AGENDA PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, :30 PM 310 COURT STREET 1 ST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM CLEARWATER, FL 33756

AGENDA PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2015 1:30 PM 310 COURT STREET 1 ST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM CLEARWATER, FL 33756 I. MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 31, 2015 II. REVIEW OF PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 14, 2015 MEETING A. Subthreshold Land Use Plan Amendments 1.Case CW 15-13 City of St. Petersburg B. Regular Land Use Plan Amendments 1.Case CW 15-16 Pinellas County 2.Case CW 15-17 City of Dunedin C. CPA Actions None D. Annexation Report September 2015 (Information) III. OLD BUSINESS A. Internet Reservation Systems and Vacation Rentals IV. OTHER PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUSINESS/PAC DISCUSSION AND UPCOMING AGENDA A. 2016 PAC Appointment Letters (Verbal/Information) B. Reminder: Pictures at the November PAC meeting (Verbal/Information) V. ADJOURNMENT If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Within two working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL 33756 (727) 464-4062 (V/TDD). Pinellas Planning Council Website Address www.pinellasplanningcouncil.org Street Address 310 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. 33755 Phone 727-464-8250

PAC AGENDA SUMMARY AGENDA ACTION SHEET DATE: AUGUST 31, 2015 ITEM ACTION TAKEN VOTE I. MINUTES OF REGULAR PAC MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2015 Approved Motion: Dean Neal Second: Marie Dauphinais 10-0 II. REVIEW OF PPC AGENDA FOR JULY 8, 2015 MEETING A. Subthreshold Land Use Plan Amendments 1. Case CW 15-13 City of St. Petersburg Withdrawn 2. Case CW 15-14 City of Oldsmar Approved Motion: Dean Neal Second: Robert Klute 10-0 B. Regular Land Use Plan Amendments 1. Case CW 15-15 Pinellas County Approved Motion: Dean Neal Second: Marie Dauphinais 11-0 C. CPA Actions July and August 2015 No Action Information Only D. Annexation Report July and August 2015 No Action Information Only E. Countywide Plan Update Status Report No Action Information Only Mike Crawford advised that the new Countywide Plan was adopted effective August 7, 2015. The current documents are now available on the PPC website. In response to questioning, Linda Fisher reviewed the timeframes for local governments to achieve consistency per the Special Act. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Internet Reservation Systems and Vacation Rentals (Discussion continued from June) Rick McAulay, City of St. Pete, revisited the issues surrounding the regulation of short term rentals and internet reservation sites. Discussion ensued regarding potential solutions. This item will be discussed again next month with a presentation by Erin Sullivan of the Pinellas County Tax Collector s office. IV. OTHER PAC BUSINESS/PAC DISCUSSION AND UPCOMING AGENDA A. Government in the Sunshine Presentation/Discussion Respectfully Submitted, Chelsea Hardy, Assistant County Attorney for Pinellas County, presented information and answered questions regarding the Government in the Sunshine laws. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. PAC Chairman Date H:\USERS\PAC, PPC, & CPA\01 PAC\Minutes\Minutes 2015\08 Summary Agenda Action Sheet August 31.2015.docx

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.A.1 Subthreshold Countywide Plan Map Amendment Case - CW 15-13 I. AMENDMENT INFORMATION From: Residential Medium (RM) To: Multimodal Corridor (MMC) Area: 0.1 acres m.o.l. Location: 416 35 th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL (City of St. Petersburg Jurisdiction) II. RECOMMENDATION Council recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority that the proposed map amendment to MMC be approved. III. BACKGROUND This proposed amendment is submitted by the City of St. Petersburg and seeks to reclassify a parcel totaling 0.1 acres from Residential Medium to Multimodal Corridor. This amendment qualifies as a subthreshold amendment, because it is less than ten acres in size and meets the balancing criteria. The subject site contains a single family home. The owner of the property proposes to use this property for a photography studio and parking associated with an existing retail development to the east (fronting on 4 th Street North). IV. FINDINGS Staff submits the following findings in support of the recommendation for approval: The proposed amendment qualifies as a Tier II subthreshold amendment (Type A); and The proposed amendment to MMC recognizes both the current and proposed use for the site and is consistent with the criteria for utilization of this category. Please see accompanying attachments and documents in explanation and support of the findings. PPC Action: CPA Action: H:\USERS\Countywide Plan Map\Amendments\2015\10 October\Reports\CW 15-13 SP (v2).docx

SUBJECT: Case CW 15-13 City of St. Petersburg The Council and Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) may, upon a majority vote of members present and constituting a quorum, remove a subthreshold amendment from the subthreshold portion of the agenda for separate consideration, in which event the amendment may be discussed and acted upon at that same meeting or continued to the next available meeting with an analysis of any issues identified by the Council or CPA. Current Future Land Use Proposed Future Land Use Aerial Location V. PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Planners Advisory Committee will meet on October 5, 2015 to discuss this item. VI. MEETING DATES Planners Advisory Committee, October 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Pinellas Planning Council, October 14, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Countywide Planning Authority, November 10, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 2

Support Document 1 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST STATEMENT PPC COUNTYWDDE MAP AMENDMENT SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: City of St Petersbure PPC * & CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: City File: FLUM -28 PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENTATIVE: Owner Representative Name: Mark and Victoria Blair Name: Larry Sweeny 3440 4th Street North 1137 Eden Isle Drive Northeast St. Petersburg, FL 33704 St. Petersburg, FL 33704 ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP DSTTEREST IN THE SUBJE PROPERTY Interests: Contingent Absolute Name: N/A Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: N/A Name: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJEC PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties to Option: N/A Name: ANY OTHER PERTDSTENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBM PERTAWING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANMNG COUNCIL STAFF

APPLICATION FOR COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Please include all information below to ensure the application for Countywide Plan Map amendment can be processed. If additional space is needed, please number and attach additional sheets. Countywide Plan Man Infonnation 1. Current Countywide FLUP Designation(s) Residential Medium 2. Proposed Countywide FLUP Designation(s) Multimodal Corridor Local Plan Map Information 1. Local Map Amendment Case Number FLUM-28 2. Current Local Plan Designation(s) Planned Redevelopment-Residential 3. Current Local Zoning Designation(s) NT-2 4. Proposed Local Plan Designation(s) Planned Redevelopment - Mixed Use 5. Proposed Local Zoning Designation(s) CCS-1 (Corridor Commercial Suburban) Site and Parcel Information 1. Parcel number(s) of area(s) proposed to be amended - Sec/Twp/Rng/Sub/Blk/Lot (and/or legal description, as necessary) 07-31-17-11376-001-0070 2. Location th 416-35ulAvenue North 3. Acreage 0.13 acres 4. Existing use(s) Single family home 5. Existing density and/or floor area ratio N/A 6. th Name of project (if applicable) The Shop (3440 4m Street Northl Local Action 1. Date local ordinance was considered at public hearing and authorized by an affirmative vote of the governing body for transmittal of, and concurrence with, the local government future land use plan map amendment. July 23.2015 2. If the local government chooses to submit a development agreement in support of this application, the date the agreement was approved at public hearing by the legislative body. Any development agreement submitted as part of an application for Countywide Plan Map amendment may become a condition of approval of the amendment and will be subject to the provisions of Section 5.1.4 of the Countywide Rules. N/A Other Items to Include 1. Cover letter or email to the Executive Director indicating the request for Countywide Plan Map amendment, including ordinance number, ordinance status, and local action to date. 2. Copy of local ordinance. 3. If applicable, a copy of the development agreement approved by the legislative body and executed by the applicant property owner and other private party(ies) to the agreement. 4. Disclosure of Interest Statement. 5. Staff report. 6. Local plan and zoning maps showing amendment area. 7. If applicable, proposed demarcation line for environmentally sensitive areas. Forms available online at w^'w.pinellasplannimcouncil.ors/amendment.htm Support Document 2

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.B.1 Case - CW 15-16 Pinellas County I. AMENDMENT INFORMATION From: Residential Very Low (RVL) To: Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) and Preservation (P) Area: 5.0 acres m.o.l. Location: South side of Keystone Rd., 1960 ft east of East Lake Rd. in the unincorporated East Lake Tarpon area (Pinellas County Jurisdiction) II. RECOMMENDATION Council recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority that the proposed map amendment to Public/Semi-Public and Preservation, along with the accompanying development agreement, be approved. Separately and in addition, it is recommended that Pinellas County give special consideration to the improvement of the site with respect to the buffering and landscaping guidelines of the Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Master Plan. III. BACKGROUND This proposed amendment is submitted by Pinellas County and seeks to reclassify a 5.0 acre property from Residential Very Low to Public/Semi-Public (4.1 acres) and Preservation (0.9 acres). The site is vacant and the applicant proposes to develop an 80 bed assisted living facility. The Countywide Rules would allow up to 157 beds, however, Pinellas County is entering into a development agreement with the applicant that would restrict the use to 80 beds, as well as prohibiting the offering of drug rehabilitation and mental health services. PPC Action: CPA Action: H:\USERS\Countywide Plan Map\Amendments\2015\10 October\Reports\CW15-16 PC.docx

