Planning Board - Regular Meeting

October 20th meeting of the 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, before we do roll call, I wanted to announce that uh member Ray had to resign and Commissioner Marriott has appointed board member Grant Izzy to replace him. So, welcome to the board and I wanted to thank member Ray for his service to the planning board. Uh we can go ahead with roll call. Okay. Member Izzy here. Member Perry

here. Vice Chair Angelitus here. Member Grocott here. Chair Hubard here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda for today? And to the new member and the clerk, we want to make sure that they fill out the forms. They don't have to be done at the meeting. Um but at some point, you need to fill out some forms with the clerk. He has and he's been sworn in. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Um I just wanted to add the um for an update on meeting with the state on the Phil in the in the minutes. It said um that uh that would be followed up at this meeting.

Could you speak a little bit louder? I'm not sure I'm hearing you all the way down at this end for some reason. Sure. Um I was just asking for a status update um on the Phil question that I raised because it said in the minutes it would be filled would uh be addressed at this meeting. So we add to discussion item. What is the subject matter? The Phil. Oh yeah, Phil. Okay. Yeah. audited as 5B. Any other changes? How about I'd like to uh also add a discussion item for the status of phase one density pool valuation. Uh the draft report um also will. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended?

I motion to approve the agenda as amended. Second. Roll call, please. Member Perry. Yes. Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. Member Grocott. Yes. Member Izzy. Yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any audience comments?

Caitlyn. Now's your chance. No. Okay. We will move on to approval of the September 15th meeting minutes. Are there any changes? Okay. Uh, can I have a motion to approve the minutes as written? I'll make a motion to approve the uh, minutes of the December 15th meeting uh, as written. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. Member Grocott. Yes. Member Izzy. Yes. Member Perry. Yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Action item 4A is the review and approval of the 2026 meeting dates. Um, I spoke to Brandon about the dates in advance. I have conflicts for February and March and I wanted to see if everyone is amendable to moving those dates and obviously if anyone has other dates they have concerns with. Just check the calendar real quick. moving them to

the the March one's the easy one. If we could just push it one week to March 23rd, the this room is available on that date, same time as normal. Okay. So, if everyone's okay with that one, that's easy. February, I could miss the meeting if I had to. I'm out of town from the 13th through the 23rd. Um, so I don't know if we would want to just move it during that week if that's an option or figure it out if if you need to check room availability.

We we can check room availability. Um, Jenny, do you happen to know off hand? Um, February 17th or 19th is good for the clerk's office or you won't be here. Yeah, I'm at 13 through 23. Since the one in January is so late, the 26th perhaps towards the end of towards we're going to do it when you come back. I'd say the 24th or after, right? Yeah. Yeah, that would be ideal if if there's availability.

Okay, let me look. 24th. I can't do a Tuesday. I'm getting there. So, 25th, maybe 20. We won't be able to do the 25th. That will be board of adjustment, but the Thursday looks like it would work if it works for the clerk. So, February, I have February 24th or 26th open. 20 26th would be that 26th. Okay.

Okay. I appreciate that everyone. Um, so we will amend the 2026 meeting dates to February 26th, 4 p.m. And the March date becomes March 23rd at 4 p.m. Okay. If everyone's okay with that, can I have a motion to approve as amended? Make a motion to approve the revised dates as amended. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelus. Yes. Member Grocott. Yes. Member Izzy? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Chair Hubard? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Action item 4B is ordinance 2025-21. Brandon, you're leading this.

