e e e e e e e meeting of the commission of city of St Pete Beach today is Tuesday April 23rd 2024 it is 6: pm. let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible Justice city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Phils here commissioner asz Niki here vice mayor Lorenzen here commissioner Marriott here mayor patrilla here we have a quum thank you excellent before we get started I will make one quick announcement want to remind everyone that we will maintain the Quorum during this uh Commission meeting that means no yelling no cell phones no laughing no claing no cheering I'm going to ask you that you respect to people that are speaking and give them their your identified attention without interrupting them if you do interrupt the proceedings as much as I don't want to we will have the sheriff remove you from chambers so again I will please ask you to respect the Quorum and you comport yourself accordingly thank you very much mayor if I could add to that um I I know we have a open uh public speakers and the public comment period for the trade winds uh items has closed and I would just ask that caution everybody not to try to use that time uh for the you know the beginning of the agenda to try to uh add to that public comment thank you thank you all right first we have a presentation of citizen of the year for the STP beach after school program good evening Jennifer McMahon Chief Operating Officer um well once a year we give a citizens of the year we also do one during our summer camp I think the mayor was here when we did it for their summer campers but we gave um a citizen for the summer camp program tonight we are honoring two kids um who will be getting the citizens of a year um award and and I have Andrea Nicholson which I'm happy to uce um who runs all our child care programs the after school and summer camp PS our summer camp is full because of such a great program that she does run over there um but she has a few things that she wants to say about the two kids that we're honoring tonight Andre thank you Jennifer Commissioners mayor Etc thank you very much for welcoming us I have not had this big a crowd doing this before a little nervous I'll I'll get over it Tim me um I I love to present to you my Explorers Club citizens good citizens of the year we have 75 kids in our program this year and it was not hard to pick these two whatsoever they are exemplary children um they are very charming and I hope that you uh enjoy them as I do without further Ado Jenny please come on up this is Jenny Griffin [Applause] Jenny is one of the two recipients of this year's St P Beach Explorers Club good citizen uh Jenny is a happy positive child in our group and she tells the whole group a good joke almost every day she is willing to play with any of the children regardless of their ages she notices kids who need help and she reaches out to them before probably even I notice um she helps The Littles with their homework without any prompting and when she's asked to give a hand in anything she does so with a smile and without any hesitation uh Jenny's a smart funny girl she isn't afraid to ask a couple questions and she spreads her joy and infectious smile to those of us in her presence every single day Jenny thank you for your willingness to help your great jokes uh you're engaging smile your happy disposition it is absolutely fun to be in your presence and congratulations and thank you for being this year's good citizen [Applause] [Applause] Applause and Henry come on up please and this is my little Shadow Henry leara Henry is the other of the two recipients of this year's um Good Citizen Award he's a quiet positive force in the student body here at explor Club he notices when the coaches could use a helping hand whether it's standing by me for moral moral support while I'm addressing the rest of the children uh sweeping up the gym floor helping us carry items or setting up projects or cleaning up a mess he's um kind to all the kids in the program and he is always smiling he's animated he's an engaging Storyteller and when things get heated with the boys which you know they will Henry will be one of the first to just leave the Trouble behind and go find something else to do uh he mixes well with every single type of child in the group and from his fifth grade peers to the little kindies who look up to him um this old soul is truly aware of how to be the calm in a storm he's a happy Touchstone and an all-around just wonderful wonderful person Henry thank you for your calm demeanor it really helps me and your excellent storytelling and your insucient disposition um it's a pleasure to be in your presence congratulations and thank you for being this year's good citizen [Applause] yeah once again thank you very much for welcoming us enjoy the rest of your meeting thank you congratulations all right do we have any amendments to the agenda as proposed if we do not can I please have a motion to approve the agenda I move to approve the agenda I second city clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner res Nikki yes vice mayor Loren yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Philz yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you do we have any audience comments we do Tom Ras okay if you please state your name and address for the record Tom rascon in corpor penel County um at 5 o' address your address H for your address uh honor Incorporated panel's County that's your address that's my address yes sir um you had a you went into this body went into a shade session at uh roughly 5:00 I commented there as well and uh there that although I appreciate the efforts by the City attorney to follow um Florida law Florida law was not followed again uh the city now is the defendant in 18 lawsuits and as I stated at that time that could turn into 20 24 32 hundreds because of the C the corruption that's going on in the city um be on the at the April 9th meeting I want to show this paper that City attorney M assistant City attorney McConnell filled out and filed with the city he's sitting right behind me as far as I know over my right shoulder and uh you'll see here that he cites Florida statute 286 .11 there is no such statute don't take my word for it check it out yourself what he meant to site was Florida statute 286 011 now this is the Florida Sunshine Law so you would think that a City attorney or assistant City attorney would know the Florida Sunshine Law and not get get that wrong but if this is a classic case then of formal function style over substance corruption over good government um I'll just put this down and show you here are the various sections of 286 there's the public meetings the Sunshine Law there is nothing down there now why does this matter because if you're putting ramming through projects placing unelected officials on the day is if that's your priority you're not going to prioritize the citizens constitutional right to open meetings the Florida Sunshine Law or their constitutional right to public records and it's my view that the city is now through the city attorney's office engaging in a behavior where they're attracting lawsuits because they want to delay the production of record they're behaving in a way where they basically say so Su us because that'll just delay the production of the records over whatever it is you want um and I'll leave this for the record um regarding one public record I invited again assistant City attorney McConnell with a copy to Dickman to Avail themselves of the Florida attorney generals program for mediation to avoid lawsuits involving public records the deadline for them to do so was yesterday 5: p.m. so I guess this city wants more lawsuits thank you Mr askas are are we required to do that checklist we required to do that am I your Council why you ask I'm just asking you I don't know why you did that checklist it's just an attempt to try to make sure that everything's documented because I know you are a stickler for documentation that was just a a scribner's error the first time speaker's error too because he spoke it too look I don't want to engage in a back and forth where your aim is to burnish your profile it's some kind of PR effort what I'm getting at at the last meeting you called me a corrupt city attorney do it when I'm here not when I'm you are a corrupt city attorney yes you are I'm glad you have the spine to do it yes I'm doing it looking at you right now you are corrupt because those who corrupt you have no proof of corruption those who corrupt the public policy process are corrupt I don't want to engage with you further because your effort is aimed at improving your standing you are corrupt sir good evening do we have any further audience comments John kersman okay if you'll please state your name and address for the record when you approach the microphone so that we can all hear you John kurman uh 581b on the way South uh this is not going to be uh the same caliber of comment I'm just have a concern I'm also going to try to be cognizant of attorney Dickman's cons concern about delving into matters of of of uh the M other discussions at hand but I do need to show this uh I received this in the mail today this is a conditional uh use application announcement for PCI which is in our neighborhood uh I live between PCI and a number of other hotels so um the reason I bring it up is I haven't looked at it yet to really get into the details of whether all the things it qualifies for if it's large scale development or what it is or what it's qualified for for but I think that our staff has a lot to do I was at a meeting last night uh the mayor's hours where people were talking about how long it takes to get a building permit that it it could take them you know just months to just you know add a bedroom and um I've seen you know that uh firms and again I may I'm not talking about the matter at hand I'm talking about a prior one um a large a large organization came forward representing the sarata a lot of people with you know carts and briefcases and there was like 20 plus people representing them and we have a couple people in our staff that try to do their jobs that are approving things for the residents and trying to approve things for the businesses and they're trying to deal with all this other stuff and I see on today's agenda we've got another $350,000 we're trying to to to to to spend for you know uh to spend to help Outsource some of the the building department work so my recommendation is or my the reason for my comment is isn't there a way that maybe we could hire a firm that has expertise in conditional use applications that could be more um able to dedicate the time and have you know that eat lives and breathes these kind of of land use applications or these kind of matters and who specialize in it that they might be best suited to to offload from our staff and let them really run with that ball when we get these applications because here's PCI I know you know that's one we have rumors of others coming and and why not prepare ourselves in in that manner and and that might help us for any you know any kind of conditional use matters that come up thank you very much thank you that's all okay next we have the consent agenda item four do we have a motion to approve I'll make a motion to approve um the street closure in Wet Zone 8th Avenue I'll second yeah I'll second city clerk if you please do a roll call vice mayor Lorenzen yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner filtz yes commissioner asiki yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries okay next we have action items item 5A lot split 2419 well I didn't know if you wanted to do it anybody who is going to be speaking to the commission this evening should be sworn in please stand do we do that for this for these items or for the for item six okay we can just wait till the next thank you yes thank you thought you were asking me to okay mayor this is a quasa Judicial matter okay okay please stand if you're going to be speaking to the commission raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation you are about to give to the commission is truthful yes yes thank you if it is quasi judicial then we do need to do any expart Communications uh research things like that disclosures here are we talking strictly for item 5A the lot split sorry 5 a okay um I have none with this other than reading the prepared package I read the prepared package on this part on this item the lot split number 24019 um and I also um met with a staff uh to discuss um that lot split as well I've read the prepared package I've read the the provided information and uh drove past the property thank you I have read the package I met the owner once last year but it was not related to this he did bring this up in the conversation at the time thank you good evening Commissioners mayor Kristen keman community development director today we have a lot split lot split request number 2419 the applicant and owner Peter R Wallace for Barry John and Dennis Michael the property address is located at Z or 11104 Avenue the request tonight is a retroactive approval to split 0 or 114th Avenue which is known as Mory Beach block 8 lot 16 from 113 4th Avenue which is also known as Mor Beach block 8 lot 15 for development purposes so here is the original plat it was done in 1895 um each property as currently configured contains an entire lot of the my beach subdivision again was ploted in 1895 which was out of 48 Acres that comprised of 12 and a half blocks and located on the southern end of pass this is a survey of the parel prior to split um the split Parcels meet the required minimum lot area for the underlying rlm2 Zone and size to permit a house medium development under the passr overlay standards this gives a picture of the surrounding density um this shows uh and illustrates uh permitting the subject request would not result in an inre increase in density and allow one single family home on each lot for a total of two single family residents it's important to note the Land Development code does not differentiate between multiple structure parcels and structures containing multiple units in terms of density provided that the unit count is still the same it is here tonight before you due to Land Development code section 2.14 vacant Parcels where assembly or parcel splits shall only be permitted through City commission to determine the compatibility and respect for the existing character of the passag girl overlay District staff does find the request is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area which is primarily residential in nature has Parcels of the similar Century old plaed size as a subject property and is in keeping with the low medium density of the vicinity with that staff does recommend approval of lot spit a lot split number 2419 all I have for you okay questions comments do we have any audience comments I have not received any okay uh I'll make a motion to approve the lot split number 2419 Second City Clerk if you please please do a roll call commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Philz yes commissioner asiki yes vice mayor lorensen yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you thank you okay next we have action item 5B pay building official Inspection Services yes this item is um for us to continue with Building Services currently we don't have a building official two building inspectors a building manager um so we have the funding um by transferring money from salary and benefits to cover this through Joe Payne who is doing our inspections and our building reviews okay so as I understand it um we've spent about 250,000 to date and now we're pretty much at the end of that funding stream so this is just to carry us over for about five this to carry us over correct and 325 is a maximum we may not actually hit that nope okay correct how much of our last allowance did we use up we have about 15,000 left okay okay any further questions for Jennifer or the city manager city clerk do we have any audience comments I do not okay I'll make a motion to approve an additional 325,000 to Joe Payne Incorporated for Building Department Services I'll second city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Philz yes commissioner Ros Nikki yes vice mayor lorensen yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you all right next we have action item 5 C the city manager contract for Francis robelli so under the instructions of the commission I have spent the last uh week and a half or so working with um with Fran uh our city staff city manager City attorney HR and as well as a search firm um to put together a um an offer uh and a contract for the city manager position that um and so you have a copy of the contract in front of you um with some of the details um I can tell you in working with Fran for for a week and a half um I'm impressed by the speed at which she operates and makes decisions I think that certainly builds well so I'm happy to answer any questions about the um about the contracts or details of the contract um mayor since can you can you go over some of the points I know we talked from the last time like the start date you know you had discussions with her what what um what were in those discussions as far as start date for example as the first one so current contract um you know requires that she provides 60 days notice um and it sounds like they will ask her to fulfill that full 60 days um so if we move forward with today um and that would start the clock on the 60 days um but then Fran also requested additional time uh to be able to move her family because she's moving literally from the other side of the country right um you know Define housing and to family so it's it's going to be a lot so the start date uh that we proposed was July 8th and that would be right before our next um that would be the day before the July the 1st July City commission meeting um we've also um spoken with Wayne uh one Fran's requests was uh that the current city manager stay on for a Consulting type role for at least 30 days um to help with the transition and in my conversations with the city manager he also indicated that uh Fran would actually would like to get a head start um and start getting on weekly calls um with the city manager uh and starting as soon as possible uh we have a lot of large items particularly the budget um that we would have to start working on before July 8th um also would be great if she came on uh and was able to just hit the ground running uh rather than having to catch up um so I I do appreciate her offering that um does that answer your question or yeah okay that helpot and I think that also covers a few of the you know what happens before what happens after as well that we so we make sure that we have a smooth transition um and this is for the the city manager um since the mayor mentioned that there would you know at least you had the discussions already because it was something that I wanted to ask about was the transition um piece of of her into the role and how you would play a part in that transition which you know the mayor did really well with that but want to hear it from you as well Wayne um and whether um as a city you know I don't know if we have to have something written in separately as an agreement with that with our current um interm city manager and maybe Andrew you could help with that after too yes um I'm very glad to to work through that process um uh I have had several discussions excuse me several discussions with Fran uh first let me say I'm very impressed whether she's uh obviously she asked the right questions uh as the mayor mentioned she wants to go ahead and start having weekly phone calls so she'll when she comes in the door in July she'll she'll know what to expect so I think that's great um but yes we've talked the mayor talked with me about the transition and I'm I'm fully aware of that and and willing to to do that that's not a problem with my schedule as far as uhu you know what we need to do uh I'll defer to the City attorney but there is a contract that got me here as interim would probably just have to make an amendment to that for that that last transition period but uh I certainly don't see any issue with that thank you sure any further questions I can answer about the contract I I was a little hesitant honestly at the uh the 240k and was there any conversation at maybe starting out a certain amount and then kind of increasing that each year for the three years or so um that is above the last city manager uh pay scale but it also does not include several of the items for example like an housing allowance that were in the previous city manager compens compensation package uh please don't quote me on it I I don't have it it was either ,000 or $1,200 maybe $1,500 a month in the previous package would be roughly 10 to $5,000 uh which is not um this is also less than what um significantly less than what the ask was uh so we were able to work with that um so it's you know the the previous contract had a smaller salary but a much bigger package on the backside that wasn't readily visible this one is much more geared towards this is the salary the other ancillary package items are are not as pronounced as were in the previous I I think it looks great and I want to express my appreciation for for you and for Fran working so quickly to get through this I think it's really important that we get things rocking and rolling and I think that's great that you guys were able to do that yep do we have any audience comments I do not okay thank you one question for the for the performance evaluation on section 14 um it mentions you know that that annually um and I think we've historically done it that way possibly or at least from being in the in the audience seeing it annually done um is it possible to have um like a mid or you know so it's not a whole year um that we're waiting for a review does that need to be in the contract or um or not this is just a question for you all I would say it needs to be in the con I mean whatever you want but I think she would have to be aware of that um it's typical to have an annual review and you know you you're not you you may or may not want want to increase her salary who knows but I think you also under the contract you develop the criteria for evaluation um you do it in collaboration with not only just the duties that are expressed in the code but also you know with dialogue with with Fran um so if you wanted to have something more frequent um you know I I I think she should be made aware of that I wouldn't just adopt this contract uh and just tell tell her like oh by the way we're going to double the evaluations on you um because those could be tricky I mean they're always um you know I don't know Mary more conversation um I don't FR doesn't strike me as a the kind of person that would be opposed to that um so I don't know that if we add this or if we just have a an informal discussion 6 months from now um my read is that she would much rather hear from us even sooner than six months if there's any items of concern um which actually does kind of uh lead into another item that um was part of the discussion and negotiation of the contract um and so one of the you know we do have an election coming up um in August AUST and so often times when commissions change sometimes people want to make you know Charter Member staff changes whether it's city clerk City attorney or city manager um so one of the things that that Frank uh Frank sorry Fran asked is uh for the commission to you know give her the full term of one year to be able to get the job done and show us exactly what you can accomplish um I don't think that was an unfair ask at all I think um you know given the circumstances with actually two elections within the next 12 months uh it's it's certainly not an unreasonable ask now there are some statutory limitations that make that difficult for us to do uh so one of the things that we put in in the contract in lie of that which I still think hits on the spirit of the intent of the ask um which is uh the full severance package in the event that um she is terminated without cause it does not prevent us from terminating for cause um doesn't you know and but it just makes it you know doubly you have to be doubly cautious if we were to terminate without cause um and so that that was one of the things that she asked is just for the commitment from the commission to say look you have our support you have our backing you know we want to give you every opportunity possible to succeed at the job um I don't think that's I think that's a very very fair thing to ask for and so we did the next best thing possible that within the statutory limitations let me also add that on 14.1 section I'm just reading this it says the city man performance of the city manager at least once annually so it's already in there so yeah I was just going to make that comment if I could mayor that I believe this was something that she she wanted to be sure that there was something because managers like that feedback but I know as being a manager for many years you you enjoy and want those initial or or intermediate feedback that intermediate feedback too you don't want to wait 12 months and then get H so I don't see that there's a need to change that because I think I think that's covered and you could have you could have more than the one and for for the sance you mentioned that's 20 weeks right what you're talking correct yeah usually you would not receive that within the first year um but in lie of um the early termination we would again without cause okay and did she say did she want the year to start August because of the election in August or no the year would start um actually yes she did say from within one year of the August election so let's say September 1st forward okay yeah but the way it is written right now it's if if within the first year she would receive that so you know one one month one way or the other okay y i I just want to say you know I I'm I do appreciate everything that you've done you know in negotiating this um and while you were negotiating I wanted to make sure because um to commissioner Loren's point about about the compensation of course because many um residents um ask or speak about it but I did um research online and I did meet with the city manager as well to talk about comparables of city managers uh throughout the State of Florida um and anybody here could look it up I mean it is um within the range it's not the top of it either and we're talking about cities similar like uh Fort Meers Beach for example same size population um obviously we all know that they're recovering um from a storm but have similar um Hotel residential um I would say like AR cor areas kind of like their entrance over the bridge so it's very similar um and that city manager two years ago was um just Bas salary was 197 I'm sorry whose cell phone is that not mine not me so I I think it's okay I just wanted to say that I think um that and I'm sure mayor you did similar things looking around um to see about the comparison that we're not just and I I would hope everybody else here did the same that we're just not randomly picking this number but that we we did do our our due diligence to to look at what was comparable in our state and comparable to our city as well and that was certainly a conversation that FR and I had um you know and I mentioned a conversation we had at the last uh meeting when we discussed the the city manager contract and you know expl explain with with high you know compensation comes high level of expectation and and Fran's response was I a year from now you hope you will find that you're underpaying me so okay if we do not have anything further if we can please have a motion do we need a um excuse me do we need a motion to approve the hire of her first before motioning to approve this agreement um that's a good question I mean it does have to be by hire ing uh has to be done by a super majority so it would have to be four out of five so I would suggest you do it do a two step process and just uh vote to uh appoint uh Fran as your next city manager and then the next one would be a motion to approve uh the contract as uh negotiated by uh the the mayor then I I will motion to approve city manager Francis robustelli um as our next city manager Second City Clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner res Nikki yes vice mayor Lorenzen yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner filz yes commissioner patrill I mean mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you and then I'll make a motion to uh uh approve the contract as negotiated for our new city manager do we have a second I'll second city clerk you feel please do a roll call vice mayor lenen yes commissioner marott yes commissioner Philz yes commissioner is Nikki yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you so just procedurally what we'll do is we'll go ahead and have it executed on our side um which would be the mayor signing off the clerk me the initials get it to her she'll sign it it'll be in place with the start date and everything like that and we'll have a contract ready to go do we want to um go ahead and if you want to give me authority to work with Wayne on doing either an amendment to his employment agreement for the continued consultation and coordination um I'd be happy to we could do that now and then you would bring that back to us bring it back to yeah than that right with you sure okay sounds good okay so instructions are for the City attorney to to amend the to come back with an amendment to uh the interim City manager's employment agreement so he can stay on during the transition period okay yes all right great I'll take care of it perfect mayor can I add one thing to stly I would just like to commend the commission for for two things for one the selection I think you made a great selection uh and I think also the process and how y all handle the process I thought y'all really handled that well I'll admit that just the the documents that came in Fran was not my first choice but after going through everything and that everything you went through and then my discussions yall made the right choice and I just want to commend y all for for how you handle all of that great job thank you sir and Fran if you're watching we looking forward to having you on board and working with us so thank you sure all right next we have item six resolutions 6A quasa judicial hearing on resolution 2023 d27 city clerk I have to read all the resolution 2023 27 a resolution of the city Commission of the city of St Pete Beach Florida approving a conditional use permit pursuant to sections 35.3 B1 and 35.4 B of the Land Development code to allow the construction of a four-phase temporary lodging Redevelopment that will include 1,596 total temporary lodging units or 63.8 units per buildable acre of which 629 units are additional above existing 59,87324 126 square ft² of retail and restaurant space of which 42964 square ft² is additional above existing 31,1 Square ft of Office Space of which 10,486 Square ft is additional above existing and develop new lodging accessory and amenity structures containing the afor mentioned units accessory spaces and amenities as well as outdoor amenities and parking garages that will extend up to 116 ft in height above base flood elevation BF to the roof line and 128 ft in height BFE when including rooftop amenities or decorative features and permit two rooftop dining and drinking amenities that will include to that will include rooftop amenities that includes the playing of outdoor music to parcel's number 06321 16000000 230 0300 06 3216 00230 2 0 0 13215 00000000 1 1 0600 01 3215 00 0000 0 1 1 0 0610 01 32151 18142 0000 00 0 01 32151 18142 0 00 00001 01 3215 00000011 0 0500 and 0 13215 00000011 0400 with addresses of with addresses of 5600 5700 5750 5800 5900 and 6,000 Boulevard incorporating the conditions outlined herein and providing for correction of scrivener's error and an effective date thank you Mr City attorney do we need to read the item 7A as well since they go together they can't I mean that's not a resolution but I want I did want to mention that this a couple of things one uh item seven is a companion item to this resolution because it's a development agreement that's um part of the cup so they're linked together um I also want to mention that for the record you'll recall that this process started on the 15th uh when you started this um you had a presentation by staff a lengthy presentation by staff you had a lengthy presentation by um by the applicant and the applicant's team uh you went through all of you went through the public comment process and then when you continued it to this date certain uh at this time uh you left off at deliberations which is basically Where You Talk Amongst yourself you ask questions of anybody that's here uh as far as experts and things of that nature um I do we will have to also go through the exte uh disclosure if if there anything occurred between then and now uh and then any witnesses that are going to testify um you know they should be sworn in I do want to make a comment about um there there were a few I noticed there were a few um written email Communications circulated by the clerk's office to the commission um on this item um from members of the public now um here's here's how I see that is the there is a statute that says you should have access to your elected officials on such matters quasi judicial matters um however at the same time uh the public hearing process was closed so it's almost like getting uh two bites at the Apple but I do need you to if you have read uh any of these uh Communications to uh disclose that um and then I don't know if Council for the applicant wants to address um the status of these communications in terms of whether or not they should be um admissible into the record or not but I think it's appropr it's it's fine for people to reach out and communicate with you you do need to disclose it as part of the EXP party and Council has the ability to make whatever objections um she would like to make onto that that is that include communication from the applicant or from City staff as well I think any any type of expar communication any independent research that You' have done on your own or any of that stuff any typical thing that could potentially be seen as prejudicial um the way to cure it under the statute is just to disclose you know the the what the who and win uh right now here in a public and get it out in the open okay start with district one sure um uh so since the last meeting I have received a number of emails that I think we've all received I've read them all uh I've had several discussions with residents um some of them lengthy and that's it since the last meeting I've rewatched parts of the hearing um from the 15th I've spoke to Residents about the project I've spoke to staff about the project um I spoke to a board member Grant Izzy about the project who also spoke to Residents um I've read emails from residents about the project I also read emails um from residents on the cup or in reference to the cup um I had calls with residents in reference to the cup as well um received the email from um Jane Graham um which I believe the attorney just mentioned um with an attached letter that was sent to the trade wins um I have walked the trade wins um this past week and weekend I also went out with Lisa Wright on last Friday on a turtle lighting um communication um um I also met with staff um and called staff in reference to the cup I also happened to be at Disney Springs parking garage um this last Saturday as well and I and I mentioned that because of the the facade for the the parking lot I read all the email since the uh 15 April meeting and uh yeah have talked with some residents both in person on the phone and uh I've walked trade wins ground a few times and also viewed it from different angles from Golf Boulevard thank you um I've read all the emails that have come in in the last week or so um I've rewatched parts of the hearing and including the planning board um I've met with several residents um including some Community groups HOAs uh advocacy groups Turtle groups for example um and um done some additional research uh in the Land Development code and comprehensive plan that's it okay uh councelor sorry I also met with City staff including Wayne Saunders to discuss okay thank you council do you have anything you want to uh speak to uh good evening for the record Elise Batel uh we're in a little bit of an uncomfortable position here because as you know Florida law says that you can't base your decision on anything outside the record and everything that