Mike. There we go. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board meeting for June 18th, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker card is available at the table over by the entrance and must be completed and given
to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by y'all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda. If you would all silence your
cell phones and please rise 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. >> Hey T, if we could have a roll call. >> How agree here. Daniel Belingsley >> here. >> Grant Smith >> here. >> Marvin Shavelin >> here. >> Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Did not see any uh minutes to
approve, so we don't need to do that. Status update on prior planning and zoning cases. Braden is working on a uh page on our website that kind of updates everything. Is there anything verbally you want to hit us with?
is yeah um nothing for past cases to to update you on that uh dashboard that I showed you all last month. Uh I've been working with our PIO and that should be launched uh fully to see publicly for both you guys and residents this week
hopefully. Um that that's it. No other updates. >> Well, I did see a copy of it and was able to access it. So it looks looks good. >> Oh, good. Yeah, I think it's already accessible on the website if you're able to make it there. It just hasn't been He's going to post it on social media so
that people are are made more broadly aware of it. >> Very good. All right. Uh hearing procedures, what do you >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um just to let everyone know on your agenda today, you have two variances and three site plans
uh approvals or requests for approvals. And these uh type of land use matters are quasi judicial in nature. And that requires that um certain requirements related to proper noticing occur as well
as the application of the correct um law whether in Florida statutes or in your co in your land development code. And that your decision in these cases be based on competent and substantial evidence. Testimony from um individuals
who have been qualified as experts in a particular area such as land use planning um has been viewed by Florida courts as um competent and substantial evidence upon which uh decisions could
be made. Also, any residents or members of the public who have um information to share with you that is fact-based or based on their own personal observations, um opinion, testimony, and speculation,
it has not been considered competent and substantial evidence. So, with those um comments, I think you're ready to um address the items on your agenda. Okay. The people who are going to speak today need to be sworn in. If uh you
could uh Tia, go ahead and swear to in anyone who wishes to speak today. >> If you wish to speak today, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're about to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we've got uh five cases today. Any expporteate communication on any of these five cases that anybody needs to disclose? Seeing none, we will go forward with our first case. Uh 10A
variance 0000636-2026 approval of three after the-act variances to section 68-541 to permit reduce street side and interior side setbacks at a single family residence
at a single family residence. If the applicant is uh here, please approach the uh podium and uh state your case. I guess the applicant >> here. No, >> in that case, uh we'll have no questions
for him. Go ahead, Braden with your >> um presentation. Braden Evans, um, community development, presenting a case VR-0000636-2026. Uh, this is an application seeking approval of three after the-act variances to section 68-541
permitting reduced street side and interior side setbacks. Uh, the subject properties located within the RU75 zoning district on a parcel of approximately one quarter acre. the three variances before you. Um, for the street side setback, uh, what's being
requested is a 9- foot encroachment, uh, 31 feet where 40 is required, and two interior side setback, uh, requests for, uh, 1.53 and 1.34 foot, uh, variances. We've got an aerial image of the
property here. Um, some background on the property. The uh previously existing structure was demolished in 2024 and a subsequent building permit was applied for in February of 2025 uh which was issued in March of I'm
sorry, May of 2025. Um following uh previous discovery of erroneous zoning approvals which this board um has been brought made aware of um staff manually has conducted a an
exhaustive internal review of all approved permits that were conduct uh approved during this time period to identify any additional instances of errone erroneous approvals. Um and we're now working to address those nonconformities uh retroactively. Um so
this is uh one of the final applications that was identified as part of that review um which is being brought to you today. Um so that erroneous approval allowed for construction to advance uh with the three setback variances that are coming before you. Um and the
variances are required in order to retain the existing configuration of the structure uh without requiring significant reconstruction. Uh currently the uh approximately 2400 foot structure it's nearing completion. Um at this
point the drywall and roofing inspections have been completed and passed. Another aerial image of the property. Um street side setback of 40 ft and two interior side setbacks of 10 ft. Um this was taken uh this week. So this is the
current state of the property. Uh you can see that front staircase which is the most uh significant encroachment of 9 ft into that front yard setback where 40 ft is required. And we've got the site plan here um
showing that relationship between the front staircase and then the corn the two front corners of the structure encroaching into the east and west side setbacks. Um 8.47 feet on the east side and 8.66 66 feet on the west side.
Reviewing the variance criteria analysis. Um this is of course within the province of what this board has enabled to review. Um the special conditions are the result of an erroneous zoning approval that was granted to the
property during permitting. Um, strict application of the code in this case would result in requiring the applicant to uh deconstruct and reconstruct significant portions of the property. Um, and of course, the circumstances are not the result of the applicant or their
agent. Um, again, this is a v the variance is a minimum necessary for reasonable use. Um, the side setbacks are relatively minor in magnitude. um and and the street side encroachment is you know
relative to the uh issued permit granting this variance uh it's in general harmony with the intent of the chapter through uh by safeguarding the moral and general welfare of the city's residents. Um and we've determined that granting the variance will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or the general public welfare. Uh we're recommending approval of all three variances with the condition of approval that the improvements are only valid for the improvements included within the issued building permits so that they
cannot be um pursued again in the future. I'm available if you have questions. Thank you. >> How close would you say that this house is to their getting their certificate of occupancy? >> Very close. >> Very close. Is there any reason that you
know of and I know the front yard setbacks are all over the place in this city but that one's pretty excessive. I mean 40 ft is a lot. Is there any reason that Dolphin Drive has 40t? I know there's reasons for 40 foot setbacks in Capri
and Palms. Yes, Capria Palms. Was there uh any additional improvements needed on Dolphin Drive we didn't know about? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. I major basically all of the front
setbacks on Dolphin are 40 feet from the street side. Um, as as to why the setback is is that high of a number, I I can't speak on that. Um, it's been, as far as I know, looking back into the code, the way the setback has been
there. Um, Paradise does have the the the largest streetside setback throughout the island though. >> I just knew on Paradise I mean um Palms and Capri there was a rumor of future bridges. So therefore
the uh rights way and the setbacks were a lot wider. But uh >> yeah, I understand what you're getting at. That resulted in a much wider right of way which results in the setback looking as though it's broader. Typically those are 25 or 30 ft over there. >> Well, hopefully this will be the last
after the fact uh variance. >> I do have to give a lot of credit to Emily, the planning manager. She went through all of these um previous approvals manually and and reconducted reviews to to um provide some confidence that this is among the last that you
guys will see. Correct. Well, any uh any questions of the uh >> Yeah, just real quick, Braden, really in general, um I understand these were extenduating circumstances when these plans were approved that we were using contractors. Is has the city taken steps
moving ahead that if we encounter another storm of this magnitude that we're not going to run into this problem again with contractors? >> Yeah, absolutely. In fact, over the past few weeks, Jesse Miller, the flood plan manager, um has been interviewing
several of the approved contractors that we can use um for different um um additional staffing services uh throughout the department in different positions. Um which one of those would be for zoning reviews. Um taking the
time to interview them, understand their staffing protocols. um getting to know um how they would come into aligned with our zoning regulations um and making sure that it's a good fit for our department and the city as well. Um so that's happening right now. Um and I I
can assure you they're putting a lot of effort towards choosing choosing the correct groups to do that. >> So do we know the owner? What did he how did this how does this happen from his viewpoint? I mean I mean 9 ft's a lot a
lot of various and I mean it's not a good situation obviously the city obviously made some mistakes here but you know this is a lot of a big I don't want to give people the impression that oh do whatever you want if you can get away with it you're good you know
>> I I absolutely understand that um and your concern is valid um of course one of the special circumstances of this approval that you guys are reviewing is that erroneous approval Um, as far as the owner's reaction, he was uh very surprised as as you can
imagine um hearing that your house nearing completion is is not up to code. Um, one of the reasons that this was able to skirt being realized for so long is because that prominent setback encroachment is relative to the staircase which is not part of the
building footprint of course. So when there were inspections throughout the process of you know footers and and concrete foundation um that setback wasn't put up yet. The stairs were only recently installed which was that major setback encroachment.
>> Um I hope that answers your question. >> Was he building the house himself or did he have a contractor or >> He had a contractor. That's correct. Um but he's not local. Um, >> I I don't know if he lives permanently out of state or seasonally. Um, I just
know that the time that I've spoken with him, he's been residing in another state. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board for the staff? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wish to speak on this case? Seeing none,
we'll close the uh public uh hearing. You know, this is an unfortunate situation. The good thing is the most erroneous uh and egregious setback is the front front yard setback and it is
for the set of steps only. And uh if it was a house that had been raised like many are being done in this city, we probably would have given it to them just so they could get into their raised house. Uh this is new construction. If
we had known about this uh prior, my general approach is denial. But uh we're in a situation where by and large we just need to keep the city out of a lawsuit. So with that,
could I get a motion to approve these three variances? >> Who would like it? >> I can. I'd like to make a motion to approve a AV AR0000636- 2026. approve all three
after the fact variances to section 68541 to permit um reduce side street uh street side and interior side setbacks
uh at the single family residence. >> Okay. Um, >> second. >> And let's see. Motion by Valerie Ari, second by Daniel Billingsley. Could we have a roll call vote? >> Valerie Cree? >> Yes. >> Daniel Billingsley? >> Yes. >> Grant Smith? >> Yes.
>> Marvin Shavelin? Yes. >> Richard Harris? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Just want to check with you, Nancy. Did we cover everything on that motion? I think we did. >> Yes. In the motion, you did correct. >> I just want to make sure. I think that's your first motion. >> Yes. You did a great job.
>> There we go. Okay, we'll move on to 10B. Site plan 0000554-2025, approval of a site plan review for the development consisting for a development consisting of 10 town homes. The
applicant is in the audience. Please uh approach the podium. I didn't know you were covering this one as well. >> This is the only one I'm here for today. >> Oh, okay. Do you have a clicker that I use? >> I don't.
Um, I have your picture up. I apologize. I your presentation. I bear with me. I'm sorry. I know I handed out hard copies as well, but it's always nice to see it on the
screen, especially for those watching in the audience. Here comes it to help us. >> Oh, we do have a clicker. Um, great. I don't know. It was sent to me as a PDF. I'm not sure.
Yeah, >> someone doesn't like to work with PDFs instead of a PowerPoint. Sorry about that. >> All right. Thank you all so much. Sorry about that. So, we have it and Braden is going to graciously flip through it since we don't have a um clicker that's working. My name is Lauren Rubenstein
with the law firm of Hillward Henderson 600 Cleveland Street, Sweet 800 in Clearwater, Florida. And I have been sworn. I'm here on behalf of the applicant today. Uh several members from our development team are here as well as the uh engineer Eli Payne with Bayside
Engineering. So, if you have technical questions as I go through, I'm sure he'll be happy to answer those. So, if you would scroll through the proposed uh town home project consists of 10 town homes. It's located on three contiguous
parcels on the east side of G Boulevard. And uh just to give you a little bit of an idea, there's seven four bedroomedroom, three and a half bath units. Those are closer to the inter coastal waterway. And then you have three three-bedroom, two and a half bath
units. Each unit has garage parking underneath. We exceed the parking requirements and we'll go over that in more detail. And the development also includes additional on-site guest parking. Uh the property owner does own the two parcels um that are contiguous
to the north as well as across the street, the Maloy Hotel, which will be granting a beach access easement um in favor of the subject property, which would be uh a wonderful addition to allow that safe pedestrian access to the beach.
