Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is a call to order for the Thursday, August 20th, 2026 meeting of the City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please.

Mr. Reno?

Here.

Mr. Carter?

Present.

Ms. Kottenberg? Here. Ms. Kinchin?

Here.

Ms. LaRusso?

Here.

Mr. Garten?

Present.

And Sarah Battles is excused tonight.

Thank you.

Okay. We have no modifications and no announcements for this evening. The next order of business is approval of the minutes from our August 6th meeting. The commissioners have all had a chance to review them. Chair will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes of the regular meeting of the August 6, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

I'll second that.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Tonight we have a public hearing.

Yes, ma'am. This is, um, item six a is, um, for a recommendation to city council regarding a textual amendment to the land development code, uh, to make a recommendation regarding a proposed amendment, uh, to code section five, four dash two dash 5.10 size and dimension criteria defining for building height in a commercial waterfront residential district.

Thank you. Presentation by the city staff, thank you.

Madam Chair, I believe the applicant would like to present the application first.

Welcome. Beautiful, thank you.

Hi, good evening. My name is Kelly Delmonico and I am a planning consultant. Thank you for coming together for me tonight. Let's go through this. I also, I love your council chambers. The screens are awesome and I'm assuming you can all see what I'm seeing at the same time. Great. Um, so I first wanted to start off with, um, what the city's current code is related to building height. So here's just a quick snippet out of your code. What the yellow area is showing you is that's how the building height is measured at the bottom. So there's four different options for measuring the building height. I'm not proposing to touch any of that. Currently today, that red area there is talking about where the height is measured to up at the top. So it's currently measured to the highest point of the building, so the peak of the roof of the building. There are some exceptions to that, for example, like a chimney or a copula or something like that. But mostly it's measured to the tip top of that roof, no matter the pitch of that roof. That's not very typical when you're looking at definitions for height throughout local governments. So here's an example of what that means. So this building here, you can see the red dotted line on the top. That is the peak, that's the ridge of that roof, and that's where it's measured to. So what happens is when you measure height to the peak, to that ridge of the roof, it's penalizing you for putting a peak on the roof. So the flatter the roof is, the more space that structure has to breathe, the more space each floor can have to provide a ceiling height, and to provide, really importantly, the space in between floors. Modern buildings over time, I live in a condo right now that was built 70s, early 80s. And we are eight foot ceiling heights and we're built right on top of each other. So I hear all of those footsteps, I hear everything that's happening. But nowadays, if you walk into a condo or a commercial building or a new residential building, there's kind of an airspace in between the floors where they have utilities. They have air space which helps with noise reduction and they also may have some fire suppression things in there, things that prevent fire from going in between floors. So this increase of floor heights over time hasn't necessarily been kept up with the city codes. So where people used to go for an eight foot ceiling height, they're usually now going for more like a 10 foot ceiling height. In this case right here this building would not be let's say it was a 25 foot height maximum. This building would not be able to be built but if it had a flat roof it would be able to be built even though the peak might be more desirable. So in looking for relief from the height restrictions we'll still respecting the city's desires to limit the number of floors. I'm proposing a code amendment that's specific to the commercial waterfront residential zoning district. So on this map, it's the dark pink, it's kind of hard to tell light pink to dark pink, but it starts at the northern city limits, and this dark pink CWR zoning extends all the way down to kind of just past Main Street. As you can also tell, this right here is the riverfront overlay district, which is everything east of the railroad tracks. So the railroad tracks are that red dotted line everything east, so everything in the CWR is also subject to the riverfront overlay district. And why that's important, the CWR zoning has height limits of 35 feet west of Indian River Drive, but that drops down to a height limit of only 25 feet on the east side of Indian River Drive. However that overlay that's put over the zoning district promotes and requires what they call the old Florida fishing village architectural style. So what they want is they want a pitched roof put on that structure no less than 5 to 12 and no greater than 10 to 12. So if you look at that image on the right the 5 to 12 is the orange color. So you go 5 12 6 12 and the purple. top right, 712 in the Aqua, 812, 912, 1012 in that blue color, those are all acceptable roof pitches in this overlay district which is subject to the CWR zoning. So it does not allow for those lower pitches of roof so people can actually get a solid two-story building to meet the height definition. So my request here is to amend that green section to amend that top measurement. And so what I have written in there is for properties in the commercial waterfront residential district that are subject to the riverfront overlay district pitched roof design criteria the building height shall be measured to the mean height between the eaves and the ridge. So that's that's more typical that's pretty common language that you'll see in local governments. Some of them measure to the ceiling height and don't even count the roof. I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to bring that height down a bit. So again, on the left, that's what you saw before with the max, the ridge, the peak being the maximum height. And if we change the definition, the height of 25 feet doesn't change. It's the definition comes down to be that average between the ridge and the eaves. So it no longer is penalizing someone for putting the pitch on the roof that they're required to put on the roof. I think if you're also thinking about this as well, roof height is very subjective. So if you're required to have a pitch of 5 to 12, the longer your building is, the taller the peak of the roof actually gets. So it's trying to accommodate that average. So all of these buildings can put the pitch on the roof and they can also provide a comfortable floor height and a comfortable ceiling height to meet the modern demand for this. In addition the city does have the ability to request that we extend this to other parts of the city but I'm today specifically looking for this to apply to the CWR zoning that's subject to the riverfront overlay. and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have one question. Yes, ma'am. If a building had multiple, let's see, rather than one large building, if it was a building that appeared to have multiple different roof, Like breaks in the roof? Yeah. I don't know exactly what to call it. Just oftentimes that is done to make a more pleasant, less boxy structure. Correct. Would this apply to each and every one of those?

