ARE OUR HOUSES. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THAT’S EXACTLY WHERE YOU NEED TO PLACE IT THANK YOU.>>OKAY. THESE ARE OUR HOUSES. SIMPLE, BASIC LITTLE HOMES THAT WE’VE ALL — I’VE BEEN IN MY HOME 35 YEARS. I’VE WORKED TWO JOBS TO PAY FOR MY HOME, WHICH I’M VERY PROUD OF. AND MY NEIGHBOR COULDN’T BE HERE. HE LIVED IN HIS HOME, HIS UNCLE OWNED THE HOME. HIS UNCLE NAME THE STREET. HE WAS THE FIRST ONE THERE. HIS HOUSE IS ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND. SO THAT’S ANOTHER HUGE ISSUE FOR US, TOO, IS ALL THE WATER. YOU’RE GOING TO PUT US IN BETWEEN THIS, AND NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO BE BUT YOU’RE GOING TO BUILD THEM UP AND WE’RE GOING TO BE DOWN. AND IT DOESN’T EVEN — I KNOW IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK ABOUT SOMEONE AT THE LAST MEETING TRENDING. DO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE TRENDING? DO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PATH IN THAT DIRECTION? CAN WE MAYBE TRY TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT’S OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS IS YOU CAN HARDLY SEE BUT THERE’S HOUSES BEHIND THERE ON SAN MARTIN. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. THERE’S SOME BEAUTIFUL HOMES ON THE BACK ROADS BUT IF YOU NOTICE THE TREES, EVERYBODY HAS KEPT IT VERY NATURAL. VERY, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE BEAUTY THAT WE HAVE. THAT’S ON SAN MARTIN A BACK ROAD. AND THERE’S SOME BEAUTIFUL EXPENSIVE HOMES BACK THERE RIGHT NOW. IF YOU NOTICE, THEY’RE COVERED IN TREES. THEY KEPT WITH THE BEAUTY OF WHEATON PRESERVE IS RIGHT THERE, TOO. IT’S RIGHT ABUTTING SOME OF THIS PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THAT TOWNHOME THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. I’LL SPEAK ON IT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. THEY STARTED THAT PROJECT 4 1/2 YEARS AGO. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS LAND. MY PROPERTY ABUTS THIS LAND. I’M AT THE END OF THE COUNTY AND THAT’S THE CITY. THIS IS WHAT I’VE LIVED WITH FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY TELL ME AT THE CITY IS THAT WHEN IT’S DONE I WON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS ANYMORE. OKAY. THAT ONE BUILDING, THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BUILD FIVE UNITS THERE. AND YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THEY BUILT IN HERE THAT ONE UNIT YOU SEE STANDING IS ALL THEY’VE BUILT IN A YEAR. SO IF YOU DO THE MATH, I’M EXPECTED TO DEAL WITH THIS STUFF FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS? SO, WE CONTINUE WITH THESE BIG DEVELOPMENTS, HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE? HOW LONG AM I GOING TO HAVE, WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL MY NEIGHBORS ARE HERE. AND YOU KNOW, AT THE LAST MEETING, A PERSON SAID ONLY TWO PEOPLE SPOKE. WELL THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE THERE. MAYBE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO — THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. AND WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE TEN HOUSES, THERE’S NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO SPEAK. AND AS YOU SPOKE OF, THERE’S BEAUTIFUL — THE LAND OUT THERE IS GORGEOUS. I’VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH COYOTES SINCE THEY BUILT THAT TOWNHOME, CLEARED THAT LAND, WE’VE HAD THREE CATS EATEN. I HAVE THEM ON MY CAMERAS AT NIGHT. SO THE MORE LAND YOU TAKE AWAY, I MEAN, I THINK WE PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION, I MEAN JUST BASICALLY YOU HURT THE ENVIRONMENT. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A THING ON CNN, IT WAS FUNNY, BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I WAS GOING THROUGH CNN, IT SAID U.S. CITIES ARE LOSING 36 MILLION TREES A YEAR. AND I KNOW WE WILL STILL LOSE TREES IF THEY BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BUT WE’D BE ABLE TO GET A BETTER, NATURAL FEEL, AND LIKE I SAID FOR US, LIVING LIKE THAT. WITH EVERYBODY — I MEAN I KNOW IT’S HIS PROPERTY AND I KNOW HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THINGS ON IT. AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I JUST HOPE THAT YOU ALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT — THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SEE SOME TYPE OF SITE PLAN BEFORE WE GO FORWARD TO SEE EXACTLY HOW FAR THEY’RE GOING TO BOX US IN. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? GIVE US SOME IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT. THE TRAFFIC ON SAN MARTIN IS HORRIBLE. THERE WERE TWO ACCIDENTS IN THE LAST WEEK. AND I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE AWARE AMAZON HAS MOVED IN TO BEHIND DERBY LANE. THEY HAVE 200 TRUCKS. THEY COME AND GO EVERY DAY. I’VE GOT VIDEO OF THEIR PARKING LOT AT NIGHT. TRYING TO GET OUT IS RIDICULOUS. THEY’RE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT 83 RRD, THE BRIDGE THERE. I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT THE TRAFFIC’S GOING TO BE LIKE. I TALKED TO SOMEONE FROM THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT US, EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS IT’S NOT. IT IS. SAVONA IS JUST A ROAD. MY ROAD IS A DIRT ROAD. WE HAVE MAINTAINED THAT ROAD AS LONG AS I’VE BEEN THERE. THE CITY DOESN’T COME DOWN PAST MY NEIGHBOR’S MAILBOX. IT’S A PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROAD. AND I JUST THINK LIKE I SAID, I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT CAN WE JUST MAYBE KIND OF KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE? AND ALSO I DON’T KNOW IF THEY NEED ANY MORE TOWNHOMES. BEHIND ME THEY HAVEN’T SOLD LIKE I DON’T THINK ANY. THEY’VE ONLY BUILT ONE BUILDING. THAT’S NOT EVEN DONE. SO I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, MY CONCERN IS WE’RE GOING TO BE IN THAT ZONE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IF THEY DON’T SELL. THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR PROPERTY VALUE? WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON’T FINISH THAT, I’M FIGHTING WITH THE CITY RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF THEY’LL AT LEAST PUT UP SOME TYPE OF BARRIER BETWEEN ME AND THEM SO I DON’T HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT EVERY SINGLE DAY. YOU KNOW, IT IS, I THINK WE DO A DISSERVICE, LIKE I SAID THE TREES, THEY TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THEY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FLOODING. HE SAYS OH, IT’S GOING TO BE BETTER, IT’S GOING TO BE BETTER. IS IT GOING TO BE BETTER? YOU SAW THOSE PICTURES? IS IT REALLY GOING TO BE BETTER? WE DON’T KNOW. IT’S ALL A PROCESS. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I JUST FEEL WE NEED TO MAYBE SOMETIMES PUT THE WHOA ON HOW MUCH WE DO. ALL THOSE HOUSES AROUND, YOU SAW ON SAN MARTIN ALL THOSE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE ONLY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT IS THAT ONE THAT ST. PETE IS LETTING THEM BUILD. THERE’S NO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. THERE’S ONE OTHER BY THE WATER WHICH I UNDERSTAND ON THE WATER. THERE’S SOME BEAUTIFUL TOWNHOMES. PEOPLE HAVE THEIR BOATS AND STUFF. BUT AS YOU SAID, VERY NICELY, THOSE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. I’VE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR 35 YEARS. I RAISED MY CHILDREN THERE. THEY COME HOME FOR DINNER. YOU KNOW. AND ALL MY NEIGHBORS. WE JUST WANT A LITTLE BIT OF PEACE AND QUIET. WE WANT A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT IS OUR QUALITY OF LIFE? DO WE GET ANY RIGHTS HERE AS A CITIZEN? I’VE BEEN HERE FOR LIKE I SAID, I’VE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR 35 YEARS. MY NEIGHBORS IN ACTUALLY SELLING HIS UNCLE’S FARM HE’S BEEN THERE FOR 60 YEARS AND HE’S ON THE GROUND. SO I SAID YOU GOING TO LET THEM BUILD OUT AND WE’RE GOING TO BE IN LIKE THIS LITTLE TRENCH. SO I MEAN LIKE I SAID, I GET IT. BUT AT SOME POINT COULD WE JUST MAYBE TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ALL LIVE TOGETHER, IN A — I KNOW THERE’S NO PERFECT WORLD. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THERE MIGHT BE. BUT I’LL BE BACK TO SEE YOU WITHOUT MY BOXES.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WAS A VERY CLEVER WAY OF PROVIDING A VISUAL.>>JANET LONG: NICE VISUAL.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU’RE THE FIRST IN MY 21 YEARS TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.>>BUT SEE NOBODY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT. YOU SEE THE PICTURES, BUT UNLESS YOU LIVE THERE, AND YOU REALIZE THEY’RE GOING TO CUT OFF EVERYTHING YOU’VE HAD. I KNOW HE OWNS THE PROPERTY BUT CAN WE MAYBE WORK TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT IS, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBLE. LIKE YOU SAID COMPATIBLE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT. JUST BECAUSE THAT ONE GENTLEMAN IS BUILDING TOWNHOMES BEHIND ME, AND I DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW HE GOT THE PERMIT TO DO THAT. THERE’S NOTHING — THERE’S NO OTHER TOWNHOMES UNLESS YOU GO BACK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SUN RIVER ROAD AND THAT’S JUST MY, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THAT’S LIKE I SAID I DON’T WANT TO BE BOXED IN. I LOVE MY HOUSE. I LOVE MY KIDS. I LOVE TO COME HOME, YOU KNOW. EVERYBODY HAS DINNER. WE WALK THE DOGS. WE SIT AT NIGHT AND WE JUST LOOK AT THE BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDINGS. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KEEP A LOT OF THAT. SO I’LL BE BACK.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY, THANK YOU.>>JANET LONG: THANK YOU.>>YOU’RE WELCOME.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY COMMISSION ON THIS? BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY CARD I HAD, AND SHE, YOU KNOW, WAS REPRESENTING, I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, OKAY. MR. PRESSMAN? THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF.>>MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, I ALWAYS HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR CITIZENS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE TO CLARIFY THE RECORD. BECAUSE, I THINK WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU WAS PRESENTED IN GOOD FAITH, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I SEE AS UNFORTUNATELY A LITTLE MISDIRECTION. SO LET ME SHOW YOU — LET ME TELL YOU FIRST OF ALL, THAT THIS SITE IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WEED LANE PRESERVE. THAT’S BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE AND STAFF HAS PRESENTED THAT. YOU CAN JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT A MAP. SO THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SECONDLY WHAT I’D LIKE TO SHOW YOU IS LOOKING AT THE SITE IN TERMS OF BEING BOXED IN, BEAR WITH ME A SECOND. SO IF WE COULD ZOOM IN THERE. SO, THIS WOULD BE THE SITE HERE. SO, LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS BOXED IN ELEMENT. SO, THESE ARE THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ABOUT HALF THE LOT. — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: CAN YOU — THERE WE GO.>>THESE ARE THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THIS IS THE SITE OF THE PROJECT. SO THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE IN A LONGER LOT, 156 FEET, SO IT’S APPROXIMATELY HALF THE LOT. THAT MEANS APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET TO THE REAR, THEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT WHAT MAINTAINS A NICE BUFFER, BECAUSE AS SHE SAID IT IS WELL FORESTED. SO WE HAVE A NICE BUFFER THROUGH HERE MAINTAINED. THEN WE HAVE A BUFFERED SETBACK ON THESE SITES AND THEN, OF COURSE, A SETBACK FROM THE FRONT. SO QUITE FRANKLY, SHOWING SOME U.P.S. BOXES IS CLEVER, BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND TO BE FACTUAL HERE, THAT DOESN’T REALLY SHOW YOU THE STATUS OF THE SITUATION ON ONE SIDE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BOX, THIS WOULD BE THE PROJECT AREA HERE. CAN YOU SEE THAT? SO WHEN SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE YOU HAVE RICARDO PLACE WHICH IS THE ROAD STREET, THEN YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A FRONT SETBACK TO HOMES OVER HERE. SO, QUITE FRANKLY, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF DISTANCE AND A LOT OF BUFFERING BETWEEN THE PROJECT SITE AND THE HOMES THAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT. TO CLARIFY THIS IS THE SECOND ITEM COMING UP TONIGHT WHICH IS UNDER MR. PERSHING AS WELL. SO THAT’S WHERE MISS GRISWALD IS TALKING ABOUT BEING BOXED IN. IN TERMS OF DISTANCES AND BUFFERING IT’S PRETTY EXTREME. WITH RESPECT TO THE CITIZENS, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I THINK THEIR WISH AND I DON’T MEAN THIS NEGATIVELY IN ANY RESPECT, I THINK THEIR WISH IS THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN VACANT. AS YOU WELL KNOW IT’S ZONED R-4. RESIDENTIAL CAN GO THERE NOW. RESIDENTIAL UNDER R-4 CAN BE A MIXED MULTIPLE FAMILY USE. AND CAN BE HIGH UP. SO, THE OPTION IS NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT OR NOT. THE ZONING ALLOWS A RESIDENTIAL AT A HEIGHT ELEMENT. AND I MENTION THE WHEATON ISLAND, I MENTION THE THE HEIGHT AND DISTANCES. I THINK THOSE WERE THE MAIN POINTS MISS GRISWALD HAD. SUMMARY, YOUR PLANNING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNTY, YOUR MEMBERS OF LPA MOVED THIS FORWARD. AGAIN, YOUR STAFF EXCISED FROM US TWO CRITICAL CONDITIONS, WHAT WE CHOSE TO MEET WITH TO MAKE IT COMPATIBLE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT DOES. AND WE BELIEVE THAT BUFFERING, AND SETBACKS WILL EXIST, OR ACTUALLY THEY WILL EXIST. THAT WILL HELP THE SITE BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.>>JANET LONG: MADAM CHAIR?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MM-HMM.>>JANET LONG: MR. PRESSMAN DID YOU SAY IN YOUR OPENING ARGUMENT HOW HIGH THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE?>>PERMITTED HEIGHT IS 45 FEET.>>JANET LONG: CORRECT.>>LIKE ANY ZONING DISTRICT THE STRUCTURES MAY BE BROUGHT IN TO THAT LEVEL OR THEY MAY NOT. BUT 45 FEET IS MAXIMUM.>>JANET LONG: BUT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ONE –>>IT HASN’T BEEN SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED BUT THE MAXIMUM IS 45 FEET. WE’RE IN THE ZONING COG NOW AND THEN PLANNING WILL COME IN BY THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE.>>JANET LONG: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS — >>I WILL MENTION ONE OTHER THING. ONE THING YOU COULD LOOK AT IS THE SETBACK OF THE RM IS FIVE FEET. WHAT WE COULD LOOK AT IF IT WOULD MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE. WE COULD LOOK AT A SETBACK OF TEN FEET IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT INTO THE ADDITIONAL OVERLAY WHICH WOULD CREATE MORE OF A BUFFER FROM FIVE FEET TO TEN FEET UNDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE R-4 TO THE RM THAT WE’RE DOING NOW.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RATHER THAN — >>I’M SORRY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RATHER THAN SEVEN FEET?>>IT WOULD BE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER A 10 FEET REAR SETBACK, VERSUS WHAT WOULD BE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK UNDER THE RM YOU CAN ADD THAT INTO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THAT WOULD INCREASE THE FORESTED BUFFER AND THE DISTANCE ANOTHER FIVE FEET TO A TOTAL OF TEN FEET. SO THAT’S ONE THING WE COULD LOOK AT IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.>>THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU. SO, COMMISSIONER LONG ASKED MY QUESTION, BUT I AM CURIOUS FROM THE STAFF’S PERSPECTIVE, SO YOU THOUGHT 45 FEET IN HEIGHT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA?>>YES. CURRENTLY, UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE OUT THERE ON THE PROPERTY, THE R-4, AND THE RMH BOTH ALLOW 35 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUMS. RPD, AS WE SAW WITH THE PREVIOUS CASES PER A DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, THEY COULD GO HIGHER UNDER THAT. PROPOSED RM, 45 FEET.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IT’S AT 45 FEET NOW.>>– DIFFERENCE IN TEN FEET. AND AS MR. PRESTON HAD NOTED, THE CURRENT R-4, THE REAR SETBACKS ARE TEN FEET. IN RM IT IS FIVE FEET. AND WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, PART OF THAT ALLOWS FOR INCREASES IN SETBACKS. WE ONLY DID THE USES PROHIBITING CERTAIN TYPES OF USES. BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS UNDER THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WHICH LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, INCREASE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, AND SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA. SO THERE ARE THOSE OPTIONS, AS WELL.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YES, COMMISSIONER EGGERS?>>DAVE EGGERS: THOSE ARE ALL LIKE, I THINK SITE PLAN QUESTIONS, AND THAT AREA IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RAISED UP, GIVEN WHERE IT IS. I’M SURE. IS IT 45 FEET, IT’S NOW CURRENTLY AT 35 FEET HEIGHT MAXIMUM, UNDER R-4? UNDER THIS NEW IT GOES UP TO 45 FEET MAX?>>YES.>>AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION IT IS IN A FLOOD ZONE AND I VERIFIED THAT THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN THAT WHOLE AREA IS NINE FEET.>>DAVE EGGERS: SO IT’S 54 FEET.>>THEY HAVE TO START AT TEN FEET AND THEY GO UP — >>DAVE EGGERS: 45 FEET FROM THERE SO THEY CAN GO UP 54 FEET.>>55.>>DAVE EGGERS: 55 FEET. DO YOU HAVE — >>JUST ONE ADDITIONAL, I LOOKED UP ON THE CONTOURS, AND THIS AREA RIGHT NOW THE ELEVATIONS IN THIS AREA ARE FOUR TO SIX FEET. SO, IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A REFERENCE POINT BETWEEN EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT FIVE FEET. FOUR TO FIVE FEET TYPICALLY WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS POP THOSE UP AND PARK UNDERNEATH.>>DAVE EGGERS: RIGHT.>>RATHER THAN TRYING TO BRING IN FOUR TO FIVE FEET OF FILL IN THAT AREA IS PRETTY DIFFICULT. IT’S A SITE PLAN ISSUE.>>DAVE EGGERS: SO THAT THE ZONING CHANGE IS GOING TO ALLOW A LITTLE MORE HEIGHT.>>THE ZONING CHANGE WOULD ALLOW SOME HEIGHT AND THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. YOU CAN RATCHET THAT DOWN.>>DAVE EGGERS: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. COUNTY COMMISSION, WHAT ARE YOUR DELIBERATIONS?>>DAVE EGGERS: I KIND OF LIKE, THEY WERE VERY GIVING ON THE FIVE TO TEN FEET SETBACKS. BUT FOR ME, IT WOULD — I’D RATHER HAVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BE A LITTLE LOWER THAN IT IS. I MEAN, I THINK THEY’RE RATCHETING IT DOWN, AS YOU SAID. BECAUSE IT DOES — YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFF THE, YOU KNOW, ELEVATED AREA ABOVE THE WHAT DO YOU CALL — [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. IT’S GOING TO BE ABOVE THAT. SO I MEAN, FOR ME, I’D BE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE WE COULD GET SOME HEIGHT RATCHETING DOWN, IF YOU WILL. IN THAT AREA. I’D BE COMFORTABLE WITH AT LEAST FIVE FEET LESS ON THE HEIGHT, AND THEN THE INCREASED FIVE FEET ON THE SETBACK. I KNOW THIS IS — I FEEL LIKE WE’RE GETTING INTO SITE PLAN STUFF BUT IT’S REALLY PART OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I THINK IF WE DID BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, I THINK AT LEAST YOU’RE BEING MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE AREA, AND AT THE SAME TIME GETTING TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE. SO — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO YOU’RE SUGGESTING 40 FEET IN HEIGHT?>>DAVE EGGERS: YES, IS IT 45 NOW? 40.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: 40 FEET IN HEIGHT. AND WHAT WERE THE SETBACKS?>>PAT GERARD: TEN FOOT SETBACK.>>DAVE EGGERS: TEN FOOT INSTEAD OF THE FIVE FOOT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. WHAT DOES EVERYONE ELSE THINK? COMMISSIONER WELCH?>>KENNETH WELCH: YOU SAID THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF THE HOMES THAT ARE THERE NOW IS 35 FEET?>>RENEA VINCENT: THE CURRENT PERMITTED HEIGHT IS 35 FEET. I DON’T KNOW, YOU KNOW — >>KENNETH WELCH: WE DON’T KNOW THE ACTUAL?>>RENEA VINCENT: I DON’T KNOW THE ACTUALS. YOU INDICATED ONE GENTLEMAN WAS SLAB ON GRADE, SO IF THAT’S A ONE STORY HOUSE.>>KENNETH WELCH: THE OTHER ONES AREN’T.