Okay, welcome to the city of Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board meeting for May 21st, 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 and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda. Uh,
we've got a three cases today. And what I always need to um remind the applicants are if you receive an invoice from the city of Treasure Island, please do not pay it. It is a scam. Plain and
simple. I mean, we were getting bills uh to for approved projects to the tune of $4,500. And thank goodness to my knowledge, none were paid. But uh I always have to include this uh word of warning. So please don't pay them.
Anyway, uh if everybody would please uh silence their cell phones and we can stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, Lisa, if we could have a roll call. >> Good afternoon. Valeria Cree here. >> Joeski
>> here. >> Downing >> here. >> Billingsley >> here. >> Smith >> here. >> Shavelin >> here. >> Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh item number five, approval of minutes. Anybody have any comments on those uh minutes or can I have a motion
to approve them? I move to approve the >> second. A second. >> Okay. A motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Chris Downing. All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Nope.
>> Okay. Uh status update on prior planning and zoning cases. Give us the highlights there, Braden. Uh just quickly I'll go over it but at the end of the our agenda I'll show you guys a new resource that I'll provide to you guys as well in lie of what I've been giving you before. Um
the short of it is we've got some new cases coming forward that you guys have been anticipating. Uh specifically the rally gas station will be in front of you next month. Um and for prior cases um no updates that I can share with you today.
the uh quick question. The rally gas station that's been hanging around forever. Are they making changes or is it just an extension or what are they doing? I hope they don't aren't changing it again. >> Um I'm not sure what their original site plan was that because it has been going
for a long time. Uh whatever their original proposal was, I wouldn't have seen it, but I've seen their current plans. Um it it's an expansion of the building um and a redevelopment of the site. Um but it's it's not a major change overall from what we're seeing today. Um just building improvements
with an expansion. There'll be an addition of a retention pond. Um and then sidewalk enhancements, driveway uh curb cut enhancements. >> So it's an actual site plan. Previous uh approvals were for setback variances and anyway, they got approved and they don't
need to let those expire, but we'll see what they come in with. Thank you. uh hearing procedures. Ralph, you got anything you need to explain? >> Uh now, when we get to the actual items for variance, we'll do the exparte uh
disclosures and the swearing of witnesses. >> Okay. Uh Lisa, >> uh if you're ready to give the oath, anybody who's going to speak on a case today, please uh raise your right hand and be sworn in.
whether you're going to speak to it anyway that we want to start. >> Please stand and raise your right hand. >> Thank you very much. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. You may be seated.
>> Okay. Anybody have any exparte communication on any of these uh cases today that they need to disclose? Seeing none, we'll keep going. Presentations of items. We'll get into our first case. 10A variance
0000626-2026 approval of a variance request to section 68-541 granting a 9.5 ft variance to the streetside setback for a staircase in conjunction with the structural elevation improvements. The applicant is
in the uh audience. Please uh approach the uh podium and present your case. Thanks. >> Good afternoon. I just want to introduce myself. I'm Scott Keester. This is Gabrielle Keester. We live on at this house on Sixth Street. Uh we purchased
it in 2021 with the intentions of staying here for a long time. can have it. >> Um, due to the storm, through no fault of our own, we were categorized substantially damaged. Um, over the 50% rule and were required to elevate or demolish our home, creating a hardship
situation for us. So, we chose to elevate. Um, we're here today requesting a 9 and 1/2 ft variance for staircase in conjunction with our structural elevation. Due to the existing setback restrictions and site conditions, we
believe that 9 and a half foot deviation represents the minimum space required to reasonably accommodate a functional staircase. It's important to note that we have not increased the square footage of our living space during this process. The proposed stairs are necessary to not
only provide safe and functional access, but also maintain the architectural integrity of the house and the surrounding neighborhood, as well as protecting future value of the property. We believe that this request is consistent with the city's land development regulations because the home
was elevated, lifted to comply with applicable FEMA, floodplane, and local building requirements. Um, lastly, I'd like to point out on the drawing that I gave you, it's not perfectly clear, but the precise dimensions of the existing opening at
the top of the stairway is 70 in. I apologize for the lousy drawing, but that's a result of uh a bad choice in contractors. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant?
uh looking at your elevation then that is very helpful. I do appreciate the uh the curvature of the uh stairway gives a little more architectural feature to it rather than just a straight >> uh
>> if it was straight down we'd be asking for a lot more than 9 and 1/2 ft. >> Yes. Yes, it would. Yes, it would. So, I just want to make that comment that I do like the architectural aspect of your stairway. If you could have a seat, we'll let the city uh staff give their
presentation. >> I just had one. Wait, just >> Oh, you did have one. Okay, >> that's right. >> That just for clarity, you you I suspect looked at putting the stairwell internal and it would was not practical in any
way or would have reduced your square footage. >> We did think about that and and the way our house is built, when you come in the front door, um the bedrooms start immediately. So, if we if we put an internal staircase, we would lose access to two of the bedrooms, not to mention the cost of redoing that as well.
>> Great. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah. >> Okay. Go ahead, Braden. >> All right. Good afternoon. For the record, Braden Evans, um, principal planner with community development, presenting case V-00-626-2026. Uh this application consists of a variance request to section 68541
granting a 9.5 ft variance. The street side setback for a staircase uh where a home is being elevated. Uh the standard setback required for the street side yard is 20 ft in the zoning for this property. Um what's being proposed is
the 10.5 ft setback. Uh results in the 9 and 1/2 ft setback at a 47 12% magnitude. The subject property is located at 11 3806th Street East. We've got an aerial image of the property here and then um
a front view aerial uh to the side of that. As mentioned, the streetside setback is 20 ft. Uh the property is located in the RU75 zoning district. Uh the subject property currently contains a single family residence that was constructed in 1958 as a one-story
structure. Uh currently the property is already undergoing elevation improvements um under an approved permit that has been granted. Um the applicant is now seeking a variance to permit an alternative staircase design at the front of the structure which encroaches
into that streetside setback um which will enable um a second staircase to be located at the rear of the structure and to utilize the existing um space earned in the front yard for a second garage door. Um and then to maintain
access at the rear of the property uh with that additional staircase. Uh so this was the original structure um before the elevation improvements began. Uh this was the original permit that was approved that allowed the current and
ongoing elevation to proceed. Um the coloring of this is Oh, it's better on this screen so you can see the stairs. Perfect. Um this is a overall site plan of the improvements that were approved under
the original permit with that staircase um going along the side of the house. Uh this is the request that's before you today um showing that curved staircase down the center which encroaches 9 and 1/2 ft into the streetside setback.
Um and again um an aerial image of that there. Um the staircase in the front is rather light but it's there if you look closely >> for the variance review criteria from section 70-221. Um this is in fact
variance um able to be granted by this board. Um the structure was built to code at the time of construction but it does face unique challenges in relation to the orientation of the existing structure. Um, an allowable encroachment permits up to one staircase to encroach into the required setback and that is
being used for the rear stairs to access an existing doorway at the rear of the property. Um, the initial site plan included a reduction of one rear egress at the side of the structure and an allowable encroachment was used on the front stairs. Um so adding that staircase to
the rear of the structure in this revision um that encroachment was applied to the rear staircase uh and thus removing that encroach or that allowable encroachment to be used for the front staircase resulting in this application before you today.
Um as discussed the proposed variance is not the minimum variance required as there are alternative configurations available which have been presented by the applicant in their original permit approval. Um the surrounding neighborhood does consist of um you know visually
consistent setbacks um of that 20 ft um but largely these homes are being elevated to flood standards. Um the granting of this variance is considered inharmonious with the general intent and purpose of the chapter by um granting a setback deviation which exceeds the
minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the subject property um which is displayed through that original permit approval that was obtained by the applicant. Um however there's no evidence that the proposed variance will create adverse impacts to the adjacent parcels or the surrounding neighborhood.
Uh, with that said, staff were recommending denial of his application. Um, and staff has received seven letters of support from surrounding property owners and those have been provided to you physically today. Um, they're not in the original published agenda. >> Yeah, thank you. Any questions of the U
city staff? >> So, the original concept basically they're losing a garage, right? Because it it goes right in front of the garage. >> They currently have a onecar garage. It would still result in a onecar garage. So now they're able to add a second garage. >> Okay.
>> I'm sorry, a one bay garage, not a one car, two bay garage, one garage door. >> And so with the easement along the street, you and the setback even encroaching 9 and a half ft. It still puts this stair the edge of that
staircase about 21 ft from the road. >> Um I'm not sure offh hand wide the right of way is between the property line and the >> I'm looking at the survey here. Looks like it's an additional 11 ft. So just one confirming that with you. That's >> usually in this area that's a 60ft rightway. So you did
>> Yeah, that's ft. >> Okay. So we end up with still around 20 21 ft from the >> 23T >> 23 ft from the curb to the edge of this request. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Right. This might be for the homeowner, but I noticed the electrical meter is in
the stairway. Was that relocated um in the plan or is that where it's currently located? >> That's where it was current. That's where it was proposed to be located in the initial plan. Um, and that's where it was in the set of plans. So, I I expect that to be where it's located, but if that's incorrect, the property owner can clarify.
>> I just wonder where your electrical meter is currently. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Any uh one in the audience who wishes to speak to this case? Oops. All right. I got it. Thought you
had them. >> My fault. >> Don't bump heads with me. >> Yeah. There we go. >> Got two. >> Darren Brown. >> Like I met you before. >> Is Palm 6th Street. I live uh five doors
down from Scott and Gabby. I did not send an email in, so I wanted to come and, you know, speak in person. Um, I don't see I I think it's kind of silly that we're here to be honest. I realize there's codes and everything, but when these codes were put together and these
setback regulations were put in place, does anybody here know how many homes have been lifted in Treasure Island or how many lift permits have been issued? I can't imagine the people that made these regulations could have ever envisioned that there would be hundreds
of homes getting jacked up 16 feet, right? So, I feel like this was no fault of theirs. The hurricane caused this. You guys declared or not you necessarily, but the city declared, FEMA declared their property substantially
damaged and said you have to do something. So I think it's would be unfair to them and I as a resident I have no objection. I've seen the plans. I've seen the drawings. I think it's going to be beautiful. So I just wanted to voice my support for uh for this.
>> Appreciate it. >> Thank you. You >> Juliet Brown neighbors Hi, I'm Juliet Brown. I also live on Sixth Street and um since we weren't able to send emails, we wanted to come
and show our support for our neighbors. We really love living here and we've we've gone through a lot with our new home build and we're through that and grateful to um the city for helping us get there. Um we would like to see our neighbors do that so we can all just recover and live in a beautiful
neighborhood. So they've done a lot of work figuring out what's the right aesthetic for this and it's such a small variance it makes a lot of sense. So you know let us continue to invest in our community together. So thanks for your support.
>> Thank you Marsh Costa. >> Yeah I haven't been on front of this board since 20ome years and I dealt with a bunch of people when I built my house. I'm right next door at 11360. I'm not 20 feet away from where the steps going to be and it's not going to be any problem
for me or anybody around here. It'll help improve. My steps come out too. Not that far. But when my house was built 20 years ago, revivvated is a new house then. And like I said, it's just going to be I don't see any problem at all. Actually, it looks pretty darn good
compared to what's out there. If you ride around and see all this stuff that's out there, you can come by and see. And uh I don't I think uh I think it's a waste of time. Thank you. >> Thank you, James. >> John,
sorry it was your >> your handwriting is a little rough. >> Um John Frasier. I live at 113456th Street. Uh I had to tear mine down and rebuild it. So I'm in the process of doing that
right now. I understood that I couldn't get a variance for stairs to come out and that's fine. It it worked out fine, but I was told at that time that the only people that could get a variance were the people elevating. So, this just makes all the sense in the
world and I'm echoing what everybody else has said before me in support of them being approved. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? I do have a bunch of letters here. I'm not going to read the whole letters because some of them are uh lengthy, but
u they are all letters of support. I'm going to give the names of the authors. Laura and Patrick Marbs, um Alicia and Gabby at
Christy Zair, Betatina and James Gild, David and Deborah Matson, Dr. Thomas S. Ellis and that appears to be the ones I have. Anyway, we will now close the uh
public hearing if there's Does the applicant have any further comment? >> Nothing further. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. You know, once again, uh, we have a citizen who is anticipating the next storm, which is a
great idea. You know, he's raising his house. When 4 ft of water gets inside that garage, he will still have a mess on his hands, but he won't have the mess that he had currently or previously under Hela. And, um, it's one that we
have been supporting. Like I said earlier, I like the curvature on the uh stairway and that does reduce the setback variance a little bit. Any other comments from the board? >> I'm fully supportive of uh a variance of this type to keep the architectural
integrity of the house and not penalize the owner for the hardship they've been through. So >> Mark, >> yeah, obviously we see a lot of these cases and uh just just because sometimes there's a a way that's less impactful to
do it doesn't mean it's the right way. I think this is a very elegant solution to the front steps. The design is beautiful. I think that needs to be considered rather than um just uh having a a lower encroachment. Um, I
think it's a great design and and just to confirm whenever we're approving these variances, this is for this particular case, the steps. It's not granting them in the future building forward anymore. >> That is correct. It's for steps only. And no, they can't tear down the house
later and say, "Oh, yes, I can now build out 9 and 1/2 ft." Doesn't work that way. Now, this is sort of a unique situation and we have been approving and being presented a lot of these and it's all the same condition. Steps only,
>> balconies only, no living area and the applicant has already said he's not increasing his living area. So, that's what we needed to hear. >> Yeah, it's very nice >> for the proposed site plan, right Braden? It would be attached to the variance. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Any other comments?
