Planning & Development - Regular Meeting

So we'll move to recess. There we go. You mean there's cameras in here?

You're on Mr. Chair.

So we're on, so this will be, get the right here. Welcome to the Building and Flood Board of Adjustments and Appeals. We have a couple of things today. One would be the first is approval of the minutes of the previous meeting in March 4. Do we hear a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes from 03/04/2025.

Second. Second.

All in favor?

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

So those are approved. Next order of business, do we change these now or are we Yes. The proposed changes to the building flood board rules, is that

Let's handle that after your substantive application. You don't want to do that first?

Yeah, Matt wanted to do that first.

Hi, good afternoon. Lauren Matzke, Planning and Development. We're respectfully requesting that this be handled first so that way our attorney can appropriately assist us through the through the course of the hearing. This clarifies the rules to formally assign the city attorney's office to support city staff during the proceedings. Thank you. Hello.

I'm Kevin Garriott with the Planning and Development Department, building official. I'm going to put that change proposed change up on the screen so everybody can see it. If I

can find it here.

Okay. So what what it is is a change in the Section four. Section four. There we go. Three.

I had it up here a little bit ago.

It

was highlighted in blue.

There's four.

This is the way it reads right now, and the change would be alright. Sorry, folks. I thought I had it up here. Okay. Here we are.

The blue is the change. So in fact,

what it

does is the city attorney's office will represent us, the planning and development department for the city,

as well as provide legal assistance for the board,

I. E. Your attorney here.

Do we need to have any discussion?

Anything else from there?

You wanna say something, ma'am? Okay.

So

outside representation is for the board and the city attorney's office would represent our department. Whereas now, it kind of leaves the city in a place of development department out.

Just out of curiosity, do you mind if I ask a question? Why would that be in the Board's rules and procedures? Not that we don't care about you all having representation, but why would it be in the Board's rules and procedures as to how the Planning and Development Board is staffed for

this Board. Because

I mean, it it seems to us that the city can

The way it's written right now, we have no representation.

Yeah. Yeah. I I

mean Yeah. The way it was written

right now, Jay, is that it said that my office was supposed to provide representation to the board, which, of course, we have historically done through hiring you and your firm, which we appreciate. But it really didn't leave a role for me to play in this meeting because if my department is supposed to be representing the board, then like I shouldn't be representing an individual department on contest status with my thought process. So what we thought to do is we took a look at the community development board rules and we just mirrored that. So we wanted to make it clear that you would continue to serve as counsel for the board and that my office would serve as representation for the playing department. Yeah.

I understand. I get the clarification in terms of making the rules clear that there's outside counsel to the board, but in terms of internal counsel. And I recognize the harmony with the CDB's rules. But if I think if we're really looking for true harmony, we would clarify that there's outside counsel to the Board, and I think the city attorney's office would work under the direction of city administration to represent whatever Board, body, individual, agent, whatever, at that direction. It's probably hypersensitive and pedantic, so forgive me. It just seems to me that the city's representation or the planning and board the planning and staff's representation is not really a function of the board's rules of procedures. Does that make sense?

Yeah. I understand that. We like I said, we just were trying to make a clarification so everyone understood, like, you know, which attorneys were supposed to do what at the meetings. But it's certainly up to the board what they wanna do with this. We were just trying to kinda make everything clear and concise so everyone could

understand I had no objection. I was just looking for a little clarity myself. So

you're okay with the change? Sure. Okay. Yep. Got a motion to approve.

I'll I'll motion to approve.

Second. Second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye. Looking forward to working with

you. Thanks.

Second item is ID number 25Dash30388. Sorry. That is, variants to allow the dry flood proofing of elevator lobbies, stairwells, trash rooms, storage areas, and pool mechanical rooms at ground level upland of the LIMWA line for building permit BCP 2020Four-one20362 and BCP 2020Four-one20364. So we'll start with the

At this time, mister Cherry, you'd wanna have your clerk swear in the folks who are gonna testify before you today. Folks, if you intend to testify before the board today, please stand to be sworn by the clerk.

Do you swear from

the truth or your entire testimony? I

Thank you, sir. Okay. So next we'll call the applicant. Yeah. I believe in speaking to counsel earlier, there was a discussion among the parties to allow we would ordinarily allow ten minutes per side to present to the Board. I believe they'd like fifteen minutes per side. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's amenable to both sides. So with the Board's indulgence, we can begin with a presentation by the applicant. Okay.

Mister chair, before I start my time, I'd like to approach and hand out some hard copies, if that's okay

with the board.

Brian, you want to identify?

Yes. Brian Onc, 625 Court Street, McFarlane Ferguson McMullen on behalf of the applicant. And like I said, before I start my time, I'd like to hand out some materials to aid in the presentation. Thank you. And some of the slides are slightly difficult to read. So I have one full size set of plans for anybody who would like to reference them during

the Just leave them up here.

Yeah. Yeah. So if anybody wants to reference that when we get to that portion, that's really more of the architectural portion of the presentation. And I do have a PowerPoint, so let me grab that real quick. And if we could put the PowerPoint on the screen, that would be excellent.

Yep.

Is this the same PowerPoint that was in our packet?

This is the applicant's PowerPoint. It was provided on Friday. So if you got it Friday or later, it is the exact same. If you did not get it, then this will be the first time you're seeing it. It's not the staff's PowerPoint.

Okay.

The staff has their own PowerPoint. So once again, mister chair, Brian Unc, 65 Court Street, McFarlane Ferguson on behalf of the applicant. This is a very unusual variance request, and I appreciate your your indulgence and and your attention to this matter, because in every variance I've ever prosecuted in seventeen years of practicing law, my client is always asking for an exception or for something less than the code requirement. They want the setback closer to the property line. They want the height higher than the code allows.

