Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Monday, September 15th, 2020 25 meeting of the planning board calling to order. Please rise and 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 Grocott here. Vice Chair Angelus here. Member Perry here. Member Ray here. Chair Hubard here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay, first item is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes requested?

Chair, I had asked uh Mr. Barry if you could give us an update on the um status of the Corey Landings um if that was still a conditional use permit that was going to come through um because I noticed that it was going to commission. So, I just kind of wanted to understand changes of that project. I will add that as 5e. And I was just wondering if we could get an update on the CVS because I did see a TRC meeting two or three months ago. They were asking for a temporary trailer and now I'm hearing that CVS may not be coming to the beach at all. So,

okay. I will add that as 5F. Can I please have a motion to approve the amended agenda? Motion to approve amended agenda. I have a second. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelus. Yes. Member Perry. Yes. Member Ray, yes. Member Grocott, yes. Chair Hubard, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Are there any audience comments? Nope. All right. We'll move on to approval of the minutes from the August 18th, 2025 meeting. Anyone have changes? No changes. Can I have a motion to approve? I move

a motion to approve the minutes from the August 18th to 20 2025 meeting as written. Second. Roll call, please. Member Perry, yes. Member Ray, yes. Member Grocott, yes. Vice Chair Angelitus, yes. Chair Hubard, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. There are no action items today, so we will move on to discussion items 5A, density pool unit valuation study.

Thank you, chair. if we could pull up the PowerPoint. So, this has been fairly significantly revised from the version that went out with your packet. I put on your uh at your chairs the revised scope that was received on September 9th from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. We actually have a slightly newer version of this, but the only modification has been through the comparative case brief. So, I'll just give you information on that. So, as this planning board has seen in the past year, um you review cases in which the city has the power to allocate density pool units from pools that are specially created for that purpose. There are four different density pools that are subject to a quasi judicial conditional use permit review. You've seen two cases in the last year. Uh the second which was approved by the city commission back in January was the Myiramar project that is in the boutique hotel condo district. They are eligible for a base density of up to 50 units per acre. We also have a limited density pool allowing density up to 70 units an acre. So a 20 unit per acre difference subject to the conditional use permit process. We also had the Winward Pass project which was entirely a density pool request. Uh that one was denied by the city commission but that went through a similar process. It's required to come to the planning board as a temporary lodging project prior to moving on to the city commission. About 5 years ago, the city activated those pools through its land development code. It provided a list of potential benefits to consider in exchange for the allocation of those units as outlined in division four of the land development code. Some of the examples in the city commission, the planning board are not tied to these in either their decisions or their recommendations, but some of

the benefits um that were considered at the time were additional beach access points. Looking at the Myiramar project, they were not required based on their lot size to provide a beach access. However, they did provide one as the basis for their density pool request. Um, other examples include denser or higher quality landscaping, additional green building standards such as lowflow fixture commitments, um, other items that fall under commonly in our code lead certification or Florida green building coalition. And then we also have public art integration as another example benefit. Um, as I mentioned before, the commission is not tied to these. There might be other sight specific benefits. There might be other items that come up. There have been, you know, a lot of discussion recently about um improvements to our local infrastructure. Those are items that can be considered by the commission in the allocation of these units. What we currently lack is any kind of valuation range for these units. Both when these density pools were established through the comprehensive plan as well as when they were activated through the land development code, there was no valuation study performed to get an idea of what these units base value could be for for the consider consideration of an allocation and in these project a different range of benefits have been proposed. So what we had originally proposed what went out with your packet uh last week was something more akin to a real estate analysis in working with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, our regional partner we of which we are a member. um we have scaled this back in the short term to look at this as more of a research study. So look at some of the other comparison communities, other communities that allow for either a density pool bonus or have an actual density pool that has a limited cap on it. Um that can help to help us to establish a valuation range for the allocation of these pool units as they

as these projects come forward. This is intended to provide an anchor. It's not prescriptive. It's a basis for which the commission and the planning board can potentially weigh their action or their recommendation against a proposed value range based on the benefits being proposed. Um, as I mentioned before, the scope has shifted and the initial focus will be on identifying comparable communities and assessing how their density pools or their density bonuses are allocated. in the scope that's on your chair. A lot of these bonuses, a lot of these bonus units are not part of an actual pool where there's a cap. It's really a project bypro consideration based on the zoning or the land use of the property. So, we're working on putting this together. We do expect something that we can share with the planning board next month. Um, so I'll definitely include that on your agenda. I just wanted to let you know that this is something that we're looking into as we move forward. um we may consider a future phase that includes more of that robust real estate analysis that actually provides a valuation range as a second step, but that's a little bit more involved than we expected it to be when we sent out the agenda last week. So that will be a followup to this study. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I really just wanted to bring this to you as this is within your scope when you look at these projects and um happy to take any questions.

I do have one question. Yes. Um, on the original document that you sent with the packet, one of the things in task two said a cross check against local revenues and service costs to calculate net fiscal impact. And I know a lot of projects CUPs have gone before the commission and there's an economic impact analysis in there, but it's generally provided by the person doing the cup. And I've never felt like I've really gotten an answer to the question about is this going to cost us more money or is this going to bring us more money. I I I don't know what stage that gets addressed, but I'd like to see it get addressed somewhere.