Um, >> so I' I' I'd move that we as a board approve variance uh 0000626-2026 uh with the one condition that's listed. >> Second. >> Okay. We had a motion by Chris Downing.
Uh Grant, you seconded. >> Y >> Okay. Second by Grant Smith. Uh could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Sudes Judeski. I >> Downing. >> Yes. >> Billingsley. >> Yes. >> Smith.
>> Yes. >> Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Go up. >> Just curious who is raising your house. >> There's a bunch of companies with a lot of work right now. Thank you. Anyway,
moving on to our second case. 10B. V-008-2026. Approval of a variance request to section 68-541 granting a 3.4 foot variance to the required waterfront setback in conjunction with the structural
elevation improvements. If the applicant is in the audience, please uh approach. >> That's fine. We'll call you the applicant. >> Applicants representative. >> There you go. >> All right. My name is Alec Bar with Florida Teal Special Builders. The
homeowner is actually out of town here. So, I'm just stepping in for them and covering. As you can see, it's pretty clear. They have beautiful sliding doors on the back of the home there. They're just requesting a 4ft wide deck essentially to utilize the back of those those doors and not have to eliminate them. Um, you know, if we were not able
to do the full span of the deck, which I believe it's 30 foot if I'm correct, um, is pre-approved as a variance on the back side of it. The sliders are actually closer to, you know, as you can see, 4550 ft of the back portion of the house there. So, they're just requesting a a variance to be able to utilize that,
not have to block that in. >> Okay. Questions of the applicants representative. Um, I think I'm stating the obvious. What What used to be along the uh those six sliding glass doors used to be just
a walk out to the pool. >> Yes, sir. >> And so now you got to have something to walk out on. I mean, we don't want to have like a French balcony where you have no actual balcony at all. So, I think uh
3.4 ft will be will help the situation. Let's put it that way. >> Any other questions for the applicant's representative? Seeing none, please have a seat and we'll have the city give their presentation. Oh, if we could go further minutes that
Commissioner Sanchez is now in attendance of the meeting. >> He said commissioner. It >> I appreciate that though. >> This place has that vibe around here. >> I um >> mayor >> I just want to apologize to the residents and the board and um staff for
being tardy. I apologize. >> Go ahead. All right. For the record, Braden Neans presenting VR-0000608-2026. Uh, the subject application consists of variance requests to section 68-541 granting a 3.4 ft variance to the required waterfront yard for a balcony
in conjunction with structural elevation improvements. The standard uh waterfront setback for this property is 25 ft. What's being proposed is 21.6 ft uh resulting in a 13.6 6% um variance encro
or um setback encroachment. Uh subject property is located at 11600 5th Street East. We've got some aerial images and a map here for you to see. Um as you can see the property is already undergoing um the elevation.
Uh the subject property is um in the RU75 zoning district and as mentioned the waterfront setback required is 25 ft. U subject property was built in 1969. Um and as we saw in the original image
from the applicant, the structure is configured with sliding glass doors along approximately 30 ft of the rear building facade. Um and the applicant is seeking a variance to construct a balcony along the entirety of the rear of the uh structure. Uh we can see that
both of the side setbacks are being met and compliant with. Um the land development regulations do allow one allowable encroachment uh for balconies in this scenario. If they are no more than 3 ft deep and a maximum of 12 ft wide. Um even if the balcony being
proposed was that 3 ft of depth, it still would not um qualify for that allowable encroachment based on the width of the existing sliding glass doors um being 30 ft wide. In regards to the variance criteria, um the applicant is pursuing these improvements to the subject property
resulting in conformity with the minimum flood elevation requirements and strict application of these land development regulations would require the applicant to reconfigure the existing placement of the rear uh sliding glass doors and most likely enclose them entirely. Um these
conditions are not the result of the applicant as they were um um in conformity before the flood. Um a lesser magnitude variance would be possible. Um however the existing magnitude of the variance and the
difference between that uh 3-foot variance um is non-substantial. Um overall granting the variance it's determined to be in harmony with the general intent of the purpose of this code um by enabling storm resilient improvements. Um and there's no evidence
that this would be injurious to neighboring properties. Uh so we as staff are recommending approval of the variance to three and a 3.4 foot variance that waterfront setback. >> Okay. Any com questions or comments for the city staff? Go ahead Marvin. in
favor of this. >> I'm in favor of this. I just want to understand what you said in the earlier part about why it doesn't qualify for the variance uh that >> for the allowable enro coming to this board. >> Yes. So the allowable encroachment the way that that is written into the code
is that um a balcony when a house is being elevated a balcony can qualify for that allowable encroachment if it's no more than 3 feet in depth and no more than 12 feet wide altogether. So, it's that 12 foot width maximum that we have written into the
allowance that's forcing this to come to this board. >> Uh, that's correct. And and we've been evaluating some >> because we're trying to get those some of these corrected so we don't have as many. >> Yeah, that 12 feet it's very limiting how many. >> Go ahead this time, Marvin. >> So, is that is the width of the balcony
the same as the width on the ground floor? what you know what the original sidewalk was that do you I don't know if anybody knows the answer to that >> it was actually >> right but so I'm just is it was it was it
>> come to them >> was it 3.6 six feet or was it wider than that or >> um >> you don't know maybe >> I do believe it overhangs slightly over the pool there. Um I actually don't know off the top of my head. >> Yeah, because I mean to me I think three
feet is tough. I mean I'd be willing to give more if they wanted it myself. I don't know if we're supposed to do that but >> well let's for this way they right now the request is 3.4. So that's what we're looking at today. Okay. I that was one of my first thoughts too, Marvin, to be
perfectly honest. That's a narrow balcony, but you know, >> it's better than it is a 4ft deck. >> They're requesting 4 foot deck. >> 4 foot. >> Yeah, the the balcony itself is 4 foot. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes, they're correct. >> Oh, the balcony.
>> The balcony is four. The the setback variance. Okay. >> Is 3 point something, but four >> It actually says right there, 4 foot deep. Anyway, yeah, 4 foot is actually fairly minimal, but uh that's what you're asking for. So, that's what we're
going to look at today. >> And I take it that's going to be canlevered. >> Yes, sir. >> Out. >> Got it. >> Yeah. We're actually going to try to canlever it off of the columns. >> So, off off to the left side there, is that is that a a deck then? A patio that squared area.
>> Yes, sir, it is. >> So, so that's included in this variance. I mean the the intention of the the of the variance that we grant is for exiting the house. I mean >> in this case we're also building a a a deck that is encroaching into the rear
set. >> The deck is not encroaching. The side setback of this property is 7.5 ft and that deck is 10 and 1/2 ft from the property line. >> Right. But on the on the water side that's 4 foot of that is encroaching. >> Yes. >> I I understand what you're saying. Yes.
>> Right. So I I'm I'm in support of this because I I mean why wouldn't you do that? But just a question for the city though. So the house is obviously being lifted. It has an approved permit. What's the consideration for this back part to approve the permit in the first
place? Did they need to have this figured out? Cuz what if this was a no uh you know as far as approval of the variance? What would be this scenario? >> The original permit I believe included the um transition of that door into a window. >> Okay. closing exits. I see.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other comments to the city staff or the applicants representative while he's up there? >> Seeing none, we will see if there's anybody in the audience speaking to this case. I have received no cards, so don't
believe there is. Um we'll close the public hearing. Any further comments? We appreciate the fact that uh once again another house is being raised to anticipate what I hope never comes in the way of another hurricane, but at
least you will be prepared for it. Um, can I have a motion? Motion to approve variance case number V-00-2026 with the condition listed. I'll second. Okay. Uh motion by Daniel Billingsley,
second by Chris Downing. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Zruski, >> yes. >> Sanchez, >> yes. >> Downing, >> yes. >> Billingsley, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Shavelin, >> yes. >> Harris, >> yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to our next one.
Thank you. Uh 10 C V-00 630-2026 approval of two variances to the street side setback to allow a staircase and a balcony in conjunction with the
structural elevation improvements and the applicant's already at the podium so go ahead. >> I'll make this quick. Uh good afternoon. My name is William Chamberlain. Live at 59 Dolphin. We are also raising our house. Um, we'd like two variances and it's basically for architectural and
function of uh the design of the new house. The first one is for a balcony that runs across the front of the house. Uh, right now it's approved and drawn at about 3 ft. We would like to extend that to 4T. The original envelope of the house is in the original building
envelope. So, this is just extending uh out and trying to make it more functional and look architectural pleasing. the there's no view constraints on either side and uh it's within the uh envelope. So, we'll leave that one as it is. The other part, the
second variance is for the staircase. Again, it's approved at about 3 ft 3 and 1/2 ft and I'd like to get it approved to 4T. The issues that we're having is u there is a piling there from an engineering point of view. We looked at canal levering the uh the balcony on
that side, but we can't because if you do that, then it's going to close down because the footers are so big, it's going to close down the um garage door. So then the garage wouldn't be functional. So we if we could just slide the staircase out about six more inches,
so it's functional. It's a 4ft width just like the uh other balcony. And uh as you go over the design and the view of it, you'll see that it's barely encroaching. and uh it's up to you to grant it. So, take a look and
>> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? >> Is Gary Potenciano your next door neighbor? >> I'm sorry. >> Gary Patiano? >> No. >> No, that's a different area then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. >> None of this is you're not increasing square foot usable square footage as a
part of this change. >> Thank you. >> Street layout's different over there. Glad you live over there, Ross. Thank you. If you could have a seat and we'll let the city staff give their uh give their report. >> Right. For the record, Braden Evans uh
presenting case V-00-630-2026. Uh this application is uh consists of two variances uh to the streetside setback to allow a staircase and a balcony in conjunction to the structural elevation improvements. The setback requested for the stairs um is a 2.4
foot variance where 40 feet is required. Um and that uh requested setback for the balcony um I'm sorry that encroachment for the balcony is 2.9 ft uh where 40 ft total is required uh resulting in a 6%
and a 7% um encroachment respectively. The subject property is located at 59 Dolphin Drive. Um I've got some images here. Uh the property owner has a lovely tree in the front, so it's difficult to get a great picture, but you can see the tree there in front of
the property. Uh as mentioned, the applicable streetside setback for this property is 40 ft. Um and there's an additional sizable right of way between the property line and the curb. Um the structure was originally
constructed in 1953. Um and the applicant is seeking to elevate the existing structure to comply with the current requirements um prompting this application. Um and the subject encroachment is uh necessary to accommodate a structural beam which is
necessary for the improvements um specifically in regards to the staircase. So we can see a front elevation of the property here. Uh this is the structural beam in question that um cannot be easily moved or relocated. Um and as you can see um interferes with
the placement of those stairs. The allowable encroachment for stairs allows for structures um for one stair to encroach into the setback when being elevated. Um I'll note that there is a typo on this slide. The variance in
front of you is for a 4 foot wide stair. I'm sorry. No, I apologize. There's no typo. I wrote the wrong thing. I apologize. Um, so the administrative waiver is was an option that the applicant looked at um
which allows a maximum of 10% or 1 foot of the setback to be encroached. Um, however, we he just wasn't able to get that to work uh for what he needed out of the access to the house. Um, so here we can see the requested 2.4 foot
reduced street side step setback for the staircase um and just one portion of that staircase highlighted in red there which is in the setback and then that following um encroachment for the balcony which is highlighted in orange there.