Yes. I have a PowerPoint. We can get that pulled up. So last month um we brought this item to both planning board and city commission as a discussion item. We did receive direction from both board and the commission at that time. Uh this is content that is intended to address all the discussion topics. I know there was not necessarily consensus on some of the topics. That was the same for the commission as well. We're simply asking for feedback on drafted standards. I prefer to draft the standards and then be told no or be told it needs to be modified just so we have something that can address what was what was brought up as discussion. Um these amendments are intended to address some of the most common issues encountered when we see redevelopment um also elevation of homes. We've gone from seeing about one home elevation per year to seeing dozens and dozens this year alone. We expect many more in the coming um coming year as well. So, we've started to see challenges that we never really had to address before. Um, of course, those properties that are non-conforming or built right at setbacks may have different challenges than those that are being developed new. Um, but we are looking at some items that will address new development as well. So, just going through the list of sections starting off with 3.10 vested rights and non-conformities dealing specifically with stair encroachment. Currently, the only permission for stairs in the code is found in a later section 6.22, which I'll address in a moment. Uh, that allows for stairs to encroach three feet into the required front yard, and that is a static standard across the city. Um, most residential properties in the city are allowed to have stairs encroached to 17 ft. So, if a home is built within the required front setback, in most cases, they cannot have stairs within that yard except through a variance. This would allow front yard stair encroachment by right for homes with non-conforming

front setbacks that are elevated in place. Um, we had taken this forward as an amendment back at the end of last year. We had left this to staff discretion. We weren't really know what was um what we were going to be facing at that point and and we have allowed staff discretion for some encroachments, but we would prefer there to be um standards that apply to all residences the same. The stairs must be unroofed except by extension of the primary home's eaves and it must have an open base. That would be a 80% transparency between the treads, landing, and footer. You can see some local examples of that on the right. Stairs for non-conforming homes under the current drafted standard would be permitted to encroach to either 10 ft from the front property line. That would be all districts. We do have lesser setbacks for those residences in Pasigril. For those it would be a five- foot setback from the front property line. For those homes that are built substantially into the front yard setback, um there would also be a permission to go closer than 10 ft to the front property line provided that they are no closer than the front wall of the residence or 3 feet um whichever is greater. We see many homes especially on culde-sacs that were built in the mid-century where the home might be built at a five, seven, 10 foot setback. So in this case, the stairs could encroach into the front setback to match the front wall of the residence. And here are some examples. Um, another shot from one of the photos I showed on the previous screen. And then showing the second standard that I just spoke about on the right. Um, that is a home that was built at 8t 3 in. And the stairs encroach no closer than the existing retained front wall of the structure when it's elevated. And then I showed these graphics in the uh presentation last last month. Just

something I mocked up quickly, but the existing standard you can see on the left, even if the stairs are encroaching no closer than the front of the structure, even if you're dealing with a non-conforming front setback, there would be a variance required to go any closer than 17 ft. Um, in the proposed standard, the stairs both meet the front wall of the building standard. They're also no closer than 10 ft. they would be allowed administratively. And this is showing again um that that 10-foot standard that would be allowed that would be enabled on the right graphic. Currently is not permitted. The home in this case is built into the required front setback. No stairs at all can be built in the front of the residence. This would allow for stairs to be built to a minimum 10-ft front setback. We also talked last month about accessory structure retention for those struct for those primary residences that are being substantially improved. The standard we discussed um and again there was not um agreement among all members and that was the same for the commission as well. But this would allow for non-conforming deck covers, gazeos, and pools. Those structures that we tend to see that are a little bit more costly uh to remain in the required yards when the home is being substantially improved, but adding no more than 10% in living area. That would exclude the finishing of garages and carports that are located with under the under the primary roof line. Um, most residences we've seen that are elevated in place, they are finishing out that space that was previously a garage or a carport that was part of the main roof line. Um, but this would be for those homes that are maybe not adding a whole additional living story. They're effectively just trying to get the living level out of the flood plane and finish out that space that was used as garage or carport. Uh, the accessory structure is not being substantially improved. And one comment made at last month's meeting was, well, you know, if the home was substantially

