We don't have a city attorney. City attorney. Pardon me. We have to wait for their city attorney. My guy, I'm just going to get started with the uh the basics and uh hopefully he'll get here. He's I got the message. He's stuck
in traffic. So, the bad thing is he's in Mount Dora and Oh, yeah. That's too damn far to drive quite frankly. So, we're going right. I don't want to be here all night.
Okay, it is 2 o'clock. Welcome to the City of Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board meeting for June 18th, 2025. If you wish to speak, actually I guess today is the 19th. Sorry about that. If
you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's card is available on the table over to the left and to my left 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 comment section of the agenda. Okay, if everybody would please silence their cell phones and we'll stand for 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. All right, let's see if we could have a
roll call. Mark Roeski, present. Gary Pateniano here. Ross Sanchez here. Carrison Sim here. Christopher Downing here. Jennifer Bonelier here. Marvin Shavelin here. Richard Harris here. Okay.
The next item, approval of minutes. I wasn't here at the last meeting, but uh Ross, everything looked good. And you want to make a motion to approve those minutes? I'll make a motion. Those minutes aren't going to be on this agenda. They'll be
on the next agenda. So minutes are only for LPA tonight. Okay, that's cool. I approve those, too. Says on here. Okay. Anyway, status update for on prior planning and zoning uh cases. Uh, we all got the handout. We
all got an email. Uh, Jesse, anything in particular you want to bring out? I don't want to go over every every case because, uh, it's time consuming. Yeah. No. Um, I do want to point out, I did apologize because I forgot some of us are new members that I didn't point out that the highlighted ones are the ones that something has changed on those
items. So, please go through all of them. Okay. All right. All right. So, the So, just starting with 10771 Golf Boulevard. the that's the temporary parking lot. Um, as you know, the executive orders have been extended again. Um, so this one is set not to
expire until 11:20, 2025. Um, actually, I'm just to add on to that, pretty much every single site plan or variance that has been approved by this board since September 23rd of 2022 has has no expiration date until these executive orders expire. And then the 12
months ends up starting at that point. When's the last time that I mean it says so nothing no permits been applied for that parking garage at that site? No, we've not received anything. Any interactions with the call it applicants I guess. Uh I have not heard anything
but the architect will be here because he's also the architect for the Thunderbird. So okay, we can touch base with him after this meeting then. Uh Sunshine Lane. Um, that's the parking lot site plan approval. Um, that's still awaiting Penllis County Utilities
easement. Could I ask you to quick one quick question, please? Could you just go over those dates again of uh when they actually go through? Okay. All right. So, each one obviously has its own date depending on when the planning and zoning board
approved it. But for all of these, they still fall underneath executive order Hurricane Ian. And as of now, that was extended out until August 11th of this year. So after August is whenever we start the 12-month countdown for those
um site plans variances till those expire then. Okay. You said I thought you said something about next year though. So yes, that's with the So the temporary parking lot was about four months away from expiring and
then Hurricane Ian happened and executive order went into place. So they have an additional four months added on till the expiration of that hurricane executive. So then basically we're talking what? January of 26. So the November
26 um basically all if is if there's a hurricane that rolls through this is just going to keep getting extended extended extended like it's it's going to go on forever. So it's just we'll discuss it at LPA. It's going to be on here for a while. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
All right. Um we Okay. 8251 Beayashore Drive. Um this was a site plan for two multifamily structures. Um a the demo permit has been issued for that. So that's just the update for that one. 7675 Bayhore Drive. Um this was a preliminary plat. Uh we are just waiting
on the applicant to submit the final plat to come back in for PNZ for um final plat recommendation to the city commission. 320 Capri Boulevard is a site plan for new duplex dwelling on each lot. The permit is back in review now. Um that
was the Rock to Block TV show that came through. 10126 Golf Boulevard. This was a site plan for a 4-unit multifamily structure. Uh this permit is ready to be issued. That's the Pearl, right? Yes. Yep.
10118 Tarpon Drive. This was an approved deck and stairs to encroach in setbacks for an elevating single family dwelling and that permit is in review. That was Carmen Peachy who ele elevating his house and that's good enough Jesse. I mean the rest of them are under construction review. I don't want to go
through every one of them. All right. So we'll uh call it at that and hearing uh procedures. We'll wait till the city attorney gets here. Administrative uh administration of oath. T if you could uh anybody who
is going to speak today, please uh stand and be sworn in. 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 I do. Thank you.
Okay. Any experte communication? Anybody on the board would like to disclose? Seeing none, we'll move forward. Um, presentation of items. We'll get into our first item. Site 000041-2023-115
107th Avenue. Site plan approval request to allow a commercial parking lot consisting of 243 parking spaces. And before I go any further, I'll forget what I was requested to do. Bobby Shaye is now the uh new community development
director. If she could stand and be recognized, she's going to be taking uh Katherine Yncan's place in the near future. So, uh welcome to the city. Hello. Okay, we're going to go ahead and start.
City attorney can play catchup. Uh 7th Avenue. It's parking lot. We all know what our downtown central business district looks at looks like. Uh if the applicant could uh approach the podium
and make his presentation, [Music] good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida 33602, and I represent the petitioner Pirate Square LLC.
Um, the client is seeking at the subject property site plan approval to allow for a commercial pay parking lot. I have a couple of documents to provide the board. Ryan, I don't know if you
they have them already. Okay, we'll go over those in in a couple seconds. Um, I'd just like to mention the plan is is actually a fully engineered site plan. It's not a conceptual plan. So, um, and we had to do a very thorough storm water
study in connection with the filing requested by the city. So, slide two is um, property is a little less than 3 acres and obviously you guys are familiar with it. It used to be the retail center and
due to functional obsolescence it was demolished uh last year the year before. Um and this place is going to be I guess from what I can hear a sorely needed parking facility that will benefit not only the city and tourism but also a lot
of the businesses and give them an opportunity to stabilize and maybe even expand there. The lot's going to have about 250 spaces, more or less, being that this is simply a site plan review and not a resoning and the
properties zone PRMU core, which allows a commercial parking lot as a permitted use as of right. The board's scope of review in connection with this matter is twofold. Number one, is a property properly zoned
to allow for a commercial parking lot? And if so, does a site plan meet the applicable land development regulations for the use under section 70-92 of the city's land development regulations? Our response is our
response which is affirmed in the staff report is yes it has proper zoning which is confirmed on pages 8 and 20 of the staff report and on page 22 of the staff report. They note that the site plan meets the
remaining criteria for parking lot layout including parking lot landscaping drainage and buffering. Um, I didn't intend to get into this, but the staff report is um, I guess a little unusual from what I've seen
before and this whole issue about the significance of being a permitted use. So, just uh, if you would indulge me for a couple minutes, I want to kind of go through it because that's really the the issue I think in this case. The law in Florida is that when a use is
permitted as of right in a zoning code is considered consistent with the city's comprehensive plan including its goals, objectives, and policies. You all serve as the LPA and your function is to make recommendations to the city commission concerning comp plan amendments. and
your determination or recommendation is whether or not a proposed zoning code or development order or a comprehensive plan category or zoning district is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comp plan. So, you're familiar with that.
So, that being the law, a city can't then turn around and argue that the permitted use is inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. That would be by being admission by the city that the plan or excuse me the zoning is in
violation of both city and state law. So permitted use is allowed by rightness considered to be consistent with a city's land development regulations and comp plan. Um I had filed into the record just a
couple other points here. I don't want to get too legalistic, but I just got to get this on the record is that um in Florida, the controlling law and the scope of review uh for site plan review is there's very limited discretion local government has when it's reviewing a
site plan where all legal requirements for platting the site plan approval have been met. There is no residual discretion to refuse plan approval. The administrative procedure for site plan approval is quasi judicial in nature
and is confined to factually determine if a proposed plan submitted by the owner conforms with the specific requirements set out in the regulations. So the specific regulations that are in the staff report
and that relate to scope of site plan review are under section 70-92 and there's seven criteria. I think number four has about six subriteria. So uh with all due respect there's really
no discretion to deny a site plan if we can demonstrate with substantial competent evidence that we meet the criteria. We intend to do that. Um, slide three is you're familiar. I was this case was
mentioned I think Jesse in his update to to the board here, the Sunshine Lane. And you can see here, this is from last year. And this is essentially a mirror image of our the case before you today. Actually in Sunshine Lane they have a
zoning the the application was to allow a parking lot in the resort high zoning district which your code says is suitable for resort facility development of a high density character. However, a commercial parking lot was permitted use in the
zoning category. So it was allowed as of right. So the staff appropriately limited the scope of a site plan review to the seven criteria set forth in 70-92. What's interesting is that application is procedurally this the same as ours as
a PDMU core allows a commercial parking lot as a permitted use as of right as well. So, in the Sunshine lot, the staff did not impose conditions for which they intend are attempting to do with us, um,
bike racks, solid waste receptacles for a parking lot, excuse me. They didn't impose a condition that the site plan approval was not valid till it was a vacation occurred of a certain portion of rightway.
And they didn't try to impose on sunshine numerous county comprehensive plan and city plan objectives, goals, and policies and kind of injecting new standards into site plan review, especially when the use is already approved as of right. The use isn't
really up to for grabs tonight. I think I'm just trying to pound on that and make that clear. The staff in its report is essentially rewriting the code by injecting these countywide plan goals, objectives, and policies and some policies from the
city's comp plan. So, what I've done here on the handout, and one handout says at the top 70, it's it's in bold 70-92, I believe. So, I've put together a document that says section 7092 at the top to
demonstrate the inconsistent despair treatment the application this application is receiving from staff. I want to make it clear to the board too that our application was pending at the same time Sunshine was going through.
So, there was no change in regime or anything. He had he had the same staff. Um so this is simply a comparison of the actual staff reports relating to two of the criteria of the seven that I
enumerated criteria that I mentioned under 7092. So, if you look at the upper left, Ryan, oh, it's a handout. I'm sorry. The upper left in red, you see the Sunshine Lane
parking lot. And you can see the questions that are posed in these criteria always it says is in what respects the plan is or is not consistent. It's not the use. Okay. So,
there's a very cryptic response to One second, Mark. Let's uh our city attorney has arrived. Let me uh introduce him real quick. If you could uh most of us don't know you, so if you would state your name. So, uh apologize for being late. Anthony
Sabatina, good to meet you. I'm the new city attorney and really looking forward to working with the PNZ. Lots of fun. I'm all about education and working with you guys so you know everything there is to know. I know some of you uh have a lot of questions already. So, looking forward to meeting with you. I'll give
you my private cell phone. You can call me anytime if you ever have any questions. It's 3524552928 and just call me, text me. We'll meet. But, um, usually I'll be here a couple hours early, but today as I've transitioned to this new job in the last three weeks, I'm having to close down my
old court calendar and get used to the new one. So, um, just, uh, look forward to working with everybody and thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. You go ahead. Hey, Anthony. Good to meet you. Mark, how you doing, man? Yeah, good to see you. Good. Please proceed. Okay. Uh, what I was saying here, so back to
Sunshine, you see this, it says, in what respects the plan is or is or is not consistent, etc. And then the response is the proposed use is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comp plan. end of story, you
know, then look underneath that. So, this is a response to the the first criteria under 7092. So, Sunshine Lane was about eight sentences. Now, we have the balance of
this page. Okay? And what's significant here is the objections if you look what I've highlighted are to the use of the subject property. There's never an objection to what's
supposed to be the scope of review which is a site plan. So I've highlighted the justific the rationale for objecting to number one on the left side of p the first page staff says the proposed parking use is not in line with certain
goals and objectives of the comp plan. Then you go to the right side says the proposed use is inconsistent. Next proposed use etc. So if there's a problem with the use underlying use of the property, that's something maybe the staff might want to talk to you all
about or the city commission. But here again, this use is allowed as of right now. If we go to page two, this is response to criterion 4 and you can see on the left side
in what respects the plan is are not consistent with good design standards etc. Then the staff response the last sentence under that paragraph or the only sentence. The proposed site plan is compatible with the plan character of the RFH50 zoning district. End of story.
Now go to the right side. Same criteria. Then here again the staff objects to the use. It says surf surface parking lot does not serve to revitalize downtown. Then they they take issue with the use and I've highlighted a couple of those.
But then their conclusion at the bottom is the plan does meet the remaining criteria for parking lot layout, landscaping, drainage, buffering. And that's really the scope of review for this process. Not to get into we'd like
to have a certain use of the property. We don't like the use. Okay, that's more in the context of a legislative action or an action by the the commission on a resoning petition. So once a use is allowed as a permitted
use in a zoning district, the zoning district's considered an land development regulation under the state nomenclature under the community planning act and that is considered a land development regulation and the use under Florida law is deemed to be
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the governing comprehensive plan. So what staff is doing by introducing all of these plan policies in their analysis and the handout only related to
two responses to two two of the seven criteria. So what staff is doing is effectively trying to administratively amend your code by injecting a new standard into site plan review which is consistency with goals, objectives, and
policies both the countywide plan and the city of Treasure Island plan which is inappropriate and that would result in a denial of due process for our client. And Anthony, I usually don't get too legalistic, but that was kind of the lynch pin of this case. So, uh, I hope
you got the information I sent you. Okay. Thanks. So, a question you might want to ask staff, just a suggestion, is whether a permitted use as of right in a zoning district is considered a land development regulation that is consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan. If they tell you no, then that would be a violation of your comprehensive plan. However, if they tell you yes, a permitted use is consistent, then staff's entire argument collapses opposing the application, the
application must be approved. As even staff concedes that other than this uh debate about use, it meets all of the city's requirements. Now, slide four. Um what I have here this is used to be
called the growth management act in the state of Florida chapter 163 part two they call it now the community planning act and this is like one of the fundamental precepts in in the growth management law is that all land development regulations shall be
consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan or element in any land development regulations existing at the time of adoption. Okay. So this would be for example your zoning code. I I assume and maybe a lot of you
weren't involved but when the PDMU core got approved by the city commission and forward penelis ultimately is that there was a finding of consistency the PDMU core along with all the permitted uses allowed in the PDMU core. Okay. And
there's a myriad of uses. There's probably 15 or 20, you know. So the PD the PRMU I'm sorry I call it PD PRMU core is a land development regulation that allows as a permitted use as a right commercial parking lot
and other uses. So they are deemed consistent. Now slide five just to further emphasize here's the the planning regulation scheme in the in the state of Florida. I left off the state plan, but
the hierarchy underneath the the the penelis forward plan would be consistency with the state plan. So look at the top here. It says land development regulations must be approved by the city commission including the commercial paid parking
lot under in the PRMU core. Then the comprehensive plan is approved by the city commission who also approves the LDRs and then that's shipped over to countywide to penelis forward
uh to determine consistent consistency with the countywide plan. So that has occurred. And then slide six, this is out of the zoning code and it's referenced in the staff report a couple in a couple places just to get in the
record that under 68410-02 the city code parking lot is a permitted use as of right in the PRMU. So I apologize for dwelling too much maybe on this issue. Um but we never
anticipated that a professional planning staff would take issue with such a fundamental planning precept or standard and which we find to be pretty illogical and it seemed like there was an agenda to uh come up with a
recommendation for denial. You'll see a bunch of policies that support their position, but for every policy you see in that staff report, there's another policy, okay, that would support our position as well. But we didn't get into that because this isn't an issue about
consistency with the comp plan. That's been determined. You know, that train left the station a long time ago when they approved a commercial parking lot in the PRMU core as a permitted use as of right. So, right
now, I'd like to turn it over to our expert land planner, Russell Lottenberg. He's got a lot of experience dealing with local governments and he's been practicing for about 40 years more or less and he um was for many years a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners. Thank you for your time. Good afternoon. Russell Attenburg, Planning Incorporated, 3737 Lake Joyce Drive, Land of Lakes, Florida. Um, what I'd like to do is is take you briefly kind of through the history of
this uh property and then uh kind of set the stage for the uh the proposed parking lot and then I will go through the individual criteria that are required to be uh used as the review criteria for the site plan. Um,
this this property was developed, as I'm sure you're aware, many decades ago with a retail uh building development. Um, it it's been around for, I don't know, 40, 50 years, something like that. And um,
uh, approximately two years ago, the property owner uh, decided to demolish the building. It was functionally obsolete. The systems in it were just couldn't keep up. So it wasn't uh wasn't worth uh replacing those systems.
Uh it had run its life cycle and and it was done. So what he is seeking to do now that the buildings are demolished is to replace that development with a foray parking lot. Uh and that will serve the city of Treasure Island in several ways. It will
bring the property into conformance with current zoning regulations with respect to landscaping, buffering, impervious surface area, storm water, etc. Um, although the property is currently grandfathered, the demolished remains of the retail center are significantly out
of compliance with respect to those zoning regulations and will remain that way until some form of redevelopment is approved uh by the city and then construction is completed. uh it will reduce the number of access
points to the property. Currently there are six as you can see on this uh graphic. Uh that will be reduced to two. So the two access points along 1 Avenue east or first street east will be uh eliminated. The the northeast uh access
on 107th will be eliminated and the western access on 106th will be eliminated. uh that will consolidate the the access and and further one of the goals in your land development regulations which is to
uh minimize the potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and other forms of transportation. It will also provide adequate accessibility. Um it will provide a public benefit to the city for large-scale special events and activities. Uh provide some overflow
parking. uh will also further another one of the city's goals which is to provide in the PRMU core district a district-wide parking uh type of amenity and that that furthers the city's downtown special
area plan uh will allow for special for surrounding businesses to uh succeed and expand due to the ability or the availability of additional parking at this location. Obviously, in the event the plan should this site plan should not be approved,
uh the demolished remains of the shopping center would remain in its uh current condition for an indefinite period of time. Uh next slide, please. The proposed development uh seeks to complete the demolition of
the site uh and demolish the remaining improvements on the subject property, replace them with a foray parking lot. uh parking lot includes a total of 236 full-size parking spaces, seven handicap parking spaces for a total of 243
spaces. Uh as I noted, it will maintain two access points. One will be at the northwest corner, which is an existing access point that will be slightly narrowed to bring it into uh conformance with current code. And uh then there will be the other access point on 106
towards the southeast portion of the site. Um project will include all new buffering, screening, fencing as well as new landscaping. New lighting will be provided as well a new storm water pond at the southeast corner to accommodate
runoff from the uh from the property in accordance with uh SwiftMUD requirements. We've got our permit application into SwiftMUD. We've responded to their request for additional information and are expecting a permit any time now.
So all of that will be done in compliance with city code uh and with uh water management district regulations. Additionally, the uh redevelopment will maintain the 10- foot wide north south pedestrian access. Uh as you can see on
the plan uh that is in the same location as the existing pedestrian access. So that will remain. Um it will go through some landscape islands. Uh right now it's uh kind of a desert out there. So those landscape islands will be landscape and provide some shade uh for
people traversing the site or for people parking there and then using that uh pedestrian access to go north or south. Uh, as Mark noted, the staff agrees that the site plan meets all of the city requirements for a park for for pay parking lot. Uh, with respect to to
those technical regulations. Before I get into the the analysis uh using the city's criteria, uh, I'd like to address something that is, I believe, incorrectly stated in the staff report. Go. Next slide, Ryan.
The staff report incorrectly states, "The placement of parking lots on 107th Avenue is discouraged per section 68-410.59." And this section also notes that parking lot shall be placed in the rear yard wherever possible. That is not the full
text of the section. What it says is it only discourages parking lots in the front yard, not along 107th Avenue, but in the front yard. Now, what we have is
in this instant there's a instance there is an important distinction. There is no front yard. There are no sideyards. There is no rear yard. Yards are only applicable when there is a building in place. And so if you look at this slide,
you can see the the staff report, what it says is inconsistent. Then you can see what the code actually says where it says it's in the front yard. And then below that in the definitions, the definitions say that yards, and I'm
paraphrasing here, yards are only applicable where there's a building. And then also in the code there is a convenient sketch that shows yards with respect to buildings. So if there are no buildings, there are no yards. And you can't have a yard without a
building because the building location and orientation determine where the yards are. So if for example we had a building that was fronting on 107th Street with its front doors facing on 107th and was addressed on 107th
street then its front yard would be on 107th street sideyards would be to either side. There are no buildings so there are no yards. So I think that is a a mistake in the staff report. Now, um,
so the the portion of the parking lot, go back to the, uh, parking lot slide, please. Ryan, portion of the parking lot along 107th Avenue is not discouraged in any way, shape, or form by the current regulations because there is no front
yard. There is no building. That's entirely appropriate. It's recognized by staff on page 22 or 26 depending on which number you're looking at at the um bottom of the staff report which states while the parking lot plan cannot be
analyzed in reference to most of the downtown design standards which are intended for buildings. The plan does meet the remaining criteria for parking lot layout, landscaping, drainage and buffering. It is clear then from both uh plan plain
wording of the referenced code section as well as staff's own analysis there is no front yard along 107th Avenue uh for this site plan application. So moving on to the the criteria that has been adopted by the city to evaluate this site plan. Uh, as Mark noted, these
are found in section 70-92 of the city and are shown and and are shown in uh some of the materials you've been uh provided. Um, I will go through these uh as as quickly and completely as I can. First
criteria is in what respect the plan is or is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is located. The PRMU zoning core PRMU core zoning
district along with land development regulations governing specific uses are the implementing codes for the city's comprehensive plan. The proposed 4pay parking lot is a permitted principal use in said zoning
district per section 68-410.02. 02. Furthermore, the site plan is in compliance with all applicable city land development regulations governing the parking lot. Staff concurs with the exception of the driveway connections. However, staff has issued a waiver for
that. Thus, because the use is an adopted principal permitted use as of right in the PRMU core zoning district and is definitionally consistent with the comprehensive plan and requires no further justification. Notably, this is what staff's position
concerning the 12765 Sunshine Lane parking lot that Mr. Bentley previously discussed. Therefore, based on compliance with the other applicable land development regulations, the site plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan, again requiring no further justification.
