the Treasure Allen Planning and Zoning Board meeting for February 19th, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's card is available on the table over at the entrance and must be completed and given
to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda.
Okay, if everybody would please silence their cell phones. And now let's have the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance >> 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. >> Okay, Tia, if we could have a roll call. Mark Ojeski. >> Valeria Cree >> present. Daniel Billingsley >> present. >> Ross Sanchez >> here.
>> Christopher Dawning >> here. >> Grant Smith >> here. >> Marvin Chavelin. >> Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> All right. Starting out uh today's meeting with some uh approval minutes from last year. Um any comments or could
we have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. Okay. >> Second. >> All right. Motion to approve the minutes from October 23rd of last year and December 18th of last year. Motion by
Marvin Shavelin. Second by Grant Smith. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Go into the next one. Approval of the LPA meetings. LPA minutes from February 13th, 2025,
June 19th, 2025, August 21st, 2025, and January 15th, 2020. Should that be 25 or 26? >> 26. I apologize. >> 26. Just >> reading them in order. Any uh comments
on those or could we have a motion to approve those? Motion to approve. >> Okay. Second. Anyone? >> Yeah. Second. >> All right. Motion by Valerie Ari, second by Ross Sanchez. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? Seeing none, those are approved. Status update on prior planning and zoning cases. Um, we did get a little print out here. Thank you, Braden, on that. Um, any major changes? I understand the one at
122nd uh avenue in Gulf Boulevard broke ground. Uh, yeah, I'd say that's the the most uh prevalent update here. Um, otherwise uh mostly all simple. There's two cases
uh that have previously been approved that will be coming back to the planning and zoning board for updated variances. Um, one of those you can look forward to next month. Uh, and the other one is still pending an application submitt. Um, otherwise we run in the mail from there. I do uh want to say sorry I
wasn't able to email this to you prior, but I made sure to get it to you on the DIS today. >> I'm just looking at uh so all the ones in in yellow were still hanging out there. Unfortunately, there's too many of those.
>> Yeah. And so we've I've uh followed up on all those as far as in our permitting system to see the to confirm that they're still in the same status. Um I can say we've recently gotten some just general communication from the rally gas station. Um hopefully suggesting that
they'll be uh you know submitting plans soon um uh for their site plan approval. Nothing confirmed though at this time. Is there an expiration date on that because of the having no storms in last season?
>> Uh, so they're all extended for the executive orders right now. Um, >> right now for sure the executive orders are extended through March 7th as far as I know of this year. Um, but it's kind
of complicated the way that they stack for each storm. Correct. >> Um, so I >> Okay. Okay. Hearing grant procedures. What we do we need to know about. >> Okay. Thank you. Um your mic.
>> Okay. So today on your agenda you have several variances as well as a couple um site plan approvals and uh these type of land use approvals uh are quasi judicial in nature. This means that your uh
hearings today will be a little bit more formal than a typical um meeting that you may have. Um this requires that certain notices be provided to the property owners as well as following
your um zoning code uh that establishes what the criteria will be for the approval of these various items. uh your responsibility today is to listen to the presentation and the documents presented
to you. You will be applying competent and substantial evidence to show that the criteria has been satisfied. So just speculation and opinion um that is not based on competent facts that should not
be considered by you in evaluating whether or not the criteria has been satisfied. Um testimony by individuals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area as the city planner has been um has been considered to be
competent and substantial evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by any neighbors or residents who appear who have information that is fact-based or it is information that they have personal knowledge of.
So your decision is final in these matters. Um in the event there is a denial of either a variance or a site plan you are need to establish which criteria was not satisfied that you felt that there was not competent substantial
evidence to support um and that needs to be disclosed at the time if that motion is made. Um, with that said, again, there is formality and so the first part of that formality is the administration
of an oath. So, all testimony before you today would be under oath. And I would look to the city clerk to administer the oath to anyone in the audience who is intending to uh provide testimony.
If you would stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're going to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Um, the exparte communication
and also if you could inquire if there is any conflict of interest on any of these items that would uh require a nonvote by one of our members so we can make sure that we have a quorum present. Okay. Anybody have any exparte
communication they need to disclose on any of these many cases we have today? At least six. Um seeing none, anybody have any conflict of interest in regard to any of these cases? >> Nope.
>> Seeing none, we'll just move into our first one. Uh 10 A uh variance um AV A-0000592-2026 a variance requesting approval of a 2.3 foot encroachment into the required
sideyard for an electrical meter platform in conjunction with the structural elevation to adhere to current minimum flood elevation requirements. I guess the applicant's already at the podium and state your case. >> May it please the board council. My name
is Rhett Carlton and I'm here on behalf of the homeowners, the Crockett and Modern House and Building Movers. Uh I'm the largest structural elevation company in the world. We got 300 employees around the country. And what we're asking for here is a variance basically
to build a platform for access to the electric meter for the Crockett's home. Uh currently we would be asking for two variances, but pursuant to the new rule change, we're allotted one uh encroaching staircase or patio. And what
the rules state is that we're required to ask the board for permission for a variance on the larger of any more than one encroachment. So in this particular case, uh the one encroachment that we're getting is uh the freebie is basically a
one uh uh.8 foot encroachment on the right side of the property. So what we're asking the variance for is a 2 foot 4 in encroachment on the left side of the property. So just generally speaking, uh the house was built in 1957
and it was built beyond the current setback requirements. So right now it's a permitted uh pre-existing nonconformity. So, uh, in particular on if you take a look at
I like using the the the city planners documents because it it it it's what you guys are using to make your determination. So, uh, you got there's a map provided, a site plan provided, I believe, on the last page of the the agenda item. And uh
if you look what I would say would be the east side, you can see that the the uh the the house itself as it sits encroaches um into the side setback, but there's kind of like a lip there. So what I
would respectfully submit to you is that uh that the variance that I'm requesting is in line with all the requirements and criteria. I can go through them one by one here in a moment, but we're just going to try to squeeze that set of stairs in there so that the homeowner can keep the the electric platform
elevated and provide safe access. And um and so that's basically what we're asking. So according to the rules here um um no variance may be granted unless the applicant establishes by a substantial competent evidence the following
criteria. And so those criteria are a literal enforcement of the provisions of this article would result in an extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property. The next would be the variance being sought to be granted is the minimum
variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property. And three, granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the chapter and will not be injurous to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
or adverse effect to public interest in welfare. Um, I kind of breezed over that. Um, but what we're what we're saying here is a little literal enforcement of these rules would prevent them from being able to to have meaningful access to the property. Um,
and the not only that, it would be a hardship to them only because it's already uh uh um beyond the encroachment, right? And and so what we're what we're also saying is that it that this request
would be in harmony with the the the general intent and purpose of the chapter because when we lift this house, it's going to be storm resilient. It's not going to flood anymore. And I would also submit that it would in probably raise property values for others in the
immediate area. So, uh, I would say that we've met the burden here and we would just respectfully request that relief. >> Thank you for your presentation. Any, uh, questions for the applicant?
Seeing none, um, Bren, go ahead with the city presentation. All right. Good afternoon. Braden Evans, principal planner, presenting V-005922026. Uh the applicant is seeking approval for a variance uh to allow a 2.3 foot
encroachment to the required sideyard uh for an an electrical meter platform um alongside their structural elevation. The side setback required at this parcel is 10 ft. They're proposing a setback of 7.6 ft uh which results in a variance at
the magnitude of 23%. And the property is located at 500 115th Avenue. Uh we can see some aerial imagery of the property here both front and rear. The parcel is zoned RU75. Um the
applicable setbacks are 10 ft from the uh both interior side property lines, 20 ft from the street and 25 from the waterfront. So the property was built originally in 1957 and contains about 320 ft of living space. Uh in the base
flood elevation here is 10 ft. Um, and as we're aware, the property was damaged during the most recent hurricanes in 2024. Uh, this is a site plan of the proposed improvements. So, currently the land development regulations allow one set of stairs to
encroach into the setbacks when elevating a structure. Two sets of stairs are proposed in this site plan. One of which provides access to the existing rear porch. Um, another of which provides access to the electrical meter. The encroachment for the stairs
providing access to the rear porch is 1.7 foot encroachment and the requested variance for the meter platform is a 2.3 foot v um encroachment. So the allowable encroachment was applied to the lesser intents of the two uh structures
encroaching into the required setback. Uh as far as variance review criteria, the uh staff has you know uh determined this is a uh variance as set forth in land development regulations. Uh the structure which was built to code at the time of construction is uh
experiencing this hardship based on the requirement to come into flood elevation requirements and strict application of the regulations would not allow for the applicant to maintain the existing configuration of their residence following the completion of flood elevation improvements which are required. Uh these requirements are uh
they meet the minimum flood elevation and that is not the require the fault of the applicant. This was um considered a reasonable means of maintaining existing use of the property and in terms of neighborhood character. The request is consistent
with the surrounding properties will be in harmony with the general intent of both this chapter of the land development regulations and the city's comprehensive plan. and uh staff has uh seen no evidence or found any reason that this would be injurious to
neighbors or uh public welfare. Uh with that being said, staff recommends approval of this variance and is available if you have any questions. >> Okay, any u questions for the city staff? Go ahead, Mark.
>> U does the property I see on the site plan it says propane tank in the front right corner of the lot. Is that a buried tank? Maybe this more of a question for the applicant, but >> I believe it is. >> Yes, >> it already has a berry tank. Okay,
understandable. Um I I agree with the with the city's recommendation that the meter platform stairs actually sits tucked into a corner on that side of the house and still leaves 7 ft of space, you know, clearance on the side of the house, which is most than what we see
right now. That width for that platform is okay by Duke when it comes I mean when it comes to the size needed. >> Correct. >> Well, I was going to say Duke has real real real specific uh requirements.
Basically, as long as it's 18 in on both So, here's what's going on. We got the can, right? As long as we got 18 in on both side and the rail is three feet, it it'll fit. Okay, any other questions? Um, >> yeah, just one more. When it comes to
the variant, usually some of these have conditions listed. I know that we're ones kind of approved just because of the recent rules that we or allowance that we had put in. Is it clear that these variances only go for this type of lift and these
platforms? Um, >> so if the house, let's just say, tips over in 10 years and someone comes in to build a brand new one that these variances are no longer applicable. >> Uh, yeah, absolutely. The formatting of the staff report changed slightly uh when I started writing them. The
conditions of approval are listed on the development order, which is kind of after the last page of the staff report. One of those conditions of approval would be that the um the the improvements have to be substantially similar to the site plan dated that was
uh included in the application. So I think that would cover the base as far as that goes. >> On page 34. >> Yep. So basically if we were to approve it, it would be with it's recommended probably with conditions. Correct.
Okay. So the staff recommendation says approval, not approval with conditions. >> Well, Dan, I would >> one down. >> Correct. >> For the record, we'll step to the conditions right now.
>> Yeah, it's usually my Thank you, sir. Okay, I'm good. Anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Seeing none, we'll close the uh public hearing. Um, obviously the applicant is
putting a lot of money into uh raising his house, which we really appreciate and fact is Duke Energy does have their requirement and it is not new construction. So really don't have any objection to this one at all. Uh, any
further comments from the staff or could we have a motion? I mean, from the board, not the staff. >> Go ahead. It's your district. >> Actually, I'm gonna um uh I was I was waiting for the for you to have a vote.
I I'm going to not provide the I'm going to abstain on this one only because I didn't realize this first one was coming up and I did have some conversations with the Crockett prior to them having a variance just discussing some of their design work and where they were putting their stairs. So just with just in the
interest of making sure there's no issue, I'm going to probably abstain on this one. >> I don't think that >> there probably isn't any, but >> well, but having those conversations does not at the beginning just disqualify you
from voting. Um the disclosure has been made. >> Um the applicants are here. they have the opportunity to ask you uh regarding that disclosure if there was anything that u might adversely impact your decision making today. Um but under
chapter 112 that in and of itself would not be enough to disqualify you from voting. It would need to be some kind of special benefit that is monetary. >> Right. And there certainly isn't in this case. So I think you're okay. >> Yeah. that there wasn't any monetary I
was just providing some general advice on what I saw in terms of those zoning rules um in the past. So I'm I'm happy to make the motion then letter. Okay. Uh so I I move that uh the board approve uh with this variance with conditions. This
is case number variance 592-2026. >> Second. >> Okay. Chris, do you want to just to make sure that we're there, you know, underneath the uh approve the variance as follows with conditions? You want to include that condition?
>> Like I said, we'll to approve it this variance with the following conditions that as it's shown in that one item. >> Okay. Just making sure. >> Yep. >> All right. We had a motion by Chris Downing. We had a second by Marvin Shavelin. Uh roll call vote, please. >> Mark Zjeski,
>> I. >> Valerie, >> I. Daniel Billingsley. >> Hi. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, moving on to the next case. 10B
Bar B-0000594-2026 An application requesting approval of two variances to section 68- 541 granting a 6'8t variance to the required front yard setback for the construction of an
external staircase and a 5-ft variance to the required waterfront setback for the construction construction of a balcony both in conjunction with structural elevation improvements to adhere to current minimum flood elevation requirements. If the applicant
Chris is already at the podium, uh, state your case. >> Good afternoon, Chris and Diane Hawkins, 113858 Street East. Um, we moved into our home in 2019 with the idea that this was going to be
our forever home. We bought the home as a singlestory home because we did not want to have to deal with stairs moving forward and we immediately started the process of designing uh for a remodel of the home.
We completed the remodel in January 2024, literally just months before Colleen took us out. So, we had to make a big decision at that point whether we were going to
rebuild, lift, or leave the area. And as I said, this was going to be our forever home. So, we made the decision to go ahead and lift. We've contacted with uh Davy Shoring and we are at present have gotten through
our first lift. So, we are five feet in the air at this point. Our contract is for 14 feet on the lift. Our intention is to bring anywhere between a foot and a half or 2 feet of fill under the home. Whatever we
can actually get under there and still not have a driveway like we're driving up the side of a cliff. So that's where we're we're standing right now. So we've got two variances that we're requesting at this
point. The first one is for a set of stairs and an a small extension off of an existing patio that we have on the back side of the house. Uh the majority of the patio contains our outdoor kitchen area and a bar top and
this particular area is all majority of is within the setback uh property setback and all of it is under the roof line. We are asking for a 5-ft variance on the back which would allow us an
additional 18 in so that we could put a railing on the outside of the bar top so we could still utilize the bar top and obviously not fall off 14t drop. Additionally, we're looking for stairs uh to get down off of that back patio.
And that would be for uh the rear of the house. The front of the house has been a lot more difficult for us. We've gone through multiple uh designs trying to keep the stairs as short as possible with the the minimal variance uh
required. The majority of the designs uh take us out the front of the house and then we've tried to do switchbacks and splitting in half and all these other things. Ultimately, all of the designs end up into the setback number one, but
number two in the driveway, the garage and driveway area that are going to be on the side of the house there. So, we have decided and and figured this is going to be the minimum setback uh that we would be asking for if we bring the fill into
the front of the house. If we reduce the lift from a 14t lift to a 13t lift and possibly a little bit less than that, we'll know better once we actually get through this second lift. Um, we're
asking uh for the design that we've got set up so that we can accommodate an elevator um for current use and and certainly for future use that we're going to need. And as I said, we we've gone back and forth
on designs, trying to do everything we can to reduce the the setback that that we're asking for here. Um, the last thing that I didn't actually uh put in the variance
was for a Duke Energy platform, but as I just confirmed with uh Braden here, we don't need to do that because that was the one freebie I guess that we're getting in this whole process. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. Any questions of the applicant?
Seeing none, go ahead. you. >> So, on your front stairs, I wish you had an elevation. I'm kind of having a hard time visualizing it. Um, so where it says entry there, is that enclosed or
on your drawing? >> Where where the front door is going to be? >> Well, I'm not sure where the front door is going to be because you're not showing it. That's >> okay. So I guess my where it says proposed in red is that a big
slab or what what is that? Is that a raised? >> So it currently at the front door there is a um there's a porch area that's it's a covered porch area. The design has us coming down a few stairs and then we'll
have a landing which as we understand it is going to be required by Florida code once you go over uh 12'7 in uh we're required to have a landing. So we've got a landing right there which will also help us to accommodate stairs from the
lower half of the house up to that landing and then and then continuing up to the rest of the house. I sort of have the same question. >> I'm just trying to understand why why couldn't you bring the stairs in from the left side and and then take a right
ang you know that's >> so as I was describing earlier the the stairs if you come straight out the front of the house and then turn you can only go one direction that would be off to the left side right >> that puts those stairs in right where
the driveway is going to be. So, if you're if you're parked in the driveway directly in front of the garage door, you wouldn't be able to get out the end of the stairs because the stairs actually would run right into that area. The >> garage door is on the right side, isn't it?
>> There's also another garage door. They'll be adding the other. >> Okay, I get it. >> Exactly. >> But what you're showing there where the stairs are going up to now is just to this landing. And that's a large landing there. Well, so the landing is the width
of our current porch and it's going to accommodate a set of stairs, internal stairs that will come up to that landing, turn, and then go up. >> So the so that proposed area is actually enclosed space now. >> Part of it is yes.
>> Okay. >> The actual >> and and that's actually new enclosed space on this elevated >> correct >> new square footage. >> Correct. that would be so that can accommodate for elevator space and for the stairs to get from ground level up
to >> and we just don't have detail on all of that floor plan in this document. >> So I did submit a that very well may be my fault. I I apologize if that's not in the um in
your agenda. Um it is in my presentation and Mr. Hawking certainly did uh supply that to me. So, I apologize on that behalf. Um, if that did not make it into the agenda, um, I can put that on the screen as well for you guys if you'd like. That would that'd be helpful.
>> Y through my slides here. >> There we go. >> Okay. >> So, that whole area is enclosed. It looks like >> well that area in green in dark green I think is the new square footage right or not.
>> Actually it would be the the red area. >> Oh it's also that red area. Oh I see that >> this is currently a portico front entry right here. Elevator's going to be here. So the stairs to get down you'll come from ground level up here and then come
up here. So if you had to put the elevator and move all of this back, you and and put obviously keep the elevator internal and have these internal stairs, your resulting square footage would be less than what you had
before you started the lift. I >> if if you're following me. So the way in which you've designed this, you other than the fact that you're adding the stairwell down and the elevator, you're
not adding usable square footage to the >> not usable square footage other than >> it is effectively it is conditioned space. So officially it is. But I'm just trying to get a for everyone here on the board of how much you're gaining or having to because you're having to lift
Yeah, correct. >> Because if you were then to put the elev if you were to push all of this back, put the elevator inside, the net result would be you'd have less living square footage than you had prior to the storm. >> Yes, you're correct on that. And actually, you know, again, it with the
designer, he worked so hard on this and trying to figure out where we could put stairs to get from downstairs up and where we could put an elevator. And we when we designed this whole thing, you know, it took the the three years to to build it. We did not we didn't want
an elevator. We didn't want stairs. We didn't want to have to deal with this. So, it wasn't in any part of the design. And no matter where how we looked at this, we couldn't find any way to get a set of get an elevator or stairs inside
the house. And like I said, you know, with the original contract being at at a 14 foot, when you took a look at the stair run on that, it really put it out quite a ways in in the front part of the house. And so we asked, let's let's take that down
a foot. Um, and then let's bring in some fill dirt. So we're, like I said, we're trying to do a minimum of a foot and a half to two feet of fill in the underside of the house. And we're hoping that by doing that, that's going to reduce the number of stairs and obviously the u how far it's going to go
out into the front of the house. And and have you accounted for the fact that you'd get an allowance to come into the setback if you raise that >> ground level? >> I've heard you discuss that before, but I don't understand it quite frankly. So I don't know what I get out of that.