damaged, but the um deck cover uh remains and was not substantially damaged, that's probably a fairly rare occurrence, but we are seeing quite a few um homes that are being substantially improved without having been substantially damaged. In several cases, they sustained very little damage. They're still choosing to elevate above the flood plane. So that would apply largely to those those residences that are voluntarily elevating um over concerns over future storms and not to remediate existing damage or um bring into compliance with the FEMA requirements. Uh the other requirement would be that the accessory structure does not cross the property line. It doesn't exist within the easement. Those structures would need to be made conforming. Um that's not a permission we really address through zoning code. though they would need to comply if if they meet either of those criteria. This does not allow for non-conforming accessory structures as drafted to be substantially improved or replaced without setback compliance. This is only for those residences where the primary residence is being substantially improved. The accessory structure is being left alone or just being uh repaired. They would be able to remain as as they exist. But if they're being taken down and replaced, they need to comply with the code. Looking at residential storage buildings, again, we do not have consensus on this. That goes for the commission as well. This would allow for storage buildings to be increased from 80 to 120 square ft. That's a request we we frequently get that goes on to the board of adjustment. The height would remain at 8 ft. That is currently the standard would be the standard that remains based on the draft. It would require all storage buildings to be tied down to meet wind loads following a substantial improvement of the residence regardless of the size of the storage building. Whether it complies with the current 80 square feet, whether they're installing a new building that is 120 square ft. Even for those that already exist on the property, they would need to be tied down. They would be treated

as a um a new structure for tie down requirements. looking at equipment um in sideyards. This is one that we frequently run into. And there's an example on the right of one I just looked at recently. Currently, the code allows for those structures that are not being substantially improved where the equipment needs to be elevated by the Florida building code above the flood plane to be elevated 4 feet in place above the flood plane. For those homes that are substantially improved, they need to relocate the equipment. Um, we have received some concern from residents about needing to move the equipment. It can be costly in in certain instances. So, this would not only clean up this section. It's been something we've been adding on to for about 20 years now. So, it's gotten a little bit difficult to um interpret, but we're also looking to allow for in place elevation of existing equipment. Equipment that already exists at Gray, the homes being elevated in place, the equipment would be elevated along with it. Um, and that's a requirement of the Florida Building Code. So, they would be making that equipment compliant along with the primary residence. The front yard encroachment would be limited to 5T. We see very little equipment that is um attached to the front of the residence. Most is of course on the side or in the rear. Um, but for that equipment that's in the front yard, it would have a encroachment limitation for elevation. Pedestal column setback elevations are limited to three feet within the sideyard. So, if they were to put it on a solid base, it would need to meet a three-foot setback. That is the same standard that we currently allow for stairs. They're allowed to have a a column base, an enclosed base, but they are required to meet that 3-ft side setback. That would apply to the equipment as well. And equipment would be limited to 1T above the lowest floor or the designed flood elevation. So, the equip equipment could be elevated 20 feet in the air. If the home's only being elevated to 8 or 9 ft above grade,

it would follow the living level, which is a flood plane requirement. Newly installed equipment. So, if someone is elevating the AC unit, but they're also looking to install a generator, that new equipment based on what has been drafted would need to meet all of the yard setbacks. And newly constructed home equipments would need to meet all yard setbacks as well as currently drafted. Going on to stairs. And this applies to all single and two family residences. That's whether they're built being redeveloped, built new, or for those homes that don't need to comply with the section 3.10 standards. This would apply to them as well. This would allow three foot encroachments for stairs without independent roof overhangs. That is the standard the city has in place today. It would allow a 7ft encroachment. So that's two rows of stairs meeting the minimum uh width requirement into the front yard for stairs without roofs and with an open base. Again, that's 80% plus transparent below the treads and the landing and the uh the footer. And this was something that was brought up by the commission. We did not discuss this at last month's meeting to my recollection, but we wanted to look at um we were directed to look at some of the odd lots and there are many platted lots in the city that are still developed that we need to take maybe a little bit more of a deeper dive into. That's something we're going to have to address and and really think through with this board in the next couple of months. But culde-sacs are a little bit more approachable. There are other standards that other municipalities have adopted and other standards that um at least in in first passing make sense to staff. What we drafted um for consideration is to allow for the front yard setback requirement to be based on a line established taking the tangent of the arc of the front of the culdesac.

