the city board meeting for July 16, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker card is available on the table over by the entrance, it must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not
address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscapable topics may be presented under the public comment section of the agenda. Everybody would please silence
their cell phones and we will stand for the pledge of allegiance. Ice to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. >> If we could have a roll call. >> Mark Rojeski is absent. Valerie >> here. >> Daniel Billingsley >> here. >> Chris Downing >> here. >> Ross Sanchez >> here. >> Grant Smith >> here. >> Marvin Shavelin >> here. Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, we've got some minutes from the uh previous meetings. January 15th, February 19th, March 19th, May 21st. Has anybody got any comments on those minutes or can we have a motion to
approve all four sets? >> Move to approve as written. >> Seconded. >> Okay. Motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Chris Downing. All in favor? >> I I Any opposed? Hearing none, there will be opposed.
Okay. Uh the city manager wanted to make a comment about some of the staffing. So, we're going to let him go first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome members of PNZ and LPA. Thank you for uh the work that you do. Um when I arrived we were
having quite um a time with permitting and some CDD issues. Um a couple weeks ago I extended an offer to a new uh director for the community development department which has been
accepted. He'll be starting in August. And Mr. Braden Evans who's been on board with us six months or so is doing a great job as the interim director. and Miss Mary Ellen Edwards who I said Edwards Braden Evans uh and Mary Ellen
Edwards who you're all familiar with I'm sure um has moved on and is no longer working for the city of Treasure Island. I just didn't didn't want to leave Braden here just throwing him all the reins and let him get peppered with staff
questions. So that's about all I had to say. Mr. Chairman, thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Um, next item, uh, status update on prior, >> pardon me, >> may I make an announcement? >> Certainly. Certainly. Okay. City
attorney wants to make an announcement. >> I think it would be kind of timely following the comments from our our city manager. But today I wanted to introduce to the members of the planning board and later this evening the LPA um a new
attorney who has joined the Vos law firm um who will be um basically sitting with you. She's here today. Her name is um Pam Shashonne. This is Pam. And um one of her characteristics that the rest of us
don't really share is that she lives probably 15 minutes from you. Uh, so she is going to be available to help staff out, especially now with with Marielle and not being here who we we do miss her. Um, to kind of get through some of
these issues and so you may see her around. If I can, Pam, could you just come to the podium maybe tell them a little bit about yourself because you know we only hire the best, right? >> Um, I live in St. Petersburg and I do
live only 15 minutes from here. Uh, I have served as a senior assistant city attorney for the city of St. Petersburg for 23 years. Um, I was the legal adviser to their board of adjustment and their uh, historic preservation
commission. They were two separate bodies at that time for uh, 20 years. And uh, the last seven and a half years I have been the city attorney for the city of Temple Terrace in Hillsboro County. So, um, I look forward to working with you.
>> Thank you. Welcome on board. >> So, we're going to tag team a little bit today. Um, I'll walk you through some of your, um, some of your meeting agenda and then I'll give her the chair so she knows what it feels like to sit here next to Richard, right? >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Going forward. So, are you >> I'm I will be in the background as is Becky. Um, we're always available to the city. Um we we really like our clients and um you know it's kind of being able to come to the meetings is the lucky one
um because we get to work directly in person with you but there is a whole team behind the scenes that constantly um are working on things especially in the event of litigation or something of that effect. Okay, Braden, if you could give us a
status update on prior planning and zoning cases, just any major changes. >> Yeah, following last month's approval of the site plan for the Rally Gas Station, they're moving forward with their right-of-way permits to start on that project. Um, that's about the only update that I have for you guys today,
though. >> Sounds good. Hopefully, uh, they'll build it this time. Okay. Hearing procedures. Nancy, anything else you want to explain to us? >> Well, sure. Of course. You know, I like to talk. Um, so today on your agenda,
you have three variances and one site plan, and these land use approvals are quasi judicial in nature. That requires that there be proper notice provided to the um the applicant and adjacent
property owners. um that you evaluate the uh proposals before you um based on criteria that is in your land development code and applying to that criteria are facts and documentation
that is in your agenda materials uh that is competent and substantial evidence. So testimony from um the city's planner has been considered competent substantial evidence as an expert in land use planning in the city of
Treasure Island. I think you all have accepted him before. But also um comments from members of the public that is based on their personal knowledge and information or based on factbased information that they bring before you.
Um and that is pretty much how we have been conducting our uh quas judicial proceedings regarding these these matters. >> Thank you. Okay. Anybody who is going to speak on a case that's on today's agenda
needs to be sworn in. So please stand, raise your right hand, and Tia, please swear them in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're about to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, we'll get into our first case. 10A variance 0000 639-2026 approval of two after the-act variances to the maximum fence or wall height
within the street side yard. Um would the applicant please approach the podium and state your case? >> Hello. How is everyone today? Um, dear board members um of the commission,
>> can we get your uh name and address for starters? >> My name is Mary Beth Hurley. I've been in the construction industry for about 25 years. Um, my address is one key Capri on Treasure Island. Um, I'm helping the Neoths with the variance and
other items that they're needing for the sale of their home. >> Yeah, it is hard to hear. >> Okay, I'll try to speak up a little bit. Um we're requesting a variance for a wall that was built in 2018.
Um the wall has been there. Um variance concerns the existing masonary block wall on the left hand side. We are asking that um
the wall we are granted a variance for the wall to come down and the back of the wall. Um the wall has been in place. It's been unchanged since 2018. Due to
the post construction landscaping, the storms, the hurricanes, things like that, the wall is now not in compliance. The wall is over the limit. So the wall now measures about 8 in too high.
And can we go to the other picture where Yeah. Which one showing >> that's new landscape. The other one that's the front. Keep going right there. The wall they're asking it to be cut back 12 inches. Like I'm the wall
has been there since 2018. The owners request that the board grant a variance for the wall to remain. In 2018, the Neothys constructed a block wall at the 7th Street property. The wall is built in accordance with all of the um
plan submitted, all of the codes, everything that they would need to construct it. It was then submitted to the city and was subject to inspection by the building department. A city inspector came out, inspected not once
but several times during this process. It all passed. They took four years building the house. So after four years, there was a CEO. It was granted. There was nothing ever said about the wall. So now we're looking at eight and a half years later.
The owners relied on good faith for the city and inspection approval and the issuance of the CO. They maintained a wall that the wall is in good sound condition since 2018. It withtood all the hurricanes, tropical storms. There's
been no complaints, incidents, or enforcement action after eight years. So why are we here after eight years asking that 12 inches be cut off the wall right there and the wall be lowered? 8 in the
existing 8 inch over is not the result of the intentional code violation or negligence on the neothy's part. It is instead a direct consequ consequence of post construction changes to the grade that's been made. We have had several hurricanes. The neighbor next door has
also rellandscaped, tore out their asphalt driveway, dug down 9 to 12 inches for pavers, put pavers in, and rellandscaped the entire yard. So the cumulative effect of these two independent post construction changes in
the surrounding landscape. So now the wall is higher. Even though the wall itself is structurally identical to what it was in 2018 when it was inspected, 2022 when we had the CO, we're now four and a half
years later and we're asking the neoththes to come and cut their wall. Strict enforcement of the height standard would impose a significant and unreasonable hardship on the neoththeses. To bring the wall into into compliance, they need to cut that. They need to
demolish the wall to the front. But it has been there for eight years. They would have to rebuild the wall after they cut it, stuckco it, paint it, haul away the debris, and do the final appearance on it. This undertaking would
require a substantial cost in the labor for modification that yields no meaningful effect to the public health, safety, the welfare. The wall structurally maintained. It's visually maintained and cozix peacefully in the neighborhood. The 8 to 12 inch variance,
they're minimal. The hardship here is not self-created. It flows directly from hurricanes, storms, independent actions by neighbors next door, which neither the neathies have any ability to control. Granting the variance is fully
consistent with the spirit and the purpose of the city's wall height regulations. The wall does provide privacy boundary identification to the residential property. The very such purpose regulations are designed to serve. The wall has not generated any
complaints from neighbors. It has stood for years. Approving this variance will not set a harm a harmful precedent. The circumstances here are unique in a wall that was inspected and approved by the city followed post con post post construction landscape changes driven by
requirements neighboring property activity. Granting relief in this narrow circumstances does not open the door to widespread compliance. Furthermore, the city of Treasure Island issued a certificate of occupancy. While the owners acknowledge that the CO
does not constitute perpetual approval, all future code changes, it does evidence the city's contempuarious review and acceptance of the improvements for eight years. The owners acted in good faith and are entitled to a reasonable
reliance on this approval. The neathy's request that the board of commissioners grant this variance on the existing concrete wall leaving the height and leaving the back. The height overage results from post
construction changes. The walls been here for eight and a half years. Nothing has changed. The wall was constructed and it was inspected by Treasure Island building inspectors not once but several
times. There are several inspections that need to be accomplished. So during this time period that they were doing their inspections, nothing was said. A final signoff was signed on the wall for the wall permit
granting the Neoth permission. Four years later after the house was constructed a CO was issued. Again nothing was said about the wall. So for eight over eight years the wall has been there. Nothing has been said to the
neoththeses about the wall. So requiring the demolition, reconstruction, restuckco, um it's just a big impact on the neoththes. It doesn't adversely affect the
neighborhood at all or the character of the neighborhood or is it unsightly and granting the variance is consistent with the intent of the city's regulations and the public interest. And if we could slowly go through the pictures
here, the inside wall is in compliance. Okay. Cut 11 inches off the the side because on the neighbor's side it's higher than 36 in. But we've had tropical storms. We've had rellandscaping. We've had a lot of
things. But during this eight years, the city could have come in and said, "Hey, your wall, it's not compliant. Go to the next one, please." The wall was constructed as the first thing for the property back in 2018, and that was to
keep any erosion from the neighbors. So, starting in 2018, the wall was there. Next one. >> That's the last one to the front. >> Okay, the new landscape is to the left.
So there the grade does go down on that one side. >> I have these additional ones as well. >> There you go. That's a picture of them building the wall. We're looking at the three blocks that are there with a small cat block and another block on the top which shows it's 36 in.
Here's a certificate of occupancy for the home. And then also these are the inspections for the wall. If you go down, it was approved. There's several inspections. It could have been for footers or it could have been for wall. But the final approval was given on the wall. So why
are we here eight years later asking the neoththes to create there's a hardship for them to take the wall down when it has been here the entire time. So I ask that you grant them their variance. Thank you.
>> Okay. Before you sit down, any questions from the board for the applicant? Just >> just one. Is it is the issue just on the left side or both sides? Left and right of the house or it's just the left. >> It's right here. It's this right here. >> Right. I understand. I understand that.
But >> it's just right there. >> So there's no issue with or and nothing's in contention on the right hand side of the house. >> That wall that was also constructed in 2018.
>> There's nothing no issue with that one in terms of height at this point. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks. Okay. if you could come back over to the uh >> I do have a uh >> this one >> question in regard to uh statement
number four on your uh application. You say city required to swell on the left side of the property. Now the fence is 6 in above required height. Neighbors also changed the grade of their property next to the wall. So
>> side picture >> basically. Can you show me where that wall that swale was cut? Can you show it on the aerial photograph from the above? Yes. Where would the swale have gone? >> And now to the street.
So your contention is before the swale was cut the wall met code and after the swell was cut in there obviously you did not raise the wall you lowered the ground and it caused the uh >> basically the wall to be out of compliance >> compiance.
>> Okay. You know this is u one thing that I mentioned to you yesterday uh Nancy is in my engineering career care career I got sued over a project that I designed eight years previously and a lot of things changed during that eight years
things did not drain the same way and basically we won the case by basically a statute of limitations uh they called it statute of repose that you know you can't sue somebody in my case for something that they did eight
years ago and routine maintenance, addition of swailes, residing, conditions change. I mean, would we have any would that have any application here? I know that it just seems hard for me to go back after eight years and
after and four years after getting the CEO and saying, "Oh, yes, you're out of compliance now." I um I don't have a specific time period that I could share with you whether it's 10 years, five years, I don't have a
statute of limitations. Um this item could be viewed as a non-conforming structure, but in order to determine that, that is not part of your your variance criteria. Um so there may be other remedies
available. Um, but one remedy that would fix this would be um whether or not the variance is granted. >> Okay. Please have a seat and we'll have the city uh staff give their report unless there's another question. Ross,
you didn't have one. >> Okay, go ahead, Braden. >> Good afternoon. Uh, for the record, Braden Evans, uh, principal planner, the community development department, presenting variance application VR-0000639-2026
at 12657th Street East. The applicant is seeking approval of two after the-act variances to section 68-458 to increase the maximum height of a wall within the street sideyard. Subject property is located within the RU75
zoning district and contains a site area of approximately 17,590 square feet or point4 acres. The two variances before you today are to the 36 in maximum height standard for the streetside yard. Uh what's being proposed is 47 in of
height and 84 in of height, which is a 31% and a 133% magnitude variance respectively. Construction of the existing structure at the subject property began in 2018. It was completed in 2018.
Uh during the initial permitting process, the proposed fence exceeding the maximum height was addressed during site plan review uh through a comment provided on March 25th, 2022. And a subsequent revision was submitted by the contractor in July of that year showing
the fence height was reduced to conform with the code standard. and a provided asbuilt survey indicated an asbuilt condition of the wall at 2 feet. Following a more recent citizen complaint, a code enforcement investigation concluded that the asbuilt
conditions of the height of the wall did exceed the maximum permitted height based on the height being measured by the lowest adjacent grade as defined in the land development regulations. Britain, if I could interrupt real quick, can you uh indicate like for
instance on this uh photograph or maybe the previous photograph, what exactly are the wall sections that we're talking about because there's two different variances and obviously two sections of wall. >> Correct. So, where my mouse is here, um
we're talking about this section of the wall for one variance. Um, and the entire section of the wall being discussed has the same maximum height of 36 in. This section is what we would consider to be like the lower fence
which is approximately 47 in tall. And then right about here, it's hard to see given the perspective of the photo. The fence or the wall jets up to 7 feet tall uh where it matches the height of the fence of the wall all the way down. The
street side setback for the property is 15 feet. So that maximum of 36 inches for a height of a wall within the street side yard is for that entire 15 ft behind the front property line. So this
entire 15t stretch here um the property line is paralle is consistent with where the fence begins. So where the fence jets up in the back to the seven feet of height, that's 14 feet behind the front property line. >> So you're talking uh to get the I just
want to make sure we're >> I do have understanding this thing. The the front setback >> area where it needs to be 36 in high. >> It's only that step down area. the area that stepped down in the front
yard >> and for the first one foot of And I have some additional pictures that we'll get to. So like this >> and that foot. >> Yeah. And that one foot because where this blue line is shown that is indicating the 15 ft behind the front
property line which everything in front of that would be considered the front yard where the maximum 36 inch height is applicable. And of course, of course, the remainder of it. How far does the higher portion of the wall go back where it's still out
of compliance? >> It doesn't. It's just the 12 in. It's just It's 12 in of encroachment. >> Okay. I just making sure that it uh what we were talking about exactly. >> Okay. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. So the as mentioned the streetside setback is 15 ft and within the street side yard uh the maximum height for a fencer wall is that 36 in discussed. We have another image here. This image is from the front yard in front of the
gate. So I was standing right in this location measuring this wall when I took this photo indicating a height of 47 in. There's a another image there of the wall photographed before and we've discussed
this one showing that higher portion of the wall within the street side setback. >> Great. I just have a quick question. >> If they were to add 10 inches of sod in front of it and you went back out there with your measuring tape, wouldn't that change the result? >> No, the applicant has actually already
added some sod, but as it's been explained to them, the measurement is from the lowest of the two adjacent grades. So it's measured from the opposite side >> and and so on the side of the wall that is on the neighbor side. Do you have
that measurement picture as well or you just have the front? I don't know if I have a picture in my presentation but I I will show you the elevations that we have which is the
more accurate uh depiction of >> and and what is that elevation I mean is it also the same 40 46 or I forgot what you say yeah 47 in >> so when I reference elevation I'm talking about the elevation of the grade um right
>> which I don't know offh hand it's in my presentation Okay, keep going. I'm sorry. >> Um, so this is a a photo of the site a screenshot of the site plan. This is a screenshot of the site plan, the asbuilt conditions that were
provided to us at to the city at the time of permitting when the structure was built in 2022. Uh, down here at the bottom, you can see where it's indicated a 2ft tall high concrete block wall was constructed.
Uh this is a closer image so that we can make out the numbers of the asbuilt survey. Um this shows the 35 in high concrete block wall here. um as we were
able to determine in the field that 35 in does not account for the change in elevation and is based off of the higher of the two adjacent grades um on the side of the subject property to the north. So we can see here the change in
elevation on the outside of the wall is 4.8 8 ft um versus inside of the wall being 5.58 uh accounting for a change of elevation of approximately 9 to 10 in. Uh likewise at a midpoint of the fence or the wall
uh where the changes in elevation ranges from 5.1 on the southern side to 5.7 on the northern side um accounting for approximately 8 in. Uh we do have that survey from 2018 when
the subject property was constructed here showing the same elevations um indicating that the grade has not changed since the original survey was provided to staff uh and that can be documented through the uh progressed
surveys that were provided by the applicant. >> So what's the difference in the two elevations? 4 >> 10 inches. >> Yeah. So, it's most significant >> and 4.8. >> Yes, it's the change in elevation is
most significant in this front corner. Um and then it's just slightly less at the midpoint. Uh but it's 5.58 here and 4.8 right here. Um so that comes out to about 10 in. >> They were taking it from the higher >> That's correct.
Um, this was communicated to the applicant as mentioned previously in my presentation. This is an email correspondence from March 25th, 2022 just after the applicant applied for their fence permit uh from the building department asking the contractor to
reduce the fence the height of the fence um to comply with the regulations of 36 in as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Following that, um, a revision was submitted to the building department and approved for the scope of work
revised fence height to 36 in. Based on those, we'll move into the variance criteria analysis. I apologize, this first box should say consistent. The variance is in fact within the province of the planning and zoning board. However, no special conditions or circumstances apply the
subject property which are unique to the land where the variance is being sought. Um there's no unique characteristic attributes or similar to the subject property. Strict application would retain reasonable use of the property. Um the structure is a concrete block
wall. It's relatively simple to remove one layer of concrete block to come into compliance with the code. Um again the circumstances are in fact the result of the applicant or their agent as the method for calculating height was clearly provided to the applicant's
contractor and documented uh through their correspondence. No variance is required to make reasonable use of the property. uh reasonable use of the property would be retained if the variance was brought or the if the wall was brought into compliance and again um granting of this variance
would conflict with the general intent and of the land development regulations by impairing the order and overall appearance of the neighborhood. However, uh the variance, if approved, would not be inherently injurious to the neighborhood or the surrounding properties or the public welfare.
Based on a lack of identifiable hardship or special circumstances, documented understanding of the applicable land development regulations by the contractor, staff is recommending denial of both variances. I also wanted to address one additional factor regarding the approved inspections. Uh that it's a
correct statement. However, those were building inspections. At the time, going back to 2022, we did not per the city did not perform uh zoning inspections on things like fences and walls. So, that
approved inspection was just based on um the building and life safety codes and that's how that happened. Um currently, we do do um zoning inspections. So, so today building inspections include fence.
>> No, building inspections don't >> or that's done separately. >> Yeah, we do separate zoning inspections. Um, >> but for this brand new home when it was being constructed, there was no requirement at the time and or procedural wise, the city was not inspecting
walls or fences. >> Yeah. And unfortunately at the time they relied on those asbuilt surveys provided by the applicant in which this case the asbuilt survey indicated the fence or the wall was 2 ft high which is not correct. >> And is the gate itself also out of
compliance then since it's at the same height as that wall. So the gate is a separate issue that is being addressed that will be addressed following the variance um and is relevant to the variance but not for
wasn't included in the presentation or the staff report because it's not something that I would believe should be considered whether the variance would be approved or denied. Um but I can explain that further if you would like. >> Sure. I think it's >> a decorative it all out in the table.
>> A decorative gate is permitted to be 10 in taller than the abuing fence post. Um so the fence right now if the height of the the wall now if it were to be approved through a variance
the gate would remain in compliance because it would be equal to where that abudding fence is. If the variance were to be denied and they would have to reduce the height of that fence or the wall down to a conforming height, the
gate would then be more than 10 in taller than the height of the fence at a conforming level. And that would be a separate request. And again, I was hesitant to include that in my staff report because I did not in my professional opinion believe that that should be something that's considered
for this specific variance request. It's a good opinion. >> I understand. >> Brian, can you go back to the picture that shows the little portion of the taller wall being out of compliance by 12 in?
That one right there. Unfortunately, that was not in our uh packet. Um >> Oh, I apologize. But uh so as far as the this is baffling to me, but the only
thing that's out of compliance for the taller wall is that 12in section, >> right? Um once you get it out of the street side yard into the interior sideyard, the maximum height for a fence can go up to 7 feet from the lowest adjacent grade. But that portion there
in front of that blue line indicated on the photo, that is still within the 50 foot front yard setback. >> So the remainder, just to make sure everybody understands, the remainder of the wall is fine. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So we got 12 foot 12 inch rather
um segment that you'd have to cut out and then about 11 in on the uh street side reduced section. That's correct. And you know the major major problem I'm
having of course is eight years of time has passed. Does anybody have any questions for the city staff? >> What when did the city start the new policy where they're actually inspecting heights on
>> I honestly could not tell you that um because I don't know um as long as I've been here we've been doing that. Um, of course that's only been about eight months >> about. So, okay. >> But it's been it's done at the end of the construction, right? I mean, when do they do that type of in would they do
that type of inspection? >> You technically don't have to have a fence, but this has a pool, so it has to have a fence. >> Yes. Um, so I mean, it would be at the end of the construction. Typically, it would be on its own permit. So, a fence permit would have the inspection. We do also do inspections for docks. Um,
turf in front yards. We do inspections for um a number of things and then building footprints usually are so reliant on an asbuilt survey. Um it's >> right >> hard to know exactly where the property line is. We use a survey for that. Um
>> so whether we caught it then or now that the situation is the same and do we have a price what would cost >> doesn't matter. >> Cost isn't able to be considered um for a variance request. >> It's not really relevant anyway. So Braden, I have a couple questions. One
is you mentioned that the original site plan submitted and permitted stipulated a two-ft fence. >> That's correct. >> And the current fence is much larger than that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> But it was revised to 36 and then it was accepted, correct? As a
revision to 36. >> The site plan was revised. >> They noted that it was 36 and they went back and I'll let Brandon answer the question. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I think I maybe mis misunderstood your question at first. So, the original I don't know what the original application showed the fence being
proposed as, but I do know that it was over height and it was communicated to the applicant that the fence was over height and that needed to come into compliance with the 36 in as meas as measured from lowest grade. After that communication is when the applicant submitted a revision to the permitting
department uh revising the height of the fence to that compliant 36 in >> to 36. So, they did revise it. That was in 2018 because there was another communication in 2022 with the homeowner. >> This was in 22.
>> What did I say? That's what I meant. >> So the date on that's 2022. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Um >> we do have four cards. Uh any other questions for the city staff before we get into public comment?
Okay, we've already heard from Mary Beth Hurley. So, do you have any further comments? >> You have to come up. >> Please come up to the podium. >> Real quick, um, on this part of the inspection, if you look at the top right
here, it says that the wall is 36 in. The two foot is part of the wall in the back towards the seaw wall. That was a twoft high wall. The one in the front was 36 in from 2018 when this was done. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, we've got a card from Peter
Neathy. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Neathy. I live at 126507th Street East. I am the homeowner of this home. And actually, if you could bring up a couple of the pictures, I would appreciate that.
>> Mhm. >> So, we can start with this one. You know, again, I put up this wall to keep all the silt, all the every all the debris off of my neighbors. That was the first thing that we did. The city came
out, they inspected the footers. Obviously, there was a drawing for the footers, there was a a drawing for the wall. Everything was inspected. Everything was signed off for this wall the way it is today. Nothing was added to. Nothing was changed
in 2018. If you could go to the next slide, please. Any slide. So, this is a little difficult to see, but this area here is burned up a little bit uh with dirt
and saw, which I was told by one of the city officials, her name is Emily, if I did that that this problem would go away. So, we did that and she's right around the corner. we can pull her in and ask her. And I have a witness to
what she said also because she was there with me. So I went to Home Depot and I think I was spent about 4550 bags of soil that I put against that fence. Then we put saw it on top of it and it's 36
in. So that to me meant, okay, you did it. We did it. Then they come back and say, "Oh, no, that's not that's not going to work because Braden said you got to measure the height of the wall on
the other side." Okay. Well, that was never told to us to start with. This wall should never have been permitted by the city to start with from the get-go. Now that it's finished, nine years later
that we've lived in the house, the city would never have come out. If there wasn't a neighborly dispute and that's why that man sitting right there, his name is Bill. He inherited the house from next door and he's been on the
phone three, five times a day just out of spite to call against us. >> Is it? Yes, it is. No, it's not slandering. It's a fact. >> If you could not have a discussion between you two people, he's got a card
in. We'll hear from him later. Just explain your case and we'll judge on it from that point. >> Okay. So, the wall has been there for nine years and now the city. >> Okay. Once again, I don't want to hear from you. You have a card in here. I'll
let you speak, but if you don't uh behave yourself, good grief. Anyway, go ahead. >> So, let's go to the next slide. So we had also called the city and again
we have witnesses to this Mary Beth the other agent that's sitting right there her name is Linda that we had asked Braden numerous times how much how high does that wall what's the height on that wall we heard anything from 2 in 6 in 8
in 11 in this is your sitting filling in supervisor in in the interim that doesn't know what he what he's talking about. Give me a number. 2 in 6 in 8 in. Yeah, I'm a little riled up because
after 9 years when you weren't expecting inspecting walls, now today you decide to come out and inspect the wall and now you're going to tell me that it's got to come down. >> Well, being taken to account he's only been working for the city for eight months. >> That's my point. That's exactly my
point. And this is why we're here from 9 years ago and the city is the one that created this hardship on the homeowner. >> Well, >> so with that being said, if you don't grant me that everything stays intact, who is going to pay for this?