And on the property did used to be my understanding as a 35 unit hotel that was demolished in approximately 2023. And so this um this has been a long time coming. So if you move forward, Braden. So uh here's a picture of the site plan.
I know that's pretty hard for you to read. You do have hard copies that I've passed out as well. So you can see there's the main entrance right off of Golf Boulevard. There's the three town homes that are closer to Golf Boulevard that I described as the three-bedroom, two and a half bath. They have the
twocar garage underneath and then the uh seven town homes closer to the inter coastal. They are all four bedroomedroom, three and a half bath. All of them have capacity in the garage for three vehicles except for the middle one which actually has fourcar garage
and so um plenty of extra parking which is always a concern. Uh there will be pools that are proposed um behind the seven town homes that front the inter coastal. So section 70-92 uh in your code requ has all of the
requirements for a site plan review. So just to walk through them, um I'm very pleased to tell you we meet all of the requirements. The staff report says we meet all of the requirements. So I hope this is an easy one for you, but we want to walk through and discuss why that is.
So first, uh in what respects the plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning district. The zoning on this property is RFM30, which we know is uh a resort facilities medium and uh both tourist dwellings and residential
dwellings are permitted uses in the RFM30 district. The propo proposed 10-unit town home um meets this intent. Resort facility median land use category allows up to 15 units per acre for the residential uses. And so, um, again, the
10 units proposed do meet the city's comprehensive plan. In what respects it is, uh, in conformance with all the applicable zoning regulations. So, the nice thing about this application is they're not requesting any variances. We meet all of
the requirements. You can see we exceed the lot width, the lot depth, the lot area. It's certainly a large a large parcel. Um lot coverage is only at 32.3% well under the maximum. The ISR is met.
We're at 66.9%. Building height we are at 51 ft compared to the 60 ft above um BF that would have been allowed um with the two freeboard. And as far as setbacks, we either meet
or exceed the required setbacks. Um as you'll see on the site plan the front setbacks 25 feet side setbacks are five and six feet respectfully in north and south and uh the waterfront set back we are at 22 feet where 20 is required uh
as I mentioned is parking as well with those uh garage parking spaces as well as the five uh guest parking spaces on site uh we're providing 28 total spaces where only 20 are required. So in what respects the plan is in
conformance with the city subdivision regulation? So this is a town home project. There was a preliminary plat that was submitted for uh administrative approval which it which it received and a final plat will be required before um a certificate of occupancy would be
issued. Uh the next criteria is in what respect the plan is consistent with good design standards in respect to all internal and external relationships. And there's several criteria under that that we consider uh that the code points you to.
First, is it incon is it consistent with the planned character of the zoning district? Is it compatible with the existing surrounding development? Uh we absolutely believe it is. Staff found that it was. Uh again, to the south is a
large condo building. Um across the street is the Mallay Hotel. Um so the uh town homes which um are I think a very nice um transition in there are certainly compatible and per permitted
uses in the RFM30 district. Next is internal and external circulation patterns for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians. So there will be uh driveway access off of G Boulevard. There is a proposed pedestrian path which connects the development to the
sidewalk along G Boulevard. I'd also mention uh we have looked um my client has investigated the possibility of a signalized um pedestrian crossing and it does meet spacing standards and they
absolutely would be supportive of that and will be pursuing a safe crossing across Gulf Boulevard. And then like I mentioned there is the beach access easement which is being granted by the Malai hotel. Next is disposition of open space,
effective use of screening and um the preservation of existing trees or natural features. Uh there is no open space requirement for single family dwellings but like I mentioned we meet all of the ISR max building area setbacks. There's certainly plenty of
open space. The appropriate screening is proposed in the vehicle use areas and there are no environmentally sensitive or natural features that are at risk based on the proposed development. Uh building arrangements is the next thing we look at uh both between the
building and the proposed development and in relation to the uh properties adjacent and again we meet all of the required setbacks if not exceed them. Um the next few items um talking about public use of existing beach and waterfront is not applicable here. The
same with historically or arctic architecturally significant structures. Uh suitability for design of proposed on-site recreation is also not applicable to this application. So that brings us to the fifth criteria is what
in in what respects the plan is in conformance with city policies regarding sufficiency of ownership and guaranteed um completion of required improvements. Public Works has reviewed the plan, has indicated support for approval, and certainly there would be additional
review as we go through the building permit if there's any required improvements where applicable and what respects the plans in conformance with um the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay Region Council, FDOT, those sort of things. So, um, we
have received, um, the Swift Mud exemption and proof of that has been provided to the city. Um, FDOT permits, I understand, um, based on my conversation with Mr. Payne right before this, we've already, uh, received, um, access and drainage permits from FDOT.
Uh, and number seven, or I shouldn't say permits, I should say approve approval, excuse me. And then number seven, the last criteria dealing with rehabilitation or redevelopment also does not apply to this application. So with that, um, I'm here to answer any
questions. I believe we've provided you with the competent substantial evidence then upon which you can rely that we meet all of the code criteria and we'd respectfully request your approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions for the applicants representative from the
board? Seeing none, uh, Braden, go ahead with your presentation. Oh, sorry. >> I have a question. Will these be rental units or will they >> It's anticipated that they will be vacation rental units. Doesn't mean
somebody might not just use it for a single family home, but both the tourist dwelling or a single family residential dwelling are permitted using it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Seeing none, go ahead with your presentation, Braden.
>> All right. Well, the applicant's presentation was very detailed. Um, so I will be as detailed as I can be without being repetitive or duplicative. Um, so I'm uh presenting uh site-554-2025, a site plan review uh for a parcel uh
for three parcels located at 10149 and 10173 Gulf Boulevard. The applicant is seeking approval of a site plan consisting of 10 town homes located within the RFM30 zoning district. See an um aerial image of the property here. Um
the uh parcel can three parcels uh make up um approximately 30,000 square ft of sight area um and just below 70 acres. Uh the plan is proposing 10 town home units arranged in a row of and in two
rows. Uh provides 28 parking spaces which comes out to two per unit. Um some resulting in more than that uh with additional guest parking. Um the five additional guest parking spaces to be specific. One of them being an ADA
compliant parking space. Um the applicant is proposing a new driveway connection uh serving all 10 units from Gulf Boulevard and is undergoing um FDOT approval to do so. The site plan also proposes a dedicated pedestrian pathway
that allows access from the Gulf Boulevard sidewalk to the internal area of the development. We have some um elevations here both front and side. In terms of um review criteria, we can
see in this table all uh development standards are being conformed with um with the site plan pro proposed to you. Uh that includes lot dimensions, setbacks um and etc. Uh the subject property, the
developments proposed of the subject property are consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the RFM30 zoning district. Um as mentioned conforms with all applicable zoning district regulations. Um and has been approved for a preliminary plat and as
mentioned prior that final plat will be a requirement of um uh for the certificate of occupancy. The site is compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and the uh um overall neighborhood character. The
internal and external circulation um is improved from the current site and is uh sufficient to uh meet neighborhood criteria um as illustrated in that uh new driveway which is being approved with the FDOT.
Open space and screening is not required for town houses or single family homes and the building arrangement and setbacks uh meet or exceed all standards. There's no waterfront access historically ar or artically
architecturally significant structures um or on-site recreational areas. Um as mentioned by the applicant uh there was a swift mud exemption um and all relevant permitting is being pursued and is subject to approval.
Staff is recommending um approval of the site plan with the following conditions which are outlined in the staff report included in your packet. I'm available if you have questions. >> Could you go back to the uh conditions again? >> Yes.
>> That says five on here on my uh iPad. It's only got four, but the fifth one is in regard to the DOT. So that's fine. >> Um any questions of uh city staff from the board?
>> Just real quick, Braden, how large is the site in terms of acreage? >> 0.68 acres, I believe. Yes. 0.687. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Any other questions from the uh board? Seeing none, anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to this case? Seeing none, we will close the uh public hearing. Question I usually ask and it's already been answered. If there's any if
it meets all code, it meets all code. There are no variances required. Um any discussion further from the board? Since I'm seeing none, could we get a motion to approve? I do a motion
to approve uh case number site 0000554-2025 to approve the site plan review as requested. It meets all the five following conditions. >> Thank you. Motion by Daniel Billingsley. Could I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Marvin Shavelin. Roll call,
please. >> Valierree. >> Yes. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Richard Harris. Yes. >> Thank you. >> And that is subject to the conditions. >> Yes. Thank you.
Okay. We'll move on to the next case. Uh 10 C site plan 0000620-2026 approval of a site plan review for a development consisting of three town homes. the applicant uh could approach
the podium and present their case. >> Good afternoon, members of the planning board, zoning board. My name is Matt Carr from Winway Homes. As the agent and property owner Charles Park, um we we have I'm sorry. We are here today respectively requesting approval of the
site plan of three new town homes and a concurrent variance required at 10356 G Boulevard. This property was completely destroyed by Hurricane Helen in 2024. The five buildings that once stood contained
eight short-term rentals units that Charles Park's property and his livelihood. In one devastating night, this his property and his income were wiped out. Today we stand before you with a thoughtful code compliant uh redevelopment that will restore a lost
economical opportunity while delivering highquality more resilient project for Treasure Island. Willy Homes has designed three beautiful uh artist articulated town homes that perfectly scaled to the coastal site. Elevated on peers and completely open
ground level both with ground level on both Golf Boulevard and the beach side. The design preserves the actual enhancement beachfront and visibility exactly as the code intended. The 7- foot city rightway immediately to the
north provides additional open corridor views and the staggering balconies um and roof lines of each unit to give own identity and fitting seamlessly with surrounding highdensity resort character. The variance request is a
modest and is driven entirely by the unique irregular shape of the lot 73 foot on the street side setback along with 96 on the rear that uh configur legally allows for three dwelling units. Yet the strict open source space formula
measured only at the front does not reflect the actual buildable area. Granted, the minium variance will allow sidebyside parking on the ground level instead of unsafe stack parking where cars must be back directly on the Gul boulevard. Uh enhance enable the full
density of the zoning district to a lot shaped already permitted. Uh the third thing is to keep the ground fully open. No enclosures, no garages, especially conditioning as explicitly conditioned by the staff.
Staff has thoroughly analyzed both applicants applications and recommends approval on the site plan and variance with seven uh very reasonable conditions. We accept every single one of them without reservation. We will keep the ground level and open placing
all utilities underground. Obtain F FDOT permits to provide um sanitary manhole data certainly uh remain substantially consistent with the plans design and pull building permits within 12 months.
We are prepared to move forward immediately delivering a a storm resilient, visually appealing redevelopment that improves Gulf Boulevard corridor respecting the public beach and and returns a hardworking Treasure Island family to economic stab stability.
Uh we respectfully ask the board to approve both site plan and review um site subvariants requested today subject to staff recommendations, conditions. Thank you for your time and if you have any questions, please let me know. >> Okay. Any questions from the board for
the applicant? I do have one question just for my own curiosity. This used to be known as Seahorse Cottages. >> Yes, sir. >> That's amazing. >> Just right here, actually. >> That's right. I actually lived there for a while. >> Oh, wow.
