Good evening, everyone. We're going to start the September 9th, 2026 meeting of the Local Planning Agency for the City of Dunedin. And I'd like to welcome our Distinguished Citizens Academy guests. Congratulations to all of you. I hope you're enjoying that program. It's great. You too. That's how it starts, and you may be up here someday. So good luck to all of you, and I hope you really enjoy that program. It's wonderful. Good. Okay. 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. Tonight's format will be as follows. I will introduce each item on the agenda, after which the City Representative will present information about it. Thereafter, members of the Local Planning Agency will have the opportunity to ask questions of the City Representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comment will need to please approach the lectern and for the comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the clock countdown. Citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizen 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. Okay. Our first item, will anybody be giving testimony this evening? Okay. So it doesn't look good. I have to swear anybody in. Okay. The first item on our agenda tonight is to approve the August 12, 2026 LPA minutes. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes? Nope. Okay. Hearing none, do I hear a motion to accept the minutes as submitted? I second. Sally made the motion. Deborah seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passed unanimously. Okay. All right. Item 1B, information and educational discussion with the local planning agency regarding the application of city compatibility standards. So George, we will kick it over to you. What should we know? Thank you, Chair Benjamin. Members of the LPA, George Kinney, on behalf of Community Development Department. So I know that when we do orientation with you all, you kind of get a brief feel for what compatibility is and how we apply it. But we wanted to kind of take a little bit of a deeper dive with you all and just kind of talk to you about the history of it, how we use it, how we apply it, and how we use it when we're reviewing particularly design review projects, which is primarily what you all see. So I'm just going to walk through these slides very quickly. I want, this should be very informal. Feel free to cut me off with questions at any time or you can wait to the end, however you want to do it. I, you know, we're, I'm just here to walk through the slides and then answer any questions you have on it. I think it'll probably be easiest just to do questions as each slide goes through versus back and forth. Sure. That sounds good. So very quickly, I just want to kind of lay out the history of our compatibility policy. So our compatibility policy has been in play, believe it or not, since 1997. It goes back to our original comp plan, not our original comp plan, but one of our first comp plans, our 2015 comprehensive plan future land use element. And that an objective P outlines the compatibility provision. And then you can see in the slide, the three comp plan, the two comp plans that have followed the 2025 Dunedin plan and the strive for 2035. And in each of those plans, this objective was carried over. This policy was carried over. And for the 2025 plan, it was, it became objective O. And then for the, as you might know, in the current plan, it is objective 2.9. It basically is the exact same language carried through all three of those documents. So it has been something that the city has basically promoted and promulgated since, since the mid 1990s. The other thing that kind of, and part of the reason for that is there, as you, as you all know, the city conducts several surveys, a survey every year. Every other year, it's a business survey. The off year, then it's, it's, it's the resident survey. And those are one of, that's one of the strongest things that comes back in those surveys, is that we need to not overpower our existing infrastructure and development. We need to make sure that what we're doing is compatible, which is what's, with what's already existing on the ground. So again, that's part of the reason that's carried through. We do apply our compatibility provisions to all development approvals requests, including what you see, design review. And as you know, when you get a design review package, you see both the applicant's compatibility summary, and then our staff compatibility summary. And then you also see a third compatibility analysis in a design review through the architectural review committee, where they're kind of looking more at the architectural compatibility, and we're looking more at the land use compatibility. From a staff perspective, we always have considered the compatibility provisions to carry as much or more weight than any other design standard. So as you know, when you get a staff report for design review, you see those dimensional standards outlaid in that staff report, i.e. what are the minimum side yards? What's the, what's the minimum front yard? What's the height? What's the density? Those are the dimensional standards that are outlined in the land development code for every zoning category. And this we use as basically another dimensional standard. And as you can see, based off this first slide, it has been historically and consistently applied. Now, it's probably been applied a little bit more aggressively since I've been here. You know, I'm not sure how strong we were doing it in the past, but it's certainly something that this commission values and that we, we take pride in making sure that we're, we're providing a development that makes sense for the context in the area in which it's going. So George, going back to that penultimate bullet, you're saying that they could meet all the other design standards setbacks and so forth, but still not be compatible under this. That's, that's exactly right, Mr. Chair. And I have a slide a little bit farther down the road. It's going to talk about entitlements as it applies to those dimensional standards. And, and I'll, I'll, I'll dive into that a