This meeting of the Community Development Board is called to order on June 16th. Welcome, everyone. Everybody could please rise and join us in an invocation in the Pledge of Allegiance. Heavenly Father, we come to you today asking for your guidance, wisdom, and support as we begin this meeting. Help us to engage in meaningful discussion, allow us to grow across those as a group, and nurture the bonds of this community. For us, with your grace, Lord God, as we make decisions that might affect the students, the citizens of the community, and the friends of the City of Clearwater. And continue to remind us all that we do here today, all that we accomplish is for the pursuit of truth, and for the greater glory of you, and for the service of humanity. We ask these things in your name. Amen. Please join me in the Pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This Board consists of seven members and one alternate who are appointed by the City Council and serve voluntarily. I am Michael Butskus, and I will ask the other members and the staff to introduce themselves, beginning on my left. Mark O'Bray, Hovercourt. Boyd Hamilton. Noah Dyker, Board Attorney. Rosemary Call, City Clerk. Matthew Midge, Assistant City Attorney. Ted Kozak, Planning and Development. Michelle Chennault. Louise Serna. Andrew Hupp. Thank you. Please remember to turn off your cell phones so they do not become a distraction during the meeting. Please also refrain from having conversations in this room so we might hear all the testimony given today. To ensure a complete record of this Board's actions, we ask that each individual wishing to speak, including the applicant speaking to the microphone at the podium in front of us, clearly state your name and spell your last name for the Clerk. Now I will ask all those in attendance today who plan to speak to please rise and be sworn in by the Clerk. Agendas of today's meeting are on the podium to your left near the entry door. Also on this podium are a roster of the Community Development Board, the list of City staff experts and their resumes, the Board's rules, procedure, and the annual schedule of this Board. Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes from last month's meeting. If everybody's had a chance to review them, may I please have a motion for approval. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Motion made and second. Any discussion? There being none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on our agenda today is for public comment on any matters not on today's agenda. Is there any person wishing to address the Board concerning any matter that does not appear on today's agenda? Please come forward, state your name clearly into the microphone, and welcome back. Hello, guys. My name's Alex Stein, S-T-E-I-N, and I have a serious grievance that I came here for. I just got off a fabulous Carnival cruise ship, other than the fact that I lost about $6,400 in the casino. It was a great time. I'm wearing this ridiculous mask. I got diagnosed with Hantavirus, and I don't want anybody. And I got monkeypox, but I'm vaccinated for both, so I think that I will be okay. But I was planning on going on that beautiful Carnival cruise with my wife Deborah until she met a guy named Jeremy that told her about this really cool new age spiritual religion that can bring her to a place of clarity. And you know what? I thought at first, oh, this is a pretty cool thing, you know? It was all about self-help. I was watching Grant Cardone podcasts. I was thinking about investing in real estate. And then the next thing I know, I'm looking at my wife's text messages, and she's sending scandalous pictures to Jeremy. And then she sits me down two weeks before we're supposed to go on this cruise, and she says, Alex, I know you're so excited for this cruise. You've been working so hard for this, but I can't go with you. And I'm like, Deborah, what are you talking about? Like, my parents are going to watch the kids. Like, what are you talking about? You can't go with me. And she's like, well, Jeremy and I are seeing each other now. And, you know, it is what it is, and Jeremy doesn't want me to go on this cruise with you. And I still, because I'm an honorable man, because I'm not a coward, because I'm not a person that's going to just back down, I still went on that cruise. I lost a lot of money in the casino, and I got infected with monkeypox, but it still feels like a win. But I will say this. This Jeremy guy is a member of the Church of Scientology, and I'm begging you guys. They are trying to take my kids and enlist sin into the Sea Orc. And I don't want some intergalactic space alien named Xenu telling my kids they've got a bunch of thetans in them, and they're going to turn into the next Tom Cruise and be in Tropic Thunder and have one of the main actors wear blackface. Like, I'm not here for that. So I'm begging on this council. If you care about the community, we must stop the Church of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard was a Satanist. He was doing disgusting things, probably with children. But even if he wasn't, he's done enough with the discommunication and the identification of calling people like myself a suppressive person all because I don't want my kids to be enlisted into some sort of military wing of a Scientology church that I don't even understand. So I'm asking on the council today, please, I beg you, we must expose the Church of Scientology for their way that they treat families and make it so I cannot be a part of my children's lives. They do not deserve to go work on a vote for pennies on the dollar. L. Ron Hubbard shouldn't be exploiting my children, and Leah Remedy exposed all of this. So I implore you to do something about the Church of Scientology. Thank you. Do we have anybody else wishing to speak on matters not on today's agenda? I'm Bill Johnson, 2694 Redford Court. I think I know most of you. Welcome back. I'm Commissioner Hamilton Lewis. I just wanted to share with you something that I've noticed out at Clearwater Beach. It may not have direct connection to this board, but that's what not on the agenda is for. We have beautiful properties on Clearwater Beach that are lushly landscaped. But then we also have the spoiling of our beautiful beach with stickers. And we have a volunteer program within the Clearwater parks that have been helped in and some stickers. And we're making some progress on that. But there's others that the stickers and the graffiti have been on there so long that it's really without the city forces, that city parking lot, that should be better maintained. And with energy that are just covered with the state. I think that's part of that's my message. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody else with any matters that we should speak on on today's agenda? Yes, sir. Thank you. Seeing nobody else. Before I go into the consent agenda, we have a couple of new members on the board. Can you say your name and just welcome back? I know you've been involved in the city for a while. Hoyt Hamilton. I'm glad to be appointed here. I've been here all my life, except for a couple of brief stints up in Atlanta, Georgia. One for my college education and one for my two sons' college educations. And I served 14 years on the city council. I love the city. My family was fortunate enough to have a very successful business out on the beach that after 62 years, my brothers and I decided it was time to move on to another chapter in all of our lives. And so I'm kind of enjoying life as it is and have a little extra time on my hands. Well, thank you for volunteering and being a part of the board. Yes, Luis Serna, a 10-year Clearwater resident, city planner, planning consultant, so also an avid runner and cyclist and kayaker. So, you know, have those interests and looking forward to serving on this board. Appreciate it. Thanks. Looking forward to having both the experience and the insight to help us out. Once adopted a consent agenda format, the consent items are identified as such on the agenda. Consent agenda items are those items for which the planning and development department recommends approval, and the applicant is in agreement with any proposed conditions. Please note that written comments to the case that have been received to date do not result in any item being removed from the consent agenda. Items may be removed from the consent agenda today by a member of the board, a member of the staff, or any person in the audience for questions or objections. I will read each item on today's consent agenda, and if any person wishes to remove this item from the consent agenda, please so state or raise your hand and we will remove it from the consent agenda. Items from the consent agenda will be heard in the regular order of the meeting. Items that remain in the consent agenda will be approved with a single vote as to each type of hearing. The items on our consent agenda today are item FLD 2026-01003, flexible development approval for light assembly and retail sales. And services of the comprehensive infill redevelopment project in the commercial district for properties located at 1425, 1429, 1433, and 1477 South Fort Harrison Avenue. And the conversion to non-residential off-street parking in the medium-density residential district for the properties located at 514 Bellevue Boulevard. Does anybody wish to have this item removed from the consent agenda? Seeing no, none. Then the next item is FLD 2008-05013A, flexible development approved for an outdoor amenity area. Accessory to existing foreign accommodation in the tourist district and the open space recreation OSR district as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project in the beach walk district by design, beach by design for the property at 100 Coronado Drive. Does anybody wish to have this item removed from the consent agenda? I would. We have two people so that will come off the consent agenda. The first item is level two, correct? Does anybody, does any board member wish to disclose any ex-partly communications on any level two application remaining on the consent agenda? Seeing none, can I have a motion for item 4.1 on the consent agenda? I move to approve case FLD 2026-01003 on today's consent agenda and based on the evidence of record including the application of the staff report, hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions and law stated in the staff reports with conditions of the approval as listed. Do we have a second on that motion? I second. Motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We'll now move on to our regular agenda. Today we only have one level two case, correct? It's level two. All level two cases as a flexible development are considered quadjudicial hearings. In a quadjudicial hearing, the community development board reviews the application, the staff report correspondence, and all evidence presented today, and makes the final decision subject to appeal. This board has previously qualified to all the city staff who will testify as experts in their area of professional training, education, and experience. The list of city staff experts and their resumes are in the handbook on the podium near the entry door. Any other professionals who desire to be qualified as an expert witness shall so request at the beginning of the case and present a resume to each board member. The board shall determine whether or not to qualify the person as an expert and in what field of study. At the beginning of each level two case, I will ask for anyone who wishes to request party status to come forward and state your reasons. Party status may be granted if the person requesting such status demonstrates that he is a substantial affected person. The board will then determine whether or not to grant party status. Then the case will proceed as follows. Requests for party status. Presentation by planning and development staff. Ten minute maximum presentation by the applicant. Ten minute maximum presentation by persons with party status. Five minutes per party maximum. Cross examination witnesses by planning and development. Cross examination of witnesses by applicant. And cross examination of witnesses by persons with party status. Comments by the public, limited to three minutes per person. And then closing remarks by planning and development staff. Closing remarks by persons with party status. And closing remarks by the applicant, all are limited to three minutes. Closing of the public hearing and discussion of the vote the board follows. Our level two case today is FLD2008-0513A. We're going to ask about ex-partic communications. Does anybody in the audience wish to request non-party status? Seeing none, then we will begin with presentation by planning and development staff. Good chair. This time I'd ask the board to accept Ms. Melissa Hawk-Baker as an expert witness in general planning, zoning, redevelopment planning, land development code and land development code amendments, special area plans and early districts, site plan review, landscape architecture, historic preservation, comprehensive design programs, and all other matters she's about to testify here on. Do I have a motion to accept Ms. Hawk-Baker as an expert? I have a motion to accept Ms. Baker as an expert witness. Second? I second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Please proceed. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Melissa Hawk-Baker, Planner 3. The case before you is FLD-2008-05013A for 100 Coronado Drive. I have my presentation ready, but it's not on the screen. Melissa, can you pull down the microphone just to say that? Yes. I know. I'm very short. I know. Thank you. I forgot your phone. All right. So, it is 100 Coronado Drive at the Wyndham Grand, and it consists of one parcel of 2.77 acres. It has frontages on Coronado to the east, 2nd Street to the south, and to the north and west is South Gulfview Boulevard. The project area is on the west side of the building between the hotel and South Gulfview Boulevard. The zoning district, the hotel, is predominantly in the tourist zoning district and the resort facilities high future land use area. It is also covered by Beach by Design, and that is the Beach Walk character district. The remainder of the area is in the open space recreation area, which is also still covered under the Beach Walk character district of Beach by Design. When Beach by Design is in play with a project, it supersedes the regular community development code. Anything not covered in the community development code defaults back – or, I mean, anything not covered in Beach by Design, I'm sorry, defaults back to the community development code. The proposed site is outlined in the red dashed line, and that would be between the sidewalk along South Gulfview Boulevard and the existing building. The amenity area is going to be conducted – operated by the hotel. It's going to consist of outdoor seating area, and the food preparation is to be prepared by the hotel, not in the outdoor area. The outdoor area is just to serve as an additional amenity area for seating. There will be additional landscaping incorporated, and this is covered under a comprehensive infill redevelopment project under sections 2-803 subsection D and 2-1404 subsection A, and that would be for both the