Sea Dogs is pretty good. Oh, hell yeah. I love Sea Dogs. I've been there a couple times already. It's not my favorite place over here. Okay. Great place. All right. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island local planning agency
meeting for Thursday, August 21st, 2025. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker card is available on the table over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but
rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by y'all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comments section of the agenda. If we could all stand for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, if everybody would please silence
their cell phones. Um, Tia, if we could have a roll call. Mark Zeski, present here. Gary Patenziano here. Ross Sanchez here. Chris Downing here. Grant Smith here. Marvin Shavelin here.
Richard Harris here. Thank you. Okay, before we get started, we have a uh new board member and Gary, you are the uh alternate today. Looks like you get to take a hike. Take a hike.
Yeah, cuz Daniel Billingsley is the full board member and he needs to be sworn in. They we will not be doing swearing ins. Thank you. He's not going to be No, it's in September. It's perch charter. Okay. All right. I thought Sorry about that, Daniel. I thought you were your
full board member as of today, but uh okay, next next month. All right. Uh approval of minutes. We don't have any. We'll get right into the uh presentation of items. First item 6A,
request to approve resolution resolution 2025-12 recommending adoption of ordinance 2025-15. Uh this is in regard to raising of houses and Mary Ellen Edwards if you go
would go ahead with your presentation. Can you hear me? Hello. here. Um if you recall at the last meeting um you were talking to um Katherine about the encroachments for balconies. So this this this uh ordinance has come out of
that and what we did was under our section for allowable encroachments. Um this is for structures that are just being elevated um to meet the Florida building code or the flood
plane requirements. Uh we added a section in here that basically says one balcony is allowed to encroach into the setbacks. The encroachment for the balcony shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible. The maximum width for the balcony shall be 12 feet measured to the outside edge of the platform and the maximum depth for
the balcony is 3 ft clear measured to the inside edge of the railing unless a greater width is mandated by the Florida building code. This balcony shall be located at least 5t from all property lines. Um as if you recall we were getting a lot of variances for this
came out of it and that's really all there is to this one. Okay. Any questions from board members in regard to uh this issue from the I just want to ask a point of clarification on this side setback
versus back setback in regard to this. Are there times where this would be implemented to to go over the side the the rear setback as well to accommodate that balcony or is it just got to be set back from all property lines from all property lines.
Yeah. So it is possible it could be used in that fashion then is that the right way to interpret that? It shouldn't go beyond it. No point of the balcony can go within 5T of a property line. Go ahead Marvin. At our PNC meeting, did
we not talk about also letting them have an extra set of stairs if they they needed I thought we I know in that particular case we gave them an set of stairs in the front. I I believe the service platform on the
side is already in our code as an exception. Is that right? Right. But the problem is if you have to have that and then what if you need stairs in the front of the house? I think the front is allowed up to three feet wide. You're allowed one set of stairs including and a meter platform.
Oh, and the meter platform. Okay. Okay. That's just one. So, you get one. Meaning the the meter platform counts as one. Yeah. What I'm saying is I thought we talked about having an additional set in the case where you had the the meter,
but I might be wrong. Any thoughts on that? So, I'm a little I'm still a little confused like you are, I think, in terms of Well, the thing is we always had you always had to have a set of steps to your m uh meter
platform, but that does not give you access to the house situation. What we were trying to do in years gone by is to make sure that those steps were not in the setback. And uh I don't think that was included last last month
that we were just looking at sets of steps for an access to the house. That's what I'm that's what I'm saying because if the meter platform is the one set exception that means we can't access the house is that's the concern. So I
think this goes to the question of the we're we're putting into you know allowable encroachments for this meter platform on the side of the house but it is not being is not
being an add-on to go in to encroach into the front or or rear setbacks. My understanding was at the last meeting the discussion was centered around balconies and that's what this is. This isn't intended for stairs or anything that my understanding was it was just
balconies because I know you were talking about whether this was going to be for elevated structures or new structures and my understanding was we landed on balconies for elevated structures. If if you want us to look at a second set of stairs we can certainly come back with a another ordinance or
but I think today we're only looking at balconies. I think it's a good idea. Yeah. But anyway, that something you said uh in in response to Chris's uh question gave me another question. It says this balcony
shall be located at least 5 ft from all property lines. For instance, my house I always use mine as an example. My rear yard setback is 20 ft. And surely we don't want to give people permission to build within five feet of uh
the seaw wall. I mean the seaw wall is considered the property line and usually the rear yards are a lot bigger than the sidey yards. So,
what we were more looking at was a a width, and it's on here. A maximum depth for the balcony is 3 ft measured from the inside edge of the railing. We just didn't want to see a whole bunch of variances coming in for three foot uh
balconies, which is what we had last month. So, I don't have any clarification that I'm looking I don't see it in this document the way it's written now. Well, I don't have any problem with the three foot wide balcony. I don't have any problem with that either, but it just says on here, the balcony
shall be located at least 5T from all property lines. I read that and I'm like, okay, I'll put it in my uh front yard set back to within 5T. And obviously can't do that. I just want to make sure that nobody reads it that way.
It's for a maximum three- foot wide balcony and that's it. Yeah, Mark. Yeah, I do a question on this on this particular one as well. It it we're not really specifying whether it's a covered or uncovered balcony. Would that be allowed to extend the roof line to cover
that balcony? I'm not sure if the how it's written provides that was for that information. My understanding was this was exclusively for homes that were being elevated within the current footprint. And it is that true.
And it is. So somebody seeking a variance on new construction wouldn't qualify under this. Okay. So So I'll ask the question again then. I guess just to make sure I understand and everyone else here understands that the the way it's written, we're allowing
an encroachment of a three-foot balcony or stairwell to reach a meter on any side of the house. So long as what we're talking about right now is only balconies. We've eliminated the stairwells from this meeting.
Oh, we've already done that. Okay. And uh so what we're talking about is a three foot wide balcony. Right. These are those homes that have an existing sliding glass door or something like that and they're elevating in place if that if that balcony is going to
encroach. That's what this is specifically for. Meter platform was already addressed, but it is it is listed in this ordinance. Now the new part of the ordinances is what is what is underlined. The everything else is already existing
in the code. Well, for instance, um the case last month, she asked for a three- foot wide balcony on the front of her house. Uh cuz she is raising her house, right? And that's what we're going to uh so we're now what we're saying then is
we're going to allow that either on e any side of the building that would be where it would be. Staff can uh they can yeah add a three-foot balcony. Yes. Add 3 ft to the balcony. But it still needs to be 5 foot from property line and still be 5 foot from the property line. And I just want to make sure that uh
somebody doesn't read that and go, "Oh, I can build 15 ft into the property line." But it is there. It's limited to a width of only 3 ft. And the way it's written is is correct. It just uh and it is only to be one right
to give CL. Okay, I get it now. Sorry for the confusion. But any other question? Richard, you brought up about the rear rear property line. Is that a problem? No. Being within one ft within 5T? No, because it's a it's a maximum width
of of three foot of a balcony. You know, it doesn't you cannot go in there and build a 20 foot wide balcony because your setback is say 20 feet. You can go into that rear setback three feet. In other words, you'll be 17 ft from the top of the seaw wall
assuming there's a 20 foot setback and there is in most places in the city. It varies a lot, but usually it's 20 ft. So, any other questions for the uh city staff? If not, I think that'll cut down
on uh some of the work we have. If we could uh have a motion to uh move this forward to the city commission, wherever the mo motion is. Ross, you want to make that one? I was going to let Downey do it.
Go for it, Chris. All right. You had the most comments. I had the most comments here and I had I had the most confusion. So now I get to ask for it. Correct. Only fair. All right. Let me find the location here. So So I get to the right spot.
The motion is on page four of the packet. Where it is? Ah, there it is. That's what I'm looking for. Page four. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh I move uh approval of
resolution 2025-12 and recommend the city commission approve ordinance 2025-15. Second. Could I have a second? Second. All right. Uh motion by Chris Downing. Uh, second by Mark Z. Someday I'll learn
how to pronounce your last name. Could we have a roll call vote, please? Mark Roseski. Yay. Gary Penciano. And there's a vote, right? No. You are a full-blown member today. I. I was wrong. Ross Sanchez, yes.
Chris Downing, yes. Grant Smith, yes. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris, yes. Thank you. All right. Our second uh item today and this is u something I was thinking about
earlier. Would it be better to have 6 C and then 6B or you want to just I don't want to cause any confusion. Should we just keep it the way it is or I know the Thunderbird issue is uh 6B. Our central business district issue
is uh 6C. Let's just stay with the agenda and D is fine. Well, B is the comp plan. C is the Yeah, B. So B and C basically the same. If it's okay with you guys, we'll just discuss it concurrently.
Okay, that's fine. I'm just do two motions. That's fine. Okay. Going forward 6B, review ordinance 2025-16, amending the city of Treasure Island comprehensive plan for to allow
alternative temporary lodging units in alignment with the country countrywide plan. Go ahead, Mary Ellen. So, um, as I mentioned, there's two the there's two ordinances before you. Um the first one is to amend the comprehensive plan and the second one is
to amend the plan development regulations accordingly. Um both of them are to allow for alternative temporary lodging density and intensity standards um in alignment with the countywide plan. Um for the land de development regulations,
uh it's to allow for the alternative temporary lodging density and intensity standards which would include potential increases to density, floor air ratio, floor area ratio, and building height. Um all of which are subject to a development agreement. Um, these are
private initiated uh applications requesting that the local planning agency make a finding of consistency with the city of Treasure Island comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city commission. Um, if you guys approve the first ordinance, you shall you should consider the second request to amend the amend the land
development. Congratulations. Mhm. Um the countywide plan does provide for certain increased alternative temporary lodging densities as an econ economic development uh incentive tool. Proposed change to the comprehensive plan would apply to the development within the resort facilities medium and the resort
facilities high zoning districts and again would require a development agreement to control the use of those. Um I did want to show you just so you know I'm have it. So, this is our um zoning map and
for clarity um the purple uh to the left of to the right of the green is the RFH50 and the little the pink ones are the RFM30. So, this amendment would apply to those zones and you can see it goes down the pink is on the on the
right there. Um so, those are the two zoning districts that um this would apply to. So the land development regulations currently allow for an F of 0.65 and 30 units per acre in the RFM30 and an F of
1.2 and 50 units per acre in the RFH50. um hotels and motel using these alternative density intensity standards could be allowed to utilize greater density and intensity as shown in the table um which is below and I'll show you in a minute with an approved
development agreement. Um the applicant is also requesting to increase the allowable height in those zones for projects using those d those standards. Um I will show you again each of those are done through a
development agreement. Um, so this is the text of what would be changed and it if I go down here it's easier to see but um so the standards change here uh so the density would go from in the RFM30 would
go up to up to 125 units per acre with a maximum F of four and a max a maximum ISR of 0.95. Um and then for the RFH50, uh it would go up to 125 units per acre with a maximum F of four and a maximum
ISR of 0.95. Um and then if you look at the table, it's kind of by acreage. So if it's um less than one acre, it goes up to 75 units per acre. And in a 2.2 uh one and three,
it's 100 units per acre with a F of three. and greater than three acres is 125 with an F of four. Um like I said that below it's the development agreement is prepared uh pursuant to the
statutes and would be approved by the city commission. Um so the standards for review and our code um for changing the comp plan is that the proposed plan amendment will meet the acceptable level of service standards established in the comp plan
and that it's in harmony with the general intent of the comprehensive plan. Um C and D are applicable to resoning. So they really don't apply in this instance um because they're not changing any zoning designations. And so they've they've added in um into
our hotel motel definition um also known as alterative temporary lodging um just for clarity um provided some definitions of of what those are um alternative temporary lodging unit and alter alternative temporary lodging use are
not our current codes. So those will be added. Um and we already talked about that. So this is um this is the schedule a lot in bulk regulations and this is where
the height um for a hotel motel using those density intensity standards uh would fall under that section of the code. um for the height and as I said it's 80 80 feet 80 it's actually above BF plus two and then plus the terrain
height modification adjustment factor which was just codified into our code which basically if you fill you get that that amount up at the top um so that's added in as well and that could that could potentially add
another six seven sorry that so let me get this on so that could potentially add another six or seven feet to that. Correct. It could I I don't it's a it's a mathematical equation. I don't have it off the top of my head, but it does give it does give you some relief. There's some provision within that
terrain modification to go that much higher. Okay. It's also not a mandate for them to bring in Phil to go that high. And then so they added in so we already have um regulations for development
agreements in our current code but they've added in um procedures specifically to applicants that apply to use these type of standards which this is where I I mentioned that um it would be reviewed by um the boards to see if
they would like to approve each development application separately. So they added in the criteria for the development agreements and um this uh we did send the applications to the county to forward Penelis. Uh we did
receive a letter of consistency from them uh that it is they had a couple uh small comments that they needed us to make to but those have been addressed in the um in the ordinance and there is a a in the packet there is a copy of the letter from forward
panelis um stating that so we have evaluated the standards for review for the proposed text amendment and find them to be consistent with the comprehensive plan um policy 1.8.1 8.1 of the comp plan states that the city shall ensure that all development and re development taking place within its
municipal boundaries do not result in a reduction of the level of service requirements established and adopted in the comprehensive plan. Accordingly, all applications that propose to utilize the alternative temporary lodging standards will evaluate on a case-byase basis to ensure acceptable leverage service and harmony with the intent of the comp
plan. So according we have recommended approval of both ordinances to the city commission for further discussion and public hearings. And um the applicant is also here uh and does have a presentation. So I don't know if you
guys want to do questions or you want to let them do their presentation and then we can Well, we'll start out with questions for the city staff. Anybody got any questions for the city staff? Marvin. Um, so the units per acre are the same
for both RFM and RFH. Is that correct? Depending on the um acreage, the units per acre differ um for the zones if you look I thought they were
so in the RFM30 they might be the same. Hold on a second. Um, I thought you said they differed, but I thought they were the same. Are you looking at page 29? I'm looking at I don't know what I'm looking at
because it does m there is a difference based on acreage, right? On acreage, but it's basically the same for both RFM and RFH. Correct. Scroll down there, Mary Ellen. I think you just went past it. I mean, it's it does say plan category,
and it lists both RF, RFM, and RFH. It just kind of looks with the same types of numbers. So, yeah. So, here. So, this is the RFM30, an alternative lodging density up to 125 units per acre. And yes, it is up
to 125 acres. 125 units in both but the F is and the F is that correct is right okay so they are the same yes they are the same okay and the um development agreements they talk about some design standards
but they don't get specific so do we is that a oneoff every time you do a development or my understanding is that is all is all negotiated between the city and the applicants and okay all as part of that agreement.
Okay? Because if it were if it's on the beachfront side, it would still come in front of us in regards to a design beachfront and also in front of the city commission as well. Okay. So, just for clarification, I'm not sure
I understand. We we adopt standards, right? and we adopt codes. Yet, we're going to allow anyone who wants to vary from those codes to propose an alternate plan that meets standards that exceed current codes and then that will be
decided by the city commission. Yes, that will it's not it's it's not a variance to the code. These would be the new standards. Um these are the same standards that are in the countywide plan. So, they're they're asking to put those same standards into our our code. And if you use those standards, then you
have to meet the certain development agreement requirements. So the compelling reason that the staff recommends this is to bring our code into alignment with the county code. Yes, we believe it's consistent with our comp plan. It's consistent with the countywide plan.
