Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the July meeting of the Local Planning Agency. We 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 quasi-judicial items which are identified on the agenda, 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. Secondly, the members of the Local Planning Agency will have the opportunity to ask questions from the City Representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comments will need to approach the lectern, state your name and address for the record, and utilize the microphone in order for comments to be recorded. Individual public speaking is limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers be respectful of the clock countdown. Citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizens' comments shall not engage in loud, boisterous, or disruptive speech or conduct. Any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium. Thank you. Okay. Item 1A. The first item on our agenda tonight is to approve the June 10, 2026 LPA meetings. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes? Like recuse. It should be recused, and another one was, I mean, they're tiny, but it's okay. Whatever. Okay. Do you know where they are? Yes. Recused was under, it said I recused myself. It was recused. And then another one was toward the end, and I can't remember, and it was at a D. Okay. Okay. Heather, you see that, that typo? Yes, I can take care of that. I'll show you the other one. So I would move to approve with minor corrections. Okay. Okay, we have a motion to approve the minutes with those minor corrections. Do we have a second? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Minutes are passed with those corrections. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Our agenda item tonight, item 1B, is a quasi-judicial item in nature, and such the format will be as follows. Please bear with me while I reread most of what I just said earlier. 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 making authority, decision-making authority. The process will be as follows. First, I will introduce each item, after which the city representative will have the opportunity to present information about it. Secondly, the members of the local planning agency will have the opportunity to ask questions from the city representative. The applicant will then present information about the item. Thereafter, the members of the local planning agency will have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions. If the applicant has any questions for staff or staff has any questions of the applicant, they will address those to the board. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those wishing to provide public testimony will need to approach the lectern, state your name and address for the record, and utilize the microphone in order for comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers are limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the clock countdown. Finally, both the city representative and the applicant will be provided 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. Further, should the board vote to recommend denial of the matter, they will provide their basis for the denial. At this time, 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. Heather, will you please swear in the public? Okay, right hand. Do you swear to the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? Okay. Thank you, Heather. Okay, Item 1B, Application LUP-ZO-2026-0001, City-Initiated Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request, along with a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the City-Owned Property, located at 1241 San Christopher Drive. Ordinance 26-06, Land Use Plan Amendment for the Public Semi-Public to Retail and Services, and Ordinance 2607, Rezoning from Municipal Public Lands to Form-Based Medium. Has anyone had any ex parte communications regarding this item? No. Okay. Hearing none, we will go forward. George, we will turn it over to you. Thank you, Chair. Benjamin's members of the LPA, George Kinney, on behalf of the Community Development Department. I have a short PowerPoint. Is it showing on your screens? Not yet. Okay. Let's see if we can... There it goes. Okay. Almost there. Yep. Okay. Very good. So, thank you again. As mentioned by the Chair, this is Application Land Use Plan Zoning 2026-0001. It's a City-Initiated Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The applicant owner is the City of Dunedin, and the representative is actually behind me, and to my right, Matt Jackson and Robert Ironsmith. The street address, as you can see by the rendering on the left-hand side, is at 1241 San Christopher Drive. It's just west of Pinehurst, in between Robin Hood and Lady Marion. It's approximately 1.17 acres, and you can see how it's configured. It's a flag-shaped lot. It runs behind some of the commercial properties that lie in San Christopher, including Bozarth's construction, which is, or Bozarth's windows and doors, which is immediately in front of the subject property. And then to the rear, you can see it's surrounded by about 15 residential homes back there. This is just another look at that same property. And then here's some of the property history to go along with that image. The 1.17-acre property and structure, commonly referred to as the Jones Building, was acquired by the City of Dunedin in June of 1976 for a little bit more than $150,000. It's a 1975 one-story prefabricated metal building, approximately 90 by 175, with a mezzanine area for storage. The north end of the building includes offices and bathrooms. It was previously served by the Parks Division for offices, workshop, and maintenance storage, as well as other uses from time to time. Several years ago, the Parks Division, as most of you probably know, relocated their operation to the city facility located on Solon Avenue, vacating this building for good. And then in October of 2022, the city... Deborah, you were probably on the commission at that