To put it another way, a use adopted as a principal permitted use in a zoning district cannot be inconsistent with that zoning district nor the underlying comprehensive plan as the use
was deemed consistent with both the zoning district and comprehensive plan upon adoption of the zoning district along with its use or list of principal permitted uses. Next slide, please. Or the keep one
more. Oh, this one. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. This, I think, is really the crux of the difference between the city's analysis and ours. The PR the PRMU core zoning district
differentiates between two classes of uses. The first is permitted principal uses. The second are special exception uses per section 684102
permitted principal uses. First sentence says the purpose of listing the permitted principal uses is to identify principal uses that are allowable on a property within the zoning district. Full stop. Those uses are allowable
within the zoning district on any property. No supplemental criteria, no supplemental analysis provided they meet the technical requirements which staff has said this application does.
Now section 684104 special exception uses states the special exception uses are considered to be uses which may not be appropriate generally or without restriction in this zoning
district but which if controlled as to number area location and relation to the neighborhood would promote so on and so forth. So the special exception uses are
subject to additional or supplemental uh criteria and further scrutiny. That is not the case with a permitted principal use. We're a permitted principal use. A a parking lot is a permitted principal use. So staff has applied
the special exception criteria to the permitted principal uses and that is inappropriate. This should just be it's a permitted principal use. The use is not in question. Does it meet the technical standards? Yes, we're done.
Thus, it's clear by the city's own zoning code that permitted principal uses are allowed to be located anywhere within the PRMU core zoning district. Had the city intended to restrict parking lots as a use within the PM PRMU
core zoning district, it would have adopted that use as a special exception use, not a permitted principal use. Consequence consequently, there can be no doubt the proposed parking lot is a
permitted, consistent, compatible, and appropriate use that does not require further justification as to location, area, or relation to the neighborhood. On a related note, staff states that under item two site plan is part of
their criteria one analysis. Additionally, the subject property is located within designated activity center category as outlined in the countywide plan map. Section 2.3.15 of the countywide rules states that the purpose of this category is to recognize
those areas of the county within each local government jurisdiction that have been identified and planned for in a special and detailed manner based on their unique location, intended use, appropriate density, intensity, and pertinent planning considerations.
However, as also noted in the state staff report on page 16 or 20 concerning activity centers, division 8.2 of the countywide rules states activity centers are quote unquote governed by local
adopted plan or code provisions. In this instance, the local locally adopted plan or code provisions are the PRMU core zoning district and the land development regulations governing the development of parking lots.
Thus, the permitted use uses are determined by the local government's implementing regulations, i.e. the zoning code. The city suggests proposed parking lot use is inappropriate. However, the countywide plan rules state that the local government controls this again via the
PRMU core permitted principal use list. So again, the use is not only appropriate, it is a permitted principal use consistent with the countywide plan and rules. As a result, any discussion of the appropriateness of the use is
rendered moot. The only discussion gerine to the pending application is whether the site plan complies with the applicable criteria outlined in the land development regulations governing parking lots. As is demonstrated by the site plan itself as well as the
information provided herein, the site plan complies with those criteria. I promise the rest will go quicker. Item two. In what respects is the plan is or not in conformance with all applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located? Uh, as
noted above and acknowledged by staff, the site plan complies with all applicable land development regulations. Uh, we discussed setbacks. I'm not going to go over that again. Uh, item three, in what respects the plan is or is not
in conformance with the city's subdivision regulations? There's no subdivision proposed, so that's not applicable. Item four has a number of uh points under it. First is uh well it says in what respects the plan is or is not consistent with good design standards
with respect to all internal or external relationships including but not limited to and the first is provisions to ensure compatibility with the planned character of the zoning district where the proposed development is to be located and with existing development surrounding the site.
As the proposed parking lot is a permitted principal use in the PRMU core zoning district. The site plan is definitionally compatible with the zoning district. The subject property is bounded on three sides by public roads and commercial property on the fourth side. Provision of required buffering, landscaping and fencing in accordance
with the applicable land development regulation ensures a site plan is compatible with existing surrounding development. Second criteria under four is internal or external circulation patterns for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Provisions for the separation of on-site,
excuse me, on-site pedestrian vehicular traffic. Provisions for the safe and convenient storage of bicycles where applicable. The proposed site plans parking spaces, drive aisles, and driveways comply with the dimensional requirements of the city of Treasure Island. Notably, the project will be eliminating four existing
driveway connections, which will improve the surrounding transportation network. Furthermore, the site plan has been designed to ensure free flow internal circulation and connects to the external roadway network at established driveway locations. Internal pedestrian
circulation is enhanced with the 10-ft wide pedestrian walkway running north south. Um and that walkway is in the same location as the existing north south alley. Next criteria under four, disposition of open space, effective use of screening or buffing. Buffering to reduce the
impacts of incompatible and/or non-conforming uses, preservation of acceptable existing trees and other natural features and protection of existing environmentally sensitive areas and their ecological functions.
Currently, the subject property is about 90% impervious. It's pretty well paved over. The proposed site plan reduces that to 70% impervious or roughly 25,000 square foot or 5800s of an acre increase
in green area. That's a significant improvement over the existing condition. Additionally, code required buffer, screening and interior landscaping are all provided. This is again a significant improvement over the current condition. Next criteria, building arrangements um
not applicable. no buildings. Next criteria, uh provisions to ensure continued public use of existing public beach or waterfront or accessways. That's really not applicable in this case. There are no uh impact on existing proposed new or enhanced public beach or waterfront
accessways. Next criteria, protection of historically or architecturally significant structures or archaeological features. That's again not applicable. And then the last uh criteria under item four, suitability and design of proposed
on-site recreation areas and improvements. Not applicable. There are no proposed on-site recreation areas or improvements. Criteria number five. In what respect the plan is or is not in conformance with city policies regarding sufficiency of ownership, guarantees for completion
of all required improvements, excuse me, and guarantees for continued maintenance. The applicant owns the private lands that are subject to the site plan application. An application to vacate the alley traversing the site has also been filed with the city. Provided that
vacation application is approved, the applicant will own all of the land for which this site plan approval is sought. Item six or criteria six where applicable in what respects the plan is or is not in conformance with the regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, state and federal regulations. Issuance of permits or letters or of intent to improve the of these agencies may be cons may be considered evidence of such conformance. Other permits, swift mud, FD, NPD, ESOI
permits required to construct the improvements are being pursued. Again, we anticipate having those permits shortly. So, that uh will not be an issue. We will furnish copies of those permits to the city prior to the commencement of construction.
Criteria seven, uh case of rehabilitation or reddevelopment of existing nonconformities that is not applicable. We have no nonconformities here. If if they can be considered non-conformance, they would be legal or vested nonconformities. So,
in conclusion, uh the proposed pay for a lot parking lot is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, is a permitted principal use in the PRMU core zoning district in which it is situated, is compatible with surrounding uses via compliance with city required buffering
and landscaping. City staff has approved a waiver for the one item. It complies with all other applicable land development regulations found in the city's code and it meets or exceeds the city's codified and applicable review criteria found in section 70-92 of the
city code. Therefore, we believe that demonstrates the site plan application meets all of the criteria for approval by the city of Treasure Island and respectfully requests your approval. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just thank you. One minute and then we'll we're done.
You don't mind? Go ahead. Okay. Just want to point out to the board we uh drafted some proposed conditions uh in your backup materials that we handed out at the beginning of the meeting. And we also included the staff so you could compare those. And then
finally with respay commercial lot is a permitted use as of right. I think we've hammered that home and it's consistent with the comp plan. So the city doesn't have the discretion or the ability to arbitrarily pick and choose what's the preferred use of the property. It's already been established
under the PRMU. The project addresses a clear need for accessible parking in the community. It balances operational practicality, public safety, and neighborhood sensitivity. And to mention once again from the staff report, and I quote,
"While this parking lot plan cannot be analyzed in reference to most of the downtown design standards which are intended for buildings, the plan does meet the remaining criteria for parking lot layout, landscaping, drainage, and buffering. So uh we have met our burden of proof at this hearing which is to
provide the board with substantial competent evidence to demonstrate that we met the seven enumerated criteria under 7892. And that being said, we would respectfully request your uh approval. Thank you very much. Okay, at this point
uh I'm going to start out with the question and then we'll uh get to the rest of the board for their questions. Anyway, we can all agree that this is probably an interim use. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Uh, at this point with the market the way it is, there's
no way to know how long this interim and use is going to be in place, is there? No. I mean, let's face it, it's been vacant for two years. Um, well, it's clearly not the highest and best use of the property, you know. No, obviously
not. But, uh, I just want to make that point that, uh, this is not going to be there, I would hope, in 30 years from now when we're all long gone. But, uh, just want to make I will be sorry. Make sure that, uh, everybody understands this is just a
interim used. Anyway, any other questions for the board, for the applicant? Go ahead, Ross. Ladies first, please. Okay. Um, so that was going to be part of one of my questions. It was in the paperwork. Um, it has been vacant for two years. So, does that mean for the last two years you've been trying to
come in front of our board? Um, when was the application actually um submitted? I don't want to miss something. That's okay. Okay. So after initial filing and the city had requested more survey work and they actually wanted like a full-blown storm
water analysis. So it's probably been a year and a half, but I'm ballparking it. Jesse, I don't know. Our first response to comments is August 2023. August 2023. Okay. So a lot of lot of time, a lot of money. Yeah. Parking lot. We estimate
about $200,000 at this point to get in front of you today. Amazing. Um, okay. So, I see on um the number five um under the provision is it the provisions and
it's under number four. Uh number four and then number five. Y'all talk about the vacation application for the alleys. Where what's the status on that, Jesse? Where are we at? I'm sorry. uh for vacating the alleyways on the parking lot. Um that they applied May. Uh they
reapplied in May. They originally submitted back in 2023, but uh we eventually it was abandoned because we did not receive anything else for probably about the same time frame. So we told them that application was abandoned and they reapplied again in May. Does that application come in front of us uh for recommendation? Yes. Okay.
Then city commission. Okay. Um and about how much you said. Okay. You answered 200,000. Okay. Any questions? Uh, Mr. Bentley, in regards and I appreciate you. Uh, by the way, appreciate the the um presentation. Very thorough. Um, always like to have that. When it comes
to the applicant proposed conditions, I I see where you're coming from, obviously, because I was on the board for the other parking lot. So, when I had gotten my packet and saw staff denial, I was a little concerned. We're going to find out where that came from. Uh I I don't like um I agree and there's
a couple that I don't like, but my my main question on these memorial pavers, right? So would the applicant be rather than striking it out completely be okay with just I don't know where they are, but returning them back to the city and letting the city deal with them because
I I don't want us to be holding on to these pavers in regards to this property. They should be the city. I will tell you, I don't know how many people on this board actually have a PA. my entire family, my grandfather, my parents, and all my brothers all have pavers um that are out there. I've talked with about 10 other people. They
don't care if they go back there. So, I'm coming from that precedent where they should go back to the city. And I just want to make sure if we were to make a motion that had conditions, I I see where the applicant would want that um out, but at least agree to returning them back to the city. The client said
they would agree to that problem. Okay. Um, and Ross, we will be making some modifications to those conditions. There's no doubt about that. Yeah, I see. Okay. Um, oh, I I do have Thank you, Mr. Bentley. Sure. Um, the I see
the um condition number six, the uh the strike through. Um, do other city lots adhere to this with in terms, Jesse, with commercial waste and trash cans and all the things? Uh I know the last parking lot that's that Sunshine Lane
that was mentioned as well too. Uh property owner ended up just agreeing or not agreeing but they stated that they already had like a company in place to do their own trash collection. Okay. And that's also another condition that we'll be taking a look at in the
final parts of this. I just I would note, Mr. Chair, that that wasn't a condition imposed on the other parking lot. You know, maybe there was discussion about it, right? Yeah. I always like the saying um buildings create trash, parking lots don't. I was going to say parking lot doesn't create
much trash. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Well, if we have a seat and Jesse, if you would proceed with the city uh more questions. I have actually I have a comment really not a question. All right.
I'm fairly new to this board. Um, this proposal for and it's going to be largely permanent parking lot is adverse to the future development of our one downtown retail center um and the city
of Treasure Island. I was appointed appointed here in part to look out for the best interest of the residents of this community. And this parking lot honestly is the antithesis of that when you're talking about the center of our downtown and what we want to do with our
that and the vision. In my opinion, this does not meet the standards and does not comply. Um it's not only detrimental but will malign and adversely affect redevelopment and any revitalization.
And I think that if we approve it, this board is shortsighted. um it's not consistent with the vision as I mentioned or the comprehensive. I'm gonna interrupt you right now because right now we're on the presentation part. We will have that kind of comment
at the uh final discussion if you don't mind. I'd like to go ahead and get the city uh staff so we can get the rebuttals and uh also the public comment and then we have a discussion at the end. I agree with I understand what you're saying, but uh I want to move
things along to if you don't mind, I will interrupt you with that and believe me, we will uh have time to discuss it. It's just not the correct time right now. Jesse, if you would go with your presentation. Yeah. Um so I do I do want
to jump back real quick about the timeline comment that was mentioned. Um, so yeah, so between August 2023 and December 2023, we were going back for working with the applicant. And then in December 19th of 2023, uh, this is whenever the drainage plan came up. I'm assuming that's why it took a long time
frame between December of 2023 until they resubmitted again in November of 2024. So just let you know, it wasn't a whole back and forth thing the entire time that this has been in review. All right. So, just to reiterate, this
is um agenda item 10-8 10.A. case number SIT-000041-2023. Um the applicant is seeking a site plan approval for a proposed commercial parking lot consisting of 243 parking spaces. In addition, the applicant is requesting a waiver to section 68-410.59
subsection D to allow for the use of existing driveway located south northwest corner of the subject property. Um, as we did previously already mentioned, um, they did submit LA in May for the vacation of the rideway that is part of this site plan and this is located at 1115
1757th Avenue. uh land use planned planned redevelopment mixed use zoning map PRMU core and then as site plan is pointed out uh landscape plan
uh and then it shows you the alley vacation easement dedication plan uh this is what the vacation of the right away it would consist of these two alleys Jesse can you comment a little bit on the landscape plan on the previous one Yes. Just trying to understand how the
sidewalks are working around this development, the existing city sidewalks, and then are there any sidewalks included in the actual development? And how does that how that relates to what was submitted in terms of landscaping for
this for this parking lot? Okay. So, the sidewalk is like actually that's like a 10-ft alley that runs through the middle of this site, right? I understand the alley part and what they're doing there, but I'm really asking about the perimeter part of this and maybe that maybe it's not applicable because maybe
the city sidewalks aren't within that scope. That's what I'm trying to understand. Oh, yeah. There's going to be no development outside of their property lines. It's going to be as is for the city sidewalks. The city sidewalks stay the same. Yeah. So, the so the city sidewalks are outside of the property line all the way and on the
complete perimeter of this property. Yes. Okay. And so none of the landscaping that they're doing will impact positively or negatively what the city does around the pedestrian sidewalks or the landscaping of those sidewalks. I mean, I'd have to if
anything, it would make it look better, right? Just trying to understand it. Okay. All right. Thanks. Please proceed, Jesse. Um, so this application does consist of two items. the administrative waiver to the design criteria and then the site
plan approval request. Um so item one is going to be section 68-410.52 which is the waiver the admin waiver. Then item two is section 70-9 to the site plan review criteria. So item one, this is a waiver request to section 68-410 to permit the existing
access from 107th Avenue to remain. Uh just want to note this is not a waiver and not a variance and therefore applies only to the surface parking lot site plan and is not applicable to any future site plans. And then this this is actually a correction I want to point out in the staff report. Um this is actually in our
code as well too. So in section 68-410.52 um it references section 6.4.3.1 4.3.1 of the countywide rules that has actually been moved to section 7.4.3.1 and it does not apply to this waiver
request as this section only applies to intensity. The intensity meets the code. Therefore, staff only just approved this administratively through our own criteria and then it's a staff's analysis of that waiver. So criteria one, the use as a
parking lot is seen as an interim use and will not forstall the development of abudding properties. The exception is that this property will be redeveloped to meet the design regulations in the future. Criteria two, the proposed parking lot has 243 spaces while the
prior sharp shopping center had 141 spaces. This use is not anticipated to greatly increase traffic as the prior use as a site for a shopping center also generated traffic. While this plan has more parking spaces than the previous shopping center, the increase is not
expected to significantly affect the traffic volumes. Criteria three, the surface parking lot. The surface parking lot use with the entrance on 107th Avenue is in conflict with downtown design regulations which have the goal of establishing a vibrant pedestrian
oriented downtown core and have a provision in section 68-4.19 subsection D that access should be from 106th Avenue over Fourth Street East. The focus of the downtown plan is to establish a vibrant pedestrianoriented downtown core with an attractive
streetscape. Having a primary entrance to the parking lot on a street identified as a primary president pedestrian route is not supported by the code. The applicant has not demonstrated that the requirements in section 68-410.59
subsection D for a driveway to remain. Removing the driveway on 107th Avenue does not prohibit all reasonable access to the property. There are currently curb cuts and existing driveways on First Street East and on 106th Avenue which provide access to the site. And
criteria four, the applicant and their attached narrative has noted that the elimination of the 107th Avenue entrance would lead to a compromise of the health, safety, and welfare of the public. the city's emergency response team does not support using 107th Avenue
entrance. Their narrative is attached. Um so on the back of the staff reports that I provided, um it's also the applicants waiver that he requested and and comments from the um fire department as well too. Criteria five, as noted above, under
criteria three, this waiver is not consistent with the requirement to relocate driveways off 107th Avenue and to create a pedestrian friendly walkable environment on 107th Avenue. And then this is just reading the fire department's comment. Um, this is from
Tom Brennan, the deputy fire chief. So there is no specific requirements exist in the fire code for the number of exits from a flat open parking lot. As the authority having jurisdiction over the proposed parking lot on the south side of 107th Avenue, we accept the plan for
access onto the lot from 106th Avenue. The access point off 107th would not benefit the fire department. A second access point should be located off of First Street East as this access point will serve as a better strategic entry into the open parking area. The concern
with the access point on 100th Avenue is the potential for heavy traffic to prevent fire access into the lot during busy times of the year. So W um waiver waiver staff approval upon balancing the above criteria staff
is granting an administrative waiver to the downtown design regulations section 68-410.59 subsection D specifically for this surface parking lot. This waiver is not a variance. Though the denial of 107th access would not would still allow
reasonable access to the site. The issuance of this waiver is specific to this interim surface parking lot use and has no bearing on future site plans. All right. And then moving on to item two. So this is the site plan review
criteria as stated in section 70-92. Criteria one, the subject property has a future land use designation of the planned redevelopment mixed use. The purpose of the future land use designation of PRMU is to depict those areas that are developed with a
collection of residential office and commercial uses along corridors adjacent to neighborhoods or within distinct areas that are interrelated and complimentary. The category should facilitate infill and redevelopment of those areas to create a desirable mix of
non-residential and residential uses, but promote aesthetically pleasing, safe environments, and buildings that are compatible with the area's characters, uses, and transportation facilities. Additionally, the subject property is located within a designated activity center category as outlined in the
countywide map plan. Section 2.3.3.15 of the countywide rule states that the purpose of this category is to recognize those areas of the county within each local government jurisdiction that have been identified and planned for in a special and and detailed manner based on a unique location intended use
appropriate density intensity and pertinent planning consideration. So that's what they're talking about. There is actually a special area plan for the downtown core. Activity centers are designed at a size and scale that allows for internal
circulation by pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users and typically encompass areas developed in a radial pattern within walking distance of a central point or hub served by transit. and CR and then one criteria one continued
the parking lot use is not in line with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan objective 1.1 uh which is to ensure that redevelopment and new development occur in planned areas at the appropriate densities and intensities as indicated on and consistent with the city of Treasure
Island's 2040 future land use map policy 1.1.1 uh the city's future land use map shall be consistent with the countywide rules as adopted by Penllis County. Objective 1.4, commercial development shall occur
in a planned and orderly fashion. Policy 1.4.7, the city will will encourage mixed use, creative architectural design, parking regulations, and the land development regulations shall ensure adequate levels of parking spaces while encouraging the
reduction of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts and enhancing the aesthetics of the pedestrian. uh of objective 1.5 redevelopment. The city shall encourage redevelopment that is compatible with the existing character in order to achieve an orderly and aesthetic mixture
of land uses. Policy 1.5.1, the city shall through provisions contained in land development regulations encourage opportunities for the redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing commercial areas or uses. Policy 1.5.7.
Future development and redevelopment shall provide a balance of uses that foster a vibrant, viable, resilient community and economic development opportunities. The proposed use is inconsistent with the designed planned redevelopment
mixuse land use element as it does not advance infill and redevelopment efforts aimed at establishing a balanced and desirable mix of residential and non-residential uses. Furthermore, it fails to promote aesthetically cohesive, safe, and compatible development that
aligns with the established character of the area and its existing land uses. The proposed use is not aligned with the following objectives of the special area plan. Objective one, promote next use development. Objective two, promote 107th Avenue as downtown's premier pedestrian street. Objective four,
institute a district approach to parking. Objective five, increase in district demand for downtown businesses. The proposed use is inconsistent with the purpose intent of the PRMU core zoning district which is to establish a
vibrant pedestrianoriented downtown core within attractive streetscape. The proposed parking lot use is a permitted use in the zoning district per section 68-410.02. The placement of parking lots onth Avenue is discouraged per section 68-410.59.
In this section also notes that parking lots shall be placed in a rear yard whenever possible. Uh my apologies, this as big as I can make this graph. So this is criteria U. Um criteria two, the proposed site plan is in conformance with all applicable
regulations of the PRMU core with the exception of access from 107th Avenue. And as we already went over item one, we did do an administrative waiver to that section of code. Um, these are just four items that I have highlight on the chart that I wanted to have corrected in the
staff report. Um, so the correct lot width is 475 ft off 107th Avenue and 400 ft off 106th Avenue. And the lot depth is 275 ft on First Street East. And then also the lot area was incorrect. So that
also needed to be updated to 125,58 ft. Criteria three, of course, this does not apply. Uh, criteria 4, a 4A, the PRMU zoning district h was created to provide
an opportunity to revitalize the city's downtown core economically, visually, and functionally to provide to provide an aesthetically pleasing and efficient activity center with the main focus being on establishing a vibrant pedestrian oriented downtown core. A
surface parking lot does not serve to revitalize the downtown core. In response to the unexpected proposal to redevelop a significant portion of the downtown area into an off- streetet parking surface parking lot, a permitted principal use. There is a notable
absence of detailed standards within the city's land development regulations to address the appropriateness and compatibility of a single-use development of this scale within the intended mixeduse pedestrian oriented character and redevelopment objectives of the PRMU core zoning district.