That is something we're intending for what will now be phase two. Um we do a project by project analysis and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council will actually provide a a basic economic impact analysis for these projects. So this is something we're going to be including with the Corey Landings project and moving forward we'll ask for that analysis as well. Okay. Thank you.

What so I'm curious what does establishing a a value per unit accomplish? What is the goal? It's really intended to be a range. We'll never truly nail down an exact value, but it's to give the city commission and the planning board something of an anchor to assess benefits against um you know, obviously all these projects are context specific. There are certain projects that will provide certain benefits in certain areas of the city that can't be provided elsewhere. But if it's a project that the city finds truly meets the comprehensive plan and the benefits are really just a bonus above and beyond that, um, you know, you you may look at one end of the value range if it's something that um really needs those public benefits to be more in line with our with our goals, objectives, and policies. It's just a it's really just a a baseline from which to make decisions.

Okay. Yeah, that's it's it's a little confusing because my perspective would be the value of the unit is in the eyes of the developer trying to develop a property and if they cannot make the return on investment they want without a certain amount of density and those units are presumably worth more to them than someone else. Um so I just wasn't sure what this what benefit the city derives from placing a value on these. Uh and and of course as the pool dwindles they'll go up in value I I presume.

Absolutely. So what we see in other communities and again we'll have to look at what the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council comes back with as comparison communities. Many don't have a pool. They have a property level density benefit that's applicable to any zoning category. But what we find is that the the bonus of the project has some percentage value extracted from it. So they would be allowed to develop at a base level up to a certain density and beyond that some portion of that bonus unit would be extracted as a public benefit or public value. Tampa for example does between 10 and 1% uh depending on the location. So that I believe that's the direction we would at least be looking at in the research study.

Okay. So let's say you know a unit's worth $300,000. Are you then asking them to do an equivalent amount of concessions or what would be the purpose? Are you looking for I don't understand what the value why establishing a real estate value and again as the pool gets smaller the value is going to go up. Are we looking for them to say we'll do this amount of repairs for or conditional improvements based on the value of the units that we're asking for?

It's it's going to be project specific, but but potentially and it'll it'll be a value range. I think that what the original scope that went out with your packet last week was to really just give a a range of benefits based on what is already in our code. Some of the other benefits that the commission or you know moving forward um we might look to have in these projects and just to give a value range for what the expected cost of those benefits would be including as well you know the potential market rate the potential market value of these units. um just just to give to give a value range for the potential consideration of benefits. I guess my only concern at that point would be would it become a payforplay?

I'll do this amount of benefits for this amount of units. Understood. Does establishing a value create any risk for the city should the pool change at a future date? Like let's say we make we or the commission make decisions based on a on a valuation at that point in time and in 10 years the city adds a new pool. Uh so now the value of these units has decreased because we gave what wasn't available at the time. Right. No, none of this is going to be codified. This is really just a a research study for us to look at comparison communities, understand how they value these units, and give us something to work with, some kind of means of comparison if if we seek to to pursue that.

Okay. I have a question on the actual funding. So, um, this is an initial study rescoped. I understand that $5,000. It sounds like every time then a project comes in front of the board or the whether it be commission or planning board then the council is going to work to look at that specific project and come back with a valuation. I what I'm asking is is this a onetime fee or is this something that we're expecting to be a continual fee as we look at projects understanding the budget constraints that the city has.

Right. The the research study will be a onetime fee. Of course we may seek to update it in the future but it's a onetime fee. The real estate evaluation would also be a onetime fee. On top of that, the TBRPC as a basis for our membership will also do that economic impact analysis. That is included in our membership fee. So, that's not an individual cost. That's the piece I was asking about because it sounds like they'll do that every time we have a cup come in front of us, but it is included in our membership fee. It is. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Uh we can move on to discussion item 5B, the front yard stair encroachment for elevated in place homes.

So this was an addition from the city commission last week, last Monday at their meeting. If we could pull up the PowerPoint, please. Brandon, is this the one that came out of the board of adjustment hearing at Shape Lot? And then it was that commission. Okay. We had a few different staircase variance requests at the last meeting and this was this was a follow on item to that. Okay.

So, they had asked for us to look specifically at the front yard stair encroachments um specifically for structures that are elevated or we do have a lot of homeowners that are converting the atgrade living level and then building above in the same footprint and we treat that the same in the code. Um there are also some associated land development code cleanup items that we would like to address with this board as well. We don't have an ordinance prepared for you. We were planning to introduce this as a discussion item, take this to the city commission next week, and we'll come back to you in October or November uh with an with an ordinance that that actually includes these items for for action. We just wanted to start this off as a discussion. So, prior to this year, we received an average of one elevation or residential conversion and reconstruction above the flood plane permit per year. Since January 1st, we've received 35 of these requests. We expect many more in the near future. So, we do have a lot of redevelopment um demolition of storm damaged homes, whether substantially or not. Um, but we also do have a large number of homes that are being elevated in place when they can be when the homeowner chooses to do so or abandoning that when I say abandoned I mean converting that living level that is below the flood plane into parking storage and access and generally within the same footprint above rebuilding that living space. The land development code was modified in late 2024 anticipating that these type of projects might be undertaken to allow for that in place elevation or conversion, but it required all additions and that includes stairs uh to meet the required zoning district setbacks. Staff was directed by the city commission last Monday to review stair setback requirements when a home is being elevated in place or converted and reconstructed. This does not apply to new from the groundup redevelopment. So,