time, right? Maybe? So in October of 2022, the city commission declared the Jones Building site a surplus property. And you can see the meeting minutes for that. It's exhibit I in your packet. So this is the proposal for the land use plan amendment. As you can see, the commercial properties alongside Christopher all have an underlying land use of R&S, that's retail and services. The subject property has a current land use of public-semi-public, which makes sense, because if you look at public-semi-public and the permitted uses, they include municipal buildings, water treatment plants, public works garages, and the like. For us to be able to sell that property, though, for any kind of other purpose, we need to take a look at moving that out of the public-semi-public and into the proposed retail and services. And really the reason R&S is chosen here is because it would be consistent. We really can't put another district in there because it becomes more of like a spot zoning, if you will. So anyway, the intent, again, is to match the properties alongside Christopher. However, it does open up a number of uses, as I just discussed, which could be concerns for surrounding homes. So we're going to talk a little bit about how we alleviated some of those concerns through what we call a restrictive covenant, and I'll get there in a minute. But that's basically it on the land use side. Just the takeaway from this slide on the evaluation piece of it is that the existing floor area ratio for the building is about 0.31, and the existing impervious surface ratio is approximately 0.8. Both would be conforming to the R&S district once it comes in. So we would be creating no non-conformities as a result of that land use change. On the zoning side, very similar to the land use side, this is zoned. The board probably knows most municipal properties are zoned, what's called MPL, municipal public lands. And basically that is a zoning category that allows the commission to do anything they think is reasonable for the public good. The FXM is what is being proposed, and again, that's being proposed to be consistent with the zoning categories that line San Christopher, and it would be an extension, obviously, back into that residential R60 area. So, again, you know, if I'm a resident there, that opens up concerns, but it is consistent with the San Christopher zoning. And, again, we'll talk about the restrictive covenant in a minute and how we sort of pull some of those uses back. So, very quick on the zoning evaluation side, the takeaway here, really, I won't spend a lot of time on this, is that the site is consistent with the FXM zoning from a setback and dimensional standard standpoint. So there, again, would be no non-conformities created as a result of this rezoning. So this kind of gets us to that restrictive covenant piece. So how does the city make this recommendation while trying to protect the surrounding properties to the north and to the east and to the west as you look at that slide? That is kind of, it's exhibit F. I don't know if you've all had a chance to take a look at it in your packet. But those, what that exhibit does, that restrictive covenant does, is it restricts the uses to what is identified in that covenant. And those are specifically service, industry, and maintenance, single-family dwelling, duplex, multifamily dwelling, group home, religious or educational facility. So that's it. That's the slate of uses that would be allowed regardless of to the fact that you've got a zoning category and a land use category that might allow more. And the reason for that is we felt that those were the appropriate complementary uses to that residential area to the rear. So what's really interesting about this, you'll see in that one slide to the left, that that front property is called Beaux-Arts Contractors. And we had, and the applicant will talk a little bit about the relationship that's developed there. But they are looking to be the prospective purchasers of this property. So they would be extending that business back into the San Crist property that we're talking about. And they'll talk, I'll let these guys talk a little bit more about the intent of what they plan to do with that building and how they plan to renovate it. But that restrictive covenant is very important. And we also needed that restrictive covenant to sell the county. Because as you know, we have to transmit the land use plan to the county. And they had some concerns as well. So that's how we arrived at the restrictive covenant with some early conversations with the county. I want to mention that Matt and myself, without blessing, of course, did conduct a community meeting out at the property. We actually were able to secure a room through the Beaux-Arts Construction folks. They were kind enough to give us a room. We noticed basically the 15 property owners that are surrounding this particular property because we wanted them to understand what we were doing to protect them as a result of this land use change. So, unfortunately, we only had one person show up. But that person asked some good questions. And the major concern, I think, at that point was the wall. There's kind of a wall that surrounds a portion of the property, I think, to the west that needs some repair work. And as it turns out, that's part of what's contemplated in the restrictive covenant. So her concerns, I think, were addressed as we kind of worked through that. So just a couple quick bullets, Beaux-Arts Contractors is interested in purchasing the property from the city. As mentioned, they operate the adjoining property. It's kind of that view that you're seeing right there. The pros use would be office space for the storage of windows and doors. And there would be no manufacturing on the property, which is important because that's what kind of makes noise and lends to nuisance kind of activities. So I just wanted to kind of, again, hit on some of the benefits of this conveyance because you can see that it is a flag lot. So there are some issues with