While this parking lot plan cannot be analyzed in reference to most of the downtown design standards which are intended for buildings, the plan does meet the remaining criteria for parking lot layout, landscaping, drainage, and buffering. Uh 4B, the proposed site plan meets
drive Iowa's parking space width and length. There are 236 standard parking spaces and 78A accessible spaces resulting in a total of 243 parking spaces. Additionally, there is an ingress and egress driveway on 107th Avenue and another on 106th Avenue. The
access from 106th Avenue does not meet the Treasure Island downtown design criteria, which we've already covered this. We already gave them administrative waiver for that section of the code. Um, and there is no proposed bicycle storage criteria for C. The proposed site plan is in conformance
with the landscaping requirements set forth in chapter 72 re resources vegetation environmentally sensitive land. The proposed plan is in accordance with the ISR requirement of the PRMU zoning district. Uh criteria 4 D does
not apply as there are no proposed buildings. Criteria 4E uh this also does not apply. Uh the beach access the beach is accessed via the city's existing pedestrian walkways and crosswalks. Criteria 4F, this also does not apply.
Um but we did want to note um the it's not a significant historic significance. Um but it's worth mentioning that the memorial pavers which um Ross covered as well too shall be are required to be returned to the original location and condition prior to the close out of the
open demolition permit DM O-006233-2023. Criteria 4G, uh this does not apply either. There are no on-site recreational areas, improvements, or lands to be dedicated for public recreational purposes. Criteria five, the public works department will determine if the
proposed development will require any new or upgraded public improvements. A vacation application for the east west alley and the north south pedestrian walkway has been received by the city and is being reviewed. The city has requested additional information from the applicant. If the site plan
application is approved, this approval will be contingent upon these vacations. Criteria six, the proposed site plan will require a permit or exemption from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Transportation. No, no review or
approvals are required from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. And criteria 7, this does not apply either as this is a vacant lot. So staff's recommendation for item two, which is the site plan. Staff have reviewed the regulations for
site plan approval and determined that it does not satisfy the application criteria set forth in section 70-92 of the land development code, specifically subsection 70-92A1, 70-92A4A,
70-92A4B. Staff has reviewed the regulations for site plan approval and determined that it does satisfy the applicable criteria set forth in section 70-92 of the land development code, specifically subsections 70-92A2.
Um, it did meet this because we granted them the administrative waiver. Uh, it also does meet 70-92A4 C and 70-92A5. A review of the comprehensive plan, special area plan, and the countywide plan support that this proposed. So,
surface parking lot site plan does not meet the criteria of these plans for development of a pedestrian oriented mixeduse area as analyzed in detail above. Accordingly, based on the criteria above, staff recommends denial of the proposed site plan.
And moving on, if the planning and zoning board uh approves a site plan, staff re staff recommends the following conditions. Condition one, provide a recorded unity of title prior to the city's issuance of a construction permit. Condition two, establish and
record a revocable cross agreements to adjacent parcels prior to the city's issuance of a construction permit as stated in section 68-410.59B. Condition three, where necessary to accommodate proposed development, the property owner shall be responsible for
the removal relocation of any and all public utilities located in subject site. This is regardless of whether the public utilities are known at the time of site plan approval. Jesse, I was going to say you don't need to read them all. You okay? I was just doing if we have done our homework, we
have read these. Hopefully, people are watching at home, they might want to hear it. All right, now we're good. Now I'm just Are you Are you finished? Yeah, we are going to ask questions to the staff. Uh I'm going to
start off. First off, this uh 107th is not a state road. The DOT is not involved in this project whatsoever. So, no DOT permit has to be acquired. You were correct. Yeah, I don't know how that got mixed in there. My bad. Another correction needs to be made on that. That should not be in there. All right.
Strike that out. All right. Obviously, nobody in this city in in this piece of property's current condition likes it the way it is. It looks bad. Worse than bad. And it has been that way for a long time. I'm pointing the fingers at a lot
of people. The owner, the city, everybody. We want it fixed. And you know, right now you're uh recommending denial. I know there's a lot of bureaucratic reasons for doing that, but you cannot tell me that you like it the
way that it is. But what the owner could do if he wanted to is he could mow that, clean it up, and leave it forever. That way, make sure it's totally in compliance. So,
the uh question is, I mean, obviously you have your reasons for denying it. What would make the city happy and want to approve this? What would it take? Would it take the uh applicant to submit a set of uh a set of building plans?
Because I look at this set of uh what is supposed to be a preliminary site plan coming before this board. This is not a preliminary site plan. I could take those plans and give them to a good contractor. He could go build that thing. This is the problem I've had throughout my career. this damn thing is
nearly totally designed. So, what is it that would would turn the city staff around and say recommendation for approval? I mean, I can't speak for all staff members. So, because this is not all just me making these decisions as
you know. All right. Well, obviously there's not a staff member at this city who can say that our current central business district is uh in good shape. Oh, I know. And I got your card. T Mr.
Chair, if I could be recognized, I can I can comment to your question. Okay. Uh, since you got a card in here, and let's go ahead. Thank you. Um, Trip Bars, acting city manager, not in my position as fire chief. Um, you know, up here
basically to defend staff. The the the question brought before the board is is this site plan appropriate or not? staff has only the ability to look at what is out there that they that they have to reference to. That's the three plans,
you know, the county plan, the area, special area plan, and their land development regulations. Their interpretation is that it does not comply with what was envisioned in those plans. Staff does not have the ability to approve or deny this plan. This board
does. And I agree, that's what I said when I meant there's a lot of bureaucratic reasons. Yeah. and staff only has the ability to deliver the information factually to the board as it applies to referencing these plans. As acting city manager, I will tell you um
my economic development director has said repeatedly that, you know, we're short about 500 parking spots if we want to do redevelopment in all of the downtown triangle area. Um, you know, this provides half of that if if we can find a way to approve this this site
plan gets us well on the way. Applicant has clearly noted that this is not a forever I won't even call it a building, a forever use of this site. Um, it does meet the current need. um it just wasn't envisioned in these
three documents that staff is required to reference when they bring you the information and their recommendation. Doesn't mean that city staff does not want this parking lot to happen. Not by a long shot. Um what was also not envisioned was two
hurricanes and the opportunity to redevelop the entirety of Treasure Island. um to do that downtown. It's my opinion as acting city manager that we could really use a 250 spot parking lot. I agree 100%. And the thing is this
parking, this building was torn down prior to the hurricanes. So there's no excuse. We can't use the hurricanes as an excuse in this case. It just my frustration that I am seeing is the lack of progress. Lack of
progress. And it's really I agree. I've been doing this business for a long time, Jesse. I knew what you were going to say that there's a lot of things that you have to do. Believe me, I used to deal with the Penelis planning council and they didn't like anything that we did. But situation being is I just want
to make the point that I know you have your processes, but we do want to make progress. So, I appreciate your comments. Absolutely. and and staff has no other does not have the ability to to go against those three planning documents that they referenced.
They just don't have that ability. It's not within their scope of work. Um the board does have the ability to approve this this site plan. So hopefully we can make some progress. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Okay, we have a secondh card here. We're going to go ahead and get
this out of the way. We're still having staff discussion. A chance to ask. We're still asking staff. We're going to do the uh second speaker and then we're going to ask questions. We're just since trip bar came up. There's a I spoke as part of staff. Sorry. Yeah, that was not
public comment. Anyway, Kimberly Stewart, come on up and let's get you out of the way and then we'll come back with uh I know we can get more questions for Jesse. Jesse's going to get a lot more questions and I know
you're looking forward to it. Thank you. you state your name and address and uh Kimberly Stewart 111090 Second Street East Style of Palms. Um I I realize some of my comments may be out of place once I heard the legal uh
description of what this is about. Um but I'm still going to throw some out there anyways. The first thing I thought when I saw this on the agenda was, you know, we're paving paradise and putting up a parking lot like that song says. It's really really tough to hear that. That being said, um I disagree with this idea that there's no front yard on
107th. And I disagree with how the um the definition was read, and I wish I brought my phone up to read it, but he suggested that because there's no building, there's no front yard. But the definition he had up there specifies building setbacks, not buildings. And I'm pretty sure that a building setback
exists on a lot regardless of whether or not there's a building there. And that's how you can determine where you build your building. Um, so I really disagree with this idea that there's no front yard there. And I I maybe that'll give you something to consider. Um, I also disagree with the idea this is going to
be interim. Come on, this is a cash cow. I mean, it takes no overhead less. I'm I'm sure there's some overhead, but no. And it's going to be like millions of revenue. So if you really want to call this an interim project, then put some sort of condition on this that requires them to come forward with a plan and a
timeline for when like when this interim is going to expire because otherwise as soon as they get permission, it's never going to change. It's going to be 30 years from now. People that you know are just like why did we ever allow this to happen? It is such a prime place. It's just heartbreaking to think that that's what we could do. So, if there's any way
we could do something like that and require them to have some forward motion plans, that would make me feel better about this interim idea. So, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay, now we'll go into questions for the uh city staff. We just want to get that out of the way. Go ahead.
You want to go first? Who's next? Yeah, Chris, you go first. All right. Mine's simple. Um, I just want to understand within the site plan itself for a parking lot of this type, is there any requirements for safety improvements for pedestrians in in the area where you
cross over that the entryways to this? There's two entryways on this parking lot. Is there anything that's required and or was did the applicant do anything in terms of it of safety improvement for pedestrians? um as a part of the site plan.
Uh we do have parking lot design within our land uh land development regulations. Uh let me see if I can bring those up here. They met all of those, right? Yes. I'm just starting to understand what those would be.
I can't read Russell. No, I'm the plans. Okay, let me pick it up. I would think instead of potholes, a freshly paved concrete parking surface would be much safer. escaping. So the roller bladers so the roller right now if a rollerblader goes through there
they can crack their head open and I guess the point I'm making if if this were to be approved you can see can there be some provision for making sure that we make it safe for pedestrians that are crossing over these entryways since this is going to be a pretty
heavily used parking lot. So if um whether or not we would have the right to as part of this to um you know force the use of speed bumps or other um you know other physical things that can be done whether it's even just signage to
keep pedestrians and bicers safe along those sidewalks right at those just at the entryway. So you're talking about the entrance off 100 entries of this parking lot. Okay. Yeah, they did. There there is a note on a site plan where they do have special emphasis crosswalk per FDOT standard
plans index 711-00001. Yeah. So, it's met all of the met those. Imagine a fresh coat of paint on the ground versus I mean, look what we got. What else we got out there on the old stuff? Chris, if you look at page C6, like I said earlier, they damn near
designed the whole project. C6 special emphasis crosswalk walk per FDOT standard plans index 7-Eleven 001. It meets it and I mean once again plus you got ton tons of new lighting. Can I go first? Mine's quick. You're fine. It's a
heck of a lot better than what's there. My question is really quick. Anyway, go ahead with questions. You guys know I'm going to talk a lot. Je Jesse just quick um in the last parking lot that we did that we approved the vacation of the alley was like included in our approval in this presentation that you had said
the vacation of the alley was something completely it was like in a different department. Why is that not would that this approval includes different because it was a street it had to be transferred. So is there are you talking about like the conditions that we
Sunshine Lane Sunshine Lane the site plan come again? Yeah, it's the rightway. Okay. So is it is it because it's an alley is different than a street? No. No, it's it's treated the same. Okay. So we would go through the same vacation process that we went through for the Sunshine Land. Yeah.
Okay. Does that answer your question? I mean in a sense it just seemed like there's something already that was going through because in your packet you said it's under review. Yes. Yeah, we have it. Um, we just sent comments back. So, it it takes a long time for them to obtain like the letters of no objection from like all the utility companies. So,
we can't really move forward until we receive that stuff. My question was, what what additional information do you need for that vacation application? What are you missing? It is mostly the letters of no objection. Um, if I recall, I think it's like nine or 10 utility companies, I believe, that they have to reach out to. Okay. I'm just
asking because if if if this were to get approved, I understand that there's a condition that's in there. I just want to make sure that that part doesn't get stalled through the process. Sorry, Cara. Thank you. You're okay. Um, so basically our goal up here is to ensure that the development aligns with the community's values and support
sustainable progress. Um, however, it's really concerning for me um as a resident and a business owner here to see um other business owners and residents investing significant time and resources aka 2 years and 200,000 plus
dollars on um a parking lot um for example. um those proposals ultimately come before us needing substantial revisions it seems because it's a it's a ping-pong process I feel like between
our board the staff and whoever is coming before us. Um our role is to help these projects to better meet the city's goals maximizing economic impact while balancing the interests of tourism residents and long-term development. We're committed to working collaboratively to streamline this
process, reduce unnecessary back and forth, and help bring forward the plans to truly benefit the entire community. That basically is how I would summarize this board. Um, I would like you to pull up to answer your question, um, the
original like what that property looks like all chopped up. You mean like what it looks like today? Yeah, like with all of the alleys and accesses and it's all discombobulated.
I think you had it in there. So, basically from a development standpoint, of course, the main goal is not to keep a parking lot forever. right now as a developer or a land owner or someone that comes in and wants to
develop it or even if Pirate Square wants to develop this piece of property into something more. Technically, it's four parcels, five parcels. Is that what I'm looking at? Because of the alleys,
the way it's chopped up, the way it's looks, that's what it looks like. basically us vacating the alleys, the city vacating the roads and potentially getting rid of these easements, you create one seamless piece
of property that is developable. Am I incorrect on saying that? That is correct. I mean, the situation being is that uh I would get rid of the easement to be fair because again, if someone comes in and wants to build a
retail, condos, parking garage, all of the above, they're going to be forced to have a walkway, road, whatever that is right down the middle. But they could we could make provision. They could come to they could come to this board and
request that to but from a point of we could get rid of that now. Why why make it even worse then it is let's keep that let's get through the question and answer situation before we
start discussing easements and rights away. The situation is that's what the client is proposing. That's what the applicant is is uh proposing. Uh right now they don't have an objection to that uh north
south pedestrian easement. But um let's go ahead and finish the uh questions to city staff and then we'll have a rebuttal from the applicant and then we'll get into our own personal uh discussions.
Marvin. Okay. Go for it, Jesse. So, the downtown design regulations, evidently we don't want any curb cuts on 107th, right? That's correct. Are we trying to go totally pedestrian or based off what the code is? That's pretty much the goal
is to make it that you don't want cars on 107th Avenue. I'm sorry. That we don't want cars on 107th Avenue? Uh, we do. Um, so the code is is kind of just like a way for separations. is pretty much you just have like a seamless sidewalk and landscaping going up and down 17th Avenue that you still like
this is this is a constantly changing plan of course so obviously has retail that's not help could I clarify that that is when it's redeveloped with buildings the plan the downtown adopted plan would bring the buildings up to the street front um there would be parking
on 107th and the entry would be from the rear or the side to the parking garages because Anything redeveloped downtown has to be elevated and so your ground floor is going to be primarily parking, but it's hidden behind a liner building of retail. But it's not that goes back
to the code being so obsolete in the sense of what developer and what resident wants to see a building with zero setbacks because there are zero setbacks on 107th right now. So why would we want a building
buted right up to the road? So that is not appealing to residents, developers or anything. In the LPA meeting later today, this is phase two of the land development regulations. Phase one is going to address something that you brought up today, which is the
requirement for an engineered site plan that is in the proposal to be removed in phase one and simply go to a site plan, which is more typical in other cities. So, we can we'll address all of this when we get to the LPA meeting tonight,
but or this afternoon, but I just wanted to let you know we're working with the code that we have right now. That's the code with that we need to to analyze. That's why thank goodness we have a LPA meeting and we're after this one because we're going to discuss the obsolete
downtown redevelopment uh plan and it is obsolete right now. It was made in 2006, so it's 19 years old. It's time to move into the 21st century. Let's finish the questions for Jesse at this point. Go ahead. Anybody else? Yes. So, the access
points and that uh the applicants proposing, are they in and out? Both both access points or or is one in one is one in and one out or No, they're they're both in and out on both sides. 107th and on the back side. I was going to ask Ron, can I use your presentation
to show that? Yeah, just pulled up. Um, they are both in and out. In and out. Okay. Is this yours? This one? Could you imagine if we had an in- and-out?
Can you imagine if we had anything? Okay. Uh, Marvin, this this shows up and egress for the site. Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Anybody else got any other questions? Is the city attorney counted
as staff or no? Yeah. Can we ask the city attorney? Sure. What's your question? Sorry. Well, what do you think about this permitted principal use concept that you know it's a permitted principal use and forget everything else and we need to approve it.
Uh well, just wondering what it is a fact. This is a factf finding board. So I can explain the law, but you guys take the facts and apply it and see if it's consistent, which is a factual inquiry. And as the lawyer, not only do I not really usually have an opinion, it's not
even valid. So it wouldn't be it would be used as competent substantial evidence. If I said, you know, I think it does, you couldn't rely on that because it would just be a lawyer's argument. But I can explain some of the law um when it comes to that. I mean, that's a use. You look at what they're
proposing and um you look at the I mean look at staff staff's argument I think is very relevant to your inquiry which is does this type of use violate these goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan and you could find that it does or you could find they say
and they say it does. Yep. They say it does and some and of course the applicant says u there is no inconsistency, right? But especially with our economic developer a month ago saying that we need parking spaces. That's that's evidence that you could rely on staff saying, "Hey, listen. This
is part of um um the goals of the city, the comprehensive plan, special area plan. Uh and that that testimony is something that you could rely on." Correct. Yes. in making your determination, but it doesn't again it doesn't dictate you find one determination or the other.
Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, anybody else got any other questions for the city staff? Seeing none, um, Mark, do you have any further comments and rebuttal? Yeah, I don't want to wear out my welcome in Treasure Island. I did
made that mistake last year. I survived though. Oh, you did fine then and now. This will just you guys have a lot before you tonight. So, just a couple points here and um I'm beating the proverbial dead horse, but here
again, it comes down to this use. When you heard Jesse's presentation when he went through number one, everything was use, use, use. And then the interim city manager said, "Hey, you know, our staff, you know, they're hamstrung by the
countywide plan and the city's plan." And that's not the case. We've already determined that the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Okay? And I don't blame Anthony for his first day on the job not wanting to give an opinion on this, but the case
law I submitted basically says once a use is permitted, there's a presumption that it's been scrutinized by the LPA, by the local government, in this case Forward Penelis, that that use is consistent with all plans. Now, I don't
see any criteria under 70-92 that talk about use. They talk about is the is the plan, you know, this, is the plan that, and they never call into question the use or actually delegate any kind of authority
to staff to weigh in on their preferred use. Okay, this is site plan approval. This is not a resoning action for a recommendation to to the city commission. So, I think that's pretty important. I was going to cross-examine Jesse, but I had the luxury of doing
that last year and uh I'll leave him alone today. But thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mark. Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing. We will discuss this among ourselves. I understand. I want to bring
the point up that uh I know there's a bunch of what is now known as Ford Penllis, the comprehensive plan, the downtown redevelopment district. You know, it's all well and good. I drive by this place every day. It looks like
crap. It's like I said earlier, it's a lot of people's fault. And what I also said, despite Kimberly Stewart's comment, this is an interim use. This is not going to be here in 10 years. It's going to be something. Can't tell you what it's
going to be, but it's going to be something because this is not the highest and best use of a downtown area of a central business district as we call it. So, progress needs to be made in this town. We have four areas that are disaster
right now. Obviously, the Gator's property, the club, Treasure Bay in its current condition, and our central business district on both sides of the street. This happens to be the first of
any project that's coming in the city to look at those five areas. And you know, we all live here, we all drive around, we all know what it looks like. Progress needs to be made. Is this what we want? No, it's not what we want. I'd love to
have a uh another restaurant to give the middle grounds a little competition. Uh I'd love to have, you know, some retail on the bottom floor, something above it. I don't know what. Uh that's up to the applicant to do his business plan and
come up with something that works. But in the meantime, you know, I'm going to use my personal situation here. I used to do uh 200,000 square foot shopping centers and I would have them from day of inception to breaking ground in 7 months. There's no
way this should have taken two years. We need to uh get it to the point where the city can work together. I mean, I could walk into a city and find out if I was the enemy or friend. I had projects that were approved in no time. I had projects
that took a little bit longer because they considered me the enemy. And uh situation is is we want this because we're in a situation where we need to make some progress with the redevelopment after this town. Are we going to have another hurricane like
Helen? God knows I hope not. But it could happen. But in the meantime, let's try to make some strides to uh make this a better place. All right. I've had my say. Go ahead. What other comments? I I would second what you just said. I mean,
it's it's a reasonable development in terms of it's not um I'm going to be in favor of it. Um with some of the conditions that have been put forth um and and I do believe it'll be an interim use. It's not highest and best use, but it will be when when the time is right,
and we, you know, shouldn't be holding up uh the rights of the property owner in the meantime. So, that's that's exactly where I agree with you on property rights. Um, and that goes back to what I was saying about it being super chopped up. We're two years in.
