meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach. Today is Tuesday, January 13, 2026. It is 6 p.m. Stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. 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 you please call roll. >> Vice Mayor Marriott >> here. >> Commissioner Robinson >> here. >> Commissioner Rniki >> here. >> Commissioner Maldonado.
>> Yeah. >> Here. >> Mayor Petilla >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> The first item is the approval of the agenda. Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed, please? Uh, good evening. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I have one
request that we pull or defer slide number 35 from the presentation regarding 702 passway. Commissioner Maldonado question number two.
>> I'm sorry, which item? >> It's part of the uh discussion on 6 C. He just wants to pull the Commissioner Maldonado question number two slide. >> Okay. >> It's 11 of 13 in the presentation or if
you're downloading the entire agenda packet, it's I think page 35 that deals with a quasi judicial item that'll be heard separately later and we don't want to include it in the legislative review of height. Okay.
>> Mayor, I have a few requested changes. need to remove item 2 A. We have a scheduling conflict and would like to move it to January 27th presentation regarding the federal legislative update. Like to remove consent item 4B. The um
board member has uh removed their candidacy. So we need to continue the recruitment process and appointment process for future date. I'd like to remove item 4 C, approval of a flexible work policy. I need to do some more internal work on
that before I bring it back to commission in the next few months. And we need to pull item 6A as we are still working with uh the neighbors on this ID um on this particular um plat change.
>> Do you want to also respond? Oh, >> and lastly, we would like to >> continue >> continue >> 5B >> item 5B
to date certain February 10th as we are still working with both stakeholders and we had some last minute information that we need to share with the parties and continue the discussions. >> Thank you.
So that will be set for final reading February 10th at 6 pm. >> Any other amendments? >> Just an item for discussion. >> Um leg you can call it legislation and resources. Okay.
>> Any other changes? Is the Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? >> I move to approve the agenda as amended. >> I second. >> City clerk, please roll call. >> Vice Mayor Marriott? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rizniki?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado? >> Yes. >> Mayor Petrilla? >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you. First item is a presentation on building permits and updates. Please. >> Good evening, mayor and commissioners.
Laura Canary, community development director. So, this evening, what we have before you is basically an update on building and permitting processes and internal operations. um per your direction after the last meeting and the city manager's direction, there was a series of recommendations and kind of
process improvements that we looked at some of those that we maybe already had underway or that we were considering. And so what we'd like to do tonight is kind of just look at that in a snapshot format and kind of tell you where we're at today and where we look where it looks like we're heading.
And without um before I get started, I do want to just take a moment because again it's building and permitting is the title of it. And so yes, it is very heavily centric in the community development department, but obviously when we talk about permitting as a whole, it's interdisciplinary. So we also some of these improvements, you
know, we're going to be working um you know, with those other departments and and divisions from fire, public services, planning and zoning within community development because again, they all touch the permitting process and we want to make sure that we're having a comprehensive holistic approach to how we're doing our process
improvements. So let's start with just looking at the actions that we've taken since December. Um so we've started conducting exit interviews with the volunteers as well as we have a survey that's out there. So those have been um going really well.
We've already identified some kind of um common themes and common denominators. We are synthesizing that information and we're going to be doing additional outreach with the contractors as well as internal stakeholders and then um we'll be bringing that information back to you to basically tell you what we've heard.
So, we're in the process of conducting those interviews now. They're underway. We've established a SOP for standards for communication. This has actually been rolled into we're we're calling it our customer service um standards, if you will. So, it has a lot to do with
communication both internal to the organization, but also with our constituents. But again, that communication piece is rolled into the overall customer service standards. We're also looking we have there are certain types of permits that have been issued same day. That kind of changed of
course um after the storms because a equal change out for say an AC didn't look the same as we know. So we're basically going back to um not only look at what what we've done and been able to issue same day but what can we expand on?
We have identified we have a couple days throughout the week where we're basically blocking out time to make the building official and the deputy building official kind of have a more open calendar if you will so that whether they get a walk-in um individual that needs to speak with them on something that maybe a permit technician
can't really address that they have that ability to do so or they're also um available to schedule meeting times um to if you have a project that you need to just maybe you need a little bit more time and you want to schedule something. So, we've made that available. And then
for extending evening hours, we're proposing that beginning on the 21st, um what we're looking at doing is expanding our operations until 5:30 on Wednesdays. Again, this was just um when we talked and went back to the team and kind of gathered their feedback and what they
thought again, um we want to try it and see if it works and then see how it's received and if it builds a lot of traction or not, then we'll come back to you and report out accordingly. But that was what was proposed as a starting point. So the next um I'm going to break this down in basically the next 90 days and
then we're going to go from day 91 through June 1st. So when we look at the what we're calling the 90-day road map, again I touched on those exit interviews that we're compiling the themes. The standards for communication have been rolled into our customer service standards. The same day permits we again
are evaluating what we can expand on. We anticipate that um we should have that kind of list compiled and be able to communicate that out in March. Single point of responsibility. So this was something that was suggested um with
regard to our permit intake. Um we have kind of changed our processes so that now a permit tech is assigned a permit application and they take that permit application basically from start to finish. And so again, it creates just kind of more of a liaison, you know, for
that permit and for that application. And then of course, just that that single point of contact. So that is in the it's already underway and we're just going to assess it for effectiveness as we move forward. But so far again, it's only been a few weeks, but it seems to be working pretty well.
Consolidated reviews. This is a big one. um when we as we peel back and kind of try and identify really where the delays are happening in the permit process, we've identified two things and I think I've said this before. Number one, kind of on the intake side again until we get that completed application and it
actually goes into review. So that's on the forefront side. And then once it gets into review, in particular when we have a permit that's requiring multiple departments to review, um, one of the things that happens is that the the applicant may receive comments from one one department and then they think that
it's done and then two days later the comments are coming in from another department. So, as we've talked about consolidated reviews, one of our biggest concerns though and how we're kind of trying to address this and do the deeper dive is we also don't want to sit on a review. We don't want to hold anything up and if if we already know that
building has addressed the seven comments, we want to be able to communicate that out, but we also want to be able to be very um you know clear and provide clarity that there's still say fire and that needs to review this for example. So we're working on that and that we anticipate to be able to
bring a update back to you in March. Again, that one's just requiring a bit of a deeper dive and again that interdisciplinary kind of approach because we really need to hear the other lenses and what they're running into. I touched on this for expanding the in-person support. So again, um if
anyone needs to make an appointment, please reach out to our office. And then again, on the 21st of January is when we'll be starting that um those later hours until 5:30 p.m. clear and predictable timelines. Um,
this is in the works as far as we already have established and we've kind of started to uh lay it out, if you will, the statutory timeline requirements of what we have to adhere to. As we know, the reality of the situation is is that those look a little different when you really when it when
it comes down to how long things are taking. So, we're taking the statutory requirements and the timelines and then we're also taking what we'll consider um almost like a an example timeline, if you will. Again, we're going to have a disclaimer on there that this is, you
know, subject to change, but just something that gives people again just a better indicator of, okay, if I'm looking at a demo, I can probably anticipate. Again, making sure that that we we under that they understand that something could change, but at least giving people just a little bit better
of a understanding of what they can anticipate timelinewise depending on the type of project that they have underway. When we look at the 91 days to June 1st, a lot of this is what we've been working with innovation and technology on. And then of course communications because
all of this that we're doing, a big part of that is then communicating it out and working with our communications manager to make sure that we're telling the community what we're doing and being able to um identify again how not only how they can tap into these resources,
but if there's other things that we need to improve that we're we have that two-way communication. So um one of the big things of course is basically an overhaul of the website. We know that there's a lot of work to be done. Um we have started identifying I'll call it the lowerhanging fruit if you will. So
basically going through and and anything that's outdated or needs to be removed. That's phase one and that's currently we have that list compiled. Certain things of course for statutory requirements have to stay up but number one is cleaning it up and then we're going to look at how do we make it a more dynamic
site. And then again there again it it is has a lot to do with community development but we also want to make sure as I'm sure you all know that um with the different pages that something may be on house on another department's page but it touches permitting and we just want to make sure that from the user standpoint that we're you know
we're dotting our eyes and crossing our tees because we know that if they can get the information from the website it's just going to it you know that can really impact how much um how many calls we get looking for that information. We are also looking and have been
looking at our IWork platform and one of the things that we're going to be looking at is issuing an RFP again to see if I work um you know is the the best software for us. Um there is a there are a series of things that may come with that whatever platform we go
with whether it's AI plan review um you know there's virtual inspections there's a there's a lot of tools in the toolbox and so innovation and technology has really been helping us again be able to address the needs that we have so that when we go to issue this RFP we can really make an informed decision on what
the the best platform moving forward is for us. In the meantime though, there are some kind of quick wins and so we've been working with the business analysts through the innovation and technology department to be able to identify are there any things in in the modules that
we can do in I work that can make things at least better now you know because there are some whether it's processy improvements or just the way that our technicians are doing things in the system. So we've been working with them again we're not just waiting till the RFP and trying to improve then. So we're we're addressing those things in the
interim, but our our goal is to issue that RFP. And then I touched on the AI tools. That is something that on an individual level certain team members have started to explore that, you know, as they do plan review. Um, but we do not have a software in place that's assisting with
that. And so we're going to continue to work with innovation and technology to just evaluate those tools and then again hopefully be able to if it's the right fit for us be able to package that into the RFP once that goes out and it is issued.
next steps will be we're going to be continuing to meet with again that internal cross-disciplinary working group team that I mentioned and then we'll be coming back to you in March and June for for additional updates just to tell you where we're at in the process and what we've either learned or ran into or you know if we think we need to
pivot. Um but again I just want to end with saying you know thank you. This was it was a good exercise for me because again there were some really great suggestions in there and once we started really documenting it, you know, it's nice to see that we're already starting or maybe had initiated some of these things or maybe in a different form. And
I just want to sincerely thank the building and permitting team in particular because I know that they've been um very diligent in just being able um to adapt to any of these changes or anything that we're introducing to them. And so I'm just um really excited to see where where we go in the future. And
with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Devin. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Um, I thought to another item that we were discussing as well, uh, which would have been more internally was obsolete
or functionally obsolete codes or ordinances that aren't seeming to work well with what we're doing with our rebuild process. Um, I know that there's been some items that, you know, of course, you know, one of them was the sod bond. There's been other items that have come up, I think, with contractors
and homeowners alike. Um, and I I believe your uh pering or review uh board would also realize that there are some things that just keep coming up that just aren't working that need to be looked at and reviewed and revised.
So, if we can cram that into the 91 days to June would be ideal. I I would like to see something on that. And then um are we going to get a report on those first three items? That will be
um I think done by February. >> Yes. When we come back in March, we'll be providing an update on those items. >> Okay. So, that'll be early March. I will get that. Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Marriott. >> Thanks, Laura. I appreciate the update and and I do want to um say that I know
that that I'm sure all of us and and I I really appreciate the the staff and the planning and the building department staff for um being willing to be pushed and to be flexible because I know that, you know, for for most people out there, the the words government worker and
flexible are not synonymous. And I think our staff has done a really good job in the aftermath of the storms and then with all of these changes that we've been throwing at you guys for for trying to improve the processes. And I really I really appreciate their willingness to come along with us. Um and so I think
it's great and I think there's some some um great progress that we're making and are going to continue to make. And um I just had two comments. One is that along with the same day permits, um I don't want anyone to forget about keeping an eye out for anything that maybe we don't need to be issuing permits for that
we're currently requiring permits for or things that we're requiring inspections for that don't need inspections. Um I know I had a fence inspected recently and the inspector said, you know, a lot of municipalities don't even have fences get inspected. He goes, I guess I'm just looking to make sure it's here.