>> So there's a fact there's a factor. >> Okay. >> So for every inch that you elevate that lower floor, you get >> help me here. I believe >> a number of inches in terms of how far a stairwell can
>> um intrude into the setback. So the variance therefore wouldn't you're asking for how much of a variance on this one? >> Six feet and >> six and a half ft. You'd still be you're not even if you raise two feet you won't get six feet. I think you get about four feet of variance. You wouldn't you'd
still be requesting a variance. It just wouldn't be as large. It might be three feet instead of six, but just for everybody's information. >> Well, that if that's something that I can revise. I mean, I didn't put it I
don't think that I put it in the description about the fill dirt. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't, but I don't think that I did. But that is definitely something that we're we're planning on doing for sure. >> Of course, right now, you don't know the exact amount of fill that you're going to do yet. So part of the issue that
we're dealing with right now is during the second lift figuring out exactly where they're going to be able to put steel and if we're going to have an issue with headroom because at one point um the once they put the steel under one
of the footers, it's going to be down to a 7 foot ceiling height underneath >> and that was going to be a problem for my truck to be able to get it into the garage. So, they're in the process of trying to modify that. You know, >> it would have been great had they been
able to do the lift >> last week and then I could answer that a little more for you. But >> I appreciate the info. >> But we but we are definitely our our goal is to have the the fewest number of steps possible and we really we don't want to go out into the front yard because that's taking up part of the
drive and everything else. So if it is possible to to drop the elevation even by another foot, we will definitely do that in this process. But um basically what we were told is that with this application, the smartest way to go
would be to put down what what you could potentially need rather than to try and come back after the fact if we can't do it. But like I said, our our goal is absolutely to minimize this as much as possible. Have you read the staff report where it
shows approval of the 5-ft variance and then denial of the 6.7 foot variance? >> No sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> What's more important, the front stairs or the back variance?
>> Not to put you on the spot. I'm just curious cuz the Duke obviously Duke I'm trying to think. I hate calling it a freebie, but the one that's already allotted and then you have two other variances. Staff saying good on one, but a denial of the other one.
>> And the way it's written, it's only applies to the side for that the the stairwell for the electric. So, you can't you can't switch them out. So the elevator is in that little
enclosed area underneath. >> Correct. >> Okay. So if we didn't have that there, you probably could get the stairs pushed back, right? >> Well, I would still have if I didn't enclose that, I would have an elevator exposed to the elements. And that's
definitely everything that I've been told by the elevator companies. They're not going to last. They're just not built to be in an ex exterior environment. I mean, if if it really made a big difference by moving the the Duke uh
meter to the front door, if that solves the problem, you know, I we'd have to rework things. But if that's what makes the difference, it it's important to us because like I said, every design that we tried to do,
we're we're impacted there. There's just no way to get around it. Anything that we do, we're impacted. So, >> it's that garage that's on the left side, like when you're looking at the front elevation, it's the garage that's handcuffing you. >> Yes. >> Cuz if that garage wasn't there, then
you'd have no issues whatsoever by putting stairs in. >> Well, correct. It would it would just go out into that particular area. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. Uh Braden, if you could go ahead with the city's
presentation. All right. For the record, Braden Evans presenting V-00594-2026. Uh, the applicant is seeking approval of two variances. Uh, granting a 6.7 foot variance to the required front yard setback and a 5ft variance to the required waterfront setback. Uh, both
for the construction of a staircase with a balcony at the rear. Um the required street back setback, street side setback is 20 ft and the applicant is uh proposing a 13.3 foot variance. The waterfront setback here is 25 ft where the applicant is requesting a 20ft
variance. I'm sorry. Yeah, a 5ft variance to a 20ft setback. Thank you. Uh subject property is located at 113 >> 85 8th Street. Here's an aerial image of the property
uh zoned in the RU75 zoning district. Currently contains a one-story slab ongrade residence with approximately 3200 square ft of living space damaged in the storms of 2024. We have a site plan here of the property, an outline of the existing
footprint of the property. Um here we can see that open porch located uh at the front of the property. Uh that is proposed to be fil um enclosed space. Um and then in the red outline as we saw
before we have the additional square footage that's being proposed and added. This is the rear uh variance being proposed for the balcony and the staircase projecting 5T into the required setback. Uh an allowable encroachment has already
been used for the um electrical meter platform which is proposed 4.5 ft from the interior side property line. The rear balcony located here uh proposed 20 ft from the waterfront and then the front staircase again is 13.3 ft behind the street side property line.
Uh the staircase proposed has a total length of 10t 2 in. Uh the uh additional enclosed area being proposed uh equates to 12 feet 6 in. Uh from the existing uh front facade of the house uh to the
setback line, there's an available 16 and a half approximately 16 1/2 ft of space uh that can be developed with no variance required. Uh as far as our variance review criteria, both variances are um set
forth as variances that can be requested. Uh in terms of the front staircase, the structure maintains sufficient space between the existing location of the front door and the streetside property line to construct reasonable access to the home following the elevation. Um which does not suggest
there are special conditions or circumstances that uh preclude the building or the uh reasonable use of the structure. In terms of the rear staircase request, uh the configuration of the existing structure uh features sliding doors along the rear of the home. Approval of a variance to that
rear setback would allow pro continued use of those doors without needing to be uh closed in. Uh strict application of this code in terms of the front staircase request um would not prevent reasonable use of the property by any
means. Uh, as we saw previously, there's 16 1/2 ft approximately of available space to develop a staircase that would allow access to the front entry of the home. However, in terms of the rear staircase request, um, a strict application of the code would uh, prevent reasonable use of the property
as it's configured today um because those a portion of those doors would need to be enclosed. Uh in terms of peculiar conditions of the lot, the expansion of enclosed space at the front of the home which is resulting in the need for this setback
variance to the streetside property line is the result of the actions of the applicant and their proposed site plan. However, the rear staircase request is not the result of the applicant due to their home needing to be elevated to flood to meet minimum flood requirements
and their home being configured with those sliding glass doors as we talked about. Um, again referencing the minimum variance necessary for the front staircase request, staff does not determine this to be the minimum variance necessary. Um, however, for the rear staircase request, staff has
determined uh being the minimal uh variance necessary to justify reasonable use of the existing structure in its current configuration. granting this variance um would be in harmony as far as for the rear staircase would be in harmony with the general intent of the code. Um however, this is
not consistent with the intent of the chapter for the front staircase variance. Um while this wouldn't be directly injurious to neighboring parcels, allowing the front variance um as proposed would set a precedent uh that could establish uh or enable property
owners to obtain variances alongside structural elevation uh that enables the addition of additional um livable square footage alongside those elevations. Uh, with that all being said, staff's recommending denial of the one variance request to the uh, street sideyard
setback for the construction of an external staircase and approval of a 5ft variance to the required waterfront setback. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Any questions for the city staff? Chris. Um well first of all whether we
passed this variance or not doesn't set precedent >> as you were seeming to argue that we were setting precedent. We don't set precedent. We take each case as they come. >> If there's reasonable hardship you know you know a reason to provide the variance then that's what we do. So
>> I understand perhaps I should have said expectation from the residents. >> Well I think again we take each case on its own merits. um that so it's more of a comment than a question just for the future ones. Um >> but I I have no I have no questions.
>> So I think what you're kind of saying is because he's putting the elevator in if he didn't have that elevator there he could get those stairs within the setbacks. Correct. >> I mean yeah his stairs are 10 and 1/2 ft long that he's proposing. He has 16 and
1/2 ft of available space between the front facade of his existing structure and the property uh I'm sorry the setback line. I I mean I understand why he wants an elevator. I get it. >> Well, you So, go ahead. >> I mean, I I I heard the applicant talk about the
different variations that were worked from a design perspective, but looking at it, if you eliminated the stairs on the front and made a foyer down below, you could have that all that additional square footage which is built out within the setback. You walk into the lobby. He already said that there's stairs on the
inside of the garage or they could put stairs on the inside of the garage and still have an elevator. >> That's a good point. >> So, I mean, we I knew this was going to eventually happen with us flexing on um raised homes by allowing or you know,
the freebies or the Duke meter. I mean, it just it's a lot like when it comes to the variances. >> So, is that >> and there's not a garage there currently on the lefth hand side when you look at the house. >> Correct. So I I think that I'm not an architect,
but I be curious to hear from a design perspective if a lobby I mean you walk in. Yeah. Foyer. You walk into the foyer. That's you are limiting the stairs on the front. >> I might have missed that. There is an internal staircase besides the front.
>> There's no construction plans on here, but I would assume because there's not. >> I think he said there was there was >> You could step up, sir. How do you go from the how do you go from the if how do you go from the garage to your living space after you park your truck >> by the design that we've done here? You would come out of the garage from the
underside of the house and hit the internal stairs to come up. >> So there is an internal set of stairs. >> There's an that's that's this area that you were referring to as being um added living space is actually stairs. It's a stairwell. That's >> plus the elevator shaft.
>> Plus the elevator shaft. Exactly. Yeah. And and on my original calculation, you you showing the one uh picture there about the length that I have from the front of the porch to the front of the house. My calculation with the stair run
um took me to it was basically a 20 foot run is what I needed for the length and then I needed an additional three foot for the um for the landing that is required. So 23 foot, it was at 16 foot,
16 1/2t. So that's still putting me, you know, 4 feet into the into the setback at the front. So I think to to your point, Chris, which I unfortunately I don't know what that calculation is by adding the additional fill.
>> Um I mean, we were still going we were still going to be in 4 foot into the setback. Yeah, >> even if I did it right from the front and took it straight out, there's just no way no other way around it. >> But if you didn't have the the other garage, I guess you don't that other
garage doesn't exist right now. >> It it doesn't. No. >> So if you didn't have if you didn't put that garage there, you'd have room to do a switch back, right? >> Yes. Stairs. >> It could it could dump. Yes, definitely. It could dump into that side of the yard. Braden, do you have the
construction plans >> where I could see like the garage floor plan would be helpful? >> Yeah, >> I think we should. >> We're and we're trying to help like we we've seen all different kinds of projects, but we're making our decisions based on this parcel of land like Chris
had talked about. It just >> I think we need to request, you know, elevations and side plans for these things. >> Thank you, sir. You can sit down >> in the future with an applicant. >> I I think Braden had just left them out. I think it was a >> That's exactly what happened. I I apologize.
>> It's okay. >> Also, elevation. >> We also haven't had six variances. Well, seven if you count the one that has two. So, >> it's amazing to see all these people trying to still get back into their homes and, you know, the building process.
Some would think that they're already be back moved in, wouldn't they? >> Sure. I do see on the site plan the it doesn't appear that the driveway goes to that second garage. Is that is that right? Uh it will once once we're completed you'll have two driveway.
We're going to lose the circular okay >> aspect of it. So >> I was going to say yeah because because if that was approved your the the front variance I mean those steps there's no room for a car to may have a turnaround there. >> That's why he's requesting this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Which is exactly why we we
need to have that because >> just out of curiosity and I'm not like interrogating you. Did you did you talk to the designer about like a lobby instead of exterior stairs? >> Yeah. So >> if if he were here, he he he if he were here, you would really understand all the battles back and forth and trying
everything. One of the biggest issues for not doing the the lobby setup, quite honestly, is somebody's at the front door. You want to answer the front door all the way down the stairs, right? You have to go all the way to ground level to answer
the front front door. the way that we have it set up, it's it's we only have to go down about five feet or so before we hit that front door. So, it's just, you know, again, not wanting to have a house with stairs and deal with stairs. We're we were looking for every option
we had to mitigate the number of stairs that we have to do and that was the best way to do it. So, I'm answering the front door, telemarketer or somebody selling something, whatever. It's a lot easier to do that than going down
14 feet 13 feet of stairs. >> It's very kind of you to answer the door for a telemarketer. I would just get on my ring I would just get on my Ring camera and say, "Go away, please." Yeah. And if they did want to let him in, I'd hit the button on my phone that unlocks the deadbolt and I let them come in. So, I'm just saying there's options. There's
options. So at the end of the day, this change that you're making or have keeping the stairs in the front, you're not increasing the livable square footage of this home. >> No. >> And you're if but you are accounting for a fact that you got that internal
staircase to get to that lower floor. So I don't have any other questions regard to that. I'll have I have some discussion, but we'll wait for that portion. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sounds good. Thank you, Chris. I know Braden is still trying to find the elevation drawings, but we'll go
ahead. Uh any any other questions for staff or >> anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to this case? >> Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing if you can find that elevation. Uh Brad, >> yeah, just trying to get it from my
computer onto this computer, but I just swap the plugs. The easiest solution is usually the the best one. Anyway, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Once again, we've got a applicant who's spending a ton of money raising a house,
but it does get it into uh compliance with our flood elevation laws. You know, the thing is, and what I've said in the past is I really don't have too much trouble with rear yard varianc's
request. Front yard is kind of second nature. In this case, I don't have any objection to it as long as it always will stay a stairwell. You know, that should be one of the conditions that it is a stairwell. Like Ross was saying
earlier, if the house some day got torn down, you don't get to build a house 6.8 ft closer to the road rightway line. >> This is for a stairwell only. >> So >> that's that's reasonable. Yeah. with
that condition. >> That's I don't have any problem with that. >> I I'm I'm in the same camp as you and I I'm looking at this kind of in a in a broad sense of the hardship is there. That's why they had to lift. I think raising your house
needs to have an elevator in the long run for someone, you know, for the long-term value of that property. and that as long as they're not doing something that's increasing the livable square footage, then we should provide
as much as reason as reasonably that we can and going a few feet into the front with a small stairwell is the kind of reasonable thing we should allow. So, I'm with you on that. >> As Mr. Hawkins stated, you know, he obviously had no plan on doing this. I
mean, >> right, >> the numbers are all over the place. Grant Smith can tell you, you know, he spent a ton of money raising his house. He had his challenges getting uh water, sewer, electric, everything else hooked up and a set of stairwells so we could
get into his house. And I think this is just another situation where we help out a neighbor for a stairwell only. And I really don't want them to have to run, you know, anybody that's coming before this board or having to elevate their house to just go through a lot of
gymnastics with the stairwells in the front and make it architecturally looking correct. If we can make a house look good and in an overall sense and provide that little bit of variance, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. >> I know you found this the um actual
floor plans. Were you able to find the elevations at all? that that I'm sorry I wasn't sure exactly what you wanted me to >> that elevation you showed earlier >> right there you go >> top right >> that kind of helped a little bit
>> cuz um it does give a grand entrance appearance and you know let's put this way 20 years from now as you're driving down the road most of these houses you can still look
at them and say well that one was raised, that one was raised, that one's new. Uh, this will always have the appearance of a raised house. And, uh, although it can be hidden fairly well, I think it's a situation where we uh, need to once again help out our neighbors.
>> Braden, can you scroll down a little bit, please? >> Yep. >> Here. >> What's that set of stairs that's like in the middle to the right a little bit more? Right there. What's that one? That actually is looking all the way through from the back of the house all the way
>> to the podium. Chris, >> that's the interior. >> Chris, the podium, please. >> So, there's interior stairs from the garage that goes up to the area, right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions or can we uh I
personally think we need to approve both of these because um you know I think the front design of that house looks pretty good with a grand sweeping kind of flared staircase like that. Um
we're not setting any precedent. Each one of these stands on its own. Uh we have heard cases in the past and we approve and deny both of them. But uh I think in this case we need to help this neighbor
out and uh Chris since he's in your district would you like to make a motion? >> I take this one too if you like. U so I would move that this board approve both variances as they're written. >> Individual. >> Oh they are individual. Sorry. >> Oh I see that there are two pages here. Okay. So, we'll take the first one
first, which uh uh I'd move that this board uh approve uh the variance 594-2026 um as requested and shall be with the following condition. Approved with the variance with the following conditions,
which is this uh number one condition that's at the bottom. Is that correct? Is that how that's written? >> Sounds good to me. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Chris Downing, second by Marvin Shavelin. Will we have a roll call vote, please? And this is for the front stairs. >> Mark Jodeski.
>> Hi. >> Valerie Cree. >> I. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Hi. >> Ross Sanchez. >> No. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And if you don't mind, Chris, go ahead with the measure. Following this, I
would move that the board approve uh variance 594-2026. Approve the variance uh with the condition one as as it's written. Second. >> Okay. Motion by Chris Downing. Second by Marvin Shavelin. Could we have a roll call vote, please?
>> Mark Sheski. >> Hi. >> Valerie Cree. >> Hi. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Hi. >> Ross Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Caris, go finish raising your house. >> Thank you all.
>> Okay. We'll move on to the next case. 10 C site. And this is a 0000596-2026. A site plan review to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. The applicant the applicant is at the
podium. Go ahead and present state your case. >> My name is Julia. I represent the owner. So, um we're asking your permission to build uh a new threetory single family uh which is like almost uh 4,000
square ft of living space. The existing building will be demolished. We just got approval for demo permits this week and uh the new building construction um uh we submitted for the building permit for the new building construction is
under review right now. It's in process. >> It's very simple. I hope you don't have any questions. >> Uh what is it? >> How long have you got how long is the um how long has this property been owned by your client? >> Uh it's a year.
>> Okay. >> And it's current functioning right now at all after hurricane. So we don't have any power, water, like nothing. Yeah. That's why he decided to get rid of this building. So, it was damaged in the hurricane and
then you still hasn't started built being built yet, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it takes time, right? >> It takes time. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And it currently is the Two Mermaids Resort and I assume you're going to bulldoze all that in order to build one single family house. How many It's just
for my own curiosity. How many uh units, rental units are in the two m uh mermaids resort right now? Seven. Right now it's seven. Yeah. He wanted to go with like hotel idea with Yeah. But then he changed his mind and
he he just wanted to build like a single family period. >> So we're taking out basically seven hotel units for a single family home. >> He wanted more. He's not satisfied with just only seven. He wanted more, but city does not like allow us to build to
have more than seven units right now. >> Okay. Thank you. Please have a seat. And Braden, go ahead with the city. the uh staff report. >> All right. For the record, Braden Evans presenting site- 000596-2026. This is an application seeking a site plan approval for a single family
residence located along the west side of West Gulf Boulevard. Uh the subject property is located at uh 10200 G Boulevard. Realize this should say G Boulevard, not West G Boulevard. The subject property is located within
the RFH50 zoning district resort facilities high with preservation zone Cword of the coastal construction control line. The existing structure was developed in 1949 and functions as a seven room motel. Uh the property also abuts a
public right of way to the south that provides uh beach access and has previously held parking agreements with the city of Treasure Island for use of that lot. Uh as proposed, the applicant seeks to demolish the existing improvements and develop a single family residence. We have an aerial image of
the property here. Uh a little bit closer view there to the south. You can see that right ofway lot. Uh this is a uh proposed site plan of the property as we're reviewing today with some elevations of the site as well. Um with the front being on the
right hand side and the rear being on the left hand side. Um the subject property is within the RFH zoning district as said uh this proposed development is consistent with the purpose and the intent of that zoning district delineate the areas defined within the city's comprehensive
plan resort facilities high and a single family residence is permitted within the zoning district. Uh the proposed site plan is also in conformance with all applicable regulations within the zoning district. uh compliant uh lot width of 50 feet,
lot depth and area consistent with the regulations of the zoning district. Uh the floor area ratio, I'm sorry, the impervious surface ratio proposed is 56 or 59% which is below the minimum uh requirement while floor area ratio is
not calculated or required for residential properties. The proposed is 67. Building height above design flood elevation is compliant at 25 ft. The street side setback is uh I'm sorry I feel like that is a mistake
on my end there. Um I'll have to review that is compliant. I can assure you that the side setback um are 7 and 1/2 ft which is required um and the side setback sorry the rear setbacks is
compliant as well. The open space requirement also um exceeds the minimum required by uh two and a half feet compliant parking as well. Uh the proposed development is compatible with the plan character of the surrounding properties of the zoning
district um as the predominant uh development pattern in the area is uh multifamily single family developments as well as tourist lodging units. Uh there's no vehicular connection currently in place at the property. So
uh through the permitting process, proper permits through the FDOT will need to be acquired by the applicant. Uh the proposed site plan also meets and exceeds the open space requirement as mentioned. Um and then further review of those landscaping requirements for
buffering purposes will be reviewed during the permitting process. um ensuring continued public's use of the existing uh public beach or waterfront access ways uh applicable to this property. The previous parking agreements that were in place with the
uh right-of-way lot to the south of the property are no longer in place. So removal will have no impact on that. And then during the uh permitting process uh the public's depart works department will review if any um further
uh improvements are required in that context and then no reviews from FDOT swiftmud or Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council are required for this type of request. Um so staff recommends approval of the site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report.