>>RENEA VINCENT: SOME OF THE OTHER ONES AREN’T. IT’S 89 NOW ON THE FLOOD ELEVATION. SO IF THEY POPPED THEM UP AND PARKED UNDERNEATH AND THEY’RE ONE STORY. SO THEY’RE PROBABLY 25, 30 FEET AT THE MOST.>>KENNETH WELCH: OKAY.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER JUSTICE?>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: THANK YOU. SO, CURRENTLY, THE 35 FOOT IS ON TOP OF THE NINE OR TEN FOOT ELEVATION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.>>RENEA VINCENT: YES, SIR.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS HAVE WITH THE DRIVE UNDERNEATH.>>RENEA VINCENT: CORRECT.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: NINE THEY COULD GO 35 FOOT OVER.>>RENEA VINCENT: 35 FOOT OVER BASE ELEVATION.>CHARLIE JUSTICE: CURRENTLY THEY COULD BUILD THAT WITHOUT. AND ON DMG’S SUGGESTION WE GO TO 40.>>KATHLEEN PETERS: DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?>>RENEA VINCENT: GIVES A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN WITH TOWNHOMES. THE OTHER THING THAT — THE FIRM MAPS, THE PROPOSED FIRM MAPS THAT WILL BE COMING IN TO PLAY WHEN THOSE ARE FINALLY ADOPTED, AND I’M SORRY I DON’T KNOW, IT’S SOON, I THINK, THE BASE FLOOD GOES TO TEN. IT’S AN A-10 ELEVATION. HOW THAT MAY FACTOR. IF WE’RE HER USHING FROM BASE FLOOD IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HAVE THAT WILL CARRY THROUGH ON THE NEW FIRM MAPS. MAYBE ANOTHER FOOT OR TWO IN THERE THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO ADJUST TO ON THE NEW BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MAPS. BUT THE FIVE FEET IS CERTAINLY FIVE FEET. IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE MORE ARCHITECTURAL. IT’S DESIGNED, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU’RE BUILDING A PRODUCT. IS IT GOING TO MAKE OR BREAK IT? I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: DOES MR. PRESTON WANT TO RESPOND? IS HE ABLE TO PRESPOND ON THE FLY ON SOME OF THESE THINGS?>>WE’RE ALWAYS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON WHAT THE COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE WITH. IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF YOU ARE WORKING IN THAT DIRECTION. AS I WOULD SAY, WE’RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON WHAT YOU’RE COMFORTABLE. WE BELIEVE — NOT BELIEVE, BUT THERE WILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCING AND BUFFERING, AND THERE STILL WILL BE GOOD BUFFERING BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS. TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. THAT’S A SURETY. AND THE HOMES ON THE NORTH WHICH YOU’LL SEE IN A LITTLE BIT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT DISTANCING. WE THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE. WE THINK IT’S COMPATIBLE. YOUR STAFF CLEARLY THINKS IT’S COMPATIBLE. BUT WE’RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER PETERS?>>KATHLEEN PETERS: SO, I MEAN, I GET WHAT SHE’S SAYING WITH THE BOXES. IT’S GREAT VISUAL. AND UNFORTUNATELY MANY OF US WITH THE NEW FEMA MAPS HAVE GOT THE SAME SITUATION, AND I KNOW WHEN THEY BUILD ON EITHER SIDE OF ME I’M GOING TO HAVE THE EXACT SAME THING. I HAVE NO CHOICE BECAUSE OF THE FEMA MAPS. AND SO, I MEAN, IF IT’S ALREADY AT 35, AND THEY’RE WILLING TO DO THE BUFFER. YOU KNOW, I WOULD MOVE TO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK IT’S REASONABLE. AND AGAIN WITH ALL THE FEMA MAPS IN PINELLAS COUNTY UNFORTUNATELY HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THESE FEMA MAPS. BUT ANYTHING THAT YOU BUILD IS GOING TO BE ABOVE FLOODPLAIN AND THEN ABOVE. SO SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WHATEVER THEY DO, THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE THEIR SUNLIGHT. WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE THEIR SUNLIGHT. JUST LIKE WHEN SOMEBODY BUILDS NEXT TO ME I’M GOING TO LOSE MY SUNLIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY, I AM. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. SO I NEED A LITTLE MORE CLARITY. BECAUSE, WITH THE FIRM LEVELS, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, SO THE 45 FEET THAT’S PROPOSED INCLUDES THAT TEN FEET?>>RENEA VINCENT: IT WOULD BE –>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO IT’S REALLY NO CHANGE FROM WHAT IT IS NOW?>>DAVE EGGERS: OH, YEAH IT’S TEN FEET MORE.>>RENEA VINCENT: IT’S JUST HIGHER.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THAT’S WHAT I MEANT. SO IT IS TEN FEET HIGHER?>>RENEA VINCENT: RIGHT NOW THEY COULD DO 35 FEET MEASURED FROM BASE FLOOD INFORMATION.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO THE HIGHEST HEIGHT WOULD BE 35 FEET.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: PLUS TEN.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT SO IT WOULD REALLY BE 45.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: YOU GET 35 TO 45. UNDER THE PROPOSED YOU GET THE TEN PLUS 45 SO YOU GET 55. SO 54 TO 55 IS FROM CURRENT TO PROPOSED.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I KNOW. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT I WAS HEARING.>>RENEA VINCENT: WHICH MAY BE REASONABLE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER LONG?>>JANET LONG: ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THE WE HAD WHILE WE WERE IN WASHINGTON WAS ABOUT HOW FEMA’S, AREN’T THOSE FLOODPLAIN MAPS CHANGING HERE PRETTY QUICKLY?>>RENEA VINCENT: YES MA’AM. I DON’T KNOW THE DATE BUT ALL THE DRAFT FLOOD MAPS ARE ON OUR WEBSITE AND READILY AVAILABLE.>>JANET LONG: THE NEW ONES?>>RENEA VINCENT: YES MA’AM. YOU GO TO THE FLOOD MAP SERVICE CENTER YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED.>>JANET LONG: ISN’T THIS AREA FLOODING A LOT ALREADY?>>KN: I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. I DO KNOW THAT I THINK — BASED ON THE “TTESTIMONY THAT THESE FOLKS HAVE PROVIDED HERE AT THE LPA, THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED FLOODING. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S LIMITED TO RICARDO PLACE. I DON’T KNOW THE EXTENT OF IT MYSELF.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO PERSONALLY, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE TEN FOOT SETBACK. ON THE REAR. BUT I ALSO WOULD PREFER TO GO FROM 45 TO 35 FEET, BECAUSE YOU’RE STILL WITH THAT FIRM GOING TO END UP WITH THE 45 FOOT FOOTPRINT HEIGHT. I CAN’T MAKE A MOTION. I’M JUST EXPRESSING WHAT I THINK.>>JANET LONG: I AGREE WITH YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WELL. ANYONE ELSE?>>DAVE EGGERS: SO THEN — OKAY SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I SAID.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU SAID 40, I’M SAYING 35. PLUS — >>DAVE EGGERS: YEAH PLUS THE TEN FEET OR WHATEVER THAT. THE >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: TEN FOOT FLOOD ELEVATION.>>JANET LONG: COMMISSIONER WELCH HASN’T SAID A WORD.>>KENNETH WELCH: NO I HAVEN’T, HAVE I? I’M LISTENING.>>JANET LONG: I’M WAITING. PATIENTLY.>>KENNETH WELCH: IT’S A TOUGH ONE. I KIND OF AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER EGGERS’ INITIAL RECOMMENDATION. OF THE TEN FOOT SETBACK AND THEN THE 40. BUT THEN THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHERE THIS WHOLE AREA IS IN 40 YEARS. IS ANOTHER QUESTION.>>JANET LONG: AND AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT THAT BRIDGE OVER THERE?>>KENNETH WELCH: SAN MARTIN, RIGHT.>>JANET LONG: I JUST THINK THAT’S — ASKING FOR TROUBLE.>>KENNETH WELCH: SO DEFINITELY WITH THE SETBACK THE TEN FOOT I SUPPORT THAT. AND EITHER THE 40 OR THE 35.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THE TEN FOOT FOR THE SETBACK.>>DAVE EGGERS: I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR THE 40 FEET HEIGHT AND THE 10 FOOT SETBACKS OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.>>PAT GERARD: I’LL SECOND THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GERARD FOR 40 FOOT HEIGHT AND A 10 FOOT ADDITIONAL REAR SETBACK.>>DAVE EGGERS: NOT ADDITIONAL BUT TEN FEET. NOT TEN ADDITIONAL TO THE FIVE. BUT TEN.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: RIGHT. TEN FEET TOTAL REAR SETBACK.>>PAT GERARD: VERSUS FIVE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND?>>KENNETH WELCH: YES, MA’AM.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. OKAY IT PASSES 6-1. OKAY, THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 63, SAME PROCESS.>>CLARETHA HARRIS: ITEM 63 IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. THOSE WISHING TO GIVE TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND TAKE THE OATH. [WITNESSES SWORN] THANK YOU. THIS IS CASE NO. Z-08-06-19, APPLICATIONS OF CHIMAYO LLC, FOR ZONING CHANGE FOR GO GENERAL OFFICE, AND R-4, 1, 2 AND 3 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. WE HAVE AGAIN OPPOSITION, AND SO WE WILL NEED ANOTHER STAFF PRESENTATION.>>MICHAEL SCHODERBOCK PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS CASE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE NORTH SIDE OF RICARDO PLACE. AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 3 1/2 ACRES, TWO PARCELS BOTH OF WHICH ARE VACANT. FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL URBAN, WHICH ALLOWS 7 1/2 UNITS AN ACRE AND RESIDENTIAL OFFICE GENERAL, WHICH ALLOWS TEN UNITS AN ACRE, NO CHANGE TO REERT ONE OF THESE DESIGNATIONS. LOOKING FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR R-4 ON 2.2 ACRES, AND GENERAL OFFICE ON 1.3 ACRES TO RM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY. THE PROPERTY OUTLINED HERE IN RED, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO GANDY BOULEVARD, JUST OFF OF GANDY BOULEVARD, THIS IS AN OLD PICTURE. THERE’S NOW AT THE SITE HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED WITH A 7-ELEVEN GAS STATION SO THERE’S GAS PUMPS. AND A NEWER BUILDING ON THIS SITE. AN OFFICE BUILDING RIGHT HERE AT THE CORNER OF SAN MARTIN, AND GANDY. OFF TO THE EAST ALONG GANDY IS A BOAT AND RV STORAGE. AND JUST SOUTH OF THAT IS THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT THAT’S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY ON RICARDO PLACE IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. AND TO THE WEST ON SAN MARTIN THERE’S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES RIGHT BEHIND A STRIP CENTER THAT FRONTS ON GANDY BOULEVARD. AGAIN NO CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, JUST A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING. AND