Very good. Okay. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board meeting for July 20. It's on. Okay. I'll start over. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island planning and
zoning board meeting for July 24th 19 uh 2025. 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 and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comment section of the agenda. If we could all stand for the pledge of
allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, please uh silence your uh cell phones. Uh Tia, if you would uh please administer the oath to anybody in the audience who is going to speak today. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony and evidence you are about to give before the planning zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. Could we have a roll call? Chris Downing and Grant Smith are absent. Mark Zjeski
here. Gary Pateniano here. Ross Sanchez here. Cara Sim here. Jennifer Bonvolier here. Marvin Shavelin here. Richard Harris here. Thank you. All right. And moving on. We got the
approval of minutes from our last meeting and the ones from uh April. Um any comments or could we have a motion to approve those meetings minutes? Move to approve. Thank you. A second, please. Second.
All in favor? I. Any oppose? Hearing? None. Okay. Status update on prior planning and zoning cases. Jesse, you emailed that to all the board members uh back on July 18th. Hopefully everybody had a
chance to uh review it. If you could hit the high points. Uh any changes? Um so yeah obviously as you can see like anything that's highlighted has something that has changed since our last meeting since we went over these. Um so the next one is final plat um that
actually that review was completed. It came back with corrections. We sent that back out to the applicant. Believe that was about two or three days ago. So I feel pretty good that that final plat should be coming before the PNZ board probably next month for a recommendation
of the city commission. And moving on to Pirate Square. as we know that uh that one was approved. Um we're still waiting on some letters of no objection from the the companies from the applicant. And then Thunderbird, that one was approved. Uh I haven't seen any other
movement on permit applications or anything on that one. And then 10126 Golf Boulevard, that was called the the Black Pearl, I believe is the name of that. It was like four condominium units. Um they finally got a demo permit issued for that.
Then just some that were completed. One was a variance for basically like a joint driveway along 95th Avenue. That one is done. A co is issued. Then the after the fact variance for like pool equipment not to be adjacent to a principal structure. And those ones are
completed and that's all I got. Um any questions? Yeah, a question on um let's see it's 8251 beayshore. The demo uh is complete, but no building permit, I guess, at this point because that one was a little bit
of a controversial project, although it met code. Yeah. Uh yeah, not sure what's going on with that project. As you know, yeah, it was demoed. So, hey, it's up to the applicant to move his own stuff. All right. Thank you.
Hearing procedures. This is our uh new city attorney, Gavin Rollins. if you would uh go for it. Well, thank you. Um I'm actually a part of the Sabatine law firm. So, it's the same firm. We just have three of us on board to help provide um added service
to Treasure Island. And uh just briefly, I I was a two-term city commissioner and then two-term county commissioner before I became an attorney. I had um had that experience in terms of uh sitting where you guys are and and seeing the policy side of things. But here my role is just
simply to advise you on the law and allow you guys to to make sure you're not acting in outside of that and but I won't weigh in on the policy side. That's your role. And um one of the things two things I want to cover briefly um which you guys are I know all
very intelligent and aware of this already but just for it to be on the record is number one um this board is covered by the sunshine laws which is a kind of broad-based term for section 119 of Florida statute and it basically means whether you're in a when you're in
a meeting you can discuss policy but when you're outside of a meeting you have to be cautious in discussing and com and talking to other members of the planning and zoning commission. The reason for that is simple is Florida law wants everything to be dealt with in
the public in noticed meetings. And so just a reminder that when it comes to these meetings, you can obviously have discussions on this board because it's all public, it's all being recorded, minutes being taken. But for instance, if there was a uh a break and we or
after the meeting is over and you want to go grab dinner somewhere or something like that, you can go ask how your fellow uh um planning and zoning commission members how their kids are, various things about their personal life, but you you cannot you're forbidden by Florida law to talk about
policy or anything that either is before the zoning commission or can conceivably come before the zoning commission. and that extends to um communication uh in in electronic form um to include social media. So just wanted to give that quick
reminder. I I think everyone has to go through an ethics training um and that's covered in there but just a quick reminder on that. And then second, um, these are quasi judicial hearings. And so you are all basically sort of like judges. And as a result of that, there
are certain procedures and processes that have to be followed. And one of those, the biggest one that trips people up is you're allowed to have exparte communication, fancy Latin word for not in this meeting communication, but you have to disclose that. So when these
applicants and the come up, it's very simple. All you do is you say, "I just want to disclose for the record that I talked to uh Mr. Smith or Miss Miss Smith or whoever, you know, applicant ABC and they discuss this with me um ahead of time." And that's just again in
the spirit of transparency. So if you have had conversations, that's fine, totally legal, totally appropriate to do so, but you just have to disclose that before voting on it. Does that make sense? Any questions on any of that? All right. Thank you so much and it's a
honor to be here in beautiful Treasure Island and I'm standing by waiting for any further uh questions or concerns. Okay, next item, exparte communication disclosure. Speak of the devil. Anybody have anything that they need to
disclose? Seeing none, we'll move forward. The one comment have is Gary and Mark, you're both uh voting members today. Hallelujah. Thank you. because uh Grant and uh Chris Downing are not here.
Okay, we'll move into the presentation of items. Uh number 10, a variance 0000516-2025-1012 Tarpon Drive four variance request. There's one through four listed here. Uh we're going to uh you can read what they
are yourselves. The applicant is here today. Uh, and we're going to ask them to approach the podium and make your presentation. Good afternoon. And I did not come with a beautiful presentation. What I did come with is
just to say we undertook this project to lift our house after substantial damage. And it's a huge project. I think a lot of my neighbors think you just hire somebody, they crank it up a few feet and you're done. But that is not what works. You know, you've got to figure
out how to get a stairwell up, how to get your meters moved, how to get all that stuff done. And we are busy figuring it out with the help of your team here. Just wanted to say that we bought a one-story house because we needed a one-story house. my husband is
um has some mobility challenges. So, we had to accommodate those in our plans for raising the house. So, not a variance issue, but we've already had to tear into the foundation to get a passenger lift put in to get him up to the second floor. And we knew that we
had a problem with our front stairwell. So, we teared tore out part of our foyer so that at least half of the stairwell could be inside the setback. The other half unfortunately is outside the setback which Jessie is going to talk about today. So the other changes that
you'll see are simply to make this house which was built effectively on the setbacks functional once we get it up. So that you've got plate glass doors that you can actually step out of even though they're sitting right on the setback for example. and uh the
stairwell and then also accommodation for the fact that we've got garbage cans and stuff that have to sit somewhere on the property and it's very difficult for us to get them through the gates. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that Jesse and the team explained to me
about administrative variances which you can do to handle issues with um mobility problems. But we also understood that anything that we did in that line when we sold the house, it would have to be removed from the house. So we didn't
want to design anything that we'd have to tear apart later. And that's why you see the variances that we're asking for today. So with that, I just ask that um you consider and be as flexible as you feel you can be, and we'll appreciate
it. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Have you already selected a contractor to like has any work? Got it. Um, have you all started any of the work on this project?
Yes, Davy Shorine was engaged to do the lift. Okay. And that is underway. In fact, hopefully it goes up 5T tomorrow. Fingers crossed. This variance relates to really kind of the renovation that happens once it gets
up in the air. There's an active permit now just for the lift. Yeah, I was going to say, is there a permit issued for the lift? No, there's no permit issued for the lift. That's been approved and that's ongoing. But when that's done, then there'll be a separate permit which
includes these variances for putting the surrounding around the new garage level, putting a new front door, getting the passenger lift in, that kind of thing. That's what the next permit will be. And these variances relate to that permit. How how high are you going up?
12 feet plus two. I'm familiar with the administrative waiverss. I was not familiar with you needing to remove such mobility things if you go to sell it. Is that something my understanding? Can we get clarification on that as to
why? Because if it's obviously built into the home, how is someone supposed to remove it? It would just have to be like demoed. That would be like Yeah. They would just have to get a demo permit to remove that stuff because these types of things can't they
they run. So you can't say like an easiest way to say it is like instead of running with the land it runs with the person type thing. So if they would move you would have to remove whatever it was that connected with their What are examples of that? I can give one example. you'll see a
variance to put a a narrow cantalvered balcony on the front of the house. That bedroom, um, if there were only windows there, it would be very difficult for my husband to get out of it if he had to. So, I asked if we could please put a a candle levered three-foot balcony there
so that he could actually get outside the house. So, my understanding is if we say we're doing that because of his disability, then that balcony would have to be taken off the house when we left. That was my understanding. Could the new owners apply for the same waiver then?
If they could pretty much like how does it work when it comes to the sale like the sale of the home? Is that something that can be written into a real estate contract transferred and then the new buyers come to the city and
say, "Hey, we'd like the same waiver." feel like that would be pretty limited because then that way if they were go to sell the property they could only sell it to somebody that would meet the same disability or ADA. Do you have to prove that you have a disability to get an administrative waiver for mobility?
Yeah, it's limited, I guess, with what has like personally I've never seen one of what type of waiver that involves, but it does say, yeah, just based off evidence the waiver is necessary to accomplish a reasonable accommodation of the needs of a disabled person in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Does it meet egress? Do you have the Apologies, do you have the plans? Are they in they going to be in the presentation? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I can show if you want to see while she's Yeah, if we could see it while we're discussing with her, that would be
great. See that little orange box on the front? That's the little balcony I was just talking about. Okay, that's what I thought it was. Can you see the stairwell there? You also see the passenger lift that Do you Do you have the artist rendering
and do you have the plans that show the entire lot? Jesse's got all that good stuff. You know, the plans are part of the uh packet that we got through Granicus. So, I looked at it, but I do like to see visual during presentations,
those orange boxes or the various take a look at this stuff before we get here today because it is on the We did Richard. Thank you. Good. I'm glad you did then. Anyway, um any other questions? Gary, go ahead.
Ma'am, excuse me, ma'am. Do you need Yes, ma'am. Excuse me. I I I went over and looked at your property there. Uh the the steps coming down. Do you have any Can you move that tree a little bit or you you you're pretty close up against that tree there. I noticed I had a tree taken out. Might not have been there recently. There was a tree
that's that was in Oh, I think I know what you're talking about. It's in front of Yes. Yes. There was a tree here. Yeah. Yeah, Miss McBride, you're going to have to come back over to the podium. We can't hear you from over there. I know uh you
want to just show But anyway, I appreciate the tree is gone. Okay. Tree on left's gone. Trees right there, but I don't think it's a problem. Okay. If it is, it goes. And then Jennifer, I was going to say I do have the hard copy if you want to look at this. If if you could please just go back to the
lot, the full lot, that would be great. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, the other questions for the applicant. So, uh, your lifting contractor, have they come up with um accommodations for
entering the house if you were not to get the variance today? So, the lift contractor doesn't do those plans. They do the structural work, show where the pillars need to be under the house, but in terms of stairwells and that kind of thing. No, that's not them.
So, I engaged a different um designer architect to called Arc Design, I see that. Worked with them before to help me do the design here and um you know, if we don't receive the variances, we'll go back to work, I guess.