Um and so uh so looking at things like that is I think would be helpful. Um and then also just for everyone to really really keep in the back of their mind what the what the purpose of the whole permitting process is, right? And and the whole purpose is that things get
built safely and to adhere to the Florida building code. And if we can if we can find more efficient ways of doing that, the following of the exact rules is not the point. you know, the the the coming up with a lot of hoops for to to make people jump through is not the
point. The point is, do we have a process that allows people to build safely and effectively and an inspection process that assures ensures that that's happening and the rest of it is is what do we do to get to that point? The rest of it shouldn't be the point. Thank you
very much. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Thank you for the update then. Sorry, Laura. Next we have item 2C, presentation of historic height.
Good evening, Brandenberry planner. We could pull that presentation. So, this is a followup to a discussion that occurred, I believe, at the last city commission meeting. We also received a few questions from the district 4 commissioner that I'll attempt to answer as we go along. This
was published with your packets. I only have one additional slide. I'll point it out when we get to that point. So this uh focus has been uh the research we've done up to this point has been on the current land development code that was adopted back in May of 2003 under ordinance 20 20037.
The city did have three former codes. None of them had a definition of height at the time of adoption. Ordinance 200 did have a definition adopted later on, but I'm going to be focusing on the current code that we are operating under and has been amended several times.
So height as defined in at adoption back in 2003 was defined as the vertical distance above the required flood elevation to the highest point of a flat roof to the deck of a mansered roof or to the average height between the plate and ridge of gable or hip roofs not
including chimneys, antennas, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms or other non-habitable areas. That definition was slightly tweaked in 2015 with an amendment that removed the word required and added in base flood elevation. Um, I want to point out that required flood
elevation isn't defined in our code. It's not defined in the building code or by FEMA. Base flood elevation, of course, is defined in all of those codes. So, that gave an actual measurement distance from which to base height. In 2021, we amended the definition to
our current definition. Um, the amendments were largely pertaining to single family development. they're largely irrelevant to the CRD8th Avenue zoning that we'll be talking about tonight. Um, one change that did affect the height of structures was that the
definition or the term base flood elevation was updated to required design flood elevation. Currently, we adhere with the minimum state requirement which is 1 foot above base flood. That effectively increased the height of buildings throughout the city by one
foot. I will say though that in 2021, and I'll point this out on a a forthcoming slide, we also adopted new flood maps because base flood and design flood elevations are dynamic to those flood maps. This actually even with this additional foot, the height of the buildable height of buildings throughout
the city decreased by 1 to three feet um depending on location. I'll point that out in in an example in a future slide. So, just as we have for the community redevelopment district along Gulf Boulevard and Blind Pass Road, we also
have a special area plan for the 8th Avenue District. It was originally adopted back in 2008. It was significantly amended back in 2012 and that was the last major modification. It has five purposes. Um, but really based on staff's interpretation,
that original purpose placed equal weight on redevelopment and new development. It wasn't just about promoting new development as you have in many community redevelopment districts. It was about coming up with redevelopment or retention or repair restoration of buildings that
meet the character of the existing district at the time that the special area plan was adopted. Even back then, many of these buildings were near nearing a century old um at a century old. And of course, many of them are still present and and well beyond that at this point.
Um we have seen post storm that many of the property owners along 8th Avenue have taken the initiative to preserve their structures. They've renovated despite um sustaining damage to the structures from the storms. They have been willing to restore them, keep them their original purpose, that mixeduse
ground floor, commercial and office with residential or lodging above. and we're very thankful to those owners who have con committed and in contributing to make making 8th Avenue a a historic avenue. So one of the questions that we received
pertained to height in the community redevelopment district 8th Avenue specifically and looking back at the special area plan it was largely prepared based on discussions and workshops. The planning board and the historic board had several workshops back in 2006 2007. The comp plan
amendments were adopted in 2009. Zoning code amendments were adopted in 2011. Early discussion in the adopted 2009 special area plan referenced 40 ft above flood elevation and three functional stories as the maximum allowed. You can
see that in the minutes um from the May 2006 joint meeting between the historic preservation board and planning boards as well as in the special area plan that was adopted as an attachment to ordinance 200911 that was by the city commission in the
summer of 2009 and the electors in November 2009. So the special area plan was amended with a reszoning of 701 Gulf Way in 2012. it struck that 40 feet above flood elevation height reference. I did want
to point out the special area plan is not a regulatory document. It's not where you would look for height setback uh lot coverage standards. It's really a data analysis and history document. It gives that background. It doesn't regulate. Since the adoption of the
CRD8th Avenue zoning in 2011, the regula regulated height limit has been 35 ft above flood elevation. Again, it's really lined up with that definition of height as it's changed throughout the years. 35 ft above flood elevation is consistent with with what the zoning of
those properties were prior to the reszoning in 2011. The RO P A standards allowed for buildings of up to 35 ft. That is consistent with what was in place prior. CRD 8th Avenue has never had its own height definition. It wasn't a mistake that occurred at some point in
time where the actual regulations were updated. I think there there were questions that were posed by the board, and I'll I'll get into that in the future on um whether the intent was really carried forward, but there was never a specific height definition that applied only to the 8th Avenue zoning.
The definition in division 2 that I read in earlier slides applies. There's never been a regulatory limit on the number of stories in the CRD 8th Avenue zoning district. There were definitely early discussions about having that three functional floor limit, but the regulatory limit has always been based
on number of feet, not number of stories. Since 2003, the citywide definition of height has always included an exemption for non-habitable spaces above the roof line. Now, the examples that are given that were lined out in that definition, they really pertain to what would be
more considered casually nonoccupiable space, mechanical decks, elevator shaft enclosures. Non-habitable is really much wider than that. It's much broader. It includes bathrooms. It includes stairs. It includes the actual elevator itself. spaces that are still
occupiable, but not necessarily they still fall into the non-habitable space definition under the Florida Building Code. I did want to point out that when 8th Avenue was reszoned to its own community redevelopment district, 8th Avenue standards in 2011, it did lose the architectural overrun prohibition
that applies to the properties when they were zoned RO PHA. So, in the Pastoral Overlay District, we have a 32 foot height limit for single family development. There is no overrun allowed above that height. No elevator shaft enclosures, mechanical space, anything
like that. They all need to adhere with the 32- foot height limit in the resoning with the new regulations. That limitation was not carried forward. So we do have properties, we do have recent developments in the 8th Avenue zoning that do have non-habitable overruns
above the maximum 35 ft height limit. So, I did just want to point that out because that did somewhat affect the overall height of the building, even if it didn't affect the habitable height of the building as as applied. So, there have been two resonings into the CRD8th Avenue zoning district. Not
getting into the particulars of either one, but between 2011 when it was adopted, you can see that map on the top of the screen. The present is on the bottom. 701 Gulf Way was zoned from the RO P A District to CRD8th Avenue in 2012. 702 Passer Way was zoned the same
in 2018. One of the questions that came up um that was more direct in the in the email pertain to reversion of either land use or zoning. Future land use map amendments and reszonings rarely carry riders or limitation on future use of
the property. You tend to see those in what we call plan unit developments or our city calls them planned development districts. About 20 years ago, for example, the Dolphin Village Shopping Center h had that zoning. And that's where it's a very finely tuned zoning to
that particular property. They may be in effect for 20, 30 years. They may fulfill their purpose and then go away. With those more types of exotic zoning schemes, you may see a reversion or you may see a dissolution of that zoning. That's not the case typically with
standard zoning. Once a property is reszoned or have its land use amendment amended, it doesn't typically revert back unless the property owner or the city were to initiate that. Absent covenant plat restrictions or otherwise, a property owner can develop a permitted use subject to the
applicable zoning standards and site constraints. Municipalities must always consider the full range of uses and highest permitted intensity density and most permissive dimensional standards allowed in the zoning district when a property is being reszoned. It's not necessarily based on what's intended at that time. We always need to consider
what is practical to develop on that site. Commissions do have very wide latitude to decide on resoning request if their decisions are supported by competent and substantial evidence. So looking at an example along 8th Avenue applying the height standard,
height has been restricted to 35 ft above minimum flood elevation as a definition has changed for all uses in the 8th Avenue zoning since the district was created in 2011. The measurement basis in the definition of height did change from required to base in 2015,
but staff finds that of developments that we've looked at prior to that date, height is generally been measured from base flood elevation. I'm not aware of any developments between 2003 and 2015 where there was commercial the ground floor proofed and then a maximum height
structure above. I don't believe we've had any of those. So, it's hard to really verify that that's exactly how it was applied. But looking back at site plans and building plans, it does appear that base flood was interpreted to mean required flood elevation. As of 2021, as I pointed out before, the height
definition has increased by one foot across the board. We still use the same basis of measurement. It's just moved up one foot. But as I mentioned before, in 2021, the FEMA flood maps were also amended to coincide with that definition change. And that did decrease flood
heights uh the 100red-year flood height in many areas of the city by one to three feet which reduces the height of those buildings by 0 to two feet when measured from grade in a practical sense. And I'll use 1098th Avenue the Berkeley Beach Club that was built in 2017. So that was post amendment of that
definition to be measured from base flood elevation but it was pre-adoption of our current flood maps. We were still under the 2003 flood maps at the time. At the time they built to the height limit. The top of the bar roof is at 35 feet above what was then the base flood
elevation which was 12 feet NABD88. Since then their base flood elevation has dropped to 9 ft AE9 from AE12. We have increased height by 1 foot to account for that freeboard requirement. If this structure were
built today, it would be 2 feet shorter than it's actually built based on the flood maps and based on the definition that was in place back in 2017 when it was built. So again, the flood maps being dynamic as they change over time, that basis of measurement is going to
change with it as well. So just this is really just based on staff input. Um I've been working with the city since 2018. Um I have reviewed many of the developments single family up through commercial development during that period of time. Um the interpretation of the application of the
term height has not significantly changed since staff began reviewing permits in 2018 except to account for that definitional change which has affected single family a lot more than commercial and multif family and mixed use. Um, height is now base flood elevation plus one foot to the highest
point of the roof and the additional foot of height permitted was offset by reductions in base flood elevation of 1 to 3 feet across 8th Avenue and really in other areas of the city as well. Anecdotally, staff has noticed that there has been an increase in new structures built at or near the maximum
height permitted. You can see in the table on the right side of the screen, those are the last 20 issued new residential home permits. Of those 20, nine 45% have been built within three feet of the height limit. Eight 40% have
been built with 35 feet or more on average above grade. And that accounts for that base foot elevation difference. Again, this is anecdotal. I don't have the data to share on this slide, but we are seeing homes being built taller. We're seeing more three-story structures. We're also seeing more structures with rooftop decks, both
commercial and residential, than we used to see in the past. skip that. That was requested to be skipped. Um, we did take this item as a discussion, not the presentation, but just the discussion generally to our historic board last Thursday. We got some great feedback from them and this
has been an ongoing conversation with our board for several years now um dating back to 2021. I know we've been having similar discussions and I think we've all learned a lot as we move forward on on both project and and um code amendments. So their main three
points and I think that the highest point is really the first one is that their perception is that the measurement of allowable height has changed unintentionally to be taken from base flood elevation instead of grade and passer grillil. Their understanding is
that 35 ft was intended to be the from grade limit on 8th Avenue. So at some point in time it might have just been something that was lost in in the ordinance amendments that were made over time. Not necessarily something that was left out of an ordinance. It wasn't an error, just the intent was lost over
time that 8th Avenue was supposed to have a 30 foot 35- ft from grade height limitation. Their second major point is that 8th Avenue development should not exceed 35 ft above grade because it can be built at grade and floodproofed unlike residential. Residential of course
cannot be floodproofed. It needs to be elevated to that designed flood elevation. Commercial mixeduse can be floodproofed in most cases. We do have pending amendments. You may remember remember these from the amendments that we brought forward at the beginning of last year that would partially resolve
this. Any building that could be built at grade that is floodproof to provide that mixeduse commercial would be measured from 35 ft above grade. Of course, we have Senate Bill 180. We have other considerations that we're working through on those amendments, but that was the intent of the historic board
with the new updates to provide for those limitations. The third point um and that this has really just come up more recently and I thought it was a great suggestion. When design review cases move forward, they need to accurately reflect the mass, the scale, the height of buildings in the
vicinity of that development. They've perceived that renderings that have been shared with them recently are not accurately reflecting the height and the massing and scale of buildings surrounding them. It makes them look more contextual than they feel that they actually will be once constructed. That was a recommendation that these
renderings be prepared and use actual city data showing the height and massing of buildings. Uh we have one last slide that I'll hand over to the city attorney for um I think we were looking here at what are the legal implications. So because
of three things, we really have the Senate Bill 180 where we can't adopt anything more burdensome or restrictive as a requirement or a procedure um until October 1st of 2027 unless that date is made earlier in
legislation in Tallahassee between now and then. Um we also have to worry about the Bert Harris Act. The Bert Harris Act awards damages for a mere demunition in value that's reflected in appraised value of property. So if we were to say
you could only build half of what you could build before, that might affect the square footage of a commercial structure or a lodging establishment. That could impact um the valuation conducted by an appraiser. So we would
have to take a look at that. if we were to do amendments after Senate Bill 180 expires, we still have that Bert Harris concern. And then of course you always have the fifth amendment in the Constitution which is takings of private
property through regulatory. Um those are easier to get beyond because as long as you have some residual economic reasonable economic value left in the property, um there's no taking. And then the 14th amendment is what they call a substantive due process taken. There has
to be a rational basis for any rule that you adopt. Um but the courts will apply a fairly liberal uh test that say any rational basis is fine that anything you can articulate they will uphold. Um so right now our our strictest one is at
the top Senate Bill 180. Once that's removed then our our next most restrictive is the Bert Harris Act. We need to make sure we're not impacting um the appraised value of property by what we do. It doesn't say that you can't do it. It's just that if you do it, you
have to pay the property owner the difference in value. So, it's a damage award. So, meanwhile, I think we're looking at the um at the code as written. Um we don't want to make any uh written
amendments while Senate Bill 180 is being applied. uh we don't want to make any written interpretations that would be different from what's in the code. We're stuck with what's in our code as it's written uh to to be applied.