They want a fence that's higher than the code allows. This is the first and only variance where the applicant is actually asking to be allowed to do in excess of what the code requires. In other words, they're looking to take on extra expense, extra burden to make this portion of the ground level of the parking garage safer from a life safety perspective, less susceptible to damage from flooding, and less likely to cause hazardous debris to leave the site from the trash room and impact other properties. And to be very clear, when we get into this, we are outside of the coastal a zone in this area that we're trying to fly drive flood proof. I have two expert witnesses that will be testifying, Mark Damon.

Mark has a master's in coastal engineering, and he also has a bachelor's in ocean engineering. He is a professional engineer, an American Society of Civil Engineers member. And we have Adrian Adrian Mora, AIA in architecture. He has a master's of architecture from Clemson University and a bachelor of architectures from the University of Virginia, and they will be aiding me in the presentation. This is the site.

It's on South Beach, just adjacent to the Sandkey Bridge. It has been approved and, as you know, is in the building permit process for two luxury condominium towers that were approved by the community development board about a year ago. This is a very, very, very exciting project. You can see the renderings here. This project is going to really set the standard of of new luxury development in Clearwater, and it fits perfectly in with the Opal Sands and the sister hotel that are near the property.

It's a very, very exciting property, and I think the city in general is very excited about it. And it is a mixed use condominium because there is a restaurant portion. So what are we asking for? We're asking to be able to apply dry flood proofing building materials, and we'll get into that in a minute, on a portion of the exterior walls of the elevator shafts, the stairwells, and the trash room, the dumpster enclosure in the Ground Floor of the parking garage. All of this is well upland of the Limwa Line, which is called the limited moderate wave action line.

And our our wave analysis, concludes that even in a hundred year storm, the waves in this area that we're trying to dot dry flood proof would be less than one foot high, which means it's not in the coastal a zone. The city, because portions of our building, the parts and parking spaces and the exterior foundation are seaward of the limo line, the city is treating the entire ground level of the parking garage as if it's in the coastal a zone, when it's really not. So we're fighting over kind of a technicality, and I want the board to be very clear and understanding that this area is not in the coastal a zone because it is not subject to waves that are 1.5 feet to three feet high in a one hundred year storm. So we are allowed to do this under the Florida Building Code. Even if we were in the coastal a zone, the Florida Building Code says dry flood proofing shall be permitted in coastal a zones provided wave loads and potential for erosion and local scour are accounted for in the design, which we've done.

So we are allowed to do this even if we were in the coastal a zone under the Florida building code. But when the city of Clearwater adopted that section of the Florida building code, the city omitted that portion. That portion that says dry flood proofing shall be permitted in coastal a zones provided waveloads and the potential for erosion and local scour accounted for in the design is not included in the city code, which is why we need to seek this variance. Because even if you consider this portion of the building in the coastal zone, which it is not, and we objectively can demonstrate that to you through the wave analysis, we would still be allowed to do this under the Florida Building Code. It's just not part of the city code.

And, the city attorney and and the planning staff agreed that the variance would be while they're not supporting the variance, the variance would be the appropriate method to do that. So you could legally approve the variance. And, again, our position is why are we doing this is because we want our people to be safe. We don't want their property damaged. We don't want our trash dumpster floating down the street and hitting a neighbor's roof or hitting a neighbor's car. We want people we want the elevators to operate. We don't want people to be stuck in the stairwell flooded. What the city wants is they want those exteriors to be breakaway. So they want those exteriors to to break and collapse in in a in a wave, and we don't want that. We don't want them to be flooded.

We want them to be operational. We want them to be safe, and we want them to reduce the likelihood of casualty and damage and claims from a flood. So in our position, what we're requesting is very common sense and straightforward and really should not be controversial. It should not give you any concerns. What is the LIMO line? I have learned quite a bit about it lately. So the Limwa Line is what designates the VE and AE zones, the coastal a zone and the coastal high hazard zone. Coastal high hazard v e area are waves of greater than three feet. The coastal a zone, the a e zone, are waves between one and a half feet and three feet. That's the coastal a.

So that that is where that ends is the Limwa Line, and anything upland of the Limwa Line is wave heights of less than one and a half feet, which is the AE Zone, not the A Zone. So we did our wave analysis. Humiston and Moore engineers prepared a wave height analysis for the property. The vast majority of the property is landward of the Limwa Line. These structures that we're trying to dry flood proof are designated as one, two, three, and four.

The Limwa Line is that hard blue line towards the bottom of the screen. And the actual coastal a zone where you would have waves of three feet, that's the red, two and a half is orange. You don't really have any orange in there. And then you get down into the twos and then one and a half. And by the time you get to the structures we're trying to dry flood proof, what the wave analysis demonstrated was those waves are point nine feet or less. So I'm gonna ask, Mark Damon to explain the wave analysis. It's in your packet. It's in the application if you wanna read it. It's it's in there. It explains the methodology, and all of that. It's It's in the hard copies that I handed out.

So we prepared a wave analysis using a dedicated numerical model. The analysis is local and detailed to the project. And so we included the proposed waterproof areas. And the result of the analysis is what you see the screen. And so it's a color coded map of the wave heights.

The blue and light blues are indicative of waves less than a foot. And therefore, all the proposed areas are in areas that are less than a foot of waves as predicted during a one hundred year storm per FEMA criteria.

And Mr. David, can you just describe the methodology that was used in preparing this report?

So we well, we use the CMS wave model. It's numerical model that was developed by the Army Corps. And we used also LiDAR, which is the elevations that were collected by a laser, by plane. So a very detailed set of data. We used the predicted storm surge by FEMA at that location and approaching waves from FEMA.

And that was the input to our model. And then we recreated the proposed project at ground level and including the the four areas on the on the screen.

And in your opinion, is what the applicant proposing to dry flood proof those areas that are not in the coastal zone a safer alternative than using breakaway walls in terms of actually preventing damage and loss in a flood?