Sure. Yeah, I I saw in ARC's plans they for for the front and rear canal levered their their elevation plans do show a Juliet balcony there looks like just without a walk out but you still are allowed to and the reason for that was when we did the um the lift permit
I didn't want to show things on the lift permit that would require variances so that we could move that through. So, we talked to Katherine and Jackie and and said, "Listen, we're just going to show on this lift plan. We're going to pair it down without any of the design
details so that we can just get the lift going." And that's what we did. And then the permit that's going in now or as soon as we're done with today would show these on it. So, that's why the two are a little bit different. And I'm sorry that it's confusing. No, I understand. in the in the front door. Looks like the the front steps
coming out. Um really that's the only way to get into your front doors to have a staircase based on the height of it has to come out into the setback. And I think I think the city approved accommodation for that back in January for lifted houses. I think you can have
three feet wide. So what we're looking for is you want to have that wider and I understand probably for disability reasons and things like that. Did you or should I wait for for Jesse's presentation? I was going to say I was going to cover that.
Oh, okay. Why don't we wait in Ind. Anybody else got any questions for the applicant? Okay, please have a seat and we'll let uh Mr. Miller do his presentation. Go for it, Jesse. Right. So before I get into this, I just
want to ask the board like do you want me to since these are four variances, do you want me to go through these one at a time or just hit or all four of these? Well, let's start. We will make motions on each of them separately, but go ahead and explain everyone. I don't want to. Okay. So, criteria one, I'll just cover
all four. Okay. Yep. All right. So, just a reminder, this is case number V-00516-2025. Uh so as I just mentioned this is for variance request. Um the first variance is to section 68-541 to allow a proposed 5 foot wide front
staircase for an elevated structure to encroach 7 ft into the front yard setback. The second variance is to section 68-541 to allow a proposed canal lever balcony to encroach 3t4 in into the front yard setback. Variance three is to section
68-458 to allow a proposed 55 inch high decorative wall to encroach 5'2 in into the front setback. Variance 4 is to section 68-541 to allow a proposed cantal lever balcony
to encroach 3'6 in into the waterfront setback. Right. And this subject property is located 10112 Tarpon Drive. Land use is residential urban zoning map. It is zoned residential
urban RU-75. Then just kind of like a little background. Um so the subject property contains a 268 684 square foot single family residence which was originally constructed in 1965. The existing structure was
constructed on grade and does not comply with the current minimum flood elevation requirements of the Florida building code and chapter 66 flood plane management of the city of Treasure Island. This structure was damaged during last year's hurricanes and the applicant is seeking to elevate the current structure to comply with current
minimum flood elevation standards. The proposed structure will would be elevated and the first half floor will be at 15t NAVD. The proposed structure would include a new garage at ground level below the existing house. Um the and Mark this is addressing what
you were talking about the set of stairs. So recently we did pass that ordinance for people that are elevating structures which does permit one set of stairs to including the required meter platform and stair formeter access is allowed to encroach into these setbacks.
In all cases, this encroachment must be designed to be the minimum encroachment necessary to allow access to the building and meter. So that's pretty much pulled straight from that ordinance. The applicant has chosen to use this encroachment on the side of the house for the meter
platform. So what we permitted has already been used for the meter platform on his side. Staff has advised the applicant at the development review committee meeting on March 26, 2025 that the second and fourth variances could be approved as a reasonable accommodation
administratively per section 68-35 F subsection 2. The applicant indicated that they prefer to seek a variance that would run with the land as compared to accommodation tied to a person. And we pretty much already looked through these. This is the survey uh
various locations more detailed layout. Then this is the applicant's architect explaining more depth of what these variances are and gives you better view of what look like elevations. All right. So staff's analysis is as
followed. And of course, our variance review criteria is stated in section 70-221 and criteria one. So variants one, two, three, and four uh are set forth within the city's land development regulations and is currently under the review of the
planning and zoning board. Criteria two for the first variance, the applicant has requested a variance for the front 5 foot wide stairs to encroach 7 ft into the 40ft front yard setback. The applicant is seeking to elevate an existing structure that does not comply
with the existing flood plane management requirements of the land development regulations. The new elevated structure requires the addition of exterior stairs to access the first habitable floor. The predominant development pattern on Tarpon Drive is structures built to approximately the 40 front 40 foot front
setback. The unique unique circumstance is that the applicant is elevating a structure that as we've pointed out is built to the setbacks. Variance two, the applicant has requested a can lever balcony to encroach into the front yard setback 3'4
in. There is no unique circumstance unique condition or circumstance which is peculiar to the building structure land for which this variance is sought. And then also variance three and four there is no unique condition as there is an existing sliding oop my apologies.
Variance three um there's also no unique condition or structure procur to the land building. Then variance four the applicant has requested a cancel lever balcony to encroach into the waterfront yard setback 3'6 in. There is a unique condition as there is an existing
sliding glass door on the building being elevated. Criteria three, first variance, strict application of the setback standards of the land development regulations would require a small reduction in building area below that of the current house in
order to accommodate a portion of the exterior stairs to access the second floor at the front of the house. An alternative to the large encroachment would be to design a switchback staircase that parallels the house for the last run. Variance two, strict
application of the setback standards of the land development regulations for the front balcony encroachment of 3 foot4 inches would still allow reasonable use of the building. As noted above, reasonable accommodation is available to address ADA concerns. Variance three,
strict application of the setback standards and fence height land development regulations would still permit the applicant reasonable use of the building. Variance four, strict application of the setback standards of the land development regulations for the rear balcony encroachment of 3'6 in
would still allow reasonable use of the building as noted above. Previously, reasonable accommodation is available to address ADA concerns. Criteria four variance one, the applicant purchased the property after its original construction in 1965. The
applicant wants to keep the same house front h same house footprint which would need stairs for front access. The house was constructed to the setback lines at the time it was built. This is the result of the applicant's predecessor and title. At the time the house was constructed, it was not envisioned that
the house would be elevated to the current flood plane requirements. Variance two, the proposed can lever balcony encroaching 3 foot 4 in into the front yard setback is a result of the actions of the applicant and not based off a peculiar conditioner circumstance.
The applicant is choosing to install a sliding glass door at this location and the associated balcony. As noted above, reasonable accommodation is available. Variance three, the proposed 55-in wall and the front yard setback is a result of the actions of the applicant and not based on a peculiar condition or
circumstance. The applicant is choosing to install a 55 inch wall which exceeds the the permitted wall fence height in the front yard. Variance four, the proposed can lever balcony encroaching 3'6 in into the waterfront setback is a
result of the actions of the applicant not based off a pictorial condition or circumstance. There isn't there is an existing sliding glass door dislocation or the balconies being proposed. As noted above, a reasonable accommodation is available. Criteria five variance one. The variance
requested for a 5 foot wide set of stairs to encroach seven feet into the front yard setback is not the minimum variance to make possible the reasonable use of the building. While stairs may need to encroach in the front setback, this is not the minimum necessary. Variance number two, the variance
requested for the cant balcony to encroach 3'4 inches into the front yard setback is not the minimum variance to make possible the reasonable use of the building. Variance three, the variance requested for a 55-in high wall to encourage 5'2 into the front yard setback is not the minimum variance to
make possible the reasonable use of the building. Variance four, the variance requested for the cancer lever balcony to encroach 3'6 in into the waterfront near setback is not the minimum variance to make possible the reasonable use of the building.
Criteria six redevelopment variance number one, a single family structure is being proposed to be elevated and conform to FEMA regulations and chapter 66 of the Treasure Island Code of ordinances. Because of redevelopment and the building being elevated, some
variance to the front stair location may be necessary, but as noted above, this is not the minimum necessary and therefore does not result in non-necessary hardship. Variance two, there is no special condition that a literal enforcement of the land development regulations would result in non-necessary hardship as this proposed
balcony encroachment is a result of the structured design and as we've already mentioned, reasonable accommodations are available. Variance three, there is no special condition that a literal enforcement of the land development regulations would result in non-necessary hardship as this proposed
55 inch wall that encroaches in front yard setback is a result of design. Variance four, there is no special condition that a literal enforcement of the land development regulations would result in hardship as this proposed balcony encroachment is the result of the structure design and of course
reasonable accommodation is available. Criteria six continued substandard lots for variance 1, two, three, and four. This does not apply. Criteria six, neighborhood character for variances 1, two, three, and four. Uh,
this neighborhood consists of single family structures which were primarily built at grade and on or close to the setback line. Criteria six, public facilities for variants one, two, three, and four. This does not apply.
Criteria six for architectural and slash or engineering considerations. For variance one, the requested variant is related to the design, construction, and elevation of a structure that would render it more disaster resistant by permitting access to a proposed elevated
structure. For variants 2, three, and four, this is not does not apply. Criteria six um for variants one, two, three, and four. The granting of these variances is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter.
Criteria eight were variances 1, two, three, and four. The granting of these variances would have minimal impacts on the neighborhood and would not otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare. And staff recommendation. Staff's recommendation for the first
variant. Staff recommends denial for a variance request to section 68-541 to allow a proposed 5 foot wide front staircase for an elevated structure to encroach 7 ft in the front yard setback. Based on analysis of the criterion
section 70-21 above, finding that they have not been substantially satisfied and that an unnecessary hardship does not exist as this request could be minimized by redesign. Variance two staff recommends denial for a variance request to section 68-541
to allow a proposed cantal lever balcony to encroach 3'4 in in the front yard setback based on analysis of the of the criteria in section 70-221 above finding that on this hardship does not exist. A reasonable accommodation is available per section 68-35F
subsection 2 and a variance is not required. Variance three staff recommends denial for a variance request to section 68-458 to allow a proposed 55 inch high decorative wall to encroach 5'2 in into
the front yard setback based on the analysis of the criteria in section 70-221 above finding that hardship does not exist as a proposed wall to hide garbage cans and deliveries could be relocated to the sideyard and require no variance. Another alternative is to use
the permitted solid fence height at 36 inches or open fence height at 48 inches. You could that's typical fence height in the front yard which is stated in section 68-458. Uh, fourth variance staff recommends denial for a variance request to section
68-541 to allow a proposed can lever balcony to encroge 3'6 in into the waterfront setback. Based on analysis of the criterion, section 70-221 above finding that an unnecessary hardship does not exist. A reasonable accommodation as
already mentioned is available and a variance is not required. and staff's recommendation was based off the criteria set forth in section 70-221 and also section 68-35F subsection 2 which is the reasonable accommodation section
and of course staff is available for questions. Okay, I will start out with the questions then. The first thing you notice about Olive or Paradise Island is the front yard setback is much larger than other parts of the city. Uh, for
instance, in Sunset Beach, they're all over the place, but on Capri and Paradise, we're looking at 25 ft. Uh, rear setbacks are usually around 20 ft. Is there any reason that you know of why the setbacks on this particular lot are
so large? I mean, 40T is huge. That's bigger than anything I've ever uh designed before in my life. It is. It is, in my opinion, that is an excessive setback. Um, but I believe that actually was stated on the plat when they platted that area. I'd have to
look back and see that. I think that was part of some of the restrictions. I'm sure that was back in the back in the 70s or whenever that was platted. I just usually 40 40 in the front, 30 in the back, 10 on the sides. Yeah. I just wondered if there was any particular reason why they're so large.