And so that is why we were recommending that you guys recommend approval of it. Thanks. You could say that maybe part of the strangle hold of what's been happening here is because the county code allows for it whereas ours does
not. So these applicants are coming in with the idea of which I do encourage greatly to see because I know the last time Thunderbird was in here we basically said bring us something to that helps you invest into our city.
So, I want to make sure I understand that we had a we had a single applicant that is proposing this, but the impact on this will be for that entire zoning block within Treasure Island. Correct. So we're the answer bit answer
your question decision made here in terms of recommendation to the city council would be to change the requirements for that entire zoning in our in our can you scroll to the uh zoning map again in our comprehensive plan.
Right. So, so following that, I'm wondering how this all sets up to, you know, making a change for this particular zoning block compared to what we're doing with the entire comprehensive plan and the zoning in the other districts, the downtown district,
the other areas along Gulf Boulevard. This is obviously only on this particular zoning block. Um but it is it's being done at least the request from this applicant and the city now
recommending it um is there there's consideration of changes to other areas in zoning commercial or otherwise is not before us today. It is for these two zoning districts. Two so I want to make it make it clear
two zoning districts right? Two zoning districts. Two zoning districts. So you have two zoning districts and then now you have applicants helping the city sure update our comprehensive plan. I get that to make the each zoning each zoning
district align with the county. I understand it still has to go through. Yeah and I understand that. Yeah. I appreciate the call. Yeah. But I just want to make it because because I don't want this to be focused on oh it's the Thunderbirds parcel or that's why I wanted to make
this parcel. It's not anything specific to a parcel. This is two districts where our current comprehensive plan is not allow I don't want to say it's not allowing. It is a struggle for people to invest in Treasure Island. So that was a bit of my point is that this was a single applicant that brought
this forward which has the potential impact of changing the zoning for these two districts of Treasure Island. Two two different applicants. Two different applicants. Two different applicants. Right? Because one's in one zone zone and one's in another.
It's interesting that they come in with symmetry. They're not identical. I want to make it very clear because this is very important for everyone. This is not this is not an identical thing. If you want to label one Thunderbird, they're doing it a little bit different. Sure. Cuz it includes a little bit more
details whereas the other one is not it. It's just from a comprehensive plan perspective. Again, different zoning, right? And so I guess I'm trying to understand why the city staff would be bringing forth changes to our zoning on a peacemeal basis like this and not
bringing forward a request to do to complete the update to our LDRs and to our comprehensive plan for the entire city and to have some master planning done for this city. Not to do this one off because we have an applicant here doing
or two applicants doing this and making changes. I'm wondering why we would do that. The comprehensive plan goes first. While we have the chances, Mary Ellen, can you point out on the map the areas that we're talking about again because the changes would will involve
everything that is currently Resort Facilities High. The purple color is the RF and RFM. Yeah, that's the RFH50. And these this pink here, sorry, my pointer is
gigantic. I don't know how to make it smaller, but and so the pink is the RFM30 district. So what we are doing, Chris, is taking both of those areas that are colorcoded in uh the purple and the pink.
Yeah. To affect all of this. But it is a situation where it still has to uh come before this board for a site plan. still before and if it's beachfront, it still has to go before the uh city commission
for a site plan. So, it's not like we're given a massive approval to uh to these changes throughout the city. There's always a second and a building permit. So, there's a third look. I I'm fully aware there's, you know, many steps to this. And I and I
understand this is a first step. It's a pretty important step, but I guess I'm backing up to why are we here doing this rather than doing an update to the entire zoning? These are private initiated ones that we are required to do. That's the key point. That's the key point. Um, as far as the rest of the island, we
are aware that you guys want to discuss that. We have, as I've talked about, phase two of the LDRs coming soon and those conversations will drive what changes we need to make that come out of that. Right. So the applicant making these changes or applicants making the changes
here may or may not have everything that we as a city want in terms of the changes to these zoning districts is my point to the rest of the board here. Do how do we know that what we've been presented here really presents a comprehensive change to the zoning of
those districts that are going to make a difference for Treasure Island for the next 50 years? I mean, I I I don't see us at this point. I'm trying to understand why the city I understand the city's brought this forward because an applicant has made the applica the made
the request, but what I don't understand is why the the city is recommending approval of essentially peacemealing this comprehensive plan. Chairman, if I could just make a couple quick very quickly. Go ahead, Anthony. So, yeah, there's a couple ways you can
amend the comprehensive plan. You can suggest it, the city commission could suggest it or a private applicant can suggest it. And the comprehensive plan is a legislative document. So you're basically choosing what's best for the city in
many ways. You're choosing a plan of how you want the city to look. It's a comprehensive plan, right? and the city staff is simply transferring this application unto you and saying we don't see it not being in out of harmony
with the rest of the plan. So they're not really weighing in and trying to push you in some way. They're just saying this amendment is in harmony with the rest of the plan and the countywide plan. And if you vote for this, your hands aren't cuffed to do some thing in the future. I'm just going to use sort of a
metaphor here. You're amending the comprehensive plan to give yourself more options later if you wish to approve certain applications that would take advantage of these increased densities and heights. So that's it, right? It'd be like making the choice to add an
extra tool to your toolbox if you wanted to use it. Does that make sense? That makes sense. So just a point of clarification. Um, we're amending the comprehensive plan to give ourselves more flexibility to approve private initiatives. That
amendment is going to reflect allowable increases in density and height. Correct. Thanks. But I think it's also important to to that once if we make this recommendation based on this applicant's request that it is a one-way street. We can't go
back. Once this is done, it applies to all of that zoning area and you're not going to be able to reverse it. If I could just jump in, I just want to make a couple legal points. You you're using the term zoning, which in like modern parliaments, people look at this and they think of a zoning map, but a zoning map is actually different. It's a
part of the comprehensive map called the flu map, future land use map, and that is like a range of categories and the zoning is much more specific. So, no, you've given yourself an option that in the future they come back with a site plan and a development order that
they're looking for that you then have discretion on whether to to choose. But I don't think we'd have the discretion to if we from a practical point of view, we've increased the density in this particular zone and increase the height allowance in this particular zone that we're going to be able to reverse that.
Again, I'm just going to like very specifically modify that. You're not increasing the density, you're increasing the potential density. The potential for that density. very important then we wouldn't be able to amend what I said and said we won't be able to reverse the potential for increasing that I
think once we allow one one parcel of land property owner to do this it would be super difficult I would believe legally to reverse that well we don't know what and it's yeah obviously not before this board what exactly an application in the future would look like whether they would take
take advant of the maximum or not so right so I I I would Again, I know you you've made an approval because it meets within the comprehensive the the lines of the comprehensive plan and in line with a countywide plan. Um but it is still effectively um bringing forth
something that's peace meal in my opinion. Well, one thing I will say, you know, I cannot see a developer after being in the development business for a long time, a developer coming in here with something significantly less,
right? You know, the situation is is we're trying to a come up with a position that will kickstart what has happened to our city, right? Let's put this way. Our uh hotel district, our retail district both need
a kickstart right now. And uh that is reason why these two issues are coming in with a private applicant. Normally, normally we'd be fortuitous because we're in the process of redoing the LDRs right now, too. Right. And I'm glad you brought up the
LDRs because the alternative here to approving this applicant's requests or applicants requests to make these changes and go forward to allow this to go before the city commission would be for this board to recommend
much quicker updating of the LDRs. and aligned with updating the entire comprehensive plan and land development plan as a part of that to encompass not that just these particular areas but the other areas of concern within Treasure Island and do that
forth with you know don't delay do it very quickly and and rather than having it come to us in this manner that's an alternative that we could certainly make to the city commission that is an alternative but uh legally
the uh city staff does have to put forward any private application. Oh, I'm happy to have this come forward and if it kickstarts our effort to have the city help us update the LDRs, all the better, but let's do it that way.
Yeah. And I I think two a couple things. Um, one I just wanted to verify with them that the development agreements do come back to you guys as well. So, it doesn't just go to the question. I wanted to verify that. So, you whatever development or whatever projects would like said for the site plan, but you would also be part of the development
agreement piece of it. Um the second piece was um that we were looking at opportunities and things we could do to help these businesses. This is how this conversation with the Thunderbird started and in having those conversations,
we didn't have the staff to start working on some of these things and they did. So that's part of the reason we kind of collaborated with them to start to move this forward a little bit and they were able to move it. um as far as the bigger pieces to the puzzle, right?
Some of those are things that may require additional planning studies or things of that nature that may not be quick moving pieces. So, I I see what you're saying about comprehensively doing it, but I think this was an opportunity to start to try to work with some of these um businesses and
developers to try to move to to try to help. So, that's kind of how all this came to be. Understand? I feel like that's great news that they're trying to help us. I mean, obviously they're invest like like going back to like investing into the city. Um, okay. Well, we are at the point now where the
applicant is here. I just have one question to Mary Ellen. Um, when it comes to the staff recommendation, does that include Joan, our economic developer, is she like brought in kind of like to give her input because I know that she's been meeting with people that are in these in
these areas. I mean this particular recommendation did not directly come from Joan but okay she is here and I I believe she is in favor of these type of development and and she did a great podcast she did a great podcast earlier this week with Jason and it sound like very good stuff when it
cames to this she is aware of falling in line the applications that are here before okay thank you for answering my question what's that mark I just had one last question so the maximum building height right now is at 60 ft is that correct for these for the zoning. So the proposed is to go to 80
ft. So we're increasing by about 20 ft. 20 ft. Okay. And with the building cost and everything, I mean that makes a big difference, I think, to developers um having that extra 20. It's a bit higher than that because of the 2T above
board and the terrain modification modification has allowance to go seven higher than that. Sure. But bringing in six or seven feet of extra fill, right? So you could be pushing 88 ft which is still lower than the Sands building and I think probably Mansions by the Sea,
right? Okay. Uh basically uh the applicant is here. If you could approach the podium and give us your presentation. Thank you. Thank you all. My name is Lauren Rubenstein. On behalf of the applicant, I'm with Hillward Henderson. I do have
uh paper copies of the presentation for everyone. There's enough for the clerks as well and the city attorney. So, thank you. Uh, yes. So, our presentation today is going to go over both the comprehensive plan
amendment and the land development regulations that we're proposing that are um items B and C. Um just like staff um presented both of those to you as well and um I would like to thank staff. We did work very closely with the staff
on this. It was a collaborative effort to look at what tools there could be to allow for some additional development that would be thoughtful and would be appropriate in the city of Treasure Island. And that's how we came to the um to identify the countywide rules that we
felt could could really address one of the um significant burdens that was um posing some difficulties for developers after the hurricanes. So with me today is Isabelle Albert. Uh she is a certified planner AICP with
half. Um I do have a copy of her resume which I would like to submit into the record of this proceeding as well as our complete uh application staff report and the corresponding documents. Also here on behalf of Thunderbird is Donna
Jollymore the general manager as well as Gelad Ovan and he's part of the ownership group. So, as you've heard, the countywide plan has uh certain rules that provide for certain increased alternative temporary lodging standards in certain areas of
the countywide uh map for and it's really an economic development tool. There are certain plan categories on the countywide map, one of which is resort, that allows for temporary lodging density and intensity standards that
could be utilized, but they're very specific as to when they can be utilized and how they have to be utilized and and what requirements. So, we're going to go through all of that, but for a local government to utilize these standards, it has to amend the comprehensive plan
and land development regulations of their jurisdiction. And so that's what we're bringing forth today. A lot of other jurisdictions throughout Penllis County have adopted uh very similar changes to their comprehensive plan and their land development regulations in
order to utilize these. Those maximum um density and intensity standards that you see here from the countywide rules are exactly what we have proposed to include into your plan and into your LDRs because that provides for that
consistency throughout. So this is as you know a privately initiated comprehensive plan and land development text amendment but like I said we did work closely with the city. We had several meetings to go over where we thought this should apply, how it
should apply. And in fact, you know, the Thunderbirds parcel, since we're here on behalf of Thunderbird, I'll talk about is resort facility high. We're talking about the golfront parcel. But in those conversations, it was decided with staff and you know, our planner on staff as
well to to expand expand this to all the resort facilities. So that's resort facilities high and resort facilities medium. And it's for temporary al accommodations. So I want to make sure that's clear. It's not for condos in our
proposal. It's not for residential units. It's not for Airbnbs. It's not for tourist dwellings, I believe, is one of the um terms you have in your code. It is really limited to hotels and motel that are in these resort facility high
and resort facility medium areas. Each request that is going to come forward if this were to be approved and incorporated into the city's comp plan and code would require a development agreement. That's specific in the countywide rules. The only way you can
include this alternative density is if anyone wishing to utilize this density enters into a development agreement. So to uh Mr. Downing's point specifically, I wanted to clarify that we're not char
changing anything by right. Nobody by right can come in here with a site plan if you were to adopt these changes and say, "I'm building a hotel at 125 units per acre and 80 ft high, and there's nothing you can do to stop me." That's not the case, and I don't want anyone to
think it is. It is only available to them up to these maximums subject to a development agreement. And that development agreement absolutely is going to take into all kinds of design considerations. You're going to look at the compatibility. There's probably
going to be some parcels that it's not appropriate to add any additional height. It may not be appropriate to add any additional density. And that's why that development agreement portion of this is so pivotal because it does regain or will keep that control. And
it's up to the city commission and this board because in your code all development agreements come before the LPA for a public hearing as well as in front of the city commission for a public hearing. So there will certainly be on every application that came forward if there were multiple ones. I
you know I don't know what they'll be but you would have that opportunity for public to comment and to look at what is that compatibility? What is that level of service? Making sure you meet all of those requirements. And with that, I am going to turn it
over to Isabelle to discuss some of the specifics related to the comprehensive plan amendment. Thank you um Isabelle with that half assisting the applicant. So this is the only section in the comprehensive plan where the amendment is being made and this amendment is just to reflect what
the countywide rules um allows. This table is is specifically taken from out from the countywide rules and you'll have as you stated earlier it's the same language of the amount of units. It's just because it's up to let's say 125 units but if you have four acres you can
accomplish that and still be compatible. The smaller you are the lesser um units you'll be uh permitted. And again is being very clear that it has to be associated with a development agreement. There's no way you can go forward without that.
Um and these are the standards. Um the LDR does state in section 68121 they have these four criterias that you have to meet and comply with. And staff uh went, you know, explained them to you that we do meet um A and B and C and D
do not uh apply to this case. In the land development regulation, there's five sections that have to be uh changed and amended to reflect this um alternative uh temporary uh units and Lauren will go through that.
