is Tuesday, May 27th, 2025. It is 6 p.m. Let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. City clerk, if please do roll call. Vice Mayor Karen Marriott here. Commissioner Lisa Robinson here. Commissioner Betty Rniki here.
Commissioner Joe Moholland here and Mayor Adrien Petrilla here. Thank you. First we're going to start the evening with presentations. The first presentation is the fire department personnel proclamation.
Mayor, you should have all of it this evening. Would you mind doing the introduction, city manager? Sure. So, this evening we have two employees um up for proclamation for their life saving
um activities and the response to a very uh stressful situation that could have turned out very differently had they not been there to respond. We have Lauren Garchow and Jason Wing here this evening. And um if you'd like to uh
share the background on what happened that day as part of the proclamation um for the audience that would be great. Thanks. Sounds good. So we are to recognize uh Lieutenant Jason Wing and rescue swimmer Lauren. Is it Garcow?
Gartow. Garel uh for the rapid response and decisive action during a recent water rescue off the southern tip of Pass Grill, which is an area unfortunately prone to having incidents um like this. On April 23rd, sorry, April 3rd,
2025, Lieutenant Wing and Miss Garcow responded swiftly to the stress call involving three kayakers, including a a terrified firsttime paddler who could not swim, struggling against a powerful outgoing tide. The group have been fighting the current for over an hour and have become visibly exhausted and
overwhelmed. And thanks to the attentiveness of a concerned residents from Pastor Grill who witnessed the group increasing distress and called 911, help was quickly dispatched. Upon arrival, uh Lieutenant Wing and Miss Garcow assessed the situation, coordinated an effective rescue plan,
and successfully brought all three kayakers to safety. Their calm demeter, clear communication, and confident handling of the situation were instrumental in ensur in ensuring a safe and smooth rescue operations. The kayakers expressed deep gratitude, repeatedly thanking both rescuers. This
incident is a reminder of the critical role our marine rescue teams play in protecting lives on our waters. We commend Lieutenant Jason Wing and Lauren Garcow for embody embodying the highest standards of service, skill, and dedication. Thank you for representing our city with excellence.
Are they here today? Please come forward. Got surfboards on there. I'll read the proclamation in the meantime. So, proclamation. Whereas on April TW on April 3rd, 2025, flutending Jason Wing and rescue swimmer Lauren
Garcelo of Light Marine 22 demonstrated exceptional professionalism, skill, and courage during a water rescue off the southern tip of Passer Grill. And whereas three kayakers, including a firsttime paddler who could not swim, were caught in a powerful outgoing tide and had struggled for over an hour for
return safety. And whereas a concerned resident of point of pass condominiums observed a kayaker's distress and growing exhaustion promptly called 911 to request emergency assistant. And whereas responding units district 23 and medic 22 coordinated
with the caller at the beach access off of 1st avenue while LM22 launched from 4th Avenue navigated swiftly to the scene. And whereas Lieutenant Wing and Rescue Sim Garcelo assessed the situation calmly and effectively devised a safety a rescue
strategy and safely brought all individuals and their kayaks back to shore. And now therefore be resolved. The Lieutenant Jason Wing in the rescues from Luring Jarel are hereby recognized and commended for their outstanding service, bravery, dedication of public safety. Their swift action are a true
testament to the excellence and professionalism of our emergency services. Walk slow. I think she's coming. All right, here he comes. All right. When she walks in, everyone clap [Laughter]
or just stare. [Laughter] [Applause] I'm sorry. Good evening. Congratulations.
Great job. Thank you so much. Congratulations. [Applause] All right. Next, we have the hurricane season 2024 afteraction presentation. Assistant city manager.
Good evening everybody. Thank you very much for recognizing our uh wonderful first responder. So, thank thank you very much for that. Adam Poyer, assistant city manager. Um what we wanted to do tonight was obviously there's been a lot of stuff occurring since since the storms um uh came came
upon us last year. So we wanted to kind of give you a really high level overview of some of the afteraction uh kind of research that we've done and some of the things that we have either done doing or plan to do moving forward. So um I I will just kind of start this presentation by saying this is again
very high level but also almost constantly changing because we're we're still doing after actions uh with some of our external partners. Um you know just last week we we learned a couple more things that that we need to implement prior to uh you know really the heart of the the next storm season. I know we're only a couple weeks away
from the storm season but um there there's certainly a lot of things going on. So we just wanted to give you kind of a high level overview of what what's been going on. So um we really looked at the afteraction in two different stages uh one with our internal uh customers
which are our employees and and and kind of how that went uh and then we looked at the external and we'll kind of cover both uh parts of that. So from the internal aspect of it uh basically the fire department led uh an afteraction with all of our city department. So each city department and their department
director sat down with their staff and they basically did a SWAT analysis. They looked at the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities, and the threats that uh they experienced during uh those two storms that that we dealt with. So, um and and we did that to try to look at lessons learned and things that we can
do uh be more prepared for in the future. Hopefully, we'll and I should also say that too, we hope we never use any of the stuff that I'm going to go over tonight, but um we want to be uh more prepared and and ready to respond should we have to do this uh you know, again. So really, um, like I said, the
departments each led one of these, uh, sessions. Um, the fire department then took all that information, look for similarities and look for things that, uh, the staff could act on to, uh, to make some corrections or to, uh, enhance our response. Um, it was a very collaborative process. Uh, and again, we
reviewed all of them once we obtained. These are a couple of the the top themes from the staff analysis, and I'm not going to talk long on them because we're going to get to it a little bit in the employee um staff recommendations, but a couple of the big major themes were the
procurement, uh resource management, uh communications and coordination, and then personnel and staffing. And again, I'm going to cover each of those in a little bit more detail as we as we go on from an external perspective. So, our community members, business owners, um
you know, people that were affected by the storm, uh you all are probably well aware because you appointed the members to it. We did uh set up a recovery task force uh which tonight I really want to uh thank all the members that that you appointed. They were phenomenal. Um they worked great with our staff. Uh we had
several meetings where we covered and you'll see on these slides, I won't read them word for word, but we covered things like the preliminary assessment of our damages throughout our city. Um, we really gave them a wide overview of everything that that we experienced and and things that we had done to this
point. Uh, and then we did that that same SWAT analysis uh with our community members to try to look at again similarities between uh the staff and the and the residents. So, they did a great job. Really want to give them a huge thank you for working with us. So, these next couple slides, we
just look at the strengths, uh, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. And what what you see up there is kind of some of the responses that came from the community, some of the responses that came from staff, and then the ones that were kind of um uh similar in both circumstances. So, uh from strengths,
community spirit, uh teamwork, uh certainly the rapid arrival of mutual aid. So, that's, you know, the state sending resources, the county sending resources. Um you know, almost anything that we asked for came here very, very quickly. Some things took a little bit of time. Um but certainly our external
partners uh were were tremendous to work for and to get us uh the resources that we needed quickly. Some weaknesses that were identified um communication uh you know you probably wouldn't be surprised any of these storm all these storms are different all these events are different
and communication seems to come to the top a lot of times with uh with some weaknesses. So obviously that's one of the areas that we're going to focus on but that is something that came up. Um and then looking at some um uh insufficient and and vulnerable equipment that would that we had, you
know, previously purchased um and and things that we want to look to do better when we when we make purchases moving forward. Some of the opportunities, which again we're going to cover when I go over some of the staff recommendations and some of the actions that we're currently taking, but uh obviously having a substantial damage a
more comprehensive substantial damage plan prior to the event. our community development director is going to talk a little bit about that here shortly. Um that's one of our major uh afteractions that we're working on. Um making our uh equipment more resilient. So that's raising things uh within our
infrastructure to get it above the flood plane. Same thing that a lot of our communities doing to their houses. We're looking to do the same things. Um and then improving our partnerships and then looking for funding opportunities. One of our biggest goals here is we're going to do a lot of things before the storm that I'm going to talk about, but we're
still going to try to leverage our resources and utilize those state resources to try to minimize the effect on our taxpayers. Our our goal is to ensure that um the least amount of money that we we put at, you know, up for FEMA reimbursement, we want to keep that number as low as possible. So, we're
going to be doing a lot of things, but we're still going to be trying to leverage um those state resources and get those into our community. uh some of the threats of destruction of the sand dunes obviously one of the largest one um looking at the the storm water system maintenance which we've
talked a lot about um and then the uh that everyone is well aware of some of the bad data that we got from some of those damage assess assessment tools so again part of that SD plan that uh our community development director is going to speak about is looking to uh to avoid some of that moving
forward so now I'll just get into a couple of the um again just very high level recommendations from staff. Uh give you a little idea some of the stuff that we're working on already plan to work on. Uh again there's a lot more than than I could fit in a in a quick uh 15 20 minute presentation but I just
wanted to give you a high level overview. But um we're looking to streamline some procurement and resource management. Uh you know having gone through the storm we now know all of the things that we're going to need quickly after the storm. So, we're trying to um you'll see a lot of RFPs, RFQS come out
so that we have all that uh stuff pre um planned similar to our debris removal and our debris monitoring that we had before the storm. We're going to do a lot of that before the storm. But again, I just want to emphasize that even though we'll have those in our pocket, our goal will still be to utilize state
resources to minimize the the the threat to taxpayers funds. So, um these are all kind of just secondary means to ensure that we have it should we need it. So, we're looking at things like food service, um the remediation of buildings. We have a great company working with us right now, but we're going to look to have some of those uh
planned beforehand. Uh damage assessment to all the buildings and then you guys probably saw a lot of the cooling stations, a lot of the temporary facilities that we had. Um you know, when you when you have to procure those at the time can be more expensive than if we just plan ahead of time. So, we're trying to do that uh ahead of time. And
again, some of those temporary structures, this is a big one, like I mentioned, communications. Um, you know, improving our communication. So, uh, we we used a lot of different methods to communicate with the community, but one of the major points that came out of the recovery task force was there was there was other options that we could have
used. So, we're looking at a lot of different ways to get the information out to our community. Text messaging, you everything. We're we're looking at every option. um our communications director has spent probably countless hours now in in and trainings that um you know is going to basically um give
him more tools in his toolbox to get these messages out. Um a lot of our messaging comes from our county partners which they're doing the same exercise at the county level looking at better ways to communicate. Um we're we're a part of all those afteractions as well. So the lessons they learn we learn as well and
we'll make sure that we can get uh this information out to our community effectively. So, um, as I mentioned, not only our communications director, but a lot of our staff has been involved with, uh, with ICS training. Um, some of that is going to be a lot of that is going to
become more of a requirement based on a Senate bill. Uh, you've probably heard of Senate Bill 180. Um, that's going to change a lot of the ways that we prepare for emergencies. So, uh, all of our staff is tracking on that and and a lot of things that will likely, uh, become reality when the governor likely will
sign that, we've already done or we're moving in that direction. And so we're trying to get ahead of the game on uh Senate Bill 180. Um one of the things we we realized is a lot of our staff was out here taking uh you know pictures and and and real-time video. A lot of our residents
had had evacuated. They had no idea what what the island looked like. So although we had all this great uh video footage and pictures, we weren't getting those out to our residents that might have been, you know, states away. So um we're going to try to a lot of that stuff that we're seeing with our eyes, get that out there as well. That was one of the
things that came upon the recovery task force as well. And like I mentioned, we're going to be utilizing a lot of different medians this time, but text messaging being one of them that that came up pretty pretty regularly. Enhanced staffing. Um, you know, it doesn't matter large community,
small community, every community in Penllis County had staffing issues. Uh, there is just no way that you could staff uh accordingly for an event like this, right? it it just wouldn't make financial sense to have have that much staff before the storm. So, um we're looking at ways to have those contract
employees, you know, pre-stage before storms. Um again, you guys know that we're using temporary personnel that we've we've done. We've brought some stuff before the commission to uh get us through the recovery phase. So, we're going to continue to look at uh ways that we can leverage that. Um, we're
going to be, and you'll see on the next slide, we're going over all of our emergency management plans, but we're certainly going to be identifying roles beforehand and making sure that all of our current staff is well aware of what their responsibilities are, not only during the storm, but through the recovery phase. So, um, that's a huge
part of our preparation. U, we're going to be doing tabletop drills. So, we have one, um, don't quote me on this date, but I believe it's June 16th. we'll have our whole uh leadership team together and we'll be doing a tabletop drill with Penelis County Emergency Management. So, that's basically a simulated event that
comes uh and we have to react through uh the the response phase and the recovery phase. So, that's that's a that's a big deal and that helps with that role clarity, that helps with those emergency roles and people knowing what what roles they're going to be in. Um, and then we're going to be one thing uh we I I
think we we did a great job on is is is paying attention to the needs of our employees. Obviously, um they were here serving their community, but a lot of them were affected by the storm as well. So, uh one of the areas we're redoing our EOCC organizational chart right now um is is focusing on employment
wellness. So, making sure that our employees are taken care of so that they can serve the community. So, uh that's certainly something that we're working on. I mentioned this just previously, updates to the comprehensive emergency management plan. Um, so one of the things we did was several months ago,
um, the the the director of Florida Department of Emergency Management gave us a contact with our regional rep. So we sent all of our plans to our regional four rep and, uh, he reviewed all those plans and is now providing kind of feedback of ways that we can enhance those. Um, so that's one of the ways
that we're looking at at at redoing a lot of our uh, comprehensive emergency management plans, our emergency operations plans. As you likely know, our first stop is the Pasadena Community Church, but unfortunately when that meets evacuation criteria, then we have to move to to St. Pete College, which
actually you have an agenda item um for for that today to to solidify that contract with uh the Midtown campus where we have to move. So, you know, just in a nutshell, I will say a lot of these plans were were developed before any of us had ever experienced something
like this. So this is the time to go back and and see what worked and what didn't work and make sure it works next time. So uh a lot of lessons learned again. Hopefully we'll never have to use it. So uh continuity operation plans, those will be for each uh individual city department to make sure that they
can post uh operate during the uh recovery phase. I mentioned the ICS training and I mentioned after actions. So um I can tell you these afteractions are are are occurring on a regular basis right now. I know some of you uh even attended one with us with the with the
uh state just recently. Uh again going over lessons learned. So we'll be continuing to go through that and then like I said a lot of stuff will be added to these these actions as we uh continue to learn more. I'm going to pass this off to Laura real quick.
Thank you. Hello Laura Canary, community development director. So I'm just going to talk a little bit about the substantial damage administrative procedures plan. This was not something that we had in place prior to this season, but moving forward um we are going to have a plan in place. This is
um some of the things that you'll see in the SDAP as what we call it for short will sometimes be woven into the comprehensive plan, you know, as part of the bigger plan, but as we're going to take it forward, it's going to be a standalone document that's going to specifically talk about the damage
assessment part of all of this. Um we will be bringing it back before you all as kind of as anformational um not formal adoption but basically to walk you through the plan. It is in the early draft stages currently. So for purposes of tonight we're just going to highlight
the kind of main ingredients of what's going to go into that plan. So beginning with the pre- disaster planning. Um as part of that step it's really just talking about and communicating the essential requirements of what those ingredients are that needs to go into this plan. Again, there might be some
redundancy. You might see something in the comprehensive plan that speaks to the SDAP, but really anything damage assessment related should be captured in the SDAP plan. Also looking at any SOPs that maybe we either currently have or we're currently modifying or maybe that
we don't have yet that we need to put in place. um when we received um what what's referred to as a template from FEMA that provides basically a starting point for an SDAP, it's kind of a fill-in- thelank if you will. If you already have a policy in place or a
procedure, then you just kind of fill it in accordingly. Well, frankly, we don't have a lot of those policies in place or maybe didn't. So, we're kind of figuring those out based on our experiences and then using that information to not only feed the plan, but also be able to put those in place so that moving forward to
Adam's point earlier that we're just improving and constantly getting better as we proceed. The post- disaster immediate coordination. Um, you know, it's kind of funny because even though it's post- disaster at this point, you're still not really doing any of the damage assessment. this is still kind of
behind the scenes identifying those hot spots, vulnerable areas, areas that you maybe just think were really hard, you know, they were hard hit. And so being able to come up with a plan of how you're going to then in turn get the appropriate staff out to those areas first um before other areas to start
beginning um beginning assessing the damage. Next slide. Where's the Sorry. Thank you. So the post- disaster damage assessment and determinations. This is really where the damage assessment begins. Um, I will tell you that at this
stage is where we're really looking at again kind of on a bigger broader level looking at the damage and then we're reporting that back to Penllis County. We have um we actually had some training last week with Penllis County because as you can imagine they also are kind of sharpening their pencils if you will
based on this experience and kind of what what has worked, what didn't work. And so as they're modifying, they're in the process of modifying their plan. The county is, as well as some of the other municipalities are. So we've asked that the county send us a copy of their draft plan to date so that we can just make
sure that there's, you know, synergy and consistency between our plan that we're developing and what the county's putting in theirs because there's some like minor things that have changed as far as the assessment side goes that are really in intended to make things easier and more streamlined. being able to say take
a block of properties and provide data and input into those blocks versus going in on a pointby-point basis. So things that they also believe will be able to ensure that we have um adequate and correct data. So that as we know there was some issues with the data um
previously but the the biggest thing is um this 4Erunner which you'll see in the second bullet point forrunner substantial damage estimator tool that is new software that we have already purchased as that's the city has purchased and that's really the tool that we'll be using for damage
assessment moving forward. Um it's a very uh not only transpar it's very good as far as transparency goes. So, as far as what input is is data wise is collected, there's also a GIS application that then as an interface,
you're able to as a as a member of the public go in and not only see, you know, information maybe on your own property, but very quickly just from a visual perspective, be able to see, oh, here's where there was a lot of substantial damage just by a color coding. So that is a tool that we're very excited about
and that we think is really going to help us when hopefully this doesn't happen but when we are in this situation if and when we'll not only be able to deploy our own already on contract emergency personnel but then be able to tap into the 4Runner tool to collect
that data and then post- disaster re integration and recovery. This is really just the the SD process and where we're currently at kind of in in the process. So, this is managing the appeals. It's accepting and processing the permit
applications for repairs and reviews and kind of helping people navigate through through the process and help them determine you know what the best step and what direction to go in. And then of course um identifying recovery resources whether that's or assistance available.
So that can be things such as, you know, the volunteer program that we put in place and just making that aware and the public knowledgeable of that, aware of those resources, but things also such as, um, you know, funding opportunities through the county or Elevate Florida, just making sure that we're messaging
all of that information moving forward. And then of course, um, most importantly documenting all of those processes because again, we didn't really have those standard SOPs to go by, but we're very mindful of that. And so as we're developing this plan, we're also
aligning that with daily SOPs that we maybe need to kind of start to fit into our work plan. So again, when the when we're hopefully not in this situation again, at least we are able to then just reflect back on an existing SOP, not trying to create one on the fly. Thank
you. Thank you, Laura. So the last slide here um just talking about uh investing in infrastructure and and again several things have already come uh you know across the commission uh of things that we're trying to build back better. Um you know again that's
that's everything from from our storm water systems to our facilities things of that nature. So we're trying to become a more resilient uh community. So you know that there's a lot of things that that involves. So, you know, backup power, communication systems, flood protection measures, things of that
nature. Um, you know, we're trying to minimize uh the effects should we should we deal with another hurricane uh in the future. So, lot lot going on there as well. With that, I just want to just a big thank you to our staff. Um, you know, this really doesn't it's not
really a true reflection of all the things that they've been doing since the storm and they're back to doing their blue blue sky jobs as well. So, um, there's a lot going on. we're still right in the the midst of recovery, but at the same time uh all of our departments are working hard to to better prepare moving forward and uh I'm
confident that they'll continue to to to better prepare. Um and every time we learn something, we make the changes necessary. So uh very very appreciative of our staff and with that I'm I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Adam. Lauren, commissioners, Commissioner
Moholland. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh just a couple questions, but I do uh want to just make a general comment. There's a number of important issues here tonight. And I have to I have to admit I'm a little disappointed by uh the turnout. For the longest time, we
had a lot of turnout here. And now all of a sudden it's like nobody's here. I hope there's a lot of people at home watching because we're talking about important issues for this city uh as the city moves forward. So, um, anyway, I I
I I I had to make that comment. Um, so a lot of the recommendations here, um, make a lot of sense. Uh,
but where is the master SOP going to reside? Um there's a lot of great points and a lot of great things that the city needs to do, should do,
recommendations by the task force. And let me just say first of all, as it relates to the task force, initially back in October, I was very high on the task force. So, I thought it made a lot of sense and then I kind of backed off
that and it's like well maybe you know we need to just make some decisions and um you know get the city back on its feet and then uh I I reviewed the chart charter and um it indicated that the
task force was necessary. I spoke to the city manager and she she felt it was a good thing so long as we sunseted it as a certain point that we didn't allow it to go into uh
perpetuity. Um and I then became supportive of the task force again. So, I I do um like what's pres presented tonight, but I still haven't seen or heard where
we're going to have a master SOP for how the city government can run next year. This year we've got a lot of present knowledge present and likely
to be present. Um but turnover is inevitable. uh and honestly likely where will the master SOP reside and is there any thought on that uh
about having a master SOP uh for the city as we move forward because clearly even Penllis County didn't have a master SOP for these type events And it's not
unrealistic to expect that we could have these type events or worse events moving forward. So, I'd like to know, you know, the only thing I have any input on is the city. I don't have any control of the state. I don't have any control of the county, but I'd like to
know um what St. Pete Beach is going to do about having a master SOP for an equal event or a worse event moving forward.