little deeper when we get there. This next slide just, it really just shows you this is the policy and this is the element that's, that currently exists in the 2035 plan. You're not going to be able to see all that. So I did a little, some bullets on the left-hand side that kind of summarize what's in there. But there, in the heading under objective 2.9, there is a statement that says development and redevelopment deemed not compatible will be denied. So that is a shall statement. So that, that puts an emphasis on that compatibility provision as it's applied to particular projects. The provision clearly instructs applicants that approved heights may be substantially less than zoning allows. So that's under 2.9.1.1. And you can see that highlighted as well. And I'll just read that quickly. It says land development code provisions concerning heights in individual districts or areas establish only the maximum height allowed and the actual permissible height is a decision to be determined by compatibility analysis during design review or other development approvals. Approved heights may be substantially less based on this compatibility analysis. So again, you know, it's just saying that we've got our dimensional standards and again, I'll get to that entitlement provision, but we've got our dimensional standards. It doesn't mean you have an inherent right to the maximum of those standards because you have to meet all of our code provisions, all of our policy statements. And this is, this, this plays into that. And there are other features that play into it as well. Plats play into it. Deborah lives along Edgewater Drive. Perfect example. I'm going to take a little sidebar here. So the minimum setback in where Deborah lives is 25 feet, but those homes are much farther back than 25 feet. Well, why is that? Because there's a plat out there that shows a 40 foot step back, a setback. Now, if a property owner comes in and says, well, I want to move to the 25 feet, we would apply compatibility and say, you've got two things working against you. You've got the plat that's saying your, your home should be set back 40 feet. And you've got the context of that neighborhood where all those homes are set back 40 feet. And imagine one coming forward and blocking those views and what the neighbors would probably, how they would probably feel about that. So that's just an example of just one item of, you know, in that case of plat that might, that might play into a compatibility look. Our compatibility provisions were the basis for the South Dunedin overlay. So many of you were here for that, for that fun, for that fun exercise. But a lot of what is going on down there. So as you know, the South Dunedin overlay is that area south of basically south of Scottsdale between New York and Alt 19. And there are special provisions that go into play for any, any substantial or new development that takes place down there. And they center around architectural compatibility, height compatibility, which includes the daylight. I'm not going to get into all of it, but there are several provisions in there that hit on compatibility in general. So those are actually embedded in our land development code. So you can see now where the compatibility provisions are transferring from policy into legislation through our land development code. And we're working to do more of that with this up, with this rewrite that you guys know that we're working on right now. Compatibility accounts for impacts, the light, air and view. So that's the massing piece of it. I have some, some slides to talk about that a little bit. This is just from a, this is purely a personal point of view, this last bullet, but more than any other provision, I believe this drives the built environment for Dunedin more than anything else that we have. I honestly do. And I think it's, it's just, it allows, it gives your planning staff the opportunity to look at the context of an area, understand what's happening in that area and then complement that development. Or it's given us the opportunity to say, this area needs to do something different because there's a plan here that talks about this, or there's a new zoning implementation. So we want mixed use. And then that's the catalyst piece of it. So, and I'll, I got a slide on that as well. So I'll get to that catalyst versus entitlement piece. But last bullet is, you know, this is what we think creates the Dunedin charm, you know, more, probably more than any other provision that we look at. Okay. George, before we go on, any questions anyone have on what he just covered? Okay. All right. Yeah, shoot. Only because I know it's going to come up down the road and don't let me go down a rabbit hole here. But the property that's sitting right behind the bowling alley and all the rumors and fun with that does, because of state law, is not going to really apply. This is not going to apply to that. Correct? It doesn't apply for a couple of provisions. So you're right. So we've got a live local project that has come forward. Live local, as you may know, is an affordable housing initiative promulgated by the state. But what it does is preempt local zoning authority on certain, for certain things. And what it does for a live local project specifically is it preempts, doesn't preempt it, but it allows for heights that you wouldn't normally allow for on a certain property. It allows for excess floor area ratio that you wouldn't normally allow for. It allows for substantial reductions in parking, which you wouldn't normally have. And it allows for dense, it allows for significant density. So that property that you're talking about is a four acre site. It actually has seven development rights left on it. But under live local, they are allowed up to 30 units to the acre, and it trumps the underlying land use. So that's the preemption that the state makes. So that is a project that will basically skirt compatibility for just those four categories. Everything else applies. Are architectures going to apply? You know, everything else that would be done in a design review kind of deal would apply. But