Yeah. The those areas will will not be getting much waves, and and waterproofing them shouldn't be an issue. They they are technically outside of the coastal a zone as defined by FEMA.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. And he's available for questions, of course, when the time is appropriate. This is where you may wanna look at the full size plans. These next few slides are very difficult to read. This is the architectural side of things. What you're seeing in yellow is the is the seaward part of the LIMO line. So the blue on the left side of the screen is the Limwa Line. The yellow is the area that is Coastal A. You will see that we have parking spaces there. Couple stairway ways and, you know, kind of foundational structural

support. Ryan, what page are

you on? This is slide let's see.

On the full architectural that you provided?

Yes. That is exactly what I'm looking at here, in in those documents. And if you go to your handout, it's this. The the handout I have, it's the larger document here. And this is, sheet sheet AA one zero one. Sheet AA one zero one and Page seven. Page seven on the on the PowerPoint. Yeah. Page seven on the PowerPoint. So, this this denotes the areas in in pink or or red or orange, whatever you wanna call that.

That's the stairwells, the elevator shaft, and the dumpster enclosure that we wanna dry flood proof. Everything in yellow is not dry flood proof. That's breakaway. That's staff has no concern with what we proposed there. And so I'm going to ask our architect, Mr. Moore, to run through these slides with you and explain the materials and what he's designed from a dry flood proofing perspective.

Hi, Borg. So again, understanding again that the structures that we are trying to waterproof are landward of the lean wall line and also using that code exception that we understand that allows for that dry flood proofing. We did recommend using three different materials to waterproof these four cores, which again, as Brian had mentioned, it's the trash enclosures, which again is hazardous debris. And then the elevator and stair lobbies and the stair enclosure and the elevator enclosures as well. Again, having to do with life safety. So the three materials and again, I guess you can continue to the next slide. I don't know if I need

to Okay. Get

The three materials that we are proposing for these four areas are, so on the walls, it would be a cementitious waterproofing Euclid Tama Seal. And again, that would just go on the vertical walls of those entire enclosures that are shown in red. Again, the way that the slide is shown is that this is for the Building A for one building, and then we're also doing the same for Building B. Those go all the way up to the design flood elevation. Then we are also using an underground waterproofing in those areas only.

That's sheet applied waterproofing for the those cores. And then the third is just the FRA flood panels, which, again would just be able to withstand and essentially not allow water to come into the openings and to the doors. I think that's

pretty much Yes. Mr. Mora, from your perspective as a professional architect and someone who deals in this work, do you believe that the design you've created for the dry flood proofing is actually safer in terms of protecting life and property and reducing claims and damage from a flood?

Yes. I do.

Okay. And is there any detriment to doing this at all?

No. I don't believe so.

So there's no risk to the city in your opinion of by doing this?

No. Okay.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question? What's the substrate of if it's a fluid applied waterproofing, is that correct?

The so the the TamaSeal, the walls Mhmm. Themselves are it's just a cementitious, so it is a a fluid applied. And then, again, sheet

So it's going over what? Concrete?

Yeah. Concrete block and and concrete.

That's What's what it's the sheet that you're applying?

Sheet applied waterproofing, underground waterproofing. It's I mean, it's typical of like to wrap up whether there's a hydrostatic slab or whether it's for the actual pile caps themselves. And again, that just doesn't allow water to essentially protrude from below into those spaces and then the panels.

So are there any accessories that have to be installed in this system? Those would be the of a storm?

Yeah. Those would be the the flood panels themselves

Mhmm.

Which, again, would be stored on-site. And then depending on and I I believe, you know, in collaboration with a waterproofing and envelope consultant, we would have, again, those guidelines of how that would actually be installed. Who installs that? I guess that would be the building maintenance. That would probably be management company.

Where's the management company during the storm? Yeah.

Obviously, they would need to be, you know, educated on how how to do that. So

Is there, so how long upon notification of the storm is the period that you would need

to install these? I believe it's within, what, thirty six to twenty four hours before, and or whether, again, obviously depending on where the storm location is, you know, what the wind conditions are, you know, Obviously, you want to get those into there before any sort of high winds begin. And when you have certain hurricane watches and Are

the fenestration still operable?

The like the doors openings?

If there are any windows are there any windows in this?

Or No. No. No. No. So this is, again, a non habitable space. It's only the elevator lobbies and stairs, like the

the There's no windows in the elevator lobby?

No. Not not in the not in the parking garage, no.

So you can't get out of the stairs or out

the elevator? So the egress is actually on the upper level, which again is above the design flood elevation, which would be on the Level 2. And that's how you would egress out.

Do the elevators, in the event of a storm, is there some setting that you put down so the elevator doesn't go all the way down to the parking garage?

I believe you can. I I know that those are, again, elevator logistics in terms of having to you know, on those times. Because, again, there are fire command rooms as well.

Yeah. I'm concerned about fire department, you know, trying to get into the building, people trying to get out of the building.

Yeah. So we do have access, again, for the fire department to go directly to that level too, because that's kind of where the fire command room is, and so that's where they would originate, and that's where all the the people would essentially egress from in in this kind of, situation.

Doesn't that seem like there's a trap there where people get in the elevator and go down to the garage thinking that's the means of access?

I mean, I would think I mean, again, in terms of egress, there's going to be signage and things like that as to how to egress out of the building, which would be Level 2.

So from start to finish, like, the management company gets called, we have a hurricane coming. We need to install these panels. Correct. It takes one hour? It takes ten hours?

That might be a a little bit more means and methods.

I'm Abraham Katz. I work for the developer. I'm their director of construction. My address is 3121 Northeast 1883, Daventura, Florida. So the flood barrier, it's used very commonly in many, many different projects. It's you know, they're very easy to assemble, very quick to assemble. They could assemble in a matter of minutes. So you leave ambient provisions around the doors, and they just, you know, set these barriers. They're very light, very easy to handle, and they're very, very common. They're extensive extensively used in Florida.

There are many, many companies that provide these flood barriers. And actually, the the intent is not only protection during the during the hurricane. Our building has 100% backup, generator backup for all of the functions of the building. So our intent is for the building to be operational during the storm and to be ready readily available and accessible for the emergency service for the fire department right after the water is received. So there would be no damage.