open space recreation district as well as the tourist district. This is showing an elevation of what the potential amenity area could look like, and the applicant also included the potential removal of the items that would be placed within the amenity area in the event that there is a storm coming. This is a photograph of the existing conditions facing in the southwesterly direction, looking at the area predominantly with the sand, which is bordered by a hedgerow of sea grapes that is the anticipated amenity area location. This also shows a little bit more from the exterior of what will become the amenity area. The beach walkway runs along the perimeter for a portion of the proposed amenity area, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions. Does anybody have any questions? So the dotted line that I saw that juts out across the sidewalk, what is that in? Is that the vicest area? It does cross out onto the walkway area. Which is still going to be there, right? It's still going to stay there. It is because it's actually following a line of a former right-of-way that exists. When this area was converted into the beach walk area, there was a significant amount of work conducted along the west side of all of the buildings fronting along the beach. And as part of that, there were, you know... Melissa, do you mind if I... Oh, yeah, absolutely. I would just... Hi, Lauren Matzke, Planning and Development. I would just like to say that the proposed license area is not part of today's request. That's negotiations and everything that are going on between, you know, the city attorney's office, the applicant, and then that would need to be approved by city council. That being said, this is an older drawing that we have received. We've not got... There's updated versions that are part of that process that do not include any portion of beach walk. So while it's on the graphics that were part of the application, I would refer to the hedgerow or the planting row, the landscaping, as the proposed boundary. And, Melissa, I don't know if you could move your mouse or something just to kind of illustrate... The existing sea grapes stay? Is that what's... Yes, the existing sea grapes, which I'm attempting to sort of highlight with the cursor, follow the border of what will become the amenity area. And you can also see them for real in real life on the photo. None of that landscape there would be moved. Everything would happen within that area, essentially, from what you're understanding. The landscaping... There will be landscaping removed, but then they will be adding back additional landscaping. Where would that happen? Within this area. But, I mean, is that, like I said, is those sea grapes, because they take a while to grow, so... The intent is that the sea grapes that can make up the border area, that is to stay. That is not going to be removed. If I can interject, if you can go back to the site plan, except asterisks, asterisks, there are two areas that they're going to have to remove. Sea grape, because they show some gates. Correct, yes. So, that's where there's going to be some... Or that's the access area, I guess? Correct. And, actually, the one area is presently open, and that you can see at the far end of the photograph. There is an opening in the sea grapes, so that will be maintained. And that means that public can come in and out? Um, it, yes, it will be, the intent is, is that the public will come to use it. Not only the users of the hotel, but, and it will be monitored and operated by the hotel. Yeah, just with all that's been going on on the beach lately. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing what you're saying. You're saying with all that's going on on the beach lately, it's, sorry, with all that's going on on the beach lately, it's, you know, I'm just curious. They're adding more, I don't know, area for the kids to hang out in, I guess is the word? Okay. Um, yeah, I thought, because I saw, I thought there was something about a gate, and I guess that's not. Well, on their plans, um, there were gates, there are gates shown. Um, you can sort of see on the, I guess it's really only that one. Yeah, I saw the. On the removal, right. On the south side, there seems to be a gate. We have been told that, yes, there will be gates, and they will be monitored. Um, and, of course, it will only be available when there are operating hours by staff of the hotel. Mary, do you know what their intention is for, is it just aesthetic improvement? Is that their motivation behind doing this? Or, because you said there wasn't going to be any food service out there that's going to be in the hotel. Right, and there are, Lauren. To clarify, food will not be prepared there, but what's shown, um, kind of here, this is the exit plan. There would be two, um, mobile trailer, like, there, you know, the word choices in the, in the application, it's, it's presented as a mobile vending cart. Um, there were other diagrams and stuff shown, you can kind of see it here, but, um, food preparation would not take place in these. Any food that's prepared would take place inside the restaurant, inside the hotel, and would be brought out and, um, as communicated as, and you can ask for, you know, questions of the applicant, of course. Or, but it's communicated to us, would be, you know, kept in, like, warming plates or something like that. One of them would be serving as a bar service, and the other would be the food holding area, um, and then the tables and stuff. So, there would be food service, but not food preparation. So, are those vendor trucks owned by the hotel for them to make money off of those people, or is this a public, uh, a public service? It's, it's an extension of the hotel. Of the hotel. It's an extension of their restaurant. Okay. So, that's where a license agreement would be necessary to utilize city property. Okay. Um, but the application is here because that portion of the property, for two reasons, that portion of the property is zoned open space recreation. And so, to be able to utilize it in this manner, they have to use the comprehensive infill redevelopment, um, process. But, additionally, the original application for the hotel, um, the, it was granted by the community development board a zero lot line development, and that, um, development order included that there would be additional landscaping placed on the city property, and, but maintained by the hotel. So, um, they're requesting to remove that landscaping, and as such, because that was part of the original design and part of the original, um, I'll say justification, but that's not quite the right word, um, for this, that was part of the application and part of the consideration by the board to, to allow for that zero lot line development. Um, a minor revision was not a possibility because it's, it would be asking for a change in a condition, um, of the original development order. So, it was originally came through to the community development board, and so, it's up to the community development board to, um, provide revisions, which, in this case, it's unique. It's not, it's not often that we're talking about city-owned property that were part of the original application. So, it's, to, just, uh, sorry, to repeat, um, two things, remove, changing of, or removal of that original landscaping, a change to the, the approved landscaping plan, which included landscaping on city property, in addition to then changing and allowing for this amenity area, um, to be operated by the hotel. And, again, there's the license agreement component that's separate, but, obviously, it goes part and parcel with this. Does the licensing