SUBJECT: Case CW 15-16 Pinellas County IV. FINDINGS Staff submits the following findings in support of the recommendation for approval: A. The Public/Semi-Public and Preservation categories recognize the proposed use of the site and are consistent with the criteria for utilization of these categories; B. The amendment is not adjacent to a roadway segment operating at a LOS F; C. The amendment is adjacent to and consistent with a Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor; D. The amendment is not adjacent to a public school; and E. The proposed amendment either does not involve, or will not significantly impact, the remaining relevant countywide considerations. Please see accompanying attachments and documents in explanation and support of the findings. In consideration of and based upon a balanced legislative determination of the Relevant Countywide Considerations, as they relate to the overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan, it is recommended that the proposed Public/Semi-Public and Preservation Countywide Plan Map categories, along with the accompanying development agreement, be approved. V. PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Planners Advisory Committee will discuss this item at their October 5, 2015 meeting. VI. Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 LIST OF MAPS & ATTACHMENTS Location Current Countywide Plan & Jurisdiction Map Aerial Current Countywide Plan Map Proposed Countywide Plan Map Attachment 1 Council Staff Analysis VII. SUPPORT DOCUMENTS available only at www.pinellasplanningcouncil.org (see October 2015 Agenda and then click on corresponding case number). Support Document 1 Support Document 2 Support Document 3 Disclosure of Interest Form Local Government Application Development Agreement VIII. MEETING DATES Planners Advisory Committee, October 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Pinellas Planning Council, October 14, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Countywide Planning Authority, November 10, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 2

15TH ST BELCHER RD US HIGHWAY 19 N 66TH ST N 49TH ST N 37TH ST S SUNSHINE SKYWAY N PINELLAS AVE Pasco County KEYSTONE RD TRINITY BLVD SUBJECT AREA US 19A EAST LAKE RD Hillsborough County EDGEWATER DR BAYSHORE BLVD CR 1 MAIN ST CURLEW RD SUNSET POINT RD SR 580 CR 611 MCMULLEN BOOTH RD TAMPA RD SR 580 BLVD GULF DREW ST COURT ST BELLEAIR RD GULF TO BAY BLVD COURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY BAYSIDE BRIDGE WEST BAY DR EAST BAY DR I-275 I-275 Gulf of Mexico WALSINGHAM RD 102ND AVE N RIDGE RD SW 113TH ST N SEMINOLE BLVD DUHME RD STARKEY RD PARK ST N BLIND PASS RD 71ST ST N TYRONE BLVD N ROOSEVELT BLVD 126TH AVE N PARK BLVD N ULMERTON RD 54TH AVE N 62ND AVE N 38TH AVE N 28TH ST N CR 22ND AVE N 296 16TH ST N DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N 4TH ST N GANDY BLVD 13TH AVE N I-3 75 5TH AVE N 1ST AVE N 1ST AVE S CENTRAL AVE GULFPOR T BLV D I-175 S 34TH ST S 22ND AVE S PINELLAS BAYWAY S Tampa Bay A NDER S ON BLV D Map 1 - Location CASE #: CW15-16 FROM: Residential Very Low AREA: 5.0 Acres JURISDICTION: Pinellas County TO: N 0 Public/Semi-Public and Preservation Miles 2 4 8

W CIRCLE C SUBJECT AREA P BUFFALO RVL RUN RD RVL RVL WOODFIELD BLVD BLVD P RVL RVL WAY CT STALLION P DRIVE RVL RVL P RVL WOODFIELD RVL RVL WATERFORD P RVL ASHWOO Map 2 - Current Countywide Plan Map & Jurisdictional Map CASE #: CW15-16 FROM: Residential Very Low AREA: 5.0 Acres JURISDICTION: Pinellas County TO: Public/Semi-Public and Preservation LEGEND: Unincorporated N Feet 0 100 200 400

SUBJECT AREA BU FF AL O RU N STALLION CT W BLV D BLV D WOO D FIE L D RD WATERFORD A WOO D CIRCLE FIEL D CROSSING W SH E IV CENTERWOOD Map 3 - Aerial CASE #: CW15-16 JURISDICTION: Pinellas County CENTERWOOD WAY DR FROM: Residential Very Low TO: Public/Semi-Public and Preservation N AREA: 0 100 200 5.0 Acres Feet 400 O O D

W CIRCLE UPLAND PRESERVATION AREA CONSERVATION EASEMENT P SUBJECT AREA BUFFALO DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRACT C RUN RVL TRACT A TRACT D DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRACT B CONSERVATION EASEMENT RD RVL RVL WOODFIELD BLVD ACT "B" ON AREA (COMMON AREA) RVL CT STALLION P PRESERVATION PARCEL "A" AREA P "B" UPLAND PRESERVATION AREA RVL P PARCEL PARCEL WOODFIELD BLVD PARCEL "F" RVL "A" P P PARCEL "B" PRESERVATION AREA WATERFORD RVL PARCEL "D" RVL ASHWOO Plan Map Categories Residential Very Low Preservation Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Map 4 - Current Countywide Plan Map CASE #: CW15-16 FROM: Residential Very Low AREA: 5.0 Acres JURISDICTION: Pinellas County TO: Public/Semi-Public and Preservation N Feet 0 100 200 400

W CIRCLE UPLAND PRESERVATION AREA CONSERVATION EASEMENT P SUBJECT AREA BUFFALO DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRACT C RUN RVL TRACT A TRACT D DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRACT B CONSERVATION EASEMENT RD RVL P/SP P WOODFIELD BLVD ACT "B" ON AREA (COMMON AREA) RVL CT STALLION P PRESERVATION PARCEL "A" AREA P "B" UPLAND PRESERVATION AREA RVL P PARCEL PARCEL WOODFIELD BLVD PARCEL "F" RVL "A" P P PARCEL "B" PRESERVATION AREA WATERFORD RVL PARCEL "D" RVL ASHWOO Plan Map Categories Residential Very Low Public/Semi-Public Preservation Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Map 5 - Proposed Countywide Plan Map CASE #: CW15-16 FROM: Residential Very Low AREA: 5.0 Acres JURISDICTION: Pinellas County TO: Public/Semi-Public and Preservation N Feet 0 100 200 400

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.B.1 Attachment 1 Council Staff Analysis Case - CW 15-16 Relevant Countywide Considerations: 1) Consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules The proposed amendment is submitted by Pinellas County and seeks to reclassify a parcel totaling 5.0 acres. The proposed amendment is from Residential Very Low (RVL) to Public/Semi-Public (4.1 acres) and Preservation (0.9 acres). The Public/Semi-Public category, proposed for 4.1 acres of the parcel, is used to recognize institutional and transportation/utility uses that serve the community or region, and which are consistent with the need, character, and scale of such uses relative to the surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource features. Additionally, the category as applied to this site and proposed use allows up to 157 beds (residential equivalent use) for uses such as an Adult Living Facility (ALF). Pinellas County has submitted a development agreement with the application that restricts the total number of beds to 80, and does not allow for clients needing drug rehabilitation or mental health services. Additionally, this parcel has good access to major transportation facilities, as the property fronts on Keystone Road, an arterial roadway. The current RVL category is primarily used to recognize residential uses up to one unit per acre, which would allow up to 13 residential equivalent beds. The category is mainly intended for areas that are in a rural or large lot, very low density residential nature. Again, it would allow an ALF, but at a significantly fewer number of beds than what is being requested. The proposed Preservation category is used to depict those areas of the county that are now characterized, or appropriate to be characterized, as a natural resource feature worthy of preservation; and to recognize the significance of preserving such major environmental features and their ecological functions. There is a wetland area on the southern portion of the parcel that does not appear on the current Countywide Plan Map and would be recognized in this amendment. At a later date, when a site plan is submitted, a more specific determination will be made as to the boundaries of this wetland. At that time, we have asked Pinellas County staff to submit a Preservation boundary area adjustment. This amendment can be deemed consistent with this Relevant Countywide Consideration. 2) Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard The amendment area is located on roadway operating at an LOS of C, Keystone Road. Additionally, traffic generated by the proposed amendment indicates a small increase in daily trips (25 for RVL vs. 275 for P/SP and P with the use proposed) and will not result in a significant negative impact to the 1

existing LOS. The difference in expected traffic generated between the existing and the proposed categories is an increase of approximately 250 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the proposed amendment can be deemed consistent with this Relevant Countywide Consideration. 3) Location on a Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor (SNCC) The amendment area is located on Keystone Road, which is designated as a Primary SNCC, with this portion of the corridor having a subclassification of Rural/Open Space. The intent and purpose of the SNCC designation is to guide the preservation and enhancement of scenic qualities, to ensure the integrity of the Countywide Plan, and to maintain and enhance the traffic operation of these significant roadway corridors in Pinellas County. The classification extends for 500 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. The principal objectives of SNCC designations are: To preserve and enhance scenic qualities found along these corridors and to foster community awareness of the scenic nature of these corridors; To encourage superior community design and enhanced landscape treatment, both outside of and within the public right-of-way; To encourage land uses along these corridors that contribute to an integrated, well planned and visually pleasing development pattern while discouraging the proliferation of commercial, office, industrial or intense residential development beyond areas specifically designated for such uses on the Countywide Plan Map; To assist in maintaining the traffic operation of roadways within these corridors through land use type and density/intensity controls, and by conformance to access management regulations by selective transit route location, and by the development of integrated and safe pedestrian and bicycle access systems; To encourage design standards identified within the Pinellas County Countywide Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Master Plan through the adoption of local ordinances and regulations consistent with those standards set forth within the Master Plan. The Countywide Rules state that the requested Public/Semi-Public category is not considered compatible with the Rural/Open Space subclassification, unless a specific finding to the contrary is made in accordance with section 6.5.4.1.3 B. In these cases, the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) can grant exceptions to the otherwise necessary change to the subclassification that would be needed if the amendment were to be approved. The subclassification that would allow this amendment is Residential, however this would not be an appropriate action in this case along Keystone Road, so therefore an exception will be considered below. Section 6.5.4.1.3 B reads as follows: 2

