Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the April 21st, 2025 meeting of the planning board. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge 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. Member Ray, present. Member Perry, here. Member Grocott, here. Vice Chair Angelites, here. Chair Hubard, here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Um, for the agenda, I would like to add a discussion item 5A for House Bill 1535. Does anyone else have anything they wanted to add? What was it again? House Bill uh, House Bill 1535. Motion to approve agenda as amended. Can I have a second? Second. Uh, roll call, please. Member Grocott, yes. Member Perry, yes. Member Ray, yes. Vice Chair Angelites, yes. Chair Hubard, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Do we have any audience comments for in general, not related to agenda items? No. Okay. We will move on to approval of the March 24th, 2025 minutes. Does anyone have further changes? Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve as submitted. Second. Roll call, please. Member Perry. Yes. Member Grocott. Yes. Member Ray. Yes. Vice Chair Angelites? Yes. Chair Hubard? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay. Okay, for the next section, we are going to adjourn as a planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency for the action item 4A, ordinance 2025-10. Do we have any audience comments? No. Okay. Is this you, Brandon? Yes. Okay. Thank you. If we could pull up the PowerPoint, please. So, this is a followup from last month's meeting. Staff tried to address the input of the planning board. Um there had been clear direction on several individual items as well as potentially making it a little bit easier for businesses in the wake of storms to um you know reinhabit their structures and and go through the permitting process and deal with everything that comes with a storm um without necessarily needing to contend with new sign regulations. So to just briefly go through the changes that we made, um we added a purpose statement pertaining to wildlife protection to that section of the division. Uh we did define lawful message is effectively any message that is not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. We allow for banners. Um we expanded the permissions for banners. Our current policy is to allow for banners 30 days after issuance of a business tax receipt. that is the only situation in which they can be used other than through a special event permit uh special event permit which has its own process. Uh we added two other options. When a business begins operating after a local state of emergency, we do provide a permission for them to have a banner on their business at that time. It doesn't need to be attached to the building. It needs to be secured. Um but they are permitted that as an additional um additional temporary sign during a local state of emergency. And when a permit's been issued for an attached sign till the sign is installed, if there's a few week interim between that permit being issued and the sign uh the attached permanent sign being installed, they would be able

to place a banner in that location. We had modified the monument sign face measurements when distinct from non-commercial elements. The intent of this was to just reduce staff discretion when making these interpretations. There is language that stays in the code related to not measuring the architectural elements, but when there's a distinct background with text on it on a sign, um that is the basis for the measurement that we'll use and that's a graphic that we'll come up with prior to moving this Honda to city commission. Currently, our code allows for monument signs to be larger for those properties with significant frontage if they choose to combine two signs to make one larger monument sign. Uh we did move that over from the current code. The code is per um permits a 60 square ft monument sign for any business that is in a standalone building. If properties have more than 400 ft of frontage, they would be allowed two 60 foot monument signs. This would permit them to have a one 120 foot monument sign. It wouldn't be need to be located at least 10 feet outside of the front setback. So, these would really just be for very large developments. Um, they would be able to combine those two 60 ft signs to one 120 ft sign. Um, we did change the code um as was pointed out at the last meeting that was that attached signs be limited across the board to the second story. They are allowed to exceed the second story. They cannot be placed above the fascia or the parapet of the roof depending on the type of roof that's um being used on the building. Uh there was concerns about the sign area width um being used as a loophole to create larger signs. That's um we did prohibit sign area widths that exceed an aspect of 2 to one with their height. So if a sign for example is um 4 feet tall, it would be allowed a sign area width of 8

feet or or less. We provide for additional regulations in pass grill if adopted in the future. This would not require amendment to the sign code if they if there are then additional restrictions or permissions placed in the passer grill sign regulations. Um they're not proposed at this time. It just gives that option in the future. It also exempts well-maintained signage from being considered abandoned during the local state of emergency. That would be retroactive to the date of the event. So, if an state of emergency is declared a few days after a storm, it would be retroactive to the date that the event occurred. Um, while the property is being restored under an active building permit. So, as long as the property owner obtains a building permit to remediate the storm damage, um, understanding that the building is not going to be occupied during that period of time, um, they would be exempt from the abandonment clause during that period of time. And then after they complete the work for 90 days, it allows the occupant to get back into the business, begin operating without there being um, concerned about being cited for abandonment of a sign and needing to to take it down and and comply with the current code. There were items that were discussed that we did not address. Um concerns regarding artwork. That's something we can explore separately. It was outside the scope of this um really district specific sign amendment. Standards for the community redevelopment sign regulations. Those can be explored in amendments to the division regulations division 39 of code. Um and then again as I mentioned before additional standards for the pastor grillil and CRD 8th Avenue. Um that's langu we did add language that allowed for the standards to be enabled in the future without needing to come back and amend the sign code. Um but that would allow for amendments through the divisions that um regulate the pastor grillil and the CRD 8th Avenue divisions. Um I also wanted to thank member Perry for pointing out a few um corrections that needed to be made to references. We have made those