Sure. No, that's a great question. So, some of those some of those that I've already spoke about, right? So, the comprehensive emergency management plan that would really be the overarching kind of SOP per se of how we respond to storms, how we recover for storms, but
it wouldn't be very detailed based on department. So then we'd look to each department to have what we would call a continuity of operation plan like I mentioned. So you know for community development that would include this the uh substantial damage process things of that nature. You know the fire department obviously we have one and and
in in normal times what we'll do is you know the fire department usually houses the emergency management plan. So, we would review uh all of the department's emergency management plans, our continuity of operation plans um to ensure that based on our knowledge, it
would meet the mark of of the city being able to operate uh in the in the event that we were to face a storm like this. So, I will tell you, I've reviewed probably hundreds of these um and a lot of communities plans were written in a quite honestly in a capsule of never
having gone through one of these storms. I mean, if you look at some of our larger cities in Penllis County, their comprehensive emergency management plan's like 10 pages long, right? So, um, you know, these lessons learned have to be captured in that document. Um, it's got to be captured in our in our
emergency operations center plan, in our emergency operations center organizational chart. Um, because like you mentioned, sir, uh, some of us may not be here the next time that that one of these go through. So, we need to ensure that those plans capture all these lessons that we learned and lived
through during these storms so that the next generation of leaderships in St. Pete Beach can take those and run with them. Now, I'm sure things will change, right? And they'll they'll have to review those, but those plans are really they are not meant to go on a bookshelf and never be looked at. Those are meant to be reviewed annually. Um, we build
that in from the fire department perspective. We do that every May. Um we'll be asking for all the city departments to uh to provide those to us as well. Um but quite honestly um it's a lot of lessons learned and there's a lot more work that that needs to go into that plan to ensure that it's
comprehensive enough that the city can operate moving forward. So uh great points and it it's certainly on our um you know to-do list to ensure that those plans are updated and comprehensive enough to like I said allow the city to operate. So I hope I answered your question.
Yes. And I mean, look, the fire department and theoretically the police department that we don't have um the fire department clearly that's their baywick.
That's what they do. Uh and I would hope the fire department would be prepared for any type disaster. My concern is more the rest of city government um being better prepared to
deal with a equal or worst of disaster moving forward. And I I I do trust that uh I I don't want to c still call her a new city manager that she's on the job about
this, but it's really disgraceful how prepared this city was and really Penllis County in general for this disaster. It's like, you know, people have had their head in the sand for years and years here because, you know, there had never been any storms. But
it's like, you know, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. And I I just hope moving forward that this city government can create a SOP that new people can come in and get
reasonably boned up on and execute in the event of a of a serious natural disaster. Um so thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, sir. Yes, sir. And and the only thing I'll add to that is is certainly our city manager has has preached that we need to
eliminate any single points of failure. So, um that's certainly what we're doing. We, you know, if if we lose a critical team member the day before a storm hits, we need to be just as prepared as if that team member was there. So, that that's certainly on our radar. Um as we redo these plans, like I
mentioned, we do have a tabletop coming up here in two weeks. Um as we update these plans, we're going to continue to do those drills so that it it it is as real life as humanly possible. Like I said, Penelis County comes in and actually runs it. Uh, so it's just like a storm's hitting. Our staff is they
they'll find out about the storm. I kind of know about the storm, but they'll find out about the storm the day of that event and it'll be like they're, you know, they're handling it on the fly. So, I think that'll be uh very valuable and we'll continue to do that moving forward. Thank you, Commissioner Nikki. Thank you. Um, Adam, a couple of
questions. Um, in the slide, um, or not in the slide, the task force, let me ask that first. Are you all still meeting? We are not still meeting. We had our final meeting where uh we did a presentation and we did a wrap-up. So we did wrap up the uh recovery task force
at this point. Okay. Um and I know we don't get to see or I in this presentation I can't see the detail other than um with the SWAT in general you know like if if they put weakness was and actually they put it as a strength which is kind of surprising and then in another slide it's a weakness I guess combination between staff and
community but it just says communication. Um, do you have something that you can share with us? Um, and it could be sent via email or at another time where we can see more more detail so that way I
have a better understanding of how much you gathered because I I think communication or there's a there was a lot of areas that um I'll give you one for example communication Penllis County, St. Petersburg, St. Pete Beach. those three communications during a time
of the storm before or after is confusing to a lot of people um and and maybe some who sit here with me during the storm getting text messages from constituents or before or after confusing Penllis County
um emergency recovery versus St. Pete Beach recovery versus St. Petersburg recovery because they'll see something on the news and they'll assume it's St. Pete Beach, but it's not, you know. So I don't know how detailed it was or
whether people who were on that force even recognize that because I think a lot of us who sit there because we get a lot of information from residents during the storm before and after you can start I mean I know I have a list of things like um and I know I shared this with
the city manager because I found this in some other I was in Colorado and they were talking about what they did after all the fires in the mountain. One thing that they use is an app that translates in Spanish so that some or other languages. So, so if people here in this community are are not signed up, but if
they knew they can use a particular app that will translate for them um where to go, where to find food, where to find water, where the the stations, you know, that was, you know, another thing that I saw myself um you know, I would go to the stations, load up my SUV, and then I
would travel the neighborhood passing out water and MREs, right? Because some people didn't have cars. they were too far away from some of the neighborhoods. Um, so whether we have pre-established volunteers in other areas where people
um would know that they are volunteering for post stuff to help distribute food and water to locations where people can't just walk um to and from or to even go use the restroom with, you know, many of us couldn't use uh the
restrooms, you know, things like that. I don't know again the detail of those. I I couldn't see it. So, I I couldn't watch and hear. So, I don't know what was discussed um or how that information was gathered. Um but there could be some stuff that maybe we all saw ourselves
because we were talking to so many people. Yeah, certainly great points and and I'll get with our communications director and we'll get an email out to you just some of the things that we're thinking. Um again, he he's been in in a ton of trainings. You know, Penelis County has been been changing stuff and quite honest, Senate Bill 180 is going
to require a lot of things to be on the website. So, he's going to be pretty busy, I think, moving forward. There's a lot of stuff on there, but we can get all that information. I I do want to make the point, and and you make a great point, good ideas can come from anywhere. Um, we're certainly not just focused on on what our staff says or or
what the recovery task force says. Um, we are we are constantly um gathering feedback and and all feedback is good feedback and um the the best idea could come from the craziest place, you know. So, um certainly anytime that we hear things uh that we think will um you know
make for a more efficient response, more efficient communications, we're we're certainly doing it. So, yeah, we we I'll get with uh with Mark, we'll get something to you kind of what our plan of attack is. But again, I would just say um it's constantly changing because every time we we hear something else we
think might work, we're we're adding that to the toolbox and we're going to use everything we can for sure. One of the big things is too is trying to eliminate some of those confusions for sure. Um that's why we really rely on Penllis County messaging quite honestly to to get that out so that it's
standardized. It's the same thing everyone's getting in Penllis County. Um but certainly there were some some failures across the county on that in these last storm season and um you know we we'll definitely work on that as well and we simply I think I heard a message from the county that the beaches are
open and then but it didn't come from St. beach and what did it mean by the beaches all barrier islands you know so it was again just little things that I picked up because I automatically got a text saying I thought you told me we couldn't go back in you know that's a big opening the beaches is a big one
yeah and then my last thing is um and I know I'm pretty sure that this action plan is not just focused on hurricanes um or tropical storms but things that that require um I'll give you an earthquake as an example which just happened off the coast of you know
Panama city beach. Uh I think it was a 3.1, right? Or 4.1. Um you know, heaven forbid that we need something that is faster that that we're looking in the plan for things. Um you know, and you know, there's some things that I don't have to go through through them with you
that could be even faster than a than an earthquake. Um but how how do we address those type of storms or other types of disasters? Yeah, certainly these these aren't hurricane plans. I know it's called the hurricane after, but the emergency management plan, that's why it's comprehensive. it it it covers everything. You know, different types of
event could affect different departments, you know, to a higher degree, right? So, um certainly that's kind of in their department plans to make sure that they're able to respond to those as well. But yes, 100% that that's included. Thank you,
Commissioner Robinson. Are we reaching out to other communities, you know, going bit of the extra mile and reaching out to the other communities that have experienced storms such uh such as Ian um things of that effect because I I would assume we'd gather quite a bit of
information to actually assist us with our plan to see what they've learned from as well. I don't know how much we've done that. If there is a survey that can go out, something that can go out to those, you know, quite a few cities up and down this coast that have
experienced storms in the past. Not talking about this one, but things that they have learned and they have prioritized for their SOPs. Yes, certainly. I I I just recently spent a lot of time down in Lee County. Obviously, they, you know, they're two years out. um you know and and maybe it
tailored my expectations a little bit when I got down there and they were two years out of the storm and they're still missing street signs and things like that. So um certainly you know all of our staff you know we have the staff has different contacts throughout the state right and you know I happen to have some in Lee County. So certainly we're trying
to leverage those uh those relationships and gather as much information. You know, the easiest way to write one of these SD plans is probably to look at several and figure out what worked and what didn't work, right? Just starting it from scratch really is isn't effective. So, um certainly we are we
are doing that as well. For sure. Good. And hopefully ours can help somebody else down. I hope so. Yeah. I hope it hope we never need it here. So, I'll be happy to travel anywhere and share what we learned. So, I think there's a few of us residents who could write books on some things
we've learned as well. So, Thank you, Adam. Um, two questions really. Uh, first one is related to access. Um, you know, we had your staff and your department out
and a lot of our community um, public works and everyone else out, you know, 5:00 a.m. the day of the hurricane when we still had two feet of water on Gulf Boulevard. And uh as I remember, we had G Boulevard cleared by noon, an hour
prior to the governor showing up. And yet the sheriff didn't allow our residents back on the island for two more days thereafter. Um what communications have we had with the sheriff to make sure that that does not occur again? So th those those communications would
be above above me. Um I know that that topic of conversation has come up in in several meetings. um you know, better coordination. You know, I'm sure at the at the city manager level with the county administrator, um you know, the the sheriff kind of works in a silo to
some degree uh with some of this decision-m, but certainly um we're communing communicating the desires of our community and the the things that we saw as as failures or at least complications at the very least. Um you know, quite honestly, we weren't informed. You know, when our residents
found out, we were finding out, right? So, we didn't have any advanced notice. So, I I know for a fact that that concern has been brought up to the sheriff because I was in the meeting where that one was brought up. Um, as far as his decision- making of when he opens, when he doesn't, uh, probably more at the at the city manager, county
administrator level. I don't know where that will go, but certainly we can voice, uh, you know, our desires of our community to try to get that better communicated. Has there been any communication or conversation at that level with myself and the sheriff? No. Um I
think if the city desires to express a position, it would be helpful to probably put it in writing ahead of the storms. I don't see the sheriff making any commitments ahead of an event given
the all the variables that he would be considering before making a decision. But that was solely his decision. Oh, we we're well aware of that. Yes. Which then brings us to the second point which I think is brought up by se been brought up by several already which
is communication. Um so that goes back to you know too many times there was communication that was issued from the county and we found out about it on Facebook just like everybody else did rather than a heads up. Have we had any
communication with the county to maybe give us a heads up when something is happening. You know, we're going to cut off your water was one, right? We're going to cut off your sewers or it's or we're not reopening the bridges or whatever it was. I mean, it's it it
seemed that in many situations we we weren't given any advanced notice or even a heads up to say, look, this here's what's going to happen. So, our, you know, in a lot of the afteractions that that I've been a part of, uh, communication has has been the number one concern. Um, you know, that
that exact issue got brought up, uh, several times. You know, the county is certainly trying to revamp the way they communicate. I'll just give you an example. We have about four or five different meetings. you know, ones with the city managers, ones with emergency staff, ones with all community partners
and and it it just it was getting very complex and and things were getting mixed. So, um they are trying to to kind of revamp each one of those meeting groups to ensure that's a consistent message, but it's all the messaging that needs to get out. Um so, certainly just
like we're working uh on internal communications. I I will say the county has spoke about working on internal communications. They've talked about uh changing the meeting cadence. Um you know, as far is going as far as the the times that they do those meetings to
ensure that that we're better because for example, one of them was like 3:00 every day. So if something happened at at noon, you know, then now you're waiting hours before you find out or or even early in the morning. You're only meeting once a day. So um certainly the cadence of meetings has been a high
topic of conversation. And I do expect um that that in fact it has already been notified that it's going to change this this storm season. Um hopefully it'll be much better but but certainly they are making uh changes to the communication ma matrix in the county. Right. Thank
you sir. Mhm. Okay. Are there any amendments to the agenda as opposed? Mr. Mayor, I have Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your light. Yes, sir. So, I just wanted to follow up on one of
your points. Um, and I've been kind of silent on this issue for many many months. Uh, but I I did broach it uh a meeting or two ago. Um, madame city manager, if we had our
own police department or if we had a shared department with, let's say, Treasure Island, um, the mayor's question about people getting back on the island, would any of that changed? It would not. Mean, would the sheriff
still be the person deciding whether the residents of St. PES could return to their homes. They would be because the bridges are county and Gulf Boulevard is state and so the sheriff would have control essentially over both of
those avenues. So if we own the bridges and if we own the streets that'd be different conversation. I think it's possible for us to own the streets but not the bridges. But not the bridges. Yeah. Okay. Well, I had to ask the question. Yeah. Know, it's I mean
it's a good on this issue for a long time. Um and I do believe very much so that the Panelis County Sheriff's Department is a a first rate organization. I think the sheriff is
first rate. Um but um I'm no longer going to remain silent on the fact that I think that the city would benefit from having its own or a co-op um police department. So I wanted to take that
opportunity to at least ask that question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. All right. Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed? I would like to pull item 4 D. This will be action item
five B. Okay. If there are no other amendments, is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? I have one request, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make a note of you said your change is 5B. Is that correct?
Yeah. 4D to be pulled to be 5B. I would ask if we could add um to um discussion items. Limestone rip wrap. I'm sorry, that was limestone. RIP. RIP wrap.
Okay. All right. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? I make I'll move to approve the agenda as amended. I second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. Commissioner
Robinson? Yes. Commissioner Rzniki? Yes. Commissioner Mhalland? Yes. And Mayor Petrilla. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. City clerk, do we have any general audience comments? No. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the
consent agenda? I make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. Vice Mayor
Marriott, yes. Mayor Petrillo, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have action items. First one is 5A, preliminary plat case number 255040. Good evening, Brenberry planner.
We can pull up the PowerPoint. This is preliminary plaque case 255040 for the property address of 5390 Gulf Boulevard currently containing the Sorado Beach Resort. Agent is Scott Gilner, engineer of Kimley Horn. They also have Kevin Reality of Sterns Weaver
Miller present. You're requesting a preliminary plat to replplat all the Sarata re replplat and a portion of government lot 2 section 6 township 32 south range 16 east as described to create two separate tracks as depicted
on the plaid. You can see here a current survey of the property. So this is the proposed preliminary plat showing easements and the proposed track lines. It is a simple split. There are two tracks that are proposed. You can
see a jog in the property line at the front edge of the property. It then continues straight onto the mean high water line at the rear of the lots. And here's a plat showing the overlay of the current development on the property within these boundary lines.
This was reviewed by technical review committee last month. Zoning expressed some limited technical comments to be addressed at final plat. Um this is the preliminary plat which is required by our code to move forward to the city commission. A few of the items that we had requested had been a covenant
covenant in lie of unity of title. We did receive a draft that is in review with the attorney's office. We also had some technical comments related to the setting of monuments and similar technical issues. The applicant has been asked for testimony on a land development code requirement at tonight's hearing. Land development code
section 24.8F2. This is a requirement that in so far as practical side lot line shall be at right angles to straight street lines. There are no radial lines in this property um as proposed. But as I mentioned before, there is that jog in the interior uh for the two proposed
tracks. I believe the applicant is prepared to speak to this. I did want to bring to the commission's attention another preemptive Senate bill um that pertains to plat. This has not been signed, but it has sailed through the legislature. It's currently on the government's desk, the governor's desk.
Uh this would be starting July 1st of this year. All plats that meet statutory technical requirements may be administratively approved. Um if signed is enrolled, the final plat will not return to the city commission. We are bringing this item to you because this has not been signed. It is currently a
code requirement that preliminary plats come forward to the city commission. So with that, I'd be happy to answer questions. We also have the applicant present. Commissioner Mhalland, I've got a few here. Um, when
this development was approved, um, myself and I believe Commissioner Robinson was not on the commission. So, I'm not going to speak for her. I'm going to speak for myself. I'd like to get up to speed on a few things
um, as it related to their approval um, before we consider this I guess you'd call it variance request to the land development code. Would that be a reasonably accurate statement? It's it it's a preliminary
plat. They're not seeking any variances. It's a this is a a preliminary plat request. Okay. Um and this question, some of these questions may apply more to the applicant than um to you, Mr. Barry, but
we can defer those. Wasn't it said during the cup application that the financing was going to be um self-
financed, not outside financing? I I'd have a recollection of that. I wasn't here so I'm just trying to get some background on some of this so I better understand this as we move forward with this tonight. I remember a condition pertaining to the
item returning. Should the property sell? I I don't recall what was said about the financing. The applicant may remember. Do you think the applicant could answer that question? I believe so. Okay. So, I I may want to return to this, Mr. Mayor.
Um, as I understand it, um, the cup was approved. [Music] um based on the predication that it remained as one development. Correct.
Does this replat guarantee it to be one development? It will be in combination with that covenant that was mentioned. We did receive a draft. It's currently in review with the attorney's office, but that would be a commitment on behalf of the applicant that this property
would function as what the code defines as a zoning lot. So, it would remain one development for the purposes of any future construction. And this question would be a legal question. So, I'm not I don't believe you'll be able to answer this.
may need to be referred to the city attorney or to the um representatives for the applicant. What is the legal difference? And Mr. Barry, you may be able to answer this for the city. Um what I'll just ask
you, not legal, I'll just say what is the difference between a unity of title and a covenant to unify the title? H how's that work within our ordinances and our
um approvals and afteraction actions? The actual legal implications of each I'm I'm not so sure. I believe that typically there is more of a challenge with the filing of a unity of title when the properties are not
um are separately financed. I that's my understanding. But in regarding what is sufficient to bind the properties together as a zoning lot, that's really at the attorney's discretion. Whatever they find to be sufficient to to provide that
unification. Mr. City Attorney, could you give me any more clarity on that? Once again, I'm kind of coming in after the fact on this, so I'm just trying to get background on it. So more typically a unity of title would
be say you own two lots with two different parcel IDs. You would do a unity of title that would put both your lots under one parcel ID for tax purposes and other purposes. Um this one is a replat. It would be creating two
parcels two separate parcel ID numbers for tax purposes. Um, so what we asked is in the conditional use condition number seven that they file a unit a declaration of unified site plan
covenant that says both of these lots will be considered one lot for zoning purposes. So it'll be one unified zoning lot but there will be two separate parcel IDs if the replat is approved.