It would go back to operation immediately after the water is receded, and it would be accessible to emergency management systems and would go back to operation immediately.

I have a question. Maybe, you're not the right people to to address this to, but during the last two hurricanes that came by, did the were the utilities shut off to the Barrier islands? I don't know.

Don't

and our generators, by the way, they would they will be gas powered. So they're gonna have a reliable source of fuel, continuous sources Is it natural is it natural gas?

Is it

natural Natural Natural gas.

Okay. Can you describe the fire control room too?

Because they asked about that. It's on the 2nd Floor. Right?

Our fire? Yeah. We have two fire command rooms, one for each tower. It's on the 2nd Floor, way above the flood elevation. And, of course, it's really equipped fire alarm, BDA, that system for fire department communication, elevator command, and controls to override and operate the elevator if you

So the critical things are On the 2nd Floor.

On the

2nd Floor. Could I ask a couple of mister Damon? Yes. You'd mentioned maybe in the most extreme hundred year flood, you get point nine feet of wave action to these spaces.

Yeah.

So how how much force at that point is is coming to these related to, you know, if you're trying to keep a wall up versus allow it to be knocked down, what additional forces are coming?

I believe that it was a fairly negligible load from hydro hydrodynamic load. We came up with about 75 pounds per linear foot of wall.

Okay. What are the breakaway walls? What are they designed to break away at? Is would these waves cause it to break down, I guess, is the question.

So it it can be designed to break away or not?

There are standards, though, aren't there for when that breakaway wall needs to happen. I guess, what I'm getting to is, is there a potential that even if these walls were designed as breakaway walls, that the limited wave action that you're indicating by your study that they wouldn't even knock over the wall?

I mean, believe the waves that we're predicting are very small, and so even the weakest of breakaway wall, you know, it's not going to break just like that. Sure. So I'm not in the You're not sure. Sure. Side of things, but so that that would

be a structural question, but a wall can be you know, it's designed to break away and actually designed with joints Mhmm. Every four feet. So the the wall is designed and and and cut on every four feet on purpose to debilitate the wall and make sure that it breaks away.

So where does the debris from the breakaway wall go?

Everywhere. Right. But

they're it's hard to predict, but

has the problem.

It can run or be blown or

Washed away.

Washed away or or but it could also be blown into the core of the building and hit this waterproofing system? What's the impact the structural impact?

No. The walls the walls if if the if the variance that we're requesting is to allow these areas to be dry floor proof,

which

means the walls Would not break would be engineered not to break away.

Right. But the breakaway walls that are at the perimeter could be broken by wave action Mhmm. And pushed into the dry flood perfume.

Yeah. In the perimeter,

in the in the limited action weight zone, landward of that zone, we we don't have we don't have many walls. I think we have a new wall and and and

They're not they're they're like a

yeah. It's a like a crash wall height. Right? Mhmm.

Yeah. It's a wall height. They're pretty minor. Walls are landward. Our walls are the majority of the walls are landward

in the e wall line.

Can you know, if we if

we don't flood dry flood proof, they they would be breakaway walls. Could you theoretically could it be waterproofed with the materials you're indicating on a breakaway wall that may not break away and not be considered dry flood proof, but still providing the protection you're looking for?

It wouldn't work because the slab is also designed as breakaway. So the the we're we're we're required to design all the system breakaway, slab and walls, which means that you can have wall penetrating the waterproofing that Adrian showed that impedes water from coming, you know, from below. So so, you know, most likely and and you would have multiple joints to water crude, so I think chances are that it it would be wasted, you know, the effort and and money to to do that. I don't I don't think it would be effective.

Mister chair, I do have about a minute and forty seconds left on my presentation. So I didn't if could I if I finish that, then we go to questions with both Okay? Of Is that alright?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Just to just to wrap up the presentation part and then to get to get into we'll probably help move this along a little bit. So we'll back on my time. So we're running through the facts here. You all understand the facts. A lot of this is repetitive. This area is not in the Coastal A Zone. It is allowed under the Florida Building Code. That provision of the Florida Building Code just hasn't been incorporated into the Community Development Code, which is why we're asking you to allow us to apply the Florida Building Code. The special conditions or circumstances exist that exist on this site is the limo line. Right? The limo line runs through a portion of the building. That's the special condition. The staff's gonna say there's no peculiar conditions.

There's no special conditions. It is the limo line. We can't control the limo line. That's not something that we can dictate that it's there or it's not there, and a portion of the building is seaward of the limo line. The reason that it's a special condition is because now the city staff is saying that the entire bottom floor of the garage has to be treated as if it's seaworth of the limbo line when in fact it is not. So we do have a special condition that supports the variance. That condition was not caused by the applicant. That's your second approval criteria. And again, we didn't cause the limbo line to to be there. The granting of the variance will not give us any special privileges because it's not a privilege.

It's more than is required. We're having to spend more money. We're trying to we're we're going in excess of what's required. It'd be a lot easier to do what the city wants us to do and have the cheaper breakaway walls, but it wouldn't serve, the purpose of life safety and casualty, minimizing casualty loss and minimizing claims. And that the variance is the minimum variance requested, it is. It's the minimum variance to dry flood proof, those structures, that we have shown, on the ground Floor. And granting the variance, in our opinion, is a benefit to the city. It's a benefit to the community. It's a benefit to the adjacent property owners. And again, we're happy to answer your questions. You. Thank you.

You wanna do questions now, you wanna do questions after we hear from the city?

That's that's at your election, mister Sheriff.

I just have one. So if this is a minimal, when you're saying it's like point nine feet, if it's minimal, why go through all of this and not just build it the way?

Go

ahead. Introduce yourself.

Hi. I'm John Farina. I'm the developer of the project from U. S. Development. I live at 12 Rolling Hill Drive, Chatham, New Jersey. So great great question. During the most recent storm event, there were residents that lived in Saint Pete in 20 story buildings that were not able to use the stairwell, and their elevators became nonfunctional. And those residents could not get out of the building, and they were stuck. Here, we are exceeding the level of code and building for the future, not just for today.