Currently the setback requires 20 ft and that's taken from the actual arc of the front property line. So it it arcs inward from the culdesac front property line. This would allow for a tangent line to be established. It's really more beneficial for those properties on a very aggressive arc where they are unlikely to wrap the home at the um at the arc of the front property line. This would allow for a tangent line to be established based on the the furthest point of that arc and it would be set 15t inward. So they would have a standard um uh setback line that's a little bit more permissive than the 20 allowed today based on that consistency at the frontage there. This does not remove the option to make use of the 20 foot setback um permission. That's what's currently in the code. Uh this is just an alternative standard and this is what we could come up with within the period of time that we had to to look into this.

I I did have a question about that one. U I saw it in the packet and it does explicitly state culde-sac. So on my street for example, there are corner waterfront lots who have as tight a turn as a culde-sac probably does. So I didn't I didn't think it needed to be specific to culde-sac if there's a mathematical formula that could be set when you are on one of those pies-shaped lots. Certainly, we we can definitely look into that. Um, we currently have a special permission for culde-sac, which is why I drafted, but we we do run into that from time to time with those pies-shaped turning uh lots. Um, in terms of comprehensive plan consistency, the comprehensive plan typically does not directly address accessory structures, including those for residences, but we do address generally resident suitability, and allowing residences to be updated and and match um current demand and community character, maintaining residential character within the city, preserve and rehabilitate existing housing, and review our codes periodically to make sure that we're meeting the current housing needs of the continuing to ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the city. Um, these are obviously challenges we were not facing a year and a half ago. These were issues that probably would have taken decades for us to really accumulate enough data to um to know that these were going to be issues, but we've seen so many different um situations in the last 8 to 8 to 10 months that these are starting to come to the forefront. So, as I mentioned, um we're bringing these forward for consideration. We understand that there is not board consensus on all these items. If if you do find these amendments are suitable to move forward um as we may modify during discussion today. Um we will be presenting them to the city commission

for first reading next Tuesday. Um we do find that some of these are major priorities based on some of the challenges that we're facing. Some of them are supplement uh supplementary to those. But the stair encroachment and equipment elevation, we see those on more than 50% of the um one or the other on 50% or more of the home elevation permits. So, those are really the ones that we feel are major um updates that we need to be looking at in the near term. If there are accessory structure concerns or other things that the board feels need a little bit more time to be addressed, we can certainly break those out. But the uh the stair encroachment and the equipment elevation, we would we would hope we can move forward from this meeting. So with that being said, um we do ask that the board um sit as a local planning agency to take any action on this case. We would ask that you motion to approve approve with modification or deny or sorry recommend approval approval with modification or denial of this ordinance and find it consistent or not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Okay. I will temporarily adjurnn as the planning board and reconvene as a local planning agency. Any thoughts? Go ahead. So, I watched uh the last few meetings, especially uh this one because I knew this was coming up. Um so, a couple couple thoughts I have. I I think first of all, getting this done fairly quickly is important because people are getting contracts in place. So, I think, you know, we're doing the right thing here on landings. Um, one of feet on either side of the door. Um, is something that came to my mind also and I talked to Brandon about Brandon about this earlier. Um, obviously the landing is for safety purposes. Most people that are lifting their houses right now, their doors open outwards by requirement. So, is it a requirement for second story doors to open outward still?

It is. It's not. It's recommended, but anything above the flood plane can open inward if desired. So, that will help residents decide whether they want to depending on what size of landing we'll let them have. Maybe they want to open their doors inward now just for, you know, added safety. But, um, so just the size of the landing was the thing that I saw that we uh needed to come up with. C can I add on to that since you just said you brought um Can we can we put this picture up on the Well, there's one up there. Okay.