>> Thank you Braden. Any questions for the um city staff? >> I was looking at the site plan, Braden. I doesn't call out anywhere uh for the Duke meter. >> Do we have an idea of where that is?
>> I was trying to find it on ground level or if it's pocketed or if it's on a balcony. >> Julia, do you know off hand by chance? front there. But maybe if you could at the podium, please. >> Go if you could go to the podium. >> Sorry about that.
>> No, there's no microphone. >> I'm not sure where exactly we can find it, but definitely second floor and we discussed with the designer. He put staircase. >> Okay. >> Uh which is in setback for sure. >> I just want to make sure that it doesn't come back in front of us because of a
dupe meter. Okay. Thank you. Oh, wait. Since we had this up, I thought I noticed this before. The it shows the street side setback at 20 feet 10 in versus the required at 25. But in the other plans, it said 28.
Let's see in front 32 feet, which complies. If I go by that, it's not in compliance with the >> I know. I noticed that as I was making or as I was presenting this that the number on this is not correct. >> So, this is just a typo. This is absolutely a typo. I apologize. The
document here is correct. >> Yes, the staff report is correct. That one I make sure to check before publishing. I apologize. >> Glad I wasn't seeing you. So, okay. >> And then, thank you very much. Um, Braden, so obviously we we're seeing this because of where it's located, right? Anything that gets built on the
zone, it comes in front of us. >> Correct. Are we would you say that we're also seeing it because of the change of of use as well that we're approving because this is now going to single family home >> by definition. I believe that's correct.
Yes. So a change of use would also require a site plan review. So from the way that I'm interpreting the code right now based off memory that is correct. >> Okay. So >> our approval >> but but we're not ch it's not change of use. This is an allowable use. >> A change of use is still it would be
from one allowable use to another allowable use. Um, however, there's also a provision in the code that excludes single family homes from the site plan review process except for single family homes that are located on a public beach or the Gulf. So, it all kind of comes
back to the location of this property, I suppose. >> Perfect. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Thank you. It's one of those flukes that I've seen it where golf properties have to go to the commission. So, we appreciate the fact
that this is a seven unit hotel basically that is going to be converted to a single family home so we get to see it. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. Anyone in the audience to speak to this case? >> Seeing none. Um, any other questions for
the uh, city staff? Mark, >> I I do have a question. Is Is there going to be a liquid propane a gas tank for this project? >> That wouldn't be something that I would conduct in my preliminary review for a site plan review. Um, okay. Julia, are
you aware if there's a >> Um, yeah, because it's underground and doesn't require review of setbacks and isn't visually reviewable. I suppose it's not something that I personally would look at for the >> in ground tank. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
>> Do they have to create any type of drainage? Cuz we did down further south on the golf side. There's three that mirror each other and they had to put in like a little drainage pond out in front. Is that does that not apply on
the on this parcel? I mean, irrigation like that would be reviewed during the permitting process, but as far as water retention, typically that's not required for a single family property, but by any case, if it was, that would be through the permitting process that they would look at that.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Basically, Southwest Florida Water Management District does not apply any of their rules to a single family home. So, they no storm water detention is required. just make sure you cannot drain the water onto your neighbor and
they do show swailes going down both sides of the property. So, I think they have that handled. >> Take a look at those three properties on your drive south. >> Oh, yeah. >> Anyway, any other uh comments from the board? We will close the public hearing.
Um seems pretty straightforward. Good thing is it's brand new construction. They met all the uh required setbacks, so we don't have to worry about any of that. It's a step in the wrong direction, quite frankly, because
this is in our hotel district area and should stay hotel districts, but you cannot say, "Hey, you can't build a single family home because they're all up and down the uh West Gulf Boulevard here."
So much as I'd like to see it, stay in a hotel. You can't deny it just cuz you don't like that idea. So, with that, could we have a uh motion for approval?
Uh regarding case number 596 2026. I move that we approve the site plan with conditions 1 through six. >> I'll second.
>> All right. Motion by Marvin Chevlin, second by Chris Downing. Could I have a roll call vote, please? >> Mark Sheski, >> I. >> Valeria Cree, >> I. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> hi. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Oh, Grant Smith, >> thank you. Yes.
>> Sorry about that. Richard Har. >> Yes. All right, we'll move on to the uh >> next one. Attendee variance V-0000597-2026 an application requesting approval of
two variances to section 68-541 to reduce the minimum interior sid set back to the north and south sides of the parcel. Um go ahead and state your case. >> Yes sir. Good afternoon everyone. My
name is David Thomas. Um, address is 144 Northeast Lincoln Circle North in St. Pete, but I'm here representing the homeowner for uh 8564 West Gulf Boulevard. Um, it is a property that was like out here that was damaged by the hurricane. It was a multif family
property. Uh, at the time was two units. Um, but it was demolished last year. So, it is a clear property at this point. Uh, but we're proposing to put a single family home back on that property. This is going to be his retirement home. Um it is a substandard lot. Uh the width on
that property is 34.55 ft in width. So it's given us a restriction of the buildable um footprint on the property to under 20 ft. Um which is putting our two-car garage at very tight in the middle. We have turned our done some preliminary structural layouts of the
building. Uh turning our structural post front to back. Um and it's it's leaving us about 17 and a half clear which is not a legal twocar parking garage. um which we're trying to get that that's for the home as a minimum. Um so that we are requesting a one foot uh reduction
on both sides of the sideyard setbacks to be six and a half just to give us the additional two feet to where we can actually get a 18 foot wide garage door between our structural columns. Um it'll still be tight on the other side for two cars to open the doors. Um but we at least we want to get the the bigger
garage door on that. that we are complying with all the other setbacks on the property. Um, but that would be the restriction for that. We do have on the plans we are showing our Duke meter on the left hand side behind our stairs
that is tucked underneath the house even everything within that setback um requested. So that's what we're requesting. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? So I guess you you mentioned you know in
a broad sense why you need that extra two feet. >> Yes sir. >> Or is it is a total of two feet? I guess you're >> one and one. Yes. >> One in one. So it's total of two feet is to get the minimum to put a twocar garage. >> Correct. Yeah. >> It's that simple. >> Well not simple for the interior layout.
We did do a preliminary layout just for a better ADA access for getting from room to room towards the back with a set of stairs and the elevator and having big enough areas for that. It will help in the overall layout of the home as well. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> We do have a dedicated 5 foot beach
access from the the property across the street on our lefthand side of the property as well. >> Question I have for you the um you're actually kind of my neighbor. I walked past that house a lot, saw the challenges post hurricane, no doubt. How
wide was the uh house that was demolished. >> It is a very narrow lot, less than 35 ft wide. So, >> it was and the the access stairs were on the right hand side. They were well into the setback and there was there were
additional balconies that were on the original home. We're not putting those back in. Um it had to be about the same width because it did fall within the setbacks. It was a little bit angled on the property because it was an older home. Um that was very similar and then the
the less than 20 foot width. >> So you may not know the reason why, but I guess part of the reason could be this lot was non was a non-conforming lot to start with was because of that beach access. >> Uh but it was a five foot it's a five foot dedicated beach access,
>> right? Okay, >> the existing home was 19.1 ft in width. >> I just remember seeing it as a very narrow house. >> Anyone? Thank you. Any other questions? >> Have you read the conditions in the
packet? I'm trying to find it. >> Mr. Thomas, have you read the conditions in the packet that if it was get to get approved >> as far as recommendations from the board or was that? >> Yeah. Uh, in the staff report, there's two conditions.
Number one, the proposed improvements should be substantially consistent with the plans prepared, I think, by your office. And then the approval should be contingent on concurrent approval, site plan approval. >> I'm having a little trouble hearing. Sorry. >> Sorry. in our packet on page 128. It's like page five of your document
probably. I just want to make sure the applicant knows the conditions if an approval was provided one and two. >> They see they're pretty generic. I just want to make sure you're aware of them. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Okay, any other questions? Just looking at my speaker card. If you could have a seat. Uh Braden, go ahead with your presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. For the record, Braden
Evans presenting VR-0000597-2026. The applicant is seeking approval of two variances of section 68-541 to reduce the minimum interior side setback on the north and south sides of the parcel. Um the setback for both of these side side yards is 7 and 1/2 ft. The applicant is
proposing 6 1/2 ft a 1 ft variance that is a 13.3% magnitude on each side of the property. Uh here we can see uh an aerial image of the property. The ex uh current conditions are on the bottom. uh the neighboring parcel is also vacant.
So it makes it kind of difficult to imagine how uh wide the actual lot is. So on the top we can see there when the developments were in place 2024 >> uh the setbacks which are applicable um are 10 ft from I'm sorry uh 20 ft from the street 7 and 1/2 ft on each side and
then 10 ft from the rear waterfront property line. Uh the subject property again is currently vacant uh following um damages uh sustained from the 2024 hurricane season. The property is located on a substandard parcel with a
total lot width of 34t 8 in. Um considering the applicable side setbacks of 7 1/2 ft. This results in a total buildable width of 19.8 ft I'm sorry 19 ft and 8 in. The applicant is seeking a 1ft variance on each side of the
property. uh enabling them to uh develop an 18 foot wide garage allowing proper space for vehicle access and the structural support beams uh for this type of style of home. Uh if this application is approved, a concurrent site plan review will be uh
approved need to be approved by uh you the planning and zoning board, which is the next item on your agenda. Um, I did not do a formal spatial analysis of Gulf Boulevard, but from a visual review standpoint, I could not find a narrower parcel along Gulf Boulevard
than this property. So, with that, moving forward, uh, this is the proposed uh, floor plan of the ground level. Uh, the proposed exterior footprint of the structure is 21 ft 7 in. uh with the interior footprint of the
garage being 20 ft 2 in. And then um as the applicant stated, the the structural columns were uh oriented appropriately to make the most space still with the proposed setbacks only allowing 19 ft uh 6 in of clearance on the inside of that
property on the inside of that structure rather. Um again u the electrical meter was placed inside of the home so no additional variances were needed. Um uh so the only request from the applicant today is this variance in addition to
the site plan. Mhm. >> Uh the variance request is directly attributable to the unusually narrow width of the subject property again which is among the narrowest parcels along Gulf Boulevard um indicating the special conditions which exist um on
this property. Strict application of the land development regulations would restrict the applicant from developing a standard two-car garage um which would require additional interior width um and and a two-car garage being a standard
feature for properties in this area. The size and configuration of the lot of course is not at the fault of the applicant and it is considered that this variance is among the the least intrusive and the most or the minimum variance required to propose to construct the improvements um
sought out by the applicant. Uh this application does include a substandard parcel uh by a considerable margin to neighboring parcels and seeks to ensure compliance of the code um both in flood elevation requirements and with the land development regulations. The surrounding
neighborhood area consists of existing single family structures uh which have also undergone improvements to comply with um flood elevation standards and are among the same scale and um style. This variance request is in harmony with
the general intent of the code and does not u pro uh pro provide any impacts to the neighboring parcels. Staff is recommending approval of the two variances to reduce the interior side setback and I'm available if you have any questions.
>> Okay. Any questions of uh city staff? Nope. >> Admittedly it's a very uh narrow piece of property. I do have a question for the applicant. If you could come back to the podium. This is out in left field and I will warn you about it
already because it is out in left field. You know, I live right around the corner. Obviously, the multifamily piece of uh structure, I should say, the multifamily structure to the south of you was demolished as well pretty much at the
same time. Um, has the owner of the property considered at all purchasing part of the property to the south? I know that's a far reach, but I'm asking anyway. >> And you don't have to answer.
It's not a requirement. >> It's not a >> Could the homeowner speak or >> pardon me? Did >> the homeowner ask? >> Sure. For that. Okay. just uh >> first of all, thank you for your time and attention.
>> Name and address, please. >> Okay. Michael Lee. Langley, the owner of 8564 West Gulf. Uh full disclosure, this time last year, I was testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. How is it going to defeat
terrorists in both East and West Africa with limited resources? >> God bless you. >> So, thank you. Hopefully, this will be a more pleasurable experience. But let me go in. Let me go ahead and express my intent. I did talk to the neighbor. Um, and very nice people and Tony and Joanne, they
don't have any intent to rebuild. I know I have that uh that uh 99year easement uh agreement that was established in 1974 by that that time the owners and uh so you know, Sunset Cole have that in place
and they want me to continue to abide by it. Uh so uh there would have to be some uh further negotiation, but my uh my reach out to the neighbors as far as what their intent is. They don't have intent to rebuild at this time. And so I
have not uh established uh the intent to express uh the intention to try try to widen my property. Like you said, sir, uh that is a very narrow property and that's why we're asking for these these variances here. So, I know Joanne and Tony have not um have not made any
intentions of uh selling any piece of that property. I know land de developers are knocking on their door, but the first first thing I need to do is to consider um how I approach Sunset Cove uh because they own that that easement
uh in that 99year lease. So uh I have uh other representatives here they have u that that from Hillsboro County that advising me to approach them and try to solve those two problems so that we'll have an easier build which is going to be the next issue that's going to be
tabled. Thank you. >> Yeah just u you know my comment was and maybe I'm living in fantasy land I mean you could really build a really nice house with a little further width. I mean, and of course your easement that
Sunset Cove has the rights to would just have to be moved south. Although it's not easy, it can't could be done. But, uh, you know, as I've said previously, uh, sideyard setbacks are tough because
you do get closer to your neighbors. And I know the house to your north was just recently reconstructed. I mean, if you look at Google Earth right now, it's still demolished. Um, just something to throw out there. Any other questions?
>> I'll just say a great design. >> I like the design that you came up with. >> Thanks, Mr. Thomas here. >> Yes. >> Okay, we do have uh Thank you for your time. We do have one other card from uh James Trout. >> Mr. Thomas, have you done any on the
podium? Just real quick, have you designed anything else on Treasure Island? Did you do another project on sunset >> 9600 >> when you first go into the right? >> Yes sir. >> I remember you. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And we are reducing the side setbacks, but the entire exterior of the home is concrete. It's going to be hollow core slabs for each floor.
>> Okay. >> No combustible material on the outside of the building. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> And Richard, when you say easement, are you talking is that a city walkway like a walking path or is it >> No, it actually is a I've run into this one because I knew somebody who was living at Sunset Cove. It is a private
easement between Sunset Cove and the owner of this property to give them >> walkable area to the beach. >> Okay. >> And uh yeah, it's probably who knows how many years it's been in place, but yeah, it's in place. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> So, you would have, you know, to do my wish if it was possible. And I'm not saying that it's not going to be a requirement. It's just it would be really nice to have happen, but you'd have to go through the legal motions of moving that easement, which will be
painful, >> I would imagine. >> But anyway, Mr. Trout, go ahead. State your name and address, please. >> James Trout, 8565 West Gulf Boulevard, Treasure Island. Um, I'm here as an owner of 8565 and
also the vice president of Sunset Cove uh Condo Association. Um, I do have a copy of the easement. It's 99-year easement that we have and it was dated October of 1973.
And we just we don't have any objection as long as that 5-ft easement is maintained u because it is a huge selling point for the 60 condo units that we have there that we have that dedicated right away to get to the beach
and have that access. So, uh, in the past we had, uh, the homeowner had a sidewalk that went through there, and we just want to maintain to make sure that we still have that sidewalk. We also had a gate there that was marked that uh,
private for Sunset Cove residents that they could go through there. But, like I said, it's a huge selling point. Anytime one of our units go up for sale, they always put that that we have dedicated beach access through. And uh you know
the when we got the notice the application didn't say exactly what they were asking for but it sounds like that they're it's a 7 and 1/2t set back and he's asking for uh one foot. So it would still be 6 and 1/2 on that side. Uh, so
that would maintain our 5-ft access, but we would still like our sidewalk through there so that we could have as far as the other discussion that you have. I mean, we would probably be open to moving, you know, if he would buy part
of that as long as we, you know, we would be probably open to discussing that, moving ours further south as long as it's maintained. But uh I just want to make sure that we do maintain that five foot
um and it like you said it is a personal um I guess it's record you know it's recorded but it's an easement that was made between the owner. My understanding is is that the builder that built that
original house was the builder of Sunset Cove Condos and his uh there was some sort of agreement that he would be allowed to use our pool as long as he was in that house and in exchange he gave the condo association
the >> So you don't have to build a pool. >> It's my understanding that >> it's amazing the shenanigans that go on in Treasure Island. He may hold you to it. >> Man, >> especially beach is always a party. I'll tell you that.
>> What was what's what's the date on that? Uh >> 1973. >> Yeah. >> Braden, just for clarification, if this were to get approved, there is no harm to this 5 foot walkway easement. Correct. >> Correct. That's I debated whether to put
it in my staff report or not. And >> I just want to make that clear for everybody. >> We want to see this. >> It's recorded in book 4099, page 684. But >> what year? >> October of 1973, 30th day of October. >> I wasn't even born. Mark.
>> Yeah, it was a William How. >> Yeah. I I think you should go ahead and give a copy of that to the clerk uh for this case just so it's in the record. Please >> go ahead and give a cop give a copy of that to the clerk. >> Thank you.
>> My pop was here though. Maro. >> Okay. Anyone else in the audience to speak to this case? Seeing none, we will close the uh public hearing. You know, uh sideyard setbacks are tough.
you know, and I understand, my goodness, when I saw this house, it was damaged during Debbie. It was damaged even more so uh with Helen and then Milton finished it off. And I was wondering as
I looked at it, would somebody try to repair it and all of a sudden it went down. >> Um, >> and no opposition from the north from the north side. I mean, no cards, letters, or nothing. Yeah. All right. >> That's no >> letters were sent out works. >> I mean, that's that's pretty much a
brand new house to the north. >> So, >> I mean, they did they had I every house through there had some significant damage. >> I love it. >> And um >> Richard needs new neighbors. >> I'm not that close, but I do walk by
there periodically. No, like I said, sideyard setbacks are tough, but uh you know, the owner does know what kind of lot he purchased two or three years ago when he purchased it. The u
question is is you know, do we say, hey, this is a it's a hardship because it is a narrow narrow lot. The uh only trouble was back when it was purchased, everybody knew that it was a 35 ft wide
lot. Obviously, the current owner had no intention to tear this house down. Uh that goes without saying. Uh my fantasy of uh moving everything to the south and having a even bigger lot is strictly
that a fantasy. But, uh, I'd love to hear the rest of the board's comments in regard to this one. >> I think this one's just it's a reasonableness issue with regard to the hardship that was caused by the storm. And I would be in favor of both variances.
>> Only comment I have is the closer houses get together, the more they burn up on each side. I mean, we have had oh, let's see, two two fires prior to the uh two two fires recently, prior to the
storm and then during the storm, we had a couple more. Um, it does affect the surrounding properties. >> Grant, your backyard. Any comments? You good? It's >> like a typical Sunset Beach lot.
>> Okay. I have one other question. Uh >> oh. >> Go ahead and we'll see if we can answer it. Um >> previously there was a um second floor overhang where the air conditioners were. Is the new plan
>> the next >> another comment too as far as the homes getting closer together. We will have no uh mechanical equipment on the side of the homes. Everything's going on the roof. >> Oh great. Yeah. be in compliance with some of the clear clear sky things you had before between the buildings prior.
So, we kept that in mind as well. So, it's very >> and electric meter same issue. It's not going the roof, but >> yeah, it's concave. It's going inset. Yep. Okay. >> Great. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. >> This guy's good. >> Yeah. >> It's all right.
Any other comments from the board or uh could I have a motion of some some type? This is your area. >> Move that we accept um the staff recommendation for the variance for case
number 597-2026 with the two conditions stipulated. >> Okay. Uh second, please. >> Second. >> All right. A motion by Grant Smith, second by Chris Downing. >> Could we have a roll call vote, please?
Markes. I >> Valeria. I. >> Daniel Billingsley. Hi >> Ross Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> And that's the nice thing about going last. No.