we just spoke about is outside the record um the public hearing was closed at the end of the last hearing and in order to preserve our clients due process is incredibly important not only that do you disclose it that's one prong but the second is that we understand those conversations who you spoke with and what you spoke about so I think it would help us a lot to be able to perform rebuttal if you each gave more information about the discussions that you had particularly lengthy discussions or things that are outside of the record because you know clearly that puts us at a procedural due process um deficit um and it's quite prejudicial so if you wouldn't mind having me engage a little conversation so I understand the depth of what what was talked about Mr the attorney I I don't remember us closing the proceedings I think where we left it was for the applicant to have a rebuttal to anything that was said because we were running out of time and then for them to make their final closing remarks so I don't have an objection to what she's asking for I'm simply clarifying at least as I understand it okay so a couple couple of things and this is just good because we're clarifying and clearing up some procedural issues before you get into the substantive discussions um the reason I brought up uh the emails is because I you know it's pretty clear in the statute that people can communicate with you and you just can't shut that down and if you did read it you know you have to disclose it and so the statute on that does say you know you have to you know give the details of that especially if Council feels that it could be prejudicial and they would like to know know about it that you're correct the reason I brought that up is because I don't believe the proceedings have been closed the whole record the whole record for the whole hearing hasn't been closed yet that it was started on the 15th and so you know it's still being transcribed any discussion that happens here right now is part of the transcripts that will be part of the record um I just think that there is a there is a question about whether any documents provided by the public because that certainly was closed the public comment period was closed and this is where the public would comment so that Council would presumably have the ability to reut that and I don't even know if council's seen the emails or not I I don't know um we've requested some emails we heard about them but I don't know that we've even received copies yet right so um I can tell you that I have I have a few copies here I have one from John kersman I have uh I mean I can provide these to you the ones that were circulated um one from John kersman looks like that there's one from Al Johnson um it looks like there's one from um someone named T glass I'm not sure who that is uh uh Keith Rus um and then of course um Joan Lawson is finding is attaching the letter that was supposedly sent to uh Miss Batel um today yesterday uh from Jane Graham I don't know if you received that or not I've received the letter from Jame Graham but we have not received copies of the other documents I'll give them all to you okay great um so I if if you don't mind Mr Mayor and and City attorney you can let us know if this is appropriate but if you don't mind just giving us more information about the discussions that aren't in those emails and we could take just you know five or 10 minutes to actually read those emails so that we can be prepared in rebuttal the only other things that that I did want to comment on is you know at the end of the 415 hearing when the public portion was closed that's really when the record's supposed to end but obviously you can't go back and reverse what you read so we're just trying to fix that at this point um I do want to take a little issue at protect St Pete Beach forwarding the letter to me um to you directly to the Commissioners Miss Graham uh offered to write a letter of no objection you read it probably if we agreed to certain terms and conditions uh I just can't stress how inappropriate that was as a as a lawyer um having Miss Graham simply restate what she already did in a letter under the guise that there's new information here or that protect St P Beach as a party in this proceeding is also not appropriate um they had the the advocacy group had the opportunity to put any information on the record at the 4:15 hearing um or to suggest changes to the conditions at that time as a reminder that group was given 15 minutes by this board and their president was given an additional extended time as well it's also important to note that the city has specific procedures for the order that people speak uh first the clerk calls those who sign up in the order that they signed up and second she calls those who submit cards in those order unless the council changes that from the dis I do understand that Miss Graham and Miss Lawson were taking out of order and allowed to speak first at the hearing even though they were not first on the registration list I'm just placing this information in the record because if protect St Pete Beach argues in some Forum in the future like a court of law that they were not given Fair due process during this process I would argue that they were given far more uh due process than any rights that they have as a member of the community so I just want to put that on the record and and the only other thing I will say is that if if this were to be appealed to Circuit Court and these emails after 4:15 were attempted to be put in as part of the record I think there's a fairly strong argument to the court that they should be stricken as not part of the record so would it be possible for just a little further explanation on the the type the subject matter and any additional concerns if it's just a repeat of what we already heard at the public hearing we don't need we already understand that we're prepared to speak to that but if there was any new information or new concerns that were raised that we should be prepared to address because they are going to inform your decision as a decision-making body tonight we would appreciate if you would let us know those so that we can appropriately reut that that's really what we're asking as the applicant I'll go first most of the emails I read were pretty much duplicates of things I've seen before you know slight wording changes there were also a couple emails that told us to uh deny the sarata cup from five December so obviously I didn't read those extensively um and that's pretty much it thank you I'm similar I got I got a lot of template um emails um so addressing the December 5th as well so I don't know if they were reading their emails um I did get emails um from residents um that I then spoke with you know I I always respond back to say thank you for your communication and then um some do want to talk so we talked about um traffic um we spoke about um the intensity um and then I did speak with Lisa which I mentioned that wanted to um take a tour um on the evening of now this was last Friday so we did go out um last Friday she went with her tools and I could explain further you know and I was going to talk about it later anyways but we did go out there during that time she showed the the property for the trade wins we did a couple of other hotels as well um and then I stayed on my own I did not stay with Lisa after that I was there probably close to 11:00 at night um on the beach um side only not not the other property I just walked across the procity to go to get the freebie back home um then um I mentioned Disney Springs um it so happens that I was still celebrating birthday with my friends in Orlando and we happened to go to dinner over there and I remembered the architect who mentioned um that they had done the same type of facade um at the Disney Springs uh parking garage so I happen to get to see it for firsthand um I met with staff just to talk about cup questions um you know on Land Development code nothing that we haven't spoken about here um who else am I missing I think that was about it yep thank you remember something I'll say it but think thank you so as far as Communications I had um I had spoke to Residents both for and against the project assuming you're more interested in ones against for rebuttal purposes so um a lot of the conversations were in line with things that were brought up during public comment um by some of the people that spoke during public comment as well um couple things I was going to bring up tonight specifically um and I brought it up in the last meeting was the median potentially blocking 59th which I understand is kind of out side of the plans of the project but that's something important um I think what else traffic and in general I mean things things that came up during public comment um marine turtle compliance um beach access being available earlier in the project which was something I was going to bring up tonight as well so I think that's it thank you yeah um so the content of the the emails that I've received and the conversations I had was also very similar to what we heard in public comment last week um mostly centering around uh traffic Turtle lighting um the north side beach access um I don't believe that there was any I discussed with anyone that was outside of the realm of what has already been fairly extensively discussed thank you um I can't think of any conversations that I had that had anything of substance that would say was significantly different from what we've heard or read before although I also don't have what you read those emails like Al Johnson didn't see see me apparently so um so I don't necessarily have copies of everything that the other Commissioners have but from the substance of the emails and Communications um I can't think of anything that was new information thank thank you all we really appreciate it allows us to make sure that we're addressing the issues that you've heard is that sufficient for you yes it is thank you so the only other thing I want to comment before we get started into this is that once again that your your decision is basically what you need to do is look at the criteria for a cup including the d The Da and the competent substantial evidence that you've heard okay doesn't mean that the so the parties or the city and the applicant participants are in the public doesn't mean that you can't consider uh lay testimony but it has to be very fact specific um it has to be something um that put the appropriate weight on it um which would be again you know very different from say let's say a lay person that talks about traffic versus a traffic engineer and things like that so the competent substantial evidence is the key word when you you want to compare it with the criteria that's been provided to you in the staff report and so forth and as far as like making your final decision so hopefully that's helpful uh the applicant requested a few minutes to read those emails um we could we do that very quickly we could adjourn for 10 minutes thank you very much and come back at um 720 Sharp e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay I think we're ready for the applicant's [Applause] rebuttal we have a uh can you put the slideshow up please oh Kevin's going to do it I didn't realize that it was right there I forgot my public service announcement wear your sunscreen um good evening for the record Elise Batel 401 East Jackson Street on behalf of the applicant um thank you for giving us that little bit of additional time we appreciate it um and thank you for all of your time last week we're going to be as efficient in our rebuttal comments as we can to try to get through this quickly um I'm going to hit some points that were made by the community uh very quickly and then we'll have a couple experts address a few things please please feel free to stop me at any point um and and ask questions uh first I want to talk since marine turtle compliance came up quite a bit in what you've heard recently Miss Graham specifically mentioned that the city city still showed that there were active code violations in the system um during our April 15th hearing you heard testimony from Brandon Barry um and the City attorney that there were no current code violations we actually appreciate Miss Graham bringing this to our attention because we went back to investigate and they were open in the system but had been addressed with respect to the code enforcement officer um I would like to submit for the record evidence showing that all open matters in the system have been officially closed by the city and that there are no current violations I will note that somehow two popped up last week that were also related to that 2021 violation um but those are also closed in the system Suzanne if you could submit those I also personally spoke to Pete DWI yesterday to confirm that that was accurate as of yesterday so just submitting that into the record um I want Joe Smith to come up uh and speak to you about his efforts with marine turtle compliance but before he does I want to talk you with you quickly about the difference between being in violation and having buildings that were not built to today's standards and I think those are that's an important distinction for you so no code violations relates to the things that we can fix today for the new building and the lighting around Joe has worked extensively with sea turtle trackers and the city I'm going to let him talk more about that but I wanted to refer you to the section of the development agreement that talks about the marine turtle compliance and I'm going to read a portion of it because I think it it will help alleviate some of your concerns by the completion of phase one the entire existing developed property in addition to the new Improvement so all existing buildings not just the new buildings will be made compliant with the standards for beachfront Lighting in the Land Development code today so even though those buildings were built way back when by the end of phase one we're going to bring all of those up to current standards which requires us to go into all of the existing buildings and put specific film um it is that's not an easy task and it's very expensive but we've agreed to do that um and we have to bring them up to the standards that are more stringent whether they're in the Land Development code the pelis county Coastal Construction regulations or whichever are more stringent It also says at staff's Direction review of this criteria may involve coordinating an evaluation with sea turtle trackers or a successor organization to evaluate and address sources of light harmful to Marine Turtles Joe is already doing that and so Joe if you could just come up and and talk about what you have been doing I app sure Joe Smith 1825 western Florida for the record um so this is not a new issue for us um we've been sitting down with the city and with C tural trackers uh the issue first AR arose when we were getting multiple requests from multiple organizations didn't do a tour of the property and I think Lisa actually even said the trade WIS folks were nice enough to tour us around so that's when we were confused about who to take directions from we thought well it's all the same so why not and what we started to get were conflicting input and we we start to get for example some of the lights this is the right tone of and Hue of orange this is not the right T tone and Hue of orange so with that confusion we actually sat down with the city of St Pete Beach um with code enforcement uh with SE Turtle trackers had a meeting and said why you and they said we are the only certified seed Turtle tracking organization in the state of the Florida in this area so with that the city and we agreed that is an expert qualification that's something that we should rely upon if there's anyone in the community who ever has input whether it's Lisa or anyone else I would recommend they go to se tural trackers and we will work with them that's not the issue the issue is having and there's even more organizations Beyond Lisa that showed up and said hey I really think you should do this or I want to tour the property it's just endless it's confusing and it's conflicting so what we would recommend is what the city of St P Beach and we already agreed upon which is anyone has input go to see Trail trackers they will con whatever is correct to us and we have no problem working through the process I know for example some of the tools that I think you probably uh mentioned uh commissioner res Nikki uh I'm aware of but I think there's even argument about whether those are right tools or not whether they should be relied upon or not I know some of the photos submitted before are largely not of our property but of our neighboring bar instead of us so there's lots of confusion around the issue and I think we'll be here all night if we start talking about the five different organizations who want to Pine upon marine life so that's where we are we've had meetings with the city the city agrees with us um and I think it's an organized fashion I wouldn't discourage anyone from giving input to se tural trackers go for it absolutely no problem but we need one voice that's a certified expert that we can rely upon and work with and that's that's what we've done and that's what the development agreement reflects thank you um the other thing I wanted to address was a comment made about the commercial garage um and the fact that we were overp parked we're only about 10% overp parked and based on some modifications that we're going to suggest tonight will be even less overp parked because we're going to remove some spaces for that public beach access um but all parking garages for the trade wins are to service the hotels and related on-site amenities to trade wins you have a spe specific definition in your code of what a commercial parking garage is it's a structured parking facility with two or more levels that is not affiliated with a specific other use that's not trade wins um does somebody come on occasion to trade wins and say I want to go to your bar and they pay to park and they don't go to the bar probably right we feel like the parking provided is a practical is the right amount a practical amount of spaces but it is not a commercial garage I also wanted to comment on the F issue that was raised so Miss Graham noted that parking garages are not counted towards F calculation she's absolutely right they're not in the city of Tampa they're not in Hillsboro County they're not in pelis County they're not in Plant City and they're not here they're typically in most of the jurisdictions that we work in they are not counted towards f as you know f is one mechanism one dimensional mechanism for uh quantifying and development but I think her point was that not counting the garage for f was somehow under estimating the height and the scale and the mass but remember we've provided you with exact elevations exact renderings you know exactly what the height and the scale and the mass are um we did do the calculations and even with the parking garage we're just right at 2.0 F and your code allows a maximum of 2.6 so that doesn't take us close to the maximum um I want to talk about beach access commissioner Philz I know this is really important for your constituency and the residents in your neighborhood after the hearing we went back as a development team and and we talked a lot about public beach access oh c can you put up the overhead please thank you Kevin thank you first we want to propose a change to the timing of the northernmost third access and we we'd like to go ahead and construct the permanent beach access for phase 4 immediately when we construct phase one so what that means is during phase one with this with this proposal you would have a permanent beach access on the southern boundary of the property you would have a permanent Beach a on the Northern boundary of the property and you would have the temporary beach access through the middle of the property that under the development agreement has to continue until we until it's a a permanent beach access which means if it never gets built that temporary easement does not go away um a couple things to consider I think perhaps it was the mayor or one of the other Commissioners said why can't we do this earlier well there's two components to these Beach accesses both phase one and phase four will first go through site plan and permitting process as part of phase one that's going to take a little bit of time and then we actually have to construct them we have to physically go out there and do the construction as part of phase one so at the end of that construction we'll know exactly where the path is going to go we can create the legal description and then execute the easement until that is fully engineered and built we don't know exactly where to give you the actual easement and what that legal description looks like so the easement comes after it's constructed so it's on the correct property so the second issue is during constru construction we do not want people going through the construction zones just for safety issues so we don't want to give that until those are constructed so that it's safe for people to be transversing up and down the beach um I want to clear up I think what were some Mis misinterpretations and maybe misunderstandings about transportation and concurrency the traffic study that we submitted and which has been reviewed and approved by the city's independent traffic consultant is the document confirmed that is confirming that there is adequate capacity and an adequate level of service for phase one we are not reserving concurrency for any subsequent phases as part of this development now we work on a lot of development agreements and normally that's what you do you do a development and you reserve concurrency we're not doing that here we are saying that we will come back to you at each and every phase and do a new study with actual accounts so you know exactly what the transportation issues are at the time concurrent with when we move forward with that phase we're also not reserving concurrency for water for sewer anything else every time we come in for a site plan approval for a different phase we have to come back and and prove concurrency to staff um this is also clearly spelled out in section five of the development agreement um and and I also want to talk about the median issues so we have no dog in the fight really with respect to the median the only reason that this is even a part of our cup approval is the city came to us and said hey if the city and fdot either one says certain Transportation improvements have to be made in front of the trade wins we want you trade wins to pay for those we're not going to construct them we're not going to do them we're going to pay for them and that's what the condition says so whatever those median closures might be that's really whatever the city and fdot work out and determined we we aren't going to we're not involved in that at all and and it those safety study improvements aren't contingent on our development those are safety study improvements on their own right um I also want to talk about Alex Ro's letter that he submitted um Miss Graham talked a lot about about the letter that was submitted the night before the April 15th hearing uh the city's independent Transportation engineer has prepared a letter dated yesterday I believe which addresses each of the key points in Mr work's letter I'm just going to read a couple of those points and then Mr Mayor before I do that may I submit a copy into the city's records I was going to ask the City attorney about that so that was my question from earlier so any new information from staff from the applicant pardon me that's to be entered into the record or yes I I think it should be because again you this is still an opportunity to hear from experts it's not just legal argument yes thank you for clarifying in addition the city's Transportation engineer is here I see so he can also comment um sus would you please submit that into the record please thank you I just want to call call out a couple of the comments that he made with respect to to Mr Wars there were six points um and he talked about each of those points first he says Mr Wars comment is invalid and it does not affect the results Mr R's comments do not draw any conclusions and in incorrectly Define a VC ratio exceeding 09 on a roadway segment as being deficient Mr W comment does not invalidate the results the transportation analysis is correct as submitted you can see his conclusion here but having reviewed his comments we have not identified any additional concerns that would alter results of the submitted Transportation study um Mr Henry would you come up for just a moment um have you read the response to Mr work's letter prepared by the city's independent traffic engineer I have yes um do you agree with its conclusions I do yes and does Mr Ro's letter change any of your conclusions in your transportation analysis it does not thank you with that I just want to go back a little bit to something that Andrew talked about which is substantial competent evidence um It's always important to talk about substantial competent evidence because you're really sitting up there as judges and that's a really difficult position because that's not what you normally do when you're making decisions um I want to talk a little bit more about what is not competent substantial evidence than what is competent substantial evidence you know that experts s and facts are competent substantial evidence but speculative concerns and these are all directly from Florida law cases uh this is the legal framework under which you are making your decision tonight speculative concerns about the future zoning of an area are not allowable they're not competent substantial evidence desire to maintain the status quo may not be considered I think that's really important when you make your decision tonight subjective testimony can't be given a cumulative effect we looked at the petition that protect St Pete Beach submitted and if you look at it very closely MC Jagger signed it and Lucy Lou signed it and and it didn't doesn't matter if everything on there there were a thousand signatures Florida law says it doesn't matter how many people agree with an issue if the opinion is not substantial competent evidence just because a thousand people say it doesn't make it so lay Witnesses cannot give opinions on technical matters specifically traffic land planning storm water or telecommunications these are technical issues that require an expert I mean you heard the questions to the transportation Engineers this is stuff that we they study for for years and they understand how this works and that's why we have to rely on those experts in making those decisions and finally um oh this basically says the same the interpretation and application of traffic engineering principles or Publications requires expert testimony I want to talk just a moment about C Mark um and the opposition to the project by Mr Yarnell at the hearing we were actually very surprised when C Mark registered to speak in opposition to the application and I want to take a little time to give you the history of how we've worked with seark for the last couple of years um and outline what 1754 has done to accommodate C Mark through this entire process first before we even submitted an application this building was thoughtfully designed with seark in mind if you look at it and you look how it is designed with respect to the building and the golf it's clear that the orientation was done to protect views and privacy of C the garage east of the cart building is position so no headlights go into C Mark it's pushed back and the screening even though it's not directly adjacent to C Mark they went ahead and added screening on all sides to make it aesthetically pleasing when someone looks out their window after we submitted our application we received a letter in October of 2022 from C Mark's Council expressing four concerns and 1754 immediately responded to those concerns and addressed them the first was concerns about cons uh structural compromise of seark it was right after what happened in South Florida I think that was on everybody's mind 1754 agreed to conduct conduct a preconstruction foundation and structural inspection and to continue monitoring during the whole construction phase one project they said yes concerns about wind were raised 1754 conducted a wind study they did a whole entire model that simulates all of the buildings and they simulate wind and that report shows that there were not degradating effects for wind they said yes to that there were concerns about noise pollution um 1754 agreed to install glass sound insulation and provide additional Landscaping along the southern side of the restaurant um and we're going to talk a little bit more about that request later and there were concerns about air quality the developer agreed to install exhaust scrubbers on the restaurant vents in order to mitigate any smells coming from the restaurant but it didn't end then um throughout the process Joe continued to have dialogue with residents at C Mark and we actually redesigned some of the buffering on the southern boundary uh because they were concerned that some of the trees would grow Too Tall and they asked us to change those species we did that with that in mind to protect those views the beach access also provides this physical layout you can see that um and then there's more so these were a number of additional changes um and some of these were as recent as two and three weeks ago these were in direct response to se Mark's comments the pool closes at 9:00 as I think you heard during the cas in Chief Sear's pool closes at 10: we think that's very reasonable to keep noise out um from the restaurant from the uh residents restaurant seating and the view was positioned for customers to face north and west away from seark there was an ADD of this specialized roof that you can see here um along along the top in order to deflect sound into the site away from the residents it's a non-smoking facility we talked about the scrubbers um so so let me step back for just a second so Ken maaf is our planning expert and he said you know the only thing I'm really thinking about is that open restaurant um that open air restaurant and so we are agreeing tonight to remove our request for a conditional use permit in phase one for the rooftop and we will build that restaurant to code just like you build every other restaurant um you'll see that reflected in the conditions that we're going to ask you to look at tonight uh please note though the for the record that the roof and the walls aren't going to look like they do here in this rendering because now we're going to build them to code so it's not going to be an open deflected roof it's going to be a regular roof so just want to note that on the record finally last week sorry can you expand why you want to do that let me go back and well I can talk to Joe um or ask Joe to come up and speak to that but really it was you know continued concerns by the neighbors and honestly the fact that c Mark showed up after all of that and we still had concerns we thought what can we do to make sure that there are as minimal impacts as possible Joe um commissioner luren and it's important to know that I've had over four dozen pieces of communication emails phone calls online meetings in only the last 45 days with uh C Mark and and I'm happy to say that I really like them I like Tim Yarnell I like Mike Gordon these are good people they're my neighbors and uh after talking to them over many conversations we just said what's giving people heartburn some of the the heartburn is this kind of open uh top rooftop dining and we said well if we take the rooftop dining aspect out of it a lot of the issues go away and so we said we'll build it to code we'll just take it off the table make it easy this is a recurring theme you've probably heard from me a lot of times let's make it really easy for people let's make it easy for people to say yes and we just decided to do it unilaterally just to make this a much easier process that's really it are you going to cover later in a presentation a rough of what it looks like when you say tood it it will look very very similar to this it's just you'll see like glass enclosures potentially and that roof might be a little bit different but it'll be generally similar to what you're looking at it's just built a code now instead of being a rooftop dining facility thank you um finally last week right before the hearing C Mark sent a letter with two new objections um those objections were concerns about telecommunications and concerns about views to the North and the Northeast first I just want to put on to the record that there has been no technical information or report offered by the residents of C Mark to substantiate that the Trade wi's building is going to do anything to the Telecommunications signal but uh and again as mentioned lay testimony on these issues is not substantial confident evidence but in an effort to alleviate the concerns of C Mark we would like to offer a condition similar to what we did for sarata that provides if the cell tower provider complains about diminished service will provide a signed opinion from an engineer and make sure that we will U find ways that the signal strength is um is appropriately addressed so Suzanne would you submit that or I'm sorry Mr Mayor may we submit that for the record for your consideration yes thank you so I want to talk about the views from the Northeast um seark is objecting now to the Views to the North and the Northeast what this tells me and what I think it should tell all of you that they really don't want any development on that site because if you can't affect any views what you mean really is that you can't put anything on the property uh I'll talk about that a little bit more when we talk about views but it does not seem genuine to be objecting to views to the North and the Northeast at this point in time so going to talk briefly about the legal framework I know you all know this but it's always important because it's not something that that we talk about every day but there are very important principles under Florida law that provide you with a road map describing how your comp plan and your Land Development regulations must be read so I just want to take a couple moments and highlight what is on your screen local governments must follow their current regulations there there was a a lot of discussion about the wh ifs during the presentation and what if the site was planned differently and what about this but tonight your job is to review the current application under the current regulations and determine if we met our burden to satisfy all of the conditional use criteria set forth in the code it would be impossible for the developer to commit to the significant Community benefits that they have to say that we would agree to somehow update this to new regulations that you may pass in the future we need to know what we can develop in order to put all of this money and infrastructure and Community benefits into phase one so I just want to I you know because the city could drastically change what your regulations look like and we can no longer build what it is that you're approving today land use regulations also have to be viewed in totality this means that you cannot take a specific phrase out of context you have to look at the whole comprehensive plan and the whole Land Development code Mr Barry did that when he wrote your 108 page I think staff report he looked at each and every provision of the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code when he came up with his recommendation and his expert planning report that we're consistent with a comprehensive plan that we've met the criteria under the conditional use permit they're trying you can see them out there struggling Mr metf our expert land planner who testified he also reviewed the entirety of the comprehensive plan in the Land Development code and also found that the pro proposed project is consistent with a comprehensive plan compatible with the surrounding uses and meets the cup criteria these are our professional expert planners and your professional expert planners and Florida law says their testimony is substantial competent evidence spe specific land use regulations control over more general ones to paraphrase the very large body of case law on this subject if you have a specific provision and you have a conflicting more General provision you have to follow the specific provision and this is specifically important when you hear a little bit more about views and