So hypothetically, if the replat is approved, how does that the difference between those two legal definitions? How does that potentially impact the city
for decisions that the property owners may make a year from now, five years from now, 10 years from now? And I I apologize for springing this on you in this way. And if you need more time, I certainly um respect that. But once
again, I'm just trying to get my arms wrapped around this. Well, this would again, it wouldn't unify the title under one parcel ID number. They would be two separate parcels, but this says it would be considered as a single zoning lot for purposes of
development. And that would be unless the city council or a future city council uh changes that. Um the things we added to the declaration is an exact replication of condition number seven. And I can read that if you'd
like. It's a little bit lengthy. Um but from the conditional use it says prior to hotel one site plan approval the applicant shall prepare a declaration of unified site plan covenant or alternative document determined by the city attorney to be sufficient to
declare that the entire property is regarded as and declared to be unified under one indivisible building site. also known as a zoning lot for the purpose of development as defined in division 2 section 2.1 of the land development code of the city of St. Pete
Beach and two constitutes a single zoning lot for the purpose purpose of development. These terms ensure that any service, amenity, operational or occupancybased restriction, transportation management plan strategy or other element which is essential to
this cup approval but not individually provided within each develop building on this property is permanently maintained across the development. This requirement shall apply regardless of subdivision and or later changes in ownership in
some or all portions of the zoning lot for which development is permitted under this approval. I guess one of the practical implications of having unified lot is that you don't have to meet internally the side setbacks and the some of the other dimensional
requirements that would otherwise be applied to individual lots. Then the other section I think you were asking about earlier is condition number nine. It says the positive finding of the Colombia Sussex Corporation's
demonstrated ability to financially and technically complete the improvements and mitigation necessitated by the development is exclusive within the scope of this approval and is not transferable by right to another applicant except by authorization of the
city commission. Should the property sell during the scope of development requested herein, the city commission retains the right to request re-evaluation via public hearing of the new applicant's capacity to complete proposed improvements pursuant to the
LDC 4.4 A6. And then those requirements are in condition number four. The applicant is responsible for the actual and documented cost of any off-site improvements necessary to accommodate their increased sewer flows
as determined by the city manager or designate. No building permit associated with this request may be issued until such improvements have been identified and corresponding payments or improvements have been provided. The applicant shall be responsible for the
cost of the upgrades provided which the city shall perform. Well, that was a a lot. Yeah, I'm sorry I was so wordy. But so based on a unity of title, which was what the cup was passed
as, if the developer that was, based on my recollection, they were going to rehabilitate the Sarata. They were going to develop a Hampton Inn and they were going to
build while they didn't 100% commit to it, they were going to build a JW Marriott, I believe, under a unity of title if they
wanted to sell Hampton in would they have been able to sell the Hampton in and I really apologize for asking these questions and you know without having any discussion about it but these
don't worry I was going to ask him if he didn't and I wasn't going to apologize for it I'm sorry I said don't worry I was going to ask him if you weren't going to and I wasn't going to apologize for asking okay well but still still subdivision plat s are done for the purpose of describing the parcel um
either for obtaining financing or for the sale of property. So for ownership purposes rather than development purposes, you pursue a subdivision replat. So it's Hampton in Marriott, those are kind of flags. They're they're
management uh franchises sometimes. Sometimes hotel chains will actually own hotels. Other times the owner will remain the same, but they'll have a franchise management of the the building of the structure. And there can be all
kinds of financing mechanisms to build uh hotels or to obtain loans. Even if you have the financial capability, you may still want to get a loan. Even though I can buy a car, I still may want to take advantage of 0.9% financing and and finance the car, right? That's
another potential reason. But let's let's just say Hampton Inn is building one. So if they wanted to under the unity of title
scenario wanted to sell building one as opposed to what was presented during the cup hearing, would they be able to sell building one irrespective to of the franchise or the flag on that? the plat if the plat was approved, you
could sell building A1 and the city council would have the ability to call a public hearing so that the new buyer would have to demonstrate the financial uh capability, financial and technical capability that was approved meaning what we're viewing
tonight or so typically during the cut process um where the unity of title was what was presented. So, for example, if the plat were in order to buy property, you need a legal description of what you're
buying. So, if you're buying land, you want a meets and bounds description or a u a lot from a plat. Um the unit the declaration of unified development means that if they were to sell off the
Hampton, they would all jointly and several be severally be responsible for developing out the the entire site and making all the improvements that were needed. So and they're not they don't have to meet side setbacks in between
the hotels. uh they're building them on the lot line or closer than they would normally uh be allowed to build within the setbacks but for a deviation or variance or some planned unit development.
So I I I still have a number of questions, Mr. Mayor. I hope you're going to indulge me here. Sure. Um yours. My concern is is that this was presented to the
city as a large resort development that essentially was going to be one development. and I'm not sure that what we're talking about tonight isn't going to be a situation
where it gets built the way that the developer wants to build it and then he sells it off in pieces. Um, and maybe that's okay. I don't know the answer to that. I'm not an attorney,
but I need to understand some of these things before I can comfortably say that this is something that I'd feel great about moving forward on. So, that's kind of the genesis of my questions on some of this. Um, so I I I just want to say
that and I I do have several not several, I have a few more questions and Mr. Barry might be the person or the applicant might be the person to answer them. So the um declaration, if you don't mind me reading two more sections, this is from the actual draft
declaration. It says that this number two, the said property shall henceforth be considered as a single zoning lot for purpose of development. Paragraph three, any portion thereof subdivided, sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed, or
devised shall be bound by the terms of this declaration. If the holder of a mortgage encumbering any portion of said property should exercise the holder's right under the mortgage by foreclosure or otherwise, this declaration shall survive such
foreclosure. Paragraph four. This declaration shall constitute a covenant to run with the land as provided by law and shall be binding upon the undersigned and their heirs, successors, and assigns of the undersigned and all
parties claiming under them until such time as the same may be released in writing under the order of a duly authorized representative of the city of St. Pete Beach. The undersigned also agreed that this instrument shall be recorded in the public records of
Penllis County, Florida. Right. So, in plain English, how does that square with what was approved as it relates to the unity of title? And maybe the applicant would
be the one to answer that. Um, once again, as I understood it as a resident of this city sitting sitting
uh out in the audience that this was going to be a single development um on a couple lots, but the intent and the approval approval as I understood it
was based on it being that um I just want to be comfortable with the fact that if we were to make this approval that's presented to us tonight that somehow what we're not do what we're
potentially doing is it's like okay go ahead develop it and building one, which is now the Hampton Inn, uh is now up for sale and is no longer part of the broader full development that was
approved by the CUP uh in the spring of 2024. So, um that's my question on that. Um and I guess that other commissioners may have follow-ups on that, but I do have some
more questions. I do have a followup. It might help. Let's go. Yeah. I Let's Let's let the commissioner finish and then we can all take our turns. Yeah. So, Mr. Barry, on your um summary to the commission,
uh it was noted that um easements should be um all easements should be depicted on the plat um moving forward. And it's from what I saw of the
plat although I had to look at my use my magnifying glass to see them to be perfectly honest with you. Um it looked like utility easements were on it but there was no other easements. Um how can this commission or should
this commission um make a decision on uh approving this uh in the absence of a plat with all the easements being present on
what's presented to us. particularly when you consider the fact that HB784 um is likely to become law. Um shouldn't those have been presented to us? I mean, we're kind of the last stop
here. Um as it relates to representing the businesses and city within this or or businesses and residents within this city. Um, isn't that something that we shouldn't be able to view um before
we're asked to approve something like this? So, not showing them on the plat doesn't absolve them of needing to provide those easements to us. Those are conditions of the conditional use permit if they were to move forward with any kind of development, which is what
encumbers the property with those easements to begin with. They still need to file them. They still need to record them. Those are all laid out in the conditional use permit resolution. I had asked for the easements to be shown on the final plaid specifically. At the time, the expectation was this would be
brought back to you. You would see those easements. If that Senate bill takes effect, it would it would be administratively reviewed. Um the intent of that was really just for future reference. It's much easier to pull up a plat and see the six easements that
encumber the property than to do a title search and look for each of those documents, especially 20, 30 years from now. I don't know that it's necessary. Not showing them on the plat doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just a benefit for for visual purposes to to pull up the plat and see where the beach
ordinance, where the mean high water line is and all of those are are located. Before the final plat, they would have to show them under 177.0916. and they have to show the location and width of proposed easements and existing easements identified in the
title opinion or property information report. All easements and their intended uses must be shown on the face of the plat or indicated in notes or legend and then again that's part of the state statute and that wouldn't change under Senate Bill 784. They would still have
to show those before a final plat is approved. The only thing that 784 does change the final plat wouldn't come to you. Who would we just go to staff for administrative approval? Right. Well, that was my question. Show them to who? I mean, theoretically, aren't we supposed to be the higher authority in
the city? You are right now. And this bill would change it to an other high ranking city department or division director with direct or indirect oversight responsibility for the municipalities land development, housing, utilities, and public works
programs. And there will be no public hearing for plats preliminary or final. So essentially the next time this comes up even though we are supposed to be the higher authority in this city we're not
going to be the higher authority in the city. Is that a reasonably accurate statement? Mr. It's after July 1st. All right. Um so Mr. Barry, is there any way to tell um based on these plats that all
the setbacks and the like will be would be met if we were to approve this? Uh well, they're definitely not met based on the interior lot line that's proposed, but that is what that covenant in lie of unity of title is for. I
believe there's a building that's either proposed or effectively on the property line. So it would definitely not meet it the way you would have for a typical residential subdivision where you expect a certain setback from the from the property lines as platted. But that
unity of title treats the whole property as one zoning lot. And for an example, we we do have other properties in the city that have gone through that type of subdivision. Dolphin Village is one of them where we have two out parcels. They don't meet necessarily the setbacks, the lot coverage requirements and so on, but
it's one development. It's a unified development and that's what the intent of that covenant is for is to to perpetually unify them and that's assuming the applicant moves forward with the development. This subdivision could exist separate from that and we would still need that unification to
address all the development that's currently on the property. So it meets it until they decide to sell one of the properties potentially. It would it would be met until that covenant is released by the city. That that would
that would be a requirement. City would have to replace release it. Correct. We we would so some future commission or some future appointed commission could potentially um overturn that. They they could, but in terms of the
current development standards that we have based on what is currently on the property, there are buildings right at the property line. They would they would likely need to repl through the conditional use permit last year. that was a complete maximum development. There's no way to rearrange
or sell off part of the property without violating the city's current code. So, that's what that covenant exists to to prevent. So, I think I have one more question for you and then I will have a question um a follow-up question. I've already broached this potentially with
the applicant if they're willing to answer it. Um, in your brief to the commission, uh, you you talked about land development section 24. F se or
24.8F. Um, it's also my understanding that that and I know you probably you may have it in front of you. Um, that the land development code addresses lot lines shall be at right
angles. Does that sound reasonable to you or that that is in the verbiage? It it it does say shall in in so far as practical. And Mr. city attorney. When we use the word shall, that means it
must. Is that uh am I reasonably correct in in that statement? Shall is mandatory. Um the subsection 2 does say a bit of a qualifier. In so far as practicable, excuse me, in so far as practical, the sidelot lines shall be at
right lines. So it would be up to the applicant. Harris couldn't have said that any better. Uh the applicant will have to explain why it's not practical to make it a ride line. Okay. And then and I point out that this the building
that Brandon was talking about is the existing building. So this plat if approved would run right on the wall of the existing building and through one of the walls on the existing building north south. But on the proposed development the buildings are set back
uh not on the line. But I don't know how that would that was addressed in the proposed development. But if the proposed development um would would be further back, but the existing buildings that are shown in the
second page that shows the preliminary plat of three with the existing buildings, you can see the line runs on the wall and then through the uh eastern edge of the building. Okay.
Thank you. Um the building on the the middle the middle building. Mr. Mayor, I I believe at least for this goound, I only have one more question and it probably needs to be answered by the applicant if they're willing to a answer
it. Well, that's finished with the city staff and then we can bring the applicant up and we can do another round of questions with them as well. Any further? Well, I I I'll let me I'll ask it to Mr. Barry and then they can, you know, I'll follow up with them. I think I already did ask you,
didn't they say during the cup application they were going to self finance? And I think you indicated that that was your recollection. You weren't certifying that, but that was your recollection. I would confirm that. Yeah. And and I will want to um follow
up with them on that, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Barry. Thank you, Commissioner Rzniki. Thank you. Um this is a question to the city attorney. Um because when you were reading condition I think it was seven the first one that you were
reading um you said that um unit unity tile or alternate is that the words you used that's from that condition. It says, "Prior to hotel one site plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a declaration of unified site plan
covenant or alternative document determined by the city attorney to be sufficient to declare the entire property is regarded as and declared to be unified under one divisible building." You don't have to read the whole thing, but is this covenant because it said city attorney will see
this as equivalent? Is what we're doing tonight equivalent to to that? Is this an alternate? We received a proposed declaration uh with four paragraphs and I added a fifth paragraph to exactly cut and paste
that condition number seven language in so there would be no doubt that it's the same. Yeah, because three and four in the proposed declaration seem to summarize this. I wanted to have in addition to that summary this exact condition seven list. Is that something
that you're still working on or I've sent it back to staff. Okay. Um, so that's one thing cuz if it's the same then I would think it's covering what we approved, right? As far as unity title, if you add five in there, that's
why I wanted to add five in. Okay. So five is important to make sure that it's the same, right? So okay. Um, and I think I do remember during that cup that um, we were told that a building could
be sold or um, a franchise um, like the commissioner was just mentioning because I think I remember asking that um, you know, let's just say Marriott sold um, that they can sell as long as they are
operating as one development or um forgot the word that that was used but that all operation had to work together. So even though the buildings were to be owned separately, they still had to operate as
one um resort, I think was the word. Um the and and I think the other one was that was asked back then during the development, let's say right now they're working on the Sarata building, right?
The the current building that's there. Um and they were, let's just say, stop. They're not going to continue with the rest. They're not going to do JW or they're not, you know, maybe they demolish it. Now it's empty. They're not going to do JW and they do not do the Marriott or equivalent, whatever would
be on the other property. Um that we were told that yes, you can stop, but the whole lot is still unified, right? That nothing else could be built after. Am I correct by saying that? that basically we would
end up with empty lots even though these are split. Um and city attorney maybe you could help me with that. Um, so condition number nine of the conditional use says that nine, the positive finding of the Columbia Sussex Corporations
demonstrated ability to financially and technically complete the improvements and mitigation necessitated by the development is exclusive within the scope of this approval and is not transferable by right to another applicant except by authorization of the city commission. Should the property
sell during the scope of development requested herein, the city commission retains the right to request re-evaluation via public hearing of the new applicant's capacity to complete proposed improvements. Okay. So just it would come back to the
commission at that point but they couldn't just get a permit. I mean you can request you can request that they come back and demonstrate financial fees uh techn financial and technical ability to complete the improvements necessitated by whatever
amount of development they've gotten as far as Okay. But that is in that condition the one you just condition number nine of the strata cup. Okay. Um, and this one is well, you know, why the plat's not straight. And and I I do would like the applicant to
explain because I know Brendan, you don't have the answer to that something that you were hope or that we all are hoping to hear. And by mean straight straight lines, not 90 degree angles like why it's not um in that in that fashion. I know you can't answer that. Um, and then my question too would be I
guess to the applicant who's applying for the financing because I know what was written is saying that this is all being done because of financing. So, is it a separate person or entity that's applying for this financing or is it still Sussex that's applying? Um, which to me would it it's supposed to be
right. This is what the the cup was for, who the cup was for. Um, and I think that's it for now until they speak. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Brandon, I had a question for you. Um, because I did not
read SB784. Um, when you read it, you said technical requirements may be administratively approved, but this says must be. Which one is it? If I said may I was mistaken, it is must. It's must. Apologize.
It says a plat or replat submitted under this bill must be administratively approved and no further action or approval by the governing body of a municipality is required if the plat or replat complies with the requirements of 177.091.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure on that. And then just to make clear um we said with the unity of title that building sits on a setback um that the setbacks it's it's one property so that they've kind of the
setbacks aren't necessarily applied. Correct. But if this was in two parcels does it meet the setbacks as as proposed? It would not meet the interior setback of the building from the interior lot line. No. Okay. Thank
you. That's what I wanted. Commissioner Marriott. Um, yeah, just a quick question for you, Brandon. Um, is there anything about this repling that to you changes anything about the previous conditional use approval? Is
there is there you know from a from a from a zoning or land use perspective is there anything about the replat that that um you know that substantially changes the reality of anything that's happening? Sounds like you're asking for his opinion on something when he should
be providing technical evaluation. I'm asking in for his technical expertise on if there if if if so so let me rephrase
this. Is there anything that you see from a technical perspective that negates by by doing a replat that negates anything that happened in the previous conditional use? Not as long as the covenants executed. That had been the main item that I'd
asked for when this came in for technical review committee review just to make sure that whether development moves forward or not, there is enough land area. There isn't, you know, something that holds these properties, these tracks together for development. And if that is something that the attorney's office is comfortable with
and staff is comfortable with, I think it serves that purpose. Okay. And um I I guess it's probably more common that people come in asking for for plat assemblies than plat splits. Is that would that be or is it it's some of
both? That's well with residential and St. P Beach that it tends to be more sided toward the split towards the split. Okay. For commercial assembly is more common. Okay. And and are there are there uh situations for in a in a
residential area where somebody would I guess in a residential area if someone were asking for a lot split, they would generally be going to sell off one of the lots or or build two houses? Yes. Um but if somebody came in and wanted to split a lot and leave one house built in
the middle of it, would we allow them to do that if there's something to covenant them together? Now with we we see we saw that in one case recently but typically this type of potential separate future ownership
post development not addressing the condition that's in the conditional use permit but that's extended to certain types of developments like I mentioned before you see it frequently with um shopping centers with condo hotels things like that where there might be a lot line drawn around a building there's
no parking there's no drainage there's none of the facilities that they need as a development, but there's a unifying document that ties everything together that's typically not extended to standalone residential development in the same type of way. We we have one or two situations in the city where that's
occurred, but it's not it's not common. So, um if it were a multifamily condo, that is something that is allowed by statute and we see from time to time. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I think it's time for the applicant.