And when you look at what we want to achieve is we want our elevators to be fully functional during and after a storm event. So that will allow our residents to access, come down the elevators, use it at any time that they want. And it was really important to mention also that when you were talking about egress, the garage level, the only access for that is to get your car. The building ramps up, Fire trucks ramp up. We had to put special structure in our ramp specifically to allow the fire trucks to come up, access access the room.

So the 2nd Floor is the main egress of the building. So to answer your question coming full circle, it is for the safety of our buyers and our residents to have a fully functional building through, during and after a hurricane to be better for

Kevin, are you going to present for the city?

Yeah. Again, Kevin Garriott, Planning and Development Billing Official. And so let me set this up over here. And I want to thank Brian and his crew for the good explanation of a Limwa. We call it a Limwa Line of Limited Wave Action, also known as Coastal A Zone.

So that was a good education because it is kind of a newer thing around here and it's not as well known as As and Versus So I put together a few things for you all to consider and to look at, to know about why we are where we are. It's not that we have any personal feelings or, design disagreements with them. We've got codes, black and white. That's what our job is. Our job is to administer the codes.

So we have to answer to this, and that's what we've done. They have submitted their permit drawings. They've gone through they're nearly ready to permit. I don't know, they might have an item or two still left, but not much. So anyway, we'll run through this, and I'll show you a little bit as to where we are.

The request Brian read to you and read and said they are dry flood proofing want to dry flood proof the elevator lobbies, stairwells, trashrooms, storage areas, mechanical equipment. I'll point out that some of those areas would be sheer walls, would be rated walls all the way from the top of the building clear down to the bottom of the building. So they would be basically poured concrete and steel anyway. This is a map that shows our in Pinellas County, we have a what's called a vulnerability assessment overlay that overlays the FEMA maps. So this map, if you go on to the Internet and you look for Pinellas County all in one maps, this is what you'll see.

And that clearly calls out the elevations. And the black line that you see on here is the what we call the Limo Line. So their property is here. They gave that a nice rendering or a nice picture on their presentation outlined in red. So it's a little bit convoluted because as they pointed out, it is allowed by the Florida Building Code.

The non flood proofing comes from ASCE. ASCE is part of the Florida Building Code. So ASCE requires it. It's in the Florida Building Code because of that. And then the Florida amendments to the Building Code taken out, and the city flood ordinance puts it that you can't do flood proofing.

So it's in, it's out, it's in, it's out. And that's kind of the hard thing to understand. This is the section from the building code, and this talks about if you are located in more than one flood zone, which when your line crosses across your building, you are in the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply. That's the last line. That's

out of

the Florida Building Code. So that's something that we have to deal with one way or the other. Can't just say, it doesn't apply. Again, the architecture plan that Brian had up earlier, as you see, it crosses the blue line here is the let me go down here and see that better. This is your Limwall line. The perimeter of the building is out here. The footprint goes like so. It's one footprint and then there's a tower that rises here and a tower that rises here. So really it's all one building. It's got two portions.

This rises here, this rises here, it's all connected. Florida Building Code, all one building. And so excuse me, that all one building would be in the Coastal A because this portion of the building is in the Coastal A. This going back to what I was mentioning just a little while ago, this is the ASCE2414, where it talks about if you look at the well, I'll just read it. Dry flood proofing of nonresidential structures and nonresidential areas of mixed use structures should not be allowed unless such structures are located outside of the high risk flood hazard areas, coastal high hazard areas and a coastal A Zone.

We're in a coastal A Zone. Dry flood proofing of residential structures or residential areas of mixed use shall not be permitted.

Excuse me.

So the Florida Billing Code modified that. Excuse me. I should have gotten a drink, I guess. Florida Building Code amended this to say that dry flood proofing and a coastal A Zone would be allowed. So that's the in and out that I talked about before.

This is our Clearwater flood ordinance. In the next slide, I blow this up a little bit. Because down here on the bottom, this is important. This Paragraph two shall be deleted. Now you might say, why do we do that in Clearwater?

Well, insurance rates, as we all know, are high, high, high. And so flood insurance rates are based on points you get through your community rating system. We were going for the most points that we can get to get the most reduction in discount on flood insurance. We get points for that. And I'll go to the next slide where I blew that up a little bit so you can see what it says.

So there was a reason

for that when it was put into the Clearwater Code. So the background is I'll try and keep my voice here. It's the permit is for and that's the permit number that they've already applied for is the oh, thanks, team. That will help. The permit application is for a is for two towers over one parking garage.

The permit number listed there is a for Tower 1 and the other permit is for the other tower. They are over one parking garage, all connected in one building. Florida Building Code states for buildings that are located in more than one flood hazard area, the provision associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply. The Limois, the Line of Limited Wave Action, crosses the building. So that puts the building in a coastal A zone.

Construction in a coastal A zone is very similar construction to V zone. V zone means no flood proofing and breakaway walls. FEMA Guide, the manual P-nine 36, says it's not flood proofing not permitted in Coastalet Zone. Flood proofing is not recognized as a construction method in Coastal A Zone through the Florida Building Code. Now to do a variance, we need to have these five things met.

The special conditions exist, applicant did not cause special conditions, no privileges conferred, minimum required to use the building, and the variances in harmony with the codes. So the findings of fact that we'll go over is Florida construction maps, are Pinellas County Vulnerability Assessment maps over the FEMA maps. The maps show the building in a coastal zone. Code requirements ASCE is part of the Florida Building Code. Section six twelve in the ASC does not allow flood proofing.

Florida Building Code amends to allow dry flood proofing and the city flood ordinance takes out flood proofing approval. Deletion of ASC Paragraph two, which I had up there before, is takes away the dry flood proofing. So going back to the criteria that I mentioned here for the variance, answering those one by one, there is no special condition that exists. The site was I mean, they have a showroom out there now, but it was an open lot. Circumstance results from design choice.