So the structure was built to code at the time of construction. Um and the unique challenges are not the fault of the applicant. Um the peculi peculiar conditions are as a result of the minimum flood elevation requirements.
Um and this variance is considered as a reasonable means of maintaining the existing use of the property. Um and uh there's no evidence that the variance would create any adverse impacts. Uh, with that said, staff is
recommending approval of both variances and I'm available if you have questions. >> I do I do have a question. Can you go back to the last diagram um that was on there from the site plan? >> Just out of cur uh sorry, it was probably your next one. >> Oh.
>> Uh, the elevation one or >> Okay. Yeah, that no this one. Just out of curiosity. So, when you look at the street side view and there's the setback line, it's a straight line, but the actual road does curve. He is on a curve. Why? Why wouldn't the setback be based off of the curvature line, the curved line versus a straight line
across? >> It is. Um, it maybe isn't easy to see because of what's overlaid on top of it. Um, okay. >> But but it is curved, of course. As that curve gets smaller, the line gets visually straighter, I suppose, but but it is based off.
>> And then I don't know if it's just an architectural um air, but on the design that was shown, it had the Duke meter just bolted on the side of the garage. I mean, I know that's possible with fil dirt being brought in. Is that where the Duke meter is going to go?
>> I And the applicant, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's getting a um a water and tight enclosure for that Duke meter, which is >> okay. >> Another way they can do it. >> Okay. All right. >> Well, since you touched on that, after
we get done with this case, we'd like uh some clarification on what you just touched on. >> Oh, I'd be happy to. It's It's new to me, too. Let's figure out this case first though. Okay. Any other questions for city staff? >> Okay. Anybody in the audience to speak
to this case? Seeing none, um we'll close the public hearing. Once again, we have a house that is being prepared for the next storm. So, it's a great thing. and uh what used to be the man's uh you know step out onto grade level, he's
now got to deal with steps and balconies. So, I'm of course all for this. Um any other comment or could we have a motion comments? >> Want to make a motion in your neighborhood, Ross?
>> Yeah, be happy to. In regards to case number V-0000630-2026 at the location 59 Dolphin Drive um as a planning and zone uh planning and zoning board member um I'll make a determination or make the motion for
variance application requesting of a 2.4 4 foot variance to permit a reduced side setback for a staircase in conjunction with structural elevation improvements does substantially satisfy the criteria set forth 70-221 of the Treasure Island code of ordinances and a hardship exists
and set forth as quasi judicial hearing recording including the application staff report and other evidence and testimony presented discussed at a hearing and approve the variance as requested. Yeah, that'll be the first one >> with following with following the
conditions. >> I assume that the applicant there is no conditions listed. Does that work? >> That'll work. That'll be the first variance. We'll go ahead and have a vote on that and then uh >> consider the second one. >> Okay, we can take a vote.
>> Okay. Motion by Ross Sanchez. >> Second, Daniel Billingsley. Roll call vote, please. Zadreski, >> yes. >> Sanchez, >> yes. >> Downing, >> yes. >> Billingsley, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Shavelin, >> yes. >> Harris, >> yes.
>> Thank you. >> And in regards to uh the same case, V-00630-2026. This would be variance 2 of two. Um, as a planning and zoning board member, I'll make a motion the variance application approval of a 2.9 foot variance to
permit a reduced side street, excuse me, street side setback for a balcony in conjunction with structural elevation improvements does substantially satisfy the criteria set forth in the in section 70-221 of the treasure island code and
ordinances and a hardship exists as set forth in the quasi judicial hearing recording record including the application staff report and other record evidence and testimony presented and discussed at the hearing and approve the variance as follows with the
conditions listed in our packet. >> Okay. Motion by Ross Sanchez. Second, please. >> Second. >> Second by Daniel Billingsley. Roll call vote, please. >> Zeski, >> yes. >> Sanchez, >> yes. >> Downing, >> yes. >> Billingsley, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Shavelin,
>> yes. >> Harris, >> yes. All right, that takes care of that one. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bill. >> Public comment for non-aggenda items. Anybody got any comments? Anybody in the audience? >> Not even you, Mark?
>> Sure. >> Good. All right. Reports and comments of city attorney, staff, and board members. >> Nothing from city attorney at this time. >> Anybody any Well, let's talk about the
meters for a second. That was something that uh Chris Downing was talking to me about and I quite frankly haven't heard of going to a waterproof electrical meter that could be submerged. I take it that is something fairly new from what you said previously.
>> Yeah, it's new to us um or to myself at least I can say. Um it is you know FEMA compliant. Um, I believe what it's referred to as Nema 6 is it it's not the meter itself that's submergible, but it's the enclosure that goes around the
meter that is submergible. Um, and we have not seen anybody actually bring that through successfully. Um, for a reason that I'm I'm trying to find out and I've been asking contractors, you know, is what what might be the hiccup.
The way that I understand it is like there is a cost associated with it, but the cost of building a staircase is not, you know, it it's mostly a wash between the two. So, >> um, you know, I hope Mr. Chamberlain has success with his variance that you just
approved and he can just use a submergible uh enclosure and then hopefully that'll be a trend moving forward. Well, that'll be interesting because it would do away with some of these Duke uh energy platforms that we're building on the sides of houses,
which I don't know. It just uh I'm sure waterproof would work. >> Yeah. So, I think maybe we're going to need >> some additional clarification on this. You know, I wouldn't want >> even if Duke Power is accepting this,
it's still, if my read is correct, we still as a city have to have it be acceptable to this under under our ordinances and our co our code. So, as as our code is written right now, I'm not sure it is. I that
that's really I'm really present asking you the question and if not and if we don't know at this point, that's fine. Let's do the research that's necessary. What does it actually mean? Because I know two residences right now that their intent is to keep their meter on the
side of the house and and do this new type of enclosure. >> Yeah, I there's genuinely no reason why it would not um be within our existing code requirements. Um I mean the enclosure affixes to the side of the house. It it's no
it's no more inhibiting than like a gen a wall generator that's on the outside of a house like power meter not power meter but like a backup generator. >> I think we don't allow that. I think we we force everything mechanical to be above the flood pl
meter being out of the flood zone a FEMA thing or is it a Florida electrical contractor thing? I think that's the question you're trying >> that's where I'm confused. I guess >> there's not a Florida electrical contractor thing. It's NC code book. >> Yeah. >> So is depending on what
>> code book the city follows, it's going to be in there. Otherwise, it wouldn't be approved. >> Yeah. >> So the second question is if there's new construction required to be raised versus lifted houses. So the NF NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program that we are a member of that sets the
regulations for construction does allow equipment to be under the base flood elevation provided that it is either floodp proofed or that it is um it's elevated. Those are your two options. And they have approved these new meter
enclosures. They're the name of the six piece as he me mentioned >> um and they are allowed by Duke and they've come out I think within I want to say the last couple months is the first time we've started seeing them >> um but it hasn't been an option so far
and they have to when they turn in their elevation certificate that shows that their home is compliant on the elevation certificate you have to explain where your lowest um mechanical equipment is where your lowest equipment is and they have to certify that that is this meter that it
is >> it does meet these standards. >> So it still meets all the NFIP standards but and it doesn't necessarily have to be raised. >> I mean there's a house on Dolphin right now getting built and the walls are on the setback and there's no chance for stairs to go in and the meter's up in the air. So this would be a solution
where they drop the meter down with no stairs and it's submerged. I guess. All right. >> Again, it's fairly new, so we're waiting to see how it how it finishes playing out, but the opportunity has has >> been developed. >> I mean, I don't know why you wouldn't want to do I mean, who why would who
wants to build a stairway? I mean, >> if it works, I mean, if it's the same cost, >> to me, it's a norain. >> Clarification. When you when you're building a new house, you don't automatically have to build a stairway, >> right? You could be smart. >> There are other scenarios that are out there.
>> Yeah. I mean, I've gone You can >> go on the back. >> I've gone through 10 revisions on my plans about this thing. So, >> you have it figured out now? >> Yeah, I had it figured out and then it changes and it figures out and changes and figures out and changes >> and as we mentioned, I guess the cost of
this enclosure is not trivial. So, doing something smart on construction or on elevation makes sense. I know I know of one home that's being elevated and because of the way things are being changed, they're putting the meter on the back of the house and because that's
where the deck is and that was probably the going to be the least cost method for them. >> It also changes the conversation about how many like well I need an extra set of stairs right >> for the Duke meter. It's like well >> this is an option. >> That first variance we approved they relocated their meter from the side of
the house up to the front entrance way on the stairs. So they avoided the staircase while simultaneously raising the meter. >> So they thought it through. >> Okay. Well, Emily, since you're um >> you should have thought of this you should have thought of this idea as
important. >> I do believe and I'm not don't quote me on this. I have heard that that there are specific things you have to do prior to shutting it off for the storm. Like you have to go secure it and ensure that it does properly seal. Wow.
>> But I don't >> Yeah. >> Again, that's hearsay. >> I have been told >> you're dealing with long-term exposure to saltwater. You know, I just uh it can work. Let's put that way. I'm not sure. I wouldn't uh I like where my meter is now.
>> Can we get to come out and talk to us about it or >> we can certainly look into it? >> Yeah, we can definitely ask them. I think that's a great idea. >> I think any interest in that or Yeah, that be interesting.
>> Sure. >> Richard, are we are we done with this subject? I had one other >> Well, I had a question for Emily. Let me hit her. No, >> go ahead. Yeah. >> Yeah. With that real quick. Um, the item of controversy in Sunset Bees Days is the structure at 11685th.
And obviously that's moving down the road. It's an uninhabitable destroyed house that needs condemnation and uh demolition. How many how many structures of this type are currently existing in Treasure Island? Do you have
any idea on the number of houses we're looking at for demolition other than I know this one? That's the only one I know. >> I off the top of my head can give you two others that I know were severe issues that we have been working through. Um one we finally got the
homeowner to um put in an application to demolish. Um, sure. As you know, the one down on Sunset has finally listed it. And then we have one more that we are still struggling to get any kind of communication or compliance or anything with the owners.
>> Do you have an address on that one? >> I believe it's 11285 Fifth Street. It's out on Fifth Street out on Palms. >> Fifth Street on Palms. It just appears that there's a lot of I mean it's been 20 months now and there
are several structures as you drive around that nothing's happening and after 20 months decisions need to be made uh progress either needs to be moving forward either
for demolition or repair. And uh you know pretty soon it's going to be 2 years and uh that's just too long especially on 11685th where the neighbors really are suffering due the infestation of lots of rats, possums,
raccoons, all kinds of stuff out there. >> Well, I know that they have been working on the condemnation ordinance for the city to be allowed to do some more aggressive abatement. Um and I know that is in the works. It just, you know, that's not a singular
case. I just was curious how many are actually out there because I know three or four other houses where nothing while they don't look bad from the outside. Uh I walked into a house on Sunset Beach that nothing has been touched since uh the storm and it's it's
completely hideous when the I was able to talk to the owner and he said he was going to tear down, build a new house. So, at least he's moving in the right direction. Why it took 20 months is beyond me. But, uh, anyway, with that, go ahead, Chris. >> Can I speak to that?