So I think this was very helpful to explain the history uh of Brandon could you go back to the previous slide the history I think so the first one the first bullet point was the perception was there u but the perception I think
is was not correct based on our uh research you've seen how the definition of height has changed from um base flood to design flood and you've seen how the flood maps have actually gone down which changes the the u overall actual height
of the buildings. Um and there's some history that Brandon's pulled up with regard to the debates and the special area plans. Um but what's in our code is what's in our code now. Um, if we're going to make the pending amendments, uh, in the second bullet point, we need
to wait till after Senate Bill 180 and then we'll need to do an analysis to see if we implicate Bert Harris uh, valuations on properties. And then the third bullet point um, that simply can be implemented um, as we take
applications and review renderings of projects. That's not a new criteria or a new design. It's just making sure that the accuracy of uh photographic um phototric renderings um take into account all the things that um Brandon
has been talking about when they say a building is 37 ft. Uh we need to figure out and make sure that the photo rendering is accurately using the flood maps uh that were implicated at the time and then implicated now. Um, so it's
it's complicated even for for those presentations, but those should certainly should be made more accurate and that's allowable under Senate Bill 180 and Bert Harris and the and the Constitution to implement that bullet point three. We don't need any written
um clarification on that. That can be done by staff. And I will just say as as I mentioned before, we have been discussing issues like this with our his historic board for several years. They're all very knowledgeable about our code and many of them have history long beyond any time
that I've spent with the city. So I think even though that the technical um changes don't bear out with that that change in in height, um I do think that maybe you know I think their concern is more that the intent was lost less so than what was actually adopted in the
code. those early discussions is that's something that's really been carried forward. That was they what they expressed to me last Thursday. So with that, um those are all of our slides. Happy to take questions if you have any. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> I have a question in regarding um number
three on this uh historic preservation board input 18 meeting. Um shouldn't that apply citywide, not just 8th Avenue? >> Certainly. Um that that makes sense. makes sense to have accurate renderings showing surrounding buildings
>> because we haven't had that. >> I mean, if we're going to do it, we should do it citywide and not just for 8th Avenue. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and then, um overall, how similar is our CRD 8th Avenue? There's
CRD Town Center. We haven't even touched on that because we have a CRD for town center as well, >> right? Maybe we can do another presentation on that. Just find out the differences between those. Sure. Because if we're going to touch on this topic, we might as well touch on the whole thing.
And then uh third, um habitable. Do we have a definition of that or is that a state definition? How do we define that? I mean, we're looking at whole, you know, I could sleep on my roof deck, my rooftop. >> Habitable is defined in the Florida Building Code. That's typically the
definition we use. The American Planning Association also publishes a dictionary that we use for guidance on that. Our local code does not include a definition and I did speak with the city attorney about this earlier. Coming up with the definition under Senate Bill 180 that's more restrictive is not a it's not a
loophole for things like that, but in the future it's something we could certainly look into. >> Okay. Yeah. I just that that is becoming more of a item that's coming up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> And thank you for the research on that. In the uh definition of height at the
very end there is a section that kind of indicates what habitable or non-habitable would be and says this measurement shall not be inclusive of elevator shafts, chimneys, mechanical rooms or other non-habitable areas implying something is similar to one of
those shafts, chimneys, mechanical rooms or other non-habitable areas. >> Thank you, Brandon. Thank you. >> Next we have general audience comments. The clerk >> Joe Smith that I was understanding that I could be involved in the presentation that was
that was approved by commission. >> Did we have anything on that? I don't have any objections. >> Yeah, I'm fine. I I don't have any objections. >> Yeah. I just want I just want >> you have to come to the podium though and just make Yeah. Yeah. >> Bill 2405 pass a girl away.
And first a big big thank you to uh both uh Brandon and Chris. They did a really good job pulling a lot of this stuff out of the midst of time. Um but one thing I think we need to and I met with them yesterday and spent maybe 90 minutes and went through all
the stuff that we had talked about. Um, that's part of the presentation that was made and I don't know if you all have read the whatever 120 pages or so that has been put into this. Um, but I think I can say without without
argument that it was very clear what the initial intent was for 8th Avenue and not just 35 ft or things of that nature, but it was to preserve uh what was there. They were very
concerned about height. The real reason for the CRD being developed was because it was zoned ROR and under ROR you couldn't build anything that exists on 8th Avenue up the sidewalks covered sidewalks things of that nature. So the
clear intent was to preserve that preserve scale preserve the architectural aesthetic. Height was an issue. Um but uh if you read all of those design area plans which I know are not regulatory
but that showed the consensus of what the citizens were all thinking of the time. It went from preserving the way it was. It went from talking about let's say 30 foot with a with a
10-ft flood elevation. So 40ft structure they always talked about maximum of three stories. They wanted a commercial floor which would would limit the height. And those are all the intents that were carried out in 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009. If you look at the ordinance, they all kind of back that up. Now, and I've talked to Brandon about this. I think he's going to get me some of this information, but there seemed to be a shift. There's like a
two-year time frame between these design plans and these con these feelings of what I just expressed that when they created division 40 which
was the manifestation of the CRD everything changed and I don't have I haven't seen anything that talks and I'm sure probably out there. But what changed the intent? It went from
I think the wording is they always said the the the purpose was to preserve and promote the continuence of the existing developmental pattern and architectural aesthetic.
And then when they created the after years of saying that same thing, suddenly when division 40 came in, it said intended to encourage and promote. What happened to the preservation part of it? And I made a
joke. I said, I guess we should be the historic encouragement board because all these things are there that that's the and and how did that change? What were the discussions that occurred where they because I haven't seen that and none of us were around there and I'd love to be able to see where that was.
Is it a scribers there? Did they mean to put preserve and they put encourage instead? I don't know because I'd love to see what that has to say and I think it's important to most the citizens because every single person that I've talked to, for example, when they built the Berkeley, they said, "How did they build it that high? It was supposed to
all be lower." And you know now after you know from this presentation and stuff you know you know the Berkeley could have been a whole story higher. It could have been four they could that that upper deck could or that uh uh
rooftop could have been a whole another story the way it's interpreted now. So, how do we go from people sitting around on the street in 2006 and looking at the buildings and saying we want to keep this existing thing to now be able to build essentially four sto essentially
four stories when every single structure on 8th Avenue was two stories with the exception of the back of the uh hotel which was just three stories along the alley but I think it was 35 ft was the max. So that's why people thought well 35 ft that must be from above grade
because that would then you could build everything here and even have more room you know to build a third story and we should have this for a third story. So how did So everyone thought well the 35 ft must mean from above grade and if you look at the way the height def
definition is in every division it's the same thing how they say the height should be measured in the CRD it just says nothing shall be higher than 35 ft. So I think the question was was that an intent? Was it supposed to be above grade? And I think in looking through
this you can see that no they really were talking about 40 ft. They were talking about base f elev elevation. However, if they had said above grade, would we have any issues here? No. If they had said max of three stories, would we had
any issues here? No. But I would like to be able to see what it was that made things change because all that stuff went out the door for and it doesn't seem to be any I don't know why. And so, and nor do I believe the citizens, and I
see some of you all nodding your heads. I think you all believe the same thing. So, you know, they did a great job. We pulled some stuff out. There's more minutes, I think, that out there that aren't presented in these packets and things. And I'd just love to see uh to
make just sure because when you talk about the reason for the CRD, it was entirely frustrated. The reason for it was entirely frustrated. If you can now build a four-story building right there and so
it was like what would we do in all that time frame? Why did we spend all this money do these special area plans and all things this just to just to do nothing? And so, uh, I think there's been some talk about maybe potentially having a workshop about building heights
because when I look at this stuff, I also find other things that are going to be problems potentially in the future in other areas of the city besides the CRD. Because the reality is a lot of these heights were sent many, many years ago.