>> Well, don't don't blame it on a guy who's been here for eight months cuz he doesn't even know who you are. >> Previous examination. He's done a great job. He's wonderful. Okay. He's done a great job. But somebody brought him to that house to
to measure the wall to measure the wall to go out of his way after being continuously badgered by a homeowner to come out there and do that. And again, so let's go to the front of the house. >> Can you um just go back to that previous
uh slide with the tape measure in it? Not that one. That one. I can't read. Uh 36 in the top of this >> to the very top of the wall. >> 36. >> So the difference between >> Okay. But the difference between that
red line you see, what is that dimension? What does it have to do with anything? >> Nothing. >> Okay. Shouldn't be on there then. >> No. >> All right. Thank you. >> And yeah, let's go to the front of the wall, the house if you could.
So, so the reason, so when this was built, this is uniform. So, this is a straight line from here to here and the neighbor's house. So, technically, this wall isn't in compliance. But nobody called on this wall because
this neighbor is friends with these people. And if my wall has to come down, their wall has to go down. So, that's not a big deal to the neighbor that's complaining. But the neighbor that's complaining lives here. And now it's a big deal
because he found something that he could complain about to for whatever reason he doesn't like me and that's why we're here. And if like I said if the city had not been inspecting had not inspected did walls back then I
should be grandfathered in. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. Uh, go ahead, Marvin. >> Is that the neighbor's lawn or is that your lawn? >> That's a neighbor. >> This is This everything from here forward
is the city right away. His property line is up here and it runs. >> So that's his grasp. City grass >> because you also had an employee that worked for the city. I'm a real estate
agent and the city said, uh, that's not your driveway. And if you're telling people that's your driveway, she's been fired since, uh, that's not that's not my driveway. It's the city's driveway and the city's granting me permission to use their property to get onto my
property. It just depends on who you have working in the office, what kind of attitude they have. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Nimathy? Okay, we've got a card from Ryan Schmidt.
>> Uh, good afternoon board chair, vice chair. Uh, I'm an attorney for the homeowners and I was asked to come in uh to review and support uh their variance request. Uh, I I I think my clients have really covered this fairly well. I mean, overall, I think we're looking here at a
question of reasonableness. Uh we're looking at a permit that was applied for in 2018. Uh it was granted in 2018. Uh we've seen the inspection approvals. Uh we've seen that the inspection was the
permit was closed out. Uh circumstances have changed as my clients have testified to. Uh there were storms, there were pavers installed on the other side. The elevations have changed. Uh we have to take that into account. So when we're looking at the reasonableness of
this permit and this after effect variance, it's it's what's been in place for eight years. Things haven't changed. Uh so we should, you know, request that the board would approve this variance uh to allow this to stay as was initially
permitted and approved. >> Thank you. We have a card from Mr. Bill Calbert. Thank you all. Um I just I'll address a few things. I said a microphone did uh starting with you know what the city had noted.
Um that a lot of these things were done in 2022. Uh they submitted an asbuilt survey saying the wall was 2 feet high which is an absolute lie. And knowingly do something like that. I think this committee or whoever should refer that to law enforcement for potential
prosecution. Uh, a little bit on the city's thing. They said following a citizen initiated code complaint in 2023 or 25, it actually started in 2023 working with the former mayor and former city manager
to get some code enforcement people to work on this. Uh the neoththes were issued a courtesy violation in January of 2024 regarding these two complaints as well as others which are still not being
fully addressed. Uh another part of that wall was unpermitted. There's other gates or other fences he's put up that are unpermitted. Uh so he's he's focusing on this like eight years now it's turned into nine years. Next thing you know, I'll say
it's been his whole lifetime. Part of that wall has not been built that very, very long. Now, just listening to some of the comments, hurricanes, hurricanes have done nothing to the great here. Absolutely nothing. He complains about I did something to my grade. If anything,
I helped him. I brought my grade up by an inch or two trying to meet his property line because he raised his property, his seaw wall by 18 in and then kind of spread it all towards the front. So where his driveway goes here, as you can see, it flows down and
it flows into my yard and it was backing up on his yard. He drew holes in there. So it would come through the his side yard all his water which poured into my yard. Irrelevant probably to the variance. But uh just wanted to go through in my three minutes left. I said, you know, he
just does stuff. He talks about the city required a drainage swale that went in as he said probably within the last month. So he could have 36 in yet it's still over 47 or something on my side and that has not changed. If anything
it's given him an inch or two. So those are absolute lies. Uh he just does what he wants. He's a narcissist. I've experienced his behavior. I say it's my opinion he's a narcissist which is self-importance and belittling people which is what he's doing to me here.
>> We're not really talking about personalities here. we are talking about. >> It's in his very I have too much time. It's what's in his thing. And yes, it does upset me. >> Uh talking about all these things, it's
just absolutely crazy. His CEO occupancy, if you want to bring that up, says it talks about the structure. There's been numerous meetings about the height of this. He does as he pleases. Uh there is, you know, to get into the
relief one, there is no substantial competent evidence. So there's no variance that should be granted here. There is real no hardship. This guy can afford whatever he wants. He's got $1 million home he says for sale for $5
million. Um I think lowering the wall wouldn't be an issue. Uh the drainage and everything was just added, you know, a couple this last month. So the hardship's not there
saying the wall is existed 2018. Look at this. This wall is supposed to be no more than 36 in. Is that 36 in? I'll tell you 36 in is this gate. Considering it's that long really considering that a gate
decorative gate go in higher than the 30, but you can only go 10 in higher. And it's got a lamp up there even higher. He pushes for every inch he can get. Maybe a shortfall he has in other things in his life. But let me just say
just a couple things in closing. He has his 24 January 24 courtesy notice that they've done absolutely nothing on until these last few months because they're trying to sell his sell the home. Karma has bit
him in the butt because his wife has left them and divorced him. So they got to sell the home. This is why it's important. Now, he didn't care in 24 when he got the letter. Here we are in 26. He's still done nothing except trying to get by. Uh since then, in
2013, he's had other unpermitted roof structures. Let me say unpermitted roof structure. This whole thing, you want to talk about a potential safety engineering thing. As far as I'm concerned as a neighbor, how do I know that was structurally sound? >> And once again, we're not talking about
that. We're only talking about this. trying to say because he acts like there's nothing there. He's got a bunch of unpermitted unpermitted violations against them. He's fixing. He didn't care about this in 24 when this came out. Here we are in
26. I started this in 22 23. The city worked with him in 22. That's where I got that one. And he's trying to say, "Oh, it's all, you know, it's the neighbor's fault." It's not my fault. My grade, he put that in. He always goes for every inch you want to
give him and he'll just isolate this into something small. But it isn't in conformity. I can't do what he did. My neighbors can't do what they did. And one of the most important things you talk about public relief or what the importance of this is is that people should follow the codes. He knew what it
was. He throws an extra row of blocks up there because he wants it to be higher. The joke in the neighborhood that's the Treasure Island prison. But anyway, I'm just saying deny the variance. The city has recommended it. I'm the neighbor affected by it. He takes advantage of
whatever he wants. And the reason I say that because of all these other unpermitted structures. >> Okay, your time is up. >> Okay. >> And we appreciate your comments. Uh >> one thing I have a question for listens to the city and I thank you for your
time listening to me. >> Thank you, Braden. the uh the gate and that segment of wall on the left side of the picture and the segment of wall. I mean, this is a unique lot because it's right in the 90° bend. That is actually the city rightway line. The fence and
the gate is right on the city rightway line. >> The city rightway line is synonymous with the property line. Correct. >> Anyway, that segment over to the left side of the picture. Yes, it does flow to the uh uh to the south, I guess that
would be. But the water is actually running from a city right away into a city right away. It is not flowing onto Mr. Coward's land. It's going out to the ultimately it's
going out to the street. Um with that question, any other questions from the board? Can we see the site again? >> This one. >> I can also
>> Yeah, this one. the one previous that one. I mean, the gate that's a unique lot, needless to say, due to the 90 degree bin right in front of it.
Anyway, um we've had four speakers. Anybody else need to make any other additional comments on the uh side of the applicant? since three of the four cards were the applicant. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Um,
I'll start out with this one. This one just reminds me totally of uh of the lawsuit I was in about 10 months, 10 years ago where things change after construction and after CO. I mean, if that swale was added and the sod was
placed up against the wall, um, no water is flowing from Mr. Neothy's lot onto Mr. Calbert's lot because it can't because of the wall. That one picture with the tape measure to the top of the wall showing 36 in of wall, that was
interesting to me. But the real >> the other on the one side, correct? You're talking about the on the one side is it >> on the one on the portion out front where where it measured from the top of the side to the top of the wall. The other picture that I found interesting
was the fact that you just had to cut a foot back. You know, my comment is this city got hit by two hurricanes 21 months ago and we're sitting here talking about 12 in of wall and uh I
just don't get it. But based on that, let me have the board's comments. >> Go ahead. I have something to say, but I'll I'll wait for if there's any others. >> I don't know if I want to touch this one. >> If it was 12 in on the backside though,
Richard, it wouldn't be an issue. The 12 in doesn't bother me. >> I also >> 12 in in height or the 12 in >> the encroachment of 12 in or the >> correct backwards. Yeah, that doesn't bother me. >> The 12-in encroachment out towards the street.
>> Yeah, that that doesn't bother me. 46 in on the other side, >> the height on Mr. Calvert's property. >> The the height I mean, technically it is just because of I mean, all what we've been going through with fences and drainage and I mean, is there a drainage plan for this the way that it sits
today? Because if I look at this and I think, okay, all right, well, the seaw wall in the back. Okay, we all know that these lots they go drain from middle back and then middle to front. Okay, so middle to the front if in this technically property the wall actually does help if the water does go drain towards the front and then kicks it out
to the city easement. So is there a drainage plan? >> Well, if you look on page >> because I have the one >> on 40, >> you know, it does give drainage errors on page 41.
>> Yeah, but that just goes it doesn't show in that in that pocket. >> Not real not real helpful. There of course would have been a drainage plan structure when it was built and originally permitted. >> Um that drainage plan would not be updated to the current site conditions.
As the applicant stated, they added sod along the southern side of that interior fence. Things like that would affect impact drainage and there's would not be an updated drainage plan for that. >> This boils down to me into a statute of limitations. >> Has been a long time eight years. You
know, >> at one time we were talking about a helicopter pad on top of this thing. >> Yes, we were. And it was that didn't go anywhere. >> I know. >> Provided the man, Mr. Neothy, I've heard of his history in a while. This is not
his first code violation. But, uh, I don't know. I think we're splitting quite frankly, I think we're splitting hairs here. It may it may you know it may be splitting hairs but it the other side of the coin here is that there was no requirement for this to be
inspected. It was the responsibility of the owner to have his contractor put this up at an a height that was actually specified. The city did not have an obligation at the time to make an inspection to that
height, which makes it so that it could be it could this could have been a porch that was pushed out 2 feet into the into a yard that was out of compliance and would have to be changed. So this gate goes across the entire front as well. So
now you have in effect non-compliance not just on the side but also on the front um with the decorative gate actually in at least on a portion of it being um above that 36 in. Uh
I actually don't see any reason to to accept a variance on this even though it's been that much time. It's the responsibility of the contractor to get it right and there's no statute of limitation. Well, the problem I have is uh city required a swell on the left
side of the property. Yeah, if you cut down the ground, the wall height, the height of the wall is higher, but the wall doesn't get raised. You know, that's uh they got a CEO many years ago and uh you know, we're just going to
agree to disagree on this one, Chris. I mean, you know, it's just uh things happen after construction and uh provided if there was not a definitive swale directing the water out to the street in the front, back to the back
and the back, that would be uh something that would be needed. But you can't say that Mr. Calbert is being damaged by water flowing onto his property. There's that's that would be egregious to me. I mean, there's no doubt about it in my mind.
Miss >> anyway, I don't want you talking uh from your seat. Miss, >> the public hearing is closed. >> Miss Nancy, if someone were to make a motion in regards to approving this um in regards to describing the heart, do we have to describe in the motion the
description of the hardship? >> You have to basically uh follow the criteria that um is in your um your code. um >> even though >> it is a substantially that you substantially comply with the criteria.
So there is a little bit of discretion. >> Okay. So we can read them you could one could read the motion as it's in our packet if it >> and so what I and that's where the difficulty is is because there's actually not
allowance for that. Well, I think that that goes down to any variance because of what staff's comments could be. I mean, we've approved hardships before when the staff I'm just trying to get a lay of the land here. >> And I think this, you know, this this
plays out to what we're going to see with a lot of homes where you're going to see elevation changes on their driveways. This ele this this driveway itself was elevated. It is good that it was brought all the way down to the where you know the to the city property
so that in fact as Richard said it's not going to affect adversely affect the neighbor from a water flow point of view. So uh that part I can I can agree with. >> Well the one thing I think cutting the taller wall back by 12 in is just
nitpicking to tell you the truth. I mean we're talking that much. Is it worth doing? Not after it's been there for eight years. The other segment out in front, I don't know. Really think that's kind of splitting hairs. This is what uh
I used to say, you know, no harm, no foul in my opinion. Uh the situation is is uh heck, I kind of like a a little bit taller wall because I don't that way I don't have to see what's going on next door. But situation
is the rules are the rules. It's just that I have a problem with my major problem with this one is statute of limitations. Do >> you have any years ago? >> Unfortunately, there's no statute of limitations. So you have you have difficulty there. I'm not saying moral
Chris. >> I'm not saying I'm just I'm just saying that we shouldn't you can't base it on a statute of limitation. >> I mean I tend to agree with what Richard's saying. Although legally I'm not sure we can we do that. >> No. the stat a statute of limitation or the
fact that um something has been in existence. It may not have been lawfully in existence. So you have conforming and you have non-conforming >> um uses u legal and and illegal non-conforming uses. Um but I do want to
direct you back to your criteria. Um there are some criteria that do provide for some discretion. Um but others are are kind of straightforward. Um the statute of limitations, how long um the
need for a variance has been in effect, that is not really one of the criteria. However, there may be another criteria that would somewhat encompass that. If if this were to get approved and a car runs into the wall and knocks it
down and they got to rebuild it, they don't do they have to could they rebuild it to this same type of position or do they have to build it according to the code? >> I think they'd have to build it according to the code. >> Okay. One thing uh Ross you know what
you're saying is I mean there are two variants here that you know if we give an if we give a variance for a stair a stairwell and a car runs into the stairwell uh I think the variance itself goes with the property to for that particular variance I don't think you
can say well now it's you're going to have to meet the code we in I don't think in any case that would be that would be true it would if we provide the variance at this point and I'm not saying we shouldn't we should or should not. But if the variance is provided, it's provided in perpetuity for that
property. >> Can you make it specific to this situation? I mean, let's face it, there's two variances here. The one for the taller portion of the wall, I really don't think we should care too much about. I mean, it's 12 in. Um, the
major egregious part of it all is the front part. And it's a matter of where you measure the height of the wall from. I mean, obviously that one picture, he was shown a 36 high wall from the top of the swale. Um,
yeah, that doesn't even it's the measurement on the other side of the wall. And, uh, I don't know. I just really have a hard time spending time on something like this when there's so many other things involved in this city right now. But anyway, regardless of that, we can argue
about this thing all day long. Nancy, our packet only has variance one of one. So, in regards to the motion, would it include both? >> There's not a >> motion should include both. Um, I think that, however, the analysis, um, Braden, correct me if I'm wrong. I think it the
is intended to apply to to both. Um, did you have anything you wanted to differentiate? >> I didn't. If I I think the motion should just >> Yeah, I had been separating them on the development orders recently and I didn't do that for this one. So, we can
separate them if you'd prefer to make a motion that way. >> I don't prefer to separate them. I would put them together. >> Okay. >> Ross, if I could request you to make a motion. I'll put it on you since you're vice chair.
>> All right. Unless anyone else want to make it. Awesome. Cool. I'll remember that in two months there, team. Um, all right. In regards to case number, V- 000639-2026,
location 12650 7th Street East, parcel ID 1431-15-132-017-0190. Uh, as a planning and zoning board member, I'm going to make the motion that determining that a variance application the variance application requesting approval of two variance
requests to section 68-458 to increase maximum height of a wall within the street side streetard setback does substantially satisfy the criteria set forth in section 70-221 of the treasure code of ordinances and a
hardship exists as set forth in a quasi judicial hearing. record including application staff report and other record evidence and testimony presented and discussed in the hearing and I approve the variance as requested. >> Thank you.
>> Second. >> Thank you, Ross. Uh motion by Ross Sanchez. Second. >> Um you made the motion as requested rather than with conditions. I just want to point out that that doesn't specifically include the condition that this variance won't apply to property
owners. I will modify approve the variance as follows with conditions and the conditions of approval number one listed in our packet. That note that was presented threw me on. >> Okay. Could I get the second again?
>> Second. >> All right. We've got a motion by Ross Sanchez, a second by Daniel Billingsley. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Balier Cree. >> No. >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Yes. Chris Downing, >> no. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes.
>> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Okay, we'll move on to the next one here. Um 10B, variance- 000640-2026, approval of a variance request to a
minimum street side setback construction of a new single family residence. If the applicant is in the uh audience, would you please come and uh make your case? >> Is there anyone here? >> Yes.
which materials you want to open first. >> Name and address, please. >> Uh my name is Zira. I'm an owner of the lot we're going to be talking about and I'm also a general contractor uh construction. Um a year ago approximately, we were uh
found a lot on Sunset Beach which were severely flooded that area Treasure Island. Um there was an existing house uh on that lot. Um, so because I'm a builder, I decided
to do my uh uh due diligence and I contacted the zoning building department and I received um I received a a letter about setbacks. Um the city at the zoning said that uh
there are setbacks on the side 5t and from the street side is 10 ft. Um a uh following this letter we have decided to purchase the the lot and um develop a
structure on it. So we um demolished the house, spend the money on it and also inquired um uh significant consultation and permitting and uh plan designs fees.
On a second phase of per meeting, the notes came back from the zoning, not on the first one, but on a second side phase of the review, the notes came back that now basically from a street side, you have to step
step 20 ft instead of 10. So that's why I'm here today. I am requesting the uh setback as was originally um determined by the uh building department
of 10 uh 10 ft and um request it to comply with the neighboring properties nearby which also 10 ft uh 10 ft from the side street and uh our
lot is a corner lot which is makes it a huge hardship for us and I would like to present this photographs about the neighboring houses. >> Thank you. And then this is how you go Marvin. Can you pull up that email um picture
that you had prior? >> Thank you. >> Who's answering those emails? It doesn't have a signature. or just a zoning CDD. >> Yeah. So, this comes from our general zoning email which is kind of um approached by anybody who's has access
to that during this time. This was uh during after the storms. So, it's likely that it was one of our contractors that was working in our you know with our zoning department. Um >> Okay. >> So, unfortunately these aren't moderated
to the level like an official zoning letter would would. >> Yeah. Those three houses have been demolished. They're no longer there. >> Okay. Any do you have any other comments or does anybody have any questions for the applicant?
>> Basically, in a nutshell, we understand what you want to do. >> Uh it's just building a little bit closer to Beayshore Boulevard than is current uh the current 20 foot set back. So, thank you for your time. Please have a seat. We'll have the uh city staff
give a uh presentation. Go ahead, Brad. >> All right. For the record, Braden Evans presenting application VR-0000640-2026, a variance at 2780th Avenue. The applicant is seeking approval of a
variance to section 68541 to reduce the minimum street side setback for the construction of a new single family residence. The subject property is located in an RU75. I apologize. It's actually an RM15 zoning district. That's incorrect. Uh and has a
site area of approximately 06 acres. The subject variance is applicable to the streetside setback along Beayshore Drive. Uh 20 feet is required, 11 feet is proposed, which is a 9 foot encroachment or a 45% magnitude.
An approximately 700 foot structure was demolished at the subject property in 2025 following damages sustained by during the 2024 hurricane season. And parcels located along two street frontages have respective streetside setbacks which are intended intended to
reflect the individual character of both streets respectively. So, for the subject property, which is um outlined in yellow here, there's an there's a 10-ft streetside setback along
80th Avenue and then a 20ft streetside setback along Beayshore Drive. The rear and side of the property have a 5-ft setback. There was prior communication to the applicant. An inquiry to the department's general zoning email
provided an incomplete description of the applicable setbacks only providing the setback applicable to um the 80th Avenue street side. Uh so communications provided by this email are not traditionally the formal mechanism for obtaining verification of development
standards whereas we would always recommend a formal zoning letter uh to get this higher level of detailed verification. uh we do our best to moderate that email when we can. This is the proposed site plan um that the applicant has uh provided with their
application showing the 11 foot setback from Beayshore Drive. Um I'll point out because I know how observant you are. Uh there's a a staircase for the electrical meter that's on the interior side. The applicant has removed that after
comments. uh this was just a much cleaner resolution of an image. So I included this for that sake, but the the meter has been addressed and is not an issue. So just don't look at that. Moving into the variance criteria analysis, uh the variance is in fact
within the province of the zoning the planning and zoning board. Um no special conditions or circumstances exist at the subject property. Uh the subject property is generally consistent with the configuration and the dimensions of the surrounding properties on the
surrounding streets. Strict application of this land development regulation would not prevent reasonable use of the subject property. A buildable area is large enough to justify the development of a single family residence residence which is similar to the scale of surrounding properties in the area.
uh the circumstances are not the result of the applicant but was purchased by the applicant in its existing configuration. Reasonable use is able to be achieved without um approval of this variance and there's no identif identified hardship
um identified and the neighborhood consists of existing developments characterized by compliance with similar setbacks. Granting of this variance would not be harmonious with the intent of the chapter and would allow existing nonconformities nonconformities to
persist um along newly approved developments. However, if approved um the existing setback encroachments um there's no evidence that the proposed variance would result in extreme adverse impacts to the adjacent parals. Uh so based on a lack of identifiable
hardship or special circumstances to the subject property staff is recommending denial of the requested variance, we've received four letters of opposition regarding this case and those have been provided to you um and will be included in the record.
>> Thank you, Braden. Uh quick question. Can you go back to that aerial photograph? kind of interesting that the house just to the north uh meets the setback, but obviously that's a bigger chunk of land as well. I
mean, that house just to the west. >> Yeah, it's about 35 ft deeper. >> Yeah, it's just he probably bought You're right. He bought a third lot in there. The platting of Sunset Beach is interesting to say the least, but that's
three lots versus two. >> So, Braden, the the 20 foot setback on Beayshore has been in place many years. It's this is nothing new, correct? Nothing's changed recently. >> No, no, sir.
>> Okay, we have one card from Sher Wiggins. Hello. Thank you, Sher Wiggins. I'm at 318th Avenue. So, I'm just kitty corner. This That's my house right there. So, we're
right across. And I um am opposed to this variance. And the reason that I'm opposed to this variance is outlined uh by one of the statutes that he mentioned that um
future developers would now look at this and be encouraged to um to also build to the standard. Um, in my neighborhood right here, within three streets,
there are 12 properties that are currently owned by developers or they are owned by someone who is illegally renting using Airbnb and other other places. Um,
this is very very very very difficult because it absolutely changes the character of our neighborhood because the people who live there as residents are very close. We care about each other and now we're being subjected to um
short-term rentals and the short-term rentals are uh tearing at the fabric of our neighborhood. So my concern is that those other developers that are also watching as soon as they see this now,
they're going to jump on it and we're going to be inundated with larger houses just for the re purpose of renting them out. Um I was speaking with one of the realtors recently in in our area and the
realtor said, "You know, it's really interesting in Sunset Beach. I have not sold a property to one person who's going to live there. I've sold all of the properties to investors recently. So, uh, that being said, my concern is
for the future and that I think it's really important that we, um, we stop now and stay in character with our neighborhood and support residents who actually live on their properties. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you for your comments. >> Please let your commissioner know about the time share issues and VRBOS's. Thank you. >> We do have uh four letters all in opposition. I just want to get their names on the record. So, I'm going to read them real quick because they're all
pretty short. Uh please pass along to the planning and zoning board to deny variance request at 2780th Avenue. There is no need to allow a variance on the property that's large enough to build an adequate house built to the size required by the ordinance. Deny the variance. Thank you. Merl Decker, 1280th
Terrace. Uh second one, I will not be able to be present at the hearing. Been opposed to granting a setback variance. I've lived on 80th for 17 years. The request states the variance is requested to permit the construction of a single family
residence as de demonstrated by the previous build which adequately housed several happy families over the past 40 years with regulation setbacks. The variance is not necessary. Please note the larger than average lot size for the
neighborhood. Also, please note that extending a huge house, more than half the regulation setback toward Beayshore will thoroughly block drivers field of view for oncoming traffic. All neighbors we have spoken to are opposed to this
variance and we ask you to deny it. If granted, it will detract from the neighborhood. Gratefully, Patrick Cleawitch, 338th Avenue. Uh, next one. This is Greg Magna from
7953 Behore Drive. I am unable to attend the meeting, but I am against approving the variance request for 27 80th Avenue. It's a very small lot and I think the code should be adhered to. Thank you, Greg Magna, 7953 Bayhore Avenue. And
last but not least, hello to you. I hope all is well. My name is Carly Cleawitch and I live at 3380th Treasure Island, Florida 33706. I cannot make it to the meeting tomorrow but discuss this variance for 2780th
Avenue, but I wanted to say as a neighbor to this property. I oppose this variance request. It is not necessary. There is no hardship. The lot is larger than most lots in the neighborhood. It is a significant variance and they're requesting it and also cuts off the
visibility when turning left on 80th to Beayshore. Could you please forward this point of view to the zoning board for their consideration? Thank you, Carly. Okay, so that's those four letters. Um, is there anyone else in the audience to
speak? >> Well, since you didn't use up all your time, go ahead. >> Thank you. I just have this letter from Marsha. uh Marsha uh Desmond and I thought that it had been submitted to the planning board through Tia, but I
brought it just in case. May I >> if you would give it to the city clerk. >> We have a blessing with Madame Tia. So, anytime someone sends something in, she forwards it to us. >> Anyway, uh I assume that letter is in opposition as well. >> You are correct. >> Okay. All right.