The PPC and CPA shall have the authority to grant exceptions to the concurrent change to the Corridor Subclassification, as reflected on Submap No. 1, upon approval of an amendment to the Countywide Plan Map adjacent to a Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor, based upon a finding that: 1. The size and configuration of the amendment is de minimus in relationship to its frontage on the affected Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor; or 2. The size and configuration of the amendment is de minimus in relationship to the length of the affected Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor; or 3. The size and location of the amendment is consistent in relationship to the surrounding existing Countywide Plan Map designations. The size and shape of the parcel are in relative proportion to the frontage along Keystone Road. In other words, the amendment parcel s frontage is not excessive as compared to the overall size of the amendment area. Relative to the length of the corridor, the amendment area is insignificant. This portion of the SNCC extends from East Lake Road to the Hillsborough County Line (approximately three miles in length) and there are only two other small areas that are designed P/SP along this segment of roadway. Therefore, the requested amendment should not cause the corridor to be changed from its rural and open space character. Lastly, the use is considered to be a residential type use (i.e., a residential equivalent use) that is consistent with the other residential uses in the area. In addition, due to the fact that the size of the facility is being restricted to 80 beds it should be considered consistent in relationship to the current Countywide Plan Map designations, which are RVL and Preservation. 4) Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) The amendment area is not located in a CHHA, so those policies are not applicable. 5) Designated Development/Redevelopment Areas The amendment area is not located in, nor does it impact, a designated development or redevelopment area. 6) Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction or Public Educational Facility The amendment area is not adjacent to another jurisdiction or to a public educational facility. Therefore, this request can be considered consistent with these Relevant Countywide Considerations. Conclusion: On balance, it can be concluded that the requested amendment from Residential Very Low to Public/Semi-Public and Preservation, along with the accompanying development agreement, is deemed consistent with the Relevant Countywide Considerations found in the Countywide Rules. 3

Support Document 1 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST STATEME Pinellas County SUBMITTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Z/LU-13-6-15 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CASE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENTATWE (include name and address): Sergio Haritos, c/o Todd Pressman, 334 East Lake Rd #102, Palm Harbor 34685 n ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent Absolute Name/Address: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent \^ Absolute All Parties To Contract: Erie and Cheryl Moore Name/Address: Eric & Cheryl Moore/same representative as above INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: None Name/Address ANY OTHER PERTINENT ^FORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN MAP AMENDMENT: Development Agreement Forms available online atwwwjjinellasplanmngcouncil.org/amendment.htm

Support Document 2 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT Countvwide Plan Map Information 1. Current Countywide Plan Category(ies) Residential Very Low 2. Proposed Countywide Plan Categories) Public/Semi-Public Local Future Land Use Plan Map Information 1. Requesting Local Government Pinellas County 2. Local Map Amendment Case Number 3. Current Local Land Use Category(ies) 4. Current Local Zoning Designation(s) Z/LU-13-6-15 Residential Rural A-E-W 5. Proposed Local Land Use Category(ies) Institutional and Preservation 6. Proposed Local Zoning Designations) IL-W and P/C-W Site and Parcel Information 1. Parcel number(s) of area(s) proposed to be amended - Sec/Twp/Rng/Sub/Blk/Lot (and/or legal description, as necessary) 10-27-16-00000-430-0100 2. Location/Address South side of Keystone Rd, 1,960 ft east of East Lake Rd 3. Acreage 4. Existing use(s) 5.0 Vacant 5. Existing density and/or floor area ratio 0.5 upa 6. Proposed use/name of project (if applicable) 80-bed ALF Local Action 1. Date local ordinance was considered at public hearing and authorized by an affirmative vote of the governing body for transmittal of, and concurrence with, the local government future land use plan map amendment. 08/18/2015 2. Ifthe local government chooses to submit a development agreement in support of this application, the date the agreement was approved at public hearing by the legislative body. Any development agreement submitted as part of an application for Countywide Plan Map amendment may become a condition of approval of the amendment and will be subject to the provisions of Section 6.1.6 of the Countywide Rules. 08/18/2015 Other Items to Include 1. Copy of local ordinance. 2. If applicable, a copy of the development agreement approved by the legislative body and executed by the applicant property owner and other private party(ies) to the agreement. 3. PPC Disclosure of Interest Form. 4. Local government staff report. 5. Local plan and zoning maps showing amendment area. 6. If applicable, proposed demarcation line for environmentally sensitive areas. Forms available online at www.pinellasplanninscouncil.org/amendment.htm

DE^.7E:-. /- -J^-f FL/ J;NT A^^~IJ:I.LJ;NT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is dated /^w//^s(s^, eifective as provided in Section 5 of this Agreement, and entered into betwe& Rosew^od House EL, Inc., Owner and Pinellas County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida acting through its Board of County Commissioners, the governing body thereof ("County"). ri» TC>,<"" -. m v ^ ''J r A A T "f..^-j kj. A. Sections 163.3220-163.3243, Florida Statutes, which set forth the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act ("Act"), authorize the County to enter into binding development agreements wifh persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within the unincorporated area of the County. B. Under Section 163.3223 of the Act, the County has adopted Chapter 134, Article VII of Part III, the Pinellas County Land Development Code ("Code"), establishing procedures and requirements to consider and enter into development agreements. c. Owner is the owner of a parcel of real property, located on Keystone Road, on Exhibit "A" as parcel identification number 10-27-16-00000-430-0100 hereinafter the "Property". D. Owner desires to develop and use of the Property for an Assisted Living Facility as more particularly described herein. E. The Property currently has a laad use designation of Residential Rural and is zoned Agricultural Estate - Wellhead Protection Overlay. F. Owner has requested that the County change the zoning category to Institutional Limited - Wellhead Protection Overlay and Preservation/Conservation - Wellhead Protection Overlay and change the Land Use category to Institutional and Preservation, and is seeking a variance to allow one parking space per three beds where one parking space per bed is required. G. The County cannot justify the requested action absent the restrictions contained in this Agreement and in the deed restriction required in Section 6.1.4. H. The County and Owner have determined that it would be mutually beneficial to enter into a development agreement governing the matters set forth herem and have negotiated this Agreement in accordance with the Code and the Act. I. The County has found that the terms of this Agreement are consistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and the Code. KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT AND COMPTROLLER PINELLAS COUNTY, FL!NST# 2015240590 08/24/2015 at 01:42 PM OF" REC BK: 1SS95 PG: 713-722 OocType:GOV

ri STAT;2]V3N': /~K <ff?a<?rz3i,d:nr; In consideration of and in reliance upon the premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound and in accordance with the Act, agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are a part of this Agreement. Section 2. Incorporation of the Act. This Agreement is entered into in compliance with and under the aufhority of the Code and the Act, the terms of which as of the date of this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this Agreement. Words used in this Agreement without definition that are defined in the Act shall have the same meaning in this Agreement as in the Act Sections. Section 4. Property Subject to this Agreement. The Property is subject to this Agreement. Ownership. The Property is owned in fee simple by Owner. Section 5. Effective Date/Duration of this Agreement. ) 5.1 This Agreement shall become effective as provided for by the Act and shall be contingent upon obtaining final approval, and effectiveness of the land use designation of Institutional and zoning of Institutional Limited. I t 5.2 This Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated as defined herein but for a period not to exceed five (5) years. Section 6. Obligations under this Agreement. 6.1 Obligatipns of the Owner. 6.1.1. Binding Obligations. The obligations under this Agreement shall be binding on Owner, its successors or assigns. 6.1.2. Development Review Process. At the time of development of the Property, Owner will submit such applications and documentation as are required by law and shall comply wifh the County's Code applicable at the time of the effective date of this Agreement. 6.1.3. Development Restrictions. The following restrictions shall apply to development of the Property. 6.1.3.1. The use is limited to an Assisted Living Facility. 2