Good evening. For the record, Kevin Reali, 401 East Jackson Street, West Stones B Miller, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa. Um, I'm I try to take notes uh going through this. I'm not sure if there's a preference on the order I answer these. Um uh so I'll ask
is there a specific question we want to start with? You want me to just attempt to go through and and we can see what's not answered? If you want to just go through the list of questions and then we'll go down the line with the commissioners and see if they have any follow-up questions for you. Okay. Um so you know just from a from a high level
perspective that this plat just changes the way that we're describing the property for tax and financing purposes. that's not going to change the amount of tax that is due on the property. That will just be assessed based on those lines and how they're drawn. Um and for
the and commissioner Resniki did mention, you know, during the hearing there was discussion about financing. So, Commissioner Mhalland the discussion about um the the cost that Columbia Sussex could bear the financial and technical cap technical capability. Columbia Sussex provided documentation
from um and and I I can't remember exactly sitting here if it was from a bank or an accountant, but essentially from uh a financial professional that said Columbia Sussex has the funds to finance this themselves. Um just to show the financial capability. There was
never a an agreement to not finance. Um and in fact, condition seven mentions financing to make sure that that's clear that that financing could still occur. It's just to show that the company can can handle a development of that size. Um, so there was no commitment to not
finance and uh financing is is a something that Columbia Sussex to Commissioner Rzniki's question would be doing. Um, the Columbia Sussex has to be the developer on this project unless this project comes back
to the commission for approval for some new developer. If when development is complete, there's no restraint on alienation. Once the development is complete, once the cup is satisfied, meaning once the cup is developed, there are plenty of conditions in the cup that continue to require and those would be
zoning conditions, right? Those would be something that the city could enforce based on their requirement. But once it's developed, that that financial and technical capability has been shown because the development is complete. So that that means that the the the whole
thing is developed. it's been signed off u from you know building permit inspections and whatever the city has to accept has been accepted and I mean it's a you know voluminous number of requirements that would have to be done if Columbia Sussex isn't the developer
for any of that the commission has to approve it otherwise the zoning is invalid meaning the the the zoning doesn't permit new development okay um and the the JW Marriott is intended to be the first one not not that it matters when we're talking about the Hampton or the JW Marriott But if for example the
the Hampton Inn didn't go forward for whatever reason, right? So if if that were the case to be, you can't develop anything else. Either Columbia Sussex has to develop it or they have to come back to the commission or they have to change the cup because the only thing that can be built is what's shown on the
cup. Um now so that I'll stop there for financing. Are there more questions on financing before I go to the unity question? Okay. So, uh, the unity question. So, this is really tricky and the reason that we use the unity
declaration and and you could call this this reservation and title a lot of different things, but the reason we don't use the word uh unity of title is because that's a legal term of art, but that has nothing to do with development. That is so there are various unities when a
when a an entity or a person or or a married couple um or a single person, right? When someone buys property, there are certain unities that come with that and there are terms of art that deal with the private interest. It's not anything to do with development. So for example, you can have a teny of the
entireties and I won't drag the commission through that, but basically that's how a married couple has extra rights in that property. One of the basic unities is a unity of title and that just says that if you have multiple parties, the parties took ownership on the same deed at the same time. That is
not what this uh the unity declaration is. The unity declaration is declare declaring to the city in perpetuity that this is a single zoning lot and giving the city the power to hold that. So the development has to follow that
development pattern and um that that the cup provides unless someone comes back to the city and gets a different approval to change the cup. So it it is one zoning lot, but it's different than UND of title. And there's no there's no way to connect it to Unity of Title. And
so I don't I don't want to belabor that too much, but because I don't think the intent was to worry about what the term of art is. It's it's how are these properties have to be tied together. So let's fast forward and say development happens because by the way, the the plat's not going to approve any development, right? That development is
still tied up in litigation. Nobody can move um forward with um developing under the cup until that litigation is finalized. Um if if development so litigation gets done um development finishes and then
there were different owners, those owners can't change anything without cooperation from the other because that's the only way that this can work together. And and that makes sense because parking, back of house, um uh access, uh even deliveries, they're
shared to Commissioner Resniki's point because the development is designed to work together. there's going to be different, you know, different levels of of a hotel in the same development, but they um they are required to work together and that unity requires that. So, no individual property owner in some
theoretical future situation can move forward without satisfying that requirement. They're they're bound to the other. And so, for example, if if the Hampton in owner went wanted to make a change and the JW owner didn't cooperate, then the two parties are stuck. they so they need
to have all of that worked out on the front end and that's something that um that's something that would happen on on the back end of development um to to and I do think this is really important and but I don't want to be repetitive that that unity of a unity
declaration that uni it's something that doesn't permit uh it doesn't permit development without either either cooperation of owners or by considering the property as a whole. So the there is no way the city is going
to hold this right. Commission Commissioner Mhalland is going to hold that right unless the city changes the cup and decides that you know okay this is going to be two different pieces and they're going to develop differently and they're going to satisfy setbacks separately and they're going to check all these boxes that you can't check
without changing all of those things. So the city holds that right. There's no there's no way the developer through sale that they can't get out of that because it's recorded in title. And the city attorney can explain how that that binds them. It doesn't go away with a
foreclosure and it um it uh um can't go away without the city joining in. Um so I'll pause there. Are there questions about the the unity declaration and and the zoning law concept? Okay. Um
and so the unity document though and the condition that is listed in the cup also doesn't act as a restraint on alienation. That's a a legal term that basically says the city can't control
selling. They could say if you sell you can't develop because it's a it's a unique zoning condition. But but if you know in many years when Columbia Sussex if they're able to to complete the development if there is some some transfer that that's not something that zoning would control. Zoning controls
the development and then the ongoing conditions that will require to be satisfied in perpetuity um for for easements. So the easement requirements are the are for what exists in title today. um those the easements
that are proposed with the development, they'll they'll be part recorded separately as a separate e easement document. That's that's uh I mean that that's routine and the way that that happens is you can't get your building permits or your CO and Bren Brandon
might be able to answer that because I don't know what the trigger is, but you can't um you can't satisfy your development. You can't get through permitting without without those easements. Um then the last one would be the the splitting. So I agree with you, Commissioner Mhalland, that it says
shall and it says in so far as practical. Um so let's explain why we've drawn it the way we had and we don't have to draw it that way. We can change it if that's what is hanging the commission up. But um the requirement is in so far as practical, sidelot lines should be at right angles to street to straight uh street lines or radial curve
street lines. So if you go to section 24.1, so it's the initial purpose and intent section of subdivisions, and I'm going to quote portions of this, but what it says is um the purpose, and I could read the whole
thing if the commission wants, but I'll paraphrase for now. The purpose is to provide economical and sufficient or economical and sufficient streets with adequate widths and proper alignment and grades. To provide for suitable residential neighborhoods with adequate streets and utilities and appropriate
building sites and to save unnecessary expenditure of public funds by improper construction of streets and utilities. The reason that you have the subdivision regulations is to make sure that we don't make streets and utilities that go all over the place that make no sense and cost a lot of extra money. Um this
lot line is drawn with the shape in it so that there would be the appropriate amount of acres for JW and for the other two hotels um independent of um independent of the
um was just by the the acreage count. you can draw that lot line as a straight line and what it would mean is that the um if you do that acreage calculation that you have to look at the unified site plan for that
um I'm trying to think of a good analogy. sort of like a the a condo is not analogous in the type of development obviously but the the individual condo might not have sufficient land area but it doesn't matter because the whole development meets the requirement and
that is what the cup is intended to do. We drew it that way because we thought the city would prefer that. If you want us to draw a straight line, it doesn't I think that it's it satisfies land development code the way we've drawn it or if it's a straight line. It it it doesn't change anything. But we would prefer to do it this way because we think that's more logical. If the
commission wants us to make it a straight line, we can do that. It would just um be um we just have to figure out where that line is and so we could come back with that new line. Um and so with that, I'm whatever I didn't cover, I'm attempting to answer your questions and
we have the civil engineer here as well. Can you explain that more logical part? So it takes the number of transit lodging units in the um in
the JW and sets it to the 75 unit per acre by by acreage. We just thought that was the the easier way to to subdivide it. But if you did that square based on the cut plan, it would go through a
building to do that. And so we drew it this way to accommodate the access. There's other ways that you could draw the line, but because of the unity, it could be a straight line and you would just have um you would just not
individually meet the density requirement. But that doesn't change anything because you don't meet setbacks individually. you don't meet um you don't meet uh access individually. None of these things are met unless you have the unity which is required for the final plat and you have to develop under
the cup. So So am I understanding correctly that you drew the lines this way because it would better fit the proposed development. Um that's well it fits the proposed development and the existing development because it goes in between where the existing building is and um and where the future building is
proposed. Okay, guess next question. Did you have anything else on your list or is that the last one? No, I I'm I'm If anything is not clear from the questions that were asked, I've tried to cover everything that I that I took. So, what size are those two lots the way that you're proposing them? Scott, can
you talk about that? Start with the north one and then the south one. Can someone go to the display the overhead? Yeah. Oh. Uh Scott Gilner with Kimley Horn and Associates uh 201 North Franklin Street,
Sweet 1400. Um I'm going to You can't read the numbers on here, but basically the breakdown is tract A1 to the north is 3 point at 87 acres and track A2 to the south is 4.76 acres.
Sorry, you said 3 point what? 3.87. You're right. We can't read that. That's why we asked. I don't even think it's actually on there. So, you weren't missing it. Yeah, we It's impossible to read no matter how much you zoom
in. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Commissioner Mhalland. Just trying to understand this a little bit because once again I've been looking at this through a magnifying glass and this
doesn't help much. So how many units per acre for parcel A under the proposed replot? So the the units per acre is still 75 or 74.99 units per acre and then well it's
not per the replat. It's per the cup. Just I'm sorry sir. It's not per the replat. It's per the cup. The cup is what approved the acreage that the the density. So the replat does not change the units per acre. No. Okay. Nothing changes with it.
It that's why we were saying the unified plan because you're really not even looking at 3.87 or 4 where was it? 4.76. It's really the sum of 4.76 plus 3.87 87 x number of units because that's what
the unified plan does. So, how would that potentially change if you become compliant with the land development code and use right angles? It wouldn't do anything. Wouldn't change anything. No, it's simply just splitting the lots into
two. But it does make the lot lines go through a building. Is that not correct? Yeah, but it still doesn't do anything. Say again. I'm sorry. It still does not do anything different to the plan for the CU. So, if nothing changes, why do we even
need to do this? We don't normally do this. I've never presented on a plat in my career. So, so one of the re I I mean I can I've spoken with Columbia Sussex about one of the reasons is it's really mainly about the JW Marriott. There's units on the JW Marriott parcel now
today. So when you're trying to finance it, you have to separate it out. We're going to demolish those units. So it's a little bit odd for a bank to say, "Yeah, we'd like to finance that, but we're going to go knock down a bunch of buildings that take away the equity you have in the and the property then to go build it again." So it was something
that separates out that piece. That was part of the discussion of why we wanted to separate that way. Thank you. It's just part of the redevelopment. Commissioner Resniki, just to follow up on on what you just said, because again,
if this is all about finance and you're saying that the line didn't ma matter, but wouldn't it matter for finance if it went through a building, wouldn't the bank have an issue? Well, we wouldn't we wouldn't draw it through the building. We would draw probably draw it the main line
there, the the longest portion of it. we would probably just carry that to the road and they they would still have the same number of units on the property that they're financing. So the the bank's gonna small building wouldn't matter. That's that's there or actually no that's a current building so there would be none. Yeah, that that wouldn't
that wouldn't change. Yeah. So all that that whole area uh where the where the shape and discussion is located is access. So it's just changing access and the again the properties have to coordinate for access and parking. So
that that's not going to matter for the financing, which is why we we can make it straight. We just thought the preference was to to follow that. So if you make it straight, would you still have to come to the commission? We always have to come to the commission. It's still got to be a replat. Yeah. Under the current
code, preliminary plat and final plat go to the commission. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. If your question is are we asking for anything special here? No. Th this um discussion about the shape was brought up by the city attorney after TRC. Um you know, we we Brandon and I
discussed it very very briefly, but it's not something that we had taken into account. And so we had to go back and figure out how um you know, how how to approach it tonight. And we we came forward with it anyway because we still think that it's more logical, but if the commission
prefers it to be straight, we can do that. Commissioner Robinson. Well, I'm probably gonna beat this dead horse, but I I still don't understand if if our um LDC says that uh you need to do the right angles to straight street uh to
straight streets or or cur radial to curve streets, why you would even present it like this? Well, yes. And then secondly, I believe as a you know was a I think the word you were looking for uh
commissioner was Nikki was integrated resort a single integrated resort and now we're looking at it being divided into two parcels. Um, and I know that uh, you know, you testified to have financials to
undertake this project and now we're looking at, you know, this is for financing purposes. So, obviously that wasn't correct at that meeting. No, that that is incorrect. We showed financial worth.
The condition even discusses financing. So financing was always an option. I I But this is for financial this is for financing purposes now. Correct. Okay. Y I just want to make it clear G Boulevard is never 90 degrees north
south. So every line on the page is never going to be square. I just I think that's an important part as you go through it. So as you look at this, there's always something that's not going to be square. Well, this is a big zigzag what you've proposed here. I mean, it's still not going to be 90 degrees to
where it was. So, I mean, I think that's part of it. We need to We can certainly pick out something that we can go straight east west, but we're still not going to be 90 degrees to the street. So, I just want to make sure we understand that. Closer. It'd be closer.
Sure. So, you're wanting to split the lots so that you can get financing so that you can move forward with the development. Correct? All right. Any further questions for the
applicant? Thank you. I do have a public comment. Certainly. John Kersman. Thank you, John Kersman. Behind Way. Um, you can zoom in a little more, please, if you could. I actually did not plan on speaking this evening. Uh, and it's only
because of the, uh, new Senate bill that I had a new question about this. Um, I did reach out to the technical review committee when they were looking at this. However, you know, back when the cup was done, it was done pretty late at night, but they did actually write a
condition seven that said that prior to site plan approval, city attorney was going to work and there was going to be some sort of unified unification agreement. And it, you know, it said that they would apply and even if there was later changes in ownership of some or all portions of the zoning lot, it
would be permitted. So we can't really negotiate that over again. Um so I I took that in mind. Uh and then I asked some questions and I was you know given back even that the land development code uh you know provides that two or more contiguous lots you know for zoning in
these kind of commercial situations does provide for as I interpreted it this kind of thing. So, you know, I sort of was, you know, calmed, you know, after hearing about this and, you know, I was vocal about this project initially. I
was concerned, however, um and and I did, you know, want to make sure we had access to the beach and all the other kind of things that we we spoke about. Um but, um and then it does say though that, you know, any easements and covenants shall be approved as to form to form by the
city attorney. it should not be changed without prival approval by the city. And what I did notice um was that when I looked at the application and maybe I didn't interpret it right because maybe it was the changes from their original uh deeds uh
versus their plan, but I did notice like different buildings and it didn't really look the same and the traffic flow looked different and there did look like there were a number of changes. So, I was concerned was the city commission going to really get to see the changes because it wasn't what I saw wasn't just
a line changing, you know, the JW Marriott lot separating from the other two projects. It looked like there were other changes going on and that concerned me because I wanted to know were those changes going to go back to the city commission. So, that is still a
question because I couldn't tell if this traffic law was going to be considered. Uh, and and was it going to be considered? Um, and but now the reason I'm here is because now I want to hear about Senate Bill 784. Um, you know, would that stop you?
I mean, I heard just now that, you know, you would hear about replats and plats, but is that the case? You know, will you will you get involved? Will you be in the loop? you know, if if this if the if the traffic flow is changing, if there's other buildings, if things are moving
around differently that was improved that night for the cop, will the city commission be involved? I don't have a, you know, I'm just I'm just throwing it out there because I couldn't tell and I wasn't that worried. I felt everybody had it in good hands, but now that I'm hearing about Senate Bill
784, you know, things may have changed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. questions, comments, discussion. Commissioner Marriott. Um, yeah, I just have a follow-up question for the city attorney, and this has this is a question that has a whole lot of
hypotheticals in it. So, um, so if we approve this replat, this plat split, and it's still joined by a development agreement that unifies the lots. Um, if
the developer for some reason decided they were they were they weren't going to do it, they weren't going to do any part of it and they wanted to sell those two lots off separately, that would still have to come back. Would that come back before the commission for us to release that unity of development on the
two lots or or if it never gets developed, does that automat, you know, like what what happens to that unifying document if development doesn't happen? So, as explained by the applicant's attorney, there's a couple concepts. There's you can't do a restraint on alien alienation. So they could sell the
property, but if they're going to do something different in a development sense, they have to come here and amend or revise, withdraw the cup, put in a new cup, something to that effect. If they're going to proceed with this development, this city council has the
retain the right to require that the new owner come in and demonstrate financial and technical capability. Okay. Thank you. So, Mr. City Attorney, maybe you can help us out with
this Senate bill. Notwithstanding our land development code outlines that these types of whether it's administrative or by the commission when we have these kinds of requests uh if the property is subject to an
appeal like a lawsuit for example uh all proceedings and furtherance of the action affected this is land development code 3 section 314 If there's if there is action uh affected by decisions being appealed so there is an
appeal then it shall commissioner Moholland that word you like shall be stayed right so any proceeding should be stayed now the applicant has on their attorney on three separate occasions when asked indicated that the actions that they're looking to take are in
furtherance of their development for the purpose for financing for the purpose um to make sure that the um units per acre remain the same. Um so it seems that we really don't
we're not in a position to even make this decision tonight. Um, and in fact, even if the Senate bill passes, the staff or the city manager would also not be allowed to make that decision. Um, because there's currently
uh an appeal for that cup. So, I can um read you 3.14 appeals C. When an appeal is filed, all proceedings and furtherance of the action affected by the decision being appealed shall be stayed unless the city manager certifies after the notice of
appeal has been filed with the city that by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. Is there imminent peril to life or property if we do not take a decision tonight? I will take that as a no. I don't know
if it's a legal question, more of a fact question for staff or for actually for the applicant. It's really for the applicant. So, yeah. No. Uh but the plot doesn't approve any development. If the cup was abandoned, you could still make the requests that
we're making today. This is a ministerial function. I think the question really is how the commission feels about the shape of the lot line. No, the issue is that if there are if abandoned then we want to look at the
existing structures. So when we are subdividing lots and there's existing structures you don't want to create a non-conforming structure which would be within. Yeah. So we have a unity document. So even if it went through the middle of a building, it doesn't, but
even if it did, the unity document would still treat it as a single zoning lot. The unity of document goes along with the CUP. Yeah. So let's let's get to the Thank you, sir. So let's get to the heart of it. Right. The issue is that if there's an appeal filed, which there is an appeal that's filed to the CUP, it's
an appeal in circuit court that's pending. It's been fully briefed, but there's been no ruling. We're just awaiting a ruling by the court. It's still pending. Correct. Okay. So, the appeal has been filed. It is pending. We don't have a decision, right? So,
for I can see why the language is here. And so, again, if we're following the land development code, we shouldn't even be undertaking this. if you feel that this is related to the development for the reasons you've
stated previously. I asked the applicant specifically three times. He affirmatively answered in all three cases that that is the reason why they're here. And the case number is uh circuit court case in the sixth judicial circuit uh case number
24-08 AP just for the record. I think that's a question for the applicant. If you're looking at me, um um I'm I'm telling you the plain reading of what this is my the as I see the land of development code. The plain reading
says if there's an appeal then we don't make this decision. It doesn't even come before the commission. Then you could continue it until the appeal is concluded. I wouldn't deny it. I would just It says in this section of the code that it should be stayed. We hope to
have a ruling soon. We've been hoping to have a ruling for a few weeks. Sure. So I mean again that's what it's that's what it says. I think that's what we should do. Now, I'd also say that if and when they come back, um I'd like to see straight lines again
as the code requires. Um because again, even if Senate bill passes, that still doesn't absolve the city staff for implementing and following our land development code. And so, the city staff would have to go back and say, "We want straight
lines as well. That's in section 24.8 parent F, parent two of the land development code, just for the record. Thank you, sir. For the record, Commissioner Rzniki handed me a note that says if we can
take a five minute recess just so that there's no bio break so that no one ever thinks that we're having any kind of communication that is I'm only the messenger. Okay. Well, I'm not sure who the note is from. So,
okay. So do we have consensus that this should be stayed until such time that there is a resolution to the appeal? I if if that is how it's read, which you're reading it from the code, I would agree and and
and I agree that um straight line um and and and to your point, I think on the LDC code, it does say curved or so I think I know you uh you were trying to make the point that the street is not straight, but I don't think the code is saying specifically it has to be a right
angle, but as close to depending on where that street is, whether curved or not. I concur. I concur as well. I I think we need to follow the land development code. Commissioner Marriott. Yeah, that's
fine. Okay. There's no vote required on this. I think it would be helpful to have a vote to continue it. either if there's no date certain at least a vote to continue the item until a revised plat is
submitted with straight lines as close to the resolution of the appeal the circuit court proceeding be concluded if we vote to continue it and then that Senate bill passes and it becomes administrative does does our vote to
continue make any difference it just it just still then becomes administrative correct if the um bill becomes law on July 1st, then it would become an administrative approval. Okay. Done by staff regardless of what we Yeah. Okay. And the staff would still have to follow
the land development code. It does not absolve the staff from they still have to show the easements pursuant to Florida statute 7, I mean 177091, uh parent 16. Um,
what I'm saying it does not absolve the staff of filing. The staff would have to review everything instead of review it, but also they wouldn't be able to take a decision until the appeal was resolved. Correct. Because the land development code that still applies. Well, um, that's unclear. Um, it says in the bill
that it must be based on 177.091. It doesn't expressly wipe out land development code, but what it does say is a plat submitted under this part must be administratively approved and no further action or approval by the governing body of a municipality is
required if the plaque complies with the requirements of 177091 doesn't expressly preempt us from applying our land development code. So, I would think that we could apply our land development code criteria that they that a plat not create a non-conforming
building under the existing zoning that the plat have the stat statute requirement for the easements that the plat meet the right angle to straight street lines requirements. Um, there many city codes I think include ours
including ours prevents flag lots. Uh, so some of those things I think under the LDC might still be applicable, but it hasn't been determined. It's not expressly addressed in the in the bill. I just want to put for the record for a point of order that we um we do
not agree that this that that platting has anything to do with development regardless of what I said and I'll stay on the record. It is for the purposes of financing. Platting doesn't approve development. So, um, just state that objection on the record. Um, and, um, if
we do end up applying administratively, we will proceed under the state statute, um, and understand the commission's direction on that on the way that the law is drawn. Thank you. Financing wasn't the only issue you cited in furtherance of the development.
It was one of the ones you did. Okay. Okay. Is there a motion to continue this action? This um what we at? Is there a motion to uh continue this plat case? I'll make a motion to continue the SRA
plat request. Second such time. until such time that the appeals uh I believe it's the appeals hearing has has been heard and that the plat is redrawn with right angles or as close as
and that the plat has been redrawn with right angles uh per the land development code and that all easements are shown on the plat pursuant to the state statute and that all easements are shown on the plat pursuant went to state statutes. I
know why nobody else wanted to make that motion. You had a good coach. I second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Commissioner Mhalland, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner
Robinson, yes. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. And Mayor Petrilla, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next we have item 5B, formerly force D. Can we have the bathroom break just for five minutes? It
is uh 8:13. We shall resume at 8:25 sharp. Thank you. concession. Next we have action item 5B formally consent item 4D to authorize the city manager to enter into an
interlocal agreement with Penelis County for continued collection of multimodal impact fees. Uh the reason I brought this item up was for clarification. So when we collect impact fees in the
city, part of it goes is allocated for um multimodal for multimodal and then this interlocal agreement will allow Penllis County to reallocate multimodal impact fees
collected in the city of St. Pete Beach to reallocate them anywhere as they see fit in the county city attorney based on the reading of the in local agreement. Is that a fair assessment? Right now the law on impact
fees is that you have to have a dual rational nexus which is like one added layer. You have to collect the money for the purpose you're going to collect it. You have to spend it on that purpose, but you also have to spend it within the area that you collected. Is that a
recent development or they don't have to correspond directly with municipal boundaries. Um but they can draw impact feed um areas, impact feed districts. So when you collect it from say district A, it should be put back into district A.
