Good morning and welcome to the August meeting of the Local Planning Agency for Pinellas County, Florida. Today's public hearing by the Local Planning Agency is being held to review proposed amendments to the Pinellas County Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas and other items relative to the county's planning and growth management program. The Local Planning Agency is an independent advisory board charged with reviewing and making recommendation to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on each case to be heard today. The Board of County Commissioners will make the final decision on each item at a separate public hearing currently scheduled to be heard on October the 27th, 2026 at 6 p.m. The Board of County Commissioners meeting will be held at 333 Chestnut Street in the Palm Room. The procedure for today's hearings will be as follows. Staff will make a brief presentation, not to exceed 20 minutes. The applicant will then present their case, again, not to exceed 20 minutes. We will then hear from proponents who will be given three minutes each unless representing a group of five or more, in which case they will receive 10 minutes. Non-speakers must be present and waive their time in order to receive the 10 minutes. We will then hear from opponents who likewise will be given three minutes each unless representing a group of five or more, in which case they will receive 10 minutes. Similarly, non-speakers must be present and waive their time. Finally, the applicant will be given the opportunity to close, answer questions, or respond to any concerns raised by the opponents or proponents for a period of time, not to exceed five minutes. Before your presentation, please give your name and address for the record. All testimony needs to be under oath, so if you have not been sworn today and you plan to testify, please rise now and be sworn. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give the board today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please signify by saying I do. Thank you. Also, please fill out the slip on the table and present it to the clerk before you speak. There will not be continuing rebuttal, so please try to present all information and concerns while you are at the podium. If you plan to provide letters, written comments, studies, or other documents in response to the LPA's findings and recommendations, those must be received by the zoning section seven days prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting in order to be included in the record that will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. With that, we will proceed into the agenda. At this time, we will be at item two, the quasi-judicial statement. Counsel? Thank you. Good morning. Kirby Kreider, Assistant County Attorney. Please note the matters heard by the local planning agency are quasi-judicial in nature. Please note that only competent, substantial, fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the Board in deciding the matters before it. Peer speculation or opinion not based on competent fact cannot be considered. Lay testimony with fact-based support including, but not limited to, meeting minutes, surveys, engineering reports, et cetera, may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Kreider. We will now move to item three, approval of the vote. The minutes for the July 8, 2026 LPA hearing. So, at this time, do I have any comments or questions from the Board on the minutes? Otherwise, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion by Hamilton. Second. Second by Everett. Everett. I'm sorry. My seating check. Second by Hendricks. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. That brings us to item 4A1, ZON 26-05. Staff, you may proceed when ready. Good morning. Our first case on the agenda is ZON 26-05. This is a request for a rezoning. Can I have the PowerPoint brought up, please? So, the subject property, it's approximately .44 acres. It's located on the north side of Robin Avenue, which is approximately 164 feet east of U.S. Alt 19 and Palm Harbor, north of downtown Palm Harbor. Zoning Atlas amendment. The request is from C2, which is general, commercial, and services, to R2, single-family residential. The proposed use is one single-family home. The existing use, it's vacant. It's a platted lot of record. No change to the land use, which is residential low. You can see the subject site here on the map. Again, to the east of Alt 19, there on the north side of Robin Avenue, all along the frontages of Alt 19 is different office, commercial, other non-residential uses, starting with the subject property, then back to the east, down these roads, Robin Avenue, Sparrow to the north, Cardinal to the south, is there's single-family residential platted subdivision developed with single-family homes. And showing the existing zoning map on the left with the proposed on the right, again, the change from C2 to R2, which is the rest of that neighborhood's designation. You can see a commercial along the corridor there, which is usually only about a parcel deep that runs along the corridor and then residential behind on both sides of Alt 19. This is the subject property. Looking at it from Robin Avenue. Again, it's currently vacant. And then looking east at the adjacent single-family homes down Robin Avenue. And then the property that's directly to the west that fronts on U.S. Alt 19 is an office use. So the C2 zoning district allows for uses such as retail office, personal business service, and multifamily uses. It's 10,000-square-foot minimum lot size, maximum building height of 45 feet. Single-family residential uses are not allowed. And the proposed R2 allows for single-family detached homes and their accessory uses, 7,500-square-foot minimum lot size, maximum building height of 35 feet, and a maximum impervious surface ratio of 0.75. Property has a low flood risk. It's not in a flood hazard area, and it's not in the coastal high hazard area or coastal storm area. Again, the future land use map designation would remain the same, which is residential low, which allows a residential density of up to 5 units an acre. Proposed zoning atlas amendment is compatible with the surrounding development pattern, considering it's a platted subdivision that this property is part of, consistent with the cop plan and the future land use designation. Staff recommends approval and moves forward. The BCC will hear this on October 27th. I'll answer any staff questions that you may have. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none. Thank you, staff. At this time, does the applicant wish to speak? All right. So the applicant has indicated that they do not wish to speak. At this time, we will hear from anyone in the public who wishes to speak in support of application ZON 26-05. Seeing none. Do we have anyone online today? Good morning, Madam Chair. No, there are no participants online. All right. I'll now hear from anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to application ZON 26-05. All right. Seeing none. Applicant, you do have the right to five minutes if you want to make any additional remarks. And he's shaking his head no. All right. Comes back to the board. Unless there's any discussion, I will entertain a motion on application ZON 26-05. I will make a motion to approve case number ZON-26-05. Motion by Oliveri. Second. Second by Hendricks. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank you for your time. The next case will be FLU 25-10. And I see that this is a companion case with ZON 25-08. Staff, is it your intention to present these two cases together? Yes. We're going to present those two cases together. They are the same property. They're related. There's also a development agreement involved with it. So it's pertinent that we hear them together and there will be two votes on it at the end. All right. And do you just need the time for one case or do you need combined time? One case. How much time is available? 20 minutes. Oh, just one case. All right. And is the applicant's counsel here? Yes, sir. Are you okay with consolidated time? Yes. All right. Counsel indicated they are okay with that. So we will now hear a combined presentation on FLU 25-10 and ZON 25-08. And then, counsel Kreider, we will be taking two separate votes at the time we make our decision. Correct. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the local planning agency, my name is Scott Swearingen. I am the long-range planning manager for the county. It's a pleasure to be before you once again, and I appreciate your time. Therefore, I will jump right into things. This is, again, as the Chair had mentioned, this is a combined case, FLU 25-10 and ZON 25-8. They're companion cases. Cube. The subject property, it's approximately 3.22 acres, and it's located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 at the eastern terminus of Timberlaine Road in Palm Harbor. The future land use map amendment case is a request to change the land use from residential low medium to retail off, or I'm sorry, to residential office retail. And the companion zoning atlas case is a request to change the zoning from residential mobile home, mobile manufactured home, and are for one, two, and three-family residential. So there are two zoning districts currently on the property. And it's to change that to one zoning district, which would be the CP Commercial Parkway District. The property is currently vacant. It was a mobile home park. I believe it's been vacant for about a couple decades now. And the proposed use for the property is a restaurant and bar, which is subject to a development agreement. And that development agreement is a very important component of this case, which I'll get into. So that development agreement, which would ride with the zoning if the zoning were to be approved, would provide certain limitations and restrictions on the property that would hold with the property. There are seven worthy of noting here. And the first is that the property shall be limited to a restaurant, bar, and other accessory uses that directly support those principal permitted use. The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with a concept plan. I'll show you that in just a moment. There is a concept plan that has been submitted. So substantially in conformance. So how that concept plan is laid out, where buildings are, parking, access, buffering, things like that, must be substantially in conformance with that if they were to go to site plan with the project. No amplified music is permitted per the development agreement. There is an observation deck that is shown on a concept plan. And that is to be, it shall be for patrons of the restaurant only. And it's not open to the public. So no one to the public can just kind of come in, go up, take a look, hang out a little bit. It's for patrons of the business only. The development standards are limited by the concept plan. So there are setback standards, FAR, impervious surface ratio standards, ultimate size of the building standards that are on that concept plan, which is a part of your packet. And as I just mentioned, those types of things, buffering, whatnot, are listed on that concept plan. And so whatever is developed must be in those confines, which are substantially lower than the future land use and the zoning regulations, I might add. An important component of the development agreement, which is really important to staff, is that no residential uses shall be permitted. The property is within a flood hazard area. And so we like, and per our comprehensive plan, and simply for just being good stewards of the county, we like to keep residential development outside of flood areas. And so per the development agreement, no residential would be permitted on this property anymore. It used to have a mobile home park, so no more residential. And finally, any dock facilities that would be proposed or permitted must comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Impaired Water Body Criteria for Lake Tarpon. That's the gist of the development agreement. And as I mentioned, there is a concept plan attached to it as well, which is in your packet. I won't go into detail here. But it outlines sort of your access drives, your parking, general building location. And it prescribes maximum building size, the type of land use, the impervious surface allowed, the four area ratio. So I'll note that while, well, actually, I'll wait for that. So moving on, location map. This says Timberline Road. Let's get that, let's turn that into Timberlane Road. I'm not sure why our GIS has Timberline Road, but it's Timberlane Road. That's on the north side of the property. You can see, you can make out US-19 on the left side or the west side of that aerial photograph. And on the opposite side, Lake Tarpon. On the north side of Timberline Road and then across the canal, you have a single-family residential to the north. On the south side of the property, directly south, you have some single-family. And then further south, across the water, you have additional residential, some multifamily, some single-family. Directly adjacent to the west of the subject property, between US-19 and that property, is a hotel resort property. So that's your property directly adjacent to the west. A little better oblique view. You can see Timberlane Road there at the north side. You can see where, you can sort of make out some of the access drives from the vacated mobile home park. You can start to see that hotel resort adjacent to the west and some of the residential to the north and south. And then the future land-use map amendment. Right now, the property is residential low. And on the right side of that graphic, you can see that the property would be residential office retail, which would be a continuation from that hotel resort directly to the west. And that's primarily the character along US-19 is that ROR land use. And then similarly with the zoning, the zoning would be changed to Commercial Parkway, which again is the zoning directly adjacent to the west. And then it's a predominant zoning that you'll find along US-19 at Commercial Parkway designation. This is a photograph looking east at the subject property from Timberlane Road. So this is further east from, not at US-19, but a little further in. And so now you can see that subject property there looking. You can barely kind of make out Lake Tarpon there in the distance, I think. And then this is facing the opposite direction from the subject property along Timberlane Road. And you can see across the water, Timberlane Road, the water, and then very close from the water, you can see a residential community there on the north. This is a hotel adjacent to the west. And then this is one more view. This is looking east along Timberlane Road, kind of more closer to US-19. This would be sort of the direct route into the subject property. Current future land use, residential low-medium, generally allows residential dwellings, as you might guess. It also allows, with additional standards and limitations, there are possibilities for institutional