6.1.3.2. There shall be no mental health facility or drug rehabilitation facility. 6.1.3.3. The maximum use or density of the property will be 80 beds. 6.1.3.4 The maximum height will be 35' and at one story only. 6.1.3.5 The property will be developed substantially in conformance with the Concept Plan, as determined by the County Administrator, or his designee, and as attached as Exhibit "B" 6.1.4. Recording of Deed Restriction. Prior to the approval of a site plan or issuance of a development permit for the Property, Owner shall record a deed restriction encumbering the Property in the official records of Pinellas County, Florida and deliver a copy of such recorded deed restriction to the Director of the Pinellas County Planning Department.or his designee. The deed restriction shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) and shall generally describe the development limitations of this Agreement. The deed restriction shall be perpetial and may be amended or terminated only with the consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6.2. Obligations of the County. 6.2.1. Concurrent with the approval of fhis Agreement, the Board amends the land use and zoning designation for the Property, and grants the variance, as set forth in Recital F above. 6.2.2. County will process preliminary and final site plan applications for the Property that are consistent with this Agreement, and that meet fhe requirements of the Code at the time of the effective date of this Agreement. 6.2.3. The final effectiveness of the amendments referenced in Section 6.2.1 is subject to: 6.2.3.1. The provisions of Chapter 125 and 163, Florida Statutes, as they may govern such amendments; and 6.2.3.2. The expiration of any appeal periods or, if an appeal is filed, at the conclusion of such appeal. Section 7. Public Facilities to Service Development. The following public facilities are presently available to the Property from the sources indicated below. Development of the Property will be governed by and must satisfy the 3

concurrency ordinance provisions applicable at the time of the effective date of this Agreement. 7.1 Potable water from the Pinellas County. 7.2 Sewer service from Pinellas County. 7.3 Fire protection from Pinellas County. 7.4 Drainage facilities for the parcel will be provided by Owner. Section 8. Required Local Government Pemiits. The required local government development permits for development of the Property include, without limitation, the following: r I 8.1 Site plan approvals) and associated utility licenses and right-of-way utilization. permits; 8.2. Construction plan approval(s); 8.3. Building permit(s); and 8.4. Certificate(s) of occupancy. Consistency. The County finds that development of the Property consistent with the terms of this Agreement is consistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. I Section 9. Termination. 9.1 In the event of termination pursuant to Section 10.2 or failure to commence the development of the subject property within the duration of the Agreement as defined m Section 5 above, the Property shall return to its current land use and zoning designations. Owner agrees to cooperate and not contest any administrative procedures necessary to implement restoration of the land use and zoning designations. This obligation survives the termination of fhe Agreement for the time necessary to accomplish the redesignations. 9.2 If Owner's obligations set forth in this Agreement are not followed in a timely manner, as determined by the County Administrator, after notice to Owner and an opportunity to be heard, existing permits shall be adminisb-atively suspended and issuance of new permits suspended until Owner has fulfilled its obligations. Failure to timely fulfill its obligations may serve as a basis for termination of this Agreement by the County, at the discretion of the County and after notice to Owner and an opportunity for Owner to be heard. 4

Section 10. Other Terms and Conditions. Except in the case of termination, until five (5) years after the effective date of this Agreement, the Property shall not be subject to subsequently adopted laws and policies unless the County has held a public hearing and determined: 10.1 They are not in conflict with the laws and policies governing the Development Agreement and do not prevent development of the land uses, intensities, or densities in this Agreement; 10.2 They are essential to the public health, safety, or welfare, and expressly state that they shall apply to a development that is subject to a development agreement; 10.3 They are specifically anticipated and provided for in this Agreement; 10.4 The County demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval oftms Agreement; or 10.5 This Agreement is based on substantially inaccurate information provided by Owner. Section 11. Compliance with Law. The failure of this Agreement to address any particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Owner from the necessity of complying with the law governing such permitting requirements, conditions, f * terms or resfrictions. Section 12. Notices. Notices and communications required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be given to the parties by hand delivery, by nationally recognized overnight courier service such as Federal Express, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows (copies as provided below shall be required for proper notice to be given): If to Owner: Rosewood House II, Inc. Eric Moore, V.P-, 1925CardamonDr. Trinity, FL 34655 With copy to: If to County: Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners c/o County Administrator 315 Court St. Clearwater, PL 33756 5

With copy to: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County Attorneys Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Properly addressed, postage prepaid, notices or communications shall be deemed delivered and received on the day of hand delivery, the next business day after deposit with an overnight courier service for next day delivery, or oa the third (3rd) day following deposit in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested. The parties may change the addresses set forth above (including the addition of a mortgagee to receive copies of all notices), by notice in accordance with this Section. t Section 13. Right to Cure. Owner will not be deemed to have failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement until Owner shall have received notice from the County of the alleged noncompliance and until the expiration of a reasonable period after receipt of such notice to cure such non-compliance. Whether the time period has been reasonable shall be based on the nature of the non-compliance and shall be determined in the sole judgment of the County Administrator, reasonably exercised. Section 14. Minor Non-Compliance. Owner will not be deemed to have failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement m the event such non-compliance, in fhe judgment of the County Admimstrator, reasoiiably exercised, as a minor or inconsequential nature. t t Section 15. Covenant of Cooperation. The parties shall cooperate with and deal with each other in good faith and assist each other m the performance of the provisions of this Agreement and in achieving the completion of development of the Property. Section 16. Approvals. Whenever an approval or consent is required under or contemplated by this Agreement, such approval or consent shall not be unreasonably wifhheld, delayed or conditioned. All such approvals and consents shall be requested and granted in writing. Section 17. Completion of Agreement. Upon the completion of performance of this Agreement or its revocation or termination, the Owner or his successor in interest shall record a statement in the ofl&cial records of Pinellas County, Florida, signed by the parties hereto, evidencing such completion, revocation or termination, and shall forthwith deliver a copy of this document to the Director of the County Building and Development Review Services Department or his designee. Section 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including any and all Exhibits attached hereto, all of which are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as if such Exhibits were set forth in full in the body of this Agreement), constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof. f Section 19. Construction. The titles, captions and section numbers in this Agreement are inserted for convenient reference only and do not define or limit the scope or intent and shoidd a 6

not be used in the interpretation of any section, subsection or provision of this Agreement. Whenever the context requires or permits, the singular shall include the plural, and plural shall include the singular and any reference in this Agreement to Owner includes Owner's successors or assigns. This Agreement was the production of negotiations between representatives for the County and Owner and the language of the Agreement should be given its plain and ordmary meaning and should not be construed against any party hereto. If any term or provision of this Agreement is susceptible to more than one interpretation, one or more of which render it valid and enforceable, and one or more of which would render it invalid or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be construed in a manner that would render it valid and enforceable. Section 20. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, including any valid portion of the invalid term or provision and the application of such invalid term or provision to cu-cumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and shall with the remamder of this Agreement continue unmodified and in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such responsibilities of any party thereto to the extent that the purpose of this Agreement or the benefits sought to be received hereunder are firustrated, such party shall have the right to tennmate this Agreement upon fifteen (15) days notice to the other parties. Section 21. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to the conflict of laws principles of such state. Section 22. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which together shall continue one and the same instrument. EN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto executed fhis Agreement the date and year first above written. f End of Substantive Provisions, Signature Page to follow 7

I PriSted ^ ax^^ ^^n^f^/l' 6b-/^ ^ ^ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF _pj <y) ] /?.^7 this W day of ifllamfc^t 1 T^t^fo^^i^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^ ^ me or who produced J)^^l/'*7 LVJ^TJ^ I < -a v.s^ ^0 ~^«.^=..'"3. L-- 't»i "^' _: - ~-- ;. n"«i as identification. ^ J fl ^ t^ KRISTIN M HOWARD IS; blic.f. * \ Notary Public - State ol Florida t ^ My Comm Expires Mar 22 2017 '-A^?? Commission # EE 884923 (JF>\.' ".i'lr. * f "VP-'yv-^.BSC.s,..-"t ~~Vi *s f sk^ua ^^^}\n U 4^/^/A ^ Print Notary Name My Commission Expires: S/ZzVzOt 1 s I '»»» I { > i, ^ I ^ ^ I *> I \-1 <..::.-"^, 1»J I 0 t.a/. 9.p/ // II,. I V. / It *t f <»» v. * 'I d ; * / t *w tt / J». #.» f T..' * 0 t f *.. ;.. * ^' <» ^. -rt I, <.* IV # ^t ^ ^...,< :--.QQp^Ci^ /#t^. ft ^ ^ f < '... h t ^.'.'/,-; / f^ *.1 ^ d ^* 1.I:,:)» I > ^ '. ' I < ^ h '. % \ h u r~ ^f f APPROVED AS TO FORM:,^LJ^^-_ County Attorney PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA / m By: t-i^u. ^-f^^k^t. auman bard of County Commissioners ^ WITNESSES: OWNERS Eric Moore, V.P., Rosewood House II, if[^ \IL^. Inc. ^ ^> By: ^jrs^- /^~^ef^t,-t^- 'p Name: ^^^/\ \\ -^^/d Cheryl Moore, Pres., Rosewood House ^^-. T %^^^M-» a m < f*-,-.." «^ n f f 8

EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY PART OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 10-27-16 DESC FROM SW COR OF SE 1/4 OF SD SEC TH S89D25'11.9"E 632.10FT FOR POB THN01D01'01.2"W 611.41FT TO S'LY RAV OF SR 582 TH S64D10'H"E 264.21 FT TH CUR LT RAD 2914.79FT ARC 221.42FT CB S66D20'45.4"E 221.37FT TH S01D46'27.7"W 411.SOFT TO S SEC LINE TH N89D25'11"W 417FT TO POB CONT 5AC 9

