Planning Board - Regular Meeting

for February 26, 2026 of the St. Pete Beach Peach Planning Board. Please join me for 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. Okay, thank you. Roll call, please. Member Izzy, here. Member Perry, here. Vice Chair Angelitus, here. Member Lorenzen, here. Chair Hubard, here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have changes for the agenda today?

Okay. If I could just add an quick discussion item, item 5D for um a CRA update, please. No problem. Okay. I will add 5D for CRA discussion. And I have a motion, please. A motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Member Perry. Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. Member Lorenzen. Yes. Member Izzy. Yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any audience comment area over in the west side of downtown? Uh so the topics we really wanted to cover with the board today have to do with the modifications. We have three major use modifications that are being proposed under this cover. Uh these were reviewed and generally given the notice or given authority to proceed by the city commission. Uh the first is looking at allowing for standalone multifamily residential in the TC2 allowing for standalone lodging uses and looking at reduced land area that would be required to support a mixeduse multifamily and commercial project. The major development standards I wanted to discuss with the board today have to do with height, density, and living square footage. I also wanted to get your general thoughts on temporary lodging and mixeduse development standard modifications. We've covered the background in the past, but just to briefly summarize, uh, this area of the city staff believes faces unique challenges post storm that are not faced to the same degree in other districts. Um, there is a horizontal use mix, not not so much of a vertical use mix, but there are properties that have commercial next to residential, next to lodging, next to office, and so on. We don't tend to have that in other areas of the city to the same extent. There are large number of property owners who um make full block mixeduse redevelopment challenging. The standards at present are effectively the same on the west side of downtown as they are on the east side, which of course the east side has consolidated. It's being developed as the Corey Landings project. Uh the large number of property owners on the west side may make that a little bit more challenging to see that level of consolidation. There's also varying character and density, particularly avenue to avenue. I have a few maps that show that in a few slides. We've been directed to

generate solutions which do not increase density or intensity, allow for reasonable restoration that is not adverse to the district purpose and intent and does not preclude later more visionary community redevelopment district focused solutions. So some of the goals that we address with the city commission um we want to keep this in a narrow focus allow limited development and redevelopment of multifamily and lodging uses. There are live local act considerations. Raising the cap on units per acre or density or intensity generally um does make projects eligible for the live local act and other areas of the city. That is a little bit outside the scope of what we're looking at with this project. We also want to avoid significantly disincentivizing property consolidation for mixed use. We still consider that to be the highest and best use seeing the assemblage of property and redevelopment as a mixeduse ground level commercial with lodging or residential above. Uh we don't want to reduce any development standards that could be adverse to Senate Bill 180 as well. Uh we're looking at preserving density, intensity, scale, and mass of the area. The surrounding area is one to two stories as developed today. The proposal would limit redevelopment to a max of three stories on single lots to preserve that scale. And again, we're not looking at any increase to allowable density. We're also looking for something that is efficient to implement. This has been conceptualized to undergo expedited state and county review. There are much longer, more arduous tier 2 and three amendment processes through the county. Uh what's called the coordinated review process through the state. Those take many months to go through. um we have conceptualized this to not go through any kind of um long-term review by the state or county. So looking at the first of the potential use amendments to allow for standalone residential use. This is proposed to

allow for standalone multifamily residential uses only. Uh there are much lower protections for multifamily adjacent to commercial adjacent to office in the city's code generally than there is for single family and two family. There has been interest both among the community and among the commission in preserving that horizontal mix. We didn't want to create any situation that would cause significant burden on the commercial and office that are in this district and could be developed in the future. Duplexes and single family both attached and detached would remain prohibited. Um, this would limit burdens on existing and future commercial development. Townhouse style multifamily condo developments. So, those are still considered multifamily. A Gian Hideway on the southwest side of 76th Avenue is an example within this zoning district. It is a multifamily condo project that looks like town houses. They have that um that party wall separation. Those would be permitted under this proposal. We still have the standard zoning requirements. We wouldn't be looking at reducing any of those requirements. Those include the on-site parking. Um the requirement for landscaping buffers. This being in the downtown redevelopment district. There are also design requirements. Those would include the inclusion of things like Koopas, gables, roof line variation, awnings in the redevelopment of properties and looking at some of those green building standards lead and Florida green building coalition upon redevelopment.

Hey Brandon. Yes. Real quick. Um on the second bullet there sub bullet there on limits burden on existing and future. What do you mean by that and how?

So when commercial projects are redeveloped or additions are made to commercial developments they have to comply with the current zoning standards usually the setbacks and height limitations. single family and duplex development citywide and especially within the community redevelopment area um the special planning area have significant setbacks and height limitations from single and two family that that don't apply to multifamily. So with allowing for multifamily especially on properties that may have a commercial use that are 50 feet wide and 100 100 to 110 ft deep that tends to be the standard in this area. They may have a setback of 30 or 40 feet from a single family home. The setback for multif family may be 10 or 15 feet. So it's a significant reduction in burden to allow multif family.

All right. So I think bottom bottom line there then you could fit more people uh with that with a multif family in the same area than if it was single residential or business or mixed business slash a mixeduse kind of thing. Right. Correct. and and for the commercial developments if they're looking to redevelop or add on in the future they would have that lower burden for setbacks and all right so more people um potentially if it if this went this way with multi- multi-use or multifamily we can exponentially increase the number of residents here in St. beach

on on single properties. Um I I don't know that it would significantly increase relative to the district potential. Um we do allow for 24 units per acre based on the existing zoning. This would allow for single parcels to develop up to 18 units per acre. That's that's what's being proposed. Okay. But that is one of the things we want to talk about with the board.