They chose to place the building where they placed it. They could have done any kind of design that they wanted. They're working with air and dirt and water out on the beach. Variance will confer privilege. We have hundreds of properties in the Limoye zone. Any of them that have done any work have conformed to whatever is required. Nobody has really made any complaint about it, really. The building can be used without a variance. Like I said, some of those walls are going to be structural anyway. They're going to be sheer walls.

They're going to be poured concrete. The building doesn't have to be flood proof to be used. They told us exiting is up on the second Level. Variance would be out of harmony. It's out of harmony with our code. It doesn't match what is in the black and white in our codes. So conclusions of the law. The subject building is located in the Coastal A Zone. Coastal A Zone requirements are mostly the same as the B Zone, including pilings, including breakaway walls, including no flood proofing. And variance criteria are not met.

Those five items are not met. And so therefore, we have no choice but to deny the ask you to deny the variance application. Any questions?

I have one question. With the why doesn't FEMA allow dry flood, proofing?

We have our floodplain administrator here.

I'm going

to ask him if he can help me on that question. Gene, do you have any this is Gene Henry, who is our floodplain administrator for the city.

Yeah, good afternoon. The there is one section of the coastal construction manual that they speak to it, and there is a difference between what's in the coastal construction manual under FEMA and that of ASCE and what was recommended. There is disagreement with the interpretation. And the reason being is that it's identified that you can't make those walls impermeable to the moving water and such that and I'll have to bring back the exact language to you for that. It's also identified in, I believe, the related instructions for the dry flood proofing certificate as well.

The if I may just add, the and you understand the rigidity of the National Flood Insurance Program.

That's right.

And understand the pride that we have with the community rating system. So this has been taken out because we do get a 25% discount off the, flood insurance out of the flood insurance program for the individuals that carry flood insurance. And that is and one of the reasons is that Coastal AE Zone is treated as the VE And that and we get credit for that. And that's you know, it's audited and reevaluated every three years now. The information that was provided, I mean, they showed that it's not 18 inches of wave action.

There is a formal manner to go ahead instead of asking a variance and putting us into this position of potentially being confronted by FEMA or the state is request a letter of map change. And that happens all the time. They showing the engineering that it's less than 18 inches. So they could excuse me, they could partition for that line to either be moved or, you know, be removed from that area totally. But that's but they'd have to show the engineering to make the request as well. And again, that would be through a letter of map change.

In looking at that same question, why doesn't FEMA allow dry flood proofing, They're in the FEMA regs. They state structural failure risk from immense pressure, water seepage and breaches with prolonged exposure. National flood insurance program prohibits it due to wave actions and storm surges. Safety concerns. If flood proofing fails, it can trap occupants inside making evacuation difficult.

These have been narrowed down, edited for just to ask the AI Yeah. Question, and it finds all of the FEMA information that you need? Yes. It does.

I I think there's maybe some challenge on flood proofing a breakaway wall also. I'm not sure how that happens.

So I'm more concerned with the possibility of our insurance losing our discount that we have. Is that a real possibility?

Yes. Sarah Kessler, our CRS coordinator, goes through an audit next year. And part of activity four thirty is the coastal AE zone criteria, which they will be reviewing, and they'll ask for the permits that have been issued within a coastal AE. And you're only allowed so many, other words, if you allow it contrary to your code, that actually reduces, I forget how many times you're allowed, but that takes away and then you can lose actually credit for that particular element under that activity under the CRS program.

And am I correct in stating that there is a a FEMA application that you can get them to approve dry flood proofing?

You can there is a dry flood proofing certificate, yes, or certification.

Well, would be through the change of flood plain

or Yes. So in order to do it here, they'd have to move that limit of moderate wave action line so it'd be in just the AE zone versus the coastal AE. And then they could properly flood proof it per hour codes. Otherwise, they would you would have to grant the variance, then we'd have to report that to the state and FEMA as well, and that would show up in the CRS audit also.

So it sounds like there's alternate paths forward

then? Yes, there are.

Okay, anyone else have any more questions? No questions? Questions? No. Have you ever done this? I

mean, I have designed many buildings in the coastal, And unfortunately, you have the building code that designates.

Well, let's get through let's get through our hearing first. It sounds like you're having discussions. So let's get through the public part of the hearing first. If the city is finished with its presentation, it would be appropriate time now to receive cross

whoever is the most appropriate to answer, you can pick whoever is the most appropriate to answer. So my first question, and again, either of you, whichever one of you feels most comfortable answering, the Humiston and Moore engineers report, the city doesn't have any disagreement with the methodology or the conclusions in that report. Is that correct?

No, we have no reason to have any concern over that.

Okay. And so I just want to be really clear because, you know, Mr. Gary, we've been talking about this for a long time and you have done a lot of work on this. I do appreciate it. And it is an unusual kind of issue and a problem and a dilemma. Your contention, just so that I'm clear, is not that the areas that we're trying to drive flood proof are actually in Coastal A. Your contention is that because they're part of a structure that touches the Lima line, that it has to be considered that all of that floor is in Coastal A even though factually that's not the case. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

That's not my contention. That's the way the code reads and that's the way the building is situated, yes.

But again, you don't disagree that these areas that we're trying to drive flood proof aren't actually in the coastal basins?

They are north of the coastal a zone line, but because they are in the building that's in a coastal a, yes, they are in a coastal a.

From from your what you have to apply is the building official.

Right. That would be my job, yes.

Right, understood. And we're not criticizing you for that. That's what I'm just trying to elucidate for the board. And we have now provided evidence that supports the dry flood proofing under the Florida Building Code in the event that FEMA does audit. If you prove this variance and FEMA does an audit, we have submitted a wave action analysis that demonstrates that this area of the property actually is not in the coastal light. Is that a correct statement? I

don't know that I can answer that.

Okay. That's fine.

Well, I can inject a little bit. There there is a way to move the line.