Vistas and the references to the Views and the Vistas in Your Land Development code policy 2.1.3 is is this General policy and it directs the city how to administer their Land Development regulations it was used I think in Miss Graham's presentation it is not a Project Specific mandate nor a direction towards a project it directs the city hey when you administer and you these Land Development regulations here is what you have to keep in mind it's presumed that local governments have knowledge of their existing land use regulations when new regulations are adopted those Citywide policies that we were just talking about were in the original comprehensive plan and you came in later and you developed the large resort district and you said here is what we want to see here the city knew at that time that there was the maintenance of you and Vista General language but yet you came in and you said here are the heights here are the intensities and here are the densities specifically that are permitted provided the following happen you contemplated that you knew that one provision in a Land Development regulation can't be interpreted to render the other Provisions meaningless that's really important right we have to use common sense so if we agreed with the c Mark that well we've positioned the building back from the Gulf to maintain views and Vistas but now you can't really block the North or the Northeast views that doesn't make any sense that's not the intent of the regulations nor how the regulations can be interpreted under Florida law you have to use common sense when you're thinking about these things um it's very important it also means that if you think about it if you take that logic and that we can't block Gulf Vier Vistas or we can't block views two things would happen one anybody that lives along the water at any period of time that wanted to expand beyond the exact footprint or exact height that they have now would be prohibited from doing so you have to think this not not just about the trade wins but about any petition that comes before you that's on the water clearly that's not what the regulations mean and it's very clear that this interpretation really runs a foul of Florida law finally Florida courts um have been very clear that inconsistencies in any of these regulations if you just don't know because you think they conflict if there are any questions you have to apply them to the applicant's property in favor and in construed in favor of the applicant because they are a derogation of property rights so with that I'm going to turn it over to Ken mataf to talk a little bit more about views and I'll be back in a moment thank you good evening mayor Commissioners for the record again my name is Ken meta director of planning with Sterns Weaver Miller um as theise mentioned policy that's future land use element policy 2.1.3 uh simply directs actions in regard to the city's administration of the LDC it doesn't set any standards um and it only addresses Beach views it doesn't talk about Bay views uh so that's also important to keep in mind um very important to understand that there there are no Provisions no policies or objectives and the comprehensive plan and no code Provisions that actually require uh Frontage views from Gul Boulevard that is there's there's no requirement uh in your comprehensive plan or your code that addresses the idea of setting a standard or requiring that a cup uh maintain uh views of the golf from Golf Boulevard uh and I want to make sure it's understood that code section 4.12 that applies uh in the to the city's review of a of a cup and it's specifically the the languages that the city would consider whether the cup would cause um unreasonable or negatively disproportionate impacts to adjacent or nearby structures that's the scope of what's under 4.12 there's no there's no reference at all there to a frontage view from Gulf Boulevard uh with that said you're you're going to hear more testimony uh that in fact we're not impacting views at all from from Gul Boulevard but I just want to make sure that's clear uh so under Section code section 4.12 there are two Provisions you have subsection A4 uh that applies uh to golf views um for properties that are located west of Golf Boulevard so that that would apply to the evaluation of of uh the cup in relation to C Mark as would section 4.12 A9 now 4.12 A9 is the more specific provision uh and I say that because it applies to Temporary lodging facilities uh that are greater than 50 ft in height and greater than 30 units per acre uh so it's a little bit more specific than subsection A4 um and as you've heard and I I'm not going to go into any more detail about it the the tower one has been positioned set back uh from the coastal High Hazard uh area from the Coastal Construction uh control line uh to to maintain the view of seark uh it's oriented it's positioned uh to protect privacy although that's not one of the criteria here uh this just deals with sunlight and Views but uh it doesn't cast any shadows as you've heard on C Mark and uh it doesn't affect their views at all of the gulf uh and so with that I'll uh I'll answer any questions that you may have okay thank you oops wrong way Joe Smith again for the record so you just heard from Ken and and earlier Elise on the leg legal premises for the views from Gul Boulevard or north and Northeast not being able to be part of this decision process I think that was very clear from them but notwithstanding the legal background and the legal position I think it's really important for us it's important for me to convey that actually there are no views so put aside the legal work which is very clear the situation that we have right now and I'll show some video uh shortly that there really are no views from Gul Boulevard out to the beach when you go down the length of the property what you'll only see is two really areas that uh show up as as potentially a question of whether there might be a view and if you look at the next slide we're going to explain we'll show you a video in just a second on why there are no views you're G about to see a video that goes up and down Gulf Boulevard with every inch of it blocked by landscape back of house buildings Hotel buildings the coral reef Herz rental car uh offices but what you might see is a little bit of a gap and actually on that right picture there you see that the Gap today that's how it looks and so some people might be have the misunderstanding of walking up and down Golf Boulevard and say well what's that Gap Joe why is that there isn't that a gap number one you don't see the beach but number two more important L is if you look at the photo on the left that's the place where the coral reef uh building used to be 200 units there that Gap exists because that building is no longer there that building was taken down by trade wi I believe in 2017 if I'm not mistaken in anticipation of development of a bigger building that would block The View even more so when we start looking about you know gaps and and view corridors it's really something that would become very clear we're going to play just a quick video for you so this is turning out of run fish and going south down on g gold as you can see looking to the right there's run Fish Grill I think most of you areed with that there's clearly no views here those people passing so this is what pedest see you seeu the cor building that exist today uh still bling on single in of f if you start to come down here you say okay that's a parking lot I'm still not seeing anything sitting right there that's where the core Le building needs to be and that was taken down historically there was no view you further go down the property and you're not going to see a l and until you get to the Herz building in which case there'll be an area which you'll see not a an open Pathway to the in the back the good news is that beer here we go any walk away this that it's absolutely blly clear that there's not and you see that so here we go again this isut uninterrupted video continuing landscape builds landscap buildings building and then right here you can see perhaps you can see all the way out but you know what's interesting this is where a 30 foot wide Beach axis is so that view quarter you just saw will be there exactly as it is today because of that beach axis uninterrupted straight out to the water so the only view that you have is at one spot and we're preserving it so even when people talk about well what have you done to preserve the views we've done we've preserved the views 100% without any qualifications I think that's really clear but when we sat down with the city and we sat down with the city manager we all kind of looked at each other and said technically you might be right Joe but be better it felt better and so we sat there and said okay I get it you know everyone wants to feel good about this it's not just always 100% compliance is the goal sometimes so what we said is you know what and I remember the meeting specifically with city manager I said I have a surprise for you I said you know the surprise is I'm not just going to preserve views I'm going to create views that not only don't exist anywhere in St Pete Beach they don't exist anywhere in the State of Florida these things only exist in Manhattan they exist in Chicago they exist maybe in San Francisco they don't exist in in state of Florida what we're doing is we're giving a public beach access to the top of the 12th story 12-story building in phase two the main building it's going to have an elevator that's a One-Stop elevator that goes directly to the top so local residents can go up without any delay without having to stop in guest room floors and they're in open open up to a 4,800 ft space that overlooks the gulf the Bay South you're going to be able to see views in many directions and it's going to be a really spectacular view that little um bump out on the left side of the lower picture I think is going to be really interesting it's section number nine that's going to be a glass floor balcony so when you walk out you're going to see straight down 12 stories down into the amenities below the pool area and the lands shape we're really excited about this because again this has never been done to our knowledge anywhere in the State of Florida where you have people come up no charge regular type of of rules in terms of time you don't want people up there at midnight you don't want them drinking alcohol and following off the railing but you do want people to get up there with ease of access be able to enjoy it if you want to bring your public sandwich and a coke byy all means do it there's no obligation to buy anything from us or even buy our food if you want to bring your single use uh individual food go ahead and bring it up with you so this is something that we're just really thrilled to do um and again the the theme Here is I want to make it easy for everyone I want to make it easy to say not only do we preserve views but we've created some of the most amazing views that the city has ever seen and what I'm going to do now is this is a little Glimpse but what we're going to do is show you a video we took a drone at the actual location and we filmed a video of what that roof top uh Viewpoint would look like this is actually the position and the height that actually that view will look like as you can see you can see sweeping views down to the Don CeSar you can see views all the way up and down the beach and actually I think the Drone doesn't do a good job of sweeping all the way around and looking at what you would see further south but that type of view is what we're delivering and I don't think there's a person out there whether you're in opposition or not that can say that these views are not only what the community uh would hope to have but far superior than anything they do have today and so I think it just kills the whole issue of of uh you know of that whole that Viewpoint even though legally we don't have to do this we wanted everyone to win we've always said this when if we are lucky enough to be approved we want everyone to win with us and that's what we've done there's a lot of questions in in the comment section about the community benefits there was a question of why signed development agreement why do this why should the city give up and sign that away something that's longterm there's a lot of good reasons for that it's a quid proquo agreement there's a lot that goes to the community in exchange for cooperation and overtime part of that quid proquo agreement is something very personal and and and important to you commissioner Phils and your constituents th that three Beach uh public beach access was very important to you as you heard a little bit from Elise before we're changing that Northern Beach axis is now going to be a permanent Beach axis built in phase one so that is now off the table I know that was a question you had but we're going to go ahead and do that in Phase One not do it temporary but do that permanent access so you're now going to have no matter what under all circumstances three Beach accesses doesn't mean if we proceed doesn't mean if we stop under all circumstances you're going to have three Beach accesses so I'm extremely proud to say that we're doing that we listened again I know you told us how important it was for your neighborhood and we listened and we went ahead and and did that the customer use eement we haven't talked about a lot there's so many benefits we haven't talked about all these things very much that's over 25,000 square feet on the beach where people can come and lay down put their towels down enjoy no money no requirements to pay us anything they're going to have an easement and access and the right to do that and it's be accessible by the beach access points that's a big deal that's something that doesn't exist up and down St Pete Beach today right we all know that these are all private beaches and the res complain about not having their own space well guess what we're doing it it's big it's 25,000 Square ft uh we're obviously paying for the beachwalk that could be millions of dollars we don't know yet we haven't seen the design full Dune restoration that's again something that doesn't you know get done in phases or it's a maybe that gets done internal circulation Road reducing the curb cuts by 60% from 10 to six the 10- foot sidewalk these are all things that create The Pedestrian environment that we all want to see in our community the uh you know we will pay for any uh safety improvements that are discovered by F fot that's on our bill 1,250,000 will be paid over 10 years for the mobility basically the freebie shuttle uh Emergency Services study will pay our fair share these are not even all the benefits they keep on going on and on right environmental commissioner res Nikki we've talked about the importance of the environmental very much um as well as I have with the other Commissioners the and I would don't need to recap everything I said but remember we're building lead silver certified buildings that's probably to add tens of millions of dollars of additional cost of the development we're doing all the new buildings not just one but all of them we're using an excess and we will try to do an excess of 50% fora native friendly um landscape we're using reclaimed water and cool roof to reduce the heat island these are all things that we heard from you we heard from the community we went back we changed and we said you know what this is what the community wants we're going to do it so um Turtle protection we've all seen the press that we're going to spend We Believe up to $5 million on replacing every single Cabana out on the beach which is by itself a couple million dollar ticket we're going to do all the tinting on the window so the turtles no longer are are confused at night so some of the Lisa uh Reich um uh emails and photos relate to what you can see through a window well we're addressing that we've we've committed to it it's part of the development agreement we can't back out this is something we have to do so I appreciate Lisa's comments but this is already in process it's already documented if we get approved this will happen we can't change our minds um we've done the mock turtle nest and educational we have sea turtle trackers come over and make presentations so I guess they'll educate people not to touch the sea tural Nest our our staff is trained on how to contact them and how to deal with it we're already until we get that tint in have placards on the window saying close your blinds at night so that you don't confuse the turtles but we want to get that tint done as well so I'll turn it back over to uh Alise but again we're really happy that we can just take a lot of these issues off the table and rather than have a lanking conversation ton night do the hard work for you hopefully and and commit to them right now thank you very much thank you Joe Alise Batel for the record um one person said in the last hearing what are you giving up by approving this and and I would ask you to think about it a different way what are you giving up by not approving this project and it's all those Community benefits that Joe just outlined um this project is thoughtfully designed it has beautiful architecture it's very sensitive to neighboring properties and it will create a myriad of community benefits for this generation and the next I want to end with not my own comments but comments that you heard at the last meeting from your own St Pete beat res residents in life change is inevitable the trade wins proposal is positive change change isn't risky being stagnant is St sorry City attorney but these are audience comments that are being reread would this be considered this is not rebuttal um definitely not rebuttal everything that's happened so far has been rebuttal I've been listening very carefully she's been able to do it I think she's just doing a conclusion sure but uh yeah if you I was concluding instead of telling you myself about all these great things that we just talked about I was using their words so um yeah I don't think this is remot but it's just conclusion um so with that we would ask if we could submit the modified conditions that talk about the public beach access um talk about the Telecommunications condition um and also the four Diamond rating condition that we already submitted we have a red line of those conditions uh to submit for the record and we would also propose the revisions to the development agreement that reflect the same thing um so with that we're here to answer any questions we really appreciate your time and attention this evening May ask a quick question cuz I just want to do some housekeeping here so I mean I have have a copy of this one the the what you handed out which is the telecomunication oh telecomunications then I wrote down uh the the north beach access phase one is a change right Suzanne can you hand a copy so you do have something that you were going to hand out okay great sorry the tele Communications was done after the rest um yeah so we there was a beach a all beach access will be permanent beach access at phase three yes and then there was a condition that was submitted at the main hearing that's also Incorporated related to the four Diamond that we discussed during the main hearing those are redlined for you and then a removal of the outdoor dining cup for the restaurant yes okay we do have copies for if you each want them thanks thank you to clarify this does not remove the cup request 4 the second of rooftop no it's it looks like it's the restaurant that's by the pool between the camark in the new building you'll see in the conditions the modification that keeps the rooftop restaurant in phase two that's still going forward it's it just refers to the beachfront restaurant in phase one that's what's been stricken from the conditions thank you okay any questions before we close the quasa judicial proceedings portion just one real quick one if you had to make a guess on how long assuming the cup was uh approved because there only way I can ask that question how long would phase one last in your mind um Joe Smith for the record so uh we would start working assum assuming approval tonight we'd start working on construction detailed draw uh drawings for a submission uh for a permit my goal would be to Pro you know submit that within 12 months and bid it and start construction you know soon thereafter as we can maybe it's 18month construction period so some of the next two and a half to three years hopefully phase one will be done thank you just to add for the record there is in 4A a requirement that we submit uh that site plan application within one year that is part of the da I've got a couple questions for just clarification and you answered some of them but um regarding the marine turtle compliance with the existing properties so they'll be compliant by the end of phase one so the lighting right now according to Pete dwire is compliant Your da also requires that we continue to work with SE trackers in the city because again we we get conflicting things from different people but the compliance that we're talking about by the end of phase one is actually going into all of the existing buildings that aren't required to be compliant today and making them compliant by putting the turtle film on every window of all of the existing buildings so that will start in we'll do that as part of the phase one construction it's going to take us a while we obviously have to get all the permissions from the appropriate buildings and associations um and we will have to go in and actually do that and enter all the units and do that but yes okay yeah because my question are conern I clarify something to your point um commissioner and and I could ask Wayne because I've asked this question because when you say that we are compliant um I did go ask to find out whether a survey has been done um and there has not been a survey done what kind survey survey is for light lighting so um code enforcement and uh c um trackers I don't know if they do it together or separate and Wayne maybe you could help clarify this um they go out and do a survey um typically before um the start of turtle season which is May 1st next week I believe as of today there has not not been a survey done so I just want I want to make sure that's clarified because I I don't like hearing that we're compliant when there hasn't been a survey done possibly this year so I just want to make sure that that we get that clarified um city manager by all means if you'd like to chime in go ahead but my point would be that we're in constant communication right so I think the concept of having a survey at this date certain and a survey that date certain that's not how our process has typically worked although I can look back at my files and see if we have surveys I mean that in a good way we're constantly getting feedback we're having you know SE tur trackers coming and saying you missed that you need to do this so that constant kind of involvement has just been a process we've always worked through so I haven't been delivered a date of a you know date certain that a survey needs to be done or will be done but I can check with the operations team and see if they they have something done we're happy to do it I think we just have a much more frequent communication than a server date yes I did ask that question of uh of Pete dwire and uh the response I guy was been doing this every year at least for the eight last eight years um Clearwater Marine Aquarium conducts uh the yearly Sur lighting survey along with uh sea turtle C trackers cooperation uh that our code enforcement works with that um that's scheduled is scheduled for next week and uh then they will use that to schedule any any other follow-up inspections property owners and business owners of any infractions will be notified following that and Wayne or Andrew perhaps um you can clarify because I know that um Miss Batel touched on it but there's there's uh essentially older buildings that are grandfathered in right like the the because i' I've heard I've heard Talk of the old in compliance with the old ordinance and bringing old buildings up to compliance with the new ordinance and so is is I'm wondering if some of the confusion is coming from compliant with with which ordinance and which one do they have to be compliant with because to my knowledge the city hasn't required every Hotel on the beach to come into compliance with the the most recent ordinance is am I understanding that correctly I believe so okay so my my thought process on this is it's it's easy to get wrapped up into compliance not compliance but to me it's not what it's about it's about sea turtles and saving their lives um you know so I guess my question is you know we're talking about end phase one that could be 3 years from now so you know how quickly could efforts be done early on in the project one and then two the second part would be you touched on it briefly in in your rebuttal but what are you guys going to be doing to help educate guest because there's little things on the beach that guests could be doing like filling in holes not leaving Toys out on the beach so I think those are little mitigation factors that's it's important to educate guests on yeah I mean first of all I totally agree with you this is is about helping sea turtles so you know this is why um I joked about it one time I don't remember it was the plane board or with you but I'll go out on the beach myself and I'll take photos and I'll say we need to change this we need to do no one's telling me you know there's no organization that's coming in saying you should look at this differently a lot of times I'm doing it before anyone tells us and you know that doesn't mean I'm perfect but it does mean I agree with you the goal is to do the best job we can and so that's why I kind of say well the survey I don't I don't really no that's not really the operation team deals with the specific surveys but it's my job as a leader of the organization to go say what can we do more and that's why we're spending $5 million on the right things to help the sea turtles but the education we have two mock nests where we literally have U Billboards by it saying this is what a sea turtle Nestle looks like don't touch it stay away from it alert a team member the team members on the beach are all trained what to do to contact sea turtle trackers they have con you know sweeps to the beach they talk to each other all the time so the education part is Big we even have Sea Trail track tracker members come and give presentations to our guests about what's happening here what's the right thing to do so um you're absolutely right the this I I'm not aware of anyone else doing this on sine Beach or actually even clear water for that matter but uh or actually on the west coast of Florida I'm not aware of anyone but I'm really proud to say that we are and we're going that extra step no one told us to do this no one said you should do it this is part of our DNA and um I couldn't agree with you more that's where we are that's what we'll continue to do questions oh timing I'm sorry thank you for reminding me so yeah the only reason why I I hedge on that is because I'm dealing with parties I can't control right so I have um Blu green time share uh Association I have the Jack Randa Hotel Condo Association if it's just us I think you know we have a fully approved non-appealable cup we can hit it right away I mean we'll go out and do an RFP and do it and it'll be a matter of a handful of months before it's done so I'd like to say that this will be done within a year but I need to make sure that this is a fully approved cup that's non appealable that we are moving forward in all the right direction um I need to work with blue green and Jack Randa on what we do there and how that's done I can't just walk into someone else's um unit and say I'm going to put film on your window I have to explain what this is for why it's being done they're going ask me questions about is it going to change the view to the beach is that going to hurt my guest experience we have to go through this whole education process how important it is for the turtle so um you know that's just something I've had to deal with the trade wins and something I will deal with in the future so you currently don't have approval from Jack coranda and the other one to go ahead and do this uh well if I'm going to pay for it I imagine there's probably not an issue with them uh we do have Buy in from the Jack r a board members this makes sense but I want to present it to the entire Association um we're not just steamrolling anyone so uh we we will it'll happen for sure I mean I'm paying for it okay I think what what I have a major issue with on this particular topic is um we do have other parties Property Owners right we have time shares and you have condo Resort owners um who also probably feel they have property rights and what they want or the the struggles that you're having to get them to be compliant I don't feel comfortable saying we wait to the end of phase one for for the site to be compliant because we are in the process of changing Beach codes um in the city um and possibly looking into improving our turtle um ordinance as well and I wouldn't want to lump the whole property in this because as far as I remember and and you can correct me um city manager um that when people are fined or if fined it's by individual Property Owners if there's an issue at a condo building um it's not the condo building that gets the issue I know I've heard and I've spoken with Pete in the past that they actually figure out which unit is non-compliant and then address that unit owner right not the building so you know I wouldn't want a lump the whole property as to being compliant because there are things that currently can be done today you mentioned education there's a lot of things even closing your windows that they can be doing today that doesn't have anything to do with film right you've mentioned to me in the past before about putting things on Windows to educate people we stickers but I'm talking about all properties old and potentially the new right we have them on all the windows across the property right now coral reef cannot speak for but I can and that's why I'm mentioning this because there's other properties that are on that lot and we're talking about a zoning lot right so again I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that the whole property would be compliant because something can trigger that they all need to be compliant today um and you know again you know that that's several seasons of of I mean it's next week you've got all those wooden Cabanas out there today right um so you know unless you're telling me today you're going to start stacking them there's a lot of stuff out there including a big water slide and other um numerous objects that are on that beach that concerns me um I wouldn't want to say wait till end of phase one um for this particular um topic on on T compliance yeah I I understand what you're saying commissioner um at the same time I'm sure you can see my position is that I want a fully approved non-appealable cup um so there's that timing issue but once we do have that and it can no longer be appealed and everything forward um yeah I don't I don't have a problem using our best efforts to get it done within you know a year of that point so so it's not two or two and a half or three years out in the future that's that's not an issue we're aligned we want to get it done I just we need to have clear direction of where we're going to cup I got another question along the line of stuff that's on the beach the zip line something I'm not clear about was that zip line staying yes okay and then another question um talked about the median which not to get to off topic but I just want to ask the city manager about that median because it's a big concern maybe not everyone understands how big of a concern it could be but for people who live in be Shores it is it would be a very big concern if they move that blocking a left-and turn into that neighborhood if that is a result of the safety study that it needs to go there what we as a city how can we fight back on that so that doesn't happen well the city of course do is in control but I think they in the past they've been very good at negotiating and working with the city if there are particular issues like that so that would be a discussion we would have with this particular dot District if if we see a plan that that's going to be there then we can raise up that objection and show the reasons for that and like I said in the past they've been very Cooperative but it would be a negotiation between the city and do okay thank you and and um Mr Sanders in in reference to that Medium because we do have two curb cuts the service entrance and coral reef that I think are proposed as right turn only so since they're being proposed as right turn only wouldn't naturally fdot say place the medium there because you're going to want to discourage someone trying to make a left turn versus a right turn um if there is no medium there so to me the medium could potentially be become recommended as a safety because we don't want people to left turn if if the curves or if the the Ingress and egress of the service and coral reef are only right turn Lanes if I if I understand your question um right now we have more points of Ingress Ingress with write in write out and there's no median there and I'm not aware of any recommendation from F do to put a median there um so reducing the number and keeping two right in right outs I I'm not a traffic expert nor am I representative fot I don't know how that may compel a conversation about the the median I know there's different opinions and I think that's something that you as a city will have to decide uh what's best for the city uh I know in the past there's been city managers who have said oh this is fantastic let's do a median uh and I know in the in the present that's something that is very sensitive and and you don't want done we're not pushing for a median we're not recommending it we're not asking for it so we're really hands off on the whole topic so I I can't speak for f do beyond that obviously I can't speak ref thought either but as far as the situation of a write out only you know there's certainly ways that can be constructed leaving their property that prevents what you're at you know people just even though the science is right time ear a lot of people may want to turn left but that's something we would review at site review of of trying to make sure that it's designed where it is a right out yeah that that was a question I had as well what measures will be taking to prevent people from trying to make a left turn there yeah and there is a median there now but it's in between 58th and 59th right um that would be under the design review and I sorry I had one more question okay I was you talk about the right in right out it can be designed what we call a pork chop in in the driveway itself so that will help restrict it to write in and write out only so not necessarily affecting the access across the street so they could keep the immediate and we would just make that a a pork chop in there and design it so it would discourage anybody for making a left in or left out I wasn't sure of what that technical term of pork chop was glad that engineering degree is paying off commission um you touched earlier about eliminating some of the parking spots so I guess that's a question I have what measures are being being done to deter the public from using the Extra Spaces in the parking garage I I think it's important to realize um one that we're really not overp parked I think there's a misunderstanding out there thinking that we have all this excess parking the conversation internally is we have just enough for our internal business that's really what we've built that's what we think we have um so um you know I've talked about before that we will probably have guard gate you know arms to let people in um because we want to keep the flow traffic moving we don't want queuing up on GF Boulevard um but if you park and you're not a gas and you go through that guard gate and you grab a ticket it's probably going to be a un merciless price that will be charged upon you and I think that's a big deterrent right so the guests that go to the restaurant or at the hotel they'll get validated and they'll be part of their fees and they'll have the right to go in there but one of the tools we would use is just pricing to keep people you know away from doing Beach parking or or whatever you have okay thank you um you you mentioned the the amenities