>> So, that was interesting. About about 40 years ago. >> Just just uh making sure I was in the right spot. Absolutely. >> Okay. Any other questions uh of the applicant? >> Seeing none, thank you. And uh Britain, go ahead with your presentation.
>> All right. So, I'm going to be doing something a little bit new with this one. I'll be presenting the variance and the site plan together. Um so, let's see. So, we've got uh two cases being presented here for 10356 G
Boulevard. uh case VR- 000-635-2026 and case site-0000620-2026. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to reduce the open space requirements for a parcel abuing a public beach. Um along with an concurrent site plan review for a
development consisting of three new town homes within the RFH50 zoning district. So application one is um requesting approval of variance to section 68-561 to reduce the open space requirement for
a town home development abuing a public beach. Um section 68-561 requires all developments abuing a public beach or the Gulf uh to maintain an open space that is equal to 30% of the lot width.
Uh based on the lot width which is determined by the width of the property at the setback line the street side setback line uh the required open space would be 22 ft for this parcel. The applicant is proposing an open space of
15.7 ft which is a 6.38 ft variance uh equal to 28.8%. The second application is concurrent on the approval of that variance and is for site plan review of a proposed town home
uh with three units. This is an aerial image of the subject property as mentioned located within the RFH50 zoning district um and has a total area of approximately 222 acres. Uh so the proposed site plan as shown
here uh has alternate alternating facade projections for the three town home units uh clearly deline delineating each individual unit has dedicated private driveways um as mentioned by the applicant. FDOT permit coordination is
underway um with approval imminent and and a condition of the approval as well. Um although a variance is being required to the open space requirement, the proposal the proposed developments do meet the required setbacks uh where the
required interior side setbacks are 7 1/2 ft um as well as the street side setback of 20 ft. Those are all being met by the proposed uh site plan. In addition, the applicant is proposing a design that uses an open garage
concept um to maintain and provide greater uh beachfront visibility overall. So, in going into some more detail about the variance request, uh we can see here the subject property has um a unique shape overall uh with 73 ft of frontage
along Gulf Boulevard and then 96 ft along the rear. Uh the open space as mentioned before is determined by lot width. Lot width is determined by the the width of the parcel at the at the street side setback line which in this
case would be that 23 ft. Um additionally the subject property property abuts a 7 foot wide strip of right ofway which terminates into a dead end um and is otherwise unusable. Um so that right ofway also maintains an
additional 7 ft of space that will not be developed. Um in the future if an applicant or a property owner either of the two decide you know wanted to seek out a vacation of that rightway it could be conditioned that it would be maintained as open space. Uh again
preserving the character um and basically making up for that lack of open space if this variance is approved. And again mentioning the uh proposed or the required setbacks are maintained as shown by the green space illustrated on the screen.
Reviewing the variance criteria. Um special conditions are met uh due to the peculiar uh shape of the subject property. Uh looking at almost all other parcels along the uh Gulf side of Gulf Boulevard, I did not find any that had a
unique shape such as the subject property. They're all relatively standard in in quadrilateral type shape. Uh strict application would uh impact reasonable use of the property. Um the only alternative would have been for the applicant to reduce the width of each
individual unit. All the units already are less than 20 ft wide. Um reducing them more so would res restrict the ability to do a twocar sidebyside garage. um which would complicate parking and due to the area where they
have to back out on a golf it would probably be a safety concern as well. Um the circumstances are not the result of the applicant. Um staff has determined this to be the minimum necessary variance to make reasonable use of the property and I'm
relating that back to the the parking scenario. Um it's a standard development expectation of surrounding parcels um and um is believed to be reasonable use of the property. Um
so again as far as uh resulting in unnecessary hardship a literal enforcement would um impact the configuration of the property or the ability to develop the maximum uh density permitted at the property which is the full three units. The variance will be in harmony with the general
intent and purpose of the code. Um the open garage design concept maintains the the view corridor along Gulf Boulevard. Um and again that abudding right of way helps protect that as well. The granting of variance will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or public welfare. Uh moving on to the site plan criteria analysis for the overall site plan. Uh we've got a um rendering and elevation of the property here again for you to review. Um development standard conformance. The
subject property meets all development standards in terms of uh lot dimensions, setbacks, and parking with the sole exception of the open space requirement which is subject variance before you.
Again, the subject property is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning district it's within the uh resort facilities high zoning district um is identified as an area suitable for highdensity resort and residential facilities. Um again the um
conformance with applicable zoning district regulations while a variance is being requested all other uh regulations are being met. A concurrent preliminary plat is has been administratively approved and a final plat will be required upon uh
completion of the permit and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding um district character and developments. In terms of internal circulation, the new driveway will serve vehicular access
uh to each individual unit and is subject to review by the Florida Department of Transportation. Open space is being maintained despite that variance that's being requested um through several factors such as the condition of approval requiring that
that garage stays open and not enclosed um to further um ensure that that view corridor remains open. Um again uh public beach and waterfront access won't be um impacted from the
proposed site plan. The abuing right of way doesn't provide any direct access to to anywhere honestly. Uh and there's no um historic or sign significant structures associated. Um
swift mud um exemption was provided by the applicant and again this is not a rehabilitation of a non-conforming use. It's a new development. So we're recommending approval of the variance first and foremost. Um if that variance is approved by the board, you can move
forward with the site plan approval which is contingent on that um concurrent variance request. Thank you. >> Okay. Any questions of city staff from the board? Marvin. >> So the open space is basically an increased setback. Is that basically
what's going on here? >> Yes, correct. Um it's 30% of the lot width, right? the um along the same lines in this same type of situation. The city of Treasure Island has an alternate setback situation. That's what
we're dealing with here. >> That's correct. >> It's so as you're driving down Gulf Boulevard, you can see the the bay. My comment has always been keep your eyes on the road. Um, when the Seahorse
cottages were there, uh, there was no way that it met open space requirements at that point, did it? >> I I don't have the answer for that. I've seen aerial images, but I wouldn't have been able to look at it, you know, officially and give you an answer. Well,
I was looking at the aerial and just based on the history, I don't I truly don't think it did. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Real quick, if I may, Braden, the access the public access is adjacent to the property, the dead ends. What is that?
>> So, I wouldn't say it's a public access. It's just a strip of right of way that is is there >> right of way to nowhere. >> Yes. Uh that happens sometimes with plats that overlap and over time there's there's strips of right of way. At one
point it most likely went all the way to the beach. Um and then through decades of various deed transfers and property separations at some point um a private property over overlapped that and terminated the right of way.
>> Thanks. I do like the the comment you made that if it is ever vacated that it will be required to um remain as open space. >> It could be that would have to be a condition of approval but it could be.
>> Is there any way would it be legal Nancy to include that as a condition? >> Well, it's >> if it was ever vacated, >> but it's a rightway so he doesn't really have Yeah.
>> So, it's like an adjacent piece of property. >> It it's a right of way, so he doesn't have ownership of it at this time as you're doing your approval. So, um,
you know, you could put a note in there h as just a reminder that if it comes up, but um really it should not be part of this um approval. >> I don't think there's I mean, vacating
rights away is a process and it can be expensive and it's time consuming and why bother? I mean, it's a like like you said, it's a right away to nowhere and I'm sure it had a use in the past someday. Okay. Anyone in the audience to
speak to this case? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Um, I feel this is a pretty cut and dried one. I hated to see the seahorse cottages go, but that's what Hurricane
Helen did to a lot of properties on this island. And there's currently 77 vacant lots on Sunset Beach right now. Uh based on that, any comments or any discussion from the board or could we get a motion?
>> I move to approve site plan review 0000620-2026. I'm >> sorry. The variance has to be approved first. Oh, >> the var. Okay, I knew that. It'll have to go to 10day. Yeah.
Okay. I move to approve uh variance number 000635-2026. Uh the planning zoning board has determined the variance application requesting approval of variance to section 68-541
to reduce the open space requirements for a new development consisting of three town homes abudding a beach does substantially satisfy the criteria set forth in section 70-221 of Treasure Island Code of Ordinances as set forth in the quasi judicial hearing including
the application staff report and other record evidence testimony presented and discussed at the hearing. And we approve the variance as requested with the conditions approve of approval. >> Thank you. Could I have a second, please? >> Second.
>> Okay. Motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Grant Smith. Could we have a roll call? >> Valerie? >> Yes. >> Daniel Billingsley? >> Yes. >> Grant Smith? >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin? >> Yes. >> Richard Harris? >> Yes. >> Okay, that is the variance portion.
Marvin, would you like to make a uh motion on the site plan portion? >> I can find it. I will. Yeah. Okay. I move to approve site plan review 0000620-2026. The planning and zoning board is a term of the site plan review application
requesting approval of a residential development consisting of three town homes does substantially satisfy the criteria set forth in section 70-92 of the Treasure Island Code of ordinances as set forth in the quasi judicial hearing record including the application
staff report and other record evidence and testimony presented and discussed at the hearing and approves the site plan review with conditions of approval. Seven. Seven conditions of approval. >> Thank you. Could I have a second, please?
>> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Marvin Shavelin. Second by Valerie Cree. Could I have a roll call, please? >> Valerie Cree. >> Yes. >> Daniel Bingsley. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay, we'll move on to 10E, site plan approval. 0000433-2024, approval of a site plan review for the reconstruction of a commercial gas station and related infrastructure located within the PR-MU
Gulf Zoning District. And the applicant is at the podium. Go ahead with your presentation. >> Yes. Uh my name is Nissit Sarra. I'm the engineer record for this project. Um and also the uh owner agent. Um this uh I'm
here today to request the site plan approval for the existing gas station on 1081 G Boulevard. Uh the existing gas station was built in 1956.
So old and uh we want to redevelop with the upto-date uh new gas station. Uh right now we uh meet all the land development requirement with uh city of Treasure Island along with the
previously approved variance back. Uh so alto together uh we be be we we be able to make it fully comply um landscaping the uh parking storm water
uh with uh everything that up to code you know we make it uh we decide to meet the requirement today um I'm just here to uh ask for the final approval from the board uh we also got the um
sweep mat uh exemption letter. Uh we are almost close with uh FDOT driveway connection permit and FDOT drainage permit. Uh we just received uh last
minor comment from them to ask for the maintenance of traffic during construction and couple of uh note that we have to add. So we get in couple of the document that they require. Uh so we in process to resubmit and obtain the
final approval. Uh I'm just here to answer the question. >> Okay. Any questions of the uh applicant from the board. Go ahead Marva. >> So I assume that the cars can enter the
gas things from both sides. Is that how this is designed or >> correct? Correct. Yes. Looks kind of tight, but yes, it works. >> Would you? Yes, we'll have an access on 108 and 100 and on Gold Boulevard
currently the same way that it currently is. >> Correct. >> Um I know I was serving on this board when we granted Oh, I think it was four. You'll get into that, Braden. But um the main question is
those were approved several years ago. We were hoping you would uh proceed with construction before they expired. What is your schedule of construction? Are you going to break ground soon? >> Uh as soon as we got the approval from
uh the board and we should get a final approval with the DOT soon, we should probably weeks to start uh construction. We have building permit. Uh we we have the building plan already 100% complete.