the really interesting piece of this is none of that goes to public hearing. So it has to be administratively approved. So if they meet the administrative design criteria, then we are obligated to approve the project. Is that not coming through? I've heard both sides. Is that not coming through? I know it doesn't matter to my knowledge that they don't, how am I trying to say this? They, we really don't have a say because it's- You will not see it. State law. Yep. Nope. You will not see it. Nope. Are you going to kind of guide that? Because clearly the public opinion as well is going to come up later. Can you please just make sure later down the road, guide us as to- I'll be happy to come back and report as it progresses. It's in its infancy right now. Yeah. And there's a lot of things that, you know, I don't know if the developer's pro form is going to work in the end or not. Right. There, you know, there are a lot of off-site improvements that would need to be made, signalization improvements, intersection improvements. So I think there's, you know, I don't want to get too far out in front of this thing because I'm not sure they can come back and really make it work. But if they can, just so you know, what we're applying is the design review process, only it's administrative. With the exception of height and density, they're going to meet everything else that they would normally have to meet for a design review project that would go through public hearings. Just kind of keep us happy to do it. Involved. Yeah. And George, just building on what Tim was saying, because I'm hearing some buzz out in the community and they're thinking like, what is going on in Dunedin? They think it's a municipality thing here and it's not. We're preempted. But I think we've got to make sure that we get some communication out there so that people aren't pointing the blame at our city and using that to support whatever views they might want regarding Amendment 3 and other things. We are preempted by the state here. So I don't know if there's a way to get that out with communications or whatnot. For sure. We'll keep on top of that. Yeah. And believe me, you know, the city administration knows about it. You know, it's not a secret. We just need John Q. Public. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Next slide. So the LPA, like I kind of mentioned this already, but the LPA receives benefits of separate compatibility reviews. So as you know, the first step to a design review is the Architectural Review Committee. And that Architectural Review Committee, their job is basically to look at that project and say, hey, developer, do you meet one of the five Cooper Johnson architectural styles that the city requires? And if you do, do you have those elements in place? And how can we improve that project? So when they're doing that, they're basically referring that when they're done, it's coming to you with their seal of approval. It might be subject to conditions or whatever, but that is their architectural compatibility review piece of the process. And then as you know, as part of a design review process, you get both a compatibility analysis from the applicant as well as from staff. And this is just a kind of a, kind of a high level view of what we look at as we're putting that review together. So we're looking at nearby existing development patterns. So like, for instance, you know, are we in a neighborhood that has zero lot line? Or are we in a neighborhood that has really deep setbacks and lush side yards? You know, do we have a neighborhood that's got parking pushed to the rear? Is it a mixed use neighborhood? So we're looking at all those things. We're looking at all of our future planning documents. And we kind of mentioned these to you in orientation too. We have all of those corridor plans. So we have the Patricia Avenue plan. We have the Main Street plan. Those all come into play as we're looking at these, at these, at compatibility. We have the CRA master plan. And by the way, I didn't even mention Matt's here from the Economic Development Department too. So if you have any questions from a downtown perspective, he's here as well. So we have form-based corridor plans. As I mentioned, CRA master plan, our multimodal plans. You know, how do those play in? Because inside of that multimodal plan, we have our Bell Trees street improvements, our micromobility improvements, and our golf cart plan. So, right? So all of that stuff kind of plays in. And then we kind of start and think about, okay, do any of these future plans demand a catalyst project? Is the area developing the way these future plannings, these future, these corridors envision that area to grow? Or what do we need to do? Do we need to prompt that catalyst plan through this first design reveal? Or is there already a catalyst project in place? And then we can start to mirror what's going on. I mean, think of Azul Apartments. If you all recall Azul Apartments over there at Pinehurst, they had, we were just introducing the FXM zoning there, the mixed-use zoning. We were getting away from the traditional cookie-cutter neighborhood business, general business zoning categories, and trying to get something more, some more life into that particular area. And when Azul came in, they were the first ones in under that new FXM, right? So they were the first ones that had to, remember, there was a lot of discussion about why isn't the building being pushed back like all the other ones? Well, it's because this area envisioned zero setback, facing the public realm, creating that environment so people can walk and get to other places. So that, in my mind, was a true catalyst project. And the next project that comes in in that area under FXM is going to have to mirror what happened there. Or, you know, because that zoning category requires an architectural piece and a setback piece that's different than traditional zoning categories, what we call Euclidean zoning categories. Can I have to ask a question? Go ahead. On Cooper John, you know, I thought about this. What? Oh, on Cooper John, on our architectural booklet, have