>> I did have a question. Braden, did the architect from Architectonics like reach out at all and ask about setbacks? Because pretty I mean they're a local it looks like they're in St. Pete. I mean any architect that's going to do a new house build usually confirms
all the setbacks. That's pretty much like >> 101. Don't know if they have or have not. I haven't spoken to them, but I do know if we looked back in our emails, we might be able to find it. But we do email with them a lot, so we'd have to sift. >> I got a question. >> They they should know. >> Yeah. Okay, it
>> this is two lots combined. So if it was only still one lot, would it have still have the 20 foot setback off a bay shore? Because it's only that's like halfway into the property. It >> the setback would still apply. >> So the property would be useless if it was one lot almost. >> There's a lot of lots on Sunset Beach
that are 35 by 40 postage stand >> with a 20 foot setback. >> They're still building. I think they're 10 foot setbacks. They're interior. Um but you can't combine lots. I mean, you can't split them. So these lots can't be split if I understand right. >> That's correct. They can't increase the
existing nonconformity. >> Okay. Um anyone else in the audience to speak on this case? Does the applicant have any further comments? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. You know, this is a prime example of this board has been very generous to people
when they're raising their houses and to get above the 100redyear flood elevation. um unfortunately a situation where if you tear it down, you're going to have to meet the uh current code. And I have maintained my time on this board the
same comment. Design your house to meet to fit the lot. Don't try to modify the lot to fit the house. And uh you know, this is prime example of trying to make the lot fit a bigger house. I mean, the only uh reason for doing this is I want
a little bit bigger house. And sorry that doesn't fly. So with that, uh, could somebody on the board make a, uh, motion to deny? >> I'll make a motion. >> Thank you, Marvin. >> Regarding case number V-00640-2026.
The planning and zoning board has determined the variance to section 68-541 to grant a 9- foot variance to the street side setback along Beayshore Drive for the construction of a new single family residence does not substantially satisfy the criteria set
forth in section 70-221 of the Treasure Island Code of Ordinances and a hardship >> does not ex Yeah. does not exist as set forth in the quasa judicial hearing record, including the application staff report
and the other record evidence and testimony presented and discussed at the hearing and denies the variance for the following reasons. There's no hardship. >> Thank you, Marvin. I have a second. >> Okay. Motion by Marvin Chevlin, second
by Chris Downing. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Mr. Chair, before that transpires, could I just ask for clarification? Um so the basis or the reason for the denial is failure to satisfy the criteria as
identified by um your planning staff because there were many >> out of my mouth. >> Okay. Thank >> it. Basically hardship doesn't exist. Okay. Are we ready for a roll call? >> Yes. >> Go ahead to you. >> Valerie. >> Yes.
>> Daniel Billingsley >> tonight. Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Gotta build. Got to build them in the set box. >> That's the tough part cuz I I must admit
this board is more than generous on people raising houses. And uh what can I say, Grant? You're a recipient. And uh hey, let's put this way. You raised a house that was built in the 40s. Okay, moving on to the next case. uh approval of 11 variances to the following section
of the land development regulations. Uh just want to explain this a little bit further. This we all know the old Lions Club did not farewell with the storms. That's what this one is. Could we uh have the applicant uh approach the
podium and give his presentation? >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Uh board members, Brian, 625 Court Street, McFarland, Ferguson, and McMullen. on behalf of the Lion St. Pete Lions Club. Also joining me is our civil engineer Brian Barker. We also have our general
contractor um Brad Bandon. We have the president of the club Wade Tribani. We have the treasurer Danny Bo uh >> Danny Boschain. And we have our vice president Jay Collins. Um and I also have a PowerPoint just waiting for Braden to pull that up. Thank you,
Braden. Um, I do want to start out by pointing out, thank you very much, Braden, want to start out by pointing out that, as you know, this club has been in existence for 101 years. It is a social service organization, which makes it unique because it's a not for-p
profofit. So, as you all know well, variances cannot be based on a financial hardship. There is no such thing as a financial hardship or economic hardship when it relates to variances. But this organization is not allowed to take financial considerations into consideration as it
relates to anything that it does because all of its funds and all of its property are held in the public trust. This property is held for the benefit of the public. It is not held for the benefit of Mr. Tribani or any of the other board members or members. If this
organization were to go away, which of course none of it wants, no, no one wants it to go away. But if it were to go away, all of its funds and all of its property would have to be donated to another charity. So I want to start that out because it is unique. It is peculiar.
It is not common in terms of beachfront, waterfront property ownership. This club does not take financial considerations into consideration other than what is for the best interest of the community and what serves our mission. This is a mission that has been here in Treasure
Island for 101 years. It has been operating on this property in part since 1938. Uh portion of the property was deed in 1938. The rest of the property was deed in 1944. So going back 88 and 82 years, the St. Pete Lions Club has
owned this waterfront property. Their mission is to serve the community and they do so at this location by serving any number of organizations. They have a a a very heavy focus on vision impaired and hearing impaired and also diabetes.
Uh and they also work very closely with all of these organizations that you see here including all children's hospital light and penelis county uh veterans um homeless empowerment program uh and the the list goes on and on but this is an
organization that has thrived here in this community and is very unique in that it's one of the only not forprofits in the community that owns property and it is the only not forprofit in the community that owns prime waterfront property. So, this isn't a developer trying to maximize the use of their
property. This is simply uh a community organization who's been here, who's given back for over a century, trying to get back on their feet at this very unique location. Uh, as you can see, this location was substantially damaged by the hurricanes, but it was also put
to use in the recovery. this parking lot that we're going to discuss what what I'll refer to as the parking parcel. And I'll show you an aerial here in a minute, but I think this lays the context and the foundation for why the variance is supportable through competence financial evidence. So, I appreciate you giving me the time to do that.
After the hardship of the hurricane, this property was put into use for the recovery. It was used to stage uh construction equipment, recovery equipment. It was used to uh to help provide food uh and shelter uh and
nutrition to folks who were working uh in the recovery. And Caddis has actually worked very closely with the Lions Club for a long time and has been a great partner uh in doing that and certainly partnered to help uh with the recovery. Uh and like I said, as part of that,
unfortunately, uh part of the property was damaged, the parking parcel based on that equipment, but the Lions Club, they repaired the property at their own expense. They didn't expect anybody to to to cover that. So, we're talking about two parcels here. The primary parcels, the waterfront beachfront
parcel. There's two variances that are being requested for that parcel. That building was substantially damaged and is being rebuilt. I'll get into those in a second. The vast majority of the variances, the 11 variances, nine of them relate to the parking parcel. The
parking parcel was purchased in 1971. It is continuously operated uh in compatibility uh compatible with compatibility with the neighborhood and with the community for 55 years as a surface parking lot. Uh it has never had
any issues um as it relates to ingress or egress. And I think when you get into the when we get into the very specific nature of the variances, you'll see these requirements for parking lots are talking about large commercial parking lots such as a Publix. That's not what
this is. Uh it's a very again very unique, peculiar, unusual circumstance in that you have this not forprofit who's been here for over a century um who's utilizing property that that really if they had a if they were working off financial considerations, they would have sold this property a
long time ago and they would have moved to a smaller location. Um but that's not the goal. The goal is to continue to serve the community in this location as they have uh at at least since 1938 and 1944 when it acquired uh complete control of those primary parcels. So,
we'll go through the variances. I'm I'm going to focus on each parcel individually to try to make it u a little more straightforward. So, there are two variances. This is number five and six in your packet or on the list that relate to what I'm calling the primary parcel or the beachfront parcel.
The first one is pretty simple and straightforward. It's a one loading birth is required uh for this primary parcel. And our response to that is that off- streetet loading can be accomplished both in the drive aisle under the structure of the primary
parcel. So, it's been designed to take delivery uh on the primary parcel and also in the middle of the parking parcel if necessary during the daytime. So, this isn't um you know uh uh Ruth Eard Hall. I mean, this isn't uh some place
where you have events going on all day and all night. This is a not for-p profofit. We host not for-p profofit events. We host lunchons. We host things that are maybe catered by Publix or, you know, Jimmy John's or things of that nature. When there are events, uh, such
as weddings, um, they're not incredibly often, but when they do occur, those deliveries are all done during the day, and they don't interfere with ingress or egress on the property. They don't interfere with the parking parcel. The parcels that that are used for parking are available when there's parking
needed and they're available for deliveries when deliveries are needed. This this property operated for since the 30s and 40s without a loading birth and we're simply asking for it to continue to be allowed to operate uh as it has because it's been compatible. It's never been an issue and again it
the unique nature of the use uh doesn't necessitate a primary loading birth uh for this parcel. the next variance on on this uh primary parcel was came kind of late in the game. Um and I did want to reference an email uh in that regard,
but the apparently um legal council for the city determined that we technically need a variance to total open space between side lot lines shall not be less than 30% of the width of the lot. The lot's 100 ft wide. We've provided a 20 foot setback
uh to the building on the south and a 10-ft setback to the building on the north. And we've provided that in all of the plans we've submitted to the city dating back to last summer when we were working with Jesse Miller and Katherine Yncan. And it was never raised as an issue, but we do have a stairwell
uh and we have uh an elevated deck in the north side of the property. So the south side we're fine. there's nothing encroaching, but I'll I'll get into that in a minute. But we were just informed uh LA Tuesday, a week ago, that that was going to be a variance. So, we that had
never come up in our staff review. It was we were kind of under the impression that stairwells on an elevated deck were fine. That that didn't So, we feel like that was more of a technicality, but Madam Clerk, I'm going to hand out this email exchange to you. It's just one page. So, one page for each uh board
member, so you all can see that memorialized. and the city staff has been excellent to work with. So, I did want to put that on the record. Braden is fantastic. He's incredibly responsive, explains everything. When there's a change of interpretation, he explains why there was a change of interpretation. We certainly understand
uh turnover that has taken over all of Penllis County municipalities. So, um certainly appreciate our collaboration with the staff and uh understand that sometimes you have respectful agreements to disagree and uh this is simply one of those cases. So again, this is
illustrating the technical variance request regarding the 30% clearance of the lot width. So we have a 10-ft north side setback. This is where you'll see the stairwell here and then into that elevated deck and
then the 20 foot side setback to the south. That's compliant. So there's nothing encroaching there. Um so I did want to uh clarify that. But again, we believe that we meet the intent of the code and apparently this is a new interpretation that just came up about a
week ago. Um, but it had never been an issue. So again, we believe that we're providing competential evidence that you can interpret the code to say that we've substantially complied with this uh as had been previously kind of referenced implicitly as it not being raised as an
issue or something that we needed um as a variance. This is the proposed elevation of the new primary structure. Uh if you want some more details on that, Mr. Barker can provide those. Uh so now we'll turn to the parking parcel. The parking parcel again has been operating
uh in its current form and function since 1971 with no issues or problems. Again, it was utilized by the city for staging for recovery. Um and certainly was uh was well utilized and and very uh
beneficial to have in that moment. Um the issue here is that putting in the landscaping putting in the code required drive aisles landscaping and the surfacing reduces the number of available parking spots. So we are
proposing to improve it just not up to every facet of what the code requires because it will reduce the number of parking spots. The whole purpose of this parking lot has been and is to provide parking for the use of the building when it's being utilized. So we don't have on
street parking in the neighborhood. So this is actually beneficial to the neighborhood to allow the site to continue to be used as it has been used for years. So what are these specific variances? I'll go through each one individually. These are the nine variances that are left that relate to
the parking lot. Number one relates to required uh lighting. So again, you you're thinking about a big commercial parking lot for when you're talking about lighting requirements. In my view, additional lighting could potentially put light
pollution into the neighborhood and they might not like that. But what we have is we have ample lighting that exists. So what you're seeing in the green are the existing street lights. So there's already a street light on the property. Caddy's has street lights across the
street and then there's two uh to the to the west that light up our property and then there's two street lights uh to the east that also provide ample part uh lighting uh for the lot. And again, this lot is not utilized generally at night
or or you know even every day. Um it's only utilizes on an ad needed as needed basis. Um, so again, we believe that we've met the intent of the code with the existing lighting that is on site, and we think any lighting that would bring it up to code would actually be
incompatible and maybe more commercialized for the neighborhood than necessary. Why would we need lighting there every night when we're not going to be using it every night? Uh the next uh variance related to the parking parcel relates to dustfree
paving material such as asphalt that mean concrete turf block or other similar materials. This is where I'm saying we are meeting what we believe is the intent of that provision of the code with what we're proposing. So what we've proposed is a layer of granite rock over
the parking area uh which will introduce a coarse material which percolates so it does drain improving the surface. So, we do think we're meeting the intent of that section of the code, but without having to reduce the total number of parking spaces. Uh, the next variance
says with the exception of single family and two family uh dwellings, parking lots shall have each parking space and aisle marked. We will provide wheel stops. So, we're going to have a wheel stop for each space. Each base will be individually recognized with a wheel stop. But to have them each marked uh
would again require uh that asphalt and um that lining and would probably reduce the number of spaces. Uh off streetet parking shall be more than 600 ft from the distance of the site serving the principal use. This is one where we are in total agreement with the city staff that it should be granted and we have we
do agree on the compass financial evidence. Um, and I I'm not really sure why the code requires remote parking to be over 600 ft away. Um, it it's kind of defeats the point of have pedestrian. I think they want to avoid pedestrian traffic on the roads and they want you
to provide a transportation plan. So, if you read that section of the code, what they're envisioning is that you would have a a trolley or some kind of service that would take people back and forth. Uh, in this case, it's unnecessary. It's caddyy corner and one of the conditions of approval is a crosswalk. So um that's
that's in the staff report. Uh almost done here. Next variance is landscape strip of 3 ft along a budding rideway with one tree. We are amendable to additional landscaping and trees uh as determined by the board. Uh we're simply
asking for some level of flexibility on on that and that's going to be our response to the rest of these. Screening from abudding properties is required using a wall hedge no less than 3 and 1/2 ft in height. Again, we are willing to provide additional landscaping and trees where where we can uh where Mr.
Barker can identify, but we're simply looking for some flexibility to that requirement. Uh again, 50 ft of linear feet of landscape area. Uh applicants willing to provide landscaping and trees wherever possible to mitigate the impacts for the parking use.
And the interior landscaping shall be at least 10% of the total vehicular area. Again, this would reduce the number of parking spaces available, but and the purpose of the variance request is to maintain the number of parking spaces. We are willing to incorporate additional landscaping wherever possible that does
not reduce the total number of parking spaces. And again, this has been operating as is, where is since 1971 with no issues at all as it relates to um compatibility with the neighborhood. Uh finally, this is the final one.
terminal islands at rows of 10 or more parking spaces. Uh this would reduce the total number of of spaces on site and so we're looking for a variance to allow for the existing site. This shows the number of spaces. U this is the site
plan for the parking layout. Again, if you want additional detail on this, have questions, Mr. Barker is here and can provide that additional testimony. Um and finally in conclusion um our club has been a fixture in the
community and has been a community asset for many many years as we've discussed at length. The hardship is the hurricanes which substantially damaged the club uh substantially damaged you know the entire community as you know uh requiring us to come back and we've been
in the process for over a year of working very closely with city staff um on this and we feel like we've gotten very very close to an agreement. We're looking for just a little bit of flexibility from the board to say we've substantially complied with the variance requirements uh so that we can add some
additional landscaping uh use that alternative material to cover the parking lot and then recognize that we meet the intent of the code as it relates to the loading birth and also the setbacks which again very very minor encroachment for stairwells and and that's basically it. Uh the club's here
to answer questions. Mr. Barker's here to answer questions. cuz I know it's been a long meeting. Um, but I appreciate your your attention to this and um, we're very much hoping that we can find support to keep the club where it is uh, and serving the community in this way. >> Just a quick question on the >> traffic pattern
that access to this for parking will be the same as it was prior to the storm. U, it looks like it's coming off of 92nd Avenue if I read if I looked at the photograph right. >> That's correct. That's where the driveway is. >> It's just going to be in and out on 92nd. There's no change to that. So,
>> the intent is to leave it in the same >> kind of keep it as is, but add the stops and >> correct >> add the and the granite that you're proposing to put down that is a a more dustfree >> so >> type material to go down but still permeable.
>> So, one one item without getting in the weeds and the technical issues is if we were to have to pave this lot, we would have, you know, causes more runoff into the streets. There's state storm water rules where we' we would have to provide more treatment. We would have to slow
that water down before he leaves. We're talking large underground vaults underneath this parking lot in order to keep any number of parking spaces. >> Right. I was just wondering if So, granite is less dusty than shells or dirt. >> Granite was actually a recommendation of
of the city's public works department to utilize because we still meet the city's storm water requirements by putting that down. So, we're holding water to treat before it runs off. >> That's great. Thanks, >> Brian. You are going to have an exit on 291st, too, right?
>> Uh, that's correct. You >> Yeah, there's one existing there now. Now, I'll get into that in a minute. But, thank you for your presentation. Any other questions? >> Do you think on the St. Pete Lions Club, we can get a little Treasure Island pirate ship underneath the skyway?
>> I hope so. That would be cool. Anyway, uh seeing no further questions or comments, go ahead, uh Braden with your presentation. Okay, for the record, Braden Evans, uh, presenting variance Z VR-0000641-2026
at 9300 West Gulf Boulevard. The applicant is seeking approval of 11 variances of and a concurrent site plan review which will follow the variance. Subject property consists of two parcels, vacant lots uh proposed for
commercial waterfront development and a remote parking lot located in the commercial general zoning district. Uh the proposed use is an event space for the St. Petersburg Lions Club um and consists of a total area of approximately 0.97 acres.
So to quickly overview the variances being requested uh which have been presented by the applicant as well. Um section 68466 all parking areas shall be required to provide lighting during nighttime hours of operation. Parking areas shall be surfaced by dustfree paving materials
such as asphalt, concrete, turf block or other similar materials. Parking lots shall have each parking space and aisle marked. Remote parking shall be more than 600 feet from the distance from the site serving principal use. One loading
birth is required. The total open space between side lot lines shall not be less than 30% of the total lot width. The proposed lot width of 100 ft um requires a 30 foot open space requirement. 20 feet is being
proposed resulting in a 10-ft variance being sought by the applicant. Additional variance for the landscape strip of 3 ft along all abuing right of way with one tree every 35 ft and a hedge wall of minimum 2 ft. Screening
from abuing properties is required using a wall or hedge no less than 3 and 1/2 ft in height. One tree is required for every 50 linear feet of landscape buffer. Interior landscaping shall be at least 10% of the total vehicular use area. Terminal islands,
interior islands and additional interior landscaping requirements for internal use areas. Moving on to the existing conditions, the waterfront parcel has is currently configured with 150 ft linear feet of frontage along West Gulf Boulevard.
The site plan application includes the sale of the southern 50 ft of the waterfront property proposed to be reallocated to the abuing property owner. Uh so this will be reduced to a frontage of 100 ft along West Gulf Boulevard
and there is 130 linear feet of frontage along West Gulf Boulevard at the eastern parcel being proposed for remote parking. Currently, the eastern parcel, which is has been historically used for remote parking, is surfaced with crushed shell
and dirt uh with no landscaping or or erosion control measures in place. Uh, additionally, the parcels are approximately 100 ft apart from um outside edge to outside edge. The remote parking lot abuts multifamily residential zoning districts which is
indicated here in that dark orange color as where the two subject properties are in the commercial general zoning district in the red color. And then separately from that previous map that I showed you that was our zoning map. This is depicting the
existing land uses of abuing properties. So we have the subject properties indicated by stars. The lighter yellow indicates the abuing single family residential uses and those darker orange colors are the multifamily residential.
So we can see that um both subject properties abut single family residences. The original structure constructed at the subject property was um built in 1925 uh which was the prior prior to the adoption of modern zoning regulations or
site plan review. The picture on the screen um is of the original structure approximately taken in 1989. The waterfront parcel was obtained by St. Pete Lions Club in 1933 and an additional structure was constructed in
1946 on that waterfront lot. The eastern parcel was obtained by St. Pete Lions Club in 1971 and has remained vacant, unimproved, being utilized for remote parking since that time. A retroactive site plan was approved for
landscaping on the remote parking lot in 1986. A site plan for landscaping the existing remote parking lot, which was permitted to remain unpaved or striped, was approved by the equivalent of this board at that time. The site plan was approved under the expectation at that
time that landscaping and irrigation would be installed at a later time by the Lions Club. No improvements have been installed to to date. In 1986 when they approved that site plan, it was not listed as a condition of approval. However, going back into the minutes of
the 1986 public hearing, landscaping was discussed as something that was expected from the applicant following the approval of that site plan. Coming up to current time, modern the property was demolished following the
2024 hurricanes. The property is currently vacant and now the applicant is proposing a site plan review with the variances included. So this is a view of the existing um eastern parcel proposed for
remote parking and this is the subject waterfront property. This was the demolished structure prior to 2024. This is an aerial site plan of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing a remote parking lot uh
proposed to be surfaced with granite rock with voids able to retain the first one in of storm water. This was um I'm hesitant to use the word recommendation of the public works department, but as um
a compromised alternative in lie of the required uh pavement options, granite rock would be something that's acceptable by the public works department and would likely prevent the most potential erosion of the surface
material. >> I mean, even I chuckle at that. Okay, carry on. No landscape improvements are proposed on the remote parking lot. No lighting improvements are proposed on the remote parking lot.
There is reduced open space proposed within the waterfront parcel. No loading birth proposed for within the waterfront parcel for commercial use. Uh and then we'll move on to the variance review criteria analysis. Variance one uh to allow no lighting to
be provided at a commercial parking lot is inconsistent with all of the variance criteria. No special conditions or circumstances exist at the subject property. Strict application would not permit reason or um would require strict application would require alternative
site configuration but would not restrict reasonable use of the property. The limited sight area referenced in the submitted application is the result of the proposed sale of the southern feet 50 feet of the subject property which could be utilized to differently orient
the required code requirements. Reasonable use can be achieved without the granting of a variance and no hardships are identified. The granting of this variance will contribute to negative impacts to public welfare by failing to provide uh commercial developments uh with adequate
lighting to ensure safety and visibility for pedestrians crossing the street after events being held at the St. Pete Lions Club. Variance number two, uh permitting a parking lot to be surfaced with material other than dustfree paving material. No circumstances or conditions exist at the
subject property. Strict application of the land development regulations would not result in um limited use of the property. There are no peculiar conditions at the property and minimum use can be achieved without a variance. No hardship has been
identified and the proposed use of loose surface material results in conditions uh susceptible to the displacement and erosion resulting from storm water and vehicle movement. This can be seen on the subject property currently uh with the surface materials being drawn out
onto the street uh ultimately resulting in infiltrating the storm water systems uh and having secondary effects. Granting of this variance permits the continued non-compliant use of the parking facility um which is conflicting
with the intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. Variance number three, a request to allow parking spaces and aisles not to be marked consistent is also inconsistent with all seven criteria of
the variance review section of the code. Granting of this variance to allow parking spaces uh to remain unmarked could contribute to the improper use of dedicated parking stalls uh which could lead to the inadequate use of parking spaces as well as the disorderly appearance of the site and could
contribute to inconsistent and poor use of the parking facilities. Variance number four is to permit a remote parking lot at a distance less than 600 ft from the site serving the principal use. uh staff finds the application is consistent with all of
the criteria in this aspect. Uh in this instance, strict application of the land development regulations uh would not permit the applicant to utilize the existing parcel for off- streetet parking as it has historically been utilized. And the two parcels have been utilized
in tandem and have remained under common ownership before the existing regulations were adopted. And the pro proximity between the sites is not the result of the applicant. This is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property in its previous uh configured use
and granting of this variance enables off- streetet parking to be provided in a manner consistent with that historic use of the site across from the waterfront site um and does not conflict with the intent of the chapter. Moving on to variance number five to
allow no loading birth to be provided at a proposed commercial development. Uh the applicant states that the inclusion of a required loading birth uh would limit necessary parking spaces. However, again, this does not account for the portion of property being proposed to be separated the 50 ft of
the southern of the southern end of the subject property. No other special conditions are applicable to the subject property. Strict application would simply require that the applicant retain a portion of that property proposed to be separated and sold off um again which is the
result of the applicant's um actions. No hardship has been identified in regards to allowing no loading birth to be provided at a commercial development. uh granting of this variance may result in negative impacts to the safety, comfort, and order of the
subject property by reducing the available loading space for commercial vehicles and deliveries requiring access to the site. specifically in the context of the site being used as an event space. Um, my concern would be that
deliveries, caterers, people who would be arriving uh for some sort of event would have nowhere to park on site, resulting in vehicles not circulating and parking on site, which could in turn result to queuing along
West Gulf Boulevard if those commercial vehicles are not handled properly by not having a dedicated place to park. Variance number six is to reduce the open space requirement at a parcel abudding a public beach. Um before uh
listing these criteria, I'll reference um the applicant's statement about the interpretation of the open space section. Um essentially this has gone through various interpretations of how the open space section is identified. if
it's from the building footprint or if it includes stairways and decks that are outside of the building footprint but also remain in the side setbacks at this point and for my albe it short tenure we followed
this interpretation um but again if the code I'm sorry if this board is amendable to altering that interpretation uh that's something that can be discussed for the purpose of this variance application I I'm using the historic interpretation we've followed since my
time here. >> Quick question on that one. Uh Braden, >> yes. >> Uh you know, we've run into the alternate sideyard setback situation. That's when you look at the packet that gave me in the impression that that's
what this was. Is it not that? I mean, that's a different verbiage than what I printed out a couple days ago. Because what was printed out a couple days ago, the total open width between sad lot lines shall not be less than 30%
of the width of the lot. >> That's correct. >> And that's not that variance to section 68561 to reduce the open space requirement at a parcel of budding at public beach. That's not verbatim. It's shortened for my presentation purpose of consistency, but
>> as long as we're talking the same. >> Yeah, it's it's a reference to the same section. >> Okay. Just uh clarifying there. I know you guys listen to a lot of words. I try to make it as short as I can. >> Can you just explain for everyone here the difference between that and the setbacks that are required in this case?