Thanks. So looking at standalone lodging uses, this is something that the district to the immediate south of here, the Uppen Beach Village District, it's it's very similar in concept. This would allow for lodging uses that are existing as of the storms to be redeveloped as standalone uses. We have the Bellis Arena Inn. We also have the Widewaters Motel. Um those are existing and and pre-existing lodging uses that would be eligible to redevelop under this concept. New standalone lodging uses would not be permitted. They would be permitted as they are currently permitted as a mixeduse development with a groundf flooror commercial lodging above that's currently allowed in the code. Um but does require significant property consolidation. As with residential, we would be looking at a maximum of three stories, a density of 30 units per acre or the existing unit count on the property, whichever is greater. 30 units per acre is the is the standard permitted uh units per acre threshold for lodging facilities in St. Pete Beach. So that would be extended here to the Town Center 2 district. The floor area would be limited to the existing average plus 20%. So it would allow for those livability updates as uh these properties redevelop but would not allow for significant um expansions in floor area. As with residential, we would be looking for on-site parking and landscaping buffers and those design inclusion. And then looking at mixeduse development, which is currently allowed in this zoning district. Currently, the requirement requires effectively someone to buy up an entire block and redevelopment as one mixeduse project to be able to develop a mixeduse development. Should we move forward with the standalone multif family proposal? We have heard from several property owners that they do tend they do intend to take advantage of that. Um, at least one property owner from each block I have spoken to and they they intend to take advantage of the multifamily

redevelopment option. So that would preclude the 86 foot tall 24 units per acre multifamily redevelopment that the city currently offers. if just one property owner per block holds out that would not be viable for mixeduse projects. So with that um in consolidation with the other two proposals that we have pushed forward um we are also looking at lowering the threshold for um multifamily or temporary lodging mixeduse development. As I said before uh currently development allows for up to about nine stories 86 feet above base flood elevation. This would allow for a lower threshold half a block redevelopment about half an or about one acre. Um these projects will be limited to a maximum height of 50 feet above base flood elevation as about four stories over commercial or office um with required building step back above two stories. We would be looking to keep these properties consistent really have them being a rectangular shape not allow for an odd um development scheme on the block. So we would look for about 200 feet in depth and width. And again, someone would need to acquire about half a block instead of a whole block to take advantage of this standard. So I wanted to talk to you primarily about the multifamily residential height. That does seem to be the focus of this proposal. It is what we've heard the most interest from the public about up to this point. And we wanted to get the board's input on three different design standards, development standards. The first of which is height. So most properties in the TC2 Cookina West zoning are in the AE10 and AE11 flood zones. They are not in the velocity zone. There are some properties on the west side that are within the coastal zone and you can see that on the map on the right side of the screen. The properties that intersect or are west of the line with the arrows pointing out of it are in what are considered the

coastal Azone. They have similar design requirements and development requirements to the velocity zone properties um which you tend to see closer to the beach south of this area. Um this area has a general grade range of 3.5 to 4.5 ft NABD88 with a 3-foot crown of road elevation. So taking those together, looking at the flood zone requirements as well as the general grade throughout the district for a redevelop project that is compliant with the minimum flood zone requirements. We would expect the living floor to be 6.5 to 9.5 ft above grade. That would be higher toward the west side of the district. It would be a little bit lower on the east side of the district where they don't face those coastal design requirements. Most small lot residences in St. P Beach are limited to 30 to 35 ft in height above base flood elevation plus 1 foot. We're talking today about um and we would like to get this the board's input on the height that would be allowed in this district. Uh planning to bring this back in in future meetings uh as a draft proposal. Height would allow for um if we set a 30 foot height limit which is based on base flood elevation that would allow for a structure that is 36 to 39 ft above grade. that is standard throughout the city in Venad Delmare in Bel Vista, the other standard uh platted residential lots and uh neighborhoods in our city. Um 30 ft is the standard. So this would make these properties um consistent with with those in in the standard platted neighborhoods. This would likely allow for two living stories. That's what we tend to see in the neighborhoods um on redevelopment, even for those properties that are redeveloping to the maximum height that's allowed. 35 feet. Um that's allowed in some of the higher height um Gulf Boulevard and Lime Pass Road facing residential zoning

districts. That would allow for 41 to 44 feet above grade depending on where it's located within the district. That's likely allowing for three living stories. That's what we tend to see for residential redevelopment projects in the neighborhoods that allow for a 35- ft height limit. This is not inconsistent with the neighborhoods in the area. To the direct south of here is a multifamily residential district that allows for 30 feet as measured from base flood elevation plus one foot. Uh to the sorry that is to the north to the south is the up beach village district that allows 35 to 45 ft depending on the project size. Uh the second item we wanted to address for the board is residential density. As you can see from this map, there is a wide um wide variety of density per property throughout this district. You have the Aian Hideway with 12.3 units per acre. Some of the standalone single family residential uses that are currently in the zoning district at 8.1 units per per acre. Many of the multifamily projects have a density between 30 and 50 units per acre. So that makes it challenging to set a unit per acre threshold that really makes all property owners whole, even allowed to redevelop what they have on the site. So with that variation, um you're seeing lots that range from eight units all the way up to 40 to 50 units per acre. There's no way to make every residential and lodging property in this district whole without increasing density, which is not part of this um project. drafting standards allow existing residences to redevelop with the existing density which can cause its own challenges. Like I said, there can be some uh challenges relative to the live local act that we would need to talk through or allocating units from the residential density pool. Um part of the Corey Landings approval that was passed just late last year