Well, let me let me get to that. Let me get to that. So the letter of math revision, you would you're talking about moving the limo line. The applicant is not suggesting the limo line is wrong. The applicant doesn't have evidence to move the limo line. The evidence that was submitted supports the limo line being where it is.

All right. We're making argument now. Now let's

take a

cross examination if you haven't.

Does the applicants have you read this report, sir? Not in detail. Okay. If I if

I could show you this,

this is the image that's in the report.

Yes, I see this.

Do you see where the applicant isn't taking issue with the location of the LIMA line?

You have it drawn as it is on the firm.

Right. Exactly. And so my I guess my point to you is moving a a letter of map revision to move the LIMA line wouldn't actually get us anywhere because the evidence supports where the LIMA line is, and that wouldn't allow the city staff to interpret the structure as not being within the limo.

The reason I said that is your engineer said it dropped down to point, you know, what was it, nine tenths of a foot. So the limo is based on 18 inches. So if that's But if you're saying you can't get a letter of map change, then the building is in the Coastal AE.

Right, understood. Okay, that's what I was just trying to get across to the board. So let me ask one one other series of questions. Kevin, I think this would be best for you. So just to go back through it, the, Florida Building Code under one hundred sixteen twelve point four point one and point two does allow for the dry flood proofing even if we were in the Coastal a, but the city did not adopt that provision of the Florida Building Code in its own code. Is that correct?

Yeah. Like I said, it was in, it was out, it was in, and now the city took it out. So you've got the ASC, you've got the Florida Building Code, the Florida amendments to the Florida Building Code, and then the city amendments to the Florida Building Code.

Right, understood. And so if the city of Clearwater strictly followed the Florida Building Code, would be allowed dry flood proofing would be allowed in Coastal A, is that correct? If we if they adopted the Florida Building Code as written?

If if we didn't have our flood ordinance, yes.

And is it the city's position that the Florida Building Code is in violation of FEMA?

It's not our position on that at all.

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you for indulging me.

Does the city wish to cross examine the applicant in any way?

The City doesn't have any cross now.

All right. Mr. Chair, now be an appropriate time for comments by the public, if there are any. I don't really see anybody from the public here. And then you move to closing remarks by city staff followed by the applicant for three minutes each, please. City staff wish to make a closing statement?

Hello, board members. You haven't heard from me yet today, but Matt Minich. I'm one of the city attorneys for the city of Clearwater. I just wanted to get down to the heart of what we're taking a look at here for a second, which, of course, is the variance request, which we know it's it's a pretty big substantial thing to go ahead and ask for a variance from our building codes or the Florida building code or the city's codes. And that's why we have very particular criteria that we've laid out that you have to meet. Now during our presentation, I think we've made it clear that a lot of these criteria haven't been met, But there's one here I wanted to draw particular attention to just while we have a moment here. And that is section two d, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the building structure or service system.

Now I understand here there may be

an element of convenience for what we're doing here. Like, certainly, it may be helpful to have this type of thing, but we've also had evidence on the record that this building can be constructed without disparities. Like, it is not gonna be required. There are different alternative ways that this building could flood proofed. And so certainly, I don't think that criteria is being met here.

And of course, all these criteria have to be able to be met in order to grant a variance. So I just wanted to make sure that we were all kinda clear on that point because that really gets down to the heart of what we're taking a look at here. I'm sure they would disagree on that point, but, you know, I I took a look at this issue pretty hard and really, like, thought through it with my staff, and that's kind of where I've landed. And, you know, certainly, you all can land wherever you feel is best for this situation. But just wanted to bring that up to you because that's really the meat and bones of what we're doing here. So thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna pull my PowerPoint back up one more time if that's okay. And for the final time, Mr. Chair, Brian Hugst, I'm happy to be applicant. And, again, we greatly appreciate your attention today and and understand that this is somewhat of an unusual request. I wanna make it super clear. The Florida Building Code allows this even in the coastal zone. So you've got some undisputed evidence. Number one, the Florida Building Code allows us. It's right it's right there. It's right in front of you.

The Florida building code doesn't violate FEMA. The Florida building code does not violate FEMA. I think this suggestion that you're gonna lose your flood insurance credits is is, in my opinion, not supported by any evidence. And and it happens in other communities in South Florida. This developer has done it in other projects, and he can explain that here in a minute.

But the Florida building code, by definition, would not violate FEMA. So the fact that it's allowed in the Florida building code should really ease your concerns about allowing it here. And the other issue is it's undisputed that this area is not actually in Coastal A. I get that mister Garriott's hands are tied by his code that says he's gotta view it as Coastal A even though it's not. But he's not disputing the fact that our analysis supports the variance and supports that it's not in Coastal A.

So even if you do get audited by FEMA, you have analysis from a coastal engineer and an architect that supports the fact that this isn't actually in coastal a, so those coastal a standards, should not apply. I do wanna get very quickly to the variance criteria because that is why we here we are here. Again, I think the evidence, respectfully can allow you to lead you to a different conclusion than the city staff came to, and that is there is a special circumstance. There's a limo line that runs through the property. We could not design this project to fit anywhere other than touching into the limo line.

There's no suggestion that we just willy nilly decided to put and we only put parking spaces and very limited elements in that area. We put as little there as we possibly could to allow for the use of the rest of the property. Not allowing us to use the rest of the property consistent with not coastal a is is a hardship. I mean, that is a hardship that supports a variance. This isn't caused by the applicant as we discussed.

The the building was designed with the CDB and the city staff and and all of those things and, is structurally sound. And the granting doesn't confer a special privilege. In fact, it's a burden that we're taking on to make our property more safe, more operational, during a storm. It's the minimum variance requested or required to allow us to use those portions of the property during a storm. And mister Farina is going to finish this out, and this is the last criteria where it's in harmony because it's a benefit. It actually accomplishes what FEMA is trying to accomplish, which lowers claims, lowers casualties, lowers loss.