>> Um, so in this case, the setbacks that are required for the interior side property lines are zero ft. There's no interior side setback. Uh, but there's an open space requirement that is equivalent to 30% of the lot width and that can be separated however you want.
So one side could have a 5 foot 5t of open space while the other side has 25 ft. 30. >> Okay. >> Um >> and in this case, they've got left now after they reduce that parcel only 100 ft.
>> They'll after they reduce that parcel, they'll have 100 ft. >> So they have if they were to follow this without variance, it would be 30 feet. >> Correct. And they're proposing >> one side or the other total. >> Right. Right. >> And and right now the current plans only
show how much? 23 feet as measured to >> so they're off by seven is that okay thanks >> where forgive me Braden but where did I see 10 and 20 20 on the south side 10 on the north >> yeah so that's what I was referring to before I started getting into this as far as the interpretation of that code
of that section of the code as to whether the open space is measured from the property line to the building footprint or the property line to any structure associated with the building. So to make this easier for a single family residence, would you count would
you count the Duke meter as encroaching into the open space or not? Um again, since since I've been with the city, the interpretation has been that it's all structures uh including a deck or a platform. Um
that's just the interpretation we've been told to follow since I've been here. >> Thanks. Okay. Uh the remaining variances um variances section uh seven through 11 have basically the same comments. So I've collapsed them together for you. Um
this is for primarily landscaping. For all these variances, the special circumstances are all relative to the decreased lot area proposed by the southern 50 ft of the subject property being uh separated and sold off. Uh
strict application of the land development regulations would require the applicant to reconsider configuration of the parking lot or again retain some of that property being sought to um to sell off. No variance is necessary to make
reasonable use of the property as it can be deter configured alternatively and thus no hardship has been identified. Overall, granting these variances conflicts with the intent of the chapter by degrading the order, appearance, and the general welfare of the parcel
surrounding the subject property uh resulting from the lack of a vegetative buffer which screens residential uses from the intrusion of light and balances visual impacts within the vehicular use areas. um providing virtually no visual buffer to screen the vehicular use area uh
fails to protect aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood and circumvents the landscaping requirements clearly sought out by the code uh where no hardship exists. That was a lot of information. Um so I tried my best now to just quickly graphically illustrate it. None of this
is to scale but it might help summarize everything that I just said. So variance to the parking lot surface material uh where it should be concrete. They're requesting the granite rock. They're requesting a variance to the striped parking spaces. Landscaped interior
islands which are required um for parking spaces of 15 or more. Landscaped terminal islands for rows of 10 parking spaces or more. a landscape landscape strip buffer um 3
ft wide along the abuing right of way. Adequate lighting uh required for uh commercial parking lots and then one tree is required per 50 ft of landscape barrier. Um my the way I calculated this that would come out to six trees
depending on how we rounded. The additional requests remaining are that open space as illustrated here, 20 feet on the south side, three feet on the north side where 30 feet is required. Where 30 ft is required, 23 is proposed,
resulting in a 7 foot variance for that open space requirement. >> So it is just on the I guess it's the north side that stairwell and deck that's taking away the seven feet. >> Yeah. Um that's that's correct. I mean, they could because it's open space,
their setback is zero feet. So, they could run it however they wanted. Uh they could add the seven feet on the south side, on the north side, uh per code, it would have to be a total of 30 ft. >> And that's an elevator shaft, I guess, on the >> That's correct. Okay.
>> The box, elevator shaft, and then there's like a deck all the way down the side, >> right? Okay. Thanks. >> And then lastly is just uh the loading birth. Uh, one loading breath is required for this commercial property based on the square footage proposed. So, we have all of our variances here.
Um, all variances requested uh except one. Staff has found zero of the criteria are consistent out of the seven reviewed. And for the variance to the remote parking lot, the distance of the remote parking lot to be more than 600 ft, there are uh seven of the
consistency review criterias are consistent. some specific cases. >> I guess for all of this there's no requirement that they do anything for the remote parking lot. They could leave it as is and use it as is. Correct. There's no as a part of this because or
you no because they have to apply it as a overall site plan. What's the reason for why these have to be put together? >> Well, depends on what route they want to go. If they they has to be a permitted development to use it at all. Um, so they're requesting to use it as their
required parking spaces for their commercial. >> So that's where it gets put together and that's why I get it. Okay. All right. Yeah. >> Because they're coming in, >> right? >> Because they got rid of the other parking. That's the reason they have to they want to use this as the parking and that now they fall into where you're
asking them to upgrade it. Update it. Got it. >> The intent of our comprehensive plan is to, you know, uh, reduce nonconformity. >> Yeah. Okay. I get it. So two specific um variances before you that I added some additional conditions
of approval to um are one for the dust for the surface material on the remote parking lot. If approved, I would recommend condition that no underllayment or under other type of barrier shall be installed uh below grade and that 100% of the surface
material be u granite rock maintained at a minimum depth of that 3 in with a void ratio of no less than 40%. Um our public works director has informed me that this is the absolute minimum that could constitute that 1 in of water retention.
Um uh and then um for the variance request regarding the remote parking lot um I would recommend that an appropriate pedestrian crossing uh be implemented at 92nd Avenue um and that a unity of title
be formally established between the two subject properties. That is the end of my presentation. >> Start off with one question. Braden, who uh maintains and who pays for the street lights out there? >> That would be public works. >> Public works pays for it.
>> But as far as when we needed a replacement of a light, you called Duke Energy. >> Oh, then I might be wrong. I apologize. I would assume I should have said I assume it's public works. I would have to follow up on that. I don't. Anyway, I was out in the middle of that parking lot last night at 10:30 just to see if I
could read with the existing lighting. And can you possibly go to the slide with the street lights showing cuz there's one that's not lit up. And uh there's a lot of uh street lights out there. >> Oh, the one where the lights are
circled. >> Yeah, that was Yes. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, I was going to point out the one that uh >> needs to be repaired and uh it's in the it's over there on Harrow Avenue. It's that one.
Go to that one right there. >> It uh does not come on at night. But actually the remaining lights are all turtle friendly, the yellowish lights, right? >> That one is the old cobra head. >> And I just wondered uh for some reason
it was never changed over to the turtle friendly light and we need to get it done. But the bottom line is uh I made a point of going out there last night to see if we would have enough lighting using the existing street lights. And in my opinion and the
the design I've did have done for shopping centers in the past, the requirement is one foot candle, not at the perimeter of the property. And in my opinion, this property meets that with the existing street lights. So
that's a good thing. Not including the one that's not working, right? >> Not including that one, but I think it needs to be repaired. It's sitting there for no reason. Either take it down or but I would prefer it to be replaced with the current yellowish uh turtle
friendly lights. But anyway, any other questions from the board to the city staff? >> Oh, I got I got a couple. >> I'm still thinking about foot candles. >> Foot candles. >> Just brings back old memories. Yeah, you put a sheet of paper with a candle.
>> No, I know what it is. >> Go ahead, Ross. >> We've seen a lot of recent parking lots come through here and in regards to some of these denials that are listed and this applicant, and I know that no are, you know, they're not supposed to tie together, but does that open us up to
future parking lots or parking lots that have already been permitted to come back in and say, "Well, I want to use this surface. I don't want to do the landscaping. I don't want to do the lights and I want to just make it the gravel and and do what the Lions Club did. >> We don't set precedent.
>> I'm not saying we're going to set precedent, but >> they can come and ask. >> Precisely. >> And we can also turn them down. >> But we can also uh I mean Grant and I are the only ones on this board that live out here. And I tell you, we drive by both
>> here. For the record, we all live out here. I know we all I'm talking about living on Sunset Beach as you well know. We drive by it every day and uh you know it it is still functioning in its current condition today.
>> I'm kind of curious Braden when I look at the um the existing setup when I look at the Catty's parking lot when I look at Katiki's when I look at the city's public parking they all seem to be shell parking with nothing marked.
So, how is it that that the requirements for these folks are different when it comes to their parking lots than those that have been I mean recently approved? >> Yeah. All parking lots on the Gulf side of Gulf Boulevard are permitted to have
um shell or other type of sand parking lot. It's only parking lots that are not abuing the Gulf that are required to have these services. >> That's interesting. >> Yeah. and some and some are just non-conforming from >> and then not having that other are >> non my second question kind of goes back
to one of the earlier variance requests we heard regarding uh and I'm using the term incorrectly but the statute of limitations I mean they've been parking on this for how long >> yeah so this is a little bit different
of a scenario where they're taking a previously non-confor legal non-conforming use because it was um created before the adoption of any zoning code. Um and that use has been removed
via the storm. Um and now they're reconstructing it. So they're reconstructing, they're coming into all compliance just like they would have to come into compliance with ADA and fire code. Uh they're coming into compliance with our zoning code as well. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board
to the staff? We have three cards. We're going to start out with Wade Tribiano. I take it. Oh, there he is. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lion Way Tribiano. I have been I am the president of the St. Petersburg Lions
Club. Lions Club. Lions Club International was founded by Melvin Jones in 1917 and is currently the headquarters headquartered in Oakland Brook Oak. >> Wait, could I bother you to speak up?
The kids are running up the steps. I'm sorry. Just talk a little louder. Thank you. >> It's one of the world's largest premier volunteer service organizations dedicated to community support. Combating blindness,
vision impairment, vision screening, hearing conservation, diabetes awareness, disaster relief, hunger relief, and youth programs. Our club was charted in 1925,
celebrating over a century of service to our community. We go above and beyond our mission statement. We serve providing guide dogs, eye surgeries, eyeglasses, academic scholarships,
challenge challenger baseball for children with special needs, and much more. Another commendable aspect of our club is sharing our clubhouse with other nonprofits profit organiz organizations to help
facilitate their causes. Our clubhouse served as the foundation of our organization and community until the devastating hurricane two years ago which destroyed it.
We are here today seeking your help to approve these variances. Sometimes you must look beyond the confines of a book of rules and rely on your heart.
Yes, your heart. Even if it may sound unorthodox, I stand here as a humanitarian who serves alongside a group of humanitarians and past Lion Club members
over the past century. Join us. This city has a hidden gem in its backyard. Embrace us in your master plan to reshape the city of Treasure Island
and you will earn international recognition. You could even host the international convention. My father-in-law, Blaine Russell, taught me the importance of giving back to the community.
He encouraged me to choose a nonprofit organization that I could relate to and volunteer with. He is part of the greatest generation that gave back serving as a lion for 67
years. Today he's 104 and continues to contribute to the St. Petersburg Lions Club to between myself and my father-in-law.
We have a combined of 103 years of service. I'm proud of my club and the Lions who belong to it. Let us continue this journey for another century serving our community and Treasure
Island. Thank you. >> Thank you, Wade. Second code, Marie Barbara. >> Um Marie Barbara, 118 91st Avenue, Sunset Beach. Um I've had my property there um 45 46 years down 91st Avenue.
So as you can see, it affects me and my neighbors that have been there also over 40 years right in front the courses. He was commissioner here as um Fred and the other neighbor. And why I came here
because I was watching it on online is because uh the red flags went up when the parking lot came in because the parking lot is so important to that area that I don't think we should even be talking about the parking lot. I think we should leave it like it is with no
other conditions because we they're short on the parking or maybe not short on the parking because I don't want to go into that but I mean it's so important to that area. The lighting is another thing if they can change if they can that requirement should be uh uh
just dismissed. Um the parking lot was not damaged. I don't know why it needs to be here because we need every space that we can get. And I I have to disclose also that I'm Lions Club member and probably have been I haven't been in service because I I just um returned
back from got into retirement and returned back home. Um so I am just uh here to speak you know from the concern from all our neighbors that um I don't understand uh the lighting. I don't
understand the, you know, incre the even the taking any spots away because you want to put a tree there or something else. It's really not necessary, you know. And um I also was a little concerned when I saw I have to say when I saw the building cuz I you know Paty
lives next door where she just sold for a few million there next door. Yeah. Paty, you know, she's also a member of the Lions Club. And, you know, putting stairs or anything on that side. I I wasn't sure why that was needed on that side and not on the side that faces
Caddies because that's a street access. So, I'm not sure why um that had to be on that on that side because, you know, Pepsi even though she sold, you know, it's a neighbor. So, I'm here just uh asking that everything was denied on the
variance for the for the parking lot. I think you should we should just either dismiss the whole thing, not look at it. There's no damages and just clean it up. And there we go. >> Thank you for your comments.
Tammy Vasquez. >> Hello everybody. Tammy Vasquez, um Isa Capri, I just wanted to um though I don't live on Sunset Beach, it is part of Treasure Island and we are all part of Treasure Island. And I will tell you, I've received calls. I've seen people at
Middlegrounds who have come up to me about the Lion's Club and asked me what my thoughts were on it. And as I've said, it's over a hundred years old. What they're wanting to do is nothing but an improvement. And it looks beautiful. it's going to be resilient
and not even though I know the rules, um, not having a delivery bay and things like that, you know, it's it's worked for over a hundred years. So, again, it's going to be better than what we had before. And I will tell you, I have not
had one person who has spoke to me about it that did not fully support the variances. We give a lot of variances when I may not necessarily agree. And um this is one that I could say the variances I think are ve very well
warranted and I would love to see this pass and I think it'll be a big improvement for the area as well. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the audience wish to speak? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. I would uh if you guys on the
board would bear with me real quick. Like I said, I uh this one's near and dear to my heart. Um and I've gone through all 11 variances, and I'd just like to make a comment real quick on each one, and then we'll uh
go from there. All parking areas shall be required to provide lighting during nighttime hours of operation. Prime example, there's your lights. There's enough light. I mean, there's no need for additional lights within the limitation. There are additional lights
up at the parking lot across the street from 7-Eleven. They were needed. These are not. Uh parking areas shall be surface by dustfree paving materials such as asphalt, bitamin, concrete, turf block or other
similar materials. Uh like Brian Barker was saying, if you provide if you pave it, then you got to provide storm water detention. But the one thing is most cities allow for intermittent parking uh grass parking lot. Um like a church
people are only parking on it once a week usually. This will be parked on a little bit more. So, I did meet out there and discussed it with Gary Volinac, the public works director, and I said, "How about a nice granite gravel
with lots of voids in between the rocks so we don't have to provide storm water detention so the water can go in there and he said that would be a good solution." So, that's what uh I think we should do there. So, that would be an allowable variance. So, the first two
would be allowable. parking lot shall have each parking space aisle marked. Well, they are marked right now. Not not perfectly striped like a Walgreens or something like that, but if you go out there, there's a parking uh wheel stop
at every space. And there's 24 spaces, I believe, and there's 24 wheel stops out there. Uh number four was no big deal. Number five, this isn't like a um a retail use where you need to have um a
truck loading dock or something like that. There will be places where people will come in and unload their party supplies or their decorations, that kind of stuff. That will occur underneath the building. You're not going to walk across that segment of West Gulf
Boulevard with a bunch of stuff in your hands. uh total open space between satellite lines shall not be less than 30 ft 30% rather of the width of the lot. I thought that was the alternate
setback situation uh which allows you to see the water from the street. My comment is uh let's give them a variance on that one because I want people especially in there this area to keep their eyes on the road. I nearly hit somebody every week walking
across the street at Katiki or Caddies. Um landscape strip a budding right away one tree every 35 ft and hedge wall of twoft minimum. This is one that I I
disagree with. Uh I think we need to have a little bit of landscaping around the uh perimeter of this lot. Make it look better. I mean it is it looks okay with the pilings and the rope but a little bit of landscaping can't hurt. So
sorry get lines club spend some money on some landscaping. It's not that expensive. Screening from abuing properties is required using a wall hedge no less than 3 and 1/2 ft in height. The only place I can figure out where they were talking about on that
one is up to the north adjacent to that house on the north end, which is also commercial property. Those houses up to the north, all seven of them are built on commercially zoned property. So,
it would be a neighborly thing for the Lion's Club to do uh to put a little uh landscape strip along that using a wall or a hedge, but uh it is taken into account it is commercial property. So, I
don't really think that's necessary. So, we could uh give them that variance, but the thing is, you know, it is a residential house. Wouldn't be a bad idea for the uh Lions Club to be neighborly and throw
some uh landscaping in there. Uh one tree every uh 50 linear feet of landscape barrier. Same comment. Uh interior landscaping for at least 10% of the uh vehicular use area.
The thing about this is it's a very small parking uh area. This is back to the remote. Uh rather than having terminal islands and middle islands, you're just going to have a nice landscape strip around the
perimeter. I think that's all they need. Uh there's only 24 spaces there. And quite frankly, some of the uh functions can be really nice on this. And uh so I don't think we really need that one. So we should be able to give them uh number
10. Number 11, I think that was just a catchall. Terminal Islands, interior islands, and additional interior landscaping requirements for vehicular use area. And what I'm talking about is once again the perimeter um landscape
area around the existing parking lot and let it look like that uh um site plan that's in our packet. It's only parking on the outside and none in the middle at all. You know, the one thing that I uh
am going to say about uh Caddies, Caddies did a great job rebuilding their parking lot and their building. Building looks really good, but they didn't have to pave their parking lot and they didn't have to
landscape majorly. And uh you know I think it's a situation where they did a great job taking an existing building taking it back to what it was plus a little bit better. It looks really good to me. But uh
just because the Lions Club was majorly damaged. I went in it just before they tore it down. It was not easily repable. So, while I think it could have been repaired with a heck of a lot of money, they did the right thing here. And I think their uh architecture looks pretty
good. Uh the only complaint I have with their architecture, there's not enough windows on the uh um Gulf side. That's your a hint for your architect. Open it up a little bit. But,
uh that's my uh comments in a nutshell. don't you know pretty much giving them everything they want except for the landscaping and uh I think these are a good solution. I mean um took the time last night to go out there and make sure
I could uh see somebody fix that one parking I mean one street light and we're good to go. Um, but anyway, that's my comments and uh like to hear uh go ahead >> what the rest of the board has to say. >> I got ju just a couple things. Uh,
Richard, I agree with you about the landscaping that certainly just as it was I guess in the past there was a request to have landscaping done on the parking lot and it wasn't done. If there's something that we can do on this one to make sure that we get decent landscaping on the perimeter of that,
not any other improvements. Um >> the applicant in the intro said that they'd be open to that, >> right? So I think they've already said that they're good with that. I I did have just a you know with regard to this loading dock and I guess or
you're the vehicles are still able to get under this building smaller ones. We're just talking about if a large truck comes just like if a large truck comes and stops in front of many of the hotels on Gulf Boulevard. if it's a really large one, they stay out in the center of the road and unload out there.
So, we're not in any different situation from that point of view. So, I >> do you want them to increase the height of the building? >> No, I I think for No. And what I'm I'm I'm just making sure I understand. So, >> the only difference is this is on West Gulf Boulevard as opposed to G
Boulevard, >> right? So, I realize it's it's a it's a different traffic pattern and you don't have the center lane and all that. >> Bring up a good point though. If a box truck for whatever a 10 or something is going to stop right there on the single lane of Golf Boulevard >> and they do pull them >> they do it every day now. >> They do it
>> they do it every day in front of caddies and they do it every day in front of >> so it's already an issue custom you >> even trucks are like box trucks these days >> you bring up a very good point. So, so and now with respect to this property, if we give all of these, I
think most of us on the board are in favor of giving all of these variances um because of the special situation that we have on the use of this property. We we can't actually protect and this is really question for you Nancy in terms
of that this I'm sorry. >> Oh, Nancy left. I'm sorry. Nancy is still here. You're the new girl. Sorry lady I should say. So with respect to what you know we're giving these variances nec potentially in perpetuity for the
property but they would go on to the next owner but this property has certain restrictions or none today in terms of its its use right now as a not for profofit that's not a restriction of the property. Correct.
>> The variance runs with the land. Right. So the use may may change a year later. So you need to take that into consideration. >> And so this property doesn't have a deed use for a nonprofit right now. >> I'm aware of and that should not be
something that you take into consideration. >> Okay. And I just want to make sure we all understood that we were what we were giving here. Um, but I'm in favor of of of the requested variances uh with um the recommendations that Richard
mentioned with respect to landscaping of the parking lot and maybe a review of that lighting a little bit. I just want to make sure it's done what is done is done correctly there. I tell you, Chris, if that light that's out, >> I mean, I was sitting right in the middle of that last night and I'm like,
"Oh, one of them is missing here." Cuz you can see it during the day. And if that light is fixed, I swear it's good to go. But anyway, the >> I'm gonna go fix the damn light myself. >> There you go. >> Yeah, I do just want to say real quick on the record, uh, I don't on behalf of
the applicant, that was most likely an oversight of my part. I did not look into the existing street lighting. Um, so again, just wanted to point that out and apologize to the applicant. >> You know, that's all I had. Thanks. >> Hey Braden, I just wanted to make sure there was enough. Doesn't sound like it's you the maybe the new clubhouse
will be utilized more at night. Maybe I mean it doesn't seem like it is though. I mean you were saying that >> let's put this way >> you didn't have any parking problems at night previously and >> it gets used at night. There's no doubt about it. I mean but the thing was one last thing is it the the way in which this building is being configured where
it's being elevated and all this issue of open space you can see through it on the on the lower level. So, in terms of open space, that's a consideration here. I realize that we're not doing this for other properties, but this is again, this is a special case. It's a hardship that the
storm happened and we're going to do what we can to get it back. So, okay. Thanks. >> You won't be seeing through it much longer. The sea oats are doing very well out there growing. >> Yeah. Is that Is that right there? I looked at the plans pretty quickly, but you're not enclosing the lower level.
Correct. >> That's correct. >> It's It's staying open. >> That's great. Okay. Thanks, >> Mr. Chair. Just go ahead. >> First off, very much appreciate the conversation uh so far. Mr. Barker does want to make one clarifying point on the landscaping on the north. I don't know if we could put that uh the image of the
parking lot back up uh because there's a right ofway issue and a property line issue. So, we just want to make sure the development order is clear uh whatever the board decides if the if the uh requirement is additional landscaping that we can make sure we're clear on where it goes or how that issue will be addressed. So,
>> can you go to that landscaping plan? Where are they allowed to enter and exit into this parking lot? >> That was my first question. I think it was just on the best location is the way they have it designed. 92. I mean, >> well, it's not clearly marked. It's not like in-n-out arrows because And then it's also going to be gravel. So, it's
not like people I mean, >> that's it is roped off >> that how Yeah, there are ropes and pilings all around it >> on the north side or the south side? >> Both. I mean, all on both sides, but it is open on both sides. I drove through it last night. All right. No, I I saw that. Okay.
>> Okay. >> I just wanted to bring the Lions Club is totally committed to as much landscaping as we can get around that perimeter like you mentioned, but there are some difficulties. This is a property. So there's, you
know, there's very little room and we don't have the foot that's required, but we can certainly, you know, fill in the gaps of trees and shrubs.
>> Well, I'd like to see a three foot landscape buffer, but without the trees in the visibility corners cuz >> right >> you can't do that. I mean, you just got to have the it's got to be safe >> and God knows there's problems out there. >> Sorry. Go ahead.
>> So, the the entrance right now it's the way it's used. It's just off of 92nd. >> No, it's both off of both. And the intent is to keep it that way so you can drive through. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Look at the aerial photograph. You can tell it's >> Braden brings up a good point and I'm not trying to I'm just talking through
it, but I think Braden brings up a good point. Like if you are going to have people walking from 92nd across Golf Boulevard, that could be dangerous. >> And it it does happen and that would not be a bad idea. I mean, there is a flashing light crosswalk just at 91st.
