First official meeting with us, so welcome. And for those who don't know, we have a special day. It's Mr. Stanek's birthday today. It is. They reminded me after I reminded them earlier. So, yes, thanks. All right, real quick, the local planning agency is an advisory board of citizens appointed by the city commission. The board is comprised of volunteers who represent the thoughts and the concerns of the community. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding each item on the agenda. Except for item 1B, tonight's format will be as follows. I will introduce each item on the agenda, after which the city representative will present information about it. Thereafter, members of the local planning agency will have the opportunity to ask questions of the city representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comment will need to please approach the lectern, state your name and address, and then utilize the microphone at the speaker's lectern in order for their comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the clock countdown. Citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizen comments shall not engage in loud, boisterous, and or disruptive speech or conduct. Any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium. Okay, item 1A. The first item on our agenda tonight is to approve the March 11, 2026 LPA minutes. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes? Nope. Okay. Hearing none, do I hear a motion to accept the minutes as submitted?
Second. Second.
Okay. It has been moved and seconded to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. While the local planning agency is not a quasi-judicial board and therefore has no final decision-making power, our procedures for quasi-judicial items are structured in a quasi-judicial manner for the benefit of those who come before it. The commission will be the ultimate quasi-judicial decision-making authority. The next item on our agenda tonight, which is quasi-judicial in nature, is item 1B, and the format will be as follows. I will introduce the item, after which the city representative will present information about it. Thereafter, the members of the local planning agency will have the opportunity to ask questions of the city representative. The applicant will present information about the item. Thereafter, the members of the local planning agency will have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide testimony will need to approach the lectern, state their name and address, and utilize the microphone. Individual speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request you're respectful of that clock countdown. Finally, both the city representative and the applicant will provide any final comments. Upon the conclusion of each public hearing, the local planning agency will consider the evidence before it, and will vote on the agenda item. That voice vote is the rendition of the order of the board, and there will be no written decision issued by the board. Anyone in the audience who wishes to give testimony to these items on the agenda will need to be sworn in by the city clerk. The clerk will now swear in all persons wishing to speak to or give testimony in tonight's quasi-judicial agenda item. Thank you, Heather. Okay, item 1B, application DR 2026-0001, request for design review approval for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 12 townhomes, a retail winery, and a seven-room hotel on the 1.05-acre vacant property located at 265 Causeway Boulevard, and 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Outlook Way. Has anyone had any ex parte communications on this item? No. Okay. All right. George, staff presentation. You're up.
Yes, thank you, Chair Benjamin, members of the local planning agency, George Keating, on behalf of the Community Development Department. For many of you, this project may look a bit familiar. It was approved almost two years ago, and it's back before you because they did not secure vertical building permits in time. So a lot of the information you're going to see is really new or is really exactly the same as it was presented before. So I'm going to go through this rather quickly, if that's all right, with the board, and then happy to answer any questions. And, of course, the applicant is here behind me. Project location is 265 Causeway. You can see the applicant, Anthony Pateras, there. The street address, as was mentioned by the chairman, the area is approximately 1.05 acres. And I'll walk through the zoning district and the existing land use for the subject property. The property is currently vacant, and you can see it there on the south side of the Causeway Boulevard. Behind it are a number of apartments, and you'll see when we get to the compatibility piece, you'll see the size and configuration of those particular pieces. To the north side, again, there's more apartments and some retail establishments to the north. By way of project description, again, this is a design review approval to build a new mixed-use development on the property. It includes, and you can, if you kind of look at the rendering to the right, the larger rendering to the right, you'll see building A and building C are both identical in that they each include four townhomes for a total of eight units. Both buildings are three stories in height with two floors of living area and rooftop patios over ground floor parking. The building across from building C is building B. That also includes four townhomes, but if you'll recall, it end caps with a winery. The four townhomes, again, will be consistent with the two floors of living area and rooftop patios over ground floor. The retail winery space is two floors, including a ground floor parking and a rooftop patio. Then in the lower right-hand corner, you'll see the J Annex. That is a four-story, seven-room hotel building