>> Go ahead. >> Um, 20 months. We still haven't settled with our insurance yet. So, to speak to I'm plenty there's there's I'm sure there's plenty of people in the same boat. >> Oh. >> Two, it's in our codes. Even if the house is in the condition it is, they
have to maintain it at the outside. Cut the grass, the whole nine yards. Because I know we still pay for our grass cutting, we still pay for pest control, everything to keep it just like it's supposed to be. >> Yes, sir. You're correct. >> And that's that's a perfectly legitimate reason. And uh you know, I understand
that completely. It's just this one house on Sunset Beach doesn't have insurance by any means. But go ahead, Chris, with your question. >> Yeah. And Emily, this maybe is for you and for uh Brighton. Um the case that came up earlier today where it the
variance was only about 6%. But it was more than a foot. I wonder if that maybe should also be maybe we should consider as part of our rewrite that I know and maybe we could get an update on the status of the rewrite rewrite of this ordinance allowing certain amount of
variance for elevated houses and that can be done administratively. um that in addition to maybe the expansion of this 12T uh length or width, however we want to call it, um extension of that to the full length of the house or what's
appropriate and also I think things like 3 foot or 4 foot outside, you know, for safety coming out for egress. >> It's already updated. I guess I'm in a general sense there maybe several topics that fall under. We made a first cut on
that ordinance and I know you're trying to review it now. Maybe we're seeing a lot more of these variances come. The sooner we can do that, the better to see fewer of them come to us. >> Yeah, that was I mean that's part of the discussion. You know, I I was going to talk to you guys at LPA about this, too,
but the balcony one, I think it's 12 or it can extend the len the length of the the doors, and I it is 5T into the code we have right now. >> Okay. >> Um, we did meet with Kimley Horn this morning. I know there's been we've had staff turnover, attorney turnovers, so
it's been some time, but it looks like the phase one parts of those codes are coming. Um, we're going to try for June. What month is it? May. June. June. um we can't get it on your next regularly scheduled meeting date because of the uh
time frames for the newspaper postings because we have to do this one twice. So, one of the questions we had for you was would you be amanable to either a special meeting or moving the July the June meeting to the next week, which
would be the 25th of June, I believe. And then Kimley Horn will come and there's four chapters that we're bringing to you guys um on that date. But that's kind of >> I'm glad to hear that's moving forward and that certainly makes sense to have a
longer meeting to look at all of that. Um and you know as a part of that this issue of 10% or less than a foot maybe on that I'm not sure if it's for both side and front setbacks but for and I'm only speaking about houses that are
being elevated that for administrative approval purposes perhaps that could be made a little more lenient just we're obviously passing those you know if if it's 10% that's almost nothing if if they're not doing anything you guys are
open to that? I mean, I I actually think I might have even drafted one at at some point um to bring to you guys to kind of give us a little bit more administrative authority if you're open to that. >> It's hard to know what the right number is, but >> I know I know um some of the things we like that I we we didn't put in the phase one part of the codes because we
have we're h we like that one's just meant to keep it consistent with the comp plan, right? >> So, these other ones we can certainly bring forward on our own to you guys if if if that's what you want. Um but I do agree with you. There's I mean I'll let these they're going to keep coming to you guys with these stairs. So if
there's some ability for us to to issue those administratively I think that would help. >> Right. Well thanks. I'll pass back to Richard in terms of trying to schedule this. >> We will talk about that next after this question. How our next P&Z meeting. What kind of cases load are we looking at?
Because it appears let's see we had eight variance cases then seven and this month we're down to three. So, how are we doing? >> Um, so I'll use that to segue into something else that I was going to talk to you about, which is a new resource that I put together. Um, every month I
was, you know, spending some time to make a spreadsheet to give to you guys about case updates. I wanted to make sure that that resource I was giving to you was also available to everybody and all the residents as well. So, this is something I've been working on that hopefully I can uh, you know, have go live uh in the coming days. Now, um, I
wanted to share it with you. Um, and I know we did a development map kind of like this prior to the storms. Um, and then of course things got hectic and that kind of fell off. So, we're getting back to that. Um, uh, a few updates here though. So, these are the projects that
have been added and we can kind of filter. So, because you asked Richard, we can go to hearing scheduled. Um, and these are projects where the hearing is scheduled. Two of these are commission meetings, though. I'll I'll preface with that. Uh that's going to be both of the
um these former Sands Resort um which is for a temporary parking lot that's going to go to commission. Um but we have here uh Treasure Island vacation rentals, uh the Rally Gas Station, and um Seahorse Beachfront, which is is is right across
the street down Gulf a little bit. Um so that's going to be three site plan reviews. Um and then in addition to that on my schedule I have one residential variance as well and and this kind of resource here is just focusing on commercial
projects. Over here we can see that the hearing is scheduled. Uh it's a a special exception. So let's go here. Um, so for this one,
we also have the mouse on this computer is a little strange, so bear with me. Um, we can even pull up this >> taking us into the future, guys. >> Plan right here. So, you know, >> Treasure Island, >> watch out. Treasure Island, here we
come. We are so back. >> Um, so yeah. So, you know, so it's a better resource for you guys, but then also that time that I'm spending updating something, anybody in the city is welcome to view that and it's kind of an equal resource. So, um, just wanted to share that with you and that kind of
answers your question as well. We've got those, uh, three site plan reviews and a residential. >> Where is Treasure Island vacation rentals? It's not that building right there, is it? Hoping >> it is here. >> No, it's not.
>> Is that all commercial? Is it all commercial stuff or is residential going to go on there? >> Uh, it was my intention to only do the commercial developments, but if you as the board would like it to be residential, I can do that. >> I was just curious. I mean, you can put mine on as a test dummy so people stop asking questions.
>> Um, so one thing that I'm going to do before I make this live is just make this a satellite image so it's a little bit clearer to see. But this is Treasure Island vacation rentals uh in between 101st and 103rd. >> Thank you. That'll be a great help. >> All right.
>> Okay. Our next meeting, uh, planning and zoning is June 18th. Um, as far as taking the LPA to June 25th. I won't be here on the 25th, but uh, if you want to go ahead and have the meeting, please have at it if it moves
things along. Uh, if if they could get ready by the 18th, obviously, I'd prefer that. But either way, It all comes down to the publication dates. Let me take a look at that. Um, so is it are you guys comfortable doing back toback or do we want to move P&Z to
the 25th and do them together? It's completely up to you guys. However you want to handle it. >> Well, I prefer the 18th because I can't be here on the 25th. >> I know. But if I can't get the 18th, >> but anyway, the rest of the board, they are available. Uh, >> say keep it on the 18th.
>> Keep it on the 18th if we can. >> Okay. All right, I'll shoot you guys. I'll confirm with Kimley Horn, see what the dates are, check the publications, and then I'll shoot an email out to all of you. Um, if you could just let me know based on whatever we come up with if if you guys So, I have a quorum.
Either way, >> anything happening on this building right here that has been a hideous eyesore since for 20 months? >> Not yet. Um, James did speak to them. Uh, and as of right now, I believe they are trying to decide if they want to rebuild or demo or sell. I'm sorry.
Sell. I don't think they talked to demo. I think they asked about selling or selling. >> That's the hard part about a time share. Lots of different owners. Okay. Thank you very much. Could we have a motion to adjourn this meeting? >> I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> Okay. It is now 3:00. If we could take
about a 10-minute break, uh, that'll give the AV guys a chance. Okay. Welcome to the city of Treasure Allen local planning agency board me local planning agency meeting for May
21st, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's card is available at the table over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat but rather from the podium. So
comments can be heard by all and recorded is required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda. Okay, we've got a couple things here. We're not going to do the pledge
of allegiance again. Cell phones, please keep them silent. And a roll call, please. >> Stroeski >> here. >> Sanchez >> here. >> Downing >> here. >> Billingsley >> here. >> Smith >> here. >> Shavelin
>> here. >> Harris >> here. >> And I'm a >> here. Thank you. >> Okay. Approval of the minutes back from March 12th and April 16th. Anybody have any comments on those or can I have a motion to approve them? >> Move to approve.
>> A second, please. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Chris Downing. All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? No. Okay. Uh, presentation of items 6A, review of ordinance
2026-15, recommending exemption from site plan review of city infrastructure projects. Um, the applicant will be the city. So, whoever's
presenting, Mary Ellen or Gary. >> Ralph, do you need to read the title for that here or >> um, yeah, I can read the title. Hold on one second. Pull it up. Ordinance number 2026-15,
an ordinance of the city of Treasure Island, Florida, amending chapter 70, planning and zoning of the city of Treasure Island code of ordinances by revising section 70-31, exemptions from site plan review by
adding an exemption for city infrastructure projects from site plan review requirements. providing for conflict, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date. >> Um so, good afternoon chair and members
of the board. Um this ordinance is being presented to you um basically following conversations with um the public works director um regarding various city infrastructure projects, just projects as a whole basically. But um under the
city's current code, our site plan review applies broadly um to land improvement, site alterations, building expansions, special exception uses, and changes of use that increase intensity. Um and because of the way it's written, it actually says all land improvements
and site alterations um require a site plan review. Mhm. >> So, it can capture relatively minor or routine uh municipal infrastructure and maintenance projects, which is especially true in older city properties that don't have an existing master site
plan. So, what I mean by that is there's a a condition in the code that allows certain projects to move forward without site plan review if you have an approved site plan uh on the books. For example, let's just say they wanted to do a
drainage project in TI Park. if we don't have a master site plan for TI Park, that would require a site plan review. Um, so these are the things that we're trying to kind of streamline uh the review processes. Um, it's intended to uh make kind of a clearer distinction
between planning level projects and maintenance projects. It would exempt certain low impact municipal infrastructure and maintenance activities from full site plan review, but they would still require um the existing technical reviews, including engineering, building permits, flood
plane compliance, and um intended to reduce duplicative reviews, improve project delivery timelines, support capital projects, storm response, resiliency work, and grant funded deadlines. Um, importantly, this does not apply to
major public facilities or higher impact projects which would continue to undergo full site plan review. Public safety building, treasure bay, public works facility, those would all still come to you for a full site plan review. Um it would also apply to projects that
affect any land use density, traffic, parking, storm water, maybe not storm water, that might come out, but um circulation and um you know, I think this kind of actually this is the initial one that we're bringing forward to you for city
infrastructure projects. Um, but it does kind of open the door to a larger discussion about um if there are ways to streamline the development procs for more broadly for all applicants um and not just municipal projects. I I do know
that there's been a a few projects that have come before you that were so minor um that I think we could have approved that administratively if if the code had a little bit more flexibility in that. So um you know that's something we could talk about in the future but you know
the main reason for this was was infrastructure projects drainage projects lift stations uh road paving I don't all those infrastructure projects that Gary may need this for. Um so I do have Gary here if you have any questions
um for him as well but um that's the basics of the ordinance. So, I see the writing that you've that that's included in this. Um, what I'm not seeing, I guess, is a threshold. You know, it's it's written of either dollar-wise or, you know, when obviously c if it's a
capital improvement, something that's a new building going up that the city's doing, then it would come to site review based on the way this is written. But the currently it looks like you know it's written so that it's anything that's rehabilitation or an upgrade of
current inf infrastructure is okay obviously maintenance of of existing items but and and it may be difficult to have a a dollar threshold or what what would be practical here. I just don't want it to be something that just slips through. I guess
>> I mean I I did a lot of research into this kind of before, you know, after Gary and I were talking about it. I I didn't really find any municipal codes that had it tied to a a dollar threshold. Um there were some that had minor projects, major projects. Um but I didn't really see anything that was tied
to to costs, >> right? >> Specifically, >> and I just really bring it up for discussion for this. >> Yeah. And we did exclude, you know, if number 13 is the one that excludes principal buildings, especially anything that has offices or public assembly purposes, you know, those kinds of
things would still come before you. >> Thanks for the intro, Marilyn. The I was just curious because like take Treasure Bay for example, >> right? They put in like the decking over the seaw wall. The seaw wall in general, land changes, there's a kayak launch. We
never saw that on this board from like a site plan review, but the way that you had just introed it was that stuff like that would still come in front of us. Is there a reasoning that Treasure Bay never came in front of us in regards to
>> those types of like I mean because that I'm trying to figure out the I'm a little confused in general. Um I'm I'm very cautious about this ordinance going through just from my perspective. I mean, we're already getting tagged with people not trusting the commission or not trusting this board. So,
>> um I still think that it it needs to I'm very curious about the answer like just Treasure Bay for example. >> Well, you know that question best can. >> So, I was here whenever that project started. So, it was originally an approved site plan. I was it was a golf
course. Um what they did is like fall underneath like the exemptions because they reduced their ISR than your typical living seaw wall type of things. Nothing that really triggered it to come before the planning zoning board for site plan review. >> I think I think changing it from having
a golf course to no golf course is a pretty significant change. >> But not there no there's no structures involved. >> There's gazeos. >> There's like earth earthwork pretty much. >> There's gazeos that are bolted to the ground. I'm sorry. >> There's gazeos that are bolted to the
ground. Those are cons that would fall underneath the accessory structures which are exempt. >> But you just still said there's no structures. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. >> So, I'm not trying to inquire. I see what you're getting at. >> That whole project is frustrating for a lot of people. >> I understand. But yeah, there, as you
know, there are certain things that are exempt that has to come before the planning and zoning board, and that thing met all of that criteria. Well, as an as a more extreme example, uh you know, I was asked this question. We did not see Treasure Bay. I understand why
based on that, but for instance, this building going from city hall over there to city hall here. It's just been on my 12 years on this board. I think the first time I've ever seen a city project before this board was for the uh setback
variance for the new pump station. And a lot of people said, "Did you approve a site plan for the new city hall?" My general comment was city project, you kind of had the hins guarding the hen house. Do we need this additional step?