changes. They're not in the draft that was published with the agenda, but we will carry those those corrections forward. So, with that, um, we'd I'd be happy to answer any questions. If not, we do ask that you move to find ordinance 202510 consistent with the comprehensive plan as stated in the agenda report and recommend approval to the city commission with any modifications today if if you see fit. I had one question. U, it was section 26.1 uh, item O. This is a new item that or I'm sorry, it's a modification prohibit signage that will substantially and negatively impact imperiled wildlife. I was curious if there would be any opposition to just removing the word word imperald. Uh I don't see why we would want to approve any sign that is substantially and negatively impactful to wildlife whether they're endangered or not. No, I have no concerns with that. I I include it in peril just because it's an FD term, but no issue. I had I had one on the um artwork. I went back to the Google wording. Would you mind putting the paper that's up there? Um I just hate to leave it open for some future point that's not defined. You know, I always want to try to tie things up. So, I basically added the Google wording. Um, it serves as a means of communication, expression, and cultural understanding just to try to give it a little more substance to somebody trying to interpret this. I don't know if it's possible to add that or not. That would be fine to add. Thank you.

Any other concerns? I just have a question. Um, on section 26-1, item C and item M, are they they seem I don't know. Let's see if we can find our C is uh these sign regulations are intended to improve pedestrian and traffic safety. Mhm. And then M says M regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with obstruct the vision of or distract motorists, bicycles or pedestrians that improving their pedestrian and traffic safety. Yeah, they're both in the code right now. Mhm. Um they seem like they're the same subject matter. M seems a little more detailed, I guess. Mhm. I guess if we were going to take one out, I would take out C. Seems like one is more about making more about improvement and one is more about restriction to me. But it's true. Two sides of a similar coin. Yeah. You know, in reading, I guess in going through and starting to read these, I realize how wordy we we are in our um code and I'm always looking for opportunities to minimize where we can, but that's kind of I mean, we could always take C and make it a appended to M with a clause that the goal is to improve pedestrian traffic safety. Yeah. Okay. That's the consensus. Okay. I also um Brandon, I know you and I exchanged some email about this, but the 40t from the visible water line we

talked about last time making that the knee high tide and then you responded to me that that might be more difficult for the field to enforce which raised the question in my mind are different people doing enforcing because if we have this in other ordinances then that would suggest to me that they are trained in how to do that. So it may be different entities or whatever but I just felt the consistency if if it's a problem for this ordinance why is it not a problem in the other ordinance so with for example we use mean high water line setbacks for the cabana service areas for the resorts and we will go out and inspect after the site plan is approved. So, we do a one-time inspection based on details that we know based on the survey. Um, for a for more snap judgment of the agent agents when they're out there looking at just the placement of an A-frame sign, they preferred visible waterline um just because it helps them, you know, they something they can measure in the field instead of referring to a survey. But if the board would prefer it be mean high water line, we can certainly take that. I I do want to say that this regulation only applies to a few of um a few resorts citywide. So, it's not going to be used that often and we we have to keep it in because those are permissions for them. I'm okay with that. What section of the code did that appear at? I'm trying to find it. It was um on page 22 of 23. It's under the section 26.18 standards for specific sign types and it's like three pages in. It's um I have 41 pages. So, okay. All right. Then it would be 26.18 uh letter G uh number