this would not apply to any home that's being built new. If they needed to encroach greater than the zoning code allows into one of the setbacks, they would need to go for a variance. Just like the other cases, this would only be for those homes, many of which were built prior to any citywide zoning that are being elevated in place or converted. So, I just wanted to give a few examples. I have um much better drawn um building permits to show in just a moment. But just to give an example of the existing standard, you can see on the left that is a home um where there is a jog and a front entry uh within that jog of the residence. It was built potentially in the 1940s, 1950s where the existing front of the structure is built with a 12-oot setback. Under the current code requirement, there is a 17 foot setback for open stairs. So even if the front of the home is built closer than the stairs would be allowed to be constructed under the current ZO code requirement, to add stairs that match the front encroachment of the structure as it was originally constructed would require a variance. One proposed standard to meet what the commission had been discussing last Monday would allow for open stairs to encroach to the existing non-conforming front setback. When the property owner elevates, they are able to elevate in place even if they pass that substantial damage threat substantial improvement threshold. They can elevate in place provided the structure is at least 3 ft from any property line. So they would be able to elevate in place and they would be allowed to under this standard add stairs that encroach only to the existing non-conforming remaining setback of the front of the structure. You can see another home on the left. The existing standard would allow for again in place elevation of a structure that is non-conforming to the front setback requirement. As with the other case, um obviously a slightly different

layout for the structure, but all additions must meet the required setbacks, even if the residence is non-conforming to the setbacks. In this case, you have a home that was built at a 17t front setback. Most residential zoning districts in the city require a 20ft setback. So, that home would be considered um non-conforming to the front setback. Another proposed standard um is that open stairs may encroach a minimal amount to allow for access into the front yard even if the home itself is non-conforming and if those stairs would not allow for the or sorry would not comply with the existing 17 ft open stair setback there would there might be a cap of up to 10 ft. Um for example we we've seen a lot of structures where property owners want to jog the stairs. they want to have a landing. Um, when you get up to 10 12 feet in the air, that's a lot of stairs as one run. Um, it can encroach into garages and so on. So, we could establish something like a 10-ft minimum front setback to allow for a minimal jog of stairs with a landing um for a home built at 10 12 feet. That would be a uh an encroachment that will allow for those stairs at a at a two rung level. And so here are some recent examples. This was a living level that was reconstructed in the same footprint of the residence that was converted to parking, storage, and access. This is a home that already encroached into the front setback. It had a 15 foot front setback, which the current requirement would be 20 ft. The code does allow for them to elevate in place. Now, for this particular home, and I'll talk more about this in a moment, they did in they did accommodate interior stairs to the home. They were seeking a second stair exterior to the home into the front setback. They were proposing an 8 foot 5- in front setback for the stairs. The

current code would require a 17t setback. So, they would not be able to install any stairs at all at the front of the home. Even under the proposal, if we were to set a 10-ft cap, these stairs would not be allowed. they would need to go through the variance process, but I'm just giving you a range of scenarios based on some of the cases that we have actually seen. Here's another example. Um, this is going back to the first example that was provided as a concept. This was another home where the living level is being reconstructed generally within the same footprint of the existing atgrade residence that is being converted to parking and storage. In this case, there is a jog beyond the garage. The stairs were being preserved within the existing setback of the home which is at 16 feet, but the current code would require a 17 foot 17t setback for those stairs. So even with the stairs meeting the front garage setback of the home, they would still be considered within the front yard setback. They would need to meet based on what is currently adopted in the code. If we were to provide a no extension beyond the established front setback of the residence, these stairs would be allowed as depicted on this drawing. Here's another example showing a similar concept. This is on a culde-sac. The existing front of the home encroaches substantially beyond the required 20ft front setback. Again, this home is being elevated in place and it is allowed to remain at its current setback. You can see stairs on the left side of the drawing. they encroach no closer to the front property line than the home that is being elevated in place and preserved. There's some additional considerations that we wanted to bring to the board's attention. Um staff is looking into potentially having a maximum width of the landing at the front of the structure. This would be limited to prevent that landing from becoming a significant additional mass out of character with the neighborhood. We do allow for an elevated deck balcony

extension of 3 feet off the front of the home, but that is only for homes that meet the required 20 foot front setback. They would be allowed the same encroachment for a balcony as they would be allowed for stairs. Um the requirement under the Florida building code is that the width of the landing meet the width of the doors. There's a requirement for a three-foot outset for the landing to to meet the uh the landing requirements of the building code. So that would need to be required, but we would not provide for a landing that extends potentially the entire front of the residence. It would only be that limited to u meeting the Florida building code. The current code does not allow for independent roof overhangs. Um this would be a similar limitation that we would expect to bring forward under this consideration. Stairs can be cons covered by incidental extension of the primary roof eaves. So any overhang of the primary roof would be permitted but there cannot be an independent roofed section for these stairs as is currently limited. And we wanted to bring back um for the first example that we presented of the building plans. Should we look at a limitation on exterior stairs when interior stairs are provided? In most cases, especially on the lot sizes we have here in St. Pete Beach, residents require one stair access to the living level. um they may not necessarily need that additional staircase coming off the front of the home if they can be accommodated within the footprint of the building. So, one of the three items that we would like to address with you today is whether an additional front staircase um extension should be allowed when the homeowner has accommodated it within the footprint of the residence. There were a few other proposed code updates we wanted to bring to you. These are not necessarily directly related to stairs, but they are related to improvement of structures that meet the substantial improvement threshold, but aren't necessarily developing from the ground up. The first is allowing for in place