we ever thought about adding another style? I know the Arc, the Architecture Review Committee wants to kind of take a look at that. I don't know if, I don't know if we've ever gotten to a point where we said, yeah, that's something we need to do or budget for or anything at this point. I mean, I'm just curious. Are you thinking of another style? We did add the sixth style to the south overlay, if you recall. Right, that's correct. But we did, but that's specific to the overlay, correct? Yeah, yeah. That sixth style. So, you know, I guess if you do any other overlays in other parts of the city, you could incorporate a sixth or handle it that way. Or would you actually go back and say, these designs have stood us in very good steed, but is it time to look and say, do we need to, are they good? Are they going to continue to be the classical designs? Or should we add another one as we did in the south? I don't know. I think that's a great point. I think maybe it's time to at least reevaluate it. Maybe, like you said, maybe those styles are standing the test of time and nothing needs to be done, but maybe there's some other styles out there. My guess is when the city adopted the Cooper Johnson guidelines, they probably did a little mini-assessment of what styles were kind of out there, and maybe there's something new now that some time has passed. So that's something we can put on our radar, take a look at. Questions? George, I've got one. That third bullet, do those future plans demand a catalyst project to get started? How is that determined if that catalyst is needed, and who and how decides what's an acceptable catalyst? Because it feels like that could be fairly subjective, particularly for a developer coming in. It's typically the zoning, Chair Benjamin. So what, again, going back to Azul, so, you know, prior to, well, let's take Patricia. So prior to Patricia Avenue, the corridor study, the zoning down there was the zoning that you would have for, like, strip centers, that old Euclidean kind of push everything back, have the parking in the front against the street. So what that plan says was we need to rezone that corridor to basically a form-based mixed-use district. Let's pull the buildings closer to the street. Let's push the parking to the rear. Let's make sure we have plenty of landscaping. We're creating a street presence. We had the 80 percent build-out for form-based zoning. So when a project finally comes in that either needs a substantial improvement or is coming in as new as a clean slate, that new zoning category is going to apply, and that's going to demand that catalyst project. We're not dictating it, like, personally, but we're not picking it out of the air. It's the zoning that is saying, here's the form of development that you need to do to make this go. Okay. So that's, that was Azul. So like Azul, you know, obviously that was a short-term rental project, probably not the greatest thing in the world, but the design is what drives it, and then that design will, over time, be able to accommodate different kinds of uses, and you can kind of get away from that, but again, what I call Euclidean stuff, and get into more form over function. So that's, that's kind of the thought. So it's not, but a lot of times there might be a project already there on the ground. So we might have done a corridor study on Main Street, for instance, and there was already a really good project there that stood out, that stands out to suggest this is exactly what we want based on what we're going to zone this strip, and you've already got it there. So you can point to it, you're going to, we're going to be able to say, your zoning is going to drive something like this, and this, this catalyst project was already basically, it's not really a catalyst project, because it was already there, but it was a precursor of what the city envisioned for that particular area. Okay. So it's subject to the sort of the vision and expectations. Exactly. That is in place at the time. Exactly. That could evolve. And that can all change, you know, with public, you know, as we go to update those things, as you know, from a planning perspective, the comp plan, any of our corridor plans demand a lot of public input. And again, we go back to the surveys for a lot of input as well. And we conduct surveys as part of it as well. So there's, we, and typically there's a stakeholder group that's representing the folks out there that want to see certain things. These guys are actually going through it right now. So they're going to be updating their CRA master plan, their downtown master plan. And one of the things, I know one of the things they're struggling with is like uh, uh, uh, the, the vendors, like the, um, the carts, the, the pedal, the peddlers, the, the, the pub, what do you call them? Pub, pub, pub, pedal pubs, the pedal pubs, like Nashville. So one of the things they're going to do is they're going to, they've got, they're going to be working with, um, for Pinellas and they're going to get into that plan, which is a little bit older at this point. And they're going to start asking these questions and they're going to go to their stakeholders and say, how do you want to see this downtown go, you know, over time? And, um, Just elaborate a little bit. Matt Jackson, Economic Development Department. Pleasure to be here. Um, just first and foremost, just want to thank George, uh, for inviting me out tonight. Um, it's, him and his staff have been wonderful to work with, so it's good to be sitting here with him. I'll take this one later. No, no. So, so yes, we, we've, um, we're working with Ford Pinellas. Uh, they've been a great partner already. Uh, it's going to be a pretty sizable cost project typically, but working with them, they're going to provide their services, uh, without a fee. Um, but we're also working with another consultant, but then yes, like, like George, um, just discussed, we'll be taking into, um, many things to look at of where we want to guide the CRA area, um, before it sunsets and then after sunsets in 2033 and things such as, uh, things coming up, such as