three sandwich board signs. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. These Brandon, these are typically like the uh beach concession vendors of uh what jet skis and things like that. Correct. And we have we have only two entities that offer this within this zoning. And um our code department had asked that the setbacks be from the visible high water line just because it helps them when they're out in the field. They can make that judgment at that time. Okay. And I it would allow them to move the sandwich board sign with the tides. It sounds like correct. But it would it would never place it closer than 40 feet from the mean high water line just because of that, you know. I mean, would you technically need survey equipment if you were going for mean high water line? Yeah. Or at least a recent survey. Um, we and we for more permanent installations, we do require that information, but just for the placement of the signs, it's just a little difficult for them to judge in the field. I think this is a practical approach. Yeah, this would be probably better for this particular application. We do have different people that review building department and planning department review the as final asbuilts, but they're not out there in the field every day enforcing the placement of these jet ski signs. That's code enforcement board and the sheriff's department and then it's difficult for them because the tide comes up and down and the wet sand even changes but they can measure to where the water is. Yeah. No, I I understand. I just with a rope and then so it might be easier for them. Good question. Yes. Okay. Any other concerns? Can I please have a motion with the additional uh text with agreed upon modifications? I'll make a motion uh to find the ordinance um consistent with the comp compreh comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city council

commission. Roll call, please. Member Perry, yes. Member Grocott, yes. Member Ray, yes. Vice Chair Angelites, yes. Chair Hover, yes. Motion carries. Okay, we are on to action item 4B, ordinance 2025-07. Is there any audience comments? Do we go back to the planning board? I believe these are all local planning agency. Is that Yes. Yeah. No audience comment. Okay. Brandon, if we could pull the PowerPoint back up and chair, if you don't mind, I'll take both this and ordinance 202508 together. Okay. Thank you. So, these are amendments to the Pastor Gril historic overlay district uh what is currently the overlay district without historic title and uh CRD 8th Avenue. Um, these of course were reviewed by the planning board at a workshop with the historic preservation board late last year. Um, we also had a separate workshop with the city commission early this year back in January where we received uh relatively limited feedback at that workshop, but I'll go over the few changes made since the workshop that was held last year. Um it had been the consensus of the historic preservation board and the city commission that pools only um can be permitted in the front yard. There had been a blanket prohibition on accessory structures in the front yard. In the code at the time it had been reviewed. Um there is a preference for pools to be allowed only when the setbacks and frontage requirements can be met. There is a requirement in the code um it's currently in the code. it would be preserved moving forward that buildings need to make up a certain frontage of a build to line in the passer overlay. It's typically 10 to 15 ft from the front property line for a single family

residential construction where the building needs to occupy at least 50% of the width of the property line at that setback. Um, this would allow for, presuming that that buildout is is met, um, it would allow for pools in the front yard. And the reason for that is there were concerns among the board, especially for some of the smaller lots in getting both driveways in the back of the property, which is obviously a preference of the board, um, keeping that access off the alleyway when it can be done. Um, and also accommodating a pool. So, this would allow for for both of those on the same same property. Uh the other major change was requiring that all structures located on a platted alleyway um to have driveway access from the alley instead of the main street. Um that is those alleyways that are still maintained as public platted alleys uh not those that have since been vacated. Um when it was presented to the planning board at the workshop, it had been only an alleyway of 15 feet or greater that would require that the access be from the alleyway. They have changed that to be any structure any sorry any lot located on an alleyway of of any platted width. However, given that all new development is through the design review um when there is a difficulty that can be demonstrated through that design review that the alleyway is less than 15 ft in width um as it accesses the parcel. Access from the frontage can be considered by the historic preservation board. the property owner would not need to go on to the board of adjustment to request a variance. That is something that could be handled through the design review when there is a difficulty that can be um justified for those alleys that are 15 ft in width or greater. If the applicant is seeking to install a driveway that connects from the main street, a variance will be required for a driveway from that street. There's only one major change in ordinance 202508. That's the Community

Redevelopment District, 8th Avenue. Um, and that is regarding height. How height is measured back in back up until 2015, including when the CRD 8th Avenue was originally uh developed, height was measured from the required flood elevation. That is not a defined term. FEMA uses the term required design flood elevation. That was changed in 2015. Um I believe it was unintentional and it was changed across the board to be measured from base flood elevation. That is how we measure height elsewhere in the city. However, I believe the intent at least in 2013 when the CRD 8th Avenue was adopted was to measure height from basically the level at which the habitable or occupiable level of the structure was constructed. So this is really just correcting that unintended error in the 2015 definitional update. which allowed for all measurements to be from base flood elevation. That did afford additional building height. Um it varies across the 8th Avenue zoning district, but more or less on the east side pass a railway that's an additional 6 to 7 ft. Along the Gulfway side, that's an additional four to 5 ft. Um that appears to be unintentional as it related to this district. So the definition was changed back. Height is measured from the required design flood elevation for the structure. What that means is that structures that can be built to grade, those that those that are commercial, office, mixed use, when they can be floodproofed, accessible at grade, that measurement is going to start at grade. Structures that must be built above grade and in the CRD8th Avenue District, that's only lodging facilities that do not have a commercial or office level at the ground level, they must step back the floor above 35 feet from grade 10 feet. That standard was in the code when it was reviewed by the planning board at the workshop late last year, but it had not gone into