Exhibit "B" Concept Site Plan - Development Agreement \ \ 0 <0 60 180 Jl "-:*. v >-<^ ^ <- ^.< ^ 1» * "ei f-f, ^ Q Feet > If t SCALE: 1- s lan 80' 6 i^sa *M>.'*-- BSBro.V i.^^-!sf& SSf_^---;~- ^ I ~^A,» ; h ^ 4.<^-=^wi=~-S--^ -^.-.' < ^ -=y--?i;-=-s-t-i^ 'T.' \ ^* 3s, T- ft '/ ^ ^ I ^ - -t-k 1 -"-^.-9 -s'-i.- BW.;:..^..**;"tf. 1.^.'';: A>» t - J~ r w^ -y ^ \ f.i y *^ > 'r?-' ^ ^^\.^ \ ^--v~'/l A ""t:.?. I y^ uu-.^".- ^ V/.*<, > ^ ^./tie. t \ -^- r \ '*' is'.\ \ f.f ^w ^: 1fc ^'t \ ^ I / '.^\1,.^ %; ^v--^.^ t. 'f Al.j- \ :: \ \ s rf> \ *. * <^". \ Alff^ t <. '^. I < \.T ^sy \ ^.:s^ h *<. I v ^» ^.h ^ Al ^ f ^ ^ I.r *a < S' v»- 9. <?.s.» ; vs, ll.^h A ^»» ^I'< n «^ % ^ \ <^ ^m^ ^ m.^-».<? h J \\^ ;< Ir \ >. \ fc r^f I * 1^ ^ / ^ n. \.^ / * f /-'» ir. h..<: ^ f- ^ ~^* ^ri a*;-; ^.m, ^ u> R s' s^ \' '^ /- \» I I.) <?.. ^\ ".> 1>* a"..- t t '( ll V. >.. 1 \,.'; ;?. <k. <»^ '. f M-r s f t-1 ^-^ ^m j '..-.-. *,. 5f\.'.-.'-;/.'-L-"'^ r. t ->. ^."f /.,.,' ^.-^ m? *. \ ^ ^..». it' "^ '.<h 1 ^ I- ^.^^.». s \ ^ > -^ ''^ 1^ R "^ ^ \- / '.A'. -;p^ ^ ^ ^ f.-, '!* _>' '% 1.^ /- 1 J.-.-.: fs' ^ ^.':^ \v --5 ^ ^ ^ *.L>- '.\\1 ff- --^ '^' ',' ^* / L- -,-. ^ <, ^,<^,/ tk.' /.-:.o^. a ^& ^--S ^ ^^m^^ s % > i If f- -f /,' I..-.;?< -J-,. /.. -<»"'." '/.' ^ BBE 07CIC015 nssss 1HB1 rf f''l cw^ul1; ^ ^ *.* r,.- s \ I* ^ v ^ ;k".*^»< KEYSTONE ROAD -^ '. JLTAf^l'S I I I ChlOINCCRIWC ' CONSTRUCTION ADMINIBTRATIOMCONCEPT E?or LrrrLC WOAD. Ntw PDRT»teHe*r, FLORID* a^ua*.»a»-b*»-«oio F 727

.>.'.»'" ^v.^^ ^.', ^.^: l( \ s t r'i ^ s~- I /-" I / <.,' *r* h ( 1 \ 1.. V- ^ya.'»,f r ^ <»»,*-4 ^ / ^ J >. t -/ I 4 ^->. ^ T I. < '.w\ I / 1 t,< 1 ^ *? I* /» c C3 r / f t ^ t ~-r..>* Ulrf m y /.^ J IT ^ k. * a -i ' 0 c /' ^ <1 ^ r»' /,f y s..-* / /. i^, 3 / 1 ^ ^ rf s -^ B -^..»,.* /. ^ ' -I fr 6 I- ^ J ^. (f ^ d ^ d f * <.;. ^r /.+ t, f * f -V ^. ^ /» * f 33==3 B + / t i...\ > f v f / 4 *.^ v L <!, * F f ^v- r^ \ % a.a g:.m Cfo ;0.ST -0 / 03 IN oiw ^? 0 S-. '/ SB 2.S s 3:5 s Q CT 0-4» & s. &af l?s?t c Sfc. 3 m ^ c..s, 9 > a 0 4T ffs ^'?]<ssit 0 3^2. 13 s.& 6^ g s- p S-? g s ^t 8 <*

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.B.2 Case - CW 15-17 Dunedin I. AMENDMENT INFORMATION From: Residential Low Medium (RLM) To: Resort (R) Area: 2.4 acres m.o.l. Location: 2641 Michael Place, Dunedin, FL (Dunedin Jurisdiction) II. RECOMMENDATION Council recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority that the proposed map amendment to Resort, along with the accompanying development agreement, be approved. III. BACKGROUND This proposed amendment is submitted by the City of Dunedin and seeks to reclassify a 2.4 acre property from Residential Low Medium to Resort. The site is vacant and the applicant proposes to develop a 90 room hotel (i.e., temporary lodging) and 4,000 square foot restaurant. The Countywide Rules would allow up to 120 rooms, however, Dunedin is entering into a development agreement with the applicant that would restrict the use to the 90 rooms and restaurant. This restriction to temporary lodging uses is helpful to the application s approval as well, since the Resort category would normally allow up to 72 residential dwelling units. However, the majority of the site is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area, which discourages increases in residential development in these areas that are vulnerable to coastal storm damage or evacuation issues. IV. FINDINGS Staff submits the following findings in support of the recommendation for approval: A. The Resort category recognizes the proposed use of the site and is consistent with the criteria for utilization of this category; B. The amendment is not adjacent to a roadway segment operating at a LOS F; C. The amendment is not adjacent to a Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor; PPC Action: CPA Action: H:\USERS\Countywide Plan Map\Amendments\2015\10 October\Reports\CW15-17 Dunedin.docx

SUBJECT: Case CW 15-17 Dunedin D. The amendment is not adjacent to another jurisdiction or public school; and E. The proposed amendment either does not involve, or will not significantly impact, the remaining relevant countywide considerations. Please see accompanying attachments and documents in explanation and support of the findings. In consideration of and based upon a balanced legislative determination of the Relevant Countywide Considerations, as they relate to the overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan, it is recommended that the proposed Resort Countywide Plan Map category, along with the accompanying development agreement, be approved. V. PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Planners Advisory Committee will discuss this item at their October 5, 2015 meeting. VI. Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 LIST OF MAPS & ATTACHMENTS Location Current Countywide Plan & Jurisdiction Map Aerial Current Countywide Plan Map Proposed Countywide Plan Map Attachment 1 Council Staff Analysis VII. SUPPORT DOCUMENTS available only at www.pinellasplanningcouncil.org (see October 2015 Agenda and then click on corresponding case number). Support Document 1 Support Document 2 Support Document 3 Disclosure of Interest Form Local Government Application Development Agreement VIII. MEETING DATES Planners Advisory Committee, October 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Pinellas Planning Council, October 14, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Countywide Planning Authority, November 10, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 2

15TH ST BELCHER RD US HIGHWAY 19 N 66TH ST N 49TH ST N 37TH ST S SUNSHINE SKYWAY N PINELLAS AVE Pasco County TRINITY BLVD KEYSTON E RD US 19A EAST LAKE RD CR 1 Hillsborough County CURLEW RD CR 611 TAMPA RD SR 580 SUBJECT AREA EDGEWATER DR MAIN ST SUNSET POINT RD SR 580 MCMULLEN BOOTH RD BLVD GULF DREW ST COURT ST BELLEAIR RD GULF TO BAY BLVD COURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY BAYSIDE BRIDGE WEST BAY DR EAST BAY DR I-275 I-275 Gulf of Mexico WALSINGHAM RD 102ND AVE N RIDGE RD SW 113TH ST N SEMINOLE BLVD DUHME RD STARKEY RD PARK ST N BLIND PASS RD 71ST ST N TYRONE BLVD N ROOSEVELT BLVD 126TH AVE N PARK BLVD N ULMERTON RD 54TH AVE N 62ND AVE N 38TH AVE N 28TH ST N CR 22ND AVE N 296 16TH ST N DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N 4TH ST N GANDY BLVD 13TH AVE N I-3 75 5TH AVE N 1ST AVE N 1ST AVE S CENTRAL AVE GULFPOR T BLV D I-175 S 34TH ST S 22ND AVE S PINELLAS BAYWAY S Tampa Bay A NDER S ON BLV D Map 1 - Location CASE #: CW15-17 FROM: Residential Low Medium AREA: 2.4 Acres JURISDICTION: Dunedin TO: Resort N 0 Miles 2 4 8

SUBJECT AREA RM RM JOSEPH'S DRIVE E RM DR R&S R (BRIDGE) RM PAULA DR SOUTHNORTH PAULA RLM R&S R&S RM MICHAEL PLACE BLVD R&S RLM DRIVE R&S R/OS R&S RLM SOUTH PAULA R&S R/OS R&S ( 586 m 38 RLM BAYWOOD DRIVE VE W RLM RLM RLM ADE WIND DRIVE NADO WAY WAY RLM E N RLM R/OS R/OS Map 2 - Current Countywide Plan Map & Jurisdictional Map CASE #: CW15-17 FROM: Residential Low Medium AREA: 2.4 Acres JURISDICTION: Dunedin TO: Resort LEGEND: Dunedin N Feet 0 100 200 400