with three floors of guest rooms over ground floor parking, and it really complements, if everybody's familiar with the Causeway, the J Hotel. It's a little bit farther down the road. Additional amenities, you can kind of see in the graphic, include surface parking, a swimming pool, and a cabana. Just by way of history for the board and for the public, this property was formally developed as a restaurant and lounge. You can see in the second bullet there, it was built in 1986. It was almost 7,000 square foot in size. It was a 190-seat restaurant, so a rather large restaurant. It went under several names, including the Louisiana Seafood Company, Chatters, Faces Restaurant, Blue Water Grill, and the Vineyard. It was demolished in 2005, and it's remained vacant ever since. There have been some previous approvals on the property prior to this one. In June 4 of 2015, the city did approve a final design review application called Arcadia Luxury Condominiums, which was a 16-unit condominium development on the property that consisted of a five-story building and comprised of four floors of condominiums, four units per floor over ground floor parking, surface parking, and a swimming pool were also planned as part of this particular project. However, the project never came to fruition. As I kind of mentioned, kicking off the meeting, this project was last seen by this committee back in – actually, it would have been probably a month before July, so it would have been around April or May that the LPA would have seen it. The city commission did ultimately approve this development plan as you see it, and this is exactly how it is resubmitted. The owner and applicant, as I mentioned, did not obtain the infrastructure review approvals that they needed prior to the 12-month expiration, so that is the reason that they're back. But everything is basically exactly the same. The stormwater system is the same. The street network is the same. The configuration is the same. The height, the architecture, it's all exactly the same as was previously approved. Now, the LPA did not have the benefit of this last time you saw it, so I just wanted to bring this up. This was something that the commission asked for in addition to some of the information that went up to them for that approval, and the applicant did respond to all of these. So one of the first one was to deal with on-site parking, and the total parking spaces that are required for the site were 30. They're providing 66, so there's a surplus of 36 spaces on the site, which is well more than is required by the code. They were asked to meet with Pinellas County regarding access, and basically Pinellas County suggested that we're not going to give you access to Causeway Boulevard, so that's why you see the entrance off of Gary Circle, one way in, one way out. And then the third piece was a little bit of a breakdown on the winery, and you can see that square footage breakdown for the winery as number three. So all of those were satisfied by the applicant prior to the commission approving it back in July of 2024. And then since that approval in July, they've actually went, already finalized their subdivision plat. So if you'll recall, when it came to you initially, it had not been subdivided at that point, but that subdivision plat has taken place. It's been approved, and it was approved by the commission in March of 2025. Very quickly on the land use piece of it, I won't spend a lot of time on this. The land use is Coastal High Hazard Area Retail and Services. This permits retail, commercial, transit, accommodations, and residential, as described in the comprehensive plan, and this particular ask is consistent with that land use. There's a breakdown in the table of the size of the properties, a little bit more than an acre. The proposed ISR, which means impervious surface ratio, meaning a portion of the lot has to be unencumbered from any permeable pavement or things of that nature. They've designed it at 0.53, which is less than the 0.9 that is required. So it is completely consistent with our land use provisions from that perspective. From a zoning standpoint, residential townhomes, hotels, and retail wineries are all permitted uses by right in the tourist facility zoning category, which is what this is, it is our tourist facility zoning category. All the dimensional standards have been met, as you can see in the table, underneath those two bullets. The TF actually allows five stories max. You're looking at a three- to four-story product here. Building height is 50 feet max. You're looking at a little as high as 47 feet in this particular category. And you can see the front side and rear setbacks that are applied to the property, all of which are compliant by application. One thing I will say on the front setback, the front setback, if you're looking at the dimensional standard table, it requires a 25-foot setback, but there is an exception to that if you do a new urban approach as is contemplated here. So this setback isn't as deep as the 25, but the code allows for that ability as long as you tuck the parking to the rear and to the sides and it's not between the causeway and the front portion of the property, which is actually preferable from a staff standpoint. The – whoops, did I miss – I skipped a slide here. There we go. So just to kind of demonstrate how that works, and there was some conversation during the commission meeting regarding, you know, how close is this to the sidewalk? Is it going to be problematic? So the applicant developed this street cross-section in response to that, and they put on some of the distances. So you can see that the 42-inch high patio wall that's kind of on this side of the screen, the distance to the property line is three feet, but the distance to the public sidewalk is more than eight. The nearest vertical architecture