They're 200,000 plus dollars in this. It scares me to see if a an actual project came forward, how long it would take to go through the city to come to us and how much money would be wasted and time wasted to just build a building. Um,
especially knowing that our code is obsolete, it's dated, it's gray, it's opinionated, all of the above. um you know the simple fact that we have zero setbacks. Um no no one's going to try to fight that right now and right now it
does it doesn't look great. Um you know but but doing this right now is interim obviously it's no one's goal um to have a parking lot there forever. Um but again it's going to look a heck of a lot
more appealing to develop it when it is a seamless piece of property. Mhm. Well, let's discuss if nobody has any Go ahead. No, I just like the less I mean, first off, we should give the applicant credit for getting CJs out of town. I'll say that because I know that our police chief absolutely thought that that was a
nightmare uh when it comes to impervisious ratio going from 90 to 70. I think that that's a big key uh with what everyone else was saying when it comes to um where we want to go. And I appreciate the comments on the previous code because right now maybe the parking lot is where it needs to be. So, um I
just Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just wanted to say um interm or alternate members, so I'm not going to be voting here today, but I do want to point out to my board members um fellow board members here that the PRMU zoning that's there, there's a lot of other properties that have that same zoning. Um so
whatever you decide here today is going to set a precedent for those other properties. Um because if we do allow this, which I'm not saying whether we should or we shouldn't, um we're setting the precedent that any of that property there could be torn down and we could be uh 107th be lined with with parking lots
as well. Tech technically we don't set precedent. It's case by case basis. So there's only two pieces of property with that type of zoning, both sides of this street. Right. I mean, there's the Gulf Boulevard section, and that's something we can get into further with the LPA because I do want to talk about the uh
plan redevelopment uh zoning designation. Uh the one thing that I want to get into is let's get into these seven conditions. Uh Ross, you touched on it earlier. Yeah, I have seen the condition of those um pavers. You know,
it was a neat idea at the time. They went in place about 20 25 years ago. and 25 25 years ago plus the hurricane I kind of beat beat them up a little bit or removing them. I guess they were already pulled out of the ground. Perhaps we make it a a new thing. I wrote a um I wrote in a condition I was
going off of the um proposed conditions. I know that number five on the applicants packet was strike out, but I was just going to request that the memorial pays be returned to the public works yard uh by the end of the year. That's great. Would that be for so that they could be in so the city can do the
city can take ownership of them and do whatever they want with them. Reinstall them if they want where wherever they want wherever they want them. Okay. Number seven I'd like to talk about. You know the thing is buildings I forget who said it. I think it might have been you Cara. Buildings uh create garbage. We do
want to have a neat clean area. We'll just put a condition in here. This the applicant shall maintain keep it clean in a clean orderly and well kept conditioned. I don't know. I'd like to get rid of the um the easement. I would
I'd like to NY that. Well, why would we why would we get rid of a negotiating point in the future? You mean the north south? Yes. Ally. Mhm. If the currently that I mean correct me
if I'm wrong, Jesse, that exists, right? I mean, that is a is that an existing rightway? Yes, it's an existing 10-ft rideway. Yeah. So, it is what it says on that plan that we were looking at earlier and I have it here somewhere that it says proposed pedestrian
easement to be granted to the city of Treasure Island. I'm not sure that's correct. That's existing. It is. It is correct. Um because the whole point of why that's in this plan is because they have the petition to vacate the rightway. So, if the vacation of these rightaways are
approved, I think we're talking about part of the approval, they are providing an easement back to the city for those memorial pavers. Is there another place they can provide an easement instead of right down the middle? As of right now, that's what they plan. I mean, we're trying, you know, as a as a city, we're
trying to rebuild. And again, that goes back to my comment of let's make life easier in the future and correct it now instead of fighting in the future. Because that's exactly what I foresee happening is I literally foresee someone
coming in to develop this property, whether it's the land owner or not, and coming to the city and spending two years and $200,000 just to get rid of an easement. The site plan that we have in front of us though includes it. So that's what we're trying to that's can I address that question please? Um
what is your position now with the city special projects manager? Okay. Uh I just wanted to let you know we met with the developer two or three years ago and indicated the city's willingness to relocate that pedestrian rightaway um
wherever it worked in a new project. But the continuity of that connection from park to the old site is important to the downtown plan to have so that you don't have to walk all the way around the block. So we've indicated we would be more than willing to relocate that once
there's a development plan there. So we could add that as a condition. Well, right now it is a public rightway and until it comes through a vacation process right now it still exists. It could be and the applicant has
indicated that they would dedicate a pedestrian easement there for now. Would could always be relocated with a development plan in the future, but there's no plan of redevelopment that would make sense to relocate it right now.
So, are you saying that it is an easement now and it would just stay in? Right now it's a rightaway. If it was vacated and it was the city accepted an easement in lie of a rightaway then it would be just pedestrian access through there and that can always be relocated
through a legal process to go like say there's buildings in the way. It could go around the buildings. So as long as it's a parking lot to keep the easement be redeveloped then the city we're fine with the easement where it is right now. Okay. We've got to come through the
alley vacating process. But I appreciate the thoughtfulness. I just I like to nyx it all, you know, just make it easier for the future considering how hard y'all have been fighting, considering the money y'all have put in and you know, it's it's it really is upsetting
as a resident and a member of this board to know that for two years and $200,000, and I'm going to stress that again, for paving a piece of property that you own is ridiculous. Yeah. Yeah. And the reality is till we get rid of those you
walkways or alleys, we can't, like you said, consolidate the property. It really scares me for even more future development with wanting with folks working with the city um in that respect of how much are they going to have to spend and how much time are they going to waste? You know, it does line up
right now with the clock tower. I mean, it's in the logical location because of the clock tower, but that's always subject to change. The comment I wanted to make was Jennifer Bonvalor, you were making some comments earlier and now we're at the point where your comments are appropriate. Well, it appears that
this body will be in favor of this um of this request. So, are there conditions that we could have them meet to better this project? for instance, can we request a buffer zone
um so that you don't see all the cars in the parking lot? So, some kind of setback with um I mean if it's 20 10 20 ft whatever we could decide with enough foliage and what have you again so when
you're driving through we don't just see a sea of cars. Well, the only issue with that is they've met all of the parking lot requirements. I understand what you're saying, but we have buffers. We're just we're going to be circling back again. Okay. Yeah, I was going to
say Jesse just got the uh landscape plan up there. I was just looking at it on my laptop. It meets landscape code. There is a buffer along 107th. Yeah, there is. You know, that was always the main objection. Would you be willing to get unanimous support? I would say ask the
applicant. Would you be will the applicant be willing to if to get unanimous support if they did something like that if they expand because it doesn't take much. Well, to me that's more time and that's more money and they've already wasted enough. But I think it's been done. I mean the landscape plan does that. It's going to
look better than what this look at this parking lot that we look at across the street here. I mean I agree with that. It's gonna look good. We do have a hedge on the north side and a hedge will block the uh the cars. I mean the old
celebration uh type situation where you park in the back with the garbage cans is now obsolete. We'll talk about that. Yeah, there's nice around this thing. But there is a hedge on the north side. There's trees landscape islands. It's no longer sea of asphalt. Sea of asphalts
are no longer done in Florida. So, it's a situation where we kind of have done what you're asking for, not we. Well, the applicant. So, yeah, the applicant hasn't answered. I'm glad you answered. Go ahead, Mark. Okay. First of all, there'd be a safety concern, I think, with too too much
hedging. Secondarily, we've met the city's code. Okay. And quite honestly, this has been a moving target because you really don't have any standards, you know, to govern the development of parking lot, per se. And we've been very cooperative. Okay. Okay. And we feel
quite honestly pretty strung along by this. And now just because your personal preference, you want more hedging. We're going to meet your code. Okay. That's what this is all about. You all need to set the bar somewhere. Tell us what our target is. We and we'll hit the target.
That's what we're trying to do here. So to answer your question, no, we're not interested in going above beyond what your code says. Thank you. And we do have and the other thing I always want to point out is the city gets another shot at you at your
building permit submitt. I mean this is strictly supposed to be a preliminary site plan. And then Mr. Chair just Mr. Sanchez about the pavers what we were going to suggest is that we bring them to the city 30 days after the vacations approved. Okay. Because that might take
us a while you know to get there too if you don't mind. Okay. Any other comments? Any other questions? So, one, so condition number one, we're good. Condition number two, I was going to sort that out real quick. Yeah, we're going to go through the
list. Conditions one through four or five. Fine. Whoever makes the motion needs to uh take into account what we're going to do with the pavers. Condition number six is fine. Uh condition number seven, that is just going to be rewritten to say the applicant needs to
keep the parking lot uh as like what they suggested the property in a plain, orderly, and wellkept condition. Jesse, if I were to make the motion, would I be allowed to do it with the proposed conditions by the applicant with the edits that we talked about in today's meeting?
Give me a second. I'm bringing those up here. I'm pretty sure they line up pretty. Marv, any other questions? Well, number five they've got going away all together. So, yeah, I'll make that one the way you want to. Well, number five actually is different. Um
the it says all the the staff's recommendation said number five says all conditions of approval stated in a demo permit must be met including and it talks about the papers and stuff but they have I'm just getting rid of site plan shall not be effective unless the
north side alley east west alley have been vacated. Yep. I'm reading I'm reading I got I got it. I got it. Go for it. I'm going to go make a If you would go for it. Yeah. I'll make a motion in regards to case number S uh the site dash uh 00000041-2023
item number two about the location at 115107th Avenue, Treasure Island, Florida 33706 as a planning and zone uh planning and zoning board member. I'm going to make the motion to approve with conditions a site plan um of commercial parking lot
consisting of 243 parking spaces. And I'm going to list out these conditions um as I read them. Number one, provide a recorded ut unity of title prior to the city of issuance uh of a construction permit. Number two, establish the record and irrevocable cross access agreements
to adjacent partials prior to the city's issuance of a construction permit as stated in section. 68-410- 59B. Number three, where the where necessary to accommodate proposed development, the
property owner shall be responsible for the removal uh relocation of any and all public utilities located on the subject site. This is regardless of whether the public utilities are known at the time of the site plan approval or discovered after such approval. Any removal or
relocation will require the approval of the city's public works department. Number four, all building permits and construction associated with this development proposal shall be subject to all current regulations within the Florida building code, floodplane management regulations, land development
regulations, and the Florida Fire Prevention Code in effect at the time of the building permit application process. Number five, that the memorial pavers to be returned uh 30 days after the vacation is approved. Number six, the site plan shall not be
effective unless the north- south 10 foot alley and east-west 30-foot alley has been vacated and the vacation and any associated easement have been recorded. Number seven, the property shall maintained in a clean, orderly,
and well-kept condition with no accumulation of trash or debris so as not negatively impact the public or surrounding area. Thank you. Second. Okay, we have a mo motion by Ross Sanchez, second by Cara Sims. Tia, could
we have a roll call vote, please? Gary Patenziano, I'm still allowed to vote. Yes. Yes. Ross Sanchez, yes. Cara Sim, yes. Christopher Downing, yes. Jennifer Bumvelier, no. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. Passes
six to one. Do me a favor, Mr. Burn. Go clean up that mess. Thank you. All right. Does anybody need a break or shall we go into the Thunderbird? All right. Let's just go into I could
use a fivem minute break. Yeah, me too. All right. It is now 4:00 when we reconvene that. So tell us how you really feel. I mean you know my ready. Yep. Okay. What's that? 10B site
0000505-2025 10700 G Boulevard site plan approval request for a hotel consisting of 106 units. And just so everybody knows where we're at on the board is this is the Thunderbird
and we've all been keeping an eye on this one. So, we'll start out with the applicants uh presentation. Please approach the uh podium and let us know what you're going to do. Good afternoon. Uh I'm Alex Plus. I'm the architect of record 800 Drew Street,
Clearwater, Florida. Basically, we're going to remove everything that's on the site. Uh we're proposing four stories over parking and uh we meet all of the site plan.
We're not asking for any variants uh variations in the requirements. And that's my presentation. [Laughter] Okay. I have a question. Got a couple questions for you. This should be easy, please. Uh, and I know it's in this
packet. I just didn't see it. And you probably know right off the top of your head. How many units are in the existing building? 106. Oh, you just said replacing 106 with 106. Yes, that's we're allowed to do that because we're over the density. Story over. That's one I want to know.
And you're happy with four. Basically, what we learned from the hurricane is well, as you well know, is raised buildings survived and and returned to service very quickly. Correct. So, that's the reason why you're tearing down the Thunderbird is the fact that unfortunately you had a bunch of ground
floor units that were destroyed. The uh current I think in some areas the Thunderbirds as high as existing as three stories. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any other Anybody else have any questions? Nope. Have you applied
for your demo permit yet? Uh no. Why? No. Why? Well, we got to make sure we have site plan approval before we, you know, because they do have the option of renovating what's there. And so, we just want to, you know, go through the proper
channels. Did you Sorry. Go ahead. I think you said u four stories over parking. It's three stories over parking in the in the I think. Yeah, that's correct. I Sorry. Just want to make sure that's Yeah, I
was correct. Correct. Okay. And I work on another scheme that was for source and not regarding the site plan, but can you can you address just the the original signage that's there, the big Thunderbird that everybody asks everybody about. I understand that the owner is going to either recondition or
save that and put that marquee back up on that correct plan in approximately the same position. It's going to shift a little bit to the north because of the alignment of the road coming in there. Uh and that that is the goal. So, it'll be the original sign or it'll
be a new I don't know if the original sign is going to be, you know, we can rehab it or not, but it'll be identical. Identical. That that that's what my wife wanted to know. Yeah, that's she she grew up here, so she had a lot of memories.
Just hypothetical, if let's say you had the ability to go taller or bigger, would that be of something of interest to the owners? Yes, it would be. Okay. Well, they can already go higher. I think you can go 12 more feet, right?
But you just don't have You can go five over parking if you wanted to. It's set go higher than because it's 60 feet, right? Where is the maximum height we can go? 60. I'm not trying to discourage what you guys have already put down on paper.
What I'm trying to say is that just like our community de development director and I think some of us here that sit here today, we are trying to put a shot in the arm, let's say, into the city of Treasure Island. So yes, something may read today in regards to with with code
and that's what we're here to follow, but there's also some workings that are taking place to try to make things more um advantageous for people to come and and um invest in Treasure Island. I know these applicants were here prior um to
the storms. Um they've put obviously their heart and soul into revamping it and making it nice and we're extremely grateful for that. Um, I just want to make because I wanted to take the opportunity as you all are here as the architect and the applicant to know that bring it's okay to bring us some stuff
that's outside the box because if you look around, we need it. We we can't live the way that we did the last 30 years. It's great that they want to refurb the sign and keep it on the board. That's great. I mean, I've I've been here for 40 years and I'm 40 years old. So, um, you know, I just want to put that in your mind. And again, not
trying to discourage you, but it's okay to think outside the box and potentially bring it to the city because I think everybody absolutely. You know, if you want to do more, we're we're here to to support you. You can put a ferris wheel on top. And I'd probably say yes. I I would Have you Have you thought about
any other amenities? I mean, you only have a pool. So, have you thought about putting in a restaurant or um a gym or a spa or problem um site is that the uh
flood zone changes like in the middle of the site and you can't we can't flood proof anything west of that line that goes through the middle of the site and east of that we can flood proof. Uh
right now the parking is very hard to meet to get to 106. We have a meeting room planned on the upper floor and uh we have a large lobby, restrooms and storage which will be on
the east side of the flood zone. Uh there may be and it just all depends if we can reconfigure the parking that they might have a small bar area. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jesse. Um for parking,
y'all own the lot across the street. So would that coincide and could be used for additional parking? I think Treasure Island Beach Resort did that, correct? I don't recall. Well, when they when they added the tiki bar, you could So,
when you have a lease on So, there's an area between the property line of the properties and the public sidewalk out on the beach that runs from 104th to 112th, I believe. Um, and in a uh legal determination, it was determined that
that was public land that the city would manage in favor of the public. So, what we've done with the Treasure Island Resort and the Bill and we've talked to um the Thunderbird about is what's called a license agreement where you can
actually build something in that public land public land um and pay the city a licensing agreement for that because it has to be open to the public. It's by definition public. So, that is an exception to the parking requirements. And so if you have something in the
public beach that does not require additional parking, but they question about their on-site, they do own the parking lot across the street where we have the approved um five stories over retail. Um and they
could sign an agreement to use off-site parking. So that could subsidize going higher. Yes. Correct. And solve your problem. They own that property. The old Y, it's my understanding, the old McDonald's. Same architect. Yeah, the
one that we just approved last year. No, we own the old McDonald's, right? We approved a fivetory. Yeah. Yes, but it hasn't quite a few years ago. We haven't built it yet. Well, you know, it's an economically
consideration right now. Okay. Anyway, Mr. Let's go. On page four of your site plan, you've got a maximum height 48 feet and you are allowed 60. So, can they go can't they go higher than that? Because the setback is based on that
height. So, you do the calculations and then you do have that blasted alternative setback. I always forget about that. Yeah. Which makes it very difficult. Yeah. How high can they go, Katherine? Well, it just all depends. I mean I can go up to the the max that he
was saying but then you take the 30% then I got to come in from three sides and it becomes very difficult. Well again just know that you have parking across the street. Yeah. So if it makes financial sense
I I wrote a a little bit about just obviously or I don't know is it time for that Richard? You're always the one with the This is We still Okay. This is just questions through applicant. That's okay. Should we uh Yeah, we'll discuss that during the OPA if you don't mind.
Okay, Mr. Plus, we appreciate it. Please have a seat. We'll let the city staff go ahead. All right. So, this is agenda item 10 10b. Uh case number SIT-0000505-2025. Um so this the applicant is currently
seeking a site plan approval for a hotel consisting of 106 units. The proposed redevelopment is a three-story structure over ground level parking and includes 106 hotel rooms, approximately a 1,000 square foot of meeting space and a pool area. Um we do want to note the 106
units that is subject to section 68-512. um because this was this existing hotel was damaged. So, they are be able to build back to those 106 units and they're not subject to the density regulations that we have right now. Uh as we know this located 10771 Gulf
Boulevard. Uh land use is resort facilities high zoning map resort facilities high. And then as you can see, this is a site plan and the north and south elevations, the east and west elevations. And Chris,
as you can see, there's a sign that you were worried about. Yeah, thank you. Y saw that. Uh criteria. Okay, so site plan review criteria stated in section 70-91. Uh staff's analysis is as follows. Criteria one, the subject
property is located in RFU, Resort facilities high land use category and is located within the RF RFH50 resort facilities high zoning district. The proposed use is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and supports the purpose and intent of the RF RFH50
zoning district. Uh criteria two, the proposed site plan is consistent with all applicable provisions of the RFH50 zoning district. Notwithstanding this compliance, the subject property has sustained damage resulting from a natural disaster. Therefore, the provisions of division 4 non-conforming
uses, specifically section 68-512 of the land development regulations are applicable to this site plan. And criteria two continued. Um, these are also corrections I need to point out in the staff report about density. Um,
my bad, these are not corrections. Uh, I'm actually just highlighting the 106 dwelling units. So these are actually grandfathered in per section 68-512 because it was destroyed by a hurricane. Criteria three is not applicable. Uh
criteria 4A, the proposed site plan complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the RFH50 zoning district. Furthermore, the proposed development is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the RFH50 zoning district and it will not adversely affect the compatibility or
established planning character of the zoning area within the RFH50 district. Criteria 4B. The proposed site plan has been designed to safely and effectively accommodate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation throughout the site. The plan includes designated parking
areas for vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. All of which meet the city's applicable parking requirements, drive by widths, parking space dimensions, including width and length, and circulation patterns have been designed to ensure safe maneuverability and adequate access. Criteria 4 C. The
proposed site plan is in conformance with landscape regulations set forth in chapter 72. However, any proposed landscaping within the Gulf Boulevard State Route 699 rightway could require either an amendment to the existing maintenance memorandum of agreement or
the execution of a new agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation. Uh, no development is being proposed cword of the coastal construction control line or any preservation zoning district. Any existing features there will remain. Criteria 4 D. The proposed building
complies with the setback requirements stated in section 68-541 and section 68-561. Criteria 4E uh not applicable. Criteria 4 F criteria 4F is not applicable.
Criteria 4G is not applicable. Uh criteria five, the public works department will evaluate the proposed development during the permit review process to determine whether any new or upgraded public infrastructure improvements will be granted. And once again, we get into the possible
amendment or execution of a new agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation. Criteria six, the proposed site plan will require a permit or exemption from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No review or approvals are required from the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council. The proposed site plan, possible amendment to that existing maintenance memorandum of agreement and or execution of a new one with FDOT. Criteria seven, the existing structure has sustained damage resulting from a natural disaster. Therefore, the
provisions of division 4 non-conforming uses are applicable and the redevelopment of the 106 units is permitted. and staff recommendation. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and determined that it satisfies the applicable criteria set forth in section
70-92 of the land development code. Staff recommends the proposed site plan be approved with the following conditions as you can see on the screen as stated questions. Okay, board members, anybody gotten any
questions? I think this one is um fairly straightforward. We were talking about architectural standards and you know I have worked with Mr. PLCO in the past. He's a good architect and the most recognizable
feature in this city is that sign. I mean you come into this uh city that's the first thing you see. We have no other good architecture in this city. I mean we really don't. This is one of the ugliest buildings we uh have that we're standing sitting in. Anyway, just want
to say any uh let me finish real quick. You know, any upgrades in architecture that we can incorporate that would be more than welcome because uh the idea at this point is somehow to make this city look better. But we appreciate you did what
you've done. We appreciate the retention of the sign. Any other comments, questions? Go ahead, Jesse. Okay. Um, Ashley Richard, yeah, just to follow up on that one. So, that is one of the conditions. Um, we do have a proposed iconic Thunderbird, the the iconic Thunderbird sign shall be permitted to
be reused upon the adoption of a vintage signage ordinance that is currently being drafted right now. Just so you as well. Yeah. Okay. We're actually doing a workshop on it today and then it'll come back next month as an ordinance. Yeah. We may have a few more of those come up
just out of curiosity. So let's just say the current code that we have today with height and density stays the same, right, for the next 6 to 10 months, whatever. They come back and they say, "Well, we want to go higher or wider, bigger, whatever."
Could that be considered a variance that we could approve or is that an absolute head? It can't happen. Do you mean as in like if they come back approve this today and they came back? No, no, just in just in general. I mean, I'm going to approve it today. I'm not a big fan of it, but it's meets everything. So, you can't really, you know, say no. But if
they wanted to do more, let's just say if they wanted to go higher, I'm not going to put a number on it, but let's just say if they wanted to go higher outside of our current code, could they request that and us approve it and it go through everything? Is that that would come down to what we have? So, there's certain things exempt from coming back before the planning and zoning board.