of the zip line and obviously you have a lot of other amenities yeah um that's a current um uh permit correct to have the zip line out there yeah my understanding is it's part of the um slide permit so it was put under the slide permit I believe the slide permit I think is a cup if I'm not mistaken well uh the permit we did was with the D for sure for the zip line um that I know for sure that that Pro we had a conversation with DP about that and the water do do you still use a water park outside on the gulf that floats in the Gulf we do on on occasion it's not there out there every day but based upon demand and weather yes and that's also um a license or permit from the city to allow I believe it's all licensed but I not the technical expert on that and I don't know if anyone has a uh on your BTR yeah okay um when when visiting you know and more than once you know out there there's a lot of intensity on what we call the preservation Zone on on the beach um and for submitting a cup that has great intensity on the landward side of the CCL I at least was hoping and would like for there to be less intensity on the number one asset that not just residents but even commercial this is what we we protect this is our mission right it's a green statement um it to me um and I think I've heard this many times even on beach stewardship um uh committee meetings that we've had um about that intensity um when I was out there the what I see and what I felt was and this will be a feeling so this don't take it as as evidence um but it was my feeling um was um the current behavior is indicative of future behavior and as I sat there knowing that Turtle season is coming and knowing how many Cabanas are out there and knowing that there's the glow volleyball going on there's a vehicle that comes up the beach to collect the globe volleyball um net um not licensed to drive on the beach but out there on the beach um then you know I I see the the water slide um I'm imagining that's emptied on a daily basis so God knows how much water is just being poured out back into the beach um I see the zipline um know about the water park um and just think goodness why couldn't this all have been brought in landward of the CCL um because it's intense you know it it was very disappointing for me to see that what I see as the current behavior could continue to be the future behavior um and and you know again I I did look at the cup for the the water slide I didn't see the zipline attached to that um you know it's it's a lot you know so not only are we building intensely on this lot it's intense on the beach as well so I just wanted to make that comment because it it is disappointing and I'm trying to hear haven't had a chance to talk with the commission but just hearing um commissioner um discussed you know about the water slide it's a lot more than just that water slide so I I appreciate that comment thank you for making that um you know if you Google St Pete Beach um and one of the first things that pops up is the slide and so we're at a point where you say and the cup if you read some of the requirements it says you know maintain the culture of St Pete Beach the even use the word family I believe so you're at a point of saying the CP compels us and as we want to create this family environment right that's what treade wins is all about um a lot of the reasons why people love Tradewinds and they love the family environment just to be very candid is the slide is the water park it's the beach activities people come here for that if you start taking that away you're in a way dismantling the business which is tough right um and I'm just being very honest with you it's very tough just to sit there and say come back to our property pay us the same amount of money and um come back year after year but I'm going to take all the stuff you like away because you can't fit a slide like that you know land with of CCL there there's there's no but you're adding two huge Resort pools you have a title um what do you call it Surf Rider that's being installed there so you're still adding more um Family amenities I think you've mentioned to me before about the bowling alley you know the the ice cream parlor all the other things that are um not seword of the CCL right so I don't think you're losing that family um uh desire you know to be there I don't see the water slide as a plus I I see that as a sore um I've you know I I live closer towards the dawn on the south side and unfortunately I can see it from way over there and and I I just don't I would never want to encourage any other commercial um property on the beach to want to be adding slides this is not Disney World you're adding slides already on your pool so I don't think you're losing that and I'm sorry I'm just going to say that because I I do see that you're creating the environment landward right so things like the floating water park is taken in every day it's not left out there if you actually walk up and down the beach it's not there most days it's that they occasionally I'd say I think you probably agree with that it's not usually not there in water so some of these things are not there often um some like the slide is there all the time um we you mentioned about motorized vehicles and things like that again our staff is trained on how to spot and deal with and there are sweeps done on the beach every day sometimes more than once for turtl Ness um so this is something that we accommodate for the way we operate to be sensitive so it's something that we're not just blowing off I think again that we're more Vigilant than anyone else up and down sa P Beach and I can say that confidently or probably Clear Water Beach um and so I don't know how we can be doing more those aspects and again it's my personal belief that if you start taking away things like a slide which isn't part of the CP application today um you know uh we're talking about an existing business that's not something that's part of this application that would be significantly damaging to our business that that slide's been there a long time I remember when it was on the beach before was trade when slide I'm just going to ask the question would you consider getting rid of the zip line of the zip line uh really we were not considering getting rid of any of the existing amenities um I think there's an economic impact for us getting rid of the economic amenities the zipline I think is probably less impactful between the slide and the zip line so um it's something that you know we count on for our everyday business and our customers have relied upon and if we take it away they're and ask where it went I and just to give you some perspective on that the the reason I asked about the zip line and I'm caught up on it a bit is the access that many residents and beur is used to get to the beach that we've talked about kind of in the middle of the property there one day there was just a zip line basically going over your head there so it was a bit bit of an eyesore um I understand it's moved now it has moved a southern location yeah right by the slide okay so it's a little bit out of the way now and is that where it would remain um I believe so I'd have to check the team if there's some other reason they would have for moving it but I believe so okay anything else that's it for me what's the the maximum and and I actually I think I know the answer but I want to see if I'm correct is the height of the rooftop Terrace the top including the roof 139 ft Fe Scott the uh Scott eisenhart the sis Architects uh Dallas Texas the height to the roof is 116 above BF uh there's another 12 ft uh for the amenity level so the roof above that would be uh 128 ft and with the base flood elevation and I'm I'm referencing page 194 um which is a profile view of the building and it's labeled 139 so that's why I want to I want to know if that's what the height is the it's a it's a profile view of the building correct if you add4 page 194 yeah so by adding the 11 ft for the base flood elevation that gets you to the9 thank you you won't be able to you won't be able to see it in those pages it's so small you have to look at it on your computer and zoom in on it you won't okay it's trust me yeah even with my glasses I won't be able to see it okay any further questions for the applicant at this time but you know what I got one more can you touch again why this is a 20-year project and why there's a benefit for the community of it being a 20-year project thank you absolutely um and and Joe fill in if would you prefer to talk about it or so the one thing that the applicant is asking for under the development agreement is to pause in between the phases and the reason is because of a lot of what Joe has heard and I was Joe dealt with this project long before I got involved for over a year I think this project was contemplated before I was the attorney on the project and the concern was constant construction from having phase built after phase built after phase built um and the second concern was an economic concern and that is when you build a phase you want to make sure that the market absorbs those rooms before you go on to the next phase if there's something weird that happens we just had a pandemic if if there's something in the market where people I don't know we have terrible red tide for three seasons in a row and people aren't coming to Florida the last thing from a business perspective that they would probably want to do at that time is to go forward on the next phase economically for their business so the idea that's the one thing that we're asking for from the city in connection with the development agreement um the big thing all of those additional Community benefits are in connection with that 20 years that is why the developer has been able to say yes I I thank you for giving us the flexibility it doesn't mean it's going to take 20 years but thank you for allowing us the business flexibility to allow those units to absorb if it becomes necessary in the market to do that before we go forward with the next phase the benefits that the community are getting are all of those front-loaded benefits I mean it's the timing of those benefits and the amount of those benefits without that agreement from the city the developer can't afford to go forward and spend $20 million on day one unless they know they have the time from a business perspective to make this work and also um you know the the units that they'll be able to build over time so that's my understanding I'm going to let Joe pipe in if there's anything that I've forgotten so I also think we need to think realistically about how this happens because we said we're going to build the whole thing right now it still probably takes 8 to 10 years because to get the amount of construction Crews available the materials the supplies and build those different buildings may not even if we want to build all right now may not happen all today the contractor may come in and say no I need phase two to Stage the storage of my steel and concrete while we're building phase one so I can't do it so even if I said hey go build everything today they may come back say Joe you're not getting it it doesn't matter it's still so when talking to the community from the uh official meeting to all the meetings we've had loud and clear from the community in fact you all receiv received a copy of a letter from a jack around unit owner saying I don't want 15 years of solid construction and once we called them and said no no no I think there's a misunderstanding this isn't 15 years solid construction he he calmed down and said oh okay I you should change the way you're representing this because I was confused I thought this is 15 years and there'd be a material impact my unit and I would say I agree with you if there's 15 years straight construction that wouldn't be good for you I get it so there's really a logistical thing and what we heard from the community loud and clear is don't go and build this for 10 years straight we'd much rather have 18 months of construction and a space for us to recover for you to recover for you guys to make sure that those units are the right thing God forbid you build them and they actually don't run up as well as you think well I'd rather have you stop and build a bunch of other phases and we also one of these ghost cities in China where it's a bunch of empty units right these are all things the community has told us and we've listened but I would say just because we're cautious and we're practical about this doesn't mean that we won't build it faster right if we see an opportunity to accelerate or it's the right time or it's going well with the community it's well accepted by residents by gas we might say okay let's not take the pause let's go ahead and build the next one it just depends but um you know those are some of the Practical things that why we need the term but may not necessarily use the full term so the only other comment that I'll make and this is just seeing how development has worked in Florida for a number of years and that is we often have hurricanes and what happens is you'll see these executive orders come out all the crews come after a hurricane and they go to take care of the disastrous stuff that has happened and the they're reconstructing all the things that were torn down and sometimes the ability to get people to actually come and workers and steal and everything else it it causes a lag in time as well we see that over and over again with hurricanes and so Joe you know might not be thinking about that but we see that from Florida development on a regular basis and that's why typically the governor will issue that executive order and say that all your permits and approvals are extended for a period of time because you can't get workers and you can't get supplies in order to do the construction so just one other thing to think about on this issue you know one last thing I wanted to add uh commissioner resik about the slide so because we do have different stakeholders in our group we actually have like a contractual obligation to bluen for one for keeping that slide open so when we start saying hey you know can you take down the slide or remove the slide there are financial implications that just Ripple through so many aspects that I know it seems like a simple request but the economic damage our business would be there' probably be lawsuits flying and there'd be all kinds of stuff so it's it's really tough on us I mean just want you to know that we also could have environmental damage as well so um one question on the development order do you have a list of things that you all would want to keep versus us just giving a 20-year development order that says um you know keep everything what it is today could you tell us instead you mentioned disaster but an executive order I would think would would still pause um a permit regardless but is there a list of things that you all have instead of just just us saying everything that's today I'm sorry I don't understand the question um what is it that they were trying to protect over 20 years you mean why are they going to why do they want the flexibility extending the yes well I I think you just heard from Joe a from a business perspective wanting those units to be able to absorb before you go forward and also the the disasters right wanting to make sure that if we can't get supplies and we don't know what's going to happen over the 20 year period right um think about it nobody thought we were going to have a pandemic that would shut down the hotel industry for two years and completely you know devastate a lot of hotels that weren't able to reopen because they couldn't make it um we in our minds that just happened we don't know what might happen and I think that's the issue is allowing us that pause and flexibility allows us to continue and meet our obligations under the development order doesn't mean we're going to take the 20 years but it gives us a business perspective to say we we have to make this work and you heard from Joe I mean we are talking about millions and millions and millions of dollars of investment and infrastructure in the St Pete Beach Community and that comes the cost of that is you know allowing the business to do it in a way that they can make it successful so they can comply with their obligations and they can continue to build and perform on all the things that you've asked them to do I mean there are some things that don't happen till the end because it can't but I think the community wants to see all of that happen um for a cohesive project uh that that's you know what I can add did that answer your question no but I don't know if Andrew do you know executive orders from the state or Governor pause cups or permits let's just say it I mean the timing of them they they may extend them but I think the question Miss Batel that is being asked is you so the development agreement you're getting vested right you want I mean we're the project under we get to build the buildings today right but there's no vesting for concurrency with the exception of this traffic I understand that right yeah yeah but I mean as far as like the point of all this is so you don't have changing codes and changing situations all the time that you you have a you have some certainty over time and the reason you're asking for overtime is that you want to be able to operate and continue but I think what said that far better than I did I think what the commissioner if I'm not Mish hearing her is she's just was asking the opposite like what exactly did you want to be vested for in terms of going in the future did you want to um because you know we're having a beach we have a beach ordinance coming up for example that's that's a new that's a new ordinance that's going to happen and it may it may apply you know things like that now I understand the question so this development agreement says you're you're looking at a site layout basically what what this development agreement does to us is it says we can build these buildings in in the location as laid out on that conceptual site plan if there are changes to the Florida building code we have to comply with those changes to the Florida building code if there are other changes that affect how we build something or in one manner we are not asking I mean we we can't contract with the city to you know for changes to the building we just want to be able to look at the site plan and say I can build this building in this spot does that make sense right so for example if setbacks change or you know like overtime you know a new commission comes in and you know they the setbacks to the cccl or something like that might change this is a way for them to be vested for that period of time and have certainty for it does that make sense is that what you were asking about if there's a change in I mean we're about to go into the beach ordinance since you brought that up ex and I know we're mentioning the the water slide and this has been mentioned like I said before and I know there there's um I read the cup you know and and I know that the water slide could be removed that's not part of this right now but it could be but because of the cup since you're mentioning you want to keep all current amenities does that mean that we are tied to hold that forever for 20 years or until they decide to change their business model let's use the beach change it let's use the beach ordinance for example they would have to comply with a new beach ordinance they that's not part of this development agreement it's not part of um the cup that they're requesting so if the city were to say we have a new beach management ordinance we're making an omnus you know area and by the way it's going to change things that may affect you know their Beach they would have to comply Li with it so they're not the the cup that they're getting doesn't uh vest them in any way to to the things that you were raising am i that's correct yeah yes absolutely and any other ordinance that wouldn't affect the the site plan for example like if if you change the noise ordinance and it's a lower decibal that isn't you know those things we're it is site related issues right you still have regulatory abilities going forward except for the part that are under the cup which is primarily the site plan and the timing of it under the d da maybe it's best to to to address it like this unless it's specifically addressed in the cup or it's specifically shown on the cup site plan we have to comply with everything as it changes so that only those things that are in the cup and the development agreement that differ that's it everything else we have to comply with any changing codes maybe that was a better way to to say it anything further thank you thank you before we conclude the qual judicial I do have one question for the city manager um you've been doing this for a while uh in your experience how many development agreements have you seen that exceed 10 years not more than a couple I mean how is it one in 100 one in 10 boy you're asking me to think back over a lot of years mayor well you've got the experience and we I've seen very few that would go over 10 years I'll just put it that way great thank you all right unless there's anything else at this time I we're going to close a quasi judicial and I think it might be appropriate time for a recess yes and we can also review the new conditions that the applicant has given us and put into the record as well uh so with that um let's say we'll be back at so we're going to close the quasa judicial portion of the hearing and then we will reconvene at 9:10 p.m. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e so the next thing before is for the commission to deliberate on the merits of this conditional use application and um take it from there mayor if I could address one thing real quick um because it it was brought up about the discussion about the different types of things that are on on the beach type of activities and so forth and and maybe I could have either Kristen or or Jennifer get up but basically the long and short because because she said BTR uh from the chair and I wanted to make sure that it was it was there but my understanding is that all of those things are regulated in one manner or another either through you know the slides got its own cup um you know the other ones have you know maybe type of licenses if you have to have a car on there you have to have a it that's got to be licensed etc etc they should be on the BR the BTR right business tax receipt um but there's also a level of State regulation that goes into it as well so I just want to make is that is that a fair statement Jennifer everything that is on the beach has some type of permit or regulation that we are doing as well as the state so D is involved um you know like the slide for example the state is the final say on on that permit that's on the beach um I can't pull up the BTR to confirm that's where the zip line and that is on there but um it is the just like vehicles on the beach permits we issue those um if there's temporary structures we issue those um so those are all regulated in some way shape or form so just to clarify that thank you appreciate it okay 1,200 Pages I'm sure all you all have some comments right M so I'm not sure uh where everybody else is is landing on uh the process that we want to use or or or some kind of framework to start the discussion um I didn't know if we wanted to um start just with uh section 4.4 on the standards of review of a conditional use and and discuss if if we think that this application is sufficient or if there was start with 4.2 other topics that that we wanted to chat about I mean four 4.2 I was assuming the applications and administrative review process is is a bit more of a city staff issue yes and when we get to 4.4 that's uh seem uh my interpretation of that is that that's where we as the commission come into evaluating um but but I'm I'm open to wherever you want to start but well the commission comes in at 4.1 that's where the commission comes in when it's talks about the review of conditional permit applications and then it gives instructions as to what the commission may or may not you know sure no I mean I I was my my point was to to look for a spot on which to begin the discussion I'm simply saying we could we should start in the beginning rather than abely on second or third point where where wherever anyone would like so I mean look I'll when you look at 4.1 um just a brief reading of FP 4.1 that states that the purpose talking about the purpose of conditional use application certain uses are conditional rather than uses by right they're subject to the conditional use regulations because they may but do not necessarily have significant adverse effects on the environment Public Service the desired character of an area or they may create nuisances a review of these uses is necessary due to the impact they may have on the surrounding area or neighborhood conditional uses sorry conditional use for review provides an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts to allow the use but to impose mitigative mitigation measures to address identified concerns or to deny that the concerns cannot be resolved the city commission may approve applications for condition uses in accordance with the procedure standards limitations of the this division so what 4.1 tells us is that one the very first thing it tells us that certain conditions are not uses by right so you get 30 units per acre by right you don't get 7 75 you can apply for 75 up to 75 those condition but those uses may be conditional and then the reason that it states that is because certain uses as it says may have adverse effect on the environment the public service the desired character they may create a nuisance and if there is an opportunity right if there conditional if those uses are not they have minimal impact as it says you can then look at approving a project or if you can have mitigative measures to address the concern so the staff in their staff report had I don't know what it was 20 30 pages of um of concerns that they pointed out and if you feel that those M that those mitigation measures address those concerns again or you can deny if you don't feel that the concerns can be addressed and resolved so one of the areas I think you could start is by simply saying we have a long list of issues that were pointed out by you know both the staff and testimony that we've heard and and then we've heard what the proposed mitigative measures are and are those measures sufficient or are they insufficient just to make sure we're uh in sync between you computer folks and US paper copy folks any particular page we're looking at right now on the handouts or are you on the comp plan right now yeah I'm I'm on the city website looking at the Land Development code okay but I believe it is in the might be in the um package as well will be in the staff report out the conditions oh I got it this one where we got all the tabs all right think it's very beginning May would you like to go through the staff rep that suggest I this that was commissioner Marriott's recommendation and we can go through the staff report or we can just have a discussion any particular issues that you're seeing or something you like something you don't like something you have concern about you know how we're mitigating these concerns I I asked my questions that I had and they had answers to most my questions I'm curious of anyone else's questions or concerns I I feel the same way I've been studying this for weeks and weeks and we've had um two sessions ask a lot of great questions um so I guess I'm more in the hear mode from my constituents on whether you've got some concerns so I can analyze those but um I I think I've heard what I need to hear I can just go through some concerns if that that's fine forget about going in in the order um one being um so this is the design so I don't know what number it is you all could find it if You' like to um but specifically with the facade of the the garage for one so I'll just start there um and and maybe I didn't hear it in the plan board I I really believed that or I thought that the greenery on that facade was real not fake um so when I heard it at the last meeting I was I was kind of surprised because I was taking that into consideration as far as greencape right or the green space ratio um is is the plants um and then I was um surprised because I know um the architect mentioned um having having done um the one that's in Disney Springs um and I had seen that before and you know thinking of Disney World i' I would never imagine that they have anything fake in Disney World you think of everything is nicely manicured but by coincidence I happen to be there so and and I went and I saw it and I parked and and I actually have a piece of it not because not because I um pulled it but I was very disappointed because um and and I'll pass it either way so you can feel it um I parked at the top level and I went down the staircase of that parking garage and I was with my daughter and my friends that we were out celebrating um for our birthday and simply by to my surprise and anybody who's been to Disney knows that usually they pick up the garbages off the floor they're very meticulous right well all of these pieces were were on the floor my daughter just happened to pass her hand over on top because she didn't believe me that it was um fake so as she's doing that all these little pieces are just falling very brittle down to the floor so again thinking of our green mission on our comprehensive plan um and the location of this building being close to the beach storm water um and so forth um we all know we have great strong breezes on the beach that all these little pieces would eventually fall um into our waterways right so and and when you're looking at it really close you know it's fake right so you know it's not real so you know I'm not really pleased with with that and and I'll be one to say you know fortunately I was able to see it I wouldn't have thought about it twice if I hadn't actually seen it um so I am disappointed um with that and and would not agree to having um fake plants I know we talked talk about or was mentioned was um conservation of water right so reduction of water um by not having to water these plants um but then again these plants provide a lot for our environment right it's a source of oxygen right for for us um so do you want to spend the money on watering the plants or do you want to spend the money on replacing the plants that are constantly falling apart so there's still a cost so just thinking green and our mission um I just wanted to bring that to to the commission's attention and to the mayor because I really would have not thought other than my surprise last meeting hearing that it wasn't real um I just happen to have a chance to see it so um so that's just just one that was also if you don't mind um one of the concerns brought up in the staff report correct on page 37 and I'm quoting from there it says primary concern related to the feature that front Golf Boulevard particularly the parking garage so they're addressing this particular issue and one of the other things that they cite is that despite improvements the garage elevations and renderings still show substantial openings they are clearly vehicle storage because one of the things that's in the Land Development code is that a garage as funny as it sounds may not look like a garage it should not be I forget what the verbiage is easily identifiable as such I believe or something along those lines so your concerns were also U brought up um and the staff did not have a solution for that because it says despite improvements that the applicant has made um they don't feel that it was clearly mitigated thank you that's correct um the other one that staff did bring up in the report had to do with the South um West corner where the restaurant is um one of the concerns was the turnaround for the fire Tru um and I know that the second option was stated in the report well if we're not able to do that turnaround whether it's because of the the beach walk or approval of f f um fdp um that the amenity would be moved and that's very vague for me that the amenity would be moved um when I did go and I did speak with um the Fire Marshall and the fire sheath just to see if they knew what that second option would be um and I did speak with you know Brendan and Kristen and we talked about it and none of us had seen that second option um which I think is important because there isn't Unknown about what the Beach Walk is going to look like I know it's written that the city will be planning or designing it um again big question mark I really don't know what it looks like um I want a guarantee on on depth um I think not I think I know because I I went back and I looked at the saratas plan that had a depth of 100 ft average of um Dune system that was um this I'll just call it designed but on their plan but we don't have a definitive plan on this particular site so again that's a big question mark there's current Dunes being um installed right now um uh so and that's a big question mark for me and if anybody wants to look at the look for it in the staff report I know it's in the staff report um that it's asking about um that particular option so I I do feel very uncomfortable with a lot of the U we shall sees right uh if we can't do this then we'll do something else comparable like the even the thing about the cell phone antenna it's not saying we're going to fix it we're just going to do another study and if our study says something different from what your study says then be fine right there's I I do have some serious concerns about things that are not 100% spelled out so that we know exactly that what might be approved another one that that I I did ask for or mentioned it at our last meeting um and it was kind of metion mentioned today too um you know when when we were all speaking or when you were presenting um we talk about the C Mark right the C mark um their property their property rights I know I know the trade wi has property rights right but so do the other owners on that property coral reef Jack Aranda Breen Rich okay we're protecting seark on structural um compromise we're protecting them on their views um but how about the separation of sunlight and views for those who own within that lot jackar Breckenridge coral reef I didn't see any of that nor discussed um I did speak with a resident I did mention this at the last uh meeting um about their concern about their views um and they're property they've got property rights too they're Property Owners they pay property taxes um so again that to me is is an unknown if we want to think of it as another unknown um because I don't know how it was addressed I don't I haven't spoken to those individual associations um to know their views and their concerns um but I would think and I did mention at the last uh meeting um I think it's Senate bill and I would hate to say 141 and I'd be wrong and quote it wrong but it has to do with um um the champagne um towers that collaps in Surfside um and and inspections and and I think I remember someone in the audience saying no they were done but I'm not sure if those inspections were done I I am concerned for these old buildings if we think of our comprehensive plan right and re development District it's to develop these older buildings so we're keeping these older buildings they have a possibility of being compromised um and and I have a concern about that so was also a concern raised in the staff report on page 52 talking about that many of the existing buildings are over 50 years in age um I mean that's it's a long time for a building yes it is just just two thoughts on that one is that uh the members of Jack aronda Breen others um I don't know if they showed uping the meetings or made any public comments that they were concerned about uh that construction I didn't hear any I may be wrong um I did speak with the resident of Jack R I did mention not all of them one oh okay yeah so I think they I guess my point is I think they had ample time to show up to the meeting and voice their concerns I I don't remember hearing other than one case much of a of a concern with construction and we do also know from the applicant that they had their own agreement with them so they may have received something in return for cooperation with this project I don't know about that but I original point that they could have speaking to us and they didn't so yeah now that was a question that we did ask of the applicant and that was one of the things that was confirmed and then as mayor to your point about the older buildings I may be a mistaken but I