agreement have, people have to also come before the board to get approval? The licensing agreement would not come to the community development board. I have a question as well. Sure. On the, the drawing with the red line that shows the most amount of detail, yeah, that one there, um, you can't see it because you got your blue box over it, um, let's see, or is it there? No, it says promenade easement boundary line. It's pointing to that red arrow, or the red dotted line. Is it pointing to that red dotted line, or the, I'm just trying to figure out where the easement, being a real estate lawyer, I'm looking at saying, you know, are we, in doing this, looking at there being an easement that takes it across the, the walkway and out into that, that peak? Does that seem, yeah, Mr. Chair, I can weigh on this a little bit and give you all some more information. So, when we were originally looking at this project, our first thought was to go ahead and do an easement instead of a license agreement. So, that's why it's referred to as an easement there, and as we also spoke to a little bit earlier, you can see that the red line is a little bit longer than it actually is now, especially that portion that extends off to the left. Um, that is no longer going to be a part of the licensed area, but we switched over to a license agreement, which, of course, as you know, I believe you're a real estate attorney. Yes, I am. Less, much lesser interest than a, than a easement. So, we're looking to do that. It's going to be a revocable license, and the area, of course, in question where this particular amenity, um, structures are going to be, is going to be much smaller than originally. Um, all the stuff right there that we're seeing with the two trailers and, um, the landscape, all that's going to stay, but everything that goes off to the left. You picked up on my concern exactly, the difference between easement and the license, and I wanted to make sure we were, what we were looking at since it was designated as such on the plans. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I may also add, though, you'll see the dashed green line. So, there's a couple of things. Where the blue boxes that we modified, staff modified, for the purpose of this presentation is a proposed license area. That's where, in the submitted plans, it said easement. That's what Mr. Mitich was discussing. But where you see promenade easement boundary line, that's actually related to the green line that goes all the way across the property. And that's an existing easement that was also granted by the city as part of the original application. And it extends, if memory serves me, now I'm going out and they can, they can address this certainly, um, about 20 feet from the property line. And that grants the hotel certain abilities within that easement. Um, and that's, you'll, you'll see that some of the hotel actually extends or some of that, um, the gray, like, actually extends onto city property. That was also all part, of course, of the original application. And that existing easement, the promenade easement, um, provides them those opportunities to do certain retail sales and services and restaurant uses within that easement. Um, another one of the reasons this is, you know, a little bit more complex is it extends beyond that. If they had, if the proposal had stayed within the boundaries of the existing easement, the conversation would be different. So just from me saying it out loud so I can make sure I understand it myself, the existing property line runs parallel to the bottom of that drawing that's up on the screen. Um, some of the gray portion, which is perhaps an overhang from the building or a portion of the building extends into that area. And from that line to the green line is an existing 20-foot easement, which is where they're going to have their food service and drink service mechanisms placed. And then the rest of the area is going to be improved more or less for, for, as an amenity for people to sit and enjoy whatever they're acquiring there and also enjoy our beautiful beaches. And north of, or I should say west of that green line, because north is that way in this picture, um, west of that green line is the proposed license area and that red dotted line is going to change. The proposed license area would encompass the, all of the city portion of the property, but yes, thank you. And I'm glad you clarified the east-west. I'm just trying to put it all into perspective to make sure I understand what's going on there. So, uh, and this might be more for our council than for anything else, but I'm just looking at saying, in terms of adding a condition, if this were to go all the way to a vote and get approved, um, that that line needs to kind of follow the perimeter or the inside of the sidewalk, rather than extending all our way out. Would that be a permitted condition of approval that we could add to our motion if we so chose? It could be, but I would ask staff if that's something that practically we could do in going forward with this before adding that as a condition. Okay. All right. Yeah. Also, because I live in this area, that'll be one of the few accessible bars to the beach on that stretch there. So it's not like we don't have enough bars, but, you know. When you say accessible, they say they're going to have gates to it. Well, I wasn't clear. Yeah, I'm not clear either. But, I mean, my guess is this is going to be open to the public. Yeah, we'll open the gates. Yeah. Exactly. I think the gates will probably be more for after hours to be barred camping out in there as compared to keeping the public from entering without having a key card or something. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff before we go on to the applicant? Seeing none. Is there anybody here from the applicant to speak? Please come forward, state your names, and speak into the microphone, please. Good afternoon. Clay Gilman, on behalf of the applicant, 65 Court Street. And then, Seth. Southern Daniels, General Manager, Wyndham Grant, Florida Beach. All right. So, I know there were some questions with regard to the kind of the area. And I've got a picture here that I may be able just to show, just kind of trace out, just a better show. Yeah. So, the red line juts out here. We've already discussed the state's going to run. So, it's not that – so, just for that specific question, I wanted to make sure to clarify. You know, we feel like this is going to be a great addition to the people able to walk along Beach Walk and stop in for drinks. Mr. Chair mentioned the mobile vending carts are going to be within the easement closest to the hotel. With the red will be no food preparation out in the area, it will be a hotel. And the main – what it is, Mr. Chair, are global vending carts that, in the event, we obviously have to be taken out. And then – Can you clarify what the light-shaded red path is for me? That's just – Okay. That's just a show. Thank you. As far as your licensing agreement, I'm guessing that it does get alcohol. Correct. Correct. No alcohol would be outside of that premise, just like we operate the pool. The pool bar right here. You'll be able to release that. You'll be able to – Lean forward towards the mic because we're not – Sorry. I'm not hearing that when I'm three feet away. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just asking. Yeah, you'll be able to – And as part of having a license through the state, that is an extremely important requirement, and we would not jeopardize. So, yeah, absolutely. Anybody have any other questions? We have, Bray, you're tapping your pen like you might have. Well, I try to – Listen, like I said, I live on the beach. I've seen what's happened. We've just had two major things happen on the beach recently. And, you know, it's always got to do with younger people, not necessarily alcohol, but I'm guessing in some aspects it might be. I'm just saying. But it's – and that will be one of the most accessible bars close to the beach. I – go ahead. Okay. Yeah, I think we agree. I was on the beach, right? We had to deal with that. We've dealt with it three out of the four years, right, or two of the four years when there's been something tragic that's happened and trying to be able to manage it. And, you know, we have multiple outlets on property where we're managing, we're serving, selling alcohol. Everyone is serve-safe certified. The last thing we want to do is to cause any type of issue when it comes to over-serving or alcohol leaving the premise. But we know that, you know, I mean, we could probably look back on the tickets that are given to people that are going out there drinking on the beach themselves, right, without that opportunity, without having a bar as close. So this wall of wood, serve alcohol and food, they would be here. They would be sitting here in a contained environment as opposed to everywhere out there. And we go through the same protocols everybody else would run a bar. We're checking IDs. We're not over-serving, right? It's going to be a lot more managed than what we see out there, people doing it on their own. How many seats do you have at your other bar restaurants on the south end? Bad Fence, that's 100 seats. 100 seats? And they're directly on the boardwalk as well, correct? Yeah. That is, just to be clear, it is our space that is a leased. That's leased from the city? No, there's a tenant that leased it. Oh, that's a tenant there? Is there going to be a tenant here or are you going to operate it? We would operate it in-house, yes. Okay. And that's all it would be made out of, the hotel kitchen. We'd bring it from the hotel kitchen. They'd be in hot boxes. That aesthetic, you know, speaking frankly, would look so much better than what it has looked over the years in just landscape. That landscaped area would get demolished every season and we would redo it. But people just walk through it. They kick it. They throw trash on it. So that's why we put the sea grape up to give it an aesthetic but also kind of keep people on the beach walk. Now there's this area that's open that's sitting here that has the opportunity to be developed, be an amenity for everyone. And it would look very, very nice to everyone visiting the beach and locals alike. I want to make sure I understand what I'm ultimately going to be asked to vote on. Is the variance requesting additional land that was not previously in an easement or are we modifying this area that's already covered in previous agreements? So it's like two part here. So the first part is hotel and approval. The original approval said this is part of your criteria for assessing a reduced setback. This area was going to be increased enhanced landscape area to offset that. So that's like one reason this is an FLD and the other reason FLD is extension of the OSR district of entities, as you can see here. So it's like two parallel things but one request. That's why in the criteria you have OSR district criteria and then you have tourist district criteria, which is essentially saying they're not touching the hotel, but the hotel is doing an extension to their amenity area, which is a.k.a. a restaurant. Yeah, it's the amendment to the landscape area and then the license agreement. We're approving a license agreement at this time? That's not. No, that's not. We're approving, we'd be approving a use and a reduced landscape area. The license areas. The license agreement is something that we're separately negotiating and won't be coming to this board. And as far as the boundaries of that license agreement go, it will include new property that was not previously a part of the previously approved. But at least important, it will be new land that's used towards this point and make sure we clear that. So it's new land plus changes to the existing property. Correct. So we're approving a use change which will allow this to occur, which is going to be voted on by the city council relative to the license agreement and whether it was offered to the public or specifically to them, things of that nature. That's out of our purview, correct? Yeah, I mean, essentially this project takes two different parts to work. You have the license agreement portions, which will authorize them to use the property, and then we have the development approvals, which are for you right now for consideration. I thought we were just doing landscape the way it was presented by staff. That's why. Apologies. That's where I was trying. It's use and landscaping. Okay. Yeah, I guess, and just to reiterate what was said previously, that green line that's already here, that is extended here today, but that is what's inside the green line. So in future site plans, would that green line then now be followed? No, no. That green line is an easement that has been previously approved. That is going to be the license area. Okay. The easement's everything west of that green line. So that's kind of that semicircle that would follow the east boundary of the walkway. Yeah, essentially to make their project work as they're proposing, they needed a little bit more land, which is why we're now giving a license. For that additional, for what we already had, it's just expanding it. Thank you. Anybody have any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Anybody from staff have any cross-examination? Across. Does the applicant have any cross-examination? There being none of those, and comments from the public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bill Johnson. I've looked at the staff report. I've also looked at the documentation that came along with this. I have not been able to clearly distinguish where the zoning district, OSR, starts and where it stops. And the reason I'm asking for that is the city charter has special requirements for a change of use in OSR. In that it requires approvals beyond this that can be done at this board. And so I think that's an open issue. Another one is that in the staff report, it doesn't really talk about what is going to be done there. But in some of the other documentation, this is the kind of thing that will be allowed there for the serving of the food and the bar. And I thought on one of the drawings that there was a smoker out there and they were going to be doing cooking out there. So that's another issue. I'm glad to hear that there is a separate license that's going to occur. I concur with your concerns about accessibility. Are there going to be fences? How much of a challenge is it to intrude into this area for large groups of people? It just doesn't seem like it's totally thought out here. But I'm specifically asking for clarification on the OSR line because of the charter requirement. Thank you. Mr. Chair, didn't he say the line would extend up and around that edge? What he's talking about is if you go back, if staff could put up their initial slide that had the green area and the orange, I think that's going to possibly answer that question or at least get us to the answer. Yeah, let's do it. Oh, sorry. It was her first or second slide. I was hearing, but it wasn't on the screen. There you go. There it is. All right. So in light of that image there, could staff expound on Mr. Johnson's question about where one district ends and the other one begins just so we can kind of follow it