No, you would still take, so typically what happens when an architect is trying to break up a big expanse of a roof, they'll do like little projections where different roofs come out. but you'll still take the average between the highest point roof and the lowest eave. So it all measures out when you're doing the measurements. So if they have one really high one, we're still measuring the average from that peak down to the lowest eave that's at the top of the house. You wouldn't count like a porch. So if you had like a first-story porch coming out, that's not what we're counting. It's the very top.

Would this preclude or prevent any kind of a future bump out, and I don't even know what to call it, an awning roof that might open up to add more space to what would be typically an attic?

Oh, like allow for additional living space to occur within a roof area?

Yeah, not necessarily actual living space, but maybe a dorm... I don't even know what to call it. Let's say... Kind of like a vaulted ceiling? A vaulted ceiling, yeah.

It would be more friendly to vaulted ceilings, but... It's not adding another floor to a building. It's giving flexibility for the roof pitch to change and be provided.

That would be permitted?

To have a vaulted ceiling.

If you, under this premise, if you were to do a vault so that you had maybe an open porch area or a room that would be have kind of a bump out maybe with a sloped roof so the roof extends a little bit out.

I'm trying to think. A loft or you might add like a roof pitch over the side to give yourself a little porch coming out the second floor.

Yes.

I think I don't know that that would be treated any different If it was a roof sticking out, it would still be measured from the mean between the peak and the eaves. That is my question, though.

It would not be treated differently. It would all need to fit into the same.

That would be my understanding.

We would still treat it, you know, just measuring it between the eave and the ridge line. So the bottom of the eave of the roof line on the outside of the building between the peak at the roof at the top. So if they decided to add a feature as like a porch on the rooftop, we would still measure the building height. on the outside of the building per the eave?

From the majority of the eaves, not the eave from the bump out, yeah.

Correct.

The tallest roof, the tallest ridge to the eave of that ridge or that roof line would be determined that height.

I know if I could draw it on here, I would draw it. But like if the roof came out further here, right, if the roof came out further here to cover a patio, they would be lowering the height. The measurement would actually be penalizing them. It wouldn't hurt the city to allow that. It's just bringing down how much they can provide.