detail on the types of uses that are required to um step back that upper level. Lodging is the only use type that the city allows in the zoning district. That is required by the Florida building code by FEMA to elevate the lowest level of the structure. So, we don't want to take away that feet that those feet that um the structure needs to be elevated, but they will need to step back that upper level above the 35 ft from grade. So, those are the two uh three changes that we're proposing relative to the um workshop. We we did make some grammatical updates and and some reference updates. Um but we do ask for motions for each of these ordinances separately define them consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend their approval to the city commission. Any concerns? I just have some questions. Um so on the charts where they talk about the um requirements for each each type of building and they talk about lot coverage that is for the building itself. So so for house medium for example lot coverage um is max 70%. So what they're saying is at least does that include pools, patios, driveways, etc. It includes any any structure on the lot? So if they choose to use and for most residential structures, the maximum impervious surface is also 70%. So they have a little bit of leeway with, for example, if they wanted to shell driveway, that might work, but it would be any structure on the lot inclusive of, for example, detached garages or garage apartments or structures like that. So that's I guess where I'm getting. So they they have to that that building structure has to be actually be less if they want to put a pool on the lot in order to meet the imperious um service. Okay. Correct. Thanks. Um and then on the singlestory commercial building um small and medium small ends at max 50 and medium begins

at 60. So I'm just curious what happens between 51 and 59. Is that a is it covered I guess is my question. So I believe because we have so few commercial lots in Pastor Gril I believe that's based on the actual existing lot dimensions that we have. But that is a good point. I I'll definitely point that out to our consultant to go back and look at that. Okay. Um, and then it talks about the um porches under I believe it starts on section 20-16. And it talks about the setback and um stairs being able to go then into these setbacks. So that you really the stairs could be two foot from the from the public area. It says the pool um setbacks have to align with the front of the building. Does that include those stairs? Meaning the pool can then also be 2 ft from the from that public area or or no does it have to be even with the actual structure of the building. So the intent is to have the the porch is part of the building and therefore needs to end at the 10-ft setback which is typical for the residential properties. the front of the primary residence would not be located at the 10 feet. That would be the front of the porch as an element of the building. Um, for the steps that come out, those it would not be considered relative to those steps coming off of that frontage element. So, in another in other words, the pool would always need to be set at least 10 ft for those house, medium, and large structures. just one additional one. There was do we need a clarification in there excluding steps or something to that effect? We could certainly add that. Just worry if questions come up now they

could come up in the future. So we'll try to address some. Which of the two ordinances did that apply to? So it's uh well pass. Yeah. Talks about the the pool setbacks are not to exceed the the front of the building, but then it says steps, okay, can encroach into that setback by an additional 3 ft. So, I'm just wondering if then the pool can encroach by additional 3 ft of the what are they considering the front of the building for the pool dimensions. Okay. 2025-07, right? pag start with 2016 is So what I what I will add in is that the the pool needs to meet the street set back based on the building type. So that sets an actual flat number that needs to be met. Thank you. And then uh 2018 and it talks about the off streetet parking and they added the um ability and I think we're talking about that with the um ability to uh do street cutbacks if they were unable to negotiate the um the alley. Yes. Um so how does that work on streets where there's public parking in front of those houses? Just that's more of a curious question. Well, the the standard as it is currently is that if someone is requesting a curb cut from the streets that have public parking, we do allow them the the typical number of curb cuts, which in a lot of cases, especially for the lots that are 50 ft wide, it could be the entire frontage of

the property based on the current standard. So, um, this is an intent to really orient most parking to the alleyway in the back and not allow for curb cuts when when there is a case where someone faces a genuine hardship with accessing the property from the alleyway. That's something that the board can consider at that time. You would lose the parking space where the curb cut is, right? And we we currently are. That's that's been a recurring issue. So, on uh 20-24. Uh it says, this is just a typo. It says after completion uh item four. It says after completion of the design review in four above and it says it in item. Thank you. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. 20-22. You could just say after completion of the design review. Mhm. Okay. Okay. Can I please have a motion for 2025-07 separately with the modifications discussed, including the ones that will go to the consultant should they become necessary? Well, with modifications discussed, I'll make a motion to approve item where am I? 20-20 2025-07 2025-07 with the modifications. Can I have a second? Second. Roll call,