here? Charter question. You want to do the charter question first? Okay. So the charter, in my opinion, isn't always written as clearly as it should be, but I'll go ahead and kind of explain what it says. It says no municipally owned real property, which was identified as recreation or open space on the city's comprehensive land use plan map on November 16, 1989, or any time thereafter may be sold, donated, leased, for a new use, or otherwise transferred without prior approval or referendum. However, in this case, this isn't going to be an interest in property. This is going to be a license agreement, so therefore this charter provision doesn't apply. The charter is talking specifically about transfers of real property that convey, like, an interest then, which case law has shown time and time again that license agreements don't do that. They're revocable at will, which, of course, this one will be. So therefore, that particular charter provision is not going to be a problem. I hope that makes sense. Okay. Thank you. And is this going to be a bid to the public in terms of getting this license and other people can do the same thing, or this is specific to them because they came to the city? I would just ask the board to remember what the scope of its approval here is today. We're not reviewing the license agreement or things beyond that. We're not approving the license, but the understanding of the concept of a license versus an easement or a lease or an actual transfer of an interest in real estate, which I would tend to agree with that counsel, that a license is not a transfer of an interest in real estate. It's a use right and it's an occupancy right, but it's limited in scope. That does seem to fall outside that provision. But that's my personal opinion from what I do when I'm getting paid by people. Hopefully that interests that question. That was where I was going. That's why I think this image shows that even though it's in the green area, because it's a license, it's not an issue as compared to if it were a lease or an expansion of the easement, they'd have to get a referendum. And all of that was taken into consideration when we were kind of planning on the charter provision. Okay. So our approval is the only approval they need in terms of change in use, and this does not go in front of the city council for a change in use? I think the license agreement would ultimately go to the city council. Well, the license agreement itself may actually be able to be administratively. That's something we're going to do. Either way, we're still working on how long the term is going to be, but it will be revocable as well, though. I asked about the renewal of the license. What? No, Mr. Johnson didn't hear me, so that's what I was saying. I was asking about the renewal process or if there was one. Some voices carry more than others. With licenses generally, licenses oftentimes don't have a fixed term to them because the person granted a license has a right to revoke it. So they can kind of feel like, today I wake up and it's done. So the term's kind of irrelevant if it can be termed or that's a huge distinction between a license and other types of occupancy rights from a legal perspective. Yeah, at this point the license still is in the negotiation phase, so we're not sure on what exactly the final terms are going to be, but there will be something around what we've been discussing. Does anybody have any closing remarks? I guess we're at that stage at this point. We've gotten to public comments, so I'm getting back onto our path for procedures here. Does staff have any closing remarks? I would just like to say that in terms of the operating and everything like that, there was a question about or validating that no food preparation would be there. Condition of approval number 14 is the one that addresses that, or proposed condition of approval 14, which says no food preparation shall be prepared outside. So I know there were different things shown on different plan pages that were part of the application, including a smoker was shown on one of them, and that's what this condition of approval is intended to address, is that there would be no cooking in this area. That's a pretty clear condition. No food preparation shall be prepared outside. It would just be for aesthetics only. Yeah, there's going to be no cooking out there. So a smoker is proposed to be out there, but it's aesthetics only. There is no food preparation. So staff didn't have any closing remarks other than what you just added. Is Al can have any closing remarks? Just, you know, we really feel like this is going to be a huge benefit to the beach community. As, you know, we've heard concerns about accessibility. We do have gates, and, again, this is an extension of the hotel that, you know, it's a huge part of the business to be well run and a huge part of the community. So we really feel like, you know, the addition to the city, bringing in revenue, and making use of this property is going to be extremely beneficial. And, Seth, if you want to. Yeah, just I think from an aesthetics point of view, you know, we have invested a significant amount so far, but we stopped to the point of renderings before we got approval, right? We do have one of the most well-known interior designers in the country doing this. So when we're talking about how it's going to look, it's going to look top class. We've actually gone back and forth with the city prior to that just to give them some concepts, and I think there's some elevations that are part of that plan. But right now or prior to it when it was landscape and getting beat up all the time and people just throwing stuff on it to what it could be with what we presented here would be an enhancement for the city of Clearwater and the beach and tourists and locals alike. And that concludes the closing remarks. We're going to close the public hearing. Now we'll go on with discussion and vote by the board. Does anybody want to present a motion first? We want to have some feedback amongst us. We've done it both ways. We've been pretty flexible procedurally. I will make a motion to approve FLD2008-05013A, the accompanied caveats that need to be. So I'll restate that for you to add that that's based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the staff report, today's hearing, correct? I forget as much. Welcome to the board. I'm sorry. I never had to do all that. Yeah. That's quite all right. Do we have a second on that motion? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Just a comment, and I don't want to oversimplify it, but I go back to when the city was trying to encourage, especially out on the beach, sidewalk cafes and use of public space for this. This area falls into that as far as, yes, they're going to be serving alcohol there. Yes, people are going to have access to it, but all up and down Beachwalk, you've got Krabby's, you've got Frenchy's, you've got other places that also have that same. But it is always because we don't allow alcohol anywhere but on premises. It will have to be consumed on premises. It will have to be, and I know the Wyndham will have to provide whatever security is necessary to handle that and control it. And also the very unfortunate happenings on the beach a couple weeks ago. I think our police department did a hell of a job with what they had to work with, and, you know, they were actually ahead of it. Now, one bad apple really put us on the map, but it is not something that happens with regularity, and I don't believe, given what the state's attorney and everybody have started to implement, that it will continue or even, you know, will continue