elevation of non-conforming permitted ancillary equipment, AC condensers, generators, and so on when they are located within the sideyard setback. Currently, the requirement is that if a home is substantially improved, even if the AC unit needs to be elevated in place, if it could be elevated in place and put on a canal lever off the side of the home, the requirement is that it be relocated if it is within a side setback. One consideration would be to allow for the equipment to remain in the sideyard, be can levered off the side of the building once it is elevated. We have seen a lot of requests to slightly increase the shed square footage. Um, our current code is 80 square feet. That has been in place for several decades. Um, we have heard from many homeowners that they would like to have larger sheds. Um, this would not increase the height, uh, which would remain limited to 8 ft. It would not allow for additional encroachment into the side setbacks. They do need to be set back out of the waterfront yard for those homes that are on waterfront. They need to be set back at least 60 uh feet from the front property line for all properties. But this would allow for slightly larger sheds for homeowners. It's been a request we've received for several years. We're making other um related code amendments. So, this is something we would look at potentially bringing back. And we would also allow one-time exemption for pool gazeos and deck covers to remain in required setbacks when the home only is substantially improved. Just like with AC condensers and generators, if a pool is non-conforming to the setbacks, when the home is substantially improved, it needs to be made compliant. There are very, you know, expensive accessory structures, pools, gazeos, deck covers, um, where that can be a significant burden on the homeowner, especially when they're only elevating and they're not actually doing anything to modify those structures. So, it is something we were also considering looking at. when the home is elevated or when it's converted and a living level constructed above

potentially allowing those structures to remain provided they are not modified and made more non-conforming. This would not apply to structures that cross property lines or are in easements. Um we do have accessory structures that are located within a drainage or utility easement. When those structures are substantially improved, those locations within easements would need to be addressed at those time at that time. So, I know this is a lot of information. Um, we do plan to bring back this back in ordinance form. We did just want to get input from the planning board today um so we could bring this on to the city commission next week. Do the stair encroachment permissions that are proposed by staff make sense? Would you like to see something more permissive, less permissive? Um, should exterior stair encroachment be permitted when the homeowner has accommodated interior stairs when they're meeting the Florida building code requirement? they potentially just want an additional stair off the front for aesthetic purposes. Um, we've heard their the considerations for um for a fire escape and so on, other other basis for that, but it is not a requirement of the Florida Building Code should that exterior stair encroachment, if allowed, be permitted for those residences. And you're out in the community. Um, you know, you may have seen redevelopment challenges with your own homes, um, with with restoration. Is there anything that you've heard about in your neighborhood or that you've personally experienced that we should be looking at at this time? We hear about the individual cases. We often hear from contractors and the homeowners, but have you seen other specifically for single family and and um neighborhood level development challenges that you've heard about that you would like us to look into? That's all I have. Happy to get your input and your thoughts. So is the is the current setback based on any type of ratio or is it a fixed number?

It's a fixed number. Okay. So even if the home is within a setback or if the stairs would have to extend in this into a setback to be installed at the front of the residence, it's a flat 17t setback for stairs. Okay. I think because most of these elevated in place homes have a front door, it would make sense to allow it if they want it, even if they can accommodate it under the house.

I think one thing that I was happy to see you is talking about open stair and mass because like we have one in our neighborhood right now that it's it's just an ugly monster. It's big huge concrete stairs attached to this building and it just looks awful. So, I think considering mass um the other thing I think is important is looking at where cars will park because if they're doing this and going into like a parking place and are those cars going to be moved to the street and then what is the implication for that?

Thank you. On the open stairs, as I read it, the object is to not block the flow of water. Correct. Is that That's right. And is there any requirement for breakaway stairs or no? Is that as part of the building code? If you go into the um if you go into the setback, do they also have to be breakaway stairs? Um that would be tied more to the Florida building code and it would be based on the flood zone for the property, not necessarily location, but zoning location.

Okay. Um, as it comes to the the pools and gazeos and all of that, you know, I understand if your pool is non-conforming, moving a pool is is not an easy task and or an inexpensive task. However, the gazeos and the covers, if they're already non-conforming, I do have an concern with leaving allowing those to be rebuilt in place as non-conforming just because of the um visual encroachment on the neighbor's property. um you know that's that's that's a challenge. I will just I will say that. And then last week we talked about the um town center and the city's um very strict policy on allowing properties to remain non-conforming. And I know there's residential properties in the town center districts. So, how does that impact those how does this impact those particular residents if they're also damaged and looking to be elevated and now be continue to be non-conforming?