Um the legislature said that that can be varied if you have counties in a city as long as there's an interlocal agreement with the city that says you can spend the money elsewhere. The county can spend the money elsewhere other than where it's collected and that new law
where they can only do that with an interlocal agreement will become effective in October. So right now I don't know I don't think we have an interlocal agreement that expressly says that. So they're asking for us to agree
to allow them to spend the monies outside of the area in which they're collected through the use of this interlocal agreement. Okay. So there's a new law taking effect that going forward requires them to spend money in let's call it the
district of St. Pete Beach. It's a little bit the other side of the coin. Mhm. um to spend it on multi. There's always been there's always been a rule a dual rational nexus test for impact fees that the money that's get collected from the people that are
paying that has to be spent for that purpose but but where they live not on say the other side of the county. Um that apparently has not occurred in Penllis County before. The legislature made it clear that they could no longer do that unless they have an interlocal
agreement that would allow the status quo to continue. Otherwise, they would have to spend the money uh in the area that's collected. Okay. And I think that we have a split and I think Brandon or finance can explain the current situation on the
percentages that we keep. I believe it's 46 plus interest and 54 for for the other. Um, but we do retain some of our impact fee as a city, but the county portion can be spel spent
elsewhere. But the dual rational nexus test says it's supposed to all be spent where it's collected unless there's an interlocal agreement. Correct. The city keeps 54%, the county keeps 46% plus the whole of the
interest. Um now based on the current adopted code which is referenced in this agreement the city is part of one of 13 districts and the district that we are in is with Tiara Verde and Treasure
Island. Now those three municip those three uh municipalities can agree to have the funds moved elsewhere but if we don't consent to that it needs to be concurrence of all three it needs to be spent within that district. So it may not necessarily be spent in St. Pete. It could be spent in Treasure Island. Could
be spent here at Verde, but it would not be spent in Tarpon Springs without the commission's consent. Okay. Thank you. So I guess the question is what's the advantage to us
to enter into this agreement? I mean, how does it benefit our our taxpaying residents if their taxes are being spelled somewhere outside of? So, this is the current procedure. This is what we currently operate under and there is a state law taking effect
that we will need to enter into an interlocal to continue collect collecting multimodal impact fees. I did speak to the count on just once the law takes effect, we can still collect multimodal impact fees. When the law takes effect, the only
thing that changes is that the money has to be spent on multimodal in the district where it's collected unless otherwise specified by a in a local agreement. It does not prohibit us from collecting impact fees for multimodal
after it takes effect. Correct. That was not my understanding talking with the county, but I can get clarification if you'd like. We have plenty of time on this. So, the county's position is that once this law takes effect, we are no longer allowed to collect multimodal impact fees.
Sorry. and I can get additional clarity from the county if needed. Um I did ask on two weeks ago um to ensure that this is necessary to continue collecting multimmoal impact fees due to the Senate bill requirement. It would not affect
any future commitments to the upcoming fee study which the county is undertaking. So again, just to restate my question, the the county's position is that if we do not sign this agreement, we would not be independent of them be able to
collect multimmodal impact fees. The answer was you are correct. The purpose of the interlocal agreement is simply to meet the requirements of the bill so that all parties can continue collecting and expending multimodal impact fees under the existing ordinance. That did not answer my I know I know you're
reading what they said. So I'm not I'm not putting this on you. So we'll take it back to the city attorney because I think they're that answer is vague and crafted in a way that could be
interpreted more than one way. And so then does that Senate bill prohibit us from collecting impact fees for multimodal? doesn't prevent you. No. Okay. And it's
for the record 163.3180 parent 5 parent J parent three which requires an interlocal agreement to be executed by October 1st 2025. Okay. So you have the summer to work out something with the county or have them.
So, but but again it's it I want to make sure because the reason I brought this up is because the language that was used just like in that answer and the way that it was pitched to us that there there is no change. We're just codifying something that's already going on and that is
technically correct. Right? We would not be changing the way that we're currently operating which is that money is collected here and then spent elsewhere. It is just that the new law prevents that from happening unless we have it in writing. And so this is trying to
perpetuate you know the current status quo which is money's collected here and spent elsewhere. Mhm. So my understanding, so yes, technically nothing would be changing except that the law would
actually require a change to the existing operate the way we operate if we didn't do anything at all. The law would require that how the money is spent changes. To continue the status quo, you would have to do this interlocal agreement. Otherwise, you'd have to make sure that
taxpayers aren't being charged twice for the same impacts. Yep. Okay. Commissioner Moholland. Um Mr. Barry, you had mentioned um Treasure Island, Terra Verie being in
our district. I think that's what you said that this those three municipalities that's in this district district. Um have they taken this up yet? Are you aware
that? I'm not sure. Um, I don't believe so. We just received this a few weeks ago. I know it's been sent off to all the municipalities, but so potentially if we were to do something different, they may choose to follow us or they may
choose to say the status quo is just great, so let's just keep it the way it is. Would that be a reasonably accurate statement based on your opinion? That could be. And to the mayor's point, I I took this to be my understanding was
this was a requirement to continue collecting impact fees under the current chapter 150 of Penelis County. I'm happy to get clarification on that and and talk this over with staff and the attorney. Um we we do have time. So, did
you say I I believe there's 16 total districts in Penelis County? 13, I believe. 13. Okay. I apologize. Very would not get a say because they are not incorporated. So the county makes that decision for them. Okay. So Treasure Island is the only one that
would have to have their commission sign off on the local agreement. Okay. And I guess this question is for really any of us in the room. Um, is this not an opportunity for us to
use some leverage to get more more of our money coming back to us? Um, it seems like the county probably would like us to just roll over and approve this and say, "Oh, we just love
it the way it is." But um as long as I've lived in this city, I haven't really uh I don't believe I've ever heard anybody that lives here um that believes that we get fair revenue
distribution from the county. Um so I think if we have an opportunity that we have a certain amount of leverage that the state has given us and Lord knows they've taken a lot of leverage away from us um that we might ought to you know try to
utilize that leverage to get a better deal as Trump would say. Um but if that were the case how would we do that? Um, does the city manager negotiate with the county? Um, do we disapprove this and
the county comes to us and says, "Well, we'll give you a better deal." I doubt that's going to happen. How would that work, madam city attorney or or I'm sorry, city manager or city attorney, you have a before they get into that procedure how it would
actually occur? Let me just read from the statute as amended. It says if you have an interlocal agreement, the interlocal agreement must at a minimum provide a method for the proportionate distribution of the revenue collected by the county or municipality to address
the transportation capacity impacts of a new development or redevelopment or provide a method of assigning responsibility for the mitigation of transportation capacity impacts belonging to the county and the municipality. And then it goes on to
say, "By October 1, 2025, if an interlocal agreement is not executed, pursuant to the paragraph, the fee charged to a new development or redevelopment shall be based on the transportation capacity impacts a portion to the county and municipality
as identified in the developers traffic impact study or the mobility plan adopted by the county or municipality. and the developer shall receive a 10% reduction in the total fee calculated. So there's a lot to unpack there. Unless
we interlocal agree uh how to divide the revenues to address the transportation distribution, then it would be based on the applicant's traffic impact study whether they're impacting the city or the county and who they're impacting
more and then also the developer gets a 10% discount. So, um I I I think I comprehend that. Um, but it's my understanding that not every developer
has to do a traffic impact study. And if that's the case, how would those fees be distributed if we decided to tell the county we
weren't going to play ball with them? Mhm. Does anybody know the answer to that or or educated guess or how how how would how would those fees um be
reallocated in the absence of a mandatory traffic study? How much do we collect an interlocal agreement? We'll have to require traffic impact studies for new development and we can do that irrespective of the size of the development.
Well, then also then you run up against Senate Bill 180, so you can't be any more restrictive. So maybe we would lose money, maybe the county would lose money. Who's going to save money is the developer. And so there's also the proportionate allocation between the county and the city that can be
negotiated. Well, I'm not I don't really see the develop Well, the developer may save 10% based on the developments that I've seen come before the commission. every single one of those impact studies, traffic impact studies had a 100% of the impact on St. Pete Beach
because none of them actually showed any impact to the county. In fact, they were explicit in going, you know, saying, "Here's South Pasadena Boulevard. Look, there's no impact to South Pasadena Boulevard. Here's the Bayway. Look, there's no impact on the
Bayway." So, that would come 100% back. So if we were at a you know 45 55 split 55 to us even at a 10% reduction that still puts us at 75% versus where we are today for those instances now whether
there so really that maybe we're doing making a lot about nothing here but the question is how much did we spend last year on multimodal impact fees? How much did we generate from that? Did we generate anything from that? Are we having a conversation about zero dollars or are
we having conversation about $10 million? Because that'll make you know that'll so I don't have specific to last year. I did look back to 2022 in which we collected or have invoiced for a big
portion of that is the Myiramar which recently submitted for permitting. um back to 2022 with that payment we will have collected 146,600. The city's proportion of that is 79,200
and that was for the Myiramar. That was the Myiramar as well as other development. Not that we've had much new construction, but we have had some changes of use. And that is specifically the multimodal impact fees. Correct. Yes. And you said that was going back to 2022. So that's three two and a half
years worth or something. Three three and a half years beginning of 2022. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we're talking at $75,000 to the city. 79,000. Yes. 79,000. Okay. Out of Okay. And then
roughly Well, we don't know yet, so that's not Yeah. I mean, the next 10 years is be your biggest development impact. So it's hard on this You you were in a moratorum for seven. We had one
development, but you're about to go into your largest development peak in the next decade. Brandon, I think the modal impact fee is charged at the building permit stage or is it the CO? It's the building permit stage. It's the building permit. Correct. And what is the county
currently spending this? So, is this a line item the county has to spend on? Well, yes, they have to spend it on multimodal. So, what exactly? Do you have roughly an idea of what they've spent it on? I I don't know now. Okay. So, would it be out of line to just get
some clarification on on this one? What is the county spending the money on? You know, to decide whether we want to enter into this agreement if we feel it's something that benefits the city. Right. So, in this scenario, if we hadn't had the agreement, what was the
total number that was collected? 146,000. 146,000. Okay. So the developer would have saved [Music] $1104,700 which means that we would have received $130,000 visa VR $79,000
um that we could have used for multimodal for example paying for our multimodal freebie. Just an idea. So, it'd be nice to find out what the county is spending the money on, you know, where um and then also how it So, I guess we
do know how it's going to impact us if we do not enter into the agreement. We would get to keep whatever portion of the impact the developer says is to St. Pete Beach stays on St. Pete Beach. And if whatever impact they say
is to outside of St. Pete Beach would go to the county. Mayor, if I may ask staff quick, Brandon, did didn't you do an estimate on what the fee may be with these two large developments? Yes. Pending a fee study, right? We
don't do a fee study on this impact fee because the county collects it. So, this is specific to what is currently adopted. The county is currently undertaking its own fee study. We were taking our own independent fee study. There would be an estimate
of 3.2 million for Sarata and tradewinds. That would be the four phases of tradewinds, but that would be the bulk in the first three. The city's portion of that based on the current allocation would be 1.7 million. And based on their traffic studies
that that I don't know if the study would come back higher or lower, I'm not sure. So, I mean, we already have their traffic studies that they presented under oath. So, maybe we can get answers on that as well because if that Yeah. Yes, they might save
$300,000, but then we may end up in a positive 1.5 million. Are we restricted as a city as to what we can spend that money on or does it have to be spent in a specific can be spent on capital improvements? Can it be spent and stuff outside of to be
mobility? Okay. I mean, we're spending 500 a little over well $600,000 on mobility every year. So, it's not like we don't have a place to spend it. I'm just saying if something were to happen, all of a sudden, we no longer rational nexus. You have to spend it on what
you're collecting it for and has to be spent in the area you collected. Okay. My understanding though that was also for roads. Are roads included in mobility is roads. Transportation, alternative transportation.
Excellent. So is Commissioner Resniki, sorry. Um, you had mentioned that a 100% has to go to the city, right, that collects it, right? I I think that's what I heard you
say when you were reading it. Um, so does that apply to the county as well? that that split that we're saying the um if if there's no impact in Penllis County from the impact fees that we're collecting but 100% is to the city their
portion doesn't come back over here to spend it in in the location where it's collected it would depend on the traffic impact study for each development where the impacts are being so could we have something written that when since it's not right now right I
know a house bill is there but if we are waiting for at site development or site approval to collect this traffic study. Couldn't that be like determined part of the interlocal agreement must at a minimum ensure the new development is
not charged twice for the same impacts not charged by the county and by the city. Um, establish a plan-based methodology for determining the legal permissible fee to be charged for new development or redevelopment, requiring the county or
municipality issuing the building permit to collect the fee unless otherwise agreed. and provide a method for the proportionate distribution of the revenue collected by the city to address the transportation capacity impacts of the new
development or redevelopment or provide a method of assigning responsibility for the mitigation of transportation capacity impacts belonging to the county and the municipality. So if zero belong to the county does that mean 100% come back to the city?
You would have to negotiate that in the interlocal agreement. If there's no interlocal agreement, then it would all be based on what the traffic impact study for say Sarata or tradewood showed how much. So could it be added is what I'm I guess what I'm asking. Then if it's not in our in this draft, can it be
added that if 100% regardless the local agreement can be negotiated? Yeah. Okay. Then I would say if if a 100% is coming the impact is 100% to the city then 100% of the man money regardless of how it's split should be coming back to the city
if if whatever proportionate share correct that's how it's supposed to be correct well I would recommend that we authorize the city manager to have a conversation with the county administrator and say look in light of the traffic studies that we already have it Looks like 100%
is coming to us. You know what? You guys want to renegotiate that 4555 split or we don't I mean I don't I'm I'm happy to keep all of it. Do we have consensus on delaying this until we have further clarification
and the city manager has an opportunity to speak with the county administrator? Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. Next we have ordinances. First one is 6A. The first reading of ordinance 2025-10. Madam clerk, would you like me
to read the uh ordinance header? First reading of ordinance 2025-10, amendments to the land development code, division 26, sign ordinance. An ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, for the purpose of adopting amendments to the land
development code division 26 sections 26-1 through 26-42 entitled sign ordinance to ensure contentneutral sign definitions, standards, regulations, and requirements, and adopting amendments to the requirements for permitting,
enforcement, and maintenance for new, existing, and nonconforming signs in all zoning districts. providing for codification, conflicts, severability, correction of scrimmers errors, construction, publication, and an effective
date. You can pull up PowerPoint, please. So, this ordinance is presented with two primary purposes. The first and what started this ordinance was to eliminate the contentbased restrictions from the current sign code in large part to comply with the Reed versus Town of
Gilbert Supreme Court ruling. Um, as you all know, um, cities cannot restrict messages in most cases on signs, but this ruling came a little bit further to say that, um, regulation through the categorization of signs can also be
looked at as a contentbased regulation. So looking at something like differentiating between a real estate sign and a garage sale sign despite the fact that they're made of the same material. Um they're both temporary in nature. Making a differentiation based on the potential content of those sign
effectively if a city employee has to read a sign to determine what it's classified as that itself could be a contentbased restriction. So that was the primary purpose to update our code to get away from that based our code
more on events um based on the um use of the property rather than the type of sign. The second was to just simply update and modernize the sign code um in two square miles. We currently have 15 different sign districts. Um in a lot of cases the differences between these
districts are very minor 2 feet in height a small uh difference in square footage. So, our intent was to pair down these 15 sign districts to four district groupings based on low, medium, highintensity development and then one for primarily residential zoning and
those those very very few non-conforming commercial uses we have in those districts under this. Um, we're also looking to extend sign types citywide based on their uses. So, for example, going back with what we talked about with the contentbased restrictions, um
rather than have explicit theater marquee signs in different districts, um those uses, so a theater, regardless of its location, would be permitted a marquee sign. Commercial uses would be allowed sandwich board signs, which I'll get into a bit more detail on. The
intent of this, and I'll get into the balance and the the overall intent of the ordinance, was to balance slightly more permissive sign code against accelerating compliance with the s current sign provisions, which would have been lowering the threshold for bringing deteriorated signs into
compliance with what is proposed to be the city's new sign code. In meeting with the city attorney, this was an item that unfortunately was lost under Senate Bill 180. that is something that would need to be struck stricken from um from this code which I'll get into detail in a minute
on. So to go through the history, this did start back in 2023. There was a city commission discussion and then a workshop early this year. Staff was provided a code draft for review. We went back and forth with our consultant Philip de Maria who is present. Um in
March and April we did this bring this item to the planning board for review. who they did find it consistent with the comprehensive plan recommended the ordinance 50 with modifications in April and of course this is the first rating it will be brought back for second
reading should it pass tonight so looking at the major non-dimensional changes just a summary of those changes in the code uh the the major ones and the ones that we shared with the chamber of commerce and businesses was that um we would allow
pole signs if placed within a landscape setting thing. The city code currently by and large does not allow for pole signs, new pole signs. Um only freestanding monument signs are permitted. So this would allow for pole signs at place within a landscape
setting as an alternative to a monument sign. The intent is to entice but not require quality design signage by excluding architectural elements from calculations. So looking at the Sunrise Resort Condos sign at the top right of the screen, we would be looking at the
sign area, the actual content of that sign to to base that um parameter on rather than the other architectural embellishments of the sign. There had not been any direction from the commission when we reviewed this back in 2023. I understand that was largely under a different commission regarding
the design of the signs. But this is something that we feel could entice um higher quality signage differentiating temporary signs based solely on whether the event is predictable or unpredictable. Going back to those contentbased regulations that were addressed earlier on, um this would
allow and this is something that we are happy to take city commission feedback on. This would allow for unlimited temporary signs in the month the month prior to an election. So, the city would effectively not regulate temporary signs based on number in the month prior to an
election. Currently, our sign code limits one sign per issue. So, with a special election, you may only have one or two temporary signs in a front yard. With a general election, you may have 20 to 30. So, for all intents and purposes, that that is unlimited. Um, staff
doesn't have any stance on this. Those are the two options that we've read and that are common in other municipal codes throughout the county. So, we wanted to bring both those items forward uh to you for review. As I mentioned before, the reduction of the damage threshold would be struck based on Senate Bill 180.
Another item would be prohibiting artwork containing a commercial message unless the message qualifies as permitted commercial signage. So, if you were to have an artistic mural and there were to be a portion of that mural that contain commercial signage, that would be treated as the wall sign or the
attached sign based on the regulation in the city's code. the overall artwork mural would not. And I'll get into that in more detail in a minute. And then finally, this was a planning board recommendation um to allow relief to businesses with well-maintained
non-conforming signage after a disaster and allow one banner for operational businesses during a local state of emergency. There were some concerns with the planning board that businesses in the process of renovating their structure when they could not occupy the
structure would be cited for having non-conforming signage. They would need to take it down even if it were to be wellmaintained, not have been damaged by the storm. They wanted to see some relief to businesses that were maintaining their signs that were actively working toward renovating and getting back open. Uh they did not want
them to be subject and have another item that they had to address during that renovation. They also wanted those operational businesses once they recover, once they reopen during a local state of emergency to be allowed a banner, some kind of temporary signage that would allow them to announce that they're open to advertise that they're
operational. So that is an amendment that we added in based on the planning board's recommendation. Just to briefly summarize the major dimensional signage, so the height area setbacks, there were not any any major modifications made. Looking at the
downtown and institutional zone grouping, currently the sign code allows for three. What is proposed is two to four based on frontage plus the signs that would be allowed based on use. As I mentioned before, businesses would be permitted an A-frame sign. That's a currently allowed sign type that counts
toward the three. that would be a bonus sign that a a business would be allowed to have based under this. So, they would not actually lose that sign even for those that don't would only be permitted the two. Uh looking at the commercial and resort zones, currently it's three to four. It would be the same standard
as for the downtown and institutional, it would be two to four signs based on frontage, plus signs allowed based on use. Theaters would be allowed a certain um marquee sign. All businesses would be allowed an A-frame and so on. Looking at freestanding sign height, the height
would be increased slightly in the downtown institutional zone. Currently, the range allowed is 5 to 8 feet. Proposed would be 10 ft. In the commercial resort zones, currently allowed is 8 to 12. Proposed would be 15. One change um that would be intended
to reduce sign clutter would be for those multi-tenant businesses. When you have multiple businesses within one frontage but within the same depth of the site, they would be limited to one sign, not to exceed uh every 200 feet of frontage, they would be allowed one
freestanding sign. So those businesses where you might have one development in the front and another development in the rear, they would not each be allowed a freestanding sign. They would be allowed one for that frontage. So that would be a change to to limit the number of freestanding signs.