feature is five feet from the property line and more than 10 feet to the sidewalk, and then the primary ground floor facade is eight feet to the property line and more than 13 feet from the sidewalk. So that was in response to making sure we weren't crowding that sidewalk and people had an opportunity to move about fairly freely. I won't spend a lot of time on this. These are the – as the board knows, the design review standards that must kind of be ticked off for each application, and they have done just that, common open space, circulation, mobility, parking, loading, stacking, off-street parking, and I won't read through the rest of it, but they have all been satisfied. They were satisfied originally, and they are satisfied currently. Just a piece on the compatibility. This is our compatibility map. We analyze approximately 11 properties around the subject property. Existing building heights in the surrounding area vary from one story to nine stories. The average number of stories for the properties analyzed is 3.4. The surrounding area includes really a big mix of all kinds of uses, ranging from low- to high-density condominiums, townhomes, and multifamily, as well as retail, office, commercial, recreation, and water-dependent uses. So accordingly, staff recognizes that this three- or four-story mixed-use development at the proposed density and intensity is consistent with Objective 2.9 of the Future Land Use Plan. And then finally, just some of the committee actions. So this did go back to the DRC in February 25 of 2026. All DRC comments and items have been addressed. It then proceeded to the Architecture Review Committee for their formal review on March 3, 2026, and the ARC, again, approved the design of the project. And if the board is interested in seeing more of the design, I have that as a separate file here that I can bring up. So from a staff determination standpoint, staff finds that application DR 2026-001 for design review is consistent with the applicable review criteria for approval subject to the following conditions. One, that the applicant developer is responsible for meeting the minimum criteria of the Land Development Code for acquiring all other jurisdictional permits and approvals. Two, construction plans shall be consistent with the approved design review plans and drawings. And three, and I bet you they don't forget this one this time, design review approval shall expire in 12 months from the date of City Commission design approval unless the applicant obtains infrastructure review approval and vertical building permits. So I actually think they're ready to apply once they have this approved. But that is my presentation, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have on it.
Thank you, George. Any questions for staff? Start here with James. Deborah? You're fine. Deborah?
This is sort of a non-Germain-Germain question, because I'm wondering with this multimodal impact fee assessment, have we finally got the jolly trolley on the causeway?
Oh, gosh.
Well, I mean, we want multimodal, and we keep planning for multimodal, and I honestly didn't know that answer.
I would have to look into that for you.
That's fine. I mean, I just think it's going to be an important feature as we see more.
And just so you know, so when we're talking about the impact fee as part of this, it's actually the multimodal impact fee that the applicant will pay.
Right. And I get that. But it triggered that, you know, we've worked for years to be able to get that kind of transit out there. So that was one. And then on the winery, I just had another small question. So you go there to drink wine, or do you go there to buy a bottle? You have to refresh my memory.
I'm Jonathan Poole, SCG Architecture.
And it's a wine shop where it's more for tasting. You could go in and taste a bottle of wine. If you like it, you could then purchase it.
Oh, okay.
And you would then go home. Or there is a little, like a sun deck, that if you wanted to, you'd go up there and have a glass of wine.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for refreshing my memory. And then I guess my question, because, you know, I like the idea, and it's novel, but I'm always interested, if something doesn't work out in a usage, is it easily adaptable to another retail usage?
Yes, it would be adaptable to another retail use.
Okay, thank you. Certainly. Those are my questions.
Okay. Thank you, Deborah. Sally? Hi. Good. Elizabeth? Michael? Got it. Vice Chair Stanek?
Thank you. Just a couple quick questions. So, George, you mentioned that nothing has changed from what went to the City Commission two years ago, correct? But was there any changes from when it was at the LPA two years ago to when it went to the City Commission, and do we know what those are?
Yeah. So, basically, those are summarized here. So, those are, and they're not necessarily, I guess they are changes, because there was a change to add, add some additional parking to accommodate the winery, so that was a change. But we have more space, we basically have more spaces now than we had when you had seen it. The second piece is, I think you had seen the curb cut to the causeway. By the time that got to the commission, the county had responded and said they would not offer that curb cut to the causeway. So, it was redesigned as you see it now, where it's basically a dead end, if you will. But all looked at by our fire department, and they're very comfortable being able to get in there, make the turns that they need, and all that kind of good stuff. And then the third piece of it was the calculations were just getting a little bit more granular on the winery. Exactly what the floor area were for each floor, and then, as was discussed, how it was to be used. So, those were the three big pieces that the commission spoke about that they addressed prior to that first route.