to be a problem. But given all of that, I think this is a reasonable request. That's why I will be voting in favor of it. Any other discussion? I would like to ask whether the maker of the motion and the person in the second would consider adding to a conditional approval that the boundary of the license area, the proposed license area, being west, north, and south of the beachwalk sidewalk that exists, the existing beachwalk sidewalk, because that's kind of what they're describing and what they drew on there and that point that sticks out. I think our message should be clear if we're going to prove it that it's a good concept. Well, I think the point actually takes off. Actually, if you tried to extend all the way out to that point, you'd be in the street and blocking the entire sidewalk, and I don't think anybody with a reasonable mind would even consider doing anything of that nature. But I'd be willing to put that into the – I'm willing to accept that into the motion, but I don't think it's an issue in any way, shape, or form, but I'd be glad to accept it. Before we discuss adding a condition, your code does say you shall attach such conditions to the approval which are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable general and specific flexibility requirements. So if we're adding a condition, we should make sure we're tying it to one of those requirements as they're outlined in the staff report. And I can go through those if you would like me to. Yeah. Okay, so we have Section 2-1404A1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and or development standards as set forth in the zoning district, Section 2-1404A2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent, and basic planning objectives of the code, and with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. Section 2-1404A3, the development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. I think you can stop there because I think limiting the boundary would keep it from interfering with the sidewalk. So I think we're consistent right there with what the considerations are. So if you're okay with it. Who made the second? I'm sorry. I'm fine with that. Are you okay with that? I am okay with that. So the motion was made to approve with that amendment as an additional condition. And does anybody else have any comments or discussion on that? My only comment is I am still entirely confused as to we're changing the open space zoning to a use that allows for alcohol sales on city property. And so are we expanding this throughout the beach on city-owned land where we can now sell alcohol anywhere within open space? Are we setting a precedent? Let me make a distinction for you that I think is helpful. I'll let staff chime in if I'm wrong. The sale of the alcoholic beverages will happen east of the Green Line, which is an adheasement where it would already be permitted. The license area, there's not going to be sale. There will be consumption going on. Consumption is the same thing. Correct, yeah. But there's a distinction between sale on beach property, and I think the consumption under the license agreement, because it can be revoked, is where I think the line gets drawn, the metaphorical line gets drawn differently. That's what I thought. Well, then we wouldn't need to change this up. If they're selling it on their easement area, which is already licensed and approved, we're expanding the use and changing the use from open space to whatever that designation was today. I don't know what it is. What is the designation that it's going to be now? So, Chair, you closed the public hearing, if you'd like to reopen that before hearing a testimony from South. Can I ask that? Well, did anybody really understand? It's in our report. I just have to go back and find it. It's faster to ask staff than it is for me to go find it. So is staff allowed to speak again at this point? I can ask a question. I mean, we've done it in the past. We've simply asked a question. If you've done it in the past, sure. Can you answer it? So I do just want to clarify, and Lauren, correct me if I'm wrong here, but when you're in the OSR district, you can't sell alcohol out there. However, if it's private property, at that point you can go ahead and you can consume alcohol. There's nothing in our code that prohibits that. Now, if it was, like, say, Public Beach, that's a different story. This is city-owned property that we're talking about. Yes, but we're giving them a license to use it, though. But we're changing the OSR to what? The OSR district is not being changed. I understand that sometimes we have zoning district names that are exactly the same as the use. So it's, you know, open space recreation. It's an open space that's city-owned right now. So the use, I'll let Ted, sorry, I'm not ping-ponging intentionally, but. I'm jumping at the bit here. So OSR allows restaurant. Implied in restaurant is alcohol. It does. Yes, the open space recreation district allows restaurant. However, the criteria for that to have been approved administratively requires it to be supplemental to or part of a recreational use. In this instance, the restaurant itself is an expansion of an existing restaurant. So the rest, it gets, it's a little tricky. There's, restaurants are allowed in open space recreation. They are through criteria in the flexibility criteria in the zoning district. They're limited to restaurants that support recreational uses, such as a clubhouse that supports a golf course, as an example. So we're using, the proposal is to use the comprehensive infill redevelopment project, and one of the criteria for that is that the use is otherwise allowed in the zoning district, which a restaurant is. However, it cannot meet the existing criteria, which it can't, because this particular restaurant would not be supporting a recreational use. It would be supporting a hotel. So there's, you know, that's the part of the flexibility being requested, is to have a restaurant use within the open space recreational zoning district, because as, sorry, as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project. Am I safe to summarize that by saying we're approving a conditional use, not a use that's a matter of right without, it exists within the OSR. It just has to be a certain level of approval, if conditions are met. Yes, and I think that's actually, thank you, that's an important part, because you had, Mr. Huff had asked about a precedent, and as you've seen, like, each of these has, any request like this, if it were requested by a different property owner, hypothetically, same scenario. I don't know if the same, like, opportunity exists anywhere else. But if it did, and that request came through, we would be reviewing that proposal against the same criteria. They would have to provide an application that meets the general applicability criteria in the code for all level one and level two applications. They would have to demonstrate that they met any of the flexibility criteria, most likely similar to this through a comprehensive infill redevelopment project. So by, in the same way, approving, you know, a specific hotel with a specific setback, you know, does not necessarily mean every hotel going forward can have that. The application has to come through and be reviewed against all of the applicable criteria in the Community Development Code. I'll close that part up again, and do any more discussion amongst the board. Well, again, I think this is a one-off anomaly to me, because if you drove down, as you drive down Beachwalk, and I was one of the ones that voted to do it, but 99.999999% of the people that would drive down Beachwalk or walk down Beachwalk and walk down the sidewalk would assume that the parcel of land we're talking about belongs to the window. I mean, it just, because of where it is and where the sidewalk is and everything else, it's just an anomaly that this small sliver technically still belongs to the city. And, you know, it probably would have been easier for the city to deed that little bit of land to the window, and we probably wouldn't be here talking about it. The property line is adjoining the building. There's a zero setback. All of that land belongs to the city. I mean, I look at the J.B. Marriott Hotel on Sankey Pass, their property line going to the water, they have taken the whole property over. There's no license agreement. There's no property ownership. They have a fence up now where it's public property, and it's a taking that's allowed within the city. So the same thing's happening here. They've taken all of that land area, they've gotten an easement, they're encroaching further, and now we're changing allowed to sell alcohol to a private user, which is a taking of the property, but it's going under the vestige of a license at this juncture. Well, it's also very similar to the restaurants along Mandalay that have tables out on the sidewalk. To me, it's the same. Well, it's a taking, correct, and it's being allowed, and the encroachment just keeps continuing on, and I don't think when they're looking for an avenue to approve it without city council approval, which they just discussed, it's just being hidden from the public, which is happening here again, and he's looking for a way to make that license not go in front of city council. Well, that's perfect. Just again, as a reminder, you are making a quasi-judicial decision where you're taking a set of facts presented to you by the applicant and staff and applying rules to it. You are not sitting as a policymaking board at this time. Just keep our discussion honed in on the approval criteria, please. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? We have a motion for approval, seconded with the amendment for the boundary of whatever respective license is being discussed. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. Nay. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Next item on our agenda, thank you for the reports, everyone, is the director's report. I've already talked to somebody about this. So, it's that time of year again where we ask for a volunteer to be the Community Development Board's representative on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. So, I have some notes from Dylan Mayhew, our manager for housing. This board, or this committee rather, reviews housing policies, procedures, ordinances, and regulations that may affect the cost and availability of affordable housing. AHAC, as it's called, is responsible for making recommendations to the city on ways to reduce barriers to affordable housing and improve housing stock. These are ultimately documented within the city's local housing incentive strategy that has various regulatory financing and administrative actions that we, the city, city staff, et cetera, implement to encourage development and preservation of affordable housing within the city. So, from a, what does it require of whomever steps up or who the board agrees to nominate for this, it's, there's four, four meetings that are on Tuesdays. So, it would be Tuesday, August 11th, September 8th, October 13th, and November 17th. The majority of them take approximately one hour, but one of them at least takes about two and a half hours. But, again, most of them are about one hour long. And they take place here in, wherever Chambers is. So, currently here in Council Chambers because it is a public meeting discussion. Thank you. Yeah, I've been the representative on that for a few years in the past. Last year, Ms. Chenault was our representative. It's one of those appointments that I think repetition is good because you can build on what you heard and saw the year before. And I've asked her if she had an interest, and she has expressed an interest. But this is an open discussion and an open choice. So, if anybody else wants to be on that board, let us know so we can go that way. Or if everybody's kind of in agreement, we can have Ms. Chenault do that again. And make the first meeting anyway. It's actually, it's a very, from the standpoint of being a volunteer and doing some stuff that could have some meaningful impact, I think it's an impact report. It's great to be on. Do we do this by motion to appoint our representative, or is it, could I just as a chair say she's it? I'm not sure how the board has done an approach, but typically this is something you'd make a motion for. Again, the safe side, nobody challenges. Does anybody have a motion for? I have to approve it. Do we have a second? Second. Do we have any discussion on that motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Congrats. Thank you. Thanks. Board members to be here. Any else? The director, I'm sorry. Sure. No, that's okay. It's informal. But I know a few months ago, I mentioned all the exciting things going on in downtown. This board was part of the North Greenwood efforts when we were establishing the CRA plan, and I wanted to just give a quick update on that. We recently took past this board the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Future Land Use Map Amendment to establish the Overly District. We will be having a community meeting on June 30th at 6.30 in North Greenwood. They requested some more information on that at a community level, so we're getting out into that to provide a little bit more background on where we were from that, just that map piece. But then as a reminder, we're still, we, staff, and our consultant team are still continuing to draft the actual zoning district standards that would go with it, and those would be brought forward to the board as well. So there's one community meeting coming on June 30th with others to come to get more feedback and engagement as part of the drafting of the Community Development Code. The last piece back to downtown is, word is that everything is going really well with the city hall construction and that it is on track and staff should be moving in towards the end of September, early October. There will be a little bit of a delay in terms of relocating our boards into chambers there. That's to give the public communications staff and the rest of staff a little bit of time to test out the new technology. But, you know, hopefully by the end of the year we'll be relocating. But until you hear from us otherwise, we will see you here every month. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Board members to be heard. Anybody from the board wish to be heard on any matters? I do have an informative matter for the board. For those of you who are on the board in, I believe, January, you might remember a semi-contentious tree case involving a property at, I believe, Marlington Way. That was appealed to the administrative hearing judge. Typically, a quasi-judicial decision is appealed straight to circuit court, but the city has a separate process allowing it to go to DOA, a state agency, with administrative judges. And in that case, the judge upheld the board's decision. He found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion the board reached in the order it issued. And if any of you have any questions on that, feel free to come to me after the hearing closes. Thank you. Thank you for the update. Thank you. Any other board members to be heard? Here being none, our meeting today is adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.