the entry as it currently exists. So the access driveway, if this goes as planned, the access driveway would be reconfigured to meet minimum code requirements. The existing building and pavement would be repurposed or removed. There is a shared drainage piece between the two parcels, and that would allow the adjacent parcel to consolidate that drainage situation. And then the covenant, you can kind of see a little breakout of the covenant language as it requires certain improvements. And I draw your attention to section Roman numeral two, Roman numeral two, the declarant shall repair and refinish the concrete block wall along the west property line, shall also repair and replace the existing wood fence along the south and east property lines, and provide appropriate landscaping areas along said property lines. Such wall, fence, and landscaping design shall be agreed upon by the city and installed in accordance with local ordinance. There is also provision under number four that talks about the conduct of the business or activity cannot create a nuisance. So there's a lot of language in here. I think that will be helpful to all. And in talking to the folks that own Bozart, they are agreeable to all of these provisions. In fact, have been a part of the development of that restrictive covenant. So I will kind of end there. The staff recommendation is to approve this request with the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and that would be Ordinance 26-06 to change the land use plan category of the subject property from public, semi-public to retail and services, and Ordinance 26-07 to change the zoning district designation of the subject property from municipal public lands to form-based medium on the city's official zoning map. Obviously, you guys know next action then would be first read to the city commission, and then we'd go on hold while that land use plan amendment was transmitted to the county. And it'll probably be a little while before we get that one back because it's a little tricky with the covenant in it. So with that, that's our staff recommendation. I would ask, Mr. Chair, if as part of your vote, one of the things the applicant's asking is to waive the fee, which makes sense since it's city-initiated. If you could include that in your motion, that would be appreciated. And with that, I'll stop and answer any questions. Okay. Sylvia, we want to start with you. What questions do you have? I'm good. I'm good with my questions. Good. Sally? I'm good also. Thank you for explaining it. Okay. I'm just waiting to hear what Mozart is going to do with it. Okay. Deborah, what questions do you have? I have a question on the language in the zoning, so it's not really per se them, but you have a restrictive covenant, but the property, it says, shall only be used as a service industry maintenance contractor, which makes sense. Single-family, duplex, multifamily, that makes sense. That makes sense, but then group home, religious, or educational facility. Is that just always there? I mean, it seems... It's an institutional benign use, so it complements the surrounding residential. I think we just thought we would put it in there. It's a permitted use under FXM to begin with, so it's something that we didn't necessarily... It just seemed a little broad to me. It seemed like you were protecting, you were working hard to make it a specific use with your restrictive covenant, but then the language of the zoning seemed to make it a lot broader that possibly could interfere with a really residential neighborhood. Yeah, and, you know, and I understand that. I mean, completely get that point, and I think, you know, as planners, you're always looking ahead. He might not have that property forever, and if somebody else acquires it... Right, but it runs with the land. That's exactly right. So, he may not have that, and at some point, it may not belong to Hozar, but, you know, it's going to run with the land, so I think that it's pretty important that the zoning language be appropriate. Yeah, so what it would say, you're right, it runs with the land, so the next property owner can only pick from that list as well. Right, right, but is it too broad? I mean, then maybe that's more of a legal question. It just, it seems like some of them don't fit to me, but that could be wrong. I brought it up. You all can think about it. Yeah, no, it's... So, I mean, we can, if you've got a suggestion, we can take it back. The city attorney has looked at this and has basically signed off on the language as it exists. Yeah, I don't, I mean, this is also going to be looked at by Forward Pinellas, then it goes to the county, I mean, Forward Pinellas, and then the county... The county board, yeah. Okay, so you're going to go through, you know, several, and then it comes back to the commission after their first reading. That's right. So, maybe no one will have any issues with this, so... I mean, if you have a... Good? I'm good. All right. Vice Chair, you're up for time. All right, I've got a few. First of all, can we go back to the... Yeah, that one's good. So, looking at the lot itself. So, as it stands now, is that a non-conforming lot itself? No, not really. It's non-conforming. The lot itself, because it doesn't have enough frontage, so yes, the lot is. The use is not, the lot area is not, and it meets dimensional standards. Okay. But yes, the lot... Specifically, the lot is non-conforming. 