Doesn't make any difference. Anyway, uh, congratulations. Go get your building permits and rebuild a house on Sunset Beach. We We have some challenges out there to say the least. Okay, moving on to the next. Well,
actually, your next case is is is you just got to approve a site plan as well. Okay, 10. Let's see where I'm at here. Okay, it's 10 site- 200026
site plan review to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. Um, if you have any comments, I think you've already made a pretty good presentation. Um, any questions from the board for the
applicant? Uh, Braden, I know you're have to make your presentation, but uh, it's pretty cut and dried at this point. >> Yeah, I'll make it quick. Uh, for the record, site-598-2026. This is a concurrent site plan review.
um for the variance is just approved for a single family residence on the west side of Gulf Boulevard. Got the pro the property located here. RM15 zoning district. Um redevelopment resulting from damages from the 2024 hurricane
season. Aerial images of the property shown here. Uh we have an overview of the site plan of the property. Some um elevations here for you guys to review. uh some renderings. The uh proposed site plan is uh
consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the intent of the RM15 zoning district um as in and is in conformance with um all applicable regulations of the zoning district with the exception of setbacks which were just approved for a variance.
um consistent with the surrounding design characteristics and meets or exceeds open space requirements as well. Um none of those criteria there. Um as far as uh public works review, that's all going to be reviewed during the public
per or the permitting process. Um and staff recommends approval of the site plan as well with conditions uh listed in the staff report. >> Okay. Anybody in the audience to speak to this site plan? >> Seeing none, um,
>> did the did the applicant have any objections to the conditions that were listed in the site plan approval? >> Um, I didn't ask the applicant specifically. I provided the staff report a week in advance. They're all very standard though. >> I see. I just want to make sure. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, chair. >> Okay, with that, we'll close the public
hearing. Uh, it's pretty cut and dried. We approved the variance, so there's no reason to not approve the uh site plan. It's a the owner knows what he's got. He's got some challenges out here on the beach. And uh the good news is he's got a nice
new sand dune in his backyard. Now, >> Richard, so that's good. >> If if you don't if you don't mind, I do want to add one thing. I kind of blew through that very quickly because we'd already talked about it so much. Uh this does include uh the con first condition is this is based off of the proposed
erosion control line uh that's pending adoption. Um so that is the number one criteria. Um this was spoken about with the applicant and the registered agent at their DRC meeting. They're aware of that. Um as a side note, I did speak to D today and we're expecting that to be
like formally adopted within the next two weeks. Fingers crossed. Great. That's good cuz there about three or four cases that are being held up >> for swimming pools just to the north of it. I know at the end of 85th. I think that guy wants to put in a pool and
other things. So that's the right answer you gave us on the adoption of the new ECL because >> wanted to make sure that was on the record. I almost forgot >> it is working out very well for the residents because some of them picked up
as much as 20 feet in their backyard. I don't I'm not sure how much you picked up in your backyard, but I think most of the properties picked up a little bit. But um with that, any other further comments or can we entertain a motion? It's >> all yours, Grant.
>> So, I move that we approve the site plan for case number I have this right. Um 598 2026 with the following with the seven conditions specified. >> Well, this one's They are.
>> So, I've got 597 and I've got 58. >> This one's 58. >> Yeah, I've got 58 on the agenda. It's 597. I have that right. >> No, no, sorry. >> 598. It's 59 >> 598. So, there's only two restated >> two conditions.
>> So, restate it. I move that we um approve the site plan associated with case number 598 2026 >> with the conditions >> with this the conditions stipulated seven conditions >> seven conditions I was looking at the wrong one too >> and Braden just to note our packet has
58 instead of 598 >> the packet's inconsistent with the >> okay I see thank you all good >> have that we got a second >> I'll make a second >> okay motion by Grant Smith. Ross, did you second that?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Second by Ross Sanchez. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Marches. >> Hi. >> Valerie, >> I. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Hi. >> Ross Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. Yes. >> Richard Harris.
>> Yes. >> Okay. I think uh we've been going at this for a couple hours. Let's take about a 10-minute break. call things back to order and we're gonna go with 10F site
00563-2025 site plan view approval for the change of use from office to eating establishment coffee shop within the PR-MU- quarter zoning district. Uh Eric Nory,
if you could make your presentation. >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for uh having me here and giving me the opportunity to speak. Um, as a dedicated investor who's committed over a million dollars to the Treasure Island Coffee Cove at 26204th Avenue and
the adjacent property, I'm driven by a passion to create a vibrant community, enhancing spaces, like uplifting changes you've seen at the car wash, the Treasure Island car wash is mine as well. I want to create an environment that people like it. It's inviting, it's nice, it's clean. Um, my goal is to
build a fun, welcoming coffee spot that fosters connections, bolsters our local economy, but the site's plan mandates to eliminate all front parking along 104th, and raises a profound concerns that I can't ignore. So, I think about the 2006
redevelopment plan, a visionary document born from extensive community input, including a 4-day design party involving residents, merchants, stakeholders, adopted via resolution 06-99. It pinpointed a critical parking
shortage in our downtown core, documenting approximately 556 surface spaces serving 180,000 square feet of buildings, yet revealing a clear deficit when analyzed against commercial demands, especially during peak evenings, events, and tourist seasons.
The plan labeled this under supply a significant stumbling block for future development, warning that without solutions, growth would stall. Far from suggesting reductions, the plan boldly abdicated increasing parking capacity
through innovative strategies, it championed on street parking as key a key element of an active and vital downtown. essential for essential for buffering pedestrians from traffic, calming streets, drawing visitors to
shops and eeries. Recommendations included angled on street spaces, which makes sense to me, especially for this property by the car wash. Um, doubling the capacity on streets like 107th Avenue, rec relocating driveways to alleys, and pursuing structured garages
embedded in mixeduse developments via public private partnerships. As the plan states on page eight, structured parking will be a key component of redevelopment success and the city may need to play some role in financing defined parking garage option options. This was about
enabling higher density pedestrian friendly growth, not diminishing access to businesses like mine. Yet requiring the removal of my front parking with very rear with very little rear rear alternative directly
contradicts what the city's been wanting to do for the last 20 years. How can eliminating these vital accessible spots align with that vision of adding fuel to the economic vital vitality and supporting business? Wouldn't preserving on street options better serve the goal,
ensuring small ventures like my coffee shop can attract quick driver visits while enhancing walkability at the same time. This misalignment isn't just frustrating, it's alarming giving our planning history. The 2006 plan was innovative and communitybacked, yet key
elements like those structured parking partnerships and district-wide approaches were never fully realized, leaving us wrestling with the same shortages two decades later. Now, as a discussions swirl around a new master plan or comprehensive plan, updating
starting in potentially 2026 and eyeballing 2050 for me personally, we confront a a tough reality. If we follow the same track record of adopting am ambitious documents without meaningful implementation, we're setting ourselves up for another non-implemented plan by
2050. Who bears the responsibility for these turning these visions into actions? And how can we evolve our codes logically to adapt to our current needs rather than repeating our past oversightes? I know our residents share a common desire. beautiful places to
visit, dine, and do commerce paired with convenient nearby parking that creates real wins for everyone, businesses, visitors, and the community alike. I've consulted with the e economic development, and such dra drastic reductions were never mentioned to me. Now, I've been at this project for well
over a year. I've got $50,000 in architectural plans and civil engineering plans drawn for a 790 foot coffee shop in a little parking area. I I I mean I'm trying my best to create a good environment and I'm I'm positive about the city of Treasure Island, but
how are my neighbors going to feel like Chris who's sitting back here with Jacqueline Salon when he sells his business and whoever buys it, they don't have any parking in the front anymore because it's all taken away. And then furthermore, I've got another building just down from the coffee shop that I'd like to create a nice art gallery and
and a boutique. But if the same measures are true for those, all my parking spaces are gone in the front of that as well. So throughout this whole period of time of me buying these properties, nobody at the economic development ever told me I wasn't going to be able to park in the front. And it's on me. I mean it that I guess that's on me, but
I'm all in on Treasure Island and ready to collaborate on solutions. Temporary parking allowances, code updates, maybe honoring the 2006 insights or incentives that bridge public and private efforts. But I can't proceed under the terms that doom the coffee shop to failure after
such heavy investments. Eliminating eliminating parking won't spark vibrancy. It could exting extinguish it. So I think we could seize the moment to recommit and honored the two 2006 plan's proven wisdom on parking as a growth enabler
ensure follow-through on future visions and build a downtown that thrives for generations. Thank you for considering these critical questions and I'm confident that we can forge a positive path together. >> Thank you, Eric. Any questions of the applicant?
>> A plus for passion. Um, Mr. Nory, um, in the packet that lists, uh, so it' be 176 for us, page nine. Um, maybe in your packet it's got six conditions listed. >> This was condition two that I was referring to.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I just want to make it clear. two is what I mean obviously I know the issue I've read that um downtown master plan four or five times all 87 pages of it um excluding number two were there but the other five let's
say are okay by you from an approval >> crazy about using my private land to create a public walkway when there could be a public walkway I think the requirement is to build a 4ft public path around in the front of what would be the parking spaces, but now they want
it to be grass, I guess, even though it was just approved to be gravel, but the city didn't have the permit. For some reason, I had to give it to them. >> Okay, hold on. Hold on one second. >> It's in the site plan. >> Oh, do we have is is there two of these?
>> That's not a condition of approval. It's just um how the site plan is configured. So, if you look at the site plan, uh what Eric is referring to is the the green space located within the public
rightway. Uh what Eric is referencing is that he he obtained permits, I believe in 2023 or 2024. I I I don't know what year off hand, uh to replace gravel over the entirety of his private property. Um unfortunately at the time
whatever time that was uh gravel was put over the abudding rightway as well and the grass was removed um for whatever reason uh the inspection was approved following that um when gravel was only supposed to be put within the private
property lines. loose loose surface material is not a permitted surface material for the public or for the right of way. Um which is that entire strip from the curb to to the property line which is listed on the site plan page 13
of the staff report. Um that is not listed as a condition of approval though. That's how the site plan was submitted. Um based on my comments though that was in response to the comments that we provided. If this board after your review, board discussion, we
make a motion for approval that removes number two. Are we still is the applicant still going to have an issue with this this this walkway this or can he just do can he modify his site
plan the way that he sees fit to invest in downtown and move forward? like do would I have would the board or who'sever making the motion have to call out removing that site plan stipulation that's on that's on the packet?
>> I'm going to ask Nancy the question. Um so specifically Nancy, what we're saying is condition one of the staff report says the completed improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans included by the applicant. If if the grass strip in the public rightway were
to be retained as gravel the way it is now and not improved with grass as it's shown on the site plan, would that be considered a substantial change of the plan or not? If so, they would need a site plan modification or it would need to be called out in approval as you
said. So yes, that is one option would be is if it were approved with the language that's currently there, they would have to come back and amend that. Um my recommendation would be that you try to perhaps um provide a little bit
more flexibility in the language itself if that is the intent of the planning board. Okay. >> To give him that option. Let's have a if it's okay with everyone, let's have the staff do their report and then we'll have a board discussion if we have to call the applicant back up and we'll do that. Everyone okay with that?
>> Yeah, thank you. >> Y >> thank you, Eric. Uh go ahead, Braden. >> Uh thank you for the record. Braden Evans, uh presenting site-563-2025. This uh is an application seeking a site plan approval for a change of use from office to eating establishment. Um, a
coffee shop is the intended use uh within the PRMU core zoning district. Uh, this is the subject property located at 262 104th Avenue located in the PRMU planned redevelopment mixeduse zoning district.
Uh, the subject property was developed in 1977 through a site plan approval as a commercial office space. Uh, the structure was built of concrete block on a raised concrete foundation with a total of 759 square ft. Uh the applicant seeks approval of a site plan review to
pursue site improvements wi improvements which support the operation of a coffee shop with no increase to interior square footage. The proposed site plan utilizes the footprint of the existing structure and proposes to construct a wooden deck around a portion of the structure for outdoor seating. The site plan also
meets all minimum criteria including dimensional uh dimensional aspects of the code, parking and landscape requirements. uh the code requires any increase to intensity through a change of use to go through a site plan review and that's
how this application became uh comes before you today. We have an aerial image of the property. Um just for reference of the previous conversation the the red line approximately indicates the private property lines. All of the right of way
uh outside of that which is uh covered in surface material gravel uh is within the right of way. >> Braden, are you doing these drone footages? Like these drone pictures? >> No, that would be cool. Not me. These these come from the property appraisers website. Our county does a great job at that.
>> Never seen them before. >> Should have taken credit for it. >> Wish I had. Um so this is the proposed site plan here. Uh the the property has a full width along a public alley uh which the required parking spaces are
provided off of the the alley uh removing the required parking spaces from the front which are currently located in the right of way as mentioned. Um for additional context in 19 I believe 76 when this project was originally permitted through a site plan
review uh the planning and zoning board at that time permitted one parking space in the front and one parking space in the rear. the front parking space was supposed to be a parallel parking space and the uh to to re prevent cars from backing out onto 104th.
You can also see here the improved deck improvements that are uh proposed around the property um with bike racks in front of the structure. In terms of uh review criteria, the proposed use is consistent with the
planned redevelopment mixeduse future uh land use designation as well as the PRMU core zoning district. Uh the purpose of this district is to increase pedestrian oriented uses and available commercial destinations within the downtown core in
approximate proximity to um existing medium-density residential uses. Additional components of the proposed site plan include aesthetic improvements, landscaping and parking increasing increasements uh which further further reinforces consistency with the intent of the LDRs as well as
the comprehensive plan. Um, as mentioned before, the site plan is in conformance with all aspects of this chapter of the code. Um, with an 82% uh proposed impervious surface ratio, an F of 0 uh 2 point 221
um a building height that's far below the maximum. Uh applicable setbacks uh in the PRMU core zoning district, the uh interior side setbacks are zero feet. Um and then the the street side setback is 9 ft which is compliant by this
standard. Uh four off- streetet parking spaces are proposed off of the alley which includes one ADA accessible space. Uh one bike rack providing five spaces for bicycle parking is required uh based on uh the proposal. Two bike racks are
being proposed uh on site by the applicant. The PRMU core zoning district was established to support economic vitality and enhance the character of the downtown core. Uh the proposed plan maintains compatibility with the surrounding development patterns uh
complementing streetscape amenities along 104th Avenue which include dedicated bicycle lanes which run along 104th A. Um and then also access to nearby design uh destinations including the uh community center park.
internal circulation uh will not be impacted heavily. Uh the uh additional parking spaces are provided off of the alley. Uh and then the provision of secured bicycle storage is sec located at the front of the property. Um, landscaping requirements are in
conformity of the code and include buffering from the rear alley loading spaces to block headlight intrusion from the like adjacent properties on the other side of 104th A. Uh, there's no public beach or
waterfront access ways impacted. No historically architecturally significant structures and no dedication of public land. any uh requirements from the public um for improvements that are required by public works would be uh reviewed during the
permitting process. FD, SwiftMUD and uh Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council wouldn't review this application either due to the minimal increase of intensity for versus the existing use. Um I know the applicant Eric Nory spoke to you extensively about condition
number two. I also spoke to him about condition number two as well. Um, it was my uh anticipation to recommend to you all today, as I told him as well earlier this week, I was want I would like to recommend that you guys remove that condition of approval from your approval
and my staff report. Um, this is something that we would consider in an instance where the property is being redeveloped significantly. Uh, the way that our code is written, any increase to intensity at all requires a
site plan review. Um, in this aspect, we would require all conformity to come into play, which would mean the, you know, non-permitted surface materials within the public right of way be removed and replaced with a conforming surface material. um through further
conversation with the applicant, uh looking into the historic layout of not only this property but the adjacent properties. Um and then understanding the the relationship between the application that was submitted for improvements previously
with the city inspections that were approved at that time. Um I I agreed with Eric's determination that it's most appropriate in this context to remove that condition of approval from this staff report. So um alongside with what he said, it's my recommendation, staff's
recommendation. Uh condition number two is removed from any approval that you guys may consider to give today. Uh with that being said, um I'm available if you have any questions. >> Go ahead, Marvin. So, if we get rid of
number two, does he have to resubmit with the parking plan or >> is that his required parking off of the alley? So, those are just Well, if you >> if he if he removes condition number two, there there would be no change. He
wouldn't have to do anything. He wouldn't have to remove those parking spaces. He could continue to use them and they would just be considered a surplus of parking beyond what he is required to have by code. >> Okay. We're trying to create less interaction
for him to move forward. At least I am. >> I would agree with that. The intent is to to make the path as easy for for the development of this rather small project. I mean, it's down to something's happening in downtown Treasure Island. It's not small. It's going to be
earthshattering. >> Agreed. Absolutely. >> This is the building next to the car wash, the little brown building. Yeah. Nice. >> What's the space? >> The brown. Brown. Yeah.
>> Where you have the sign out front. Coffee shop coming soon. >> No, that's >> further downirect. >> Right adjacent to it. Yeah. Continuous. Okay. Great. >> What's the space like on that middle boat trailer? Like what's going to be
there at the final project? Braden and Mr. Nory may have to come up to the podium if he's going to >> part of the parking spaces. >> The parking spaces are just off of the alley. >> Right right here. Just if you look at Lemon's building, they have parking all out here. We have parking all up front
here. >> Correct. >> The next building I have is right here. The same parking is out front there. Benjamin right there which has parking out front. >> So basically it would just keep parking all the way
around the way >> that that bow of that 38T contender ST. What what will be there at the end of at the end of your project? >> Uh well it will just be it'll more than likely be beautiful plants and shrubs and palm trees and okay
>> maybe a little walkway that goes through there. Okay fountain. >> That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to figure out what that space is. like that middle >> for the site plan that was submitted it. It's just gravel. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Ultimately, if I'm being completely transparent, I would have loved to have
had a whole area come all the way out in here, but that created a whole lot of other horrible roadblocks that I didn't want to deal with. And so, I would really like to have a garden out there. I was gonna say like why why can't that all be turf and loungers and >> no you guys have to tell me that because
I tried and and they the architects and everybody else says you can't do that that you can't do this you can't do that. So I was like okay tell me what I can do and I'll do it. That's what I want to do is what I can do. So apparently we're there. So amen. Thank you. >> So I'm a little confused that I would think all of that area that is gravel
could be sawed solded if you wanted to saw it. Right. >> It was it was solded. I just had it permitted to put that gravel in a year ago because I was try I was trying to I've spent 50 grand so far on plans. I had apartment plans. I had condo plans.
I had mixeduse retail. I brought everything in here so many times and met with so many people. I finally just got frustrated and said, >> "You know what? Let's see whatever we can build that we don't need any changes." And then here we are. >> Okay. >> Uh anyway, it's a lot of money and it's a lot of time and energy and I think
it's going to be great for downtown. It's going to be beautiful. It's going to be cute. It's going to be clean. It's going to be nice. >> But >> anyway, >> I don't want to speak I don't want to speak for everyone up here, Mr. Nori. What I'm what I'm trying to understand is like if you're making an investment in Treasure Island, and we know that what you've done with the car wash, which is light years better than what
what we had previously, I my preference would be to kind of help you out with what you would like. >> Um, so I love this. I mean, it's something, but you know, I I don't know. And I'm not trying to get like in an conversation or
negotiation or anything like that. I'm more >> like is make this my original plan was bring this deck all the way out here. >> That was going to be my my question is why that's >> nice trees in the middle and beautiful plants and I want to put fences all down both these sides with beautiful shrubs
and a nice walkway that goes through here that people can walk through that back alley and walk through and have picnic tables all set up. That's what I would really want. >> That's it. We would have to >> not from the audience. It's okay. >> Okay. Because my next question was going to be I my impression of this deck was
that it was for what you're trying to do probably too small and I didn't know if you were being restricted. >> I was being restricted >> to add decking to the side of this >> restricted financially. That deck was going to be $350,000. >> They're expensive. Yeah. So So is it this? So,
>> is there something that's in the way from the city for you to if you wanted to extend the deck >> further? >> Well, I wouldn't really necessarily care about extending the deck. It could stay just the way it is. But if I would love to be able to have some beautiful landscaping out there and put put nice
trees and picnic tables in an area for people. failing to maybe I'm just completely dense here, but I fail to understand under the zoning why why is there a restriction between turf or gravel or if you wanted to put lawn chairs out there? I really don't get it.