And that falls more into the use category than I think we're looking at here. We would just be talking about the stairs and accessory structure encroachment, but this would apply to those single family homes that are in a conforming use district. We are in and one of the follow-up items to this on the agenda be talking about a town center 2 um which I believe is the district that we were we were discussing. Um we'll be having a a forum with with property owners and the general public to talk about some of those use considerations, but I think that's a little bit more outside of the scope of what we're looking at here. They would benefit from those um these changes should those use accommodations occur in the future, but it this would not affect that directly. But overall, I think we need to support those homeowners that are trying to, you know, invest in their properties, make them more resilient, and uh they're keeping those stair staircases in their footprint of their existing non-conforming.

You uh for the gazeos, you're it was for a onetime exemption, but it sounded like you were thinking they were completely rebuilding them. Is this a repair or is this a complete?

So when when a home is substantially improved, which I think all but one of the elevations or reconstruction has fallen under, one did have the value to keep it under that 50% threshold, but it wouldn't even necessarily be reconstruction, in which case they would need to comply. This would be a one-time exemption for them to keep what they have, provided it's not substantially damaged. They're not rebuilding. The code requires when a homeowner substantially improves their primary structure, all of the accessory structures on the lot be made compliant. So, this would effectively allow them to just keep what they already have after elevating their home. But, if they come back in the future and they're looking to demolish and and replace, they would still be subject to that based on what we're discussing here, unless the board would like to extend it.

If their home was substantially damaged and their gazebo or pool cage wasn't, I'd like the name of the builder. Sure.

Yeah. As far as sheds, I'm personally not inclined to agree with increasing the size. I mean, if if your home is substantially damaged and you're improving via elevation or building on top, you're you're going to gain double the storage area at the ground level. So, 40 more square feet of your shed doesn't seem like it accomplishes much while remaining a risk to all of your neighbors at a storm event. Um, we we had a neighbor's Florida room ripped apart and blown over the top of their house into the street. I've seen sheds blown across the street. So, a larger shed. I I don't feel like that accomplishes the goal of resiliency. Thank you.

I took that as sheds in general that there was a general request for to change the code for shed allowance. And this has been brought up long before the storm as well. It's just there there have been general requests from home homeowners to increase shed size. But that is a good point and I I appreciate that. And just I I think it's I mean you're looking at a twoft difference, right? You're going I'm sorry. It's a it's a you're going from 8 by 10 to 10 8 by 10 to 10 x 12. 10 x 12. Yes. Yeah. So it's I don't know that a 80 foot shed is going to cause any more damage or less damage than the 120 foot.

Well, it may discourage constructing it to begin with, but yeah, I don't know. Um, does the city allow so would the board of adjustment hear a variance request if you have ancillary equipment that cannot be elevated where it currently is but also would not be attachable to some more appropriate place on the house? It would.

Okay. Is has that come up a lot? Are we are we running into that? Um it's it's been it's come up um with several of the structures to at this point in time it's been accommodated on the several that we've issued. We have I'd say 15 plus in house and that's been a consistent comment. The code was changed last year based on a Florida building code requirement for those homes that were not substantially improved where they were remaining at grade. there is a requirement that the equipment be elevated several feet in in most cases if it was flood damaged. Um so that option is available to those properties whose structures are remaining at grade. It's not available to those who are substantially improving. So this would extend that to cover those who are substantially improving by elevating in place or constructing above. Is the intent behind this rule just presentation? Like an AC unit that would previously have been behind a fence, now it's 15 ft off the ground. So even though you can walk under it, we don't want it visible to your neighbor.

I'm I'm not sure the basis for it. I I would assume that. Yeah, as you mentioned, once you get a certain distance above grade, it can't be visually blocked. you know, with generators, they they exercise on a, you know, on a regular basis. It could be a noise issue as well, potentially. So,

okay. I I mean, personally, I'm not opposed to allowing it to remain where it is. If it's just going vertical, that that might be the only reasonable place to attach it to the house. And it could be really difficult or expensive to move that type of equipment. I I have a generator on my house and this structure was built basically to accommodate it where it currently is. So if I had to move it, I don't think it could be moved. So I I would be inclined to accommodate that request.

Yeah, I agree. I think it's cost prohibitive to in a lot of cases to especially when you're talking about having to rewire an entire HVAC system. Certainly. Um, and as far as the sheds go, you know, I if it's if they're if they're adding a larger shed, a 10 by 12, then it they have to meet all of the codes of that, right? And the setbacks, etc. So, um, again, I think a lot of these homes are very small um, in our community. A lot of single car garage, a lot of carports still, and they don't have sufficient space in a lot of a lot of areas to maybe secure things that they need to secure. So, I I personally don't have an issue with the with the change as well.

Brandon, you asked a lot of questions and we answered them randomly. Did you get clear direction?