office, retail recreation, and other ancillary non-residential uses. Per our comprehensive plan verbatim, the residential low-medium category is generally appropriate in areas served by a complete range of urban services in areas where use and development characteristics are low-medium residential nature, an area serving as a transition between low-density and high-density residential areas, and in areas in close proximity to major employment centers, community and regional shopping centers, and arterial and collector highways. That's a mouthful. That comes from our comprehensive plan when discussing where this designation would be appropriate. RLM designation allows up to 10 residential units per acre, so that is what is on the property right now. When you do the math, that would mean up to 32 residential units could be built by right based on, just based on the land use, obviously, the zoning lot configurations would come into play, and then other site issues would be into play. But simply from a land use perspective, it allows 10 dwelling units per acre on a 3.2-acre parcel. And for non-residential uses, a 0.54 area ratio and a 0.75 impervious surface ratio is permitted. And then that change is proposed, residential office retail, and that allows a range of uses from residential, office retail, light manufacturing, and then in some instances with additional standards and limitations, it requires some other uses, institutional, medium manufacturing, residential, ancillary, non-residential uses. And this category is generally appropriate in locations where it would serve as a transition from more intensive non-residential uses or major roadways to residential office or public, semi-public uses. These areas are typically in close proximity to and served by the arterial roadway network. 24 dwelling units per acre is permitted in the ROR, land use designation, with a 0.55 FAR and a 0.85 ISR for non-residential uses. And that's why it's important where the development agreement comes in. Because while I've just gone through this exhaustive list of uses in the land use, in the land use is where we control floor area ratio, density, and impervious surface, the development agreement and associated concept plan actually limits, well, no residential whatsoever, so the density is 0, would be 0. The floor area ratio would be limited to 0.11, so that would be the FAR on the property. And the impervious surface ratio, which is something that we're very much interested in, is 0.26. So there would be some, what we feel are strong but necessary limitations that would be imposed by the development agreement that would, you know, much further ratchet down what the future land use would permit. And again, that rides with the property. Let me just quickly go over the zoning as well. The companion case, RMH and R4, are the two zoning districts on the property. RMH, as you would guess, it's pretty much for single-family areas, comprised of mobile manufacturing homes, mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and their accessory uses. A maximum height of 35 feet is permitted. Generally have smaller lots, as you might imagine. Commercial uses are not permitted in this zoning district. Commercial uses are also not permitted in the R4 district, and that's intended for single-family, duplex-triplex homes with a similar building height of 35 feet maximum, and then a range of lot sizes, depending on the type of units that you might build. That's the current zoning. And then that zoning would be consolidated into the commercial parkway zoning, which would provide for a range of, generally provides for a range of commercial and office uses, and in certain circumstances would allow for some residential uses. It's intended to be conveniently located with access to arterial highways and transportation facilities, either directly or via service roads. The maximum height in the CP zoning is 75 feet. However, 45 feet when within 50 feet of residentially zoned property. With height, our height is controlled by zoning, and in addition in the development agreement on the concept plan, the building shall not be higher than 40 feet. So 40 foot is the maximum height per the concept plan. So the 75 feet really wouldn't apply, and those range of uses as well. The only use that would be permitted on a property per the development agreement would be the restaurant slash bar on the property. Some additional information, traffic impacts. U.S. Highway 19 is a busy highway. It operates at a level of service F and has a vehicle-to-capacity ratio of 1.246. Therefore, it operates in that PM peak hour time frame, about 125% of its capacity. And this project would be, from a Lange's perspective, and I say this every time when we're here, we look at traffic impacts from sort of that 20,000-foot level, and we simply just assess it. And from that level, the project could have an additional 826 vehicular trips, and that's average annual daily trip calculations. So that would be daily trips. Traffic would be any sort of mitigation efforts. Any other requirements that would get into traffic would come at that site plan review level, and U.S. 19, as we all know, is a state roadway. It's not a county roadway. Flood risk. The property is within the coastal storm area and in the coastal high hazard area, and the property lies within the 100-year floodplain. A finished floor elevation of 11.3 feet would be required for any development on the property. So they would have to be outside of that. Their finished floor elevation would have to be higher than that level of the 100-year flood zone. So that would be one requirement, and the concept plan depicts that they would be above that height. And, again, when it comes to the coastal storm area and coastal high hazard area, that's a red flag for us when it comes to residential. We really don't want residential in those areas. Our comp plan discourages it. In some instances, it also prohibits it. So getting the property out of residential was something that we were interested in. And, therefore, staff supports the proposed amendments, both the future land use map amendment, the zoning atlas, and that associated development agreement especially. That agreement removes the potential for residential units, as I mentioned, the CHHA. There is a binding concept plan. It gives us some predictability of what is going to happen on the property, and it significantly lowers the site's ISR and FAR, as I mentioned, an FAR of 0.11 and an ISR of 0.26. The amendments will allow redevelopment aligned with the county's development regulations in a more appropriate manner. So it's going to bring any development would bring this property into our 2026 modern zoning requirements and land development requirements, which we're always happy to see. The proposal is consistent and compatible with the area's mixed-use character. We have varying residential to the south, residential to the north, the lake to the east, and then we have, especially directly to the west, the hotel resort, and then, obviously, the character of US-19, where you see commercial retail and office uses directly there. And finally, the proposal is found to be consistent with our comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval again. And there is a Board of County Commissioners meeting that is scheduled for October 27th at 6 p.m. That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to try and answer any questions that you might have. Thank you for your time. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? Yeah, I have a question. Do the applicants submit any, like, conceptual drawings or anything that would kind of give us an idea of what this thing is going to look like on the property? Yes, sir. And that, you'll have the benefit. You have the benefit of having that in your packet. That is a conceptual plan. It goes along with a concept plan. It has a level of detail. I mean, it's just about to a final site plan level. But it is a concept plan. And the requirement for that, and I just want to make it very clear, developed substantially in conformance with that plan. Because, obviously, once you get out on site and start peeling that onion away, there may be a need to kind of, you know, a little wiggle room here and there on things. But it needs to be developed, you know, with substantially in compliance. And our staff, you know, does that, and we make sure those things happen. Do you have a follow-up question, Board Member? No, I mean, that shows me the footprint. I was just wondering if anything should, like, what the building's going to look like. That wouldn't come until site plan reviewing. They would obviously have to file, or I'm sorry, to follow our, you know, today's zoning regulations for that, yeah. I understand. Yes, sir. Okay, just curious. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. Hey, Scott, am I accurate in saying that the proposed parking lot is going to be impervious? I'm assuming impervious. It doesn't look like it's going to be paved. Does the green represent, like, grass? So, yeah, that's it's pervious. Thank you. They're going to, they have on there to meet, you know, county standards, which could be grass, paver blocks. You know, we have different requirements depending on what they want to use for pervious surface. Okay. Any other questions? Hamilton. I'm on. The height allowance, we have an 11-foot, 3-inch base, and then does the 45 or 40 feet, is that above the 11-foot flood, or is that the 11 feet calculated into the 40-foot height restrict? Per our zoning, and correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but our zoning requires the height. The height is allowed to be measured from the finished floor elevation, correct? So it would be 40 feet from the finished floor elevation. So it would be 50 feet high? 51, yes. 51, yeah. It could be up to 51 feet. Members, any other questions? Okay. I have a couple questions. I see an object on this conceptual plan with a purple band around that. Am I safe in assuming that is wetlands with a protective buffer? That's correct. Yes. Okay. And if they were to build a house right now, that would be 35 feet, right? The maximum height? Yeah. That's correct. It would be 35 feet. They would be permitted from that finished floor elevation. So in either case, we're looking at a difference of five feet? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. That's all the questions that I have. Board members, any final questions before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, applicant, you may come up. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Board members, Brian Oaks, 625 Court Street here on behalf of the applicant, Trent Road, LLC. I'm joined by my client, Martin Salim, who is contract purchaser, has the property under contract contingent on approval of the development agreement, the land use amendment, and the rezoning by Pinellas County Commission. I'm also joined by our architect and our civil engineer if you have any additional technical questions. And we do have a PowerPoint. Oh, I need the clicker, Scott. No, if you want. So as Scott explained, Madam Chair and board members, this property is currently zoned and has a land use that would allow for 32 mobile home units. It was previously developed as a mobile home. It is in the coastal storm area. It is in the 100-year floodplain. And it is in the coastal high hazard area. As Mr. Swearengen said, the comprehensive plan of Pinellas County strongly discourages residential within these coastal storm areas, coastal high hazard areas, and within the floodplain. And a significant amount of effort has been undertaken for resiliency efforts and to improve the county's firm flood insurance rating. And it's been very successful. And one of the ways that it is successful is removing residential from the coastal high hazard area, the floodplain, and from the coastal storm area. That makes this site incredibly difficult to develop. You can see on the aerial, it is not up to code for anything. You can see the old internal drives that are laid out for a mobile home, for 32 mobile home units. And certainly, the mobile home units are not compatible with the single-family neighborhood to the north or the very active hotel and restaurant and bar directly to the west. This is, from a land use and zoning perspective, it is an unusual kind of mix of zonings in this area. To orient you, you're probably all familiar with this area, but this is directly across the street from the Palm Harbor AMC Movico Theater. So that would be to the west, just off the screen. And then directly adjacent to the property, again, is a very active hotel, which is obviously a tall building, a multi-story building. And there's also a very active restaurant and bar. And they've served that area, that hotel and restaurant and bar have been there for decades, for many, many years, and have been compatible with that area. So again, right now, the zoning is residential mobile home with an RLM land use. The residential mobile home allows for 32 mobile home units on the property. We are proposing a commercial parkway land use with a residential office retail zoning, as restricted by a development agreement, as explained by Mr. Swearingen, which is entirely consistent with the land use and zoning directly adjacent to the site, to the west, and the land use and zoning that is across to the west on US-19 and to the south on US-19. We do have, again, our civil engineer here and our architect answering questions about this is the site plan that is part of the development agreement. Again, Madam Chair, as you pointed out, that Purple is the wetland buffer to protect the wetlands. The restaurant is limited to 5,000 square feet or less. So this is not a large, large building. It is also situated as far away from the adjacent residential properties as we can get it. And one of the components of the development agreement, which I don't know was mentioned, is that there will be no amplified music at any time. So no amplified music at all, which I think is probably one of the bigger concerns about waterfront restaurants. So in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, we certainly believe that it is much more compatible than 32 mobile homes in the coastal high hazard area, which would negatively impact flooding. I mean, imagine if there was, you know, God forbid, another Milton, you know, that could be a significant detriment to the adjacent single family homes to have mobile home units that could be affected by the LIMWA and the moderate wave action of a significant flood, which is why, again, the county staff, I think, is very supportive of this application because from a land use and zoning perspective, having mobile homes in this area is not acceptable from a risk perspective and a compatibility perspective. Again, we've tried to go out of our way to limit this development as much as possible for the reasonable use of the site. There's probably a reason why this site hasn't been developed since 2008. It is a challenging site. It is a very challenging site. So the proposed use