So the first section is 68-2 and that's definitions. Um we're including alternative temporary lodging unit and alternative temporary lodging use definitions. These are the same definitions you'll find in the countywide rules. This is to be consistent throughout because this
terminology is now being used. And you will see that we also amend the hotel and motel and hotel or motel unit definitions. So, um this is important because the hotel motel use is the only
use in your code that's an alternative temporary lodging use. We did not add any new uses to the to the code. We're just making it clear that this alternative temporary lodging density and intensity would be available to
hotels and motel. Section 68-284 and 68-304. Those are the two sections of code that deal specifically with the zoning regulations for the RFM30 district and the RFH50 district. Both of
them do have the same proposed intensity um and density standards. Those again are from the countywide rules and incorporated throughout, but those of course are just the maximums. So it may not be appropriate on an RFM site for
them to have a 100 units per acre. That's going to depend on the site and that's why that development agreement is a vital part. We've also amended the schedule of lot and bulk regulations. This is already in your code and essentially what we did was add a row for hotel motel
alternative temporary lodging. And again, this goes back to the back to the point that we're not amending what by right anyone can come in here and do. This is simply a tool in your toolbox so that if a property wishes to avail themsself of this potential increase in
density and intensity, they can do so. And these are the maximums that they could they could potentially receive subject to that development agreement. And in order to utilize those increased density, the extra hotel units, they're going to need some additional height,
especially if they want to incorporate all of the amenities that we'd love for, you know, them to be able to include such as restaurants and event space and things that bring people in and, you know, invest in the Treasure Island economy.
Finally, section 68-496, development agreements. And I did not try to fit all of the words that we added into the into the text amendment um on this slide or you would not have been able to read it, but you do have the proposed amendment in front of you.
And I think what you know, we've discussed it already, but these development agreements have very specific criteria that have to be included. It has to reflect that the city is able to meet all the concurrency management standards for what's proposed. They have to comply with all
the county and local hurricane evacuation plans and procedures. They have to actually create their own plan, have it on file with emergency management, make sure that, you know, they know how they're going to close these as quickly as possible and get all of the tourists and individuals staying
at the hotel off the island in the event of a storm. There's design considerations. So this is where there is a lot of negotiation in development agreements. You know it goes to height to setback to you know architecture. You can you name it you can put it in a
development agreement. So this is where there is still uh complete control on what you allow or don't allow. You'll have the of course the total F the total number of units allowed the mobility management portion to make sure that we
meet all those criteria and operating characteristics and restrictions. The countywide rules is very specific about what restrictions have to be included and those do include that they cannot be converted to residential units. This cannot be used for dwelling units. It can only be utilized for the temporary
accommodations. So this brings us to the land development regulation. Again, make sure that is consistent. Uh these are standards that you have to look at and those two standards uh two criterias we have met. Um just a little bit
background. I uh was hired uh to do the task because it was overwhelming is what I heard and I loved the challenge and I loved the idea of how this was really going to help um Treasure Island. And so I met with um staff and you know they
just basically asked me says you know Isabelle I I have an idea but I don't have the capability of doing it. And so I met then with countywide rule staff and they told me what other jurisdictions were doing. And so I studied all the other jurisdictions and
what worked and what didn't work. And so um that's how we came up with this uh language. It's actually very simple but it's very regulated and so felt that you know not only allowing this just for the
high density you know uh land use category but I also I recommended with all of the other staff that we should apply this to all the resort facilities that would make sense give everybody the opportunity to do so and also I was looking at just adjacent
to us and and and some of you have mentioned at the structure, the opal next to us with the additional architectural features and things like that. You know, this is actually 74 ft. The structure next to it, uh, the lower tier is 79 ft and then it goes higher.
But I've been doing this for 20 years. I would not even known those were the heights. It's just beautiful structures along the road. And so, um, you know, just to give you an idea, this is not a new concept to go to 80 ft. it's already been in existence in the city and and
you know this is the end dream of uh the Thunderbird if this is permitted if this is adopted they would like to have the opportunity to present this back to the city through again a development agreement in order to do something uh that would not only be for um hotel
rooms but there's definitely going to be you know restaurants and entertainment for everyone at this city to enjoy as well as the tourists to come here and enjoy the your town. That concludes my presentation. Do you have time for a quick question?
We have it's just the engineer and me uh coming out on page well this page. Mhm. Do you know I mean I understand those are the heights of the buildings. Do you know where they those heights start from? I mean is that above sea level? Oh, is that
It is actually So, back then it started at um I have the um So, it's not ground level. No, sorry. I And it's not base flood elevation. It is not at base flood elevation. No, definitely those were built in back in the 70s, right? Hence why I, you know, I looked at that
and I pulled I asked staff and I was amazed they had those plans. And so, um yes, that's how they were. But you'll see as one mentioned, you will start having to have your living space above your base floor elevation. So most of
the first floor um are going to be either the parking, the the the restaurants, the commercial uses, that's what it's it's going to be. And then above that, that's when you start having the hotels and motels. And again, I'm not an engineer, but uh from looking at other jurisdictions, this is the kind of
um things that we had to look at. Thank you very much. Thank you. the conceptual elevation is that with the higher density? Uh yes, that would be with a higher density. Correct. Right now, just imagine those last two tiers would be out. That's what would they would be
permitted. And that's another interesting fact. Um just under the Thunderbird wording, that's what they can do right now. But with the um with the additional uh alternative, they could add those two top towers basically. And and these are
just conceptual. So I will say, you know, our client certainly has not landed on a final drawing or anything. This is just a purely conceptual give you idea. And I did want to talk a little bit about because we are here on behalf of the Thunderbird and I know you're all familiar. They've been in the community
since 1957 and operated until they had to close the doors after, you know, the devastating hurricanes. and they were before this board back in June with the 106 units that they would be grandfathered in from the existing density in order to get something in
front of the board and get something moving. But the board did encourage and certainly, you know, made lots of comments back that they took to heart and really wanted to come back with a better project to really invest in Treasure Island to make the Thunderbird.
You know, I drove in today and it's the first thing you see over the causeway, right? you know, that iconic bird, the iconic color. And so there is 1.84 acres more or less um on the golfront site. So you're looking at potentially a maximum
of 184 you rooms and that is a maximum like we said. So, I just offer that to help put it in context because we're talking generally about a code and a comp plan amendment that is going to affect all these zoning districts, but we want you to know what that would mean
for the Thunderbird. I I appreciate you calling that out u when it comes to us giving them guidance in regards to coming back and investing in the city. I mean, clearly, I mean, you the Thunderbird sign is iconic as everyone has mentioned. Um, a lot of people are raising their houses, their HVACs to protect from storm. I look at
this is we're letting them raise the Thunderbird sign even higher, you know, to keep it out of flood water. That's always a positive. Um, one of the things that I do think, and I know this is just a conceptual elevation, the park the the parking is going to have to be addressed where it currently sits today. So, you know, if you did if
if something like this were to go through, and again, it's this is, you know, this is you have the option to do it down the road, but we are going to want to hear some type of parking because um one space plus one or one one space per unit plus one isn't going to work on a 200 room hotel room versus a
80 hotel room or 100. There's more staff, there's more security, there's more. So, I I just want to make that very clear because we do have a parking um regulation that's in there, but that is going to have to be addressed um down the road. Absolutely. Absolutely.
So, one of the things that I think about is from a raising perspective is it also gives the ability for additional parking underneath. So, thank you. One question I had and u since you're done with your presentation on the
elevation you know I'm a uh scholar of ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar architecture uh as part of the development agreement. I mean we could uh potentially require the architect to be a little more creative. Absolutely. Design considerations are a
criteria of that development agreement. That's the point I wanted to make. I mean, I've always said since 2017, I want the done cesar. I'm tired of glass boxes, you know. So, it's it's a good design as is.
Creativity is a great thing. Thanks. So you may not be able to answer this question um directly or maybe someone else can that with regard to I understand that this is for the temporary lodging density and not applied to condo buildings or condo
hotel buildings but is there a county comprehensive or a c a county standard then for on the condo or condo hotel um a similar chart because it's going to come our way. I just that's why I say
you may not be able to answer that one right here. Yeah, because I could see that being the next question of you know if we allow if if we you know are pushing forward some changes to allow an increase in height along the beach over time that condos would have
the same request to maybe be in line with county standards. What I can tell you is that alternative temporary lodging chart that's from the countywide rules. it specifically has those definitions of what temporary lodging is and it does not include
residential dwellings, right? Um, so that's that's what I can tell you now. Now, whether there could be other proposed amendments that would expand that and whether there's other provisions of the countywide rules, I'm not going to pretend to have had have all those memorized,
but we just focused in on that chart for and we limited it to resort as the countywide plan map category that allows these alternative temporary, which translates to your zoning districts of RFM and RFH.
I see your question though. I see your question in regards to not being a condo hotel. It being purely a hotel, right? Has a pure pure hotel. Chris, that will be when the next uh issue comes up and Johnson Pope does their presentation on the downtown area. Yeah. All those questions will be
answered because we're looking at this is strictly hotel. That's going to be pretty much everything. But, uh, thank you for your presentation. Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we do have some cards. Um,
can we have some What about questions for the city attorney? Go for it. Just to be clear, the development agreement basically if somebody comes to staff or and staff looks at it and says
it's just not going to work. We we can basically just turn them down. I mean, they have no right. Is that correct? Correct. So Chris, I mean to me that makes me feel pretty good. Again, you're just adding a tool to your
toolbox if you wish to use it later, which of course they're going to come back and request. So right, and just a point of clarification, I've heard this term tool for your toolbox several times. And what tool is that we're that we're adding to the toolbox?
Adding adding a bigger building. Okay. Yeah, that's so that if the somebody brings a development plan within that, we have the ability to approve it in the future. And my my commentary is really much more around not that I'm opposed to some
increase in density because I've certainly stated that over time that we need more density for things to be economically viable here in the city and probably some increase in height in order to make that done. Um but I am questioning you know the direct the the methodology that
we're using to get there and would have certainly have a preference towards a a broader look at the entire comprehensive plan and in each of the zoning districts. One thing I wanted to bring up uh Chris is the fact that a developers agreement will almost bring
you back to the days of concurren concurrency where the infrastructure has to be in place and if it's not in place uh the applicant sometimes will have to build it or arrangements will have to be
made. Let's put it that way. And uh it's actually, you know, it's kind of like we had a lot of discussions about impact fees, you know, rather than an impact fee. I've had projects where you will build additional lanes to a road, that type situation. It does happen.
But anyway, with that, we do have some cards. Uh we'll start out with Marco. still sitting there. Good afternoon, Mark Hoey, District 3, 104th Avenue. I appreciate the time. Uh, let me say first, I'm not
anti-development. I'm pro personal property rights, that the rights of the owners of these properties should not be unduly uh held back by city governance. All of that.
But I'm also pro- citizen choice. I believe the citizens of the community have a right and to the say so for what's going on in the community around them. Um yes, Ross, we are absolutely
development challenged and have been for years and I understand the intent of trying to address that uh as this is intending. Still, in my eyes, this effort feels forced. It feels forced.
And again, that's not saying there's not a sense of urgency needed, but this feels forced. Is the city staff in essence seeding their responsibilities for being able to pull together the duly
needed changes to help us speed development. and by doing so handing off rights and responsibilities to private developers to to gain a uh an advantage or a foothold in making those changes to our
regulations. I don't think and this is has nothing to do and I'm really not speaking to the parties in this particular case or the next one or maybe the next one after that. It's the broad approach to
updating our development regulations that are being pinched and forced in this particular proposal. There's no way you're going to tell me there's not self-interest when you bring private equity into the equation. It's
got to be. So, is this an endound? A move to diminish public input? Our city attorney spoke Tuesday night about the significant changes in a recent Florida statute which you uh told
us about that basically may wash away referendums. So we fully don't at least I'm speaking for myself fully don't understand those implications yet and I'm sure we'll get more clarification once it gets challenged in court somewhere.
Yes, the city is years behind, years behind in updating our development regulations. Shame on us. It's just been put on the back burner and let things stay the way it is. But that to me is not a good enough reason to turn around
and turn it over to the private industry to design our our regulations going forward. In the end, I think the city staff and its management and the commission all bear responsibility for ensuring that we
move and update our building and regulations, comp plan, all of the stuff as quickly as we can, but doing so in a manner that's consistent with the fact that we the people are all included in that and we're part of the government
here. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Okay, next we have Barb Adams. Barb Adams, Isa Palms. Um, I'm also president of the Isle of Palm Civic Association and a local realtor. So, I'm
very involved with the local residents as far as neighborhood and um volunteer activities um and also with the process of people wanting to live here and moving here. And what I've heard today
does have me kind of concerned and I sort of I liked what Chris was saying um about trying to needing to understand more about where this is going and and also what
Mark said about like are we just I mean the people who live here we have people who've been living here since the 1950s um And this community is very neighborhood oriented. We go into restaurants and they know if we want
salt on our margaritas, you know, there it's it's a very close-knit community and um it's something that's very special. And there is just no question that if there is an eight-story building that goes up, look at those buildings
right there. Those are going to all be eightstory buildings. And um and it's going to be on the other side of the street. And pretty soon we're going to look like St. Pete Beach. And you know, as a realtor, I see people come here and
they choose, they love Treasure Island. And much of what they love about it is that we don't have St. Pete Beach buildings. You can see the water, you can see the sky, you can see the sunset
all over the place. Um and um and they tell me all the time, we this is why we want to live here. This is why we want to move here. This is why we want to invest even if it's tearing down a house and building a $4 million
house or whatever. It's because we love the feel of this community. It's funky. It's familial. You know, people around the corner will own a restaurant. You know them from the neighborhood. you know them from, you know, and to sort
it. It it feels like the preference is being directed more towards um individuals profiting off of our community. And I really hope that before any decisions are made that the
residents get to vote on this because when Treasure Sands went up, we know what happened. That's started the height restrictions because people didn't want any more treasure sands and um and the
people spoke and are adamant about it. And I, you know, I just hope that the community gets to make a decision, not just um people in the administration. Thank you. Next card is Marie Barbara.
Hello, Marie Barbara. Sunset Beach, Paradise Island was Isa Palms. My um in-law lived there. World War II vet. Built the house in 1955, 1956. Was one of the first engineers that brought over the um opened up the E systems. It's now
Rathon, now Collins. So, we do have an interest in this town. I thought it was Bob Dalling, but okay. Not the Sands of the Sands Hotel. Okay. I recommend this agency I'm going to just start off with the
u reject the ordinances uh 202516 and um because of two things and now what you have talked about Christopher I thought was really important be and I'm I'm asking to reject because of the gross increases to density and farce not
really even the height because in the in the pamphlet that I have it didn't even discuss that but I thought well how are you going to get all this in density and an increase of density of in the RFM30. You can call it alternative temporary lodging all you want, but that's the RFM. It's a motel hotel um term because
it's temporary. So the RFM30 proposed density is um they're asking us to increase from 15 units an acre to 125 units an acre at 100 at 733%
increase. I I find that insulting. and the FAR proposed building footprint. That's the footprint of the building. I haven't calculated this in years, but you're going from a 0.85 to a four. So that in itself right there
is 376.4%. In the RFH, this is the hotel. So whatever they showed you up here is maybe this area, but it actually encompasses according to one of the opinions of probably two city attorneys have told us if you change if you give
this um applicant um or this section area increases in this area, it goes across the whole island. And that's something that I guess has been litigated and it's probably something you can you'll have to look up and see
how what the president's uh cases are. So on the RFH50 we have uh increases from um this is the motel from 50 units to 125 units. So that's at 166%.
not as as um egregious, but still concerning when it comes to traffic, when it comes to sewer, when it comes to developers never paying a penny to develop these things and and and bring our infrastructure to handle these increases because we do not have that.