Uh, but that would not be one of them. I don't think that. Okay. So, it wouldn't be allowed basically. Well, Ross, let me remind you of the Treasure Island Resort. They came in for a variance and because it was Gfront had to go before the city commission. They turned it down due to
lack of hardship. You know, variance for a building height, you have no hardship. So, would not be and the only way that this city is ever going to get any increases of heightened density is a change of code, which we can discuss at the LPA meeting. do want to remember
remind everybody that the PD ordinance went before the uh voter it back in 2017 and was defeated about 70% to 30%. So message received that's kind of a third rail. I was just trying to get some information out for everybody to
understand that because we're all sitting here saying like come on let's let's do something cool whatever I just don't want them to do that and then us have be like oh sorry let me clarify that. So, if they came back and it was something that was within our code, now today's code, not a variance, because variances for waterfront properties go
to the city commission. Um, if something within our code that they came back and they wanted to change, yes, they could come back for a change. Um, if they came in, if we theoretically, and I don't think the timing is going to work, but passed a new uh ordinance for heightened
density in nine months because that's going through a much longer planning process, which we'll explain at the LPA. Um, and they came back and they wanted to change. It would just come back as a site plan mod to you like you've seen on other projects. They just come back for a modification. I just because over the
last couple It's amazing how I've been talking about development for the last seven years sitting up here and then now all of a sudden in commission meetings you're hearing about development and these meetings we're talking about development and where it sits today. It does make it somewhat difficult because that's why people are wanting to put in parking lots or whatever it may be. So,
I'm trying to get the wheels going because I think all of us are up here talking about how do we get those wheels going down to where we can have some, you know, spark here in the city. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the city staff? Do you have any rebuttal?
The problem The problem with expanding the use, okay, of the property is the density. The maximum density is 106. At this current time, we we would not need a variance for height, a variance for
setback. We could modify this. We could get five floors in with no problem. And my client, you know, does own the parking garage across the street and we could get, you know, parking arrangement, but unless we can get the density increased, we really can't do
anything on the property other than the 106. I understand. That's why I was asking the question. Okay. Go ahead, Chris. Uh yeah, my question for Jesse, uh the condition number one, is it just redundant? Because I see we put that on a lot of these. Do we really need it?
Yes. It's it's saying that if there's errors or there's something in this plan that doesn't meet the code, it still has to meet the code, but it would anyway when they go for permit, right? I mean, yes. It's just saying this approval doesn't override the code. Okay. I mean,
it's like you get a they get a second shot at it at the building permit time anyway. Okay. So, whatever they make a mistake on the first time, they get it on the second time, which is fine. Simplify stuff. Okay. Anyway, any other comments, questions? With that, we will close the public hearing. Um, you know,
I kind of got ahead of myself a little bit and said I really support this project. We hate what happened to the existing Thunderbird. It was a neat old design, but we're glad they're coming back to town. So with that, any other comments or can we have a motion to approve? Can we have a discussion? Yeah,
sure. That's that's what I just said. I feel like we get rushed a lot by you, Richard. No, I just said any other comments. Um my comments are to the applicant. Um just in general with um the design of course, you know, you're you're basically you checked every box
the city gave you um which is why you got here as quickly as you know, you could. Um, my questions obviously go back to the simple fact of, and I'll let Katherine finish. Um my comments go back to and questions
go back to the applicant in the sense of would you be amanable to come back before us if we continued this hearing um with a different type of site plan which is higher utilize the parking
across the street um and and look at you know a more uh economic impact on the city um just because you know we are trying to align with the residents, what they want, the tourism, the development goals, and right now, you know, if you
can maximize what you can do, why wouldn't you from a landowner development perspective? So, I guess that's that's kind of my question. I I I would I wouldn't vote no because obviously this is, you know, if this is something you really really want, but I feel like we could do better. Well, the
the whole situation is, like I said, it's density. We're allowed to do 106 right now. That's even greater than what's allowed. And unless we the code is changed in some form to allow us more density, we really can't do anything
else. So, what is the process then um to the city staff? If we vote this through and in 9 months we do change the density code um and it gets passed and it goes all through commission, they could come back before us with a site mod. Is that what that is? There's no guarantees it's
going to pass. And like I'd like to see some development. I mean there it's going to take a year at least, right? And it may not even pass. You know, you've got we don't make the decision. The commission does. You got to change the ordinances. I mean, I
understand. Um want them to wait a year to find out if it's going to work. I mean, well, obviously I think what we got to do No, I don't think they would wait a year. we would be if we approved it because they're not going to they're not going to probably they haven't even pulled a demo permit. They haven't they're not I don't know when they're
going to break ground to be fair. It could be in a year. It could be in two years. Again, they're they're a land. They can literally let that building just sit there whether we approve it or not because again which I'm going to talk about LPA there. We have no time limits
on when we pass something. I mean look at their parking lot across the street that was passed. It was permitted. But there's a lot there's a lot involved and there's going to be lawsuits because people don't like height and density which I'm all for it. But height and density at the state level, correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, Mr.
Anthony, um can you please explain height and density as it has passed through. I don't think Dantis has stamped it yet, but it's coming down the gauntlet. I mean, it was spoken by the commissioners already that we've either got to get behind it or land owners can do whatever they want. They don't need
our permission. Two things on that. one I think is a reference to the the referendum. So if they wanted to change, get a referendum. That's correct. That's out the window. But but the state but the heightened density requirements as you understand them still exist. Number two, live local act project. So if it's
a proposed U project that includes 40% of its units being for what's called affordable housing, um then it's administratively approved. um and they're entitled to it, but under that they would only get what was considered the maximum amount of height
they could get. So 60 ft. So we're still back to the fact that our code, our height and density. Yeah. So I'll just sort of jump in here if I could. You could pass this and then three four months later this new commission which I think is obviously very publicly expressed that they want to see a code
that's much more I think pro prodevelopment. I've seen it right. Um if they get that through then they could come back get another site plan. It's not not an issue whatsoever. So, yeah, exactly. We approve this today. You want to come back again? Hey, more power to
you. But, uh, this this way we at least get get you one step forward. Always good to get the next step forward. That's what we're looking for. So, any other comment, sir? Vakin, I'm one of the partners at
Thunderbird, the managing member. Um yes, this is really the first step forward in terms of the entitlement for the project and the reason is with Katherine's recommendation to for us in order to have the uh at least to secure the grandfather of the 106 units we
needed to rush and move with a a certain time frame to make sure that we have that project in terms of like the best heist and best use. We are in interested in maintaining the legacy of the Thunderbird but bringing it bigger and
we're looking into putting a plan for that that is going to be bigger than 106 units like Alex please comment mentioned it's the height is not the issue but the density is and we're looking into the next step to look into that because really in terms of putting 106 units on
the sand on this expensive land development it's It's kind of tight. It doesn't really pencil out really good. So, in order to justify it, it's going to require a little bit more units. So, we This is going to be the next step for us to come forward. But for now, we needed to come and to have
the secure the 106 units be within the time frame. Otherwise, it's going to get lost for us. And what what time frame? What are we talking about? Who told you? Within the next few months due to what? It gets grandfathered. Right now, what we're doing is grandfathering the 106 units. And we are
already working. What's the time limit? We already have a What's the time limit for this? So, um there is a provision in the countywide plan that has something called alternative um hotel density and uh that is something that has to be
adopted into our plan, but it does give a developer who wants to enter into a development order a chance to get more units. Um we're working with their attorneys on that right now. So, that has to be adopted. a time limit
within that county before we can before it could happen. So there's a time limit from the county when like you deem your building uninhabitable or whatever to like I I don't understand is it 6 months, 8 months, 12 months from when
and why? Like we're talking about the grandfather. Yeah, the grandfathering in. So like where's the ordinance or the county county ordinance or anything that cites that we to push this? Because I almost feel like he's being pushed into this by the city staff. No. If there's a
time limit, I want to know why there's a time limit. I want to know the paperwork behind it. I want to know the ordinance behind it. So he's not rushing and spending money on something and then turning around and changing it. That's not what's going on. So he just he just cited that he's probably going
to end up going bigger. he is under the grandfather provision of the code which is in your packet today um in the non-conforming use um portion of the code it says that if a in the event that any residential or hotel motel structure
is damaged or destroyed by a hurricane etc etc it can be repaired or reconstructed in a manner which guarantees that each unit and all uses can be come back to the same square footage. Um, so that is in our code. That's been in our code. That's the provision they're using because if they
redeveloped under the current code, they would have less units. So they're just ensuring that their 106. There's no time limit to that. Okay. There is a time limit if it's a nonconforming use, but a hotel is not a non-conforming use on the beach. I think
the answer is there's no time. There's no time limit. So there's no rush, sir. Yeah, there's no rush if you did not want us to vote this in like does that make sense? I think I can tell you I can this is I think from what I hear from
the city and also as we are in the same we have the same interest in bringing it bigger and better. We are in the process of doing it. what we did so far has been a good exercise for us in terms of like putting the alignment of the building and seeing exactly what's the you know how we it's kind of like
steps in progress but I think since we are already here today I think if we're already in front in front of the boat we would like to get it approved knowingly that of course we're already working for the next step on that we are working with turning with the the city staff everybody and in terms of like right now
under the current code that's what we can get we are working in parallel in another route to make it the ability to have it higher density. We definitely hope that you come back before us with something even cooler. Yeah. Amenities
and a tiki bar and throw some throw a shop in there. Throw a rooftop bar on there. All the things. Um cuz that Who wants a spa? Spa would be awesome. No, she's just spending your money basically. I'm spending my husband's money. No, but I think that it's important as
we go through these conversations, if you all are present, you'd like to give some feedback as you're going through it, you know, being a property owner because I know that we talked about it with in our previous LPA meetings, feel free to provide feedback to the city and to this board because we're going through trying to make those changes that make people like yourself who are
trying to invest in Treasure Island easier. We don't want you to feel pressure either from the city staff to push something through that you may end up changing because it's dollars and time for you paying your architect to design plans like he just did that you're going to turn around and alter if
density gets passed. You know what I mean? And if that grandfather law is there, it's there forever and there's no time limit on that specifically. She just read it. So that's it's we just like to clarify to the residents, the land owners, and everyone here and the
public that we're trying to work with you alongside you and help rebuild this town in the best capacity. And we want to make sure that everything that is out there is clarified to the tea with what we're doing this month because we all
learn something. Yeah, we we we learn every time we come up here and even though you know I read we had a 404 page packet. Um and you were more than half of it. Um there was a there was just a lot of things that I saw in there that I was like, you know, you want to optimize
your beachfront hotel rooms. Those make you the most money. You know, 106 units in the long run isn't going to pay for itself unless your rooms are really expensive. So, right. Thank you. Thank you so much. So Katherine, he doesn't
have to do anything by a certain time to secure this grandfathering. Is that correct? Our understanding is they wanted to bring this plan forward. They chose to bring this plan forward while they work on something else. This particular use is is does not expire
this 106 units. We we wanted to understand that because there'll be other applicants like this and other hotels that are going to want to rebuild whether they were where they have and so in general just so you understand most of the hotels on the beach because we did this
we ran this analysis a couple years ago have more units now than they would be allowed under the current code. So this grandfathering is very important to the hotels on the beach. I mean just in general in just in general that we we got to fix that. Yeah, that's a big we
all know that. Okay, box. Good. Okay. Okay. At this point, I think we're in a situation where we need to approve the first submittal. Like I said, first step forward. He wants to come back is more than entitled to and we'll support this
applicant any way we can uh within code. So with that, Ross, would you like to make a motion? I think Cara is going to take this one. Okay, Cara, go ahead. Okay. In front of me. No pressure. You have to do it. I was looking at the map. Oh, here we go. I always ask this. Never
mind. It doesn't matter. No, you're okay. No, ask a question. Nope. Fine. Uh, the case number site 00505205. Location is 10700 and 10750 Boulevard. I messed that up. Treasure Island, Florida 3376. The planning and
zoning board has made a motion to approve the site plan approval request for a hotel consisting of 106 units. Conditions are number one, all building permits and construction associated with this development proposal shall be subject to all current regulations within the Florida building code. You
can just say conditions one through five. Oh, okay. You don't have to read them all. Written second. Okay, we have a motion by Cara Sims. Second was by Jennifer Bonvalor. Uh Tia,
could we have a roll call? Gary Patenziano. Yes. Ross Sanchez, yes. Carrison, yes. Christopher Downing, yes. Jennifer Bonalo, yes. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. Thank you. You approved seven to
nothing. We're Let's see here. Almost lost my agenda. There it is. Okay. Public comments for non-aggenda items. And just to make sure, was there anybody in the audience who wanted to speak to
the Thunderbird after I've approved it? I always forget. Sorry about that. I always forget. Um, but anyway, any public comments for non-aggenda items? Seeing none comments and reports of city attorney,
staff, and board members. We do have an LPA meeting following this one. Uh let's take a it's uh it's about 17 minutes to uh five. We'll come back here at 10 of and uh there's no vote. There's no voting for LPA today, right?
There's nothing. There is a vote for LPA. There is a resolution um to approve the multimodal ordinance. We have all here though. Okay. Yeah. I just got You're okay. Yeah. I got to get home. Not that we don't want you. No,
Baron's optain. Let's see with Mark. Gary, you got to take off at 5:30. We still have a quorum. You can handle them. You can do it. Sorry. All right. First, we will talk about the uh See you. See you. Bye.
Next PNZ meeting uh will be the third Thursday in July whenever that is. And we'll discuss the LPA meeting. Motion to adjurnn. Wait, before you adjurnn, Chair Harris, if I may. Yes. So, the next OP the next P&Z meeting will actually be on
July 24th because on the third Thursday we're having a budget hearing with the commission. So, we push you back push the PNZ back a week. Okay. All right. Sounds like a plan. July 24th, we're going to make a motion. We're going to ask that we
rearrange the agenda so that we can get by. We got Kim with sitting here. So, we're going to unfortunately first. It's okay. Came in a little bit outside. I know that is fine everybody, but feel comfortable with that though. Good. Are
we on break? Yeah, we're on break. Thank you. Okay, let me go to the Okay. Get my little speech going here again. Oh lord. Got to be legal. Okay. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island local planning
agency board meeting for June 19th, 2025. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker card is available on the table over to the my left 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 comment section of the agenda.
Okay, we're not going to do the uh pledge of allegiance again. Please keep your cell phone silent. Uh Tia, how about a roll call? Mark Sheski here. Gary Pateniano here. Carisim here. Christopher Downey here. Jennifer Bavalier here. Marvin Shavelin
here. Richard Harris here. Thank you. Okay. Anybody take a look at the minutes? Everything look good for the May 15th and April 17th? If so, could I have a motion to approve? I make a motion to approve the minutes for April
17th and May 15th for the LPA meeting that took place. Okay. Second, please. Second. All right. Motion by Cara Sim, second by Marvin Shavelin. Uh, moving on. Roll call vote. Marjeski, yes. Gary
Patenziano, yes. Cara Sim, yes. Christing, yes. Jennifer Balier, hi. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Chris Richard Harris, yep. Thank you. All right. Hey, we're going to move things around a little bit. So, Anthony, my vote could say, you know, in the future we can just
have vote by affirmation if it's for certain things. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. So, were you talking about the rules that we just amended because we amended the city. First thing I did is city attorney, right? Yeah. I think you just already amended them so we don't have to go through roll call for every item like that. Yeah. So the way the
rule works is any item that's not formally described as an ordinance or resolution from this point on uh can be done through voice vote. An example that would be is I make a motion uh to shorten the meeting by 30 minutes. Um I
second that. All in favor say I. I. Done. Any oppose? None. Versus roll call, but they can only be done for all the items other than resolution orders. And that just started two days ago. Yep. Thank you. Okay, we're going to do things a little uh out of order here.
We're going to go with 6B, resolution 2025-02 regarding ordinance 2025-08 amending chapter 65 impact fees and go ahead Katherine with your presentation on that. Good afternoon LPA
members. Uh we have a couple of uh guests here today and so Kimley Horn is going to introduce the concept and uh we have the team from for Ford Pineellis here as well to talk about how this interweavves with the countywide impact
fee ordinances and how that works. And then we will go into the actual approval of the resolution which would uh recommend that the ordinance be moved to the city commission. So, here's an overview.
Um, you want to introduce your own self? Good afternoon, everybody. Uh, Kelly Clipper for the record with Kimley Horn Associates. With me today is also uh Miss Brooke Fleming, uh, who is a planner on our team and also Miss Madison Weaver, who's an intern here from Ball State University. Uh, so we
promised her that we would have a a good eventfilled meeting for her to see for her first one. Uh we've not disappointed to say the least, especially when we start looking at the three topics we're presenting today. Uh I'm not going to go into some of the the typical legal background that we often talk about as
far as consistency with the comprehensive plan. We I know that was uh addressed ad nauseium with some of the previous presentations, but just to kind of simply state that everything that we're talking about is within the the the land development regulations. Uh
the land development regulations need to be consistent with your comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan needs to be consistent with the county right countywide plan and the rules. And that's the reason our our friends from for panelis Nicole and and Rodney are also here to kind of talk about what's going on at that I'll say more regional
level. Uh so we are asking for specific uh recommendations uh moving forward on this portion of the code which is dealing with chapter 65 on impact fees. Uh there was has been quite a bit of discussion about what and how impact
fees are developed, what we can spend them on, and kind of that legislative component that goes with it, which is also that justification and that rational nexus and and and those justifications including the what, why, and more importantly the how much does it cost. This is something that you do
have the authority as a city to adopt. Of course, it has to come uh at the next level. Uh but more importantly what we've identified here in working uh collaboratively with the city staff is to literally start to say okay let's let's bring the current regulations that
you have up to standards up to speed. You know the the transportation impact fee language is very limiting when we start thinking about multimmodal and this is something that uh the team from for panelis has been working on at the countywide level. it provides greater flexibility in how those funds are used
and and and more importantly uh implemented across the course of time. So again, what we're talking about is taking a portion of chapter 65, updating it to reference the impact fees consistent with state statutes, and also more importantly, as you see on the
bullet list here, reflect the countywide uh provisions that are talking about multimodal impact fees. Uh again, they're going to present some baseline information. Uh so that in a sense, this will be consistent with other communities across the entirety of Penllis County. And more importantly,
this is something that has been designed, as you see, here to support both development and more importantly redevelopment of the community. Uh there's been a lot of discussion, and we were here uh before the hurricanes talking about what's going on with certain lots. Uh what about new development, how do we pay for certain
things? So the discussion is not new. it's not new to the city or this body. So, in essence, ensuring that we're being consistent not only with state statutes, but more importantly, as we go through this, that we're consistent with the countywide regulations as a whole. In general, like I say, impact fees are
legal. Uh, I worked in a state where because the impact fees were not specifically spelled out in the state statutes, uh, the courts ruled that you couldn't do it. However, that there are specific provisions within Florida statutes that you see here that say thou shalt be able to providing that you
follow certain criteria and provisions. The the bottom half of this slide is the most important. The municipalities must justify the impact fees. Some people will start to say, Kelly, why is why can't we just charge $1,000 per unit?
Because I've run the math on how much it costs for the sidewalk and that's what it cost. Well, what is that based on? So you have to have that justification and that calculation to go along with it. Uh the revenues themselves can only go towards capital improvements. Uh so in essence that brickandmortar
component. Uh as part of this when you're updating uh you know your fees and other things, it does require public hearings and public notice so that it's you know the residents of the community can't say well we didn't know about it. To the contrary it's a an adopted uh item. It has to be placed on the agenda
and therefore you know again uh adopted by the city. Uh you and then that last of course is you know the phase in increases over time unless there's extra extraordinary circumstances. There's a number of communities across the state. Many county just uh revised and updated
theirs based off of a more recent study. Uh they've actually taken theirs to the 100% level. Uh so there was some incremental uh reviews that were undertaken over the last couple of years. a new study was actually commissioned because what they understood and what they found out was that the the revenues that were
identified within the impact fee ordinance were woefully uh generating funds that literally were not keeping up with the pace of growth and nor more importantly construction again. So just to identify that those last four bullets are the most critical when we start to
think about what we're doing and why. So from a multimodal perspective in Penllis, uh I'm I'm not going to go into their presentation. Uh they can definitely talk about the I'll say at the countywide level what kind of the justification behind this. But again, uh
this is something that is allowed under the state statutes that a charter county, which Penelis County of course is, can enact ordinances that apply countywide, even within the incorporated municipalities. Uh so what we're going to do at this point is I'm going to hand it over to our partners at for Panelis,
allow them to provide some information and then Katherine will be back uh specific to those specific provisions under 65 uh asking for a recommendation. Uh good afternoon. My name is Rodney Chapman. I'm the division manager at for
Penllis and with me today is Nicole Galasso. She is a principal planner and is the project manager for the update of Penelis County's multimotal impact fee ordinance. But before we uh turn the mic over to Nicole, I wanted to give you a little bit of context. Uh we did uh
watch your previous deliberations and we did hear for penel site cited a few times and so I wanted to be clear about who we are and what we do. So, we're not Penelis County, first of all, even though Penelis is in our name, we are actually a separate agency from Penelis County government. Uh, we have the
responsibility of being the countywide land use planning agency as well as, uh, the transportation planning agency. Uh, what that means is that we maintain the countywide land use plan. So, we set the ceiling for densities, intensities, as
well as uses for all municipalities in Panelis County. And on the transportation side, we uh program funding for uh transportation projects, whether that be state or federal funding. The other thing that we do in this three-legged stool of ours is we provide
technical assistance or take on projects that are countywide in nature. And this update to the impact fee ordinance is one of those projects. Uh the county administrator approached our executive director with a request to update the multimotal impact fee ordinance on
behalf of Penelis County and our executive director accepted that offer and for the last year we have been updating uh Penelis Countyy's multimotal impact fee ordinance. Uh I will share with you that candidly this is a a bit of a unique ordinance. uh and doing the
update, we have learned that uh there are no or similar ordinances around the state of Florida. Uh you would think that a similar urban county like Palm Beach County that has 39 cities would have this similar structure, but they don't. So, uh we understand that when we
come out and talk to local governments about this ordinance and how it functions that there is a bit of a learning curve. So, um please stop us and ask questions if something doesn't seem quite right or doesn't make a lot of sense to you. Um, also would just share with you that this
is unified approach. As Kelly mentioned, uh, all the Penel County local governments are administering the same ordinance. There is an economy of scale. There's a cost cost effectiveness that is derived from taking this countywide approach, meaning that not all 25 cities
have to go through and develop their own impact fee studies. There's one being done for the entire county, so it saves the city's money. Uh the fact that there are local and county roads that go throughout our county, it allows for a degree of revenue sharing so that as
development occurs, uh revenues are generated and paid for and can pay for infrastructure to make sure that the development community is paying their fair share to maintain that infrastructure. Um, and lastly, I'd say that earlier today
we heard a lot about uh outdated regulations and uh to some degree the current multimotal impact fee ordinance is out of date. It hasn't been updated in quite a while. And what we're trying to do is to bring the ordinance in alignment with state statutes as well as
clean up some other things that are not quite right as uh as it currently exists. So with that, I will turn it over to Nicole and she'll walk you through the presentation. Thank you, Rodney. Good afternoon, uh, LPA members. My name is Nicole Galasso
and I'm a certified planner uh, with Forward Penelis. And I think Katherine is pulling up my presentation. I think it might have been a PDF. Yes. Could you go um, start on page
seven? So this presentation was initially put together uh for the purposes of briefing our municipalities about an interlocal agreement that we're asking their governing bodies to sign so that they can continue to collect multimmodal
impact fees um as a result of some recent statutory changes that now say if you don't have an interlocal agreement in place when a county and a city are charging an impact fee uh you can no longer charge your impact fees as you
have codified and you would default to what the state statutes say about charging, collecting and spending impact fees. Um, which one of those guidelines is giving developers an automatic 10% discount as well as leaving it up to developers to produce a trafficked
impact study and tell you what uh they think their fee should be. So, as we were, you know, undertaking the multimotal impact fee ordinance update, we brought this matter to the attention of the county attorney's office and they determined, yes, we do need to have this
agreement in place so that our cities and county can continue collecting multimodal impact fees. Uh, without jumping ahead too much, I know address just say because you've said multimodal impact fee and you've used impact fee interchangeably. I I want to make sure
because I'm not sure I really understand the difference and what is the current state that we have as Treasure Island. We don't have any impact fees, right? We don't have any. So we don't I'm wondering but do do we have any agreement with the county with regard to any impact fees at this point? Sorry.