15 feet wide. Yeah. But under MPL, it's really not non-conforming, because you don't have necessarily dimensional standards, and it'll be... So, and we didn't look at it as non-conforming coming in, because it'll be reconfigured if it goes as planned. You're right. It's the driveway access, ingress to egress, that's non-conforming. That's why I made this one really the one that we could work with, which is Bozart. We did look at a few other uses, but you really can't transfer or sell that property with that type of driveway, because it's non-conforming, so yes. You're right. Okay. Well, and to me, this, I mean, really the only opportunity to do anything with this property, other than the city keeping it, is to sell it to Bozart. Is that correct? That's correct. We did look at some other options, but yes. Bozart was the only one that could really widen the driveway and make it user-friendly. Yeah. There's some shared drainage out there, too, which makes it a little bit more challenging. All right. And then so with that, for the cost of Bozart, how is the sale price of the land then figured if you can't put it out on the open market and sell it? Yeah. Matt is working on it. We're going ahead and have an appraiser take a look at it with this declaration, and they're going to be coming up with a value for it. Okay. So the value has not been set yet. That's correct. Okay. Yeah, Matt's working on that. Okay. And then it's going to be via an appraisal. Mm-hmm. All right. With the declaration restrictions in place. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, once it's sold, then can the two properties be combined or subdivided, you know, not into two properties, say, into six properties? I'm just saying, you know, what are the options with that once the same owner owns both properties? Sure. Those options are available. That declaration, though, sticks with that configuration, regardless of how you- Is that part of the configuration, but it doesn't lend itself? So if they wanted to put in townhomes on the two properties total, they would have to rezone that front property as well then, correct? Or is the land use and the zoning appropriate for that? It would be appropriate. Because it's zoned FXM, which would allow- Oh, the zoning for the Bose where current property is FXM? Correct. Okay. So there's the current zoning. So 1251, just to the north of where you see the NPL, that's the Bosearth property. Right. So that's currently FXM, along with the two properties, the properties that basically line St. Christopher there. Gotcha. Okay. And so, but thinking about, you know, being able to subdivide or do anything, can you come up with any unintended consequences from that that might negatively affect the neighborhood? I mean, it would be like any other property. So, you know, if it qualifies for design review, it would go through that process. If it's just a lot split or something like that, then, but now, with that said, that configuration for the, where it's NPL right now, those, they couldn't use anything other than the uses are restricted by the restricted covenant. If they were going to do something different with the FXM property they have, they would have the whole laundry list of FXM permitted uses. Okay. And then any change to the, the restricted covenant property to, once again, say they go residential in there, is that something that would come back to the commission then or would that- If there was a rezoning or you mean just a change to the covenant? No, not a change to the covenant, but so say they want to do something else, but like I said, residential, would that, would, I'm just going to use townhomes. So say they want to put a number of five, because I think that's a magic number, five townhomes on there. Would that then bring it back to the city commission for, for public comment? That would, that would qualify as a design review and it would bring it back as a full design review process. And then I think my last one is, you know, about the fence replacement and the, the wall repair. Um, and, you know, we can make the mention to, to waive the fee in, in our recommendation, but I'd also like to put a timeline in, in the restricted covenant for that work to be done. I, I did not see one in there. So, um, you can always, uh, yeah, the wall for the wall and the fence. I talked about, um, repair the wall. A certain timeline after, after one, after the property's purchased. Yeah. Oh, sure. I think, I think we can do that. Yeah, I think we can do that. It is going to take a little time getting through all the approvals, as you mentioned for Pinellas the county and all that, but once he gets the actual ownership of the property, yeah, we can, no actual ownership when, when I guess that would actually be when the restrictive covenant went into effect, right? I mean, you can pass the restricted covenant, but it will be based on sale. Do you have a certain, in your mind, time that you'd like to see? Okay. No, I'm just thinking of the neighbors and, you know, I, I've, I've been on that property many times. I've toured, uh, different folks on that property many times, uh, before. So, uh, I remember what it looked like back then and that was probably at least five years ago. So, okay. I'm sure. Yeah, he's going to be building some offices in there and some different things. We certainly can get that in there. Sure. We can do that. Yeah. Like I said, once again, doing something for the neighbors. No question about it. He's been pretty committed. He's been good to work. So, so on that, what it, what would be a reasonable time to accomplish that? Is that a legal question that the attorney has to address as to what would be a legal, reasonable time? Yeah, I don't think it's legal. I think we can come up with time. I mean, in my mind, I'm thinking three or four months, if that's something that makes sense. Yeah. You know, I would like to. Yeah. And, and, and any other work they want to get, uh, done out there as well. Yeah. I don't want it to be something like, you know, it's three or four years from now where the city has to come knocking on their door saying, hey, you got this in the restricted covenant. When are you going to do it? Well, it doesn't say when I have to do it. It just says I have to do it at some point in time. So let me, let me ask you this. Um, do you want that language actually in the restrictive covenant or do you want to make it a condition of your recommendation of approval? Yeah. Excuse me. I, I would love to make it a condition because we already got the restrictive covenant signed. We're ready to go forward with the deal making. Okay. So that's