We have problems with the sewer right now. So, the um increases to the to the FAR is also from a 1.2 to a four. So on the hotel it's only 100 I I say only I'm being a little you know uh flippant here
but because I think it's a lot. I don't think anything should be over uh 75% increase. And here in the in the far you have a 1.2 to a four in the hotel. So that is I thought um a little crazy. I think you should reject this. We need to
go back to the drawing board. And then also um I want to tag on to ordinance 2002 for the city attorney 04. You probably read it and know it does address two building areas which is um the density
and the height that cannot be and I know what you're going to say about that. Although there is no other municipality in the state of Florida that has a charter mandate that says anything that has been uh passed by the electorate by
citizens initiative or referendum. So it wasn't the five commissioners that passed this. It was by petition. It was validated by the city clerk and it was um voted in by I don't know 82%. It's either that one or I got to look that
up. But if you look up that that uh ordinance, so you're all of this is actually crossing the line. I know there's there's talks of challenge. I'm not saying that. That's what I'm up here for. I'm not the attorney that's talking about this, but there are a couple because if there is a challenge and
these things are really egregious, generally what they do is the next day they put an injunction and your permit is stopped. You don't even get that option. Thanks. Okay. Our next uh card is from Eric
Nory. And if anybody has any legal questions on any of that that was brought up, feel free to ask during the meeting or afterwards. Your your choice. Hi, I'm Eric Nory. I live on Isle of Capri. I'm also a commercial property owner here in in downtown Treasure
Island. I look at I look at what's happening in our city right now and when the hurricane happened and after a few months went by we sort of got used to the garbage laying around. It just we driving down our streets. It wasn't a shock to us to drive down the seats
streets and see garbage. We just kind of got used to it. And I and I understand the sentiment behind the old school charm of Treasure Island. 1960s look, it's it's it's great to some people, but some people actually come to our city right now and say, "What happened to
this place? It looks terrible." And uh one argument could be said that I can't see the water through this two-story building right here. So whether it was 10 stories or two stories, I can't see the water. So as far as the view everybody's talking about, I don't see
it. You can't see the water through a two-story building or a 10-story building. So, so what's the difference as far as that goes? As far as the density is concerned, people that own these properties and have owned them for years, they're in trouble because they can't sell them for what they're worth
until this changes. So, you've maybe got families that are sitting here going, "Man, I wish we could just cash out and go do something, but they can't because what they try to put there, the ROI is not there." And I understand other people's concerns about profit, too. But people don't go into business to lose
money. It's a stupid business plan. Let's go into business, build something in Treasure Island so that we lose money. Right now, I'm sitting on a bunch of land that I can't do anything with because there's no ROI. So, guess what? It's going to sit there as an empty lot
and look like crap until I can do something with it. So, so from an investor's standpoint, we're not greedy, money-grabbing, profit hungry people. We have I live here. My grandkids live here. Three of my children's homes got
completely destroyed during the storm. We've been building those back. We've got lots of property right down here in Treasure Island we'd love to do something with, but so far I've spent thousands of dollars to try to do something and and can't get anything done. Can't get anything approved. So, I think there's got to be something that
can be done. I say approve this thing. Let them build. Let them build what they want to build. Make the city look great. If you look around and you see some of these smaller, quaint little cute buildings, they're really not that great. I'm sorry to say it. We need to
turn our city around. And it starts with progress. We've got to approve this thing. We've got to get this thing done. And we've got to say, "Let's go." Otherwise, we're going to be sitting here for two years late. Two years from now, we're going to be sitting here talking about the exact same things. And people like me are going to get frustrated and they're going to leave.
I've spoke to plenty of people that are living here that want to see these things go up. I know there's a lot of people that come to these things that don't want them to go up, but believe it or not, there's a lot of people that they actually also want it. So, I would say approve this. Get this done. Let's
move forward in our city and and create things that are really really nice and not not stand around here in a I hate to say it, but in a junk pile saying we love this city. We love the way it looks. I love the people. I love the restaurants. I love the fact that they
know we want salt in our margaritas, but I want to go somewhere nice and have a margarita. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. [Applause] Okay, that's the last of our cards. Got a couple of letters here I'm going to
read into the record. First one uh is from Michelle Smith. Don't know if uh the board members or anybody knows Michelle Smith, but she is ao was a hotel owner here on uh Treasure Island that unfortunately her hotel was did not
farewell. Good evening. My name is Michelle Smith. I live on Tarpon Drive on Paradise Island. I am unfortunately out of town for work. So, thank you for reading my statement on the Thunderbird project. As a 25-y year Treasure Island resident as well as a b local business
owner in the hospitality industry, it is my opinion that the Thunderbird should be able to build to the specs they are asking for. As a small business owner with experience at the Sunset Inn and Cottages, I can tell you that the profitability at five stories over
parking just doesn't work in today's environment with the cost of building, the cost of land, the room rates that would need to be charged. Misread that. Uh, I think another point we need to consider is that the
Thunderbird at 7 over parking will still be less than half the height of other structures in the community, meaning Treasure Sands. The profitability at five stories over parking doesn't work unless you want your friends and family members to pay room rates that are far above market
rates for hotel rooms. Seven stories above parking would allow for more rooms and therefore lower room rates, which is good for the community, our visiting family members, and our tourists who want to visit Treasure Island. Thank you for your consideration, M. Michelle
Smith. Second letter. Good morning. As a long-term resident of Treasure Island, I strongly oppose altering long-standing regulations that restrict the number of homes and tourists permitted within an acre lot.
These regulations were established thoughtfully and deliberately, and I see no justification for changing them solely to accommodate a developer's interest. Recent events, particularly the impacts of Helen and Milton, have clearly exposed the city's inability to
adequately support its existing residents. The slow pace of permit issuance, the prolonged displacement of residents, the lack of urgency in restoring access to damaged homes have all underscored the shortcomings of local governments and infrastructure.
Many residents continue to face hardships that were exasperated not only by storms but also by delays and restrictions imposed afterwards. Given these realities, it would be irresponsible to add hundreds of home additional homes,
vehicles, and tourists to an infrastructure that is already proven insufficient. Before considering any expansion, the city must first address its deficiencies and demonstrate the ability to adequately serve its current
population. I respectfully ask that you take my concerns into full consideration before moving forward with any proposal that would further strain an already fragile system. Sincerely, Cheryl Swain. Thank you. And last but not least,
This one's from Kelly Bratton. As a full-time resident of Treasure Island, I vote no on any height changes. The last thing we need is more homes. We need businesses to come for tourist and homeowners there. Now, we already look like one big parking lot. Do what is
right for Treasure Island, Kelly Briden. Okay. The next two letters are in regard to future issues. Uh with that we will close the public hearing and um any questions of city
staff or the applicant? I have a question. Who for? Um city staff um I can we we can make changes to this. Right. Right. I mean, sure, but it depends on the kind
of change. What are you thinking? Well, personally, I don't think we should be doing this for the RFM. I think we should the RFH for sure. That's just my opinion. So, just questioning
whether we could make a change like that. You could you could approve you could approve adding this use to just that one part of the flu map. Correct. That true. you could which I think goes to the the issue of doing these the way it's coming to us.
Yeah. But you know what? It will take years. We have got we have got to get going. We have got to redevelop and we have a an applicant here that wants to redevelop. It's a great opportunity. I thought, you know, the development
agreement protects us. We can help design the building. I mean, this is an opportunity. Let's make it happen. Let's get Treasure Island going. From what what I heard what I heard in the staff report from when they had addressed going
it was the city's staff saying we should include both. Well, that may that may be true. I'm just my opinion is No, I hear what you're saying from from your concerns. I mean, obviously we're having a conversation about but when it came from the our staff report, it initially had started and then it had
said you should add these other ones in from a staff perspective. So I look at that as well as the staff approval and feel your same as everyone knows like we got to get things going on top of when the Thunderbird was here last time and they're they're helping us. I just don't think we want 80 80 foot
buildings on both sides of the road, you know. I mean the beach I get it. You got to do it which which all of this just goes to, you know, that we're again trying to fit this in and allow this one way of doing
it with the temporary lodging. um that doing something quickly with the LDRs for all of Treasure Island. I know you're saying it isn't going to happen. I think it actually told us we're going to get it quickly. I know, but I think that goes to the
urgency of this with regard to we have developers wanting to do something. I also we have we have developers that are wanting to do something and I applaud that. We need the development. We need to do it in a in a way in which all of the citizenry of thank you Treasure
Island are are going to have some input on this. So, we heard from a couple of folks today that that's part of what's lacking here. Having this be initiated by a private developer. I I appreciate the help that they gave the city in making these these changes, but I would
my preference would be that we look at all of this so that it isn't just for the beach area. It isn't just for the downtown, but also, you know, the Gator's property up on the north part. All of this needs to be looked at and it can be done quickly with if the city brings in the right type of city planner
that can do it quickly and make the changes so that the developers are not going to be slowed down. I just don't agree with it being pushed the way it's being pushed. And that's what Kimley Horn's uh role is. You know, if you look at the zoning map up there, there's only 11 zoning
designations in the whole city. And you know, I've always said that the layout of Treasure Island is very easy. You have four distinct uh residential areas. You got Capri, Palms, Paradise, Sunset Beach. There's a
little mixover in Sunshine Beach, but my comment has always been the same. Leave those alone. You know, back in 2017, we wanted to do a planned development ordinance. the misinformation was it's spread around that said we're going to have sevenstory buildings down on Sunset
Beach because the uh area would spread. There hasn't been a reasonzoning in this town in 30 years. Nothing's been applied. I mean a real reasoning. There was some minor park land that was reszoned but the situation is
you know we've got residential single family residential medium and commercials and then the resorts. The rest of them are institutional like preserve, uh, city property, that kind of thing. We're talking two out of 11 here, right?
It's a narrow look that we'd be looking at. Pardon me. It would it would be a fairly narrow look for the problem areas that we have to update the LDRs and it can be done, but you know, you look at the green area. We're not touching that. We're not touching uh right now. We're not looking
at even the commercial areas. Um, basically we've got a situation in my opinion where a private individual is coming in and uh doing the work for us. I mean two two out of 11 zoning they're doing the work for us in the way in which they want it to be done. And I
realize we're not it's isn't getting it's still we're still going to have the ability to review the review the development plans. But how do we know at this point? It's what we don't it's you know it's what you don't know is what you need to ask. We don't know if the numbers using the
the county chart is the one that would the citizenry really want. Maybe we want something a little bit less that are would be the guidelines. Maybe we allow more density but not more height. I'm not sure. Those are the questions Chris very important legal point. You
got to make your decision based on the criteria that's in the code. If if an announcement is, hey, I see one application one applicant asking for a change. Nobody else is doing it. So that's the basis of my decision. That could easily be seen as an a rational
capricious decisionmaking process and and could be challenged. I would not recommend you make your your decision based on a bias towards the fact that one applicant is applying because the code allows one applicant to apply. And so if this guy applies but these three don't
and you say therefore I don't like that process that could be seen as a capricious decision-making process. I'm just saying that the code informs you what you're supposed to base it on. That's not part of the code. So, just letting you know. That's all. Appreciate it. So, just if I can ask a question regarding that. So, and actually, can I say one more thing?
I don't want to discourage you in any way, shape, or form from initiating your own potential comp plan amendment changes. You could you could say, "Let's do 50 next week." 60. Right. Right. But but to say that, you know, we don't like the fact that one is selfinitiating it, it could be seen as an irrational
basis. I'm just pointing that out. Thank you. So flipping that a little bit, the one that self initiates is given approval. Then the three that didn't come forward, h how do we deny them their request? The three that the code the code says there's four
factors basically that you have to say we recommend approval. Okay, I get that. So if we if we we say yes to this and then the three follow the exact same formula that we followed here, we can't say no to that. Is that correct? So no. So each decision you make is fact
specific to that circumstance. It can't be used as precedent for future decisions. So if you say this one's good, this one's bad, totally fine. But we can't use a single case to deny because that would be capricious. No, I'm missing this. Let me just slow down and re restate
what I said. If a member said, I'm voting no against this application because other potential applicants are not applying or because they're applying and it's not brought by the city itself. that's the basis of my decision. You know, I'm going to vote no because I don't like that process. That could be
argued was capricious because that doesn't the C the code doesn't allow you to base your decision based on that criteria and that identity. I'm just that's what the code says. Okay. We should be taking it on its own merits regardless of they were it was allowed to be brought forward this way. So we take it on those merits.
We we have been talking. So again, comprehensive plan has to be updated first before an LDR is changed. Like make that very clear like the LDR still has to be updated. Comprehensive plan has to go first. We had been talking amongst this board from outside
consultants to say bring us this stuff. Bring us this stuff. Right? We basically have outside consultants bringing us this stuff. They're just don't have a Kimley Horn or I don't forget. I'm not I think that's the name of who we had been talking to and we got it in front of us now. Like that's
that's the way that I'm looking at it on top of what we've already talked about and they are doing two out of eight sign I mean they're doing a quarter of the work the next case they're going to be down in our uh central business district. So, it's uh
you know, let's put it this way. Do I ever hope what happened in September? It's been 11 months. I don't know where y'all live, but where Grant and I live, it's still pretty much gross town. I mean, a few things are happening, but uh I think it is part of
this board's responsibility to see what we can do to get things moving again. I mean, uh I always like the statement that uh Ross Sanchez makes. My kid's four years old. when he goes to Florida State, I want him to come home to a new
looking uh vibrant Treasure Island. I really appreciated that one because I've lived here for a hell of a long time. And let's put this way, not a heck of a lot of ch has changed for the good. We've got a couple new hotels. And the funny thing is is those
new hotels, the uh Treasure Island Resort, the Ocean Club, the Crystal Palms, they were back up and running very quickly. Uh the older hotels, I mean, the Bill did okay, but it still had some damage. The uh but the new ones
up and running again, and that's all the Thunderbird wants to do. for instance, have a situation where when the water comes in the ground floor, it washes through, they hose it all out with a fire hose, and hey, we're back up and running. I have heard, and I don't know this for a fact, that Clearwater Beach,
they're new, you know, everybody complains about them, and believe me, I do not want to see San Key type buildings here, but uh I have heard that a heck of a lot of their hotels, the newer ones, were up and running in no time. and it's time to bring Treasure
Island into the uh 21st century. And uh you know, anybody else have any comments? Uh but the uh motion is on page 14. If we could have what I would like to do is a motion to approve. Well, I before you before
you ask for that motion, I'd like to make a motion that um that we ask for uh you know the the city Well, I can't really do a motion for this, so let me retract that. Um I'll just retract it.
Okay. No, I mean, let's put this way. What I was going to go with was make a motion to approve. If you're against it, just say no. It's always been a problem for me. make a motion to deny and then I v vote yes to say no. So make a motion to approve and if you're against it,
vote no and uh that way you're voting no for no if you're voting yes or yes. I'll make a motion to uh approve resolution 2025-10 and recommend approval of the ordinance 2025-16 to the city commission. Thank you. Could I have a second,
please? I move to an amendment on that. Sure. I'd like to move to amend your speaker that we remove the RF
M zoning code from the amendment. We still have the beaches. Okay. First off is Rash, you're going to have to uh retract your motion. And Marvin just made another motion to
approve it subject to only the RF RFH50 right district. Okay, there's a motion. Any seconds? I mean I will second it. I will second
it. just well it deni it fails it at at with no second and you can go back to your original motion if you want to which quite frankly I would prefer I just don't think there was enough time
on my initial motion to get a second so I would like to I will go that route but I don't want to trump over Marvin's statement well he did want to amend your motion so I wanted to amend your motion so if nobody wants to go along That's fine. But I'm just throwing it
out there. I really think Well, as of right now, Marvin has a motion on the table. We have no second. And if we don't get a second, then you can go back to your original motion again. Ross Anthony, how much time is needed for a second to die? There's no time limits on that.