It's okay. Just want to make sure I understand as you go. So let me start with a little background. So, um, the state legislature, and this is all in your packet spelled out, but basically they, um, determined that we would no longer have transportation impact fees, and so it had to go to a multimodal fee.
And our comp plan at that time was out of date. So, as most of you know, um, in 2023, we adopted a new comp plan and 10 days after it was, uh, approved by the state, uh, a new law went into effect that anything that had been passed, uh,
since Hurricane Ian would be, uh, that could be considered more restrictive or burdensome would not be in effect. So, we then went back through the whole process with most of you who are on the LPA at the time and readopted the comp plan. So the comp plan was only
approved in June of 2024. So we had to do the comp plan in order to be able to do a multimodal impact fee. So a multimodal impact fee is one type of impact fee. Right. So the ordinance overall is impact fees and multimodal is
within it. and and does Penllis County or Penelis forward forward Penllis have anything that is a a countywide impact fee that we're can be associated with or is it only the inter modal impact fee? So, this is where I think it might be
helpful to um maybe let the LPA know what the city is contemplating bringing into the land development regulations because right now the way the countywide multimotal impact fee ordinance is written is that all 25 local governments
in Penllis County are using it to collect and spend impact fees. In undertaking the update to the ordinance, we discovered that in some instances um that hasn't been the case because there have been situations such as a
comp plan needing to be updated um or or other kind of um special circumstances that vary by the 25 local governments that we have here in the most densely populated county in the state. um that have maybe uh been an obstacle to some
of the cities collecting the impact fee. But the goal here is that every municipality in Penllis County would be using the countywide ordinance to collect and spend those multimodal impact fees. And I do just want to say
that from this point on when I say impact fees, I am only referring to multimodal impact fees. I'm not talking about utilities or any other type of impact fee. And there is then there are no currently no
um countywide impact fees outside of impact fees with waste water and stuff. They that's city to city, right? Like I just gave a presentation on this to the commission on Tuesday. So that's why I was asking um I I don't want to misspeak. I haven't
looked at every city land development code to be able to say whether every single one has utility fees, but typically, yes, some cities have their own variations of of different types of impact fees, parks, public art, um yeah, waste water. On a countywide, we only do
an inter modal. Correct. On a countywide basis, it's it's the multimodal impact fee. And as Rodney said, the reasoning for that um maybe could could you go to slide um page eight and I'm sorry if I have control over it. Oh no, you're fine. Um yeah, you can skip to eight.
That would be I would thought one. Well, that's something we can talk about. Yeah, that's a completely different some long transitions. You can go to the next one, I think. Okay, here we go. Okay, perfect. So, as as Rodney mentioned,
this goes back to 2016. Well, really, it goes back before that. It goes back to when the state um eliminated transportation concurrency requirements, therefore necessitating a need to update what we had in place as a county as well
as our municipalities. That was in 2011. And so in 2013 following statutory requirements uh we developed penel the penllis county metropolitan planning organization which is the transportation side of forward penllis uh developed the
penllis county mobility plan to create this system for our county and our cities to still be able to collect multimmodal impact fees despite the fact that the state eliminated transportation concurrency requirements.
And so in 2016 when this ordinance was adopted, the intent was that the county prepared the technical fee study that Kelly spoke a bit about in order to save our city's time and money and say we can undertake this for all and then all of
the municipalities in turn will will use this system to collect and spend their multimmodal impact fees to mitigate transportation impacts brought on by new develop velment.
So with that I want to share with you all exactly what you would be recommending um for approval if you uh decide to if you decide to do so within chapter 65 of your land development regulations. You
can move on to the next slide. So, this is kind of a 101 on exactly how does the countywide multimotal impact fee ordinance work and Treasure Island would follow this if um you know the commission eventually decides to adopt
this into their LDRs. So, who pays the fee? Developers um who are seeking a permit for any sort of land development activity that will generate additional traffic, including a change of use. So, for example, um I if
you currently have a parking lot that then redevelops into say um a hotel, that would obviously generate additional traffic. Uh so in that instance, a developer at the time of submitting
their building permit application would have to pay the multimodal impact fee in order to pay their proportionate share of the cost of transportation improvements that would be needed to address the additional traffic generated
by that development. An instance where you wouldn't pay the fee is if you have a single family home um of a of a certain size and you rebuild your single family home of a similar size that would not generate additional traffic and
therefore um in that instance you would not be paying a multimodal impact fee. Now, if you had a single family home and you were redeveloping into an apartment building, that would generate additional traffic. So, that development would be charged a multimotal impact fee at the
time of permitting. But if a hotel was damaged and rebuilt after the hurricane, would they have a fee since it existed prior as a hotel? So, there is a uh there is a section of the countywide multimotal impact fee ordinance that gets into charging only for a net
increase. So you go back and you figure out, you know, what was the development before, what was the fee they should have paid. Um, and then you, you know, recalculate it based on what they're now proposing to redevelop. And if there's
an increase, then they just pay that difference. If they rebuild and it's exactly the same trip generation rate, then they don't pay this multimodal impact fee. you're to add on to uh Marvin's question. Let's use Pirate
Square as an example. Back in 2023, it was an existing shopping center, had offices, retail, so on and so forth. It generated, let's say, 100,000 trips per day. Uh the new one, it generates 120,000 trips per day. I'm just making
up numbers. So, he would pay a impact fee on the difference on the 20,000 additional trips generated by the new use. Yes. Okay, that's what I uh understood. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Carrie. Um, yes. So, my question goes back to when Kimley Kimley Horn was
up here introducing y'all. So, you don't work directly for Panelis County or do you like what are you a third-party private company or what is the relation? So, we are a public agency. We are a special district of Penllis County. Uh
we have been it does work somewhat similarly to a local government hiring a consultant like Kimley Horn in that Penllis County ha asked us forward Penelis to take responsibility for updating this countywide ordinance
because as Rodney said technical assistance falls within the scope of what we do as an agency and that happens often you know it can happen on a smaller scale level where say, you know, the city of Gulfport asks us to help them update their zoning code because of
limited staff capacity. You know, we're all certified planners and we have intimate knowledge of the county. So, we can offer them that technical assistance. So this project is one of those instances where Panellis County who is responsible uh for the
multimmodal impact fee ordinance. lives within their land development code in chapter 150 article 2 asked forward panelis to provide technical assistance to undertake updating the ordinance um you know due to limited staff capacity
and our um deep familiarity with it given that we're both the MO and the countywide land planning agency. Thank you. So the reason this is before us is because we've never adopted it as an ordinance. Yes, we once we updated the
comp plan, we needed to bring an ordinance forward for multimodal and this has to be multimodal like it has to be this particular impact fee. Well, if we do not adopt this particular impact fee, we would have to do the studies
that Kelly mentioned and and all the homework to say what fee we were going to adopt. So, okay. specifically for transportation specifically for this because each other impact fee as a whole boulevard is
really the only is that am I correct me if I'm wrong is that the only county is that what's a state road so like what break down the dollars for me so like for example give me a give me an example of like how these dollars break down for us does the county get any of that money
do you get any of that money like how is this how does this work yeah I'm I'm happy to um I think it might be on the Next slide. Yeah. Sorry if I'm skipping ahead. Yeah, no, no worries at all. Um, so I guess maybe let me make sure there isn't anything on here. Um, yeah, you
can continue if you get to it. It's fine. Sure. Yeah. So, I'll go back to just last point here is that um the city would be the one initially collecting the fee. When you get a development application and as part of your normal
building and permitting process processes, a developer has a number of fees that they have to pay at the time before the building permit is issued. That is when the multimodal impact fee would also be paid and who calculates
the fees. So there is a formula that lives within the multimmoal impact fee ordinance that outlines how the fee should be calculated based on trip generation and um the cost of construction of transportation improvements. And I do just want to note
that the countywide ordinance gives full discretion to the city administrator or designate to work with developers to approve alternative methods of calculation on a case-byase basis. So the point there being even though it's a
countywide ordinance and it lives within Penllis County's land development code, there is authority granted in that ordinance to the individual municipalities to have some administrative discretion on a case-byase basis on the fees being
charged. Um so moving into what happens once the fees are collected, which I think um this will speak to your question. So the municipality holds the fee until the end of the fiscal year and then at the beginning of the fiscal year
they transfer half of all fee revenues collected to the county and the county then deposits that money that it's receiving from each of the 24 municipalities into the appropriate trust account established for the fee
district that the municipality is a part of. So, this is only getting into one part of your question, which is the city will keep half of all fee revenues and the county will get the other half of all fee revenues collected within that fiscal year.
And so, this just shows you what the fee districts are. Uh, you all are part of district 12, the South County beaches, and you share this district, of course, with the city of St. Pete Beach, as well as a small portion of unincorporated county known as Tier Verde.
And so what can you do once you collect the funds? So for the half that you all keep here, you can use those anywhere in the city to construct transportation improvements that go beyond just roadway improvements. Although of course you could spend them on that other than uh
periodic maintenance. You can also spend it on uh bike infrastructure, different you know any kind of public transit. That's the, you know, that speaks to the multimodal intent of the countywide ordinance. And then for the
county, so you know, you all are giving half of the fee revenues you collect to the county, but the county has to spend those revenues within your fee district. And the reasoning behind that is that the countywide and state road network,
you know, does run between municipalities. And so, um, there's sometimes fee districts that you share with another municipality, but there is language within the countywide ordinance that directs the county to spend that
money, at least in the area um, in which the fees were collected. So, they would be able to spend the revenues on roads like Gulf Boulevard, which I do have an example of a project that they have put fee revenues towards. So our area is you
said Tiara Verde I assume Pasa Grillil St. Pete Beach and St. Pete Beach and yourselves and that's as far north as Yep. So the half that the county keeps goes into a trust that can be used within our entire little district of Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach and Tier
Verde or all of them only in district 12 and then and the county designates what those where that money is going to go I'm assuming. So, the county programs that money um through their, you know, CIP and and annual budgeting process when they have a transportation
improvement project that falls within district 12, that's when they all figure out, well, how many, you know, how many fee revenues do we have from the multimmoal impact fee and what can we put towards that transportation improvement within district 12? There
are very few instances where the county might spend that money outside of your district, but they would need approval from every local government in the district in order to do that. So, if they wanted to spend some of your money in district 13, maybe because it's, you
know, a little portion of Gulf Boulevard that falls right on the border, they would have to come get your approval and they would not be able to do that without the approval of yourselves and the city of St. Pete Beach. They were just talking district Say we're just talking District 12. Yep.
And I'm assuming Treasure Island would be a small percentage of the impact fee, but would we be able to designate that percentage goes into TI as opposed to Tiara Verde? And then how does that if not then how is it determined that say
you don't have a pro almost all the projects say in tiara verde versus and my and to pin off off of hers the county or the state because G Boulevard is the main road that runs all up and down the coast. They pay for that. They pay and
maintain the DOT does for that main road. Correct. Yes. But so like what exactly? I guess I need some county project like cuz obviously I can see this working inland like in Simol Penel's Park like in the county like but we're beach and like we
literally we've got minimal roads to maintain and G Boulevard is maintained by the state and paid for by the state in a way like you know I mean all of our taxes obviously trickle up anyway but um yeah I'm just I'm seeing a I'm just seeing
some holes in how it would apply to us but example. Yeah. Yeah, please. Um, and I I do just want to maybe touch on um what the text here that's in this green box, which is if you all had a transportation
project that affects a a county road or or the state road that you wanted to ask the county to use the fees it's collected from you to go towards that project, you can do so. It just takes a little bit of coordination and you have
to have a project in mind. But in some regards, the county would probably, you know, appreciate that you're you're proactive and you have a project in mind. And there have been instances where they have done that. Um, you know, a city has asked them, we have this
project, we have a funding gap. Can you take some of the fee revenues you've collected from us over the year and put it towards it? And and they have. So it just takes a little bit of you know planning and uh proactiveness on the city's part to determine what that
transportation improvement is. So has Tier Verde and the others signed up for this and yes so all 20 so technically all 25 local governments that's the 24 m municipalities and unincorporated
Penllis County have signed on to the or ordinance. It's a little bit of a complicated issue because like I said in some instances some cities haven't been following the ordinance just because of some you know comp comprehensive plan
issues um or how timing has worked out over the years. Um, so right now all of the municipalities in in Penllis County are collecting multimodal impact fee revenues, I guess, in concept and the
county is receiving half of their revenues and also collecting revenues on development within unincorporated county and spending it on transportation projects. So I'm skipping ahead just to show you where they've spent some money um in your district, district 12. So
from fiscal year 16 when the ordinance was first adopted to fiscal year 24 the county collected $390,846 in multimotal impact fee revenues and
65% of that amount was from development in unincorporated county so in tier Verde and 35% of that total amount is what was remitted to the county by the cities. whether that be the city of St. Pete Beach or the city of Treasure
Island. Um it sounds like it was probably the city of St. Pete Beach. So it was but despite that some of the improvements that they've funded are they did a bridge uh bridge replacement and I will just say that this amount is
so small this money is plugging funding gaps. Um the bridge replacement was not paid for by the $400,000 in impact fees. Um similar to G Boulevard, ATMS, um advanced traffic management systems,
which was some signal timing, video analytics, and message boards to improve traffic flow and safety and disseminate information to drivers. So, with that that small amount of money that the counties collected, they've used it to
plug some funding gaps in these two projects which are within the fee district 12. Do you have any examples that of any in Treasure Island at the even though we weren't putting money into it? Uh, well, the Gulf Boulevard ATMs would have run
through Treasure Island. Yep. The Gulf Boulevard project was actually all the way from um I think Panelis uh Bayway to it goes up into the Readington um beaches crosswalks too. Yeah. So that's one thing I wanted to add. We did a Gulf
boulevard safety study with um Ford Pineellis and the other municipalities and there are identified improvements for safety that are in there that need to be funded. Yeah. So I mean it sounds like we've been kind of neglectful. Not
neglectful not being a part of this. Well, until we had an adopted comp plan, we could not bring this forward. Right. It was just kind of a gap. Yeah. Exactly. Now, if we were to decide not to participate, we have, I guess, that right. You do. And the result of that
would be that we wouldn't collect the fees for our 50% or whatever percentage we get directly, but we still get part of the other we' still be part of this overall district. Not that that would be fair. I'm just trying to understand the ramifications of why of you know and the
impetus actually saw it. So the ramifications of this is that um you would have to if you wanted to collect multimodal impact fees, you would have to conduct a technical fee study that meets the statutory requirements that
Kelly touched on. um as well as whatever else is in the state statutes that kind of governs this is all the um you know criteria and boxes you have to check in order to implement a a new impact fee.
So in that would be burdensome. I I get that, right? And so in that time frame though, you know, these technical fee studies are no easy feat. Um so this would be maybe years until the city would have its own impact fee program.
So the the benefit of signing on to this now is you would be able to at least collect multimodal impact fees under the countywide program. now and that doesn't stop you from
deciding to undertake your own impact fee study and getting something more individualized in place later on. Um, but again, that's at the full discretion of the city. Do we um is the rate the same for every
municipality? Could we opt to have a lower rate of impact fee? So right now in in the fee structure, the fee schedule that lives within chapter 150 article 2, the countywide ordinance, there's just one fee schedule that all
of the municipalities use. It varies by use and it does give a discount to uh affordable or or low-income workforce housing because that's something that's within the state statutes that says can and is encouraged to be discounted,
right? Um, so other than that, that again would be I think potentially have to be done through your own independent review and study, but I would not want to give any kind of legal advice or interpretation on what that might be. I
would defer to your city attorney on that. So, I specifically um brought this up to I've been bringing actually impact fees up to numerous people, commissioners, staff for the last like I mean forever.
Um I'm not originally from here and every town I've lived in has impact fees. Um not particularly specifically this, but just impact fees in general and Treasure Island does not. And the example I always give is um you know Ocean Club down the street. Like love
that building, great bar, great units. They did a beautiful job in my opinion. Um so I'm not trying to negate that. But for example, when I spoke at the commission meeting on Tuesday, I cited the fact that um you know, they added 120 bathrooms
to the city to your system and it had an impact on our sewer and all our wastewater and all the above. They had no fees, impact fees to but impacted the city. What they did have was $200,000 plus dollars in permit fees and as you know when it goes into the building
department it can't be moved. It can't it can't leave the building department fund. Um these obviously go into the general fund. But my question was to the city and to the commissioners and to anyone that I've talked to is why have we not tried and this is more probably
to the staff and honestly I'm very glad Kimley Horn is here. um done our own study, done our own waste, like tried to implement our own fees to offset those permit fees because the issue I have is I don't want to charge like Ocean Club, for example, 200,000 in permit fees and
then 400,000 in impact fees. I want to charge them the 200,000, but maybe we lessen the permit fees. We still keep the 200, but 150 that goes into the general fund to help with our future issues we have. And that could be
equated back to roads, sewer systems, um transportation, you know, like all of the above. And so there's just I feel like this I kind of feel like this is a um this is very interesting. Um and I thought it was really interesting when I
read it. Um I just feel as a city I I like to be independent. Um, and so I'm just wondering how we can I don't I don't understand obviously because I haven't seen examples of like a pro can you if you have a project that you can
show us to break down the dollars. Is it is it not a lot? You know, is it really pennies on the dollar for that that developer? cuz like you said, I mean, we're literally going to be rebuilding this city from the ground up. And I don't want to discourage
land owners and developers and burden them more because if we pass this then ultimately then we start putting our own impact fees and I don't want to fee fee fee fee fee our our folks and then no one wants to develop here and here we are still
with you know weeds tumbling down the road. Yes. And it's a very valid concern you share. So, one of the things that we did when we initially began the fee study update a year ago was to take a scan around the state to see where our rates, which hadn't been updated in a
very long time, rest within urb urbanized counties around the state of Florida. And what we found was by far the penelis county multimotal impact fee rates are lower than any other urbanized county in the state of Florida. Whether it be Orange County, Miami Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, uh Hillsboro
County, Pasco County, our fees are extremely low. And so that told us a couple things. One is that obviously the fact that our our ordinance has not been updated at the pace of uh construction and development has outpaced the value
of the fee. Uh secondly, it also told us that um the the fee could probably be tweaked and not be a deterrent in terms of development. And we further discussed this with Penel County Economic
Development because we were wanting to make sure that what we evaluated and proposed wouldn't become an impediment to to development and redevelopment around the county. And what they told us was don't necessarily focus on the multimotal impact fee
itself, but what's the the cost of doing business to the development community? What does that complete fee picture look like? And that's why Nicole mentioned we've looked at public art, we've looked at parks, we looked at the as as best we could the entire impact fee picture to
determine what the cost of the developer is. Uh and the other thing that economic development told us is to make sure that whatever you do that it's it's very predictable and it's very fair. And so we're not at the point now to where
we're we are going to recommend changing the rate structure, but wanted to share with you those are the thoughts that we have in terms of the current fee and any adjustments that we will recommend to the board of county commissioners in the coming year.