Uh on my 12 years in this board, we've never turned down a site plan. And the reason for that is city staff does a good job making sure that the uh land owners or developers or the whoever the builder is does a good job meeting
today's code. So generally it's a situation with I don't like your architecture but but just because I don't like your architecture doesn't mean I can turn down your project. But the one that kind of cries out to me is this very building right here. We never
saw a site plan here. So, you're exactly right, Ross. >> Or the the you know, I get that our fire trucks need coverage. Those sheds are whatever we call them are bolted to the ground. Same thing with the maintenance facility. Those sheds are bolted to the ground. There's a fence up there. We
never saw a site plan for that stuff. >> Well, you could take take that into account as an emergency temporary structure, which is exactly what it is. You know, >> temporary for how long? Yeah. >> To ever until Gary gets the new fire
station built. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's what's going to h be there. And of course, from what Mary Ellen just said, it appears that we're looking at this point of of doing a site plan review for this board. What uh I
don't want to do is, for instance, the uh fire department. I mean, it's obvious we need a new fire station. Um, don't want to waste another month or something like that just so it can get rubber stamped by this board because we might
tweak it a little bit. We're certainly not going to turn down a uh site plan for new fire. >> There's a city building that was under urgency for a next steps approval. You could technically call a special meeting for that. And I guarantee you this board would want to review that type of site
plan to help the speediness of the project. Yeah, I would want to see >> I just I'm trying to understand because we keep the transparency I think is is is key in in this whole in the the whole rel relationship of this board and the residents. So I think that has to be
factored into it. Um there's a lot of things that are getting told that we're going too fast and then now it's this is part of that. I mean I'm trying I'm very weary of of this one. So as so assuming this we don't make any
changes and don't have this ordinance what is the what what projects are requiring the city to come to for that are maintenance type projects that are causing grief or delay
I mean I I think there isn't there some threshold now before something has to come to that has to there has to be a site plan or has to come before this board as it's written today. >> Gary Volanik, assistant city manager, public works director. Good, good
afternoon, chairman and board. Um, I think, you know, when I discussed this with Mary Allen, I think that the main thing is that we want to make sure that it's it's a little more clear as to what, you know, I'm thinking of infrastructure. I've got 14 pump
stations. We have miles of rights of way with shoulders. It's land. It's altering land. Yeah, >> we just want to clarify that. Um, every time just uh the dune walkovers, we didn't go for site plan, but it's it is area. >> So, you don't do it today. It's you're
just in a way you're asking for this ordinance for clarification from a practical point of view. Today, you don't come before this board with a site plan when you did the walkovers or when you make any changes to the street right away. But I think what it would what what it it came out with the the pump
station. You know, the pump station, it doesn't really have a site. It doesn't we're not reviewing it for parking. We're not reviewing it for, you know, we we did the setbacks. We brought it in because of the variance thing, but if it didn't have that, what would be the purpose of reviewing it? Um, it's going to be a gravel lot, a driveway. We're
minimizing the site as much as possible. So the quote area of the pump station, it is part and parcel of a larger city property and the development of that larger city property will come before the board because it has a site. It has driveways and sidewalks and ADA issues
and things. But I'm trying to just make it so that Mary Ellen, it's easy for her to say, "Well, Gary, you're fine here." Because it it it it would be exact, >> right? That was and that's where I was going earlier to try to see if there wasn't maybe a simpler way of
identifying what is the threshold for a project that you are overseeing that needs to have a site plan and come before this board there. The way it's written now it would only be for new
buildings as I I did a quick read but >> building expansions >> or building expansion. So, >> so it's pretty much everything that's um building expansions, any changes of use. >> I think we're things of that nature. All of that would still come before you. The
thing with the pump station, too, I did want to mention is, >> you know, the a lot of these city properties, like I said, don't have like the that yard over there doesn't have a master site plan. >> Yeah. >> It did, >> based on what Gary just said, it would have met the site plan amendments. So,
it would have just been approved administratively. But when we did the whole >> variance for the pump station, we were told that a site plan was going to be coming. That the reason why the variance was before the site plan was to make it easier for the site plan to be created
>> and to be done right the first time. That's what we were told. Is that is that that was my >> I know when I came before you all I was saying that we would we are going to provide a site plan for the public works yard which is under design right now >> which the master pump station
>> is is included in that site >> it's >> or in that yard >> it's a parcel um or portion of land. It is not a defined platted lot. Um, but the drainage from this site is going into
that master drainage plan which is going to be part of the, you know, when we access it, this the the public works staff will be parking in the yard. They'll open up a gate, get to the pump station or whatever. So, you will see the entire site that is going to come
before you and you'll see the portion of land that is targeted for the pump station and how it the drainage flows into the system. It's all collect. >> No, I just >> so this you know
>> just excuse me just you know if if >> Richard and I have done a lot of site designs where we had a pump station and it was part of a site plan. It's part of it. This is really I mean we we could do the pump station and the yard if it didn't happen for 10 years this would be totally you know stand on its own. But
we're not doing it all together. We need to accelerate this construction. We do have a grant. Um it's it's a it's a different contractor. It's a different type of project. You know, it's not the same guy who's going to build the pump station as the yard. So, I don't know if that clarifies it.
I'm sorry. Uh >> that's no problem. >> So, we're we're excluding new principal occupied government buildings, administrative office, public. That's not included in the exemption. Correct. >> Okay.
But you're pretty happy at this point with the 15 uh exemptions listed on page 17 of this >> document. So Treasure Bay was brought up by Ross, I think, right? Um that we never saw
that any of the changes made there. And I not sure I understand all the reasoning or why that wasn't brought. I'm trying to make sure that there isn't, you know, a bit of a
loophole here in terms of what comes before. It just I I get that, you know, new you've got new occupied government buildings would have to come. You're not ex you're not including them in this
list. Um but renovation of them also would not at this point would be exempt. And so where >> it would not because building expansions are >> I don't want another treasure base situation to happen.
>> Right. So I mean it says routine maintenance are rehabilitation that do not substantially alter the approved use of the property is exempt. So >> routine maintenance, rehabilitation, resurfacing. Rehabilitation I mean is renovation of a if we were renovating
one of the city buildings that seems like right the way it's written now it's that would be exempt >> rehabilitation not expansion >> maintenance building out there >> do you want to see a cycle >> no of course not and I'm trying I'm trying to be reasonable I'm not trying to make this
>> draconian in any way I I want you to have a lot of latitude to do general maintenance projects what I'd like to do is maybe get the language clarified IDE so that we don't have a Treasure Bay situation or that we don't have
a situation where there's a major remodeling say of this building and no one ever knows about it. >> Well, this is >> I think that's the transparency issue that's not >> included in what we have written today. >> If a hotel on the beach had to put in a brand new roof, do they have to provide a site plan when they put that new roof
in? >> No. >> No. >> Right. >> Okay. Well, then your roof example in my opinion would be okay. >> Well, and but you you know I think that someone mentioned about a drainage plan or something. Say that we put a there was an area of a park that had a little bit of low spot and was collecting
water. We put an inlet in and some pipe to the to the storm water system. We we wouldn't come before you for a site plan. >> Of course. We don't want you to. >> I know. And it would be sight work. It would be something it alteration and stuff. So that's where I I I just I'm
trying to define infrastructure, right? keep it >> and I totally I totally am with you and agree with you on this and that's why I think there's just a small tweak that we might need to have here about maybe there's that an addition of any
renovation work over a certain dollar amount to an existing facility would have to be would would not come under this exemption something and I I don't have time obviously none of us do to write that correctly today or what that amount should be but I I think we're
close and I think we're all with you on this. >> Just bear in mind that some of the equipment we have like like a a new generator is maybe a lot of money. It would be an you know the threshold would be maybe that's where dollars >> and that's where I don't think I I don't
think because that wouldn't be renovation of a building. That's to me that's taking care of pure infrastructure and I think you know buying a new pump whatever you know that we don't need to see because that's not site plan requirement. I think you know
that if it if a hotel here was replacing a backup generator that is going to require a permit but it's not going to require a new site plan. So I think a lot of the same rules fall here. Well, perhaps instead of cost, you can tie it to or building expansions that don't
exceed a certain square footage or a percentage 25, however, whatever number you might come up with. I have seen that in other codes as well that they tie it to a percentage of of the structure. >> Oh, like a expansion of a building not
more than 10% of the existing square footage. I mean, what Gary was talking about in this built out city, we're going to have a lot of maintenance. I mean, you pull out an old generator, you're just replacing it. And what I think we're all trying to do is getting
the situation where the city is giving itself a permit. I mean, does the city issue itself a permit for a new generator for a new pump station? You going to actually have a building permit? >> Yes, >> you would. We do. Yeah.
>> Um Marilyn in number 11 would major renovation of an existing building that could have implications for either traffic or neighbors or whatever, even if it's a city-owned property, would it be exempted under number 11?