>> I mean, Grant's going to be late to everything if you put in two crosswalks on Golf Boulevard. >> But the intent is to add one here. Isn't that right? >> I thought trying to piss off people in Sunset. >> There's one on 90th now. Well, there's one on 91st. Right there on the south
side of 91st. >> South on the way to Caddy's, not to the north. >> I mean, right there east corner of Caddies is where the uh crosswalk is. >> Was it one of yours or >> I'm not trying to be difficult about the situation. What I'm talking about is that if people are parking in that parking lot and they're going to the Lions Club, they're going to walk from
92nd across the street. >> And they absolutely do. >> Okay. >> I can take all the graph. >> Do we have do we add another flashing light? >> No. >> No. Okay. I don't want people in Sunset to be mad at me. >> Let's put this way.
>> If you need >> a a uh light, you go down to Caddy's. >> Most people will not do that. >> I agree. I'm just saying I'm just telling you that that that's the scenario. Hey, we got a new flashing
light in front of uh Sea Dogs, which is, >> you know, it's better than what we had, but uh, >> you know, sometimes there's too many of them. If people are parking at the north end of 92 and they're going to the Lions Club, they are going >> they're going through Golf Boulevard. I
don't think that it's wise to put another flasher in at 92nd when there's one >> 75 yards away. >> Makes sense. >> I mean, >> not even 7 100 ft. >> Do you put Okay, fine. 100 feet. You put a sign in there that says for people that are parking the Lions Club to
direct themselves down to >> that already flasher. >> I've had people walking in front of my car from the last 40 years. >> I know sometimes >> with the light and with the light being out, I'm worried you're not going to see them. >> Sometimes they'll do it within 10 ft of
a pedestal. >> You volunteered to pay for the light. >> I'm going there right after here. As long as I'm not here till 8:00 at night. >> How do we write this up? Mark and I are going to go fix. >> Let me go let me go through this real quick. It's my opinion and I correct me
where I'm wrong is we grant variances one two three five six 8 uh 10 and 11. And then uh
don't grant the variances for the other ones. I think I put an X beside those. >> That's number seven and >> nine. >> Seven. >> Number four. >> Um >> you can you can grant if you are for
variance four, you can say you you can approve that. >> Well, yes, you can can approve it. I guess that that is a fact that that one uh >> you're really just se just taking >> agrees with that one. The staff agrees with that one. >> So >> you're just talking about seven and
nine. >> Seven and nine. >> Seven and nine. There's the landscaping. Seven and nine. >> Right. And and Mr. Chair, the only thing again and sorry to interrupt, but just concerned that the physical constraints of the site may not allow us to meet in on the entire site the 3T along a
budding rideway. Uh the trees shouldn't be a problem. Um but it's just based on where that rightway is and where the property line is. Um so I don't know if we can build in some flexibility there like where we're where uh we're able um
we're reasonably able to comply with seven and nine. Um but that's the concern that Mr. Barker has. The one thing I will say uh about that the layout of that parking lot is very unique that a entryway is going to be 43 feet wide. If necessary, okay, drop it
down to uh whatever it needs to be, Brian, in order to get your landscaping on the north side. Yeah, it's going to get a little tighter on the south end where it's only 24 ft, which is a standard >> aisle width. You could just say of at
least one foot because right now it's three and that's the issue, right? You don't have three foot. If you just say at least one foot and then you can work with it. >> You can get with Gary and and one of us will go out there and say it looks pretty. >> No one's going to measure that one. >> One clarification though,
>> Richard and it's not. >> Richard, didn't you say no trees >> for because of visibility issues? >> Only in the sight triangles. >> Okay. And Brian, I'm going to uh put it on you because I don't remember exactly
what the uh sight triangle, but I isn't it like what is it 20t on each corner? >> I mean, we're not talking highspeed uh uh DOT roads here, so they're not that big, but I usually see what 20t 25 ft
>> 20T. Okay. just make sure those sight visibility triangles stay there and the fact that the lion glove is going to have to maintain those hedges because >> it uh we have situations all over Sunset
Beach where visibility triangles are encroached into but um I don't know who would like to uh make an attempt at a motion on this. >> Wow. Chris, you want to give it a shot? Or
Grant, you want to give it a shot? >> So, I'm still not clear. It's seven, nine, and 11. That >> just seven and nine. >> Seven and nine. >> Seven and nine. >> And I believe you had said four. Is that correct?
>> And we Yeah, I mean, >> yeah, four is going to go in, >> but it is a variance that we uh we're saying we're approving. We would approve all except seven and nine, I believe. >> Exactly. Right. Oh, I understand. >> All right. I would make a motion for
case uh variance uh 641-2026 that all variances with the exception of seven and nine are approved as written and there is no other con and that the
condition of approval one I'll be applied to those um variances. Thank you, Chris. Can I have a second? >> Well, we're just we are just denying seven and nine. So, the Lions Club will
be required to have a landscape strip of 3 ft along a budding rideway with >> I would like to modify that then to that particular one. If I'm if if we're allowed with respect to that, we could um >> just bring it up on its own motion. I'll just bring as a separate motion, but we
can call we'll hold that one out. >> Correct. >> Um, so I'll I'll just revise my motion and just >> to I get the the issue on this one. Uh, so again, I'll I'll revise the motion. I I would move that we on case variance 641-2026
that we approve all variances requested with the exception of nine and seven. Okay. >> No, I'm sorry. We We It's just with the exception of nine and then we're going
to do a separate motion for seven. >> Okay. >> What about if I were you? >> Yeah, that's how I would do it. >> If I were you, I would list the numbers that we're approving. >> Okay. >> Make another motion and amend what you want to say. >> Amend what we want to say. >> Yeah. to be a situation where we're going to we're going to grant them that
variance but with the understanding that uh they've already agreed to put in uh >> but do we have these are separate seven and nine >> that's right four that's >> if you're handling number seven separately >> I'm going to I'm going to separate it out >> so then leave your motion as it is
because you're these are only you're you're right now stating which ones you're going to approve >> correct >> deal with that first and then you're going to have to deal with seven and nine separately. >> That's fine. >> Okay. All right. >> Good. >> All right. So, I'll amend the motion.
>> State it again. >> I'll just state it again for clarity. Uh so regarding case variance uh 641-2026, I would move that we approve variance 1
2 3 4 5 6 8 10 and 11 with the condition listed number one on the form. >> Who would like that? >> I'll second that. Okay, we got a motion
by Chris Downing, second by uh Ross Sanchez. Could I have a roll call? >> It's just the condition that the improvements be consistent with the final plans. It's the last thing. It's a condition on all of them. >> It's at the bottom of page 101.
>> Conditions of approval for all requests. The proposal improvements. I'll read it for you, Marv. Okay. The proposed improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plan complemented by Robert Marshall PE dated June 6, 2026. >> Okay. But again, >> I need to keep asking this. Do we need
to specify about the grant? >> Microphone Marv. >> Thank you. >> Do we need to specify the GR? Is the granite specified in the granite? It was specified in their variance already. >> Okay. Great.
>> Okay. Okay. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Valerie, >> yes. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead, Chris. With your uh
motion for seven and nine if you would. >> Okay. So >> uh for I would make a motion that for variance uh case 641-2026 that uh variance 7 be modified
to be state 1 foot or more of landscape perimeter and that we would approve it as is and that variance nine would be denied. denied. Okay, number nine is denied. Number
seven, provided there's some real irregular areas up there. What I want to make sure of is that if we can get a three-foot landscape buffer that we get it. I mean, I I agree on the south end down there,
there's a there's three existing cabbage palms that are are gonna get in the way, but uh let's just say just let's use the word average. How about average three-foot width >> because I'm get a lot higher. You get
get a lot more. >> Not to get into the weeds. Yeah, >> pun intended. I'm just trying to >> I think I I the only problem with that is if you say average, you know, that's a measurement across all of this and it gives something. I from the city's point
of view, I'd rather us just pass it that it must be of at least one foot at the discretion then they have the discretion to do more to look make it look good and I'm going to trust that they're going to do that. >> So, I'm going to leave my mo motion as is. >> Okay, Brian, you can handle that. I know.
>> Just make it look nice. So you're >> Yeah. Right. >> So this probably needs to be clear to avoid conflict in the as to what it is you decided because I know the attorney
had gotten up and said that they would do whatever is possible. So >> and that's not Yeah. All attorney all I'm saying >> the only thing I'm changing is that we're approving the variance. So you're not but that we're we're approving
number seven with the with the condition that it be at least one foot of minimum or minimum of one foot perimeter landscaping. >> Perfect. >> That's it. >> There you go. >> And then
>> so and so you're um what about the tree every 35 ft? That's in that one too. >> That we're leaving that as as is. That's getting that variance is getting denied. >> So, we're allowing that. I'm not making a change to that. I'm just reducing it from three to one.
>> Correct. >> She's asking about the tree. >> Right. Then you're denying the part about the 35 ft trees, >> right? >> Because if you're approving the variance, they don't want the 35 foot tree. >> We're doing do seven by itself, we'll vote, and then do nine by itself, then
we'll vote. >> Was that Were there trees in number seven? >> No, just number nine. No, actually it's 72. I think that's the reason. >> Okay. Then then I would further modify this to that the
requirement for trees on number seven be eliminated. Oh, you're taking that out >> and taking that out >> and then with respect to on the motion for clarity >> on number nine that we are
>> denying that variance >> what reason are you denying the variance just so I have it >> safety >> to make code >> deny it because it doesn't meet any of the criter criteria as staff has told. >> There you go.
>> Took the words right out of my mouth. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And number seven also includes a hedge wall of two foot minimum. They don't want that either. So >> we're agreeing with that. Yeah.
>> All right. >> Right now it's just >> Right now it's just grass and weeds, >> right? I think we've I think we beat that one down. >> The idea of course second yet? >> I'll second. >> The intent is is to provide a nicel
looking landscape barrier, but uh let's put this way. Brian Barker has been in the engineering business as long as I have. So, let's make it look good. >> Remember, there's not a sprinkler system. So, >> I know, but we Let's put this way.
what's happening out there on the beach right now is working as long as we're not getting any more hurricanes this year. So anyway, all right. Based on that, we have a >> motion by Chris Downing, a second by Ross Sanchez. Could we have a roll call?
>> Valeria Cree, >> yes. >> Daniel Belingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. Okay, we got uh 10D site plan 000590-2025
approval of site plan review for a commercial property consisting of two parcels under common ownership located on the east and west sides of Gulf Boulevard. I think we beat this one to death, but go ahead with your presentation. Uh it in with the interest
of time, I will be officially running late in 5 minutes and I do represent Duke Energy in Clear Water tonight at 6 o'clock. So if we want that light bulb fixed, I need to be there. Um so they get their franchise agreement approved. Um so what I would suggest is that the applicant is is uh in favor of approval
of the site plan subject to the conditions on the variances you just approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh any presentation? Yeah, I don't I don't I think we'll have to do a continuence for this because the site plan's going to have to be amended to accommodate the variances that this
board just denied. >> Okay. Well, >> amended landscape plan. >> That's all we're changing. >> That is true. >> I would be amendable to that. Maybe. I just want to make sure we're not breaking a specific code. >> What you can say is you can condition
the development order for the site plan on compliance with the variances. compliance on the development order that you just issued for the variances and a amended site plan that is consistent with the variances that you just approved that can be a condition of the development order. >> Can we hear from our attorneys please?
No offense to you sir. >> Understood. >> So if all you're dealing with is the landscaping then you can go ahead and make it whatever the motion is and whatever you're requesting make it subject to that.
>> Perfect. All right. It's a bit more than landscape, you know, because there the where the con it's the actual site where the the building is located and the issue of uh the side setbacks as well. >> Just I just don't want them to get caught in the middle of this
>> plan that they presented including that. >> It does include that. So, >> so they're already asking you to approve it with that >> with that. Yeah. Okay. So, we're Okay. And the other thing that's going to happen, of course, is now um the
engineering firm is going to include the specifications for the granite rock. They're going to show the wheel stops even better than you know, they're existing, but some of them will need to be cleaned up. U provided we're trying
to push this one along because it is the Lions Club, but um I don't have any problem with doing it this way. Yeah, I >> I agree. Okay. So you you you're wanting to move ahead now. >> We'd rather move ahead now. Get it
approved. >> Okay. >> All right. Treasure Island move ahead. Right there. >> So, all right. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, we're good to good to go with the staff
presentation. >> Uh, go ahead. >> And we've seen a lot of this already, so you can >> What do you need to do, >> Braden? I mean, any comments you have, >> go for it. >> Um, do you have a few? >> Um, I'll skip through most of this. Uh,
really my main comment is regarding the configuration and design of the structure. I really want to make sure that the board understands the front of the structure facing Gulf Boulevard, the facade that you will drive past in your car is the image on the top. >> Right.
>> Meanwhile, the rear of the structure facing the waterfront is the image on the bottom. There's very limited architectural fenestration traditional of the of the front of the aesthetic front of the structure that faces the street which will be visual
from Gulf Boulevard. >> I want >> So the one on the top is West Gulf Boulevard. >> That's correct. >> One on the bottom is the water. >> Correct. Right. >> Well, that's a little better cuz I >> And the old you read that that gives you the impression they're reversed. >> And the original structure was similar
in nature. It had very little facade on the front facing Gulf Boulevard. In fact, it had then the lion's sign. Is the intent to have the lion sign in that area that is very blank there? >> The blank area is it's not depicted on there, but that's for their sign.
>> That's where their sign will go. Okay, good. Thanks. >> Okay. Are we good to go on a motion now that they have a sign? Yeah. All right. >> Big lion, right? >> Really? >> I thought that was
it. >> Well, that's >> so that was your main that was the main issue that you or only issue that you had. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All the other issues were addressed uh you know in the variance process. Um
just just the configuration of this building. You're just not happy with the architectural. >> Um, yeah. I traditionally I would like to see some sort of uh facade that has an entrance from the street. If somebody's never been to this building, it doesn't really look like a welcoming
structure that I would know how to get into. Um, thinking from a third party perspective, um, there's no door on the front of the building. That's >> But I mean, can we really tell Can we tell them how to build it? I mean >> well is architectural for a commercial
property architectural review can be done in uh treasure island it's residential architectural review that we have no stand >> I mean you know we are trying to I mean I don't want to go have to spend millions of dollars but I think we could
probably do a little better than this and I don't >> I think you know if you look you know that blank area sorry >> I don't know if that's accurate >> what so >> because in our plans it's I understand that the front of the building faces south. So it says front elevation >> faces east.
>> That's south. That's >> that that faces west. >> That's southwest. It's really southwest. >> So then why would on the plans would it say front elevation? >> I know that's I know >> that's the confusing part for my it it's just the way that it was notated by the architect, the engineer, whoever made
the plans, whoever drafted the plans. >> So these plan So the plans in our packet are incorrect, but your diagram is accurate. No, these plans are correct because when you look at the elevations, it says front. But when you look at the site, it's just the word front. When you look at the elevations, don't pay
attention to when it says front cuz look at the site plan. These are the stairs. >> I understand that. >> Right. So that's it's just it he's the architectural front. So the designer listed it as front >> because it's what faces the golf the front.
>> Can we look at the street front? >> Yeah. Let's go back to the elevations. There we go. So that's the front. >> This is the street that looks like the side of a building. >> I mean, >> well, remember that there's going to be a sign in that blank area. >> Sign here. >> Blank >> that. So, it's going to balance out with
the signage. >> Can we >> I don't know. I God, I just, you know, we're trying to >> upgrade the city a little bit. And >> I think we should think about this. Well, the thing is, >> I mean, modifi at building permit time,
modifications can be made. I mean, >> I was serious as can be when I said I thought that they >> didn't seem to think so. >> Modifications, site plan modifications are possible, but they're they're very minor. They can't change the much. It's >> No, what I'm saying is suggestions.
>> Mr. Chair, I I truly have to leave. Um, and so I don't want to rush this. I talked to Mr. Tribani and uh he's agreeable to a continuence on the site plan um just so we can have a a it's not fair to you all to rush this and I don't want to uh I don't want to pressure you
to rush it but I also have an obligation that I I must be at um so I have to go. So, um, if we can get a continuence on this one to next month and that way we can get the architect to maybe do some color elevations with a sign and, uh, and we'll be able to have a a more, um,
clear conversation about this from >> applic, but we really don't have any conditions whatsoever. Um on the >> I I agree. It's not really our perview to do that. >> You need all the code requirements for the elevations. There's no variance
requested for the elevations or else it would have been listed in the last case. So to your point, Mr. Shavelin, like we aren't requesting anything out of code from the elevation. But my concern is just more from a public hearing perspective. I have to leave. >> I have no ability to stay and I I don't
want this to go sideways. So it's safer for everyone just to do a continuence and then we'll be able to go. One question real quick. >> Guy's trying to >> Can we do this at the building permit stage? I mean, this isn't an approval or anything. >> Why can't we do this? >> Because I don't want this board to get tangled up in building design.
>> You know, if we do this PD, we're going to be doing things like this. >> I know. >> So, let's get some practice. >> I mean, >> if if the Lions Club is willing to delay it, I just want them to keep chugging along. >> So, one month would be great. >> One month would be good.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Great. >> And if the city has no objection, that's something that you should consider. >> I have no >> 35 miles per hour in G Boulevard there, boss. I have a motion. >> Okay. Can we have a motion to continue
the this >> I move to continue this uh till the next meeting? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, we'll think
about the building and come up with some better elevations because >> again that's not really our >> per always and always will be. >> Let's try >> big sliding glass doors on the >> waterfront. Chris, so just to as far as the purview
of the site plan review, it is one of the criteria in what respects the plan is or is not consistent with good design standards with respect to all internal external relationships but not in including but not limited to and there's several criteria behind that. Part of the site plan review process is to
review good design standards. >> I stand corrected. >> Very good. >> At least we got a parking lot. >> Okay. All right. Let's move on. Public comments for non-aggenda items. We've got one uh card from M Mr. Mark Hoey.
>> Of course, >> uh good evening. Soon to be evening, Mark Hoey. Uh 2254th Avenue. I just wanted to take a bit of public time to uh recognize uh unfortunately recognize the departure
of Mary Ellen Edwards. Um, she's a quite a talent. Those of you know, I've attend as many of these board meetings and public meetings as possible. And over the past year, she's
been the kind of reference rock that all of you and the commissioners and others have drawn upon for city development, building code, etc., etc. Uh you may recall, you were all here, that she
really uh was an unwitting uh unwitting person who stepped up during a time of a lot of turmoil and turnover in our uh headquarter staff here, the city staff.
And as a result, she ended up being and becoming the face of the CDD that this group and the commissioners as well called upon to come up and testify on behalf of what's this, what's that. And she had the knowledge thankfully and she
also had the the uh demeanor where she would answer it the way it was. She didn't bow to any sort of uh wind of the change at the time. So, you know, that's unfortunate that she's chosen to depart. I wish her the very best. We certainly
hope that the new CD Director who's coming in uh has at least as much uh knowledge and is able to support you and the other boards and the commissions the way she did over this past year or so. So, thank you, Mary Ellen.
>> Thank you. I hope that reaches her ears because uh she was a good source of information for me. >> Okay. reports and comments of city attorney staff and board members. Um, I don't really have anything. Anybody else? Welcome to the new city attorney.
>> I do have two things >> for P and Z. Uh, Braden, I was wondering for district 3 in regards to new home construction that is taking place for single family residences. if you could potentially at the next meeting provide me a list of homes that are on construction, their permit value, and
what they paid for their permit val for their permit application >> over what time period? >> Call it back over the last like 12 months. >> Yes, sir. >> I'd greatly appreciate that. Um, I just think that there's a missed opportunity for revenue for the city, which as everyone knows, I'm trying to drive as much money into the city as possible.
>> I don't think it's limited to district three. Well, I'm I'm just doing it because I'm I've been doing a lot of research on my own just to make sure that >> Right. No, I think it's an issue. >> Massive issue. >> I will >> 5,000 foot homes that are being
evaluated at $450,000. >> Like >> I know what you're referencing and I Okay. Yeah. Um I >> re-evaluate them. >> We hope to send you information that just a process. I mean because I'm going through it and I'm just want to learn and I think that it's important. So I'm taking the opportunity to do that. I
I'll want to make sure I state clearly on the record to that request. I will do my best to do that. Our system is a little antiquated and I don't know if we have the ability to break it down by geographic area. >> If you want to do the whole city, that's fine.
>> That I can absolutely do. No problems. And I will try. >> Merry Christmas. >> I love a challenge. So, I'll try to do it district three. But at minimum, I can guarantee you for the city. >> That's fine. just at next meeting. I just I'm curious to see like okay so 5,000 foot house paid they had an
evaluation of X like what the averages are because there's there's definitely some SKs in the numbers. Um and that's dollars to this city which obviously I'm I care about. Um and then just the other ask for the next meeting was um in talking with contractors, marine
contractors, um architects, seaw wall engineers, there is a 35 ft envelope for boat lifts in the city of Treasure Island. It seems like we are the only city I think maybe Indian Rocks or Readington Shores I can't recall but where I was curious at the next meeting
if you could tell me the origin of like when that started like if it was something where that 35 envelope 35 foot envelope came into place. Basically, we still in the city of Treasure Island have setbacks for our neighbors where you can't put a boat lift like in your waterfront setback, but nowadays in
present days, like people are trying to get jet skis with, you know, lifts and have a boat at the same time. Boats are bigger, jet skis are bigger, things of that nature. And it seems like Treasure Island when it comes to people who are trying to invest in cities, they can go and build a waterfront home with a dock
with applicable lifts um to meet their Florida lifestyle. And I think that Treasure Island, again, my stance is to try to develop as much as possible within the city of Treasure Island, revenue, things of that nature, um, from a residential standpoint. I think that that needs to be reviewed and I would just like to know what we could possibly
do to change it in the future. So, that's why I wanted to bring it to the attention. >> No, it's a great point. I have a follow-up question because outside of dock permits, I'm not a boater, so >> that's fine. >> Typically, would you say the docks have separate setbacks than boat lifts in
other municipalities? Would docs have separate? >> Are they classified differently? >> They're not. They're not classified differently. Okay. So, in other municipalities, they have a larger envelope for docks, boat lifts. >> They don't even have an envelope.
>> I think I think you'd probably find different rules in all the different communities. >> From a setback perspective, from a setback point of view, >> but from an envelope perspective, >> what? I'm not sure I follow it. What you mean by envelope? >> So, I'm going to do this as best as I can. I'm not the expert >> because right now it doesn't it's not defined by envelope. If you look out the
back of your waterfront home, okay, and you want to put two boat lifts in, okay, a jet ski lift or a boat lift, they have to both squeeze inside a 35 ft envelope. >> No, I don't think it's actually not >> distance from the edge of your propert. >> There's a there's a setback.
>> I understand that. We're not talking about that. I'm not talking about I'm not talking about the setback. I'm talking about you can't have two marine lifts outside of 35 ft. >> 35 ft wide. >> Correct. 35 ft wide. you still have your you still have your setbacks with your neighbors. In general, this is not
something that needs to be addressed right now. I would just like for you to bring us some information back, see how we line up against others. I think it'd be extremely beneficial for us to review it as a board, as a city, so other residents can, you know, potentially, you know, upgrade their boat lift type thing. >> Yeah.
>> No, I we'll absolutely do that. >> I really appreciate it. Thank you everyone for your time. >> Okay, next uh PNZ board meeting and an LPA meeting. Of course, we're going to have an LPA meeting here in about 20 minutes, but uh August 20th is the date. Could I have a motion to adjourn the P&Z
meeting? >> Thank you. >> We are injured. >> Say you okay. >> Okay. If everybody would reconvene at 5:30. We are ready. It is 5:30. >> It's AI.
>> Okay. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island local planning agency board meet local planning agency meeting for July 16th, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker card is available at the table
over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public sections
public comments section of the agenda. Okay, we're not going to do the pledge of allegiance because we did that earlier. Please keep your cell phones uh silenced and let's have a roll call. >> Mark Shojeski and Valeria Cree are
absent. Daniel Billingsley >> here. >> Chris Downing here. >> Ross Sanchez >> here. >> Grant Smith >> here. >> Robin Shavelin here. >> Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Minutes from the uh May 21st, 2026 meeting. Has anybody reviewed those? And
now are there any comments? If not, can I have a motion to approve them? >> Move to approve as written. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Chris Downing. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. That's ready
to go. Uh we'll move into presentation of items 6A. Motion to approve a resolution requesting that the city commission direct this city attorney to draft an amendment to the comprehensive plan to reflect the
proposed changes in attachment A. Um at this point we're going to have uh Nancy give us the uh explanation of our role.
So, um, as you know, you all serve on the planning and zoning board as well as on the local planning agency as the local planning agency, which is a requirement under Florida law. And I just wanted to remind you very briefly
regarding your duties and your responsibilities. It's going to be in section 70-9 PNE. and it states that um you will serve and constitute as the local planning agency as required by state statutes and that's
the um the role that you are fulfilling at this part of of the day. Um, it is the function and duty of the local planning agency to review and to recommend to the city commission adoption of amendments to comprehensive plan, new land development regulations
as well as amendments um changes, modifications of existing land development regulations, new development agreements as well as amendments, changes and actions on resoning. And it goes on and it further um provides a little bit more detail as
to um what those broad categories encompass. But in in general terms, you're basically a recommending body um to the city commission. And um with that said, I it's my understanding that today
with your agenda item that there will be some robust um conversation and discussion, possibly debate um on if if a matter should be um directed to the city commission or not.