So what input would Treasure Island have on changes to the to the impact fee future because we're just we're one of many. Yes, Mr. Downing is uh as we have the technical fee um calculations done,
I've I've told Nicole that we're going to come back out and to all the cities and and talk about what the objective straight calculation rate would be. So, if you just ran the math and updated all the trip generation rates, the use types
and and other information, this would be the change in the fee structure. And then uh keep in mind that the board of county commissioners has latitude to make policy adjustments as they see fit. So let's say the math comes back and
says that you could justify out 100% increase across the board on fees. Board of County Commissioners has the the legislative authority to say no, we think 100% is too high. It's probably more like 5%. Or Treasure Island could uh opt out at that point. Yeah. Yes,
they could opt out at any time. One quick question. Rodney, since we were talking about the U Thunderbird earlier, Thunderbird 6 106 rooms. Yeah. How much how much that going to cost them? It's going to get torn down. They're going to build back 106 rooms. So, their impact
fees would be zero. Uh Mr. Harris, you're exactly right. That's the other little fine grain information that we're thinking through as we go through the ordinance is as Nicole stated, you're only paying the fee on the difference. And as we all know, Penelis County is pretty much
fully developed. So anything that that gets built new will get a credit off the top because of what's already existing on the ground. So the actual payment in your example is zero because they're replacing 106 rooms with 106 rooms unless we put into place our own impact
fees. I I I think the case law will be very limiting in allowing for you to charge a higher fee if the nature of the development doesn't change because the trip generations the number of trips that are generated by that use will not change because the roof count hasn't changed. Got it. Is that quite frankly
back I tore my house down in 1996 built back a new house and back then Penllis County did have a transportation impact fee. You know we're working with that. I paid no impact fee, but uh let's put it this way. As an engineering business, we made a lot of money getting people
impact fee credits. We did a lot of it and uh that that business is still out there. And that's the other thing that the development community has has offered to us and recommended is that they would like for us to develop a I won't say a legitimate credit system, but a an impact fee credit system that
can be traded like some of the other urban counties in Panelis County. So if you have a development that is very intense, generates a lot of trips, but then you redevelop it into something less. Now the credit works in the reverse. So now the developer has a an
amount of credits that could then be can be bought and sold and traded between developers carbon credit. And then something like that to go off what Jen said, we can we can if we vote this in, we also have the opportunity we can vote this out. Yes. At any time. At any time.
Mhm. It was interesting. Lee County did a lot of that. We were buying and selling impact fee credits and uh it was all what you just described. So, it's been around for a while. You're just updating. Yes, we're we're a little bit behind. So, does Forward Penelis assist
municipalities with how to calculate other types of impact fees for what wastewater and that type of thing? Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, our perview our lane is sort of lane just in transportation, right? Yeah. Um Mr. Kimley Horn, what was your name? I'm
sorry. Kelly. Kelly. Kelly. Okay. So close. Um, quick question for you. Um, on impact fees in general with storm water, wastewater, all of the above, all the ones that I've seen in all the cities surrounding us. Um, can you give me a rough timeline on if we were to
adopt impact fees as a city, not looking at this, but in general, because that is definitely something that has sparked the attention of every commissioner, anyone I've talked to, um, because we don't have it and we're about
to redevelop this entire town. Um, I would love to be able to say that it is, oh, it's a 60-day type of review and analysis. It's not. You can't just copy and paste copy and paste in other cities. No. And then edit it. Unfortunately, not. Cut and paste get
you know Manty County their process took upwards of a year because because of the detailed level of analysis that goes into it and you know it's it's the public vetting. It's looking at those capital costs. It's getting into as Ronnie was saying, you know, what are
those costs to develop and generating that right size fee because it's, you know, it's everything from residential to retail to office to this. So, you've got to start breaking it down all across all of those aspects. I've read all about that. Yeah. Yeah. And just a
couple of quick points if I could. Um and and I do want to reiterate something and I'm going to key in on something that they mentioned and I think this is critical in the in the fact you know the concern was what's this do to our citizens as as Nicole and Ronnie said single family to single family. So if
you were rebuilding your house Mr. Chairman you're not getting charged your existing residents are still protected in that manner. It's when we take we'll say the Walgreens or something else and we're redeveloping off of that. What's that net change? Uh, and that way it's
it's a fair approach to what we're talking about. A couple of other kind of key points and I'm going to as as my team hates to hear me, I will do a bad dad joke at the end of this. Uh but um you know the other thing is once once you have that study and you look at
those rates and you're taking that public input the city has the ability at that point to say we don't believe we are in a position to uh charge the 100% rates or as Rodney said and this is a key component. Let's say that there's
targeted projects whether it's affordable housing you know we don't charge on that or there's certain things then then you get to you can negotiate like you said like chairman even reiterated credits against something else. So there's the ability of the city to say this is what the rate is but
we're only going to charge X and then you can come back to that at some point based off of whatever else. uh you know Mante County was at we'll say 50% then they went to 70 they did that incremental and they just recently went to the 100% mark so they had that
ability to do that. Um the one thing and this is we're sorry about the bad dad joke but you know the one thing I will say is this is definitely a unique approach and it's an approach especially because you know the county working through for panelis has undertaken the heavy lifting especially as it relates
to the to the mobility fee component. This is like when you have Thanksgiving at grandma's house. Either you're creating, you know, you're you're you're cooking the turkey, the fixings, and everything else and you're dealing with that for two days or you're doing your one small piece and in this case, grandma is for Penllis in the county and
they've taken care of all the heavy lifting and everybody gets to enjoy at the end of the day. Um, the other thing I will say is this creates a uniform approach. It's not Madiraa having a rate. It's not Treasure Island having a different rate. It doesn't have St. Pete Beach with a different rate. you're not
competing against everybody else and start to play let's make a deal. That's a good thing. I go main problem I have with it all of course is the city gets 50%. We're going to have very little impact fee revenue because we're
built out and it's mostly replacement of existing stuff. But the county actually has no roads in this c in this city. None. And uh you know I understand getting improvements to uh the state
road but uh you know our benefit there will be benefit. There's no doubt about it some. It's just that uh unfortunately it's not as much benefit as you would hope. Well that goes back to what I was saying about more inner we only have
golf b like we're very to that point. So I'm glad you jog my memory of something else that I wanted to tell you all. So um what I failed to tell you was before I worked for Fort Panels, I worked for the city of Tarpon Springs. So the first half of my career about 11 years I worked in a community much like this waterfront tourist oriented
um had a downtown that was trying to grow and redevelop and um we had a project which was a shopping center redevelopment on the southern edge of downtown. uh that was a mix of uh medical office
uh commercial and residential. So it generated a lot it was on vacant land so it did generate a fair amount of impact fees multimmoal impact fees that were shared between the city of Tarpon Springs and Penelis County. Well, as
part of that um that project, there was a road connection that we negotiated with a developer and uh but there was a funding gap. So, what we did was we approached Panelis County and told them, "Hey, you don't have a lot of county roads in our
district. So, how about you donate your portion of the impact fee revenues to us so that we can then use that money in total, your their share versus our plus our share and build have the developer build this road to serve this development. And that came together and
was a beautiful partnership and the ordinance as as Nicole mentioned earlier does allow for that to happen. So, uh, there is an ability for Panel's County to donate their share of the impact fee revenues to Treasure Island for a specific project. And as Katherine
mentioned, um, the Gulf Boulevard safety study that our staff completed a couple years ago did have several capital improvements that are recommended. And not everything that's recommended within that study is necessarily on Golf
Boulevard. So there are other needs that the city will have as it redevelops. So just I would uh sort of recommend that you not just focus on Gulf Boulevard because you will have other transportation needs that are not on the state uh road system that will need um
improvement. The easy question then is of course we can use our portion for anything we want. We can get the we can ask the county to uh contribute some money for the maintenance of the bridge. Huh? Since we have one left, I was thinking about the I was hoping
that wouldn't come up. That bridge is well at least for this. It is what it is. Have to actually cost a lot of money. So the credits they send to get that money. House gets knocked down in the hurricane. You just the land just sits there for five years. You sell it to somebody
else. Does the do the credits stay with the land? Yes. Yes, sir. They do. And we could opt out anytime. So it's be stupid not to it's a no-brainer. You do it. If you want to go look do our own thing, we while we're with them, we can do our own
thing and still collect money, right? I mean, even no brainer. Do you collect money from is it from like contractors? So it's residential and commercial. Yes. So if they're building a house, but and give me an
example of a house where you would not where it wouldn't zero out. So, the current structure for residential single family is based on uh square footage. There we go. So, uh then Nicole's reading my mind. So, um a single family
home up to 1500 square feet pays a certain rate about $1,300 uh per unit. Then a home uh between 15,000 sorry 1,5001 ft² and $24.99 pays about $1,600.
And then a single family home over 20 2500 ft² or higher pays 2,000. And again, you would only be paying the difference between those two. So let's say your home previously was 1300 square ft and now you're rebuilding a 2300
square foot home. The difference between the rates in those two groups is about $300 $300. So instead of paying a a $1,600 fee like if if you were developing a
2,300 foot house on a vacant lot, um you would only pay that 300. That difference between what your fee would have been at is that condition space. Yeah, that goes back to Marvin's question though. So if you if you flattened your house, sat on the vacant land and your house was say
1,500 ft² but then sold it does that use is still the last the the single family home that was on is that condition condition square footage or is that because if I elevate a home I'm adding a thousand square feet underneath it, but it's not conditioned space. That's not
living space. Is it only living space? Right. That space doesn't generate trips. It's not habitable. So it would not I don't believe it would count towards the floor area. And the grandfather clause is not by ownership on in any situation. It's
strictly what the property was contributing before it's based on the use and and to be honest in some instances some of these let's say like old shopping centers they were built you know a long time ago and maybe they're redeveloping now. we don't necessarily
go back and and even look at what if they actually paid the fee that they would have paid, you know, because the ordinance didn't exist. So, whoever comes and redevelops it is really just paying on the difference whether or not the previous use actually paid the fee.
We just kind of in good faith assume that okay, you know, those transportation impacts of the previous use were mitigated. Now, this new use is going to have some increase in impacts. So, they're just going to pay on that increase. So, like the Pirate Square parking lot, it had it did have retail
at one point. So, you would to calculate that, you would take whatever used to exist there building wise, square footage, and subtract it from the new building potentially they would build. Correct. Well, if you if the parking lot ends up getting approved, then the new use becomes the parking lot. So then
whoever comes and redevelops the parking lot on the parking lot. Yeah. But say if you all had already had this adopted into your LDRs, I believe they would do a you know you would calculate the fee based on what that previous use was before the
parking lot and then the trip generation rate of the parking lot and they if there's a difference there if there's an increase they would pay. Now, how does how does it work with because typically with impact fees in general, like going back to like the normal storm water, like all those things when you have a
new development or you're restoring an old building or you know, whatever. Um, uh, I've personally dealt with this on a historic building. We had 20,000 plus dollars in impact fees. Our neighbor had 60. So, I've been there with the city. Um there's tax credits, there's tax, Is
there any sort of benefits that you have with this program? If we had a landowner that wanted to do something and they were like, "Dude, your fe these fees are just like, you know, I'm not going to do anything. I'm just going to sit here now." Is there any sort of do we have
any flex with that? So yeah, as I mentioned, the city so the countywide ordinance grants authority to the city manager or designate to determine an alternative fee calculation on a case-bycase basis. And that that goes
back to I think your question, Mr. Downey, about well, what if the city wanted to have a reduced rate? Um, I think you know, right in in the interim before you all maybe undertake your own independent impact fee study on a
case-byase basis, you would be you have the authority to decide if a certain development project should get a reduction. Okay. Based on an alternative calculation that your city administrator or design has decided upon. Gotcha.
Okay. Question for Katherine really. Um, if if we opt in as a city and we start charging this intermoal fee, do we have the ability to adjust overall permit
fees downward to offset that since we're not in especially in the in the environment that we're in now that we're trying to not put additional burden on residents that are building or businesses that are building. Don't we have the ability as a city to say,
"Okay, we're going to opt into this because it's the right thing to do on the interotal part of this, but we're adjusting our other fees for permitting to offset it to offset that so there's no impact. You can wave." Yes, that's up to the city commission what they want to
set the building fees at, and that goes through the budget process every year of setting those fees. So, the commission could do those. Okay. Most of this, you know, fees aren't going to be that bad because they're getting all this when you start when you start redeveloping, you build a house, you get into it. I mean, it is like fee fee fee
fee fee. Well, you just mentioned like the Yeah. The whole issue with the commission right now is the last two meetings they've spoke about the permit fees. The building department, the building fund money when they bring it in can't go anywhere. So, it can't go
and fix the bridge. It can't go and fix this and that. It's stuck. So good to offset this. Yeah. This goes into the general fund basically like its own little tr little little fund and when it goes in the general fund then it can be it can go here and there and they can do whatever they want with it. So that's
what I was talking about at the last meeting the commission meeting. Whatever you want with it. No it has to we have to set up a separate trans multimodal fund and those funds have to go to specifically transportation projects. Correct. I'm not talking about big money, but it's one of those where like
with building fees, you can only with the building department, you can only create so much revenue per year. Correct. Right. And if you overflow that, you you can't overflow that, right? No, you can't. You have to adjust your fees so you don't have too much money. We're in a position right now
where our we're going to have so much new development over the next two, three, four, five years that we're basically going to be waving fees. we're going to have just a pot of money they can't do anything with and we can't take any more money in. So, we're going to be losing money. So, the issue is the only
way to change that is to put impact fees in to offset it. So, we have a bunch of money sitting in No, right now the predict we will we're talking in the future. Right now the building fund is pretty much estimated to be completely
out of money by September because we short the prediction the prediction though in the next two three four years is it will max out and then that money literally we can't take any more money in. We'll be giving oh your permit fee is zero because we can't take your money
which is not good for a city and it's not good for revenue. Um it's good for financially it's not financially responsible. Um, so the impact fee is the offset. And that's what I spoke about at the commission meeting is you take that 200,000 that Ocean Club paid and instead
of it all going to permit fees, we have impact fees of 150 or 100 or whatever it calculates to be that goes into the general fund and then it can be used to assist in the projects that we need it to assist in that those that those fees impact. So with this, it's the right
thing. I think the the caveat to that would be the condition would be that we offset the building fees when we pass this. Can we do that? Trouble is like for instance, we probably can't do that, but we can we can that would be what we would advise. We can we can certainly
advise the commission to bring bring it up to the commission. Trouble is, Chris, I would use the Ocean Club as an example that used to be the Trails in Motel. you wouldn't get any impact fees out of that because it's going to be very minimal. But I
think there's an important precedent here for how we're going forward if it's affecting the residents also and they're, you know, if they're a lot of them are literally going from they're scrapping a 12 foot or 1,200 foot house and they're building a 4,000t house or a
new owner is moving into town and build and buying that scrapping it and building it and then they're hit with this brand new fee that we just passed. we may deter folks from coming in and building because the commission was talking about literally reducing those
fees and I think they did if I'm correct by like $1,000 or something. Um oh the city yeah commission um temporarily wave the fees for new they can only do that for so long. Yes. Yeah. So like that's
that we're going to deter but if you can build a 4,000t house the fees aren't going to bother you. You know how expensive construction is today? But here's the thing. You can never put yourself in someone else's shoes. Well, come on. And I'm sorry. I'm gonna disagree with you. Million dollar house right there. It doesn't matter. It adds
up. Um the the new building fees for a brand new house adds up and everyone manages their money properly, I would hope. Especially if they can afford that kind of house. They're gonna look Rodney can tell you we shouldn't taxation. Been around for a long time.
You could build that kind of house. Long time. I mean, when I was doing subdivisions up in Palm Harbor, we dound No, it's a 300 lot subdivision. So, you could figure out and I think back then the number comes up as $1686
per house for a transportation impact fee. So, it was a lot of revenue and of course it was passed on just like Carol was saying. Yeah. Passed on to the homeowner. So, Rich, where where are we with this tonight? Six o'clock. Where we vote? We're gonna I was going to say I
think the presentation on this one is complete. Any anybody have anything else? Let's do it. On page eight on page 60 of the packet, there's a recommended motion. So, who would like to make the
recommended motion? Go for it, Cara. Hang on. Page 60. I move to approve resolution 202502 recommending approval of the ordinance 202508 to amend chapter 65 relating to
impact fees. I'll second. Okay. Motion by Cara Sims, second by Chris Downey. Uh, let's go ahead and have a roll call on this one. Mark Zodowski, yes. Carrison, yes. Chris Downing, yes. Jennifer,
sorry. Marvin Shavelin. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. Thanks for coming, gang. Thank you. Appreciate you answering all of our questions. Thank you. One more municipality under your belt. I know, right? Check that box. Get that bonus.
It only work that way, right? I'm sure they get the city they sign. The next uh item is 6A workshop two chapters of land development regul regulations chapter 60 introduction and chapter 73 science and
advertising. Go ahead there, Mr. Kelly. Uh again, for the record, Kelly Clapper with Kimley Horn. Uh I appreciate the fact that I was elevated now part owner of the company. Actually, I am one of the owners, but I don't get naming rights. What? Miss Smith. But yes, uh
no, we we appreciate that uh that the level discussion that you just had that definitely shows that you're concerned about the community and you've done your homework. So, congratulations on that. Uh there's two portions uh that we want to go through and it may jump just for a little bit, but u a couple of things
that we wanted to be able to talk about as part of this. Again, we we promised we'd be back. Uh we were here before the hurricanes. Uh, of course the hurricanes and all of that uh definitely messed up the schedules that everybody had. Uh, we've been working diligently with staff
uh towards the phase one and there's it's it's critical to understand that we're talking about phase one versus some of the other code components. Uh, you may hear me say that's a great suggestion. That's phase two. our team is back here taking uh writing down
those comments because phase one was 100% intended to be kind of that cleanup. Uh so you know staff had undertaken a a number of items whether it was from comp plan consistency uh inconsistencies and interpretations and and also just general questions. So
there was a spreadsheet that we developed they developed and at the end of the day started to do some cleanup. Um, oops. I'm going to go back one second just for this one right here. Um, so
again, phase one was the cleanup. Phase two is what we're uh currently negotiating with the city to undertake. Uh, phase two would be more of the designoriented and the bigger brush or broad brush components of the code itself. Uh, as Katherine said, you know, there's some things we know we needed to
get cleaned up as part of this. There's sections that were fragmented and we'll go through some of that. So this first kind of uh understanding and approach was almost like kind of a code men approach of let's clean it up, let's get it workable and then we can take the big
steps. Phase two gets into the community visioning. How do we actually implement core components of the the the comprehensive plan? What are those community components like we've talked about with the downtown area? Uh there's been a lot of discussion that I've heard
over the course of the last year about increasing potentially density and intensity or looking at hotels and how we classify certain things. Keeping in mind that a lot of those discussions also unfortunately trigger uh updates to the comprehensive plan or the small area
plans which means there's a whole extra process that has to occur at the countywide level before we can do that. So, there's code components, there's the land use components, and then the I'll say kind of going back to that point. Um, one of the questions I know we
always get is, well, Kelly, why didn't you do phase one and phase two together? Part of the discussion was, let's focus in on getting it right with this core components of cleanup. This is a lengthy process, pure and
simple. We didn't want to burden the entire code update, especially with the phase one, knowing that that could actually cause either a derailment of code because I've seen that before, or it takes, you know, two plus years, three years to do all of that additional work. And at that point, we've also kind
of lost some of the momentum. So, again, some of this was to uh I'll say fix the code, kind of a band-aid, but then move forward with this. I'm not going to go through any of this. Uh so introduction so one of the things
that uh we started to identify early on through this process was there wasn't a uniform section that said what we're doing how we do it and why we do it. More importantly like you see on that uh third bullet point what is the context and more importantly what's the legal
framework that we are operating under as part of these regulations. So instead of having them distributed throughout multiple chapters and multiple sections of the current code, we said, "Okay, let's we recommend having one one portion of this. Yes, it's going to be boring. It's going to be mundane, but
it's the introduction. It's a new chapter that basically says this is who we are, what we do, how we do it, and more importantly, the use of key terms, the shalls versus the shoods, and things of that nature." Uh at the end of the day, what we've recommended as part of
this again is to kind of consolidate everything under one uniform chapter. So that way if if something does change, uh you're not going through 68 or 72 or 74. It's administration and we're done with that component there. That's the easy
one. Signs and advertising. Uh as the city attorney will probably weigh in on this one as well. Uh and we've talked about this. This is one of the most controversial topics we we come across. I've been writing code and I've actually been in in planning and zoning and land
use for 33 years. Um codes especially when we start talking about signs and advertising that's you know that is a critical component. Why? Because that's what the businesses or the residents are looking for on certain things. Now, one of the things I always say is, you know,
before we had cell phones, before we had Google, it's a lot more pressing, but the understanding is advertising is critical. Being able to identify properties is critical. The state uh Supreme Court has weighed in on certain things, but more importantly, the US Supreme Court, uh this is another one of
those things of when you start reading some of the the federal uh requirements and legislation and more importantly, the decision that came out of the Reed case. There was actually a landmark case that came out uh Reed uh versus town of Gilbert, Arizona. That court case is already 10 years old. There are still
communities across the nation and I'm working in a lot of them as we speak that are still working under old code provisions that call out churches, schools, uh certain types of things and they're contentbased. The Supreme Court said you cannot call out it cannot be
content specific. You can talk about wall signage. You can talk about building signage. You can do talk about awnings. You can talk about signs along the street. You can see how big they are, how tall they can be, what type of lighting, but you cannot start to start to separate between, I'll say, a school
use versus a church versus Walgreens. Why? Because that's content. So, you have to be very, very careful in walking that line. And that's where having a solid city attorney is critical. Uh because I will tell you again, every municipality we talk to and work with,
we usually get a little different uh nuance with some of the legal interpretations. Uh I've had some interpretations and in different states they say, "Well, it's political sign. We're not going to touch that one." And the city attorney saying, "I can't defend you, but that's up to you." So,
what we've started to do is to one, the sign code itself uh was was fairly minimal. was also kind of scattered again. Uh when we started looking at where the PRMU and some of those signage components were, they were in a different section of the code alto together. So, you know, one of my first
things was to look at and go, "Well, great. You don't have any signage requirements under uh the the the mixed juice." Katherine said, "Oh, yes, we do." And I said, "Show me." And so, we had to go to a different chapter. And I say, well, you she's the only one who knows where it is,
part of it was a test, but also at the same time, there's certain things that were defined under the P pr PRMU code that were defined inconsistently with the rest of the sign code. So, one of the things we said is like, okay, let's start off with, and I'm a huge person
that loves charts. Give me a chart. Tell me what I can do, where I can do it. That's item number one. So what we said is we took all the city's districts and we did the different types of signage that you currently have. Where can you do it? Boom. There we have. So that kind of simple, easy to understand. The other
thing, and this is another big topic of what do these different types of signs look like? How do we define them? The good news is you had some graphics. The bad news is it looked like the one on the left or the one on the top right. Um so one of the things that we've
recommended and actually we've provided is uh one where we can let's provide a clear graphic and illustration that says this is a window sign. What are the elements of that and how do we define it? More importantly how do we measure it? Uh because when you look at the
graphic on the left what what can you discern from that graphic as it relates to a window or a wall sign? Not much. So, one of the things that we've started to identify is to to see the image like that you see right there kind of in the center of the screen of
more representative of what you typically see and how again how we apply that standard and then also understanding uh like the subdivision sign that you see on the far right. Um again, this is not something that we deal with when I say don't that we don't
not deal with in other communities. A lot of places don't have graphics and it's up to interpretation. How do we measure height? How do we measure square footage, sign face, and things like that? So again, trying to create a uniform set of standards and more importantly the graphics to go with it.