I do not believe so >> because that's all infrastructure. >> That's all infrastructure. It would be tied down to number 13. >> It's really 13 >> excluding >> excluding any buildings and that's the one I was saying and perhaps we can add something in at the end of that that says or building expansions of 10% or
how whatever you guys think is right. So, I'll show my ignorance here, but when it says construction of public infrastructure, what does infrastructure include? >> Typically, I mean, I'll let Gary explain from a public works st or public works, but I would take that as utilities,
drainage facilities, storm water management, roads, >> no buildings unless they house those facilities. >> Maybe a lift station um would be included. >> I would say you're correct that if it if it houses like a pump or something like that, it would be infrastructure. um
typically it doesn't accommodate habitation or or you know it could be air conditioned because some of our controls need to have air condition so that you can't use that but um again it's it's it's usually you know it's usually underground or on the ground
>> and um u but I mean I see that there is this >> this kind of gray area and you're trying to tie it down a little better. I understand. >> Appreciate you giving me the opportunity to kind of talk to >> Can we So, so maybe something like on 13
an addition of that you're not that renovations or improvements to city facilities not exceeding 20%
uh would be exempt. anything over that 20% in and that 20% would be not on square footage but on value of the of the of the facility itself as you know approximate you know estimated value if
you're making improvements 20% of the value of that facility that it would have to come for site plan something to that >> maybe um instead of value say um within the existing footprint or within x% of the existing footprint >> yeah I think
the projects like the pump station's over a million dollars, >> right? And not and that to me is infrastructure anyway. That's not not I'm not talking about a pump station. I'm really talking about >> how would you look at it like a if say we're repaving in one of the city parking lots the city now typically
um a private de you know development would have to come in for some sort of site plan review on that. But yet would we >> Yeah, I think was the site plan for that city parking lot already established? it is est if it was established. Yes. But then it's just it shouldn't be a problem. But if it's a commercial property that wants to come in with a
new parking lot, then they have to supply a slight plan. >> Well, well, again, I'm thinking that >> Yeah, >> I think if the city wanted to build a new parking lot, we'd want to see it, but renovating an existing one is okay. >> So, number seven over there, docs, davits, boat list, and seaw walls. walk
me through that exemption behind 108 behind the new public um the police and fire building and all that. So when it comes to the docks over there, I mean eventually we're all hoping for this glorious police and fire station, the seaw wall that would hopefully run the
entire city parcel because I don't know why we would do it halfway or 3/4 of the way, whatever for future progress. the docks that are back there. If the city wanted to build new docks back there with this being passed, this board doesn't see that site plan for that dock
or for that boat lift. >> Well, seven seven's there already. >> It's already been there. >> Well, we could change it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's take it out. >> Well, no. I'm I'm thinking that, you know, we put in a dock for the fire
boat. You need a site plan review. No, but if we're putting in a quote marina, right, then that I can see I don't think, >> you know, first of all, to to put the marina in, we're going to get have to get permitting from D. We're going to have to get, you know, we're going to internally look at it. Jesse's already
given us a lot of direction far as setbacks and things of that nature. Um, anything that we do has to go before the commission regardless. I mean, before we even bid it out, we'd have to present it and and public comment. It, you know, in terms of transparency, it's going to be
out there. We're not going to be able to sneak in a city marina. But if if we need to install some new, you know, say the police has a jet ski that they they they have some and and do do we go ahead and and have you were putting a lift in for that or something? you know, it's
it's kind of it's it I I I'm not saying you have to say trust us, but um but to some extent, it's it's kind of a common common sense thing. If it's for city use, like a fire boat or a police boat versus it's for public use, public
access, sale of fuel or something like that, that would have to come before you. I just think that all those are should be like both of those scenarios, the the the marina or the police boat or the police dock or the fire jet ski or the
marina that's for the public. When it comes to our future, my opinion is that those are in tandem behind 108th. Maybe the police and fire boats and stuff are put behind the police and fire station, but the seaw wall that runs along the entire I mean that's my vision for Treasure Island. >> Well, we're getting ready to replace the
seaw wall. Well, I don't I don't propose to bring the seaw wall in the seaw wall replacement in for sight plan. >> Well, you know, that's that's where you go. That's where it's kind of falling over into the area. Maybe we should. >> So, are you going to be lifting the seaw
wall, making it higher than it is today? >> Well, we in consultation with planning and and we we basically are looking at having it higher to accommodate the uh as five five elevation five and that's what we're looking at. Five. So that would probably require fill dirt to be come to come in. If you're lifting the
seaw wall, there's fill dirt that comes in, right? >> Be well, it's going to be the fill will be part of the public works yard project. >> Okay. >> They're they're going to be, you know, the seaw wall will probably go in first, but the the public it'll be a different
contractor, different contract. >> Yeah. It's hard when there's different contractors, you know. So, think of someone building a house that's building a seaw wall, that's building a dock, that's building a pool. It takes time, but that all requires a site plan for a resident or even a commercial to property. So like my I'm trying to
understand. >> It's because when does this become a marina when we should have seen it? All these little steps take place and then really when is >> well we're doing the seaw wall whether a marina goes or not. We're doing the seaw wall. >> But I think I'm not trying to point
>> I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just trying to understand it because this is important when it comes to lifting it like you said lifting the seaw wall bringing it up to elevation. Okay. Well, that probably has dirt that's moved around. >> I can't guarantee that. >> I know. But it >> might be exposed seaw wall in the back. I I honestly haven't We don't
>> You can't have an exposed seaw wall in the back. That's not allowed >> until it gets built. It might be that way. >> I It's two different. >> Yeah, we >> I'm living this night. I'm living this I'm living this nightmare with the city personally. >> That's why it's taking me so long.
>> Now, we're putting a We're putting retention. We're doing a lot of things. There are a lot of moving parts on this. A lot more than a house. I hate to say it, but there's a lot more pieces here and I've got a lot more elements to deal with. But in terms of site plan, I've never heard of a site plan for vertical
seaw wall. Now, if you want to have from a planning and zoning standpoint, if there's certain things like that, believe me, Jesse and Mary Ellen bust my chops on this stuff. So, they they put us through a pretty tough review. And uh um
I I again I'm I'm I'm used to site plan review and I just can't seem to comprehend a seaw wall being part of a site plan. >> Are you filling Yes. >> Are you filling in the old boat ramp that's back there? >> We are. >> Well, that I guess that's where I was heading in terms of >> you want to call it a boat ramp. >> Oh, I'm sorry. It was a boat ramp back
in 1972. >> I I understand. So it what you're saying is you don't think how we're going to put in a municipal marina has any bearing on how we're going to do the seaw wall today? >> No. >> At all.
>> And that may be true. I just my first thought was why shouldn't we be making sure that that's maybe the wall >> behind your house. I'll use that analogy. >> You may not put a dock in for years. you don't necessarily, you know, you can design it together, but but
right now the seaw wall is needed regardless. We're getting ready to spend, you know, quite a bit of money on the city property for city improvements, and I want to make sure that our wall is going to be intact. >> And I and my only point is it may be that that seaw wall should be slightly
higher to facilitate the appropriate um infrastructure of the marina. Again, I don't know if that's the case. I >> Yeah. Well, I've got a we we're working with existing grades. Currently, it's like 38, >> right? >> Five is going to be a little bit of a it's going to have to take a little bit
more work on the site to make everything function correctly, but um we're trying to be, you know, uh u proactive in terms of thinking ahead for the for the city and for >> Yeah. >> So, so give I'll give you the example of
you building a seaw wall. Let's just say it's not guaranteed that the city is going to sell fuel, right? Not saying that's going to happen, but if that was an option, you'd be putting fuel docks at a certain location along that seaw wall. There's got to be some type of future plumbing or future engineering of
where that where the electrical and all that stuff runs through the seaw wall. It's not like it just runs over it. >> We are proposing to have conduits that would be installed and plugged so that there would be Yes. So without a site plan review of that future dock or what
happens if we get letters from residents that say that dock is or that fuel dock's too close to this property or whatever like that I think that's something that this board should be reviewing >> that's just >> we can always we can always core a hole through the seaw wall put it in anywhere
but we're basically it's if you if you see with the setbacks and the the public safety facility you don't got the side setbacks to it to the west. We've got the public >> I was just giving an example. >> I know, but I'm just giving >> believe believe me, we do think things
out a little bit and and and take the most reasonable approach to it. Um I'm trying to do it as cost effectively as possible. As I presented at one of the previous city meetings, I there's a lot of pieces out there. We've got submerged land leases. We got there's a lot of
elements out there and I'm trying to keep everybody happy. >> Yeah, we appreciate we appreciate the complexity. >> I hope we don't see I'm not trying to push back. I'm just trying to make it easier for everybody because, you know, time as as Richard mentioned, time is is, you know, a month, two months, three months, you know, I'm trying to catch
up. >> Do we have a do we have a general uh plan for this marina yet or not? >> I've I've shown um some, you know, there's not a lot to the city component is primarily we're going to have what I
call the workboats, fire, police. We have a a barge that services our buoys and and markers. Um that's that's pretty much the work element of it. Then there was going to be a larger piece that would have a a uh on either side for you could pull your boat in. It's just you're going to fill up and leave. It's
not going to be a permanent parking. So the city piece is that the rest of it would be slip similar to what is out there currently. >> Right. But so are you saying you're going to do the seaw wall before you really do plan the marina or
>> I mean do we have to do the seaw wall right now? Is it a problem or >> what do you mean plan the marine? >> I mean >> I think I in my mind you should be planning everything out and then including including the seaw wall.
>> Yes we have please. it. Yes, it has been done, >> but none of that's not going to be built. Um, you know, most of that fronts the two acre parcel that's going to be that's remaining. That's another element. We're not touch talking about that part. I'm telling you about fueling
dock and the city work component of it. >> I get it. >> The other the other part is is is is >> you know what the city decides to do with that remaining two acres. Why would we put something in front of it that would encumber negatively possibly? So that that would be a later date.
Figuratively, I have shown that we could put finger replace the finger docks as they are now, but that may be it may be something else. It's >> it needs to be something else like lifts like maximum marina that we can charge 2,000 and like our marine one boat like
is the and I'm just using the dock as an example or the marine example because I think that that's a big core piece of of like the the boat that we have today is I think like 28 ft. like we're not going to have a 28ft boat 5 years from now. Hopefully we got Cody in a 38T boat. So I mean the dock that's needs to be
planned over there. I mean like things like I I get that you're seeing that vision, but I think as representatives of the residents, we would like to have input on that to make sure. >> Well, I think what is you're boiling it down to is replacement of seaw wall is
just strictly maintenance and talking about new docks. I mean, the ultimate situation would be to do a plan where you'd show the new restaurant that may go in there someday with the dock facilities, but right now I get to hear
a bunch of complaints about these seaw walls that are owned by the city that are in such bad shape such as 115th Avenue and uh I guess Gary, if I'm correct, the area behind the old city hall, those seaw walls, they got to be
at least 56 60 years old. So, they're in uh >> they're in need of maintenance. >> I'm just jaded with Treasure Bay. That's that's it. I mean, it's just like that whole project is >> Treasure Bay won't happen again. >> Not as long as I'm here. >> I appreciate you saying that.
>> Can you fix it in the meantime? >> Move those gazeos out here to somewhere else and rip up the concrete. >> I mean, a perfect example is all all the street ends. >> There's a hunk of seaw wall there. >> Oh, I know. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you know, if we replace those, we're pretty we're pretty much going to
put them back right where they're at. When you get beyond that, you start getting to permitting issues. It starts getting, you know, we just want to go do it more from even from the agency standpoint. We're talking with Penelis County because they regulate that sort of thing for D and and uh um I mean I
can't see coming, you know, a site plan for every deadend street where we put up, you know, 50. No, I think we're we're we're with you on the whole infrastructure and I and I think we're we're this close. I if we simply take
item 13 and make an adjustment to that so that any that we that we're not excluding um right now it just says excluding new principal occupied government buildings. I think it needs to be rewarded so that
it's not just new, but any renovation or upgrade that is beyond 20% if that's the right number of an existing facility used by the city and
and that again it excludes infrastructure. What if it's internal in >> I I think if if you if we were renovating 20% of this facility here, we'd want to see it. We'd want to see a plan. >> You want to see the floor plan? >> I I would. Sure.
>> I I I don't think I'd want the city renovating 20% of this building without it coming before PNC. >> Did that you represent? >> I mean, repainting it. We're we're looking at maybe redoing some of the the cubicles and the floor
plan. >> Well, I don't think that's 20% of the building. >> Well, it's a whole floor. It's five floors. >> Well, if you're doing a whole floor, >> let's focus on let's just try and try to just make sure that we're understanding. So, let's let's do a real life example.
Kingfish Park. Kingfish Park. Great example. Complete seaw wall disaster that needs repair. I don't think I've seen an update on that one. I'm not looking for an update, but run me through Kingfish Park getting their seaw
wall replaced in in this world. If this passes, >> is Kingfish is is that the the property referred to as Kingfish Park that I have been told is not a park? >> Correct. It's a rightway >> owned by the city still.
>> Correct. >> Correct. Basically, it's the bridge abutment for the old bridge that used to go across and provided. It's collapsing, but >> it's now fenced in, >> right? >> And I think it was probably call it
eight months ago was $500,000 maybe to to repair. I don't think that this city should spend money to repair that seaw wall. >> I agree. Okay. But if the si in this world when if this
were to pass the way that it sits today, it technically doesn't need any type of this type of approval. That would just go to the commission and they make the decision without having >> because that's a budget. >> Well, outside of this, it wouldn't require site plan review either because it's exempt.
>> Yeah, because it's just infrastructure. So then it' be maintenance. >> Well, Chris, what you were hitting on, and this is the way I would approach it. Let's just say this building is 100,000 square ft and for some reason the city was going to expand it to 110,000 square
ft. Okay, let's require site plan. But if you're just going to move some cubicles around or change some plumbing or the fourth floor is unimproved right now, put up some walls, which the city
commission has to approve that expenditure. I really don't want to see a paint job or cubicles getting moved around. I really don't. But if you're like going to build a new wing to the building, sure, I'd like to see that. >> Or if we were going to say modify the
parking lot, I I'd say site plan, but internal I I'm I'm just having a hard time getting my, you know, the internal. We re we rebuilt like the pavilion, the Sunset Beach Pavilion. >> Yeah. >> Um we we spent, you know, close to $300,000. It's It's going to grand
opening on the 4th of June. >> It's nice. >> And uh >> Treasure Bay is jealous. >> Yeah. >> And And so, you know, it it all came together, but we're not really, you know, you don't even notice the difference as you drive by. You won't, you know, it was mainly just renovation
repair, >> right? It was that was a repair project, >> right? But we did, you know, the the internal bathrooms have changed around a little bit and we took the break coffee concession area and we repurposed that as more storage and you know we you know working with Kathy Haduk and Parks and
Rec but um you know >> but that's those those are already exempt under number eight there. Interior modifications to existing structures. >> Okay. So interior modifications of this is already exempt. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The few I appreciate real quick. I
appreciate everything that you're doing for the city. Like we we're running and gunning. It's not that >> this is a good discussion. >> So again, I guess I see interior modifications are included there. So I guess it would be one way to make a change here so that it doesn't include
expansion of existing facilities. We're trying to get to some threshold, but I'm not sure how we protect ourselves against another Treasure Bay being where the city goes off and does work on it without the oversight boards knowing what's happening.
