Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasure Island debate narrows on planned‑development rules as residents press for master‑plan data
Summary
Commissioners and residents debated proposed guardrails for planned developments — including 80‑foot height and higher density caps — and whether to pursue a broad comprehensive‑plan amendment or parcel‑by‑parcel (small‑scale) changes. The commission directed staff to prepare amendments for a second reading while awaiting master‑planner analyses.
Vice Mayor Vasquez proposed a compromise amendment to the city’s planned‑development (PD) ordinance that would set maximums — not automatic entitlements — for redevelopment in commercial and resort zones, while keeping negotiation power and public‑benefit requirements in the PD process. "This is about finding middle ground," the vice mayor said in presenting the draft changes and asking the commission to direct staff to prepare an amended ordinance for the Aug. 18 second reading.
The proposal, discussed at length during a workshop and the regular meeting on July 21, centers on two numbers that split residents and developers: maximum building height (vice‑mayor’s draft sets an 80‑foot cap) and maximum tourist‑accommodation density (drafted at 85 units per acre). City planning counsel and outside presenters reminded the commission that raising allowable densities above current city plan limits would require a concurrent comprehensive‑plan text amendment and county review if the commission adopts the county’s alternative transient lodging standards.
Why it matters: the PD process is intended to be a negotiated pathway for exceptional redevelopment in which developers may request density or height bonuses in return for measurable public benefits — shared parking, improved architecture, sewer connections or other community gains. Opponents said blanket increases risk creating outcomes the community did not intend; proponents said higher caps are necessary to make certain hotel and mixed‑use projects financially viable after rising construction costs.
At the meeting, LPA chair Richard Harris urged the city to move the paperwork forward so landowners and developers can plan: "If you change it to a planned development and you're able to rezone and get a comprehensive land use plan, will you build at 80 feet and 100 units per acre? Yes," he said, urging the commission to prepare for projects on roughly 10 targeted parcels.
Residents and some commissioners pushed back. Several commenters and Commissioner Clark said the city should wait for the master planner’s forthcoming financial and feasibility analysis — work the city has already contracted and that the planner expects to deliver this fall. "We’ve paid hundreds of thousands for master‑plan work — let's use that evidence before we lock in numbers," said resident Grant Smith. Public commenters and multiple commissioners also urged that any PD process continue to require small‑scale comprehensive‑plan amendments tied to specific rezoning requests rather than a broad, city‑wide comp‑plan rewrite.
On details, planners and outside counsel clarified tradeoffs. Lauren Rubinstein, representing a property owner, explained that current PD language does not automatically grant higher density; to enable densities above current plan levels the city would need to adopt an amendment that sets a clear cap (for example, a city‑level cap of X units per acre in certain PD corridors) so developers know what maximums might be available for negotiation.
What the commission did: rather than adopt final changes that night, the commission directed staff to prepare amended PD ordinance language that reflects the vice‑mayor’s middle ground (including the mandatory measurable public‑benefit requirement), to renotice the Aug. 18 second reading to show any updates, and to continue running PD‑rule discussions in parallel with the master‑planner’s final deliverables. Commissioners emphasized that PD approvals would remain discretionary and project‑specific and that any comp‑plan amendment would still require required county and state review.
What remains unresolved: the exact numerical caps (height and density) and whether the city should accept a wider LPA‑proposed comp‑plan amendment that would apply across multiple parcels. Commissioners asked staff to return with clarified language that: (a) makes public‑benefit requirements mandatory and measurable; (b) expands neighborhood notice and meeting opportunities beyond the minimum 500‑foot mailing list; and (c) preserves commission negotiating power so approvals are not automatic upon rezoning.
Next steps: staff will prepare a revised PD ordinance for second reading on Aug. 18, with advertisement updated as needed, and the master‑planner’s financial and feasibility material will be incorporated into the commission’s deliberations when it is available.