allocated well over 100 units back to that pool. The requirement to make this district whole, so to reallocate units from the pool to allow for property owners to redevelop with the number of units that they currently have in the property is only a small fraction of that. We would need to use about 37 units of the 125 that were reallocated to that pool. So, taking the 18 units per acre that would be allowed as a base, right, adding in those additional units that would be needed to allow property owners to redevelop with what they have today would take about 37 units. And again, that's only a fraction of what was reallocated from the Corey Landings project. And this just outlines that 37 units per acre is what would be needed out of the density pool. We currently have about 170 units available in that pool. The 37 would um would leave just over 100 units remaining in that in that pool. Residential floor area. This is something that the mayor brought up um when we brought this item forward for city commission input. Um staff had proposed an 800 square f foot living area and I'll get into the details on on what that includes in just a moment. Um he had expressed concerns about that being a significant limitation on redevelopment. Um it may be an option. It may be viable for these properties to redevelop with 800 square ft, but it may not be economically uh sensible to do so. And I'll I'll give some details on that in just a few moments. As you can see here, um there is a little bit of variation in living area square footage when we look at the average for the district, but accepting out the Aian Hideway, which is a 2100 square ft, significantly higher than any other project in this area. 800 square ft would allow for the existing residential uses in this zoning district to redevelop with more square footage than what they have today. There are a few

properties that are right up against that living square footage. You have 798 just to the east of Aian Hideway. You do have a single we do have a single family home on the north side of 73rd that is at 1564 square ft. But for most of the multif family developments in the area um they are between 400 and 700 square ft average living unit square footage. Uh currently this would allow for up to 800 square feet of living area. Hey Brandon, go ahead. Is there a cap right now on square footage in TC2?

Well, currently multif family is not permitted um for those mixeduse development projects. There's no cap other than the setbacks and height. Are do we have any data on occupancy rates for the the multif family that exists now? Uh so we don't know if there's a certain square footage that makes it financially viable. It's okay. No. And that is part of what we want to explore with this project. Um we have asked our Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council partners to see if we can get that information. Okay.

So looking at and this is American Housing Survey. It's a um product of the census but looking at the 2023 data for Florida. Looking at unit size by dwelling type. This is not new development. This is existing average development. attached single family um has a mean unit size of around 1500 square feet for those dwellings. As they as projects get larger, they tend to uh shrink in mean unit size. But looking at any multifamily development other than town houses statewide, the average unit size is just over 1,000 square ft. Um there isn't a significant drop off for those projects that are much larger apartment developments than the smaller 2 to four unit dwellings. um goes down from about 1100 square feet per unit on average down to just under a thousand square feet. So that's what we tend to see um just as an average statewide not new construction but the average um average multif family unit size statewide. So looking at the square footage based on number of bedrooms. So based on the actual product itself, uh looking at mean unit size statewide based on 2023 data, studios tend to be about 500 square feet per unit, one bedroom would be just under 800 square ft. So that's what we move forward with. We would likely see one bedroomedroom developments or uh studio developments in this in this area. Two bedrooms have a mean unit size of just under 1,200 square feet. three bedrooms have a mean unit size of over just just a bit over 1700 square feet. So looking at Penllis County, the property appraisers data of what's being built uh looking back the last six years to 2020 and the barrier island zips um even apartments are significantly larger in square footage per unit than what would be allowed in this area. Um the average unit size in the barrier islands that has been built um since 2020 is just

under 2,000 square feet. Condo projects are even larger than that. 2200 square ft. Looking countywide, so including the uh you know the the inland areas. Um it's significantly smaller for apartments. Apartments are 1,200 square feet on average. Uh but condos are holding out at around 2,000 square feet um for for new development. I did want to say that we we don't see a lot of multif family development in St. Pete Beach. Um not, you know, there hasn't been a ton of new development um of of multifamily projects in the last 20 or so years. There was one proposal that moved forward for approval late last year. It is pending site plan submitt. This is all the way down in Pasil 100 Pasil Way. They're proposing six new units, two existing um which are being retained at the back of the property. They are proposing uh unit sizes of 714 square ft of living area. That does include the ground level, the porch areas, the parking uh that is the actual living square footage excluding the vertical circulation, the stairs inside the inside the units themselves. This would um provide a project with a total site density of 28.6 units per acre. that would exceed what the base density would be allowed in this district, but that would be in range for what would be allowed with the density pool allocation. Um, they are meeting the same impervious surface ratio requirements that would be imposed in the TC2 district. They are including some site amenities as well and they are compliant with the height limitation that would be um subject to the TC2 zoning district.

Kind of a side question if I could. Does this one have to go up per cup or is this strictly zoning? This is strictly zoning.

So looking at the buildability assessment for the TC2 Cookina West area, the average platted lot size in this area is 50 by 107.5 square ft, just under 5,500 square uh sorry by 107.5 ft uh just under 5,500 square feet. Of that 5375 square feet, about 55% of the lot area, 50 to 55% is accounted for by permeability uh requirements as well as the design articulation and the parking requirements. That leaves about half the lot that could be developed on um which could support a building when meeting the other development requirements. that that's looking at a maximum development scenario assuming that the developer does not choose to place an accurate pool or other amenities that might be provided for these properties. So looking at the potential living square footage a threeunit two living story building could have a realistic gross floor area of up to750 square ft. That's not based on any cap that the city would implement. at just based on the reasonable development potential for a lot that is being developed at the 50 by 107.5 um dimensions.

Does does that allow for parking or that would allow that would not account for parking? Um so there would be an additional level for the parking and storage.

