Dunedin LPA recommends historic-preservation ordinance to commission, removes city manager initiation power

The Local Planning Agency of the City of Dunedin voted July 9 to recommend approval of Ordinance 25-02, revisions to Chapter 111 of the Land Development Code and Resolution 25-13 governing historic preservation, with a condition removing the city manager—s ability to initiate local historic-district applications.

The LPA—s recommendation, made after a staff and consultant presentation and public comment, passed by voice vote, 6–1. The motion asked that the ordinance move forward without the city manager—s initiation power for district nominations; board members subsequently clarified that, under the remaining provisions, a local historic district would still require property-owner support per the proposed language.

Frances Leong, planner II for the City of Dunedin, introduced consultant Blair Knighting of Kimley-Horn, who summarized proposed changes to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) matrix and to landmark and district procedures. Knighting said the revised COA matrix reduces the number of exterior-review topics requiring City Commission approval and retains commission review only for demolition exceeding 20 percent, which "allows owners for quicker, less burdensome process" for noncontributing structures.

The proposed ordinance also distinguishes between a landmark (a building) and a landmark site (real property) and, as presented, adds an owner-consent requirement for landmark and landmark-site designations. The ordinance would permit local historic-district applications by property owners with 100% owner support and by the city manager where the manager demonstrates that "failure to designate a proposed district will result in irreparable harm to the character of the city," language consultants and the city attorney described as a legal "term of art" often used in injunction contexts.

During public comment, Ryan Saunders, of 250 Lyndhurst Street, said the LPA had previously requested clearer FAQs on three points: "the city manager's power to initiate a district, specific homeowner protections after storm damage, [and] consideration of an expedited city manager process." Saunders told the board the materials did not fully resolve who decides "irreparable harm" or provide timelines for owners facing rebuilds.

Resident Paul Gionis said a master survey prepared for the ordinance process covered roughly 600 homes and questioned why that survey was not broadly publicized; he warned that property owners could be forced to appear before a review body to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for routine exterior repairs. Several other residents asked for stronger homeowner protections if a district nomination were filed without owner support.

LPA members pressed staff and the city attorney on the meaning and proof of "irreparable harm" and on the notice and review steps that would follow a city-manager-initiated application. The city attorney and staff said the manager would need to include factual support when filing and that notice to affected property owners and hearings before the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and the City Commission would still occur.

After deliberation, a board member moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 25-02 while removing the city manager—s initiation authority; the motion was seconded, amended to clarify that property owners could not have districts imposed on their properties without Commission approval, and carried by voice vote, 6–1. The LPA—s recommendation and the recorded vote will be forwarded to the City Commission for final action.

The ordinance as presented references: Ordinance 25-02 (amending Chapter 111 of the Land Development Code), Resolution 25-13 (COA matrix), and the city—s land development code provisions on COAs and historic designations. Where the ordinance imposes new processes or definitions (for example, owner consent and the district-application procedure), staff told the LPA those procedural details would be reflected in the final text sent to the Commission.

A copy of the staff packet and the consultant—s frequently asked questions were provided to the LPA; staff noted pending COA applications that may await the ordinance—s adoption.

The LPA—s recommendation does not itself change the code; it forwards the board—s position to the City Commission for first and second readings and final action.