There are a couple of graphics that we've left in place as as we speak. Uh the kind of the overchange or the crossover uh the flyover signage, we left that one at this point. Uh, one of the tasks that, uh, Madison is going to be working on for the rest of this
summer is also enhancing the rest of the graphics that we have within the code and that we're proposing as part of the code so that they all kind of emulate the two graphics that you can see on the screen here. We've already started to identify additional graphics. Uh, you know, how the question that came up
earlier today was what's the front? Where's the front yard identified? and just ensuring that it's very clear so that when somebody says well this is the definition it says okay this is the definition and here this is what it looks like you know
the other thing that I always love to say is a picture is worth a thousand words if I can sit there and look at that and say this is how we define a front yard this is how we define height this is how we illustrate that versus asking each of you to define it for me
it there again creates a uniform set of standards and more importantly clear expectations. One of the things that staff also brought to our attention, this is something that we had identified early on as well, was what about historic signs? You've got a couple of really great
landmarks in this community, and it would be a shame if you lost those. When you start to Google Treasure Island, one of these comes up, the Thunderbird sign. uh which I absolutely love because you know when you look at that sign that
takes you back to what Treasure Island in my mind was old Florida beach town charm kind of takes me back like I said when I was a lot younger coming to places like this because I always remember places like the Thunderbird. Every beach community has a Thunderbird.
Every place has a Bill. Every place has a number of these places and those those types of iconic uh signs need to be preserved and and protected in their current state. So one of the things that we also did is we looked around the state. We looked around the country. We talked to a number of our historic
preservation specialists and said okay what what works? So, we created a thing called vintage signs would be a brand new section that would be incorporated into the signage component and it allows for those signs to be carried on, you
know, in their designated use. You know, one of the questions that came up earlier is like if something happens and the hurricane takes out that sign, what happens then? Well, normally it would be well, you have to fall under the current regulations. That sign could not be replicated. But under this provision, if
it's adopted, it would allow for that sign to be replicated as if it was still there today. Same height, same material, same font, same everything, but being able to be replicated uh to that point. And more importantly, these signs that you have that would be defined as vintage and it would be a an application
type of process do support the overall community aesthetic. Uh there is a process that again would would have to be undertaken as part of this. But at the end of the day again there is a process to identify these signs so that somebody couldn't come in and say oh the
the drugstore on the corner uh right across from Ricky's uh that's a vintage sign because you know that logo has been around for 100 years. Doesn't work like that. That was going to be my question was are do they do we need to be proactive with everyone to say hey you need to fill this out if you want to
keep your sign next season if the storms come through. Is that okay? Yes ma'am. Yeah. Yes ma'am. So uh designated vintage. We could have ribbon cutings. So have you decided on an aesthetic? And if you could define old Florida charm does that mean strip malls or what does
that mean? So there are specific, as bad as I hate to say, some strip malls are actually historic structures these days. Um, but uh, no, there there's specific provisions within the strike through an underlying language that we've provided. Uh, so it should be in your packet that says the signs have
to meet a certain criteria. So it's age and other certain types of factors. Uh, the good news is, you know, the Thunderbird sign, we'll use that one. Um, you know, if somebody comes in and they, you know, that sign is is great. I love because that's that gateway into
the community, they would have to repair replace with like materials or like look. They couldn't change it and just go from the Thunderbird to uh, you know, Jennifer's Jennifer's Landing and it still be vintage. It still has to emulate and be consistent with what's on
the ground today. Okay. So, uh, there's a number of signs around the community that could meet this criteria. We didn't design it for one, but also we didn't identify these 12 properties. And which ones have you identified? Uh, well, the Thunderbird for one, the Bill Mer was
another one. I always go back to those. And there was a couple of others that we'd identified, Katherine, through the vintage sign process. There's a couple of the older hotels with their signs that are a little larger than would be allowed today. So, we wanted them to be able to retain those historic signs if they wanted to. I was just curious. Or
or murals that would be up as well. Well, murals we've written into the code and and clarified that. Okay. And and not maybe I'm jumping ahead here, but just I'm looking at where we are timewise, too. But also that what can
where are we with this timewise? What is when are we going to be complete with this? These two next chapters chapter 60 the introduction and chapter 73 which is the sign ordinance. We are planning to bring back to you in ordinance format next month. So they will go to you and
then they will go to the commission for their two hearings after that. Okay. So we're on this is really a workshop of these two, right? Yeah. It's like an eight. You guys present and then you come forward and then first second reading. So three month process per train. Yeah. We expect that this could
be done by the end of August which is fine for the Thunderbird you know if you're right if that's the specific question. So where time give us an idea Katherine timewise to get this whole process complete. So Kelly's gonna Kelly's going to go over that at the end
of his presentation but basically we've got a lot of the chapters are done. You see the multimodal this came out of this first year effort. Some will be easier than others. These two are coming and we've still got a few to go. So, Kelly's got his cheat sheet here of all the all
the sections of the code and quite a few of them have already been done through terrain like the storm water and those are done. So, you'll see where we are right here on on Kelly's slide. So, great question. And the thing I would say is minus the hurricanes, we would
have been done. Oh, yeah. Okay. Pure and simple. Um, we've been at this way too long working with city staff. The city I know is like we just need to get this done. Uh unfortunately, like I said, we literally lost two plus months with the backto backto back storms and then you
know being able to focus in on recovery and everything else. Uh we came back to the city shortly thereafter uh with an understanding and basically saying here's where we are and we want to be respectful of the community. You all have dealt with a lot but at the same
time our team and Katherine and her team have continued to work on this code as we speak. the various sections that you see here. So everything from chapter 60 again is uh where it says to finalize that basically is those items whatever fine-tuning we have coming out of the
workshops uh 65 with that plus the signage. Uh we have those items that are identified in red say in review. Those are the documents that we've provided to city staff for their review and input. So we should be able to turn those around fairly quickly. And then uh the
ones in blue updated through terrain. Those are the items because you know the city was undertaking terrain as a separate ordinance. Uh so that's been that have been done and we're incorporating those into this phase one. So a long way of saying we want this thing done before the end of summer
before this fall because we want to get into before storm season uh because we need to be able to get into phase two. We need to get in before storm season really picks up, especially with the community visioning aspects.
That is a critical item for us. That's great. I appreciate your work. Oh, uh, oops, wrong direction. So, actually, that is the last slide that I had. Uh, we're here to answer any specific questions.
The other thing again I'll say is you know if you've got thoughts and ideas one about these specific sections let's talk about it so we can refine that fairly quickly. If there are certain items like hey parking well there's certain things that will again come up as phase two. So we will put those items
on that phase two list and be able to grab that fairly quickly. Well Kelly I do have a few comments real quick then. First off, please add to your list, and I don't know if it's historic or not, but the Shell Shop sign. Shell Shop's been there for a while. It's funny. I
just saw somebody getting their picture taken in front of yesterday. Yeah. Any any of the most Yeah. Sherry Land. Yeah, you could add the Living on Island time uh sign down on Sunset Beach, although it's about to fall apart. But anyway, the question I had Great was I was
looking at the zoning designations in Treasure Island. There's only 11. Two of them, well, I think four of them are unique to city uses like preservation, uh, institutional, that kind of thing.
Um, somewhere I had the but I was wondering how hard is it to add another zoning designation? A few years ago, I think probably 19 years ago, we added the PR
MU core and the PRMU Gulf Boulevard. I was wondering about what would the possibility be of adding another one, PR- MU, in other words, planners for redevelopment, multi-use, mixeduse,
north entry. And what I'm talking about is Gators property. It is the biggest privatelyowned piece of property in Treasure Island. I mean, Treasure Bay is bigger, but it's owned by the city. And they consider
themselves hamstrung. I mean, I just heard through many commissioners that, hey, we'd like to see something up there. And quite frankly, I think from what I heard, the current owner bought it back in 2012. He's just sitting there and letting it rot. And
it's really bad now. I mean, Krabby's on the past got beat up badly. So, what do we have to do to get a PRMU north entry added to this code? Couple of quick items. One, needs to be consistent with the comp plan. That's pretty easy to do
from a district perspective. two, we're used to creating what we call paper districts that can have specific locationational criteria that, you know, we don't physically go resone your property, but it is a tool in the toolbox for the city to be able to utilize and encourage development or
redevelopment under certain provisions. So, so we could so we could implement this and help them. Yeah. I mean, the the plan development ordinance that failed back in 2017 incorporated that property. I mean,
there were two segments of it. I think it would have helped. I think it would have uh generated redevelopment. It got destroyed by a bunch of misinformation that was spread around about how it was going to spread all over the city and we're going to have sevenstory over parking buildings down on Sunset Beach.
Said, "No, we're not because I don't want the ones that are too high there. I don't like uh I would admit it. Mansions by the Sea and the Sunset Chateau should not be there whatsoever. But if you could put that in the back of your mind doing whatever we need to do there. The
other one is something that the uh Thunderbird ran into. We ran into it on the Treasure Island Resort. It is something that was incorporated into the code, but it's the alternate setback. And let's just say that if you had 1,000
ft of uh frontage on Gulf Boulevard, west of Gulf Boulevard, your setbacks would have to be 300 ft based on a few other criteria, but it's about 300 ft. Well, nobody's going to do that. I mean, you got 1,000 feet and you're going to
give up a third 30% of it to uh and the the rationale was, oh, when you're driving golf down G Boulevard, you can see the Gulf. Number one, you need to be looking at the cars in front of you before you rear end them. Number two is Treasure Island Resort's prime example.
You can't see the Gulf. There's landscaping and there's landscaping requirements and there's dumpsters and there's uh fences and everything else. So that aspect of although some of the bananas don't like it, if you know what a banana is, they don't like it.
wouldn't like getting rid of it because it prevents development and the situation is is it has no use in today's world because I don't want to get rear ended out there
because you're trying to see some porpus out there in the Gulf of Mexico which you can't see if you want to go see a porpus get out there on the beach beachwalk and be walking. So, that was the three items that I've come up with in the back of my mind that I would love to say is uh PRMU on the paper districts
or paper is that what you called it? A paper district um Kelly uh who votes that in? Is it the PNZ board? Is it the commission that creates that or how is that done? The commission upon a recommendation. So, we would we as we as the LPA the LPA could recommend it to
the commission. It's it's like the what we're talking about tonight and actually more so uh in next month. You're going to make a recommendation to the commission to formally adopt X, right? So, a paper district. So, we would create an ordinance could be an example
of that. Paper district. Okay. But let's kind of go through the planning process as well because there's multiple steps in the plan process be before and after it gets to you. I just want to do it. No. No. I just didn't want you to think that it just goes immediately to the
commission because it has to go to the state and the county. While he's continuing to present, I do have questions regarding density. So, Katherine, if you have you can research while he's talking. Um, I'd like to know what all the districts are for density like downtown, beach, like all the
different pull up the table on the internet. You've got a table that has your densities intensities already established. Uh, and this is the one thing we were talking about earlier with, you know, if if you were to start looking at the downtown district and say, "Hey, you know what? It's it's this
density or F, we really want to increase by 10 units an acre or by, you know, going from a 1.0 to a 1.5." That is a that's not a just a stroke of the pen and we change it. that's going exactly what Katherine was getting ready
to go towards which is that becomes part of those SAP amendments which is in essence a comprehensive plan amendment. So you've got the local you've got the regional being you know the countywide discussion and also the state level components as well. The um the reason
I'm asking that is because like for example like St. heat. If you look at their downtown, majority of their buildings are on the water low and then it goes higher the more inland you get. The way our density from what I understand works here is we're the
highest on the beach and the lowest in the downtown, which to me doesn't make any sense. It should be the opposite because you obviously want to see the water. There's nothing we can obviously do about the beach, but we could at least help um and not hinder
development. And I'm not saying highrises and all that crazy stuff that you know everyone's talking about online. Um but maximizing bang for your buck, paying for that growth and you know accelerating the rebuild of
Treasure Island and how can we move that along because what I don't want to happen is I don't want us to fully concentrate on this. We need a side project because height and density is gonna come quicker than we think. So, I don't know where in this meeting we can ask you for special projects. Like I I
definitely want an impact fee study. I don't know how to go about getting that done by you guys, but um I want I want impact fees in Treasure Island. We need them desperately um to offset all of this. And then obviously we need height and density. I mean, we need a
full-blown picture of what it looks like, what it could look like. Um, but I just I don't I don't know how if I'm overstepping, please. No, no. Here's the thing I'll say is, you know, density and the F and some of that is controlled. Basically goes back to the
conference of plan or your SAPs. That's that kind of controlling factor we can design within that envelope. No, no, no. I mean, that's that's easy enough through these districts and making sure like this district is actually consistent with the new district is consistent with what we have in the SAP
or the comp plan. That's that's good. When we start increasing that, we'll say going up even by one dwell unit per acre that triggers at that point. um what I don't want to see. I don't want to see it hindered. Like I don't want to see
like for example, you know, that parking lot that we just passed in PZ and then say they do decide, hey, in a year they want to build something on it and develop it and put retail and condos and all the things that everyone wants, but
then are like, huh, well, it doesn't make financial sense because we can't spend $100 million building this building and not make any money out of it because we can't go higher and we can't go wider and you know and run into all these issues and then the city takes
a year to work back with a year now after that to work with y'all on height and density and trying to fix it because then we'll lose that you know so it's like how can we get ahead because that's the one thing the city of Treasure Island has never been is ahead of the curve and we're playing catch-up still
and that's why you're in here that's why you're here our code is so outdated it is gray it is opinionated and we've got to get that changed as soon as possible Yeah. And to catch up. Yeah. And and there's it's best to say time and money. How much time do we have? Do you all have uh to
to work within this? How much money is it going to cost? Because you know between the code versus the SAPs plus like I said that kind of wish list. What I would suggest is you know the the the city the city leaders are going to have to adopt and kind of direct X Y and Z.
Uh create the wish list. We as the LPA would love to be able to see these five items. Uh can you all as the elected body support or further look into this?
I would love to be able to say that this body can go in and go, "Hey, Kelly, by the way, I need you to do an impact fee or create all of that." And I'll be like, "Hey, sure." But yeah, um with input the other just bill us. in like three years, you know, with with input
from the public. Of course, the LPA can create a vision to take toward to the commission. And that's and that's that's really the big um big kicker for me right now is with the commission keeps getting I mean they are getting beat to the pulp by the public and um and it's
every meeting and it's it's one of those where it's a uh for me we need to take as an LPA board some of that back like I was I was against the Treasure Bay Workshop. I I voiced that in an email to
the commission because I said, "Why why is the city coming to you with all of your wants when it's going to end up coming to us anyway with what we're going to recommend to you regardless? So, it should start with us, you know, like let us let us take the brunt of of the public. Let us host a Treasure Bay
workshop as an LPA board, which is something I want to talk about, too. but let us, you know, start be the starters and go back and forth with y'all and then make the final recommendation to the commission, you know, because it's because we're the ones that are talking to the community also, but we also are
the ones that know the code. Well, and and here's the one thing I'll throw out there, and I mean, Katherine may kick me. Um, a lot of communities we work in, they will do the joint workshops between LPA and the city commission at that point so that there is a uniform set of listening. Yeah. Uh but at the end of
the day, you know, you all are I'm not trying to say anything negative. You all are appointed. They're elected. They're listening to they're the ones making the decisions. Yeah, you're correct. You know, you may know the the code better than anybody else. Uh they've got to look at the group here and uh you know, every couple of years
on election cycle. Um but you know the joint workshops we found have been extremely beneficial in a lot of communities and it becomes just a communitywide preference and what the in this case the electeds say we agree um as B say I worked in one community and
we we proposed a joint with the planning board and basically the council said there is they're the recommending bodies we look at the elected electorate and we don't always agree with their recommendations anyway. and I was like, "Great. Thank you."
Yeah. Uh, so I know who to Okay. But yeah, again, it comes back to that. What is that community preference? I've spoken to a lot of them and I I know that they they're in agreement with the fact that our as a local planet agency, we are not utilized enough um and for on
their behalf and on on their constituents behalf because again, this is a meeting open to the public. And I literally said at the commission meeting Tuesday, I said, "I encourage everybody to come." I was like, "Please come and start coming to our meetings. We want your input. Two other things I'll tell you. When we redid city of code, they
took a proactive approach between the LPA and the city council. This the LPA there was, you know, I'll say lock step with the vision and all of that and there were no all egos got checked at the door. Um, as far as the community, as bad as I hate to say it, I've got
partners that are outside of Raleigh right now. Uh we we scheduled and ska and set up seven community workshops in each of the commission districts for the code update. Four people showed up. Uh right now we're averaging three people per
workshop and this is a community that's almost half a million. Uh and there's seven cities and we've been going and this was well advertised part of the three excluding Kimy Hornstaff. It's the commissioner dis from that district.
It's the county administrator and the director. Well, I mean that problem. I mean, it's just, you know, it's one of those like even like I don't Are you Catherine? Are they Are you guys working on Treasure Bay? Is that part of your
thing eventually or? No, that is not community development. That's parks and wreck and the commission. Okay, got it. Yeah, we haven't. Kelly, while you're while I'm throwing out ideas, I always think of a few more. I touched on our downtown area, our central business
district, as I should call it, because we don't have a downtown. But anyway, it was the current plan is based on celebration, which turned out it was a great idea in the beginning. It failed. You know, it you got I went down there about six months ago and it's a lot of
nail shops and real estate agencies. There's no place to park. It didn't work. So I was wondering, you know, nobody likes the canyon effect. What do we need to do to get rid of the canyon effect? And the thing is, and you will agree with this, shopping malls are the
thing of the past. People want convenience now. I mean, due to Amazon, my wife doesn't even go to the local store anymore. I mean, it's all about convenience. You come in, you have a little bit of convenient parking out front, you do your stuff, you leave. So
like to see what we could do there. and also architectural standards. I remember the last time and you're going to remember this one I hope said I don't want a glass box. I want the Don Cesar and I would love to have some signature architectural
buildings here in Treasure Island because my wife and I were driving around saying, "Show me a good example of architecture in Treasure Island." only Treasure Island Thunderbird sign and also a Victorian style condo that's kind of hidden in the back way on the
north end. That's about it. And uh I know we have architectural standards in Treasure Island and let's put this way. Work with the developers and uh we'll figure out a way cuz the trouble is
gingerbread takes away from sellable units. I mean, the best sellable unit is right here. It's a box. It has no character. And uh but you get the most cubic feet in there. And believe me, I designed a lot of them in
my life and I didn't like them. So those two items, if you can put them in the back of your mind. Yes, sir. And with that, I am done. So with the So going back to my questions, we need to have the commission address like we need to
make recommendations to them directly about what we want to see as a board. Create a wish list and create a wish list and then have them follow through. Okay. Yes, ma'am. If you want, we can make a motion to discuss that next meeting. Yeah, we don't I don't think we
need a motion to do it. We just have to do it. We'll just put it on the agenda. Yeah, the agenda. Beautiful. Thank you. It's an exciting time. You know, they always say the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. Next best time is today. Yeah, that's kind of I mean I'm I'm here
forever. Like I I'm I got a kid. I got a little kid. We we're here like go to school here, you know, all the things. And and the average age of Treasure Island is now I think 55. It's come down tremendously, you know, age- wise. So, it's um it's got to grow and we've got
to figure it out. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Really, really appreciate your time. And it's really late, but you guys are great. And with that, I think we're about done. All we have
any public comment? There's nobody from the public. Joan, did you have an update for us? No. Not today. No. Okay. Okay. Next. LPA. She has a comment. Oh,
wait. We have a public comment. Only public guests. Looks that way anyway. Uh, I live in Serena Bay across from the Arbar. I was a teacher for 42 years. You think I could make a meeting at 2 o'clock in
the afternoon? No. And that's a problem, too. Sometimes people can't come because they have to work. Yeah. And we have to make think about that too. It's not that they don't want to, but could you imagine a teacher saying, "Oh, I need a substitute for
half the day because I got to go to a city council meeting. I got to go to a planning board meeting." The phone would never stop ringing. So, we have to think about that, too. When we're planning meetings, people have to work.
Thank you. Thank you. I I will say that our scheduled LPA meetings are usually at six o'clock. It's us that uh says, "Hey, let's just tag it on right behind the We did actually start on time. We start at 6,
but it is quarter to 7 if anybody wants to see us adjourn." Anyway, our next LPA PNZ meetings as uh tentively is July 24th per uh any comments from the city attorney
staff or board members? No, good to meet everybody and appreciate everybody's passion. You're much more active than the average PNZ board. I'll tell you that much. That's true. Statewide. So, I look forward to seeing you in July, if not before then. Well, we are getting more active. Let's put this way. a
little bit of redevelopment action is is stirring this on and the fact that you know you I mentioned the four five areas in my mind that really need help and uh we read a lot I'd like to see them happen you know like to see them happen
I mean we have a beautiful uh Treasure Island yach club that sits there as a boat parking lot I don't know if you saw that on the way guys but I got pretty bad with that could I have a motion to adjourn I make a motion to adjurnn. All in favor?
We're out of here.