>> Thank you, Nancy. Um all right, getting into the presentation of items. I'll just read it out. Did I read that out already? >> You read it. Okay. Uh, forgot what I did there. >> Richard, prior to you reading that, was
there any directive from the commission at their last meeting or last couple of meetings back to us regarding a request of this type or >> not? really it was advertised and uh so it was advertised this point but it is
our role as the LPA to make recommendations and advise the city commission and u we did it at the last meeting and uh that was passed 4 to one. Uh there's a little bit of uh stuff we
wanted to clarify which we're doing at at this point. >> Right. So that so that was that was provided to the commission and the commission >> pulled it off the agenda >> and pul p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pulled it off the agenda and did they give any directive back to us in terms of
>> No, they just pulled off a >> Well, they pulled it off the agenda, but that is one thing that I will get into right now then. Uh Tammy Vasquez advised me of what she would like to see. So, this is her proposed amendments to
ordinance 202610. Please uh take a copy and pass it down. >> But we're talking about a comprehensive plan amendment. >> Yeah, >> this is >> that's the only direction I got from the uh
>> city commission. He was talking about in relation to what we gave them. Right. >> Right. So, I'm sorry. What? So, Richard, what are you providing us now? What is What is this? >> This is uh >> Yeah, Tammy, I don't know if you saw
this on Facebook. Anyway, >> this is something she wanted to talk about and she had to leave, >> but I mean, I'd kind of like to focus on this agenda item first and then then we can get into that. >> Exactly. And that's one thing I wanted
to >> So, this was so this this wasn't something that was on our agenda. No, this was Tammy just >> gave it to >> I thought I would in order just to keep everybody in the loop to uh pass out what her request was. >> Okay, that's fine. And um you know one
of the items and the situation being I want to make sure that what we were trying to do the last meeting and it has been in a resolution
that I found in our documentation and uh this is what we were proposing and actually put in the comprehensive plan the following maximums.
And this is from a resolution that we looked at in the past. Tia says we never voted on it. I thought we did, but I guess we didn't. But the following maximum building height shall be permitted through plan development approval and development agreement.
Hotel and temporary lodging uses 80 feet. Multif family residential uses within mixed use development 80 feet. Mixed use buildings maximum 80 feet. Density standards up to 75 units per
acre for sites less than an acre. Up to 100 units per acre for sites 1 acre or greater. Multifamily residential within mixed use development. Up to 35 dwelling units per acre for sites less than 1
acre. up to 50 units, dwelling units per acre for sites 1 acre or greater. And um you know that's one of the things >> I'm sorry where where is that? Is that on the sheet? >> No, it's from a resolution that we had in the past
and I just want to clarify that that was >> this was from the resolution that wasn't advertised by the board. >> No, this is from what months ago, right? I'm not sure when when it came out, but just wanted to point out the fact that we always had that limitation in here um
>> of the 80 ft >> of the 80 ft of the 100 units per acre. And uh you know the situation is is currently the easiest zoning district to talk about is the RFH50
because the current code limitations is 50 units per acre 60t in height. You know, there's all this talk of, oh, we don't need the PD zoning anymore because if you change the comprehensive land use
plan to those limitations, they won't need to to reszone. And that is not correct at all. Currently, we have the two limitations of 60 feet in height, 50 units per acre. If you zone reszone to plan development,
you have the maximum possibility of 80 ft in height and 100 units per acre, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it. It is still the negotiations involved. And that's beauty, >> but that's not passed. >> No, that's not passed. and uh you know
it was pulled off the agenda on July 7th and we're just trying to make a recommendation back to the uh city commission to get something moving >> with a little bit more detail >> and and I but I thought the last instruction or at least recommendation
from the city commission was for us to wait for the master plan to be >> to advise us on which direction to take in terms of >> He just took it off. of any limitations on height or any change in density >> the agenda
>> and the thing is Chris I mean you can uh this >> I'm just I'm just trying to make sure we we it's it's that it's transparent >> yeah this is just a point of discussion we can always make any recommendation we want to to the city commission and that's what we did last meeting with a 4
to1 vote um >> right so >> it was not wellreceived and Part of it was because it wasn't advertised. It's just something I made the recommendation. This time it is a >> Yeah. What? >> It really wasn't required to be
>> It's not required to be. This board can make a recommendation anytime they want. >> Right. So, let me can I >> Well, let me finish. Okay. My thought real real quick. The the biggest misconception is a lot of people are
putting out on social media, oh the the plan development uh won't be needed anymore if you change the comprehensive land use plan. No, actually you got to have both because right now the density in that district right across the street
is 50 units per acre. There is no height limitation, but it's 50 50 units per acre. In order to increase that, you do need a comprehensive land use plan. But the rationale behind a plan development, of course, is the negotiations start
when you make your resoning application. The maximum will be 80 ft and 100 ft as this board previously approved. You don't necessarily get that if you come in here with bad architecture or
you don't uh you know a number of other things. I mean it's a negotiated uh situation enhanced landscaping better walkability parking adjustments and sharing. um we end up with a lot more power on this
side of the street where on this side of the desk I should say where we're saying hey if you want to build your hotel and get I don't know 80 feet in height maybe only 90 units
per acre or even 85 units per acre you got to do this this and this from the city usually those improvements have to have to do something to do with the uh project itself, for instance, lining of
sanitary sewers, um maybe putting in a crosswalk, uh shared parking with the city, that type of situation. And uh that's where we're at this point. And we just want to make sure that those
limitations are defined. And this board has never said anything about coming in and having a land owner or a developer ask for 120 ft. Now the limitation has always been 80 ft 100
units per acre. So Marvin, I know you were kind of putting this thing on the agenda. So why don't you take it and run with it for >> So where does this all where does this play into the master plan? I'm just just for clarification. >> It doesn't >> We're getting the uh documentation
started. I mean, this doesn't do a thing in regard to the master plan. It will >> Yeah. >> get the verbiage in process. That's all it does. >> Let me just lay it all out for you. Okay. >> Uh so, so here's what's being proposed.
basically a recommendation to the city commission to direct the city attorney to draft a comprehensive plan amendment that establishes maximum allowable density far and is ISR standards for the city's commercial land use categories
and I emphasize that are available only through the plan development process in addition to that because we have Senate Bill 180 preventing us from limiting height in the comprehensive of plan. The recommendation will be that the city commission direct the city attorney to
add a height limitation of 80 ft to the plan development ordinance and again only available through the PD process. So what does this accomplish? The proposed amendments and amendment and ordinance change would make all
increased allowable standard requests consistent with the comprehensive plan and eliminate the need for every project to initiate a smallcale comprehensive plan. So basically, we're doing a comprehensive plan for the the entire
commercial district and that that may change, but right now that's what we're doing or that's what I'm suggesting >> and the RFH50. >> It includes that's the part of the commercial district. I said the entire commercial district. >> Well, they're two different zoning
categories. >> Okay. Well, I mean I'm talking already I'll we'll get into that at the end here. So, and so what we're saying is we should do a comprehensive plan amendment for all these CG, RFM, RFH
and and this will un eliminate the uncertainty of potential comprehensive plan challenges and the significant legal costs and delays which come with them. And legal cost, delays, uncertainty, developers don't like those words. If we want to attract new
development, we need to take those negatives off the table by amending the comprehensive plan. And in the research I did, I could not find another city that had a plan development type ordinance that left developers no other choice but to
initiate a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment. It appears that most c cities, if not all, like St. Pete Beach and Madura Beach, for example, they've already got the comprehensive plan amendment in place to allow for the increased heightened density through a plan
development type process. This is really nothing new. It's done all over the state. Right now, the way we've been told it needs to be done is that we have to initiate a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment. The problem with that is
every time we do a development, you got another comprehensive plan amendment which can be challenged legally. And you know, this city, it's going to be challenged. So, we can do a citywide comprehensive plan amendment, get
challenged once, get through the legal process, and then moving forward with other applications, you don't have the the comprehensive plan legal challenge problem. So that's the reason that we want to >> Yeah, I see the view.
>> Yeah, >> because it's, you know, these you can get tied up for years. >> Nancy, how with the plan development and the comprehensive plan, how how does it usually work? I mean, we've we've talked about this before. So, so the as the local planning agency, your primary job
um from based on Florida statutes is to find that a proposed development um whether it's uh even the variances or some type of reszoning or a PD is consistent with your comp plan >> in your experience as as well as because
you represent the the city. >> How do the other municipalities work with the PD's comprehensive plan? So like the comprehensive plan, >> it depends. It depends. Um some cities allow um PDs in certain zoning
categories and then I have also seen other cities where um they have even annexed property, created a comprehensive plan for it, done a resoning, and then perhaps even done a variance. But in the former situation that you had just mentioned where like
let's say a comprehensive plan covers the entire commercial areas including let's just say the beachfront. If someone goes through that whole process the city this board the commission still has the opportunity to deny whatever is being submitted. Oh, absolutely. And it
happens often, >> but to get the ball rolling, it would be more beneficial. I because >> that's a judgment call and I'm going to stay away from that because >> let me just ask you, let me ask a different question. Right. So, because of the because PDs obviously are important and I was just thinking about
it because of budget season coming up and some of the infrastructure that we have to pay. I know that Richard mentioned some of the >> things, but like could a city um say that like let's take Treasure Bay for example. Could could the city say in a PD that if you're going to apply for a
PD and you're going to build in a PD that a percentage of your valuation of your build dollar amount could be collected in a Treasure Bay fund to it like kind of like could that be part of a negotiation where we're trying to find out what city
benefits what resident benefits could get out of the PD. >> When you say it in that way, what jumps in my mind are possible challenges for an extraction. um you know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Can you give us Okay. So, ex other than what Richard had mentioned, are there
any additional city benefits that you've seen in communities >> flexibility to basically almost have a clean slate and have a unique project um because everybody doesn't get generally no not everybody goes and gets a PD.
It's usually a very unique project that requires um modification of maybe 11 variances. um maybe some um alcohol uh outdoor alcohol consumption.
>> Um music being played with some regulations regarding hours uh that music could be pa play played. Um I mean those are the type of things that you see in those. Um and also I think was
mentioned parking the ability to have shared parking. Sometimes some cities will have that in a separate section of their code, but oftent times um how do you address parking? Um I'm thinking of one that we did where there was an offer
made by um the developer property owner to have an employee incentive program that would allow for off-site parking uh with a shuttle to to bring the employees there to try to eliminate some of the traffic. There was another one that had
um offered the opportunity to have some type of um water taxi stop. I mean, those are not things that you're going to typically see in your zoning categories, but that's >> that in a PD would allow for that type of negotiation and flexibility.
>> It would make the city it would make the city attractive >> for developers. >> Yeah, that's a judgment call. I think the city already is attractive. Okay. But um but seriously um it that you know you have this great project that's coming and it just doesn't quite fit but
it really is to the benefit of the public and so that's where the PD comes in where you can be um flexible and negotiate and try to come up with that. But to answer your question just because it's a PD does not mean there's
automatic approval. there's criteria that has to be identified. >> But I think if from a comprehensive plan perspective that it should apply to the west side of Golf Boulevard, the downtown area, the north side of Treasure Island, the club at TI. Um I
know that we've already been rejected on the RH30. So I mean I'm not saying that that has to be included, but >> but that's those are policy questions. >> Yes. What I'm trying to say is >> right now Ralph Brooks is tell he's
saying the way we need to handle this is that each individual applicant needs to do a smallcale comp plan amendment because you're not you're not comp we don't you have to comply with the comprehensive plan. In order to do that you have to do a
comprehensive plan amendment. So his thing is every time a developer, a different developer comes up with a new project, there's another comprehensive plan amendment that's got to be filed and it can be challenged legally, blah blah blah. Versus, do we do a citywide
comprehensive plan amendment that will put us in a position where when you we make these applications, we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. They don't have to do with another comprehensive plan amendment. Oh, I I would like to just just for public understanding of what you're saying
because one component that's missing of that, which I I feel like I'm sure you're you know this, but for the public, adopting a comprehensive plan amendment that establishes a new future land use category wouldn't it would be citywide applicable, but it would not change any
underlying future land use category. they would have to go through a concurrent future land use map amendment along with their resoning and their PD in order to change that underlying future land use category. So just to make sure that everybody understands what it is that you're presenting here.
It the comprehensive plan amendment itself would not change any land use entitlements. It would have to go through all is setting what all those standards which which we'll get into. Um, >> perfect. Just add that. No,
>> if I may, Marvin, I'd like to just make the point so that we're clear on this that >> um the concerns regarding legal challenges because we have to adopt a comprehensive amendment each time a developer comes forward. That's only accurate if a developer
comes forward with a plan that exceeds our current codes. >> So, if they build at 50 over one at 60 ft, there's no need for a comprehensive plan amendment. I understand. Okay. But if somebody's going to go through all the things you have to go through for plan development,
>> they're not going to do it just so they can build to the same code. >> They're going to be looking for increased standards. Let's be realistic. Nobody's going to put themselves through this because it's a process. Since we're being realistic, I think it's important to come back to this point where we
started in this entire initiative began when a proposed developer hired a consulting group to come in and ask for a change to our comprehensive plan. We've g been through multiple iterations and where we landed was the city commission agreed to hire an objective
consulting group to do the analysis necessary to determine what changes were needed, if any, to facilitate economic development. And we still don't have that information back. With all these with with the continuing changes that you continue to bring up and throw
towards the commission, I think there's two problems with it. One is it's ambiguity. They're going to sit. And Lauren Rubenstein representing the Sands said as much the other night. She said, "We are sitting and waiting. They're waiting to make a decision based on what
we do." And we continue to change this thing and we're changing it based on speculation and the request of one developer who said it won't pencil out. That's the degree of information we've obtained thus far. You guys are at the sporting goods buying baseball equipment
and you haven't even made the team yet. I mean, let let's why why can't we just put the brakes on this until we get the assessment back from the master planner? >> I just want to discuss the process is this. >> Well, the process is you go, you get the data and then you use the data to make a
decision. >> The process if we do a plan development, how's it going to work? That's what we're talking about. >> It's going to work the way it's in the ordinance. >> They're getting ready to adopt it. >> Okay. And the problem with the plan development ordinance was >> they don't like it. I get it.
>> It's not that I don't like it. It's that that it's am it's ambiguous. It's too open-ended. There's too many pieces in it conversation. >> Okay. But what you want to add to it is simply not >> adding anything to it. >> Well, you what you want to do is propose an amendment that simply back doors increased height and density.
>> I mean, can we just call this what it is? >> Why don't you let's go through the whole thing before you make You're You're not getting it. >> I think I am getting it. Well, >> I think you're proposing changes to the comprehensive plan that allow a
developer to come in and put forth a petition and increase height and density. >> Comprehensive plan has nothing to do >> I understand has nothing to do with height, >> but you just said it. You just said that it did. >> Well, when you go through the LDR, the the the >> But we're only talking about the comprehensive plan.
>> Okay. But the plan development is what gives you the height. >> Okay. You go through the LDR to get through the height. It'll give you height with what? >> We're only talking about the comprehensive plan. >> But the comprehensive plan is changing density. >> So that's one component of it. Okay. The
other component of it is the plan development. If these things are going to work in unison, that's where the height component comes in. >> I mean, listen, if if if you guys are all in on increasing height and de height and density because that's what you believe, then let's just say that. Let's just do that.
>> I've said it before. I'm just trying to talk about the process of how this is going to work because the city attorney is telling us one thing >> and I disagree with it when you bringing it up and I want to explain why. >> When you frame the process as though there are inevitable legal challenges
that are going to come about if we don't adopt these amendments, you're being disingenuous. No, I'm not. Because there are not legal challenges that are going to come about if builders adhere to our existing codes. I'm talking about when we use the plan development ordinance, that's what we're
talking about. We're not talking about building the code is a different thing. >> The plan development ordinance which hasn't been >> adopted ordinance to build the code. It's just not going to happen. >> Okay. The plan development ordinance which hasn't been adopted yet, >> right? >> It has not been adopted. But what I want
to make sure of is everybody realizes that this board has never supported any height higher than 80 and has never supported any density higher than 100 units per acre. You know, the situation is is
all we're doing at this point is just preparing the paperwork >> and the ordinances. situation is is when the sands, you know, it's a very small site, but when they finally say, "Hey,
we can make this work and we will apply for a planned development." But when they apply for a planned development, and the word was, "Oh, they'll come in asking for 120 ft high 12story buildings." No, that is not what this
board has ever said. Uh and so today one of the things is is Marvin's uh proposal and that's one thing I want to ask the uh city attorney about is the flexibility of plan development gives
you a lot of de design creativity the uh but I want to have a maximum on certain items just so they don't waste their time. I don't want to see somebody coming in here and asking for
something that uh we give them the false hope that they're going to get a 12story building on this island cuz I never I have been accused many times, oh, he wants tall buildings. No, I don't. I don't want anything higher than uh 80
ft. But I think 20 feet to give somebody the incentive to do something. I mean, it's it's bad when there are 10 sites on this uh island that I truly believe are going to be uh benefit benefited by uh
planned development. And there may be more, but uh I want to see us get to that point where hey, maybe something will happen. I mean, we all got to see a presentation by Rafelis last
July 7th, and he gave a lot of uh economic explanations, some of which I agreed on. But what he never got to was what's it really going to take? And Commissioner
Dicki was, I want a number. I want to know what's it going to take to be profitable in Treasure Island. Well, I think that number is going to be real hard to get to because what are you going to build? You're going to build a Motel 6. You're going to build a uh let's just call it a Hilton. I mean,
there's a lot of difference in cost. It's going to take a few more dollars to make a profit with a Hilton than a Motel 6. And let's face it, despite what a lot of people think, the 50s are over with. They're not coming back. So somehow we
would like to move uh the city forward, at least some of us would, and just get the paperwork started to do to benefit the following sites. The Thunderbird, I think, everyone on this board wants to
move the city forward. So to to indicate, >> that's what I'm saying. Why are you interrupting me? >> Well, I'm I'm because you just said that some of us on the board are not uh wanting to move the city forward. I don't think that's true. So, I'm interrupting you for that. >> Well, you have your chance to comment. Anyway, the the Thunderbird, the
Tahesian, the Sands, uh the Gators property, the central business district north of 107th, the central business district south of 107th, the club, the swashbuckler, the our Villa, Treasure Sands across the way there, and will there be more? probably
would be, but it would be nice to have at least the paperwork in order that when RTellis comes back with a number that we can say, okay, let's just say Ref Tillis comes back and says, "All
right, you need 85 uh units per acre and 100 foot in height to uh make a profit. Okay, we're ready to go. Let's do it." And that's what you're aiming at, isn't it? Well, any data >> putting standards because we're limited
to what we can do. We're limited by the countywide plan. >> So, Tia, can you put that? Well, in many cities that implement PDS put guard rails on the PDS for for height and density and they do them in
such a ways that you're not having to get into the specifics on different zoning areas because which but a PD is a new zoning district and so a property has to be reszoned to that district. So
I I'm really saying that perhaps we're making this more complicated than it needs to be. What if everyone can agree on a reasonable increase of or maximum height and maximum density that we allow in
Treasure Island when PDs are implemented. That's the guard rail that can be put into the PD. And once that is agreed to by the city commission, the comp plan can be adjusted accordingly to meet that guard rail allowance. You
don't have to go to the specifics of all as you've done in these individual areas. You you can it's once the commission makes a decision that they want to have PDs as a zoning district and have that be allowable in Treasure
Island. then then they've reached that step and they can put they should be doing it with guard rails in place that can then be propagated into the comp plan, >> not the other way around. You're wanting to do the comp plan first.
>> They should go in the PD. >> No, it's this should be done in parallel. >> It should be done in parallel. There's no doubt about that. Look, when a developer wants to to put an application in for a project project according to
the way Ralph wanted to do it was you go through the process and at the same time you do a small PL small scale planned or comprehensive plan amendment. I'm saying there's a problem with that. >> I agree there's a problem. Yeah. No, I agree.
>> Okay, perfect. Can I just I think we're in agreement. It's just not approach >> here. I'll just try real quick. Yeah, >> plan development. Okay, just think plan development. You're on board with the PDS, correct? >> With guardrails >> with Okay, that's fine. PDS in general, what we're trying to do don't exist
without a comprehensive plan update. Okay, now let's break that down for a second. The comprehensive plan update itself, would you rather the entire commercial area and zoning of Treasure Island have the ability to have a PD with guardrails? Okay. Or would you
rather it be hodge podgeed where this commercial development or this commercial development or this from all over could have access to PDS or could not have access to >> I want I want every full access >> then that's what Mar is trying to >> but I think it's the opposite of what he's doing. >> No, he's trying to update the
comprehensive plan to be expansive to everyone for whoever wants to commit submit for PDS with the future guardrails that we will talk about later when you have the comm when you have the master plan or whatever if it ever comes to fruition. >> Right. But you but you're putting the guardrails in now. That's my point.
>> Listen, if you're if you want to use the PD and you want to exceed our current standards, you can't do it unless you're consistent comprehensive plan. Right? So what I'm trying to do is let's make the comprehensive plan. So it's got the
these standards in there. So now it's consistent. You don't have to go through a separate comprehensive plan amendment every single >> That's what we're trying to do. Right? >> So that's only for density and floor area ratio, right? Because there are no height specifications in the comprehensive plan. >> You can't the height is handled through
the PD, >> right? So why wouldn't you put the other piece? Why wouldn't you just amend the PD and put the guardrails right in the PD consistent with the comprehensive plan? If you don't if you don't update the comprehensive plan, you're not going to exist and you can't do it.
>> That's what I'm trying to say. PDS don't exist. Well, I guess this is an order thing and maybe this is Nancy, maybe you could weigh in here in terms of what how we if the if the end goal once the commission agrees on changes
>> to allowance of PDS and allowance for some reasonleness and height and density increases once they agree in a PD. Okay. What is the most you know transparent
and fair approach to doing that in terms of order? >> It can be done both ways. Okay? Because as has been stated, whatever you do from a zoning perspective has to be consistent with your comp plan. You can
do a generic comp plan. Now, whether or not you put standards in your comp plan, that's another issue that will be discussed and debated. You could have it still be very general, saying that this future land use category would allow a
PD zoning to come in without having those standards. And then you could have your guard rails in your PD >> within the PD itself. Or you could put guard rails in your comprehensive plan and then when your PD comes forward, even with its own guard rails, still has
to be consistent with your comp plan, that could also have guardrails. >> Okay. So, you're really saying we could it could be done either way. >> Yeah, it could be done either way. Whatever is the most comfortable and transparent for this community is the best way to go. I mean, what's simpler
is to amend the comp plan to allow PDS as a zoning category. Period. >> That's what we're here for. >> Yeah. But without all the detail, all this other detail, >> if you leave the details out of her just right now from a senior perspective,
>> then you get the PD's cranking. Okay. And with the updated comprehensive plan, if somebody comes in and says they want X, you and the commission and the residents are still going to have the ability to shut it down. Oh, I I realize that each one individually can be reviewed.
>> No one comes and knocks on the door without the comprehensive plan being updated. >> So, I'm I'm in favor of the comp plan being amended to allow PDs as a zoning category. >> That's it. No details, no all over the city.
>> So, let's ask Nancy. >> Perfect. >> Yeah, but it's a simpler way to do it. >> Real easy question. But then the then you know as a part of that >> the PDS absolutely are going to need guardrails as and many of the commissioners have already stated that's
what they wanted to see. >> Correct. >> So let the commission with our >> guidance >> guidance and you know um put those guard rails into place when they decide to do it. But >> I'm just trying to figure out
>> from a process point of view. >> Go ahead. From a litigation standpoint, how can we avoid litigation? >> I I think you make it simpler, which is simply I think you simply adjust and amend the comp plan to allow PDs as a zoning district.
>> So when you or category >> you're talking about the future land use categories in the comp plan, these specific future land use categories would allow a reasonzoning um >> because right now it doesn't, right? because right now it does not have PDS
as a category. We're just saying obviously that has to be amended. >> No argument there. >> And somebody came in and they want to exceed the code height >> which the zoning code >> the standard you know 60 ft
>> this code limitation right there. I'm not saying change those right now. >> They're coming into and they want to exceed that obviously >> right. So, are you telling me they're they're not going to need a comprehensive plan amendment >> at this point? Um, that future land use category that applies to that property
would have to allow the PD zoning >> and the PD zoning in the ordinance allows for deviations, >> right? So you're saying we can do a comprehensive plan amendment that just
acknowledges PDS >> as a category. >> I would say in certain future land use categories. >> Yeah. >> Not all unless that's the >> it is a aren't you in the comp plan just you're changing your plan to allow that
as a zoning category >> of zoning category. >> That's it. >> Right. And so then that type of zoning category that's developed in your land development code is then consistent with the future land use category for that particular part. >> That's right. Bingo.
>> So well let's take the RFH 50 district as an example because I think that's the one that's going to have the most action on it. Right now the comprehensive plan says maximum
50 units per acre and all indicators are that hey you got to have a little more density. >> Yeah. So how are you >> that the LDR that says that not the comp plan? Well, the comp plan does have compensity >> density and
>> um a specific >> uh guard rail already in your comprehensive plan for that particular category. >> So, you couldn't >> they're already in there. >> It's already there. >> 50, but they want to exceed that.