is limited to the restaurant. The site will be developed substantially in conformance with the concept plan, which shows a 0.11 or 11% FAR and a 26% ISR with that pervious parking. There is no amplified music permitted. There's no residential development permitted. The proposed observation deck is for use of the patrons of the restaurant only. It's not open to the public. There'll be no fishing, nothing like that. And the site will comply with the existing base flood elevation of 11.3 with the code-compliant buffers for the adjacent wetlands. This is a picture of the existing conditions. Brian, I just want to correct you. Before you previously, you said 5,000 square foot maximum size building. We have 15,000. Is the total building size allowed for the concept? Okay. I thought in the development agreement I saw 5,000, but if it was 15,000, I misspoke. My apologies. All right, so 15,000 square feet. My apologies. Thank you, Michael, for the correction. So the approval request for remove an existing mobile home zoning from the floodplain will allow for more compatible restaurant use. The adjacent property of the west has the same zoning and future land uses as being proposed in this request, so it is compatible and consistent with the adjacent property. And the proposed development agreement protects the surrounding properties by providing appropriate restrictions for the use, development, and operation of the site. So we believe, based on the staff testimony and the application, we provided confidential evidence that with the development agreement, the proposed land use amendment and rezoning to CP and ROR is consistent with the comprehensive plan and much more consistent than the current outdated land use and zoning of mobile home park. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. At this time, we will hear from any members of the public who wish to speak in support of either of these applications FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08. Do we have anyone in the room who wishes to speak in support of these two applications? All right. Seeing none, do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in support of application FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08? There are no participants online. Thank you. At this time, we will now hear from anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to application FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08. All right. Please come forward, state your name and address for the record before proceeding. Hello, board. My name is Andrew Moranville. I live at 2608 Trent Road, which is on the south side of that field. Comment to a couple things he said. He said that the resort and hotel and restaurant has been prominent and not sure exactly what the word you said, but that hotel has changed from the Vista Hotel to the View Hotel is now more not a resort and hotel. It's an extended stay hotel with high levels of criminal activity. So that goes to show when you put something in play with a good idea, how it can change throughout time. B, the bald eagle, American bald eagles, nest on this property every year between October and January. If they come in, they're going to knock down those trees. They're going to ruin that habitat for the American bald eagle. Also, on the lake, like you said, there are already two restaurants. Both struggle with clientele. Not sure why we need a third. I would also like to ask, how is the restaurant and bar compatible with existing residential neighborhood, particularly the homes immediate adjacent to the property? Also, what specific enforceable protections will be in place to address traffic, parking, noise, lighting, late night activities surrounding homeowners? He said there will be no excessive music. What is that subjective to me? What does that mean? Um, what happens when the restaurant change owners, what happens when there is loud music and us as residents, who do we call the police and tell them that they're supposed to keep the music down. It's a very important thing living there. Um, if rezoning is approved, what prevents this property from becoming substantially more intensive commercial or bar use in future without other public hearings? Just like the hotel resort and bar that's changed five times, uh, since I've lived there. It was an Italian restaurant. It's been every type of restaurant. It's never succeeded. So, uh, I'd like to point that out between the Eagle, the nature. He mentioned to flooding. I've lived there for going on nine years, lived through Milton, lived through every hurricane, never saw a flood, um, never had any water broached my, my dwelling, and I lived directly on the water. Um, the parking lot seems to take up the entire property. I'd like to know what, what, uh, substance they're going to use, asphalt, um, because that could also deal with water runoff, running water onto my property and, uh, hurting my home. Um, other than that, I'd just like to say, I think it's a bad idea. Um, rezone it to, you know, single family homes if you'd like, but not a restaurant and bar with 15,000 square foot, which tripled from what, what the gentleman said at 5,000 square foot. That's all I've got. Thank you. All right. One moment. Um, Mr. Swearingen, can you please take and get our neighbor, our citizen neighbor's contact information? Because there's a lot of questions that I feel can be answered just by simple dialogue. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, please see Mr. Swearingen to give him your information. All right. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to applications FLU 25-10 and ZON 25-08? Please come up. It's okay. State your name and address first, and then we'll get the time. Um, my name is Deborah Johnson, and I, like the other gentleman, live in the neighborhood. Um, address, please, for the... 2572 Grand Lakeside Drive. Thank you. I'm out of Florida. Um, I'm not sure if this helps, but I brought it just because I felt like it was sort of a little relevant. Okay. This is my land survey. So, I own the land that abuts going all the way down to the lake. So, I felt like I had to be here for the residents. Um, what the other gentleman said is true. The hotel is not a hotel. It's not a resort. It has changed hands. It was going to be, um, repossessed, so you say. And now I think it is low-income housing. We have had to deal with rats that have invaded our homes now because there's multiple gums is outside. Um, we've had to change our fence line from a six-foot fence line to concrete walls to keep out all of the trash and the rats. And with a restaurant going in, we feel that's only going to compound this issue for us as residents. I've lived there since 2009. So, I've lived there for almost 25 years. I've never been flooded. I've never had any issues of that sort. So, this land that I own is all open land. If this is a parking lot, our homes are about that. It is extremely concerning to us. What is going to happen? Because there's only a little ravine. It's Lake Tarpon that goes down there. And it ends at my house. So, if that's open land, what is going to happen to that land? Is there going to be a fence put up? Again, that's a concern. Are they going to fence that whole parking lot so it keeps us separated from what is taking place over there? Because I see a lot of cars coming in and out of there from a restaurant, a lot of trash being thrown into the waterway in the ravine, which is right there. That's extremely concerning to all of us. I think that in the end, the noise ordinance is