You did. One one other item I wanted to address with the board. It it came up it actually came up at the board of adjustment that that might have started all this is we we intentionally wrote the amendment to the code last year to allow for staff to have some discretion when a home is elevated and it's unreasonable to allow for the interior accommodation of stairs. Uh down in Paser Grillil for example, we have several homes that are 6 700 square f feet and accommodating an 150 square foot stair and landing just isn't reasonable within that that setback. But the home within that um footprint, but the um stairs could also not reasonably meet a front setback. Other homes um one of the cases that went to the board of adjustment had stairs interior to the structure. They were also seeking a second stair on within the front setback. So, does the board have any thoughts one way or another on if stairs are accommodated interiors, should they be allowed a second stair that potentially encroaches into the setback or

Well, I agree with Sam when he said if you have a front door, it would look odd without stairs going to it. So, I think that it should be allowed. Okay.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I I I watched that board of adjustment hearing and I you know I don't think it's reasonable to expect guests and deliveries to come through your garage. Um I would also be concerned about the I do we have an opinion from the fire chief on on this? I I feel like if a house was on fire internally and I was a firefighter, I would not want to have to hack through a a hurricane rated garage door plus an interior door, not knowing if the house is about to collapse on me where the exterior stairs would make for a lot more visibility into what's going on.

One, thank you. is is the so that particular lot that came out the pieshaped lot should we be considering a revision to setbacks for those unusually shaped lots. I mean it what they proposed seemed reasonable to me. It it was just trying to achieve symmetry with a stairway going to each driveway. Uh and if it was a few feet into the setback that is unusually deep for a pie-shaped lot I'm not it seemed like a reasonable request. So

well in their case um that that isn't new construction. They are elevating in place. The only zoning issue with that in terms of a setback encroachment would be the stairs and they are aligning with the front of the structure. So you know I think we talked through a few of these cases of staff and none of them seemed designed in a way that would really substantially change the massing or or scale of the home especially in those cases. And member Perry, you had brought up, you know, making sure that the stairs that are attached off the front of the home are are in scale and in massing. So, that's something we'll we'll definitely look into. Um Kristen, do you have any comments?

I just with Kristen Kman, a senior planner. Um just with regards to the home you're you're talking about with board of adjustment that was new construction. Um looking at their previous home that is to be demolished. They are electing again to demo that it was not substantially damaged. did meet all the setback requirements. So, it did kind of show staff that the previous design could meet it. I did meet with the um the applicant ahead of time to kind of go over their application. Um they were providing interior stairs in that one as well. Um the other one that uh Brandon brought up, they actually had gotten a building permit um showing that they could have that interior access and then they elected to come back before the board of adjustment. So I just wanted to kind of give you the whole picture that it was not just we're seeing this, we are seeing different variations. Um and we did want to get your feedback on the thoughts of that. So, the one he brought up where they had uh the interior staircase, they have kind of like a balcony now where their front porch used to be and they were looking for those additional stairs that did not meet the setback. They got a building permit for it and they decided to come back in uh to try for the variance on that. Um and then I think we just kind of needed to get your feedback also on stoop size. So if we are allowing for somebody to have you know um the stairs elevated stairs is so that they don't go the whole width of the dwelling and kind of get that elevated whole deck. What was what's minimal and if you guys had any especially memores you might have some input on that of what's kind of nominal and reasonable.

Is that currently limited? So if you were building like a ranch style currently, you could make the entire front of Well, currently you would have to meet the setback requirements. So we're looking at something if you don't meet your setback requirement and you are, you know, going to have to need to do the stairs if there was like a size that you think would be a good standard. I think usually the roof overhangs as well. Does that counts in the setback calculation? What is what is the landing size requirement? Is that four feet for top of the staircase?

I believe it's I think it's 36 in is minimum, but then it also needs to match the width of the doors, whatever those are. So, is the door does that include any lights or panels that are on the side of it or is it just the actual door? I'll have to look into that. I believe it's just the door, but I I can I'll check into that. And we're taking into account like if you had packages delivered or you know if you have packages you're carrying up say groceries what would be I mean you don't yeah want to be caged in there but do we do we mandate a landing based on run length or not currently

that I don't know that's probably more of a a building question on that but a good question. So, Miss Coleman, as I understand it, the house that's on the pie shape was not just an elevate. They did a complete remodel re addition. They had gotten an initial variance to go into the setback. Is that what if if the one that's before the board of adjustment and not necessarily the one Brandon had up there before, but they are electing to demo their existing house was not substantially damaged. Um, they just went with a brand new design, but the prior design in the home met all setback requirements. So they're taking down their driveway, their dwelling, the pool, everything, and bringing it back down to to ground and building up.

So I I do start to have concerns there and you know, again, I look down in Pacro where these massive massive homes are going up and um you know, mass and scale has been thrown out the window it seems. that if so if a if a homeowner is electing to completely tear down and start from scratch then you know either in my opinion you meet the setbacks or you apply for and get a variance and once you get that variance it's you know I I don't think that it should be looked favorably on that okay I have my variance and now I'm going to come in because I've decided to put this front door here but I forgot to ask for a stair variance I'm going to ask for another variance to go even further into a setback potentially you know I think that uh I would hope that the board of adjustments or is living really scrutinizing those a lot because again from the neighbors that have to live that have these singlestory homes that have to live next to these hulking homes and again I appreciate the people that are elevating and doing what they can to you know make this community more resilient and investing in it investing in their homes and elevating I know it's it's very expensive but I you know we also need to balance again the size of a home on a lot um when you're looking at a new build and completely new construction. So I I would just caution that.