ANOTHER OVERVIEW OF THAT AERIAL SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH AT THE SITE. THIS IS FROM A PICTUREN THE LEFT IS FROM THE ENSTANCE OFF OF SAN MARTIN TO THE 7-ELEVEN. SITE IS OVER HERE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE SITE FROM SAN MARTIN, AND THE INTERSECTION OF RICARDO PLACE, PROPERTY IS HERE. THE WOODED AREA IN THE MIDDLE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH AT THE SITE FROM RICARDO PLACE, AND THEN LOOKING DOWN RICARDO PLACE TO THE NORTHEAST, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ON THE LEFT SIDE. AND ON THE LEFT PICTURE HERE IS 11 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RICK AROUNDO PLACE. THE PROPOSED 27 UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT THAT’S UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO THE EAST, AND THE COMMERCIAL THAT’S THE OFFICE BUILDING, THE BACK OF IT, LOOKING FROM THE SITE. THAT’S ALONG GANDY. AND THEN TO THE WEST ACROSS SAN MARTIN BOULEVARD SOME OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE. AGAIN, NO CHANGE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY. THE POTENTIAL IS 30 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. WHEN YOU COMBINE BOTH THESE PARCELS TOGETHER, AND WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR LOT SIZE AND DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. AND I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THIS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. AND SO WE CAN ANSWER THIS RIGHT UP FRONT. WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS, AND WHAT ARE THE HEIGHT?>>WELL, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. CURRENTLY, THIS HAS TWO ZONINGS. THE FIRST ZONING R-4 WHICH ALLOWS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX AND TOWNHOMES AS A TYPE TWO USE, 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. THE GENERAL OFFICE ZONING IS MOSTLY FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS. AND THAT ALLOWS UP TO A 75 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. I BELIEVE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: 75?>>PUT AN OFFICE BUILDING ON THAT. THAT DROPS TO 45 FEET WHEN YOU’RE WITHIN 50 OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT WOULD BE 45 FEET.>>AND THE SETBACKS FOR THE R-4 AND ALL THE HEIGHTS ARE 35 FEET. FRONT SETBACKS ARE 20 FEET TO STRUCTURE. WHETHER IT’S SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, ATTACHED OR DUPLEX TRIPLEX, AND THE REARS ARE 10 FEET. THE GENERAL OFFICE, AND HEIGHT 75, 45 IF YOU’RE WITHIN 50 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL. A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK, TEN FOOT SIDE AND REAR.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>AND THE PROPOSED RM, 45 FOOT HEIGHT, FIVE FOOT REAR ON THE PROPERTY. TEN FOOT TO STRUCTURE. 20 FEET TO GARAGE. ON THE DEVELOPMENT ON RM.>>KENNETH WELCH: WHAT IS THE HA ON THAT?>>45 FOOT HEIGHT.>>DAVE EGGERS: I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS 35, I’M SORRY.>>IF THEY DID SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ANOTHER RM IT WOULD BE 35 SIMILAR TO THE R-4. BUT ANY OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED TWO DWELLING AND THREE DWELLING ARE 45 FOOT HEIGHTS. SETBACKS ARE TEN FEET TO THE FRONT STRUCTURE, WITH A 0 FEET SETBACK TO THE GARAGE, THEY CANNOT HAVE THE GARAGE CLOSER THAN THE FRONT STRUCTURE, AND THEN FIVE FOOT REAR, FIVE FOOT SIDE AND YARDS. AND THE SAME BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN THIS AREA.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL? AT LEAST FOR NOW. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. PRESSMAN.>>THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST ONE YOU SAW. IF WE COULD GO TO THE OVERHEAD, PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE PROJECT AREA HERE. WE WERE DOWN HERE PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS GO GENERAL OFFICE. AND R-4 WAS ONE, TWO, THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. YOU SEE THERE’S A SHOPPING CENTER HERE. THERE’S A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY HERE AND ALONG GANDY. JUST SOME QUICK PICTURES. THIS IS A BOAT STORAGE AND BOAT USE HERE. AND KIND OF STORAGE AND OFFICE LOCATED THERE. SO, AS YOU LOOK AT THIS SITE, WE THOUGHT IT WAS CLEARLY GOING TO BE A GOOD TRANSITION ELEMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WILL KEEP DOWN NOISE AND IMPACTS OF THE COMMERCIAL THAT MOSTLY SURROUND THE SITE. I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND FROM THE PRIOR CASE THAT LOOKING AT THE HEIGHTS, AND THE SETBACKS, THIS BEING A RESIDENCE HERE, RICARDO PLACE STREET HERE, THEN YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A SETBACK, AND THEN YOU’LL HAVE THE HOMES PLACED HERE. SO COMING FROM A GENERAL OFFICE, AND AGAIN AN R-4, WHICH ONE, TWO, THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BOTH THE LPA AND YOUR STAFF FOUND THAT IT WAS COMPATIBLE AND WORKS WELL WITH THE AREA. AND I THINK THE COMMISSION IS UP TO SPEED ON THE GENERAL ISSUES OR REALLY ALL THE ISSUES HERE. IF THERE’S ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVEN’T ANSWERED FOR YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO MY QUESTION ON THIS, AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT AT THIS POINT BUT IN RICARDO PLACE, THAT’S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED THE FRONT OR THE REAR?>>RICARDO WOULD BE THE FRONT LOCATED ALONG HERE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: SO THE FRONT WOULD BE ALONG THERE?>>YEAH.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. SO THAT THEY WOULD END UP THEN WITH A TEN FOOT FRONT SETBACK.>>TEN OR 20 FOOT.>>PAT GERARD: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT RICARDO PLACE. SO THAT’S OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS — BY THE RESIDENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET?>>I DON’T KNOW.>>PAT GERARD: IT’S A PRIVATE ROAD?>>I DON’T KNOW.>>PAT GERARD: BECAUSE IT’S A DIRT ROAD, RIGHT? SO IT’S NOT GOING TO BE IMPROVED?>>I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR PRIVATE. I DON’T KNOW AT THE MOMENT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE FRONT ON — >>DAVE EGGERS: YEAH.>>PAT GERARD: OKAY, THANK YOU.>>IT’S A PUBLIC ROAD UP TO A POINT. SOMEWHERE UP INTO HERE. WHERE THE PUBLIC ROAD ENDS.>>PAT GERARD: IS IT PAVED?>>AS YOU SEE IN THE PICTURES, IT’S KIND OF PAVED, GRAVEL, IT’S NOT COUNTY STANDARD WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY. IT PROBABLY WOULD NEED IMPROVEMENTS ON IT. BUT YES, THE MAIN ACCESS, COUNTY STANDARDS REQUIRE THE MAIN ACCESS COME FROM THE ROAD OF LESSER DESIGNATION AND REGARDO PLACE HAS THE LESSER DESIGNATION BETWEEN SAN MARTIN AND RICARDO SO IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE ACCESS OFF RICARDO.>>JANET LONG: SO IF YOU SAID THAT ON THE FRONT PART OF THIS NEW WHATEVER IT’S GOING TO BE IS ON — GOING TO BE FACING RICARDO, AND THEN IS THAT WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE LOCATED >>THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THEIR PRIMARY ACCESS, WHETHER THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED A SECONDARY ACCESS OFF OF SAN MARTIN, OR FIRE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS, THAT AGAIN IS A SITE PLAN ISSUE. IF THEY HAVE THIS INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT IN HERE, WITH ONE ACCESS AGAIN THAT’S A DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS WHERE THAT ACCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE BASED ON DESIGN. BUT THEIR MAIN ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM RICARDO PLACE. MINUS ANY WAIVERS OR SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD GET.>>RICARDO PLACE WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT BY A DEVELOPER TO COUNTY STANDARDS. UP TO WHERE IT’S PUBLIC. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE PRIVATE PART. IT IS PRIVATE OVER HERE SOME PLACE. THEY WILL HAVE TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD TO COUNTY STANDARDS.>>JANET LONG: SO IT’S NOT A THROUGH STREET TO MARINO, SAN MARINO?>>NO, IT’S RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT IT HASN’T BEEN BUILT. IT’S JUST — >>DAVE EGGERS: SAN MARINO IS RIGHT OF WAY. BUT THE END OF RICARDO IS PRIVATE?>>PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY.>>DAVE EGGERS: OH, AND SAN MARINO IS ALSO?>>IT’S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT THERE’S NO ROAD THERE. IT HASN’T BEEN BUILT.>>DAVE EGGERS: I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU’RE JUST SAYING RICARDO IS PRIVATE?>>YES.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY. I MIGHT HAVE A MAP THAT HAS PART OF IT IN THE CITY, PART OF IT IS IN THE — PART OF IT IS IN THE COUNTY, SAN MARINO FROM THIS TO THIS POINT. IN THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG. REGARDO IS UNDER THE COUNTY’S JURISDICTION. SAN MARTIN IS COUNTY JURISDICTION.>>DAVE EGGERS: ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION, OR SORRY. THE PROPERTY THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. IT’S CONTIGUOUS TO SAN MARINO. SO IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION AS WELL.>>YES, THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS TO CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.>>DAVE EGGERS: SO THAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ANNEXATION.>>IT COULD BE.>>DAVE EGGERS: DO WE HAVE A CLUE WHAT — >>NO, WHEN WE DO OUR — WE GET THESE APPLICATIONS IN, WE NOTIFY THE ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS, SO SEE OF ST. PETERSBURG STAFF HAS BEEN NOTIFIED. WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN A RESPONSE BACK FROM THEM.>>DAVE EGGERS: OKAY, THANK YOU.>>MADAM CHAIR I’D LIKE TO CLARIFY MY ANSWER BECAUSE I DON’T THINK I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER LONG. SHE ASKED ME IF THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT OF THE HOMES AND I THINK I ANSWERED THAT A LITTLE INCORRECTLY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SITE PLANNED. THERE’S POTENTIAL THAT THAT WOULD BE THE FRONT OF THE HOMES, THERE COULD ALSO BE A REAR PART OF DEVELOPMENT, SO IT HAS BEEN SITE PLANNED YET SO I REALLY WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT’S NOT AN ISSUE — >>JANET LONG: WHAT WAS THE LAST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: BE PART OF THE SITE PLANNING.