There is a situation on Capri and Paradise where the setbacks are further because there was a rumor of a bridge one time being built and that would become a major roadway and I don't think this has that same type of situation. Just curious if you knew any reason why
uh those seem to be larger than usual because they are larger than usual. Uh anybody else have any questions? Jesse, in our packet, page 43, it has um architectural plans in there, and it seems like there's only one page that
has like red lines and boxes with content. Who's who's putting those red lines and boxes in? So, like specifically like the Duke stairs on this in our packet, it shows the ability for shorter stairs, moving a window, set the meter just above DF.
um you know the AC could be on a metal platform not railing needed for it because like when you look at this and I know that a lot this is all new when it comes to elevating homes that fit side setbacks without the special privileges that we're given um on these
opportunities. It seems like they're burning their varants not that they like the variance is being used up solely on this Duke platform. Yes. Yep. And then just so you know, that actually was their Arc Design, their architect company that they hired there. Those were strictly plans
submitted by them. Okay. Who put the red boxes in though? That's what he was asking. That should be Arc Design, the architect company. I just the cities or theirs. Not trying to slow people up. I mean obvious like I just think burning like burning
or using your I I don't know what to call it special privilege or whatever when it comes to elevated homes having a being able to go over a setback like using it on a a Duke meter or an HV AC like probably isn't
the best design where they could probably use it in a different location. Uh, it's not. Um, I know I've met with some people before that are actually relocating a lot of their meters to like their front porch areas and then they're using that stair encroachment for the front porch in combination with their
meter being relocated. So, and just for clarification in regards to this when it comes to the stairs going outside the setback, let's say 50 because I think this is a topic we had all talked about a couple years ago or a couple weeks ago. If in 50
years from now this house gets torn down and a new house gets built, if this variance were to go through on that call it north side lot, they would have the ability the new builder would be able to build because the variance is staying there. Yep.
But they can only build the whatever the size of that stairway is out, right? It doesn't actually that's because we were talking about the grandfathering in that's what you're talking about. Yeah. variance is run with the land. And I think that that's something I don't want to say that we missed it
when we had talked about this before because we're trying to be flexible. We're trying to accommodate people when it comes to elevating homes and getting them their stairs and make sure their utilities. There's only so much that we can do and I just think that that's something that we talked about going back and looking at because
Well, actually, no. And you actually corrected me on this before. So if that say that was demoed and they build a new house technically they're not elevating a house then so they wouldn't be able to put that platform into the sides set back then it will be new construction
new construction goes back to the old setbacks even if the variance was applied. There you go. Yeah for that for that meter platform to encroach inside setback that's using that is only applied as you recall just for elevating structures. Okay. So, new construction. No, that
meter platform would have to meet the set. Okay. All right. I had questions. Back to the sorry, the administrative waiverss. Um I was looking at the code and it looks like there's four different administrative waiverss that can be
given. One is um mobility, but then the others one has to do with sanitation. Um number four is actually improvements to existing buildings. And then the first one is just general findings. So is there a reason why
you automatically went to mobility with the American Disabilities Act when there were other options? That was based off what the applicant told us because it was mostly like her narrative was based off like for ADA accommodation. And then also the first one, general findings, we are very
limited staff-wise. It's up to, if I recall, I believe it's 10% or only up to one foot that we could do administratively, which would fall underneath that general findings administrative waiver that we could Who's this? Okay. So, who's the CD director?
That would be Bobby Shayley right now. Okay. Because it that's who approves it. Yep. Okay. So, we could have technically thought outside the box and helped them and they wouldn't have had to have come here if we'd had staff. Well, that that's what we did. We could
only offer them the reasonable accommodation because the C director one exceeds what she's authorized to do. She's only allowed 10% or up to one foot. All of these variances exceed that. It doesn't actually specifically say any
of that in our code. at all says on the application so we have to pull that from somewhere. Well, I know you have a minimal Yeah, that's that's the Yeah. So you're saying it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and any
other adopted plan or policy of the city. That's C. That's one C. So you use that little sentence to just No, you're talking about like what? So we're both looking at same section 35. Yep.
Then we're looking at C review authority. Okay. And then the next pretty much the that sentence the CD director may approve an administrative waiver to grant relief from any of the following requirements of the LDR up to a maximum
variance of 10% of the requirement or a maximum of 1 foot whichever is smaller. So that's why we could not do any of these variances administratively besides the a reasonable accommodation one. Okay. Then under F it has findings and decision. The C director may approve or
deny an application for an administrative waiver. That would be the four is what that looks like things. Okay. So again, we've got super gray code. Okay, that's all I needed. It's all being fixed. Okay. Any other questions for Jesse?
Seeing none, we have Richard, I do have a question. Sorry. You were going to talk to us about the 10118 tarpon which is the one that we did another house that's being elevated. We provided a variance February I think I read that too
yes we did right down the street. So is there any chance we can get differences between I mean I I recall what they were doing. I understand the So I get the stairs thing because of the
it's the one I I and I recall where 10 118 Tarpon did their stairs but they had Duke Energy access I think from a back balcony that fit with inside the criteria if I recall
but I'm trying to keep it uniform um when it comes to tarpet having kind of like the same types of setbacks for like elevated homes. Yeah, I get it. So, so like in my opinion, again, just being
from Paradise, whatever, is if there are elevated homes, trying to keep it within the same type of guidelines that other residents on that district were able to get approved, let's say, because of the elevated home structure.
So, off the top of my head, if I their design that they had, the balcony that they needed was because they did have the same thing, sliding glass door existed. Um, they needed some type of egress. Um, on this one, as you can see, this the difference with this though with their egress on the main level,
they already do have an egress that goes out onto the another sund deck. Correct. So, it seems like everybody wants to basically keep their sliding glass door and elevate and still get a balcony. And the biggest reason that helps get that
approved would be because of that egress. Okay. Any other questions for Jesse? Seeing none, we have a card from Mr. Thomas Vizlaki. if you could approach the podium and uh let's have your comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Thomas Vlaki. I live at 101 109 Tarpon Drive, Treasure Island, virtually two houses down and across the street. And if anybody knows um Paradise Island, they know uh Dolly
Gross. Dolly and Doug Gross is known as Dolly's house. I still get told, "Oh, you live in Dolly's house? Anyway, um we we have probably about 10 lots or lifts or builds being done on Tarpon Drive right now, either in the
process or moving forward are probably going to be built. And um I'm sure there going to be a lot of variances. People are going to be looking for variances left and right. Um, I'm not sure the whole island, but on Paradise Island, I think it's Dolphin Drive, they have at
least nine were torn down over there. So, we're there probably people going to be looking for more variances. Um, these variances are going to adversely affect the essential character of the neighborhood. Uh, the chair spoke about why we have such a large setback and
that's just part of Paradise Island. um it's more of community oriented children front yards. So these variances today uh if they're approved they're going to affect the essential character of the neighborhood
and putting all these variances is we're going to have a hodgepodge in our neighborhood on Tarpon Drive. The quaintness is the setbacks, the way the homes are built, how they look. These variances are not going to be detrimental to the essential character,
but they're also going to affect our real estate prices. And I believe they're going to drive them down because people look to our neighborhood. You go to each island. You go to Isa Capri, um, uh, Isa Palm. Each one has a different feel. When you come to Treasure Island
and you go to Paradise Island, you see the specific look. Okay, there were they were the old school 1955 built up to the latest. So, some are raised, some are three stories, but they basically keep the same lines throughout whether you're in the backyard looking down the canals
or you're driving down Tarpon Drive. So, these variances, I'm sorry, they're just going to adversely affect the uh essential characters of the neighborhood. So, I appreciate your consideration on this. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. And I hope
all of four get denied because there's no absolute reason that this house can't be raised and accommodate and keep the footprint. Thank you all very much. Okay. Anybody else in the audience who
wishes to speak today? I have no more new cards. I'm not planning on seeing that. With that, we will close the public hearing. Uh discussion in regard to this situation. You know, goes without saying that if this house was being torn down and rebuilt, it would be
easy to uh build it back uh to the 40 in the front, 30 in the back, 10 on each side. Uh the applicant is not doing that and because of that, I feel certain accommodations need to be made. Uh we
have on this board in the past approved variants for ADA purposes. uh one right around the corner from my personal house. You know, the situation is is I appreciate the fact that we had a hell
of a hardship back on uh September 26 and this person is making the effort to spend a heck of a lot of money to jack up a house and just wants to make it look reasonable, you know, not with a
mark what you called earlier Juliet balcony. Yeah. Now, it's kind of like what you have on a cruise ship, you know, balcony you can hardly walk out on. You just want a re reasonable use, especially a reasonable use after spending approximately $200,000 to jack
up what you already have. So, with that, I can personally support variances one, two, and four. The uh number three, although it might help with the aesthetics of the situation, I
don't think that was really needed to tell you the truth. It can be done without. That's my comments and how I feel. Any other comments? So, the balconies are supposed they're for ADA purposes.
Is that what we're saying? It is a benefit because let's face it, I happen to have met this family years ago and there is some illness in the family at the back balcony.
But what is the advantage? I mean, you can get out on the balcony, but you you're going to be jumping if there's a fire, right? I mean, I'm not sure. Well, you would be jumping if there was a fire, right? But I'm just saying if you didn't have the balcony,
you could still you're going to have a window that you can get out of. I'm just I mean are we trying to accommodate for the look of it? Which that's one thing. Yeah, we're trying to accommodate for the look of it. I want to point out that there was an additional aspect that there is illness in the
family and we this board has approved variances in the past for ADA purposes including balconies. situation is is if you're going to spend this kind of money and after an event that occurred back in September 26th, I'm just looking for
some accommodation to have a reasonable use of a balcony. You know, I don't I don't call a balcony. Once again, Mark, your uh description was very appropriate. Juliet balcony. It's a door. I mean, you know, you can hardly even walk out on the back. A two foot
wide balcony is not a balcony to me, right? But I mean, I'm not saying I'm against it to help them out and make it look better, but ADA wise, I'm not sure how it helps you really. Well, they were, don't forget, they were going to go for an administrative waiver
for mobility, but then they found out that Yeah, I get that. That's not a good thing either. I get that. Whole can of worms. We've also denied variances for ADA as well. Not that I tell you the truth or I remember the ones that were approved. Uh
it was the garage on South. That is correct. I recall that one now. Yes. And if I was the bad guy on that one, if things are based on spending money, I mean, there's plenty of money I'm willing to spend to get better setbacks. I mean, so if it's based on money, um
that we lots of people can make changes and come for variances. I support all the variances. I'm all about aesthetics. Um so I do support variance number three as well because I don't like to see trash cans. Um but
that is so that's where I'm at. I'm all for all four. I'd like to make a comment too. Well, the situation Let me finish real quick. I'm responding to you. I mean, money is not e economics is not part of this. I'm just pointing out to the fact that I drove around Treasure Island a
lot and it's amazing the activity that is going on. What really stuck out to me was on Palms Paradise and Capri. There's just a ton of activity down where I live. Nothing's happening. I mean, it just goes to the economics situation of
the island. I just wanted to say I appreciate the fact that when you spend that kind of money, you want to have something that looks good and is functional. But go ahead with your comment, Jennifer. Oh, I agree. I agree with you completely. Um, and I certainly want to accommodate anybody who
is elevating their home, especially in this horrible situation, to be able to do that and make it look aesthetically pleasing as well. And doing that is not easy when you raise an existing home. Um, I I completely understand that. Um the only variance that actually I am
personally thinking of saying no to is variance number four. And I live in a similar similar house um but
newly built same lot size basically. Uh, I would have loved to have gone further back in my house when we built it, but I couldn't um because of the setbacks, which is fine. Now, my neighbors are able to elevate their houses, and they both have sliding glass doors at the end
of their setback in their property because it used to be, you know, a a sun room that they they reconfigured to be a um, you know, whatever. If they elevate, which I know one of them probably will plan to do, and they decide to do a
balcony, that will absolutely impair my views on both sides because they'll come they could come back, you know, as many feet as you're requesting. Even if they came back three more feet, it would impair my views from back of my house and and what I have. So, with that being
said, and that would significantly change the value of my home. And I know that by elevating your home that would increase the property values generally in the area. But by doing those setbacks, my house would be if if you were my next door neighbor would be
undervalued. Um so if my neighbors had done did come, and I have no idea if they will. I would assume they may, but if they did, I' i'd obviously recuse recuse myself. But as a um as as somebody who lives in Treasure
Island, I would beg this this uh council to not approve that particular variance. And then I would say, well, if you're going to approve their variance, then approve a variance for me to build further back so that I don't lose my view. So I think if we look at this
short-sightedly and allow don't I mean they can make windows out of those sliders. So, if we allow them to keep it as sliding glass doors with the balcony, then we're hurting other residents and we're um
making changes that can be otherwise accommodated. So, thank you. All I can say with that comment to that, Jennifer, is you know, I appreciate it. Nobody owns the view. If you want to see something really horrendous, come down to my house. No, but the reason the
reason why we have setbacks is so that you have a view. Oh, I know. I'm just making a comment in regard to what was built next door to me. My my view totally disappeared. Totally. And it's has to do with the uniqueness of uh our lots. But anyway,
regardless of that, I mean, just making a comment. Go ahead. Uh Ross comments because I mean, obviously, I'm a huge proponent of trying to help people with elevated homes. I my overall theme is I just don't feel like architectural they they've ex gone down the different
options that they could explore while working within what the city has set forth in regards to these situations. I get that in a perfect world this is what they would want. I just think that there's some other things that could be explored that would work better um than
what's being proposed in requiring four variances. absolutely not to a high decorative wall to encroach um for garbage cans. I mean, keep them on the side of the house or I mean that's there's fences. There's still going to be a fence on the side of the house. So, I don't know why we would start allowing
high decorative walls that doesn't make sense to me. So, um I just don't feel like this architect has gone forth with what the city has set for that wouldn't require so many variances and that's my positioning on it.