>> That's the trouble. It's only 50 units per acre. >> They're going to want to exceed those numbers. >> Yeah. I don't think you can do that with a PD because then if >> I don't think you can do that because if you have a property that is in the um
RF50 and that's what the guard rail is, you can't go beyond that even if you have a PD. >> Well, I know that that's why we're talking about making that change to get that done across the board. So, hey, you can come in and ask for up to 80 ft and
up to 100 units per acre. It's only the density that uh you would be asking for. But right now, let's just say we have a planned development zoning category, which we currently do not have in that category, and it should always have been
there. Maximum PD density is going to be 100 units per acre. Maximum height is going to be 80 feet. Well, let's just say that somebody comes in, makes the application for the reszone, and gets it all approved, and then their answer is, "Well, you can't build anyway. The
comprehensive plan won't let you." Which over there, right across the street, you can't because it's only 50 units per hour. >> You had a comprehensive plan. You already did a comprehens comprehensive plan amendment putting these standards
in the comprehensive plan for each C for each of these categories. Then that's what I'm trying to avoid. >> Then you would be consistent, >> right? So that's the that's the whole goal here. >> Great. So let me ask you, look, I understand what you're saying. >> Still needs to decide exactly what we're
going to do, what the standards are, this and that. >> So I'm just curious, Marvin, this document that you circulated, we're at 50 units per acre. Now you're proposing a 100 units per acre >> over over one. >> So >> over one acre. >> How did you come up with that number?
>> That's the uh Well, actually, yeah, this is the maximum allow. This is the countywide number. >> So, you pushed it as far as you possibly could up to the county standards. That's how you came up with the number. So, there was no economic analysis done. There was no demand done. There was no
use done. You just pushed it as far as you could. >> But that's the thing with the plan development on this saying this is the max, but doesn't mean you're going to get it. If you sit here and uh submit a bunch of crap, I'm gonna say, "Hey, no,
not going to get it." And uh maybe it's a situation where we don't give them a hundred. We only give them uh 90. We have that power with with the plan development. But the situation is is right now. And everybody says, "Oh, it doesn't
pencil out." Well, I'm sure Raftalis is a really reputable firm, but uh they happen to have a little conversation with certain city employee and said, "Oh, we're not going to give you that number." That's up to the land owner. That is up to the land owner.
>> Do you understand? >> Yeah, I understand. But you still have you're I understand where you're setting it from a county perspective. um >> because we have to be consistent with the county plan, >> but then you still these numbers, >> but you as the board and the commission still has it, the reason why I like it
and I would be for this is because it gets people talking to us. It gets people trying to take Treasure Island into the future because I I I don't know where Joan is, but here we are again where don't really see much coming over here. Don't know if you guys noticed on the PNZ there was nothing submitted in
regards to what what our process is what what our process is like. So >> main thing I'm trying to point out >> our future is like >> if we don't do a comprehensive plan amendment for the whole city every time a developer wants to build something they're going to have to get a
comprehensive plan amendment. And that's it's just doesn't make any sense to me. I I'm more of under the approach that from a plan development perspective, we still have the city and the residents still have control. That's that's most that that's most important. I think that there's a huge resident benefit for for
for PDs. I think where the struggle is is is because I am for the PDS because of what the things that I had just mentioned. The PDS don't exist unless the comprehensive plan gets changed and my >> either one at a time or >> I definitely do not want one at a time
because I do not think that that is fair. that is not that is the the comprehensive plan being updated needs to be updated for all of the business districts or all of the locations that that we're talking about including the beachfront >> and right now we've got all the commercial. Now, I know there's some discussion on the there may be some
discussion on the commission in pulling back on some of that and that's fine and you'll just ch you know we're not going to start this until we figure out okay these are the these are the category >> all four of the ma all the master planners that had interviewed said that they need plan development or not
something they need they need I'm sorry they don't need it they >> but it's a useful tool >> it is a useful tool well I look around correct >> I think you know a one a good first step >> don't exist without the comprehensive plan being updated. That's it. So, we're preparing the paperwork as we keep
saying that it would be for the when the master planner is ready that it's readily available. >> Basically, what we're doing is we're requesting that the city attorney draw up a draft a comprehensive plan amendment and and change make a change in the PD
because you got to put the height in the PD because of Senate Bill 180. You can't put it in the comprehensive plan. >> Yep. >> So, My what I'm what I'd like to do tonight is make a a re, you know, a motion to approve a resolution and send it to the city commission and say, "Hey,
we'd like you to have the city attorney draft an amendment." And then they would send the amendment back to us, then we can talk about it. >> But Marvin, again, my position is clear. I don't really want to talk about it till we see data, till we see evidence
of what needs to be done for economics. >> I could be in favor of us moving forward with >> getting an adjustment made an change to the comp plan to allow the PD >> doesn't do anything. >> It it gets it's a start because it's
could be useful. You've got to have you have to be comp you have to be consistent with >> just putting that in there doesn't do anything. It doesn't make you consistent. >> Well, it it actually does because you you can No, it be all if if a developer
is willing to live within the guides of the plan. >> They're not going to cope they're not going to go through the PD process to get 60 feet and 50 units an acre. They're not going to spend all that extra money, go through all the hoops. I
mean, get real. That's not going to happen. >> You're not going to go through an a reasonzoning >> money to the city and everything else. I mean, >> well, you're not going to go through a reasonzoning of any type if you can already build it under RFH50. I mean that's just
>> I mean the thing is >> once again >> but you do get some there is benefit to the PD with respect to if you can live within the current guard rails that the that that the comp plan allows you are able to get adjustment in setback and in
other factors >> there are some benefits understand what I'm trying >> it it isn't a one >> Chris is correct on that you do get some flexibility with setbacks and parking and >> so if you want to do the first step. That's a way to do it. >> Yeah. But there's a lot work there's a
lot of work involved. >> No, reszoning is very painful. >> The thing is to give them a little incentive to say, "Hey, you can possibly possibly get to 80 ft. You can possibly get to 100 units per acre, but that's
what PDS do. In the instance of of this, what >> it would be significantly easier because no future land use or comprehensive plan amendment would be needed if you're just doing a PD to circumvent uh standard
zoning regulations like setbacks and dimensional regulations. There would be no comp plan amendment needed. The way it's written right now, you could go up in height the way it's written right now. Um it's just the density that couldn't change and that would just be a simple reasonzoning process with no comp
plan amendment. >> Right. >> You could go up and height now. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Through the way the ordinance is written right now. >> No limitation in it. >> No, there's no limitation in the comprehensive plan. There is a limitation in the code. >> Right. Correct. >> I mean it's like >> that's why I said the way it's written right now.
>> You guys don't want a limitation? No. I have no problem. Except Richard, doesn't the co doesn't the PD ordinance allow you to um request more height from the LDR perspective, >> but that's the limitation that I have always wanted to put in there. I don't
want some bonehead coming in here and saying I want a 20s story building. I don't even want uh a 90 foot high building. I want 80 feet. That's what we have always talked about on this board. >> So, I get that. But to to Braden's point, what he's saying is that you could come in now with the PD ordinance
request more height. The limiting factor would be density >> if the comp plan wasn't changed, right? And floor area ratio. >> Well, height can only be right now, like like has been stated, right now you can only regulate height in the LDRs for a
newly amended PD. You wouldn't be able to do that through the comprehensive plan, >> right? But you could set the height in the PD >> and you and that's what we want to do, Chris. Right. >> I mean, if you don't want height in in the PD, I'm good. >> Oh, I I'm not
>> Well, I'm trying to compromise here. >> Yeah, but >> what's the most recent res what's the most recent friendly a resident friendly commercial property or structure that's been built here in the last, >> let's call it, 10 years? >> I absolutely would not know the answer
to that. >> There's the Treasure Island Hotel. Okay, that's maybe fusion, but obviously we've gone through the times of where the pricing has changed. >> Y >> Okay, so let's just take it back the last 5 years or the last application. Like have any of us I mean we've all sat on this board. We bring a bunch of
different talent to this to this board. I think that even in the future, regardless of how this board changes over, there is just no chance that someone can come with an application and get a 120 foot building approved. We we all know that that's just that's just not Treasure Island. I mean, people don't live people don't live here for
that. But I want it in the documentation. >> I have no problem. >> And that and that's fine. And that's fine, too. But I I I just >> So I guess that's where it gets, you know, it's the we're back to the common argument of where did 80 ft and 100
units density come from? And >> what is the right what's the right number? What is the right number? >> Let me ask you this question. >> And I don't know. By the way, >> rafterless comes in and says, "All right, 70 ft and 90 units per acre."
Okay, we'll take that to account when uh the Sands comes in and says, "I want a 100 units per acre and 80 ft." We just go, "Hey, Rafter said you weren't going to get that much." And we agree with it. We can turn down anything we want. And uh that's the beauty of plan
development. If they come bad architecture, I'm going to turn it down because I don't like it. >> City manager has to say >> anyway. Go ahead, Chuck. >> So, nobody's called me Chuck in a long time, but >> Charlie, sorry. >> No problem. So, um
I I came here a year ago. A buddy of mine sent me a picture um from one year ago yesterday with my wife holding my Bible and me raising my right hand and swearing uphold the Constitution and all the whatevers. And I've enjoyed it. And
I came in to a commission that told me the former city manager didn't listen and the city commission wasn't being their thoughts weren't being carried out. And honestly thought other than when then Commissioner
Dicki who's been extremely consistent representing uh Sunset Beach that he really liked it the way it was that we were heading towards increases in height and density and that was one of the things I thought I was brought in uh to help facilitate.
>> He said that >> Commissioner Dicki has always to told me and he said it from there. He's not looking for it. But that's that's not the point. I I I thought we had at least four of the five existing commissioners that were ready to get going.
Every time the LPA in the year I've been here has made a recommendation to the city commission since the city commission has moved towards the master plan, which we paid 198,000 of your dollars for. Okay. I think we actually get invoiced
at the end. Um and I've been pushing them and I will hold them accountable through the whole process. We are in phase three. We started July 1st and end in September 30th. And in that phase, they're supposed to make uh recommendations based off their
professional objective uh not going to make any more money off the city kind of analysis on height density ordinances, all those things. So my undergrad's in political science. So my only comment to you guys in your
timing would be the the time I think that you would be the most likely to get comp plan changes and PDs implemented and Mr. Harris has heard me say this and all five commissioners have heard me say this is in the first meeting in October. I think I think that is when the the
least resistance will be there. You can recommend anything you want to the city commission and I will relay it every time you do just as I have. But that's all I had to say. >> I appreciate that. >> And another story. >> Let me ask you one question there, Charlie, before you leave. >> Does another hurricane delay that
October? >> Anyway, my question is this. >> Let's just say we put in the plan development with the gu and the comprehensive land use plans with the guardrails that we can. And the guardrails that I want are 80 ft in height, 100 units per acre.
And Raftilus comes in and says, "Well, you're close." within each individual resoning that comes in to plan development, we can come back to that land owner and say, "Well, our master
planner, right or wrong, uh said, let's say 70 ft in height and only 90 units per acre." And uh then that's all you're going to get and it's a situation where that land owner has to make the final
decision. And that's what Rafalus is going to say in the end. The decision is up to the land owner if he wants to uh roll the dice and see if he can make it on whatever Raftalis recommends. I mean, couldn't we have the upper end already
in place, the 80 and the 100? >> You could as soon as you can get three commissioners to coales around whatever your recommendation is, you can do it. >> Yeah, I think >> as soon as they're willing to do it. It's a three-step process. Oh, yeah. You make a recommendation. I relay it to the city commission. The
city commission either looks at me and the attorney and says, "You guys draft a comp plan amendment or you draft a whatever." And then it comes back to you guys for your input as the LPA, the agency that plans and makes recommendations and then it goes back to
the board for approval. And that can happen at any night. I'm not saying you shouldn't bring it again this next meeting. I'm just telling you my analysis of getting to talk to all five of them and all of you guys and they don't get to talk to each other outside of a meeting is I think your your your
best timing would be early October. That's all I'm saying. >> Does it say something in our code that says that whatever we put together has to go and get approval from the commission to then >> for the staff to write it and then for it to come back to us and then approve it and go back to them again. Is there
something like in our language that says that? I I thought that we could just >> You're advisory advisory and you do recommendations, >> right? We're just an adviser, >> you know. I think the city manager is sharing his extensive political
experience with us and insight. I'm not a land use guy >> and insight and saying whatever we're talking about here in order to facilitate development. >> It may be better to pump the brake and wait until the commission receives the information back that we've paid
$198,000. I think what I hear him saying is they are going to be more open to recommendations when they have this information. All we're doing is starting. It's a starting point. >> Making a recommendation. >> Charlie, is that when that master plan is that phase is ready? Is that a
commission meeting where like the mayor's going to pull out an envelope and say here are the results? It's 100 feet and >> like I mean how does it how does that go? >> Every workshop in coming months, sir, is uh the first Tuesday of the month when
the board meets the first Tuesday of every month's workshop from now to the end of the calendar year. They're to be concluded in December of 2026 as a Ralph Tillis update. Any other workshop that me or anybody else wants to bring, I'm putting on the second
Tuesday of the month. >> Yeah. >> So, they're and I'm I'm beating them like and hard to hurry it and maybe get it to me a little earlier than the beginning of October, but that's when they're contractually obligated to have it is by September 30th. and we're sure
that their results are going to be not impacted by city staff or city leaders feedback in regard >> they're recommendations sir they are recommendations you don't have to accept any of them commission doesn't have to accept any of them >> they are recommendations
>> I think it it's going to give the commission something to hang their hat on >> and the recommendation is based on a fairly well doumented process of multiple steps and multiple types of data that they'll be gathering >> how you Yeah, >> because they documented what their process was. They went through it.
>> You could go back and look at all nine original proposals and they got shortlisted. I I do believe they know what they're talking about and that their recommendations be salient, >> but they're at just that, their recommendations. I make recommendations to the city commissioners all the time and they take me up on some of my
recommendations some of the time, >> but they have more expertise than we have on this subject. >> Thank you, Charlie. >> Thank you, Charlie. >> Hold on a second, Mark. public comment. >> I know I'm going to get to you. You I got your card. >> Mine's off.
>> All right. All right. >> Turn on your microphone. It's on. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Anyway, my con my thought is I'm just trying to establish a framework. The numbers don't make any difference. The
numbers can change. They're just in there for placeholders right now. But it's going to take time to put the process together for the attorneys to draw to draft a a comprehensive plan amendment to analyze exactly how it should be worded this and
that instead of waiting till October to start because things move pretty slow here. I don't know if you noticed. So all I'm saying is let's establish a framework and the put whatever numbers you want in
there to start and then we'll fit and as you call them guard rails I guess Chris is that what terms you okay >> it's a you know it's not an official >> the numbers will be the numbers are to to be determined but let's let's start with the county these are the maximums
and maybe we don't get there >> but we are County Maximd. We got two cards. One from Mark Hoy, one from uh Sean Burn. Go ahead, Mark. >> Mark Hoey, 225 104th Avenue. And thank
you. I appreciate I know it's been long, long time. Um I'm not going to get into the details of this. I know I'm not a land use expert and frankly I appreciate all of your background and digging. You probably dug as much as anybody else
has, but you're not land use experts at least from the law. And I think you're right. That should be the province of a land use attorney to sort through the sequencing and the timing. That's fine. That's not going to be solved here.
Nonetheless, I would want to get you to go back and listen or remember what Ralph Brooks said several meetings back when the PD concept first came before and it was being debated a little bit
and he really said a couple of things that that I think are pertinent to the use of this. One was PDS are for exceptional properties or exceptional opportunities. They're not
blanketed across an entire city or an entire zone. And because of that, they require extra time, attention, detail uh to to work through. Likewise, he was an proponent again from his experience of
the idea that this changes to comp plan would be done on a spot basis. A spot basis, not again broadcast over entire zoning areas. And there's a reason for that, Marvin. It's not to slow down the process, but it's a
discreet, detailed effort to justify why we would make we, the commission, at this point because you're not going to make that decision. We all know that. You can make all the recommendations you want. There's going to be three people
on the commission going to make that decision. But they need to know and hopefully weigh what's the benefit to the community. What's how's it fit into a vision for what that community or that part of the community is going to look like? And
then they would be willing to accept what that developer is looking at. And yes, they can turn it down at any any of those things, but they're they're they're going to hopefully look out for those tradeoffs that would be made. And
you're not gonna, in my opinion, you're not going to accelerate that. You're not going to draw dozens of developers in here by changing the comp plan. Now there it's going to be specific and it's aimed will agree with Richard to the
point those 7 8 9 10 areas zones pieces of zones that may be the most attractive at this point and I think you got to go back to that and not try to broad brush everything in height density
uh zoning district that it's going to apply to. Let's go back to the basic concept was these are for exceptional properties of whatever size that need that attention and there's interest in it that could be
propagated through offering from the city variances of a significant nature to what our current zones are. Think about that. But thank you. >> But thank you Sean Burn >> again. Uh, thanks everybody. I mean,
this seems like deja vu over over. Um, Grant, you said something that's on social media that I just not trying to personally attack. I think you're a good person and you're passionate about what you care about. >> Feels like a song. Go ahead. >> I know. But you do. You're passionate. I respect the passionate. And so, and your
wife, I know you're very passionate how you feel. So, there's there's that's what good debate's about. So, one thing you said though is that the land owners, the sands, they said it that they're they're just waiting and that they'll build if this was all disappeared. I
mean, you don't need a calculator to figure this one out. They paid $5 million for that property for a running hotel. How much you think it's making right now? I mean, what what's the income? Zero. it. You know how fast $5 million of
capital return and eat you alive immediately? There's no coming out of that. They're losing. So the the perspective of that they don't want to do something is just to me is just So I just wanted to point that out. It doesn't take a hard math calculator. Put
$5 million and put 4% out of a CD and just add that up every single day and I mean they're not making money. They have taxes. They have liability insurance. they have all kinds of stuff that's just eating them alive. So, I just wanted to I I've heard that rumor going around and
it's very frustrating. Uh, another thing is I do agree with Mark that he's not a land use expert and neither am I. Um, I'm fortunately I deal with a lot of land use experts so I do understand a lot of it and I've been complimented on what I understand and I try to be
neutral and fair. Um, what I would say is that Mark made a personal comment that doing something like this won't attract development. I don't know if that's his perspective or out of his experience in development. Um, seems odd. Um, the h let's go back
through the history of how we got here. If you guys remember, I've been here for years now. And if I remember this entire board, what do we have to do to get development? Every one of you up here kept saying, "What do we have to do? Let's get the land owners in here." I
mean, it went meeting after meeting after meeting. What do we have to do? Well, now we're here, guys. This is the first step. I know it's uncomfortable, but it's good debate. This is the first step. So, that was the very first thing is meeting over meeting. Everybody knows
it's all recorded. Everybody knows, you all said we want to get development moving. Now, we don't want to talk about development because it's scary. It's not scary. It's just good development. It's being reasonable. That's the PD process. You can deny it if you don't like it, but you got to set the framework in to
attract it. So then let's go back a year after that. After all those frustrations, the Thunderberg comes in and they said, "Well, we're going to do a comp plan and LDR amendment for 100 units an acre and 80 feet." The push back from the public was we
don't want private developers telling us what to do. So it died, right? So then ultimately two years later, they're not one step closer to rebuilding from than the day after the hurricane. We're still here.
And the infighting and the rumors and the misleading and the oh, they're just waiting. It's all ridiculous. The facts are the facts. That's where we stand. Now you're getting an opportunity as a city to set the guidelines and draw the line in the sand. No pun intended.
you're going to be able to draw a line in the sand and say this is what we're willing to accept. Period. You don't need to take any more private applications. You don't need to you just draw a line and that's it. It's obviously more attractive than what we have now. It's putting the framework in.
And if someone brings a project to you and you don't like it, guess what? Denied. Go back to the drawing board. Bring us something else. But you got to put the framework in place. And without the framework, we're just going around. It's a spinning cycle. And I mean, I know there's a lot of people that are
just trying to wear the clock out. They think that anti-development is going to come in. Quite frankly, I disagree. I know every single resident that talks to me, Sean, what do we got to do to get this city gone? Well, right now, nothing's happening. And I think that the whole anti-development crew that we call it whatever you want that wants to
keep spinning it and drag the clock out, think that they've going to stack the boards. We'll see. I'm not sure that's the case. I think there's a lot of residents that want to see this city thrive. They want to see things happen. They want to see this city be proud of, not in the news every other week. It's
kind of embarrassing. So, um, remember the PD process is not by right. There's a big difference. It can be denied for no reason. And Nancy will verify that. They don't there's no there's no ifands or buts. It can be denied. If you don't
trust the elected, then vote people in that you trust. That's the way government works. Um, thank you so much. I appreciate it. It's that same. >> Hey, Sean, I got a question for you then. All right. Your family is a big land owner in the city of Treasure
Island. This board has always talked about 80 feet in height, 100 units per acre. As one of the biggest guys with the skin in the game, is that satisfactory? >> Yes. >> You said yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay. That's what we wanted and that's all we >> Marvin is trying to do >> it's a compromise. Beach is 115 feet. >> Well, I don't >> compromise. Navy Beach is 115 feet in the high resort facility district. >> There you go. Thank you, Sean.
>> That's what I wanted to hear. >> Just a couple points of clarification. Number one, I'm not on social media. So, you didn't hear from me on social media. >> You said it and then I've seen it on social media. And in terms of what I said was I was repeating what the representative from the sand said. She
said the owners are waiting to make a decision on what they're going to do from a development perspective. >> If we're being honest with each other, you're you were trying to intend that they're waiting to see what happens. And that's that they said it. You were you were I mean we don't I don't need to I'm not trying to debate with you, but you
were >> But aren't you waiting to see what happens as well? >> Or build a parking lot. Which one would you prefer? Um I'm not >> I'm trying not to build I'm not the land owner but my point I'd like to see real development. >> Aren't you waiting to see what happens? >> Yeah but if if Yeah. But the answer to
your question is is people say build to the code. Well parking is a permitted use and Braden can confirm that. And unfortunately that's what we're attracting and under permitted uses none of you guys have a choice. I think Mark Hoey said it at the last meeting the pirate square owner which is me just to
be clear uh brought in the big guns said I'm going to build a parking lot. doesn't take big guns. It's private property. It's a permitted use. You don't have a choice. That's what we're attracting. It's that simple. >> And do you think that there's any >> I don't want to build a parking lot. I've been a lifelong resident. I want to
see this city thrive. >> And And do you think as long as there's ambiguity in what the codes are going to be and what's allowable that people would wait to see where that ends up? >> I think that's why you have a PD process. And I think Nancy was kind of hinting at that. Obviously, she has to
be careful not to be impartial, but at the same token, the PD process is like, Grant, if a project comes in front of you and you don't like something, you voice your opinion and they they have to change it. >> So, so I get that. But my point is, aren't the developers and the investors
and folks who really have skin in the game and want to move ahead like yourself, aren't you waiting for that legislation or that ordinance to come about? you're not developing now because you either it's not feasible economically or you're waiting on the
outcome of this. >> I can't speak for everybody in our property as I told you last time. I asked everybody what's the density? It's 22 units an acre. That doesn't work. >> Okay? And so I'm at a fork in the road. Either I build a parking lot, which then I refinance it. I let it sit there for
the next 10 years and it's not what's best for the city of Treasure Island, or I try to hold off. And if this city can get to a point where, hey, we're not really in favor even, let's just say they're not in favor of what I want. Let's just say you guys come up and it's 75 units an acre. I'm not here to debate
what the number is. I'm here to say that you got to come up with a solution and put the in put the the tool in place and then we as developers say okay the city's made it clear that let's this is where they're at and then we have the
opportunity to try to bring a viable project forward. So everybody says oh build to the code right and I'm just being >> sure >> a challenge here and I appreciate you having this discussion. Everybody says build to the code. Well, the way I look at it as as from a business perspective
and no emotion is I am building the code. I'm building the highest and best use under the code, which is a permitted parking lot. >> The problem is that's not what I want. That's not what you guys want. That's not what anybody in this entire city wants. But that's all I can do right now. Feasibility.
Period. >> Unless you want to invest your money somewhere else. You want to turn that over, sell it, and invest your money somewhere else. So, you do have that option. >> I do, but I don't need to. I just I I don't I don't want to sell. I'll just build a parking lot. And the parking lot is a good business. That's why everybody's trying to do them.
>> My point is for those who have skin in the game, to Richard's point, it's not build or not build are the only two options. They can also flip that property and invest their money. >> Of course, but at the same token, that's a private right. I don't have to flip the property. I don't want to sell the property. Neither. And I think if you want to go through back to the original
point, what do we have to do to get development here? Uh let's go through the history here. The club has been defunct for about 20 years. It's gone through three bankruptcies since 1980. You have John's Pass who looks like a bomb went off. I don't know where code enforcement is, but it's a mess. And I I
I like the owners, so I hope that they just work something out and and we can move projects with a real property. Um, I think that you've got real situations like the Thunderbird who had an operating business that now have no
operating business. And that all the land owners are just sitting there waiting. This is a history. This is a pattern. This is you. It's not one incident. You could say, "Well, I'm the guy that's just sitting there or the Thunderbird's the one that's just sitting there." You've got a history, a pattern of people that are like, "Well,
we'll just wait." And and unfortunately if I took myself I sometimes I wish I wasn't associated with that so people would maybe take me more serious is if I was that's a real fact that you guys have to face these people aren't selling.