Okay. Um, I'm going to do my same motion. I do want to include them both. I think it's because of what the staff recommendation is, from what the staff's report, from what the conversation is with um with everything that we've been talking about. I feel like this is for the better of the entire city. Um so I
will make a motion again to and I move to approve resolution 2025-10 and recommend approval of the ordinance 2025-16 to the city commission. Second. Okay. A motion by Ross Sanchez, second by uh Marvin Chavelin. The one thing I
would like, you know, any further discussion. Um, I did a lot of uh developers agreement agreements in my career. I really like those things. You can put a lot of conditions in there. Um, I don't want
something that looks halfhazard coming into the city. I want it to be well thought out and uh very creative. And maybe I'm asking for a lot, but uh with that, I think we're making a step in the right direction. So
with that, can we have a roll call? Mark Zowski, yay. Gary Patenziano, yes. Ross Sanchez, yes. Christopher Downing, no. Grant Smith, no.
Marvin Javelin, yes. Chair Harris, yes. Thank you. And with that, we are going to move on to the next case. But in the meantime, it's we got to do the pardon me the accompanying LDRs. You have to do the second motion.
They're basically, you know, overlapping in some degree, but they have to be done separately. LDRs for the comp plan. Where would I find that one? It's just the next 33 35 33 33. Excuse me. I didn't have that one
tagged. My pages must be slightly different. I can just show you right here. Here. So, the next ordinance that the chairman will request a motion on is 2517 amending the LDRs in conformity with the new compound amendment. So, oh that's actually
all it was all sort of presented together as a compound amendment with accompanying LDRs. So, that is actually back there on page 90 and uh 35. Excuse me. 35.
There it is. I got it tagged. It's just a matter of finding the right one. Okay. I've been corrected. Doug, could I have a motion for the second portion of this one? I'll make a motion. Um, in regards to
this item, um, I'll move to approve the resolution 2025-11 and recommend approval of amendments to the city. Okay, we had a motion by Ross Sanchez.
Who made the second again? Gary Patensiano made the second. Could we have a roll call, please? Mark Ojeski. Yay. Gary Patensiano. Yay. Ross Sanchez, yes. Chris Downey, no. Grant Smith, no. Marvin Shavelin, yes. Richard Harris,
yes. Thank you. All right. Now, we can move on to 6B, but it is currently about 3:37. If we could reconvene at 3:45 for a slight break.
get into issue 6D. An ordinance of the city commission of the city of Treasure Island, Florida, amending the text of the adopted comprehensive plan to allow for higher density and intensity standards in the PRMU core future land use category by
amending policy 1.13 of the city's adopted comprehensive plan providing for transmitt to reviewing agencies in accordance with the requirements of laws providing for severability and providing for an
effective of date. If you could uh proceed with your presentation, Bobby Shay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, as you mentioned, this is a simple text amendment, so we're not going to probably get as complicated as the last case. At least that's the intention.
This is a a copy of the overlay map. As you can see there, PMU Core is our downtown area um covering both sides of 107th Avenue. This particular amendment request um addresses density and intensity. Uh right now it's defined as activity
center in a subcategory we call community center. The definition of activity center is a conti continuous area designated by activity center category on a countywide map which is governed by locally adopted plan or code provisions that identify the area as a
unified location and which serves an important identifiable center of business uh public and residential activity that is a focal point in our community designed and to accommodate multiple modes of transportation including enhanced transit. It's important to note that this activity
center was grandfathered in in 2019, I believe, and is now sub category community center. Why is that important? You'll see here um our current comp plan, our density intensity fall below the countywide threshold. If you look
down at community center, residential units can be brought up to 90 per acre, temporary lodging at 150, um non-residential at three. I apologize I don't have the chart but this will also bring the F from a minim from one to a
maximum of three just to kind of explain the application process for this text amendment we start here today with you it's presented by the private applicant we will go to a reading before the commission with your recommendation and then beyond this point it goes to forward panelis in
which the point the city will assist the applicant moving forward uh and speaking to Ford Penelis in trying to decide um where the staff stands on this. They made it pretty clear that they would have four requirements. The first being a coastal
high hazard mitigation review, which is a comprehensive review of land use, infrastructure, hazard assessment, and coastal high hazard areas, planning and urban design principles that are applied. the adoption of the land development regulations that create transit oriented development consistent
with planning and urban design principles from the countywide plan, a traffic impact study focused on the impact of new development, safety, mobility, road uses, and overflow, and special area plans specific to the previously developed area that serves as
a guide for redevelopment. These criteria come into play because of the um the difference between where we are and where we need to be. That threshold is is significant enough that these they believe these four things will need to
complete their part of the application. This is not part of our city requirement. Staff has evaluated the standards for review for propos proposed comprehensive plan text amendment to the citywide comprehensive plan. The density intensity are within the current limits of the community center outline and
countywide plan. Staff is in support of the implications of this comprehensive plan text amendment. It is our understanding the special area plan should run concurrently with this amendment. Therefore, we have advised the applicant of the necessary requirements to set forth by for
Panelis. Um you know as I said the staff supports the the intent of this language. We just have some concerns about fulfilling the other four obligations and um I know that Mr. Bentley has come prepared um to
to walk us through that side as well. So could you give us maybe the thumb more of a thumbnail of what changes this Sure. actually creates within that zone. Right now we are at 0 to 60 units per acre um
on density with a maximum floor ratio of 0.1. Uh your 90 units is currently at 0 to 24. Your temporary uh lodging is I'm sorry 0 to 60. So can you just say that again for me just there's a lot there's a lot of numbers there.
Residential density is 0 to 24 units per acre. Right. The countywide comp plan is at 90. Um our accommodations for uh tourists is 0 to 60 and this will bring us to 150. The F is currently at one and it will go
to three. Right. But again these are these are setting thresholds in in meeting the county requirement. Any project or or site plan will come before you just as the Sure. Of course. But it is a pretty it's a significant change in the thresholds.
Oh yeah. agree with you on that. Okay. Any other questions of the city staff? We do have the applicant uh here. Once again, this is a applicant initiated uh
change. So, if we could uh have Mark Bentley give us his presentation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa 33602, representing the applicant Pirate Square
LLC. Just want to make clear to the board is that the application seeks to make modification to the PRMU core. The core is comprised of roughly 11.4 acres and Pirate Square,
I think, owns about three of those acres. And you know, it was interesting listening to this conversation. It was completely coincidental that these two privately initiated amendments just were on the agenda at the same time. And it
kind of shows you that you know what the problem is here. In 2015, forward penelis or the plan penelis planning council on its own initiative identified 150 acres in treasure island
is a community activity center or activity center community scale. Um, so for the last since 2015, for the last 10 years, uh, per the countywide rules and plan,
everything has to be consistent with the countywide rules. So, I heard staff mention, uh, grandfathered or non-conforming. So, yeah, technically the the city's plan is non-conforming with respect to the countywide plan.
Okay. And then this question came up about maybe there's some developer bias if we're the applicant. And the way it works is basically once we file, you know, it it goes it's in the hands of your staff forward penelis. We don't
really get any say. We don't even get the opportunity to make a presentation in front of the penelis planning council. So we're just trying to jumpstart something here, you know. Um, and you know, I've been working with Shawn Burn for the last three years, and
you know, it's it's been pretty frustrating. I know you've had a lot of turnover and things like that, but Sean, believe me, doesn't want to be have a legacy is having the nicest parking lot in Treasure Island. Okay. He wants to
assemble all the property, vacate the alleys, and actually develop a significant mixeduse project, a project that the community be would embrace and be very proud of. That's his goal. So, you know, it's kind of baby steps here,
but we are the applicant, which, you know, sometimes is a bit unusual. So, um, you know, for example, Mr. Downing if you wanted or the board wanted to incorporate additional lands in this amendment and do a broader
analysis, it could do that as well. Okay. But the long and the short of it, assuming this gets approved today, nothing that approval will not prejudice anything in Treasure Island. It's already a an activity center community
scale. You and you saw the parameters up there. Okay? And that's all we're simply asking for. and that was recommended and analyzed by for Penllis and its staff in order to make that designation. Now, just a couple
and I think you use the words, sorry for the interruption, but you use the words nonconforming to the county plan. Inconsistent is a better word or maybe inconsistent or more we're more restrictive than the county plan at this
stage. And what is being asked is for us to well really open those you know take those restrictions off so that we're I'll show you once I get in the presentation under the special act of the panel's planning council it says after adoption
of the countywide plan all local government's comprehensive plans shall be consistent with the countywide plan and rules and as we speak the city's plan is not consistent with the countywide plan and rules. Okay, I appreciate that. You know, I'll I'll show you.
No, that clarification before I start. I normally wouldn't do this, but I don't have an expert witness with me. It's it's just me and then um later on Ryan Manassi with my firm is going to speak, but I just want to I don't know a lot of you, you know, I think some are new to the board, but I'm
a partner at Johnson Pope Law Firm and um I've been a lawyer for 38 years. I've been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners for 36 years. That's the highest planning designation you can achieve in that profession. Um, I'm certified as an
expert in local government law by the Florida Bar. Only 7% of lawyers in Florida are certified as experts. I'm on the staff at University of South Florida and I teach land use law in their urban regional planning masters program. and
I'm the I was the former planning director for the city of Oldsmar. And one of the the interesting things about that responsibility is all the planning directors in Penelis County. There's 24 cities in the county. So there's 25 jurisdictions.
There's a committee that reviews all plan amendments from every local government. It's called the planners advisory committee. and I sat on that committee making recommendations to forward Penllis our penllis planning council for for three years. So I I've got some experience I guess is what I'm
trying to tell you. And then um you know one of the projects you might be familiar with and this and this was kind of something that we were contemplating on a smaller scale. I've been the attorney handling the Midtown project for the last 27 years in Tampa. I don't
know if you had an opportunity to go over there. It's at Dale Mabry in 275. It's about 25 acres we assembled. It's mixed use people living above retail. It's a beautiful project. So, in any event, thanks for the indulgence on
that. So, what we're seeking is for the board to take the first step toward redevelopment and creation of a thriving downtown core. That's our client's goal. The countywide plan 10 years ago opened
the door for that. the city has not uh for various reasons taken advantage of the activity center designation. Slide two. Florida has a top- down planning scheme where local government's comprehensive plan has to be in
alignment or consistent with the state plan. So what you have here in Treasure Island, you have the state plan, you have a regional planning council plan, you have the panels countywide plan, and then you have the city plan. There's a lot of levels of regulation and
scrutiny. You see, you see the staff recommended approval of our request slide three. Mr. Downey, this is what I alluded to you um couple seconds ago. Yeah, this is from special l creating the penelis planning council
and it's the PPC's primary responsibility is a consistency review of the 24 cities and the county their LDRs and comprehensive plans to ensure alignment or consistency amongst all the plans. If you notice in the last sentence up there
in this provision, it says upon effective date has been determined not it has been determined that all 25 jurisdictions LDRs and comp plans were consistent. It's not the last sentence. I guess it's a couple of then it says
it is specifically intended that the local government's individual plans be made consistent with the new countywide plan map and rules. Okay. Well, the new plan identified this area of Treasure Island as an activity center in 2015.
So, the plan has, I guess you could say, been inconsistent the last 10 years, as I mentioned. So, I want to make clear that this proposed amendment relates solely to the PR PRMU core only, which is about 11.4
acres. It's intended to bring the city's plan in compliance and consistent with the countywide activity center placed on the property. Also, the PRMU land use category was eliminated from the countywide plan in 2015. The county used to have a land use
designation of PRMU and that required a special area plan in conjunction with that which is essentially a land development regulation. The county eliminated that category in 2015. Now, the city still maintains it
because we're dealing with the PRMU core and PRMU golf designations. Now, according to the countywide planners, um the special area plan
that was adopted in 2012 by the city, which related to 51 acres in the city, is no longer necessary from the county standpoint. and you can utilize your PRMU zoning or LDRs to implement your plan.
So, if you eliminated the special area plan, which is I think it's about 10 years old at this point, and it really has a lot of statistics and general information, things like that. Um, it's really not a regulatory tool per se, but
there's no need to have that plan. um it can simply be replaced by tweaking your land development regulations. So the city simply needs to have a plan implementation tool to provide standards for redevelopment and mixed use for utilization
in the existing activity center designation. This would require some minor changes to your zoning code. special area plan is like I said no longer necessary per the countywide rules and that is just another unnecessary lay layer of
regulation. Now, when the city of Treasure Island adopted the special area plan under the countywide rules at that point in time, when they had the PRMU designation in the countywide plan, that required the adoption of a special area plan. But
since they eliminated the PRMU and they elim they eliminated the necessity for a special area plan for Treasure Island, but like I said, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat. I mean, right now you have the special area plan, you have the
LDRs, okay? And then you've got the PRMU land use category in the city in the land use plan. Then you've got the activity center designation from for Penllis and my colleague Ryan's going to talk to
you a little bit about that in a second. Um, concerning the height issue, uh, we're not here seeking any changes through this process and height is only set forth in the zoning regulations. So, like you guys talked about last hearing,
uh if if the city was inclined to modify the height in the PRMU zoning regulations, uh that would require act an application either initiated privately or by the city, coming before this board, going to
the commission, going back to Panel's planning council, then coming back to the commission. Okay. Okay. So, there'd be a lot of public input obviously. So, I just want to get that off the table. We're not touching height. We're not even, you know, there's no need to talk about it. Slide four.
This is a flowchart. Um, Miss Lee went over this. Why don't we go to slide five? This is kind of a timeline. I think it's pretty important. It shows how we got to where we are here. In 2011, the countywide plan changed
was was changed to require a special area plan for the PRMU land use category. In 2015, Ford Panelis dropped the special area plan requirement and it also eliminated PRMU in the countywide plan meanwhile Treasure Island
maintained the PRMU land use designation in its comprehensive plan. In 2012, two things occurred. One, the city adopted the PRMU land use category and two, the city adopted the special
area plan. In 2014, the city held a referendum and as a result and the result was to approve higher density and intensity in the city's zoning code and special area plan. In 2015, Ford Penelis removed the special area plan
requirement and eliminated PRMU as I mentioned and replaced everything with this activity center designation. Slide six. In 2014, the city initiated a referendum process
um to address height and density. Um and and these change proposed changes related solely to the zoning code, not the comprehensive plan. Okay. The LDRs. So
in 2014, the the state of the law in Florida was um there was a prohibition using a referendum for a development order like a resoning or a comprehensive plan amendment.
Okay. So that's why the city just focused on in this in the referendum just the zoning code changes with respect to height and density. So why shouldn't we have a referendum now is slide seven
on 2023 state law changed once again that was uh Florida statute 163.3167 and it says a referenda referendum could not be could not process any land use regulation changes including development
orders comp plan map text or LDRs. So, at this point in the state of Florida, it's illegal to use referenda for these types of land use changes and each local government must follow the state's process for approvals with a twist here
in Treasure Island naturally that you've got this extra layer through the countywide plan. You know, for example, over in the city of Tampa, all we have is um just the city of Tampa comprehensive plan and the zoning code. Slide eight.