Okay. Any other comments, Mr. Mark? Yeah, I I'd like to say I do agree with you, Richard, that, you know, elevating a home, uh, we still want them to look good. Um, but this home was intended originally to sit at the ground, right? So, they didn't really need space to add
stairs and everything like that. Um, I I tend to agree. I think, you know, variance request one, two, and four um should be allowed. Uh, we could think about the the rear balcony. They're coming out five feet. Um, you could do three feet there like the front. Um,
that would help with the the visibility issue that was talked about earlier. Um, 5 foot for canal lever is actually quite a bit as well engineering wise. Um, I agree with you. The third variance request, the the uh the decorative wall,
that could just be the 3-ft masonry and then add 1T of open fence on top of it. I think that would be allowed. Um cuz you said you have up to 4 feet with open with open fence. So you could make a design change and accommodate that. So that's a good that's a good I like that mark.
Okay. But those are my my comments. Jesse, do you have the actual rear setback on that tarpon project that we said yes to? Give me a couple minutes. Well, it's right down the street, Ross.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same. No, no. I mean, I know what the setback is, but we there was a variance provided for a rear setback on that. I think it was three feet. I remember it's in our It's in the packet. Let's see.
I will give uh Jesse a moment. Like I've always said in the past, I really don't have too much trouble with a rear yard setback variance, especially one for a balcony. I mean, uh, the handrails at my house, I used wire
rather than, uh, a solid, uh, material, and so you can see right through it. Um, but go ahead, Jesse. I'm just filling in time. Right. So, that variance request to section 68-541 permitted a can levered second floor
deck and stairs to encroach 5t into the 30foot waterfront setback. So, this is only encroaching 3'6. So, we did go five foot on that one. Okay. Any other comments from the board? What I would like to do if we if we have
someone who can can make a motion. If you're against anyone, you can vote against it. But when you make a motion to deny things get confused, if I could get a motion for approval and then you can vote any way you want. Who would like to make the first motion on
variance number one? I'll do. Go ahead. Um, the planning and zoning variance number one request. The planning and zoning board has determined that it is unnecessary hardship does exist pursuant of section 70 2020
20221 of the Treasure Island code of ordinances and has moved to approve a variance request to section 68541 to allow a proposed 5 foot wide front staircase for an elevated structure to encroach seven feet into the front yard setback.
Thank you. A second please. Okay. Motion by Car Sim, second by Gary Patenciano. Roll call vote, please. Mark Zodki, Gary Pisiano, I. Ross Sanchez, yes. Cara Sim, yes.
Jennifer Bumbleier, I. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. Okay, that is number one. Uh Cara, since you made the first one, would you like to uh continue the second variance request? The planning and zoning board has determined
that an unnecessary hardship does exist persuant to section 702021 of the Treasure Island code of ordinances and has moved to approve a variance request to section 68541 to allow proposed canal levered balcony to encroach 3'4 in into the front yard
setback. Second, please. I'll second it. Okay. A motion by Caris Sim, second by Gary Patensiano. Roll call vote, please. Mark Jodeski, I. Gary Pateniano, I. Ross Sanchez, no. Carrison Sim,
yes. Jennifer Bonvolier, I due to handicapped egress. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. Okay. Third variance request. This is in regard to the decorative wall. Would
someone like to make a motion on that one? Or Carol, would you like to continue? I motion is to approve it. So, I'll go with that third variance request. That's is actually I have seen in the past where things get a little bit confused. So, if you're against it, you
can vote against it. So, uh, the planning and zoning board has determined that an unnecessary hardship does exist persuade of section 702022 of the treasure island code of ordinances and has moved to approve a variance request to section 68458 to allow
proposed 55 foot high decorative wall to encroach inch inch. Yes. High decorative wall to encroach 5'2 in into the front yard setback. May I comment? Can I can we change it? Sure. to what Mark said because
obviously I'm assuming everyone's gonna deny it. Correct. Well, go ahead. Can we approve it with conditions? What is the change you'd like to make? Can I approve it with conditions to go with the code the way that I describe it? The three foot high wall with one foot
open fence. That that doesn't require a vote for variance because it's within the code. So, okay. So I just make the motion to approve it. A variance request to section 685458 to allow proposed 55 in high decorative
wall to encroach 5'2 in into the front yard setback. Okay. Could I have a second? Second. All right. A motion by Cara Sims, second by Gary Patenciano. Roll call vote, please.
Mark Roseski. Gary Patensiano. Ross Sanchez, no. Cara Sim, yes. Jennifer Bumbleier, yes. Marvin Shavelin, no. Richard Harris, that's the nice part of going last. No.
Thank you. Okay. Last but least, uh, but last but not least, I should say, uh, the fourth have a motion for variance request number four. Yes, sir. The planning and zoning board has determined that an unnecessary hardship does exist persuant to section
70201 of the treasure island code of ordinances and has moved to approve a variance request to section 68541 to allow proposed canal balcony to encourage 3'6 in into the waterfront setback. Okay, a second on that one, please.
Second. All right, motion by Cara Sims, second by Gary Patensiano. Roll call vote, please. Yes. Mark Zodki, yes. Garrett Pateniano, yes. Ross Sanchez, yes. Caris Sim, yes. Jennifer Bonavalier, no. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris,
yes. With the following comment. Thank you for uh taking care of your house. Uh we appreciate the fact that uh things are happening and uh we know it's an heck of an expense. So, go get your building permit and go to work.
Thank you so much for coming in. All right. Public comment for non-aggenda items. Anybody in the audience who wishes to speak? Seeing none. Reports and comments of city attorney staff and board members.
Uh real quick, we are going to have an LPA meeting following this meeting. Uh and whatever comments we need to make then we can make them then. Um, anybody got any comments? I just have a quick question for the
city attorney. If you are a personal applicant um on a permit of some sort and you also serve on the board when you go to address if you wanted to make a public comment I mean is that during public comments but you'd have to get up from here go over there make the comment
or could you talk about your own situation in a like by sitting up here when it comes to call it comments about from board members. Yeah. So what you would have to do is just clarify that you are speaking as an individual. I don't think you'd
physically have to move. I mean if you want to you can but the the key is the distinction the clarification that you are in fact speaking as a member of the public not as a member of the planning and zoning commission and that you intend you will recuse yourself from the vote. Still have to like fill out a card
basically. I mean the the purpose of the card is for for there to it to be on the record who you are. Okay. So I don't know that that would be necessary. But again, the key is just the distinction that you are not voting on this and that you are speaking as member of the public and
that can be done from this microphone versus that microphone. It's it's not, you know, there's no special magical legal distinction between moving to that podium. But you have to be clear when you're speaking on that topic that you in fact are speaking as a member of the public, not as member of the planning
and zoning commission, and that you will not be voting on it because of the conflict. Okay. Thank you. And the in terms of conflict, it has to be a very specific um you know, individualized. So, of course, if you were an applicant, that would be the case. But if it's just like this is
going to affect my neighborhood, that that is not necessarily a conflict because everything affects your neighborhood and that's a more generalized impact. No, it's in regards to like my specific applications that would because obviously Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Okay, let's move on to the U next LPA meeting scheduled typically for August 14th. Uh if we can make it after the next P&Z meeting, Jesse, on the 21st would be our next P&Z meeting. What kind
of cases we got coming? Got anything? For that one, it's looking like possibly the final plat recommendation of the commission. and then possibly NordVin with the site plan and special exception for restaurant
and I believe there's maybe two more possibly Katiki they're coming in with a uh site modification for basically covered dining area so that's three I can think of those are the biggest ones that I can think of right now that
might be good to go by then sounds like it could be a short meeting so that might work real well the way we'd like to do it with the LPA following the uh PNZ. Do you think it'd be possible like every other month to have like Joan be present
in either PNZ or LPA, our economic growth developer? Like we did. Yeah, we have asked for her to update us at every meeting because I mean it's great, no offense to your uh one pager Jesse, when it comes to like what's going on within the city. It would also be great to be like,
I gotcha. You know, here's Yeah, we can check. So, she could fall underneath basically the reports from staff section. I'm not saying she has to be here every time, but it would be nice to have like a session with her every 60 days. Um, unless the city commission puts her on
the agenda for a what's going on, economic update type thing. Okay. Yeah, I can check with u of course Bobby. You can get with Joan and see if that's good. I'm sorry. The date was 8:21, right? Yes. Thank you. I'm good for 821. The Pirate Square, you said that you're
waiting on the applicant to finish sending stuff. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. We still need some letters alley. Okay. That's just letters of no objection. Yeah. What is this? They have to be they have to be obtained
from all the utilities. What is the status on Duke Energy on that lot moving the transformer because that was approved a while ago. I know that did go before the city did provide them an easement there in Milican Court. Um not sure. I don't I can't speak for
the property owner or if they've came with some type of agreement if Duke Energy is covering those costs the property owner. Well, I know well it already the commission already voted to move forward with it. So that's why I was wondering is there any hold up from the city? Not that I I don't know. I saw Duke move
green yesterday. So they moved the green small green transformer. Yeah, I think that's as big as it's going to be. What? I think that's as large as it's going to be actually. Yeah, that's exactly right. Gotcha. Okay. And Jesse, I didn't catch it in the beginning, so sorry to backtrack, but
the six-story parking garage, I know there's no highlight, so there's no changes on that. It's it's it's still it's still like all these ones that no nothing has been moved on these are still fall underneath those emergency executive orders. So that 12 month time frame
that's fine. That's fine. Has Thunderbird filed a demolition permit yet? I have not looked into it, but I don't think they have. Okay. No, they're not going to. They got paid parking out there now. Yeah. I'd be willing to bet that we'll
never see a six-story parking garage on the old McDonald's lot. Ross, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Anyway, one more. I just need Jesse, I know this would be hard to determine. Uh what what is what do you see as the
average cost of a demo permit for houses, you know, single home coming in, one four, maybe two fours, $750 or less per square foot is what you're saying? Mm-m. A demo permit. Oh, the cost of the demo. Demo permit is like 300 bucks for like a
1,800 foot home. That's on 28,000 $30,000 worth of work. I'm an expert at this. Keep going. Hit me with them. What else do you need? Pool builds. Seaw wall builds. I'm a
seaw wall expert at this point. All right. Well, I'm good. Okay. Based on that, could have a motion for adjournment. Motion for adjournment. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I
All right. We're going to reconvene at 3:20 for the LPA. the statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda. Okay, we're not going to have a pledge of allegiance
because we already did that once. Uh please keep your cell phones uh silenced. And let's see, Tia, if you we could have a roll call. Mark Sheski here. Gary Patenziano here. Ross Sanchez here. Harrison
here. Jennifer Bumbaleier here. Marvin Chavelin here. Richard Harris here. Okay, we'll move into the presentation of items. Resolution 20225-03 recommending approval of ordinance
2025-13 creating chapter 60 introduction of the land development regulations. Katherine, go ahead with your presentation. Good afternoon. Um
this is a part of the phase one um land development updates. Um you will be seeing these chapters come through one by one or two by two over the next few months um as we wrap up the phase one portion of the code. The primary things coming next would be the landscape code
and the zoning code. Uh but today we are here to talk about chapter 60 which is a new chapter that we have created which is the introduction to the code. Um primary objective of phase one land development code updates is to become