Uh we're just waiting for this uh process to get approval so we can move to the next process. >> What do you know? >> What do you estimate for uh construction time? >> Six months >> plus or minus.
>> And you are I didn't get your name earlier. You are the engineer of record. Your your number is 64085. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just making sure. Yes, sir. >> I'm looking at your plans right now. >> Okay. Thank you. If you would have a seat, go ahead with your presentation,
Braden. >> Excuse me. I'm presenting a site plan review for 10801 Gulf Boulevard. Application number site-0000554-2025. Uh, the applicant is seeking approval of a site plan for the reconstruction of a commercial gas station and related
infrastructure located within the PRMU Gulf zoning district. Uh, the subject property uh, as shown here on aerial image is uh, consists of approximately 0.54 acres and is within the PRMU Gulf Zoning District.
We uh, can see the proposed site plan here. Uh so the plan utilizes past three past variances that were previously granted um to the downtown design standards including um two reductions to the
minimum to the maximum setbacks and one reduction to the minimum height structure height which was granted by the city commission. The proposed site plan relocates the existing location of the principal structure providing the convenience
store to the rear of the parcel. Um provides improved vegetation and buffering throughout the property. Um primarily this is most impactful along Gulf Boulevard and 108th Avenue. Um reducing some of that exposure to the subject property.
As mentioned by the applicant, there's going to be an upgraded driveway access um both at the 108th Avenue entrance and the Gulf Boulevard Avenue entrance that will uh significantly reduce the open curb cut width um you know better
contributing to um safer access and pedestrian orientation surrounding the property. Along with those pedestrian improvements, the applicant is also proposing um sidewalk improvements which will result in 10 foot wide sidewalks along the perimeter of the entirety of
the property along both 108th and Gulf Boulevard. Uh lastly, um this site plan uh proposal includes um improvements to the environmental concerns on site. um I believe it was 1996 and then again in
2022 um soil contamination was reported and remediation efforts are underway. Um part of that is replacing the underground storage tank for fuel which will be part of this plan and will
contribute to remediation efforts in that capacity. We have some more images of the site of the structure being proposed here as well as the new gas fuel sign that will be located along Gulf Boulevard as
permitted in the downtown design standards. This is going to be a monument sign, so a little less um intrusive than the typical gas station signs that we see often. Reviewing the site plan criteria analysis, we can see here the
development standard conformance. The plan meets lot coverage, impervious surface ratio, the interior side setbacks, parking spaces, and the maximum area of the gas price display sign. Um however you can
see for the building height and the two street side setbacks those variances that were granted either by this board or the city commission uh respectively. In the downtown districts there's a maximum setback regulation as opposed to a minimum in the standard zoning
districts. This site plan approval uses those variances granted to place the structure further away from the street side setback. The plan before you is consistent with a comprehensive plan and zoning district intent. Um the existing automobile
oriented use of the site property is not inherently conducive to the vision of the downtown districts. Um however, the improvements included in the proposed site plan allow the existing use to remain uh while providing improvements that increase the pedestrian comfort and
complement the overall district. Um, it's in conformance with all applicable zoning district regulations with the exception of the components where variances were granted and the compatibility and uh with the
zoning district is improved through the construction of pedestrian improvements, reducing the curb openings uh to allow for safer relationship between vehicles entering and exiting the property. um
and pedestrians traveling along the adjacent streets. Um in terms of building arrangement, the location of the primary structure to the rear of the building or to the rear of the property provides additional buffer from the adjacent uh public works
facility uh which improves buffering and um visual capacity. There's no uh historic or architecturally significant structures, no on-site recreational areas. Um the public works department has reviewed the application and
indicated support for approval. Uh however, temporary construction easement will be required for the portion of improvements that will be done within the 108th Avenue rightway for that sidewalk. Um which is a condition of this site plan approval.
And then appropriate permitting will be required from um both FDOT and the Treasure Island Public Works Department for all improvements uh that are within the right of way. Overall, we're recommending approval uh with the following conditions which were
outlined in the staff report and I'm available if you have any questions. One thing um I saw earlier you the city actually has in this district a minimum height that the city already gave a variance for. >> That's correct.
>> That's just I'm glad they g gave it because I just don't think uh I mean they only wanted to build a 23 foot high building instead of a 26. They kind of nitpicking there. But anyway, anybody else have any
questions of the uh city staff? Uh this is a situation. I just want to make this comment. The reason why those previous uh variants was approved um it just did not work for a gas station to have a 8
foot minimum setback. You ended up with gas pumps behind the building. >> Understandable. With that, uh, anyone in the audience to speak to this project? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Um, this has been a long
time coming. Uh, make sure you get the, uh, notice of commencement and get started. U with that, any comments from the board further or could we get a motion? Who would like to make a motion to
approve? >> I'll make it. I make a motion to approve case site-433-2024 um location 10801 Golf Boulevard uh to approve with conditions as follows the six conditions. Do I need to list them
all out? >> No. >> Okay, >> we're good there. Just one through just one through six. >> Yeah, one through six. We know what they are because we've got everything in the record. So, we're good. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion by Daniel Billingsley. Could I get a second,
please? >> Second by Valerie Acre. Could I get a roll call, please? >> Valerie, >> yes. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. and go now. Get your building permit and
go build this uh project finally. >> Thank you, Mr. Harris. >> It's been a long time. Hope you didn't get too wet. Okay. Uh we are done with our five cases. Public comments for non-aggenda items. I know Mark Hoy is
just waiting with baited breath. Go ahead, Mark. >> Thank you, chair. >> Appreciate it. Good afternoon, Mark Hoey, District 3. I want to inform this body that a group of Treasure Island residents is gathering petition
signatures to place a city charter amendment on the November ballot. This petition is simple. It asks that Treasure Island voters be given the opportunity to decide the issue for themselves at the ballot box in
November. The proposed amendment would require a supermajority vote, four of five commissioners, before a planned development project can be approved. As you may know, the city is considering a new zoning process that could allow
developers to request exceptions to existing development standards, including building height, density, setbacks, and other zoning requirements. While this type of approval can be a useful tool in certain circumstances,
many residents believe it should be used only when there is broad community support and a clear public benefit. The city attorney has publicly stated that such approvals are intended for exceptional and unique situations that
provide significant public benefits. This charter amendment would help ensure that the standard is maintained by requiring a stronger consensus from our elected officials before these projects move forward.
With all of the new development expected in the coming years, many residents believe projects seeking to build outside existing code standards, taller, denser, closer to neighboring properties, or otherwise requesting
exceptions from current regulations, should require four commissioner votes instead of three. Requiring a supermajority vote helps ensure that these decisions have greater scrutiny,
transparency, and community support. The amendment itself will not change existing zoning rules or developmental standards. It simply allows Treasure Island voters to decide whether a supermajority vote should be required
before these types of projects can be approved. I'm happy to invite members of this board to meet me outside off city property to sign a petition. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh are you going to be here for the LPA to make your same comments?
Cuz that really should have been an LPA issue, but uh I'll let you go for it anyway. >> Thank you. >> Cuz I'm a nice guy. >> I appreciate that. No, I'm not going to repeat it at the LP. >> But you're going to stick around for the LPA? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. All right. Based
on that, uh, anybody else in the audience? There is no one else in the audience. Uh, reports and comments of city attorney, staff, and board members. You got anything, Nancy? >> No, I don't I don't have anything. Thank
you. >> Um, Braden, >> nothing here. >> Okay. We're going to have some cases next month in July. >> Uh, two >> two Short and sweet. Okay. Any comments from
the board members? >> We'll probably get into a little more uh during the LPA. Uh our next uh meeting will be the uh >> get my calendar out here.
>> This should be the 16th of July. >> 16th of uh July. So, we'll hope to see everyone there. We we will have the LPA afterwards on that one too if it works out properly because we all like that better. We only have one meeting a
month. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. We are adjourned. We will reconvene at 3:20 for the LPA.
Okay. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island local planning agency board meeting for June 18th, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's card is available at the table
over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented
under the public comments section of the agenda. Okay, we've uh already had a pledge of allegiance. We don't need to do that a second time. Uh please keep your cell phones uh silenced, including the folks in the audience, which we don't have a
lot of. Uh could we have a roll call? >> Valerie >> here. >> Daniel Billingsley >> here. >> Grant Smith >> here. >> Marvin Shavelin >> here. >> Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we don't have any uh minutes to approve at this point.
And we'll start off with the uh first item 6A review of ordinance 2026-20 admending it administrative waiverss and allowable encroachments and Mary Ellen Edwards is going to give
her presentation. >> Thank you. Um good afternoon. >> Oh, yep. You want to do it >> so everyone knows. Mr. Chair, would you like to read the title or Mary Ellen? >> Go ahead, Mary Ellen, because uh I've
got to get this iPad up and running. An ordinance of the city of Treasure Island, Florida, amending chapter 68, zoning regulations of the city of Treasure Island land development regulations, amending section 6835, administrative waiverss to authorize limited administrative relief for stair
encroachments. Necessary to facilitate the elevation of existing structures to meet flood plane requirements. Amending section 68542 allowable encroachments to provide additional balcony encroachment flexibility for existing structures elevated to meet flood plane requirements. providing for
severability, providing for conflicts, providing for codification, and providing an effective date. Um, so if you guys recall, um, it might have been the last meeting or the one before that, we were t I'm going to skip down to the bottom part because it's the easier part of this ordinance. Um, we
were talking about the balconies and that the way the balconies are currently written, it's 12t wide by 3 ft deep. And we were finding that a lot of people who were elevating their homes can't it just wasn't practical for the 3 ft. Um so for
the balcony part of this um and this allowable encroachments we've uh removed that 12t restriction and want it to span the full width of all exterior doors on the side uh facing the yard and uh put
it at 5t deep. So, we think this will help a lot of those structures that are elevating meet that requirement because I don't I don't think today anybody's used it um as it was written. So, at the request of um the board, we made that uh change.