They've been changed over time and been added to, and there hasn't been a lot of development in St. Pete Beach. I mean, maybe the the big hotels, but the little smaller places. I mean, you're you're talking about locations that today could be
built twice as big as they were years ago. And of course, years ago, property values were less. People didn't build the absolute max every time. And that's what we're seeing. And talk about uh what Commissioner Robin said about habitable. I mean, we're getting structures now where there's an entire
fourth floor essentially. And I guess all you got to say is, "Well, I'm not living there or there's no bathroom." And you know, when you say a chimney, that's not a fireplace. It's a chimney. It's for what's below the
maximum height. When you say an elevator shaft, it's not an elevator. It's an elevator shaft for the elevator that goes below maximum height. And so we've been misinterpreting that. And we we always talk about height, but especially in some of the, you know, residential
areas, we're just allowing this misinterpretation. I believe it. And and to go back to what uh Attorney Brooks said about, you know, the one the special uh or what Senate Bill 180, I'm not asking or I don't think there's
a a question here about making amendments to these things. It's the interpretation of what already exists. And so I just point that out that as we go forward. Uh I don't think there's a requirement. I mean I think you all could say interpret what uh rooftop
accessories mean for example just like I think you could interpret uh ultimately what the intent here is. I I I understand that as as Mr. as commission as uh attorney Brooks said we're I think those words he said we're stuck with the codes and I appreciate that and that's
exactly what happened. we got stuck and it was whether it was based on sloppy work or or or lack of attention, I don't know. But I really would ask that uh staff continue with me a little bit to get some of this information about
happen that two-year period between this was our intent to putting it in division 40 where all those things no longer existed. So with that, uh I appreciate you letting me involve be involved as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Lowi. >> And if there's any questions, I'll be
happy to answer them if you have any for me. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. We are now moving on to general audience comments. >> I've got a couple comments to make on this subject. >> Yeah, no worries. >> Yeah, I was just waiting on uh Mr. Lowry
to uh to get up and speak. So, first of all, thank you to the staff. I mean, the the deep dive that you were able to come up with so much data is extremely impressive. Uh, but I felt like I sat through a calculus class. You know, I I thought this was a complicated issue
going in. I had some questions and now I've realized that we're not going to solve this tonight. I do think that what one of the expectations I would have tonight and with the uh with the commission's endorsement and support is that possibly workshop to incorporate
the items that were just brought into the fold. But I would say that my position mirrors what the historical preservation board their observations and their interpretations are what I've been advocating and saying since day one that there has been a misinterpretation
of height and I'm not seeking to change anything. So you speak of Senate Bill 180 uh Harris and the fifth and the 14th amendment and things like that. So quick question for council. Is there a precedence where a municipality or city
has operated under an interpretation and then changed that? Are you aware of anything like that? >> Um obviously there that can can happen. There's not no interpretation of Senate Bill 180 in terms of interpretations. Um
Senate Bill 180 talks about amendments to the land development code, amendments to the comprehensive plan. Um so you know that's what we want to be um mindful of. Um as applications come forward they'll be analyzed on their on
their merits. Um it seems that the um roof space if non-habitable um can be there but shouldn't be used for habitable purposes. >> Yeah. But perhaps I misstated or was not
understood. Are there any case laws that you're familiar with where a municipality or a city has operated with an understanding of their interpretation and then later that was challenged or there's a case hemisphere equity versus
Monroe County where the court the district court of appeals said um if there was an incorrect interpretation of a code um it can be changed um but not they're not changing the words of the code. I think that's what you're asking.
>> Thank you. Yes. So that's that's where I'm trying to get with this. And to just reaffirm what uh my position is from the very beginning is that I just want to apply what is in existence. But I would like this current commission to weigh in with an interpretation given the fact
that staff has, you know, done an incredible job of finding these for us, but we don't know what the intent was. I don't think we're going to find that, you know, but circumstances um have changed and there was a mention of, you know, um how the CRD first came
into existence and I don't find any practical reason or application why BF should be applied in the CRD when the first floor is commercial. That's one of the things that I struggled with. And then I look at the intent, you know, the intent of the
let's see here, the special um city of St. PP Beach 8th Avenue Commercial District Special Area Plan 2008 in 2011. It talks about the goal and this is in page 99 of our packet to establish standards that are meaningful to this
district taking into account the existing conditions in the limited lot sizes. who goes on to say on page 112 of our packet, the CRDA district will not create any significant impact on the city's overall systems capacities,
water, sewer, storm water, or impact the respective and adopted levels of service. So I think that those two things have changed a little bit in terms of impact in today's realities, especially when you're talking about inflow and infrastructure issues,
capacity, density, all these things were not first and foremost present to the commission in 2008 and 2011 as they are today. So all that to say that what I'm looking for today is not in agreement and interpretation but I would like to
have a workshop where we can further discuss this without rushing through things without violating you know um due process Senate Bill 180 and things like that. But now we do know that there is case law out there where this has happened. People have made mistakes when
it comes to codes and they've admitted to that and there's no no fault or no penalty to anyone. Again, the staff has done an incredible job here and and I praise them and I I really appreciate all of the efforts that went to just having this discussion because it's not
an easy discussion and this is something that will continue to come up as Mr. Lowry said not only in our historic district but throughout St. Pete Beach and if we don't get ahead of it now that we're going to really suffer the consequences in years to come. So with
that, thank you, >> Commissioner May. >> Sure. Um, so Commissioner Maldonado, I I'm uh I'm totally open to having a workshop um to further discuss the issue. I think it it probably sounds like it it may be
warranted um particularly specifically related to the 8th Avenue CRD. Um, I do have very strong misgivings in reinterpreting our height citywide to from grade versus
from design flood or base flood. Um, because that will not do anything to help anybody who's trying to rebuild from the hurricane get a building permit or get a house built or get back in their houses. What it will do is it will require that everybody who's got a
project underway to redesign it because none of them will fit under grade. Um, you know, I'm I'm I'm going to be having a one-story house built that
would barely fit at 35 ft above grade. And so, um, I think we want to be very careful about taking on some project that all of a sudden is going to throw every building permit that's been issued for a new build in the last eight months and every one that's going to get issued
in the next two years um, into a redesign phase. So, I I I have no desire to go down that road. Um, but if you want to discuss how it relates to the 8th Avenue District and if it's possible for us to interpret it differently in that district legally,
um, that's a that's a discussion I'm willing to have. >> Commissioner Robinson >> Brandon on the CRDs um, or special area planning as it originally was called primarily commercial. Correct. Primarily
commercial. Correct. >> Correct. Mix mixeduse. So there is no there was no residential in that. Um so with that being said with I think going with uh what commissioner Maldonado is getting to I think and it back to
intent. Um I think we have a missing link here two years somewhere 2009 2011 something like that. Um and I think if you look back too as well on the changes with the town center as well I think you'll find that those go hand in hand.
So, it's worth looking at on on citywide. I'm sorry. I would disagree. I think it's worth looking at citywide to see where this was. Intent is extremely important. As anybody sitting in this or listening knows, especially if you're an attorney, intent is extremely important.
And we whitewash stuff out of our comp plan and we change stuff out of our comp plan. To change the intent or soften it, there's a problem. And there appears to also be that during our 2007 to 2024
on the green mission statement and community planning that has been whitewashed away out of our comp plan. So intent is extremely important and I would appreciate finding out what that
intent was. Um, it's citywide and I think anything that we're talking about, whether we're looking at it in one district or another, I think it should be looked at on a city-wide level. I don't think particularly one district deserves special attention than another.
>> Thank you, >> Commissioner Resniki. Um, yes. I just wanted to say and I agree with Commissioner Robinson about the intent because there's a lot of things in the city that is lost because it was intended but it the interpretation later
was changed not by the original intention. Um, and I just wanted to mention something because of I know we're looking for this gap and I can't remember and this might be a question to you Brendan if if you remember I don't know if you were around but when the
NFIP the National Flood Insurance Program and the ranking and the number and I remember coming to commission meetings listening about the base flood elevation and all that at that time could have that been the point or something involved in changing what what
we thought was ground, you know, to 35 ft, but now we're looking at base, flood, freeboard. I I remember all those lengthy confusing conversations that were going on here because it was mentioned I remember seeing pictures of houses. So, we were even looking at residential back then,
too, because the houses were going to be taller than the neighbors and whether the water now is going to be going into the neighbor's house and how are we going to retain storm water and it just went on and on and on. But knowing that it was going to change the look of many of the residential homes too, um or
neighborhoods, let's say, whether historic or not, um was was that part of it as well? >> So on the single family side, those height definition changes back in 2021 were primarily focused on those homes and that was to allow for outside of
pass anyone to be be able to build a home of the same height regardless of where you are in the city. It's gives an alternative to design flood as a basis for height. It moves it up to 8 ft above natural grade. So that would be prior to fill. If someone brought in 3 ft of fill, they would lose 3 ft in buildable
height. It doesn't uh doesn't account for that. But that was largely only applied to single family. That was the focus at the time because of the development we were seeing at the time. Um in terms of commercial development, it really was just that one foot change. And of course that was counteracted in a
lot of cases like I pointed out on 8th Avenue by the flood maps going down a few feet in height. We did of course have properties that were moved into velocity zones or coastal a zones that have other requirements for elevation that weren't necessarily applicable before, but the the focus was on single
family at the time and that was the most significant change. >> And but even in the 8th Avenue, I mean like you gave the Berkeley example, you know, like if they were to build today or if they had to, let's say it whatever, it would be it would be lower. >> Correct. Yes. But if the m if the FEMA
maps change again, then maybe it could be five feet higher. >> That's true. Correct. And we have had >> I mean it's like a are we we're basing it off of a changing a flood map >> versus what the aesthetic look of what
>> um the district is looking for, right? Like I you know when I I hear Mr. Lowry speaking, you're talking about people who were were sitting around way before these flood maps, right? looking at what it would look like, not thinking that 20 years from now or 15 or 10 the flood
maps are going to dictate really the height of of what they the intention was. So, and I don't know if if that helps legally, you know, like again the intention back then we weren't looking
at that, you know, back and I wasn't there obviously, but you know what they were looking at when when the groups of people were meeting to talk about that look, you know, of of what they wanted to preserve. So, anyways, thank you. I think going
back and finding those minutes looking at what really happened in that period because as you pointed out that was when we were working through some of the CRD standards. So >> and and again we're talking if we're talking commercial we're talking a you know different animal here because we're
talking the ability to floodp proof >> whereas residential doesn't have that ability >> so there's there's definitely a difference. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Brandon. >> Just got one more comments. >> Yes sir. So, so hearing uh Commissioner Robinson's voice or concern, this is a
question. Uh could this commission at this point decide what they interpret the maximum height and the 8th Avenue CRD to be? Well, right now the CRD 8th
Avenue says 35 ft in height. And then because it's not defined there, you go to the definition section 2.1 and you'll want to study that 2.1 definition of height um in the land development code. And that's like what I said earlier, you're stuck with that. So as particular
applications come forward or appeals come forward or conditional use applications come forward, that's when you'll look at that section, that 2.1 definition on the left hand side of the table and apply it to what's on the right hand side of the table. that's
being applied for to see if you think that that meets the definition on the lefth hand side of the table. So you're stuck with that and you should do it on an ad hoc basis rather than writing a written interpretation or policy which could be construed as an amendment. Um that's action. So you'll want to just
use this code and compare this code to what's coming before you each time. >> And the reason I asked that is to commissioner Nikki's point about these flood maps and Brandon's comments being dynamic. This is going to change. And what I don't want to do is exactly what
Commissioner Robinson said is somehow unintentionally cause a secondary or tertiary effect where we're impacting residents abilities to rebuild and get back into their homes. You'll note in the height definition they have one,
two, and three. And then one is for the residentials. And then two is for accessories. And then three is for all other structures. She'll be looking at and then before I forget um I think it was Resniki you mentioned the CRS ratings. So you get additional points by
going plus one plus two plus three you can get additional points in the CRS system. So sometimes cities will add points by doing the raising the design flood elevation that discussion >> and it may be inadvertently you need to think about when you're doing that are you going to be altering heights and is
that something that you want to do to get those points or or not? And I remember those meetings were specifically for that the points they were they're looking to improve in points. >> I think everyone has to do plus one right now and we have plus one but some
cities do go plus two plus three but that could impact your your height overall height the way it's defined here. So, I'm just I don't really have clear direction based on Commissioner Maldonado's request. So, I would just
like to hear if I have three that want a workshop. >> Well, so >> I kind of am pausing and thinking about that based on what council just said. If we can somehow have a process where they're looked at at hawk
using existing >> That's what you're going to have to do because of Senate Bill >> doctrine. I mean, is there even the necessity just that once a build plan comes up and the discussion talks about height, is there an ability at that
point to make sure that it's in bounds? I mean, put up >> guard rails essentially. I think tonight was very helpful because we've explained the definition publicly in the history and you can always go back and research some more, look at more minutes and
those will all all possibly be relevant um in your in your future deliberations. Um but it's important that you apply the code as it's written um to individual applications and quasi judicial hearings and context as they come up. Um now
you're much all of you are much more um better educated in the history of the height and how it's changed and how the maps have impacted. So I think that'll lead to better decision making as as you're looking at these applications in the future.