>> You know, I wasn't here for Treasure Bay Ray, but I honestly believe it was just sort of a series of steps that it started off just being a seaw wall, >> right? And then it was, oh, we got a
grant for some walkway and then a grant for the kayak launch and then something for the pavilos and and and it just sort of met metriculated into this project and we're like we're all happy to see it closing
out here, but um uh I I don't think it was it was that was such a series of steps that sort of led us to this where we are now, but it wasn't just one plan. It it it it seemed like it evolved over time. Um, and it constantly kept growing
and and changing and and uh like I said, I'm hoping we wrap it up. >> So, see what I'm saying? >> It was one plan that didn't have a site plan that didn't come through this organiza this this board. >> I don't know if they I I haven't really
found a one plan that had everything on it. It's all a lot of different pieces. >> Yeah. But you can see where I'm coming from from that aspect because I wouldn't have said, "Oh yeah, we should do two gazeos that stick 12 feet inward. Shouldn't do a I mean it's just like common sense from what the future of
that property should be." That that's just where I'm coming from. >> You know, so I would, you know, we're not taking boats here to making it. We're just trying to give advice, right? And >> well, you will be making a recommendation to the city >> for for the recommendation for this
ordinance. you have language that would be helpful. >> Yeah, I think come up with some language. >> I guess I would I would recommend modifying 13 to include expansion beyond 10% of any
existing facility. >> I think you need to structure that though. I'm sorry. >> Because like this building 10% of this building is >> 20%. I'm not hung up on the amount. >> It's just the size of the building. I'll use uh Sunset Vista Trail Head Park
right now. >> It's being repaired, but is it being expanded? Well, I don't know if it is or not, but uh I'm trying to >> Well, maybe a way to maybe 20%'s a better number. >> Well, the thing is, how do you differentiate between a differentiate
between a small building and a larger building? This is the biggest building. >> Yeah, this is the biggest building that the city owns. And I'm just trying to figure out, you know, >> you know, we can we can try something and I I I would,
>> you know, encourage us to pick a number like 20% expansion of any current facility, but >> 20% for any building larger than 50,000 square feet. and >> don't exempt the buildings less than
that >> or 50,000 is too big cuz we don't have any buildings that are that big except for this one. >> Um, >> no, what I don't want to get into is >> modifications made to the beach pavilion
or Treasure Bay Clubhouse. >> Well, and and that's why I actually want to include it because I think if we're going over that threshold, we're probably doing a fair amount of work to it. So 20%'s probably a reasonable >> yeah 20% of that >> starting point of that facility
>> whereas say only um >> I mean I'm struggling with the idea where's the threshold >> right and I and maybe that's not the correct number and we can always change that in the future if we have to but we could we could use 20% as a placeholder
for now but in addition to that I think any sub and I don't know maybe the right wording here. Substantial change in use of a city facility would also come before this
board. So that that way something like Treasure Bay that happened over a series of steps that you just outlined very well, I think Gary, uh that we would have picked up that there was a change in use of the Treasure Bay. It's no longer a golf course.
>> Don't say that. still a golf course. >> Well, it's still a golf course, I guess. So, >> so the current code does require site plan review for changes of use that result in land use intensity. >> And that's where's that included? >> That's in 70-32 of our code. Um,
>> probably put that 32 before 33 so people could see what what's required. You could scroll up on the the notebook here. >> That was a different section. >> There's no 32 on here, right? all up uh on the screen. That's >> Oh my god.
>> Oh, you got it up there. Yeah, >> this is a different chapter than we were just in. >> Where's the control for the one on the uh >> Oh, sorry. God, I'm over here scrolling away thinking you guys >> You want to go higher than 32 and that shows >> Yeah,
>> my laptop in front of me. >> So, you're saying that's really covered by 32. It's right before the 7032 development and uses requiring site plan review unless specifically exempted in 7033 which we're reading. All land improvements, site alterations, building
expansions, special exception uses, or changes of use resulting in an increase in land use intensity shall be subject to site plan review and approval. Okay. I guess it's I'm glad to see that's in there. Land use intensity. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So I guess that means really all we're missing now is the fact that on the exemption part we're including or not excluding new facilities but we're saying nothing about expansion of facilities
today and that's so I would propose the only change then would be at if there is an expansion of an existing facility of x% that that would not be exempt. Pick a number.
>> Pick a number. >> Chris, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but in 32, if you expand it by even 1%, aren't you increasing the intensity of use? >> Isn't that what you just read us, Mary Ellen? >> Uh, no. Because intensity is how much
within it you're using, not an expansion of the facility itself. >> Intensity, right, is a planning term, Mary Ellen. And it could be for area ratio, it could be square footage, it could be in traffic. It's a number of different parameters. Maybe
>> like you had a um we had one that came before recently. It went from an office. He was going from an office to a coffee shop. If you recall that one, >> that was one that came before you. And the only reason it really came before you was because of that change the intensity of the use. So more traffic,
more people, more cars because his office only has one or two people coming in. So that one came before you because of that. So to Chris's point, a building could be changed, modified, expanded without increasing intensity.
>> Possible around you, >> go from a coffee shop to an office building, >> right? I you know, we could use >> Okay. 20%'s a reasonable amount that you all it means is that you're going to have to bring it to us if you're
expanding a building. It's a smaller I think it's overall though we're we're in agreement about infrastructure not coming to us but Chris let me ask >> you could say you could say 20% or 1,000 square feet or 2,000 square feet. You could put two things together when
you're writing these codes too. >> Yeah, that's that's a good idea. >> That was the comment I was just going to make. I mean you want to have a small threshold. I was thinking 10% or a thousand square feet. >> I'm I'm looking, >> you know, anything less. I don't want to see >> Right. I agree.
>> Uh if Gary expanded the beach pavilion down there on Sun Beach by thousand square feet, well, I think that's a lot down there. But uh because it's not that big a building, but you know, a minor amount. I mean, if you were expanding that by 500 square feet, I really don't
care. >> Yeah, I'm okay with 10 and 10 and a thousand. >> Yep. >> Well, let's let's go forward in that. We do have one speaker card. expansions more than 10% or more than 1,000 square
ft for any existing facility. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to thank the board. Uh >> yeah, you paid >> I have a question for him. Can I >> on the >> the marina? Hate to beat a dead horse, but so basically the only people that
have really seen what's going on with the marina is staff. Is that correct or >> There's nothing going on really. I think you know it >> just >> so are we >> you see the slips out there right now >> I haven't >> Yeah they've been dead for like five years
>> basically it's like putting those back and adding a few more to the end like the whole front of it it's just basically >> please don't put those back >> I'm I'm just saying it was just a placeholder we had it you know whatever they whatever they decide the thing is there's only so far you can extend out into the canal there's there's
>> please don't put that back >> did we did we have the master planner did we add 108 onto the concept or we didn't add >> Bobby. I >> believe that 108 is going to be part of uh the five properties.
>> Um >> yeah. >> Okay. So then Okay, then then we're planning it. Okay, good. >> Is there an ETA on that master planner feedback? Like >> they're making an update at the next commission meeting >> and then uh they're going to make a at a
workshop on the what? In July. >> Okay. Seven, there's going to be a the financial model. We're going to talk a little bit about that. >> Saw my opening. I took it. >> Okay. Got one card from Mark Hohei. >> Drum roll, please.
>> Thank you, chair. Okay. So, I'm not an engineer. >> Well, tell us your name and address just for the heck of it. >> Marco, District Three. How's that? >> Whatever you want to do. >> Not an engineer, not an attorney. But my
take on this proposed ordinance is this is that the concern I would have as a resident is losing visibility to where taxpayer money is being spent.
In in in my mind, this body here, whether or not we ever all agree, disagree, whatever, is here to uh allow that visibility of future projects, of policy changes,
of things that relate to uh the development of this community. So, anything that that limits that is a problem to me. Uh and the language you're working on it. Yes. Number 13 was
vague even to my uh mind was vague and and possibly could have been subject to interpretation of what we would see as a as a resident. I'm much more in favor of having uh this group at least make it
visible so that it's public. So it's public. Now, I could say that and quickly turn and want to support Gary in there are lots of things that need to be done that fall well below that threshold. I'd do everything we can to hurry him
up, you know, to allow allow him to move at light speed to fix those things, but I do not agree with taking any of the authority for this body to look at, get presented, and to a certain degree show
it to the public of what's coming that the city is planning to spend taxpayer money on. That's my two cents. Thanks. >> Well, one comment on that. I mean, I agree with everybody here about Treasure Bay is the most glaring example.
Is was there like our own public works director said, was there ever a plan that showed everything going on? No, there wasn't. And we don't want to repeat that mistake. Uh this building right here, um you know, I heard a
comment once, well, there wasn't any real site plan changes made. The parking stayed the same. the building footprint stayed the same. Well, we can go as minor saying, "Hey, you built a grand staircase up to the second floor. Would have been nice just to see it." So, we're in agreement with you, uh, Mark,
that major projects of major expenditure. Yeah, we want to see them. Minor stuff like ends of street seaw walls, uh, maintenance projects. I mean I the best one I've seen I went out and took pictures of it was that seaw wall
for that little bit of a causeway going out on 115th. Is it uh struggling? Yes, it is. But uh you know if it gets to the point where it needs to be replaced, it's going to be needed to replace yesterday and uh we
don't want a whole bunch of it's that's just a maintenance project is what that is. So, I think we're in agreement. >> It's interesting to the we're going too fast. You know, we want to go fast, but now we need to slow down. Master plan
now fast again. Like, I mean, it's >> Well, you know me, Ross. I've never slowed down. >> Anyway, we had our one car uh card. You know what we need to do at this point is make
a recommendation to the city commission for them to approve this ordinance with the modification that we described about the 10% building expansion or thousand square feet whichever is
>> I have a question I have a question for Ralph. So this would go to the city commission. >> Explain to me the process for city commission. Is it one review or two re two readings and they they're going to have to be published for in the newspaper. >> Okay.
>> And I I have some draft language I could read to you guys if you pay attention real close and see if it's okay. >> Yeah, I think uh Chris will probably write it down. >> 13 would now read development of local municipal infrastructure projects.
And I wanted to clarify a little bit more here saying excluding the following projects that shall require site plan review. New principal occupied government buildings intended primarily for administrative office or public assembly purposes and expansions of
existing facilities that are more than 10% or more than 1,000 square feet. Whichever is less >> whichever whichever is less. >> So if we replace two floors in city hall
no review. >> You mean and that would be >> I'm not talking about painting. I'm talking about >> square feet. >> Okay. But you said expansion though. I'm just saying what if you gut the interiors two floors plumbing moves around. walls move around
>> inter there was something already an there number eight is in the existing code interior modifications to ex existing structures >> should it be if we do that much of a >> well that's an expenditure that the city
commission has to approve but the thing is I mean >> again I really don't want to see them painting and >> well I don't care about the painting but you know >> I mean putting up >> could be very expensive I It could be extensive, but you know, just throwing it out there.
>> Right now, what's exempt is interior modifications to existing structures provided there is no change in land use classification or zoning district or increase in density or intensity of use. That's for government as well as private
as an that's an existing. You really have to read >> but but if it's a change in use that increases the uh intensity like was explained earlier from office to to a coffee shop or restaurant that would be more >> right that's why you really have to look
at the code in its entirety you know that you can't just look at 32 here by itself >> I think yeah the other recommendation should should be that we also print in this proposed ordinance 7032 so you can see >> so the other things can be seen I agree when it's required too I think that's an
important thing to include even though we're not changing it. >> Yeah, I think that makes it clear >> especially when it comes to you know change in use. >> Well, I like the revised verbiage. So, with
that, can we uh get a motion to forward this to the city commission for their further consideration? Yeah, I would I would move that we uh move this uh to the city commission for approval with the change made to um item
13 as it was read and also the inclusion of in the text uh for section 32. Is that correct? 32. >> Sounds good. Okay. Motion by Chris Downing. Could I have a second? >> Second.