Okay.

But yeah, the architect, what the architect does when they submit plans to the city is they're going to indicate on those plans, the, where the bottom measurement is and where this top measurement is. And they show all of those for review by city staff to make sure that it meets code.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

My question, I'm what I questioned about this is if we're not opening the door. to allow taller buildings to be built eventually, which is my concern. I don't want it to be taller than what is allowed. Is that what's happening?

So the answer to that question is, will the peak of the roof get to be higher than it is today? Yes.

So today- So we're having taller buildings then?

You have more dynamic roof options. Will a 25 foot maximum height east of the river get to produce another floor? No. It will allow the roof pitch to change and to meet the code requirements for the riverfront overlay district and fit what it needs to in there. So like the ceiling of the second floor isn't going past what is being allowed. It's just allowing for flexibility in the pitch of the roof. So like today you can't provide very easily what the code is asking for well does that leave that open to in your example that you just raised what if the pitch of the roof is at 35 feet then it actually wouldn't so it gives you more area in the building right so you have a taller building correct so here's an example so today i drove past i drove down indian river drive on my way here And when you're sitting next on that road, sitting next to a two-story building, you can't even see the roof on the building because of the angle that you're at. So the city is trying to encourage higher pitched roofs to meet these requirements. So if you drive down Indian River Drive right now, basically everything you're going to see is that 512 roof. But the city would also like to see the 10 to 12. To be able to see the roof makes the buildings look better, especially when they're two-story, because you're kind of right up on it. So this is just providing flexibility. So in architecture, people have the ability to change the angle of that roof without adding additional living space. The pitch of the roof will get to go above that 25 feet, but that's the only thing going above the 25 feet.

My concern is, I'm familiar with West Palm Beach. They kind of started like this. Now they have 60-some-odd projects that are just massive on their waterfront down there, which is crazy.

That would definitely not be my intent here.

Opening the door to that is what my concern is.

So there's a limit. There's going to be a limit to how high that roof can be logically because the highest peak you can have on a roof in the area I'm talking about is that 10 to 12. that the blue one up there. So your length of your building without changes to your roof is also limited by the riverfront overlay. So there's a whole bunch of design criteria in here that require you to break up your roof and make it interesting rather than have one huge roof on a 200 foot building, right? There's width requirements for buildings which limits logistically the roof. So this is allowing for an averaging of the roof rather than just the peak. If you could do, if you allowed flat roofs, everyone would do a flat roof. But because you don't allow flat roofs, there needs to be a little flexibility in the measurement without increasing any intensity. Yes, sir.

So considering where this building is going and the higher roof, what does that do for insurance?

Mr. Garten, can you please turn on your mic?

I apologize, there we go. I thought I hit the red button. So considering where this building's being located and the increased height of the roof, what does this do for the insurance purposes? Considering where it's located as far as hurricane insurance, taller building, does that affect the insurability of the building at all?

That is not a question I have the knowledge to answer. It's my understanding that it's typically the design of the roof that keeps insurance rates down. where it comes down on every edge rather than these are pretty typical slopes that you'd see in a roof. These aren't an A-frame structure, which is prohibited. So if, you know, an A-frame structure, which is very pointing, goes really tall, that's already prohibited in this district, so that can't happen. I'm not sure what that means for insurance rates, though.

How far above the 35 foot limit would, if you use the blue, tend to, would it be?

It depends on the width of the building and the pitch of the roof. So it will be, it's variable. Guess? Give me a guess. OK, so for example here, I have this. Let me go back to here. Oh, look, if they want to see this. Can we zoom? I brought in my copies. So we'll hand those out. So what you'll see in front of you is I had the architect to draw this out. This is an example of a building in a 25-foot height limitation, but this is showing the lowest pitched roof that's acceptable in the city right now. So if you look at that measurement on the left-hand side, The lowest pitched roof right now would be, you know, we're talking 28 feet 2 inches. So it could have a little bit higher pitched roof to meet the city's requirements for the pitch. So I don't know. I'm not an architect. Bump that up a couple feet to the peak. But again, it depends how wide the building is. If the building is very wide, the city is going to require the roof lines to be broken up so it doesn't get really tall. The wider the building, the taller the roof goes, but then the city regulations come into play.