>> Do we need another workshop or do we need an updated presentation once we've dug a little bit more into the history? Like I >> I guess what I'm I would like to understand your use of the word ad hoc
because the way approvals >> happen in the city >> case by case I think is a better word >> on whether they even go to any >> deciding board whether they come to the commission or not there's a whole process behind that. So I I just don't
want to misread your ad hoc. >> So let me uh yeah let me clarify. So what what I'm getting at here is that yes, case by case basis with the understanding from this commission what we interpret the maximum height to be.
>> So you want to provide a new interpretation to staff? >> Not a new No, no, no. >> I think he's just saying that on a CA as the cases come up in the future on a case-byase basis, they'll apply the definitions as as they come up. And so we don't need a written we don't want a written interpretation under Senate Bill
180. We're going to have to consider these as they come through whatever process individual applications may come through. Some may come some may come as administrative appeals, some may come as conditional use seeking. Um >> how is different than what's happening
now? >> So it's not um I think that's what's happening now and it will will continue to happen. um whoever is sitting at the city commission if if an application gets to city commission the majority will interpret what's on the plan on the
right and say does that meet the criteria that's in the code on the left. >> Okay. So to to answer both questions, the mayors and yours in a work, not a workshop, but a second presentation, just to get the additional information
that uh chair Lowry was inquiring about so that we can synthesize the uh intent. It's the intent piece that we're hanging out on. So this this change in 2009 2011 with the creation of uh division 40
he talked about something that I think is crucial and it's the change from preserve and promote to encourage and everything that I've read the documents are provided by the staff that is the the the missing piece and I think that that transition those two years that's
when we lost something. So, if we can just dig down that one piece, I don't want to burden staff. I don't want to create another heavy lift on them. Just focus in on that one piece with the the historic preservation board's input and then I think that we can we can decide
if anything needs to go further and beyond that. Okay. Um, do I have general I need three head nods and then timeline? Is there an urgency to this or fit it into normal operations
>> before the next one of these comes up? >> I don't know that that's possible, but um >> okay, I'll look at my crystal ball and uh we'll figure it out. >> It's it's not urgent. We've had the discussion. I think um some of the items
that'll be discussed later will help the boards and committees that are impacted by these decisions to seek expert staff is available and uh if hopefully they'll look at this meeting and they'll make their own analysis based on the
discussions that we've had here. I mean this is the purpose of having these discussions correct but we sat here for an hour prior and what we don't want to do is overburden the staff create new work for the sake of fork but I think that one piece is going to be crucial so
again you know my first comment was thank you to the staff for the deep dive if we could just neck down that 2009 to 2011 and this is really about manuscripts it's not about interpretation we need to see what they were thinking
and then we can put this uh either to rest or or move forward. But thank you uh for indulging me and for hearing this part out. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Third time is the charm. >> Clerk, do we have any general audience?
Commissionable another one last >> there's a card please. >> Joe Smith. >> If you please state your name and address for the record. >> Uh Joe Smith 1825 uh Main Street in Western Florida. I'd like to use the three minutes for my colleagues. Scott
uh who's here as well. He's representing Trey Winds along with me. Uh Scott Robbins, our general manager. >> I'm sorry, sir. We do not allow for additional time unless you have a group of at least four or more. >> Okay. Well, I'll try and fit this in. and they'll write you a letter and as a follow-up. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Um, number one, I have serious concerns about the ordinances that are being proposed. Um, you know, in particular the beach, the noise, I don't even know what they're all called. You know, there's so many of them. But the lighting, there's such general definition around lighting, where the
lighting can be seen from, what angle, where it's coming from. My real concern is it seems to also incorporate special event permits. Um, that's a serious problem for us. We obviously have the country thunder um music concert coming up. Um we've been working well with the
city staff. There hasn't been any issues, but if an ordinance like this were to be passed, there'd be significant damages, right? I mean, it'd be massive job loss, tax revenue, dollars lost for the whole community, not just trade winds. So, major issue for us. Number two is in the ordinance,
uh it seems to either prohibit fireworks or now there's discussion about it being from a barge. Just so you know, a barge is 4 to 500% more expensive. That might stop us from doing or applying for special permits to do fireworks. I know the committee enjoys those fireworks on Fourth of July or Memorial Day or
different holidays. It would be a shame if we couldn't do that. Um I think if we can work under a special permit, um you know, where we're setting up fireworks, we're cleaning up afterwards, we're working with turtle people to make sure there's no nests around, we're doing we're roping off the area. There's
really no reason why we can't do that. I think when we start to do things like this, we're killing the culture of St. Pete Beach and it's a it's a real shame to me. Um, so that's an issue. Uh, there's also language about no campfires, fire pits. I think immediately s'mores. I think a lot of
people love to come over and have their s'mores at trade winds. Um, you know, again, under a special permit, I don't see why that can't be done. Uh, I'm fireworks. I agree. There shouldn't be individuals firing bottle rockets at each other. I get it. But, you know, under special permits, under working
with the city, I don't see why these things can't be done. Uh, the bridge toll, I think, is a horrible idea. Um, you know, if you want to see the cost of your landscape or plumber, all your trades go up or people stop saying or start saying, "I just don't want to come down to the beach anymore." That there's
an island where this has already happened. It's called Manhattan. And it's people don't want to work in Manhattan because the bridge tolls, because of parking tickets. the more legislation you put, you know, think about extended family, your daughter, your son comes in to visit you, they're going to get charged these tolls and then how do you get that unwound off of
your bill or is there a big line of people queuing up? I mean, this is just really going to affect the residents as much or more than the hotel guests. Think about it. A hotel guest come in comes in once, they sit on the beach for a week, and then they leave. That's one bridge trip. Your service providers are
coming over every day. Your family's coming over the time. You're coming over the time. I mean might might have a new car. It may not get read the the right way. This bridge toll is horrible for restaurants, too. It's like parking. The second you charge for parking for a restaurant, >> that restaurant gets killed. So, I'll
follow up with the letter. Thanks for your time. >> Comments. >> City clerk. >> Jackie Hard. >> If you'll please state your name and address for the record.
Hi, my name is Jackie Hover, 1240 Bokea Isle Drive. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. First, I want to thank all of you, commissioners, mayor, city staff, city attorney, um, just for dedicating your time to our city and making this place a great place to live. The main thing that
I want to get across today is a sense of gratitude. Um, St. Pete Beach is a great place to be for the holidays, and all of our events this year that I attended were fantastic and memorable for kids. I know my husband stood up previously about the tree lighting ceremony which I enjoyed so much and I want to echo
everything that he said. It sounds like I was offered up for some volunteering to help with that and um and I'm happy to help with any family activities that the city has if you need a resident volunteer. What drove me to stand up today at this particular meeting is I wanted to talk about the Santaas and the
Santa and sirens event that you guys ran. Um Christmas looked a little different for us because our daughter's school closed at St. John Vienni. So some of the events uh you know were different this year and our island we usually do the luminaries along the
street and we didn't do them this year. So it was really special that the Santa and sirens event uh happened. We loved it. Um it was so fun and spirited. Uh we love the tracker. So we hope that the fire department keeps the GPS tracker going. There was really cool because we
knew when they were getting close and we could go outside and they were really loud this year. Um to me I don't know. It seemed like it was bigger this year. It was louder this year. They had a fire truck, lots of fire department vehicles, SUVs, multiple sheriff vehicles, so much noise. It was great. So, I want
to take time to thank the fire department for bringing the Christmas spirit to our island and our home. Uh, this is also not the first time we've had a memorable memorable experience with the fire department. Uh, we had lightning strike our palm tree. I came up and talked then, but uh, you know, we
we thank them. They were great. They came, they put the the fire out of the palm tree, and it was it was it was awesome. Um, and um, I'd also like to uh, thank the sheriff's department too for being a part of it. They had a lot of lights and sirens and it was great. Um, I also want to say that I I admire
how involved that both departments are and that the sheriff's department in our community and all the the children's events, they had a trunk at at the Corey Avenue trunk or treat and they were great and friendly and they posed for pictures. Um, and they also responded very quickly. we had to call and we were out of town and there was a suspicious
person on our cameras and they came within 3 minutes. Um, so my daughter made some thank you cards for the fire department and the sheriff's office. Um, and we're so lucky to have them and thank you from our whole family. Thanks for keeping us safe and thanks for keeping this Christmas spirit and
traditions alive here on the beach. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Lynn Walker. >> Good evening. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, I'm Lynn Walker. My home is at 209 Gulf Way and I'm one of the unfortunate
still not back in that home. Um although I've been diligently working and some of you may remember seeing me at hearings both in 2000 tw uh 2024 and in 2025 um not before the commission but before the historic board and I just cannot say
enough good things about the staff and how diligently they work and Brandon and his team are fabulous. We are very blessed and I want to thank all of you all because I know it is an act of service to do these jobs. It is hard and
it takes a lot of time. So, thank you very much for being here and doing it. I've been very interested in what I've heard today and I have many comments about many things, but the first thing I want to to mention is our beaches, our dunes, our lack of a seaw wall or any
sort of protection south of Seventh. We are really in dire straits. We did not get any kind of temporary help until late October, I believe. Really, it was almost the end of hurricane season. We have no assurance we're going to get
real seaw walls before the next one starts. We don't even have stakes with ropes across them. We have nothing that is holding that stand back. And we don't have signage. And this is a city that I have watched for 26 years put up signs
at a drop of a hat. We have no signage. We have people trampling our dunes. I understand you have many, many, many priorities and things to think about. But if we ruin our beaches, our most natural valuable resource that brings people here to stay in the hotels, to
eat in the restaurants, we have nothing. The historic value of pass and there has been an overlay there for a long, long time. And we still think of it as a little bit different than the rest of St. Pete Beach. It's a residential community. Always has been. That has
changed some. A lot of the decisions you have to make coming up could change it even vastly more. The height limitation is of great concern to the residents. Those of us who are still in
20s to 50s bungalows are now in canyons are expecting to be when these huge structures go up all around us. How are we going to be protected from water? where's the permeable ground going to go and in addition we have no protection
from the elements right now in general so I just plead with you to keep that foremost in your mind that should be the number one priority before anything else and I know that you have many things to juggle but if that's gone then that
whole end of the island and the beaches is is really gone and the number of people that love those beaches is I have three people right now who've come from various parts of the country to help me get back in my house because they love it here so much. So,
thank you for that. Please, I ask you to use the thoughtfulness I've seen exhibited today in these these discussions and I appreciate the opportunity for more meetings with more information and intent as a lawyer I think is critically important. So, thank
you. Thank you very much for your comments. >> Deborah Shner, >> please state your name and address for the record. >> Deborah Shener, Bokeaza Isle Drive in St. Pete Beach. You may not be aware
that we are um a D2 severe drought in St. Pete Beach right now. And uh we may want to look at that. I'm not sure how we can conserve water, but we may be asked to do that very soon. The next is
an even worse drought. We don't have an architectural board, but I would like to see some kind of an architectural group brought together as public's chooses what design they're going to do in St. Pete Beach. They have
beachy, Mediterranean, art deco, boxy, hunt club, retro, neon, and that's just a few. And I think we have to get one that fits our city and looks absolutely beautiful. I'm glad somebody mentioned Thunder on the Beach.
And they had, I'm sorry, the audacity to say they don't want to deal with the lights. These are turtles who are nesting. Don't hold an event like this in turtle season. It's really pretty simple. You can do it all other times of the year.