think we're here to look at this cup only for what's being proposed as new construction not to review what's already there and the whole them not hold them accountable that would be the right phrase but we're here to look at the proposition which is the new construction in addition to that we're also supposed to look at as section 4.1 States look at mitigating options putting in conditions that's the conditional use aspect of it right and so several of the conditional several of the conditions they're put in place for example the film for the turtle you know uh for the you know the window film for the turtles yes that may go in an old building but part of the conditions do address what happens to the old buildings right so if you want to get your new buildings okay maybe but then let's look at what you what else you have in the make sure that gets into compliance as well so that we're not mixing and matching the new and then we have a whole bunch of other stuff that is out of compliant outdated not conforming to the latest codes not having the latest safety implements not having you know the the lace again you look at the comprehensive plan one of the things that it talks about very early in the beginning is you know that we want to be a green city and what does that mean right having the lead certification having the green certifications so part of the conditions that we need to look at is okay well what happens with the old buildings does it really benefit the city and the residence to have a 20 30 50 year old building that is completely out of compliance with energy and green on resiliency I hear what you're saying but you could say that about 90% of St Pete Beach then so I mean I I feel like we'd be cherry-picking the old buildings specifically at Trade Winds um instead of concentrating on what's before us which is the and and I get the turtle film and all that stuff I'm with you on all that but I'm not sure it's I'm not sure it's a logical leap to say Okay so let's look at all the existing buildings and we think they're old and maybe add a compliance well that's what codes are for if I'm not mistaken so if there's new Codes passed that say those have to be renovated then they should be renovated I think we also need to be cognizant that if we're if if our position going forward is that our interpretation of the comprehensive plan is that it is requiring replacement of all old buildings that that's a significantly different business model for somebody who's investing to tear something down completely to be ground have no income coming in while they're going through construction and and developing a project and so um [Music] although you know that would certainly be an option um to me that seems like a a a big ask for businesses who are investing on the beach and I mean frankly we will all be incredibly lucky if in the next 5 to 10 years all those old buildings aren't taken out by a hurricane anyway right so I mean at some point those buildings are going to get replaced I personally would feel better about the status of the beach if we have some new buildings that might withstand a storm already existing on the beach rather than making it so difficult for somebody to redevelop that Redevelopment doesn't happen and so you know I I think there's a number of ways to interpret the comprehensive plan as far as that goes and what you call Redevelopment and what you call tearing down and starting over um you know for me personally I don't I don't interpret the comprehensive plan as requiring that all buildings on a site be torn down and that we start from scratch so that I mean that's that's my position on that one we have several other developments that were either approved or they were in different stages of applications where that's exactly what they're doing is they're tearing down and you know we've heard from you know previous Commissioners talking about you know what was the intent when the comprehensive plan was revised that yes it was to tear it down right to build new so that we do have the the safety measures in place so that we do have the resiliency so that if God forbid and I hope you're so wrong me too right we do get hit that they can survive those and again the economic it's it's not it's not it's not our responsibility to make the economic sense for them it's their responsibility it's the applicants responsibility to make their own economic sense for themselves sure and so I mean you know there are examples all over the country of cities that make decisions that make the economics so hard that people just don't invest in that City and we have that option absolutely we can you know we can make it as hard or as easy as we like and I think that with the comprehensive plan that we have and with the process that we have and with the um extreme attention to detail that the staff has crafted some the conditions that are being required I I think they've they've been very careful about those things about walking that middle ground between inviting Redevelopment and trying to get updated buildings and and a lot of the things that we want in the city and and still making it an inviting place for people to do business right because that's the that's that that's that balance we're always trying to keep and the other one is to give away the farm yeah I you know you can you can interpret things however you like I think that the the the millions of dollars that they're spending to to comply with many of the things that the city is asking for in my mind it's hard to Define that as giving away the farm but certainly you could well I wouldn't agree that there they're complying with everything um the staff also mentioned um view corridors and when we talk about view quarters I'm not talking about view quarters from the sidewalk right I'm the the video that was shown today was a key example we're talking about property owners within a site this is a unique lot okay it's not like I just bought a lot and I have an old building you can't even compare it to Sarat it's very different we we have Property Owners on a zoning lot that we're trying to improve so I do have concern for those Property Owners this is going to be the same concern that we all had for C Mark as well or any other uh resident they pay their property taxes um they have non-conforming the the older buildings space for Rumfish Alden if that was built under their but if that was on its own they wouldn't be able to be doing what they're doing right now right that those buildings are um we wouldn't be able to address those buildings if you combine them all together right um they have pools that are on the CCL P the CCL full deck this is another concern that I have we're trying to construct a beachwalk we would like to as a city have a beachwalk which would provide those Gulf views for all the residents so how are we going to get an easement through a pool right are we going to jot the easement around the pool um how are we going to put a crossover um which is what we want again showing environmental stewardship right that we want to have each crosswalk overs on the Doom we don't even know what it looks like it's an unknown um the intensity of what's on the preservation Zone it is Zone preservation today not tomorrow today um it's intense okay that the amount of Cabanas out there water slide and I don't mind saying this 100 times because I get very disappointed to see it every single time I see it um ziplining water park out on the water um no one else in the city does that no one unless I I don't know of some other hotel that's doing this and maybe any of you could educate me on that no one is doing that okay that's not showing stewardship of the number one asset that we have in this city okay you're coming to a cup to ask for intensity and density right then we should be asking for something in return okay no intensity and no density on that beach okay you have enough you're they're building to the max there's no corridors between the Jack Aranda the Breen rdge parking garages I've been through there it's hard to walk through this past week with the event that they had going on there it was hard for me on the freebie for them to even get to the back of the Rumfish because we had to zigzag through people and um people coming down the parking Garage on behind Rumfish that doesn't have a stop sign and pulling my daughter back so she doesn't get hit by a car is tight in there nothing they're trying to fix with an improved design add we're adding more there's more intensity every space that's open is being built out right every space okay um there's a possibility that they might do a new pool um between the Alden and the Rumfish right maybe in the future it's not in the plans I know I heard this in one of our discussions um we should be asking to reduce on water consumption water is critical in our city in our in pelis county in Hillsboro County if you were adding the pools that you're adding then remove the puddles that are on the on the CCL don't need them okay if we're trying to protect our environment just like the water slide they're emptying water whether it's daily or every other day right on the beach there was shelters on the beach with portable tra trailer restrooms right on the water basin okay that to me again goes back to current behavior is indicative of future behavior um and and you know yeah we should be protecting that I can't say do I want development absolutely I would love for that site to be redeveloped but we also have to be supporting the mission of um of our city our strategic uh goals right we all know up here what every body loves the beach right it's the asset that's what's selling the business is the beach and we should be protecting it I think a lot of the things that they're doing you know you say that that that their current behavior you can't assume that their current behavior is going to change except that some of their current behavior is working around problems that they have because they don't have adequate back of the house facilities and because the site wasn't designed as an integrated site like they're trying to redesign it to be and so you know I'm not sure it's fair to say that they're trying to work with the site they have and so that has caused some hurdles that they're dealing with in ways that maybe you would prefer that they aren't I don't know that that means that that that you know like I can't imagine they're going to build this really extensive amazing development with the idea that like oh my gosh we're so lucky We snuck the porta-potties past and we're going to put even more of those on the beach you know like I I I don't think that's how I don't think that's how this is going to work and and you can say that I want development but then you at the same time you're saying I don't think they should have any amenities on the beach and I think they should have less swimming pools and so you know their current Resort is a family resort that has those sorts of things so if we're going to say you can only redevelop if you if you get rid of all these things if you have you know no slide on the beach and no ities on the beach and we want you to have less swimming pools because they use too much water if I'm the business owner I'm going to say fine I'm leaving everything just like it is and and then we lose all of our ability to influence any change and and the the the comprehensive plan the way it's set up for a conditional use is so that when people want to develop we have the ability to have some negotiation and some give and take I'm not sure that we should feel feel like it's our cart blanch to just demand that things be the way we wish they were to the point that a developer developers just go great you guys you guys have it the way you like it you keep it I'm not sure if how many of you lived here when the Coral Reef Hotel was still there before it had been torn down and it was a rat infested homeless people electrical fires significant eyesore that also blocked the view of the beach and you know everybody likes to say well that could never happen again but I'm you know go take a drive through Daytona Beach or coco beach and you'll see a lot of rough looking places and you know there no nobody has to redevelop here you know and so I think that our comprehensive plan is asking people to redevelop here and it's giving us the tools we need to try to NE negotiate benefits for our residents and that's exactly what our responsibility is is to take the Land Development code the comprehensive plan look at what the mission is what is it trying to accomplish and then for us to put in safeguards y and I think our sta has done a fantastic job of that I think there's a lot of room for improvement there so what would what I mean you know well again you're looking at we're looking at one of the goals is you know is that we are resilient that we're good stewards and on the on the issue of good St stewards is you know what's the proverb you know if you're a good Steward you get more you're a bad Steward maybe we'll take away which what we have right because it's not just you look at conservation with the water right it's a waste of water every day and in the midst of a drought as we speak right I can't you your you had your moment ability to have August St Augustine grass also because that's a lot of water being opportunity to speak and so now I'm going to ask that you allow me to speak absolutely thank you it is our responsibility putting the safe guards in place it's our responsibility to make sure that the goals of the comprehensive plan are met and one of those things is to put in conditions as appropriate right because what does does it say if you can impose mitigation measures to address identifying concern that is one of our responsibility is to look at and say where are the concerns from the staff from the community and how do we mitigate those and the question is are we mitigating them and in many instances just reading the staff report the staff's answer is no it's not being sufficiently mitigated or what the an is proposing doesn't necessarily tell us that you know doesn't tell the staff or at least the way that's written that they feel that it was sufficiently addressed right and one of those things actually were the view corridors from Gulf Boulevard it says it in the staff report right and know they're talking about you know how it on page 82 one of staff's primary concerns with this development is the lack of any public Frontage maintaining the views to the water the development will effectively remove most of the Interior views on the water we're talking about 1,500 ft we're not we're not talking like a small slice right this is the staff's report this is their words the comprehensive plan calls for both evaluation of Maintenance of existing abiding development views and provision and maintenance of golf and bay views investors as evaluative criteria for developments of its density and height in fact the staff mentioned The View issue multiple times page 35 Staff finds that the development is eliminating view quarters across the private portion of property when viewed from the public Frontage the comprehensive plan again the soci and the staff requires provision the maintenance of golf Bas and view visors view quarters are required for new construction and unsolicited properties uh are being eliminated right page 49 staff's initial major concern with this project pain to the Gul fuse and Vistas right which is mentioned many times in the comprehensive plan right the other so let's look at what we being what we're told we're getting in return right because the applicant had their nice little list of here's all of the community benefits that you're going to get what's really interesting is when you look at those Community benefits many of them are required by either the comprehensive plan or the Land Development code so they're telling us oh my God we're so nice we're giving you this and they are giving us some things that aren't in there which I do appreciate because the first conversation that Mr Smith and I had was about $50,000 for four or five years for the freebie so I do appreciate him stepping up to the plate and say yeah you're going we're going to impact traffic we're going to impact you know moving up and down Golf Boulevard so let's help in some way I certainly do appreciate that but a lot of the other things are not the 10ft sidewalks that's a requirement but they're putting it up I like oh my God we're giving you a 10ft sidewalk well you have to if you're redeveloping if you got a if you got a condition use application on Gulf Boulevard in the large resort district 10 foot sidewalks is something you have to do right um so yeah I think I think we need to look at um you know what are we giving up versus what are we getting what is the applicant you know offering and return for what they're receiving well here I thought I was done but I guess I'm not so U I've been kind of keeping track some the negatives and positives some of the positives I've seen as we gone along is three beach access and I believe only one was required and now they've moved that forward to say by the end of phase one maybe earlier if we're lucky uh we're updating an aging Resort Four Star level not every piece of it but all the new stuff will be uh the comprehensive plan begs begs for the large resort District to be redone to kind of fix the 8020 tax burden between commercial and residents so here we are if this thing all goes according to plan along with some of the other things popping up in our beach um we're going to be getting more tax income okay the Beach Walk easement I don't know if that was requirement but they certainly agreed to that you know the the 12th floor viewing thing I think it's nice I mean it's obviously not going to make up for everything but yeah it's a nice thing to do absolutely um they volunteered and we can get into this the turtle lighting thing all my long but they volunteered to do the film and all the other type of things probably ahead of a lot of other places on the beach that haven't done anything about it um the comp plan was crafted 10 or 15 years ago and this city has been through amazing turmoil over a couple decades we've gone through referendums you know we've gone through redoing the comprehensive plan we've gone through lawsuits well the comprehensive plan was Rewritten and it's basically asking for this and now I feel like here we go again um kind of saying well yeah it sounds sounds good but maybe we don't want all this um I didn't hear a lot of neighbors complaining at all I heard some from the seark I think the fact that they're turning that southern unit in phase one that direction and I don't know if that was purposely just for them or that was just the way it fit into the property I can't answer that but I think that's a great deal for the seark and uh I think the negotiations they've done with the c Mark to try and change the restaurant around um now we've gone to you know solid cover some other things you know closing down at 9:00 to me those are all positives and those answered a lot of the concerns I had um I think the frontage road is going to be a good deal I think it's going to help a lot with internal traffic and and maybe limit some of the queuing on Gul Boulevard the planning department voted 5 in favor uh we talked about all three Beach accesses uh let's see what else The View and Vistas I I mean here's one of the gentlemen made a point which I hadn't heard before and that was hey the comprehensive plan was crafted by the then City commission and whoever else was involved and it said here's the height you can go here's the density you can do and so they knew exactly what was going to happen to the Views and Vistas somebody said that and that really kind of wow he's got a point there right they wouldn't allowed you to go to those Heights if you if you were going to not be able to see that from the Gul Boulevard um and and personally I think if this gets built out all the way along with the other ones I think in two or three years you'll be driving down the road you're not even going to look at that stuff anymore it's just going to be the stuff that passes by your window when you're going shopping when you're going home it'll become the new norm and I don't see it as this this Behemoth that's going to cause you know all this anxiety about views and Vistas so those are some more of my thoughts I think you'll have ample opportunity to watch the building as you're sitting on Golf Boulevard and stand still um but let's address some of those items that you brought up uh the three Beach walks um I'm encouraged to see them coming forward um I can tell you on my list of things that I looked at and reviewed and said why didn't why are these things not included in the conditions that the staff proposed um the three Beach AES were were at the very top of my list um so I'm encouraged to see that those will be uh put in place no matter what happens to the phases is should it go forward um but let's not again misconstrue what it actually is because and based on what the staff said nobody bothered to do the math right because if you took the individual five Lots you would be required to have at minimum three to five Beach accesses if you were to redevelop them now we know that the two North Lots you actually can't redevelop because of the way that they're laid out You' have to tear it down and you couldn't actually add something else and they're already doing that they're telling us that's what they're going to do and so that really leaves you with the three Southern Lots one two and three coming from the C Mark right and so if you redevelop those you would be required to put in three Beach accesses so we're not really getting more than what we would have been required if they were developing those individually but not only that if yeah if they were rebuilt yeah yeah so just because they're combining something doesn't absolve you know the reason they're combining it is to get around some of the restrictions that you had if you had five individual Lots it's not it's not for our great benefit it is to their benefit because you're eliminating the setbacks for example right between the buildings if you had lot one two and three and you had building one two and three you would have setback requirements that they are looking to eliminate by combining the Lots not only that but there also there is a possibility again we don't know because no one did the math they might not even be able to build what they're asking for if they didn't have the density from Lots four and five right if they just if you since they're not redeveloping four and five at all other than adding a beach axis and turnning that a portic CET right so if you just look at one two and three there is a possibility that actually will exceed 75 units per acre on those three lots which they wouldn't have been able to build that height and that density if they only had those three lots and if they did those three lots individually we don't know but let's be clear on what we're getting because what we're getting is the minimum that would be required if you're redeveloping just one two and three and if you redevelop one through five you would actually owe the city four Beach accesses so I am encouraged by the fact that they're offering to put those in at phase one with the temporary one and for for the middle one I understand it's not feasible to make that one permanent until later right but that isn't more than what we're entitled to that is the bare minimum that we would have been re that they would have been required to provide but what do we have now what do we have now beach access through all those properties is it one none none yeah okay so but that's but that's a tradeoff when you redevelop right you give some you get some oh yeah but it's a big if that if they' kept all those individual lots and each person you know they'd sold them off and each person bought that lot and they decide to put up a hotel there and five more cups came through so y i i i i see your math but it's it's a it's an if it's another if well I mean that's that was that's what it would be right and that's what we're not getting more we're not getting less we're just getting the bare minimum I think the the fact that so many of the things that we're getting that the mayor can call them the bare minimum is Testament to how well the comprehensive plan was written because what it demands what the comprehensive plan demands from people when they do when they apply for the conditional use is a bunch of really good things and so I'm not certain that the that the yard stick should be what else can we demand from them just because we can beyond what comprehensive plan requires it's not demanding what we can squeeze out of them it's rather what safety measures can we put in place to do the things that the comprehensive plan is asking for right and so and so we're asking for safety measures spread out into parts of the lot that make more sense rather than having three shoved down at the South End is a really nice thing like I think that's great for the people who live more across the the neighborhoods across Gulf Boulevard that are more to the North End of the property I think think they'll really appreciate the fact that they're going to have a beach access on that North End where they otherwise wouldn't if the parcels were developed individually redeveloped individually so I think that is a benefit above and beyond what is specifically what could be specifically required I'm going to give a few of my thoughts where you start almost 10 I'll make it go ahead I'll make a motion uh to what continue to 11: p.m. I'll second city clerk you feel pleased to a roll call vice mayor Lorenzen yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Philz yes commissioner res Nikki yes motion carries so over the over the past few months I've spoke to a lot of residents in our community residents who are for development because of the benefits that can come from it and residents who are against development generally for the concerns that can come with it and the common ground that I found amongst all those people is that we don't want it to become Clear Water Beach we need some Redevelopment so what does that look like and and what does that mean is there a perfect project out there and over the past weeks I've been thinking you know it'd be easy for me as a resident and as an individual to say I don't want it to take any longer for me to take a left turn southbound out of my neighborhood or I want to see I want to continue to see the sunset as low as I possibly can from the end of my street or a number of other reasons I I don't want it to take longer for me to get to Publix you know I I like the breeze from the beach but I think our job up here amongst other things is is to be open-minded and not to not be a yes to all development and to not be no to all development is to look at these individual these cups individually and see the efforts that they're making to meet our code and to give benefits to the community and quite frankly a lot of the concerns I had with the serata I don't feel as much with this um I think they were mindful with their architecture and design as it applies to the C Mark and ab buding properties I think the parking garages are not easily recognizable as such I think there's nice Design Elements to them I think there's reasonable height the public beach accesses and I can't stress that enough that is so so important there's not one there now um you know I I I also think development as a whole in this project will bring money to our local economy I think it'll help small businesses I think it'll potentially create less vacant commercial buildings which has been a concern for a number of people a number of leaders in our community um and I think it it'll create higher and better uses for some of some of our small commercial properties and I also think it provides a place to come back to in the event we were to get hit by a hurricane um so those are some of the benefits I see and I'd also like to add I I took I I interviewed for this position when I showed up to the interview I did it because I care about the future of the city and because I'm highly invested in it this project would take place directly across the street from where I live it would take place throughout my child's my son's entire life until he goes to college and with that I do feel there are a lot of benefits with it and I'd also say last time we did this we went through the conditions first before we made a vote um if I remember correctly because you know there might be some more questions as to like the Grainery on the parking garages would the applicant be open to to doing um real real Greenery as opposed to fake if if I remember correctly those things we kind of ironed out with the conditions previously I will tell you one of the biggest concerns that I have is with the development agreement and uh 20 years and I I thought it was rather interesting that commissioner when you asked the applicant if they could explain the benefits to the city um for doing a 20-year development it was three or four things that were to the benefit of the applicant not to the city not to the residents right and I think the applicant did tell us in their own words why they won 20 years and the reason they want 20 years is because they don't want to be subject to any changes that future commissions May deem necessary right they want to be locked into today and what it is they know we're talking about comprehensive plan changes they don't want to be subject to that if God forbid commissioner Marriott is right and we get hit and then we have to make you know changes to our plans later on they want to be subject to that either you know is they basically want to tie the city's hands for 20 years without really any downside to them and they keep talking about well we got to leave room for the rooms to absorb well that is an economic decision the applicant has to make that's not on us to give them plenty of time for them to do their thing that's that's really in them if they don't think 650 rooms is viable then don't do 650 rooms I mean that's really what it is and the other real concern that I have with it is um you know they want to essentially tie the hands of future commissions for the next 20 years to make decisions that would be important for that commission to make at that time and so just look at it look at it 20 years in Reverse right 2004 I there's no iPhones right there's no self-driving cars there's no Tesla there's no SpaceX there is no you know Blockbuster was still around right you look at the changes the massive significant changes that happened in last 20 years and with the rate that things accelerate I would imagine that the decision that the changes that will happen in the next 20 years will be two or three times as significant as the last 20 years and what this development agreement is doing with essentially hog tie and hamstring any future commission for making good decisions based on the circumstances 10 years 15 18 years from now you know and that also ties into development agreement not only are they asking for 20 years but they also don't want to start within the year that they're supposed to right they want to have more time right one of the things that they wanted to remove is the requirement to start within 12 months right because normally a conditional use application if you do not break ground within 12 months you lose it so again the development agreement is designed to do one thing only and to make things as easy and convenient for the applicant without any real benefit to the city what's the benefit of not starting within a year I mean the applicant was telling us how he's already out getting architectural plans because you know in his words he was so confident was going to go through that he's happy spending the money already right but not enough that we can actually start on time and that is actually something that's in the Land Development code right Land Development code 4.3 C gives an applicant 12 months to start the process not only that but the land development in in 45.5 recommends that agreements do not exceed 10 years right so why are we letting them start arbitrarily at some point in the future why are we giving them more than 10 years right they've said that it should take roughly 10 years so let them let them do that let's you know look at something that that's 10 years right the the challenge that I have with with the with the development agreement is is that Miss betel the applicant's attorney has lectured the commission not just in this hearing and previous hearings and many other hearings about in fact she mentioned it tonight this is the comprehensive plan you have this is the comprehensive plan you must abide by but you know what and she meant us the commission and the City but you know what it goes both ways because you also have to abide by the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code as they are today which means you start within 12 within 12 months which means when you violate your conditions you have 30 days to cure them they're asking for 90 days you know how much damage you could do in 90 days and then Rectify it by day 89 and then you don't have a conditional use violation and you just move along so why are we giving you know if you don't cut your lawn Pete will be there and he'll give you 30 days to get it cleaned up but they're asking for 90 days again be a good Steward show us you're telling us how you're hiring all these competent people and these you know great Architects and these great you know Builders and so on but they they can't stick to your plans and not cause conditional use violations and if they cause one they can't Rectify them in a reasonable manner that you have to ask for three times the nor noral time that you have to to do that right so you know I look at this and and it says like well the only person the only ones that benefit from 20 years is the applicant and what are we getting in return for 20 years we're getting future commissions tied to something that may not be viable in 15 18 20 years from now I almost look at this development agreement as a vehicle for circumventing the safety measures that are put in place in the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code and that's really what it is there are safety measures that are put in place to make sure that certain unfavorable conditions don't happen and what this does is it removes those safety measures it's intentionally trying to circumvent the comprehens ensive plan that we're told we must abide by so that we can create a different vehicle to approve something that they want so for example that there's no vehicle for combining lots and then you not being subject to having the setback requirements the beach access requirements that you would be subject to if you didn't combine the lots and yet here we're creating a vehicle with this development agreement to allow them to you know merge five lots and get something they couldn't have on their own again as a means of circumventing the Land Development code and the comprehensive plan I mean there's a good reason why these safety measures would put in place I mean in fact these safety measures would put in place because of a lawsuit ironically from the same property different owners so I'm not blaming the current owners but that's what happened you know we put these safety measures in place and now we're looking at a Land Development deal like a Land Development agreement here that that would essentially remove all the safety measures that we have in place that doesn't seem like we're like now we're not being good stewards right and so if we were if we were to move forward with something like this it's got to be reasonable measures 20 years is not reasonable and there's zero upside for us as a city there's zero benefit certainly none to the residents the only thing we're going to get is whether it's all at one time or on and off on and off on and off you're just going to get the constant traffic and congestion you're going to get the dust you're going to get the street closures you're going to get construction noise for years on end why don't just get it get all over with it one time so I look at the development agreement a little bit differently and uh when I look back 20 years ago um I guess it's shows how old I am because it seems like the blink of an eye and uh 20 years is about how long it's taken to build a business for instance um you know I'm not I'm not smart enough to be a a a proof of concept sell your business entrepreneur I'm an owner operator right and so 20 years is about how long it takes to build a