Looking at freestanding sign area, um for the downtown area, it would be effectively the same. The current range is 40 to 50 feet. It would be proposed to be 50. In the commercial resort zones, the city allows for one freestanding sign of 50 square feet, two um one sign of 100 square feet. If it
counts for two of those uh three to four signs that are currently allowed, proposed would be 60 to 120. Again, based on whether the occupant chooses to construct one or two, there would be no changes at all to wall signs. It would be one square foot per linear foot of
building frontage that is currently in existence and it would be proposed as well. So, there were some items that were discussed both by staff and the commission at those early meetings that were not addressed. Um, one of them was electronic message board signs. There is
currently in our code and advertisation for non-conforming signs that was set to take effect in 2027 that is unchanged. Currently, the code allows for those properties between 37th and 75th Avenue that face Gulf Boulevard to have one
electronic message board sign of 32 square feet. Any electronic message board sign outside that range that's larger than that would need to be removed by 2027. That's not being modified or taken out of the code. the size of those signs is not being modified or proposed at least currently
for modification. Looking at non-commercial artwork specifically, so murals that do not contain any kind of commercial message. That was not something we directly addressed. I know it was brought up in those early discussions. This is something that we could explore separately. It's not necessarily
something that needs to be addressed through the sign code, but it's something we could talk through in in in the general context of the um the design codes and the other elements of our code. Um based on the early commission feedback, we did not propose any kind of
unification of sign design or elements. So that would be typically for freestanding signs require that the architecture of those signs match the business or even require that the individual signage within a multi-tenant cabinet match one another based on type
face, based on color, design or so on. That was not something that had been supported early on. It's not something we're currently requiring in this draft. Um, but we'd be happy to take in any feedback the commission may have. We did not change the city's illuminated sign limitations. It's still a limitation of
50 square feet. So even if a sign exceeds 50 square feet in area, they would be limited to 50 square feet for the illuminated portion of that sign. And we did not change any kind of exception for historic signs. For example, we have the Bonire sign. The property itself is not historic, but the
sign is considered a historic resource. If it were to be substantially damaged, even if it passed that 50% threshold we have today, they would be able to replace it in the same location at the same height, same size. That standard is not changing or proposed to
change. So, when this had been drafted, as you could see, it's effectively been a two-year process at this point. Um, these regulations were written to be considered as a package. Staff was proposing a slightly more permissive standards for those businesses that are currently compliant or would become
compliant with the sign code based on what was drafted. But our intent was to accelerate compliance with the sign code when a non-conforming sign needs to be repaired or is damaged. For those signs that are 20, 30 feet tall, that don't meet the current code, wouldn't it meet
the proposed code? Our intent was to lower that threshold from 50 to 25% for deterioration in order to accelerate that compliance. That is something that is going to need to be removed based on Senate Bill 180. It is a more burdensome amendment. So, if this
were to be passed as drafted, that would be an incentive potentially for a business owner to come in and make their sign compliant. They would be allowed that additional square footage, that additional height, but it would not be a requirement. It would not be that lower standard that had been originally proposed and this was based around based
on how we drafted the ordinance, how we went through this these content um based changes, it would be very challenging to separate out the contentbased amendments from the other elements of the code. But if there are certain standards that you have
concerns with, if you feel a sign is too tall, if you feel it's not tall enough, you you concerns about area, those are things that we could relatively easily modify. But reverting the code while keeping those contentbased amendments would be a challenge just based on the way it's written.
So, we're asking tonight uh for a motion to approve approve with modifications or deny the first reading of this ordinance with the staff recommendation to restore the deterioration threshold for non-conforming sign compliance from 25% back to 50% as it exists
today. I'd be happy to take questions. Commissioners Nikki Thank you. Could you go back to the slide where you have um like the table? Yes. Right there. Um why is it that the freestanding sign
height is being proposed higher than the current? Was there a reasoning? So we were looking just generally at existing signs and I can far consultant has any more detail on that but we were looking at existing
sign layout. what we felt was proportional within that district. Um, again, there was that that intent of that slight incentive based on the lowering of that damage threshold to have business owners voluntarily comply with the code. Um, but again, these are
all negotiable standards that Okay. All right. So, that'll be one. But then the second two would the pole because I know you're giving or proposing to give an option for the poles pole sign the height would still be to what
the next slide that you just flipped from. Right. So it will be depending on what we are all all re agree either 10 ft or 15t pole if it is a pole sign. So it would not be the pole itself that would be the very top of the sign. Yes.
Okay. And then the the last one for the wall signs is that what we consider the art murals when you're thinking about square footage. So the the actual artistic non-commercial mural itself that would not be a component of that. So there
wouldn't be any prohibition on painting the side of a building with an artistic mural. But if it were to be a clear commercial sign, it would be regulated to our sign code. And just based on our regulations that we have in place, someone could not paint a commercial
side sign against the entire side of their building because it would exceed the city's wall sign standards. So if the art mural were a commercial sign, then it would revert to this wall sign. Correct. Footage. That's correct. Yes. questions,
comments. Commissioner Marriott. Um, I have just a couple of uh a couple of comments. Um, thanks, Brandon. I think that this is a um I I think the the business community will welcome the sign code becoming simpler where it has been
it has been pretty complicated. And so, I think this is a a a really great step towards making it much easier for people to understand. And so when somebody is opening a business or trying to get a sign, it will be much much more clear what they can do. Um, which I think is a really good thing. Um, I did have a a
couple of questions. one. Um, in the definitions, it talked about a sign being abandoned if a uh if it if it has no display or signed copy for a period of 90 consecutive
days. Um, and on the one hand that seems reasonable. On the other hand, you know, if you own a commercial building and you have a tenant move out and you're looking for another tenant, um, I guess, you know, would would would
it be not considered abandoned if you put up a a a message on the sign that said something like for rent? Would that would that alleviate you of having a sign that was abandoned or I'm not sure that that might be a question for the for the city
attorney, but uh um you know, I'd hate to see somebody all of a sudden be told that they have to tear their take their sign down because it took them a little bit too long to find a new tenant. Um and then uh further down in section
26.8, it talks about um maintenance of the signs. Um, and that if someone has a non-conforming sign that is considered not wellmaintained, even the landscaping around the bottom of it, that if they
don't remedy the problem within two days of being notified that they have to take the sign down. Um, and I'd kind of like to see that extended out to, you know, maybe maybe seven days or 14 days, something that gives people a little bit of a reasonable chance of of responding.
I'd hate to see somebody get a get a letter on Friday and be told on Monday they have to take their sign down. Um, so for those are my only comments. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead. For your first question, it is based on building occupancy. So, not that the city uses
this as the sole basis for it. But if a business owner were to choose to not renew their business tax receipt, if we had evidence based on what is drafted that the building is not occupied for 90 days, we would site the owner. Um, 5 years ago, I believe the city went
through a campaign and addressed a few signs that were in that case. They had been abandoned for much longer than 90 days. Um, but that that is what what the basis for that would be. If there is no occupant within the building, it would need to come into compliance. Okay. Uh the points points taken about two uh two
days. Um that's the minimum the city's code of ordinances allows for a citation. So if the commission would like to extend it out, that would be fine. Thank you. Okay. So I participated in those meetings and
workshops and um going back to what was discussed back then um not that I have any particular feelings on it but uh polls were not were not uh were not popular uh with the
commissioner or the workshops at the time. Personally, I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on polls. Um, the other thing I can tell you was not popular was height. In fact, the much of the discussion was
around uh having lower monument signs and that's really where the conversation with the polls also came into place. Um, so I'm still not understanding why we're going in some cases as much as double the hype. why that why what's the
purpose in proposing such a huge increase in the height of the signs? I can just only speak for for myself, but I believe that it was it was intended in part as an incentive and again this was really intended to be included as a whole package for
redevelopment because we have so many signs that are currently non-conforming relative to the height code. It would be that incentive to kind of bridge that divide and and see a higher quality development. But wouldn't the signs have to be updated within once the
grandfathering clause expires? So they will have a certain number of years to come into compliance. That that 2027 amortization that is only for electronic message boards. That's that. So, but when we had this conversation at the
previous workshops and commission meetings, there was a discussion about having whether it's a threeyear or 5year grandfathering of signs, after which time they would all have to come into compliance. Yeah. Well, Senate Bill 180, I don't know we can do that. Okay. Well, Senate
one bill 180 prohibits us if it gets signed from temporarily enacting more stringent measures. It's not a permanent. It is while there's a state of emergency that we're affected by if there was a hurricane that made landfall with 100
feet 100 miles of Right. So, the first part right now, we're not in that 100 mile one. We're in the hurricane Milton and uh Helen one and that says any municipality within a county that's in the national declaration area which is
the entire state of Florida because they're hurricanes and it says we can't propose or adopt any more restrictive sign uh requirements. Okay, we can do incentives. we can encourage but to be more restrictive or
burdensome. We can't. Okay. Well, we're not incentivizing anyone to do anything here. What we're doing is we're giving double the height which is again having been part of all the conversations whether it's the comprehensive plan review, whether it was the sign ordinance reviews of the last couple years,
whether it's the beach ordinance review, height is a very very popular topic. And nowhere ever has anyone of our residents that I've ever heard said, "We want more height of anything." Especially when you couple it with 200 feet, one every 200 feet. I
mean, there might be some properties that are, I don't know, roughly 1550 ft and that's one sign every 200 feet. Now all of a sudden you've got eight signs at 15 feet up. They're still limited by total signs permitted.
Yeah, about 200 one every 200 feet in frontage. No, but there's still total signs permitted which is two to four or two to four based on frontage. That's correct. And um once again for the record, my name is Philip D. I'm a
certified planner with Kimley Horn um a consultant for the sign ordinance. Um that's correct. there's a there's a maximum permitted based on frontage, but specifically to speak to height and why 15 feet was used. Um Brandon said it um
extremely well, it's balancing the idea behind attempting to incentivize some level of compliance along the corridors or main commercial stretches. Um also taking into account some of the the needs. It's a it's a more um I would say
automobile um uh oriented corridor. Um and some level of consistency with signage is appropriate for corridors like that. Also um taking into account the idea that most of the businesses are commercial that may or may not have long stretches of frontage. Wanting to be
fair and equitable to each of those businesses or businesses based on their ability to sign for um their commercial commercial viability. were all things that were taken into account. Now, you had a colleague here earlier tonight, right?
Uh gentleman that works for the same firm I do. Yes, sir. Okay. And who does he represent? I was not truthfully was not paying attention. I believe it was the Sarata Beach Resort. Okay. Now, this seems to directly
impact that property owner in a huge way. I couldn't speak to that. They're going from 8 to 12 feet to 15 ft, right? Am I wrong? I did not look at any
individual properties. So, what would they be able to do today versus what you're proposing? Truthfully, I have no idea. Okay. So, you have no idea what you're proposing for us to do as it relates to a specific property. No, this is a specific
district. So, in this district, what would they be able to do? What um if I may ask, what what uh district is the Sorado Beach Resort in commercial resort zone? Okay. Sure. So currently they could do three
to four based on the frontage as you see on screen mayor. Mhm. Um and the pro in the proposed they would be permitted two to four based on the frontage plus the signs based on that use. So they'd be able to go from 8 to 12 feet to 15 feet
from a larger square footage. So a 20% increase in the square footage. And then how many signs would they be? So one So we don't know what their front edge is. I'm just we're using we want to look at exactly what does this impact look
like in a specific use case since we have two people here from the same firm advocating on two separate issues. It's good opportunity to have this conversation. So currently in that
example, how many signs would they be allowed on the property? Currently 3 to four based on the frontage. Okay. So Mr. City Attorney, two to four seems to be in some way more restrictive than 3 to four.
Um I'd have to call Brandon up. I know it's allowing additional A-frames, the theater signs. Um so there are some additional signs. Mayor signs. So you you had brought up the 200 ft of frontage that that's for
multi- tenant properties where that's a restriction to limit businesses within a depth of a site or within a very small area of a site from having multiple freestanding monument signs is just to say that a for example a shopping center
there cannot be a freestanding sign for each tenant within that development. they would have one unless they have more than 200 uh linear fees. In this case, we would have a parcel or whatever you want to call it that has three tenants on it. So with
Sarata's case, I believe there are about correct plus the Okay, so currently the code is allow and this is only talking about freestanding signs. Currently the code allows for one sign per business that has an individual entrance into the
building. So Hertz would be a business. You would have the Sarata. There might in the future be other businesses there. So that would be based on the individual businesses on the property. This would place that additional limitation on the linear frontage of the development as a
multi-tenant business. talking about future development, but based on the number of signs for a property of I believe about 600 feet in linear frontage, 732
732. So they would be permitted if you know the Sarata Development and the JW and the Hampton were to be treated as separate businesses, they would be allowed a wall sign, a freestanding sign, and a sandwich board sign based on
their their frontage. Under the current code, they would be allowed three signs per business because they each have their own individual entrance. So they could have the same number of signs, but they would not they could have an additional wall sign or potentially an additional
freestanding sign. So it it could be viewed as more restrictive in that way, but they would still get the same number of signs. It would just one would have to be an A-frame. And then the So I'm I'm 100% on board with you
with, you know, emergencies, being less restrictive in those areas, giving business owners, you know, more time, right? Let's have those we're open signs, whatever else is
necessary. That's perfectly fine. But those are temporary measures to help businesses recover. I don't see again we we've had this convers these conversations in the city about about height about density about
intensity about intensity of use right littering the landscape with more signs with greater signs again we're looking at 20% increase in a square footage plus a 100% increase in a height in some cases so I'm certainly not in favor of either
one of those two Um, I see what you're saying with the number of signs. Knowing some of the attorneys that represent some of those developers, I would expect them to show up and make the case that it's somehow
more restrictive. So, I don't know. Um, and then the other one that you brought up was the one sign per issue versus the unlimited signs 30 days prior to an election.
Um, can you help us? What's what's the thought process there? Or you just left that up to the commission to provide guidance or is that if you if you'd like to weigh in, we'd be happy to hear it. It's because we are now looking solely at signs as a temporary category. So,
every temporary sign, whether it's be used for advertising a garage sale, um a room for rent or a, you know, political sign, it's considered a temporary sign. We only differentiate based on whether the event is has a predictable end date
or if it doesn't. So to that end um to ensure that there's adequate political speech and that we don't make anything more burdensome especially because that's you know what started the temporary signs or what
started the this Supreme Court case to begin with. We wanted to have either the option of keeping what is currently on the books which would be one sign per issue. We're not looking at the content of the sign only that they're allowed to have those temporary signs based on the location and the square footage or we
just don't in that 30 days we just don't look at the number of temporary signs that are otherwise compliant on the code on the property. That's how other cities I believe Naples does that. A few other cities in um Southwest Florida also do that where they just the 30 days you're
allowed an unlimited number of temporary signs. Um, I don't think that would not be a more restrictive standard than what we currently have. We'd be happy to keep the current standard. Um, but like I mentioned, during a general election when there's 30 issues on the ballot, it's effectively unlimited in a lot of
cases. So, so this goes back to the one bad apple scenario which we just had a great example just a couple of months ago in our last election where you know one person decided to let all of Gulf Boulevard pull up multiple signs per property for the same issue right and
there were multiple code violations issued for that so I would be inclined to leave it as is one sign per issue if you want to support 30 different candidates and 25 additional issues by all means Um, but I what I see happening is, you know, next thing you do is you
go down on Gulf Boulevard and there's one property with 50 signs on it all for the same issue for whatever reason, right? I'm not going to do that in my yard. I know no one's going to do that in their yard. Um, but somebody might and the only trouble is to determine whether
it's the same issue or not, you have to read the sign. Anytime you're reading the sign, then that's content, not content neutral. You have to read the words to say whether or not it's a compliance. For example, one sign might
say peace. The other sign might say no war. Is that the same issue or those different issues in your but then how do we words? How do we make the restriction for 30 days? That point at that point you could argue then you'd have to read the sign and see if it's 31 days out. You can do duration and you can do
construction. You can do size. Um you can't do it based on the words. So, if you want, you could have five signs, you know, prior to the 30 days. You could have one sign. I think the intent of staff was that you may want to post a sign for a presidential candidate, um, sign for the gubanatorial cabinet
candidate, sign for two city council candidates, sign for a county commissioner, and they're all in the same election. So, you wanted to have enough room to be able to put signs for Sure. Again, I'm asking the question is from the staff. the recommendation. Well, their question is, do you want to
keep it as is, one sign per issue, right? Or do you want to have it a free-for-all and so or anything in between? Well, I'm simply saying my argument is let's leave it as is, one sign per issue. But you can't say per issue. You could say one side per yard.
That's not So, we do we allow one sign per yard. Based on what's drafted, there would be an allowance for one sign per yard year round. It can say whatever the or the owner wants it to say, but in the 30 days prior to election day, they
would be allowed one sign per issue is what the code currently says, but the regulation of the content of that sign is off the table to my understanding. So if they wanted So the one sign per issue is currently in the code is probably unconstitutional. That's why we're
trying to get rid of these contentbased restrictions. I'm just saying that's not the options we were given. Well, we shouldn't have anything that's content based. So, we'll have to review that again. We can bring it back to you. Or if you want to make a decision
now about how many signs, but you can't say how many signs per issue. You just say how many signs per property 30 days prior to an election, you're allowed one sign only or you're allowed three signs or you're allowed five signs or you're allowed unlimited signs. Those are all possible options.
including a garage sale or you're for sale or your house is for sale, that counts as a sign and it's lumped in with the political signs. You So, if you just give one and your house is for sale, you're effectively saying you can't have a political sign unless you take your
real estate sign down. You only get a number of signs. Again, if you have to read it to determine if you're in compliance, then that's not content neutral. No, I I understand that then. I'm just trying to understand why that's an
option that was presented to us tonight. I think it's a wrong option. It shouldn't be presented. Commissioner Marriott. Um I just wanted to to add a couple of thoughts about the the heights of signs. Um and uh as a as a business owner, I've
followed these discussions for a long time as well. And I think that one of the reasons why you're seeing this increase in height is because a lot of the prior conversations talked about going to only monument signs, right? It would be ridiculous to have a 15 foot
tall monument sign. It would also be a little bit silly to have a 5-ft tall pole sign. And so, you know, and and and the reason for adding some pole signs back in as an option is that there are a whole lot of
the small businesses in St. Pete Beach that are, you know, small buildings, small businesses close to the street. You know, the building were was built before Gulf Boulevard became four four lanes, before Blind Pass Road became
four lanes. And so those businesses don't have a place to put a monument sign without getting rid of a parking spot or sometimes two parking spots and then becoming not compliant with parking regulations. And so by allowing those
businesses to replace an existing pole sign with a nicer, newer, shorter pole sign, but still a pole sign. It allows them to improve their building, improve their signage, keep their parking, but it doesn't penalize them for things that
were beyond their control. And so, um, you know, I think we should be be mindful of that that these sign codes cover a whole gamut of businesses from very small businesses in 500 square foot spaces all the way up to big hotels in
the large hotel district. And so, um, that's why I don't have a problem with the additional height that is that is given, um, for the freestanding signs. Um, you know, I think that, uh, I I think that the these regulations will
encourage people probably to replace their signs in a way that's practical for the lot versus trying to keep an old sign going much longer. Um, as far as the political signs for the or or or temporary signs in the in
the month, you know, or or or limited duration signs, um, you know, it's it's 30 days before an election. I don't think it'll kill anybody if somebody goes bonkers and wants to put up a whole bunch of them.