not going to be kept. We have Tap and Turtle, which is as loud as can be. I don't know if they have a noise ordinance, and I don't live that close to them. But this restaurant, I don't see keeping the noise ordinance down. And I don't see how they're going to be a restaurant with a roof deck and have no music whatsoever. Let's see. Do I have any more notes here? There is the issue of the Eagles. Again, I've lived there 25 years. We've had Eagles there for the entire 25 years. They have babies. They have homes. We all go out our backyards and look at the Eagles. So, we always thought that was a protected site. The restaurant has changed hands on multiple, multiple occasions. It lasts usually no more than two years, and it is changing hands because there's no activity. I'm extremely concerned about the amount of traffic that is going to literally, as I showed you my property line, run right down that property line. I mean, the road abuts my property line. That means the traffic from the hotel, I mean, from the restaurant, is going to go up and down, up and down. Can you wrap up if I give you another 30 seconds? I'm done. I'll be done. Okay. I have a question for you. Do you see that aerial map that's off to your side there? Yes. Could you point on to that where you observed Eagles? And you need to move that further up. Move up further towards us. There we are. So, right here, this is all where they're showing the parking lot. I don't know if you can see it. We can. Where they're showing the parking lot. This is all open land right now. Currently, as you saw, I think, on his prior maps, it's all grassland. And there's multiple trees, multiple, multiple huge trees. And closer to my property line, closer over this way, there's lots of trees that the Eagles make homes in and go back and forth and back. So, we all see them going from house to house, you know, behind our houses. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. And is your house identified on any of the – could you point it out on this map? So, on this little – yes, I'm trying to here. On this little map that I have, I believe, it's very small printing, but I believe this second house – no, this house where I put the hour, I believe, is my house. Because my house abuts where they're showing the parking lot would start is kind of where my fence line is. Okay. Thank you. Board members, any questions for this citizen? All right. Thank you. Does any – thank you for your time today. Thank you. Sorry, I'm a little nervous talking. No worries. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition of FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08? Please come up, state your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Leslie McClain Day, also nervous. And I live at – Address, please. 2646 Grand Lakeside Drive. Thank you. And that's in Grand Cypress, which is the community you see up in front of everything. On that layout that you saw, our house is the one you can see the dock. So any activity that comes through the waterway really disturbs the area. In fact, like three weeks ago, maybe, I saw her moving it around. There you go. Can you all see that? Bring it up – bring it towards us a little bit more. A little more. A little more. There you go. And if you could please just turn it around for us. This way? Upside down. Keep turning it all the way around. Got it. Now I can see our house, too. Perfect. Does that look good? Yep. Okay. That's us right here. Okay. So what we've seen is boat traffic comes through here. And I know we're talking about a dock. But as boat traffic comes through, it's knocking out the fauna here. And we've had three trees we've lost just from boats rolling stuff in. And I realize that's what is there now. But if we had a lot of traffic, like you see up at Tarpon Turtle, I'd have grave concern of what's coming here because you're watching it slowly erode because of that. This, as they said, is a motel, not a hotel. You don't go inside and go in somewhere. You have motel rooms. So – and there is no resort. There's a gross little pool. But it is what it is. Yes, it does have people. Yes, it is more of an extended stay. So the real fear from just people talking – and I don't have more with me. Unfortunately, we just got back from our daughter's wedding and found out about this. So I have nothing except words. But as you see these here, all of these houses are right along the line that would go in here. And we do all see this. It's directly out our living room. So it would be directly out our living room that we would be looking at that versus another house. So that's a little distressful. The music is obviously very distressful, the thought of that. You can take a boat and off the water everything echoes. So as we're sitting out here on our patio, you hear people talking on their boats. I mean, you can literally hear arguments. You can hear the whole thing they're talking about, which sometimes they're sure they wish we couldn't. But you can hear everything. So I have to assume if I can hear it off boats around this area, I can't imagine what we'd hear if you had a restaurant sound. So it's definitely concerning. And I'm glad there is another meeting so that we can kind of get more stuff together. Because it's a good community. It's a beautiful community. And all of these houses are families. So to have something that would be that disruptive is scary, I guess is what I'd say. And there are houses, as that gentleman said, over here, right along there. So you come up through the hotel, which is here. And then they come down this road and down this road. So this is all residential over here as well. And then we're actually on the other side. You go just up by AMC to go into ours. And then you take a right. And that's our road there. And it's one big circle if you see, which, again, I wish I had with me, our neighborhood, and how it would truly apply all the way over to all of these houses. So I guess in general, I'd just say I wish you'd do extra homework on this one. Because I really do feel it will affect us. All right. Thank you. Board members, any questions for this speaker? All right. Thank you for your time this morning. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to applications FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08? All right. Seeing none in – oh, I have one more. Leslie is neglected. Please state your name and address for the record. Mark McJuan, 2646 Grand Lakeside Drive. Thank you. The Eagle's Nest, I can point out my neighbor who presented earlier, her house is right here. So if you count down, it goes one, two, three, right in front of that right here. Certainly within this property is a bald eagle's – active bald eagle's nest. We witness it every year, the eaglets and whatnot come in every year and occupy that nest. Certainly it's within the 660 feet that's applicable. You can't be within 660 feet – correct me if I'm wrong – with an eagle's nest. Anybody know? Nobody knows. Okay. Well, it is a 660-foot radius around an eagle's nest. You cannot – you can't disturb, distract, harm them in any way. Just wanted to point that out. That's all I have to say. All right. Board members, any questions for this speaker? Okay. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to application FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08? All right. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in opposition to application FLU 25-10 or ZON 25-08? No participants online. All right. It comes back to the applicant. Madam Chair, if we could pull our PowerPoint back up. So as we have stated and as the staff has pointed out, this site is currently entitled for 32 mobile home units. It is not consistent with the comprehensive plan or the goals and objectives of Pinellas County as it relates to the coastal storm area, the coastal high hazard area, or the floodplain. It is not up to code for anything. It is not up to code for water treatment or water quality runoff. It is not up to code for stormwater retention or drainage. And as you know, when we go through the site plan approval, all of those things will come up to code for the modern 2026 standards, as Mr. Swearengen said in his presentation. So as it relates to water quality, stormwater retention, treatment, and runoff and drainage, this site that is currently out of compliance and nonconforming will come into compliance and will be conforming and will be better than the current conditions for the neighbors and for the adjacent properties. The site is designed with a privacy fence running all the way around the property on the north side and on the south side. It also has landscape buffering, which is the required landscape buffer. You can't really see it very well here, but if you zoom in, there is the required landscape buffering. As we said, we have the wetland adjacent buffering and protection, and the restaurant is situated as far away from the homes as it can be. It is, again, no amplified music at all at any time. So no amplified music period, no live bands, none of that will be happening on this site, purely a restaurant. In terms of the EGLE, that has been discussed with staff, and in the development agreement, there is a provision that says the property shall comply with all local, state, and federal regulations, including those related to threatened and endangered species. For all floodplain development, county floodplain and stormwater compliance is required to the effective date at the time of the permit issuance. And that's just one of the many, many provisions in the development agreement. So all of the concerns that have been mentioned are good, valid concerns that are addressed by the applicant, by the staff, and by the development agreement, and will continue to be addressed, and not just addressed but verified as in compliance as we go through the site plan process, which, as you all know, is a very detailed, lengthy process, and the inspections and all of those things. This is just the very beginning of the process to get this property back on the tax rolls and make the reasonable, reasonable, most compatible use of the property with the adjacent land use and zoning all conforming with the request and as limited by the development agreement. I don't think I forgot to mention anything. The only thing I would mention is we have been through DRC with this, and as you know, a DRC is noticed. So all of the neighbors who received notice for today would have received notice for the DRC. This is the first public response we've gotten. A lot of times we'll get emails ahead of time to staff, and we'll be able to interact with the neighbors ahead of time. So I did take down the information for Andrew, Deborah, Leslie, and Mark, and we will continue to engage with them, and we'll look forward to talking with them and hopefully addressing some of their concerns prior to the BOCC hearing in October. Thank you. Board members, do you have any other questions for the applicant, Oliveri? Brian, so I understand that the site landscape is going to have to meet the current requirements. You mentioned a barrier or a fence. I just want to confirm that's going to be an opaque-type fence, six-foot-tall-ish. Yes. Both sides along the entire parking lot. That's right. So that's going to help with buffering anything in the parking lot from the neighboring property. Yes, sir. And that's required for site plan approval as well. So it's part of the development agreement? Yes, sir. As far as the DOCs are concerned, are they going to be located on the north side or the east side of this property? Thank you for asking that, because that is one thing I wanted to address that I forgot to mention. There are no DOCs being approved. There are no DOCs at all as part of the development agreement. And that was made very, very clear by Water and Navigation. Water and Navigation will not approve any DOCs as part of this site plan or as part of the development agreement. We'd have to go through a separate water and navigation process, which, as you probably all know, is also very detailed and significant. And they look for oyster beds and seagrass and, you know, the environmental. We have to do a benthic survey. You have to dive the site. It is a very detailed process. So what you're seeing is an upland boardwalk, essentially. So to be crystal clear, there's no people coming here to visit this site via boat. You can't. Nothing that you're approving today has any boat access whatsoever. Thank you. I have a follow-up to that. Are you willing to commit to not having DOCs in your developer's agreement? Because right now the read of it, if I remember correctly, is that if there are DOCs, they have to comply. And we understand that that would be difficult, but theoretically it could happen. So just thinking in terms of the public's comfort. Yeah. I think we'd like to try to see if we can get a few DOCs. I don't know what the plan is for how many. I'd have to talk to the applicant about that. But if that's a suggestion that the board would like to make, I can discuss it with the applicant going forward. Okay. We'd like to have the option to try to permit a few DOCs, but it's not at all part of this process. Well, in that situation, are you willing, would your applicant be willing to commit to not having DOCs on the north side where that canal is? And that's something that they can think about. He's saying yes. Okay. Let me make a note of that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we can add that before the October 27th hearing. Understood. Board members, any other questions? All right. Thank you. I have a couple of questions just to follow up. Mr. Angst. Yes. I wasn't done with you. I'm sorry. All right. Just to make sure that I'm on the right page, this – show me – right now we have a map. Can we flip over to the concept plan on – can you put that on the overhead so that way you can point to it? We have a paper copy somewhere. Just a little one from the staff reporter. I brought a big one up there. Waters, 7625, Quill Motor Court, Newport Ritchie. I'll be doing the building plans, and we've got the civil engineer, too. There's a couple of things we're looking at. One, one supplant at a time – Do us a favor. Turn that around. Okay. There's an existing boat ramp in here. That's going to go away. Lay it down, please. Lay it down. Okay. All right. Now point to where – Now this existing boat ramp is going to go away, and they explained to me about taking this out. We cannot remove this until a site plan is done because that's part of the demo in the site plan. That's already been agreed that that will be removed. This is a protected area up by where the neighbors are back here in the back. Not only is – while we're talking about that – not only is there a six-foot opaque fence, there's also going to be a 30-foot landscape buffer in there, so there's going to be stuff 15, 20-foot tall. There'll be no noise, and there'll be no sight. And also it's protected so whenever the cars leave, they're not even going to see the lights coming through the bushes at nighttime. And back when it's talking