>>THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE PUTTING TOGETHER A SITE PLAN TO SEE HOW THE SITE WOULD WORK BEST. SO THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOMES WOULD BE HERE. BUT THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE THE CASE.>>JANET LONG: OKAY.>>DEPENDING ON HOW THAT PUZZLE COMES TO THE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: HOW MANY MINUTES LEFT?>>PAT GERARD: 17 MINUTES 28 SECONDS.>>I’M SORRY.>>PAT GERARD: YOU’RE GETTING FASTER. 17 MINUTES 28 SECONDS.>>I HAD TO SHARE IT WITH STAFF.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY, THANK YOU. SYLVIA GRISWALD. PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU ALSO HAVE TEN MINUTES, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU ARE HELPING YOUR>>THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS REALLY EVEN MORE THAN BEHIND US BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTY WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WAS BEHIND US. THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM OUR HOMES. THE PROBLEM TO ME WITH MAKING IT THE RM, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD THE APARTMENTS WHEN YOU DESIGNATE IT TO THAT. AM I CORRECT? I KNOW HE TALKED ABOUT NOISE — I DIDN’T HAVE ANY NOISE UNTIL THEY BUILT THAT 7-ELEVEN. I’M LIKE THE PERSON OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DIDN’T HAVE — WE DON’T HAVE ANY NOISE OTHER THAN SINCE THEY BUILT THE 7-ELEVEN. IT’S A QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LITTLE STRIP MALL, THEY DON’T DO NOTHING OVER THERE. THEY HAVE A FITNESS. THEY HAVE A CRYOGENIC, A NAIL SALON, THIS IS GREAT. BUT THE NOISE ISN’T THE ISSUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT’S NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS MAP — THIS I THOUGHT WAS PRESERVATION. YOU SEE SOME OF THEIR PROPERTY DOES [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] — I DIDN’T SAY THEY WERE TOUCHING AND IF IT’S CLOSE BY TO THE LOCATION — THEY’RE TOUCHING SOMETHING. I’M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. BUT I’M THE LITTLE GREEN SPOT HERE YOU CAN SEE. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ROAD ENDS TO BE PRIVATE — THIS IS A DIRT ROAD. THERE’S NOTHING OVER THERE. WE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE MAINTAINED IT. MY NEIGHBOR THIS MORNING WAS LAUGHING BECAUSE THEY CAME TO PATCH — IT’S NOT EVEN ASPHALT. IT’S LIKE THEY THROW DOWN THIS CONCRETE. AND THAT’S FINE BECAUSE WE LIKE WHAT WE HAVE. WE DON’T COMPLAIN, WE DON’T CAUSE TROUBLE. SAN MARINO — AND LIKE I SAID, I’M IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORM. I’VE GOT THE CITY OF ST. PETE BEHIND ME WHERE THEY’RE BUILDING THOSE TOWNHOMES FOREVER. COUNTY FROM FRONT OF ME. A LITTLE PIECE OF THE CITY AND THEN THE COUNTY — I HAVE THE PERFECT STORM. AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND TRY TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONSTANT — YOU KNOW WHAT I’M SAYING. YOU TRY TO DO IT BUT YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY. I WOULD LOVE IT TO STAY VACANT FOREVER. BUT I KNOW THAT’S NOT A POSSIBILITY. WE’VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE OUR 35 YEARS. AND MR. PRESSMAN I DEALT WITH A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO ON AN ISSUE. SO HE PRETTY MUCH TOLD ME THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. IN INTERESTING TERMS WHICH WE WON’T GO THERE. AND THAT’S FINE. HE OWNS THAT LAND. BUT I’M ASKING THAT WE MAKE IT COMPATIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU CAN SEE, OTHER THAN THAT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT BEHIND ME, DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER TOWNHOMES THERE? WE ARE NOT ON GANDY. GANDY IS A WAYS FROM US. DOESN’T MEAN IN BRIGHTON BAY AND THINGS LIKE THAT THEY DON’T HAVE COMMERCIAL — [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ]. IT’S ALL A PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU’RE COMING FROM. MY HOUSE — IT’S A DEAD END. SAN MARINO GOING TOWARDS GANDY HAS BEEN VACATED AT THE END. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] VACATED THAT. SAN MARINO ON THE OTHER END THEY HAVEN’T VACATED. BUT I DON’T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO PUT IN A ROAD RIGHT NOW. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] WE FLOOD. WE’RE ALL UP ON STILT HOUSES EXCEPT FOR MR. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] WHO WAS THERE — I DON’T THINK WE’RE PROBABLY MORE THAN 20, 25 FEET. THEY’RE NOT THAT TALL. AND I GUESS THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE A SETBACK. I’M NOT TRYING TO BE — TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT THAN IT IS. I’M JUST SAYING AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE’RE GOING TO BE SURROUNDED 45, 50 FEET AND THAT’S MY ARGUMENT. I’M NOT TRYING TO MISLEAD. I’M GIVING YOU AN IMPRESSION OF WHAT IT FEELS LIKE FOR US TO BE THERE. IMAGINE, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. AND I KNOW THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO BUILD. I KNOW THERE’S — BUT I REALLY WOULD HATE TO SEE IT GO TO R THAT IF THEY DECIDE TO BUILD APARTMENTS THERE, THAT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THE QUALITY OF OUR LIFE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I UNDERSTAND THEM TALKING ABOUT COMING OUT ON RICARDO — I SPOKE WITH MICHAEL TO GET A BETTER IDEA — BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE TO MISSPEAK. THAT’S NOT MY — AND I’M NOT WELL VERSED IN THIS. I HOPED I NEVER WOULD HAVE TO BE. BUT THE PEOPLE BEHIND ME HAVE TAUGHT ME WHERE TO TO GO. THE CITY KNOWS ME ON A FIRST-NAME BASIS. I’M TRYING TO HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE WITH ALL THAT CHAOS GOING ON AROUND YOU. WE’RE A QUIET LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE UNDERSTAND THEY’RE GOING TO BUILD. WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF COMPATIBILITY, SOME TYPE OF RESPECT FOR WHAT’S THERE NOW IN THAT FRAME OF MIND. BUT WE FLOOD. WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING. I DON’T LOOK FORWARD IF THEY WOULD HOOK TO UP THIS SEWER. I HAVE A SEPTIC TANK. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] BUT THEY’RE OKAY. WE’LL LET THEM STAY. BUT THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. MR. PRESSMAN?>>MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE THE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORS. SHE’S INDICATED WE’VE SPOKEN BEFORE. BUT THE REALITY HERE IS THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THREE SIDES BY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. IT’S A VERY INTENSIVE SITE. RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED HERE BY RI RIGHT. ONE, TWO, THREE FAMILY TYPE STYLES. THERE IS NO FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT HERE. DENSITY WILL NOT BE INCREASING. SAME DENSITY THAT’S PROPOSED — THAT’S EXISTING. I DON’T THINK THAT SHE INTENDED TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD WHAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE. ON FLOODING, RIGHT NOW, IT’S VACANT LAND. WATER IS GOING WHERE IT’S GOING. ONCE IT’S ENGINEERING, WATER WILL HAVE TO BE MANAGED. IT WILL BE FAR BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. SO IN REGARD TO THIS SITE BEING ACROSS THE STREET, IMPROVED, WIDENED TO COUNTY STANDARDS, FRONT SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES — REAR SETBACK, THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO WITH REQUIRED LANDSCPING BY THE COUNTY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.>>PAT GERARD: WHAT WAS THE REAR SETBACK? I DON’T REMEMBER.>>UNDER RM, IT’S FIVE FEET. THE FRONT SETBACK IS — >>PAT GERARD: FRONT IS TEN, RIGHT?>>I WROTE IT DOWN.>>[ UNINTELLIGIBLE ].>>PAT GERARD: THE RESIDENCES COULD BE FACING EITHER WAY IN THE SITE PLAN, CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT IT’S AT LEAST A TEN-FOOT SETBACK EVEN IF IT’S THE BACK OF THE BUILDING?>>I’M GOING TO SAY WE’RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION TO WHAT MAKES YOU COMFORTABLE.>>PAT GERARD: MAKE IT THE SAME — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: TEN FOOT FROM RICARDO?>>PAT GERARD: YEAH.>>YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROPOSED FOR THIS CASE.>>THIS ONE DOES NOT HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY — IT’S JUST A STRAIGHT REQUEST TO RM SO ANY OF THE USES IN RM COULD HAPPEN. >>PAT GERARD: SO WHEN YOU GET TO WORKING ON A SITE PLAN, COULD YOU PUT THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD? WE CAN’T BE MORE RESTRICTIVE WHICH IS WHAT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD BE EVEN THOUGH IT WASN’T ADVERTISED? I’M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU COULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE — I WANTED TO BE CLEAR — [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]>>PAT GERARD: I THINK WE CAN POTENTIALLY LOOK AT ADDING THAT. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN.>>DAVE EGGERS: IF YOU MAKE IT CONDITIONAL [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] — >>PAT GERARD: THAT’S A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS.>>RICARDO PLACE, IT’S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESIDENCE THAT THEY PRIVATELY MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE LEVEL OF — THEY LIKED — THEY DIDN’T WANT A FULL-BLOWN COUNTY ROAD THROUGH THAT. THAT’S COMING BY WAY OF MR. LYON WHO’S MONITORING FROM AFAR. >>PAT GERARD: THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE — >>IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPROVED.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYTHING ELSE? WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. >>DAVE EGGERS: WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT CHANGING THIS TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY?>>THAT’S NOT WHAT’S BEEN ADVERTISED. >>DAVE EGGERS: I UNDERSTAND. >>IT IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT MADE A PRESENTATION ON. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER MR. PRESSMAN HAS ANY INDICATION IN THAT REGARD. I WOULD BE A BIT HESITANT TO IMPOSE SOMETHING THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS PREPARED TO ADDRESS HERE TO TONIGHT. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ONE OF THE CHOICES WOULD BE TO DEFER AND IF YOU HAVE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT YOU’D LIKE TO DO, THEN WE COULD ASK THAT THIS BE REWORKED AS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH SETBACK CONSIDERATIONS AND/OR HEIGHT IF THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE INTERESTED IN, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT AND SETBACKS AS THE OTHER PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM — >>DAVE EGGERS: IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: BE CONSISTENT. LET’S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT AS A MOTION TO DEFER AND TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE, MR. PRESSMAN.>>DAVE EGGERS: THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.>>PAT GERARD: I’LL SECOND THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: 40-FOOT HEIGHT AND TEN-FOOT REAR SETBACK.>>KATHLEEN PETERS: ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? THAT’S NOT WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO US. I’M ASKING IF YOU’RE OKAY WITH THAT. >>WE’RE HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT THE COMMISSION IS FORWARD WITH. I CLEARLY SEE A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION SO IF THAT’S THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION — >>WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IF THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION IS NOT DEFINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU WANT AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT AND THE SEBTS BUT LET STAFF ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. YOU ARE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PARCEL THAT’S CLOSER TO GANDY. THERE MAY BE DIFFEREN ISSUES IN PLAY AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DEFER TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND LET THEM WORK THIS OUT WITH MR. PRESSMAN. >>DAVE EGGERS: I LIKE THAT. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU’RE CHANGING YOUR MOTION TO DEFER THIS TO THE STAFF — [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS, SECOND BY — >>POINT OF ORDER, CHAIRMAN. ARE WE DOING A TIME ELEMENT ON THIS TO COME BACK?>>IF YOU DEFER IT TO A DATE CERTAIN, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE TO READVERTISE IT. BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO PLANNING STAFF — >>PROCEDURALLY, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LPA AT THAT POINT.>>YOU’RE REALLY LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORY. >>EXACTLY. WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. WE’LL HAVE TO READVERTISE AT THIS POINT.>>I’D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AND LET THE STAFF WORK ON IT IN THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE HAVE NO — IT DOESN’T GIVE US ANY — — >>IF YOU WISH TO IMPOSE THE SAME TYPES OF LIMITATIONS YOU DID IN THE LAST CASE, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY — >>THERE ARE DIFFERENCES THAT CAME INTO PLAY [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] BECAUSE YOU HAD A PIECE OF IT — OFFICE ZONING — IT’S ACTUALLY — THEY’RE VOLUNTARILY BRINGING DOWN THE ZONING HEIGHT ON THAT. WE LOOKED AT THIS AS A TRANSITION AREA, BACKING UP TO GANDY IN THE COMMERCIAL. SO WE DID TAKE A BIT OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO IT THAN WE DID THE OTHER. IT’S ACROSS RICARDO PLACE. THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SETBACK ON RICARDO PLACE. ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON WHY WE RECOMMENDED WHAT WE RECOMMENDED.>>THE CHOICE IS EITHER TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT OR TO DEFER? I GUESS THAT’S THE DECISION TO THE COMMISSION — [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOVING FORWARDS DEFERRING — I’D LIKE TO DO IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE’S NO ADDITIONAL COST THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING FOR ADVERTISING — >>I THINK THAT’S HARD TO SAY. WE WOULD NEED TO SEND IT BACK TO THE LPA. AND I’M NOT SURE WHAT THAT TIME FRAME WOULD BE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER LONG, YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. >>JANET LONG: I WAS. BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW TO ARTICULATE EVERYTHING I’M THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE WE TOOK ON THE OTHER ONE. HERE’S WHAT I’M THINKING. I’M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SAY IT RIGHT. BUT WE JUST HIRED A NEW RESILIENCY PERSON FOR OUR COUNTY. WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT ALL KINDS OF ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO SEA LEVEL RISE, CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT DO WE DO TO MITIGATE THE PLACE THAT WE’RE IN TODAY TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. AND IN THIS PRESENTATION, I HEARD SOME NEW INFORMATION ABOUT RICARDO PLACE AND HOW IT’S A NATURAL ROAD AND PEOPLE LIKE IT THAT WAY. AND THEY DON’T WANT A BIG, WIDE COUNTY ROAD THERE. AND NOW WE’RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE MAKING CHANGES TO THE POINT WHERE IT WILL HAVE TO BE A NEW COUNTY ROAD, CORRECT? I THINK I HEARD THAT — >>DAVE EGGERS: ANYTHING DONE THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A NEW COUNTY ROAD. >>JANET LONG: THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE THIS PUTS US IN OUR PLANS FOR RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY. I’VE BEEN AROUND IN THIS AREA A LOT. IT’S NOT VERY FAR FROM THE ST. MARTIN BRIDGE. YOU DRIVE OVER THERE ON A BRIGHT, SUNNY DAY. WE’VE HAD OUR WORKSHOPS OUT THERE AND IT’S FLOODED. SO I’M JUST VERY CONCERNED THAT WE’RE MOVING FORWARD LIKE IT’S DEJA VU AND IT’S NOT. >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: MADAM CHAIR, TO THAT POINT, THEY COULD START BUILDING A 75-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING TOMORROW WITHOUT US DOING ANYTHING, CORRECT?>>[ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] CONTIGUOUS TO RICARDO PLACE, I SEE R-4 ZONING AND A LAND USE THAT’S RESIDENTIAL. SO SOME FORM OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD GO IN THERE THAT I PRESUME WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENT OF RICARDO PLACE TO COUNTY STANDARDS.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: COMMISSIONER LONG, WHILE I GREATLY RESPECT WHERE YOU’RE GOING, IT’S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE US ONE TO TWO YEARS TO COME UP WITH OUR RESILIENCY PLAN AND THEN MAYBE EVEN LONGER TO APPLY IT TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT.>>JANET LONG: AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING.>>I THINK THE STAFF ACTUALLY HAS INCORPORATED THAT INTO OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS. WE MAY DO MORE. BUT I JUST DON’T WANT THAT TO BE [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] THAT HE’S GOING TO COME IN AND WRITE A NEW CODE. KELLY AND THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE ISSUES AND INCORPORATED THOSE INTO OUR CODES — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: BUT OBVIOUSLY IS CONSIDERING THE FLOOD ELEVATION WITH THE HEIGHT AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT ALREADY. COMMISSIONER WELCH?>>KENNETH WELCH: THAT’S A GOOD POINT. WE HAVE INCORPORATED WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF SEA LEVEL RISE AND TO OUR CODE IN OUR PLAN — >>YOUR NEW STORMWATER WATER MANUAL DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SOME — NOT MY EXPERT — BUT SOME LEVEL OF SEA LEVEL RISE INCREASING IN YOUR STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT’S SOMETHING — AGAIN, THE FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP ON A GIVEN SITE GIVEN THESE CONSTRAINTS ARE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT ARE THERE NOW. TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS — THAT’S JUST ANOTHER ELEMENT. THEY’RE GOING TO NEED FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT IT’S A LOW AREA THERE. SO FLEXIBILITY GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH IT VERSUS — >>KENNETH WELCH: AS WE GAIN NEW KNOWLEDGE AND WE GET NEW PROJECTIONS, WE’RE GOING TO UPDATE OUR REQUIREMENTS.>>CERTAINLY.>>KENNETH WELCH: SO JUST TO ADD ANOTHER CURVE IN IT, I’M IN A DIFFERENT PLACE ON THIS WHEN I SEE THIS PARCEL IS DIFFERENT IN THE SOUTHERN PARCELS IS CLOSER TO GANDY. I’M LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND IT, THE GOODWILL, THE MALL, RV STORAGE. I VIEW THIS DIFFERENTLY. SO I’M IN A DIFFERENT SPOT THAN I WAS ON THE SOUTHERN PARCELS ON THIS ONE.>>DAVE EGGERS: SINCE I MADE THAT MOTION, I’M STARTING TO MOVE TOWARDS THE REQUEST — [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] IT’S A 35 FEET — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THERE WAS A MOTION TO DEFER — IT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER EGGERS. YOU COULD REMOVE THAT.>>DAVE EGGERS: I’LL REMOVE THAT.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: AND COMMISSIONER GERARD, YOU CAN REMOVE YOUR SECOND, IF YOU WISH.>>PAT GERARD: OF COURSE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WOULD YOU LIKE TO REMAKE A MOTION. >>PAT GERARD: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GERARD AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PETERS TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT OR APPROVE THIS RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST. I DON’T HAVE A PROJECT YET. LET’S GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE CARDS. IT’S A 5-2 VOTE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU — AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR BEING HERE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS OF WISDOM AND SHARING — I DO THINK THAT THE CARDBOARD BOXES, LIKE I SAID, WAS A VERY VISUAL NOVEL WAY OF DESCRIBING WHAT YOUR CONCERNS WERE SO THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM 64. >>PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PINELLAS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I HAVE NO CARDS ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>PAT GERARD: MOVE APPROVAL.