Um here are a number of you guys have done a lot of planning over the last few years and and likewise for Penllis. And so what I did is I just listed
various plans that have information that would support uh the proposed amendment. And I listed them there and I've got a stack. I'll get into the record, but you can see mobility plan,
your LDR, special area plan, etc. I'd like to mention too that the penelis planning council planning staff known as forward penelis they initiated and placed the activity center on treasure islands
in that this area treasure island. Obviously, these planners were thoughtful in their analysis and were confident that this was a good planning tool at this location and there would be sufficient infrastructure to facilitate
and accommodate reasonable development. If the planners thought otherwise, this certainly would not have happened. They wouldn't have designated this area as an activity center. So now you're left with an unusual situation. Your comprehensive plan is
inconsistent with the countywide plan and prohibits the density and intensity encouraged by the county. I'd like to turn over to Ryan Manassie. He's uh director of development for our law firm. Ryan was also before we hired
him, he was director of development for the city of Tampa. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Ryan, excuse me, Ryan Manassi with Johnson Pope, 400 North Ashley Drive. Um, let's go to slide nine now. I got the clicky
and the mic. Right. So, uh, some benefits of the amendment. The amendment removes PRMU's non non-conforming status and aligns it with the countywide plan standards. Uh, additionally, it unlocks development potential. Uh, it also promotes walkability and economic growth, downtown vibrancy, and generates
new tax revenue for the city. Okay, you may have se uh I know I'm sorry, this mic's cutting in and out. There we go. Um Bobby Lee did show a couple maps, but I'm going to go over them again. Um what you're seeing here is the activity center, which again encourages higher intensity mixeduse
development in the central areas. They support walkability, transit friendly communities, and attract investment. So on the left hand side, as pre previously shown, but outlined there in red are the maximums for the the community center under the activity center. And as your
board has been discussing today, this is just potentially on paper you get the maximums, right? It doesn't necessarily mean that you can achieve those. And all we're trying to do again is align this the Treasure Island comprehensive plan with the countywide plan. Um, moving over to the right, the circle that's
straight from the countywide map as well. And that's showing you the subcategory that we're in that Mark mentioned, which is again that community center. And you could see it encompasses a large area of Treasure Island downtown, the beach area, and actually more. Uh, specifically what we're doing
here. Can you guys hear me? Because it seems like it keeps cutting out. Okay. Um, specifically, our future land use category is that activity center, which is uh the blue shaded color underneath the activity center. Okay. And again, Mark mentioned, but I'm going to
reiterate, the PRMU core is what we're specifically dealing with today. And that's our tax amendment only. Um, and it consists of roughly 11.4 acres. Again, that's part of a much larger larger activity center, but for the tax amendment before you today is just the
11.4 acres for the PRMU core. So, does a county plan have height restriction? It's there's no height restriction on it. It's just it just specifies maximum density. Correct. So, your height um and we can go over this. I I have a little chart I'll show you, but your height in uh the
Treasure Island comprehensive plan as well. I'm sorry, not in the comprehensive plan, the land development regulations and the special area plan restrict your height further. That's how we're setting height restriction today. And this correct, this doesn't change that. So, it would change the density, however, or
the ability to do higher density. Correct. It's the three things that Bobby Shaye uh mentioned earlier. It's going to be your, you know, your your density, your density per acre, your lodging units, and then your F, right? Okay. Pervious service ratio stays the same. But that's the only area of the the comp
plan that we're proposing to amend. Okay. Thanks. So, moving on. Um, so the purpose of the activity center, um, the activity center category provides for consistency with the countywide redevelopment standards. It also ensures growth is concentrated
where infrastructure and mobility investments already exist. This activity center again the community center subcategory has been identified and planned for in a special and detailed manner and again it was approved in 2015 per panel staff and I just highlighted some of that under there because as Mark
mentioned there's numerous planning tools went in place to put this activity center in its location. They wouldn't just arbitrarily just designate you an activity center without doing appropriate uh research, studies, etc. to activate that. It just Treasure
Island hasn't taken advantage of that activity center. Um, quick question. Sorry to interrupt you in the middle of your presentation in I'm not a big guy on looking backwards. I'm trying to always look forwards. I mean, obviously with what we're trying
to do, but how was that not like when when Treasure Island didn't take advantage of the Ford Penllis activity center, you know, plan, was that like did we get notified and we were like, nah, we're good. Like, we're just going to go on our merry way? I mean, is there any history to that that you would be
aware of or that our staff would know about? I don't I'm going to ask that the same question. It just seems like I mean, because now we're going back and we're trying to update it, line up with the county, yada yada yada. I'm just thinking to myself like cuz not everyone got this type of activity center designation from the entire correct county.
I can I answer that Mark Bentley once again in in communicating with the planners at forward panelis what they did in 2015 circa 2015 is any of these areas that were redevelopment areas
in any city. Okay, our activity centers, they went around and they made them activity center and and they have different levels, you know, of intensity. Okay. So, that was like a concerted effort by them. Now, I don't know how much coordination there was
with, you know, city officials and that's something you'd have to ask your staff. Okay. Yeah, because I know we updated ours in 2023. Yeah, they did the whole county at one time. They just is what they told me. Yeah, that's fine. I just c I was just curious. wouldn't shock me if we were like 10 years ago being like, "Ah, we're
good. Leave us alone." Okay, so let's get to the exciting stuff, right? The planning stuff. So, um, as pre previously mentioned, uh, section 68121 of your code is actually gives us the criteria for these text amendments, and that's what's before you today. Um, what I've done is outline
these four criteria in the next four slides, but additionally I paraphrased it to move it a little quicker, but I wanted to show you on screen. I did back up the the data and our our polic with policies and objectives from your Treasure Island comprehensive plan to justify our request. So, you know,
starting with subcategory A there, see, uh, standards for review um, come from the LDR section. We already talked about that. The amendment maintains acceptable levels of service for transportation, water, sewer, and recreation. Redevelopment will use existing infrastructure, protecting neighborhood
systems. B standards for review. It is fully in harmony with the city's comprehensive plan. It supports downtown redevelopment, tourism, walkability, and res resiliency while protecting neighborhood character.
C. The amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. uh design standards, height height transitions and site plan review ensures new development blends with adjacent neighborhoods. And then D uh growth is concentrated in the downtown core. Again, we're only requesting this text amendment to the
PRMU core. Uh this is protecting nearby residential areas. Redevelopment supports local businesses, improves walkability, and enhances property values through reinvestment. Now, this is a chart that I I created and I wanted to show you and it kind of alludes to Mark's point earlier just to
give you an idea of what development has to go through right now. So, on screen right there, you have three different regulations more or less. You have the land development regulations, you have the special area plan, and you have the TI comprehensive plan. The one I left off there, it's actually four, is your
countywide plan. So LDRs we have to go through, your special area plan, your comprehens treasure island comprehensive plan, and then the countywide plan. So what I've identified on screen are redundant regulations. In
your land development code, you address height, F, density, tourist, uh, temporary lodging, ISR design standards. The special area plan does too. And to that point is what Mark was alluding to earlier is that the countywide planners
or forward panels and the countywide plan does not require you to have a special area plan. And again, some of that information is redundant that's already found in your land development regulations. So although our tax amendment today is strictly about the PRMU core and the the density, the lodging units and the F, we wanted to
present to you that you know this additional regulation, the special area plan that's already found most of the regulatory parts in your land development regulations is probably more obsolete. Um it's not required by the county. Um your Treasure Island comprehensive plan does and I think they
did that to align it with the county. So that could be text that could be stricken through and then you'd have a more clean version of what we're, you know, proposing. This is just additional information on top what we're requesting just because we thought it was important for you to kind of see the steps that we have to go through in order to match up
LDRs with special area plans to treasure island comprehensive plans and then still being in the under the review of the countywide plan. So, um, see, so really there's like two other options and I just wanted to float this by the board just for your discussion as
well. The top again is what we what we have to do now. Land development regulations, check the special area plan, go the treasure island comprehensive plan and then be in compliance with the countywide plan. So again, if you get rid of a special area plan and absorb those polic or those regulations that most of them are already seem to be in the land
development regulations and maybe take some of those guidelines and throw them in your comprehensive plan, you'd get rid of an extra layer of bureaucracy that you know takes time, money, effort on everybody's part to review uh when you see these type of applications come by. Again, this is just a streamlined
approach. Like I said, it reduces duplicate of reviews, minim minimizes cost to applicants, and improves efficiency by eliminating overlapping codes and helps your staff out too. Uh we would imagine so. In conclusion, uh the proposed amendment is consistent with the adopted
goals and policies. Uh it channels growth into the core, protects neighborhoods, supports economic vitality, and meets countywide consistency standards. Additionally, staff you heard recommends approval. Um, in summary, this is a significant first step in creating an opportunity for a
new vision for downtown. And again, this is the first step. We only brought forward to you a text amendment because that way we can talk about land development regulations after this. And that's typically how it's done. You want your comprehensive plan to get set, then you can move on to your LDRs. Um, with
that, we're happy to answer any questions should you have any, and we'd request your approval. Okay. I'll start out with the first question. You know, one of the things, and I'm getting way ahead of the uh process right now, but uh one of the
things that uh we have problems with with the current downtown plan is the uh setbacks from 107th Avenue. At what point do you think we could address those? I know we're going through the LDRs right now and I want to do it
there, but is it something that you might want to think about incorporating in uh your process? Well, assuming this application goes through, what would happen is the new densities and intensities, those would have to be incorporated in
the zoning code. Okay. And that would be another opportunity to address things like that, setbacks, any other concerns for the PRMU. Mhm. It's just that uh you know that type of design had its day and unfortunately it
was adopted by the city back in 2006. So it's almost 20 years old now. And uh I just want to make sure it gets addressed because uh if y'all can do it, hey, great. Anthony, I mean would you agree with that? I Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. I would just say, you know, obviously the other
looming issue here is SP 180 is going to basically stop any kind of new LDRs. They're more restrictive, but you know, something that's reasonable. Yeah. I mean, what we're proposing here from a Senate Bill 180 is not more restrictive. It's more liberal. So,
there's no legal concerns about what we're doing here. So, yeah. Thank you. Any other question, Marvin? So, are you saying that we're required to be in compliance with the uh countywide plan? I mean, we're required to put these densities and
that goes to this whole consistency or Yeah. Just let him answer. Yeah. You in my opinion? Yeah. Yes, sir. Okay. The the special act of the penelis planning council requires consistency of all local government plans with the
countywide plan. And right now there's an activity center that dictates like what density range of densities and intensities should be developed in that area. So, there's inconsistency between the city's plan and I don't think
Panel's planning council is going to come and say they kind of look at it like um you're non-conforming, you know, and I I don't know if they'd characterize it as a violation or anything like that, but so these densities, they are up two densities.
So, I mean, like, are we required to go to 150 units per acre or we could go to 100 units per acre? That's what I'm trying. I mean, it's confusing. You're making it sound like mandatory. This is what we got to do. Is that
No, I'm comprehensive plan is the range. So, it's like the range of what you can go up to. But but Anthony, I guess the but if we're going to do a text amendment, we could change those numbers. I think Mr. Shavelin, what you're alluding to is what is one of them? 90 units
like 150 for the was it? It's going from here. Let's 60 to 150. I mean, that's Yeah, let's put the chart up again. You go on the left hand side. So 90 for residential, 150 for temporary lodging, and 3.0 F.
I mean, it's just huge increases. Okay, those are maximums then, but your LDRs can currently your LDRs restrict. That's where you find the height restriction. That's where you're going to find additional information. And so the LDRs can, you know, again, the countywide plan and what we're
trying to align it with is just getting the threshold there. And, you know, realistically, when you meet performance standards and parking and buffering and storm water, okay, and height limitations, you're you're not going to really probably realistically achieve those. Yeah.
So, I think that's a good point. Like that's what the numbers are showing on the chart, but the LDRs are still protecting Okay. those numbers. So from this application, it is for this district just on the
comprehensive plan for us to line up with the county's comprehensive plan that had where the county has designated this area as a activity area but the LDRs can come back and say more restrictive
at the same time. Yes, to answer your question, correct me if I'm wrong everyone. However, Marvin, we are in the process of updating our LDRs, but we cannot update our LDRs unless the comprehensive plan is updated. Did I miss it? Anyone? Did I do a good idea?
Good job. Right. Sounds. So, this is when we're wrong. Uh, Mr. B. You got you've got Anthony here. You don't need me. So, maybe we've we've asked Maybe your assessment is correct. Thank you, sir. Okay. Maybe we've asked and answered
this question, but I'm going to ask it again just is so it is it's a state regulation that the city's comprehensive plan match the county's comprehensive plan. Yeah, there was a I could that's the
implication. You live in a very unique county and it's the most serving county. It's got a charter and there's all these special laws, local laws, I guess technically they're general laws, but they only concern this area that passed through Tallahassee and one of them is it's a statute that says that the local
planning board has this much control. One of the controls, one of the powers it has is it can it mandates that every all the governments underneath it are consistent. That's only unique to this county. So otherwise, what they have right now in Florida is there's a state plan.
Yeah. There's a regional planning council plan which is consistent with the state plan. Then you have the countywide plan which is consistent with the regional planning council plan. And then the treasure island plan should be consistent with Pelis County.
And so just to clarify the reason the Treasure Island plan has to be consistent with the county plan is a special act of the legislature. So it is a state Yeah. requirement or regulation. Yeah. So, it's really two things
happening at once. One, it's a it's a very strong state mandate. Number two, you live in a charter county, not just a normal charter county. A charter county gives the county charter county government. So, much more power than the average. Like, for example, county is a charter county, but like has way less
control over its local governments, um, over its municipalities. So, it's those two things, but we as a city still have control of our density and height through the LDRs. Uh, to an extent, yes. I mean, yeah.
Well, what do you mean? I was in general. That's I wanted you to just say yes. So, but it's not Well, there's just there's a lot of bills passing in the last couple years in Tallahassee that are chipping away and reducing local government control. Got it. This is the way it is right now.
I think I understand the lay of the land a little bit more. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? So, um I don't I have a question for staff, but we're good. Go for it, Marvin. I'll let you numbers that we crossed out, you know,
used to be 60 units, now it's 150. Are the is the 60 units in our LDRs? Yes. the the your TI comprehensive plan numbers that we're trying to amend are in your LDRs.
So right now the LDRs say 60 units per acre. No, that's not correct. It's 0 to 24. Oh, I'm sorry. That's for Well, that's for residential. I'm talking about tourism is 0 to 60. Excuse me. 0 to 60,
right? But since this is an activity center, it would go to the county level, I think. Is that correct or no? Well, that's the question you're asking, right? Well, we're talking about we're redoing our LDRs. Yeah. So, evidently, we're going to take a look at that 60 units and we may
increase it, right? Or we may not. So, if I can for a minute, um, and Anthony, you can confirm this. It's my understanding that when you change your comp plan, you have a year to update your LDRs to match your comp plan. I do not believe that the LDR can
do less density or intensity than our That's a very key point. So basically this is what you're going to say. So we are effectively in our recommendation changing our comprehensive plan language and eventually the LDRs have to come in
compliance or be consistent again to use that word. Um, so it's so we're moving it's in effect moving forward with that higher density level that's at the county that's been established at the county level as I understand as a maximum. But it sounds like we have no choice. Is that right, city attorney?