about docks, they're just talking about maybe something in this area right here, just so if a few residents wants to come in, tie up their boat, and go inside and eat. So we can clarify that anyone was talking about. They were nervous about what was going to be going here with the restaurant and the bars and stuff. It hasn't made it. This is a multimillion-dollar lot. It's a multimillion-dollar building that's going on. This is an upscaled restaurant, so it's not you just go into a tavern and have a beer and a hamburger. When you walk in here, it's going to be a nice restaurant. And as far as, like, the music, the worst that it would ever be is maybe somebody sitting there with a guitar down in the dining room playing some soft dinner music. That's all that's going to be there. All right. Any more questions while I'm up here? So getting back to my questions, let's start with the parking lot. What's the surface going to be? We know it can't be asphalt because we've got to protect that. So we've set up three or four different things to work with the county engineer on. It could either be sod or it could be a type of materials that they have now that will absorb water. And there will be no water that will be coming off on the north side. Everything will be protected within the site. So it's something that's not asphalt. Understood. Correct. Staff, boat ramp, how does that fit into our developer's agreement? I don't recall reading the clause about that. So is there a commitment? There's nothing in there. It's not functional, though it's part of permitting. They will be required to remove that. Okay. Do we know if that's something where it could be reestablished right now? Or is it something where? Not in its current condition. I don't know, but I don't know from water and nav if a boat ramp could be reestablished there. That's a question for water and nav. But that boat ramp is non-usable. Just trying to think in terms of statements that are being made and what's actually behind them as far as law facts and commitments. It could be added to the DA. There would be no access to it. Understood. Madam Chair, if you want us to commit to taking that existing structure out as part of the development agreement, we can add that to the development agreement as well. Thank you for offering that. And then that 30-foot buffer, I don't recall seeing that on the concept plan. It's there. It's just hard to see. Are we just talking about existing vegetation? No. No, it would be new species, Florida native species. And this is, can you point that out to me? And I'm sorry, I cannot see the plan. I'm sorry. Let me see where I can. Number 26, all landscaping shall meet or exceed Pinellas County landscape code for buffering. Okay. It is in here where there's a. I'm going to hold you right there. Okay. Staff, there was a statement that the Pinellas County code requires a 30-foot buffer. No. Can you help me understand? So, yeah, there's no 30-foot buffer requirement in there. So where their property line ends on the north, there is, it's an unimproved right-of-way, which is approximately 30 feet wide in that area. So there's a, their property, which they'll do landscaping on, and then just to the north of that is that unimproved right-of-way area, which cannot be built in. Okay. And then the adjacent neighbor's property there, which the neighbor that pointed out with the long piece that went out to the east is all in a conservation easement area. A lot where my finger's at right now. Can you see it? Yes. Okay. It says that it's a proposed six-foot property fence and landscape buffer with a constant row of hedges and trees. Oh, no. I saw that, and to be clear, I commend the applicant for, in a situation like this, providing the, providing your neighbors as much certainty as you can instead of trying to come in with something that you haven't formally committed to through a developer's agreement. Okay. So the 30-foot is the right-of-way that's closed, or the right-of-way that's not built out. Right. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any other questions for the applicant? Any questions for anyone who spoke today? All right. It comes? Yes. I have a couple things. One was that several months ago, something was brought up on some property that we discussed, and I had made some suggestions that they change some things, and it was brought to my attention that needed to be voted on by the board, not just brought up just by me and not approved by the rest of the members of the board. So I think that same thing needs to hold true here today on things that you brought up to change on this without approval of the rest of the board. And the other thing I had a question on is what happens if this PD doesn't go through or the developer decides he doesn't want to proceed with this process after we've changed the zoning on it? Okay. We have provisions in the development agreement. And if it's not built within the time frame or by mutual agreement between the county and the owner of the property, the county staff will bring back an application for reversion of the land use and zoning back to what it was and a removal of the development agreement. And I think I remember that. That was the one down on the north side of St. Pete, south of Park Boulevard, and that was condominiums or residential units within the high hazard area, right? No, that was a transfer station for hazardous waste. Transfer station for hazardous waste. Okay. Three removed. So the board has had the ability as part of a motion, if you want to add additional conditions, requests to be put into the development agreement. All right. It sounds like those with the docks and the boat ramp that was brought up was agreeable with the applicant, is what it sounded like. Okay. And those both can be put in, and then we would amend the development agreement going forward to the county commission, if that was the case. And then, of course, the applicant is the author of their application, so they also have the ability to commit like they did to remove those factors, too. All right. So do we have any other discussion on either of these two applications? All right. With that, I will entertain a motion on FLU 25-10. And just for the record, the development agreement is tied to the zoning case, so if there's any changes, conditions that you wanted to make, that it would be part of the zoning vote. Okay. Perfect. So, brings us back to the matter on the table. I will entertain a motion for application FLU 25-10. I make a motion to approve FLU 25-10. Motion by Cataldo. I will second it. Second by Hamilton. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Ox, come up real quick. The two items, the boat ramp and not placing docks on the north side, is it your client's intention to commit to those conditions? Absolutely, yes. All right. Thank you. Board members, at this time, I will entertain a motion on application ZON 25-08. I'll make a motion to approve application ZON-25-08. Motion by Hamilton. I'll second. Second by Oliveri. The amendments to the DA. With the amendments, as previously stated. All right. Motion by Hamilton. Oliveri, do you maintain your second? Yes. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. All right. Staff, do you have anything to bring to our attention before we adjourn? No new business. Just we'll see you next month. All right. See you next month. In that case, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Oliveri. Second. Second by Hamilton. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. And the motion passes.