Thank you. We can build the building without this variance, but what we're seeking is to build better than what the code, what the Clearwater code has indicated. The Florida Building Code allows this. We're trying to build for the future, not for the present. In times there are, there are municipalities that have antiquated codes, and this needs to have a common sense practical approach to building. If someone wants to spend money and build better for the safety of buyers and to show what should be done for the future, that's what we're trying to achieve. And as the Board, I would urge you to look practically and sensibly that we're trying to do something better than what's allowed. If their hands are tied, that's one thing, but you're making a righteous decision to build something better and that's what we're trying to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

It is in the board's hands for closing of the public hearing and discussion and a vote. So close the public hearing. Close public hearing, which you've now done. Mhmm. And so now it's up to the three of you to make your decision.

Hear a motion? Do we need a motion here? I think we do.

Yes. You should certainly have a motion. It's wait here.

Do we have an opportunity to do any discussion amongst us?

That's up to you, folks. If you're if you're gonna grant a variance, you have some requirements under forty seven zero three five sub two. You're required to find the the elements that the applicant and the city were discussing, the five criteria for the granting of a variance. You also should express your opinion that the enforcement of the code would do manifest injustice and be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the codes or the public interest. So, ideally, your motion would reflect those things. Yeah. If it's going to be in favor and if it's going to be against whoever's going to make the motion, simply cite, you know, cite your evidence and cite your code

section. Cite your code section.

And you should have some sample motions in your Yeah. The sample motions in in your packets.

Where's the code? Which well, there's multiple codes.

Yeah. You'd be looking for the motions address of standard technical codes.

Mhmm. Interviewer black code, should be some tabs that will say We've got

the motions, but I'm looking for the code sections. Have to state the code section.

Is that what we have to do?

Jake, do have to state You're the code not required

to state the code section. Just for, if you look at the motion for standard technical codes, it says, with regard to the request for variance from the standard technical codes in case number, that's what you that's what your motion should begin with. And then it defers to the requirements of forty seven zero three five sub two.

Any comments?

First of all, beautiful building. Really, really well done. So congrats to you and your team. Unfortunately, codes always tend to contradict each other, and you always have to go with the most stringent. The Limwall line is one that runs along the coast of Florida.

It's through several properties. So for me, I'm not seeing the conditions to be met for the variance. Looking at the larger community as a whole, understanding that Florida billing code is not as strict and stringent as the local community code. But looking at the larger welfare of the local community is kind of where I'm leaning towards. Seeing that the limited impact of wave action may not even knock down a breakaway wall.

There may be opportunities to still preserve some of the design without going forward with the variance. Do you have any other comments?

I personally went through this in 2015 when I was building my house where it fell in between two different flood zones. I had to adhere to the velocity zone, and in these recent storms, I ended up being very grateful that I did have to comply to those. I just don't see, I don't see where the minimal amount of storm surge or water, with the way the design of the building is, with what Kevin said about their structural elements and steel and solid concrete walls that would come into play before they ever reached these areas. I can't see myself either, finding that it's going to hinder the construction of the building, or it's gonna hinder the sales of the building. So I, you know, I would have to be out of the side of the city on this one.

Yeah, I feel the same way. It's, we've all been in this position in our occupations, and you have to conform to the codes of what it says even though you don't agree with it, you have that's the stat stat the not statute, but that's what you have to adhere to. And I think that there are other ways get this through if you wanna dry fire or waterproof it. I looked at the FEMA website. They have a it's like a ten, twelve point application that you have to file to get some approval for that, but again, then you've got the different building codes as you go through Florida code and the city code, it's convoluted, and it's, I think, we're ready to have a vote.

I also think

Well, I need a motion first. Let's get a motion on the table, and then we'll see what we got.

You want more discussion?

Well, no, I was just gonna say every municipality also interprets, and we've all been through that, you know, as an architect, a builder, developer, you know. It depends on, you know, where you are and how it's interpreted. But I also believe that it's interpreted you know, they kept talking about life safety. I think these codes are in place for life safety.

The biggest point of influence on me is the FEMA aspect in the insurance, and on FEMA's website, it specifically says, fees don't work.

Okay. Good. So I guess this is what I read here. I move to find action on the request.

Be the third one?

This one. This one down here.

Which page are on? I'm on. Go back one

My second page to agree with the building official.

Okay. Is that where you? Yeah.

The building official. Nope.

Okay. Yeah. To be clear, your chairperson can't make a motion, so will the data come from the other members?

So it's this

one? Yes.

I move to find the action on the request to be within the board's authority and to deny the appeal and affirm the building official's decision or interpretation based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application. The staff at today's hearing and specifically the following, you fill in the blank there.

Yeah, let me I think you're I had a reading from a different section there. I understand that the motion is to deny the application for variance. Do I have that correct?

So that's the first page.

All right. I understand that your motion was to find that the Board's decision on the application is within this Board's authority. Do I have that correct?

Yes. Yes.

I also heard that I heard you to say that you moved to deny it based on the evidence and testimony that you heard today as that was presented here in person, as presented in the application and the staff report and the supporting materials. Do I have that correct? Yes. Yes. And that you did not find miss Almas who made the motion that that that evidence met the criteria in section four forty seven point zero three five sub two. Is that also correct?

That is correct.

Alright. Let the record reflect that's the motion. Do do we have a second for the motion?

Second.

All those in favor? Before you vote, bear in mind, you have a motion to deny. Yes. So if your vote is aye or yes, then you are voting to deny. If you're voting to if you vote no, then your motion is to deny to deny, which is to vote the other way. I

just want make

that clear.

So we're voting to deny.

Your motion is to deny. So all those in favor of denial, please say yes.

Yes. Yes.

That represents the full Board, so there's no need to ask for the nos. And you have made a final decision. Thank you for that. And I think Mr. Chair, you would simply ask if there are any directors' items to complete your agenda for today.

Director's report there is none, board members to be heard. Anyone have any comments? No? Motion to adjourn? Do you have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. So we'll be adjourned. Thank you folks. Thank you.