Um and then the second change, Braden, if you'll go to 38 6835. This was also discussed at the last meeting because of the number of um variances that were coming before you for elevations for stairs. We kind it it looks like there's more
changes than there are. Um some of this number two is not new. It's just moved and when you move it in Mun code, I have to we have to underline it so it it shifts correctly. But we did create the special administrative waiver for stair encroachments. And you know, we were
kind of looking at this trying to figure out if we were going to do this from an administrative waiver um standpoint, what we felt comfortable with from an administrative standpoint. and what um we also wanted to give some conditions
and reasoning for us to be able to to do that. So, there are some conditions that have to be met, but I I have Braden here because he does most of your variances. Well, all of your variances. And I wanted him to kind of put together how many you've approved, how big those variants have been. So, I
Braden, if you'll pull that up. I kind of want Braden to walk you through um the numbers so you can understand. We didn't just arbitrarily pull these numbers for the ordinance. We it's based off of the data and how many variances you guys have approved uh for the elevations. >> Um so yeah, so we reviewed uh the past
six months of elevate variances to to structures being elevated. Um that actually encompasses all of the variances that were approved uh by this board for structural elevations. Um overall there were 17 cases that were came that came before you and 30
individual variances. um 17 and 30. Of course, uh var many of the applications that came to you had multiple variances. Of the 30 individual variances that came before you, 100% of those were approved by uh you as the
planning and zoning board. As a whole, of the 30 variances, uh there was an average magnitude of 31% for the streetside setbacks. And among all of those, there was an average magnitude of 36% for all of the interior
side setbacks. But when we break that down by setback standard, uh you can start to see a little bit more clearly of what's going on. So broken down to just the properties that requested variances to their 10-ft interior side setback, the average magnitude there was
28% um again at a 100% approval rate by this board. And when accounting for properties that had an interior side setback of 7 1/2 ft, the average magnitude of those variances approved
was 49%. So effectively half. Um so bringing attention to the smaller setback having um you know more of a burden on you know fitting those staircases and necessary improvements into those setbacks comparatively to the the 10-ft
side setbacks that are required. Um so just put together this dashboard for you guys to kind of review that. Um considering the 100% approval rate and then the the 50% and 28% magnitudes generally. >> So in light of those numbers um we
recommended uh 40% uh so we can administratively approve a 40% of a required setback of 10 feet or less or 25% of a required setback greater than 10 ft. um with the following conditions that it has to be a
structure that's being elevated to meet the flood plane requirements. It's necessary to provide access to a primary entrance, required means of egress or required utility, mechanical or service access. Um the existing structure configuration or site conditions prevent compliant stair access from being
achieved within the required setback. Uh the configuration is located to minimize impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent practical. staircase is the minimum width necessary to meet applicable access and building cone requirements and no more than one stair encroachment administrative waiver can
be granted under this section. So in light of that we do have the stair encroachment in the allowable encroachment sections but this would provide um an administrative route for an additional staircase provided it meets all those requirements.
I guess the um question I would have I mean we were very um accommodating for people that are spending a lot of money to uh raise their housing including one of our board members in fact and uh do
you have any idea and this might be uh something that would be hard to quantify of the cases that we heard how many would be covered by the adjustments that we're making here? Do we have a percentage of that? >> We do have we do and the slide that I'm
going to show you also shows an alternative approach because >> we did put a lot of consideration behind this and thinking about how much um you know administrative authority we wanted to put you know before you. Um so on the left side the recommended approach that
is going to be the the one that's before you right now. So this approach would have captured 50% of all of the street side setbacks, 58% of all of the interior side setbacks and 85% of the waterfront setbacks. Uh which would have would reduce the total number of cases
from 30 um down to 19. >> So it wouldn't have uh >> No, I'm sorry. It would have it would have eliminated 19. So it would have reduced 30 to 11. I apologize. Oh, >> okay. No, I mean it was a situation where these raised houses obviously what
used to be their back patio is now their balcony and uh it's really I mean a 3ft wide balcony is really tough. I mean that's not enough to uh even put a good lawn chair on. So we appreciate the fact
that we're now going to 5 foot wide. And obviously there's existing doorways in the back. You can either convert them to windows or leave them doors and going out to that same balcony, but you've got to have the ability to go from doorway
to doorway. And some of these houses, I mean, it's Florida. We uh want access. So, I really appreciate the fact that we're doing this at this point. I just feel that the number of uh raised houses
will start to diminish. I mean, we still see a few around, but uh they're either well underway or some of them are are now complete. >> Yeah. My anticipation just from talking
to property owners is that there there's a chance that once this rush of homes being elevated to to address uh damages, there'll be another wave of homes of people trying to uh preemptively lift their homes before the damages come. Um,
so we're anticipating that as well for another increase just to account for that. >> I'm sure the uh well the price to raise a house due to the market conditions is pretty high because of the demand. There's a lot of demand out there right
now. Okay. Any uh questions of the uh board of the staff? >> Yep. So we're my thing won't come up for some reason. So we're talking about the balconies, right? >> Right. >> Okay. So, I think the way it reads is you the balcony can be as wide as the
opening. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Why wouldn't it be extended a little past the opening and I'll ask the builder here? I mean, typically you wouldn't stop the balcony right at the end of the opening, right? >> To the as wide as the back of the house. >> Oh, I thought it said wide.
>> They may span the full width of all exterior doors on the side of the building facing the yard. So, if you had a sliding glass door and then you had an another door going into a bedroom, it could expand expand, >> right? But let's just say you had a sliding glass door in the back. I think the way it reads, maybe I'm wrong, you
you get the wid that width, right? >> Yes. >> And it seems to me you should the balcony if you were building it, you would maybe build it a little past the opening. So, I >> I don't think we would make them cut it off right at the door. >> Oh, well, that's the way it reads, though.
>> But I we can fix that. We can put some >> in there. >> And I'm trying to find it again, but I thought we were going to take the balconies to within 5 ft of the property line. >> Yeah, >> that is up that is in there. Um, the
encroachment for the balcony should be located as far from as the maximum depth of the balcony is 5T. This balcony shall be maintained a minimum setback of 5t from all property lines. because you do have a situation I think Grant maybe your house is one of them that your balcony will go past the
side of the house and then you'll have a sort of steps going down the other side and that's what you had if I recall correctly. So I think that pretty much covers your situation Marvin that you can actually go beyond the house. >> Okay.
And but we don't want it up against the property line obviously because >> right >> don't want to be able to jump from one guy's balcony to the next guy's balcony. >> Gotcha. >> But I mean that being said, if if the board wants us to change that one
sentence to it can span the width of the the building facing that yard. We could certainly put >> that's what I thought it was going to be. >> So act but uh I mean would not the 5t from the
property line cover that? I mean let's just say your your sideyard setback was uh 10 ft. Can you not go 5t beyond that setback? >> I think the problem here is we're we're mixing up width and depth. >> Yes. Um, so when we're talking about
five feet from the property line, that's typically going to be relative to the depth. So projecting away from the house to the property line rather than the width of the the p the the balcony. Um, typically think of just a standard quadrilateral home parcel with the house
in the middle. The um the balcony typically wouldn't project further to the rear or to the interior side property lines towards the, you know, the the property line. it would project this way and that's your five feet towards what would normally be the rear property line and that's what we're
saying has to be a minimum um of five feet in order for staff to provide this administrative waiver. Um what Mr. Billingsley was referencing I think is more in terms of the width along the rear facade of the house. Um and I don't
have any problem with that either. I mean, a a balcony going along the entire length of the back of your house. I mean, you used to have a patio out there. Now you got a balcony. So, I don't have any problem with that either. >> And I think I think we did we debated on
that back and forth when we were drafting this and we ended up with this. But again, we can amend it to >> if I may. So, the houses the lot them on Sunset, you know, they're already built into the setbacks. they exist at or
within the setback. So when you elevate then the depth of that balcony is going to exceed it's going to be within 5 ft of the existing property that won't be exempted by this. They'll have to come
in for a variance. Is that correct? >> And I think that I mean that's intentional. I I don't think that's something that at least me from an administrative standpoint I don't I don't think I'd feel comfortable making that decision. And I would much rather make a decision that's going to have a greater impact on somebody's adjacent property. I would certainly think that
the board should have that decision. >> So, as long as it's not closer than 5T, you guys will have uh the authority to approve it then >> if it meets all of these criteria. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah, we just need to maintain that 5
foot >> at Yeah, at a minimum. Sounds good. Any other comments or can we have a motion to forward this? I guess I would call it an or would I call it an ordinance or uh
>> No, it's a it's a uh recommendation from the LPA >> recommendation from the LPA to the city commission to adopt this uh standard. >> Can we say as amended because I will make that change to the second
>> as amended. Yeah. >> So, the other thing I would add is um and I think Mary Ellen has probably mentioned this in her staff report that this is consistent with our comprehensive plan, the the draft, correct? >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. >> I guess on page four is the sample ordinance and it is a resolution. Who would like to make that a motion? >> So, there's two, right? There's a
resolution and an ordinance. >> All the same. >> It's a resolution from you uh recommending approval of the attached ordinance or the ordinance that follows. >> So, on the staff report, there's a a draft uh motion for you there that basically says you you're approving
resolution 20263, which recommends approval of the ordinance to the commission. >> What page is that? >> On page four. Oh, >> is it your four? Sorry. >> Yeah. I'll try it, guys. >> All right. >> I make a motion to approve a resolution
2026 03 uh chapter 68 balcony and ad admin waiver for 2026-20. >> I think as amended >> as a as amended.
>> Yeah, as amended. Okay. Motion by Valerie Arie, second by Marvin Shavelin. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Valerie Arie, >> yes. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes.
>> Okay. Local planning agency issues, comments, or discussion. Uh what we're uh going to get into is you know once again we're talking about
the plan development ordinance and it's additional point which this board has always recommended as part of our past approvals is to amend the city comprehensive plan to a
maximum of 80 feet in height. and 100 units per acre. We have never said match the county plan which does not have a limitation on height and the county plan has different limitations on
density. So at this point I just wanted to clarify that and say you know I would like to move this forward so when the plan development enabling ordinance
is possibly approved on July 7th that things can move forward. As I've previously stated I have inventoried the city. I think there's only 10 parcels of property that are very
apparent that would benefit from the plan development zoning category. I'll name them real quick. the Thunderbird, the Tahesian, the Aravilla, the Sands, the what has always been known as the
Gators or Krabby's property, the north side of downtown, the south side of downtown, the club, the swashbuckler, and I added one last week, that abandoned building over there, whatever
is happening with it. treasure shores. It has been 20 months. Those 10 pieces of property basically have no action. And some of us would like to see something move forward
in a timely manner. You know, what I have always said is I don't object to an additional 20t in height. I don't object to a few more density units to get it up to 100 units
per acre. Uh the city, the commercial district is just sitting stagnant. The residential areas, a lot of things are happening on the residential areas. A lot of houses
being torn down. A lot of houses being raised. A lot of h new construction. More new construction and houses being raised in this house than this city has seen in years and years. What is lagging behind is a very important part of the city,
which would be the hotel district and the commercial district downtown. Our central business district quite frankly just does it does not look good now. It did not look good even before the storms
and part of it. But what I am proposing is to move an amendment to the city comprehensive plan to allow 80 foot in height, 100 units per acre, so we can
incentivize some uh progress in our town. Any comments from the uh >> I just wanted I have a question, Richard, just to verify that's 7 over one. Is that correct? 80 ft. It can actually be whatever they want it to be
in regard to staying at a maximum of 80 feet in height. I mean, uh, I've seen plans where it's six over one, but uses up the entire 80 ft in height because you might
want to have some amenities on top. Part of what the uh plan development uh zoning ordinance does is it gives this board the ability of architectural review. I'm a strong advocate and I've said it o
for over the last 10 years that I'm tired of glass boxes. I'm tired of uh sugar cubes. um you know and if you restrict somebody to 60 ft you're going to get a sugar cube uh you're going to get a glass box
and uh the last few projects that have been completed in this town are a prime example of that and I've picked on the ocean club before it's a sugar cube even the Treasure Island Resort they came in and asked for a variance many years ago
and said we'd like to build a sevenstory building and if you allow us this ability to build a sevenstory building and a few more units, we'll make it look a lot better. They did not get their variance cuz they really had no hardship. There was no
device in order to provide them the additional height and they built a fairly nice looking building. I mean, it looks good to me. I just think it could have been better. And uh so it's kind of a situation where the planned
development ordinance ties in with a comprehensive land use plan amendment to the city plan. The current city plan limits the height to 60 ft. The current city plan limits um 50 units per acre in the hotel
district. That is what we're looking to uh that's what I am looking to modify in order to incentivize some progress. I mean, I'm tired of looking after 20 months of a
town where you go down 107th Avenue and the first thing you see is our one of our premier hotels with 4x8 sheets of plywood over the front door. And there's several others on that 10 uh pieces of
property that I just named. You know, this one down here on Treasure Shores boarded up. Um you know, needless to say, the Gators properly property has struggled mightily for uh a long time,
but um you know, it's an incentivization to see some progress and that's what I'm looking forward. Marvin, what's your comment? You're talking about a smallcale amendment. Is that what we're doing? >> No, I'm talking about uh a a amendment
to the areas in within the city that can be reszoned to plan development where okay, a resoning to plan development >> would be a step and they would not have to go
through a a city comprehensive land use plan. It would be a situation where the land use plan and correct me if I'm uh >> I'm out of uh but it would include the RF RF H50 district,
the commercial districts and the plan redevelopment districts for our downtown area. I know there's some additional, especially in the downtown area, the central business district,
that additional studies are going to be required by Ford Panelis. I've uh talked with staff about that already, but it's just a situation where if we can get this, it still has to go through reszoning.