Why are our turtles nests and the turtles themselves have to be I don't know. Turtles are not going to come on the beach if there's a lot of people and there's some a lot of noise. The eggs that are there, God knows who's
going to step on those nests and crush them. If you go to Hutchinson Beach, they take their turtles seriously. They do everything to the letter. And I'm feeling in St. Pete Beach, we don't worry about the lights. And then you have somebody here who says it's going
to hurt us. Have it out of turtle season. Turtles are an endangered species are protected by local, federal, and state law. So, I'm very, very confused why this is even happening. I'm not sure when the skimmer's nest, so I
apologize for that. But I think it also coincides maybe towards the end of turtle season. I think it's really really important that we protect the turtles. If if we don't What are we here? We're not a beach community anymore. We're do whatever the heck you
want. We don't care about our turtles. We don't care about our wildlife. You have a situation with the dunes. I mean, it's a mess. And I've written to them. I've written on their Facebook. I've written on their
local site. Of course, I don't get any response, but I think we need to take a stand now. Are we for wildlife and turtles? Do we care about all of this or we don't? It's really very simple. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments.
>> Can I say something? Uh, uh, skimmer season is at the same time as turtle season. Robert Saison. >> If you please state your name and address for the record. >> Robert Robert Suzison is on 45506 Call Boulevard. I attended a very in a very
informative meeting this morning at the uh beach theater here on St. Pete Beach. Uh so thank you to Hannah for hosting that and it was for visit Clear Water and St. Visit St. Pete Clearwater. I'd like to share some data with you if I can just pass this up really quick. Give back to the clerk.
So, this actually was a recap of 2025 of what Visit St. Pet did for tourism for our area and it's actually quite impressive of how amazing the county we live in is. I mean, we live where people vacation and we are blessed to be living here. If you look at the top right hand
corner, USA Today did the top 10 beaches in Florida. Clearwater Beach ranked number two, Treasure Island ranked number three, and St. Pete Beach ranked number seven. That's pretty impressive comparing to how many beaches are in the state of Florida. So, we've got amazing beaches on 10. The dances are making it there. I mean, we've got the Breakers
Hotels, you got the Ritz Carlton hotels, you've got a lot of great hotels. And for us to be actually making number one and number two in this county is huge. And that's on Clearwater Beach. and Pearl was ranked number eight. Opal sands was ranked number 14. Veno is
ranked 15. So we've got amazing beaches, amazing place where we live, but the infrastructure on St. Pete Beach for the hotels, we're really not ranking. And that's what it comes down to. We are going to need to rebuild and we need to come up with positive rebuilding. And if you look at the lefth hand side, you can
see by the numbers and the numbers don't lie. $6.1 billion was spent by visitors this year in in 2025. 387 million was generated by tourism. Of the 387,000 that was generated by tourism, $2,000
approximately $2,000 is goes to saves each taxpayer. So, every person that lives in Penelis County, every one of you here saved $2,000. And everyone behind me just saved $2,000 because of tourism. So, we also we all need to thank a hotel year for being in business
because every person saves $2,000 per. So, I only have 15 seconds left. This meeting was sent here today. There are three other meetings. There's actually meeting tomorrow at the Tom James Museum in downtown St. Pete. The meeting is at 8:15 tomorrow morning and it sh starts sharply at 8:30. So, 8:15 is coffee.
8:30 is when the meeting is. It is normally v RSVP. If you tell them that you Thank you. If you tell them that you're there with Robert, they will let you go because you are a commissioner and you're the mayor's. Thank you. So, mayor, could you give me five more seconds to just finish my thought? Thank you, sir.
>> What I want to say is that I want you guys to make informative decisions because the only way you can make informative decisions by being educated. So, I encourage this commission to go to the meeting. Karen was there this morning. I can think she can vouch as well. So, if you guys would please take the time tomorrow to go to the meeting
to be educated on future decisions for our city. Thank you for your Thank you. Thank you. >> There are no more general comments. >> Thank you, city clerk. >> Next, we move on to the consent agenda. >> Right.
>> That's at the end. You can make that comment at any time you like, sir. You just can't make it twice. So, you can't speak on that issue now and then later when the issue comes up, speak on it again. >> Um Jay Anderson 202 Pasigrow Way. Uh on
the dunes, just an aside, they're probably 30 park benches on Gulfway at between First and Second that have sat there for six, eight, 10 months. They used to be scattered along the dunes on the water side all up and down Passville and it was great when you're going over
to see sunset you have a place to sit but they're just sitting there. So maybe you know city staff could look at that. I am here though to talk about the uh your item number 6C on the action agenda about the hardship case. I just want to
make sure that you hopefully approve that going to the historic review board that will looks over things that are historic in Pasigril. St. Beach has a great historic district and so development there is important to the
residents and what happens there is important. The review you've review board is kind of our, you know, sounding board for being able to make sure that we get the proper development in there. And this particular case number seven
702 pas way is important that it be reviewed by the historic view review board. So when that comes up tonight, please pass it. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> There are no more general comments. Next, we move on to the consent agenda.
>> Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? Second. >> City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. >> Commissioner Robinson,
>> yes. Commissioner Rzniki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> yes. Mayor Petrilla. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next, we move on to ordinances. The first one is 5A, first reading of
ordinance 2026-01, >> an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, amending the city of St. Pete Beach Land Development Code sections 2.1, 3.10, 6.13, 6.14,
6.22, 22 7.4 28.1 and 28.5 to increase front yard stair encroachments for specified residences allowing retention of nonconforming balcony footprints and
specified non-conforming residential accessory structures following substantial improvement to the primary residence. clarifying restrictions on non-conforming uses and amending restrictions on elevated and substantially improved non-conforming
structures. Modify residential storage building standards. Modify residential equipment setback standards. Provide a front yard setback line alternative for residential culde-sac and curved street lots. and amend definitions and content
of the land development code to provide clarity and consistency with chapter 98 of the code of ordinances and the Florida building code providing for severability codification and correction of scrivener's errors and providing for an effective date.
>> Thank you. No, no presentation on this one. I just wanted to explain its purpose. You've seen the vast majority of this content previously. came forward to you last meeting as ordinance 202521. part of the agreement that we um put in
place with the state to be able to adopt ordinance 202517, which was the flood damaged equipment elevation standard um in advance of the Florida building code amendment should that be passed is that we would work with them on updating some of the language definitions, terminology, and
references in our land development code to make it consistent with the Florida Building Code and the state requirements. Um this is a consolidated ordinance adopting or proposed to adopt um the content of ordinance 202521 as well as those updated state uh
requirements. We just rolled them into one because they were so wrapped in with the sections that we were already working through. Um we made very minor modifications outside of those definition updates. We did add in one prohibition um for clarity for historic structures. Those that are structurally
connected that are not a simple lateral addition are still considered substantial improvement in the context of um historically designated structures that is consistent with the Florida Building Code. So that's the most significant change here. Not something where we're going above and beyond. It's
just bringing us into consistency with the Florida Building Code. Other than that, um I didn't find there to be any significant changes with the content that you've already reviewed other than the definition updates. Happy to take questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. Commissioners, questions, comments? Commissioner Marriott.
>> So, Brandon, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. So, this is a a has some different verbiage wrapped into it because when we passed these ordinances originally or or when we were originally talking about them, we were ahead of the Florida building code in making these necessary changes
post hurricane. >> That was specific. It was for a separate ordinance that was the flood damage equipment elevation ordinance where we reduce that to 4 feet above grade um when the home isn't being elevated. Part of the agreement in passing that was that we would work with them on amending our land development code and that this
accounts for both that as well as the proceeding ordinance. >> Perfect. So they've finally caught up to us. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandon. City clerk, are there any audience comments on this issue? >> Walter SOA.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to uh approve the first reading of ordinance 2026-01. >> I second. >> City clerk, if you'll please do a roll
call. >> Commissioner Mniki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> yes. >> Mayor Petrilla, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you. 5B has been continued to February 10th.
That's the ordinance 2025-2024. >> Thank you, sir. As has action item 6A, which then brings us to action item 6B. This is approval of a settlement
agreement and amended development order for the Red, White, and Booze LLC. Uh with us this evening is Brendan Sherman from law firm Henderson Franklin who helped us with co-conseling this case and he's here to answer any questions. Basically the settlement agreement
memorializes the judge's uh temporary injunction. Um we were in favor of this settlement agreement. The likelihood of a successful appeal is low and this would resolve uh the case. um
basically just take the judge's uh same temporary injunction order criteria and apply them um to the conditional use. So we recommend approval. >> Thank you. Good evening sir. >> Good evening everyone.
>> Commissioners questions comments. >> Is there a general audience comment? Sorry specific there are no audience audience comments. Commissioners, is there a motion? >> I make a motion to approve uh approval of the settlement agreement and amended development order for Red, White, and
Booze LLC. >> I second. City Clerk, if you'll please approval. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rzniki, >> yes. >> And Mayor Petillo, >> yes. >> The motion carries.
>> Thank you, Brendan. Thank you, everyone. Next we have action item 6 C assign unnecessary undue hardship variance case number 25142. Yes, this was a request added to the agenda by the historic preservation
board at the Thursday meeting under section 22-21 of the code of ordinances. Those are the purpose, powers, and duties for the historic preservation board. Item number 17, um that the board can perform any other
reasonable functions or duties related to historic preservation assigned to it by the city commission. That is the basis for this request being made. And the historic preservation board is specifically requesting to be able to review a forthcoming variance that will
be heard by the board of adjustment on the 28th. the board of adjustment meeting on the 28th. Um they have requested that they be able to make a recommendation on that item to the board of adjustment um prior to or at the hearing. They would be speaking as a
board. Um whether that would be a recommendation that staff then trans transfers or um that is actually made by the board liaison at that meeting is is yet to be determined. But um I did want to note that we have 10 business days
before that meeting. We do require a 10-day notice on any agendas for the historic preservation board. They do understand that there will need to be a special meeting to make this recommendation should this be something that the commission supports. Um so we would send out and and schedule it based on their availability. Uh the authorized
agent for the variance case cases LLC is present. And I don't know if they have a comment or not, but I just I spoke with them earlier about this uh request and they are in attendance. Any questions for me? >> Thank you, Brandon. >> Thank you.
>> Are there any audience comments? >> There are no audience comments. >> Oh, there's a hand up over here. If you'll please present a yellow card to the city clerk. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Yes. Hello. I am Brandon Techberg, uh,
owner 702 Pas Way. I, uh, be nice to sit here and talk to you guys about, uh, the freebie. Um, I advertise on three of the freebies and it's been amazing for my business and it'd be great to talk about that tonight. or I should be at baseball
practice with my son right now coaching, but I'm not. I'm here to talk about my property at 702 Pasigrow Way. I'm under contract since May. Should be closed, but I have had to constantly go to meetings, which I have showed up to
everyone, and I'm asking you tonight to not recommend the historic preservation board to recommend anything to the board of adjustment. And the reason why is I want you all tonight, tomorrow, this week,
watch my hearing on 702 Pasco away from July. At the hearing, the board members for the historic preservation board said where your seats are, Sean Hurley
sitting right there said, "My proposed building on my property is too high. It's too high. If it was too high, there'd be a variance. It wasn't too high. Dash Dashel sitting right here said they're going to build the largest
building in Pasigril. It's not the largest building in Pasigril. I can name five buildings in Pasigril right now from 200 First Avenue up to 3200 Golf Boulevard that are larger. When you're in a power position here and
you say these kinds of things, it's streamed. It's on the internet. All the local residents believe in what you're saying up here is the truth. You've researched. You've done your homework. My name, my property was slandered that
day. No one's ever apologized to me. And I ask that you please watch that July Historic Preservation Board meeting. There was multiple false statements. There's no checks and balances. They can
do and say whatever they want. And I've just learned in the last week that Mr. Mayor and the commissioners, you elect the Historic Preservation Board and that um or if you take over, they're
in your position. I'm asking that they're reprimanded. I'm asking that you ask them to step down and replace people up here that are going to tell the truth, be honest, and not be biased.