>> Unfortunately, these are conversations that were had with staff before my time with the city. I inherited this application midway through the process. I'm not entirely sure, Eric, what you're referencing. I I I can't think of anything that would preclude that type of development. Just
land >> this change of use though, right? So if if he came back with a building permit or a variance request to build that deck, we could approve that at that time. Correct. >> Or expand it. >> Uh that would have to go through a site
plan modification alongside the variance request. But yes, that that would be possible. what we're talking about landscaping though that I mean that wouldn't require any sort of approval from the board or >> if and I'm not trying to take control I
know this is your project if if if we approve this we we remove number two and we hand we figure out a conversation in regard to this grass strip so then he does not have to worry about it if he came back and let's just say in that area that's to the left of that deck and
did turf and walkway and landscaping does he have to come back to the city and and ask for anything in regards to turfing that? I mean, I'm sure he probably has to do impervious surface ratios, but if he wanted to put a patio, not patio, um, benches or tables or whatever,
>> tables, palm trees, plants, >> based on what you're saying, he wouldn't be doing permanent fixed developments. So, the only potential conflict that I could think of is something to do with flood plane, um, which has requirements for certain things that could be lifted up in the event of a flood and float
away. Um, unfortunately, that's not under my perview. >> As long as we keep it pvious service. Yeah. >> Right. You'd be incre under what you're saying, Ross, you'd be increasing the like permeable surface area of the lot. There would be no reason for us to to deny that or have any concerns with that. No.
>> Okay. All right. Yeah, I think we can you can work around that part of it and >> I mean he can do it and technically and if he gets flagged he can come back here and ask for it and we'll be like fine do you know like I mean at this point but I'm not saying that's the path to go because that's not the right way to go about it. >> You're okay with your deck at the size it is. >> I'm just saying
>> yeah I mean I'm fine with that. >> I just didn't want you to go forward feeling like you were restricted here from that deck being too small because of some other thing that we didn't get to hear here. But it's but if it's within the what you want to do financially now. >> I mean the biggest concern was that
parking in the front and okay not being able to park there and just thinking >> if that's going to be true for all those properties. I mean that's going to kill him. It's going to kill me, it's going to kill Benjamin's. It's going to it's going to hurt everybody. You have to have parking. >> So in regards to because this doesn't
show this doesn't show the parking in the front. Well, you don't you don't really see it because technically it's here. >> So, half of the parking >> No, I get that. >> It's like and it's weird because the car wash is the same thing. They made me
apply for a permit to put a handicap space in and but even though those aren't technically parking spaces, they had to get a permit. >> So, Braden, when when if if this gets cleaned up, okay, so it goes through the approval. We remove number two. if this
gets cleaned up and those parking spots that are in the front because right now it's gravel. So, he's gonna have I think pretty sure it's gravel. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking they could be gravel parking spots. >> Okay. Well, >> just like >> Yeah, those those spaces that are the
area that's green up there, those spaces were never used as parking spaces prior prior to last year that was grass space. there the spaces in front of just the building, those have been parking for decades at this point. Um,
>> how how do we give him the abil how do we give that property the ability to have parking spots in that front row >> across the entire >> width of the property? Can he pave that gravel? >> That picture. Look. >> Yeah. So, this is what I'm saying. This the these parking spaces which we're
discussing. I mean, those this picture was taken. >> I'm not talking about that one. talking about on the parcel that's next to it, the adjoining prop parcel >> further south. >> And I understand everyone that he has parking that's in the re rear. I understand that. But I'm I want to make sure that >> there's a couple considerations that I'd
want to point out. I mean, >> of course. So clearly I'm I'm new to the city, so I'm still kind of adjusting to >> uh some of the things that have happened over history. Um you're doing a great job, >> you know, and adjusting to understanding how things got to the way they are now. So, one of the things with this specific
case that uh is confusing is is how these parking spaces were all put within the right of way in general. Uh theoretically, I wouldn't as a land use planner, I wouldn't expect to look and see required parking spaces located within the right of way without some
sort of dedicated agreement between the city uh adminification of some sort. And then, you know, unless there's an existing shared parking agreement with the city that is provided, uh, as we all know, Treasure Island doesn't have a program like that. Um, so
all of these parking spaces that exist on 104th, I'm thinking of Benjamins and on those streets around there have been in place for a very long time. They'd be considered grandfathered, for the lack of a better word. Um, as far as like increasing that type of relationship
that is not considered traditional, I I would want to have further conversations with Gary Volne, the public works director who kind of oversees the right of way. Um, and then I'd kind of go ahead. >> Can I can I ask a qu I'm going to re-engineer the question. Okay. So if we remove number two, okay, we remove
number two, which obviously it states existing striping for parking spaces located within the abuing rightway off of 104th Avenue shall be removed and shall not be utilized for vehicle parking by business patrons, employees otherwise. Right. We remove that. He goes through this process. He pays his
permit fee. He does his he does his work. He puts in artificial turf, whatever. He he makes it beautiful. coffee shop, coffee shop opens up and there's cars that are parking on that spot is and then the city comes and says,
whatever. I'm trying to avoid that whole type of interaction for a new business owner in the city of Treasure Island. >> Is that is that a fair type of scenario or question to ask? >> No, absolutely. And that was that was my intention of, you know, recommending removal of that parking spaces. The
existing parking spaces that are located directly in front of the building in this area would be able to be remain remain in place at >> we're grandfathering those in kind of. >> Right. Exactly. They've been in place since the 80s. I'm you know would not recommend to remove them at this point. >> But as a part of this we're not we're
we're not as a part of this allowing parking across the rest of that area. Or are we? I think that >> that's what I'm trying to understand. If we approve the removal of two >> and then we want parking there,
>> it is not within the purview of my of a community development department to allow parking in the public right of way without an agreement I believe either from the public works department or city commission. I I would have to look and you know refer to to legal for that. But it is not within the purview of this
department to allow parking in the right of way. Removing two number two is just causing us to grandfather in those three spaces. It's not giving cart blanch across the rest of the lot. Correct.
And I'm agreeing and I think that's appropriate. I don't want to at this point without because I think it you're getting into a lot of other legal issues in terms of the rightway trying to take it ac allow parking across the entire lot. Excuse me for just one second if I
could. >> Just take note that there's people here. >> It's already there. >> Right. >> Okay. >> I agree. >> And if we agree there's a problem. >> Yeah. But he needs to work that out with
public works. >> We can't we can't do it here. >> I understand. I understand we can't do it here. So, I guess >> but you could approve it with two and and just tell people don't park there for now. It could be just the way it is. >> We'll give you the three or two or three. >> I'll tell you what, could you make a
commitment to us that maybe you come back in 60 or 90 days and you let us know how the conversations are going with the city on having parking spots line up with the rest so then we have a uniform downtown. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> Okay. I just think that that's more helpful for a small business that's
trying to >> and I definitely think you can work go ahead with landscaping the rest of the lot as long as it remains impervious or you're not decreasing the impervious space but that shouldn't be an issue. >> Give your grandkids somewhere to play around out there >> and um we need another coffee shop.
>> Any other questions? Anything else? >> That's it. No. Well, the the comment I'd like to make is, you know, the the removal of those parking spaces in front would be the kiss of death for a coffee shop. Nobody's going to want to go find these >> four or five spaces off the alley. I
mean, this is prime example of us who've lived here a long time of why that subway failed so quickly when it was relocated. It's all about convenience, especially with a coffee shop. So >> subway
>> I agree 100% that we ought to uh remove number two with that. Um >> Braden uh you have finished your presentation. We have two cards here. >> Yeah. Uh Mark Hoey. >> Mark Hoey.
>> Drum roll. >> Mark Hoey. 225 104th Avenue just caddy corner to the property we're speaking of. I'm here to speak in support of what Mr. Nory is trying to accomplish and and
again having heard all the rigomearroll he's gone through. I'm really proud he's doing that because it'd been easier just to knock it down and put more boat storage which is a shame but that's what it would have actually been based on all
these rules. But he has done a great job of upgrading that little strip uh with the car wash and keep the rest of the properties clean. Uh yes, it had grass on it before he owned it, but it was full of trash and people parked their
junk cars on it before. So I think he's going in the right direction. But it is a conundrum though that in trying to take a step forward, we open up the can of worms of the unbridled development that was there 50 years ago,
Richard, that allowed the rightway to be just used as parking spaces. So some point, someday we'll have to deal with that. For now, I think it's the right thing that you all are trying to do is to accommodate him so he can put something better on that property. So thank you.
>> Thank you. Mark, I also have a card here from Sean Burn. >> Love the positivity. >> Good afternoon, board. I think everybody knows who I am. Uh the pirate square, the shopping center downtown. Um I can absolutely relate with the frustration
and the aggravation of the code. I think you guys have all heard that before. Um I just like to kind of go through how we got here in my opinion. Like Eric not having development experience, buying a piece of land.
What else was he supposed to do? He kind of goes meets with the economic developer, like just let's put everybody in your own shoes here. Like you go, you buy a piece of land. You're like, "What do I do? I want to make it a coffee shop. Seems reasonable. Doesn't seem very unreasonable." And instead, he spends a year going through the spin
cycle. And no offense to staff, I know you're new, and I think you're doing a good job. Just for the record, you know, your hands are tied. the code is very detailed and I've made that clear already. I don't want to beat that to death, but he went and met with economic development, you know, and then all of a sudden he gets to finally the staff
final approval and it's like surprise, here's your recommendation list. And it's like none of that ever comes up in a year in advance. I can absolutely relate to that aggravation. And not to be like overly critical of the city because I don't mean this in a bad way, but I think we have to recognize the
problems in order to improve on them. And and one of the things that I think is a big problem is it seems like nobody the communication gets lapsed somehow some way between the private and the and the development of the commercial aspect, right? Residential is easy. You build a new I mean I say easy. You build
a new house, it's you know, we have a lot more of that. The commercial obviously is kind of had a lack of attention. And so it seems that the detailed analysis or the backup information is missed until the last minute after a year worth of planning. I
don't know that Eric if you were to say when you started this would you would you have said I'm going to spend would you have said yeah it's going to be 50 grand to get to here. I don't know that you probably would have agreed to it. You kind of got roped into that and then you're pot committed at this point. It's like what else am I supposed to do? I'm
already spent 50 grand. So this is a problem. I know this board, I've watched this board over and over. Everybody's saying like, why do the business owners not come forward? Here's your case and point. So, the question is, what are you going to do about it? And thank you very much for listening. But that's there's
your case and point of why people aren't coming forward. And just to remind you, this is a change of use. This isn't a new building. This isn't this is just a change of use. A building that's there. And so, just things to think about. We got to get to the root cause. We can't just fix the symptom,
right? If we don't get to the root cause, Treasure Island just keeps deteriorating and that's kind of what's happening. And thank you, Eric, for taking the time to try to make this happen. It's a nice improvement to the city. >> Thank you, Sean. Anybody else uh in the
audience speak to this case? >> Sure, you can fill one out later. >> Hi, I'm Jordana. Um I think I just wanted to touch on one thing. There was mention where we did changed part of the rightway area back to grass. Is there
any opportunity here to remove that requirement and leave it as is as gravel? >> Was it one of the conditions? >> It's not a condition, but it was a requirement to um update the site plan to show the portion of the gravel that
is currently I mean currently gravel to switch that out and and change it to grass. Braden, if it's not a condition and we approve the site plan, I mean, because it doesn't say in here, it doesn't have a condition in here that the site plan's approved with the mandate that they have to remove the
gravel and put grass. So, >> yeah, that was my question to Nancy previously. It's just because the the site plan that's included in the staff report shows the grass and there's the condition that says improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans included. Uh it was you know the
question being does changing gravel to grass is that considered substantially inconsistent or not? >> Great question. >> So the purpose of the gravel is to be impervious right or pvious right would
also perform the same policy or function. >> Yeah. So I I mean it'sually similar >> and then to to further reference that the impervious surface ratio does not count space outside of the private
property which is the space that we're speaking about in the right of way. Um that requirement was only put in there to bring the property into compliance uh for the portion of public right of way that was improperly uh surfaced with in you know
non-permitted materials uh previously in time. So it wouldn't affect the impervious surface ratio at all because the the ISR is only calculated for the private property. So allowable materials in the right of
way include gravel. It >> does not include gravel. It cannot be a loose surface material. >> Interesting. >> What are we supposed to do? >> So is it is it possible that >> in in our um our statement here that we
can remove that request if we approve the site plan? Can we can we honor her request and remove the site plan requirement that it be grasped? >> I do have a previous site plan provided
by the applicant if if if it's agreeable with the attorney. I suppose we could replace that amendment or that condition of approval to say that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans dated and then
include whatever date that version was, which only I I'd have to go back and check to make sure that >> No, it's January 27th of 2026. So, you're saying that there perhaps is a different plan um with a different date. I I would have to go back and look and
make sure there were no other changes on that of course because multiple comments could have been addressed at one time. Um but >> that means that would be have to be a nonloose surface that was included in that plan. >> Can we make a site plan? Can we make a condition that says that the current the
current gravel that's laying on the property is if allowed to remain >> at the owner's discretion or >> um >> that's along 104 you can put it in there and you know if if staff when when they
go and actually try to go get their permit I mean they would have to make their decision at that point if it's consistent with the requirement ment that you're putting in there. I don't really have a problem with it. >> Okay. Do you have a problem with it?
>> We would be okay with that. >> I mean, we'll try. We're going to give it a whirl. >> Give it and then and then you'll fight that one another day. >> Yeah. I mean, >> maybe I'll have to come back. >> Okay. >> Could we could we ask that ground cover
to include existing gravel? So, >> I don't know if I understand that question mark. >> Well, it says >> it it says replace with grass or ground cover. And could could we say that ground cover? >> Oh, that's in the >> for this case could include
>> gravel. I that's the point is you can't from what I understand you can't have loose surface in the right of way. That's that's the issue. I I don't think we could I don't think we could do that. Could you leave it vague and just say suitable material?
And if it's it can't be gravel, maybe it could be something else that >> could be pavers, whatever. Yeah. >> If there's an unsuccessful attempt to grow grass, >> don't get into the weeds too far. >> No pun intended. >> All right, let's give this a Let's give this a whirl. >> I think we can do this.
>> I think we got a shot. You're going to do it. >> Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this case? >> Yeah, >> I don't think I created the problem. Air created the problem by buying a piece of property in Treasure Island. >> Seeing none, we're improvements public hearing
>> rightway would need a permit. >> No, my comment is >> rightway permit. >> This coffee shop >> and it needs convenience. If you force these people to park behind off that alley, like I said earlier, that would be the kiss of death. So situation is is
remove number two and uh I think keep it that simple. Yeah, >> keep it that simple. >> I think this whole issue with the ground cover, it's just that the ground cover is there. It's a requirement that you do some sort of ground cover which laying down sod whatever it's not a big deal
and just that way it >> go ahead. >> But again, I'm not trying to Yeah. If we're we're here to approve the because site plan is a part of the approval, correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. In our document, the one that's
submitted 120 or whatever, the site plan shows like he called out, it says that indicates the existing, it's cut off and be removed and replace with grass or ground cover. So, if we just go with that, he's going to run into a problem. >> He's going to have to put something
there. That's true. But there's already something there that's sufficient, >> right? >> It's just gravel right now, >> right? >> It's larger gravel. >> Okay. >> Like you can park on >> It's got boat There's boats parked on it. >> Mhm.
>> I'm just saying I'm not trying to >> So we would put And >> I'm hoping that the staff can give you some language that allows this to >> I think we can delete that item. >> Imagine if you were trying to build something inside this town and what kind of headaches they'd be having. Well,
something big. You get into the situation of what the downtown redevelopment plan that you're so familiar with >> where the parking has to be behind >> and reference >> in retail. That is the kiss of death. >> I I have no problem just eliminating
that one plant and just we can we can handle it that way. Put it as a condition. >> I think I got it. I think I got it. >> If you just do it that way, I have no problem. >> I'm going to give it a whirl. I hope that they're not going to come after me because they're already doing that. Um, Ross, before you do that, there is a
requirement that they get some type of right-of-way permit. >> If they're going to do a solid material, like if you're if he's going to put down like pavers or or like pave at all in the right of way, that that would be different. I mean, if he's just putting down sod back to But I mean, if he's doing work in the right of way, I just
want that to be clear like >> Well, that's a permit issue, right? >> Right. I just want to make sure the applicant knows that, you know, so Eric knows that. It's like if there were like act if there was actual construction going on whether they're you know pouring concrete or >> is that being >> No,
>> I don't know. I don't remember who said pavers. I just remembered I heard pavers and I just wanted to make sure that >> park on the gravel. But if he put if he makes it grass >> could cars could technically just pull up there and park on the grass, right? I mean that's another thing. That's right. >> Isn't that going to be part of the permit that's provided? So my thought is
maybe at the time when he goes to get his rideway permit there could be additional discussion of the type of material that could be used. So why can't we just say >> maybe they give him the rightway permit now with the existing material which is kind of the direction you guys are going
>> rightway again the right of way is not in the purview of CDD like I can't I that is off my hands that is public works I do not and I think >> do those other just out of curiosity do those other parcels have right-of-way permits >> that is what I said is the complicated
part like historically no but it's you know at this point it's I I as land use planner I can't use the precedent of well they did it 20 years ago so we can do it today. >> Um they did it 50 years ago. Whatever
the case is that we can do it today. I've only worked for the city for 90 days at this point. >> That's my scope of purview in the sense that for the time that I'm with the city I'm >> I think what I've heard you say is that the condition would require um getting a rightaway permit. So that could be one
of your conditions and then at that point they could discuss the type of material that would be most suitable. >> Does anyone know how hard it is to get a rightaway permit in this town? Like is >> it's not that hard. >> I would suggest that we just keep it simpler by
permitting process for non-communication projects. I mean, for the purposes of this permit, all we all this site plan, I should say, for this site plan, we can as this board just simply eliminate that comment about the need to do anything in
that area. Just leave it alone. >> Get rid of number two >> and get rid of number two. Right. >> Comment >> and that comment on the site plan. And okay, after that, whatever he wants to do in the future to improve that would require a right-of-way permit.
>> Okay, that's how I'd approach it. He's not going to like that. >> Well, >> I mean, I I'm in the market to like get this coffee shop open. I think we all could use some after this meeting. Anyways, my I just don't want to create any more hiccups for for Eric. My my concern is that there's a condition of
approval that says improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans included dated eliminate. So you're going to eliminate that comment from one. My next question for legal is can you guys approve a site plan without a site plan attached? You have to have something
>> I the site plan is here. I'm just eliminating that that comment from the site plan. >> Not that entire >> I'm I'm editing the site plan. >> Can you edit an attachment? >> I got it. Can you edit my Okay, then that that's the answer then. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do that. >> No, I got what I wanted.
>> One of the proposed conditions to the approval. >> Great. I'm going to give it a whirl. >> I mean, Mark Hoey approved this thing. >> We may as well approve this thing. >> Priorite. >> Yeah. >> On the a prior site plan. >> I don't want to go >> with the site plan.
>> The site. So now we're back to that with the the >> the completed improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans included by the applicant prepared by the architects dated >> 12726 with the edit that in the front
lefthand corner on page 13 they can remove the area indicates existing gravel and row to be to be removed replaced with grass or ground cover that can be redlined. That would that's how I'm going to read it for number one.
>> That's and include something about an the applicant will go in for a rightway permit. That way he's dealing directly. It takes it out of Braden's hands and it puts it in the hands of public works. >> That will be less headaches. >> Yeah, that's what I think. Y for it. All
right. You're okay with that, right? >> It could be asphalt also. I would pay to have it asphalted. We will let you deal with when you go to get your right away permit. >> We'll let >> we'll let you deal with that. >> Yeah. Just just be very careful with
paving things because all of a sudden you're going to get under the purview Florida water management district and >> I I can see the reasoning for the right of way because of car like the length of the parking spot. I can see that they want >> it goes into lots of issues. >> I do just want to point out currently the city of Treasure Island has no right
ofway permit process for non-communication facility like projects like only for like putting in telephone poles and whatnot. Uming this came into play recently with the rally gas station when they needed some work. They're going to have to do some sideway work on
108th. We don't have a right-of-way process in our public works department for non-communication projects. So now that that's come up, I'm developing that permit process right now through our department. But I just want to let Eric know that that's something that we're currently developing. So there may not be an answer for him today.