Okay. So looking at what's included in living square footage, um we would recommend that whether there's a cap placed or not, living square footage would exclude any exterior balconies. It would include that ground level parking, storage, and access. It would also exclude the minimal vert minimum vertical circulation that would be required to access an upper story living level. It would include the bedroom, the bathroom, closets, um eating and drinking areas and so on. But it would it would exclude those exterior elements, those non-habitable elements down at the ground level as well as the minimum vertical circulation for development. And here's a few example single lot development options. Um, this would be a property not located along Corey Avenue. Corey Avenue does have a build to requirement. We would propose allowing for those multif family projects up to three units, allowing for parking along the frontage. You could see the type of development. Again, canceling out the um the minimum art articulation requirements and the other um requirements that come along with this. This is a property that could potentially be built meeting the setback requirements, meeting the impervious surface ratio and buffer requirements. This could be a potential development along 76th or um uh 73rd avenues. Looking at Corey Avenue, there is that build to requirement. So that does make it challenging. Um it's likely that the development would be need to be shifted closer to the street, have the parking under the building um parallel to the front property line. You might see more of a townhouse style development just with the inability to um separate off the floors given the living the limited living square footage in these projects. So I did want to point out that there is no requirement to limit floor area for residential development in St. P Beach.

Most zoning districts citywide do not have a strict limit on floor area. This was an idea. This was a concept for this district that would allow for development that's in line with the existing developed square footage of properties not accounting for that that uh level that needs to be elevated to allow for parking and storage. There are other dimensional requirements of course that apply to lots. Height impervious surface setbacks. Others can serve as an indirect limitation on floor area. Floor area limitations can be used to incentivize certain types of development like single-bedroom apartments. As I pointed out before, an a cap of 800 square feet would likely lead to studio and single-bedroom apartment style development. Setting a floor area standard too low can disincentivize redevelopment. That was a concern of the mayor at the last meeting that setting an 800 square foot cap could potentially um disincentivize townhouse style development, those larger projects that we tend to be uh see being built elsewhere in Penllis County. So our main um questions for you this afternoon um we would like your input on the proposed residential density. We are proposing 18 units per acre with the ability to request from the density pool the five feet that would allow for two to three living stories is likely to allow units of a median barrier island new construction size. It's 2,000 square ft absent floor area limitations. And the third item that we'd like your input on is whether there should be a floor area limitation, if any. As I mentioned before, staff had proposed an 800 square foot per unit of living space. That is not a requirement. That is something that could be increased, could be done away with entirely, and be left to the height, lot coverage, and setback requirements.

Um, this would allow for lower living square footages, which could incentivize new flood compliant rentals, one to two-bedroom development, uh, which St. P Beach does lack in in large number especially for newer more recent development. It could also include incentives for lower density but higher floor area uh projects as I pointed out before allowing for that partial block consolidation but potentially a lower density of 12 units or 15 units per acre would allow for those units to have a higher floor area. So in terms of next steps um we would like to get the input of the board both on these concepts um generally as well as the density height and floor area standards that I mentioned on the previous slide. Uh we would like to bring these items back for input in March or April. We are likely um looking at a workshop or a hybrid public forum setup. Um we would like to get the community's input on this as well. I have been speaking with several of the property owners in the vicinity. Um I have shared with this many did turn out for the presentation. Last month I went to city commission. Um but we would like to get them involved as well and have a input session for them as this as this develops. This may be a separate meeting depending on the feedback we get this evening. I really just wanted to bring this forward to the board, get your initial input and move forward from there. So happy to take any questions um and look forward to your input. I got a couple. Um, so like many things we do in this city, I found, um, we kind of put the chicken before the egg thing. You know, you're asking us to give input and and I will on on what you've asked. Um, but without a long-term vision of what's already been approved. So you you're we're going to go to the public and talk

to them about it, but in the meantime, we're going to hash out some standards when maybe this is not what the public really wants for that area of St. Pete Beach. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, don't get me wrong, but my I'm very process driven, right? And to me, I I would think that in the city, we would understand or know or come to some agreement or or disagreement, but at least there was a plan moving forward that said this area is now going to be this. Now, you guys go figure out the limits that you want to put on it that we think we need, right? Or and you answered one of my questions on, you know, what do we need in this city? It sounds like we need one and twobedroom rental spaces if that's what we're lacking, but that does not doesn't necessarily answer the question is what do we want

this in in this city? So, go ahead. Um, if I remember correctly, you had outreach to these property owners last fall and the February 26th, there was a meeting um for the owners in this location and I did attend that meeting. So, I think the outcome was 26 of what year? 2025. Last year. No, I thought it was this year. Today is February 26th. Well, I'm sorry. I'm the wrong one. Yeah, I I feel like I remember the outcome was the owners in that area were Yeah, the owners kind of down on commercial because there's a lot of vacant commercial already and they also weren't keen on mixed use. So, is this the outcome of hey, the people that own these properties aren't moving forward and we want to give them something?

And we do we and I'm sorry for not giving that context. We did start this with a workshop and a and a public forum with the community. Um, we did have many property owners turn out and there was interest in allowing for multifamily standalone redevelopment. A lot of these concepts came out of that meeting. we have kept that um neighborhood engaged during this process and we haven't really worked through the direct development standards. That is something that like I mentioned we we want to come back with a workshop. We really want to talk this through and give you more detail, but the input we were seeking from the planning board tonight is really on conceptually the development standards. But I think the actual use standards that we've discussed tonight I we have engaged the community on that and I believe there is support.

I I understand I just feel like you know you're ask you ask us for things and in several of these meetings you know what's missing always is is the why and the and the and the who is who's push he was kind of pushing this and then

and then the why. Well, I I can answer that because I attended the meeting that they had with these owners and the thing I got out of it was that after the hurricane, they wanted to basically be grandfathered. They wanted to be able to get back to where they were. And I think the way the the land development code, they would have had to change. There were restrictions that were keeping them from being able to just get back to coal. And that was really the big driver that I saw.