people pedaling, um, on the street, uh, having pedal pubs, you know, do we want that type of thing in the, in the downtown area or not? So there's, yes, a lot to contemplate. But, but the point of it, at the end of that document, there'll be recommendations that come out of it and some of it could be form form related. And, and that's where, you know, again, that would play in to our compatibility piece. So if you are looking for a catalyst project, how would you find a developer for that? Is that something that you all would go after or? It's typically pretty, it's typically organic to be honest with you. It's, it's folks coming to us with a, with an idea. We kind of, we, we do a lot of pre-app meetings with developers to kind of talk to them about where we think it needs to go. I think I mentioned at one here, at one hearing one time, you know, before you see a design review, it's been with me for a year and a half at a minimum. And if it's a downtown project, you know, the economic development's involved. Um, so, but it, it, most of the time it's, it's organic. The developers looking at, they just find that, that place that's for sale. It's the right price. They can make it work from a pro forma perspective and, and, and they, and they move. But, um, You know, I would say part of that too is just relationships. Um, as you know, as you all know, Bob Ironsmith has been here for, you know, 30 years. So the relationships that he's built and he's, um, facilitate over all these years, you know, a lot of folks understand, you know, what we're done eating is now the vision, uh, how it is to work with us. And then they just have a direct line to them, um, to find out, you know, are there any properties within the area that, you know, could be developed, um, for whatever use that they're looking into. And they just, they just had that resource at their fingertips. And, and, and they can incent sometimes too, depending on what type of housing. So the flats on main, if you recall, that was the affordable housing project. So the city, the city incentivized it with over $600,000 of, uh, credit cash, I guess. Yeah. So that $610,000 was, um, they're going through a state application where they went through a state application to be provided tax credits at the time that a city contribution amount was a $610,000. And then we're also working with another developer on union for another affordable housing project. Um, the, the, uh, seed money as we'd call it was only $75,000 at the time. So that was, that was nice. Good saving for the city, but we're, uh, we're dedicated to try to keep that moving forward. Okay. Just a couple more bullets on this slide. Um, we also look at street design, local county, state, and CRA street types. A lot of that is, gets back to the setback kind of things. As you, as you guys know, you typically deeper setback off of a, off a state highway than you would be off of a local road. Um, surrounding zoning, we always look at, you know, is it consistent? Is it the same kind of zoning? Is it all single family or is it a mix of duplexes? Is it got a little bit of mixed use in it? Uh, is it a transitional district? This is a key piece as well. So you might have, uh, the downtown core, which is intended to be a little bit more dense. And then you're going to have that piece that transitions you into your residential neighborhoods behind. So that transitional ring, a lot of times has a little bit of a different flavor to it. It's usually a, you know, a little bit more dense and urban, but it's not, but it's, but it's also getting softer on the backside towards the residential development that's behind it. So George, how does it, how does it work? You know, we're, you know, obviously residential neighborhoods are going to stay residential. Those, you know, we're never going to get density out of there, but you've got that transitional area. But you know, we're, our population hasn't grown in decades. And how do we start to grow some of those transitional corridors to get more density, more mixed use, if we're also limited by older properties that are much smaller and aren't getting the density or efficiency out of those properties? I mean, because this not only affects our population growth, but even our tax base. Yeah. I think you're going to see some of that in this rewrite. One of the things we're talking about is taking some of those Euclidean zones that are kind of transitioning backwards and making them a little bit more mixed use, but keeping the density underneath them. So, you know, density is not driven by the zoning in Florida. Density is driven by the land use. So it's a little bit of a different, different deal depending on the land use. But a lot of the transitional zones are sitting there. A lot of times the developers aren't taking advantage of what they have either. So Chipotle is a great example. So Chipotle had, they had a residential density, I think of 24 to the acre there. So they could have gotten, I think that spot was maybe just short, about a half acre or so. So they had 12, 13, 14 units they could have done in addition to the FAR that they had for the Chipotle. So a lot of times it's the developer just saying, well, we're not going to take advantage of all those rights that we have. We just want the commercial property. So we've somehow got it. So part of what we're doing with the rewrite is trying to incentivize, and we're working with Bob and his team, how do we get developers to start doing exactly what you're talking about? Creating a little bit more density in those transitional zones. You know, still being soft on the backside, pulling them forward, but giving them a little bit more density to do it. So that's the stuff we're working on now. It's called, I think our consultant mentioned it to you all, we're thinking about it, it's called a CMU, a commercial mixed use zone or city mixed use zone. Yeah, I think it's going to be important that we really start looking at the long-term tax base, especially depending upon what goes on. You know, we've got to secure that tax base so we can keep the quality of life. Well, in certain