>> And I don't think you're because I think he can move forward without this. >> Right. Right. I just want to put that on the record and I because I know you've been waiting and I want to make sure that you can go forward, but with no more potential roadblocks or unknowns. >> Like we're good. >> 90 days and you're just crushing it, man. I love it. >> Okay. >> Before someone changes their mind.
>> I'm not changing my mind. >> Let's put it this way. We're uh no other uh public comments. We're going to close the public hearing. I think we beat this thing to death. >> We want to make sure that uh we can do everything that we can do to make this
coffee shop successful. And the key word here is convenience. >> Nobody wants to go park behind the building to go get a cup of coffee. You want to pull in, get your cup of coffee, and leave. So, with that statement, Ross, why don't you make a uh your
motion that you're talking about uh removing comment number two and whatever else you had in mind. >> I appreciate that, Richard. I thought we were going to talk about Bay Plaza and you live in Sunset, but we we'll get this knock knocked out right now. >> Oh, jeez. You bust. >> Here we go. In regards to case number
SIT- 000563-2025, the location at 262 104 100th a 104th Avenue in Treasure Island, Florida. Um planning as a planning and zone uh planning and zoning board member. I will make a motion that this
uh does meet all the criteria set forth in treasur code of ordinances and consistent with the comprehensive plan and set forth quasi judicial hearing record uh included in the application staff report um and other and other record evidence and testimony presented
and discussed at the hearing. And I am going to move to approve with conditions um that are listed on our packet um number one but with the edit that and I'm going to read the I'm going to read condition number one and I'm going to
put the edit in the the completed improvement shall be sustain substantially consistent with the plans included by the applicant compared by Lefonte Wilson architect stated 127 2026 six
with the edit that on page 13 of their um site plan that the area where it shows on the bottom lefthand corner, the area that indicates existing gravel and row be removed and replaced with grass
or ground cover be redlined or eliminated from the site plan and add that the applicant will work with the city for a right-of-way permit. Condition number two, I'm excluding 100% from the conditions and then I will
follow in with allowing conditions three, four, five, and six that are listed inside of our packet. >> I'll second. Okay. Motion by Ross Sanchez, second by Chris Downing. Could we have a roll call vote? Markes
I. >> Valerie, I Daniel Billingsley. Hi. Ross Sanchez. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Chris Downey. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Go build your project.
>> Look at that. Congrats, Eric. >> All right. >> Okay. >> We're investing in Treasure Island. >> We're up to the last one. Uh 10G variance V-00599-2026. Approval of a variance request to
section 68-541 granting a 3-foot variance to the side required sideyard setback for the construction of a new municipal master pump station. Okay. Can the applicant approach the podium and make
your case? >> Of course, the applicant is the city. >> That would be us. Um Gary may make his way down here. Um, I don't think he was necessarily going to, but he might pop in. Um, would you like me to proceed then? >> Proceed, please.
>> We need a put new pump station. >> For the record, Braden Evans, uh, presenting V-00599-2026. Uh, the city of Treasure Island is seeking a variance to allow a three-foot encroachment into the required sideyard setback for the construction of a new municipal master pump station. The
setback uh required for this interior sideyard is 10 ft. What's being proposed for this plan is 7 ft which is a variance of 3 ft resulting in a magnitude of 30%. The subject property is located at 262.
That that is incorrect. I apologize. Uh on along 108th Avenue uh it is zoned within the transportation TU zoning district. It's that blue parcel right there with 120 on it. Uh we've got a larger scope aerial view
of the entirety of the municipal owned parcels uh adjacent to 1208th Avenue. Uh here we go. Uh in that yellow box there, that is the pump station in question. Uh surrounded
by an approximate property line um bordered in red. Uh so the existing master pump station sustained damage following the 2024 hurricane season. Uh the public works department is currently seeking to develop a new and more resilient master
pump station which will be elevated above the flood plane and one that utilizes the existing underground utility connections. Uh the existing facilities um in place the existing master pump station needs to remain functional until the new master pump
station is completed. Uh this limits the total building area available on the property during construction. Uh downtown parcels in the PRMU core and the PRMU Gulf zoning district which these uh the municipal lot have an
interior side property setback of zero feet. Zero lot line setback on interior side lots. And then the adjacent properties um to this lot are under consideration for future redevelopment activity or opportunities um on with the
city. And then uh this orange boundary that we see here is the proposed location of the uh new master pump station which is the subject of today's application. Uh we have a uh site plan here which
shows the developments with a staircase on the east side. Um, and then where that small but hopefully visible red arrow is, that is the proposed 7 foot setback from that uh westernmost interior side property line.
We have some uh isometric schematics of the pump station here. Um part of what you're seeing is the existing underground facilities um which is one of the um obstacles which is preventing
freedom of placement of location of the master pump station. It has to utilize the existing underground utilities. So there's very limited opportunity to put it elsewhere on the lot in combination with the existing structure not needing not being able to be removed until the
new structure is completely functional. Um also considering that minimum clearance is required for safety of construction workers um and staging of construction materials and whatnot from the existing structure between the two uh which is resulting in in in these
several hardships uh which prompted this variance. Uh our department has determined that the variance is in fact uh a variance that can be requested and approved by this board. Uh the need for a master pump station uh to be in proximity to the existing underground connections
while also allowing the existing pump station um are you know consider the special conditions and circumstances uh peculiar to this lot and the development on this lot which justify a variance. Um strict application of these developments
uh would not allow efficient use of city-owned property um and also would not allow insurance that the uh required construction phasing standards are met. Uh the peculiar conditions resulting in the hardship are created by the technical and construction standards
which require that updated master pump station is in near proximity to the existing uh while making use of underground utility connections. uh and it has been determined that the variance has been determined to be the minimum variance that allows efficient
use of space while enabling the development of the public surface uh service improvements. Um I I can speak on behalf of Gary since he's not here. He tried very hard I know to get that setback to be um a little bit less. Uh from my understanding, the the
engineering consulting firm Kimley Horn that made these plans really insinuated that this is the best that they could make do in order to make the uh allowable space that's needed between the two structures during construction to you know proceed with those requirements. So 7 ft is what we settled
uh on based on the engineering uh recommendation. Uh the project includes a redevelopment of public utility services which will in provide an increased benefit uh through continuity of services to the entirety of the city of Treasure Island and the existing uh neighborhood context and
neighborhood character. Uh the master pump station is is already in place here um at a at a near close proximity to the proposed site. Um and the adjacent parcels have an interior side setback of zero feet. So we're still, you know, providing greater buffering than what
is, you know, applicable to the immediately adjacent zoning districts. Uh the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general intent of the code, uh which is to improve public health, safety, and the general welfare of the city of Treasure Island and its people.
Uh there's no evidence that the proposed variance will create adverse impacts to the adjacent parcels or the surrounding neighborhood. Uh the resulting setback of 7 ft isn't anticipated to be injurious. um specifically to the western most parcel which is Rally's gas station. Um their proposed site plan
which this board approved um uh doesn't would not have any conflict uh propo based on this proposal. Uh overall the project will provide a net benefit to the city of Treasure Island. Uh so with all that being said, based on the criteria um outlined, staff's
recommending approval of this three-foot variance to the required side yard setback for the municipal master pump station. I'm available if you have questions. >> Any questions? >> Yes. Got
um I there's no measurement that shows the setback. I mean I couldn't find it anywhere. Did I miss it or something? I mean, I'm assuming it's 7 ft, but you'd think you'd have a measurement somewhere. >> I think because there's no site plan, >> huh? >> There's no site plan. >> It's right here. >> This is the site
>> pages. >> There's not drainage on it. >> There's like there's a whole bunch. >> It's a project set site plan at this point. is not a >> yeah I I mean we we use this based on only the you know in
the impacted areas of the property being part of this application I suppose so the site plan shows the impacted parts of the property I also have a phasing plan which shows more in depth I maybe just didn't include this in my presentation but >> it's just I looked all over the place I
couldn't find it there's like >> there's no dimensions well there's a few dimensions >> I mean it's tough because it's like you don't I mean obviously the staff is going to be on board with it because the staff's also the applicant. It's not like Braden could be like you guys should deny this because >> I mean then he'd have crosshairs when
he's at the water cooler. >> There is one dimension on here and you could scale it off of that if you had >> that's just for that that's not for the entire parcel. There's not even a survey attached, >> right? I apologize if I and to be perfectly honest with you, the plans
sent by Kimley Horn, it's very clear that they were sent by an engineering firm because they're 60 pages long and have a lot of uh types of graphics that me as a land use planner are not familiar to me. So, if I did not simple, >> I had to parse out the the pages that I
thought were most relevant to include in the staff report. Um, I also have realized that I'm not great at using Granicus, which I discovered today in this meeting, which resulted in not all of the attachments that I wanted included in my published agenda to be
included in my publish published agenda. Um, so let me skim through what was provided to me by Gary because I'm very confident that those site plans exist and if they were not in my publish. >> Okay, good. Oh, great. We're good. I'm
just glad that there's actually an odor control system being put on this at the same time. That's >> Why wouldn't there be >> new pumps, >> believe me. >> What's the timeline on this? Do you >> What's the p You said 220.
>> Page 220. And it does give a dimension of 7'0 in. And it's hard to see. There's no doubt about it. But it goes right back to the control building. And if you look real close up on the screen there, you can see it.
>> It goes, it's above the red arrows. >> Oh, I see it. Yep, it's right there. >> Was there any comments or responses for the from the adjacent properties? >> Um, mailings were sent out. Um, no. >> No response. >> I understand that, but that that is just for
>> that's just the setback. >> That's just the setback. I mean, if could you imagine? I mean, >> it's not a full site plan because we're only looking at one drawing out of the whole engineering. That's >> okay. >> I mean, it's just >> like you said, there's 60 drawings in
this engineering set, right? >> Can you imagine if somebody came into this district and was like, "Oh, >> oh, if it was a commercial asking for this, we would ask for more." Right. >> Fair enough. Are you weirded out because
there's no grading plan? >> We run everybody else through. >> Oh, I agree with you. >> We run everybody else through the whole process. And >> so from my understanding, this would still require a site plan review. All we're approving today is
>> because the city will need to pay for plans to be drawn up. If the variance is not approved, the building is, you know, the city is not going to. So I believe it's this week honestly that Gary's bringing an item forward to the
commission on their agenda for you know to hire to move forward. So >> so this is just for the variance. You're not approving the development of anything like this is from my understanding just so that plans can be developed and then approved through a site plan.
>> So does a site plan come through this board for approval? >> Correct. Just to add on to that, um, we actually do have a lot of that stuff, the drainage grading plan. We have all that. We just have not reviewed it because this is simply just the variance, >> right? Get through this part first.
>> You have it. >> And this board will see a site plan for this parcel of land. >> Yes. Okay. Just required just like everybody else. >> But the fire the there's buildings that are on 108th that have been put in,
those didn't require a site plan or drainage. I need to look into that because last my understanding is those were like temporary buildings. I'm not sure if that would require the actual site plan. >> Come on, Ross. They are temporary buildings. >> Okay. I'm just saying it's like the
rule, you know, >> I got you. >> There's rule. I mean, >> an emergency, >> right? >> I'll get chief um yeah, trip on that one. And >> no, I I listen I'm I'm I get it. Where are we in sequence here? I'm
>> with you. All right. Thank you. >> Okay, we got one card uh in regard to this. It's Mr. Sean Burn. >> Oh, >> good afternoon. Um, first I'd like to say thank you all for your volunteer work. I know that's
kind of underappreciated sometimes because uh I know you guys all volunteer. You don't get paid. So, I appreciate all you do. um variances normally have to have a burden of proven of a hardship and I don't that I don't believe it's not that I don't believe we
don't have a hardship here but it seems to be vague. I don't see anything that I would have to bring forward to show that there's a hardship here. So it seems a little bit biased and just not trying to be
applicant as the city. Um the second thing is is I know um I asked Jimmy Jesse Miller earlier and I think you guys kind of were leading on to that. Is there a site plan application? And the answer is not yet. So normally like when you get a variance package as you guys know there's a site
plan application that normally runs right in front of it. So you get the site plan application it's contingent it's tied to the variance right? So the variance is contingent on that site plan. The reason for that is because um essentially the reason for requesting a
site plan application is because it details the drainage plans, the surveys, the impervious surface ratio, the floor area ratio, the any existing easements, square foot of the building, building setback, seaw wall height, fill dirt, elevation certificates, building height.
I mean this thing could be 60 ft high under the code. So traditionally this process as you know is a site plan comes first then followed by a variance request can be on the same meeting but normally that's the process because you tie it to the site plan.
>> Richard I believe you mentioned earlier side setbacks multiple times in a meeting is more concerning as it affects surrounding properties. I don't know that that's been addressed here, but I don't know how you can improve a variance without tying it to a site plan
application. To my knowledge, this procedure has never been done in this city's history before. You can say, well, it's going to be the proposed pump station that you see here, but that's not what you're approving today. To be clear, you're approving a
setback change that is not tied to any building. Period. Okay. So, be clear that you are proving a sight back a setback change. I don't even show you my house, but you're going to give me a setback change. It's a little pro bit of a problem, guys. I'm just trying to
point that out. I don't think you can approve this variance. But if you do, then will you do the same for others with no sight plan or a drainage plan? Because they made me go through a full drainage plan on the parking lot before I could even get to this board to say, "Hey, let me just talk to you guys." I
requested 20 minutes at a commission meeting and I was shut down. I could only get five minutes of public comment and it's I mean I know it's not ideal for staff. I know they're working on it. I know it's complicated, but the rules have to be fair and this is a problem that we're not dealing with in Treasure
Island very well. Um I uh without a full detailed site plan, including engineered drainage plans, I just don't see how you can approve it. and thank you for listening to my consideration. Um, but in closing, I'd
like to say, and I'm sure Eric can relate to this, staff emails come through and it basically starts off in the title. This is an incomplete application. That I mean, I've gotten it a thousand times. This is an incomplete application. >> Thank you. Well, Sean, the one comment I
will make is on page 220, which seems to be the uh best document we have here. It does show the control building. >> And so, it's not a site plan application. So, you're >> it's it's not a site plan application, though. So, you're not so basically if
you approve this and then Kiman Horn says, "Hey, that building doesn't work. We're going to change it." There's nothing that you can do. You've approved it. It's done. The setback is now three feet. And I don't know that you're doing justice to the neighboring property. I don't know the neighboring property, but if it was my neighboring property, I'd
be throwing a fit, just to be clear. And it's never been done like this. I don't believe if they verify, but the city has never done this procedure. So again, this is just >> opening up areas that we probably shouldn't be opening.
>> Well, take a look at page 220. Just to clarify, Sean, so your point is that we should be very diligent in following the process. >> Absolutely. That's what we do for everybody else, right, Grant? >> Yep. >> I know what you're saying, Sean.
Unfortunately, we're also under the gun because this pump station as it currently exists, I think, is in the range of 50 to 60 years old. So anyway, today we are approving a >> where we where are we in sequence here?
Are we at >> public comment? Well, I'm not sure. >> We're still at public comment. >> All right. >> Have not closed the public hearing yet. And Sean's wearing wearing out his uh time. >> No, you're good. I uh I understand the urgency, but obviously I think you all
know the history. I've had a lot of urgency as well, and nothing's been considered. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I just mean that factually. Thank you. >> Fair enough. >> Okay, Gary, since you're here now, do you have any comments you'd like to make?
>> Well, you know, I I can appreciate uh the resident's concern about us trying to make some progress here. Move timely. Um the request for the stairs to be located on the opposite side of the elevated platform was a last minute uh
uh item. The uh uh contract uh the consultant has made those adjustments to it. Um I believe he said three foot setback. It's going to be seven feet. We're asking for a three-foot reduction. Correct. Right. >> So it wasn't three. It's going to be seven feet. And uh
>> the plans have been completed. Um they weren't part of the package, but they Braden has a copy here. Um the uh uh what else was I gonna say? Um you know the you know when we talk about hardship or not um we have a fairly large
structure that's in the yellow box there that we have to basically keep in operation while we're constructing um a fairly uh complicated structure. It's mainly underground. It's a 12ft diameter wet well. It goes down many feet. There's going to be a large hole there.
Excavation, trying to keep that as far away as we can from the existing master pump station, keeping everything running. Um, there's a there's a Tiko, excuse me, a Duke uh power transformer located right in the entrance driveway that we have to keep in operation. We've
got to build a new transformer. There's a lot of underground things there. So, it's not quite the same as just moving our footings over or something like that. It's a pretty complicated project. Personally, I'm extremely nervous about it because it's it is got to be it's it's got to be done right and the
transition when you're transferring that kind of flow um it things can go wrong. We've designed it so that will not happen, but it's it's a it's a fairly like I said complicated piece of construction and uh I appreciate your consideration of us tightening up the
site a little bit there. And and so it would it be fair to say that you know the the design engineer on this is who has stated that because of these circumstances that the minimum setback that he can make this work is using seven feet and
not 10 ft. That it's an in it's really the hardship here is really due to the site circumstances and what he is able to do from an engineering point of view. And that's what they he has recommended. That's what I heard earlier.
>> Well, from an engineering point of view and a safety point of view, a lot of cranes out there, there's a lot has to happen in between the property line there and the yellow box. And so, so >> kind of we're trying to split the difference a little bit, right?
>> You know, he had it originally five feet and we pushed it back. >> Okay. So if we asked for it, we could have something in writing from that engineer of record here to state that as to as why the variance off of 10 ft was needed
to make this project go forward if needed. >> I I don't think I I personally don't see why it's necessary. We're not talking about a structure. This is actually a a platform that would not even be elevated if it wasn't for the flood zone that we're in. I know that other construction does have to take that into account in
terms of either mechanical equipment and things like that. It is mechanical equipment. That's what we're talking about. >> Um I would put it up in the air, but >> yeah, you know, I'm just trying, you know, for the record having, you know, there there's a a reason for only making it 7 feet. It's the engineer of record
that has stated that that's what's needed. That's probably good enough for me. >> I'm not the engineer of record, but I'd rather have it five feet off the property line. I mean, that's what we, you know, because of of the difficulty there. But >> so, I mean, >> we're trying to compromise here,
>> but you're also putting it closer to a gas station. >> I understand that the pumps that are on the other side. I mean, the reason why when I first saw this and was looking at the pack, I'm like, "Oh, where's the site plan?" It's I don't see this as the whole thing. I mean, could you move it to the right? I mean, looking at that
picture, could you put it over to the right hand side and build it within the code that's there? Well, we don't know what's happening with the rest of the that parcel. >> I mean, what is going there? >> Well, if you look in the extreme right corner, lower right corner, the red
polygon, there are three Duke transformers there also. And it feeds quite a bit of that area. >> And and right now, I'm go ahead and just point. We've got transformer here and over here. We're having to move this one
over here and try to consolidate the Yeah, this is this is a tough project. >> I understand that it's a convenience factor. >> I I don't think this is about convenience. I think this is about health. It's about practicality and health and safety. >> They said it was convenience because of the building it
>> I'm sorry that >> I didn't use the term convenience. >> No, I don't think it's convenience. >> Safety. >> I think this is an engineer. It's an engineering issue. That's why I guess I'm get I was getting to the point, you know, the not a request per se, but at something on the record here that we can
put our hat on that says, "Yeah, we agreed to this 7 foot or the three-foot variance because the engineer of record said this is what's going to be required to get this project done." >> Did the fire, you know, safely? >> Did the fire department sign off on this
getting moved closer to a gas station with gas pumps and the parcel right next to it? I mean, what if this what is the what if this pump station catches fire? >> Well, the thing is >> and now we're as a board we've moved when we talk about safety now we moved a
mechanical building >> closer, >> right? So that's why I think from a reasonleness point of view, moving it from 10 ft to 7 feet is a reasonable thing for this board to do so long as the engineer of record has stated this is what's required to get this project
done for the city. I mean, anything can happen. I don't think I've ever in my life heard of a pump station catching fire, especially when it's underground. The only thing that's elevated is concrete columns, a slab, and and and a a concrete electrical room. That's all that's there. There's nothing really
combustible there. But if you know, if if that's the argument, that's >> it's not that it's an argument. It's more of just this is interesting because we're only looking like I don't usually we get the survey. We get the entire parcel of land where a project is going
on. It's just it's just different. It's a different packet than I'm used to reviewing. >> You didn't get a copy of the site plan >> just for the area. >> So is it is the encroachment just for the set of stairs on the sides? >> No, it's the bu it's the elevated
platform on the left hand side. Can you put the other figure up at all or I don't >> Once again page 220 >> are we bringing in I mean does this have any type of fill dirt or anything like that when it I mean we protecting our M
you know the stuff that we're I guess this is just a variance request but >> exactly that's correct site plan will come later >> and I I think given the complexity of what has to happen here to keep one station pump system working and get the other one up and running in the long run
and all of the issues around the electrical feeds to this that I'm putting my trust that the you know the city is working with the engineer to get this done in a in a safe way and is and the only thing I guess I would want as a
part of this as a condition is that the engineer of record actually state that this was necessary in the record. >> Yeah. I and Ross to the entire board. I I apologize if I didn't make that um perfectly clear or I guess I didn't
state it expressly at all. Yes, the intent of today was just to approve the variance with the in for Gary to take that forward and put these plans into motion as far as I mean I assume the you know contractor needs to be hired and put things into
place to get this rolling. Um and then once that final site plan is developed, it would then come back to you for that site plan approval. Uh and this would just say that, you know, give the city direction, public works department direction that they can continue with those plans and they intend to develop
the master pump station in that location as shown on page 22 as as uh Richard Harris pointed out um in that location and then the rest of the site can be developed around that uh up to code and would be reviewed during a site plan review. Well, can we put that as a
condition in here then that it is substantially similar to the attached project site plan? >> That is a condition. >> It is a condition already. >> But the other option you have would just to make it subject to approval of an approved site plan that would then come back to you at a later time.