But I, you know, I I always tend towards uh towards uh less telling people what to do than more. So, Commissioner Nikki, um, and and maybe I need someone to come up and explain the height because that
was my question originally was why why proposing 10 to 15 I would not like it to be higher, but I want to understand the reasoning why because even in the the examples that Commissioner Merid is bringing, obviously there's a lot of
properties that are very close to um G Boulevard and some that do have poll signs um by the way, but I mean it looks very cluttered and you know I I think that the intention was to clean up Gulf
Boulevard in some of those fronted businesses. they have other options. And you know, one good thing is they would actually gain a parking space and maybe they could put a sign on their wall on the on the facade. Um the sign doesn't
have to be on a pole. There's other options um for signage. So, um, you know, again, if we're going back to why we even got here, all the workshops of 2023 and, you know, why why they were even doing this, it was to improve,
um, Gulf Boulevard, the view and the clutter, right? I think you had an example, the sign where the Baneer is, um, when you look down there to Verna, which is fairly new. I mean just there alone and unfortunately and good example
Sununners right there we had no option of of that sign right but could you even read it you know if if we were trying to make things cleaner and neater and uniform you know a most people travel with their GPS and are
going to find a a um a business through their phone versus looking or reading a sign um but that's busy right it's very busy the colors are clashing. I mean, obviously, no one talked here together to figure out how
this should have looked, right? So, then we wouldn't be accomplishing, I think, what the whole intention of doing this was for, right? if if we weren't going to and I'm very surprised that it said that we weren't supporting unifying I
don't know if it was in this slide but your other slide um unifor you know um having a uniform look which I know you spent I don't know how many hours discussing that um to have the uniform look because if not that's what we get right regardless whether it's a poll
sign a freestanding sign or or whatnot um you know I think we're the slide of the table is to provide options. Um, so if the freestanding sign or monument sign doesn't work for your business, then maybe it could be a wall sign or
maybe it could be a furnish sign. I think I even remember hearing the planning board talking about where on the facade, you know, it would look, you know, what they all agreed with. You know, I can't remember the whole detail, but how high, not above, past the facade. I mean, you all talked about that for some some length. Um but again
I really want to understand why the height because the highest height on the current five to eight that's only two feet away from from 10. So why not just say the highest could be eight and the highest can be 12. I mean it's not that
much. So why that bump um anyways I would still like someone to explain why why that was proposed. Sure. We we can certainly look at dropping it down to 12 and and eight respectively. Um, we looked at the
average aspect of signs along Gulf Boulevard. I can't say we looked at every single sign, but we have so much non-conforming signage on Gulf Boulevard, even in the context of the updated regulations, that that appeared, especially based on 50% depreciation
being such a high bar for a business to pass and maintaining their sign outside of some kind of catastrophic event. that that seemed like an in somewhat of an incentive to get it down from what might be currently 25 30 feet to 15. Um the
commission's points are taken that you know I know there are some concerns about um raising that that cap that we currently have on there from from 8 and 12. And if that's the direction we get, we'll be happy to scale that back down. When we were drafting this, we did not
intend for there to be that lack of accelerated compliance standard. It through the 50 drop down to 25%. We wanted to accelerate compliance with the sign code. And this was kind of a balance. We don't have that option any longer. So if if the commission would
like to see a lower ceiling for those, we'd be happy to change it. And the poll signs was also added, right? Because that was to loosen the restrictions, but we don't need to to do that as well. like why would we be loosening restrictions if we're trying to get people, you know, non-conforming, you
know, to conforming and and that truthfully may have been my misunderstanding from the workshop. I I didn't understand there'd be a lot of opposition to the poll signs, but if that's the case, if the commission no longer wants to see those, we we can modify that back to monument only. That's not a greater burden because it
is what is currently in the code, right? And and again, maybe it was, you know, like even the examples of the the businesses that are really close to Gulf Boulevard that have pole signs, it's basically just a pole. There's no landscaping. It's just a pole straight into the asphalt. So, does that mean
that if they were to put the pole, they would have to put an air a planter or something to make it landscaping. So, then they would be losing even more space. So, is it that we're thinking they probably won't do it because they would actually have to build more in order to get that poll sign back in
there. So, is that more restrictive? I I don't believe so because currently the city by and large doesn't allow for poll signs anywhere. So, allowing for poll signs and requiring them to be placed in a landscape setting, I want to be that to be a more restrictive requirement just because the the option
is not currently there. You wouldn't opt to do the poll sign then, right? Because if we had pole signs and they couldn't build a landscaping, you know, a garden or a container or something to make it landscape. I mean, they're literally in asphalt. So, how would they make it in
landscaping? Wouldn't it that signs right now are non-conforming? Correct. But I'm saying but here we're we're saying we would add right poll signs if I mean I'm not saying we're agreeing. I'm just saying what we're being given is to loosen the restriction
by allowing pole signs. That's correct. As long as they have landscaping, but if the location doesn't have that landscaping capability, then we're requiring them to put landscaping where we know they can't. Correct. And and it might not be an option for all property owners. Just
like a freestanding monument sign isn't an option for some property owners today. They can go with a wall sign, a blade sign. Some allow for uh the the A-frame sign. So, not every property owner would necessarily be entitled to every type of sign, but for those that have that option, it would be an
additional option to them. Okay. And the last one, the temporary signs. Currently, it is 30 days, right? You can only have temporary signs for 30 days. Correct. Okay. And that wouldn't change, right? we would still say 30 days regardless of I know we're trying to we're discussing issues and making sure
we're not saying that it's um what the purpose is right just you have a temporary sign we saw that it was placed and then we start counting 30 days so based on the current sign code the closest thing that a residential property has to a year round temporary
sign is called a it's called a free expression sign like the city attorney brought up it can basically have any non-commercial content on it that would remain even have commercial. Yeah. And based on the current, right, based on the changes being made, that would be allowed, but it would still be one sign
per property year round. It would be the same residential or commercial, right? Correct. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. City clerk, are there any public comments? Okay. Well, thoughts, comments? Kind of sounds to me
like at least a couple people here really don't want to see the polls higher than they currently are. I'm certainly not in favor of increasing the the heights of the sites. So if we were to approve this, I get the
sense that we'd want to amend the proposal to maintain the maximum height where it is now. Is am I not correct in that assessment? Well, I think we're looking at unifying
some of the zoning districts. And so, you know, some, for example, a downtown district, one property may have five feet, another property might have eight feet. I think based on what Commissioner Resniki said, I would be I would not be opposed to this is just maintaining an 8
foot across that district which is the maximum height and then for the other one bring all of them up to 12 feet for example. So that was pretty agnostic on the pole signs. I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other. Um,
so do we have Commissioner Robinson? Um, well, I'm I'm agreeing on on the reduced the current height, I should say, not proposing anything higher. Um, the poll signs
are kind of a tough one. They're not exactly the most attractive of the signs that we've seen so far. Um, for the most part, um, trying to make them more attractive is a is a good thing with the landscaping. So, I would say anything to
make them more attractive. I mean, some people here, businesses don't have much in the way of options. I mean, you're looking at where the Grove was and they can't, you know, doing a monument is really tough with all the businesses in there. And to be honest with you, when you're driving by a short little place
like that, trying to read it all is is virtually impossible. So, but I would agree that there are other options. Putting on the on your fascia or whatever and doing something more cohesive like that for a actual center
is nice when you're that close to the frontage. Um, I would have to question too on that Tverna sign. How tall is that one? I don't know other than to say it would
exceed anything that would be allowed today. So I was going to say it's great. It's got to be taller than 15 or you know taller than 15 the top of it. Um, so definitely the lower end of it, uh, pole signs, as long as they're
attractive, I I would agree that the the the foliage or some sort of a and if somebody can't do it, then they can't do it and they have to look at doing something else. Um, and we do allow on the awnings and the fascia. Correct. Correct. We do. Okay. So, that's always
an option to go with. Um, I guess it's more of a landlord thing, too. um to try to get people to take a center and make it look cohesive alto together. Um those would be my thoughts on I'm not
really inclined to add um more more square footage. I'm not sure why we're adding more more sign area. Was there a reason for the greater sign area? Did we find that 10 extra square feet is really
huge? No. So our definition did slightly change which slightly modifies the calculation. We had tried to balance that somewhat but ultimately it would be slightly more permissive than what we have today. So I think we could scale it back to 50 and
100 square feet which is the the adopted standard based on the grouping. And if that's the direction of the commission we can easily make that change. Yeah, that would be even more odd to have shorter signs with larger square footage. So, which then brings us back to the
last issue, which is the number of signs. You know, I'm I'm I'm torn on this one because again, it's like it's it's I hate the fact that, you know, there's a reason we can't have nice things so many times because it's one person kind of really making it difficult for everybody else. And so
when I'm looking at the last election, it was, you know, this is why we can't have nice things, but then why should we punish the other 8,500 people who are perfectly well behaved? You know, that's not right
either. We can work with the attorney's office to come up with some alternatives if that's what the commission would like us to do and we could bring them back for final rating. I understood the content agnostic but still based on the number of issues on the ballot to be something that would still be valid. But
if that's not the case, we can potentially come up with some additional options. I guess you could separate number of issues just to count issues, but you can't correlate them to one issue per sign. Mhm. And to that point,
if we allow for one temporary sign year round, that's the only sign we allow outside of election season. It can say whatever the occupant wants, but if there are 20 issues on the ballot, they're allowed 21 signs. We would just count based on based on that if we kept that standard. If it's they could all
have the same presidential candidate. Correct. Exactly. No content restriction. Okay. All right. Is there a motion? Well, it's so confusing. We're saying to make a lot of changes. Sure. or motioning to to approve I mean I don't
approve but with approve at first reading with to reduce height back to existing height to reduce square footage back to existing square footage or whatever the preference is of the motion maker looking for a second and then it will
come back for second reading for further discussion if you want us to make some changes before we bring it back if you don't want any Changes made now just you can approve for first reading for discussion and second reading. What one thing might be relevant is how many
non-conforming poll signs there are that we're really talking about. If you need additional information, you could ask staff to bring additional information that might help your decisions. No, we can't rem I'm sorry I don't have my light on but we we can't we're removing p Well, we were removing poll
signs. You're asking to lessen right that by Well, right now I guess poll signs are not allowed, right? So any poll sign you have right now is a non-conforming sign. So we're trying to get those signs to come into compliance.
One way would be, I guess, to have allow for a shorter pole sign or if you want all pole signs gone, you'll just have to wait till they decide to take them out and replace them with some other kind of sign. And a question, if a business um let's say there's and and I'm trying to visualize
a lot of businesses, right? But if there's a business that has like real difficulty because they can't just figure out where to put the sign, if we had no poll signs, could they still come for I hate to call it a
variance, but for um I guess it would be like can they ask like for some kind of assistance because of their situation? We do have signed variance provisions. We we've we've processed those and those would remain an option. Okay. So then someone who could not have it could
possibly come for a variance because they just have no place to put anything else but a poll. So if we were to not allow poll signs by right, but to leave it as an option only through a
variance, I I think we could pro we could we would have to amend the code to to do that the draft, but I think we could probably make that work. I'm only thinking of someone who doesn't have, you know, like a facade that they can put something in front or don't have walls on the side and, you
know, that they might need something because they only have a certain little piece of land that they can put a pole in. So, so your suggestion would be to have it be assigned type only when they exhaust all other options. It would need to come forward for a variance, right? Okay. if that, you know, because then
that way we would know if there's just somebody who's struggling, right, that they just they can't they can't put anywhere else. Um, and can poles be placed on on the tops of buildings? No. No, we don't allow above the roof line signs. So, this would still if we add
this, we would not allow poles on the tops of buildings, right? Because you could still have 10 height on top of a building, right? We could we could, right? So, we would not put poll signs in our prohibited sign type section, but we just would not enable them with any of the district
groupings. So, someone could still apply, but they would not be eligible for a rooftop sign, which is a prohibited sign. So, now I would prefer that we say that, you know, not on the roof, but that they come forward like someone requesting has exhausted everything and they need to come forward
and um present why a poll sign would be their only option. Okay. I I think pole signs are the most expensive kind of sign to put in. I don't think you're going to see anybody who doesn't have to have one trying to put one in, right? You know, like I'm saying, it's just you've exhausted everything. You don't know where to put it and you've only
got, you know, Yeah. I mean, two by two foot where you can stick and there and there are people in that situation and and what I'm saying is that those are the only people who are going to put in a pole sign. So you you know I mean I guess it's fine to make them jump through the hoops and take an extra three months to get their permit because
they have to get a variance but it's uh you know anybody who doesn't have to have one isn't going to have one because they're the most expensive sign to put in. And especially with with low heights there's you know there's no benefit to having one unless that's your only option.
If you put that slide up, I'll try my best to say it'll help me make sure the one with the table just so I don't miss one. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
So, I motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2025-10 with um the changes in the total signs permitted, the free um to back to I believe current is what we were um
kind of all nodding. Um freestanding sign height to current and freestanding sign area to current as well. and also to um not add the poll signs unless
brought back through some type of variance. Is there a second? Second. City clerk, if you'll please call a vote. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner is Nikki. Yes. Commissioner Commissioner Moholland. Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott.
Yes. And Mayor Petrilla, yes. Thank you. Before we go any further, is there a motion to extend this meeting to, let's say, 11? I'll make a motion to extend the meeting till 11.
Second. City clerk, if you'll please call the vote. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, no. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Mayor Petrilla, yes. Motion carries.
City U manager, what does our agenda look like for the following meeting? Light, heavy, not sure yet. Sorry, mayor, if you could ask that question again. What's our agenda look
like uh for the uh next commission meeting in 1 of June? First uh first commission meeting in June. My question is on that isn't beach on that. My question is just the
um you know how much time do we need on the pass grill? It's actually a short presentation and it's combined 10 minutes. I think we're going to combine um B and C the 8th Avenue and the pass grill as one presentation. Okay. Because
there are things that we do have to discuss tonight because they're timesensitive. This one I wasn't sure if it was or not. Time sensitive. It's it's not time sensitive. It could be moved. We move it. Okay.
Um, do we want to move this one to the next commission meeting or do we want to take 15, 20 minutes or however long it takes? Should be even less than the hub. Perfect. Yeah, it's okay. I do it. 1.5 speed.
If we're moving on then to the first reading of B and C, I can read the ordinance headers together and we'll take separate votes. The first reading of ordinance 202508, amendments to land development code division 40, community redevelopment
district 8th Avenue. An ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, amending the St. Pete Beach Land Development Code Division 40, Community Redevelopment District 8th Avenue, CRDA, sections 40.1, purpose and intent, and 40.9 setbacks. Adopting sections 40.13
assembly or lot split of a parcel vacation of easements or writeways 40.14 general building design 40.15 design review and required drawings and 40.16 Passag historic overlay design guide
book to amend and adopt development standards to preserve the historic character of Pasigril's 8th Avenue in the vicinity and increase compatibility of new development with that character providing for severability, cotification, and scriveners errors and providing for an effective date. And
also first reading of ordinance 2025-07 amendments to land development code division 20 p a pass a grill overlay district an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach amending St. Pete Beach Land Development Code Division 20
pass a grill overlay district renaming to division 20 pass a grill historic overlay district amending section 20.01 01 purpose and intent 20.02 definitions 20.03 permitted principal use and structures 20.05 allowable conditional
use 20.06 prohibited uses and structures 20.07 tensity intensity and assembly of parcels 20.10 Reduce setbacks for contributing structures granted as certificate of appropriateness. 20.11 minimum building type requirements.
20.12 subdivision of lots and 20.13 applicable and building type assignment repealing section 20.13 residential development option for single family homes and adopting section 20.13 applicability and building type
assignment. Renaming and amending section 20.14 vacant parcels to section 20.14 lot split. Assembly of parcels, vacation of easements and/or rights of ways. Amending sections 20.15 permitted building types 20.16 private fronti
frontage 20.17 building height 20.18 minimum off- streetet parking requirements 20.19 alleyways and driveways 20.20 Landscaping standards 20.21 screening of elevated
buildings 20.22 22 General Building Design Residential. Amending and renaming 20.23 General Building Design Non-residential to 20.23 General Building Design Non-residential and Mixeduse Buildings. Amending section 20.24 Design Review and Required
Drawings and adopting section 20.25 25 Passagrail historic overlay design guide book to adopt development standards to preserve the historic character of Pasigril and to increase compatibility of new development with that character providing for severability codification
and scriveners errors and providing for an effective date. Thank you. If we could bring up the PowerPoint this is largely a reiteration of the PowerPoint that was shared with you back in January. So I'll be brief. This amends only division 20 and
division 40 which are the overlay and the zoning um respectively for the majority of the properties in Pastor. It does not amend division 28 which applies to historic preservation. That would apply to any structure on the city's local historic registry located anywhere
in the city. It's not specific to pass although we obviously have the highest volume of historic structures in that area. So again, these amendments reflect a two-year process to better align the district standards with the purpose and intent to provide more robust design standards with qualified review and
prevent unfettered lock consolidation that does not respect the historic layout and character of the 8th Avenue and the overlay. This has an extensive history looking back to 2024, which the amendment started even before that. There was a workshop in February and
March of last year to talk about these two ordinances. In October, there was a workshop between the planning board and the historic board. The commission had a workshop of course in January of this year. There was a recommendation from the historic board 5 to zero. In March and April on these two ordinances and in
April, the planning board also recommended this item at a vote of 5 to zero, finding it consistent with the comprehensive plan. We've also had numerous discussions outside of a workshop setting with the historic board over the last few years. Looking at the major changes to
the pastoral overlay district, the major changes that building to the overlay is now a requirement. There are certain situations under the currently adopted code where a property owner um has a large enough lot to build to the underlying the overlay is now a requirement. There are strengthened
standards for design reviews. That would be design standard identification on the plans architect review and there is a guide book which we are currently working on with the historic preservation board. This is not prescriptive but it would provide those property owners who seek to develop uh
to the overlay uh guidance on how to do so. There is a requirement that driveways be placed in the rear when adjacent and alleyway. When it was presented to the commission back in January, the requirement was for any drive uh sorry, any alleyway of 15 feet
in width or greater. Now the requirement is for any platted alleyway. However, a driveway requirement from the alley can be waved by the historic board if the alleyway is less than 15 platted feet. Lock consolidation or subdivision would require historic preservation board
review. And while what was presented in January would prohibit all accessory structures in the front yards, they did want to make an exception for pools specifically because there is that focus on having the driveways in the rear of the lot. Pools would now be allowed in the front yard provided that they meet
these setback requirements. Looking at the 8th Avenue district, there is an implementation of design standards. Despite it being part of the historic district, there are currently no design requirements along 8th Avenue. We are adding in the pass
overlay design standards to the 8th Avenue based on these amendments. Maximum height would continue to be measured from ground level or sorry from base flood elevation if the structure is required to be elevated. That would be for standalone uses in this district.
Standalone temporary lodging for those structures that can be built to grade. This would be a reversion of the definition back to what was in effect up to 2015, which is that if the structure can be built at grade, if that first occupiable level is built at grade, such
as a mixeduse development or standalone commercial, maximum height would be measured from grade. That would have an effect of about 7 feet on the east side of about 4 feet on the west side of 8th Avenue. There would be a requirement to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. One
of the the only casualty of Senate Bill 180 when reviewing with the city uh city attorney was that the design review was going to be required. It's now strongly recommended a property owner could move forward with development um without the design review. However, we would still
take the item to the historic board as anformational item. It would just not go through the design review process. And then a requirement that was included back in January that maximum building length not exceed 80 feet and the historic board review any lot consolidation. Those are
unchanged. Looking at next steps, we're currently working with the historic preservation board on creating a design guide book. We do have a consultant who's been working with with the board on creating that and this month we'll be discussing it in more detail, discussing the purpose statement, reviewing some of other municipal standards such as those
for Key West and then of course we'll bring back this ordinance after the final draft of the guide book for your final action. So we are asking for separate motions on these two ordinances. 202507 is the overlay. 202508 is CRD 8th
Avenue. Happy to take questions. Thank you, Brandon. Questions, comments? Do we have any audience comments? No. So, Brandon, this hasn't u materially changed since we had our
um session um whenever it was you had the date up a couple months ago. Uh other than I think the HB 180, is that what it was? HB 180 there. There's Yes. That's caused some minor modifications that we
didn't discuss when we had our meeting two months ago. Would that be accurate statement? There were a few elective changes. Um, one was allowing pools in the front yard and the other was previously any property with an alleyway of 15 ft
was required to have a driveway off the alleyway. It's now been reduced to any property abing an alleyway, but the historic board can wave that requirement for properties with an alleyway of less than 15 ft. What the Senate bill affected was the requirement for design review in the 8th Avenue District.
That's not currently a requirement. There was concern about making that a requirement. That is something we struck and made strongly recommended instead of required. Did I understand it right where I think your last
slide you indicated that this or these two will not come back for second reading until the design guide book is done. Is that correct? That was the intent. We're going to be working with the historic board on that this month. I believe we're coming up on a first draft. So, we would likely look at
bringing something to you maybe in in June or or July. Um, the intent of that is we want to have those guidelines in place for property owners who are looking to develop to the overlay given that it's now a requirement. Um, for those who don't want to hire an architect, they can work through the design guide book and and work with
their engineer to come up with a design. Well, I just want to comment that uh I've been following this now for quite closely for about a year and
uh I want to thank you and the historic preservation board. You folks have really worked hard on this and uh uh pulled a lot together here and uh I know it's taken a lot of effort to do this. Um, so, um, I I just want to say thank
you all because it it has been a lot of work. I definitely know it's been a lot of work. So, thank you. Thank you. I just had a question in regards to the pools in the front. How high can the fence be? It's still limited to 4 feet.
if they're going to be set at the 10- foot setback, which is the minimum for most residential lots. Um, if they're going to be set it back to 20, they would be able to go up to the full 8 ft. So, that would be kind of got to have a big front yard for that or some depth
for that. Okay. I wasn't sure about that because I know that there would be, you know, cause for, you know, being out in the open, I guess, in your front yard basically. Be kind of interesting. But you could put a hedge up. I'm assuming that could be you could for screening um
for pool code purposes 4 feet would meet that height requirement. Four feet anything four feet in the front. Correct. Y thank you. Welcome. Just a follow up on the pool. Can pools because we have a couple in our
neighborhood. Can they be at a height? Because some pools are being built at the second level. So they could have a front frontage pool at a height. Correct. So, they're allowed to be elevated 2 feet above grade without any kind of waiver. Um, one of the
considerations in the pastor grill overlay is that there needs to be a defined frontage. There needs to be a facade of the building. So, a pool can't be the frontage element. It can't just be a wall with a pool on top. There does need to be that frontage design. Um,
that's something we'll express through the design guide book. Um, that's not to say that we've seen situations where there's been a frontage and then there's a pool tucked away in the corner so it meets the frontage of the porch maybe, but it's it's set off to the side of the home. Something like that would be
allowed, but it can't just all be pool elevated 8 feet in the front yard. Okay. So, but they could still elevate it. They could. Okay. and and also um before I wanted to say to thank you and and the historic board because I have been watching um and all
the workshops and there's so many meetings and and they really went through it with a a fine fine fine comb. So they did and even up at the very end we brought this in March thinking it would sail through and they brought up something that was a great change. So they've they've worked very hard. Thank
you. Definitely. Thank you. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2025-8. Second. Commissioner Mand? Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. Commissioner Robinson?