corridors, it's perfect in certain corridors. So this is Main Street I'm talking about here, which has got transit already serving it. Now, you know, who knows what cutbacks and what's going to happen down the road, but, you know, there are certain corridors that definitely lend themselves to exactly what you're talking about, and I think that's what you're going to see as we kind of keep bringing this back. Good, good. And then, and the last thing I want to talk about was unincorporated pieces too, because there are a lot of unincorporated pockets in the city, so sometimes when we're looking at a particular area, we're also looking at county, at county property. So we've got to, we've got to sometimes do the research on the county side and see what they've got sitting there and then what the, what kind of density and what kind of rights that those offer, because you can't assume that they're going to annex. They could develop in, from a county perspective as they're sitting in unincorporated, unincorporated areas. So that is also part of the review. So there, there's a lot of pieces, I guess the takeaway is a lot of pieces that go into these evaluations when we, when we, as we're working through them. And then I just, before you go forward, that they've been working on the program for over a year. Are they still on schedule with that program in-house where developers say can get on there? And you, you mentioned, this is funny, you said that eight months ago, maybe the Chipotle thing. Are they going to be able to get on, check the property, see like a developer? Oh, there's, there's a lot more here than we knew we could put there. Is that still on schedule? Because I remembered it being, we're going to get, get it brought to us a couple times this summer and then it was going to be up and running through the city. It is slightly delayed, but the reason for that is we can't bring you anything until October of next year that is more burdensome than what already exists. There's a Senate bill out there, 180. I think most of you know about it, but it prevents us from amending our land development code to anything that is more burden, to anything that's considered more burdensome or more onerous for a developer. So we shouldn't expect that anytime soon? Well, we're going to get it to you. I'm, I think Kathy right now, Kathy's our project manager. I think she's planning on probably something before the end of the year, you know, to, just to get the thing started so that we're, we're geared up and ready to go by next October. Okay. Okay. Real quick, a slide on catalyst versus entitlements. We talked a little bit about catalysts, you know, what we'd say is it's intended to spur a new development pattern. That catalyst may have already occurred, exactly what we talked about. So there might be areas where something's already happened. That is exactly what you're planning for. There might be areas that haven't done anything for something new that you're planning for. Um, entitlements, uh, just briefly. And, you know, I don't want to step on any, any, uh, I don't want to go too far into it legally because I'm not an attorney, but Laura's in there. She'll slap me. She'll slap my hand if I get, but what a project receives once the project is. So what we, what I consider entitlements is what a project receives once the project has been evaluated against all requirements and provisions. So you've got your dimensional standards. That's part of it, but you've also got open space provisions. You've got parking standards. You've got all of these other things that a land development code requires, and you're really not entitled to develop until you meet all of those provisions, or you ask for variances or whatever, or, or parking bank kinds of things, whatever, whatever needs to be done. Um, those entitlements include consistency, not only with the land development code, but it also includes consistency, uh, consistency with the master plan. Now the master plan, as you guys know, is really policy. So it's, and that's why we're taking a lot more of that now and starting to put it in the land development code, i.e. the South Dunedin overlay. So we're going to continue to do that. And you'll see with this code rewrite, when we get it to you, that you're going to see, you're going to see a lot more things. And there is, there is a bill that was passed this year, and I don't remember the number, but it is a compatibility bill that the state passed, where you have to identify, you have to bring your policy forward into your land development code and identify mitigation strategies. So we're working on that now. That'll be something that comes as part of that package. Um, so zoning dimensional standards are provided to, as a limit, uh, but you're not necessarily entitled to those standards unless all the provisions are met. So, you know, I use the example of the Platte and where, and where, uh, Deborah lives, you know, that's a prime example. There could be a Platte in place somewhere that's just saying, you've got to, you've got to preserve this area for wetlands. Uh, you've got to do, you've got to, we don't want your setback to be, but your code might not address that. So there are other underlying factors that, that, that come into play as, as the developers working through the project and they're starting to look at their deeds and everything else that come into play. And that's part of the reason we do the DRC, the design review committee, is because we have all the offices at the table at that point. And they're, they're, they have all of this information from their perspective realms. And it's, it's great. So a lot of what they do also comes into play. George, how do, how do we stack up to other municipalities? Are we the same? Are we a little more prescriptive, less prescriptive? Where do we, where do we, where do we? We had it in Clearwater. So I'll let Matt kind of talk about that. Sure. So before, um, uh, working in economic development here, the city of Dunedin, I was a planner for both, um, city of Clearwater and Oldsmar. So there's some similarities where they have