>> That's fair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That and again that that's a condition of approval that I typically would have put in and unfortunately for me and for this board I did not include that on the staff report. satisfied. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> And one other thing to remind everybody, usually in a commercial district, setbacks can be zero. I mean, it could be a situation where between the rally station, which is a commercially zoned piece of property, and this piece of
property, which is institutional city-owned property, it could have a zero setback. situation is right there on that page. It shows seven and I don't have a real problem with it. Uh because
I've seen a lot of commercial districts and you have seen them too where the buildings are slam up against each other. So with that um we will close the public hearing and um any discussion or can we get a motion
to approve this >> subject to >> I guess if we put the second one that's really what you're asking >> subject to uh site plan >> returning to this board >> but >> for approval >> for approval. >> Does that make sense?
>> It it does. It's just completely reverse on what we're used to. the the only thing that I'm struggling with. So, but at the same time, I don't want to be I don't want to be attacked because I was not for the pump station to go forward. >> And I know that Gary's done great work for the city and he's worked on a lot of
different projects. So, I just >> Chris, you want to make a motion? >> Sure. I I would move that this board um uh approve case variance uh 0000599-2026. um and approve this variance with the
following conditions that are listed here, which is an improvement um shall be substantially similar to the site plan included in the published uh staff report. And is it did we agree that we needed a second on the part of the uh to have
them the the an additional site plan or the >> so there's a difference um because >> the way you've phrased it so far just for clarification purposes. >> Sure. And I can redo this. >> That is that is only based on the
document that is currently in your record. >> Right. >> Okay. The alternative would make the variance subject to approval of a site plan to be approved by you all. Okay. >> At a future time. >> At which point the variance really would
not be anything at this point if that site plan isn't approved. >> True. >> Um however, it does give them the understanding that >> that we've seen this at least >> forward with getting a site plan and spending that money. I don't know if
that helps or not, but that is different from what is currently in there. >> Okay. Um, well, what I don't want to do is throw a wrench in this for Gary and so I'm
hesitating. >> No, she said >> so if that works. Okay. All right. >> She said she's >> All right. So, I'm going to I'll I'm going to rephrase I'm going to rephrase my >> still could be rejected even with him having the variance. >> Okay. So let's let's I'll rephrase this then and just again um
>> can I just add on to what Ross said if the site plan is not approved then the variant >> doesn't matter doesn't really matter >> right >> but on the alternative it does give them the indication that if they get the site plan and the site plan has to be approved anyway
>> right >> they can at least move forward with that >> does this open us up for future applicants coming forward requesting a variance without the site plan. >> No, >> because the condition of approval of this variance is subject to a site plan
approval. You just don't have it in the same packet, >> right? Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm going to rephrase it. I I understand what you're asking what you're saying now, I think. >> Um, so starting from scratch here. Uh so I would move that this board uh for case
number variance 0000599-2026 uh that the zoning board that we have determined that the variance application um does meet all the criteria and that we should approve the variance uh as follows with the condition that a site plan be
submitted for and subject to and subject to subject to a submitted site plan for this board by this board I should say. >> Okay. Motion by uh Chris Downing. Who wants to second? >> Second by Marvin Shavelin.
>> Let's have a roll call vote. >> Mark Joeski. >> Hi. >> Valeria. >> I. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> I. >> Ross Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. Only because we need this pump
station badly. Okay, moving on. Public comments for non-aggenda items. We have a card from Mark Hoy. >> Drum roll, please. >> Thank you again, Mark Hoey, 225 104th
Avenue. Just wanted to bring to the public's attention. And I know you all are aware of this and Chairman Harris even mentioned it earlier in the meeting today long time ago about the new construction going soon to be started at
12200 Gulf Boulevard. A new 501 condominium structure going into place. So, I think it's going to be interesting for us collectively and the public to follow that in light of all of the back
and forth discussion going on about making changes to existing ordinances uh to allow greater height. So, here you're going to have somebody building new construction 50 over one. It'll be very interesting, Ross, as this comes to
fruition. Does it sell? Does it flop? Do they have to highly discount? What happens to that? Does that make sense uh as this discussion roars on about whether or not you can't make money at five over one?
So, let's all watch that and see what we see. Thank you. >> Well, and follow up for that. Yeah. We like to follow up to that. Absolutely, cuz I'm going to. The site is 28 acres. So, it's a little bigger than a quarter
of an acre. It's 14 units is what it is. Parking requirement is 15 parking spaces. I remember this uh case because it was brought up before this board two years ago and we did approve it and it was a struggle
to even get 14 spaces. Let's just say in what was previously asked that you could go to 80 feet. 80 feet would not fit on this site because you cannot get more. You don't have enough parking. It bore
down on this site parking. The main thing is that while this will be an interesting project, it is far from a fullervice hotel. It has no restaurant. People will staying there will have to
go out. What I uh was hoping for in this town is some fullervice hotels. Right now we have two in the whole town. We have the Bill with its uh restaurant of Sloppy Joe's. We have the
Treasure Island Resort with its uh restaurant of BRGR. That's it. Treasure I mean Thunderbird is gone. They used to have a uh a restaurant but they don't any longer. So, it's it's apples and oranges and uh situation is fine. I
think the developer is great that he's going to go forward with it, but this is a you know, the average resident of Treasure Island will never step foot in that building. I mean, there's no reason for uh me to ever step
foot in that building. They offer nothing to me other than some additional taxes than the vacant lot that's been there for two years. You know what I hope that this board was trying to do and what a lot of people were trying to
say is hey we let's have some nice fullervice hotels and I might have said restaurant earlier but a full service hotel with something like a convention center a a nice restaurant something good. So while this project is great
going forward, >> it is apples and oranges. >> Yeah, I'm glad that Mr. Hoey brought that. Thank you. It's nice to see people, you know, continuing to vest invest in Treasure Island. I think that some of the differences like Richard had mentioned is isn't that it's a different zoning district than like let's just say
downtown for example, >> right? Does it doesn't our currently the way that sits today doesn't um resort facilities? So it's our >> resort facilities high 50 and that has more density than downtown >> that's a lot. >> So okay that's a situation and I'm glad
that you called out the uh you know parking situ they didn't have to build a parking garage. They didn't you know there's not a public swimming pool. There's no green space for residents. I mean that's great that there's condo hotels going in there but that's that's not going to I don't know what amenities that provides the residents like you had
mentioned. So, >> you know, the thing is for the average citizen who lives here, it would be nice to have something that would benefit citizen like can I say a restaurant. This uh town, although we have some very
nice restaurants with, you know, the ones we have, it would be nice if we could uh develop a a project where a nice sit-down high-end restaurant was included. And while this is a great project, there's no doubt about it
on a quarter of an acre, you are not really eliminated. >> Well, I mean, the Thunderbird came and applied for something. Now, granted, they asked and and it was denied and now it's sitting. So, I mean, that's I don't know of any other applicants that have come in and applied in that zone in that
zoning area. >> Well, this one was approved before the storms. It was approved before the storms because I remember looking at it and going, "Wow, that is a small site and they are really pushing to get 14 units on this site."
>> And hey, I hope that I wish it nothing but success. >> Mr. Chairman, >> sure. And I didn't mean to throw a grenade out there, Ross, or raw meat or anything. It was just the only point I was making, not that it fulfills any
civic need or any wonderful thing. The question will be will they make any money on it? >> That that'll be interesting because there's a contingent that says you can't make money on that. So, we'll that's the only thing I would put out there, not the type of business or whatever else.
So, let's watch. Yeah, it >> should be interesting to see how does it play out or does it sit there as an albatross >> because they can't sell units. So that's it. >> And I think that was three parcels put together as one. >> It was three lots.
>> So this board was doing work to get people to try to come to Treasure Island like we've been doing for the last couple of years. >> But it's amazingly, hey, let's put this way. We saw a lot of applications for boutique hotels and quite frankly I don't think any of them
ever got built. So it's nice to see one that's going to get kicked off and let's like Mark said let's see how it does. >> Go ahead Sean while we're talking. >> Keep in mind too in development is you have your land cost and you have your construction cost right and it's it's
very important. So as the chairman said that property was per purchased entitled is what they call it which means it was per it was not permitted but it had all the approvals and then after the storm the land resold >> right so that you're resetting the price
that's a that's a big component now you could say oh all the value in the land and all these properties is going to reset the reality is the Thunderbird's not selling John's past isn't selling I'm not selling and so you're stuck we're in this stagnant depression. So
when land value drops now you can absorb that construction cost. That's a big component to understand that property sold after the storm. They were they probably lost money because but they wanted out and I don't blame them. >> Yeah. >> And that's everybody's prerogative. But the big kicker to remember is that the
value of the land is the only two components that can adjust. Construction cost and the land. Those are the only two. Well, when you reset the land price gives you a little more wiggle room. So just something to think about. Thank you, Sean. Okay, moving on.
>> Reports and comments of city attorneys, staff, and board members. You got anything, Nancy? >> No reports. >> Okay, staff. Yeah. >> Congratulations on your first 90 days. You're uh hasn't even been 90 days, actually. I'm at like 82 or something.
>> Well, it's it's always good when you show up after the first seven. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Okay. I have a couple of comments that I'd like to address, but I don't want to go ahead. Marvin, >> last uh but not least, board members, go ahead. Uh >> questions for >> Go ahead.
>> The city attorney. >> Oh, wow. >> So, I just wanted to talk about the >> Can you turn your microphone on? which establishes the local planning agency. And if you look on page two, I've kind of highlighted this is basically what
we're supposed to do. Preparation of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment and shall make recommen recommendations to the governing body. And then if you look down in B, monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status of the comprehensive plan and recommend
to the governing body such changes in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required. Um and then it talks about review proposed land development
regulations. So my question to this city attorney is does this apply to us on C because it says that it it says when the local planning agency is serving as the land development regulation commission or the
local government requires review by both the local planning agency and the land development regulation commission. So, do we have the same perview on the LDRs as we do the comp plan? >> The planning board, but as the U LPA,
which you also serve in that capacity, right? >> You review any type of land use change or excuse me, land development code change before it goes to council. But can we propose changes to because that's what it here it seems to say that we can
propose >> well review >> changes to the comprehensive plan. >> It doesn't necessarily say who is proposing it. Well, it says >> um >> monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status of the comprehensive plan and
recommend to the governing body such changes in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required. And we've been talking up here for a while that we felt we needed changes in the comprehensive plan. And we tried to send something up to the to the city
commission and we got pushed back. they wouldn't give us any staff time to write up a a recommendation and you know according to this we should be able to do that. So my question my I'm assuming that
>> which we did it just didn't get accepted in that case. >> No it was never sent up. It was a verbal thing. There was no you know formal recommendation. So my point is we should be at least if we can't get staff time then we should be able to write it up ourselves and give to the
city commission. >> Is that correct? >> I think and I think as the LPA we can commission. Yes, you can you can send a message um if there are specific sections um and then you could cite to this and send that message. >> I'm talking about write it up because
that's what that's what staff would have done. >> I think we have the ability I'm upset because you know >> I think it's a matter of of usual the usual way it's done is we make recommendations the staff would draft it with the help of whatever consultants
they need in like Kimley Horn to do it uh which is the process they're going through right now in the >> but there's nothing I don't think there's anything stopping us if we want to take it on our own to actually draft something up >> right >> and as the LPA pass it during the LPA meetings
>> like this just just for laughs. >> I didn't think you were going to already give it to us already written up. Sorry. >> Just this is just an example. >> Well, no. I mean, I get it cuz we It's a fair argument.
>> I think as Can I think some, >> you know, >> we tried, you know, it's we tried sending something up. It got floated around for a little bit. It got revised and then voted down. >> But then, but then the second round we put we we tried going it people. There's
I guess there's there's the thought process that we were doing the same thing and it was not the same thing. It was three individual items that were different than from before. >> I think that where we had a little bit different too. >> I think where our obstacle was is that
all three of ideas or strategies went together where it should have just been one idea or one strategy. And I that's where I think that that's where it it fell it fell on its face. >> This and I'm just throwing it out there.
This is plan development to me. Planned development all along all zoning areas would work. Commercial >> and that's what we ought to consider. So I think you know you should bring this up at the next LPA meeting and I would
ask the you ask you to ask Richard to put it on the agenda so that the public knows about it as well. >> The other question >> because I think that's an issue in terms of public disclosure for the what gets put on the agendas for the LPA meetings. So >> we definitely can't do anything that's
LPA related today. >> Oh, I understand >> because I'm just saying >> but I mean I was and another thing I was upset there was no LPA meeting. I >> I think we should have an LPA meeting no matter what if there even if there's nothing on the agenda so we can talk about things.
>> So I'm glad that you went first because part of my comments was something that was LPA related on a reoccurring basis. So when it's my turn I will say what my comments are um for staff. But I I hear what you're saying. I think that I don't want to speak for others, but there was
definitely some frustration on my behalf in regards to the LPA being cancelled because we keep hearing about Kim Lee Horn or we keep hearing about, you know, we're trying to get things going. You know, I have some feedback that I want to get out of the LPA. So, I I I share
the that same feedback in regards to LPA just being canceled. >> So, do you have a problem with automatically scheduling an LPA no matter what? Even if there's nothing on the agenda, I don't >> have any problem with it at all. Situation is is the uh answer I got and
of course I've been out of town for a while was basically we would uh will not direct staff to prepare anything to address your three proposals until the master plan is completed. And that process is
underway. And you know um we can do one of two things. We can sit back and watch it unfold or we can do what you just proposed Marvin. I mean situation is is is the master plan going to uh go forward?
Possibly. But if those nine firms or however many there was that uh said they were interested come back with a price that uh is a little higher than what the commission wants to um spend then it
might get rejected. I can't predict what's going to happen, but uh the bottom line is and what this LPA was trying to do in the past was as we look out here and see our quite frankly dying
downtown and our uh our hotel district, the RFH50, you know, it's got a half a dozen sites on it that are just sitting >> with no issue. I don't get it. I'm frustrated. >> And I'd hate to see it sit that way for the next 10 years. People need to be
reminded that if you don't remember history, you're destined to repeat it. The Fargo Buff Buccaneer uh parcel sat vacant for 10 years. There's a good possibility the Thunderbird and the Sands and the Tahesian will all do the
same thing. >> So, is there timeline on the this whole M? I mean, I've obviously a lot of people are following this master plan. I should use air quotes. the um the Braden do they provide is there a timeline because I know that a commission meeting
was cancelled I mean that and now there's a special meeting on Tuesday >> but that is to select the content of what came out of the RFQ out of >> my understanding is it's the selection from the commission >> from the commission >> that and there's no pricing involved on
that >> do not believe >> okay so they select it is there a timeline that the city puts on that master planner to come back with what their cost is going to be. Is it 30 days? Is it 60 days? Is it >> I honestly don't know. That's I always wish Gary was still here because he's
kind of been leading that charge with um >> his team. Okay. >> Um so I don't have that time. >> The the original RFQ had some timelines for the overall >> right. I don't have a member >> the overall deploy you know effectiveness of the >> and then so I guess could we request
because we are definitely going to have an LPA meeting at least I would propose for us to have an LPA meeting next month even though I won't be here because it's March. Um >> I'd like to have one sooner than later. It's like you know >> why couldn't we just schedule that separately? >> We could do a special Could we do a
special meeting if we wanted to? Well, the LPA is actually supposed to be the second >> Thursday of every month, whereas the P&Z is the third. So, if we want to have one on the second, we can have one on the second. >> My just my request would be in our LPA meetings for us to have timelines
provided to us in regards to the whole master plan process. Um, I know that we can all follow along in commission meetings for feedback, but I do think that from a timing perspective because regardless of whichever um partner, consultant, applicant that the
commission is going to select, um, I think it'd be extremely important because I understand what Mr. Shavelin's trying to do from a let's just throw some other strategies. um not throw but let's place some other strategies that could help the town you
know get into pointed in the right direction. >> Um but if I think the timing is because I think that the city still has to go through the cost analysis of what it's going to cost because still no one cost. The other thing that I think that's important in the master plan RFQ it only
includes some of the commercial districts. It's not like it includes all of our zoning or the entire city. Correct. >> I think it includes every I think it includes everything. >> It does not include the entire city >> which is that is amazing.
>> Former zones >> which is something we can talk about at our meet next meeting. >> But something like that like >> like this doesn't include some of the areas that I think you're talking about but it needs to. I mean this is a starting point.
>> I'm not saying this is 100% but I think it's a start. I definitely think that there is an issue that the master plan doesn't include because I don't think it includes like Treasure Bay. Do you know Mariel if it includes
Treasure Bay? >> I I would have to look back at it. >> Yeah, I don't >> I apologize. I just got back to town. >> No, no, no. I I don't think it is. And I mean, you're talking about >> really dive into it. >> I I don't think it does. Yeah. So, I mean, that's I mean, we're talking about master planning a city or whatever that
is. And usually, I think master, from my knowledge, it was where you're going to put an airport and a library and a museum. It's not like the master plan's going to come back and say, "Oh, you should do single family homes uh where the Thunderbird's located." >> So, it's going to be very interesting to see the outcome. I I get that that's the
route that we're going to go, but from a timing perspective, I think that it's something that we need to be well informed on. >> I I'll get you the timelines. I'll try to get something out to you. I can shoot you guys an email if I can get something tomorrow from Joan or Gary. much guys. >> I guess out of time
>> if you could provide us what the city ex expectations are from a timing perspective because I mean don't we have does doesn't a master planer process also include public feedback? So then there's going to be those town halls and then additional commission
meetings. Yeah. So that was the con that's a huge concern in from my position. So, you're saying that they're gonna actually pick the person Nick on Tuesday? >> They're gonna pick the person and find out >> what their cost is, >> right?
>> I don't know if it's they will make their top selections and then whoever is I don't know if it's Charlie or who is going to be the one to reach out to them to discuss pricing. That's my >> That's what I'm wondering if there's maybe they're selecting three and then they're going to narrow it down or you
know. But anyway, the question is, can we put this on the next agenda? Does anybody have any interest in doing that or waste of time or what do you want to do? >> I mean, I I think you can certainly put it on the agenda and and I think we
should put everything on the agenda so it's publicly >> and I'm, you know, I'm looking for feedback on this. This isn't >> I'm on board with it because I like I said mentioned earlier I think that us going with three different solutions for the city to move forward kind of got
caught in the propw wash to use a voting analogy and this is just basically one solution and I think that that's a better approach with how to get the town going in the right direction >> clear to stay >> I think you find would find more of the commission would be on board
with PD >> I I don't know how you add something to an LPA agenda item, but I mean, you're not gonna have push back from me when it comes to trying to provide solutions to get this done. >> I think any of us can request something be put on the agenda for the next LPA.