OK. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Jim?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Delmonico did a very good job presenting, you know, the building height suggested text amendment. We did receive this application in June of this year, and it is an applicant-driven text amendment. So we are proposing the amendment for your discretion for Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. But if you have any further questions, I am here to answer those.

I did just think of a question. I mean, there's not a whole lot of land left on the east side within our city limits. So new construction probably is going to be few and far between. But existing buildings that are there, some of the hotels and things, If they did a renovation project, would they be able to go up a little higher than they are?

So if they decided to do a renovation project on a current building, yes, they would be able to follow the new code standards for building height definition. It will just be within the CWR zoning district.

I have a little bit of a concern about changing the character. And I know we've all heard these terms, oh, they're building a McMansion. which changes the character from that old fishing village thing. And I understand that a lot of people might like to have more than a 10-foot ceiling or more than an 8-foot ceiling. Apparently we can do a 10-foot right now, and I guess I'm wondering why that isn't enough. And not that I don't want more attractive buildings, I do want more attractive buildings, but I'm just concerned that this might have an effect on the character, the overall character of the development, not just the height thing, but the character, which is a bit unique in Florida, and I guess I would hate to see it disappear. I don't know. That's convinced me, please.

Well, madam chair, this wouldn't necessarily affect the character of the buildings that will be designed for the actual overlay district. They'll still maintain that old fishing village theme that we are constant with the code and we review, you know, very thoroughly. Um, it's just changing the building height definition to where they can maybe squeeze in, um, like a couple more feet within side of the building per floor. Because the 25-foot height limit on the east side of Indian River Drive does kind of limit them to more of a shorter ceiling height per floor if they decided to go two-story. But the definition could be changed a little bit to where they can add maybe a couple more feet per floor. But I don't think it would change the character and nature of the old fishing village theme that we're keeping within this overlay district. because they still have to meet other architectural embellishments per the overlay district requirements.

In other words, I wouldn't notice it.

You might not.

So basically what you're saying is it will still be within that two-story structure on the east side

Westside is the three-story On the west side of any River Drive within the overlay district is it is a maximum of 35 feet and on the east side It is a 25 foot height limit. We're just determining where we measure the height of the building.

I Assume that this proposal applies to both commercial and or a residential considered development. I

Yes, it would apply to everything allowed within the zoning, which is both commercial and residential. And just to clarify in the character, we're seeking this so we can meet the character standards of this district. So with the short height allowance and the requirement for the pitched roof, this will help us accomplish that and make a really nice looking building, two story building on the east side.

I understand. Okay. I guess this is the time, Commissioners. If you have no further questions, no further discussion, what's your pleasure?

I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion that we do not recommend to City Council changing the Land Development Code textual amendment regarding a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code section 54-5, period 10, size and dimension criteria, definition for building height in the commercial waterfront residential CWR district.

Do we have a second?

motion dies for lack of a second i'll make a motion that we recommend to the city council that the land development code textual amendment to make a recommendation to the city council regarding the proposed amendment to the land development code section fifty four dash two dash five point one zero size and dimension criteria definition of building height in the commercial waterfront district

Approved. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Roll call vote, please.

Mr. Carter?

No.

Ms. Kottenberg?

No.

Ms. Kinchen? Yes. Ms. LaRusso? Yes. Mr. Reno?

Yes.

And Mr. Garten.

Yes.

Motion carries four to zero, four to two.

Thank you. Okay, we have no unfinished business. We have no additional new business. We are adjourned. Thank you.