Still has to be approved by the LPA or recommended for approval to the city commission by the LPA for approval, but and so the uh process is not easier.
It still has a lot of traffic studies, uh, neighborhood meetings, that type of situation. But I, for one, am tired of looking at this, those 10 pieces of property that definitely need some help.
So, any comments from the board? >> I have a question. Um, so what's the process in this? We discuss it. >> We discuss it. make a recommendation today >> to the city commission to
>> okay >> to direct them to to direct the staff to uh initialize an amendment to the um city comprehensive >> comprehensive plan. Okay. >> And it's you know the thing is this
provides a distinct limitation in height. You know, the one thing that uh a lot of people bring up is, "Oh, we don't want to look like Clear Water." I agree. I mean, I was an engineer on a uh on the
Ultimar Condominium on San Key. It is 19 stories, 20 stories, and 22 stories in three separate buildings. That will never be built here in Treasure Island, nor do we ever want it. But 80 ft, it's additional 20 ft of what
uh of what we what a land owner can currently build. And what it will do is it'll make these it'll incentivize some of these parcels. So something may happen. And uh currently
at 60 ft, a lot of people are saying, well, will it work at 60 ft? Well, obviously not because it's been 20 months. 20 months. I built my house in six months. You know, you could have started construction a long time ago if it
worked. It does not work because nothing is happening. So, what I would like to do today is make a recommendation to the uh city commission to initiate that
comprehensive land use plan amendment to the city plan. And it's only those two aspects. 80 ft in height, 100 units per acre. That's it. The thing about a plan development is it puts creativity in the
hands of the architects and the engineers saying, you know, in regard to setback, parking requirements, landscaping, um something that will be presented to the city
residents and staff and commission and LPA and say, you know, this is what we want to build. Where do we go from here? C can you list the different properties you're talking about again? >> Okay, let's see if I can remember them all. The Thunderbird,
the Tahesian, the Sands, the Arilla, the Gators property, the north side of downtown, the south side of downtown, the club, Treasure Shores right over here. And one that I uh had thought of, and I don't
know if I added it earlier, was the Swashbuckler. It's a little little hotel over on the It's actually on the east side of Gulf Boulevard and uh it's north of Central Avenue, but all these properties are either
abandoned or in minimal use. I think of all the 10 that I have named, the only one that is actually open for business is the Arilla. And the Arilla had come before this board previously about a redevelopment.
So, it's only on these 11 properties, >> 10 or 11 properties. >> I don't have my list written out in front of me, but uh you know, that's that's the ones that are obvious candidates for uh a planned development.
Will there be more? Pro possibly so, but none really jump out. I mean, >> the other properties that aren't going to be part of this, they can still do plan development, right? They can still do plan. >> They have to go through the they have to do a an a a comprehensive plan
amendment. >> Well, no, actually they would have that issue taken care of them already. What they would have to do is reszone the property to plan development. You know, you're going to end up with a situation where
the comprehensive land use plan is already taken care of, but the reasoning still have to be done, >> right? But you're saying it's I thought it was for only those 10 properties. >> Well, no, those I'm just listing the 10 properties. >> It's the whole city. It's the whole It's all the same districts we've been
talking about. >> It's the same districts, the commercial, the RFH50. >> I thought you were just saying those individual properties. Okay. >> No, I'm >> Okay, I get it. I am just trying to identify the ones that are going to be
beneficiaries of this new resoning. And let's put this way. I really don't think that 20 ft is a is a great change. And a lot of us just really do not like the way the city looks right now. It's
an embarrassment to see the Thunderbird sitting there with pilot over its front door. So, are we able to get this to the city commission by the 7th? >> We're going to try. We're going to see. Is that a possibility? >> She is nodding her head. So, she's
saying yes, it is. >> You'd have until the 26th, which is next week, to provide a recommendation. And that's one thing I would like to do today is make a recommendation to the city commission
to make those changes in the districts where it is obvious to do so. Mary Ellen can help us with that because I talked over with her earlier some of the other things that will be required for instance in the central business
district and you were mentioning because it's in a high flood hazard area that they will have to do some studies and probably some traffic studies whatever uh your discussions with Ford Penllis.
>> Yeah. So, if I heard what you just said, you're saying 100 units per acre in all of those various zones. I think it's important for you guys to understand that our categories are corresponding with the countywide map.
So, take the commercial general zone, right, for example. It is considered retail and services in the countywide plan. So, the units per acre is I believe it's 40. I have it on my notes back there. I think it's 40 units per acre is their standard. The mechanism to
get to higher density in the countywide plan is through the alternative temporary lodging standards and in the countywide plan it's 60 units per acre is the maximum using those alternative temporary lodging standards which you would have to adopt what'sever it's a
requirement in the countywide plan. So that's just commercial general downtown. We've spoken to them and there are um we would have to do some type of transportation analysis. we would have to do a coastal high hazard analysis and then you know all of the density whatever the density we we request would
be evaluated by them um RFH50 I believe their standard is 50 um but the same thing in order to increase the density in the RFH50 which is also through the alternative temp temporary lodging standards um that's the tiered one that's if it's less than an acre it's 75
units 1 to three is 100 and greater than three is 125 >> and that's what we as this board had had previously talked about and approved. But there seems to be some confusion about
what the current height requirements are and you know the county I have found out has no height limitation. We want that included in there. At least I'm speaking for myself and the recommendation I would like to make is ax 80 ft maximum
height and then just instead of having it tiered in the RFH50 district 100 units per acre across the board and that's what we would like to uh that's what I would like to recommend to the uh city commission.
>> Okay. So, well, believe it or not, Richard, I wrote up pretty much the same thing, I think. So, I'm definitely on board, but the question is, can we since this wasn't on the agenda, can we are we able to give
them a recommendation? >> Well, it is part of your um your discussions. It is preferable that um if we had known that this topic was going to go come up to put it on the
agenda, but things happen and I think that um there is additional opportunity for the public to actually participate in the process. Um because this item will be coming back to you. you're not
taking final any type of final action on a recommendation or anything like that. You haven't seen the language. So, it's not the best scenario um as far as trying to work with your um
residents, but I really think it's it's okay to do. Um you're sending a recommendation to the city commission. the city commission then has the authority to say yes, we want to move forward with this or no, we don't. Um,
and then they would basically give the direction to the city attorney working with staff to come up with something and then it comes back here um for a lot of review and discussion. >> Oh, I'm all for it. I just want I hope we can do it like this because we're on
a time crunch right now. >> Just a point of clarification regarding the time crunch. So, as I understand what we're proposing or what Richard, what you're proposing and Marvin, you are is that we send a recommendation to the city commission to adopt an
ordinance that permits 80 feet of height and increased density. Is that correct? to begin to direct the city attorney, working with staff to draft something that would then be subject to additional review for consistency um with other
provisions in your comp plan. And then it would go back to the city commission again in public hearings for actual adoption. And then because it's a comprehensive plan amendment, we would have to coordinate with the county and then
>> the state. Well, just to be clear, so what this board then is doing is pushing this forward without any notification to the public that it was going to be discussed at this meeting nor with any without any input from the public. Is that correct?
>> That is what's on the table. You can choose not to do that. You can as a body, you can take a vote that you do not want to move this thing forward. >> Can we? >> And it's just a recommendation. I mean, there's there's no ordinance that has
been drafted by the attorney and staff at the direction of the city commission. >> Yet, historically, a recommendation comes from this body to the city commission and it's approved. And again, so if if we get to that point without public input,
>> I'm I'm just not understanding who we are representing up here. We don't have we don't have an actual document in front of us that has been directed by the city commission. >> But we're going to produce a document based on our conversation here today. Are we asking staff to produce a
document today? >> No. Because staff and the attorney um the city manager and myself and Ralph, we take direction from the city commission. um we we were really not authorized to sit down and and draft something for you
if they haven't directed us to do that. >> So, in terms of this timeline that we're discussing, then if the city commission um does the second reading on the plan development ordinance in July, >> this is not whatever we push up to them
at this point is not something that can be voted on at that meeting. Is that correct? It can't be adopted or avoted or approved. >> No, it cannot because we don't actually have written language. >> I just want >> and and the language that ultimately
comes into the document that would be the amendment would have to be reviewed for consistency with other parts of the comprehensive plan, not in isolation. >> And that would come back to you for your recommendation as to whether or not this
>> and that would be posted publicly in the agenda. So the public would have an opportunity to put come in >> kind of asking them to put it back on their agenda >> and grant something like this is is a a big in speaking for my own opinion but this is a big policy decision. So
generally this is something that we would get the direction from the city commission. We as staff, they would recommend that we dra evaluate whatever planning studies we need to do, whatever analysis we do that, then we would work with the city attorney, draft an ordinance um based on that
recommendation, which would then come back to LPA for your final review before it goes back to the commission. But something of this nature, it's I mean, this is a process. It I mean, it's it's a it's a big deal. So, it would also go through um the county, three meetings at
the county plus the state. So, it's uh it's it's definitely not something that's going to happen at the next meeting or anytime in the near future. >> You're not going to see an ordinance on July the 7th that has, you know, Richard's primary things. The ordinance hasn't been drafted and and it has to
come back. I mean, there's a lot of technical and and legal review that needs to happen, but we need to get direction from the city commission before we do that because it is a big policy issue. It's my understanding and this is where
it gets a little confusing even to me is the difference between a smallcale comprehensive land use plan amendment and a citywide uh comprehensive land use plan amendment. But it's my understanding that small scales
>> those are usually parcel specific. They're usually parcel specific and they would >> if it's a larger, you know, type of project that did have a PD with it, the small scale would travel along with it. But this is expanding multiple um zoning
or future land use categories. Um so I I think it would need to get that state review. >> So could is it could we have a special meeting on Tuesday? I if possible I'd like to give notice,
you know. I mean, I know you say we can do it in terms of sending it right to the commission, but if we could if we can >> what what is the what is the substance of yourself about this coming Tuesday? >> Yeah. >> What is the substance of it?