That doesn't really make sense because, you know, if you if they're going to change and develop something like this, they they would have to um meet current standards anyway when they redevelop. That's the question. And that's,

you know, so, okay, I I want to get off track, but it's kind of it's very discouraging to me that, you know, when we come in here and we get a briefing, we don't know the full background on why and where we're going and why we're going there. Um, you know, if you were to if you would have started out and said, hey, the vision of this city that has been, you know, blessed by the commission or what have you is that Cookino West EC2 is going to be residential, multifamily. that's where that's where the city wants us to go because we've gone through this process. Now you guys go figure, you know, give us your input on the uh standards. It would make sense. I mean, I'll still give you my input on the standards, but you know, I don't know. I I I sit here wondering who's driving this, you know, and and and why. And I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I mean, because it all needs to be kind of redeveloped and revitalized. You know, the whole Gulf boulevard does, right? But, you know, we're constantly putting the cart before the horse on things and we're not following a process that leads everyone right down the road of why we're doing something because we can't ever answer the question why and they can't and the answer can't be because the people that currently are living there or the current property owners want it. That's not they don't get the the full say, right? This the city and the commission needs to make this. But saying that, um, based on one of your bullets there that we need in this city, one and twobedroom rentals, if we're short on those, um, I mean, I I think your plan is okay. I I I have no real objections. The only objection I have is how we're getting there and why because this may not be the right thing for this city in the end because I don't think there's been enough discussion about it. So, I'll yield the rest of my time.

That's an interesting point you brought up as I listen to your presentation and thank you. It's well put together. Um, I'm trying to figure out what the genesis of this is exactly who who started this and what what problem are they trying to solve? If it's was there somebody in particular in the commission that you know their district or the mayor or somebody said, "Hey, we got to get this fixed." How did this get going? So I can only speak from my side. I know that posttorm I did have several property owners reach out to me and ask how what can I do? You know what what can I redevelop with? And the option currently at their parcel size is office or commercial. Um many of these property owners have one, two, threebedroom um or unit um developments. And from that I I know it went on to the commission. I don't know who directed that, but we um you know, we we set up a community workshop. We got their input. These are things that I I I think there is a you know, a joining of of zoning and the community desires here as well. Um I I do think that there is some demand and there is interest in multifamily development in this jurisdiction. It's not something that's currently allowed and I think there are significant unrealized challenges with the west side that we haven't seen replicated over on the east side. We drafted these standards that allow for the mixeduse consolidation back in the mid 2000s. Um it's obviously been realized in Corey Landings and I think even decade well over a decade ago now there was a project that would have proposed the same type of development that Cory Landings um was undertaking. We haven't seen that consolidation over on the west side and it makes it very challenging to redevelop the area. If commercial new commercial development isn't viable, um

if new office development isn't viable, there is no current option except for full block consolidation with a mixeduse project based on the current zoning. Um this would allow for additional options. It doesn't take anything away. It still allows for the multifamily full block redevelopment. It allows for the lodging uses to remain potentially redevelop um but it allows for that standalone multif family that does not exist today. So

So in Brandon Barry's crystal ball prehelena snapshot of of TC2 and five years from now if this goes through and we all nod our heads and the commission agrees, what do you see changing? I do see based on based on input um especially the properties along 76 at the north and the south ends um I I do see redevelopment as multif family. I know there's been interest in smaller townhouse style projects along those areas of the district that face residential. Immediately north of here and immediately south are residential zoning districts. Um along Corey Avenue. It could it could go either way. Um there could be a shift from the existing commercial over to residential, but most of the interest I've heard at this point is is in uh redevelopment along 76th and and third.

So mostly privately owned or are we talking more condos? Uh they are privately owned. Yeah. Thank you. Is is there a is there a requirement that parking be onsite as as these are redeveloped? Not necessarily. Um, if someone were to build a parking garage, they could always have a shared parking agreement with a garage, but unless there's some shared facility or or surface parking lot, that's it needs to be on site on the property. Oh, okay. Okay. So, there is a parking requirement. You cannot assume street parking is okay. Yes.

So, with some of these densities on your chart, like one of these corner units is 437 ft. is the highest one at 57 units per acre. I I assume that's just very very tiny efficiency apartments that um is is that able to be redeveloped in a way that this plan envisions? Is there enough lot size to produce anything?

There's there's going to be a challenge especially well even at three stories of living area with with all these properties redeveloping on a single parcel. um there might be a need to consolidate. I have spoken to a few of the property owners on 76th and their initial calculations it would work for them at at the two to three stories but there are properties especially the ones that are five six units to a a lot it's going to be a challenge. So has anyone told you if they cannot build three stories it's it's an impossible situation for them?

No. And I I think three stories would be more valuable or more viable if there were to be a higher floor area cap. At at 800 square feet, there is necessarily the need for three living stories. Mhm. What's the purpose behind the floor area cap? Is that just to reduce I guess or to make them more affordable or to reduce the number of luxury

potentially? I mean that that wasn't necessarily the intent. The intent was just to preserve the existing development pattern and scale and mass of the district to a reasonable extent. Um allowing a living unit to redevelop with 400 square ft only would would be a significant challenge. But um you know it it is generally preserving the living square footage with the exception of of two properties in the district. So but it's a ceiling, right? Not a floor. It's a ceiling. Correct. The the floor is just the Florida building code. Okay. And what's that? It's small. I think I think it's about 200 square feet. Um, it's, you know, there's a requirement for a bathroom and a a sleeping area, but it's it's it's very small

because I know if the concern is density as well, maybe establishing some kind of floor could be useful as well. Now, if Florida goes forward with this micro housing thing, all this is irrelevant, right? Because the state would overrule and they could put four units five units. That would actually be an I believe as it's written it's only for single families. So they could build a single family home that has four units within it. But we would this would be a multifamily only district and because we're introducing a new permission. I don't know that it would direct we would not relax that requirement on this district.