please. Member Ray, yes. Rocott, yes. Member Perry, yes. Vice Chair Angelites, yes. Chair Hubard, yes. Motion carries. And can I have a motion for 25-08? I'll make a motion to approve it uh item code 20-28 as written. 2025-08. 2025-08. Thank you. Second, please. Second. Roll call. Member Ray. Yes. Member Perry. Yes. Member Grocott. Yes. Vice Chair. Yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries. Not on top of my page. Okay. 4 D is ordinance 2025-12. Are there any audience comments? Okay. Pull the PowerPoint back up. So, this is a late edition. I sent this out, I believe, mid last week, and it's really just a cleanup ordinance. Um this is addressing prior ordinances that were passed in 2015 and 2017 pertaining to development rights in two different zoning districts. Uh there was some language in one case that was overlooked um in one case that was left in but conflicts with the change that was made. So the city has a commercial general one and two zoning district. The commercial general one is much more common across the city. CG2 um applies primarily to properties at the west end of downtown um around the 72nd and 73rd Avenue street ends. And um these properties um one of them currently

contains a restaurant and it's zone CG2. Back in 2015, the city amended the district to add restaurants as a permitted use in the district. The title state that stated that full service restaurants were permitted use. However, it didn't actually make it into the code itself. Um, so limited service restaurants were included. So those with limited seating, but actual sitdown full service restaurants did not make it into the code. After consulting with the attorney's office, we did decide it's not a scrier's error. It needs to be something that's brought forward for a vote. However, it does align with the intent of that ordinance from 2015. Looking at the CC2 zoning, this comprises most of the zoning along Gulf Boulevard from south of 72nd Avenue down to uh 64th. This is a commercial mixeduse zoning. Back in 2017, there was an ordinance that accurately amended out single family detached residential uses from the zoning. They were removed from the zoning code. That is consistent with the comprehensive plan. um that wasn't an error and it was done correctly. However, there is remaining language in the density and intensity section of the code 33.7 that alludes to lots of a certain size being allowed a single family unit. Um so the density standards allow for that unit but the land development code permitted uses section does not actually allow for single family uses. Both of these have caused some confusion. We have gotten some calls, especially in the wake of the storm, um, about amending these two sections to make sure that they're consistent, uh, with the code and with the comprehensive plan. So, we're just really proposing this as cleanup. So, unless the board has any questions or input, um, we do ask that you find this ordinance consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommend

approval to the city commission. Any questions or input? No. Uh, can I have a motion, please? Motion to recommend ordinance 2025-12 for approval to the city commission. Second, please. Second. Roll call. Member Grocott. Yes. Member Perry. Yes. Member Ray. Yes. Vice Chair Angelites. Yes. Chair Hover. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. I would like to adjourn as the local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board. The discussion item 5A that I wanted to add is related to House Bill 1535. Just for an update from what I've read, this is similar to the bill from a few years ago after Hurricane Ian that prohibited uh more burdensome legislation related to development code. So far, it's passed three committees, including the natural resources and disasters subcommittee, who you think would actually care about improving development code following a once in aundred-year storm, but it seems like this is coasting through. So, I just wanted to see if the city had received any other input or guidance on how this is expected to play out. Now, as you mention, well, I city attorney, do you have any Have you received any? Um yeah, it went through three committees most recently last week and um it uh seems to be making its way through without much opposition. Um according to the lobbyist and our local representative, it's going to be hard to stop this one. Okay, that's kind of what I thought. It does say um has two different sections. There's section 24 and section 32 of House Bill 1535. and it says restrictions on county and municipal regulations after a hurricane. Section 24 has a one-year

uh limit. It says for one year after a hurricane makes landfall, uh local government may not propose or adopt within 100 miles of the of the track of the storm, not just the landfall this time, but the entire track of the storm. A moratorium on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property. a more restrictive or burdensome amendment to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations or C a more restrictive or burdensome procedure concerning review approval and issuance of a site plan development permit or development order and then in that's for one year but in the other section 32 um specifically for Helen and Milton they have a longer time frame name. Um, and it extends it till October 1, 2027. The same type of restrictions. And it has a retroactive date back to the landfall of the first of those storms. Anything that was adopted after Milton uh would be void abonio, taken off, would be ineffective, taken off the books, if you will. And then you couldn't readopt it until 2027. Okay, that was my understanding, too. All right. Um, does anyone have anything else to discuss? Nope. Meeting adjourned.