Right. And with in the same regard, the board of adjustment I think had the same kind of um thought process and ultimately that one was denied as well as the other one that was looking for the after the fact stairs as well. We didn't answer your question on the landing though. No, you didn't. I was going to come back to that. I don't I think around 4 feet is as far as depth is a good depth. Yeah. Okay.

But I I think it's going to be rare that there's a case where they're adding a staircase and they don't have sufficient overhang under their roof, which wouldn't be added to this formula, right? It's just where is the existing setback and how far does the staircase go? It it is into the eve. So, it would actually be to the the building itself, to the dwelling, the structure. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's just saying that you can't now say independent of that, I want a covered front porch. Yeah. So, have one of those, right?

And and I have to say we haven't, and Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong, we haven't seen a lot of them um in all of our our reviews that most people are trying to come up with creative ways. They're incorporating the interior stairs. Um, you'll see new builds that don't even have a second floor, you know, off the front. Maybe it's a balcony, but there's no additional stairs. Um, they're incorporating it inside or they're going around the side. So, there are the few, but you've seen a couple of examples that are just kind of unique in their own right and we're going to see those. Um, but ultimately both majority of them are conforming at the end of the day. But in those instances, we wanted to just get your feedback. You know, if you have the garage and they're elevating in place, they are gaining, like you said, that extra square footage to maybe incorporate that inside the house.

I think that was all. That's all. Thank you. Thank you all.

Thank you. Okay. Moving on to discussion 5C, community redevelopment area update. We just want to give a brief I think one slide update if we could pull the PowerPoint please. So we are undertaking the finding of necessity. We don't have anything to share yet. Um we expect to have that in the near future. That is of course the basis for a community redevelopment area should one be undertaken. Uh this is a little more peripheral too. This is something that we've been directed by the commission to undertake, but it will certainly tie in with any kind of community redevelopment area that is explored in the future. And this is looking at the Town Center 2 Cookina West District. Um both this and the Corey Circle, which is the Corey Landings property. The Cory Landings property now encompasses all of the east side of the TC2 land use district. Uh on the west side um the city promotes a similar property consolidation. We've certainly not seen that to the extent of the Corey Landing site which accounts for all that property. And uh there are some unique challenges in that land use area that other areas of the city don't face. Uh there was obviously significant damage especially to some of the residential homes in in the area, but there are a large number of non-conforming uses over on that that uh zoning area as well. Um especially for the single family homes of standalone residences. Currently, the code does not allow them to be rebuilt. The code also does not allow for them to be substantially improved. So, if they were in a situation where they have to elevate their home, they have to convert that lower level to parking, storage, and access and build above, they do not have the option to do that. They have to tear it down and go with a uh

potentially part of a multif family or a mixeduse. Um or they could do a standalone commercial or office use. Um we've heard from a lot of property owners in the vicinity that they want that to be looked at. That is something we were asked to address by the city commission as well. So, we are moving forward with a community forum. Um, this will cover some of the items that we brought up to you last month in the presentation, but really the intent of this forum is to hear from the property owners, hear from the community, and get their input and their thoughts. Um, we are looking at what I haven't potential date, but we have confirmed it to be October 9th. It'll be in the evening 5:30 to 7:00. We'll be posting this on social media. We'll be sending out mailers to those in the prop in the zoning district as well as those along the perimeter of the zoning. Um so that will be October 9th here in city hall in the city commission chamber from 5:30 to 7:00 and we'll send out notices on that starting in about a week or so. Uh the proposed content is to look at some of the redevelopment challenges, really hear from those property owners, what are they facing, what are they considering, um look at some of the redevelopment preferences, hearing from the community on those. And then we are also going to present a recently finalized Corey area historic survey. This doesn't necessarily cover any zoning or land use uh requirements. It's it's a survey. It's an inventory, but we did want to hold that out to the community. We do have a large number of historic contributing structures, those that would be um considered part of a Corey area historic district. We also have a few structures that we feel could be independently recognized. We have the Beach Theater. Uh we have the Wells Fargo, which was originally the uh the Federal Savings and Loan Bank. Um, those are structures we can certainly look at for part of an individual designation should the property owners wish to undertake it or as part of a group nomination potentially to the the historic register. Uh, so we just wanted to announce this to the board. Um, if

you have any questions, we're happy to to hear them, but this is a meeting that will take place before your next meeting. So, we just wanted to bring it up at uh at your board meeting this this month. Any questions? Okay. 5D limitation on fill update. So the update is unfortunately I don't have any update for this meeting. Um we haven't had an opportunity to meet with the state. We are going to be evaluating both our flood plane ordinance and bring that up with the Florida Division of Emergency Management. So I will hopefully have an update for you at the next meeting. Okay.