their land development codes with the dimensional standards. Um, but one of the great things I appreciate about this compatibility study is without having this compatibility, uh, it's very difficult to write a code. So as you're putting these different projects in, it does actually fit in with the surroundings. Places are developed under different zoning codes. Um, so you have nonconformities out there. So, uh, there were in, in both areas, there were some criteria and such that you would, you would have to follow when you're looking at new developments, but nothing like we have here. So I, I really appreciate, um, the ability here to not only look at, as George talked about, your height, your density and such, but if it's compatible with surrounding areas. So it's, it's much stronger here than other places that work done. Okay. So it's much stronger. So it's behooves the developer to make sure they're talking with you early and deeply. And we, yeah, we meet with them often. And you know, we're, we want the project to go, but we want it to go Dunedin. We want it to go in the Dunedin way. We don't want it to go necessarily in their way. So we, you know, we discourage corporate architecture, obviously, because we, so there are some things we do, but again, uh, you know, I think people that come into this town and the city really appreciate what the belt environment looks like. And we want to maintain that, but we also need to enhance it. Like you said, yeah. Yeah. How do the developers feel about it? Do they, does, is it advantageous to us for the developers to know this, or does this create some hesitancy on them at times to want to come in and develop knowing this compatibility pieces in there? I'm going to say a little bit of each. So there's, um, we've had some developers that come in and they know exactly how, how we operate here. Uh, but they've committed themselves to a particular piece of property for a particular project. And they're, they're just going to walk, they're going to walk through it. Uh, you don't see, I actually don't see too many people walk away once they kind of get to us. They've, they've kind of done their homework. They know what's going to be required of them, but there are occasions where, um, that there's, I remember one occasion where we went back and said, you know, you're, you're just too high and you're just, can you, can you bring it down one more level? And they, they, they couldn't make it work. So they did walk. So it, I mean, it happens. I'm not going to say it doesn't. Um, uh, 444 Skinner obviously is one. So that's another one. Yeah. So, and then that's one where they, you know, we, that's one where we tried to work. The relationship wasn't as good for that one as it normally is for, for most of the developers. So that one was a little bit more contentious, but typically they don't go that way. Okay. Paul, any questions? You've been fairly quiet tonight. Okay. Any other questions before we move on? Okay. Uh, just a couple of quick, you've seen this, this is just an idea of how we do it. So, you know, this is, uh, this was, this is the 444 Skinner example. So you see the property outlined in red. We took 25 properties immediately surrounding. We typically look at 500 feet, but it depends on the context of the neighborhood. If there are certain parameters that lock it in at less than or more than that, then we'll do that. Um, you know, we try to provide the average of the existing story height and then the average of the actual physical height as part of that. So you can, you can see that, but again, you know, everything that's been baked into that is the, you know, there's been more stuff baked into it. That's on a state highway and you're looking at the surrounding properties. Most of them are a little bit closer to the road here, but most of them have significant open space in each of their lots. So, you know, those are the kinds of things that, and this is a transitional area, right? So this is one of those areas where you're pushing back into the residence behind. So, you know, so those are all the kinds of things that go into that. Yeah. I still remember this when we reviewed this and we, we made our recommendation and you know, that's, that's not an easy property to develop. Um, but at the same time, the properties around it are pretty dated and you know, I would hate for that to hold back where we have an opportunity to improve density and put a catalyst in. Understood. But I just had to say that. Well, and I get it. I get it. And, but you know, and they have, they had three stories behind them. I think we were okay with three stories. It was the fourth that just made it hard for us. Yeah. But you know, this is an, I, you saw this. So this was, this is something that, this is what they had originally planned for that particular lot. And then this is what they gave us. So you just see the difference. It just closes off all the open space. It took the parking away. Uh, it was just a much, uh, more massive project. And then to kind of follow up on that, we, we partnered with Pinellas County, uh, forward Pinellas and to just kind of show what that would look like physically on the ground. And we did those view perspectives as you'll recall. So a lot of times we'll do this. If something's controversial, we'll go forward Pinellas. Uh, they have the ability to create these for us. And, um, and we do use these so that these are actual heights and masses, uh, as that you can see as part of the project. And we just felt like that one, but that if you can see where that third story comes in, it would have been nice and even with that existing, that existing facility behind it. But, uh, we just, we were hard pressed to recommend the four story. Needs a mural. It looks a little boxy. I gotta be honest. Uh, George would, when we think about, you know, cause I remember this project cause one of the reasons it was four story was they put the parking underneath it because of resiliency where that level is over the sea level and everything. You know, I mean, is this going to be a challenge we're going to see more of and