I don't think so. Unless the the border commission wanted to move forward with standalone single family because that that would always be an option if we were to introduce that.

Okay. That's that's the part that's frustrating to me though is as you were saying like we don't know do we as a city want to have more uh residential units. Do we want you know 100 new residents in here or do we want 50, you know, and we keep talking. I mean there's all this talk about traffic and all this talk about this and all this talk about that, you know. So when you're talking about the the floor limits and stuff that that'll take you down the road of either someone's going to put a duplex or or a triplex, right? But then you have more residents and more cars, you know? So, it's without like a vision of what we want, you know, in this city, it's just hard to make these decisions, you know, or give these inputs. I mean, obviously for a a larger property, a duplex maybe with more square foot that that certainly benefits a certain group of people in this city. So, um, you know, it's just what do we want? Do we want more residents? Half of them will be snowbirds, and that's okay, too. You know, what do we want? You know, what's our need?

You know, we we shouldn't, you know, what's our requirement? We're coming up with a solution without knowing the requirement. You know, it's just very hard. I I don't think I can agree with all of that because having read a lot of the detail and the comp plans and the things that we have, I feel like we do have direction. For example, we know that the west side of Gulf Boulevard is where the the hotels go large resort district and not so much on the other side where it's more residential in places. Um I just feel that these people just want a grandfather. they they they're doing what they're doing now and if they go up to the current requirements, they can't do what they're doing now. And I just I'd like to see people be able to get back into their homes and back into their lives. That's that's all they were asking for.

And and this is on me for maybe not explaining this clearly, but the current allowable density in this district is 24 units an acre. That is the residential allowable redevelopment density if each of these blocks were were to be redeveloped. We have about six acres here. So that works out to be about 150 units that would be allowed districtwide should every single block be redeveloped. This would only allow for standalone multifamily at 18 units per acre. This is one of the districts that is currently eligible for the residential density pool just as was allocated to the Corey Landings project. So truthfully, although it it doesn't necessarily reflect the on the ground reality of the situation, if we were to set this at 18 units per acre, allocate from the density just to get back to that make coal, allow for them to uh redevelop with what they have, that would actually result in a district-wide decrease in the number of units that are potentially eligible uh to these properties. So, and I I don't think I explained that clearly, but we're not going up from where we are now. We're just looking at allowing for those individual property owners to take advantage of the benefits that would only currently be eligible to those who consolidate a whole block.

Great. But you understand I'm not against going up or down. I just would like to know where where we want to go. Comprehensive plan,

right? I'd like to see more foot traffic on Corey and have that west side of Corey kind of look the way it used to with restaurants and some semblance of you know you go there on the weekend and it's happening and then after the storm I feel like this whole area kind of looks weird and none of it really makes sense. So, I think that allowing some small town houses like what you see popping up all over the place downtown, I think that could invite, you know, some people, whether they're snowboards or young families to be here and that might help improve foot traffic on Corey and help put more businesses on the street.

If it if it brings Willies back, I would vote for it. Exactly. Um, Brandon, as unrealistic as it is, if someone were to develop one of these lots into commercial or mixed use, what is the height limits they would be subjected to? Standalone commercial would be 28 ft above BFE. Yes. Okay. Well, for me, I don't really see any big issues. Uh, the only thing I'm You kind of mentioned that I'm not really understanding why we even need a ceiling on floor area limitation. What's the purpose of saying there's an 800 foot square foot limit?

It can be another way to directly or indirectly influence the scale and mass of buildings. It would do more to bound the size of the projects and potentially allow for some of those higher quality design, you know, feature implementation. It's not the only way to do it. Um, we do have the design requirements. We have height. we have setbacks lot coverage those indirectly influence the um the size of the buildings but um it's also to keep it more in line with the square footages that we currently have out there if that is what the city is looking to move forward with. We currently have a lot more flexibility than we would have if we were to implement this and try to scale it back. It's very difficult to take property rights away once they've been um once they've been given. So 800 square f feet I felt um you know was a was a viable makehole provision for all but two of the properties and they would still be eligible to redevelop up to their existing living square footage plus 20%. So no one would lose out with 800 square ft. Um it would just allow for you know keep keeping the ceiling a little bit lower on on redevelopment.

Are there other areas of the city where we have a square foot limit like that? not not including the large resort district or you know with the well the boutique hotel condo district just south of there the uh just south of county park on the west side they have a 750 square foot unit size for that I yeah I personally am not opposed to eliminating that 800 foot limit if if we have a reasonable height allowance and someone can build a very nice project that is more square footage per floor I mean if it's three 1000 foot square foot units and it's a really nice project that seems to accomplish quite a bit over trying to cram a bunch of tiny apartments into as small space as possible.

I'm with you. I agree with that.

That's that is the opinion. Um, if I could also get the boards the consensus that there would be no floor area, no limitation, no maximum square footage. I just take the square footage out F. Okay. Yeah. And height. Uh, I mean, if 28 foot is commercial already, 30 foot seems more than reasonable to me. Yep. Yeah,

I would agree. Okay. All right. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay. We are moving on to discussion item 5B. I asked for this one to be added because I was hoping to get a just an update on how SB840 is progressing, its current language, how it would impact. My my idea was that not only the boards but the commission and city staff could potentially be working on ideas in anticipation of that possibly going forward because should we have a limited window of time where we're allowed to make changes that have been prohibited for 3 years. That would be the time you want to get these things noticed and go through the process, not miss that opportunity and hopefully a hurricane doesn't come our way. But if if even the track hits us then it could push us another two years unable to do anything. So uh that's that's the origin of this request and I'll hand it over to you Brandon.