Uh, yes. Okay. So, we don't have any choice on this. We got to vote yes. Uh, well, you can vote no, but I think it would open us to a infunction lawsuit for declaratory judgment. Okay. Statute. We have
Go ahead. Keep going. No, you're you're going. You're going. Okay. So, I we I think we're all, you know, it's very curious how this all gets spun around. I'm sure everybody on TV probably thinks the same thing right now. It's, you know, it's very difficult to follow the bouncing ball here. But,
um, so I understand that we have to come in compliance eventually and effectively our LDRs then have to come in to compliance with that. But do we have an ability as the city to take the quote
activity center designation away from this planned unit? And do if we had our own master plan set in front of us that we could have more restriction on what is allowed in that downtown area versus
what the county is saying should be designated for an activity center. the city could be the applicant for an amendment to the countywide plan. That's how it would that's how we'd have to handle the way it would play out. Yeah. But I I think that we need to go back
and focus on this is not a height conversation today. This is not not directly. Well, remember the county plan has nothing to do with the height. The only the LDR is right. So on the LDR since there's not a comp since there is no height restriction on
the countywide plan you can then you have to abide by the density but not the height. The applicants can make a clarification for you on that. I just I just want to go back to that original question because I have your TI comprehensive plan and then I have your LDRs. Okay. Just to so we're all on the
same page. And your LDR currently under the PRMU core the tourist dwelling units is 22 units per acre. residential dwelling unit uh density is 24 and F of 1.0. Okay. Now in the comprehensive plan under PRU core the residential density 0
to 24 and then the uh tourist accommodation density is 0 to 60 and then F is 1.0. So there is a little bit of a difference from your LDRs. And I can respond to that. So this is what initiated us to engage with Kimberly Horn to update our LDRs. comp
plan was amended in 2023 and then um adjustments were made in 2024. So, it gave us a year to update our LDRs to match. We're going through that process right now. We're in phase two. Um we are behind because of the hurricane, but that's why there is a difference that
exists right now. But it's still want to make sure we all understand what this is doing. that point we are in the process of updating our LDRs and the time is could not be more aligned. But again, this goes back to a real base question. Forget all the, you know, how
this all goes around. We're every what everyone that's been speaking today seems to be saying is that we're required because the county has designated the downtown area as an activity center that we now have to abide by the county's density not
necessarily height but density requirements as a designated area for the activity center. This application moves to Ford Penelis for final approval. For that reason, we abide by Ford Penelis and have to meet their
And so, how does height play into this? I'm sorry. H how will height play into this? Just so everybody can understand. Again, when it comes to the actual project and site plan that is presented, they're presented to you individually. So, this provides guidelines and the
framework for the builder and the developer to begin their process. But every project still has to come before you before it is approved. So what what remains as the height restriction for this area with for Treasure Island? It's my understanding the municipalities
determine the height restriction and just to add on that I mean that's where you're currently at your your LDR and your special area plan have their height restriction for PRMU core right remain the same and that can remain the same. So again, and I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the county requirements do not have a height correct
requirement or allowance that current height it's really it we're allowed within our city to maintain that height requirement under the LDR municipality control height. Yes. Special area plan and LDR
and that LDR and messing Anthony on this one. you indicated that we had to come into full compliance with the county since the since the height there isn't a height restriction. That's one area where the LDR looks like there's nothing that there's no inconsistency because we have 60 ft. They don't have any kind of
designation on that. Okay. Okay. All right. You okay? Yep. All right. Any other questions for the city staff or the applicant? Seeing none, we will close the Oh, wait a minute here. I got cards. I do actually do have a um question again
from did staff talk with our with Joan the economic developer. Yeah, we've been in communication with Joan and I again assume she's probably on board to say for this area of land for the future of downtown this can be
beneficial to the city. I I assume that's the that's the talk track. Correct. Beyond that, Joan and I are engaged in looking at potential grant funding to assist in some of these studies and and requirements for us to continue with our development. So, okay.
Just because I know downtown is obviously at the heartbeat of any city. We look at ours, what we've got, where we want to go. So, I'm looking at this as a helpful type of avenue that we're trying to get to. Thank you. I have a question, Richard, for staff.
Excuse me. So, I've heard about the benefits of this, the economic growth, the increased tax base, the walkability, the efficiency in city planning. What are the potential negative impacts of increasing our density to from 24 to 90? Have we worked through those?
There there's going to be impacts and and I I mean the the uncomfortable answer is we have to deal with impact fees. We're one of the only cities that doesn't collect fees for impact. Um, and with that impact study, we'll have a better idea what those numbers are. But
so we're depending on the impact fees then to make up for the infrastructure demands associated with the increased density. Typically impact fees would play a role. Yes. So other than impact fees, are there any
other potential negative implications that come about by increasing these densities? It goes back to some of the studies that have to be done. We have to look at coastal high hazard mitigation. We have to look at um traffic studies. I I don't have that information. I'm I'm actually
looking forward to the book that you left behind for us for from previous studies, but I I don't have that final answer for you. Okay. Thanks. Well, I would like to uh throw my two cents in on that. Grant for comments. Well, we're going to uh
finish this discussion, but uh we do have three cards that I need to Are we still going to have conversation? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. But anyway, uh Grant, you know, I did a lot of uh design in my lifetime. I mean, obviously, you're going to have some inry increase in traffic. The traffic
out there right now is level of service C and D. I mean, it's not at the point of failure. You know, the city of Treasure Island does not have a sanitary sewer system with overflows. That city of St. Petersburg during storms. You
know, our water system has no major problems. There's other things that will have to be studied. Do we have mass transit for it? The biggest thing out here is evacuation. What do we do to get these people off? And you know, and that's
pretty basic. The good thing about a hurricane is you got plenty of warning to get the heck out of dodge, but there there will be impacts. There's, you know, don't think that there's not. I mean, it is an increase in uh traffic,
but does that uh offset um the the fact that we need increase tax revenue for bridge maintenance? I mean, when we tried to do the plan development uh ordinance back in 2017, it was obvious that if it had passed, we'd have
plenty of money to be uh maintaining the bridge right now. But uh yes, there will be impacts and there's a lot of work here to be done yet. And uh Ford Penelis is going to be involved and that's where uh Mark Bentley's going to have to do
some work. So anyway, with that, we will move on to uh comments uh from the public. Mitchell Shankman, Mitchell Shankman, Isa Palm, resident, 28 years, Treasure Island. Um in 2010,
there were a couple of people that wanted the community involvement. Well, in 2010, I chaired a vision committee. I believe in the charter we're supposed to have a vision committee every five years. In 2015 I also chaired the vision
committee. We had 150 200 people here in city hall at Saturday morning meeting. We had um surveys over 1300 people
at that time. I think that was two 2015 uh participated in the survey, gave their input. Uh I sat on this same board, Richard, I don't know how many years, could have been maybe close. It was
definitely at least six years. It took us two years to put together the downtown redevelopment plan. Two years. We have Pia
Tia. I I sent Tia uh a report that we made at that time. Hundreds of pages, pictures on what that our community at the time
wanted the downtown to look like. Um it doesn't look anywhere near that right now. Uh, it's a parking lot. Um, I just think you need to move ahead.
We can't look backwards. We got to move ahead. We got to have development in this town. Thank you. Thank you, Mitchell. Second card is Marie Barbara. Marie Barbara Sunset Paradise. You know, I I don't want you anybody to
get the impression, especially out there. Some of people ask me to come and because I haven't been involved in this for a long time, but I was involved in the first um uh charter review committee and the second charter review committee that put into law in into um the
ordinance that um restricted the height and density and um that was 20024 was the ordinance. And then again in 2005 of March that ordinance um by 82% of the people
voted yes to uh put this on the charter. So the state um only uh prohibited and talks about the ordinance of uh 2002 and '04 in the city but per our charter and nobody else has this in their charter.
the city, I think it was Miami Beach or Miami, you can look that up, has heighten and density in their charter. So, um, we were told, you know, to pretty much stay away from that. So, we kind of did, but we found another way. We use logic, right? So, in, um, the
charter section 707, and I'm sorry we don't have the other two attorneys that are usually, um, talking about this and should be with me right now. in the in the charter in 707 7.07. This is the charter. The charter cannot be amended, changed or
anything unless it goes back to the elector to the people of Treasure Island. So C amending or repealing initiative or referendum law. the initiative was the O height and density um LDRs uh building codes were changed
by initiative because there was a petition that was validated and then um the um commission board at the time had to move that to um uh ordinance um uh referendum I'm sorry it had to pass by referendum. So that's that's the
history behind that. And so um the second um uh um initiative I mean uh referendum that passed uh this this right here what I'm talking about onto the charter which the state doesn't um cannot really um I don't know if they
can or not but that but this is our constitution um and has not addressed this. The city of treasur is the only like I said municipality has this. It says anything any um amending or repealing of the initiative or referendum law. Any local ordinance voted into effect or repealed
by the electorate that's the voters pursuant to initiative or referendum procedures respectively as set forth in this charter shall only be subsequently amended or repealed by the electorate at the polls. This isn't our charter and this is talking about the LDRs and of
height and density those two areas only. So, I mean, it's just amazing to me here, you know, this whole process could have been I'm not against some of these things, okay? How Okay, let's just talk about the it could have just all been
done differently. Plan uh redevelopment-m core, you're going from 24 units an acre to 90 uh units an acre, which is a 275 increase. and the FARS which is your once you calculate it out it takes into
account the blue the footprint of the building and that incorporates the setbacks and all and that increases it's increasing by 300%. When you start increasing these buildings like this white, let's say on the beach, you do start taking up, you start looking at that wall effect, you know, and this is
Treasure Island. We don't like that. Okay. PRM Golf Boulevard. They're increasing from 15 units to 16 units an acre. So, there's two areas in the downtown area in that Pirate Square that they're talking about. So, I want everybody to pay attention out there to this. They're increasing that to 300.
the density there is increasing at 300 um percent. There's no increase on the far there on that. Um the reason that I think a lot of people are, you know, they're not talking to you right now, but I'm sure those are going to be start once they become a little bit more aware of what's
coming on. They're not really staying silent. Um, that's how I got involved is by the calls is because first of all, we thought this should have gone to referendum because of our charter, not because of what the state law talks about in ordinances. And it's kind of an insult to a lot of us that worked really
hard back in the day in 2000 and voted for this. and it's in our charter and um this but you know not everybody's against any of these um increase well increasing maybe they're not against I'm not going to say but increasing to this level I think should have been handled
way differently and keeping in the spirit with and for and with the spirit with the people and how they voted. So um that's all. Thank you for you know for listening. Do you have any legal comments on that?
Yeah. So, um, you know, I've addressed this numerous times. The law, um, has gotten rid of referendums for heightened density, any kind of LDR. Some referendums were grandfathered in if they were in the charter. But in 2002,
there was a referendum here in Treasure Island, but peculiar in very peculiar way, it actually it was a referendum to create an ordinance and not a charter amendment. So there's an ordinance currently that talks about referendums for changing height and density, but
that's void because it's an ordinance. It's not in the charter. So therefore, it's not grandfather because it's not before a charter amendment before 2011, which was a carve out in the statute. So, uh, the referendums don't take hold in this in this case. And so I wouldn't
be worried about it. And I've written a memo on it if you want if you want to take a look at it. What about the charter? The word height's not even in the charter. Uh the initiative referendum is there's only one in Treasure Island. That's what you have to if you're going to speak please approach the podium answer if the chairman would
like. Okay. There's only one initiative referendum the height and density that's to the 2002-04. There's only one and charter points to it. So, there's a general um
um provision in the charter, a general provision that says any ordinance passed by uh the commission, city commission that the citizens disagree with, they can force it back on and if it's not repealed, then it goes to the people. But I have pulled up right in front of
me inside of the anti-referendum statute Tallahassee passed two years ago. It says a general local government charter provision for any initiative referendum is not sufficient for this for this carveout. And so basically if you have something in your charters don't like they can force a vote on it. They could repeal it. They could stop the
commission from passing it. Those themselves are void. The only charter amendments that are grandfathered in that are pre201s are initiative referendum processes in regard to any comprehensive plan that is expressly authorized by specific language in the
charter. So, it has to be a provision to get rid of ordinances that are in the charter only having to do with comprehensive plan amendments. And of course, that's not what we're um that's not in our charter. So, thank you. Bentley, do you have some comments? I was just going to just tie up this
loose end here is that I agree with Anthony and actually the last referendum that dealt with height and density was in March 12th, 2013, which the community supported. And here again is subject to the new law here your your charter so that can't
happen again. So and yeah there was a mention about G Boulevard affecting that with this application. That's not true. Thank you. Thank you. We have one last card. Eric Nory. Hello Eric Nory. Isle of Capri again.
And I'm not going to reiterate the things that I said before, but as a commercial land owner and a homeowner here in Treasure Island with the majority of my family and grandkids living here, um somehow we need to start things happening and get things going.
And I would suggest approve this. Let's get this done. You've got people sitting in this room that have the means and the wherewithal to get some of these things done. Nobody here wants to make our city into a Disney World theme park where we've got millions of people running
through here and we can't drive our cars anywhere. We just want nice things, nice places to go to, nice little coffee shops, nice little car washes, nice little restaurants and hotels and things like that. So, I would say let's let's stop stopping things and let's start
starting things. Thank you. Eric, Mr. Nory, can you please stay there for a second? Anthony, can I ask him a question? Of course. Any questions at all? I like the plug for the car wash, by the way. That thing's beautiful. Uh, just out of curiosity, the way that it is today, because you said you're a
commercial, uh, as well as a resident. I know you're, you know, your family's on it. The way that things are today, is it a struggle for you to build something or for you to put your money into this town to have something resilient, number one, exciting, new, fresh for residents that
live on the island or even tourists? It's very difficult. Okay. So, extremely difficult. Something like this going forward loosens up your ability. It's helpful. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for answering my question. In fact, I had a I had a friend recently who has $und00 million he wants to
invest in an area. And I said, "Come to Treasure Island." No way. He said those exact words. No way. I hear what's going on down there. I'm not interested. And introduce him to Joan. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. All right. We have two uh letters.
that I will read into the record. Good morning. We live in Suncatch 2 in Alakapri. We are opposed to the changes requested by Pirate Square that will be heard at the LPA meeting on August 21st. We feel the rules should stay as they
are to keep the charm that is part of TI. Unfortunately, we're away and cannot attend in person, but want our opinion to be heard. regards Terry and Steve Codella and their address. Um
the second letter, recently I learned about the proposed changes requested by Pirate Square LLC to amend the city rules from the plan redevelopment mixeduse core area in downtown Treasure Island from a neighbor in Treasure
Island. As I cannot attend the meeting in person on August 21st at 2 PM in person due to to work, I am writing this email to express my desire to keep the current Treasure Island building codes and regulation the same. We do not want
our lovely smalltown piece of paradise to return to turn into a monstrosity like Clearwater. Please, please, please consider how the residents and taxpayers feel about this project proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Ellen and Thomas Heinus. Anyway, I'll make a comment about that. None of us want San Key. I mean, every time I see something on social media, they post a picture of the condos on San Key. It's pretty damn obvious none of us
want that. Um, so it's one of the ways that we can avoid that happening, having an update to the downtown development plan or what you would, you know, some would call it a master plan for a city. Um, get getting that done as a part of this.