That's a fact. They're just sitting there doing nothing. And the whole way we got to this point was what do we have to do to get development? That's what everybody on this board said. They were begging for me. I was the only one sitting in these chairs if you remember. There was nobody in here. Even Mark
wasn't here. I bless you for coming, but nobody was here. >> He was probably sick that day. >> Nobody was here. Thunderbird was still operational. They weren't even thinking about this. And now we're still here. And that's the point. I'm not saying, Grant, hey, I I don't even want to put a
number on it. That's for you guys to figure out. All I'm saying is where we're at now doesn't work, right? And so to set up the the inf the the system, set it up so that now you guys get the opportunity to hear these developments and if you don't like them, turn them
down. But you got to set you guys to set the line in the sand. This is where the max we're willing to go. Period. We're willing to compromise. Here it is. That's it. >> Okay. Last question then. Under the current code, you know what it is in your plan redevelopment uh piece of
property that you own. Under the current code, you will not build because you cannot make money. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what we need to know. That's why we're trying to change things. >> And the last card today, >> you could build a parking lot and make money. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, we're still working
through. People keep poking me like why we haven't built a parking lot. If you remember, we had to get an alley vacated and then it takes easements and it's not so easy working with Duke Energy if anybody's had a uh it took me a year to get the transformer removed. Now you have to get the easements put over the
it's a it's a it's very complicated land use and that's why I feel like everybody's trying to spin because it is very complicated. You're 100% right. It's extremely complicated and we're getting there. But my goal is not to build a parking lot. If I have to, I will. I wanted to improve it. I met with
the city. I met with Mary Ellen. I met with with the city to try to improve the property. But really, the problem is is you saw how complicated it is to build a parking lot down in Sunset Beach and how many contingencies it is. I can't really
clean it up without a permit. And without a permit, it gets complicated. Then it's like, well, you're still in code viol. It's a mess. It's a mess. It's a complete mess. I don't need to go down all the the loopholes. I'm just telling you guys, it's a mess. Thank you, Sean. We got one card left.
>> Thanks, Sean. >> And it's Donna. Donna John Moore. >> Um, good evening, uh, board president and city staff. Um, I'm not really sure where to start. Um, I guess so. Last year, we brought the comprehensive plan
changes forward to you guys and the commission. The reason why is because that was the only legal path forward at the time for us to try to redevelop the property and try for additional height and density. Um, of course that got shot down and then plan development came forward. So, of course, we're trying to
move forward by way of plan development, but um, that's why originally we brought that forward and we did have the support of the city staff and we followed all necessary steps in order to try to obtain that. Um, I guess there's a lot
of confusion out there. There's even on my part there, you know, I'm constantly texting Lauren and stuff trying to get clarification and stuff and of course social media doesn't help. Um, but as far as the plan development as is, the guardrails that everybody is looking for are already in place and that being and
if I misspe, please let me read. um that being that even as far as heightened density. So if the PD enabler does move forward and I got to make sure I speak correctly if it moves forward in its past even if
the Thunderbird right now would get reszoned to the PD ordinance. We're still under the same restrictions of 60 feet and 50 guests up to 50 rooms per acre and that is because of the stuff that's in place. So those guard rails
that everybody wants are already there. Um why do we want to do it now? Sorry, I have different notes. Um it's basically what what we're trying to do with the PD enabler and also the comprehensive plan changes is to get the tools in the toolbox for the master planner. Nobody's trying to circumvent anything, but you
know there's an old saying, you got to be prepared. So when that master planner is ready on whatever October 1st, October, whatever to say, okay, this is what we want to do. We should have everything ready. We have all of this time to get everything ready to get these tools in the toolbox and that's
all we're doing. I mean, everybody has used the old quarterback analogy, but you have to use the analogy in full. So, um, really, what does a team do when they're looking for a quarterback? They're getting their team, they're getting their other players, they're getting their team ready, they're
getting everything in order. So, when that quarterback's there, he's going to pick the tools. He's going to see what to use. He's going to see who to throw to. if it doesn't work that other those players are going to get traded, not used, whatever. That's all we're trying to do. Um,
let's see. Uh so the comprehensive plans are needed because with the current regulations so like right now even with no PD or whatever if we wanted to get say an
additional 30T in height and go to 90 ft we have that ability to ask and that's with the current codes that's not even with PD we'd get shot down there's no doubt about it but we do have that right to ask you know because you can get uh
variances for height, but it is written in the comprehensive plan that there's no variance is allowed for density. And Treasure Allen specifically in their code 70-221 um they have the power and authority to
grant the variances to parking requirements, building height, and waterfront yards. A budding the Gulf of Mexico or public beach will solely be within the jurisdiction of the city commission. In no instance shall a variance be granted to density.
So even if we get reszoned to PD, we get nothing. We need the comprehensive plan in order to get something. And that's where all of the confusion comes in. It's not it's not speculation. It's not us making stuff up. It's not us trying to circumvent the systems. It has to be
there for us to get it. Um um you know the the I think it was Mr. Hoey here. He said like with the PDS with the exceptional um design and everything. He's absolutely right. That is the purpose. You know that where you know you're
going to get exceptional community benefits, you're going to get exceptional properties, you're going to get um you know for those. So, like if we went the PD route now, say everything got passed, we apply for PD. Um, we still right now I could we could still
only build the 50 rooms and the 60 um the 60 ft. However, you know, if if we get the if it's written in the comp plan and the the comp plan wouldn't be if I hope I say this properly, the comp
plan wouldn't be added to everybody. So, basically, it would still be the 50 rooms per acre and the 60 height except there will be the special zoning where if you change to the PD, you can get up to this amount and of density and
height. I think that's how how it um so that and then but in order to get that you have to zone to PD. So let's say that happens if we decide we don't want to zone to PD the most I can do even with that ordinance in place is 50 rooms
and 60 feet. If I zone to PD I could get up to if the these suggestions pass the 80 feet and the 100 rooms per acre. But if we want that then we have to strive for more. We have to do better. We have to give exceptional plans. We have to give great community benefits. But if we
don't want to go that route and we just want to build, then it's 50 rooms per acre >> and 60 ft regard regardless of anything. So there's a lot of confusion there, but it makes perfect sense to have everything ready. Let's go. You know, we're not going we're not saying maybe
the master planner is going to say, "Okay, well maybe not for here or not for there." Then we don't that doesn't get used. But it why would we not have it ready? I mean it doesn't make any sense. You be prepared. We learned that since we were very, you know, young and everything and we we have to get the
city ready. We have to get the businesses ready. We have to move forward and we when they say go, we should have everything ready to go and we should be able to pick up and say, "Okay, this is this and this." I mean, I think >> Thank you. I do have a question for you. Two questions.
>> Okay. First off, why are you not building at 50 ft? Uh, excuse me. 60 feet and 50 units per acre. I mean, is there a reason out there? I know that's more of a your boss's question, but I mean, that just
screams out to me that uh if the numbers uh if you can't make money and good money at that height and density, you're just not going to do it. >> I mean, you're not waiting on anything. >> It it doesn't make sense. It's not a feasible property. I mean, I know people don't want to hear it doesn't pencil
out, but I mean, that's the real reality of it. I mean, when you're going to spend, you know, hotels, I I know everybody wants to say, "Well, this was just done and that was just done." You know, most of 90% of the projects that have been said that they're condo hotels. That's a completely different
structure. They're selling these units for millions of dollars prior to it even being like the hotel aspect of it. So, they're already making money from that. We're not looking to do that. We're looking to be the traditional hotel. You know, there's a lot of costs involved. There's a lot of increases to you know
just construction costs insuranceances you know especially with the major hurricanes what happened with insurance you know it went skyrocketed just to everything you know and now even you know then you go to the operating costs labor's up this is up that's up it's it's not you know then you have you have
to make sure the demands there are you know the hotels aren't running at 100% occupancy at top dollar you know it would be in the perfect world you know it would be but you know unfortunately you have get creative. You have to, you know, discount. You have to do this. You have to do that. You know, there there's
a slow season. You know, that it turns into a ghost town here, too. >> Oh, yeah. Anyway, second question. You know, I have talked and this board has approved in the past the limitations that we're currently discussing. 80 feet in height and 100 units per acre. That's
what Lauren Rubenstein asked for >> for you guys. >> Yes. And I have to assume, and I know it's not your decision, it's your boss's decision. But if you were able to say, "Okay, the max we're ever going to get is th those two numbers." And
would that get you to a point where you would feel like it would be safe to go forward >> at the 80 rooms and or I'm sorry 100 units per acre in the 80t? >> Right. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. cuz uh you know we are waiting for Raftalis to come back with a number and
it'll be interesting to see what they said. Commissioner Dicki was saying during their presentation I would like a number. I just want two numbers. I want to know what it takes to be profitable in Treasure Island for height, the number of build stories we got to have
and the number of units. And it gets real tough with that because I will tell you are you going to build a motel six? you're going to build four season. Of course, four seasons never come to Treasure Island, but uh hey, it'd be nice to get something pretty high-end on this island. And uh hopefully if we set
these guard rails as a max, then y'all can see fit to move forward. >> Right. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. And then just one quick point about negotiation. You know, there's been comments, we don't want to negotiate. We don't want to do that. That's not true. that we're not even at
the point of negotiation, you know, we're we haven't we don't even have a path forward. We can't negotiate anything until we at least can have a plan and a path and everything. I mean, we're not going to give away the house when we don't even know what we get. You
know, we we need to we need to there's a lot of steps in place and steps we got to go and that's all through the plan development process, but nobody's even giving us a chance to get there. >> That's and that is the point. When you get to that point, you will have to reszone from RFH50 to planned
development. And with that increase in uh density and height, there will be uh concessions uh that you will have to make. And I know what some of them are going to be for the Thunderbird. And uh I'm not going to get into that discussion right now.
>> You're not going to reszone to plan development if the additional density isn't in the comp plan because there's no point to it. Exactly. >> So, >> thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Nobody else is in the audience. The
whole audience has spoken. All right. >> Anyway, with that, we will close the public hearing. So, >> so perhaps one way to get I think this entire board I don't want to speak for everybody is pro is in favor of PDS and maybe one way of driving it forward if
you want a unanimous uh you know a you know movement forward to give a recommendation to the commission would be to have the commission request the city to draw up a PD ordinance and a
draft of a of the how what changes would be required in the comp plan. >> You're talking about a comprehensive plan >> on the comprehensive plan, but also the PD ordinance as well. >> That's already >> it's already been done. We just >> Well, and what I'm saying is and but let
them begin the process of doing that with the caveat that they wait for it to be informed by our master planner. And that's we're about I mean you just heard Charlie Vanzant say it's going to come in September 30th,
>> right? So we're >> and all we tried to do last month's meeting, Chris, was >> I just don't want to get ahead of that cuz then they're just going to kick it back. We're not going to get ahead of the process. >> This is just a framework. The numbers can be changed. And maybe I mean all I'm
saying is if you want to get a unanimous, you know, vote to have a recommendation to the commission would be that we're all in favor of PDS and we're in favor of adjustments to the comp plan. Let's move forward to do that >> and you do it informed by
>> I'd like to draft a let's draft. >> Well, just a some clarification too, Chris. I'm I kind of defer to Mr. Brooks on this when the comprehensive plan comes. Number one, I think we're talking about a finite number of properties that would qualify. >> Yeah. >> And two, um, rather than changing the
comprehensive plan in its entirety, I would be more amanable to the smallcale comprehensive plan changes that he recommends. >> So, just as >> but you're still in favor of of moving forward with getting a PD ordinance. >> I think that a PD ordinance is a is a
good thing. >> Okay. And the thing is, >> this document right here is from Mayor, Vice Mayor Vasquez. She was here earlier. I hope I was hoping she'd stay and speak, but she didn't. But anyway, you all have a copy of it now. And she wants to make a few
changes to the plan development. That resolution I read earlier had 100 units per acre and 80 ft. And I want to stay with that. But hey, there's room for negotiation. She wants less. She
wants 80 ft in height and 85 units per acre. And she's into the super majority on all planned development resonings, which I just think quite frankly would be a way to slow things down in this city even more so. But you know what?
It's not up to us. We just make a recommendation to them and they can do anything they want. But I would like to see at least some of the folks get on board enough that we can see the Thunderbird remove its four sheets of plywood from its front door. For
something to happen at the Sands, for something to happen, God only knows what's happened at the Tahesian. They might just have given up and started rebuilding. But the Gator's property is the most is the most outstanding one out there. and she is talking about lowering
the PD to only be able to be reszoned in the RFH50 and the general commercial. That's it. >> And I don't agree with that, but >> Well, make whatever motion you want. >> All right, let's I'm going to make a motion because I want to move forward and get to a framework. The commission
can change the numbers. They can change the categories if they want, but let's get a framework in place. So, I make a motion to approve a resolution requesting that the city commission direct the city attorney to draft an
amendment to the comprehensive plan to reflect. Do you want me to read this whole thing or >> go ahead? >> P R-MU Corin Gulf Boulevard, RFM-30, comma, and RFH-50
comma. Maximum tourist lodging density 100 units per acre, 1 acre plus, 75 units per acre, less than one acre. Maximum floor area ratio FAR, 3.0, 1 acre plus, 2.2, two less than one acre
maximum imperous surface ratio ISR.95 commercial general is different maximum tourist lodging density 60 units per acre maximum floor area ratio FAR 1.2 2 maximum imperous surface ratio
ISR.90. I'm I'm going to do two two separate motions. So, >> well, I'll I'll second I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Any other >> motion by Marvin Chevlin, uh second by Ross Sanchez. One question I uh do want
to ask the city attorney. When it comes to floor area ratio and impervious surface ratio, I mean that's part of the beauty of the uh plan development. Do we do we need to set a maximum on those two items? And if we do, just say yeah, you
need to do that. it it's kind in my opinion it's more of a policy question as to whether or not you want to have that type of guideline uh guard rail there since you're calling them guard rails >> but >> guidelines
>> if if a developer comes in and requests more than what what's allowable now which is less than the these numbers they're going to have to do a comprehensive plan amendment correct >> if it's already in your plan yes >> yeah so that's why it needs to be metain
If we were to in what's being presented here, the comp plan amendment, F needs to be retained in order to be consistent with the countywide rules. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> He included F. >> So, >> it already the maximum or it just needs to be included. >> Th this is consistent with the
countywide rules. The question was, do we need the F maximums at all? And yes, to be consistent with the countywide rules. Yep. >> This is this is consistent with that. >> You got to set some go if you're going to set a guideline now. >> Okay. So, Second. >> Okay. Motion and a second. Can we have a
roll call vote, please? >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> no. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> no. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The second motion. This is for the
um plan development where we're going to add in the the height. Motion to approve. I make a motion to approve a resolution requesting that the city commission direct the city attorney to modify the plan development enabling ordinance on second reading to reflect
proposed plan development maximum allowable height standards PR-U core engulf boulevard RFM30 RFH50 maximum height 80 feet
commercial general CG maximum height 70 F feet. And just as a note, I put I the 70 ft is kind of I figured since they only have 60 units per acre, I dropped the height a little bit but gave them more than than the 60.
So anyway, that's my motion. >> Yeah. And I let's put this way. I don't agree with your maximum height. >> Okay. You want you >> I would like to bump it back up. amend the you want to amend the uh uh >> technically as chairman cannot make a motion but
>> let me amend my motion. I would like to stay. I mean, the commercial district is Gators, >> right? >> Or the Gators property. Okay. >> They're not going to build at 70 feet. >> So, let's give them what? Give them the max. And if Rafelis comes back with a different number with >> Okay. Well, >> we can they can come in.
>> The motion to have the commercial general reflect a maximum height of 80 feet. >> Thank you. Second. >> I'll second. All right. Motion by uh Marvin Shavelin, second by Ross Sanchez. Could we have a roll call vote?
>> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> no. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> no. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> So Nancy, you'll take this for >> Yeah. This is the um the document that you gave out, right, at the meeting,
>> right? >> Correct. It's not >> correct. I've got it. For the record though, I really am in favor of PDS and changes to the amendment. I just think that we need to wait for the, you know, get it informed by the plan and but happens when they
come back at, >> you know, we're find we're moving, we're doing something. So, it's fine. >> We are going to be all back here again when the first resoning to put in development comes in and we'll be arguing about that cuz by that number we'll have by that time we will have a number from Raph Telus.
>> We are going to get there. >> I'm challenging them to come up with a definitive number. We got the TV started. It took us several months, a couple requests, but we're almost there. So, you know, we got to start all over
again. >> And the thing is, I mean, what will happen at the next commission meeting, right, >> Tam? You each have a copy of what Tammy would like to see. And she's just offering a compromise. >> She really just wants to get something in this t going because she that's what she told me.
>> I give her credit for that. >> But anyway, okay. Any comments, chairman, if we get comments to next. >> Does Joan still work for the city of Treasure Island? >> She does. >> Okay. >> Can we have her come to the next LPA meeting? >> Can ask her. It depends on the city.
>> That'd be nice. I think >> I believe she's on vacation. >> We've asked several times. >> I think we're like 0 for five or maybe >> been a while. >> I'll ask the city manager. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Seeing none, >> uh, reports of city attorney, staff, or
board members? >> No report. >> We're good. Next LPA meeting will be August 20th. Um, unless we have a special meeting on the 13th. Public comments. We have one card. Mr. Mark Hoey, he he actually has his cards
preprinted. I love it. >> Got tired of writing in those small spaces. Thank you for allowing me another opportunity up here. And I don't want to I'm not going to rehash all that's gone. I do beforehand. I do I didn't come here planning to uh uh
debate other members of the audience, but since uh Mr. Burn took it upon himself to give us a history lesson about Pirate Square, I thought there was a couple of pieces left out that should be also mentioned. And that was one.
Yeah, it's it's been over a year since that process came through here and ultimately was approved for a parking lot. But I understand because he's waiting. He's waiting for something to be done by the body in its entirety, the
commission here, all of that. Understand that perfectly clear. However, the thing that got me was uh he he's not necessarily an adherent to the PD process because in the midst of getting to where we are now and he's working through all that stuff of his parking
lot, I want to remember he's he's more of a taker. He took our easement. He took the easement that was there and then we uh we sold him a little postage stamp piece. We the city, the citizen sold them at market value for a little
postage stamp thing. So, the idea of the PDS is if we're making accommodations for development, isn't it supposed to be a two-way street here? We haven't gotten anything back from that development. >> There's no PD process. >> But nonetheless, no,
>> of course there's no >> PD process. None of that. >> Hold on, Sean. We'll give you a chance. No, I mean, >> because I can tell you want to speak. >> Yeah, that's the reality of of that was we gave. So anyway, uh this is for really the benefit of all the people
that are interested in what is going on with all the height and density stuff. Uh many are not anywhere as close to it as you are. people in the city, some of us who are interested of the whole thing
about the number of height, the height. We talk 80, we talk 80, we talk 80, we talk 60, whatever. But the average person who walks up to the outside of the building and goes, "How tall is that building?" No, it's not 60 feet allowable. It's 60
plus BFE plus freeboard. So, what does that do, Ross? I mean that takes you to depending on your BF 73 74 feet where we are now. So add 20 to that and you're going to say to the average person I
think to be fair we're saying from ground level up they're going to be at plus 90 ft. So let's let's just use a number. Let's use something the the public understands, not so much code level and and you could call it what you
you could say design flood elevation. Great. Let's use another term for it. But in the essence, we're already talking about buildings approaching 100 ft. >> No, you're not with >> you're incorrect. And I will explain it to you just like I did on Facebook.
>> That's all right. >> No, I tell Mark and I can go back and forth. I just want to make sure people understand this. >> Base flood elevation in this town is about 12. >> So you add 2 ft of freeboard to that. >> That's 14 feet above sea level. The
existing ground out here is about seven or so. So you take seven add seven to it plus 80t. So you got a uh building 87t above ground level. >> Hey,
>> not 100. If that's something you can agree to, that's great because >> what we're throwing around I'm just saying the average folks who are out here that are now paying attention >> don't get it. They don't realize what the those numbers mean. >> Mark, are those numbers lower than the
building that I can see right there or the bu the town over there, the other one the other condo that's over there or the mansions or Paradise Towers? >> Those numbers though, are they lower than that that building right there that's already >> absolutely >> okay. Just don't even check my map.
>> I mean, we we all know the legacy of how those got through. >> They're still lower than that one. >> Yeah. All right. So, anyway, >> the reason I touch you about that one is because I got questioned that on social media and I answered it and then uh that explanation got questioned. So,
regardless >> now you know. >> Thank you, >> Sean. Thanks, Mark, for bringing me back through history. Uh, so as you guys all know from history, I started downtown at my first meeting
with the city was November 2021. Just let that sink in for a second. My first meeting public record was with the city November 2021. I had the city attorney, city manager, the public works director. I had everybody. I had my
architects. I had lawyers. cuz I there was there was a huge meeting room in the old public works building. I mean, I didn't even know we weren't even it was so early and unfortunately the city's code was so restrictive and the code requires
the building to be exactly 12 ft from the building. And I believe personally that if you were to take a vote that 9.9 out of 10 people would say they don't want the building 60 ft high, 12 feet from the road. But some planner came up with this idea. Some master planner to
be clear. He came up with this idea. It's a great idea. >> And so unfortunately the city's code had no PDS. And so how do you change a setback Nancy? You can't. Right. I'm stuck to that. And so at that point I started petitioning the city and working
with the commissioners and trying to see if we could get an amendment. Well, we didn't get anywhere. So then I took back to your question about the alley. Technically an alley is when it's originally platted is actually owned by the adj adjacent parcel owners but it's
eased it's used for a street. So therefore essentially when the reason when you own both sides and you vacate it it reverts back to the owners just to be clear. Thank you Nancy for verifying. So >> land use. So the second thing what happened is is that there was no plan
development in place. So, there was no public benefit, but the city was determined to push me through a development agreement. We've all heard what a development agreement is. The problem is is there was no benefit in it for the developer to take a developer agreement. Why would I take a developer
agreement with no benefit? Oh, we're going to give you the alley. No, I'm going to get the alley one way or another. It's my alley. I own both sides and there's no use for it. So, by law, the alley's mine, which is why I got a 50 unanimous vote.
It's that simple. So, a little bit of history. That's where we're at. Uh, the facts are the facts. If we want to talk facts, I'm available any day of the week. Anybody that's watching, I'm happy to meet with you and debate. And we don't have to agree, Chris. We don't always agree, but I enjoy talking with
you, Grant. We don't always agree, but I actually enjoy talking with you. I'm happy to be there. But we got to get back to the facts in this city. You got to be factual. >> Sean, just a quick question if you don't mind. >> Absolutely. >> So, as I've shared with you, I'm not a land development guy. Don't really
understand a lot of the ins and outs of it, but but I am someone who looks both ways before I cross the street. So just out of curiosity, with all of the hindrances and all of the restrictions that were in place, can I ask, did you
invest in the property with full knowledge of those? And is this a situation like I'll point to my wife married me hoping that she would change me? Um, so >> can't change an old dog, such an old dog. Is this a situation where you were aware and you were looking for
ordinances and relief from the municipality in order to make this work? >> My mom bought the very first parcel in downtown Treasure Island 1986. Put in perspective. It was on the other side of the street. She opened her first
office. Then she bought another parcel. And then Bill Edwards, which everybody knows who Bill Edwards is, bought the two-story shopping center that we eventually bought from him 20 years later. She had a vision to make Treasure Island something great. She didn't really know exactly what she
was getting into, but it was an operating business that we operated for 22 years. Eventually, it came to the point where the building was deteriorating. The pipes were collapsing. The second floor was added on 20 years after the first
floor was built. We had fireish system issues. Um, it goes on and on and on. It was leaking. It became obsolete. It actually what really became the opener is when a parking company approached me and said, "I will pay you more than all your tenants pay you." And I pushed them
off for years, you know, and what happened is is they let the parking company does what private companies do. They went to the Chase building. They went I at the time I didn't own the old uh Bank of America building. They went to them. >> They went to
um Benjamin's and they put paid parking all around me. And then what happened is I leased our restaurant which was Captain Bill's if you remember. >> Y >> and I leased the back parking lot that was the back side of to the um to the tenant. So we did a when you
do a lease you can do actually a sight specific. So, we had a map and we highlight what So, they had the right to that parking. Well, and and I I I'm always been pro business. I used to say, "As long as the city's okay with it, I'm okay with it." Right. Well, they went and leased it out and they were getting
the revenue. Well, luckily, as a landlord, I was able to do um I had in my lease that yeah, they can do that, but I can see what they're getting. So, I requested it. When I found out they were paying their whole rent off just the parking lot, why am I getting screwed? I'm the landlord. I'm taking
all the risk. So I And on top of that, I had to have a full-time employee assistant controlling the front parking lot trying to keep it open because all the paid parking, where do you park if there's free parking in front? You park up front. So the paid parking was a an
object that I pushed off for as long as I could until it just engulfed me. I had no choice. I had 40 tenants that were complaining to me every single day that they had no parking because all the paid parking that came around me. And that's how I got to paid parking. Hard work.
Just made some calls and found out that the market's stronger in paid parking than it is in the retail business. That's what happened. It's unfortunate, but that's what happened >> and that's the fact. >> Thanks.
>> Thank you for your time, Sean. Okay. >> Yeah. Say one thing. >> Okay. Go for it. >> You know, talking about Rapellis, if Rapellis came back and said, >> "Yeah, you can do 80 ft and 100 units per acre." I would say leave the code
the way it is and keep plan development in place. I'm not interested because the thing about plan development is the city controls what gets built and it's a real benefit. Plus, we plus you're going to get benefits. I mean, there's there's so
much good about this thing. We just got to come together and make it happen. I know you guys will get on board. >> Anyway, >> we're adjourned. Let's call it