Okay. One of the things I was noticing, and maybe it's based on the elevation look at it, was, and I know we were concerned about Pinellas Trail, and then how close it was going to be to the wall, and it looks like, based on what I see here, that either it didn't show that much distance in between, yeah, that one right there.
So, that's the causeway sidewalk. Right. Right. So, I think even this board, if I recall correctly, had some concerns about that building being a little bit too close to the sidewalk. So, this was in response to that to show that, you know, those setbacks different, basically those setbacks for each of those things, that wall, that front surface area, and that was something that it seemed to be, everybody seemed to be fairly comfortable with once they got to that rendering.
No, I like that, and yeah, I think that'll make it very nice for everybody and safe for the riders on the trail. My only other question was just more curiosity. Since you're bringing this one back, what does it cost to file an application with the city to go through these different steps? Because I don't know.
No, it's $2,000 for a design review application.
Okay.
And there's a lot of city staff work that obviously goes into that, too. So, it's a bargain.
I will say it is from being on the city staff side. So, but yes, I was, yeah, once again, just curious. So, thank you, George. Good.
Thank you, Paul. I've got two things. One, George, I just want to elaborate a little bit on that concern with the side oak. We were also concerned about the plantings to make sure that a bicyclist being up higher wasn't going to hit any of the plantings as they rode by. But I think.
I may have the planting plan.
Yeah. It looks like we've got the clearance. And if I remember right, that was sufficiently addressed at our last. Yes, sir. Discussions. Perfect. Good. All right. One simple question. The reason this is coming before. So, the vertical building permits were not secured in time. Was there any unusual circumstances that delayed it? And is there any risk to that going forward? Or are we good going forward? Financing. Okay. Got it.
And I just remind the board, too, and I've actually talked to Catherine about this a little bit. So, what we're going to do going forward as a result of this is we're going to make sure we put a tickler in our files about three months out to remind the developer that that 12-month window is coming. And then you can also, we also offer a one-time extension to that. The code allows for a one-time extension through the city manager. So, as part of that outreach, a couple of months ahead, we're going to start notifying the developers to make sure that they understand that that's coming.
Fantastic. Good. Okay. Any other questions? Applicant, any presentation you want to make? We're good. Okay. At this point, then, I'd like to open it to public input. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this? Okay. Seeing none, we will close public input. Any further applicant or staff responses to anything we've talked about?
No, sir. I think we're good unless you have any additional questions.
No. Good. Okay. Then, I'd like to ask for a motion. Do we have a motion to recommend or oppose the commission approval of application DR-2026-001, design review approval for 265 Causeway Boulevard?
I second. I second.
Second? Okay. Great. I think Deborah was the first. First second. First second. Dr. Broome was the first with the motion. Okay. Got it. We'll go for a voice vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion to move forward is approved unanimously.
Thank you.
Congratulations, and Godspeed with your project. We look forward to seeing this come to fruition. Yeah. Thanks.
Thanks.
Okay. Next item on the agenda, item 1C, is presentation of module 3 of the recommended and draft land development code updates. George and Kathy, you are on.
I'm going to try and stay quiet on this one. Kathy's the project manager. So, I know we're going to have – we might need one second to pull up our consultant.
Yeah. Steve's already on mine.
He's already on. Is that everybody here? Oh, there we go. Yep. We got you. Great. Loud and clear. So, we're here tonight, Mr. Chair and members of the LPA, to present module 3. Again, you are serving – your hat for this particular thing is you're serving as the task force to the land development code rewrite. You know, once again, you've heard this a few times as well that we are not adding a lot of new material here. It's mostly reorganizing it, getting it all into one place. There are a couple of new concepts that I think you heard some of those during the module 2 discussion. I think there's very little for module 3, but Steve is going to go over module 3 just kind of like he did with module 2, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions at the end. So, I'll – you may just turn over to Steve, or do you want to – No, go ahead. Okay. Kathy's our – as you all know, Kathy's our project manager, but we're going to go right to Steve and let him go ahead and jump into module 3.
Thanks, George. So, hold on a second before you start, Steve.
So, we probably – is it – I don't know who's in the back, but can we get the PowerPoint up and have Steve in the background if that's possible? Because we're running the PowerPoint from here. Let's see. Here we go. Thank you.
There we go. All right. Go ahead.
Still got you, Steve?
Yes.
Okay.
I won't be able to see the PowerPoint, but I have it going on my side, and I'll check it out.
Okay. Sounds good.
Okay. Steve, so I'm working at Keith's collaborative. Pleased to be presenting to you tonight, giving you an introduction to our – what we call module 3 provisions from the draft NDC. This is the last part before we pull it all, consolidate everything together. To the – what will eventually become the public – the public review draft and the final draft for the – before it goes to public hearings. So, Kathy, if you want to just kind of move through. I'm not sure I can see.
I'll just go ahead and keep going until I hit the data for module 3. So, as a commission knows that, this is why we're here. We're modernizing, implementing, organizing, tailoring, streamlining, and creating a brand-new land development code that is user-friendly and consistent for everybody. Here we are now. We're in module 3. We are at the – module 3 is the review processes and the procedures.
Right.
Okay, Steve. So, right now we're doing articles 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and this is the provisions for the development review bodies, the development review procedures, nonconformities, enforcement violation penalties, and word usage, which is your definition section.
Yeah. And I could – this is – if we're on the slide where –
We're on slide 7.
Slide 7.
The land development code update drafting modules.
Yes. Okay. Advance. New approaches. Yes. Okay. So, the module 3 has – we haven't changed anything in terms of substance generally. There's a few changes, minor updates, some helpful language for it. But in general, everything stays intact for what it is. However, several new things are introduced for this. There's a consolidation of review procedures, especially the ones that share similar components, and I'll talk about that in a moment. And what that does in this kind of consolidating, creating common review procedures and such creates less chance for duplication, redundancies, and inconsistencies. So, we've also helped establish more clear criteria for decision-makers in the process. There are options for the applicant, and I think this options comes in for, like, non-conformance. There's a few different things. Not much of that's changed, but just making it consistent with the rest of it. This does meet the goal of providing more administrative decision-making and generally clarifying roles, procedures, and cross-related elements. Okay, you can advance. So, the contents of Module 3 here, we've got the development review bodies, the development review procedures, and the non-conformities, enforcement, and remedies, and then the word usage, rules of construction, acronyms, and abbreviations, and then the definitions for the entire LDC. Okay, next slide. So, the review bodies, nothing's changed here. The key thing with the review bodies, including the administrative and the elected or appointed, is that each section here has a definition of what their role is, what their powers are, bringing in what's existing in the current code, but where it wasn't clearly defined, we've defined that. So, it's a consistent structure for each body or individual and their role in the LDC. Okay, next. The types of applications are exactly the same between administrative, legislative, and quasi-judicial. Next slide. Okay. What I mentioned earlier is the introduction of common review procedures. In your current LDC, many of the procedures repeat some of the same elements, such as public notice or submission requirements, various decision criteria, all these things that are repeated over and over in the procedures. Instead of doing that, pulling them all into one common one, and organizing those in a form that is in sequence with how their approvals are reviewed. And then putting together a table, a development review summary table, that has everything in one place to where all these procedures point back to this table. So, and the benefit of that is that, one, anybody can print it out and put it on their wall and have quick reference. But also, at a later time, when there is a need to update for certain things, you don't have to go in various parts and redline and update. It's all in just one place at a time. So, if there's a need to change a timeline for review or a particular decision criteria, you can go in and just do it in one place. So, that's a really good benefit. This is one way of modernizing and streamlining the LDC. This table has not only the application for the procedure, with reference to the particular procedure, the timing when that procedure will occur in the application process, that the, whether there is a pre-application conference required of it, the public notice requirements, who reviews and decides on the procedure, when the application expires, as your previous case had, and then cross-references to the related standards that are used in the review of that. So, all this in one place just makes it much easier to understand. Okay. Next slide. Okay. So, the common review procedures consist of, one, the pre-application conference, the application submittal fees and completeness, the common decision criteria, review, who reviews, what, what is reviewed in all, all types. The public notice requirements, which includes the timing, contents, and recipients of the notice, the public, how public meetings and hearings are conducted, any post-decision provisions, whether it be modifications or revocation of, of, of approved applications, how appeals are handled, who, who, what decisions are appealed to whom, and then how inactive and expired applications and renewals are treated. So, instead of repeating all this, each part, each type of procedure, it's in one place. And anything that's unique about those are addressed in a particular procedure. Okay. Next slide. Okay. Good. All right. So, the administrative approvals remain generally the same. One key addition to this, we discussed this here this week with staff, is we're moving plats based on the state statute change into administrative approvals. But everything else remains the same. There is an introduction of a new tool called limited use permits. And we talked about this in the previous module where, where a use has, is permitted by right, but has specific use standards associated with it. That would be called a limited use. I think previously the table had a P and a star or something like that. And so, now, there is a procedure related to that. That's a limited use permit. And so, that just means it's administrative and the director would review that. Everything else remains the same. Legislative procedures, no change, and quasi-judicial procedures remain the same as well. Next slide. Okay. Non-conformities. These have pulled in all of your existing ones. The one new one that's introduced is non-conforming lots and how those are defined and what occurs with that. There's also the conversion of non-conformities guidance on that. That is the same as you currently have as well. We're still reviewing that with staff to make sure it is consistent or if they want to make sure something's better defined, they will be recommending changes for that. But nothing substantively changes from the existing non-conforming provisions. Next slide. And word usage. This is where everything is defined and explained of how certain types of language is used throughout, what should take precedence in it, acronyms, and then the definitions are all integrated in one place, consolidated in one place, and defined. Introduction of new ones, especially related to land uses, are also here. So everything is all compiled into one place on definition. So that, in general, is module three. So we're at the end of all the parts that we're drafting. At this point, we're going back and reviewing. If you want to move forward, Kathy. Next steps. Yeah. Yeah, next steps. So we have completed drafting the entire document. Staff is reviewing. We'll be reviewing it with the city attorney. And then making sure everything is going to be ready for the adoption phase, which is what we're entering into now. So we're at a good milestone here, just needing to fine-tune it to make sure it's durable for the long run. Next slide. Just kind of the next steps here in terms of our schedules. So we're module three drafting. Our next meetings will be coming back with – we're presenting the module three with you now. So late spring here, we're going to be bringing back the public hearing draft and moving into that phase. So you'll be hearing more about that in the coming months. I think that concludes my presentation. If anybody has questions.
Yes. I would like to know when will the document become available for the public viewing document.
Right. I will defer to Kathy and George on that comment.
Thank you. Kathy Gadamer with Community Development Project Management. So right now we're at the very end stage of our compiling all the draft policies. We'll be reviewing them with the city attorney. And then once we get the final draft, then definitely we will be sharing with you. And then we're also meeting with five of our committees. And hopefully we'll get some comments from them, integrate those comments into whatever we need to do with that. And then we'll bring it back to you. Yeah.
I would count on a few months at least. Still a few months. You know, we're going to do our internal review. Like Kathy said, I'm actually going to put a time frame on it so that we make sure we don't have Steve hanging out there too long. But then, again, the city attorney, I know she's been looking at it as we've kind of been going through. But this will be a final push and she'll want to look at that whole document. So that will take some time once that's done. And in the meantime, while the city attorney is working on that, Kathy will hit some of our resident committees. And then we should have something, I would say, within the next two to three months.
You know what, I do have a question, but I'll wait.
Yeah, I'll just say I'm excited to see it when it's all available. Yeah, that's good. And I would guess that will be the more interesting questions at that point.
Yeah, absolutely.
So do you think we'll be getting – I have it on now, right? Do you think we'll be doing the public input sometime in early summer? Or will it go over to the fall where we have the big public meetings?
Yeah, I believe we've got a work session planned, right, first before we do anything?
Yes, we have – we are planning two workshops with the city commission.
So that will end up – once we have a draft plan, we'll roll that out to the city commission in the form of a public workshop. And that will kind of get it started. And then we've also got a project page with the communications division. So, you know, that's when we'll start to really push it out. The formal process, as you all know, this would have to be adopted by ordinance. So the formal process will be a formal act by the LPA in the form of a recommendation and two reads by the city commission. But we're going to hit a couple – we want to make sure we hit all the committees and do those workshops first so we get all of that stuff kind of fleshed out before we get to it formally.
Oh, okay. But I guess I'm asking if we're going to have a giant, you know, like at the Hale Center where you ask everybody to come out and view the – Like a town hall meeting? Yeah, like a town hall.
So most of that's already taken place from an input standpoint. So we've done a couple of those public outreach meetings. Yeah, I know. And we'll make sure we advertise it real well for the public meetings with the commission as well, the informal meetings. So I don't know if we're going to do a specific town hall because we're really not adding a lot of new content here. It's mostly just reorganization.
And it is. It is good reorganization, much clearer, more concise. Everybody should be able to understand it, you know, our citizens, us. Yeah, absolutely. So I'm very appreciative.
So we'll kind of treat that workshop like that town hall presentation, I think.
Thank you.
There's a couple things. One of the things I saw was a definition of roles for review bodies, and that would include the LPA. And so I was wondering how specific those are. And the one thing that comes to mind for me is compatibility and if that's part of that. And so that's.
Yeah, I mean, Steve can probably speak to it a little bit more on how it, you know, it's mostly existing language. But we did bring in some of the, we're bringing in some of the compatibility stuff from the comp plan. And that's in very, it's going to be in multiple sections. It won't be just that part of it. So, you know, once we have our shot at a staff review, you know, we'll be reading through that design review piece. And, you know, we will make sure that there is a piece in there on compatibility. So it's treated like a design standard, just like, because you see how we break them up, right? So you have that chart that I show you with the design standards that are written in the land development code. And then I show you compatibility, because you also have to comply with the master plan, and that's a master plan provision. So the goal is to bring that out of the master plan and make it one of those provisions. So next, you know, when you see a design review in the future, it's going to include all of that stuff, including the compatibility provision. And we'll talk a little bit about how we do that analysis. And actually, I kind of mentioned to the chair before the meeting, we would like as a staff to maybe come back to the planning commission at some point and take a little deeper dive into compatibility so you all can understand, like, the aspects. Because there's really two pieces to it. There's the architectural compatibility piece, which is really handled by the architectural review committee. And then there's a land use piece of it. And that's really where we come in. And that's the mapping that you see and all that kind of good stuff. But we'll talk to you a little bit more about how we look at surrounding properties, how we think about future plans, if there are any, where a catalyst might make sense. And we'll break all that down for you. So we want to do that next time you have a break on your calendar. We'll come in and do that. But, yeah, the goal is to get that into the land development code, for sure. That was a long way of saying, yes, we're going to get it in there.
So I like the long way. So that was good. Under administrative approvals, it mentioned that Platts was added. What's changed with Platts?
State law, they have to be approved administratively now. It's a statute. It just got signed, I think, this past year.
And what do you mean by administratively?
It means it doesn't go to the commission for approval.
Okay, that's what I was questioning. Okay.
We do it internally. It's not a big deal. Anywhere I've worked before, it's been administrative anyway.
Yeah, it seemed like a lot of work to get it to that point for the commission.
So, like, the plat you saw that these guys did, that went to the commission. If somebody else has to do that for another product down the road, it just comes to us.
Right. Okay, cool. That makes sense. And then last one was the addition of lots to nonconformity, and I'm just happy that that's in there now because I know there were some issues previously with the lots and nonconformity.
I think, yeah, it'll be really good because you know, Paul, I mean, you've worked for the city before. We've always had that difficulty of going back to our original Platts when somebody has kind of combined because if they've carved anything out of there, we can't send it back to where it used to be. But from a policy perspective, we've gone back to the original Platts if there hasn't been any splits or combinations or anything like that in that interim. So we're just going to define that now and just basically talk about what we're doing by policy to begin with. And, again, there's some statute. Now, it didn't get through this year, but there was some statute that was introduced that would preempt some minimum zoning dimensional requirements. So I don't know if that will come back, and that could throw all of us into a little bit of a different spin, but we're not there yet.
Well, thank you, and like I said, I appreciate that being included. Good job.
Good questions. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Sally, sir, quick. I'm good.
Deborah asked a question. I was going to ask. I'm good. Thank you.
All right, good. I don't have any questions. Just a comment. I know a project like this is a huge, heavy lift, and I just want to thank you and Steve for all the work you're doing because I think it's going to be a major improvement for everyone's understandability and hopefully help everybody move forward as we build the community. So thank you for the hard work.
Absolutely. Our pleasure. We love this stuff.
Glad to do. Good.
Okay. Public input. Does anyone wish to provide any public input on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we will close public input. Any other further comments? Staff? Okay. Anyone on the board? Okay. I think with that, I think we can go ahead and adjourn the meeting. So, oh.
Okay.
What are you asking? We'll sing after we adjourn. Sorry. They can shut the video off. We don't want this recorded if we're singing. All right. All right.
Thank you. Thank you.