Absolutely. And and I guess that that's a part of what's missing from this whole equation is that, you know, the comprehensive plan itself doesn't go into the detail and provide the vision that's really needed. What's what's needed is in this case the the downtown development plan
that would show a vision so that there can be some you know consistency across with some higher density. Well, I will say this. I mean, over a year ago, uh, I took the initiative to have an architect friend of mine just do
a pretty picture for our downtown and it's pretty, you know, but, uh, that's steps down the road and, uh, you know, that's part of the final plan and we'll get there. It starts here with the comprehensive. Sure.
Okay. Any other questions or can we I have a question if I may. Yep. Go ahead. Go for it. Actually, Mr. Satini, perhaps you can help. I'm I'm just a little bit confused on the alignment between the comprehensive plan, the county's plan, and state regulations.
So, one of the challenges, as I understand it, is that our comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the county's plan. And there are implications, legal implications, if we don't come into alignment. Yes. One of one of them being that a
person who reads the statute could say if they had standing they could sue and say hey you're not this law this statute says you have to be consistent you're not consistent so therefore we're going to seek declaratory relief and in permanent junction to have a judge
require you to come into conformity that could happen okay so so in that instance if our um LDR had tighter specifications on what we considered uh density or height and that
was stricter than the county. Is that a problem? uh stricter in the sense that it's less. So for instance they have to come forward with the plan you know and despite our comprehensive plan if if the
plan is not uh not approved because it appears to have too high a density for the particular area the infrastructure won't uh there's no parking whatever the issue is we are are still allowed to reject that specific project plan based on our LDR
if it's less than what the county has. Yes. Um, I'd have to see what the conflict would be between if the count if the county didn't have any specific land development regulations which are per se different different than what we were proposing, then I wouldn't see it being
a conflict. If it was absent, if it was silent on those on the on LDRs in that area. Okay. Thanks. Sure. I don't know if that answer. So if our LDRs don't would not conflict if the county didn't have any competing LDRs in that area like they didn't have
any specific law that said that they're they they managed in a certain way. So we could do that find out about that. Uh this whole thing is just a mess. I don't know why the city didn't tell us hey we're giving you this. We need to do it
because we're in conflict with the I mean I just feel very I want to give these guys more density but I just feel really weird about this. I have to tell you. And Anthony, I think earlier you said that eventually our LDLs have to come in compliance with the whatever the the
specifics on the county comprehensive consistent with the county comprehensive plan. So there's no designation for height in the county plan. So we can continue to have that restriction, but the restriction on density has to eventually come into consistency with
the county plan according to what you said earlier. Correct. That has to be cons has to be consistent. That's true. And I think then it's a matter of how we h how the zoning or you know the the review of any particular development plan occurs how we control it. But I
don't think we can reject you can't reject something because we don't like the idea on the review, can you? Uh, well, this is this is somewhat of a legislative decision. This is about the comprehensive plan. It's not about LDRs right now. So, I know you're talking about, but yeah,
we're just worried about the So, we're worried about the implications have to do this. It It's interesting that it I hear what you're saying when it's like, okay, now this is coming up. I don't know. It's not factual, but it seems like clearly there's a lot of eyes on downtown core, right? Like the core. And I feel like
this is kind of bubbling up because there's people that want to do things uh on both sides of the clock tower on, you know, by the car wash that that people want to do things in the town and it's coming to a realization where they can't do it because of the the rules that we have in play. So on their side
now now it seems like that it's this is where it's it's surfaced and we're trying to get things moving. You know the one time that I've been involved with is you have a situation where your project causes total gridlock causes sewage overflows causes
deficiency in water supply. we can take take those reasons and say, "Hey, we don't have to approve this thing because the uh infrastructure does not support it." And I've run into that several times. And uh you know, let's just say that if
we build something, whatever it happens to be, and somebody proves that we couldn't get all these people off the island in a hurricane situation, then yeah, we can deny it. And uh but you got to have legitimate reason to do so. And
uh my personal uh point of view is yeah these are are maximums but you don't have to meet those maximums. But what I said in the past was while you don't have to meet those maximums most time uh
you know you're looking to make a few bucks in this world. So most time it those maximums will be met. So, Richard, if a a plan came in front of the board for approval, um, and we said we're concerned about the level of
density because of the traffic implications, is it within our jurisdiction to request a traffic study as a supplement to bring it in? Oh, sure. We've I mean, you know, when I've been sitting on this board, we've asked for many traffic studies. And, you know, the thing is,
I mean, look at G Boulevard right now. the the traffic. It really is not bad out here until we have a maintenance problem. And during even during peak season, uh it's not like gridlock out here. But this is great. This is rush hour
traffic 5:00 p.m. parking lot there. But Grant, I I will tell you, I was building a shop on a two-lane road at the corner of State Road 70 and um US 301. and State Road 70 was a two-lane
road. And they answered, "You can't do this." And just happened to be the client had enough money, so he widened the road out to uh five lanes. So, you know, it's a matter of I don't know what in the world we would do on this island,
but uh if you had to make improvements to a sewer system to support your project, then that's what you would do. Well, it does concern me to some degree when you say I don't know what we would do on this island given that we're the most urbanized county in the state. You
know, the the density issue is is a little bit of a concern. Although, it sounds as though we don't have much of a choice. Um, you know, when I say I don't know what you would do, there's only so much you can do in regard to building widening a road when you got no land.
You know, you know, I mean, I love a walking trail, that type situation. And I've had this conversation with a lot of city staff about making it more bike walking friendly. I'm like, yeah, the problem is having enough room to do it. So, at the end of the day, this the
county is really pushing this on us through, you know, Panelis forward or forward penelis. And since it's being essentially pushed down and we have to eventually agree to these levels of density, what can we do around having a
better downtown development plan so that we can at least in the review of of plans that come forward, it could be consistent with a master plan for downtown. What I'm not against moving this forward. I'm get what I'm trying to
get at is what's the mechanism to get an update to that master plan for downtown and force the if it's the city that has to pull that together and put an effort towards it so that we're not just caught with developers pushing in development
plans under the under like well what's happening today to change our comprehensive plan to meet their needs but further we know this has to happen anyway. what you know they're going to be coming forward with that specific development plan. So it would be great to have a
master plan to sit back on and re that so that things are done in you know consistent with that we have something to base decisions on. So to answer your question Bobby Shaylee would wouldn't we to answer your question we would need to approve this to then get into the next phases. Would
that be an accurate statement? Um, I actually think that we're taking it to the next level and really as the city it's our obligation just to look at this text amendment as it is presented because the next stop commission and then it goes to Fort Penllis. Fort Penllis is pretty intuitive when it
comes to looking at impact density coastal high hazard mitigation that's their role in this process. So I I I don't know if many of you know this, but I come from the county and I actually spent over two years working on Ford Penelis issues as part of the the
commission. So I am familiar with the process. Excuse me. Um and I think correct me if I'm wrong and Mr. Bentley, but your focus really is to look at the language, the amendment to meet the requirement, let it move through the process and for penelis I am confident will address
issues of traffic impact, coastal high hazard mitigation, all the recommendations on the staff. But what about a master plan for the downtown or an updated downtown development plan that would be put forward by the city? Yeah, that that was all part of our uh strategic plan
um our strategic planning that we did about a month ago prior to our city manager coming visioning and and all of that. You're talking master planning. It's all part of our strategic plan and that's really at the the will and the the wishes of the commission. So, we're wrapping up what that looks like. I
don't have an answer though to how soon that'll be. Well, Chris is perfect. I just think that's what it's what we need to be able to in the future ask good decisions on development plans. The master plan was done in 2006. It's out of date, right? You know, the thing is and that was the
beauty of a planned development zoning ordinance was the site plan became the zoning and a good developer engineer would come in and say, "This is what I'm going to build." But it's very it can be very loosely done or very restrictively
done. What you're looking for is very restrictive. I want to have something a little bit looser so these guys can use their creativity. But the thing is when they come in here, we get to see it again. And uh let's put this way. I've
said it before. I want uh it'd be nice to have Ross's son to have something good to look like look at in his lifetime. Guy's a celebrity at this point. I just don't want I just don't want to see it happen. I mean, Richard made that comment. Richard made that comment about Baron coming back in 20 years from
FSU. I came back from FSU 20 years ago. My parents still live on this island. Not much has changed. So, that's kind of like where it goes from. And I always enjoyed that. But anyway, I think we've uh discussed this pretty well. Uh any other questions for anybody?
Yeah, I'd just like to uh see us move this city uh once again our downtown area, our central business district in the 21st century. Agree. So, can we get a motion? Uh, I'll make a motion. It's not in the packet, so I'm just going to do it manually. Um, ordinance. So, I'll say
I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-20. Um, correction. It's resolution 202513. It's on page. Sorry to make it complex. It's a resolution approving the ordinance. It's on page 90 of your packet, Ross.
90 resolution 25-13. That is not in our packet. Okay. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the LPA resolution number 2025-13. That is listed in our packet. Hey, Chris, I'll second. You got a You got a
I got just to make sure it's right. You got a copy of page 90? Yeah, here it is. There you go. That's not it. That's not it. Page 90. Yeah, that's not it. Oh, that's not it. It's this one.
It's this one. Okay. Can we read it again? LPA resolution number 2025-13. 13. That's correct. Okay. So, I made that check in. Right. It did. That is a mis type, right?
Which is 2025-20. All right. Ordinance. To repeat it again, I move to approve resolution 2025-13 and recommend approval of ordinance 2025-20 to the city commission. Is that what you agree?
That's it. That's my motion. And who second? A second. All right. Uh we'll have a motion by Ross Sanchez. Second by Mark Z. And could I have a roll call vote? Mark Sodeski. Hi.
Gary Patenziano. Hi. Ross Sanchez. Yes. Chris Downing. Yes. Grant Smith. Yes. Marvin Shavelin. Yes. Richard Harris. Yes. Thank you. All right. We're getting there. That is our last
issue case of the day. uh local planning issu agency issues, comments or discussion. The one thing that uh I'd like to talk about for Kimley Horn again and uh need to move them along is I still like the
idea of special zoning districts so they have a little more flexibility on how things are designed and uh an additional one for the Gator property. It's the biggest piece of property we have here. And based on what we heard today, it wouldn't be bad to
have a uh special zoning district for the west side of Gulf Boulevard. So, we know exactly what people were talking about. I mean, the misinformation that was spread around years ago was seventory buildings down on Sunset Beach. No, it's not happening. Our uh
mistakes down there should not and hopefully will never be repeated. I mean, if uh let's put put it this way, mansions by the Sea and Sunset Chateau never should have been built and u but we just want to make sure that the
citizenry knows that. So, I guess Bobby Shay, she left the left. But anyway, she can look at the record and say, "Hey, let's do a couple of special zoning districts." I wrote down all the different uh zoning um
categories in the city. there's only 11, you know, and that's pretty low. Most cities have a lot more than that. Anyway, any other comments from the board members? Uh, for next month, so we're September, probably the third Thursday. Do we know
if LPA and PNZ will be together? I was really hoping for a PNZ update today, but I know we had a lot going on. So, can Jesse tell us if there's anything scheduled for next month? because I thought last month we'd have some
interesting stuff for this month and Yes, sir. Yep. All right. Great to see you, sir. Yeah. All right. So, yeah, there were a couple things I was expecting to bring to PNZ this meeting. Um, of course, typical thing, they couldn't get things in in time and legal obligations,
advertising, and so forth. But for next month, um, I am putting a list together because I will not be here, but the meeting is September 18th. And as of right now, it's looking like there could be four cases coming before the PNZ. Um, one would be a variance for a zero
setback um along Gulf. Actually, no, my apologies. That one is going to the city commission because the only city commission can do variances on the beach. So, you should have three. The vacation of the rightway um a variance for stairs in the front yard. Another one of those. And then a also another
variance. I believe that one was for stairs as well. Okay. burn call. So, nothing on Norhaven? No, have not heard back from that one. Um, I do have one more update, too. Um, because of everything that was passed that took effect in July. Um, plats will
now be approved administratively. So, the last one I brought before you was the base drive plat. It was going to come back before you as a final plat recommendation to the commission, but since that um Senate bill, House bill, or whatever passed, um we can do that in house now. Okay,
that's all I got. Thank you, Jesse. Thank you. And then LP, does LPA have an agenda for next month? We should. I mean, you know, I like you highlighting the Kimley Horn stuff for the all the areas we need to focus on. All right, I'm good.
You know, at next LPA meeting, I want to have one every month. See, we can't move this stuff along. Next month will be as an agenda item for that next month. Can we put something on there with regard to the downtown plan itself? I realize we're look talking about special
districts like in the Gator property, but now that we've passed this change to the to our comprehensive plan, we really ought to be going full full speed ahead on a development plan, you know, a downtown
development plan. Well, I tell you, the uh special zoning districts for our central business district are in place. They just need to be modified. It's what I've been talking about, the canyon effect, which I personally despise, and it's happening right in front of us up
in Madira Beach, which is a good example. So, yeah, I think uh we need to start rewriting on that, too. It's a lot of work, but uh you know, we'll give Bobby Shay and Mary Ellen something to do. Yeah. So, so I just want to let you know that um at the next meeting September
2nd of the commission uh Kimley Horn will be there. We are coming for a work authorization for to start phase two. Um that will in that work authorization it has a kickoff meeting with the steering committee which is the city commission and LPA. We want to do a
joint one. So that'll start this whole ball that you're talking about will start once we get that um authorization for that. So I know and they will be there at the September 2nd meeting as well. So reviewing all of those things goes to, you know, things on, you know, on setbacks and other specifics, but
it's not providing, I think, what the citizenry wants, which is a greater vision of what what is downtown going to be and what what is that document to help as a planning document? And I guess I'm asking, can the city and this board help
have the city hire someone to help put that together as a part? That's exactly what this is. So this is starting that whole thing. It's the community visioning workshops to allow community input to see what the community does want. Um there's, you know, there's some additional services in there depending on what comes out of
that as far as do we need to change zoning, do we need special area, what do we need and all that's going to come out of that. Um so I I guess I'm I'm thinking that we need more than just Kimberly Horn involved in that. We need probably a a
city planning consultant that has, you know, a track record of improving coastal communities and we that's what we I don't think Kimberly and Horn necessarily has that. So maybe that's something we can discuss as well at the next meeting that that can their work
could be augmented by an additional u you know professional city planner. Sure, we look into it. Okay. We plan on seeing everybody here on September 18th. Uh public comments. Anybody in the audience? Seeing none, I do have a couple of comments real quick.
Just thank you to uh Jennifer Bonvalure for her term on the uh board here. Thank you to Cara Sims for her term on the board here. Uh thank you to Daniel Billingsley for coming today. He's our new member. I thought he was going to be
up here today, but he's that's going to be next month. And also Valerie Ari is the new alternate. She'll be stepping in when needed. So I just want to thank those four people for uh stepping up and trying to make Treasure Island a better
place cuz that's that is the ultimate goal. Gary remains as an alternate. You're still in as an alternate. Good. Good. You're still an alternate, Gary. Why me? And my neighbor. Well, motion to adjurnn. Yeah. Neighbor. So move over.
Yeah.