SUBJECT AREA JOSEPH'S DRIVE E HA EL GE ) DR MIC (BRID NOR T H PLACE PAU LA DR D DR IV E SO U T H PAU LA BLV SOUTH BAYWOOD JURISDICTION: O Dunedin RIO E AD CO RO N CW15-17 38 N WA Y WA Y DR IVE DE TR A E DR IV CASE #: 586 ( m DRIVE WIN D W PAULA Map 3 - Aerial FROM: Residential Low Medium TO: Resort N AREA: 0 100 200 2.4 Acres Feet 400

SUBJECT AREA RM RM 150 JOSEPH'S DRIVE E RM R&S (BRIDGE) R RM CHANNEL CHANNEL PAULA DR SOUTHNORTH PAULA SOUTH DR RLM R&S R&S RM MICHAEL PLACE BLVD PAULA R&S RLM DRIVE R&S R/OS R&S RLM 150 R&S R/OS R&S RLM BAYWOOD DRIVE R/OS R/OS W RLM RLM RLM DRIVE WAY RLM Plan Map Categories Residential Low Medium Retail & Services Residential Medium Recreation/Open Space Resort Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Map 4 - Current Countywide Plan Map CASE #: CW15-17 FROM: Residential Low Medium AREA: 2.4 Acres JURISDICTION: Dunedin TO: Resort N Feet 0 100 200 400

SUBJECT AREA RM RM 150 JOSEPH'S DRIVE E RM R&S (BRIDGE) R RM CHANNEL CHANNEL PAULA DR SOUTHNORTH PAULA SOUTH DR RLM R&S R&S RM MICHAEL PLACE BLVD PAULA R&S RLM R DRIVE R&S R/OS R&S RLM 150 R&S R/OS R&S RLM BAYWOOD DRIVE R/OS R/OS W RLM RLM RLM DRIVE WAY RLM Plan Map Categories Residential Low Medium Retail & Services Residential Medium Recreation/Open Space Resort Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor Map 5 - Proposed Countywide Plan Map CASE #: CW15-17 FROM: Residential Low Medium AREA: 2.4 Acres JURISDICTION: Dunedin TO: Resort N Feet 0 100 200 400

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.B.2 Attachment 1 Council Staff Analysis Case - CW 15-17 Relevant Countywide Considerations: 1) Consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules The proposed amendment is submitted by Dunedin and seeks to reclassify a parcel totaling 2.4 acres. The proposed amendment is from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Resort (R). The Resort category is intended to depict areas developed, or appropriate to be developed, in high-density residential and resort use; and to recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and temporary lodging use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resources of such areas. Additionally, the category as applied to this site and proposed use allows up to 120 hotel rooms. Dunedin has submitted a development agreement with the application that restricts the total number of rooms to 90, along with a 4,000 square foot restaurant. The majority of the parcel is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area, which is indicated in the Countywide Rules as an area that should not see increases in residential dwellings allowed per acre. Therefore, the restriction to only non-residential square footage through the proposed development agreement is helpful to the approval of the request. The current RLM category is primarily used to recognize residential uses up to 10 units per acre, which would allow up to 24 dwelling units. The current is used to depict areas that are primarily well-suited for suburban, low-density or moderately dense residential uses at a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre This amendment can be deemed consistent with this Relevant Countywide Consideration. 2) Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard The amendment area is not located on roadway operating at an LOS of F. Additionally, traffic generated by the proposed amendment indicates an increase in daily trips (161 for RLM vs. 670 for R) and will not result in a significant negative impact to the existing LOS. The difference in expected traffic generated between the existing and the proposed categories is an increase of approximately 509 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the proposed amendment can be deemed consistent with this Relevant Countywide Consideration. 3) Location on a Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor (SNCC) The amendment area is not located on a SNCC. 1

4) Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) The amendment area is located within the CHHA and is therefore subject to the Countywide Rules criteria regarding development in the CHHA. These criteria are used for reviewing proposed amendments that would increase density or intensity, or that would permit certain uses, within the CHHA. The Council and the Countywide Planning Authority may, at their discretion, consider approving such amendments based on a balancing of the ten criteria below: Access to Emergency Shelter Space and Evacuation Routes The uses associated with the requested amendment will have access to adequate emergency shelter space as well as evacuation routes with adequate capacities and evacuation clearance times. With the evacuation plan that is part of the development agreement all hotel guests should be out of the area prior to storm arrival because reservations will be altered based on the storm event and timing. Utilization of Existing and Planned Infrastructure The requested amendment will result in the utilization of existing infrastructure, as opposed to requiring the expenditure of public funds for the construction of new, unplanned infrastructure with the potential to be damaged by coastal storms. The proposed development will be relying on existing infrastructure. Utilization of Existing Disturbed Areas The requested amendment will result in the utilization of existing disturbed areas as opposed to natural areas that buffer existing development from coastal storms. The entire site has been developed over time, but is now vacant. That is, there are no natural, undisturbed areas remaining on the site. Maintenance of Scenic Qualities and Improvement of Public Access to Water The requested amendment will result in the maintenance of scenic qualities, and the improvement of public access, to the Gulf of Mexico, inland waterways (such as Boca Ciega Bay), and Tampa Bay. The subject area does not have any scenic qualities, nor does it impact public access to the water. Water Dependent Use The requested amendment is for uses which are water dependent. The site is not waterfront, so this criterion is not applicable. Part of Community Redevelopment Plan The requested amendment is included in a Community Redevelopment Plan, as defined by Florida Statutes for a downtown or other designated redevelopment areas. 2

The amendment is not part of such plan. Overall Reduction of Density or Intensity The requested amendment would result in an increase in density or intensity on a single parcel, in concert with corollary amendments which result in the overall reduction of development density or intensity in the surrounding CHHA. This amendment is not involved with other parcels. Clustering of Uses The requested amendment within the CHHA provides for the clustering of uses on a portion of the site outside the CHHA. Approximately 50% of the site is in the CHHA and the restaurant is proposed for this non- CHHA. The hotel is proposed for an portion of the site that is in the CHHA. Integral Part of Comprehensive Planning Process The requested amendment has been initiated by the local government as an integral part of its comprehensive planning process, consistent with the local government comprehensive plan. The City conducted a corridor study for Causeway Boulevard and this proposal is consistent with the overall findings in that study to provide a mix of tourist-based and residential uses along the causeway. This request would cause the comprehensive plan to be amended consistent with that corridor study. Note that Appendix C will be provided when it is made available by the City. 5) Designated Development/Redevelopment Areas The amendment area is not located in, nor does it impact, a designated development or redevelopment area. 6) Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction or Public Educational Facility The amendment area is not adjacent to another jurisdiction or to a public educational facility. Therefore, this request can be considered consistent with these Relevant Countywide Considerations. Conclusion: On balance, it can be concluded that the requested amendment from Residential Low Medium to Resort, along with the accompanying development agreement, is deemed consistent with the Relevant Countywide Considerations found in the Countywide Rules. 3

Support Document 1 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST STATEMEN City of Dunedin SUBMITTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DEV-LUP-ZO-S/D 15-56.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CASE NUMBER: PROPERTy OWNERS/REPRESENTATIVE (include name and address): AV Florida Holdings LLC, 605 Palm Blvd Ste B, Dunedin, FL 34698 ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent Absolute Name/Address: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name/Address: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name/Address ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN MAP AMENDMENT: Forms available online at www.dinellasdlannmscouncil.ore/amendment.htm

Support Document 2 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR COUNTYWIDE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT Countvwide Plan Map Information 1. Current Countywide Plan Category(ies) Residential Low Medium (RLM) 2. Proposed Countywide Plan Category(ies) Resort Facilities Medium (RFM) Local Future Land Use Plan Map Information 1. Requesting Local Government City of Dunedin 2. Local Map Amendment Case Number DEV-LUP-ZO-S/D 15-56.00 3. Current Local Land Use Category(ies) Residential Low Medium (RLM) 4. Current Local Zoning Designation(s) Form Based Medium (FX-M) 5. Proposed Local Land Use Category(ies) Resort Facilities Medium (RFM) 6. Proposed Local Zoning Designation(s) Tourist Facility (TF) Site and Parcel Information 1. Parcel number(s) ofarea(s) proposed to be amended - Sec/Twp/Rng/Sub/Blk/Lot (and/or legal description, as necessary) 15-28-15-23166-001-0000 2. Location/Address 3. Acreage 4. Existing use(s) 5. Existing density and/or floor area ratio 2641 Michael Place Q^bam^ c/noq 6. Proposed use/name of project (if applicable) Causeway Hotel Local Action 1. Date local ordinance was considered at public hearing and authorized by an affirmative vote of the governing body for transmittal of, and concurrence with, the local government future land use plan map amendment. August 20,2015 2. If the local government chooses to submit a development agreement in support of this application, the date the agreement was approved at public hearing by the legislative body. Any development agreement submitted as part of an application for Countywide Plan Map amendment may become a condition of approval of the amendment and will be subject to the provisions of Section 6.1.6 of the Countywide Rules. Other Items to hiclude 1. Copy of local ordinance. 2. If applicable, a copy of the development agreement approved by the legislative body and executed by the applicant property owner and other private party(ies) to the agreement. 3. PPC Disclosure of Interest Form. 4. Local government staff report. 5. Local plan and zoning maps showing amendment area. 6. If applicable, proposed demarcation line for environmentally sensitive areas. Forms available online at www.mnellasulanninkcouncil.ors/amendment.htm f