the case. If that's okay. I think either would be okay. Yeah. So essentially you would propose a revision, like with your approval, a proposed amendment to that section to I of the restrictive covenant to either identify a deadline for the repair, or if you already have a deadline in mind, propose that. Yeah. That'd be very favorable as opposed to changing all restrictive covenant. Yes. Yes. So condition would be the way to go. Laura, can you say that again? Okay. So you could do a conditional approval. So approve with this condition, identify that condition. You could make it as specific as a specified deadline, like six months, you know, on, you know, after the actual purchase date, closing date to move forward with completion of the repair of the wall and fence, or you can make it broader and allow the commission to kind of identify that deadline and just say condition to identify a certain date for completion of the repair of the fence and wall. No, I like the attorney. I think six months is a good time. Six months. To be honest with you, that building is pretty messy. The surrounding grounds, everything's going to be picked up. Things need to be worked on. So I think six months is certainly... Okay. So I have it here written down. So when you're moving forward with your motion, if that's something you want to consider, I can guide you through that. And just from that standpoint, six months sounds good. Since, you know, we're only making a recommendation, once it gets to the city commission, they can decide whether they want to date certain or some different timeframe. Mm-hmm. Those are my comments. Great, John. You stole my time. Oh, sorry. But I still came up with one question. I just want to make sure I was clear on the driveway reconfiguration. The declarant will cover the driveway reconfiguration. And do we also feel that should be done within a time period, such as the six months? Yeah, I don't know if the declaration has any language to the driveway reconfiguration. I know he's indicated that he wants to get that done as quickly as possible because he needs to get his employees back there and to move like storage materials back there, he would need to kind of open it up. But that's another thing that maybe... Yeah, we could just add that to the wall repairs and reconfiguration of the driveway to be completed within six months of sale date. Okay. Got it. Okay. That's all I've got. I appreciate that. Applicant, Bob, do you have anything more you want to talk about and share with on this project? I appreciate it. No, I'm sorry. No, I appreciate everyone here. This makes sense for the city. It's as George mentioned, it's deemed surplus. So the city can certainly use the revenue. It's a property that we're not using anymore. This keeps Bozart in town. Okay. They've been growing a little bit, doing a lot of different projects out there. So this is an economic driver too for the city. So I think this is something that we really want to see happen. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Bob. And let me make one other point on top of Bob's. Not only is it revenue coming in for the sale price, but then that'll appear on the tax rolls every year after that. So since the city doesn't pay taxes on its own property, but Bozart would. Yeah. And certainly with the environment, you know, we want to keep commercial here in the city. You know, we're so residential based. That's an important ingredient for us. Correct. Good job on the restrictive covenant, by the way. No manufacturing. So should be quiet. Yeah. Okay. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? Michelle or Heather will need to swear them in. Yeah. If she's planning to speak, ma'am, are you planning to speak? Yeah. Okay. We can swear you in both at the same time. Um, you swear the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth of the truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Good afternoon. Tom Michaels, 1370 Pioneers Road, Dunedin. I'm not right next to this property. I'm a little way to Zoya. Uh, and I just didn't realize this was happening until I nicely got the notification. There we go. Now I'm turned down. The, uh, this is city property used for city reasons. Once you get rid of it, it's gone. And land is extremely valuable in Dunedin. The value of it keeps going up and up and up regardless of the economy. The accessibility of having it is just diminishing every year. And so when I look at this, I say, well, if you sell it or get rid of it, you're never going to have it back and you may not be able to replace it. What's the public use that can be used for? Storage of equipment and materials. We don't need it right now, but what about five years from now or seven years from now? It's gone. So that's just one observation I have on that. Then as I was reading the report, I, I, it appears to me, which, you know, it's great that the city is the one moving to change it all for the prospective buyer. That's wonderful that they have that going for them. But I didn't hear anything about a purchase price. You know, how much are we talking? As I look there, we have ingress and egress easement going back to the property. You can get to it. You can use it. We had another issue I had to deal with on Pinehurst Road. And after it passed through you all and passed through the commission, uh, there were going to do, uh, short term rentals, if you recall that one. And after that all went through, they turned around and they put it on the market for $2.87 million. Okay. Massive increase of valuation. And so I don't know what the purchase price is. I don't know what the valuation is going to be as a taxpayer of Dunedin. My concern is that this is going to go through for the benefit of Bozart that we get fair market value for the property. Okay. Thank you. Lydia Johnson, 1335 Lady Marion Lane. So I've been in this area for over 25 years. And my question is, why is this city even considering selling this piece of property? Can somebody answer that? Bob, maybe you could come by and