>> Basically, to you know, notice the public that we're going to talk about this like we just talked about. we you know that nobody knew about it and I'm just trying to bend over backwards because I know the lawyers are like circling looking for excuses and I know
it's a minor point probably but >> well we're not really looking for excuses. Okay. Um but >> no I'm saying the at they're looking for excuses. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. >> The opposing clarification >> the opposing attorneys his attorney.
So, if there's any way we could do a meeting on >> my here's my concern. I mean, we have limited staff resources and um on Tuesday, what would we actually be reviewing? >> The same thing we're talking about now, but this >> we haven't gotten direction from the
city commission. So, >> but we're sending but are our >> Okay. So, I guess what then? Let me let me try to rephrase it then and maybe I understand you a little bit better. So what you're saying is you instead of
voting on recommending something to the um city commission today, you would prefer or as an option >> to have an additional meeting where then at that point you can uh have further discussion.
>> I'm h happy to do it this way. I'm just trying to go the extra mile if we can. >> Well, the thing is like Nancy just said, this is not >> Oh, I get it. But this is not the final step. We're just instructing the staff >> to go forward and prepare some
documentation and >> have the city attorney start the uh >> I thought we were >> No, we're not. We're not quite at that point. Richard, I think what we're doing, well, I'm not doing anything. What you guys are doing is that you're making a request to your elected um
representatives on the city commission that you believe that the time is correct to u move forward with some type of ordinance and then they'll they'll discuss it in their public meeting and either give direction to staff and and
Ralph um and we'll begin work on it, but they may not feel that it is the correct time. >> And so between now and then, whatever, if we do it now or Tuesday, nothing's going to happen because basically we're just sending something to the city
commission to make a decision whether they want to go forward. Correct. >> And that's what I was talking about. >> No, I I get it. You know, >> and we're making this recommendation without any of the data that's being promised to us by the folks that we hired to do the um the study or without
any public input. But >> is that correct? Just so we're clear. >> No, I wanted to make sure that it it was clarified that we're not just blanketly saying, "Oh, yeah, let's meet the county's plan." That we got our own plan and we
want to max it at these two heights and we just want the uh city commission to explore that idea because I keep saying I keep hearing me say, "Oh, we're going to become Clear Water. going to become uh St. Pete Beach. No, that's not what
this board has ever discussed. I've discussed it many times. 80 ft, 100 units per acre. That's it. And uh it's this is nothing new. I mean, we've discussed it several times with the uh but there seems to be all this
misinformation out there saying, "Oh, yes, we can go as high as we want to go." Well, that wasn't ever the fact that it's 80 ft. Our city manager has approached the podium and obviously has comment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
distinguished LPA members. Um, I my job is to provide clarity. I'm not the expert. I'm not the attorney, but for staff and the attorney to draft an ordinance for the LPA's
review, make your changes, make your recommendations, and then it goes back to the city commission. We'll need to hear from the city commission, the majority of them. And the earliest that will happen is July
7th. So, you can have a special meeting or not have a special meeting depending on how your rules go. I don't have a preference. Um, but to get any any of the city commissioners or the LPA could put a discussion item
on the July 7th agenda to discuss uh height increases and density increases um islandwide in RHF50, which however y'all want to start eating uh the apple here.
Um, but I don't I don't know that um a special meeting helps you get there any quicker. Um, but I I I've listened to everybody and I I just that that's where we're going to I'm going to hear from the city commission on July 7th at the earliest
earliest. Hey, city manager, get with the attorney, get CDD staff and draft something to go to how many ever units per acre or how much every height and that's going to come from them to me. then back to the LPA for you guys to review, take your recommendation, and
pass it back to the commission. So, thank you for letting me put in two cents. >> And that's basically uh Charles, you just uh summarized what I was trying to say was let's get the ball rolling. Uh you know, it's been 20 months. I can't
even get a house torn down in my own neighborhood when I offered to pay for it. And uh you know it's at the point after 20 months a lot of us are just tired of looking at those 10 parcels that I named. There's only 10 by the way
Marvin. And uh will there be more? Possibly. Uh but anyway the idea we know that it's not going to happen overnight but the idea is to get things started. Will uh Raftalis come in with their recommendation during the uh
>> July 7th? They're going to be on the workshop and probably spend the better part of an hour with their initial financial modeling. I've told them under no uncertain terms as recent as yesterday. Be prepared for questions on height, density, ROI, all the things
that uh local developers, LPA members, citizens, commissioners are all asking about. So that that will be the beginning of their here's here's what we're seeing in Treasure Island so far after three months of of working with you. So that'll that'll kind of be the
kickoff to I think I think that is a logical time to kick off all these discussions would be after the master planners presentation on July 7th at the workshop. >> And uh I think what we're talking about here today is just it gets the paperwork started.
>> Yes sir. And uh we do have two cards on on this today. The mayor is here. >> Yeah. Can I >> So in terms of the special meeting, the the reason I want the only reason I wanted the special meeting was maybe for
legal protection. That's all. And maybe it's not a big deal. The city attorney seems to think it's not a big deal. And if that's the case, you know, I'm good. Well, I mean, we don't have anything in the packet really that um that you >> But we're making a recommendation,
>> right? And >> but I think you have >> right >> copies there, but even if you were to distribute your copies, your fellow LPA members haven't had the opportunity to look at the details of what you proposed. >> Get it?
>> So, um I don't think that would be appropriate. How >> Oh, I'm not looking to do that. I'm just looking >> um sending uh a request, a message to the um city commission that you think it's the time
is correct to um consider moving forward with this. Um that's just communicating with them. >> Okay. And >> and >> another thing I was going to bring up, I had a whole bunch of stuff I was going to talk about and one of it was that as
the local planning agency, if you look at the the statute, you know, the LPA is in charge of the comprehensive plan. you know, you're supposed to monitor, oversee the effectiveness and status of the
comprehensive plan, recommend to the governing body of such changes in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required. So my question is, this is a little off topic, but why shouldn't the LPA be able to direct the
city attorney that, hey, as a body, if we vote and say, hey, we think we need to do an amendment and we'd like the city attorney to draft an ordinance. I mean, the fact that we have to go, you know, we waste so much time now, we got to ask the commission, hey, can we have
can can you direct the city attorney to draft the ordinance? And I just think as the LPA that we should have the ability to do that. It's not going to happen a lot. But like in a situation like this right now, we can't do anything. We're tied up for two weeks. Nothing's going to happen.
So, I'm just throwing it out there. And in fact, I sent an an email to the mayor today about this. And I don't know if he's read it yet, but anyway, I think it's something we should consider that the LPA should have the ability to direct the city attorney in the event
that we vote on something and hey, we want to we'd like to do this and we want to send it up to the city commission just in in the idea of saving time. Well, what we would be doing is basically directing the city or
recommending I should say to the uh city commission that they in turn direct >> I know but again we lost two weeks instead of just saying hey write something up and forward it to the city commission or bring it back to us and we'll sign off on it.
>> So you're saying that the OPA would direct the staff >> well in Yeah. And it's it's not going to happen a lot, but >> I don't think that uh >> I mean is that what I'm saying is >> direct I'm talking down the road here in the
future. >> I think that the LPA should be able to do that. So just the thought throwing it out there. >> Marvin, my understanding is even the city commission doesn't direct the staff. They direct the city manager who directs the staff. So for us to reach
out, you know, I think that's a big reach to give the LPA that power, >> you know. >> Well, that's that's a sideline for what we're talking about today. I'm just talking about, >> right? I think >> a recommendation to the city commission.
>> I understand that >> and that's all I want to do, >> right? >> You know, I mean, don't uh cloud the situation. I mean, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what the
planned development enabling ordinance allows. And from day one, I said, I don't care about an additional 20 ft as long as it's only 20 ft. There's this idea coming in that any
land owner can come in here and say, "Oh, I want to build a 12-story building." That's not what we've ever said on this board. We said 80 ft, two additional floors to get something going cuz 20 months, something should have been happening.
You look at some of the other cities around here, and we're not the other cities, but at least things are happening in some of the other cities. We can I mean, this has been a history of Treasure Island for the last 25 years. >> Yeah. >> All the projects seem to pass us by.
>> I'm totally on board with you. And I think what people don't realize is I and I might be wrong. You'll tell me if I am there. Since there right now in the in the P PD enabler ordinance, there's no restrictions on height. So, they could come in and ask for any height they
wanted to because the countywide doesn't address height. Is that correct? >> Well, the thing is that's correct. So that's the the beauty of doing this is what I'm trying to point out. I'm I'm totally on board with you. I just think you need to understand this protects you.
>> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's wait a minute. Let me finish here. >> This is an Let me finish. I'm chairman >> and let me finish. What I'm trying to do is come up with the establishment and get rid of the misinformation. We keep
hearing, oh, 12story buildings. That's not what we've been talking about forever. Right now, the zoning uh the category of plan development is limited to whatever the city comprehensive plan is. The city
comprehensive plan right now is 60 ft and whatever the density happens to be in the in the district. >> There's no height in the comprehensive plan >> in our city. And the comprehensive plan does not have height in it. >> Then whatever the city uh >> the code
>> code has >> correct but the >> okay I was incorrect there. It's the code that has 60 ft >> but the but the amendment we're talking about would have height in it. Is that correct or can have height the amendment he wants to do? >> You got I mean you could re amend
whatever height you want but currently there is no height restriction in the comp plan. The way the PD enabling ordinance is, if somebody was to come in with a small scale amendment, they could request a height higher than 80 >> because that in the want to prevent,
>> right? If we put it in the way Richard wants to do it, you're limited to 80 feet. >> You're so we're protecting everybody >> anyway. You're welcome. >> You're protecting everybody by adding height and density. I mean, let let's be clear what this is. This is formalizing
the idea that we can go to 80 feet and increase density. That's what this is, >> right? >> That's what we we went through before and the commission voted it down. We said we're going to get a city planner. We're going to get planners in here to make a determination on what's absolutely required. Again, this is I I
appreciate you doing us a favor by putting some guardrails in it, but the guardrails constitute an increase in heightened density. as it currently stands, somebody can come up and request 60. They can request a higher heightened density if we get the second reading and
the plan development goes through. There's no reason to do this. Well, the thing is that's one thing that I do not want to uh have continually to occur. I don't want this uh anybody any land owner to request something higher than
80 ft because I'm going to lead the charge to turn them down. I don't want anything in this town higher than 80, but I do want something to happen. I mean, do people really like the way the city looks right now? I mean, obviously, you object to a height of 80
ft. You want to stay at 60. You're entitled to uh do that. I object to making decisions that are have legacy implications for 50, 100 years on the development of this city without adequate information. And we don't have
the information yet. We don't have the performer from the analysts. We don't have the input from the citizens. What we have are claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence that can um that we can take and say, "Okay, I
understand why we need 80 feet." Now, I get why we need 80 feet. Right now, we have unsubstantiated claims, and I will not make a decision or support a decision that has legacy implications for my kids and grandkids on this beach without adequate evidence.