>> Let let me u give you one second. Gary is bringing something up. Is it correct that we want whichever is less or whichever is more? >> The reason is that if you're saying >> go to the podium. Yeah. >> Sorry. >> I just wanted whichever is less. It means that you're limited to a th00and
feet. >> I would say whichever is more. >> Okay. That's I Okay. >> I think that was the intent. Yeah. >> Whichever is more. Okay. >> Okay. We had a motion by Chris Downing, second by Marvin Chevink. Can we have a
roll call vote, please? >> Sadki, >> yes. >> Sanchez, >> no. >> Downing, >> yes. >> Billingsley, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Shavelin, >> yes. >> Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, our next um let's see, public
comment for non-aggenda items. Mark, you're the only public in here. Okay. Reports and comments of city attorney staff and board members. Ralph, you got any comments? >> Not today. Thank you. There you go. >> Okay. >> We got Joan is >> Yeah, I was That's what I was going to ask. Where's Joan? >> Where's Joan?
>> Where's Joan? >> We asked her to come to the >> He's on vacation. >> Oh, >> smart. >> Our paytime off PTO they call it. Can we request her to be at the next LPA meeting for And please bring in economic
update dashboard. >> That would be great. >> Okay. Any comments from any board? Marvin, >> I wanted to ask Ralph to walk us through how the PD process will work in relation
to the comp plan amendment because there's going to be a comp plan amendment involved. Correct. >> Okay. So, it's important to keep in your mind there's two separate processes. There's comprehensive plan and then there's the land development code. Typically, zoning,
what people call zoning is the land development code. So you have your comprehensive plan and part of that is every comp plan is divided up into different chapters and they call them elements. One of the elements in a comp plan is called the future land use
element and that future land use element has a future land use map. Um then in the land development code you have implementing zoning categories and each of those zoning categories has land development code section numbers like you're seeing on the screen. In the comp
plan, um you have goals, objectives, and policies. And then you get into more detail in the land development code. And then the land development code typically zoning section, the zoning districts, you have established uh zoning
categories. Um the planners will call this uklidian zoning. You have like residential, commercial, uh multifamily. you know, you get all your different divisions and then each one of those zoning districts that's in there now. These traditional zoning
districts have all their planning parameters, their criteria, their setbacks, everything is listed for each one of those. So, it's a strict application. Um, a plan development is um a new zoning category. It's none of
the existing zoning categories. it would be a brand new zoning category. To create a plan development, first you have to have an enabling section in the land development code that says that such a thing is even available. So this is going to second reading in um June
June 2nd. There'll be second reading at city commission. That would create the enabling section of the code that says that someone could apply for a plan development. Um so that's what's being discussed on June 2nd and you're all encouraged to go to that meeting. Um you can express your
ideas as individuals apart from the recommendation that the LPA or planning zoning board made. So if you want to go there that's that's where you can make some more comments. Um so right now all all development under Florida statutes
must be consistent with the comp plan. That means the land development code has to be consistent with the comp plan including the future land use map and the goals objectives policies. Um all development orders have to be but all zoning categories have to be too. So
you couldn't put a zoning that's inconsistent with the comp plan. So plan development is there to create flexibility and setbacks but it's not there to change the comp plan. It has to be consistent with the city's comp plan
and also the countywide comp plan. So a plan development zoning category doesn't wave the consistency with the comp plan. If you want to depart from the comp plan, you have to go get a comp plan amendment first uh or maybe concurrently
with a plan development for your particular parcel or project or what area would be encompassed within the plan development. Plan developments typically have unified control. So it's they're coming to you as one project or
one not necessarily one parcel but usually one project or one area. Sometimes there can be a plan development that has multiple projects within it. For example, Naples Square has a big area and within Naples Square there is
multifamily buildings, there's commercial places, there's restaurants and it's all in one planned development. So we can figure out where are people going to live, where are they going to shop, where are they going to eat, where are they going to park, and where are they going to have cultural activities and how far away they are. So it gives
you some more flexibility to do that. But it doesn't change the comp plan. That's a separate process. If if if something is going to um need a comp plan amendment, that goes through a separate process. So you're saying
it could possibly be done concurrently. >> In 2011, um the growth management act was changed substantially. It was called community planning act now and they allowed um because people were doing it anyway. We allowed um comp plan
amendments and resonings to occur at the same time. They call them concurrent. says you can process a reszoning application concurrent with a future land use map change or a text change to a goal, objective or policy. So after
2011, they started processing them concurrently. You have to keep in mind that comp plan amendments are legislative and you can say no for any reason. Um and then resonings have a different test under Snyder. First, you have to be consistent with the comp plan
and any procedural requirements in your land development code, but then you can still say no to a reasoning for any legitimate public planning purpose. >> So, my question >> separate things. >> Okay. So my question is
why can't we do a you know a comp plan amendment for PD zoning in the in the comp plan so that it's already there versus a developer having to come in they've
already go have to go through an extensive process just to get the PD approval. Well, >> and then and then at and then then or possibly it could be done concurrently, but then there's a lot more work involved.
>> I just don't understand why we wouldn't do the comp plan amendment upfront for the PD zoning districts. So, it's already there waiting. You just have to get approval of the PD which is a you know very substantial process, expensive, takes a
lot of time. Why are >> I think one one of the reasons is pos potentially because you don't have the specifics. >> Well, and also the city plan does not match the county plan and under the city plan quite frankly a lot of these
projects can't don't work. I mean, uh, so the city I'm sorry to interrupt. No, go ahead. always going to say it seems to resonate with people. The um the city's comp plan is the city's vision for the future. Your future land
use map is what do you want to see in the future? U and that should be reflected in your future land use map. The goals, objectives, and policies for each of your future land use designations. And each one of those future land use designations has a
different goal, different objectives, different policies that apply in that particular area. Um, and then plan development is what uh a property owner proposes to fit within the city's vision
that's in the comp plan land use designation. So if your vision as a city changes and you want to have more or something different, then you do that in the comp plan and you put that out there. And then um if someone wants to go um and
prepare a plan development that fits in with that vision, that's what they propose individually with the details once once once they see what what that is. And then um the the PD doesn't change the future
land use map. The future land use map still has all these different land use designations. Those those are still there. PD can be applied to any one of those different ones that are designated as eligible, but it doesn't create a new
future land use designation >> for PDs, >> right? Yeah. No, PD is a zoning category. >> Let me ask you totally. That's the advertisement that I ran across that says first reading. Is it what is
happening on the second? I thought that the first reading of the enabling ordinance was actually on May 5th. >> We'll have to we'll have to look and check. >> Okay. Because you know there's a little bit of confusion there because >> we'll check to make sure it was
advertised correctly. If not, we'll have to we'll have to address that >> because um yeah, on the 5th, I mean, the enabling ordinance was approved and I personally thought that was the first reading, but >> that was the first reading. It's supposed to be second reading on January 2nd, but what he's showing me says first
reading. So, we'll have to check the newspaper and see if they got it wrong. >> Okay. >> So, there's no way to have that in the comp plan. So, that I'm just trying to make it as simple as possible. You don't need to have it in the comp
plan and it would be difficult to put it in a comp plan. >> Okay. >> You have future land use districts. If you want to change what the criteria are on those districts, that's you amend the districts with a text amendment, >> right?
>> That would be applicable throughout the district. Or you could apply for um a smallcale plan amendment and create a brand new land use district. And that's us usually what happens with PDs is there's a smallcale plan amendment that creates a brand new
comprehensive plan land use district. >> But you think that >> going to depart from it like you call it u if you did anything different today Mar you'd be really opening it cart launch to do wherever the county level is. Um,
so you want you want this if you're going to allow a PD, you want to be able to have the specificity of how you're going to be changing that land use within that area. And then, um, you know, as Mr. Brooks indicated, you could create a separate
zone uh, land use area that's for that particular PD so it doesn't provide, for lack of better word, cart blanch across the rest of that zoning district. Yeah, smallcale plan amendments used to be limited I think at first to 10 acres and then they went up
to 20 acres and now you can put 50 acres in a small scale plan amendment. usually that's what travels first before a PD >> thing is >> a particular project >> Ralph I mean the way I'm foreseeing this
is you know a developer or a land owner I should say such as I mean the guy who's done the most work out here is Thunderbird so we use him as an example he will want to reszone his property to plan development and at that point he
will need to go to a smallcale land development uh land use plan amendment. >> Um let's try to keep things in order. So if they wanted to do something on a parcel
similar and say they wanted to um create a PD first they would do probably a smallcale plan amendment first >> and then they would travel plan development with that or after that. But the first thing they need to do if they want to not live up to what's in the
comp plan is to do a plan amendment. Otherwise, the plan development must be consistent with the comp plan. >> Right. >> But so they're going to get a they're going to get a comp plan amendment before we approve the PD. mean we're going to approve or at the
same time >> at the same time because the situation is Marvin I know a lot of land owners here would like to have a citywide comprehensive land use plan to bring it all up to county standards and I think
it's going to be a situation where each land owner has to do it on their own has to do both issues on the both processes on their own >> all right I'm just trying to >> I mean the good thing about the plan development as it has flexibility, but that also allows you to to look at a
project in context with its neighboring and surrounding uses. Some things so not everything fits everywhere. So you can adjust the boundaries, it setbacks, things to make things more compatible with surrounding existing uses the idea.
>> All right. I was just trying to see if there >> there you could have a case where you know a land owner would go forward with a PD without making a change to the uh land use regulations because the PD gives flexibility >> then within
the land use. So for instance, that particular area could do an offset or front setbacks or side setbacks for other that allowances within that land use that
don't violate density or intensity and height, but it allows more flexibility for the building itself. So there there are times where a developer doesn't need to go any further than just the PD. So you again I'd go back to my first
comment that I would I'd be very much against giving a car launch a change in the entire comp plan to allow um going fully to the county standards. We're >> it would be up to it's not
>> I mean up to up to the county standards this way to get an approval. It's more specific to the particular lot >> and Chris that's where small scale land >> right >> land use plan is is going to be necessary because >> you know just the atmosphere of the
situation is we're not going to come in with a citywide >> upgrade or or a increase I should use that word increase to what the county standard is >> and it's and it's again you could there's benefits to a developer coming
in under this PD without making change to heighten density. There's still advantages to it. >> It just creates more work. >> It makes more work for it, but they gets more flexibility in their development. Um >> well, you would you would you would think that it would, but it I
have I have a not that I have a concern. Well, the more work that you're putting on them, which obviously we want them to, we could also create a bigger ask from their side. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm just >> but they're they're they're >> Ralph is that normal to have exclusive
>> individual. >> I mean that's great if that we get people that want to do that but it's it's very expensive to go through this process. >> Right. which is why I've on this board I've been much more in favor of us moving forward with changes to the land
development regulations to allow more flexibility and not to increase intensity and height but allow more flexibility so that for instance in the downtown area more could be done without going higher the PD doesn't create any particular
height or any particular density those are all different conversations for different states pages, >> right? >> It looks like the newspaper ad did say first reading. So, it looks like we're probably going to have two first readings of the PD ordinance, which mean there'll be a following second reading. >> Oh, well. >> But we'll look into that a little bit
further to see if there's time to change the advertising, but there may not be. >> So, audience comments again. >> Yep. And you guys can come. We'll still hear it. We'll hear it again as a second first reading unless we can get a note
reos for a second reading. with Memorial Day. I'm not sure there's enough days to the newspaper has their own publication schedule. >> Okay. Uh moving on. The next LPA meeting
and the next PNZ meeting is right now scheduled for June 18th. Subject to change. I'd like to do it the same way uh we've done it in the past. PNZ meeting and a couple of cases followed by a LPA meeting. And uh hopefully we'll
see you guys on the 18th. Can we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Move to adjourn. >> All in favor?