consistent with the comprehensive plan and current statutes. Uh this is uh for those of you who don't know our plan is has not been comprehensively updated in many many many years and this is our um
while we are updating those things we're also looking at it comprehensively removing the conflicts removing the multiple references that you'll see sometimes uh portion of the co uh regulations will appear in multiple places. So our our big goal is to make
this easier to use for the public and for the development community. Um so chapter 60 is a new chapter created to consolidate the introduction to the land development regulations. So we've created a a new section 60 which is the
title and the citation. We have relocated and amended section 683 came out of the zoning code in order to come into the introduction to all of the land development regulations. Um all of those chapters deal with development of
private property. So they are things like uh marine regulations uh zoning regulations flood plane regulations and those type of things. So this is an introduction to all of the land development regulation chapters. Um,
we've created a section 60-3 which is authority, another section applicability, another section addressing the relationship of the comprehensive plan to the land development regulations. We've relocated and amended something else from chapter 68, which is the rules
of construction. In other words, how do you interpret the code? Um, and then we've relocated and amended 684, how to interpret the code. So you have a resolution 202503 in front of you which if the board votes
to approve this uh is recommending this to the city commission. So um the primary things that have been added as we noted was uh 60-1 which is just um the title of the chapter and
then we amended um 60-2 um just to explain um that this applies to subp part B which is the land development regulations 60-3 is the authority this is a under the authority of the constitution and
laws of the state of Florida um the applicability. They apply to land, building, structures, and uses within the boundaries of Treasure Island. It just spells out the legal um background for why we have land development regulations. Talks about
graphic illustrations and how those are to illustrate. They are not the strict interpretation. The words are the strict interpretation. We talk about how the comp plan has been adopted. We have moved section
uh 60- 61 from 68 to 60 the rules of construction of the code where we talk about words like shall must and will should those are um they all are defined as having
different meanings. Uh then we talk about interpreting the code. Um they shall be the held to the minimum requirements for the protection, promotion and improvement of public health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, convenience, morale, and general welfare. Um it talks about who
interprets the code. That's the city manager or their design. Um their design is uh typically the community development director. That's up to the city manager. They interpret the code and its application to the land.
So that is basically what's in chapter the new chap newly created chapter 60. So any questions, comments, concerns, questions for Katherine? are are so is
Joan our community economic director obviously we've already been told that she is connecting with the larger parcel owners for commercial development is she seeing these types of like working these changes with you and with the feedback
of those owners on how we can get those areas moving specifically like the TI club uh down by the clock tower on both sides that's the phase two regulations. Phase one was like clean up, statutory changes, getting this code uh legal and
ready to use. Okay. Phase two is like visioning of the city, of the business owners, of the commission and the LPA. And uh we will be coming to the commission with um
an outline of those services to get an authorization to proceed with that um in August. Okay. So I I mean I understand the changing of the titles, the coulds, the shoulds, the shalls. Like I mean I understand that. I just want to make sure because there's obviously people that will watch this or watching at home that that we're not missing that
opportunity to say like no that has always I want to make it clear that we have not missed that opportunity. No, that has always been the plan phase. So under state statutes, you have a year after adopting a comp plan to bring your land development regulations in
conformance with the comp plan. So phase one was always meant to be um those things that were non-controversial that were as I mentioned clean up, easy to use. Okay. Make it ready. Yep. Um so that phase two when you go into the visioning, you're just addressing
what does the city want to be because those kind of changes sometimes get appealed, sometimes get overturned, and so you want to have your code at least legally compliant as you move into that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other uh questions for city
staff? Seeing none, how about a motion to approve resolution 2025-03 and forwarding it to the city commission for their approval? Rush, you want to make a motion on that?
Yeah, I could make a motion for it in regards to look on page four. have it right here. Sorry for the delay. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-03 uh in relation to ordinance 205-13
creating chapter 60 introduction. Could I have a second please? Second. All right, we have a motion by Ross Sanchez. Second by Jennifer Bonvalor. Uh, roll call, please. Mark Stroseski, yay.
Gary Patenziano, yes. Ross Sanchez, yes. Carrison, yes. Jennifer Bumbleier, I. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Hera, yes. Thank you. Okay, we'll move in. Second one issue on today resolution 2025-04
regarding ordinance 2025-14 regarding updates to chapter 73 signs and advertising of the land development regulations. Go ahead Katherine. So as I noted on the first ordinance uh we are this is another one of the phase
one updates. Um, this has been updated to allow vintage signs, which primarily applies, so far as we know, to the Thunderbird and some of the other hotels. Um, this, um, would allow this board to make a determination that the
sign is a vintage sign and even if it's non-conforming, it can remain or be relocated. So, as you can see from here, the Thunderbird has this kind of iconic sign coming into the city. the structure that it's on is probably not going to support a new sign or any of the new
construction that would go on at the Thunderbird. So, it'll also allows that very sign to be relocated. But this uh board acting as the PNZ would review those applications and determine that those signs are of a nature that are
contributing to um the history of the city. So, that is the primary new thing in here. The other new thing that is in here is we have a lot of surface parking lots and we never had specific um allowances for those. So in the downtown
for instance, they were allowed no signage because no one ever foresaw that there would be surface parking lots as a primary use downtown. Um so we added new regulations. We also allow the pavement markings in parking lots um where you
put your uh space numbers on the ground rather than having visual sign clutter. So, we've added um regulations that allow uh parking signs in the two downtown districts, the PRMU core and
the PRMU Gulf Boulevard. We also added those regulations for public semi-public uses and for uh the commercial all the commercial zoning districts um to allow that parking lot signage. So that's really the things that have been added to the code. I can go through in
detail each section if you'd like, but that's an overview. I can I don't know how much detail you want to go into. So the details that I would prefer are the just probably responses to questions. I don't want to speak for everybody, but
um so in regards to this type of change, we did a parking lot on Sunshine uh Sunshine Lane. We did a parking garage. I know that they're not being built, but they are permitted for or uh in process, let's
just say. Um off of 108 across from the rally, we did the parking garage. Yes. And then um Pirate Square as well. Yes. If we move forward with this, does that change any of those three
plans or submissions that had been coming? It allows them to add signage that they don't have now. Okay. So, it's not a hurt to them. No, it's allowing something they did not have. Okay. Because the last thing I want is any for those people to come have to come back and deal with all that.
Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions of state staff? I just Sorry, one more. I just want to make sure that we're not like moving this forward specifically like for the Thunderbird. I want to make sure that this is something that we would be doing for any of the
properties within Treasure Island that may fall into the same type of Thunderbird like scenarios. Yes, we've identified those signs as being at least 50 years old and having a value to the community. And there are criter specific criteria um that this board would evaluate. Does
it meet this this this and this. I just don't want people to think that we're doing it just for the Thunderbird one. It's basically only where you have a non-conforming sign. So, it's going to be a very large sign. Um, probably the Bill Mer signs, if they wanted to retain those or fix those under the current
code, they probably couldn't do that either. I haven't I don't have the dimensions of those signs, so I couldn't answer that question, but um likely there are other many other signs that would fall under this same kind of vintage criteria. What was the
um nature of the 50 mark, the 50 years? Did you pull that from Florida building code or did you guys make that up or just out of hat? Um according to the secretary of the interior standards for historic preservation that is typically the the number that is always u pulled as
something that's eligible for listing on the national register or being deemed historic. So that seemed like a good marker for um Treasure Island. Okay. Just as a matter of interest, I know we're looking at Thunderbird sign. Obviously, the Bill Mar sign looks like hell right now because everything's
blown out. They may have to fix that. And that it may be non-conforming. I just don't know because I don't know how big it is, but it appears very large to me. And larger signs typically that large would probably not be allowed in our code. Uh mentioned that based on the size of the building, so I
can't without doing a whole analysis on a specific sign. I can't tell you because it's based on the building frontage. and so and the size of the sign both. I just want to identify for the public's edification uh other signs that we might think are historic. The Shell Shops sign
is one I uh mentioned previously. Is there any others other than those three that come to mind? There were a couple of the older hotels further north and I don't know if they want to keep those signs. Maybe the one of them's already come down. The Arilla sign was larger than
would be allowed. Yeah. But it's already gone. So, the sign is gone. I believe it's gone. Oh, I believe they took it down. My favorite pirate at the bottom of the bridge. It's got a silly treasure chest filled with oranges. Would you like that one for your house?
I just I'm paying the city to I'm going to make a charitable contribution to put treasure back in it. It's ridiculous that we have oranges in our treasure chest. Yes, indeed. It had treasure in it. I'll fix it. I'll fix it, Catherine. Don't worry. You're going to look at it
every time you come in. I did have a couple questions on terminology, ground level. Um, can you elaborate on the because it's there's a lot of changes on that specific one as well as height. Yes. In in example form of that change.
Are you in the definitions? Yeah. Page 27 of the packet. Yes. So um in the adoption of terrain we identified two um we used to just have grade all throughout our code and when terrain was adopted we began talking
about finish grade or natural grade finish grade being land with fill and natural grade being pre change. So when we look at this we talk about finish grade um or ground level depending on which one
it what the situation is at the particular location of the sign. So for instance, you may have raised the grade of the building, but the sign may be still at ground level, still at natural grade.
So this gives you the opportunity to raise it if the land is raised. Yes. Then the sign is raised. Okay. It's kind of the same thing that went with the buildings and terrain. Like if you bring in two feet of fill, you get two extra feet of height in your building.
Gotcha. And the height, it says height means the vertical distance measured from the ground level you took out at the base of the sign to the highest point of any sign. Yes. Because we've defined ground level at the of the parcel and land at the base. Okay. We just we just moved that really from
height to ground level. Any other questions for the city staff? Seeing none, I have a question. Could you just explain a little bit more about 14 um and 20? How you came to those? Oh, sorry. I'm
I'm one step ahead, I think. Yeah, I'm one step ahead. Sorry. Was there Get that a question on this one or Yeah. No, go. Okay. I Oh, no. It is here. Okay. Yeah. Page um
where is it? 24. So, you took out 14 and you took out 20. And I'm just curious. Um a couple of those were redundant. Um let me see. I think that is already here at the
beginning. Some of these were duplicated. I can't tell you specifically why we took that out, but I believe it was like legally it didn't really make sense. Okay. I think there is I'm looking for another
citation. There's a very similar um like number one covers like attractiveness and preservation of the the environment and um number three good visual environment and economic well-being. So it just felt a
lot of these felt like they were redundant statements. On page 32, you added in for like the street. When you say street address sign, you're talking about like a street sign, right?