tell. So my understanding is in 2022, the city declared this property as surplus property. Could you talk as to how that determination was made? And do we feel for the extended future that we have plenty of municipal lands for storage, equipment repair, growth, et cetera, et cetera? Yeah, certainly. So basically with surplus land, memo is created. It goes to all the different departments, goes to the city manager. So all departments take a look at it. Whether it's utilities, it's streets, it's building, whatever. So everyone took a look at it and said, we don't need this property anymore. So that's the process that goes through. This goes before the commission and the commission decides, yes, this is deemed surplus. So with that in mind, the next steps is to go ahead and look at trying to sell it. The considerations we have when we look to sell it is what was talked about from Mr. Stanek. The driveway isn't the proper width. So it's not conforming. So what do you do with that? So when we took a look at it, Bozard made the most sense. They're also a pretty good employer. We wanted to keep them in the city. So that's why I looked at transferring the sale to it. But we were very concerned with the neighboring properties, you know, obviously the residential that's around there. So that's when we came and worked with the attorney to do a restrictive covenant to ensure that the property wasn't going to have a use that was very negative to the neighborhood. And that's why, uh, Mr. Kenny also had a neighborhood meeting with Matt and we only had the one person come out for it. So all the reasons were there to sell it, uh, from the city's perspective to technology continues to improve, just didn't need it for storage, just didn't need it for a different things. There's other adequate storage on Belcher road and that was deemed surplus. So let's go ahead and move forward with, uh, selling the property. So that's what happened. But as far as what is the fair market or just market value, that's why we're doing an appraisal. But the appraisal has to consider that, you know, the restrictive covenant and also has to also look at that this is non-conforming if, because someone else wouldn't want to buy it with the way the driveway ingress and ingress is there today. We did look at some other aspects. We did look at, um, Habitat for Humanity for one. Uh, we looked at some other organizations. None of them really met the test and were a good fit for the property. And that's where we wound up with, uh, Bozart. So did I answer your question? Yeah. Thank you, Bob. Okay. But again, it sounds to me that Bozart has bids on this, right? And the price has not even been announced. So is this going to be available to whoever wants to buy this property or just Bozart has cards because there's a shared, um, sewer system and they want entrance to the property? Uh, just what you said. Yes. So Bozart's in a very good position because of the driveway and because of the shared drainage and what have you. Yes. But they're also going to have to pay for it and the commission will have to decide whether they're going to go ahead and go forward with that, uh, sale. Yeah. Right. I'm familiar with them because I also get them in business and selling windows on my property, but, um, I'm just concerned with if they're going to use it for storage or something else. That is the only concern. Yeah. No, they're going to use it. They're going to build up a few offices in there and they're going to use it for storage. Uh, there isn't any, uh, they're not looking to manufacture or do anything else there. Yeah. Is that a guarantee? Is that something they can change their mind after? No, uh, based on the zoning and the restrictive color, they're going to have to do that. And frankly, uh, they're doing a lot of, uh, large apartment projects. All their deliveries are done on site and all the manufacturing is done. So it's not really done their own site for their capacity. So we're pretty comfortable with it. Yeah. But, uh, I appreciate everybody's concern. Sure. Um, yeah, it looks like in, um, in item, uh, four, uh, they can't conduct any in the restrictive covenant, can't, uh, conduct any business or activity regardless of the type or duration, blah, blah, blah, that shall constitute a public or private nuisance or hazard. In addition, no noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on, blah, blah, blah, blah, which may become an annoyance or nuisance to the adjacent surrounding retail businesses and residential properties. So it does seem like there's some fairly strong language in there that can be enforced. I'm sorry, I didn't get a hold of a report. If there was one, I did. I would add in, in Roman numeral one, which specifically spells out the permitted usage manufacturing. It does say no manufacturing in the restrictive covenant, right? Right. But, but, but could you add it into the restrictive covenant that no manufacturing? I mean, we make this a condition that we want, that we did discuss this. Could that be another condition that that was a real? You can, if you want to do a little bit more, I mean, to me, it's very clear what the permitted uses are and manufacturing is not one of them. Well, it would be a not a nuisance, you know, I mean, under all that thing in the restrictive covenant. And the, the, the only worry I have with that commissioner or board member kinds is that, um, there's so many permitted uses in the FXM category and you're just picking out one at that point. And I don't know, you know, I think you would want to, we'd almost need to go through every use then and say, this is not good. So I think what we did was we took it from the reverse aspect. We said, here's what we're going to allow these four or five things so that we don't have to worry about looking at each of these other ones and seeing whether or not they create a nuisance, don't create a nuisance. Um, so, but, but if, if you want to add a condition that just says no manufacturing, I think that's fine. We could just say a