702 Pastor Growway, it's a simple variance. I'm asking there is an alley in the back of the property. It's only 9 ft wide. There's no way emergency vehicles, police vehicles, paramedics, anybody can drive back to this alley
that has not been used in many years. we're all asking is just they used a driveway in front of 702 Pasco that's been there since 1917. It's been paved. It's got cement there, different things, but we're trying to close on the
property. >> Thank you, sir. >> And the Historic Preservation Board had another meeting that I had to go to in December >> and now they're asking again for a last minute hearing again. Thank you much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Thank you for your comments.
comments, questions, discussion. Commissioner Marriott. >> Um, yeah, this is a question I think for uh staff or the or the city attorney. Um, this is this is this is purely just for
this single variance. This isn't this wouldn't be saying that that any variance that's asked for in a historic district or otherwise would go before the historic board. This is just this one. Is that correct? >> Well, this is a an a request in the city
code 22211 purpose powers and duties on section D. The board shall also have the power and duty to seven make recommendations to the board of adjustment with respect to variance requests applicable to historic resources designated pursuant to the
land development code. And then under 17, perform any other reasonable functions or duties relating to historic preservation assigned to it by the city commission. That's my understanding that historic resource. It also includes
in the definition districts, but this is not a historic um designated property. It's within a historic district, but it's not a designated property. So, it would be up to you to look at this code section. And also seven and 17, even if it doesn't meet seven in your opinion,
you could send it there under 17. >> Maybe I asked a clarifying question. I think the commissioner was asking if they grant this this evening, is this project specific or are they granting forever? >> No, this is just for this project tonight.
>> Is that was that your question? Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, it's okay. Um, I think my my only comment about this is that um, and I'll defer to Commissioner Maldonado because I'm sure he's heard
significantly more about this from um, you know, from residents in Pasigril. Um, it it appears to me that the the folks who have emailed me in support for this
going before the historic preservation board are looking for a rehearing of the entire project. And and I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think this is this is specifically just for the historic
preservation board to give a recommendation on just the variance that's being asked for, which is just a driveway versus an alley. And so I I don't know that having it go
before the Historic Preservation Board is going to give anybody the satisfaction they're looking for. And so, um, in this particular case, I'm not in favor of doing this. I I don't think it's going to I don't think it's going to make anybody's life better. I don't think we're going to get any new
information. I don't, you know, I think we're going to we're going to throw up some extra roadblocks for somebody who's trying to get a permit. And uh, and I don't see a I don't see a positive outcome out of that. So to I think if I understand your
question, I received numerous emails in support of having the historic preservation board present a formal recommendation to the board of adjustments. Was that the question? Well, just that that I mean, you know, like what what what it sound what my my
interpretation of the emails I've I've received is that the people who want the Historic Preservation Board to hear this really want to have a a a reooking at the entire proposal, but that's not what this variance is about. This is a very specific single item
variance. >> So, I can't speak to that piece. All I can tell you is that I had overwhelming support for having the historical preservation board follow the purpose, powers, and duties and obligations as outlined. I brought
this issue to this commission months ago in a talking point, and that's exactly what I was citing. And I'm not going to rehash what our attorney just talked about in terms of quoting things, but I will tell you that it says Shell, right? the um the board's
shell and it's mandatory. We just haven't been following that is is my point is that we have things out there to talk about city ordinances and section 22-210 outlines those and we're just not
following them. Now, there may be cases in the past that it's happened, but I can't find any. So, I do want the Historic Preservation Board to follow the rules. And that's what I'm asking. I'm asking us to as a
commission treat everybody fairly. And that's why I asked we don't discuss this particular case down to the bones because I want it to be as fair as possible. But I do think that we have an obligation to follow the rules. you know, whether it's historic
preservation board, whether it's board of adjustments board, um any of the boards and committees, I expect us to leverage those and use those as intended. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there a motion? I make a motion
to approve the historic preservation board's request to hold a noticed hearing to make objections, recommendations, or comments pursuant to city code section 22-211 D7 to the board of adjustment regarding a variance request for 702 Passil Way,
Board of Adjustment Case number 25142, currently scheduled for January 28th, 2026. >> I second. City clerk, if you can please do a roll call. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> no. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> yes. >> Commissioner is Nikki,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> And Mayor Petrilla, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next, we have items for discussion. Commissioner Resniki, you had one on legislation. Yes. I'm trying to remember getting my
head back. Um >> legislation and resources, you said. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay, I'll get it together. Um for legislation, um because I I follow the Florida League of Cities, you know, and involved with them in
their meetings. Um, and there is uh le I don't know if you all know, but there's legis legislation days for Florida Leo City January 26 to the 28th. Um, and they coordinate this for all municipalities. Um, there is a date
where the I think it's Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. There's the the second date where um Floral Cities coordinates meeting times with um the officials. And then there's the last day
where um you're free to have meetings yourself, right, with with the officials. So, I wanted to bring this up for discussion because we don't have I don't have another way of bringing it up with you all because I'm interested in attending because it's still open for registration, anybody who wants to
attend. Um is that if we did or if I did this and and if and I don't know, this is maybe legal whether I mean we more than one can go. We just don't do it together, right? Um but Oh, sorry. >> Well, it's three days in Tallahassee, so
I'm not sure how many people want to go, but if >> No, I know you don't have to go all three days. Okay. >> You just can't talk about city business together. >> Correct. >> So, you would split up and maybe go to different representatives or senators. You wouldn't go at the same time to the same place.
>> Right. I um and I did reach out reach out to um Jim I just lost his last name um to help coordinate meeting times um but wanted to know your thoughts on on topic items right because you have a
very small amount I used to do this before by the way my my prior job prior days it's kind of like talking points elevator speech you know things that we want to bring to um individuals about what the city is looking for. Right? So,
um, and many cities do this and and many of um that I've spoken to like Groveland, they they do this every year and and they feel successful when when they go and they speak to some or all of them um in a in a unified voice about
what the cities need. So, um, anyways, I just wanted to hear your thoughts, what you thought, if there's any particular like talking points to be brought up. maybe somehow I don't know how to coordinate it because obviously we don't have a lot of time but how I put out um
hey this is the coordinated talking points that you know I personally am committed to talking to X Y and Z or if anybody else wants to do the same thing that that we can go um together or one or obviously it's not one by myself I'm
I'm wanting to speak in behalf of the Um it's on it looks like it's 26 through 28th is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. We have one city the next city commission is that Tuesday night. Um so we won't have time to get together ahead of time, but FLC does have a coordinated approach
and it's defending >> home rule and it does give you an opportunity to go with our individual lobbyists to talk about city projects. So I think with the consensus of the commission you could um represent the
city of St. Pete Beach as a member of FLC at that unless there's any objection. >> Just want to know your thoughts. >> Yeah, we could also align with Shoemakers presentation and that's the reason they
bring that is so that staff is tracking relevant legislation. you all are ready to um uh lob, you know, advocate on our behalf. We can also create talking points for you. I'm accustomed to doing
that when we're sending u elected officials in to meet with our representatives. So, we have a team that works with our lobbyists and we could prepare you for that. And I would suggest we focus on appropriations. We have um some specific appropriation
requests we're working on that would likely be the top priority. >> The nice thing about it, too, is you get to meet with other senators and representatives from around the state who'll be voting on the bills, but not necessarily from our area that have
offices here. You'll be seeing other people there. >> So, >> I know it works. I mean, I used to do it before and and it's very important. Um, I mean they the the city I'm talking about, they even take residents with them. I mean it's I know we don't have
all that time to do stuff like that maybe right now for this one, but it's very effective when you do get to do that. They all vote. It's not just the ones in our district, you know. So, >> no, it is a good idea. I certainly would
be open to joining you as well. Um, I also think, you know, if residents wanted to, you know, be involved, >> um, I would ask the commission if you'd be, you know, if you had any objections to,
um, allowing our lobbyists to kind of help facilitate some of those conversations. Um, I mean, we had a great example tonight on the, uh, uh, on the communications item, right? I mean that was something
that was you know brought to us by residents. It was >> there's some Senate Bill 180 bills too. So >> yes >> another one that came up I was going to get to that as well >> and FLC is doing Floral League of Cities is bringing that up as well. So, I think there's a good opportunity to coordinate
with with FLC as well as, you know, if um city manager has a list of of infrastructure projects that need funding that we that we can approach. I mean, I know our local representatives have been, you know, incredibly
accessible and and supportive. Um, but there's 60 180 of them. >> So, there's uh there's more that that we could be talking to. And if anybody if any of our residents wanted to come along, I certainly wouldn't have any objection to that. In fact, I would welcome that
>> uh on your own dollar this time. Maybe next time we can >> can run a bus. >> We can figure out a bus and we can sing Kumbaya for seven hours straight to Tallahassee, >> right? I I did two residents did mention to me that they would be interested. Um the good thing is because you divide the
hund and some, right, that you want to make sure who you want to meet. Um and and I did send an email to to our lobbyist and he and I I said, "Well, I'll wait for commission meeting to bring this up and then I could email back to say, hey, can you coordinate the
the times for that Wednesday?" Because it would be the the third day where you're on your own. Um the second day if it's with FLC, it's the ones that they've already set up, which isn't bad to go to either because there's some of the items like we just mentioned um 180 and home rule that that they are
targeting. So >> it'd be hard to get back for the commission meeting. >> Well, no. Right. But you know, we're not traveling with them. So I mean on the Tuesday. >> Yeah. But I've done those those drives. No, but they meet on the Wednesday. It's the Wednesday that they do it. Um I
think the first day is just a tour um for um municipalities. So they just take you around the tour. I've been there. I don't need the tour. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I appreciate I I I'm I'm not able to go. So I very much appreciate you and anyone else who can go and I think it
would be hugely valuable. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. The the other thing and I called it um what did I say? Resources. Um, but this is something that um, and I know, Commissioner Robinson, you know, you you've you
helped a lot and I'm very appreciative of what um, the the volunteers who assisted during the building um, or for the building department during or after the hurricane. I'm just going to pass this. You guys don't have to read this all now, but this is kind of a summary
of my thoughts so that way you understand where I'm going with this. Um it's it's about revenue or resources, right? Uh volunteering, right? So we're we're looking >> You have one more. >> Oh, sorry.