>> Grant, you said yourself that this PD is going to pass, right? Didn't you say I think you said that >> I'm assuming that the second reading of these things? >> If we don't have if we don't have something like this in place, you can ask for whatever height you want under PD. So why wouldn't this be a good
thing? >> Because I'm not sure that we even need to go to the additional 80 feet yet. We don't have the evidence that substantiates that. So if the performer comes back from our planner and they say there's no reason to go to 60, go above 80 ft and somebody comes in here with a
PD, are you going to pass it >> when we've got compelling evidence that says you can be profitable at this rate? >> I'd need to see the evidence. >> Well, let's put it this way. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the plan the master planner says when the land
owner who says, "Hey, I own the land. I don't agree with what Rafter says. I don't agree. So therefore, I'm not going to do anything. I'm not going to be held hostage by the land owners. The land owners made an investment. I'm sorry that it was destroyed, but you know
what? They could have cleaned up and opened up. A lot of hotels here did. They could they could be building on Pirate Square right now. They could be building down at the Krabby's property right now. They've made a decision not to do that. That's their decision. Now, if they have too much invested in the
residual land value, my heart goes out to them. But you can come to my house and I've got a drawer full of Blockbuster and MCI stocks too that I made bad economic decisions in investing in. If they sit on that land and they want to land bank it, either the value
of the land will drop and somebody else will buy it or they'll ultimately build on it, unless it comes back that is absolutely unfeasible to be profitable to build under the current restrictions and we haven't seen that yet. >> And people who do not remember history
are destined to repeat it. The Fargo and the Buccaneer were torn down many years ago and it sat vacant for 10 years. Do I want to see the Thunderbird sitting there in its current condition? Or even worse, torn down? Let the vacant lot sit there. >> Well, I'd rather see it torn down than
the condition it's in now. You know, I wish that they'd bring that up to code. >> Well, it would be nice if uh we could at least get the ball rolling. I'm talking about making something getting something started. 20 months later after the storm,
>> July 7th, we're having a vote on the plan development that will get things started. Are we making are we gonna are we making a recommendation with certain standards right now? City attorney >> that's what I asked to do.
>> That is correct. That is what came from Richard. >> I have I Okay. on my thing that I worked on. I actually have an executive summary about what the amendment would do and I think it kind of summarizes what and I
want to read it real quickly if you don't mind and see what you think about it. >> Go ahead. So here what the amendment does well first of all eliminates the need for future individual comprehensive plan amendments reducing costs avoiding legal challenges providing greater
predictability and certainly certainty for both the city and the developer requires all requests for increased density height or intensity to proceed through the pan plan development zoning process establishes maximum allowable standards that may be considered through
the PD including the height of 80 which right now there's no you can go as high as you want. So this is a plus thing and it makes it clear that these standards are not development rights. They're not permitted by right and do not automatically apply to every
property. What it does not do is it does not increase density, height or far for any property automatically does not automatically approve taller or denser buildings. Does not reszone any property. does not approve any specific development project. Does not eliminate
public hearings. Does not remove city commission discretion. Does not eliminate comprehensive plan consistency review. Does not guarantee approval of any plan development application. Does that sound like what we want in in a
amendment? All those I mean to me all those things is I think they're positive, right? Or not. What I'm talking about is just to get the ball rolling on those two issues. That's the beauty of plan development that
you put the design in the hands of uh the architects and the engineers come up with something. We got to give them a loose guideline and the loose guideline in my opinion is those two items 80 ft 100 units per acre
and present us something. But right now, >> what about FAR? And >> that's something else that they can present to us. And if if uh the LPA will have the ability to say no, architects not architecture is not good enough, far
too high, you're going to have to go back to the drawing board. But right now, after 20 months, the city >> You don't have to sell me, Richard. I'm I'm on board, man. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do it. No, it' just be nice to move something forward. >> We need to come up with a
recommendation. >> Well, my recommendation earlier was to make a recommendation to the city commission to direct the city staff, which includes the city manager and based on additional information that we
will get from Raftalis on the 7th. but to get the ball rolling and come up with a amendment to the city's comprehensive plan to maximize a height of 80 feet and a and a
maximum density of 100 and >> per acre. >> Okay, >> it'll it'll be a start. will if RAF quite frankly I can't predict what Raftalis is going to come come in with but you got to look around this city and
say well it doesn't look real great with those 10 uh parcels of property just sitting >> so can I second what he proposed >> um yes you can I mean this is you're putting it in the form of a motion to
the LPA and you all can vote on whether or not you want to do that >> I did. I will >> formulate that as a motion. Uh I know we have two cards here. John does not want to speak.
Mayor Doctor does not want to speak. I'll be more formal. Marco, >> come on. Mayor, >> speak. >> Yeah, I was certainly going to hear him weigh in on this, but I don't blame him one bit. Uh listen, as the single soul
non-aligned member of the public here, wow. Um Richard, something stinks. I'm going to tell you something stinks. Fact, at the last commission meeting, one commissioner walked out in order not
to vote on the PD enabler. Why? I don't know. I don't know. There's a reason. And now word on the street is he's holding the rest of the commission's feet to the fire to come up with comprehensive plan amendment or he's not
going to come to the meeting next on the 7th. So you can take that and you can pop it out in the air, but this stinks. And just at the end of the meeting, not on the agenda, nothing. It gets thrown
out. Oh, what a coincidence. We're going to talk about comprehensive plan amendments now. Well, let me tell you, I've come to virtually every commission meeting and most of these for the last year, nobody mentioned that we were going to
have to amend the comprehensive plan. It was all about the PD amendment. All about the PD. All about the PD. All about the PD. And what happened when we had a commissioner want to put some guard rails around height and density so it didn't default to the county
maximums? >> No, it got turned down. Nobody would talk about it on the commission. >> Well, you got to admit what are we doing right now? >> No, this is this my father. >> Thank you. >> That's what stinks. This is coming out
of the blue. And I believe that if you don't get that dog on comprehensive plan thing shoved down the commission's throat, the PD thing's not going to pass. Now, I'm not saying it should pass. It's a dirty deal. It doesn't have
the guard rails, Marvin, about height at all. And you talk about exposing the city to litigation. drag some of these guys in or let them come in with their proposal and we have a halfass arrangement to protect us and
they go, "No, you guys, no. Sorry, you can't stop us. Here's the here's the PD enabler, but wait a minute. We did all your meetings and surveys and everything else. You can't turn us down, Richard, when they want to go below above 80 ft."
>> So, >> actually, that's where you're wrong, Mark. This board can make a recommendation. They >> sure can. >> To the city commission and the city commission can turn it down. >> Three people. Three people. And right now they don't agree, but they've been in agreement pretty good the last 6
months. But only three people in this community are going to make that decision. Not the ordinances, not not the building code, none of that. It's going to be three individuals making that decision. Period. And that's just
not right. So anyway, good luck. What a cluster. >> So Mark, question. You were at the last meeting, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. At the end of the meeting, were you were you there when we were talking about uh uh comprehensive plan amendments? We talked at it at length.
>> Head up to the podium, Mark. >> I mean, we're >> I've been pushing this from day one to get this on the comprehensive plan and we talked about it at the last meeting. >> It's never made it past your seat, unfortunately. or fortunately, whichever way you want to take it. I'm just
saying, yeah, there's a lot of loose talk, but it has >> we were talking about it at a meeting. I'm just pointing out that this isn't out of the blue and I came here prepared to talk about it again. And I drew I actually drew something up, but Richard beat me to the punch.
>> Well, okay, great. That hasn't made it to the commission. Right. >> Right. in all these months about PD ordinances and all that discussion plus minus mainten you know uh and I again I'm no land development attorney we've
got some good ones that have helped try to keep us out of trouble but yeah it's never made it to the commission it's all been about PDS well now it's all about comprehensive plan so let's see where it plays out >> I thank you
>> I don't know we're like protecting we're protecting people with this >> well thing is Mark understand what they're upset about. >> All we're talking about today is to initiate >> I get I get it. I understand. I understand. I understand.
>> And you know the thing is I keep hearing Clearwater Beach Sand Key. Treasure Allen's going to be Sane Key. No, it's not. And I've served on this board for the last six years and
the same statement has always been made. We don't want to be San Key, but what we do want is something to happen. Our commercial area, I mean, lots of things are happening in the residential area. Nothing is happening in the commercial area there. You look, I was out in the
boat last weekend. You see St. Pete Beach cranes. You see Madira Beach things going on. No, Treasure Island b bypassed again and uh you know I I know let's face it. >> I was trying to get a plan development
ordinance back in 2016. It was bastardized to heightened density. A lot of misinformation spread around and oh yeah all of a sudden we're going to have 200 foot high buildings. No, that was never part of the deal. But situation is
I'm just talking incentive for something to happen. A couple extra rooms. And quite frankly, the land owners, the people that own that land, if they could make enough money on return on their investment on
what the current code is, they would have started construction 18 months ago. >> So that that's a claim that actually can be refuted with a lot. There's a lot of people who invest in things and hold the investment until it ages and increases
in value. Um, when you buy a stock and you buy it for $100 and it goes up to 110, do you sell it or do you hold on to it thinking it will grow in value? So, the idea that they're not land banking this or sitting on it hasn't been fully refuted yet. It's another possible
explanation for why these large properties are not being developed is they're sitting on them waiting for either ordinances to be passed which increase the value of their land or for conditions to change that their land value goes up. So it's an assumption to
say that and it can be refuted with other explanations. >> Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that uh Green Leaf is holding on to their piece of property to get the proper price. They've held on to that property with nothing happening, losing money since
2012. The other land owners, the hotel owners, the Thunderbird was running a, you know, a viable hotel. It was destroyed well enough that they could not, they made
the decision that they weren't going to repair it. They made that decision, but they want to make a investment in the community and they have made the statement that they want to rebuild, but only in a format that they will make some money and uh can't blame them for
that. The uh I mean I don't think there's a person who lives here who can say that those 10 parcels that I named off earlier are something that we want to continue for the next 10 years. I remember what the Fargo and the
Buccaneer looked like. It looked bad for 10 years and uh you know it's a situation where this just gets the paperwork started. This is just starts the discussion. >> Let's take a vote
>> and uh you know I will stay stick to my guns. 20 ft is not the distance from this uh where I'm sitting to the end of the uh desk here is 20 ft. That's it.
So, you know, right now I will formalize what my statement earlier is a motion. We have a second by Marvin Shavelin. And correct me if I'm wrong, Nancy. Can we have a vote on this?
>> Um yes. You asked for public comment. is going to comment. >> So yes, it it's appropriate. You've had discussion as well. Um so it it's ripe. >> Okay. T Let's have a roll call. >> Valerie, >> yes.
>> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> no. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Okay, with that, uh any other comments from board members? Our next
LPA meeting will be uh I believe it was the 16th or 18th and we'll try to have that after the PNZ meeting. We're going to have two cases at the PNZ. Um next item on the agenda is public
comment, but we've already had public comment. Could we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Yes. >> We are done.