condition that, uh, there was discussion ensued and we want to be very clear that there, there would be no manufacturing. I think that that's okay. Certainly not a problem from our perspective. Do you think so? Our attorney legally? Yes. The city could add that as a part of their conditions to the restrictive covenant. I actually tend to agree with the city that, um, specifying one specific use might avail itself to different interpretation down the line. We, we just, I mean, we don't know what it's going to be in, in three decades from now and the new property owner may have different interpretation. Um, however, of course the city is, is more than willing to specify the specific uses that will not be allowed. Well, I'm, I'm not really thinking about specifying as a use, but it was talked about in here that Hozar agreed that, that there would be no manufacturing, right? So it's not in the restrictive covenant, but he agrees, correct? But the, it runs with the land, the restrictive covenant. And so my question is, I guess, does the nuisance and obnoxious, noxious, noxious causes that you think that covers it, right? I think, I think we looked at the noise, obviously impact the neighborhood. I mean, I think it was kind of broad. I mean, I'll, I'll defer again to attorney. I read this as a positive. So there's two types of covenants. And I mean, there's negative covenants and there's positive covenants. Essentially what the city is here, it's, it's outlining those positive covenants. So the actual uses that will be allowed in the property, there's no list of a negative covenants. So to essentially pick and choose one specific negative covenant and add it into an agreement that reads as a positive covenant. Well, why don't we just say discussion ensued and we discussed this and it was a point of concern. That's it. And that's fine. We're not even adding it as a condition, but they know we discussed it. They can, I mean, you know, I don't think how, what harm would that be is that we did discuss whether... We can put that as part of our comments to the commission. Right. Just part, I mean, just that we did have a discussion on it. I'm just may ask a question. Is there a way that we can put a term on how long they may keep the property once it's brought out by both sides of whoever it is and they cannot sell it within, I don't know, 10 years, five years? A restriction on the sale of the property? No, how long they can keep it. I mean, the city has kept it for so many years. I'm concerned with what the previous person said that that property around the old school house, they were going to build some rentals and they sold it, right? If you don't mind, Matt Jackson, economic development manager. We've had multiple discussions with Jesse, met on site with Jesse and the realtor. The intent is they've been in operation at that site since around 2018. And they are, as Bob mentioned, as George mentioned, they are a contractor who installed windows and doors. And so right. Okay, fantastic. So the intent is to then occupy this other site for offices, stores of materials, but no intention on redeveloping the site. It's just the continuation of the existing business, just retaining that business and allowing them to continue business there. But there's been no discussion or intention on changing the use of that back property. And I completely understand. But then again, that can be changed. Okay. At this point, we're beyond your three minutes. So I appreciate it. Okay. Bob, could you, I do want to address something that Tom brought up about making sure the city gets fair value. You mentioned we're going through, we're going to have it appraised. Correct. Can you talk through that appraisal process? Is it a single appraisal? Is it multiple appraisals? We take the average. Can you talk about how that's going to be determined and how we're going to make sure we get fair market value for the property? Sure. It is a single appraisal. So we have selected some that's kind of been on our short list that we utilize. He's going to certainly take in those considerations of the restricted covenant, which is certainly going to, you know, reduce the price. He's going to take into consideration somewhat of that nonconforming driveway. But he's going to go ahead and through that list. He's going to certainly understand Bozart and he will come up with the price. So there isn't a second appraisal. There's only the one appraisal is typically what we do for sale of property. You said he's on a short list. Can you describe the qualifications that he has and how he was put on that short list? Yeah. He's an MAI type appraisal. He's been used by the city in the past. Can you explain MAI? Ah, geez. What the heck is the title for MAI? I forgot what that is. I'm sorry. It's a higher degree of certification. The name will come to me, Chair. But basically, we go out to bid. We had, I think, Matt, three. We went out for quotes. We had three quotes. And he was the low quote, which is said he does, for someone to prepare consultant services for us. You know, along with that, I have one more question. There was never, because they're adjoining properties, it does make sense. But there was no requirement to go out to bid, to bid out this property. No, I couldn't. We looked at it. You know, we even had discussion with Bozo, will you sell a piece of your property, sell a piece of your property to the city so that we could make it a little bit more functional. He was not interested in that because it was going to impact his parking and his circulation. So we did look at that. And then I did look at some other, and I had mentioned Habitat. I looked at some other uses, but it just didn't come to play, because he had the non-conforming use. He only had the, I think it's a 12-foot driveway or a 15-foot driveway. I can't remember what it is in there, but it's very narrow. Yeah. But we did look and see if he would sell us a piece, and he would not. No, he wasn't interested in that. I have a question. So the wall, you said that