business from nothing into something that seems like a real thing and so to me a 20-year time Horizon for a project of this scale does not seem unreasonable and when you ask what are we getting from it I think what what the city is getting from it that they've pointed out a couple times is that if if they didn't have that time Horizon if had a shorter time Horizon and something did happen where construction stopped and their conditional use permit expired and they couldn't continue then what we're getting with this development agreement is their commitment not just their commitment but but a but a a you know an agreement that's tied to the property to do the storm water improvements over the entire site where if we were doing a short-term conditional use for a portion of the project we would maybe get a portion of the project we would get the dunes restored behind the property or we would get a portion of the project to have storm water dealt with in a better fashion than it is now where the Gulf Boulevard floods but by doing the 20-year development agreement we know we're going to get those things fixed whether they go through with construction or not what we're also getting is we're getting future traffic studies with every phase and I I think it's very common in development agreements like this that they that they don't have to do that in the future and so I think they are being very good citizens of our community in agreeing to these things and so I don't think the development agreement is just their way of tying future commission's hands and circumventing things I think it's their way of being prudent with how they're going forward and what they're and what they're doing in a very realistic fashion so that they can build something that is sustainable for the community I I think we're in agreement this development agreement is good for them and it's good for the community if they default because they can't move forward building their project you're not going to get the storm water anyway they've defaulted but whoever whoever ends up with the property is going to have to do it yeah and it might sit there for 10 20 years until somebody buys it who's willing to be who subject themselves to the stipulations in that agreement or or we cannot get it at all ever you could say that of every property and every construction project my thought default yeah my thought process I I some of the thoughts you did as well mayor but you know if if they were to agree to do the whole project up front in say five seven 10 years and then they defaulted we might have vacant buildings multiple buildings where whereas if they do phase it out and that was if that were the worst case scenario it would might just be one building where there I think there's a less likely chance of that happening because in my opinion with this if it passes one of the the biggest concerns I would have is vacant 12-story buildings just like I have concerns about vacant commercial buildings currently on St Pete Beach and going back to a benefit of development is I I think it helps with those commercial with those commercial buildings um being vacant and bringing more money to our local economy which kind of ties nicely into [Music] the expert opinions that we've received right so to your point their Economist who has yet to answer some of my questions who was saved by commissioner Mary got from answering them you know told us about the great benefits of for small businesses and taxes and all sorts of anything couldn't document couldn't show us the math on that but he certainly made those stipulations um while at the same time the traffic person said oh don't worry about traffic because we're building an integrated resort with a street around it an internal Street and and this is what's going to happen is this is going to make sure sure that we keep as many people on site which I would propose to you is probably if I was building this development and if I was spending half a billion dollars and if I was going to spend the millions and millions of dollars that I'm sure you're going to spend every year on marketing I wouldn't want people leaving my development either because I paid for you to come here through marketing dollars for investment dollars in any way and and that's really what it is you can't have it both ways you can't tell me you can't speak out of both corners of your mouth and tell me oh it's going to be such a great economic benefit because we'll bring all these people here but don't worry because we all keep them on site right you can't have it both ways it's got to be one or the other you know well I think they'll have guests who will do it both ways I think there'll be guests who stay on site and I think there'll be guests Who come out to our local shops and restaurants sorry we can't hear you I'd like to make a motion oh I'm sorry and you know like I alluded to if if you're I'm sorry commissioner uh I apologize I was looking at him so I didn't see anything please out of respect we heard you now it's time for you to hear us so please keep the chatter down uh the sheriffs are here in force today and I I don't want to use them so help me out here go ahead yeah and and and I've said it before you know I think with the way our our code is written some of these things are subjective it's up it's up for us and our interpretation and that's why these meetings go 10 12 plus hours that's a whole different conversation about the Land Development code and comprehensive plan but you know I think it's important that we as com as a commission and I think it's important people in our community to go into these with an open in mind and to look at them individually and if the common ground is and at leas in the people I've talked to we don't want to be clearw Beach we need some Redevelopment and I think it's important to look at why does your neighbor have an opposing view as to me how might this affect them differently in the future or how might it affect the city in the future in a positive and to me when talking about character of a community that's how you protect St P Beach might I offer a suggestion and I'm in no way trying to shorten deliberation but I'm sensing that folks have um a stance on where they are on this on this vote on this cup um and I think if I'm not mistaken last time even after the vote we had to go through some conditions and clarify things that you would have to do beforehand say again M any conditions would be part of the conditional use application so they would have to be put in before you vote before any vote Yes all right I I would recommend that we get to that then somebody otherwise or the majority because I really don't want to see this go to a third night I mean I think this is an important enough decision that we need to take the time necessary I'll stay all night so um I do have a couple of concerns about the experts that we were provided with um between the conflicting information between the economist and the traffic individual um there seem to be some inconsistencies in the traffic studies that it it seems I'm look I was looking at uh the studies provided and it's it's funny the new trade win study in which this was number two or three I'm not sure how many took to get the to get the results they wanted but it actually had less traffic including the S than the S had by itself they had lower traffic numbers so and they put this s traffic study in in there so I'm I'm not sure how that's possible that you're have a development that you now have to take into consideration because the cup was approved um I also have some some concerns about you know the traffic study uh and I asked them this as well asking about you know what local knowledge he used he couldn't tell me what local knowledge used he this is their words we use local knowledge to adjust the numbers but then you fail to take into account that St Pete Beach's Peak traffic is not at 5:00 p.m. that it's on weekends and holidays and 2 o00 in the afternoon right uh so I do have some chall I do have some some some challenges about you know how expert that advice actually is based on the local knowledge that uh that they're providing um and then also you look at the view corridors that they provided graphs of I thought it was interesting that the restaurant appears to be see-through because the arrows go right through it you know and we've had several of the SRA residents tell us it's like hey you built this restaurant at 24 ft which is what they said you know you're going to block our views for the first second possibly even the third floor right now we didn't hear from the Jack Ganda the Breen Ridge and the um and the other ones um but just because we didn't hear from them that doesn't mean that we as a commission shouldn't take those view corridors into into consideration when we when your comprehensive plan Land Development code in three different sections talks about the imperative of protecting those view corridors um I had and I I wish Brandon was here today um but he is not he just locked out didn't he um because we asked and and this is you know I'm sure the applicant is going to take offense with this um but I reviewed again the applicants so one of the conditions is to provide documentation of your financial viability to build what you're proposing and what's in our package on the back page of something completely unrelated next to something else completely unrelated is a is a one-page document like this that has no phone number no email address and a Word document signature on it from somebody who says the applicant has money to build only on 5500 and 5600 does not mentioned the other five the other three properties um and when I asked our city staff if they verified so let me just share a moment out of my daily life you know we're both real estate brokers in some instances and especially on a high dollar value Asset and they make you a cash offer it's very common to provide what's called a proof of funds and it's my responsibility to just pick up the phone and call and say hey I'm verifying this proof of funds you send me for $2 million for buyer XYZ takes 30 seconds very easy was not verified nobody confirmed one of the conditions is the financial viability I mean that seems like to be a very simple step that could have been done in a matter of a minute or two you know if there had been a phone number or email address or any kind of contact information for the person that put a Word document signature on this document um so I'm I'm not sure how that snuck through um and then the other thing that I was I had concern with and I I brought this up was that several of the uh you know experts provideed testimony in fields that they are not experts in why is the economist talking to me about the comprehensive plan he's not a plan expert he's a economist and even that the answers he was provided you know were insufficient and the other thing I have serious challenge with the with the experts is on several occasions I asked specific questions I asked for additional documentation they didn't provide it they said we'll get it to you later well 12:30 came around they didn't provide it now they've had another week and a day and they were up here talking but nobody bothered to go back and answer the questions that we asked so you either didn't have the information which then or you didn't know the answer or you didn't want the answer I don't know but that certainly puts you know for me some some real challenges for uh for the experts that we had I uh I was um yeah it was anyway you want to talk about conditions do you have any conditions that you would like to for us to consider um I don't know if we need to go maybe recommend anybody has any conditions they'd like to change May or amend [Applause] well I'll give you my list I've had a lot of time to think about you know what are we getting what are we being offered you know what is the applicant getting you know what safety measures and a comprehensive plan that we need to take into consideration what things that you could say as the Land Development code says you know but to impose mitigation measures to address the identif ified concerns um so there's some concerns looking at the project that I have that I would propose um a few amendments for some of the conditions um at the very top of my list was the beach axis so I'm I'm do um I do appreciate seeing that uh that it's going to be done at the phase one and that it will be um you know provided no matter what happens with future phases so that certainly is um uh is is a positive or a step in the right direction um and maybe we can look at each one of these individually and then discuss the merits of each one uh the other thing one I had is uh freebie uh the 125,000 per year again um I am appreciative of where the conversation started a year ago versus where we are today um but I think if you're going to ask for a 20-year development agreement then we should receive 20 years of of multimodal Transportation allowance I don't think that's a unreasonable request you want 20 years then we want something in return for 20 years let's see maybe would be help us if we identify the uh condition number I didn't write down all the condition numbers and some of these are not referenced necessarily everywhere because there were not a condition that was put in by staff in the first oh this is an additional so no this is this is one that was recommended by staff and they recommended 10 years I'm saying if if they're asking for 20 years and we know what the benefits of them are for 20 years then there should be some benefit for the city to say well if we're going to give you 20 years then here's what we're getting in return for 20 years I don't think asking for the same allowance for the entire 20y year development agreement is is unreasonable I agree to ask on that I would agree to would can we say for now that it match the agreement because we haven't gotten into the agreement whether we agree with 20 years or not so whether it's 10 15 20 that that's actually the way that I for each year of the development agreement that's that's the way that that I thought of it in terms of so there's different ways to to look at it right you could do 10 years you could do 15 years you could do 10 years with an option extension I mean there's there's different ways you can look at it but I think at the very least the things that you know something like the freebie that should be for the entire duration of the development agreement and and for that particular not call it free the multimodal transportation yes so would that something that we can reach consensus on I'm sorry Matthew thank you CU you said no in the middle of me asking a question are you saying no just clarify we were wondering what document we were in and that's in the development agreement so I just answered Kristen's question oh for the hard of hearing so are we doing The Cup right now or the or the development agreement we're doing conditions okay got it where wherever in those all right okay so are we in agreement on 125 per year per year of the development agreement I agree to ask them okay um on the mitigating measures so I know on the rooftop one they had glass on the south side and then they had a roof structure and top to mitigate sound um my concern is that Ro structure 2 did not have any sound mitigating um and then you look at other buildings that have conditional use permits for rooftop music and they are a constant a just a constant battle with the neighbors and you know I I look at the uh what's the the Bell weather right they have a nice rooftop they have ambient music there's no band playing there's no Amplified music there's no loud noise and so I don't know why we need that and you look at it I mean when they have you know I live quite a bit farther than commissioner Phils here from the trade WIS you know almost a mile from it but just du east of it and I can tell you what song they're playing if they're having a a band you know a party and at the beach so now you put something 10 and what was it 124 ft up 116 ft plus whatever to get us to 139 ft that's going to travel the entire distance of the beach so I am shocked that there's no kind of sound mitigating conditions that we put and at the very least there should have been Glass Walls surrounding everything to make sure the sound only travels up one way rather than going out left and right now the other thing is as you're sitting on the beach you're enjoying the waves in the sunset and then you're just hearing blaring music from behind you um so I would look at one of the other things that I would look at is for rooftop to uh either no music on the rooftop or I don't know what it would have to be probably 8 10 foot glass around to to keep which you would hate you would be miserable because then you have no Breeze and it's going to get 100° which is one of the other things that the staff was commenting in their staff report is that because of the overwhelming 20 acres of coverage you're going to have in some instances as much as 120 degrees of of uh reflective heat um I thought Brandon mentioned that there were decel requirements and other things that are already in the land developmental code in condition for yeah a condition four I I don't think those are sufficient so I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for it's go I would I would recommend no music on the rooftops no Amplified music and just ambient or no just ambient music no so this condition for says applicant shall install decel limiting software or Hardware such that a sound reading with rooftop sound reading with rooftop music playing does not exceed 3 DB above a proceeding or fall following ambient reading with the music turned off if anyone can explain to me what that means I would be happy that's a question that's a question I have I we heard what it means it means they're going to take a reading and however loud it is based on the ambient noise they will allow you three Deb for those of you who don't know what three Deb means it means every three Deb is double the volume decibels do not work in the sense of you go from 60 to 63 that is not a 5% increase you go from 60 to 63 that is a double the volume every 3 DB so whatever the ambient is you can have music up to double that volume yeah but you did Nick commissioner pH you said three DB Max right right yeah that's nothing I mean three Deb is barely that's double it's double almost zero I mean lawn mower is 90 a leaf blower is like 80 trust me I'm half deaf I know all those decibel readings 65 is a lot yeah so we're talking about three DB above ambient ambient's like nothing am I missing something here folks no you're not missing something ambient is like us talking background music and you're only going three DB above that it's it's it's almost irrelevant I think that condition is very adequate I do too I agree it's it's inadequate looking at the rest of the city and the challenges that we have with this particular situation are the are the situations we have that are problems are they limited to three DB above ambient why don't we why don't we hear from the expert mayor if I may Kristen keman uh community development director I think with number four staff picked that one because we have used that in other um properties within the city mainly sarata Zamora uh to name some so we've used that consistently um through other cups that you've recently seen or maybe not this this commission but other commissions and this one doesn't even have residents around it unlike Zar or some of the others that are surrounded by houses it's they're directly across the street 100 pretty far away actually 100t it's not that far that's 50 but I just wanted to print for consistency purposes we have applied that yeah and Kristen I don't mean to put you on the spot and if it's totally acceptable if you don't know the answer to this question the the places where they have that condition of the three DB are you aware of those being places where we're flooded with complaints like we are at some other places where there is Amplified music um so actually the initial one Zamora and that was before I was actually with the city um that was implemented because of residence um that it there's a lock box there's other preventative measures like only you know one manager has the key code can come out and take readings so there's several steps that have been implemented to try to mitigate the noise and to keep it locked down and so that three decel level is the level at which there really aren't complaints then corre it's when it's above that that there's problems okay thank you point of order Mr Mayor you talked about the freebie and normally since that's an additional $1.25 million for the client we would have some sort of discussion about whether that condition was acceptable and go through them one by one we're happy to wait but it might be more productive for us to discuss each of them at least whether the modified conditions that you're talking about would be acceptable to the applicant I think we can finish a conversation with the commission and then if you have a list of the ones that you would be objecting to we can go through those so you don't want to do them one by one you want to go back and start again and go through each of them again well you're simply going to tell us the ones that you don't want to do right no I'm going to if there we don't want to I'd like to provide an explanation as to why and I think that we're going to start all of this discussion over again I'm just trying to be respectful of everybody's time but I do think it would be more efficient okay U what would you all like to do I'm fine with that okay I'll let you finish this we'll come back up all right so do thumbs up thumbs down on this decibel thing I I I'm good with it as written condition for yeah I I am as well I am as well all right do you want to come talk about the multimodal just respectfully to people that are drafting this while you're talking if we could just start with one document and go in order and then go to the development agreement and go in order it would be a lot more simple for us I don't know where they all are located so I apologize for that actually you were the handout they gave you here um it's got some um it's got some changes put forth by the uh applicant but you can still see the initial print it's the one so we were just we were just discussing the conditional use application condition for was the uh Amplified rooftop music so all the conditions are attached to the resolution so if you find the resolution and this that's the most updated form yeah that we got tonight well that that came from the out yeah that's the I think Reed some things yeah I don't I don't think it'll be of much help Matthew on that one I apologize uh 1048 is the development agreement me if you're looking at the agenda or you can tonight or if you want to go to this guy it's on there it's on page 56 exhibit a if you scroll through there Point clarification Mr Mayor the changes to the conditions are only to modify the things that we agreed to today we went ahead and modifi those conditions so that you had something to work for them and the City attorney didn't have to draft those from scratch obviously when not married to the language but those only reflect what we submitted into the record last time after the discussion and what we agreed to like the public beach access and no rooftop dining on phase one there are no other changes to the condition so if you look at this this might be a helpful document and the numbers are the same do you want to talk to us about the multimodal while you're here absolutely I mean it's Joe's money that you're spending so I'm sure he has to um weigh in on this too but there was a reason um 10 years if you think about it 10 years is about the extent of the impact from the development when you start in phase one you're not going to have impact on the road right away year one right the multimodal is specifically to offset the additional impacts now our transportation study says your roadways can handle it so this was an added bonus but there was thought in that 10 years in addition when you get to phase four there is no devel there's no new units and there's no Transportation so at most you're talking about 10 years of additional impact um based on the construction schedule so that's where we came up with that I can let Joe I mean it it was very thoughtful and very negotiated with the city manager um and so I'll let Joe address the financial so uh point of clarification if we end up building the whole project in four and we just do it all at once does that mean we only pay four years the fee yes so it does what I'd appreciate because I have no idea what the rest of the conditions look like or the economic benefit I'd love to take this one and resolve it and discuss it at the end I just don't know if the next comment is I don't I you pay 500,000 for this or that or whatever it might be thank you I think you'll find that the impact is going to be in perpet to it's not going to be there for 10 years and after 10 years the additional units and traffic disappear um so yeah the language was the proposed by with commissioner riki's um comments was 125 per year for the duration of the development agreement point of order um the impacts will have to be mitigated we have to come in and show that the roadways accommodate those impacts and then if we can't do that in a subsequent phase in order to move forward with the development we're going to have to make Financial improvements mitigation measures and that's going to cause money so I just want you to be thoughtful about it's really easy to say oh let's just have an additional 10 years of $125,000 but we're doing safety studies we're paying for those improvements we're paying impact fees for our transport ation you have a Mobility fee system today that said if we generate a certain number of cars we pay fees and that's studied um that's to keep everything consistent just remember this is all over and above so adding an additional 10 years is a is a large Financial ask considering all of the other Financial Transportation obligations that this applicant has already agreed to particularly with respect to the impact respectfully your Economist told us that the benefit to the applicant over 10 years would be one .3 billion and we are asking for one10 of 1% all right I think we agreed on number four we took a informal vote well do we want to discuss the applicant's objection to the multimodal sure I I was thinking we could maybe got to hate to say Circle back I've heard that in the media too much but um maybe come back to that one toward the end see if there's any other Financial sticking points I think it makes sense to go through them in order on the page so that staff can have a shot of keeping up with what we're doing so that one's coming up right later on yep okay I'm good with that all right so on uh on on the first page of conditions we just talked about the first one we discussed was number four with the with the music um prior pror to that um on condition two the applicant had requested to cross out the line um for rooftop T dining on the second floor of the beachfront restaurant constructed in phase one since they're not going to construct a a rooftop restaurant in phase one so um I I think we're good there and then also condition five uh is eliminated about a glass barrier along the second along the southern side of the second floor bar area of the phase 1 Beach Restaurant because that won't exist so I think that makes sense as well I agree okay um I think is is everybody on the page can we just discuss the ones that we have issue with I I think that's a logical way to do this unfortunately I don't have mine in order so I still can't help you on that I'll try but do you have the agenda I do have yes it's page 57 of today's agenda as well yeah but it's a lot of small print 20 some odd pages so it's [Music] um unless I'm missing something I don't think any of numbers 6 through 10 have been anything of discussion well again seven no one verifi their financial ability I I'm comfortable with what we've been provided for their financial ability to complete the project as am I [Music] okay number number sorry go ahead for the mayor because it says that the city commission retains the right to request reevaluation via public hearing would that satisfy you know will we be able or you know ask certainly I mean I brought this up a week ago we've had a week to make that phone call in May I just make point of clarification that letter is from one of the largest 10 accounting firms in the United States it's from our Auditors there should be no doubt in your mind that it's valid it's descriptive and there's no uncertainty about our financial condition so I appreciate maybe you don't want that to be true but it is there's no other way to interpret that letter that is there's no way one of the 10 largest accounting firms in the United States issues a letter excuse me a letter like that and and it's untrue or or unfounded so I would think it's reasonable for the city to receive a letter from a top accounting firm and say this is acceptable proof I mean I think most people do that how about we keep the same methodology that we've been doing majority rules we good on seven yeah seven also talks about if the property sells the city commission retains the right to re-evaluate so we're good and excuse me could I ask a member of City staff to turn the air down I think it shuts off at 10 p.m. thanks I see nothing else between 8 n and 10 so number 12 uh discusses the four Diamond rated lodging and I was trying to determine if the current wording from staff is any different than the applicant suggested word wording yeah I'd asked for clarification on that from the applicant CU it looks like what was taken out was about um being maintained for the life of the development yeah um just to remind everybody of the discussion that we had last time the newly constructed buildings will conform but you they look at it as a whole so for example phase two will have the large resort amenity which is one of the things that they look for in in for diamonds or you know Grand water features and upscale molding so this condition applies today and so what we are saying is that all of the new buildings and the new amenities everything is going to comply and over time the other buildings will be upgraded but on day one or even after phase one if a radi agent came in and looked at the property as a whole which they do we might not be given a fourstar rating so we worked with staff to put language in to make sure that those those types of ameni and that quality cuz what you're really concerned about is the quality of these new buildings and the Landscaping because they even talk about like a unade landscape plan that's not going to happen till phase four um and so we worked with staff and we're open to other wording but the idea was we know what you the staff intended here Kristen can talk about that more is something that ensures that this is quality Redevelopment and then we're we're doing is quality not necessarily that this is for Diamond that's just a rating agency it could be something else but we were trying to capture in a objective way sort of those subjective criteria that you look at when you're trying to say hey we want a high quality development so commissioner Philz are you okay with the the rewarding of condition 12 I'm okay with it you're okay with it okay I'm okay with it as well does anyone else have any thoughts on that one I'm good for the rest of the page okay [Music] it looks like the only change to 15 is again just the removal of the phase one rooftop [Applause] restaurant number 16 yeah I've got a question on that one go ahead what what will the discount be for residents um yeah which one am I looking at it l 16 16 16 right so I I'll tell you what we have in place right now you you all may know that we've actually issued cards for the surrounding uh associations which they're using today as we speak that's a 20% discount I believe I think we would plan on holding the more discount board for is is that issued to um surrounding like neighborhoods it it it'll be modified upon approval of the CP what I'm going to do is consistent with this condition it'll be to St P Peach residents so right now it's just the surrounding like cart gets it I want to say uh I think Sunrise gets it I want to say um Regency condo one and two get it uh but upon approval this is a requirement to do for St P Beach residents which we'll do okay so can we specify that then that it's a 20% discount there are so many conditions that I think we'd go through would be here all night for example does that um apply to Fourth of July day does it apply um is it you know are what we doing right now is generally doing it all the time but I think we would need to come out and thoughtfully craft with the city you know what conditions if any or if much might might apply to that so you know I don't want to start negotiating talking about one condition when there might be 10 others that we should all be thoughtful of but I know that the the city will you know monitor this and make sure we do it um but I think the condition requires that I I mean I would say this I think it's a good face sign that we did this without anyone asking them and I'll remind the commission again a lot of these things that you know I know Mary you say that these really are are standard and not additional things but that's really not true right this whole discount we implemented it's it was done months ago if not a year or more ago no one told us to do it no one demanded of of us we did it of our of our own accord and so if that's not a good sign a good face sign to the community that we're serious about it I mean I don't know what it is so a lot of these things again these ideas that manifest itself both in the serata cup and ours were actually our idea in the first place and and we implemented them and we are a leader whether it's the um the freebie contribution as you suggest whether it's the beach walk I mean these were all things the multiple beach access these are all things that actually proposed by us not even asked by us of the city the city obviously asked for more money in a couple situations but these are things all driven by us so that's not a good face sign that we will do well um um and we'll do right I I don't know what is I guess I guess the detail on it I mean is it going to only be offered August September October no it it'll be throughout the year there might be like a peak date in you know again I'm not in front of a calendar so maybe it's Fourth of July maybe it's Memorial Day weekend maybe it's non holidays yeah non- holidays exactly but the rest of the year yeah it's available I mean we're not we're not trying to be cute we're just trying to say okay if we're already over you know we have lots of capacity and everyone's running to stay up with business I'm not trying to promote even more business that overwhelms the infrastructure they property in the staff but the rest of the year yeah I don't have a problem we've been doing it already thank you Commissioners we're approaching 11 yeah was at the clock I'd like to make a motion to extend till midnight I'll second city clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner Philz yes commissioner res Niki yes commissioner Lorenzen yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patella yes motion carries so on 17 I'm not it says uh by completion of phase 1A is that a typo or I'm not sure what one a means uh for the record because I hav't spok tonight Kevin R uh with the uh applicants team the uh 1A is actually just a line item and the architect can confirm um where the first thing that has to happen so that the property stays in compliance is to build a parking garage so that's actually an internal item to to say 1A is first thing to be built as the parking garage uh and then the the tower follows so um if you want to modify that language is fine but the very first thing to be done will be the parking gar G in phase one so 1A is the parking garage correct so we could just put parentheses parking garage we could do that or I mean or you can just call it phase one but I think it's a benefit to say the parking garage um yeah work [Applause] so 19 talks about no new beach Amendment be seword of the cccl so if we wanted to I mean I asked already about that commissioner R Niki you talked about that I mean if we wanted to add something in there asking for removal of something I guess that would be the place to do it well the I mean we don't have to start talking about removals I mean that's a separate cup that has Clauses that allow us to