Like the green like where it says like like for example like Palms Boulevard or 107th or that's these are signs on private property. Okay. Be on your house. The ones that are added at the top um for single family and two family
residential that section. Okay. Yes, the address numbers and and those are for um individual houses. And does this apply to new builds or current or moving redevelopment or or existing even
existing properties? The other thing I forgot to mention is we did add some we'd had uh a lot of inquiries about uh because we're getting a lot of new construction or a lot of redevelopment uh whether they could put up graphics on
the fence liners on new on construction sites. So we did add a provision that allowed that you could use that in lie of a construction site sign because a lot of these sites their construction fence is out at the property line. There's a no place for a sign.
I think like every other house in my neighborhood does not conform with this. For single family or two family residential use, the street address sign shall be a minimum of 4 in in height and not ex exceed two square feet in sign area. I'd like to NYX that
4 inches in height comes out of the Florida building code. That's a requirement of the Florida Florida Building Code and we were just determining the maximum size. I mean, it's only like this big. There's address numbers this big on houses, new
construction, too. You can see it everywhere. So, would you like to change that to We need some kind of requirement. So, would you propose to change that to a Oh, it's a minimum of 4 in. So, yeah, minimum is in the building code, but not exceed two square feet. Okay.
Sorry, I misread that then. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. I just didn't want I didn't want Yeah. I didn't want code compliance driving around inciting people for their numbers being too big. Got to make sure your Amazon packages get delivered. I mean, point. It's really for the fire
department. That's what it's really for. Fire department and ambulance. That makes sense. Of course, with GPS don't even need sign uh street sign numbers anymore, but we still need them. Yes, we still need them.
My GPS broke. How's that? Anyway, any other questions? Seeing none, on page 17, there's a typical verbiage for making the motion to send this forward to the uh city commission. If someone would like to
make a motion. Okay, I'll do it. Um, I move to approve resolution 202504 in relation to ordinance 202514 amending chapter 73 signs and advertising. Okay. Could I have a second? Second.
All right. Motion by Cara Sims, second by Jennifer Bonvalor. Could I have a roll call? Markes. Gary Penziano. Yes. Ross Sanchez. Yes. Cara Sim. Yes. Jennifer Bavalier. Hi. Marvin Shavelin. Yes. Richard Harris.
Yes. Thank you. Okay. Local planning agency issues, comments, or discussion. I'm going to start that off. Um, first off, Kimley Horn coming back next month.
Um, I don't believe it is in their scope of work. Um, is there a specific thing that we want to discuss with them? I've discussed it already. I'm looking for progress. I mean, I used to compete against Kimley Horn. They're slow as
mud. And quite frankly, uh, I'm a little disappointed in their progress. And what I want to do is talk about and I talked to the city manager about it this morning and I've talked to both you and Bonnie Shaylee about the Gator property
and I really want to come up with a special zoning district for that piece of property. I even named it already. Plan redevelopment mixeduse northern entry and and you know it's 8 acres. is the biggest piece of uh private property in
the whole city and needless to say, we'd like for them to have a little bit of flexibility so they can do something. The current owner has actually owned it since 2012 and they're either just waiting back, waiting for the price to go up or maybe if conditions correct uh
they might uh develop it. But the thing is, it's a blight on the city right now as well as our downtown. And we just want to see as a city if we can encourage these people to make a move. And as I noted earlier, um we're going to
the commission to approve these phase 2 expenditures for Kimley Horn. And that is part of the phase 2 scope of work. Um so once that's approved that comes into workshop a joint workshop with the commission and the um LPA
is proposed to be the first meeting. Well I am having putting pressure one commissioner putting pressure on me to meet have this LPA meet twice a month. I said it doesn't do us any good to uh meet twice a month if we have nothing to meet on. And right now we don't have
anything to meet on. I mean, the introduction and the signage is very important, but it's not really addressing too much of the meat of the problem right now. And uh I have identified and I have said it so many times I'm blue in the face. There's five
problem areas in Treasure Island and they are the Gators property, the north side of our central business district, the south side of our business district, the club and Treasure Bay. And uh you know the
first three are privately owned. The fourth one is privately owned as well but it has its own unique situation due to its um zoning and maybe someday somebody will try to reszone that property. The fifth one of course is uh
Treasure Bay and it I have no solution for that one but I would like to see I mean let's face it we've all been living here for a while. We'd like to see some progress. And while Hurricane Helen was a horrible event, it
also is proving as a catalyst to getting things going. And uh I went by the Gator Bar on my boat the other day and unlike whatever we can do to help these people. Well, so you know, Joan and I have met
with the developer, we do know what they want and we're trying to figure out the tools to get there. But that's part of the phase two scope of work that the commission hired Kimley Horn to do. So we have to go to them for spending authority for phase two, which
is what we're going for. Yeah. It's funny, just as an amusing aside, I first uh joined this board in 2013, and at that time they had come up with a convention center hotel plan. And uh it
was unbelievable the amount of push back at that point. Here it is 12 years later and nothing's happening. So, anything we can do to encourage those people would be nice. I think it goes for any of those five places that you had just mentioned. Oh, yeah. Without a doubt.
Not to make the list longer, but you might as well add the city-owned property on 108th. So, now you're at six. That too. Yeah, that too. When was the last time you had those conversations, Katherine, with it was six or eight weeks ago. We went over to their office in Tampa and kind
of talked about what their vision is and what they'd like to do there. But do we know that they cannot rebuild Cat? Do we know if Caddy Caddies Krabies gators slash Krabbies? Uh I mean I still call No, they're planning to reopen that. They told us
they they are. Yeah. Okay. Probably interim, but it was always part of their development plans. Even the plans we've seen before. I still caddies. I still call sunset caddies glory days. I actually call it glory days.
Well, since uh it was glory days, but since we're you broach that subject, I'm just curious for uh public knowledge. I mean, is there any movement whatsoever? I mean, I drive past that pitiful looking Catty's building every day. And provided they're opening a tent. They're
doing okay. I won't say they're doing great, but they they've submitted their permit for for the building. Okay. So, so anything uh this board or any other board that can do to help move that along, it would uh remove a blight on
the neighborhood cuz it looks like hell. Are we working with them in the way we should be? I feel like that's always the problem we have when these poor people come in front of us and we end up working with them and the city staff never work with them.
We work with them. We passed we I wrote an ordinance for them so that they could operate. Actually, the I will compliment Katherine and say, "Hey, we got them open under a tent and uh with parking and they're Yeah, they got the Lions
Club parking lot where the Lions Club used to be, but uh yeah, they're getting close to hitting the sixmonth key. Yeah, they're going to have to come in for an extension on that. They're coming in for two months extens two uh extensions. Yeah, they just have to file the paper.
Can you share the developer vision with us or not? For our gator. Gators. Um, basically, um, we looked at a scenario where they use the density and intensity of downtown. And what's unique about downtown as
compared to our other zoning districts is that um, you get to stack the density. So, for instance, if you're a hotel, you can have hotel or you could have residential, but you would or you could do half and half, but you don't
get to have all of all of both of them. So, say you could have 10 hotel units or five residential units, you don't get both. But downtown, you get both. So, you get stacked density of residential, hotel, and commercial.
But they could ask for a variance, right? Excuse me. They could ask for a variance. There's no variance to density. That has to be a code change. Um, so they looked at that buildout scenario under the current downtown regulations, which they don't have, but
if if that made financial sense and um they indicated to us that they would need more density in order to make sense. So, does that go back to your point, Richard, about creating a new zoning district for them? That's the point, right? or is it we don't have that zoning density.
That's kind of a description of what I was giving a plan redevelopment. So in we are under the um we operate under the Pineellis Countywide plan and so the process to get to that is to create an activity center which requires a special area
plan and a lot of um analysis and planning to get there. So that would be part of the phase two, you know, scope of work. So, they're looking to do hotel, residential. Yeah, they like a mixeduse project is
what they indicated to us. Um, they also have the site of that previously approved parking lot that has the highest hotel density that we have on the island. Um, but that is kind of
sitting as not part of their development right now. So, it depends. if they want to put more property into it, they would have more density obviously. Um, but right now they were leaving that out and just looking at the stuff on the
east side of Gulf Boulevard. One quick question for you, Katherine. I mean, this is something and it's partly for Gavin's uh information. When was the last reszoning that took place in this town? Was the downtown? was the downtown and
that was probably what 10 years ago 2014. Yes. Well 20 Yeah. 2014 even Gavin shocked two very minor reasonzoning of park parcels which were grant related but yes the real reasonzoning has not taken place since 2014 I mean even
so how do we go about adding a zoning like what's the process that is the phase two work small town that is the phase two the vi county the vision of the commission the board the citizens what do we want to do with these everything we're talking about has
always been envisioned as this phase two opal, but we can't get there till we finish phase one. Yes. So, we need to speed Kimley along. Like you said, that's why I'm bringing you these ordinances like two a month rather than waiting till the end and bring you 10 ordinances. Just trying to get these done.
Cool. So then you get the just to walk this through. We get the approval from comm you all get the com to proceed. It's a six week process per ordinance. Well, you guys from the commission for the funds for Kimley Horn
for phase two, then we start talking to them about all this these dreams and exactly height and density or whatever. One, two years out reszoning. Okay. No, it's envisioned to be a year-long plan unless a special area plan is involved, which does take longer.
But how much longer do we have with phase one? Probably enough that it's going to be probably two years would be my guess. because it's a six year I mean it's a six week or uh progress right so you bring us the ordinance comes to us then it goes to the next commission meeting which is in what two or three weeks
first ordinance and then it has to go to the next city commission meeting for second reading and then they vote it correct so it's six weeks that is correct to get it adopted but that doesn't mean we can't be working on phase two once we're we brought you this ordinance we're pretty much done working
on it other than presenting it so we're moving on to the next like you know we'll start working on the next two ordinances this week because these are already written. These are so just so we know if those ordinances get ready sooner than our next meeting,
we could hold sooner meetings. Correct, Richard? That could go back to your comment from the whoever that commissioner was to say meetings as we get them. I mean, is that something we could do just to move this along? Because again, the city moves at molasses speed. We
know this. It takes six months to get a pool permit. I don't want between the first and second readings and all that. Well, correct me if I'm wrong. We just moved it forward to the uh city commission for Yeah. But then they have to read it twice. Yeah. But but if these ordinances like she starts
working on the next set tomorrow and say they're ready in two weeks, but we don't meet for another month. Can we have an emergency meeting for LPA to get this voted in? I mean, that's what I'm saying is like how do we speed this along? Because Kimley is again, we've got a billion more ordinances to go before we
even get to phase two. No, no, no. There's not that many. She said 10. How many left? She said 10 in total. Then you I think we've already done I don't have the list in front of me, unfortunately. We presented at the last meeting, but I believe there's four more.
Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we're almost there. And it's not holding up phase two. It's just it's in front of it. Do we have phase two starts with visioning and public meetings and all of that? So that goes on that can go on simultaneously
with these phase one ordinances getting cleaned up but we haven't seen phase two at all even though it's been happening this entire time. No, it hasn't started happening. Correct. Okay. Because we had need the funds to pay Kimley Horn to write up the options. Yes. And that you said that's going in front
of the commission for approval. I think it's the second meeting in August. Okay. But as far as phase one, there's nothing more this board could do because we just sent it to the city commission just now. I will sign the uh document today or tomorrow.
What is going to be the process then for phase two? Are we the beginning and then it go like visioning Kimley comes here? Like what's the where do we fit in with phase two would be the next question because obviously you were saying like the commission will have a vision, the city staff will have a vision, we'll
have a like how do we all mesh together. So that's why we were proposing to do joint meetings with the um LPA and the commission so that we don't have this vision and this vision. That's great. So that we try to have one vision. Okay. I love it.
Okay, moving on. Reports of city attorney staff or board members. We kind of hit that next LPA meeting. One thing I'd like to ask, go for it then before you close. Um I know we've had this variance today. We've had another variance um previously on balconies in
the waterfront yard. Is it the board's feeling that we want to include another exception like we did an exception for this one set of stairs? Do we want as a general thing to allow a limited width
width and depth balcony in the waterfront yards on elevated houses? What's the board's feeling? Because the whole point of the code is if the code's not working, we change it. But we need to know I mean, I'll speak for my
what the what to change it to and if there's, you know, if we think this is a good idea for the district. I mean, I don't want to speak for Gary, but for the district that I reside in, I'm trying to keep it uniform. Yes. When it comes to a setback variance for
only elevated structures and like Jesse and I clarified earlier that if the house does get torn down in the future that that aotment over the setback does not carry forward, which it does not, which it does not,
but like I want to make that very clear. Well, variances run with the land unless you state otherwise. It doesn't run. He stated that new construction then it start I can clarify that. I think there's some So if a house is altered
and raised and then gets a variance and then it's rebuilt without the raise elevation, the variance for that particular element would go away. But generally speaking, variance is run with the land. Does that make sense? That distinction. So, you're telling me on the house that we just approved where it
has the variance on the side for the air conditioning, but the one on the side is not a variance. That is an an exception for an elevator. That's the allowed one. Okay. Yeah. The ones we did were front and back. No, the variances that you granted today
run with the land. Correct. Land. So, if they So, if they flatten that house, they now have Yeah. an extra If if they build a new house, don't they have to build the current code? You're saying they get that? It runs with the land.
Runs with the land. Unfortunately, that's something we tried to do in the past where we said, "Okay, you tear down this house, you don't get this variance in the future." And it doesn't work that way. I would like it is Yeah. You tear down that house that we approved today, they're suddenly back
to 40 foot setbacks and 30 foot setbacks in the rear. I like that too. Can we Is that too late to put that in, Katherine? We had talked about this like two or three months ago that we were going to look at that is in the administrative. Yeah. Generally variance is run with the land. So I thought the question was on
specific if if there's a an add-on or an additional thing that would not be able to be rebuilt as a part of it. In some cases that there's that would run like the administrative um allowances those those run with the person.
So basically now that we've allowed the three the balconies on the front and the back when they if you looked at Penllis County Property Appraiser you would see that drawn on their new house. So then if someone flattened it they still get that. Okay. So yeah we should probably
that's got to be changed immediately. Yeah, we need to look into that's why I'm saying do you want to make this only for an elevated structure and only where there's already slider or do you want to say one is allowed or what? Like I like the fact that it's very expensive
in general. So I like it if you're going to elevate your house and you have a slider on the back, you should be able to put a balcony within reason. Yes, correct. I think uh case by case basis. Yeah, I think it is a case by case basis, but I think if you flatten your house and it's new construction,
I think you have to go back to the See, that's tough. It's a case by case basis. Can't they put a third story on any of these houses, too? Yes. So, they could do a third story and then again it goes with they they have those variances. So it would be a lot less money for somebody to knock that whole
thing down and once you elevate it would be a lot, you know, and just throw a third story on. So what I I I would recommend is it's kind of it's a little confusing because you you want to either update it to what you're happy with for everything or if
you continue to do the case by case, variances are supposed to be based on unique property and unique circumstances. And so it if you start saying things like we're going to grant a variance every time this happens, then it starts to look like you just need to change the
setting precedent. Then does that make sense? Because it's not a variance anymore. It's not a one-off if it's being done all the time. And I think that's staff's perspective in terms of Yeah. And it's not allow it for elevated versus somebody who's not elevating their house. And I want to go further back, but I can't do it. with a unique
uh circumstance is Hurricane Hela and somebody who's jacking up their house. And I would prefer to see each one of these coming in here. I don't want to give a blanket uh approval to every rear yard variance cuz that's why this board
exists. And uh you know there's been uh situations where we don't give variances very often. And the only reason I'm more prone to give one out is because of uh the unique situation. Before Hurricane Hela happened, how many houses ever got
jacked up in this town? Zero. Exactly. No, I know of two. And uh there were two down in Sunset Beach. It didn't happen. Would it be reasonable to say if you're elevating because this is kind of what we did with if if you're elevating you
get a one set of stairs in the setbacks if you have to. So if you we said if you're elevating you can have one balcony 3T wide 10t wide 3t in depth if you have an existing
sliding glass door. Yes. No. Is that something the board would think is a good solution or or some variance of Could we also could we also add a second like specific your air conditioning stairs don't count as your stairs? Like if you need to fix
your front like could we have it where that you get a second set of stairs but it has to be your front door. That's question. I mean because that I mean yeah I mean I feel like we're going to see that a lot. So here's here's where first off the two
that we've applied the two that we have approved are in Paradise Island. I was under the impression that and maybe it's just non me on the tarpon on the first tarpon one that if they were to if we were to give them this allowance because
they were in a hardship and we're raising the house and this okay that's fine that if that house were to get torn down that the setbacks go to where it was. So okay. So I was wrong on that. Again, I'm wrong on that as well. So, let's just say I buy a house that is
flooded today and I say, you know what, I'm gonna lift it, right? So, I'm going to draw up some plans for you all and I'm going to say, I'm going to lift this house, but I need this variance, right? And I need an extra two feet or three three and 1/2 ft in the back and let's say call it 3T in the front. Great.
Thanks. I come in, you guys approve it. That's awesome, right? Then I say I'm going to wait 6 months and I don't want to do it, but I have my variances approved. Then I can go to my architect and say, "Build me a house." And he's like, "Oh, well, your setback's at 40 and 30." No, it's not. I'm at 37 and and
27. How'd you do that? That that would technically be allowed. I think so. I I believe so. Again, going back to the pre No, the square footage. At least that's my been my experience. What do you mean the square houses
balcony that's coming out? No, I'm talking. I don't think that extends the entire setback for the property though. No, it's for however wide it is. Like Yeah. If if if it's 30 in the back and you give somebody 3 feet, if that house gets torn down, you could build to 27
ft. No, I thought it was the actual stamp of the house. Hold on one second. That That's why those variance requests are very specific. They should say a balcony 10 ft wide by 3t deep. So if you flatten, that's all you get to add. You don't get to go. That's what you get. But you can build
that. You can't build your house all the way to that. You can essentially rebuild what was there in the same with the variance the way it was. What you can't do is you don't get just suddenly I want to extend my whole house the distance of the setback. You would get a balcony. Like if the
variance was for a balcony, you would get a balcony. So like today that person. Thank you for clarifying. That makes sense. I still think that's an issue. You're saying it's got to be in the same place. So, okay, explain explain explain why. I mean, I'm
other stuff is is different. So, the house that was currently approved, right, if it hopefully nothing ever happens to I'm not, but if something happened to it, right, and it's gone and they needed to rebuild it, the variance that would run with the land is for them to rebuild it exactly how it was with
the balcony the way it was. They could not say, "Well, our balcony extended into the setback, so we want to build the house bigger and add into the setback where the balcony was." You can't do that. You can build the balcony. Yeah. Like if it's an L-shaped house, they come out 3 ft. They can't
come and get the variance and they say, "You know what? I'm just going to knock the whole thing down and build build totally new." But they can build a new house. The variance would no longer apply to a different design. Um if the design but if the design included a balcony that extended three and a half
ft over the then it would be the same thing that then it is allowed. It's somewhat the only reason that we're sorry the only reason we're giving them that is because they are lifting the house code to make a specific allowance. So, if somebody comes in here, if someone
comes, if I came in here with a dirt lot and said, "I want to build a house on tarpon and I'm want to put a balcony that's right here and I want the balcony to go three and a half feet over and it's a brand new build." Everyone here is going to say, "Well, I can't speak for everyone, but the staff the staff's feedback would be
denial." So, so I think am I clarifying this correct from what you said, Gavin? So if you have a say you have a a square house with the setback is what in paradise 40 30 in the back 40 in the front. So it's 30 in the back. You put on a 3ft
x 10 ft balcony on that square house. So now your little setback is 27 on that just there. So then you flatten it. You can still you still have to be within that 30 foot setback but you could just rebuild the balcony. Ding.
Okay. Back in the old days, you used to have a situation you could build another balcony on the third story. Excuse me. I got the floor here. Could I at least speak? Anyway, in the old days, you used to have a situation where people would come in and say, "I want a
variance along the front lot line, uh, 3 foot wide, and that did run with the land." And one of my neighbors did that and he was actually able to build a a uh elevator because his variance was to
five feet on his side yard for the whole length of the lot in the not including the front and back set back. And that doesn't occur very often anymore because we're being more specific. And one other thing I hadn't thought of, well I thought of it but I forgot to mention it
to you is we have a lot of houses in Sunset that have five foot setbacks. And so we would have to say where the and the remaining setback is at least X feet, right? Because we could theoretically get a balcony over the property line.
Yeah, you really could. Yeah. So we would have to like say and the remaining setback is at least I think I think too an assumption that's going on here is that these changes would not be permanent. It would be till somebody knocks down the house. But if
you look at the economics in it, if you if you build a second story, you're not going to knock the house down. You're going to end up if you want to create more space, build up. So, you're talking about a permanent change that somebody
could do versus somebody next door was is not able to do it because of the um the code. Yeah. The new house can't and the elevated house can't. So, I'm thinking the way we wrote that other exception
for the stairs was said when you are elevating an existing structure. So we limited that to that specific situation. And what I would I would say just on the variances in general,
the the big thing you don't want to do, you want to either change the the code and make it uniform obviously and then it's not a variance or if you do a variance, you want to stick with language that is sight specific, case specific because what you don't want to
do is say we generally give variances. I mean, you can say talk about things in past experience, but you don't want to create a rule on how you do variances because that's the whole defeats the whole purpose of a variance, if that makes sense. I I'm just going off of the hardship piece of it. like I'm
saying yes to a variance on that specific case because of the hardship because they are lifting a brand new house and that's very much allowed and within the case 50 years 50 years from now if it's a flat lot and you are building a brand new house I don't see the hardship on why the
balcony should go over the setback that's that's I mean I feel like that's so could we write the code then to specifically only have to do with elevated houses and then say If that in future that house is demolished, it goes back to original
because it's not a variance. It's not a variance. It's just allowed. Yeah. Like we we need to can we write it somehow where it goes away if it gets flattened. That's basically what you're asking. And I'm I'm on if if you're asking us, Katherine, for a change that would like to be implemented in regards to this
wording, that is something that I would like to do because I thought it was already and I think the three foot is good. Um, how does everyone feel about that? I talk to people every day about this. So, I would say three feet out, three feet deep would would be helpful to be
allowed and with an existing door up to let's say twice the width of the ex existing door because you don't want somebody to add 3 feet and then 20 ft down, you know, and they got a whole, you know, patio. That should come before the board. It should be canal levered. Yeah. Cuz
cuz if you just say balcony, then they have post coming down. Now, that's blocking view for neighbors and that Oh, a canal levered. Okay. You know, can levered only would I'm just thinking of things that wouldn't need to be come before the board. But if if somebody was going to have post and they were going to go above that size of
3 ft and twice the width of the existing door, then I think we need to, you know, see it see that case by case. But and that's just you know my suggestion is you know and I would recommend if you're giving direct either ensure there's consensus or actually take a vote if there's not
complete consensus on what you want the direct staff to do then maybe take a vote on it is what I would recommend. So I have a canal levered when elevated an existing structure, a canal levered balcony of up to three
feet in depth and up to two times the width of the existing door, sliding door or doors, whatever doors um is allowed as long as it is at least three feet
from the property line. three feet from the property line. That's a little close. About those tiny setbacks in sunset. Oh yeah. But I object in especially in sunset to uh any encroachment in
you say 50% of the way. What I object to is sideyard setback, encroachment of any type because we've had two houses burn in uh Treasure Island even before the storm and it burned the houses on both sides. So you want 5T from I want whatever I want to go in the
sideyard setback at all. We have to district. Yeah, I don't mind going in the backyard setback. Sideyard setbacks are sacred to me. We have five foot backyard setbacks in Sunset. 5 yard front yard setbacks in sunset. Oh yeah. And it sucks.