they said they would fix, and you're going to give them a time frame on fixing the wall, correct? Six months or however. What is the penalty if they don't do it? They're in breach of their covenant agreement. So what would happen? Essentially, you know, the property owners can go for an injunction in front of the court. You treat it as a contract. But can't, so, so the city would have to go in front of the courts after them? No, because they're selling it? That is correct. The city will have remedies under the restrictive covenant agreement. So they're going to have something in there? Yeah, whatever the remedy is provided for under the contract and under essentially common law, you know, and one of them will be like an injunction and so forth. This has been more of a long-term discussion with Bozar. This is not something that just came up. I mean, we've had several years with them in order to look at what the best opportunities. That's why I said we looked at whether he would sell a piece of property to us. Could we do a different use? So this is something that's been very long in the process. He's very committed to doing the best that's out there. Clean up the site, fix up the buffer wall, fix the fence. If you took a walk around the perimeter, you would see that the condition that it's in today is pretty poor. He's going to make it a much better environment out there. So going back on, you know, enforcing the restrictive covenant, I guess, too. So even if there was, you know, nuisance uses or noise complaints and things like that, would that follow more like a code compliance kind of thing first, right? The complaint would go through that. I think the violation provisions are actually in the covenant. I'm looking at section 10 that talks about in the event that any of the covenant restrictions contained as declaration are violated by a declarer. If such violation is not correct within five calendar days from the date of notification of such violation, unless such correction is possible in such a period of time, the city may proceed with such legal remedies as are necessary, including the use of the office of the city attorney to correct such violation. And the declarerant, their successors and assigned shall be liable for any costs incurred, including attorney fees and court costs, whether such fees are expended or costs incurred, and demanding enforcement of declaration or proceedings are brought in court competent jurisdiction by the city enforcement of provisions of the declarerant. So I think there's a few other ones that kind of speak to this as well. I'm not going to go through all of them, but it looks like the city attorney that's kind of covered. No. They'll have a cure period. Essentially, if we find a violation, you know, we have to notify it to them. They'll have like five days to cure it. If they don't, we have remedies to go in front of a judge and essentially enforce our agreement. Uh-oh. Somebody bumped her. Is this this white thing that I'm playing with down here? I thought it was a curse holder. No, I've just been playing. Is this what this is? Okay, I'm sorry. I just pulled it down twice. You're supposed to push the button for the green light, not any other. That was the first time I've seen that happen. I've never seen it. You've got a purse holder? It is. All right. Deputy, thanks for it. Thank you for checking. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this point, I'm going to close public input. Any other further information you want to say before we determine if we have any more discussion or questions? No. Well, good. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Okay. Good. Okay. Any discussion, any questions that any of you see before we work towards making a motion? I just had one real quick, Kevin. So just talking about, once again, the lot itself. So, you know, based on, they're really the only thing it can do, the lot, because it's non-conforming, and then correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing you can do is keep it as a city piece of property or sell it to Bozart. It's really the only two options because it's non-conformity. I would categorize, I would say those are the two realistic options. There's certainly, certainly somebody can buy the property as is and try to make something work. We're not going to prevent the development because of a non-conformity. So I don't want to say it couldn't happen, but these are the two, to me, the most realistic options. What you just described are the two most realistic options. Thank you for that clarification. Good. Okay. If not, do we have a motion? We accept it. So you want me to read the whole thing? Yeah. That's why nobody... And then I'm going to add some stuff. Yeah. Okay. I move that we approve the application LUPZO 2006-0001, City Initiative Land Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request for a Declaration of Restricted Covenants for the City-owned Property at 1241 San Christopher Drive, Ordinance 26-06, Land Use Plan Amendment for Public, Semi-Public to Retail Services Ordinance 2607, Rezoning from Municipal Public Lands to Form-based Medium and that there be a waiver of the application fee and that there be a six-month time limit for repairs to be accomplished. I think you did great. What repairs? You even read one of my conditions. I think you did great. Thank you. I want to add one more condition to that, that we have the six-month timeline to repair the walls and to do the driveway reconfiguration within six months after the closing date and also that we waive the $2,000 applicant fee to the city as part of that motion. Okay. So is that an amendment to the motion? Okay. So we have an amended motion on the floor. Do we have a second? We have a second. Okay. Any further discussion or amendments? Okay. If not, let's go ahead and vote. Do we agree to the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Godspeed going forward and good luck with that appraisal, Bob. Okay. Okay. Got it. All right. With that, we are done. Thank you.