Support Document 3

EXHIBIT C COVENANT REGARDING HURRICANE EVACUATION AND CLOSURE THIS COVENANT ( Covenant ) is made as of the day of, 2015, by AV Florida Holdings LLC, a Florida limited liability company (or its related entity which will develop the Property), ( Developer ). Developer is, or will be upon Developer s closing on its contractual rights to acquire the property, the owner of fee simple title to the real property described in Exhibit A to this Development Agreement and made a part thereof (hereinafter, the Property ). Per the terms of this Development Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to develop up to 66,500 square feet of hotel space with up to 90 hotel rooms (the Hotel ) and up to 4,000 square feet of restaurant space, subject to Developer s compliance with the requirements and obligations of the Development Agreement. Those obligations include the requirement that Developer comply with all county and local hurricane evacuation plans and procedures to ensure the orderly evacuation of guests and visitors per Chapter 34, Article II of the Pinellas County Code, and that it execute a mandatory evacuation/closure covenant, stating that the accommodation use will close as soon as practical after the National Hurricane Center posts a hurricane watch that includes the City of Dunedin THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and restrictions herein set forth and to be observed and performed, and in further consideration of the approval of hotel entitlements for the Property, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Developer hereby declares, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Benefit and Enforcement. These covenants and restrictions are made for the benefit of the residents of the City and shall be enforceable on behalf of said residents by the City Council of the City. 2. Covenant of Closure/Evacuation 2.1 Evacuation Plan. Pursuant to Section 34-65, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances, within 90 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Hotel, Developer shall submit to the City of Dunedin an evacuation plan describing the methods for informing staff and guests of the threat of approaching hurricanes and the procedures to be followed during evacuation. Upon approval of the plan by the City, copies of the evacuation plan shall be made available to all guests, and given to each guest during hurricane season. 2.2 Closure of Improvements and Evacuation. The Hotel developed on the Property shall be closed as soon as practicable upon the issuance of a hurricane watch by the National Hurricane Center, which hurricane watch includes the City of Dunedin, and all Hotel guests, visitors and employees other than emergency and security personnel required to protect the resort, shall be evacuated from the Hotel as soon as practicable following the issuance of said hurricane watch. In the event that the National Hurricane

Center shall modify the terminology employed to warn of the approach of hurricane force winds, the closure and evacuation provisions of this Covenant shall be governed by the level of warning employed by the National Hurricane Center which precedes the issuance of a forecast of probable landfall in order to ensure that the guests, visitors and employees will be evacuated in advance of the issuance of a forecast of probable landfall. 3. Effective Date. This Covenant shall become effective upon issuance of all building permits required to build the project ( Project ) and Developer s commencement of construction of the Project, as evidence by a Notice of Commencement for the Project. 4. Governing Law. This Covenant shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 5. Recording. This Covenant shall be recorded in the chain of title of the Property with the Clerk of the Courts of Pinellas County, Florida. 6. Attorneys Fees. Developer shall reimburse the City for any expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, which are incurred by the City in the event that the City determines that it is necessary and appropriate to seek judicial enforcement of this Covenant and the City obtains relief, whether by agreement of the parties or through order of a court of competent jurisdiction, 7. Severability. If any provision, or part thereof, of this Covenant or the application of this Covenant to any person or circumstance will be or is declared to any extent to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Covenant, or the application of such provision or portion thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby, and each and every other provision of this Covenant shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer has caused this Covenant to be executed this day of, 2015. In the Presence of: Print Name: By: AV FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC Print Name: CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA By: Julie Ward-Bujalski, Mayor Attest: 2

, City Clerk Approved as to Form: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS By: Thomas J. Trask, City Attorney The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of, 2015, by, as Mayor of the City of Dundedin, Florida, who is [ ] personally known to me or has [ ] produced as identification. Notary Public Print Name: My Commission Expires: 47911952v1 3

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item II.D Annexation Report September 2015 I. RECOMMENDATION Council review and discuss as appropriate (information only no action required). II. BACKGROUND This report provides a tabulation of voluntary annexations received for the month of September 2015. The Planning Council received seven voluntary annexation petitions in September from the cities of Clearwater and Pinellas Park. The proposed 8.6 acres of annexations contain one commercial use, five residential uses and one vacant parcel; and total approximately $1.4 million in taxable value, with total Municipal Service Taxing Unit tax revenues of approximately $2,906 (using Fiscal Year 2015 tax rate of 2.0857 mills). An estimated total of nine residents will be affected by a change in jurisdiction. Three annexed parcels will reduce enclaves by 0.6 acres. Table 1 describes the voluntary annexation petition received for the month of September 2015, including when the Planning Council staff received the petition, the name of the annexing municipality, and the acreage, taxable value, estimated population affected, and property use of the annexation. Table 2 provides a cumulative log of all voluntary annexations reviewed during Fiscal Year 2015, by municipality. PPC Action: CPA Action: H:\USERS\Annexation Review and Coordination\Voluntary Annexation Review\PPC & PAC Memos\2015\9 September Status of Reviews.docx

SUBJECT: Annexation Report September 2015 TABLE 1 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION LOG SEPTEMBER 2015 Date Received Case Number (Local Case Number) Municipality Number of Acres Taxable Value 1 Estimated Population 2 Property Use 9/1/2015 VA14-49 (ANX15-05015) Clearwater 0.2 $86,662 2 Residential 9/15/2015 VA15-50 (AX15-25) Pinellas Park 0.2 $45,425 2 Residential 9/21/2015 VA15-51 (ANX2015-08021) Clearwater 1.3 $402,500 0 Commercial 9/21/2015 VA15-52 (ANX2015-09022) Clearwater 0.2 $105,362 2 Residential 9/21/2015 VA15-53 (ANX2015-09023) Clearwater 0.2 $137,997 2 Residential 9/21/2015 VA15-54 (ANX2015-09024) Clearwater 2.0 $248,596 2 Residential 9/21/2015 VA15-55 (ANX2015-09025) Clearwater 4.5 $366,540 0 Vacant TOTAL 8.6 $1,393,082 9 Total Impacted MSTU 3 Revenues 4 $2,906 1 Includes real property only; does not include tangible personal property. 2 According to the 2010 U.S. Census data, there is an average of 1.85 persons for each residential unit in the county. 3 MSTU = Municipal Service Taxing Unit 4 Using the FY2015 MSTU millage rate of 2.0857. 2

SUBJECT: Annexation Report September 2015 TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE LOG OF VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2015 (OCTOBER 1, 2014 SEPTEMBER 30, 2015) Municipality Petitions Acres Clearwater 58 43.5 Dunedin 1 2.1 Kenneth City 1 0.4 Largo 83 29.1 Oldsmar 2 11.5 Pinellas Park 30 15.7 Safety Harbor 1 0.2 Seminole 3 0.6 Tarpon Springs 1 0.9 TOTAL 180 104.0 3

PAC Meeting October 5, 2015 Agenda Item III.A Internet Reservation Systems & Vacation Rentals I. RECOMMENDATION Planners Advisory Committee receive and discuss as appropriate (information only no action required). II. BACKGROUND At the May 4 PAC meeting, City of St. Petersburg staff initiated and presented information regarding current codes, statutes, zoning, and tax laws pertaining to the transient rental of properties, particularly those doing so via internet sites, with a request for feedback on how such uses are regulated by other local governments in Pinellas County. At the August 31 PAC meeting we discussed the topic with a little more detail. At this month s meeting we will have a presentation by Erin Sullivan of the Pinellas County Tax Collector s office, as well as other more detailed discussion as can be seen in the following outline: 1. Introduction a. What is the issue? b. Why it is important? c. What we hope to accomplish? 2. Planning Context a. State b. Countywide c. Local Government (Codes, Issues and Experiences) 3. Legal Context 4. Case Studies 5. Taxation Information 6. PAC Discussion 7. Related Articles (Attachments 1-4) Please be prepared to provide input regarding your local government s regulations regarding this subject (see 2.c. above). PPC Action: CPA Action:

Attachment 1

1 of 2 10/1/2015 12:03 PM http://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/content_articles/090115_pco-01.txt?archiveview&print Archives Article View Published on TBNWeekly.com - Sept. 1, 2015 Attachment 2 Clearwater city manager questions impact of tourism growth By BOB McCLURE Article published on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015 CLEARWATER With bed tax collections reaching record highs and hotel occupancies surpassing previous numbers, Clearwater City Manager Bill Horne wonders when the county will reach the saturation point for tourism. Speaking at the Barrier Islands Government Council meeting Aug. 26, Horne said the inventory of hotel rooms has not been able to keep up with the influx of visitors, forcing tourists to look for short-term rentals at residential venues. In most cases along the beaches, short-term rentals of six months or less are not legal. The result is negative impact, Horne said. We know they (short-term renters) have an adverse impact on our neighborhoods, he said. There s no question about that. Yes, there are some good neighbors but there are a lot of adverse things that we have to deal with. So from a Clearwater perspective, we re pretty much opposed to any more loosening of the rules. Our residents are really on our case. Horne said the county can t put the emphasis it does on Pinellas as a tourist destination without living with the pain it creates. He said as hotels reach maximum capacity, visitors begin looking at other alternatives for accommodations, including residential condos and homes. I m thinking how do we prepare our residents to appreciate the benefit of what that additional tourism brings, so that they don t feel they re just living a nightmare, Horne said. Our road systems are limited. It s just the way it is. There s no way we ll be able to expand our roads to handle some of the traffic that permeates our beach areas. It s just not going to happen. He suggested it would only get worse if St. Pete Beach and Treasure Island redevelop their older properties. It s a very challenging time for us, Horne said. We have an amazing popularity. In three or four years I think Clearwater Beach will reach its max capacity for tourism in terms of structures. But that s just us. What happens if St. Pete Beach takes a different turn, or Treasure Island takes a different turn and you get more inventory? That s going to be more traffic. The tourist numbers tell the story in Pinellas. More than $27.3 million in bed tax money has been collected through May, which is 80.7 percent of the Tourist Development Council s 2015 budget of $33.86 million, according to a recent staff report. Staff estimates that this year s collections will exceed $38.6 million. A recent report from the Tax Collector s Office shows bed tax collections through June at nearly $30.86 million. With three months to go before the end of the fiscal year, collections are up 12.64 percent from 2014. The county collected more than $35 million last year. In 2014, 59 percent of bed tax proceeds went to CVB marketing and operations.

2 of 2 10/1/2015 12:03 PM http://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/content_articles/090115_pco-01.txt?archiveview&print Do we need to make sure we have the right capacity to handle the number of people you re inviting in through the marketing campaign? asked St. Pete Beach Mayor Maria Lowe. I m not, and this is me personally, and I don t think our city is willing to degrade our residential to support tourism. We want to make sure the areas we have zoned appropriately as commercial get that influx. The job the CVB does on marketing our area is unbelievable, said Madeira Beach Mayor Travis Palladeno. But to follow up on what Mayor Lowe said, we brought in an additional community deputy for code enforcement for short term rentals. He works the Internet. He looks at these sites that people advertise on. We ve identified 45 properties that were illegal and in the wrong zoning areas. Palladeno said with proper planning, growth could be positive. The great thing about marketing and bringing more people in, we re having more property redeveloped to bring more rooms in, Palladeno said. So in Madeira Beach we ve worked our (planned development zoning district) to allow additional rooms to properties and have actually adopted the county s plan. He pointed to plans recently submitted for the former Leverocks restaurant property that will bring an additional 450 rooms to Madeira Beach. What you have to remember is our millage rate out here on the beaches is low because of what? It s tourism, Palladeno said. That s what allows us to keep our resident tax rates low. I say bring em on. Sarah Ward, staff director of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, said her agency is focusing on transportation issues related to visitors and residents getting to the beaches. With the unification of the MPO and the Pinellas Planning Council, we ve identified the issue that we re discussing here as one of the top priorities and beach access, Ward said. We ve seen the impact of traffic coming (onto the beach) through Clearwater. She said the board will conduct a workshop and retreat on Sept. 21 and one of the topics will be alternative access routes to the beaches and how to promote those routes. Meanwhile the Pinellas County Convention and Visitors Bureau is keeping an ear open to the issue. We re busting records and people love our destination, but I think it does deserve conversation and input from everybody else, said Rhonda Sanborn, hospitality and education director for the CVB. Somehow we need to organize and think about where we want to be and what kind of place we want to live, work and play in. It definitely deserves conversation and thought at this turning point for us not to be a Miami. Article published on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015 Copyright Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved.

1 of 2 10/1/2015 12:07 PM http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/beach_beacon/content_articles/090215_bhb-02.txt?archiveview&print Archives Article View Published on TBNWeekly.com - Sept. 2, 2015 Attachment 3 Madeira Beach fights illegal rentals Goal is preserving the character of our neighborhoods By WAYNE AYERS Article published on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2015 MADEIRA BEACH Progress is being made in combating illegal short-term rentals in the city of Madeira Beach s residential districts. The problem has been ongoing, widespread, and severe enough to threaten the residential character of the neighborhoods, which require minimum three-month rentals. Dozens of properties have been found in violation, a city official says, and he believes many more are, too. The city has had a short-term rental ordinance in force for more than a year. But Vice Mayor Elaine Poe said in April the problem continue(s) to grow worse. City Manager Shane Crawford said at that time he believed stepped-up law enforcement was needed. In June, the city commission agreed to hire an additional deputy to handle short-term rentals. Code enforcement deputy Chris Kohmann gave an update and progress report at the Aug. 25 commission workshop. Crawford said Kohmann had exactly the personality needed for the job. Kohmann said the majority of illegal short-term rentals are advertised online, on websites such as verbo.com, homeaway.com, flipkey.com and airbnb.com, which he identified as the heavy hitters. Hours of research are needed to locate the properties throughout the city, the deputy said. The houses are in the R1 and R2 zoning districts, which require six-month and three-month rental minimums respectively. Shorter rental periods are allowed in these areas only if the property is grandfathered under the old rules. That can happen if a property had been rented short term prior to February 2006, when the current zoning code was passed. Since June 1, 48 short-term rentals have been investigated and 38 emails sent to owners, and 25 violation notices mailed, Kohmann said. Violators are given seven days to comply. Cases are then turned over to the town s special magistrate. Four special magistrate hearings have been held. The city won every case, Kohmann said. A new ordinance with more teeth dealing with short-term rentals will be presented to the commission soon, Kohmann said. That law should further help preserve the character of our neighborhoods, and get rid of the trash, garbage and crime, he said. While progress has been made in combating illegal rentals, Kohmann said, there are more of them out there. We re still finding new ones daily. Residents also can help out by reporting possible rental violations in their neighborhood, Kohmann said. Phone 391-9951, ext. 295 or email madeirabeachcode@madeirabeachfl.gov.

http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/beach_beacon/content_articles/090215_bhb-02.txt?archiveview&print 2 of 2 10/1/2015 12:07 PM Crawford commended Vice Mayor Elaine Poe for her work on the short-term rental issue. She works tirelessly on research for this, and in looking at what other cities are doing. The crackdown efforts have already been successful, said Crawford. He added, Other cities will learn from us. Poe said after the meeting she is really happy with the progress made so far. Financial policies set The city will have policies in place going forward to guide budget and financial activities such as investments, debt, fund balances, and spending for capital projects. The guidelines will move the city from just adopting an annual operating budget to thinking more long term, resulting in more prudent decisions, said Finance Director Vincent Tenaglia. Tenaglia said he expects a lot of changes in the city s investment and fund balance decisions, for example, will result from the new policies. The city s financial advisers were at the meeting to discuss the budget and finance policy guidelines they are proposing. Tenaglia said the policies are needed, especially with the city s recent and upcoming capital projects costing millions of dollars. He said that even though the proposed policies haven t yet been formally adopted, he is already letting the concepts guide his decisions. City on Swiss TV Madeira Beach will be a featured TV attraction in Switzerland, Mayor Travis Palladeno announced. The mayor said he had given a Swiss television crew a boat tour of the city s icons, including Archibald Park, John s Pass, the beaches and the municipal recreation center. We got some great shots for Swiss TV, the mayor said. The event was done in cooperation with the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. Article published on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2015 Copyright Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved.

1 of 1 10/1/2015 12:05 PM http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2015/09/02/city--anna-maria-leaders--vote--rental-ordinance/71605328/ Attachment 4 Isabel Mascareñas, WTSP 11:54 p.m. EDT September 2, 2015 Anna Maria, Florida -- Anna Maria Island is divided. The commission chamber was filled with residents on one side and on the other rental homeowners and rental agents over a short-term vacation rental ordinance. But at the end of the public hearing commissioners unanimously approved the ordinance. The ultimate goal is we eliminate renters on the island, Debbie Kilichowski, property owner from Tampa. We go back to being a quiet family-oriented small group, adds Jill Morris, resident. (Photo: WTSP) Two-thirds or about 600 of 800 homes are rentals on the island. Anna Maria approves new ordinance for rentals WTSP If people live in these houses, everyone of them homes, 24/7. How many people do you think would be here? says John Castellano, rental homeowner from Brandon. Despite strong arguments on both sides the ordinance passed unanimously. The ordinance sets limits including a $1,000 licensing fee, caps occupancy at 8 people, limits parking, and if a realtor or homeowner has too many violations in a 12-month period they could lose their license for a year. Commissioners did make some changes among them limiting grandfathering for larger homes with 4 to 8 bedrooms to 5 years. Castellano asked the commissioners, Is this a police state? But supporters say it s the right move for this old Florida community. Morris says, Our property values will increase. This is a community we need to get back to that, adds Janet Aubrey, resident. But opponents say what residents are asking for is unrealistic. What families do you know can afford $500,000? asks Michael Trauner, rental homeowner from Plant City. Trauner says most rental owners rent during the 4-month tourism season just to pay for the taxes. The city still faces two lawsuits: one from a group of rental agents and property owners, and another by a local developer. The group will ask a judge on Wednesday for an injunction to stop the ordinance from taking effect Jan. 1. Read or Share this story: http://on.wtsp.com/1ezybrq