So that's why I'm saying if I say five feet that means none for them and that's not fair to write an ordinance that leaves out. Well then they can they can ask for I mean what there's building code is three feet
or otherwise you have to fireproof. So I would say 3T 3T uh three feet but you're getting into 3T on each air conditioning units platform just the balcony only talking about the balcony. Why is it okay? Yeah. No structural I mean no actual
structure but uh wherever you I'm pretty adamant about if you want to come closer with anything you can always closer than five feet then come come before this board for variance. Okay. So, we'll make it at least five
feet from the property line. Yes. We have consensus on that. Do you want that again or specify that? I mean, do we want it only for if there's an existing door, not if somebody has windows and they're going to put a glass door in now and and claim they can add the balcony to it?
Put a door in. I think that's a I think that's okay if they want to put a door in. Why is it okay for an for somebody elevating and not okay for an existing house? The hardship that we see is somebody used to having some people have just glass doors all along the back
of their house. They can make that into windows. But I think it goes back to what Richard said about before the storms, we only had two houses ever being elevated. So now it's like it's the thing. So it's kind of a thing now. But in new construction, they could always ask for variance.
Maybe we will limit the width to 10 feet or something. I'm talking about the depth. Is is a depth from the Yes. Can we ask you the cath Katherine the question in regards to the elevated structure requests that have come in has the
well you've seen the variances that we have so far yeah I've seen those but has for the balconies for what has some projects been approved without having to come in front they have to come to you if they want a variance I'm saying have there been any projects that have made it through without the
variance we have lots of elevated houses that have been permitted well I mean that's did your ordinance that you write helped. Yes. Okay. Well, that's a good sign. Yeah. And I'm trying to see if we need another one. Yeah. The backyard, I guess, is what I'm
thinking about. Um because if I came in front of this board, if my neighbors built out, you guys would the board would probably say no to me. Yeah. And clearly new Yeah. So, it's not it's not fair. New construction. What are you talking
about? if they're elev if they're elevating their houses and they go back and build a have a balcony bill that's five feet deep which will affect me and other people like me and you tear down your house and then I go come and say okay well you gave them that that variance now I come
in I say I want to build further back you're going to say no because a step back is because you can custom build your house whereas an existing house you're jacking up you can't make that kind of modification you just can't structurally they can they can put windows in instead
of a sliding glass door. If you had a balcony, you should be able to keep that. No, they won't have B. They didn't have balconies. They were on ground level. Well, regardless, they were able Yeah. Now they have underground as their as their patio. I see what you're saying, but I still,
you know, I think allowances should be made if you're trying to save your existing house because you can't modify. They are they are saving their existing house. they they are getting and they're getting money from from FEMA and the government like $250,000
that's not guaranteed but anyway regardless I think we've had a direction and yeah if you want to tear down your house that's the the and I'm prime example I'm tore down my house I was able to customize it to meet
existing setbacks you know it's like that thing next door although it's ugly as hell it a met existing setbacks. So, so I guess what we're saying is Yeah. So, this would be for existing um
houses being lifted. Now, to your accord about new houses, Jen, are we seeing any issues cuz I don't I I rarely see a new house come before PNZ. Um at least over the years, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, where they need variances for
balconies and things. is that they may start out coming in that way and we explain to them that they have to have a unique hardship about their property that makes them not able to meet the code on a new house and and they won't have it. Okay. Yeah. Nobody bothers to get there from here.
Okay. So, usually they decide, oh no, I'd rather redesign and Yeah. Like an architect's not going to go through printing all the paper and submission if it's have a balcony. You just set it back. Yeah. You set right? It's like a few years ago, every architect in the world wasn't doing his
homework with Duke Power Platforms. They were putting them out in the and I made a blanket statement during the meeting. I said, "Don't bother coming in. We're going to turn it down." Yeah. You all sudden turned down about 25 variances for Duke Power Platform. So, we tell people when they ask me if
they can come get a variance, I said, "The board has denied x amount of variances, so I would suggest you design it into your new house." So we tell them that at the preapp meeting with DRC that you know make sure you plan for this,
make sure you think about it. So will this uh portion that you just wrote down, will that come before us at the next meeting to vote if we've got consensus? Yeah. That this is what we want to do? I'll be happy. I I'd be okay with reviewing it. The revision
Ross make a motion. Let's vote on it. Do you want to read it again, Katherine? I make a motion to what Katherine is about to read. Please. When elevating an existing structure, a cantal levered balcony a maximum of 3 ft
deep and up to two times the width of the existing doors is allowed as long as it is at least 5 feet from the property line. Are we changing that to if they wanted to put doors in? I'm thinking I the
easier thing would to be quantify it and limit it to 10 ft, you know. That's what I think too because again to your point, if you are building a second store, you're going to want a balcony again cuz we going to pe have people have windows all the way across as Yeah. And then they could literally Yeah.
So, do we want to limit that to something? Typical sliders are what? 7 to 9 ft. Okay. I need builder down there. Six to nine. So, 10. We could do 12. Well, would we want 12 then maximum depend? Well, I guess it's just
dependent on I mean it's each panel's four feet, right? I mean, I've got three or four. Yeah. Yeah. I got triple panel sliding glass doors in my house. So, it's 12 or 12. So, they make them all different. Every one of them is four. So, let's make it a multiple of four. I mean, to
have a 12. I think we're just offering them amount. If they want more, they can come before the board, right? Because we don't want these things to get too big. Yeah. I don't I don't want to get into sitting and looking at their plans and trying to determine exactly how wide the existing sliding glass doors are
or what they want to put in. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah. So, let's let's do a standard Jesse has a comment. Yeah. I was I was actually going to not to throw another curveball in on this, but kind of like what Jennifer was saying. Um, just a thought like if new
construction would come in next door to somebody that did elevate and they got this exception, I understand what you're saying. If new construction comes in, maybe if you have somebody that same, you should be able to match that since we allowed them to
elevate and get a balcony. So, just do you do you does that make sense? This is a good question because in other cities and not in Treasure Island, Treasure Island has no encroachments other than like 6 in of decorative stuff on your face of your house. But in other cities like St.
Pete, they allow three-foot balconies to encroach into the setbacks as a general rule for everybody. They even let the they even let the stairs go inside the setback. The stairs encroach into the setback. I think it's 5T. Um it's Yeah, the you're talking about the AC
the actual front stairs. And so they allow porches, stairs, balconies. They allow all kinds of encroachments in St. Petersburg. That's code I happen to know. Um, this is a good question as we go to
phase. So phase two was things that maybe everybody doesn't agree with, right? Phase one is hopefully things that we all agree to and the community agrees to and they're not going to come up and be controversial. So question, sorry to interrupt. Um, so
like if that, so to your point, so say they do they go like the 3 ft with the balcony, they go up and then you flatten the house next door and you say, "Hey, well, they're going so far into the setback. I would like to do the same." Is that would that then probably come to
work in front of us or would you guys work with them and say well okay you you know your house is going as far as their house because of the setback but then they also they have a balcony so we'll allow you to have a balcony. No the code doesn't allow us to make those determinations. That's why the
board exists. To my question unfortunately for new construction they just need to come before this board. The only reason why we're even thinking about this is for the guyated who's making the mistake of raising their houses. I mean, to all the people that are raising their houses, I
apologize, but uh I've seen houses that are raised that I'm like, can't believe you're spending 200. They'll bring back a draft that you guys can make tweaks to in the process before I'm going to bring it back in ordinance format. So, I want to be pretty clear where we're going. So, yeah, it's better to be But I'm saying
more time to tweak a few things. It's not set in stone yet, but obviously it's better if it's Can make the motion cuz we went way sideways on that whole Yes. Sorry. Want to make a motion? You want me to read this again? Yes.
Yes, please. Um, when elevating an existing structure, a cantalvered balcony up to 3 feet deep and up to 12 feet in width is allowed as long as at least 5 feet from the property line for the backyard for the W. Is that only
in the rear yard? Only in the rear yard or we because we didn't talk about the front yard. No, I'm saying only rear. Only rear because they that does not have as much of an impact on your neighbors. Okay. Uh actually, if you allow in the front
yard, it'll be more aesthetically pleasing to be perfectly honest with you because those houses end up looking flat as heck. Yes. Just so you know, I'm as well. I don't get the whole thing, but if you're going to do it, you should do it for all of it. Yeah, I disagree. If you're looking at
the front yard, I mean, we've had a lot of people that have come before this board and said, "I put a bathroom in my u garage." In my garage. Yeah, that's where it went. And I want to extend the garage out into the setback. The answer is no. And uh so I want to I would prefer to
look at each of those cases individual. I don't mind rear yard setback uh situations. I just don't like front yard or definitely sidey yard. That's kind of hypocritical, but but anyway, I like that. I like that
verbiage about the rear yard only. We're good with that. Ross, if you could say so moved. So moved. All right. Could I have a second? Second. All right. Just to make sure it's all done, we had motion by Ross Sanchez. uh
second by I'm going to give it to Marvin Shet since he hadn't done one yesterday and uh you know we got the verbiage down right and you know you got the verbiage Katherine uh could we have a roll call
vote Markes I Gary Patenziano I Ross Sanchez yes Carrison yes Jennifer Bumbolier Marvin Shavelin yes Richard Harris yes thank you and there's no magical the vote itself didn't necessarily have to be taken, but I just wanted it to try to consolidate
to give direction to staff mostly because you'll ultimately have to take a vote when they bring back the ordinance and having it been advertised, etc. So, yeah. Okay, that was all staff had except for I would like to say that um I'm leaving
Treasure Island effective on August the 4th. So, it's been a pleasure working with you. Thank you. Can you So, you will not be at the next meeting at all. Please, you just rubber stamp my seaw wall. That would be great. Thank you, Catherine.
My birthday's July 31st. Is that a That's a birthday present. Well, before we There's no one in the uh audience. You don't want to make a public comment at all? Okay, very good.
Could I have a motion to adjurnn? Valentine. Motion to adjurnn. Talk all the time. Second. All in favor? I. Oh, good. We're out of here.