I have some comments on that and I don't know if we need to ask for audience comments after each item. I was thinking about that. Um, so Brandon, as you know, I have been asking about Phil for months and um, at the last commission meeting, there was a discussion and again the whole topic of Phil came up. So I decided that to kind of move things along, maybe I needed to be more specific. and knowing it was coming up on the agenda today, I thought this would be when I'd see what you're doing and have some input. So, there's a couple places in the code that um and I'm sure you know what they are, but uh section 106-54 under flood control and it says there shall be no fill used as structural support higher than 16 in above the crown in the road. And I know we've talked about that before. So I did a little math at home and I live on Bokea Siega isle and in front of my house on the crown of the road center of the island is about three feet. So we would be able to fill as I understand it uh for 4' 4 in. But down the end of the road on the same island they were only one and 1 foot 6 in one and 1/2 ft above um the crown. That's where the crown of the road is. So they'd only be able to go up two feet 10 inches. So we have I don't know why the crown of the road is even um again trying to go back to what were they trying to do when this came up and I don't know but looking at what happened to us the experience we've had I think we've gained a lot of knowledge and to me the uh the other thing that has to be looked at is your property level in relation to

the seaw wall so I'll get back to that in a minute. But the other thing in section 98-131.1.1, use of structural and non-structural fill in flood hazard areas. And then it's broken up by zone AE or A or the Vzone. And what I'm looking at here is um for example, it says the use of structural fill is permitted in the following districts. And it lists a whole bunch of districts, but it doesn't seem to include residential. So why are we allowing it in traditional hotel district, activity center district, commercial corridor district, traditional hotel district, coina west districts? I mean all these things are fine but for for the residents it's not fine. And uh I think there's a number of other issues. I know that um I've personally brought the case to someone, but it's what's not explained is if you put in a stem wall, like a lot of people lost their cars in the garage and if they had put it if they had been given the advice to put in a stem wall, they could have raised their garage floor dramatically, saved their automobiles, and not caused any bad things to happen to their neighbors property. So, I don't even think when people are coming forward and trying to get advice on Phil that they're even given all the options that they could do within the code. So, I I saw this at the commission meeting and I was very concerned. The commissioners were asking to move quickly on this because people are trying to rebuild now. They're being given advice which is harmful to resiliency in the future. And so, um, I just feel like this needs to get a little bit more gas. Um, I mentioned the seaw wall. One of the things I've seen is that the

recommendation is minimum seaw wall height is five feet.

But what's really important in that is the relationship of that to the house and the type of fill. And which floor are we talking about? The garage floor, the main living area. Um, I looked at the permit applications for a seaw wall and there is this seaw wall elevation worksheet. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Asks about your neighbors. There's this is really got to be tied into that fill because I think the the current code as it's written and I've mentioned this before doesn't have the knowledge that we have now gained going through a couple of hurricanes that hurt us. And so this has to move more quickly and it has to be more thorough. There is, from what I can tell, no strategic overview of what we're trying to do here. Um, so I don't know if there needs to be a workshop. I don't know. I know the commissioners are saying, "Go fast, go fast. Bring us something." But there's a lot of pieces that need to fit together. And I haven't seen any discussion about that at all, even though I've been bringing it up for months, and I will continue to bring it up. So, how do we how do we get our arms around this and let interest just like you're doing for this other area? You want to hear from the people that are interested, what does it mean to them? Um, I think that needs to happen right away and I can certainly bring up a workshop with management. Um, not to say that zoning isn't multi-disciplinary, but with something like that, we do need to, you know, have the public services department and so on involved. Um, we might need to, you know, bring in consultant engineers and so on. So, um, I'll I'll certainly speak to management about that. I know this is a priority.

Yeah, I did. I was happy to hear the commissioners talking about it um at their last meeting because I think people are investing now and they're going to be not getting the resiliency they should for their investment. Thank you. It does seem reasonable to change the crown of the road uh as the reference point because the doesn't mean anything.

Yeah. on our street, the the lowest point is where you're allowed to fill the least and that's the one that needs to fill the most. So, yeah, I I would agree with the look at that. Okay, discussion item 5e, Cory Landings update. Uh, member Brokott. So, yeah, I just um had asked Mr. Barry via email if we could just get a an update. Um, originally that was a conditional use permit. And I understand that they've been through TRC twice um and that it they may have dropped the cup or the cup is no longer applicable to the planning board. So I was just looking for for an update on that.

Yeah, that second one is the case. They are still applying for a conditional use permit. Um when it came in it was a fully residential mixeduse project. Those do not go to the planning board. Those go to straight straight to commission. Um they reapplied back in August adding two lodging units to one of the buildings. Um I believe they would have been a guest amenity. We brought up at that time the need for them to move forward to the planning board. We discussed that at technical review committee last week. They decided to remove those and they are making them one residential unit again. So um they will not be coming forward to the planning board for recommendation. um that only applies to temporary lodging projects over 30 units an acre or um 50 feet in height. So they will be going to what we expect to be city commission next next month for a uh a two meeting uh decision.

Thank you. So that's a significant reduction in density from original. Correct. So they were approved in 2022 for 243 units. They are down to 133 units proposed.

Okay. And 5F uh member Perry wanted to see if there's an update on Dolphin Village. So they have withdrawn the request for the trailer uh the temporary pharmacy trailer. That is not moving forward. I don't at this time have any updates on reconstruction of anything in Dolphin Village, but we I should be hearing soon. I just don't have a specific date. Okay. Any audience comments on our uh prior discussion items? I neglected to ask. Okay. Okay. Uh that concludes this meeting. Uh meeting adjourned.