So unfortunately that bill does not currently have a house companion. Um city attorney might have a little bit more detail about how that works and reconciliation. So last work, last week the Senate Bill 840 passed the full Senate floor 38 to nothing and it's been sent over to the House and the House has not yet brought up a companion bill um to match it. So we'll have to keep an eye on it and see if that happens. Um there are some other bills um that are related sort of. Uh one of them carves out 13 counties in the Florida panhandle but doesn't help us. Um and there is a house bill 217 and 1465 which don't really help us. Um so we're looking for uh Senate Bill 840 by the siglia to get um transferred now to the house committee and hopefully comes back. If the house never takes it up then it would unfortunately die.

Okay. So the holdup is in the house.

Okay. And with that, um, the the one-year, uh, posttorm, uh, moratorum would still apply, but it's significantly less restrictive moving forward for future events. We we can still make changes to the comprehensive plan and land development code. Even if it's more restrictive, what it's going to limit based on what is currently drafted at least, um, it would prohibit us from extending issuance time frames. And would also in most cases unless there's a moratorium due to sewer, storm water um some other um some other facet um for which we can institute a moratorum we can't prevent the repair but we would be able to um look at new development and redevelopment. So someone could restore their building um but you could potentially look at changes to redevelopment and development.

Okay. Would the would that include potentially like things the historic preservation board are interested in where something moves from recommended to required? Is that the kind of thing that could go forward at that point? Yes. Um we we still need to be considered some of the other laws that involve um you know chang but um it would it would definitely open that up. So okay. All right. Thank you. Some of the main problems we have is u procedural steps where someone says well something more is more procedurally burdensome. I have to now go to the historic preservation board for a place I didn't have to go before. Okay. Things like that.

All right. Thank you. Impact evaluation properties. Okay. All right. Uh we will move on to 5C artificial turf preeemption.

Pull the PowerPoint. I wanted to bring this up because I know the the board um for the members who were on the board at the time, you probably remember early last year we were bringing forward an ordinance to um provide some limitations for artificial turf. That was of course pre Senate Bill 180 and um we are now preempted um at least in terms of single family turf regulations. So, um, you previously discussed this topic. Uh, we had put together an ordinance, but we put it on hold early last year upon learning of Senate Bill 78, uh, 712. It's now adopted, which preempted, uh, synthetic turf regulations for single family properties under 1 acre. Um, upon adoption of a regulating rule by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, that rule was proposed in early January, looks to be in relatively final form. It is not effective yet, but I believe it should be effective any any day now. It's been a little over a month now. Uh, so I wanted to point out some of the highlights of the rule. Um, turf is still prohibited in certain areas, even on single family lots. It is prohibited in swailes typically in the sideyards within the drip line of trees. So the mature um canopy line of trees unless certified by an arborist that it will not adversely affect the turf uh within 10 ft of the mean high water line where there is no seaw wall. If there is a seaw wall, of course, most of our properties have seaw walls. Um it can go right up to the seaw wall cap. There is no limitation on setback when a seaw wall exists. It's not allowed in the dunes. Um, it would also not be allowed where it would compromise healthy Florida friendly trees. Um, there are still requirements for permeability. There are two things within this rule that cities can still regulate. Um, the subgrade permeability and paracity uh can still be regulated

by cities. We can set limits if we wanted 10 in per hour as the standard. We can also require that infill be silica, rock shell or other natural materials. Uh, one of the benefits of engineered turf, especially if it's on an uh, well-gineered subgrade, is that it does provide for a higher percolation rate up to 6 in an hour. Um, on the sandy soil that we tend to have here in St. Pete Beach, that natural percolation rate is more in the 1 to 2 inches per hour range. Uh, during a typical rainstorm, we see about an inch of rain an hour. Severe thunderstorms can be 2 to three inches per hour. Tropical storms can be 3 to six. So having that higher percolation rate as long as it has somewhere to go um can be a good thing. That can be a benefit of of turf. In terms of applicability, um this does apply only to single family residences on lots of under one acre. That's virtually all single family properties in St. Pete Beach. In some areas of Florida, you tend to have the one home per 5 acre standard, especially in rural areas. We obviously don't have that here. Um, this would apply to virtually every single family property in the city. There are no historic exemptions, so historically designated properties would be eligible to install turf. Uh, it has no direct impact on multif family or commercial uses as the rule is written or as the bill was adopted. It can provide a guide for those uses. Some of the rules that were were included in that uh FT rule. So, we've discussed this at length. I know it came up when we were reviewing the ordinance early last year. Artificial turfs can provide for better engineered uh drainage, especially on sandy soil with under drains. It can be easier uh to maintain, at least in the short term, and it can conserve water. Um natural turfs of course are not made from plastics. That's one of the main one of the main concerns. and the um one

of our regional planning council um groups had put together a uh metaanalysis of the research into turfs and the plastic um was was the main concern. Um natural turfs of course don't reach the extreme temperatures of artificial turfs. Um there there are research studies showing that they can reach 160 degrees during the height of summer and higher. Um natural turfs can provide some ecological benefits. They tend to be monocultures. So even those uh seashore and pastas palum and the St. Augustine that we promote here in the city, they do have lower ecological benefits than native planting ground covers like beach sunflower or counti, but they do provide some and they can have lower uh long-term maintenance requirements to retain permeability. Artificial turfs do need to be raked. the um the under drains do need to be cleared out and so on from from time to time to retain that paracity. So in terms of the next steps, as I point out, there were two elements that the FD did leave to local code discretion when this rule goes into effect. Um whether we require irrigation that is directed towards synthetic turf areas. And again, as I mentioned, the uh the maximum subgrade permeability,

maximum or minimum, it's maximum 10 10 inches per um it it needs to be permeable, but they don't set a floor. They set a maximum.