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: SECOND. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GERARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JUSTICE. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. AGENDA ITEM 65?>>CASE NUMBER CP-04-02-19. THIS IS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE/RETAIL FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU. I DO HAVE TWO CARDS. ONE IS AGAINST. THE OTHER IS I’M NOT SURE. SO WE’LL CALL THEM UP AFTER WE HAVE A SHORT STAFF PRESENTATION.>>GOOD EVENING, RENEE VINCENT, PLANNING DIRECTOR. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AMENDING PREDOMINANTLY THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS PERTAINING TO OUR MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES. LET ME JUST CLICK THROUGH HERE AND GET THIS UP. THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE/RETAIL CATEGORIES WILL SEE DENSITY INCREASES UP TO 24 UNITS PER ACRE. ALLOWED IN THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THIS DOES AFFECT APPROXIMATELY 2,000 ACRES PRIMARILY LOCATED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND CORRIDORS. I’LL PUT UP A REFERENCE MAP. IT’S DIFFICULT TO READ BUT YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE PARCELS WHERE THE 24 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE ALLOWED AND COMMERCIAL LAND USE [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] CATEGORIES. YOU’LL SEE THE PURPLE ALONG U.S. 19 AND THEN ALL ALONG OUR OTHER CORRIDORS WHERE THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL EXISTS. AND REALLY THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CORRIDORS WHERE TRANSIT IS AVAILABLE AND HOPEFULLY MAKE THOSE PROJECTS MORE VIABLE. WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING TO ADOPT THE TARGET EMPLOYMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. I’LL PROVIDE YOU ANOTHER REFERENCE MAP FOR THAT. THIS IS ALREADY IN THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN. AND THIS MIRRORS THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP BY REFERENCE. SO ANYWHERE IN THE HATCHED OVERLAY — IN THE BLUE IS THE UNINCORPORATED PINELLAS COUNTY. THOSE ARE THE AREAS WHERE THE TARGET EMPLOYMENT CENTER OVERLAY WOULD BE IN IMPACT PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN F.A.R. FOR MANUFACTURING, OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USES. ANYWHERE INSIDE THAT TARGET EMPLOYMENT CENTER. THE PROPOSED SET OF AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO REDUCE OR REMOVE THE 12.5 UNIT PER ACRE — IT’S AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD DENSITY RESTRICTION THAT’S BEEN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. THIS WOULD ALLOW OUR — WE DO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF RESIDENTIAL HIGH AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM THAT EXIST WITH 15 UNITS PER ACRE AND 30 UNITS PER ACRE IN THEIR EXISTING DESIGNATIONS. THIS WOULD ALLOW THOSE TO ACHIEVE THOSE DENSITIES IN A REDEVELOPMENT CONTEXT. FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH, THAT 30 UNIT PER ACRE DESIGNATION, THERE’S ONLY A COUPLE OF THESE IN EXISTENCE ACTUALLY. THEY’RE VERY, VERY SMALL. YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY MARK THEM WITH A FLAG SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THEM. THE MORE GOLD COLOR IS A RESIDENTIAL HIGH AT 15 UNITS PER ACRE. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] WE ALSO ARE ADDING RECREATION OPEN SPACE AS A PERMITTED USE IN MOST OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES. FOR SOME REASON, IT WASN’T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT. SO WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD IT. WE REMOVED THE ZONING COMPATIBILITY RESTRICTIONS FROM EACH OF THEIR LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES. THIS WILL ALLOW [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] YOU MAY HAVE A LAND USE THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL AND A COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT MAYBE CURRENTLY WOULDN’T ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL. BUT IT CORRECTS A LOT OF THOSE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS BY REMOVING THE STRICT COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU CAN DEVELOPMENT WILLY-NILLY. YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A MATCHING LAND USE AND A ZONING USE THAT YOU CAN PAIR UP BETWEEN THE TWO TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. BUT IT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER. AND THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ADDED MANUFACTURING LIGHT — [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] YOU’D HAVE TO HAVE ENABLING ZONING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IN THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL, WE’RE ADDING MANUFACTURING MEDIUM AND REMOVING SELF-STORAGE AS ALLOWABLE USES AND ADDING MARINAS AND OFFICE. THERE’S SOME CLEAN-UP ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN LINGERING. ALONG WITH THIS SET OF AMENDMENT, WE’RE ALSO UPDATING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. ESSENTIALLY THIS REALLY SIMPLIFIES IT. IT GETS IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTES. IT RECOGNIZES OUR PORTFOLIO IMPROVEMENT AND CIP PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND ALLOWS US TO REFERENCE OUR ANNUAL CIP PROCESS AND ELIMINATES THE ANNUAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. IN CLOSING, WE FIND THESE ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE ONLY COMMENTS WE RECEIVED p WITH REGARD TO THE COMPREHENSIVE — THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. AND THERE WERE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES THEY WANTED US TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH. THAT WAS A ONLY THING WE NEEDED TO TWEAK FROM THE FIRST SET OF READINGS. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JUSTICE?>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST MAP YOU S SHOWED? JUST KIND OF HOW IT’S APPLIED AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN FROM WHAT WE’RE ALLOWING TODAY AND WHAT WE’RE ALLOWING TOMORROW?>>SURE. CURRENTLY IN THE PURPLE AND THE RED SHADED AREAS NOW, SO FAR AS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, YOU’RE CAPPED AT 12.5 UNITS PER ACRE. THIS WILL REMOVE THAT AND WILL MAKE THESE CATEGORIES CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP. THESE WOULD BE RETAIL AND SERVICES AT 24 UNITS TO THE ACRE FOR ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: THIS IS RESIDENTIAL. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLOWABLE DENSITY OR ALLOWABLE ACTIVITY OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE?>>IT DOESN’T CHANGE WHAT’S ALLOWABLE FOR COMMERCIAL. THESE ARE MORE MIXED USE ORIENTED — >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: I WAS LOOKING AT THE KEY TO THE MAP. YOU’VE GOT COMMERCIAL GENERAL. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] I WAS LOOKING AT THE KEY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MAP — >>THIS WAS A REFERENCE FOR THE COASTAL STORM AREA. WE CAN’T INCREASE DENSITY IN THOSE AREAS. IT WAS MORE OF A REFERENCE MAP. THIS PARCEL SITTING OVER HERE WHICH YOU CAN SEE, THEY’RE GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THEIR CURRENT DENSITY AND WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO INCREASE THAT BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE COASTAL STORM AREA. >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: SO IT’S ONLY IN REALLY THE PURPLE AREAS ON THAT MAP WE’RE TALKING ABOUT?>>THE PURPLE AND THE REDS. THOSE ARE COMMERCIAL GENERAL. THE RED IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL LAND USE — BOTH CATEGORIES WE’RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO 24 UNITS TO THE ACRE. AGAIN, WE’RE TRYING TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PRIMARILY IN THESE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE TRANSIT AVAILABLE. AND HOPEFULLY WITH FUTURE TRANSIT [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ]. >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: I DON’T WANT TO BELABOR IT. BUT YOU HAVE THE CORNER OF 54th AND PARK STREET, YOU HAVE A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER. YOU’D BE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT?>>CORRECT.>>DAVE EGGERS: YOU JUST SAID YOU’RE TRYING TO GET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. YOU’RE RESTRICTING WHAT CAN GO ON THERE AS FAR AS SPLITTING IT BETWEEN OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL — >>IT COULD GO ALL RESIDENTIAL. HONESTLY, THE CHANCES OF THAT — THIS IS A VACANT PARCEL. PERHAPS IT WOULD. BUT IT IS ALLOWABLE. IT COULD GO ALL RESIDENTIAL. I’LL STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY AS A NATION, AS A COUNTRY, AS A STATE AND AS PINELLAS COUNTY, WE ARE OVERRETAILED IN THIS KOIFENLT WE HAVE A LOT OF DEAD RETAIL SPACE. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT — AND WE DON’T HAVE A LOT OF AREAS FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OCCUR. SO THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE IT. >>CHARLIE JUSTICE: ONE MORE QUESTION. NOT TO BE [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] BUT THE NORTHEAST CORNER WHICH IS — YOU HAVE SHOPPING CENTERS ON BOTH SIDES, WHY WAS ONE IN AND ONE NOT?>>I’M NOT 100% FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA YOU’RE SHOWING. THESE ARE OUR LAND USE — UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LAND USE. IF THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN JURISDICTION, IT’S NOT SHOWING UP ON OUR MAP, IT’S PROBABLY THE DIFFERENCE. THIS IS ONLY OUR UNINCORPORATED AREA.>>CHARLIE JUSTICE: THANK YOU.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SPEAK. THE FIRST ONE I KNOW I’M GOING TO TOTALLY MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME. LIVES ON EGRET LANE [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] AND IT’S [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] — I’M REALLY OFF. >>MY NAME [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] — I LIVE IN [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] ON EGRET LANE. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU.>>I’VE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOU’VE BEEN HERE BEFORE. BUT I LIKE TRYING TO READ — >>I WOULD MAKE GOOD USE OF MY TIME AND I MADE MY OWN GRAPHIC WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: PUT IT RIGHT ON THE SEAL AS YOU’RE LOOKING DOWN AT IT, WE WILL SEE IT. JUST LIKE THAT. >>WE’RE NOT READY TO TALK ABOUT [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] AND THE DENSITY. THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE DENSITY — PERMISSION TO BUILD BUILDINGS. IT COMES AT A TIME WHEN THE 131-ACRE PARCEL IS GOING FROM AN EMPTY GOLF COURSE TO A LOT OF PROPERTY ALREADY STUFFED INTO IT WE’RE STARTING TO CALL IT SIX FLAGS OVER ERCO. WE’LL MAKE A CALL ON THE AIRPORT EVERY DAY OF EVERY WEEK. 747s ON A LITTLE GOLF COURSE. A FIXED BASE OPERATION WHICH IS LIKE ITS OWN LITTLE AIRPORT. 42 T HANGARS. AND WE’RE CHANGING THE DENSITY AND THE WAY THIS DISCUSSION STARTED ABOUT CHANGING THE DENSITY STARTED WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2018 IN THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ABOUT ERCO ■ONLY. WE’VE BEEN PROMISED A MEETING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND A SECOND MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT TO TALK ABOUT MORE CHANGES TON THE SIX FLAGS. THE IT WILL GO TO TEN FLAGS. THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF ERCO AND YET NOW IT’S CHANGED TO THE WHOLE COUNTY. BUT THEY’RE GOING TO PUT SOME KIND OF RESIDENTIAL — SOME KIND OF OFFICE AND SOME KIND OF MANUFACTURING LEFT IN THIS 131 ACRES. WE THINK THAT’S KIND OF A LOT. WE DO GET A CHANCE AS A COMMUNITY TO AT LEAST TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS WHICH ARE PLANNED FOR JUST 130 ACRES. AND SO UNLESS WE WANT TO EXCLUDE WHAT WOULD APPLY TO ERCO. WE’RE BEING SQUD TO ALLOW TO TO APPLY TO ERCO WITHOUT EVER HAVING A DISCUSSION AT ALL. WE’LL HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS NEXT WEEK WHEN IT WON’T MATTER. SO AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] MY FIRST PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT WE TABLE THE MOTION FOR 60 DAYS TO ALLOW US TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE AIRPORT IN TERMS OF PUTTING YET ANOTHER KIND OF BUILDING ON THIS LITTLE GOLF COURSE. WE GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE AIRPORT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH WE’RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND WE CAN PROMISE THAT IT HAS NOT — [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] WE WANT IT TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE ARE HELD WITHIN THE CONFINES OF NEW — A NEW BUILDING TYPE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE OVERVIEW OF THIS, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY IS RELATED TO THE ERCO PROPERTY HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THESE CHANGES WILL BE RE-EVALUATED AFTER ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP CAN BE HELD WITH THE FEATHER SOUND COMMUNITY. >>IS IT IN HERE?>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IT IS ON THE COVER — THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 2. NOT ON YOUR AGENDA.>>SO I HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THIS. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: ALL RIGHT. BUT IT’S GOOD NEWS. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN AT THAT PROPERTY UNTIL AFTER THERE’S MEETINGS HELD WITH YOU — >>IN ORDER TO MAKE ME SLEEP TONIGHT — >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF IT?>>YEAH. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: WE CAN DO THAT.>>AND THEN I PROMISE TO TAKE MY DRAWING AWAY. [ LAUGHTER ]>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANKS AGAIN FOR BEING SUCH A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALWAYS COMING — ACTUALLY RENEE IS GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU. >>PERFECT. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: YOUR COPY. >>[ UNINTELLIGIBLE ]. THERE WOULDN’T BE RESIDENTIAL NO MATTER WHAT. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANKS FOR STICKING THROUGH IT TONIGHT WITH US. ROBIN HOOD. AND THAT’S THE ONLY OTHER CARD I HAVE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO SPEAK.>>MY NAME IS ROBIN HOOD.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I WAS GOING TO SAY — [ LAUGHTER ] DON’T PEOPLE HAVE FUN YOUR NAME.>>I DO HAVE A LOT OF FUN. THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO ME. I DON’T DO THIS SPEAKING VERY OFTEN. BUT I FEEL COMPELLED TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION WHEN YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE DENSITY IN THE PINELLAS COUNTY. MY CONCERNS ARE THAT WE ALL ARE CITIZENS AND YOU FORTUNATELY ARE IN THE POSITION TO MAKE THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT DECISION MOVING FORWARD ON THIS. I THINK WE ALL HAVE FAMILY, CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN AND WE ALL KNOW THE DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS PRETTY OVERWHELMING ALREADY, WHETHER IT BE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, THE MEDICAL SYSTEM, THE AMBULANCES, THE FLOODING. THERE ARE JUST SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS. AND WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING THE DENSITY IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS, YOU MIGHT NOT THINK IT’S A LOT. I, HOWEVER, WANT TO THINK OUT OF THE BOX AND THINK THAT THIS IS OPENING PANDORA’S BOX FOR THINGS IN THE FUTURE. IF YOU’RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS DENSITY TO CHANGE FOR THESE COUPLE OF AREAS, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME IN AND WE’RE ALL CITIZENS HERE. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME IN LATER ON WHEN YOU’RE OUT OF OFFICE AND SAY, HERE’S OUR LITTLE CHING-CHING OVER HERE. THEY’VE ALREADY DONE IT ONCE. THEY’LL DO IT AGAIN. THAT’S WHY I’M COMPELLED TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO HOPE THAT YOU AS OUR COMMISSIONERS WILL RECONSIDER THIS AND NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR FUTURE HERE. AND YOU TALK ABOUT WANTING TO REJECT THE FUTURE. THIS IS ONLY MONEY. IT’S ONLY MONEY. IT’S NOT LAND. AND YOU’LL NEVER GET THAT BACK. YOU’LL NEVER GET WHAT YOU WANT HERE IN THIS COUNTY BACK IF YOU GIVE IT AWAY TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. WE APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK?>>[ OFF MIC ].>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: I’M SORRY, CAN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE?>>[ OFF MIC ]. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: DOES THAT HELP YOU? IF YOU NEED TO WALK THROUGH IT — OKAY. SO I DON’T SEE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. SO AT THIS POINT, WE WILL END THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, SECOND HEARING. SO I’LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.>>PAT GERARD: MOVE APPROVAL.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: IS THERE A SECOND?>>KENNETH WELCH: DID YOU SAY –>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: DO WE HAVE A QUESTION?>>KENNETH WELCH: I JUST WANT TO SAY, ROBIN HOOD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ALL DAY. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. BUT I HAVE THE OPPOSITE VIEW. I THINK WE ARE GROWING AGAIN AND I THINK THIS IS TARGETING WHERE THE GROWTH MAKES SENSE AND WHERE WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO HANDLE IT AND WHERE HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER TO HANDLE THAT INCIDENT. SO I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR POINT ON THIRD GENERATION PINELLAS AS WELL. BUT I THINK THIS GETS US TO GROWING IN A SMART AND SUSTAINABLE WAY. BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER GERARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PETERS. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR BEING HERE. WE DID END THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE’RE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU AFTER THE VOTE, THOUGH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK AND LISTENING TO OTHERS AS YOU PUT THIS PLAN TOGETHER. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. [ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] — 66. >>ITEM 66 IS CASE NUMBER CP-10-06-19. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE AND QUALITY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR FILING. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE HEARD. THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY.>>THIS PROPOSES TO REMOVE TWO POLICIES THAT ARE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ONE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE POLICY AND ONE IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT. REALLY THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE JUST DID — DIDN’T REALIZE WE WERE SETTING UP A CONFLICT. THESE POLICIES WERE HELD OVER FOR QUITE SOMETIME. BUT THEY ONLY ALLOWED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIFICALLY — DENSITIES TO 12.5 AND 15 UNITS PARK AND RIDE RESPECTIVELY IN THE ROR AND THE CG. SO NOW WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES WILL BE ALLOWED MOVING FORWARD. SO WE WANT TO PUT THEM ON AN EVEN FOOTING. SO WANT TO STRIKE THESE POLICIES FROM THE COMP PLAN. >>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS?>>JANET LONG: MOVE APPROVAL — >>THIS IS JUST THE FIRST HEARING. YOU DON’T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING. JUST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE WILL HAVE THE SECOND — I DON’T HAVE ANY CARDS FROM THE AUDIENCE. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE’S NO ONE WHO WISHES TO TWO. WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT.>>[ OFF MIC ].>>IT WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE.>>KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL: OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEM I’M MISSING? [ LAUGHTER ] ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ADJOURNED, THEN. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR A PRODUCTIVE BUT LONG DAY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *