To get us started, let's be clear that if anyone is here for the four-story building that is proposed for 424 Skinner Boulevard, we will not be talking about that this evening. Thank you. It's always something I forget, you know, so. All right. So everybody who's here is here for something else. All right. So the December 10th to, oh, okay. Bye. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. All right. So the December 10th to 2025 meeting of the local planning agency for the city of Dunedin will now come to order. The local planning agency is an advisory board of citizens appointed by the city commission. This board is comprised of volunteers who represent the thoughts and concerns of the community. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding each item on the agenda. Except for item 1C, 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, the members of the LPA will have an opportunity to ask questions of the city representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comment will need to please approach the lectern, state your name and address, and then utilize the microphone at the speaker's lectern in order for their comments to be recorded. Individual comments will be limited, 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 on, citizen speaking on the agenda or during the citizen comment shall not engage in loud boisterous and or disruptive speech or conduct. Any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium by the chair. This has been shortened, and I appreciate that. For those who have come in, I want you all to know that the conversation about the construction of a four-story building adjacent to the property at 424 Skinner Boulevard will not be discussed this evening. It will be discussed next year, so if you're here for that, please don't expect that to happen. All right. The first item on our agenda is to approve the November 12, 2025 LPA minutes. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? I make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. We move on to the presentation of the Land Development Code Module 1 amendments to the LPA for review and comment. Welcome back. All right. Greetings. Steve Sizemore with Kinder Keys Collaborative. I'm here tonight to give you an overview, update of where we are in the draft. We have arrived at a point of a substantial drafting of Module 1, or Part 1, which is basically the heaviest part with the zoning districts and land use and general provisions. And I'll go into the detail. I'll in the next few minutes just kind of talk about what we've done so far and what some of the main changes that we're introducing, nothing shocking, just making this code better, and then we'll talk about next steps. So, in the last time I was here, I presented to you, kind of gave you an overview of what the main project goals are. One, to modernize the code, applying best practices and ways that make this code more contemporary with the needs for this community. But also to implement existing plans, particularly the comprehensive plan. And then one of the key focus for us, a key focus for us, is the reorganization and just making this code easier to, more intuitive to use. So, it's easier for staff, easier for applicants, easier for you as you read this. And then just generally, in doing that, helping to streamline some of the processes in a way that just makes them easier to use. So, these are ways that overall make this a more user-friendly code. And so, that's been our focus on this process. So, right now, we're sort of in the middle. Over the next two to three months, we're going to be wrapping up the drafting part. This will be, and then our target is to come back here in the spring. Which will be presenting to you the second and third module. And generally, what will become the public review draft. So, we'll be refining it between now and then. The parts that we've already drafted. And then, obviously, working with staff on the module two part, which is basically the rest of the code. So, module one, as I mentioned, is the general provisions in article one. And article two and three are the zoning districts and use, land use standards. The table and the standards. The last time we were here, we presented to you the critique or the audit. And identified kind of some top priorities, which reflect what I was talking about in the goal. But really, overall, you know, we're looking to align with the comprehensive plan. And that's significant in many ways. Especially with the land use and the actual districts. Making sure that they reflect the countywide plan. So, that's been a part of our focus. But also making sure that we can integrate and implement policies and visions that have been expressed in the comprehensive plan. And other small area and corridor plans and such. But also look at ways to streamline zoning districts. Improve the use regulations. So, those are two key areas of this particular module. Enhanced site development standards. That will be the next module. You'll see more of that. Simplified development review procedures. Same. Those are still yet to be drafted. And then create a more user-friendly code. That is ongoing. That's what we're trying to do. And then create a legally compliant code. We're working to integrate elements that are from the state. We're working with the attorney on things. So, at the end, this will be an updated code to be more a reflection of state and local laws. So, I've already kind of given an overview of where we are in this process. In the general provisions, generally, these are staying exactly the same. One of the key areas that we're updating, and this is just a reflection that when you have a new comp plan, you want to make sure that your general purpose statements reflect the comp plan. So, that's what we're integrating, in particular statements on quality of life, conservation and preservation, and economic development. Adding in effective date provisions, just little small details that are pretty standard practice in codes. And then we're also, as I mentioned, we're in communication with the attorney to ensure that we are meeting any state mandates in this particular update. So, that will be, while some things are reflected, there are other things that are still in process. So, those will be updated. And by the time that you review the full draft, that will be in there. And then one of the questions that we're asking all along, will this be a complete, will just be an update or a complete repeal of the existing? So, that will be a question at the end that will make sure that that is reflected in the language of the ordinance that you will be reviewing. This is a very simple update for this code, but something that was necessary, introducing a zoning district's established table. The current LDC does not have this. It has a list of some, but it doesn't have all the districts that are in it. And those are in various places, and then the only place that we were able to identify where all the districts are were in the land use table. So, pulling those in to this particular table and identifying which districts align with the countywide plan and if there are going to be any zoning changes, what those districts are reflected in the current code. So, I'll talk about that here in a second to give you an idea. But at least this way, you have a place, one place where you know where all the districts, what districts are in the particular, in this city. An overview of some of the key changes in this update. A fundamental approach, particularly on your mixed-use districts, is to take a more design-based regulation approach to it. And so, those exist in your current code, but making sure that's easier to understand and interpret from an administrative part, but as well as from the applicant's perspective. And where there are opportunities to make those standards objective, as opposed to more discretionary, let's do that. Or to pull them into the zoning district, as opposed to various parts. So, that's a key part that we've done. One example of that is frontage types. Those are only right now in the FXM and FXH zone. But they're kind of buried in there and not too easy to follow. We pulled those out into one place and are proposing to incorporate those into the downtown districts, into the CRA. So, for the downtown residential and downtown core districts. So, with the objective, and I'll talk about it in a moment, to reflect what the existing character is. Or to reinforce what the overall character of these districts are. The, I mentioned that FX, submerging those into mixed-use zoning districts. Not one district, but to put them all in one place, as opposed to in different parts of the code. In Division 2, for base zoning, defining the traditional districts with purpose statements and dimensional tables. Pretty basic approach, but those things don't always exist. So, we wanted to make sure that is consistent, to consistently present it. And then, the form-based district talks about a regulating plan. There is no regulating plan. And so, we took that. We're proposing to remove that particular language because it doesn't function in that way. That the regulating planning is the actual standards for the district. So, just to find it in the zoning district. And then, particularly from a design-based approach, we're introducing build-to lines. You do have that in FXH and FXM. And what that basically states, if you have a minimum setback, there's also a maximum. So, you don't, if it's a zero setback minimum, you still could do a 20-foot or 30-foot setback. So, this, at least for particular districts, to make sure that there's a consistency in terms of what that build-to line is. So, that's a feature that's being introduced. And then, overall, with just removing vague language, simplifying it, making sure that there are specific standards. So, that particularly was part of the current form-based. There were things that were vague and not fully defined. Defining those or removing the things that don't have a place in the code. So, that's just an overview of some of the biggest changes that we're doing. On the residential districts, these are staying the same. The key thing is that they're updated to reflect the countywide plan, which shouldn't have changed too much. The, it includes the permissible land designations from the countywide plan. So, there's no change to the districts or the standards. The tables, basically, we're just making it easier to understand what's expected. And so, update the tables to reflect new housing options for districts. So, there are some new housing options introduced. But those are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I mentioned the form-based districts, making them easier to follow. And the other key part to this is where we felt that those standards could be used in the downtown district. We have carried those into that. So, there's a mixed-use zoning districts section. And those standards are all consistent. So, the FXH and the FXM have standards that are also similar in the DR and DC district. And one of those would be the frontage types. And I'll talk about those in a moment. One of the biggest proposals that we're making for this, and we talked about this in the audit, was taking the area of 580 that has a multitude of zoning districts in there. And generally, one character. And so, as you drive down that corridor, you don't recognize that there's a commercial parkway here and a shopping center there. It just looks suburban, you know, hodgepodge of different setbacks and such. We're introducing a corridor mixed-use. And this reflects what has been envisioned for that corridor for years. I know there was a project in 2012 to envision that corridor. So, this is part of that implementation. But also, to kind of reflect what's in the future land use. It's all retail and services. And so, this reflects what that is. So, these zoning districts all are in that same land use category for the countywide plan. I'm not going to go into detail on this slide, but the idea is that we're merging, we're proposing to consolidate these, the, well, shopping center, commercial parkway, general business, and general office. And those are generally located not only on that corridor, but in other corridors. And so, this would be a way to ensure that they all, the countywide plan talks about allowing upper story residential, but also just good transitions to the adjacent neighborhoods and such. So, it's not radical, and it also is a way to make sure that as that corridor changes over time, that there's a consistent character to it. And that reflects the vision of the city, but also how neighborhoods around it transition or how that corridor transitions into the neighborhood. So, overall, the mixed-use districts is a key part of it, just because there's so many parts of this town that have mixed-use. The residential are staying the same, but where the, what we're introducing is just a more visual, more user-friendly way to administer this. And so, talking about building form, but, and providing these into graphics and tables and just putting everything in one place, it just makes it easier, more predictable for everybody, and reinforces the characteristics that those districts are trying to achieve. And so, this is just, this slide is just an overview of how we are working, working that into the, to the LDC. This is another big proposal for this, and it's not radical. It was one of our biggest challenges when we first began reading this code was, it talked about street types, and for designers and planners and such, you think street type, a particular street corridor would have a character. But that's not the way that this particular function was in the code. It talked, really it was about parcels, and parcels within particular areas. So, we updated, we're proposing to update the map to say parcel types as opposed to street types, because that's not how the CRA functions for that. So, not a major change, but it is in terms of how it's going to be used in this code. And so, that allowed us to consolidate a lot of things in the use table, and not use table, but, oh, the use table as well as the dimensional standards. Just making it easier to outline, to structure into the code. So, one of the other things that we'll talk about, but incorporating the height standards. So, your current code has the supplemental height standards, and it's complicated. It's a lot of different exceptions, and you kind of have to read through the whole thing to understand what you can do in a particular area. If it can be put exactly into the zoning district, we are recommending to do that. And if there are any particular allowances or exceptions, that would go into the allowances and exceptions part. Similar to what you have, but just easier to follow. So, the ones that are just, so if there's a way for the, if it's in parcel type A or parcel type B, that will be in the actual zoning district. As opposed to a separate part where you have to read through a paragraph and figure out what you're allowed to have height-wise and such. So, that's a key, that's a key update to this, to this particular, to the LDC. Another thing that's embedded in the form-based districts that we are pulling out into the other parts, because there are other zoning districts that require open space into the development. Particularly if it's a certain size or in certain areas. So, what we are doing is, are introducing a menu of open space types and defining the typical characteristics of that type. So, like a plaza or a playground or general baseline characteristics and a menu. So, if you're in a particular district or you have a particular development that requires open space, you go to the open space standards and that will outline what the requirements are. So, there are many that are being carried directly over from your current code into this section. So, basically, where there are those type of standards, we're pulling them into one place. And so, it's just easier to follow. Frontage types is similar. Those are embedded in the form-based district. And as I already mentioned, we're introducing that for the downtown to reinforce the existing character and any new development that comes. Providing a menu of options of what those frontage types are. And so, what basically, a storefront would be a frontage type, for example. So, it would have certain parameters in terms of first floor height and general opening of the window. Or basic parameters for design. Baseline parameters. So, nothing totally new introduced to this community, but just making it easier to understand what is required of that, as well as reinforcing the elements that you want to have for your downtown. And those frontage types would not apply to residential districts, just for the mixed use. Overall, new approaches for the land use part. So, we're updating the use list to reflect the city's needs. There are certain uses that are just, for example, there are things from the state that we need to introduce. There are things from, that are in the comp plan that we need to introduce. Or there are policies or ordinances that are in place that just need to be reflected. For example, golf cart sales. Something like that. New uses that need to be updated. So, as part of the implementation of the comprehensive plan. But also, one of our things that we're doing is to make sure it's just easier simplifying it. So, the list of uses aren't as long to consolidate similar uses that have similar impacts. So, defining those general characteristics based on the use category. And I'll talk about that briefly in a second. And reorganizing that by, in a more logical form, so it's just easier to understand what's expected. So, the use table is going to look very similar to your current one. However, there are certain small details that we're introducing, as well as ways to make sure that, ways for the director to interpret new uses that are not explicitly defined in it. So, really providing just better guidance for that. Because there will be new uses introduced. And so, what happens when those are in it, they're not defined. The use categories is a new approach. Generally, what this states is it creates a hierarchy of uses, meaning, you know, things that are, you have your residential, and then you have your public and civic uses, and then you have commercial down to industrial. So, it creates sort of that hierarchy in the use table. And then it treats uses with similar impacts, the same as I mentioned. So, think of an office. Instead of having an accountant's office or, you know, insurance office, I'm not saying those are explicit uses in your code, but instead of calling out different offices, just putting in one and call it general office. And it has certain characteristics. So, when something else comes along, you know exactly how that's treated. The use types also have typical associated accessory uses. So, those are also included in the use types. And so, that's a, it's a new function, but it's a tool as part of this update that makes it just easier to administer land uses in the community. I don't need to go into detail on this, but this kind of overview of, for example, household, it would give it a general characteristic of it, the type of principal uses, not necessarily by specific districts, but generally a list of the principal uses that would be in the household living, and then the general associated or accessory uses for that. And so, this just allows for a shorter use table, it allows for a shorter parking table as well, so the parking table can reflect back that, back to this. There will be specific uses that need to be called out in that, but this is a way to do it. The code can use, for example, shorthand office, as I mentioned. So, it just makes it more streamlined and easier to follow. So, one of the key elements of it, not any different than this, and I'll talk about some of the new things that we're introducing in the uses, this one is a key thing. The introduction of just putting the actual standards. So, if the table calls out a conditional use, where do you find those use standards? And so, currently, it's in various places, and it's not in one particular section. So, if you have a conditional use for a particular use in a particular district, you know exactly where those standards are as a cross-reference in this table. So, that's a new function of the code. We're also introducing what's called a limited use, and this is nothing more than what is currently states as a Z, which would be administrative approval. So, this, not only, and many of those don't have any standards allocated for it. So, what we've done is define those uses as limited, meaning it can be done by right, but you have a limited set of use standards that you have to meet. And where it is limited, we define those standards. And so, that's a more robust component of the code, and hopefully, we'll make it easier for staff to administer those type of uses. The temporary uses, you do have a temporary use section. This just makes it easier to follow and understand what is allowed, expected by a particular area, how long, what type of use, and then just making sure it's just easier for the applicant to understand, but as well as for staff to administer for that. Another thing that we're introducing is a section on measurements, not particularly exciting, but a consistent way to make sure that everything is measured in the same way, how you measure setbacks, height, what point in the building do you measure the height, providing a graphic associated with that. If it requires building frontage, a particular percentage of the building to be on the build to line, how do you define that? How do you measure that? So, these graphics are shown for that. So, it's just another way to make sure that this code, this update, reflects that user friendliness. Another key component that I know that's in the comprehensive plan that we are working to integrate, and considering that Dunedin is generally built out, most of the development that you're going to have coming in will be infill and redevelopment. So, really making sure these standards are robust, you have a lot of good existing standards, excuse me for a second, you have a lot of really good provisions in your code, pulling those into one place, and sort of making sure that they are easier to understand, you have tools within the South Dunedin character overlay that are good, and can be applied in other parts of the community that are more objective. So, that's where we're putting, we're pulling these into infill and redevelopment standards. One of the key things that we're still working to integrate is our height transitions, and I know this will be very important for this community, is making sure that when you have two different building types and different heights, that there are tools in place to ensure that. The South Dunedin overlay has some of that in it, so just pulling that in is a good practice. So, that's a key thing. The comp plan talks about setting compatibility criteria. This is part of that toolbox. So, that's the end of the big changes for this. Overall, really, this is about making sure this code is just easier to understand. There's a lot of really good provisions in this, but some things are just not clear or just hard to follow and understand. So, if we can make that easier, we can, and where there are things that are being updated, we're going to be integrating that as well, and really just kind of creating a framework for this code to live and be easier to administer and to update as you go forward. So, as I mentioned, Module 1, it feels like we're just getting started, but really, as you're hearing tonight, this is a key part of the engine. And from here, it's the components of that engine, or it's the dashboard and the seats and the, if you're using the metaphor of a car. So, we're in the process of updating, of drafting Module 2 right now. Most of this are going to be carried over exactly, not changing. Things like your subdivision standards and your environmental management floodplain, that stuff will not change. We're just pulling it in and making sure the cross-references are consistent and it's just easier to follow and read. And then the procedures, the development review bodies and procedures, the non-conforming, all the other, the parts that are more technical, that aren't as interesting to the applicants, those are being drafted, those will be drafted at the end as well. So, overall, that's where we are. I would say if you put a percentage to it, we're generally about 60% done in terms of the substance of the code. So, we're going to be, over the next couple months, continuing to draft, and we'll be back targeting, you know, wintertime. This has been updated since February, but winter. We don't know if it's February. It might be March. But the key is to, it will be sometime in the next couple months after this. And then sometime in late, in the spring, we'll be back for Module 3. We may end up, that'll be, about the time we'll be presenting the overall document. So, Module 3, at that point, will be the entire draft of the LDC. So, overall, that's where we are in the drafting process. Be happy to answer any questions. First, thank you for bringing just the sense of lightness to it, because this could be really heavy stuff. Questions, please? I'm really interested in the height transition, because I agree with you. That's going to be tricky, and that's going to be very important. So, is it drafted? Where are you? There are parts that are kind of drafted that are in the allowances. So, there are things that you already have. For example, I mentioned the South Dunedin overlay. Those are in there. But, what we haven't done is pulled out those parts that are good, and put them into the infill and redevelopment part. So, some of this is just construction at this point. But, we are going to introduce, like, a height plane transition. The daylight plane? Daylight plane, yeah. You're going to use that? Yeah. Yes. That's what you're going to use? Exactly. And then, also, if there are, you know, height transitions, like, there might be landscaping treatments, that type of thing. Some of that comes into play with the development, site development standards. So, those are going to be, we have, Rachel and I and our team, we've drafted these before. So, we just need to pull in what is going to work for this community. But, that's a key, that'll be a key part of this toolbox. Yeah. Thank you. So, you'll bring more, when you come back, you're going to bring a lot more visuals that we can really see when you're talking about height transition, what you've done with the landscaping, what actually transitions. So, yeah, if it, the way the current, for example, the way the current code, there are some graphics, but generally a lot of things are just text-based. And, it's just hard to interpret. And so, if we can just take all that text and just put it into a simple graphic or a table, that's what we're going to do. So, we're not looking to change anything. But, it does need to be much more explicit. Correct. Understandable. Correct. And not only so the commission understands it, but the citizens can understand it. Exactly. And, one of the other key elements that I mentioned earlier is, if it's in one district and it works well in that district, and why not put it for the, broaden it for the rest? Because, it just makes it easier for you and the applicant. Hi, Steve. I've got just a couple questions, a little bit building on what Deborah was saying. But, if I look at slide six, it talks about module one, article one, article two, article 11. And, yet, the only thing that we seem to have gotten attached is this article one table of contents, basically. So, I'm curious, just are we on track developing that? Should we have seen more of the language of article one, two, and 11? So, what are we being asked to do this evening, I guess? This evening, there's no action being taken. This is just an overview of where we are and update in the drafting process. Article 11 is word usage definitions. Actually, it's Article 10 now, because we consolidated bodies and procedures from the original outline. The definitions are one of the key things that we're carrying over, we're consolidating all the definitions into one place, instead of having them in different parts of the code. The other thing that we're doing is making sure that anything that's in the use table is defined. And, that's not necessarily the existing case. So, there are uses that we're introducing. There are uses that are in the existing table that will have definitions associated with it. Yeah, I definitely like the architecture and where you're going with this. I think it's a major improvement, to be honest. I just think the devil's in the detail. And so, I think that's why we're excited to start seeing the draft language. And, you talked about February or March. Is that where we'll get to see a draft of the guts of this? It'll make more sense at that point for you to review it. Right now, we're in the kitchen making sausage. Okay, got it. Okay, then I'll hold all my other detailed questions. It's okay. I'll probably get those answers later. What's nice is when all the detail comes, we'll be able to understand it, right? That's the goal. I like to say, if we can leave the code on it, if everybody on the staff decided to retire to Florida, right? And, put the code right on the table and walk out. The next team come in, or the next board can completely understand what's expected. That the standards are clearly defined. And, that there's a framework in place. If anything needs to be updated, it's done in a way that doesn't create inconsistencies or conflicts in the language. Super. All right, I have a question for the city. I want to build on Deborah's thing. So, when we're talking about setbacks, height restrictions, how are some of those numbers going to be determined when they're written into the new code? Since there's some changes, maybe, to what we have currently. Currently, we're not changing any setbacks or any height restrictions. So, we are just making it clear and more concise so you can find it in the new land development code. Okay. So, nothing's changing. No numbers are changing. Okay. So, with, you know, all the graphics and things, which I think are fantastic and great, is this going to be more of a living document? Or, if any time that you want to change or add a little bit to those graphics, will that be brought back to the city commission again to, you know, vote and approve? You know, same thing with kind of the updates when they're smaller, but still, once again, you're trying to make something that's easy to understand. And even when things change and new things are added, is there a thought process behind that? So, the advantage right now is, you know, while we're drafting is to create as many useful graphics figures to where there's a consistency across. But, over time, obviously, that could change. The key thing is, and I might be wrong on this, but if it's not changing the actual, if you're, sometimes they can update a code without taking it for adoption if it's not changing the actual standard. Sometimes graphics are wrong. Yeah, or just making it more informative, right? Yeah, sometimes graphics are just wrong, or they get outdated. And, you know, you may want to just reflect, you know, something more contemporary. So, that sometimes can be just an administrative thing. It depends. But, if it does change the actual, you know, diagram to show a height difference, that's substantive. So, that would need to be, that would have to go through a legislative process. Thank you. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Thank you. You would expect me to have more questions, I'm sure. That's all right. On slide 14, you talk about, currently, we have shopping center, commercial parkway, general business, general office. Those are all going to go into one new commercial mixed use. I got to think there's some different setbacks, provisions, issues in those. How do you reconcile it when you consolidate that all into one? We, we're in discussion, George and the team are, we're in discussion with this to make sure that, for example, on 580, it makes complete sense. For one, anything that happens, if this were to, once, if we take this forward and propose this and it gets adopted, and then the rezoning's occur, all those uses, everything would remain as they are. They would just have non-conforming rights, and there will be processes in place to update that if they want to change or do anything. But the key is that making sure that in other corridors that these setbacks and such are calibrated just right. Nothing radical here. We're just talking making sure that the heights are right, the transitions are right, and the setbacks work. One of the key, and just sort of analyzing the existing standards, they don't even work with the current parcels, some of the existing standards. I don't know which exact parcels, I can't pull up, but I remember looking at several and saying, the current parcels don't even, what's built on these parcels don't even fit. They wouldn't be able to do this use today on that, so they're already non-conforming on that. So the key would be just to make a consistent standard along the corridors, because really in all, as a user of that corridor, you're not thinking zoning. You're just, you want to see a consistent character and a transition out from, you know, the core of the town, the city, on particular corridors. Yeah. So this is part of that sausage-making process, I presume? Because I know, like, because once you create some standards, but, you know, you start to look at parcels, because parcels, we all know, are very different. And so we might develop a set of standards. Are you having to go through and look at, well, how will that standard work on this parcel, this parcel, this parcel, and then maybe go back and tweak it a little bit? Yeah, and this is, there are various tools in the toolbox. So there will be situations where an applicant may need a variance, and it may be just slightly enough to where the staff can approve it, nudge something just enough to fit without going through it. Or it may be just a regular variance. You know, those will happen. Not every parcel is perfect. Right, right. And I saw on the one slide you had parcel, small parcel, medium parcel, large parcel. So there may be some averaging, I think. Yeah, and they're, like I said, we're also having the infill and redevelopment standards in place, so that even if you come in, there are going to be contextual elements that need to be met. Good, good. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And it? Super. So if I could say one last thing, in the audit, we introduced a concept, multiple paths to yes. And that's kind of what this is about. It's just like there are various ways to make sure that you can achieve what you want, but it's flexible in that way. So, super. Let's see if anybody from the public wants to comment on this. Hearing none, we will close public input. And is there anything else that anybody wants to say? Then we will move on. Thank you and good luck. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. 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, which is quasi-judicial in nature, is going to be item 1.D.C. I thought that's the one that's been postponed. Yes, sir. We need a motion to postpone. Ah, I see. Okay. So, do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. We postpone that one. Second. Do we have a second? Oh. Yep. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. I'm glad we got that one done nicely. So, now we will move on to item 1.D., ordinance 2511, recommendation to the City Commission regarding Dunedin Sustainable Matrix Ordinance, attending Chapter 105, Section 28.4 of the Land Development Code. Hello, Natalie. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Natalie Gass. I'm the Sustainability Program Manager for the City of Dunedin. A lot of familiar faces and a lot of new faces. So, great to see you and great to meet you. I'm happy to be here tonight and present the proposed ordinance 25-11, the sustainability matrix update. And to provide a little context of what this is and what we're looking at, you just heard from the last presentation on the Land Development Code update. That is the overarching section. It's that 30,000-foot view. Within the Land Development Code, you have design review. And then within design review is what's called the sustainability matrix. And that is what is triggered during the design review process. So, for example, residential projects that are five or more units or commercial projects 6,000 square feet or larger will have to comply with the requirements of the sustainability matrix. For a background on this document, it was really originally brought forward in 2015 to look at how can we as a city promote green development within our community. So, a worksheet or a score sheet was developed and adopted in 2016. It was amended in 2019 for some updates and point requirements across the board, the same depending on, regardless of the development type. So, it's been a few years since it's been updated. And it was time for an update, but we wanted to do it a little bit more holistically than just bringing higher standards forward. So, I will go through what that looks like with you this evening. And all of this information was also shared in October at the City Commission Workshop as an informational workshop item. So, the purpose of updating the sustainability matrix where we started was not only to update it for updating purposes, but really to look at this comprehensively and look at how we can accurately tier and weigh points. We can clarify strategies, provide new strategies. Sustainability is really an evolving industry. And so, there's always new techniques out there. So, it was time that we added some of those in to the document. We also wanted to more clearly define what strategies were and how you submit points for that. So, it's really in alignment with what you're seeing in the land development code update, that goal of clarifying and providing concise information. And then, we also wanted to change the name for clarification, outline phases of the process, and provide for an exemption, which I will go into in a little bit more detail in a moment. Our goal when we started this process was to have a single updated matrix. Senate Bill 180 provides for regulations around not having anything in the land development code be more restrictive or burdensome. That's new. So, that creates a challenge in providing one single sustainability matrix before you. Our city attorney has been extremely helpful in this process. We went back and forth for a long time trying to figure out how we could develop one single document. But we just keep getting back to square one, where we're not really able to achieve any of our set goals of updating the sustainability matrix. And so, in an effort to comply with this Senate bill, but also stay true to updating the matrix in an impactful way, the solution that's being brought forward, that's being recommended by staff and our city attorney, and that was also shared in front of city commission, is to move forward with two options or two pathways, if you will. So, where we keep the current sustainability matrix as is, but we also provide for a new and alternative option of a sustainable development scorecard. What that two paths would look like really varies on what we have currently and then what we are proposing. So, with the current matrix, the strategies and points would stay the same. We would fix some minor grammatical errors. And you would still be required to hit at least 100 points out of that range of 136 to 311 possible point options. So, that's equivalent to achieving 32.15% of that document or that matrix. And then, with the newly proposed sustainable development scorecard, this is really an overhaul of that same document. So, we're not removing any of those current points we're adding to. There's 20 new strategies. We're providing for clarifications, providing for an exemption, and we have a different tier of points, a different structure of points that incentivizes the more you're doing within that strategy, the higher the points you're achieving. We've updated the minimum points to 500, but that's equivalent to 20.75% of achieving that entire scorecard. Why did you lower the percentage? So, we initially lowered it so that we were trying to show that we could comply with Senate Bill 180 and this not be more restrictive. But the issue is when you get into every single individual point, it becomes very challenging to not be more restrictive in some ways. Also, the way that the points are set up, it allows for scalable solutions. So, depending on what the project site is and the solutions that they're picking, that they can easily go above that minimum. Thank you. Good question. Natalie, can I ask one question to you? So, you mentioned on the new scorecard that you've retained all the old standards, plus on the new scorecard added all the new ones. So, is it conceptually possible that I could score less on the current system but make up for it by scoring really high on all these new standards? Yes. And come out ahead and get it? Yes. Yes, that's a good question. So, the sustainability matrix or scorecard is a requirement of design review. So, if a project triggers design review, they're required to complete this document. But how they get there is flexible. They can pick and choose the points that work for their project. Here's a look at the 20 new strategies. So, this is really ranging in all different categories. There's new strategies in every single category. We did take the water category, which mainly talked about plants, and put it into more of an urban landscaping section. And then we also developed a new category called Green Stormwater Infrastructure, or GSI. And that's been heavily supported by our FAST organization here, Faith in Action for Strength Together, a lot of which are here this evening. And so, this, again, is looking at what are these new strategies in the sustainable industry? What are things that we missed that first time around? And what can we include now? As I previously mentioned, the new scorecard pathway provides for an exemption. So, this would be for any project that is going after a third-party certification and achieving it, whether that's LEED, Green Globes, Florida Green Building Coalition, Fitwell, or another similar accredited organization. The reason this exemption exists or is being proposed is because these third-party organizations are staying up to date much more frequently with updating their standards, increasing standards, staying in tune with the industry of sustainable development. And, for example, we haven't had an update since 2019. So, usually, these organizations have annual, if not more often. And so, if a project is achieving any of these, they're going above what we could have in our own document. So, this document has been viewed by many, which is great. Internally, it's gone before our Strategy and Sustainability Division, Public Works, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Engineering. Our external stakeholders include review from our Committee on Environmental Quality and Sustainability, which is one of our advisory committees to City Commission. FAST, or Faith in Action for Strength Together, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, as well as local developers and builders, have provided feedback as well. And I have some of that that I can read if you would like. And then, looking again at this program more holistically, and what we could see in the future as other options to improve and increase this program, would be we have these minimum requirements. Right now, it's 100 points. In the new scorecard, it's 500 points. How do we encourage development projects to go above that minimum? With many certifying organizations, they have different tiers and awards, so we could set something up like that and provide recognition based on what that award is, whether that's in front of City Commission or social media or something like that. Another future opportunity that we could explore would be looking at how we can really support these initiatives more long-term. When we look at long-term sustainability success, you have a developer who's coming in, complying with the sustainability matrix. But as soon as they walk away, does the property owner who's taking over and managing that long-term, are they aware of how a bio-soil works, how it's maintained? Do they know about solar on their roof and how they maintain that? And so we could develop more of a maintenance education program for property owners and maybe come to them annually. We also know that property management can turn over, especially in condos or apartments. Usually there's a lot of turnover of management, and so you lose sight of maybe what was initially installed when the development was put on the site. So you don't want to lose all those great strategies that were incorporated at the beginning. And that's something that we could look forward to in the future of building that program and understanding what that looks like. So here before you tonight to get direction, hear any of your recommendations, questions, concerns. And I submitted this before we had a release 2026 schedule, but I do want to share that it is on the calendar for a first reading of this ordinance before City Commission on January 8th and a second reading on February 5th. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I've got a question. Natalie, on the internal and external review and input section, I'm just curious. There's a perception sometimes that Dunedin is hard to develop in. What was the feedback from local developers on having this alternative path now? I'm just curious what they felt. Sounds good. I'll read a few of these. I have three. And you can cut me off whenever. So this one says, we review the proposed Sustainable Development Scorecard. Yes, the 500-point minimum appears achievable. At first glance, it seems ambitious. But once we review the full range of available strategies, the added flexibility makes it very workable. The expanded options allow projects of varying size and type to meet the minimum without undue difficulty. I asked about if I required points in each category. Is that feasible? This developer said, yes, it should be possible to achieve at least one point in each category if required. If there is flexibility to allow five out of the six categories, that might make it even more practical for certain projects. But overall, the requirement is reasonable and achievable. They went ahead and ran their current project through the new scorecard, which is excellent. I really appreciated they did that. And they said they exceeded 800 points. So they were above that 500 minimum target. And they just appreciated being asked and part of the process. This next developer said, we appreciate the city's commitment to sustainability and for the chance to provide feedback. Overall, the version appears to be a more organized creation of subsections. And the phasing helps to create expectations. Having the required suggested corresponding document listed for each category is also helpful and makes it clear for what the city is looking for. In regards to the 500 point minimum, this does seem achievable considering the scorecard breaks items into subsections with descriptions and point ranges and offering more flexibility than the old matrix. Final point here saying, it may be helpful to provide a few examples of how different projects of different sizes or categories might be better suited for larger or smaller development types, providing the city code reference section in certain categories. So just a little bit more understanding of sizes. Did you have any negative comments? I didn't have any negative. This last one just says that just based on their project, they would have to have more discussions with their team and didn't really have anything to share. So the information you're requesting requires our team to have further discussions to understand and develop our project further. However, we're unable to meet for another few weeks. So I didn't receive any negative. Okay. Thank you. And there's like two or three other developers that should have something back, but just didn't have it in time for tonight's meeting. Okay. Super. It's helpful. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Green roof, blue roof sounds like Dr. Seuss. It does. Yeah. It does. So the green roof, I guess, is planting on the roof and the blue roof is reflective of heat. Is that it? So green roof is looking at having plants on your roof. A blue roof is actually looking at more of a stormwater holding capacity. And those strategies can be combined or on their own. And you create for another space where water could be held and then slowly trickled back into the stormwater system. So you reduce that heavy influx of water during a storm. And then usually more like white roofs or reflective roofs are what you would consider more for energy efficiency. But yeah. So there's all the different colors of roofs. All the different colors. I thought that was... Now, walkable community, that's new. That's new. And Living Shoreline is new. Living Shoreline is new. I mean, some of those are the ones that really sort of called out to me. And another thing I wanted to ask on this Senate Bill 180. Okay. So you have this. And then I thought maybe I shouldn't ask this question. But I'm going to ask it. Okay. So you have the exemption. And if you say, I'm going to follow LEED, Green Globe, FGBC, or Fitwell, then they're exempted and they fall under their standards. Right? Yes. So their standards, are they affected by Senate Bill 180? No, because Senate Bill 180... Because it's a third party. It's a third party. So Senate Bill is impacting municipalities. Yes. So you are not making your standards higher, but that this is a third party that has their own standards that are... That are higher. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So when somebody comes in to develop something, how does that work with the matrix that you've got already and the scorecard? So are they then volunteering to do the scorecard and... So they can choose their path. So you can choose to fall under the current sustainability matrix, or you could choose to go forward with the sustainable development scorecard. You would apply using one or the other. And the goal would be that once you pick your path, there's flexibility in both paths, but you would stay consistent with your path, not get halfway through the project and then say, oh, I actually want to do this. So you'd have to move forward with the one that you pick, but you do get to pick at the beginning. Okay. I guess I'm thinking more along the legal part of that, right? So if the Senate bill is not allowing you to change what you already have so you can leave that in place, basically how do you make somebody, if they go down that path, how do you make them continue, or how do they even, I guess, just the logistics of how that is going to work. To me, it sounds like it could be something that is problematic. So again, this is the recommendation from our city attorney. She's heavily looked at this and spent a lot of time with me. But basically, it's written into the new ordinance that if you pick option B, sustainable development scorecard, you have to comply with it. So no one's forcing you to pick option B, but if you do pick it, then you have to follow the regulations under that. And that's how, like, they have chosen, they've volunteered themselves to go after this, so then they have to follow suit with what's there. They have to achieve the 500 minimum. They have to achieve all of the things that go along with the second option. And just to clarify as well, if ever that bill changes or goes away, the goal really is, as a city, to have a single document that's concise and streamlined. So our goal is that if we are able to have one document, we would go, again, before, through this process, LPA and city readings, to just have the one scorecard and move forward with the new updated version. Okay. That's helpful. I appreciate that. And then as far as updates, then, to the scorecard, is that something that will be brought back to the, you know, commission, then if there's changes to it, are you able, since it's not necessarily a requirement, then are you able to make changes and upgrades to that without the ordinance part of it, or everything will have to then cycle? Yeah. So as, since it is part of the land development code, it is required to go through this formal process of LPA and two city hearings, which is just, it's just the process. Yeah. So. I was just trying to think of ways you could make it more current, because it seems like it's every five years, maybe, that there's an update. So if you could make updates. And I think that's why we're pushing for the exemption, is because we can encourage, you know, like, if you go with this, you're getting that most up-to-date view of sustainable development within the industry, because we're not going to be updating it every year, every few years. It's, we go through these longer periods of time between updating the document. But when we do update it, we do have to go through the formal process. Okay. And then, so thinking about Green Globes or, you know, some of the other rating agencies. So in a way, it's almost, you have three choices, right? So you can either do the matrix, the scorecard, or the third party. Right. And then, I did have a comment on the blue roof, too, because I didn't know what that was. It has such a negative connotation from the hurricanes and the tarps. Oh, interesting. Okay. So, yeah. So when I saw blue roof, I said, why would we want to do that? We don't want a blue roof. Not in the context of hurricanes. Yeah. Tarps for everybody. Maybe there's a better term for it. I'll do some research. Yeah. Water roof. I don't know. Water roof. But not water coming through your roof. Water went right through it. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Natalie. Thank you. Oh, okay. There are other questions? Super. Then we are. Natalie, has anybody officially worked through the scorecard to get anything approved at this point? Or is this just kind of you use these people as tests? And my next question would be you have a few there. How many used it so we can make sure that it's right the first time? Has it been used by three people or 300? So it's for, I don't have an exact number, but it's for all the projects that have been approved through design review since it was adopted in 2016. So it's been in use. The latest project that used it was the Blue Jays Hotel or the J Hotel. So I don't have an exact number, but it's all the projects that come through the design review. And from my understanding, is that part of, is an LPA review part of design review? Do you see projects that, maybe not. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So it's all those projects that come through have to comply with the matrix already. And now this just gives another option, an updated version of that. You did it? Yes. Yep. So it's any project that triggers design review. This is a requirement. Thank you. Yeah. Super. So we are open for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak? Good evening. I'm Linda Mifsud, and I'm with the First United Methodist Church of Dunedin, just a block away. We're a member of FAST, the Faith in Action in Strength Together. And we have a few people here with us tonight. We've been working with Natalie for over a year. I think we started our discussions in the fall of 2024. And we have a commitment from Commissioner Walker to move forward with this update. Things change. A lot changes in just a few years. And so we know that there are better ways to do this. And our issue is water quality. And the green stormwater infrastructure in particular has been at issue. Our members had suffered from red tide and flooding and rapid rise of waters throughout. So this was a really good fit for Dunedin, being a coastal community. And we've really been happy with the way this has developed over the last year with Natalie doing wonderful work on the sustainable development scorecard and the inclusion of the green stormwater infrastructure, or GSI. We recognize that having these options, even incentivized options, don't always translate to adoption by developers. Now, you're going to have your developer, the good ones are going to use this because they'll want to be up to date. And they probably already have some of these types of measures in their projects. But when you make it an option, it doesn't always flow through for everybody. We feel that supporting proceeding with the two options is a necessary evil, given the home rule restrictions in place. And this is very unfortunate, very unfortunate. We do support going to a single matrix as soon as this state law removes the rolling moratorium on home rule and restores the ability for cities to update their land development code more appropriately. And we wholly support the additional options that Natalie has proposed. We would like the recognition and reward and the maintenance program, the education program for long-term effects. If you've been involved in any kind of these measures, it's so important that you maintain it and make it so that it continues to provide the benefits it was intended to provide. And I know that we're speaking to the choir here. You are all planners. You all really appreciate the work that Natalie has done on the sustainability for the city of Dunedin. We're here to support you. And we understand that she's going to have to go through this again. Give you 10 more seconds. We will be back. And we're here to follow you through with the process to get the job done. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to us? Nope. Then we are closing public input. Can we get a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Well done, folks. The motion has passed. Thank you. And I believe that we are done for the evening. So have a wonderful holiday, folks. Okay. Yes. Nice to meet you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.