remove it regardless but um I'm not quite sure why it's why it's here anyways um because all of those are separate you know the the water site for example is a cop in itself and all the other amenities are separate um licenses so are we then saying we agree with what's there currently is I'm I'm not no I think I think all we're doing is saying that they agree not to apply for any other conditional uses for anything just a good face seword of the Coastal Construction Control line so the way it was explain to me this is specifically there so we don't do another slide it's it's saying don't do more that's that's what this provision is about yeah specifically referring to no new ones kind of a good faith step forward we won't do anything else not meaning we agree with current ones either correct saying no new ones um and and I don't know where to add this because I I had this on a separate note which has to do with a CCL um line um and I don't know if it's elsewhere but um in Our Land Development code um you know if if someone is to um do substantial Improvement on a pool deck or or a pool right um is now allowable if it's sew of the CCL right so I I would like to place somewhere and I don't know if it goes here or elsewhere that if the two pools um that are seword of the CCL including the pool deck are to be substantially improved or remodeled or whatever may be that it needs to be removed so you're looking to remove the grandfathering I I mean this again this is a conditional use but and and I always hate using grandfathering because I I haven't read where it says things are grandfather no no I'm just saying it's right now they right now they'd be able to replace it in place correct as is where is and what you're proposing is that if it requires substant if it becomes it gets to the point where it becomes derel and require substantial Improvement it would have to be removed rather than replaced correct and even even for let's say um if the new pool between Alden and Rumfish were to be constructed right or wherever it may be I'm not I think we just had a brief conversation way in the beginning about the potential of that happening that that pool be removed because you're reducing water usage right this is also about water consumption right you're if you're adding any more water features that that would set the trigger somehow to have it removed so there there's two things I think you're asking one is asking if there's a substantial Improvement to the existing pool that seword at the Coastal Construction Control line it would be removed I believe that under the state regulations it would have to be removed if it if there was a substantial Improvement so that's you're just telling us what the law already says we're fine to put a condition in there that that that's what the law already is today because when they're mentioning grandfathering and then that's why I wasn't your grandfather because it exists but once you do substantial Improvement even under under your existing code then you have to bring things up to current code so I believe we're all saying the same thing and that's what your code already says today so you can't the general rules you can't expand or enlarge a non-conformity IL legal non-conformity pardon I was just saying the general rule is you can't expand or enlarge legal nonconformity so you have two what would happen with the beachwalk if if that's expanded I mean does it trigger it the beach walk if it's connected you know how we had discussions before that especially behind Breen Ridge because it's kind of in the middle from where the site plan when you look at the site plan um so we're either going to have to build around it or you know through it um that's they're they're gr those those two areas that go beyond the cccl uh are grandfathered in and the law would be that if they have to do a substantial change or Improvement let's just say the pools were becoming defective and they have to rebuild them it would be controlled just the same way any law would they'd have to come into Conformity with the new law which is pull back uh pull back uh landward of the cccl and we can write in there if you want to feel more comfortable about it and commissioner res Nikki the other thing you were concerned about is adding New Pools I think 36 addresses already addresses your issue it says through the site plan process the applicant shall demonstrate no net cubic volume or Surface area increase of accessory or ornamental water features sitewide so if we were to put a new pool in that means we need to take something out so we no net increase so so I think that addresses your concerns already in that condition and in that condition could that be the first choice you know because it's any right so you could be removing and I wasn't quite sure yet if you're keeping the Rumfish you know Fountain that's on in front of Gul or you could just and I'm just saying this because you could be removing that Fountain versus removing the pool in the back can we we haven't gotten to the Fountain I would assume there's a motorization someday there probably is not a fountain but we just to be honest with you I haven't even gotten to that minute detail yet and and remember just from a large scale perspective the site hasn't been fully engineered yet so a lot of this is these conditions are to protect the issues that you're identifying but since we don't have the subsequent phases or even phase one fully engineered so much of that is going to depend on the actual engineering of the site we understand and and I think that those um that that addresses your concern with 36 with but we we understand the intention musical microphone um are we adding to 19 is there a consensus that essentially no structures currently beyond the cccl I can word it any substantial Improvement to any structure currently past the cccl will have to come into compliance something along those lines okay is there sorry m is there a threshold generally if you're improving more than 25 35 50% what's the threshold generally I don't know the answer to that okay I just know for something like a pool because we deal with it all the time for code enforcement if you rep placing like a pool deck it's not substantial Improvement but if you're all of a sudden adding a spa and making it deeper I mean that is what staff has normally considered substantial Improvement thank you yeah I kind of got lost here too I thought we were good with 19 commissioner is Nikki this was your recommendation so we'll take I think we're just mirroring the the state laws what what we're doing you know I think you 36 right no 19 mayor if I may I just wanted to read the Land Development code of substantial Improvement just so everybody knows uh means a any combination of repairs construction Rehabilitation alteration addition or other improvements to a structure the cost of which exceeds or equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the Improvement or repair is restarted just so that's what we go by I'm good with 21 20 20 through 22 would 22 be where we add um last week we spoke about um when the landscape architect I think was speaking um to work with local community um like Doom Savers you know when they're should that be in this condition yeah that's fine D you have any proposed language we we can work on that and bring it back um dererk is with the uh Perry Becker as well and so did did anybody get that I didn't I mean please tell me what you guys just did I'm sorry the applicant made a commitment to work with can you tell me the groups I'm sorry they probably So currently dun Savers has been working with the city so the recreation um here in the city have been doing removal of it of exotic invasive plants and they've been also working with Treasure Island who also has another like dun saer organization um so uh to be a part of the community to work with this community group when they're doing their Landscaping making sure that their the placement isn't invasive plants that they're kind of battling right now on the beach um to kind of work together so as commissioner res Nikki described it at the last hearing it was that certain kinds of plants are more aggressive than others and so the idea would be that we would work with them during the site plan process administratively to select landscaping materials that were less aggressive for the nonnative Florida vegetation species so are you clear on the name you need dun Savers saers they're called dun saers thank you'll on that all right I I think we just put in that it's for the non-native aggressive vegetation uh to work with the organization that you stated you know and then commissioner riziki um I think condition 31 maybe where we would address if we don't want plastic correct I'm not I'm not sure what the proper wording would be because I don't think I mean landscape right you know and I think I think you know for me personally I think the concern would be pieces of stuff that break off and end up on the beach that's not actual vegetation right um just as an informational note um staff actually ask us to have nonre plants because of some of the concerns that you had expressed in the past about water and also about ma maintenance I don't know that Scott can talk about that um he's our landscape not our our architect um and I know that he designed those so he can talk about what kind you know I don't know do you want to help me here I'm floundering yeah and my my concern in addition to the concern commissioner res Nikki made would be you know we would want it to look good so if it is going to be real How Could You assure that it's going to upkeep will be good yeah I SC eyes and heart um we also want it to look good as well uh there's been some amazing advancements in synthetic planning um but I understand your concern if we went with live planning uh that would have to be something that we coordinated obviously with Perry backers as they're the experts in in landscape to have something that grows there but I know that uh we do Resorts all over that have plannings that are able to thrive in different conditions so we just have to work closely with them to get something that uh would work effective ly for our situation you know um I appreciate the comment and I definitely understand where you're going um one thing that I try and balance when I think about that garage and I think about the landscape I think okay let's say we had real plants and it was on a water system and for whatever reason there's a you know fungus that comes through and it turns all brown or the water system breaks for a week and no one realizes it until it's too late and they start dying I'm worried that'll look worse number one but I'm also worried about um and I very much respect the initiatives and the objectives you're trying to achieve which is reduce water usage at the same time we're we're adding a lot I see if that's all live plants that that's a lot of water um like a trem because think about it we're 1,700 feet long right and those garages are a good portion of that so you're talking about you're talking about five six stories talking about plants up and down 1,700 ft you know it's a lot I think that's actually a bigger use of water than a pool so I'm worried about that for our own selfish reasons too right it's it's it's money right it's not just the environment it's also a lot of money but I'm pretty confident that we can work together with our landscape architect to find good artificial Alternatives and look we're going to be charging a lot for these hotel rooms the last thing I want for people to pull up and say oh wow that's fake landscape I mean we failed if I'll be very honest we failed if that's the result so I I'm with you I don't want stuff that that I'm sure there's other Alternatives I'd love to work and make sure that I I don't want stuff drifting fake pollen around the site that's horrible and I agree with you it's horrible also because it's just bad for the cars bad for the guests and then bad for our water and runoff so I would still like to do that I think we can find a really high-end solution I'm sure it exists out there and I think that the water savings are really going to be worth it because I don't know how we can live up to these silver lead standards but then have all these plants that is draining water I don't know how we can live up to the standards in the da that says we have to be 35% below typical water usage and then we add all this I just I'm kind of getting squeezed by all the between all these requirements I'm not sure how to to walk that path without doing something like artificial landscape there thanks for understanding and the words of y bear it's deja vu all over again the parking garages and U one more point to add to this Kevin real for the record is um they probably and I'll have um a followup here but it probably wouldn't be native it's hard there there's not a good Florida species to grow that way so that's another thing to consider and can you explain what species there would be for the record Derek Taylor per recer design Orlando Florida um Florida we do provide the toughest environment plants to grow vertically to hide our architecture um we might have to venture a little bit out of native so that we can get something that's going to be robust um I will say that through the design of the architecture I think the way that the landscape has been shown it's not a consistent green wall to completely masked but is strategically placed and I think we can work in the advancement of that to try to provide the resfit within the architectural facades to help provide the best opportunity for growth um we have seen some of the the fake plants put in strategic area so there's 100% green to how a offset in Balance when other plants kind of go through the phases of the seasons um but I think it's going to be smart strategic um working with the architecture to integrate that so that you mean a combination of artificial and we we will strive to get 100% real material but um also knowing that that can be a large ass for that plant material to take that much abuse um but I think it's it's a valid point about the fake material degrading and have to be replaced over time so I think it's very strategic but we'll work for that for sure so I I would say I'm okay with the synthetic if it looks good and it saves water we can't all I I tend to agree I I think as the you know bet balancing bet balancing the options um you know I wonder if there's some you know I I I don't know that we can spell out every detail um you know I I I would certainly hope that they would be trying to find the highest quality or the least likely to end up in the Waterway I'm not sure if there's any way to to draft that or to to guide staff at site plan stage to you you know require a certain quality of synthetic plant material or something like that suggest that we just say a durable highquality synthetic option is acceptable um durable meaning that it's not going decompose and float away um I appreciate Derek's fervor but um I uh I don't agree with what he just said so um I really think I'd rather do more screening because I re maybe I'm just panicking but the amount of water to water this wall pools you haven't seen anything that's a real water usage because it's constant it's on a drip system it's all day long it's you know it's more in certain Seasons I really think that's going way in the wrong direction of where we want to be environment responsible and I realize we're not Saints we're not perfect we have work to do but I think that's one of the things that would be going the wrong direction could could I recommend we stick with methodology we've been using that we do up down votes among the five of us so we don't get too stuck in a place you know know what I mean so um you wanted what would you like so we can no it's it's not about me I'm trying to you mentioned other alternative screening that you would prefer an alternative screening is that what you were saying as opposed to real live uh plants I think that's one of the solutions we can look at yes yeah so if if that's if it's really like I'd rather have screening as opposed to fake plants and that's something we can I think it personally looks better with a mix because it it breaks your sight line up more into different patterns and it I think it looks more luxurious and high-end to have synthetic plants but if the commission's really like no we'd rather pref all screening we'll figure out a way to screen it and just forget the plants I I like the synthetic plants but I would add in about the high dur durable high-end I don't know how else to say a durable high quality I just want to remind the commission that there is that check-in that we do with you so you know let's say there is an issue with some of the plants that's why we have to come in and check in with you every year to see how we're doing those are the kind of things that we anticipate we would talk about so there is going to be these touch points throughout the process um so I would recommend the durable you know highquality language and then again you're going to have the opportunity to look at us and say you know what it it's not doing it whatever and then we can adjust from there yeah I agree with that great condition 31 thank you I don't have any other questions with the remaining conditions 38th I don't that this one is a huge sticking point for me I don't I don't think 90 days is necessary in the first place don't violate it in the second place 30 days is adequate time to rectify can anybody in the staff that's here remember what we've done for others I I don't recall that number if I may that is another standard language we have like if there is some kind of code violation and again this isn't a single family home this is a commercial property so some violations may be larger and require more coordination ordering of something perhaps than just a like a nominal violation so I think we just have to keep in mind that there could be a a complete range um and that's why we've we've done the 90 if parts or some has to be ordered or manufactured or something's broken say a canopy I mean I'm just spitballing but it allows for that time does that number seem uh familiar with other things we've approved absolutely thank you since that's consistent with what we generally do I'm fine with the 90 days concur all right with it if I may I just had one question with regards to the going back to the beginning um number five with the glass barrier and the change for the uh the restaurant I don't know if it was put on the record for Testimony that we're not having any um music there but is it intended to be open on the sides or is there going to be some enclosure on phase one no this is phase one yeah number phase one that we eliminated you eliminated that if it's open on the side now or if that's still going to be entirely en closed because we didn't have a rendering so your code talks about rooftop uh dining being open air or open to the sky so without that we could not be have true wall we'd have to have walls of some sort um and a roof that's my understanding of the code and I did talk to gron about that so next would be the development agreement or if we want to add any additional conditions one was the multimodal I think that condition was under the development agreement that's on their G but before we get to that there's a few other [Applause] items for on Section 3C page 1052 we page five in this one sidewalk page five of the development agreement page 1052 of our binder sidewalks sidewalks again one of the things that's required by the Land Development code um I don't think waiting 20 years is acceptable I think just like the um we talked about the internal compliance within the first 12 months or so um I think at the very least the sidewalk should all be completed by uh by the end of phase one um it could be I mean it literally could be 20 years before you see anything down by the Alden and the Rumfish and so I think if you're if you're concerned about pedestrians and if you're concerned about making sure that they're safe um I don't see why we can't accelerate that plan I think my concern with requiring that would be that if they have to build the sidewalk and then tear it up for some future construction then that's another time when the sidewalk is being constructed that the right hand lane of southbound Gulf Boulevard is closed and with all the talk of traffic being a problem it seems like when one lane of the Gulf Boulevard is closed is when traffic is the absolute worst um and so if I remember correctly that was part of the reason for the sidewalk potentially not having to be completed until the end was so they didn't have to build the sidewalk tear it up to build some next phase of the development and then rebuild the sidewalk um and I mean I guess I don't care how many times we make them build the sidewalk but every time they have to do that is another time when a lane is closed on Gul bevard I mean at this rate half the benefits that we're supposed to be getting some of us might not be around and live to see them if I can clarify if you continue reading that provision there's a requirement that if more than six years elapse between the issuance of the first vertical permit to the second we have to go in and complete the entire sidewalk very similar to storm water so that's already baked into your development agreement yeah that's if you take too long in between developments what I'm proposing is that it'll be completed by the end of phase one that's impossible to do um from an architectural perspective can you put the overhead on please we had many meetings with the city about this and we would have to we might as well build the whole thing out all at once not even in phases without continual construction there's utilities there I mean there's so many things that would have to be relocated it's impossible to do that unless we build everything all at once from an engineering standpoint I mean that is the fact which is why we negotiated the six years okay I mean Jennifer McMahon just for the record and just how the process went because of the utilities what she just explained we did sit and meet with them um and that's where you have the next condition under there about the beachwalk about them paying for that that's the what we negotiated for that because if the sidewalk is ripped up as commissioner Marriott was explaining that it would be difficult to transverse if we had a beachwalk that is in the back of the property that would be available when they're doing construction um closer to Gul Boulevard so that would give Avail availability for people to transverse there so it was a ying and yang on those two conditions to allow for the extra time but them paying for the beach walk that would be behind the building that would not um deter people from being able to walk um North South so that so that was the reasoning when we sat with the city manager and their team to go through those for the development agreement during the construction the the sidewalk will still be open for say right with barriers so if at the end of phase one we get a 10 foot wide sidewalk that 10 foot wide will still be somehow connecting to the current one so technically we can still walk the sidewalk it won't be the safest you know but um there'll still be a connection yes on unfortunately you know I do agree it would be we won't see it for let's just say 20 years hopefully it would be much sooner but you'll still have a sidewalk along the way that's correct well and it sounds like the sidewalk plan is kind of in uh lock step with f storm water because that has a six-year trigger as well and I can kind of understand from an engineering standpoint how you want to go down the row and do both those probably almost about the same time that brings us to G Mobility Services so just to understand where we are in the process is this the last condition we're talking about in either the cup Andor the development agreement is that correct no we still got this many pages okay want us to skip I I'd like that just to make sure I understand the totality I'd appreciate that thank you which brings us to J marine turtle compliance for I because it says developer shall design and construct this is under Dune restoration but isn't this the city that's going to um design not the Dune restoration it's the beach walks yeah I believe the city's designing the beach walk but the but the Dune I mean I I I may be naive about but I think the Dune restoration is essentially controlled by the Department of Environmental Protection right I'm I'm I'm I'm imagining there's not much leeway with them in what you what you can reconstruct as far as Dunes go this is a design this is not a reconstruction so and because we talked about this at the last meeting um because there's a lot of open space between current walk and and what's do and if we're trying to restore it you know but we're not part of the design so then we're allowing a lot of those Open Spaces well if you recall we have to build the Dune we have to design and build the Dune immediately and we mention sort of the problem that it will pose for the developer although we've agreed to it that if you come in and the beachwalk is interfering with the dunes that are permitted FD fdp is going to tell us where we can put the dun um you know there's a preliminary design but we will come in and we will get permitting um that's a requirement under the development agreement if the beachwalk interferes with that we will that we know there's a potential that we may have to come back and modify some of those dunes and get those rep permitted that's the requirement under the development agreement so the the city designs the beachwalk so to speak but there is there will be collaboration obviously with the developer since it's on the developer property um but then we will actually construct your city design and pay for that Beach Walk and in this part is and um you help me out city manager or or maybe Kristen is this where the removal of all the Exotic trees applies because this is Preservation Zone this is not part of the site um zone right where we buil where we're building so is that triggered like all the Australian pine that's behind the Rumfish I would believe um and I'm not 100% certain but I believe that would be under a separate permit that would have to be required it wouldn't be combined in with the dunes well my question is does this have to be a condition you know if we want the removal of those exotic trees does that have to be a separate condition because it's not part of the Landscaping I would say right of the lot I'm not quite sure do we need to state that here uh it would be the safest thing to do to to State it because I don't think we have an answer for you on that so just to make sure you could state that to remove yeah any exotic or invasive trees that are in in the Dune restoration and just Jennifer McMahon Al we do have a permit process that we have combined with d for any invasive removal in our Dune system so we would just fall in line with what we have existing to do that so I don't know if that's got to be included and how we reward that so it's already included in other words this is be re we already have that process in place we have a process in place yeah so you may just want to state that they would be required to follow that process and me double check with you Jennifer the process is if you remove it if if I'm correct because I know like Landscaping Citywide if you remove if you remove an exotic you don't have to replace anything is that what you're talking about or or just that the fact that is on our list for any tree removal yeah but in this case this is a a dune restoration which might not require the removal of an invasive or exotic tree so what what I'm asking is the removal of this invasive I think they're two separate things if I could say Dune restoration is different than the removal of invasives that's correct and we can separate the two but there are guidelines and permitting process both through us and through D for us to do those so I I just want to be clear that Dune restoration and invasive tree REM removal or plant removal are two different items so are you asking for the removal of exotic any exotic vegetation asking for it for the site c c CW of the cccl which is the preservation Zone correct because we're asking for it on where we're constructing correct on the on the the lot right the zoning lot but the preservation Zone unless I'm Incorrect and you can correct me if it includes it then it's included right it means all invasive for exotic the Dune restoration and the Beach Walk are in the preservation Zone yes which is see where of the cccl correct so to I think to um the city manager's point is to be safe is to State it to be safe yeah you just say that you want those removed yeah yeah sure so I think we can leave it up to staff whether that gets included in I or if it's a separate item and just a point of clarification that that's as the Dune restoration the the beach Walker constructed right so that we don't have to do it twice we remove it as we do that work correct yeah during the Dune restoration yeah because in the on this item I it mentions Breen Ridge coral reef and Alden properties does that mean we have to State um Rumfish properties as well because it's not mentioning Rumfish um we're only you know it's only mentioning four for buildings I think that's what if correct me if I'm but that's really where your focus is those two big trees out in front of Rumfish that's the biggest that's I think there's four or whatever it is outside of Rumfish that's what you're really focused on okay yeah that's we can however you want to word that that's fine I mean we've talked about removing those trees anyway so Assistant Attorney you got what you need on that one yep all right do do we need to change anything on D with the beach accesses I think we're on Marine Turtles for a second okay [Music] I'm good through all through Section Five I'm sorry six my question is 4D with the beach accesses do we need to change any wording there yeah it seems to be contradictory to the verbiage in section one so yes I don't know what version you guys are are looking at um but if we're talking about beach access we should really go back up to 3A did you hand out yes I was looking at the one bind her so maybe it's in the beginning page four so there should be six sections in 3A yes yeah and this one yes so 4D should be Rewritten to conform to section three yeah I just wanted to make sure you all were reviewing version that I'm reviewing 3A that has okay yes 3 yes so 4D will say phas one 3A was the 3 is these each access that's D in the agreement that's that's the old one this is the old this is one we handed out today not what I was given today this is was given today B Jack this is D so what is the change to 4D it's going to be Rewritten to match what's in Section 3 1 through six right now I've removed two and four just put phase one but we could probably take out the sentence too Matthew just to be clear are you looking at the the changes that was provided by the applicant I just made those changes okay I think we're all looking at different documents yeah I'm looking at the document you gave me today and under that it's item D 4 d she just said three four section 4 d right but what's this 3A we're talking about that's I don't have anything references there was there was some proposed language based on the fact that phase four easement is now being permanent in phase one which document are we trying to adopt T right I those are just proposals from them that's the only language that they include is in 3A everything else I'm drafting as we go so you are looking at the correct document hey there's a very small language in that one I would just put that to the side so 4D is where we are 4 d is the number we're talking about correct we're removing two and four and replacing it with the number one okay okay we're further down section four I'm sorry Matthew so what will be the new language for 4 d what would be the new language the first sentence will remain the same kind of redundant second sentence will say the additional beach access provided within phase one instead of two and four about the north beach access correct phase one essentially all the beach accesses are going to be provided for in phase one thank I think we're up to section six are we where is the uh section that deals with the um airport shuttle we'll find the reference but it's actually a code requirement which is why it didn't end up in the documents because it's already a code requirement but we'll find that section so much like we talked about the turtles pedestrian safety picking up your stuff off the beach and so on I think what we're trying to achieve with the shuttle service is to get the cars off the road but if nobody knows that there's a shuttle service no one's going to use the shuttle service and so one of the things that I would like to see is that just like with the other things that there would be um adequate education and advertisement at the property to let visitors know that this is an option so I know for example the um the chamber does these little card handouts that they give to all the hotels about you know watch out for the dunes watch out for the birds watch out for the turtles don't cross gol Boulevard in the dark wearing all black right so if we're trying to achieve few of cars in the road there's already a lot of that information in the rooms in the booklet we can absolutely add something saying that air airport shutts are available upon request make the part of the C condition that's what I was thinking so we'll put it on the end yeah it's not an appropriate development agement put in the cup because you're going to do it right away cup that's right so that would be number that' be number 40 well the that the CP is going to be all renumbered but we can yeah put the yeah so I had stuff like uh Matthew if you're looking for ideas just to be prominently advertised in lobby on their website and when you say advertised you're talking everything right shuttle I mean in particular we're talking about the shuttle Golf GL or just the shuttle no no we're talking specifically about the things that are in the codes and plans okay similar to what is required for sea turtles like pamphlets in the room brochers that check in that kind of language in the book I don't want to get ability operate the business but I'd like to I mean who knows where technology is who knows if websites are used who knows if it's all you know social media I don't know so if we can use it more loose I mean there might be something that goes out in your reservation email says contact us if you need to be picked up from the airport you know call this number quick on this link that might might be today's technology tomorrow's technology might be something different so you know if we have some language about we'll make sure we educate the customer about it by having materials available for the customer I think that's fine but um you know it might be a booklet in the room that you flip open it might be a pler in the room it might be a website it might be a social media post it might be something that doesn't exist today that exists tomorrow I have no idea what it is yeah I think the language I use was prominently advertised so how you do that really we're not specifying that you need to use pamphlets or the only PA I have with that language is prominently like you know if we're advertising rooms for sale does prominently mean in priority to the rooms we're advertising for sale I don't the word prominently I don't really know what that means or I'm afraid that it might mean in preference to our normal business which goes to leisa's point no I think just in terms of for example if you went to any um any Hotel website hotels.com Expedia Etc right you can search for example by property amenities I would just giving an example of that that would be giving priority to one thing over another it's just that hey it's on the list of amenities that we're off so that's an an outstanding point right so that those amenities like iron in your room or whatever is listed on the amenities that's not prominently listed it's within the detail of the reservation but it's not prominent so I don't mean to like play lawyer and get specific with the language I apologize but as long as you know we're taking appropriate steps to educate the customer and provide materials hopefully that's good enough language but maybe we should just how about promote and educate promote promote educate we what we don't want is to set up where we're arguing about what is prominent and we're someone's saying you're