particularly on the areas that are closer to the coastline? Um, this was not a property that was in the floodplain, but, but they, they took their parking away. So they had to put it underneath because they, they went lot line to lot line. Yeah. And again, they had to leave the driveway for the access for the property behind them, if I remember correct. Yeah. Which was all one property at one time and pre-planned. So, but you know, you, I, there, it was a tough one. There was no doubt it was a tough one, but, um, the idea, the point being the context here in our minds just didn't play. Now, if he's, if he, and, and we had Skinner, now don't forget at the same time we had Skinner coming down and creating a more complete street look. Now, north of where the Skinner project is, you get back to a four lane divided. Four stories maybe works there. You got Mies across the, you got Mies across the way at seven or eight or whatever that is. And you can sort of point to that and say, okay, four stories might work here. We just didn't feel like it worked here. Okay. But that's, that, that took its course. I, I, I do have to say that, and thank you. Your name, Matt. Matt, yes. Um, you know, 1977, and I, I think that was under Hubbard, right? John Hubbard, 1977, when we began the, the compatibility. It's been a long time. Yep. 2D, whatever. I mean, really it was very visionary. It was very visionary and it really compatibility has helped us retain a lot of the, the character. And so, you know, Matt, I really appreciated you saying that, that you've worked in other jurisdictions, other local government, where they did not have such a strong feeling and legacy of compatibility. Thank you. It's, um, it, it, I understand your concerns. Absolutely. I think the intent would be to help build a framework where we can have successful projects and still maintain the character that, um, so many people have worked so hard to, to create. And unfortunately, uh, sometimes, uh, you know, a project doesn't work behind them. So many people do want to come to Dunedin that, that hopefully we, we create that inviting environment that, that we, uh, don't know. That's kind of where I'm coming from is how do we get more density so we can maybe help alleviate some of the housing and the pricing issues and the attainability here. And also at the same time, I'm a financial guy. I want to make sure our tax base stays strong so we can keep the quality of life we come to expect and, and want living here. It's why most of us are here. Yeah. Well, in the short eight months that I've been here, um, I've already worked with now three housing projects. So I'm one under construction with the flats. And so, uh, uh, hopefully that will continue because I do understand your concerns. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I, I think that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any other questions. Any questions for staff? Okay. Any public input? Okay. Well, okay. She chased them away. We ran them out. We ran them out. Wow. I hope they show back up to the Citizens Academy. I'm a little worried what we've done here. That rain chased them away. That's it. That's it. Okay. We'll go ahead and close public input there. Just do want to thank you for that presentation. That was excellent. Yeah. It was good. It was very informative. And thanks for giving us an opportunity to share our perspectives. Yeah, for sure. And you'll get a lot more. I think we all love this town. You'll get a lot more input as part of that rewrite too. You're going to see some, I think some pretty cool things. Cause you saw the trail oriented design. I think that's going to be cool. Excellent. You're going to see the, the, the mixed use categories for the corridors. I think that's going to be really cool too. Okay. George is, um, Skinner is, is that in downtown core or is that its own corridor? Will it be its own corridor? There's a portion of it. I think, I think all of Skinner until it turns to Main Street. Well, it turns to, so it comes out of the CRA just past, uh, Bass, right? Correct. Yeah. I'll have to double check the map. Yeah. So Main Street's part in the CRA, but as you go further east, it obviously goes out. Yeah. Yeah. How about north? Yeah. The first, uh, so that 444 Skinner projects in the CRA, that was downtown core. I thought it went to that next street. I think it did go, I don't know if it went to, I think it went to, from downtown core to downtown residential DR. Okay. That's the transition. Okay. Yeah. Uh, Jackson. Yeah. Jackson Street. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't bring the CRA map with me, but it's, okay. No, I was just curious. It does go on the north side. Yeah. A little bit. Thanks for jumping in. I knew you, I knew you were going to be good for that at some point. Okay. No motion needed on this. Um, any deliberation or any comments anybody's got? Did you feel this was helpful hearing from George? Yeah. Yes. Very good, George. And thank you for taking the time for us on that. Okay. Um, any other business that anyone sees or would like to see at a future meeting? Okay. George, we got up next for, uh, we have something up for next month. Yeah. Got it. Good. Yeah. What, what happened to that on the causeway? It looks like the signage and everything's come down. Is that project dead? They came back. They said they were had, had some problem with financing and I'm wondering if they, are they still having problems? Yeah. I haven't heard anything. Haven't heard anything? Yeah. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Those townhomes. Yeah. It's like eight of them. Or marker one. Um, Hey George, real quick, uh, any update on the Coke plant? Have they completed their, um, cleanup or anything? Is that still in? I don't believe so. No, it's not done yet. Okay. We think it's a few more months out. A few more months. Yep. Okay. Yep. Got it. Okay. Good. All right. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Seconded by Sally. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. We're adjourned. All right. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.