>> We're always looking for or we're always discussing um revenue sources where we can get revenue sources. Um and we've dabbled on volunteers. Um prior commissions have brought this up before. Um, I remember one time, um,
I think it was Commissioner Grill, um, brought up one that actually was in Largo's website. Um, if any of you looked at it, we had our our 4:30 meeting. Um, and Largo was one of the cities that was mentioned in the presentation that has what they call
VIP. It's a a volunteer um, policing basically is what it's VIP, but it's a volunteer policing where and and it's not that they're becoming deputy police by any means, okay? They're not carrying anything, but for some odd reason, that's what Largo calls them. But what
they do is something that I think helps um a lot of us because we all get the same calls all the time. Um repetitive um code enforcement, parking, uh whether it's um derelic property, whatever may
be, it's constant over and over. We hear it all the time. We send the emails over to the city manager. Um code enforcement goes out. But um the what they're doing is is they're they're basically and if you know nonprofits and some profits in
the world and and I can speak for like Florida Aquarium where I volunteer. I used to work for them. They used to pay me. Now I just volunteer because they got very clever. They figure why pay me and and I'm a professional diver. Okay. Why pay me when I can do it as a
volunteer? So they have reduced their operational costs by using um licensed certified people to provide services uh to their guests. Um I'm I'm going to Dan training which is diver network is CPR basically right. So I'm there for life
support you know so I'm doing a hard job. I don't get paid for it monetarily. They they give us money. Well, not money. They give us incentives by giving us um free memberships or free um uh you know, amusement park entrance throughout
Florida. That's what that's what they do. Other places like SeaWorld, uh uh Disney World, all these parks do the same thing. Most of the people who work there are volunteers. They get free entrances to the parks, right? So, um
anyways, it's kind of like increasing our staff and and obviously This would be in coordination, you know, with um and you know, the city manager might have been thinking of ideas of this already, but to have a volunteer coordinator who's basically coordinating
all all these types of services, whether you have someone walking neighborhoods. Um, and this is to repair what I call the cclick fix, which is broken, right? Because people like to put the cclick fix in. We can't track it. Some people don't like to submit it because they
don't want to put their name out there. um or the issues that we hear over and over again on special magistrate um which is the the short-term rentals and I think and I forgot where someone mentioned this it might have been during commission that we said well you could
have someone just search for it right but it doesn't have to be a paid staff who could be using their resources elsewhere right it could be a volunteer who's looking and searching for uh short-term rentals which I know our code enforcement spends time on it um um but
Again, it's the idea of expanding our volunteer program that can do the things that prior commissions have talked about. Um, we used to meet with the presidents of associations. I used to go to it. I don't think we've had one in forever. Um, I don't know if any of you have ever
attended, but we used to have association presidents all meet together in the city of St. Pete Beach. And in a lot of those meetings, we brought up the same thing. Why not have people volunteer um walk the beaches um whether it's garbage um litter um minor minor um
enforcement issues, right? That we're taking away from staff that can again be putting their resources elsewhere to doing other things. So, um I just want you to take a look at it. um maybe have something um you know formalized or um I
I think it's a good time to bring it up because I know it's been brought up but I feel because of what we did with the volunteers for the building department and how well receptive it was by this commission that something like this could be um receptive at at the time. So just some thoughts for you all.
>> Thank you. >> And it's No, I mean the library uses volunteers, >> correct? Thank you. community of um parks and recck use volunteers. >> You know, I know you've been there. So, >> a lot. Yeah.
>> Um so, it's not that this is not um it's not something we're not doing. It's just a matter of expanding it, >> right? It's a matter of expanding. It's not that we don't have volunteers is to expand it. And if you look at >> that point was there's precedent. That's correct. That's the word I was looking for. If you look at Largo's and Largo is just one of the many cities I saw, but
if you look at Largo's just because we did talk about it or mentioned Largo's site at our um priority meeting prior to this meeting. If you go to their volunteer site, you'll see they'll have nine different icons and there's I think I might have attached it there on on this packet, but nine different icons of
the different things, whether it's the library or if you want to do policing or whether you know, so it's kind of helping community, which we know we have people who sit out here and and like to volunteer. Um, and it helps them find that niche of of where they could put, you know, some help into our city. the
people who know what's going on the most in our city are the people who live here, you know. So, I think it helps when you know we see I go around my neighborhood and I heard um you know the commissioner earlier today while we were having lunch. This is not an action item but we were just talking about walking
and you see the things and you take pictures and you submit it through Cclick and Fix, right? Because we could identify it. We know we see it, right? So, this could be very helpful. Um, so it takes it away from a lot of um, residents having to do it um, because
they think it's anonymous, but you can't do it anonymous, unfortunately. But it it helps it helps a lot of our restaurants. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah, I mean, we have a wide range of experience and individuals that have just vast knowledge and vast experience
that oftenimes you're just looking for a way to be able to contribute. I think this is a great I think this is how you and I both ended up on this seats >> by getting involved in our communities and volunteering and next thing you know you're sitting up here. Commissioner Molina, I think that's how you end up here as well.
>> Amen. Amen to that. You were in the volunteer core. >> It's a great segue to anybody who wants to be a commissioner or mayor. Uh just uh thank you uh Commissioner Ree Nikki for coming up again with things to
improve our city and our our community quite frankly. Um so thank you. The only one that I'm leerary of is the very first one there that says issue parking violations. Anything to do with enforcement. Um, you
know, um, again, we've had discussions of shield or sward and panelis county sheriff's office has programs where they have volunteers and stuff. I just recently looked at it and it's closed for applications. So, they probably have
so many that might be something that we can look at is having them leverage some of the volunteers. I know that they do and if you look at the descriptions under they're very limited in power. So, I wouldn't want to do anything that assurps what our contract uh sheriff
department's doing and and then also put our citizens and residents in a precarious situation with friends and neighbors. So, so I I don't support anything to do with parking violations uh in terms of >> can just before you leave that one, just so you know, if you look in Largos,
you'll see they have an application process and their training process. >> It's not freef fall by any means, okay? It's very specific and just like when I where I volunteer, you could be fired too, right? So, >> Sure. Sure. And and you know, open to conversations, but just giving you my
>> Thank you. >> my two cents. Uh because I always think of physical safety as well, right? And and I met uh twice this week with code enforcement out on Pastor Grill doing a great job and you know, I just check in on them because uh I brought some things
to the city manager's attention um regarding signage. signage was brought up today, you know, and making them more successful in their job. Deescalation and trying to help the city, you know, enforce things that need to be enforced and and they struggle with it and they
get paid to do it and that's their full-time job. So, so I'm leerary about that. The other thing is with patrolling neighborhoods and parks, uh, that may involve resources, you know, whether it's it's vehicles, communications gear, and stuff like that. Uh, but again, I don't want
to put people in in harm's way. I will say that unfortunately the shuffleboard building had an incident that was reported to Penllis County Sheriff involving their storage and equipment. So, there may be a need for it. You know, um, somebody broke in. They
thought it'd be fun to turn on the water and mess with shuffleboard equipment. Um, so it may have been spotted or found after the fact, but I don't know that that's something that would reside within the realm of
residents. Now, they can report it without having a volunteer structure through the non-emergency number emergency if it if it's prudent, but the rest of it I think is incredible, right? I think that we talked about, you know, the rental searches and checks in the
past. um anything to do with pedestrian safety. Absolutely. You know, I'm not talking about crossing guards, but just observations and pointing out problematic areas, you know, and we do run into constituents who bring up
crosswalks and areas and things like you said. So, this would be a good mechanism for them to express that to the parking ambassadors, right, if we went through with that. Um and and the repairs and road signs. Yeah. you know, I I can do mile two or three. There's people that
are doing five miles, 10 miles a day, and they're seeing things throughout the entire district. So, you know, reporting and observations are are great. Um, but then it's a segue to a comment that you made about people, you know, trying to leverage commissioners to put reports in
for them. You know, code enforcement is a red line, but when it comes to click fix and things like that, they're force multipliers. So yeah, I applaud you for for bringing this into the discussion and I think that there is some merit uh
as the mayor said, you know, to enhance some of the things we have just creatively and and looking at it from a different lens. So thank you, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> My only comment would be maybe divide it out as a departmental volunteer program
might be easier to handle than an all-in-one inclusive. you know, something's code, something's special events that's under Mandy's, you know, domain versus, you know, Pete's just that kind of makes a little bit
more sense, a little easier to tackle. >> Okay, thank you. Next, we have staff reports. City clerk, >> I have nothing to report at this time. >> Thank you, city manager. >> Thank you. Just one report. I have a quick announcement on behalf of code
enforcement team. Uh this year's focus for January is going to be shifting into the commercial sector and they're going to be rolling out updates to keep uh the residents, business community and stakeholders informed and engaged. One of the initiatives we're going to start
providing an overview is our recently updated sign ordinance. In addition, we will be sharing information about the impact of short-term rentals within St. Pete Beach. um as we believe and we've heard from you all. This topic um touches on many aspects of city life. Uh
just a quick uh this is a flyer they've created. They're going to be sending it out as an educational piece for um anyone who comes into the office, but also as part of a a proactive outreach online campaign to uh educate and let as
many people as we know uh that that we can about the rules in the city about short-term rentals. So, that's the end of my report. >> Thank you, city attorney. >> Um the city attorney would like to place on an upcoming agenda. you'll see um an
update to our city attorney contract uh with no increases in fees for 2026 and just to renew our contract. >> Thank you, sir. >> District 4. >> Just a reminder that this Thursday,
January 15th at 6 p.m. the uh community meeting for the shuffle board structure will take place at the Warren Webster building. Seeking input uh crucial that folks that are impacted uh attend. Thank you. >> And what time is it, sir?
>> 6:00 p.m. >> District 3. Um, there was there's two community meetings. Um, community meetings, but association or neighborhood meetings. Um, I was trying to look for the times, but I have to verify. But, um, January
22nd, um, Leo was having their their meeting. same place, same time, I'm sure. And the Donsar property owners has theirs in February, which is their annual meeting. There's voting. Um, and it's going to be here in city hall.
>> And what date was it? >> 22nd. Sorry. >> No. Um, no, it's February. Um, but I can't find it. And I was looking, you don't do you have it written? I know you have it because it's here in city hall. It's at 6. We'll look for it. Well, sounds like we have one more
meeting. Yeah, I can announce it again. Just as a heads up. >> All right, District 2. >> Uh, just want to bring your attention to a few items happening at the library this week. Uh, Wednesday from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. they have a program entitled Bad Art. Thursday at 2 p.m. they have
the novel Ideal Book Club. Friday at noon they have movie uh movie. It's called Good Fortune. Saturday at 10:30 they have a presentation called the golden age of Japanese culture and also from 2 to 4 pm they have tech help.
>> Thank you. And district one. >> Sure. So um it was uh I know the Corey Avenue um business association announced it but I wanted to make sure no one missed that uh Sunshine Sunshine State Tourism named Corey Avenue the um best
shopping district in Florida. best small town shopping district in Florida, which is super fantastic. Um, I wanted to remind everyone in district 1 that there will be anformational meeting about the construction happening at pump station
1, I believe, on January 21st. Yes. Okay. January 21st here at city hall. Um, and then also, uh, anybody who wants to meet with me at Masty's at a
and come have a beer with a commissioner. Um, I will be having those on, uh, Tuesday, January 20th, and Tuesday, February 17th. So, no actual beer drinking is required, but you're certainly welcome to from about uh from
about 6:00 till 8 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. >> And it's February 24th. I found it. I saw you writing your notes. You can get it. >> All right. Um, I received some good news today. So, I I
know as unlikely as it sounds, there's still a fair number of individuals who still, you know, are not quite sure what to do about their homes, still need help with their homes. Um, and so I've been working with Hurricane Health Florida
for the last year or so um to help get funds to to different residents, even our u city staff. Um, and so they let me know this morning that they just received another grant for $300,000.
Uh, that they're looking for uh individuals and homeowners to help uh distributors funds to help with critical repairs to make their home safe and livable again. So, mold remediation, roof repair, replacement, drywall repairs, essential wholes household
items, including beds, furniture, appliances. Uh so if you still know somebody who is dealing with unmet storm related needs, um I posted it on multiple different social channels earlier today. Uh or you can reach out to me and I'll forward you
the information. So help us provide a case by case basis and it's a simple application. So, they have um I've been to a couple of homes that they've done uh and it's it's pretty amazing what they've come in. They've cut the drywall, they've done the drywall, they
fixed the floors, replaced the roofs in some situations, appliances. Um they have uh I think it was uh rooms to go that they're working with. They're doing special deals for them. So, if for some reason you are still in this situation or you know somebody who's in this
situation, um please please apply. It's 300,000 is not much. It will go a long way because they also use volunteers and other uh volunteer organizations. Um but please if you know somebody point them to those resources. And so with that, thank you very much and we are
adjourned.