in violation of the cup because you don't have a large sign in your lobby saying there's an airport shuttle I think that if we I'd like that language and we'd agree to that language all right any other items before we get back to the multimodal I'm good with the rest of the uh development agreement most of it's I hate to say boiler plate but it's standard stuff the only other thing that I have uh concern with is the uh skipping concurrency for phase one this is to me again another safeguard that is put in the comprehensive plan Land Development code and in fact if you look at the development agreement that several times cites you know section 4 a LDC says this we're going to do something else section 4B LDC says this we're going to do something else so and I understand it's only the traffic so still so if I may explain this the way to establish Transportation concurrency is to do a study which we've done and the study includes all four phases and so the reason that the development agreement says what it says is because we studied all four phases but we're only reserving concurrency for phase one so so the development agreement is meant to work in the reverse it's meant to make clear that we're not reserving concurrency for faces three 2 three and four it's only satisfying phase one if the traffic study for uh phase one is to be done again in you know two months when the uh the building permit comes in it's it's going to be the same so the issue here is the ways list in the development agreement is to make clear that even though the study included all the traffic it only reserves phase one so I I mean we've already comply with that it's not skipping anything this is the process to comply with Transportation concurrency this is what would be done to comply with Transportation concurrency we're protecting the City by saying it's only phase one city manager could I ask for your um expertise is it I mean is it unusual for an applicant to do a traffic study and then not be required to do another one in 3 months when they get a building permit or or or would it be common that somebody would do a traffic study for something like this and that then at the building permit stage in 12 weeks they would be required to do a second traffic study well I've seen the second one is required but usually not in that time time frame if you're giving someone additional time to start say you're giving someone two years to start start their project then you may want to require an additional one but if you're expecting the project to start within a reasonable amount of time then usually that the one you have initially is is adequate well that's where section 4 a comes in building permit LDC section 4.3 c not withstanding the developer shall submit application for site approval plan within one year normally they would have to start breaking ground within one year so we're actually giving them additional time because of that it may not be three months it might be 15 months might be 18 months so let me clarify something on the record the transportation analysis is not a requirement under your code for a cup your staff came to us and ask us to do this Transportation analysis early so that we could talk about these issues and show you the concurrency issues during this process concurrent with this process this is not us trying to G gain something on the city This Is Us trying to provide you with information prior to when your code requires it to show you and give you the comfort that the adequate facilities the level of service and the intersection analysis exist so whether it is now or in 3 months or in six months we can have our transportation engineer come up here he's already testified that the results don't change there are so much capacity and levels of service that this is not going to change for at least through phase one um and so to require an additional study whether it's too much six months or when we apply for site plan which is when you would normally look at concurrency if it was not a cup seems like a lot of wasted time and effort on everyone's part since we've already provided you with that information and if you'd like I can have Steve Henry address his study again to show you you know to confirm that if I if I could comment on that too I think there's two things here one is exactly what uh uh what she said about probably probably not a change so you have to determine are you going to be comfortable that the numbers you've seen in the traffic study that was done are going to be adequate when they do start a year from now 18 months from now do you think that there will in your opinion do you think that there will be any significant changes between now and then that would change that the other thing you have to realize is that the traffic study actually took into account all four phases uh so they're showing you now with the traffic study that there's actually meeting the concurrency for all four stages but we're still requiring them to come back with stage two three and four so so I think those are the two things you have to feel comfortable with on that on whether or not to require another one whether it be 3 months from now or whenever that site plan approval comes along I'm very comfortable with the traffic study as it is and not requiring a second one uh in in addition to all the things the city manager just just touched on you know I think we hadn't discussed before that that for this traffic study they also use traffic for the Corey Landings project and that conditional use permit has has expired I mean that that project doesn't even exist anymore but they use that traffic so if if they do another traffic study you know 78 12 months down the road and don't take into consideration Cory Landings which is no longer a project that's that's happening I mean I I can't imagine the traffic study would be anything except for more Advantage you know show more capacity well you've got 4500 units are being built at Maximo and those people where do you think they're going to be going to the beach and so there could be a very big swing in the traffic count uh May remind the the commission that we're using a growth rate that's 400% higher than reality actual numbers and we're using a city manager points out a unit count that's nearly 400% the actual unit count that's going to be built in phase one so I I have to go back to high school math but is that like exponentially four times so are we 16 times is that right um 16 times above reality I think at some point we have to say enough is enough and and this is gone Way Beyond any expectation of a realistic study or analysis and we' have to move on I mean that's that's my I don't know anyone who can take what I just said and turn it into something else it's just a fact this is the way it's being done to I I concur I I think we've um gone through this traffic analysis extensively second point is I think I need to make a motion that we extend to one o' I make a motion we extend to one o'cl second second city clerk if you'll please to a roll call commissioner as Nikki yes vice mayor Lorenzen yes commissioner marott yes commissioner Philz yes mayor P yes okay who is this mayor my name is Dave montine I'm the one who did the review of the uh applicants work 40 years of experience so the applicant himself has 40 years of experience it's 80 years combined experience um he did do the traffic study for all four phases and it showed that it was under capacity still so by conclud You can conclude that phase one would definitely be under capacity so the next time a traffic study would be done would be when they submit for phase two correct and then you accumulate all the trips for the existing phase one add in phase two they'll probably do it again for all four phases if they're under capacity for all four phases they're going to be under capacity for phases one and two so you'll get a chance to look at that later on okay thank you I'm done with my uh questions on the development agreement think we're back to 3G yeah we going to go back to G Mobility 3G I apologize 3G okay I I don't know I I feel like it was kind of an arbitrary thing we're asking um for additional money I I'm not sure I understand the I I get your point mayor about we'd be if approved we'd be going out to 20 years um it almost comes across as punitive to me I'm not getting it I guess I need to be to hear your thoughts on that some more yeah Land Development code says you get 10 years they're applying for 20 years Land Development says you have to start within 12 months they want to start later Land Development code has got all these Provisions in here every single one of them that we're removing all the safeguards if you're asking for 20 years then but how does that rectify anything I I don't get it no I'm simply saying is you're you're going to be impacting you're going to be having impact for 20 years right therefore 20 years now personally I'm not comfortable with giving them 20 years period understand mayor if I may go back to your own words where you said the impact is really Perpetual I actually agree with you so when we look at SRA and we say they're paying five years I actually often wonder why we're paying 10 um and then I said okay well they're doing maybe 300 and something new units we're doing 600 so we're paying double what they're paying okay that kind of makes sense you know didn't make a big deal of it and said okay we we want everyone to win with this as we've always said but to use your own words mayor when you say that it's a a Perpetual impact to sit there and then tie it to some time period That's a a development period doesn't really have anything to do with um with the Perpetual impact that s is paying for a few extra hundred units we're paying for 600 units I'm just um to your point commissioner L and I'm not not following the the math well s said they'll be done in three to five years they're not asking for 20year development agreement you are yeah just so to go back to your words it's a Perpetual impact right that when you're built units doesn't matter how quickly you build them or when you build them um but I think what your point is and I agree with you actually mayor which is that Perpetual impact should be paid for in some lumpsum amount I think we're double what SRA is I I saw the logic and what the city did there you know where you're building double you pay double and that's that that's the way I understood the Genesis of it so I'm not really following where you're going with this and we keep talking about impacts and I have to go back to the fact that the impacts are paid through impact fees you have a Mobility fee ordinance we are paying those this is all on top of those impact fees so when you say it feels punitive it feels very punitive from this side particularly when it's not really related to those impacts um it feels sort of like an extraction of additional money or wanting to get one more thing I understand you're you're trying to get as much as you can from this developer but at at some point we want to feel like what you're asking for is mitigating the impacts that you are concerned about and I don't feel like this particular situation does that for the record well section 4.1 states that if that the city commission may impose mitigate mitigating measures to address concerns and there are several concerns that would be addressed by this it's not arbitrary or punitive I'm sure you perceive it that way that's all right but for the record we asked for 16 conditions and so far the only one that you've given us is signage for the shuttle you've turned down every single thing that we've asked for as a commission you haven't agreed to a single one not from the smallest not to the biggest and so I'm not really sure what I'm seeing here there's a lot of cooperation I think what we're have here is you have the way that you want it done this is the only way you're willing to do it mayor I disagree with your characterization of that I think that they've cleared been incredibly willing to work with staff over a long period of time to negotiate a lot of these things and the fact that we weren't involved in every step of the negotiation that they've been doing with staff doesn't mean that it didn't happen um I personally am totally fine with the previously agreed on with staff agreement of 10 years um for the for the micr mobility payment um I think that's completely fine I personally I would be ready to make a motion if no one has significant more discussion we did not finish this point because the last time we had three people that were in favor for the 20 years and I have not heard from the other two Commissioners okay yeah that's what I was going to say I concur with you on the uh keeping um the 10 years as is I I don't agree with 20 years I I mentioned that earlier so what's the term of the development agreement pardon for the term of the development agreement yeah for the 20 years ter correct I just want to be clear if we're asking for 20 is the answer no I think originally the mayor was asking for as long as it took for the project to get completed for the term of the development agreement so if the development agreement is 10 years then it's 10 years if it's 15 years it's 15 years okay so if we're asking for the term of the agreement is the answer no or is the answer yes commissioner I mean with due respect the way i' answer that question is uh I still haven't heard the rationale or the justification for why it should be more than doubled in serata if this is a Perpetual impact they're adding a few hundred units we're adding roughly double I don't have the math of my head we're paying double the fee to offset the impact on traffic I still haven't heard a rationale for why it should be quadruple I I just I'm not falling so when the S there's something else I think is important as you think about the dollars we're talking about 10 years or 20 but we're forgetting about the dollars and what they pay for with the freebie contribution so when we started these discussions with the city and I think this is important we went to Jennifer and we said how much does it cost to put another to operate a freebie for a year or to get a new freebie and it was 50 or $60,000 50 or $60,000 um the idea was that we would get a new freebie for a period of time but then it wasn't the $60,000 it was more and it became $125,000 so it it sort of snowballed so it it's not the term it's how much more we're doing based on the impact and even where these discussions started which I think you're he why you're hearing so much resistance $60,000 we're more than double the $60,000 to add an entire new freebie for that for a year so so then it got stacked to because we talked about different terms and different links and then it was we want that more front-loaded so we get the money earlier we would have preferred to spread it out but at a lesser amount so it became 10 years at $125,000 so I don't think it's the term I think it's the amount of money and what it's going to go to for the freebie and the fact that we've already agreed to a shorter term with more money so again you get more money into your Mobility System earlier and now we're just we're more than doubling each year and then trying to spread that out over 20 years so I think it's the impact of the total contribution and the payment um you don't know about these negotiations because you haven't been part of them but we've there's been a lot that's gone into it thank you mayor if I I I just want to I've heard some words that bother me I guess um this is not punitive at all um this is a and it's not about freebie it's a mobility of services that was discussed uh through this process and and it's rationally related to the impact and it's proportionate um it's not a punitive it's there's nothing punitive about this this was developed um through uh calculations and thought careful thought with the manager and others it's not it's not just like how do you fund the freebie I mean because it could be other things so I don't I don't want Council to to kind of flippantly say that this is punitive I didn't say it was punitive one of the Commissioners did and by the way that is not how the negotiations occurred I was in every negotiation just for the record you said you you said it was you said It felt punitive it does feel punitive okay it feels punitive um the negotiations were not as you just described them I was in all of those negotiations and so were Wayne and the dollar amount was sort of well let's would you agree to this amount um it wasn't like okay that amount is is going to fund this be the impact I just want to be clear I I'm sorry that I feel frustrated I just feel like we've done so much in this regard and it's $1.25 million that you get the first 10 years um and so I'd just like you to take all of that into consideration but I think your client actually said he saw the math and he understood it he said he said I saw the math and I understood it so uh a point of clarification I don't view the million 250 as punitive um what because that's ratably appropriate for other cups that have been approved by the commission so it seems like there's a rational um and quite honestly I I proposed it right the reason why we're talking about this today is because I came and said what can I do for the city so everyone wins and I said how can I further reduce traffic and I came up suggestion of the freebie shuttle and it's got a fancy name now called Mobility whatever sorry well could change it could be something else could be something else and so what feels punitive to us is that when you go beyond the million 250 I think that's what feels punitive because it's not rable with what's been approved under other cups such as Sado well I was just referring to what was negotiated because I heard that word punitive and I didn't think that that was a I didn't think that was a proper characterization a million 250 is what we agreed to and so that's you are asking above and beyond what others are asking for for above and beyond what's in Our Land Development code for 10 years you're asking for 20 so we can keep going around on this and we're going to keep disagreeing 63 units an acre versus 75 I don't think it's above and beyond I that's actually less than what the code provides for but anyway like you said we can go round and round all night long I'm not sure I heard commissioner Philz I just want clarification if they're agreeing to it or not we save it to till the end so it sounds like they're not agreeing to it okay so you I think that what was on the table was are we good with as existing and I think we had two yeses so I think we're just waiting to hear from everybody else I mean of course i' would love to see more money for the city and I prefer for it to be 20 but we asked them they said no and they're asking us and we can say no too it's this has just been again 16 asks one yes it's I mean it's in our job description is to put in mitigating efforts it is our job to put in conditions you know the staff laid out a long laundry list of things that they thought were significant issues with the comprehensive plan Land Development code where this project does not conform and then they suggested some condition and I'm looking at and saying hey I think there's some conditions that were missed or that we you know but every everything we asked for you know Turtle lighting or Turtle compliance nope sidewalks nope you know Mobility nope so I ask again you know what are we getting in return well we're getting $125,000 over 10 years I mean I think that's a good amount I was just simply asking for more sure I mean they're getting 1.3 billion so you know so I think we've discussed the all of our perceived benefits and and things that we are not as happy with um for you know whatever four or five hours now um so are you making decision for the next 20 years you should take the time absolutely and I think we have and I think we've I think we've carefully examined a lot of issues and I think we've had some robust discussion and I appreciate many of the comments that my fellow Commissioners have made I think it's very clear that everybody has put a lot of thought and Care into this um and I would like to make a motion to approve with conditions uh as have been discussed tonight resolution 2023 d27 okay so we're going to start with the cup all right okay so the Motions for modification or uh approval of the cup with conditions as modified right and so just to be clear we're going to have to modify the resolution language as well because that's got part of your C in it okay you need time to do that or is that something you do no it's it's just because part of the advertisement had the outdoor dining Cup in it which they've withdrawn so I just want to make sure everybody understands that we're going to we'll have to modify the the the language of the resolution to match that so do I need to restate anything or are we just waiting for a second so the tell what about so we've got Matthew can you me up for a second let's just get go through this so just to be clear we're talking about the uh removal of the outdoor dining cup um and I think it was conditions is it two through something I personally think the way the motion was said is sufficient yeah it's okay long as everybody knows what they're voting on I second so yeah clarify and go through it but happy to do that like I did last time I can go condition through condition if if you all want I know what I don't think a lot of things were changed not much no not I don't think anything was changed I wouldn't say that either um I think it's important that everybody knows what they're voting on okay so we have a motion in a second the resolution I did not modify the title but to Andrew's point now that they've modified the condition for the outdoor beach restaurant the title will have to be modified next condition two the words the second floor of the beach front restaurant constructed in phase one as part of the first sentence are removed condition three and four condition three is unchanged condition four prior to certificate of OAC for phase one and two says phase two condition five is stricken in entirety condition 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 are unchanged I personally put a note under operational and design requirements to add some kind of condition related to advertising of shuttle just for shuttle I just thought that was the best place for it sorry Matthew where did you put that um there's a title above condition 11 that says Resort development operational and design requirements and I just put a I just figured under that section is where we should just uh include the advertising for shut for shuttle so we'll add a new condition related to that correct um condition 12 right reads upon completion of the phases all newly constructed Hotel buildings subject to this approval shall be constructed to and contain the amenities associated with a Ford Diamond rated lodging or better in the AAA travel guide or by a rating agency of similar Authority the next sentence remains unchanged all the way up into high hotel quality consultation or Consultation Services such as the project architect and then the remaining portion of that sentence is unchanged the current 13 14 are unchanged 15 with Rel with uh regards to the renderings it excludes phase one rest restaurant based on the change there will be updated rendering that will have to substantially comply 16 was unchanged 17 after 1A in parenthesis parking garage 18 unchanged 19 last sentence if the applicant substantially improves any structure or accessory structure currently located seword of the cccl comma the applicant shall be required to bring the structure into compliance with applicable codes 20 21 unchanged 22 left the comment non-native vegetation work with dun Savers uh we need to include that 23 through 30 unchanged 31 I made a note at the end of this High durable synthetic Landscaping shall be used so we will word that into the condition based on and then the remaining quity and dur thank you uh remaining conditions remain unchanged there's a telecommunication condition proposed I did not see that right here right so we'll add that one into the appropriate places all of these are going to have to be uh renumbered obviously um did we mayor do we actually discuss that one the I'm not sure if we discuss that as a group we slow it down but so that one has to do with the C Mark uh telecommunication issue I don't think y all discussed it that was proposed by the applicant did I think they just have to decide say it finish so I believe we we on that unless there's some objection or change that would be added is that correct there are consensus that the commission wants this proposed condition included how would you like to do that Andrew now that the motion's been seconded without this condition do we need to modify anything yeah if you can amend your motion to include the Telecommunications condition sure I'd like to amend my motion to include the Telecommunications who seconded seconded condition yeah I am so sorry hang on one second I lost my motion and while you're all doing that I just want to remind everyone that this meeting is still ongoing we still have City business to conduct after this next vote so I will remind you about maintaining the Quorum if you want to exit please do so quietly okay so you made an amended motion was there second yep over here okay thank you Matthew I appreciate that problem anything further no I was just going to stand up here he likes to do that city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner res Nikki no commissioner Lorenzen yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Philz yes mayor patella no motion carries 3 to2 okay so the next item will be the development agreement right let's see I think we should probably do the same thing have Matthew come up and just go through the numbers so we um do you me to go through this before the motion if there is a motion um [Music] so I have some clean up on one of the wear asses um so so page three second one from the top where it starts off with whereas the city acknowledges the project is a large Redevelopment for over 25 acres comma designed in four phases in parenthesis each prospective phase of development here and after a project phase close quotation what the definition um okay first change substantive is section 3A one during the construction of last sentence during the construction of each applicable phase of development is stricken now that all three phases will be provided for in phase one number two developer shall construct the landward beach axises located within phase one and four during phase one of the project and shall Grant a non-exclusive easement for public pedestrian Ingress and egress over the phase one and four landward beach access as shown on the cup plan within 30 days of receiving the certificate of occupancy for the buildings located in Phase One remaining portion of that deleted number three developer shall granted non-exclusive easement for public pedestrian Ingress and egress from this is what's included where the landward beach access is located within phase one and four intercept I guess I just should is it easier if I just read the whole thing changed the whole okay the cccl to the wet sand also referred to also are also referred to as the mean high water line as shown on the cup plan within 30 days of receiving their certificate of occupancy for the buildings located in Phase One remaining portion deleted number four unchanged five and six are added five reads developer shall construct the landward beach access located within phase three during phase three of the project and shall Grant a non-exclusive easement for public pedestrian Ingress and egress over the phase three landward beach access as shown in the cup plan within 30 days of receiving their certificate of occupany for the buildings located in phase three we may need to include temporary there somewhere okay thank you six developer shall Grant a non-exclusive easement for public pedestrian Ingress and egress from where the landward beach access located within phase 3 intercepts to cccl to the wet sand also referred to as the mean high water line as shown on the cup plan within 30 days of receiving the certificate of occupancy for the buildings located in phase three remaining portion of uh a that paragraph is unchanged B C D E F G H unchanged I I have a comment here remove invasive trees behind rum fish yep we we craft language say essentially the uh removal of Exotics during the phases of the beach of the dunea restoration the invasive trees will be removed what I heard uh J unchanged section four ABC unchanged D halfway through phase two and four is changed to phase one e is unchanged f is unchanged section five and six all of six are unchanged 789 mistaken the remaining portions of this development agreement are unchanged correct correct thank you [Applause] Matthew I'll make a motion to approve the development agreement excuse me between the city of St Pete Beach Florida and trade wins spb developer LLC with the Amendments as noted Second City Clerk if you'll please do a roll call vice mayor Lorenzen yes commissioner marott yes commissioner Philz yes commissioner res Nikki no mayor patrilla no motion carries 3 to2 okay next we have item 8 a smalla business grant we can always move this one to a different discussion although I think the city manager had a 10-second update I'm sorry I was trying to catch up8 8A yeah yes Jennifer can you give us 5 seconds on that one is there questions regarding it I'm not sure yeah do we have any what's the status on it um it kind of died with the former commission um the chamber was who we were um setting up an agreement to process those grants and to um um have the program in place and um we couldn't come to an agreement with them okay we still have the funds allocated in the budget correct we do okay would it be I proos that we maybe put together a plan within the next 30 45 days to find a new Avenue for allocating those funds I know some of the businesses would certainly appreciate having I agree I think it was a really good program I think what we were doing was really great um it might be as I think what we had put together was a good program as itself as along with the application and some things that we learned at the first process um it might just be Aver conversation with the chamber to see if they're willing to come back with this current commission and get something back on the books and it's not the chamber could we have a plan B if the chamber is not looking to be involved well we we chose the chamber as someone who was a nonprofit that could um oversee the funding or we would give them the money and they would handle the application process giving out the grants and keeping it with their board and that was a recommendation from our attorneys I don't know if there's another one that fits that description of working with the businesses as the chamber does seemed like a natural fit is there a temporary board we could assign or is there a board one of the boards that we could might be a good fit for this finance and budget I I don't know I don't know that we wanted to have the city write checks to businesses yeah I think there's some other ways to implement it so if you just give us a few days to work on that I think we can come back maybe by like by may end of May June one of those commission meetings down the line yes sir that'd be great yeah be nice be nice summer present to get out okay um next we have staff reports city clerk um the um qualification period for the August 20th election will begin on May 3rd and um books are available to pick up now thank you thank you city manager yes just real quick I I think uh last week I sent y all some some issues that we need to have some future meetings on but there are two of them I'd like to try to get scheduled for tonight if possible uh one of them is the boat ramp community meeting uh I know we have a lot of people that are very interested in that uh so we would would like to try to schedule schedule uh that as soon as we can um we were looking at possibly the last week of May first week of June as a time frame uh we would have that at the community center we had already decided Community Center or mayor I know you mentioned possibly at the Warren Webster uh the issue we have there is we don't have the air conditioning redone yet so uh we're working on that so I don't I don't know if that would be ready or not but uh we could uh if we can just pick a date and in a few days we could we could say where it would be but if we could pick a date tonight would be great yeah I'm fine with they need anytime last week of May 1 week of June uh Jennifer I think we were looking at the 29th uh was that the date we were looking at for the uh Mission meeting on the 28th so we were looking at the 29th or 30th unless you wanted to do it on a different week as of the commission meeting I'm okay either way so it's up to you I'd like to go to the 29 sooner the better for me it's a hot issue I'm good with the 29th 29th 6: p.m. and then we'll we'll decide on the location in a few days and and announce that but it it will be either the community center or warer or the war Webster building thank you the other meeting is um as know we've been working on a u a pay plan uh the commission approved a pay plan study several months ago we're just about to the Finish Line with our consultant on that so we'd like to bring that to the commission because it's going to have obviously an impact on our budget uh so we also need to have our first budget session which is usually discussing uh Personnel uh and capital projects so uh so we don't have too many meetings uh we have a regular meeting on the 28th so we were looking at possibly starting at 4:00 on the 28th and we could start with that salary study with our consultant here and could move right from that right into uh talking about how that would impact the budget and that would help us uh move move our budget projections along and then if we had time we could go into the capital if not we could come back for another meeting on the capital so would 400 p.m. on the 28th work for everyone and that one yeah okay great we will uh we will schedule those uh the only last thing I have to say I know uh I think everyone received the great information that Amber is going to be back soon uh with us but I just want to take this opportunity to thank Jenny for the the Fantastic work has done uh this has been an extremely busy time over the last couple of months and I don't think we've skipped a beat so Jenny thank you so much thank you that's all I have mayor thank you City attorney uh I did have something that I'm going to spare myself and you until for two weeks so it's okay thank you sounds good I'll spare everybody as well Nikki to look for a date I know there's a town hall meeting coming up do one of you have that I think it's April look for my calendar sorry it is the May 22nd at 5:30 here in the chamber that's the district district three yes District three wanted to announce that so okay thank you commissioner Philz no updates nothing for my me either okay uh just as a reminder I'm going to be attending virtually at the next commission meeting um I think as we customarily do we vote in advance to allow the person that won't be present to participate and vote so if you have any objections to that I I apologize can you repeat that again sure normally in in advance you know we we ask for the commission's approval to vote and virtually it will not count towards a quorum um but any votes the absent person would absent commission would participate as if they were present for voting thank you okay um couple of announcements some of you should have received some uh letters in the mail today is not the only one um there's two more additional condition condition use applications that are in the works for the city myar and PCI um and as Jenny so kindly reminded us uh the Declaration period to qualify for uh for a commission seat is uh coming up in a week or so um as many of you know I'm I'm an immigrant I came from a very interesting country one of the things I love about the United States is that we have a representative government so if you take into consideration do who would like to leave so one of the great things about this country is that we have a representative government if you do not like how you're being represented and I'm not pointing fingers anyone um you have an opportunity to run for a commission seat and then vote accordingly in August so I would certainly encourage you to exercise your constitutional rights to do so with that thank you all very much and have a good night e for