Okay. Uh staff does recommend leaving the current regulations on multif family and commercial properties limiting synthetic turf to 20% of the required permeable area. That usually requires green space of about 12 to 20% depending on commercial uh property location in the city. They would still need to provide that um vegetative ground cover. It uh it also cannot currently interfere with drainage features or cause adverse impact to required buffer areas on multifamily and commercial properties. We recommend leaving that as is. Um we would like the planning board's input on this item. Whether you have any desire to change standards for multif family and commercial properties. Would you like to require removal of sprinklers that serve as turf areas? Um it can be a good way to cool the surface, but it does remove the water saving benefits. It may increase plastic runoff um if uh irrigation remains in turfed areas. And would you like us to set a maximum subgrade permeability? You may not be able to answer these questions today. We can definitely bring back more information. Um we're just recently learning of this rule as well. Um following input, likely not next month, but in in the forthcoming months, we will draft an ordinance for recommendation to address these items that we are eligible to still regulate. happy to get the board's input.

Why would we want a maximum? Yeah. I didn't get that. Um potentially, you know, especially with the use of French drains if we want to control the runoff toward either the street or the the water. Um that's the only thing I can think of. I I assume that's probably a lot more valuable in areas that have citywide drainage features where they want to control that um infiltration rate. Go ahead.

I know when we did this, I I spent a lot of time doing research on all the pros and cons, and I thought we did a pretty thorough review. Um, and I think the recommendations that we brought forward were really a synthesis of best practices. We looked at all these different cities and what they did. I feel at this point I almost feel like I need to wait and see what the state does because you know we don't know what the final product will be and then do a reconciliation between what we decided we wanted that was optimal and how close to that we can get. So I definitely don't feel prepared to talk about that today. I was very disappointed to see it because I didn't feel they did as thorough a re review as we did with what they came up with. But, you know, we are where we are. So, my my suggestion would be that we wait till they finish what they're doing and then we see where we can go from there.

Understood. So, the status of the proposed rule was uh published in January 20th uh this year. So, just a little bit less than a month ago. And there was a public hearing February 11th at D and Tallahassee, an in-person hearing. So to sometimes after those hearings, they'll make modifications. So we might see some modifications to the to the proposed rule before it becomes a final rule. And then sometimes the final rules get challenged and a rule challenge and that can drag it out while there's an administrative hearing on it. If it does get dragged out, would it be an opportunity for us to go ahead and put in what we did come up with or is that just not

You'd have to wait until the final rule until the administrative law judge makes a ruling on a challenge. And we can definitely still what what the planning board worked on the quality standards the um you know the other other related permeability standards those can still be implemented and adopted um potentially post Senate Bill 180 but those are things we can definitely look at for commercial multif family properties this is specifically a preeemption only on single family right that's true it's a good point do we have any prohibitions on sprinklers and artificial turf on commercial properties right now? Not currently. No.

Okay. So, if someone wanted to, you know, surround their pool with artificial turf and have water spraying on it constantly to keep it walkable, that's not prohibited, commercial or residential. Okay. Currently, no. Yeah. I I mean, until we see the final, I don't really have opinion, but you know, I don't really want to see someone just watering their yard constantly to so they can walk on it barefoot. Uh so but I'll I'll save that for when we have a real rule. Sure. Thank you.

Okay. Final discussion item 5D CR. Pull up that single So last week at the city commission meeting, I'm sorry that was earlier this week. Um they accepted the uh the finding of necessity study for the community redevelopment area agency. Um that is the first step in the process. These follow a pretty standard template. Um so that is effectively finding that there are criteria based on these statutory requirements that the city is potentially eligible for a community redevelopment area. The next step in the process um it's one that we are working on currently is issuance of a request for proposals. This would involve selecting of a consultant and commencing development of the community redevelopment area agency plan. This is where the city really gets more into the details. um not only on there being a justification for this type of uh community redevelopment area, but this is more details on how will revenue be generated, what are the needs of the city. Um I think our focus has been primarily on infrastructure and the significant infrastructure demands for the city. um where are those located and um you know how are we going to go about resolving those with either uh tax increment financing funding or some other mechanism or combination of mechanisms that's where the detail of that really comes together um from that once the plan is prepared there is engagement outreach with stakeholders uh we move from that onto coordination with Penllis County um the city commission um would be the first entity to adopt the

plan. And this is looking way out. This is this is months months on from now. Um from there it moves on to the county. Um the county has the ability uh not the obligation but the ability to um authorize a tax increment financing for some portion of the uh advalorum that goes to them. And then from there there would be a county resolution and ordinance. Um not too prepared to speak on the details of the actual plan at this time. I know that this board will be engaged once we have more details on how that's going to shape together. I just wanted to let you know that on Tuesday the finding of necessity which was really that first step was was accepted by the commission 50 and we are moving forward with that.

The community engagement portion that's that's to get feedback on what people would like to see go into the project plan for that money to be spent on. Is that accurate? It's it's a presentation of the draft plan. um and correct more more a confirmation of those okay expenditures. Any questions? All right, great. That was our final item. Um thank you everyone. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.