Yes. Commissioner Wniki? Yes. Mayor, yes. Motion carries. You want a motion for the next item, Mr.? Yes, sir. I make a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2025-07.
Second. City clerk, if you'll please call the vote. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Isniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. And Mayor Petrilla, yes. Motion carries. Yeah. Thank you. Next we have item
7A, resolutions considering consideration of resolution 2025-15 establishing the date for the 2025 special municipal election qualification period for commissioner for district 4. This comes as a result of District 4
Commissioner Mohull tendering his resignation effective June 16, 2025 by the city charter. We are required in the event that the next regularly scheduled election is more than six months away.
We're required to call for a special election and appoint a replacement to serve until the election. Until the special election and so the first part um city clerk, I
believe you've looked at the timeline. Yes. Okay. So, this resolution will establish uh November 4th, 2025 as a special election date with qualifying to be held uh June 23rd through July 7th. And the reason we picked that November
date, that's the date that the election office is offering. Okay. That is also coincides with the the other elections that they're running. Sometimes they do one in August, but they're not having one this year. Yeah. November is the earliest date that we can do a special election. Yes. So the different municipalities in
Penelis County either run in November or in March. And so the next available without having to incur a significantly greater expense is November. Yes, that's correct. Okay.
Right. Any comments, questions? Audience comments. Laura Alton, make a motion to adopt resolution 2025-15. Second. City clerk, if you'll please call the vote. Commissioner Robinson,
yes. Commissioner is Nikki? Yes. Commissioner Moholland? Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. And Mayor Patrilla? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. And then the next item 8A ties into this last one which is a
discussion and direction on the communication strategy for district four appointees. So we've already talked about uh the special election having a qualification period for that. And so the next step is to determine how we
um how we solicit and select a replacement, how we make an appointment to replace uh the district 4 commissioner. So I was here last time this happened. Um so I can tell you what we
did last time and I will based on that previous experience make a few recommendations and then you all can tell me yes no maybe or present different ideas. Um so my um again we we
have Commissioner Mhullen with us for one more commission meeting. um because of several I mean so the the next the option that we have is you know the way that we did it
last time is we solicited um you know people to be nominated um for for the open seat um and then we interviewed those individuals and Then the commission
voted on uh on the applicants. Um I would propose a few changes to the way that it was operated last time. Um one is to align it without general elections which uh
our general qualification period requires 15 endorsements. And so I would request well my proposal would be that any candidate should have at bare minimum at least 15 people supporting them. Um I don't think that requirement should be in any
way any less restrictive for an appointed person and for a person who's putting you know their name up and running an election. Um then because of the time frame that we're looking at and I can tell you last time we had a shorter time frame over
the holidays of Christmas and New Year's with six emergency back-to-back meetings. Um so which may sound like I'm proposing a very short time frame um but this is actually a longer time frame than what was offered last time. So, I
would propose that we have a nominating and qualifying period that ends at 5:00 p. p.m. a week from tomorrow in order that the city clerk may have names to put on the agenda when it's published on
Thursday so that the commission may interview those individuals at the following commission meeting which is June 10th, I believe. You could do the interviews on June 10th, but you will not be able to
appoint them until the following meeting because Commissioner Mohalland is still in his seat until the 16th unless Commissioner Mohalland should decide at that meeting to resign on the spot. I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply laying out what the options are.
So, uh, if that were to happen, then we would have a full commission on the subsequent meeting in June 24th. That's my proposal. Just so I follow that, Mr. Mayor, um,
your thinking is that we would notice this and I think you said that all the names would have to be in a week from tomorrow by 5:00 p.m. So, eight business
days. Well, eight days. And then I would have to resign before that meeting. No sir, you would be entitled to participate to the fullest in that meeting until such time that you do resign. Nobody would be able to take a vote on an appointed person until that
seat is vacant. So you would be able to participate in the interview process, any discussions. Um, as long as you're a full commissioner on the board, there's nothing to prevent you from doing that. But the commission would not be able to take action to appoint somebody until
that seat is in fact vacant. So essentially we would conduct our normal meeting with that as part of the normal meeting and then much like today the last thing on the agenda would be
appointing my replacement which assuming I resigned. Mhm. Um and in the absence of [Music] that, we all would at the next meeting
interview the prospective folks to replace me, but the commission wouldn't vote on that until the following meeting. Was that if he did not resign on the spot, right, at that meeting? I mean, I mean, I'll be honest. I I I
really don't want to resign on the spot. I kind of uh I feel I, you know, I I gave an initial heads up to folks in March and I feel kind of duty bound to
give the four-week notice that that I'm leaving. Um, so for me to, you know, leave earlier than that, uh, I I'm not saying I wouldn't if I felt it was best
for the city moving forward. Um, I guess I'm trying to fully understand how it would be. So if you if we were able to make an appointment at the next commission meeting that we would have a full five
panel on the 24th. If you did not, then we would have to wait until after the 16th, right, to make that appointment, which means we would most likely have a vacancy on the 24th of June, and then we would not be
able to swear in the next commissioner until July, whatever the first meeting in July is. Can you clarify why? I mean, you're saying because of the timing like not I thought you were trying to give more time like we're I feel like we're
getting rushed to advertise like why not just wait till after he resigns and do the same process and advertise. I'm not quite understanding that. Well, one I want him part of the convers I want him part of the conversation just like we did last time. Everybody participated the the people that they interviewed
their replacements, right? And so I think we should be consistent in our approach. So but that's how we got lawsuits. So that you know so so as I remember that process was held up whether you like it
or not whether I like it or not that's not what it said. It said that process was held was upheld. So I'm simply following the exact same process that we followed last time. What people didn't like it. That's what I'm that's why I'm kind of confused. What people didn't like was what the lawsuit was about. the
fact that the commissioners changed midstream the way that they did the appointments. It wasn't about the process. It was the fact that they changed it midstream. We can also but then after we had a lot of argument about having appointees and
you know decisions made by appointees. So why the rush to put an appointee? I know having a a set of four is is more difficult in voting, but I mean it wasn't just because of the process that we got arguments. I mean I sat here being ridiculed for being an appointee
even though I was a duly elected person. So I'm kind of confused because it was more than just the process. The point was people were upset about having appointees when everybody wanted to elect the person. Yes. Because when four
people resigned, technically by the city charter, which states that if one or more vacancies occurs at the same time, you actually have to call special election, you can't appoint somebody. And there was a scheme concocted in how to stagger the resignations so that they would have to circumventate the charter.
And then on top of that, midstream, because they didn't like who was nominated, they decided to change the process. So there were multiple schemes going on.
Nobody was upset about the fact that people had to be appointed. It was how the entire process was done because it didn't feel transparent and because it felt underhanded. And so now we're going to be transparent about it. We're going to agree on how we're going to do it. We're
going to give ample time and we're not going to once we agree to how this process works, we're not changing it. This is it, right? We make a decision how we want to handle this situation and then we follow through on it. That's the difference. The issue wasn't ever that
you know somebody had to be appointed. This happens on a regular basis all over the place. But it's got to it's got to be a fair process and it's got to be consistent. Well, then I would say that we shouldn't be deciding this today because we're
having a person who's resigning helping make this decision. Of course, just like last time. So, you want to do the same thing that got everybody upset? No, we're doing the opposite of what got everyone upset. What got everyone upset last time is that there was a scheme concocted to circumvent the charter and the fact that people changed the deci
the process midstream. We're not changing the process midstream. We're going to be consistent in how we execute the process. We're going to make a decision. It's on the agenda for tonight to make this decision. Right? There is urgency here. We cannot leave the commission with four people.
you're going to have issues that come up at the budget that may require more than three votes. And so unless you want to tell all these people, right, why we're not going to do our duty and and do the hard decision, make
a decision, pick the process. Do you have any objections to the process that I presented? Do you find anything objectionable about it or you just don't want to appoint another person? I don't find an objection appointing someone. I'm saying we're not giving enough time. This is holidays for a lot
of people. So you're giving we're gonna say by Thursday you submit. I mean that's a short time. That's eight days. That's eight days. We gave three days last time. So we're giving three times more time. If Commissioner Mohalland wanted to amend his resignation to after to the
24th, then we can have more time. But he gave us until the 16th. So that only leaves one commission meeting. And if we don't make that decision now, then we're going to leave the city in a position where we're only going to have four seats. And then what happens if in July two of us go on vacation at the same
time, which could be I'm on vacation in July. July when the first week of July. So there will be nobody here in July for that July meeting. Well, there won't be a quorum here. We need three for a quorum. Yeah. You
won't have three people here first week of July. And that's a budget meeting. Yeah. So then what happens now? We put the city a meeting, I guess. Yeah. So again, I'm happy if Commissioner
Mohalland wants to mend his resignation date to the 24th, for example, or or the 25th and he can and then he can, you know, and then we can have a longer qualification period, right? We could give it two
weeks, three weeks until whatever the Thursday before the 24th is, which is the 16th. Well, we can still interview on the 10th, right? It just depends on what's on what's on our schedule. I'm simply
saying Commissioner Reiki's point, and I'm not saying her point isn't valid because I would prefer to have more time, but because of the timeline that we were given, we don't have more time. So again, if we had more time, if Commissioner Mhalland wanted to amend that, he could do that. If he doesn't, I
don't I I'm not I don't want to put you on the spot. So, please don't feel like I'm putting in a spot either to resign early or to stay late. I'm simply g I'm just laying out the options that we have based on the dates that we've been given. And the date that we're given was June 16th. And based on that, we only have one commission meeting between now
and then, which limits our options severely on how much time we can allow. Now, I think it's plenty of time. I wish we had more, but I'm not opposed to moving forward with the time frame that we have now. Well, we can also do a special meeting too, can't we? We can do a special
meeting. We can do the interviews at a special meeting and we can do a we can turn around and do uh you know do the nomination or do the vote at a special meeting. The best we can hope for is an extra three days.
Sure. I mean we can do so it's not it's not buying us much time. Fine with a special meeting as well. I'm simply saying that the only thing it does it it delays that from Tuesday to Friday of the same week and then we would have to make an additional
special announcement. We would have to have we know that people look at the agendas for the regularly scheduled commission meetings. If we have to publish a different agenda, I think fewer people will see it and fewer it'll be noticed to fewer people. That's based
on the number of comments I get from people before the meetings. I saw this on the agenda because they know to look for it every Thursday. We could also give people until June 9th because we could notice the item,
but it doesn't mean all the contents have to be in the agenda and then we would publish the the packet the actual details the day of the meeting. Well, you give it to the 6th as well till that Friday. You're saying there's more more time, a little bit more time
of us pulling together application packets. I appreciate that. My my request for having on a commission meeting agenda is to have the names on there. Just like people have for an election, they'll have plenty of time so that if somebody saw that so so and so's
name was on the agenda, they could come and speak rather than know that, oh, it's just going to be but we don't know who's going to be here. So, Mr. Mayor, what if I extend my resignation notice to
the what's that date? The 24th. Make it the 25th just to be on the safe side. No, commission meeting though. Is the 24th? Yes, it's the 20 24th. Um, so how's that change the dynamics?
What happens at our next meeting? We would we could extend the qualification period, okay, for people to be nominated or put their name in a hat, right, until the 18th. So instead of the fourth, they would
have instead of uh eight days, we would have uh Yeah, we'd have uh almost three weeks. Yeah, we three weeks. Have what again? I'm sorry. We would have three weeks for nominations.
So we would have three weeks that people could be nominated. That would give people three weeks to go collect their 15 endorsements. Yes, we did have that. There how many endorsements? 15. Just just like for the right 15. I thought you said 50. Okay. I
don't think there's 50 people in that girl. I had 39 and it didn't me any good. Well, this, you know, we're learning from our best experiences. So, Commissioner Mary. Yes. So, I would basically resign at the beginning of
that meeting. At the end of the meeting after you've interviewing on the 27th after you've 24th on the 24th. Yeah. We would have the interviews at some point, right? Have a discussion on the interviews. Then you would resign and the commission
would appoint. How do you feel about that, Cara? I just have a a couple of questions. Um, first for the city attorney, uh, regardless of of how things went before, just just your opinion currently right
now, um, do you see there being any, uh, procedural problems with having Commissioner Mahaland involved in the interviewing of and discussion of his replacement? Is that perfectly fine in your opinion or
I think that's fine. He won't be able to vote on it because he would have to be resigned to create the vacancy. Okay. But in order to show continuity of a commission um doesn't hurt to get nominations ahead of time
so that you can immediately fill once he resigns. Perfect. And then um for the the endorsements that we want people to get, which again I'm fine with. Um but are we are we then going to expect the
clerk to certify those with the county election official to make sure that they're registered voters just like we do in an election or is just assigned piece of paper good enough? Like what are how are we doing that? And if we wanted to do that, could we even do that?
We could pay to get the signature certified. They need some time to do that. So, we have to find out how long the supervisor would need for that. I'll have to look into that. Okay. I don't know how long that takes for. So, Madame Clerk, if I uh decided that I
wanted to extend my resignation date um to the 24th, um can I just do that in a public announcement to you or do you need something different? City attorney, you can announce it, but you'd want to put
it in writing as well. I'm still not understanding um maybe most clearly the 24th or the 25th or the 23rd that he's resigning. Um that there's a meeting on the 24th.
So you'd have I don't know how you would do that if you say I'm resigning on the 24th and then then your seat would be vacant on the 24th unless you saying the 25th and then we're just that's why I
was saying the 25th with an impromptu resignation on the 24th effective immediately during the meeting. It's what happened before. Is there a time certain that he would be doing that or something? That would be up to the commissioner's discretion. I'm not going to tell him
how to do it or when to do it. How could you replace me if I'm not officially not a commissioner? Usually they go by the date, not by like some portion of a date. That's what I'm saying. What happened last time is they said I resigned effective immediately.
Got up and left. Well, are you Commissioner Mahull, are you interested in interviewing your replacements? You know, I I am I interested in it? I do I feel I have the necessarily the moral high ground to do that? Maybe not,
but if um legally I'm allowed to. I certainly would not mind doing it. So, you could do that on the 24th and then you would resign on the 25th and they would have to fill it at the next meeting. But in July, no one's going to be here unless you change the meeting
date. Well, or you could resign on the 23rd and then they could interview and pick someone on the 24th because the vacancy will be there or special meeting special meeting or a special meeting on We have a special meeting on the 25th. I can't be here on the 26th. Not that I
have to be here. I'm saying on the 25th. 25th I can be here. We have board of adjustment at two. So we could do it after the room becomes vacant from board of adjustment. 4:30. They should be done by then. I
would imagine we can do five or six o'clock as well. I just know 4:30 is the earliest available. and we can do 6 p.m. on Wednesday. That's so I could modify my resignation to be effective midnight on the 24th.
That would be perfect. Or 11:59 p.m. on the 24th. There's a question about whether midnight's the next day or that day. Let me lower like that. 11 June 24th at
11:59 p.m. And then we uh point someone on 6 p.m. I don't want to have to deal with the fiasco that you know it had to deal with before. So if that it's nice to have a full commission uh
five members. If you have two two sometimes you can get deadlocked votes. Well, you I mean you still can get deadlocked on a selection because I won't be voting. And then in the budget when we actually get to the budget if you're depending on the roll back rates you may need September may need four
people to vote for certain percents. So is this what all of you would like me to do? Just stay. That would be easier. Stay on. Say again. All the way through the budget season. Stay on.
That would be easier. If you stay till August, we don't have to have a appointment. That brings up other problems. Yep. Uh okay. Well, um Madame Clerk, I'll send you a letter tomorrow.
um notifying you that um I am withdrawing my previous resignation letter and reissuing a new one that will be effective 11:59 p.m. on the 24th of June. And then
are we calling a special meeting on the 25th? At what time did you decide? 6 pm. 6 p.m. Okay. And I would just ask that the closing date be June 17th because June 19th is a city holiday. So we'll be publishing on
the Wednesday. I'm assuming beforehand before that holiday. Oh yeah. Yeah. So the closing date would be 5:00 p.m. on the 18th. No 17th. 17th. It's fine. And then we're going to be looking for
15 endorsements and then the city clerk will look into whether they'll be certified or even if I cannot get them certified, I do believe I can confirm that they are registered voters. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. Does that give you good directions? Just clarity. Do the five signatures have to be from the district? 15. 15. Yes, they always have to be from the district. Okay, next we have item 8B rip
wrap. Yes, Mr. Mayor, since it's late, I'll make this quick. Um, so the city sent out uh this really nice newsletter to all the residents a couple weeks ago and um there was some
conversations in it about seaw wall improvement initiative. Really happy to see that. Um I I think you all may recall that uh few months back I had some concerns about us not maybe uh
encouraging people if that's the right word to to do more with their seaw walls. But anyway, I had a longtime resident reach out to me about this idea and uh he had done this himself. In fact, Commissioner Marriott, this same
person may have reached out to you. I'm not certain. He mentioned you, but I'm not going to publicly say his name, but um he just suggested that um well, first of all, he asked um to see how easily the permitting
would be to use the limestone rip wrap uh in front of uh seaw walls. And he also suggested that uh maybe somehow and we don't have a lot of places um maybe down um by the Donsor boat ramp next to
Marina Bay. Although uh somebody will probably cut my tires tonight when I you know say this, but that might it might be good if the city could um create a staging area um for the limestone rip wrap where um contractors could come get
it. Obviously, they'd have to pay for it. There'd be some monetary issues or whatever. But anyway, I just thought that uh you know, that might end up being a win-win for uh the residents as well as the city so far as uh better
seaw wall protection and environmentally it's a it's a a good thing, too. So, I just wanted to publicly get that out, something to, you know, be looking at. seriously.
Hopefully in the coming weeks that um you know the commission can maybe along with the city uh figure out some alternatives um to help move this forward because uh it seems to make a
lot of sense. So anyway, that's all I had, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. All right. Next, we have reports. City clerk, I have nothing. City Manager, just one quick update. It is turtle
season beginning May 1st and I have directed our code enforcement staff to fully enforce our current beach ordinance as it is written. Um, I am uh looking for them to be providing metrics that I'm hoping to start to include in my city manager operational weekly so
that you can actually see the work that's being done by that team and the enforcement measures that we'll be taking. Thank you. City attorney. Nothing this evening. District four. Uh, nothing to report. Thank you. District three, please. Only
thing I wanted to say is because I wanted to congratulate um G Beach's um elementary magnet school has their fifth grade graduation um tomorrow at our community center. Um and my daughter is also a fifth grader, so I'll be there. But especially because of the
rebuilding, um I know they have so they have two days to move out from their current location and July 1st I think um they they will start bringing their stuff over uh back to the school. So if anybody's been driving around and looked
over there, it looks pretty nice um what they've done. So um they will be back in business um next fall in our city. District two. Uh just want to uh do a shout out to uh Bill Lowry. He
attended my um library hours uh last week and um helped me um kind of present a little workshop on the historic uh designation and had good turnout and it was very very informative. Um I do have
um library hours established now for June and that would be on June 20th. It's a good thing we didn't choose that day. So, uh, that'll be June 20th at the library from 5:00 to 5:45. District one, please. Nothing to report.
Uh, this past week, uh, the city manager and I had an opportunity to participate at the University of uh, Florida, uh, the Florida Institute for Building Environmental Resilience, also called Fiber, and sponsored by Duke Energy. Um we had an opportunity to sit down and
and kind of discuss some of the issues that we have uh in the city uh posttorm uh some of the projects that we're looking at for resiliency. Uh and then to um you know be able to to talk and network and come up with additional solutions
um particularly as it relates to grant funding. Uh there were some very very interesting solutions and avenues that honestly I was surprised by that that might be available uh to help us mitigate some of the uh storm related storm related and infrastructure related issues that we have for example ste
sewer storm water uh tide check valves and and some of the flooding issues that we have. Uh so we're looking forward to continuing the process of working with them um to to see if we can get some um some additional resources, help and and
funding for for some of these incredibly uh challenging but necessary projects. And so I just want to say how much I appreciate the invitation from the University of Florida uh to so this was by invitation only for some of the cities uh we were selected one of four
cities in the state of Florida that were impacted by the hurricanes to be able to work with them and participate in this. Uh so we're you know it was good for us to be there. It was very very appreciative of the opportunity. Thank you everyone and we are adjourned.