>> You know, the thing is >> and we have we don't have one scheduled other than next month coincident to the PNZ or has it? >> Well, that's the next item on the agenda. Okay. So, we'll talk about it.
Why did that LPA meeting get cancelled? >> Does anybody know or who cancelled it? >> I guess it would be me. Um, generally that's just if we don't have ordinances that we bring forward to you guys, we really haven't been having them. Um, I wasn't aware that there was items that
wanted to be placed on the LPA agenda. So, at that point, I didn't we didn't have one. Well, I didn't I just last minute thing, but >> well, the impression I got was, you know, basically our proposals did not go forward that the staff was
instructed not to work on anything until the uh master plan is complete. And uh the last thing I saw was deliverables on a master plan were due March 2027. So,
I mean, as a member of this board, um, anything we can do to get something under construction in the city would be nice, but, uh, I know a lot of people are saying, "Hey, we want to see this master plan first." But Ross, you brought it up. >> Are we going to put single family homes
over where the Thunderbird are? And of course, we're not. Are the major zoning districts really going to change? Of course they're not. uh you know what a master plan a basic master plan is height density and where things go well I think in this city
things are pretty well established where they are what is not established is you know how much density we have how much height we have and that's where you know I know one commissioner that I talked to says yeah I want the master planner to give
us the solution the solution of if you build this it will be profitable. And I said, "Well, that'd be great. I hope that the right type of planner is hired because you planners have personalities. I've worked with a bunch of them. Is it
a guy who, oh, I'm very environmental. I don't want to see much impact." Of course, the guys with skin in the game, the guys with that own the land, they're going to go, "Well, I'm not going to do that." Or you could get a planner, for instance, that's very aggressive and say, "Oh, well, you actually need 12
stories over two stories of parking to make this profitable." Well, there are a lot of the city a lot of people in the city who go, "Well, even though the the planner, the aggressive planner said that, I don't agree with it." And so, you know, we're at impass again
>> because one of the solutions that we had put up there was updating the downtown core uh density to line up with our LDRs and that even got shut down like it >> right. That's what >> you know. So, it's kind of like there if we simplified it, maybe we'd have better
success. And I've always been told that you can whatever the master plan is like we could look at these PDs in correlation in sync with whatever's going on because like I mean you said just March of 27 >> is when we get feedback that doesn't even come to the implementation of
whatever the feedback is. So I think the intent is that the master planning process can happen coincident to or in co you know along with the changes to the LDRs that are happening with Kimberly Horn and us working with
them. So there's work that we can be doing on the LPA that is separate from what's happening with the master plan and we should move forward with that. I don't think we should stop work on that. I mean even Nancy was talking about PDS with her
Fort Meyers clients. >> There are still things I think and we can also do things to influence >> and development agreements which is another form of a PD. >> So yeah, I mean other people >> you know Madera Beach is getting six and eight stories. They're doing those
through PDS right. So there's I think there's things the LPA can do to both have influence and do work with the corrections that have to be done to the current LDRs and to providing some direction even on as the master plan is
happening you know coincident to that. So, um, so we shouldn't, so we should continue to have those meetings and and I don't think we should if there's not something on the agenda. >> Uh, we should at least know that ahead of time that there's not anything on the agenda. Yeah, but we should
>> I'll I'll put a I'll put a I'll put I'll put something on the agenda or like one of the thing I'll get to it in a second on the but I have something that I think that the city should be doing in the LPA meetings that benefit the community and benefit this board to have an LPA meeting every single every single bring
that up in a second agenda. I think we should just say general discussion, >> right? >> And then we can talk about whatever we want just so we have >> like what if just what if like run me through this scenar for the board and for residents like what what is the
scenario if the master plan process comes back and let's just say it costs an outrageous number that the city's not willing to stomach. What what are we stuck with? >> Okay. Well, first of all, >> do we need to have a backup plan? I'm not saying that's going to happen. I'm just saying there's a lot of eyes for us
to continue working on the LDR. >> Correct. That's that trying to figure out backup plans. >> I think that we should This is a recommendation. And Commissioner Dicki said when they turned us down and said, "We're not going to give you any staff time." Well, we'll give we'll give them the information. Well, there's no
information to give them because we never formally did anything. So, we should put something together and make a recommendation and then if if it gets turned down, at least it gets to the planner and say, "Hey, here's what the planning board's thinking." Just so, you know,
>> I mean, yeah, I'm on board with the idea. I just want to make sure that we follow what Nancy and what the rest of the the board has to say. >> So, I don't know. So, we have one scheduled for or >> Yeah. uh for the second week or are we doing it coincident to
>> coincident right now we're gonna discuss that next >> Mr. Burn uh would like to make a comment so go for it Sean >> so I guess my only thing is and obviously this is my opinion not a community opinion is it the master plan
seemed very reactionary in the focused areas that it covers. So, the Thunderbird, it covered the RMF-50, the Thunderbird application. Um, the downtown the downtown Golf Boulevard, which is like where we sit. It also
covered John's Pass, if you remember. They were kind of hinting around trying to do something. Then we threw in the club. They kind of started talking about some commotion, but for some reason, it's excluding 108th Avenue, which we're talking about a 2acre plus public
private partnership. I don't know why we wouldn't >> include that. That just blows my mind. >> Well, that should be included. It should be included. It >> doesn't include RMH30 or our resort facility medium RFM30, which is there's
vacant lots all up and down on this side of G Boulevard, but we just let's not worry about that. Let's leave those vacant. It didn't include Treasure Bay, which we all I mean that's a huge topic. I don't think anybody everybody's picking sides if it's golf course no golf course but I mean if we're going through this whole thing why why not do
the master plan right like what if we're going to do it if the community as a whole obviously my opinion is a little bit I don't really agree with it but as a whole I'm willing to be that's how dialogue starts if you're going to do it you got to at least do it right >> that's my opinion
>> thank you anyway >> my uh comments for the LPA were from a reoccurring standpoint were I don't know if it's in Jones um to come up every single month and give us updates on commercial um status. >> That's reasonable. >> That's re I think that when it comes to
every single month, we should have some type of feedback from staff, specifically Joan to let us know if there conversations going with the Green Leaf property, with the uh downtown uh businesses. Like I think that they're still all for lease. I saw them on Loopnet the other day where there's no
nothing being rented in there. I don't mean to have my back towards you guys. Um, >> that's the second time we have asked for that and it still hasn't happened. >> I think make a motion to that effect so that we can put that on the record that she should be here for. >> What's the feedback on the TI club? I
know uh when it came to the TI club, you know, that was that was interesting that some people came up and they showed us this picture. I am want to make it very clear because obviously that's my district. Like I want to see I want to have other talking points with that business owner on what they're going to
do with the dilapated building or the half-filled pool or the courts or the fence. Like that's great that someone can come and show me a whatever they want to I don't I don't care if they wanted to put a ferris wheel in next to uh you know the uh in that vacant parcel, but don't come talk to us like I
made it clear in the last meeting unless they show us what's the plan for the other stuff because that's extremely important. And I think that I I don't know those people and and Joan I think is having conversations with all those folks or with the with the um
>> I don't think you'll have an argument from anybody on this board that she should be at every LPA meeting on the agenda. >> It was interesting and I think we can ask Richard to make sure that happens. >> It was interesting for bingo night. Just a quick quick I'll do my Richard Harris story to make it personal. The uh bingo
night two weeks ago. Side note, you have to be 18 years old to play bingo at the rec center in the community center. I did not know that. My 5-year-old son did not know that. So, we got turned away. It was a very interesting situation. I looked at what other options we hit the claw. Then, we went to Ricky Te's. Probably not good for a 5-year-old at
Ricky Te's. We went to the ice cream shop. We actually visited all three ice cream shops in the city of Treasure Island and had my 5-year-old rate it. And I thought that it was very interesting because in those ice cream shops, they said, "Hey, I've seen you on TV before." And they're like, "What is this town doing? We're dying as businesses." is and I was like, "Oh,
interesting." So, that's where I kind of got my head spinning. I was like, "Well, maybe Joan can be talking to those ice cream shop owners or the other businesses that are out there and just give us updates on what's happening because then we can kind of not stall, but we can kind of >> should be create create some motion."
So, I I would like in our LPA for staff, Marilyn, I'm sorry to put you on the spot because you're seems like you're LPA chair today or head today. Um, I would like Joan to give us feedback on what the economic What's her title again? What's Joan's title? >> Director of economic development.
>> Okay. Yeah. Perfect. I would like Joan to provide us some economic development updates. >> You know, you've asked for this several times >> and she has come on occasion. >> I'm trying to be a leader, Marvin. >> Maybe one day I'll be Maro's
commissioner. I don't know. Thank you. >> All right, our next meeting for >> Oh, yeah. Great. >> Got to go. >> Got a couple things if I may. >> Yeah, please. >> Yeah. >> So, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that while I appreciate
the passion of everybody on the board, and I realize that periodically I'm not necessarily in agreement with you. I think it's important to keep in mind that we're here as part of a community. And it's extreme hubris on our part to
believe that our thinking even among a majority necessarily represents the attitudes of the entire community. Um if we take this board and we generalize it to the to the community, we we engage in a reductionist fallacy and we simply say
a small number of people don't necessarily represent the views of the community. Not everybody is seeking high-end restaurants. Not everybody is seeking large developments and I think it's important that we are a community and we keep our representation of the
community in mind. That's one point. The second point I'd like to make is that I've been told over and over again that amenities are required that we're seeking amenities for residential development. One of the general laws of economics is that when you have a scarce
resource it normally will be consumed. available land on a coastal island on the west coast of Florida is a scarce resource. I'd love to make it go faster. I'd love to see improvements made, but things are going to take time. They've
been recovering in Fort Myers for an extended period of time. I do know that there is recovery in place because I can stand on my porch and see three new homes being built. Now, they're being built without any of the amenities. They're being built without high-end
restaurants. They're being built because they want to come to this community. So, I just think it's important for this board to keep in mind that we represent an entire community. And while I know that you all are very bright and you're very educated and experienced about
development, if we don't have the support of the community and the things we put forward, if we don't take into account what their wishes and desires are, this is going to continue to stall. It's going to continue to law. So, I just want to keep in mind that we want to check our hubris
when we're up here and keep in mind that we don't represent everyone on the community with our views. That's all. >> Can I just give a little bit of feedback to that, Grant? >> Sure. Um,
as a as a representative of District 3 in Paradise Island, I do have multiple dozens and dozens of people that come up and are asking for anything other than what we have today. that that's so and
I'm not saying that I'm not saying that big buildings but the whole PDS it kind of fits to what you're looking for when it comes to what could be done and what the public wants and you come to a common ground that works for the community. So I think that kind of plays
well on what I haven't read this entire document but I know that PDs were a conversation. I understand that the master plan's in progress, but I I hear what you're saying when it comes to we are a community. We're trying to get our back. I do know that people are really now starting to get frustrated with the
dirt lots, whether it's Green Leaf, whether it's the futureund because remember the the old the police station and fire, that's going to be a dirt lot at some point, the downtown area. So I think from a planning perspective or a future perspective, people are just
wanting something different and that kind of flows into you know your community may want something different everyone else's community but if we do come together there is that conversation with the people that are trying to invest but right now we don't even have that tool for us to come together and have those conversations
and I I'm not trying to like argue I just I'm trying to the feedback >> I agree >> that I get as a resident and as a representative of this board I have I I I haven't had anyone come up to me and say, "Ross Sanchez, you're doing a terrible job representing
us residents up there on the board. We appreciate I have a vast majority saying, please keep trying to help our city. We know we know that your hearts and and they they see the other board members and they see that we're we're all trying. I think everyone's trying. You always make it very clear that uh we have the feelings or we have the
passion. Um and that's great. And I I think I I love that about this board because we are trying to figure out what can get this city going because the way that it's going right now is not it's it's stalled. It's stalled. >> Well, the one comment I'd like to make and I've said it previously is Al Capri,
Ala Palms, Paradise Island, Sunset Beach, they're residential. They're going to stay residential. I don't care what the master plan says. That's not going to change, you know. and I drive around the city and there's a lot of constru residential construction going
on. Grant's right. There's houses being raised, houses, uh couple of new houses on Sunset Beach, not as many as some of the other places, but those areas aren't going to change. We need to take into
effect into account that basically our commercial areas and our hotel districts are the ones that you see nothing nothing and do we want to wait for a master plan? I think a lot of people want us to. And uh you know I'm willing
to sit back and wait and see what happens. So uh anything you know Marvin I like your idea too. Let's uh let's see what we can do. >> Talk about it. >> Talk about it. >> That's it. >> I mean, we we are selected by the
commission, all nine of us, uh to help the commission, to guide the commission, to talk to the commission to to uh make suggestions. It doesn't, you know, we we made a suggestion. We didn't do very well.
>> So, let's see what happens next. We made three. We made three suggestions in one type of output. We just need to focus on one suggestion. That's one output. >> So let's let's keep the LPA on a regular
schedule even if there's no specific items. We could just if nothing else for general discussion like you suggested. And the only thing add that I would have to that is that uh that we don't surprise any any of us at these LPA meetings. Um I think there was a lot of
push back on what happened with having the developers come not being on the agenda. So >> on the agenda >> well they may may have been on the agenda but maybe not soon enough. I'm not sure >> comment you know. So, um, all I would
say is that if we're having discussions of importance, things that are on the they should be on a published agenda so that the public can be here so that we don't we check our Huberus at the door. Well, Chris
1.0, you know, I got a lot of push back about that and the point is these meetings are advertised. >> Anybody can come but we did anybody can come. anybody can come, but I think it it was a matter of we had a number of
developers that were invited to show up to make public comment that would have been better as a at a as a an agenda item so that the public could attend as well >> and know to attend. That's >> who attended. >> So, I should was I'm just saying we should check ourselves and just make
sure that as we're discussing important items for the community that we have it on the agenda. I think there's been a past of I I don't want to speak for everyone, but I've always mentioned to every to anybody who wants to invest in Treasure Island, come talk to us, tell us what they want, >> right? >> Yeah. And the only
>> How can we help? And and I think we'll get more of the public here if we put the items that are of interest to them on the agenda because it does affect him. >> I agree with Chris. The one thing, Richard, I think that was odd about that particular meeting is if it was public comment, they weren't limited to the
standard uh minutes or whatever it is with public comment. I think it's great that they came and spoke to us. I wish the community >> would would be aware of it so they could come in and participate too because it's it's always good to hear from them and understand >> though, right? >> Well, it wasn't publicized as a
presentation, >> right? It wasn't publicized that the Thunderbird was going to come in and give a presentation or that Shawn was gonna come in >> on YouTube or >> Well, it wasn't like on the agenda necessarily is what I'm saying. If it's
going to be a formal presentation, so to speak, it should be on the agenda so that the public can attend because many people would be very interested in learning what what Sean has to share or what the Thunderbird folks have to share or whatever. So, I think it's a great idea. we just want to make sure that
it's out there. So, >> and the idea was that it was to educate this board and anybody else who wanted to watch whether they were here in person or uh you know on YouTube. I mean, you can go back and read re see it
again right now, but an educational uh session of why the actual land owners, the people that have skin in the game, the people that actually own the downtown, the people that actually own the hotel districts, why they aren't
moving forward. And that's what those people did. And I thought it was a great explanation myself. So what's the procedure? If if you want to add it's already published what the agenda is. You want to add something. Do we call
the chairman? Do we call Tia? >> Both. >> Yeah. Call me. I'll get it on the agenda. >> So what I was what I would like to go ahead and share and thank you for the information. Um I I do agree with you uh with the information that you found uh
regarding your statutory duties under 163.3174 um in your service as the local planning agency. What I do want to point out to you though is in your code of ordinances, there's a whole section in
there on what the planning board does. I mean, serving as the LPA is one of your functions, but you do a lot of other things already um established in your code. So, you may want to take a look at that, including the procedural
components of it as far as how do you get something on um an agenda, which is why I I kind of wanted to jump in a little bit. Um, so I don't know if you all have had the opportunity to uh review this these this section of the
code. Maybe it's outdated. >> Where is it? >> It is um your duties and responsibilities are on 70 section 70-9. But as far as your agenda, there is a section in there as well.
>> Tia, can you make a note to just email that to the the board? talks about um meetings. You can have meetings a minimum majority of the seated board membership for quorum >> 70-9 >> be called by the chairman or by a minimum majority of seated board members
but no business shall be transacted at it other than is called in the in the call. Uh notices shall be given in writing to each member. So I mean there are you do have a framework already and I just don't know if you're aware of
that or not. How do you >> some of the questions you're asking me? It seems like they may be addressed. >> So maybe at the next meeting you talk about that or you talk about your statuto requirements. >> I I don't
>> Well, let's plan on >> Do we have a date for the >> the next P&Z meeting is March 19th and I assume we have a few cases. Braden eight. How many >> there was there will be eight one more than this month. >> Oh that we probably need to separate
these meetings because >> probably do because >> long meetings for the next several probably probably next year I would say because of just requirements. >> The usual scheduled meeting for the LPA is at six o'clock on the second Thursday
of the month. And you know, we've always passed over that because the LPA, >> right, >> didn't have as much going on as the PNZ and we had it after the PNZ. But if we want to have one on the 12th at 6:00 p.m., that's it. U
>> if if we voted on it and uh said, "Hey, we want to do this at two." I know a lot of people I mean, we don't get m much attendance here. I appreciate Mark Hoy and Sean Burn coming here today. Um, if we could have it at 6, there might be
a few more people show up, but uh, it's kind of >> I'd vote to have it at 6 if >> Wait, what day did you say in March? >> 12th. >> Okay. >> If you're going to put >> if people don't mind doing it at six, I could do it at two. Otherwise, >> two is better for you.
>> The second th the second Tuesday. >> Second Thursday. Is this going to be second Thursday LPA for March >> and you're not gonna be there? >> Can we can we in the for future LPA
meetings if the PNZ agenda is light go back to the combo? >> Yeah. >> Is everyone >> Oh, yeah. >> But if if we know ahead of time, you said there's eight. >> Yeah. >> For the the 19th one, then yeah, then there's no reason to bolt over that for many months. >> So, Ross, are you going to be can you be
there on the 12th is March is your Golf Month, right? >> The 12th I can be at the LPA meeting. It's the 19th. I will be at Valpar >> for the nine years of serving on these boards. That's the one >> is 6 is 6 o'clock on the 12th.
>> 6 o'clock on the 12th. >> You guys try to not pull any fast ones by me while I'm gone. >> All right. Okay. With that motion to adjurnn. >> Meet Richard before you adjourn. >> Okay. Just so the board knows, I will be making a rules of procedure separate
from the commission's rules of procedure. So, I'm gonna >> probably in the next meeting or maybe the meeting after next month when Ross is back, I will have to ask if you want to change dates or anything like that or if that's what the board would like to do. Since the rules of procedure for the
commission combines everything currently, they're separating all of them out. >> And I believe that the rules of procedure is going to probably incorporate a lot of the things that you already have in your code of ordinances. So, it's a good opportunity to bring
everything together and be very clear. >> Can I say one more if move it to the 12th? >> Um, when do you need to publish that agenda? because whatever items you guys may want to get onto the agenda, we got to make sure we have it in time to publish. So, whatever that date would
be, >> a presentation by Joan for an update of all commercial activity taking place or not taking place in the city of Treasure Island. >> Update from Kimberly Horn >> and an update from Kimberly Horn. >> Do you want me to send you a PDF
>> if that's what you guys want to discuss? Yes, because I'll we'll upload that to the agenda packet. Do you have an extra sheet with you? If you have an extra one, >> if you want, I can send you >> that works, too. >> Can you add me to that, too? So, I'll
have an extra copy. >> I'll give you my email before I before you leave. >> And just so the board knows, I need all items by Wednesday, March 4th, so that I can post on Thursday. Motion to adjourn.
>> We're out of here.