There's a whole packet up there. Okay. It's right right No, right. That that packet. That's my working Yeah. Page three. No, no, no. Looks like this.

Thank you.

Okay. So, so what you're looking at here are my working papers. And um if you look at what's behind this in the packet that I gave you, um what you'll see like if you see the R311.2 to egress door in the in the package. These are the Florida building codes. And so they tell you um about the egress door. They tell you the width of the landing um different elevations. So the these codes that with the R again, these are the ones that go for residential. And um if you look at 311.7.6, six, it talks about landings for stairways. And um I did question if it's interior or not because, you know, I'm glad to know, Brandon, what you said about if you're above the flood plane, you can open in, but um from everything I've read, in a high wind area, you're better off not to open in because in a high wind your doors can get blown in. So, you have to take a lot of things into account. Um, in addition to the wind, you have to think about what if you're trying to put in a refrigerator or a couch or the fire department has to get in with all their equipment. Um, there's a lot of considerations into landings. So, the very last page of this um 1011.6 stairway landings is from the Florida Building Code and um that does talk about the width of landings in relationship to the stairways and about doors opening in etc. So, and it talks about you you need to have a landing within every 12t 7 in in a residential. So, I put this here um just to make it um available for people, but the main thing is this drawing and um I I was talking to Ralph earlier about Stairway to Heaven, but basically um I had a worksheet where counted with the with the you know stairs 10 in by

seven and a half. Yeah. Stairway to heaven. And um these are just working papers. There's you know nothing um special. But what what I'm trying to show here is that if you look at the landings um and you follow all these recommendations in the building codes, um you basically have a couple of options. So, the the first door swinging is is a three-foot door swinging out. And um you can see that the landing could either be the minimum would be 4' 6 in or you could go to five feet. Um and then you can see the stairs in this particular case are not up against the building. They're three-foot stairs, but there's a foot on either side of them of space. So, I know from our last meetings, you're absolutely correct. we were talking about what should a landing recommendation be. And so, um, that's why pulling all this together, um, it looks like there's a couple of options. Um, you know, it could either be, uh, 6 foot wide by 5t or it could be 4' 6 by 4' 6 and it would meet all of this stuff that's in these codes. So,

well, yes, this is a single door and there certainly are other options. Um, but I'm just trying to get into the actual code so that we could come up with some recommendations that would be more meaningful or easier for people to follow. So, I hope that's a little bit helpful. It's one way to do it. The other thing I would show you in this packet while we're talking about landings is how to place the stairs. And if you could um go to the sheet that kind of looks like it has a bunch of squares on it. So this is a this is a couple of examples. This particular drawing is um 10 foot above grade the first one. And you can see it has a 5-ft landing I mean a five foot um out from the building. six foot landing. It has 11 stairs going down for 10 feet. Then it has another three-foot landing and then it has another few steps coming down two and a half feet. So that's like going along in front of the building. Um the one below that is a little bit different because it it puts a different kind of landing and splits it coming down uh side by side as opposed to a long width. Um and that one it can shows you what what size it would take to do that in. So again, these are compliant with the code. They are not the only way to do things, but um what I was trying to get together was something that would help clarify what exactly we were talking about. So, it's pretty delicate.

Do you do you want me to go to my next I only have one more topic, but do we want to stay on landing and stairs with everybody first or do you because we want to bounce around? Do you have an opinion or it's up to the board? Yeah, you you can continue.

Okay. So this the second thing I wanted to bring up and I I hadn't heard it talked about but I've talked to a lot of my neighbors and friends and actually this issue issue was one of the reasons why we decided not to raise our house but to use flood barriers instead and and the issue kind of comes to it's a quality of life issue for a lot of people that once you raise your house um now it's not as easy, you know, to get down now to get outside to enjoy your morning coffee or whatever. You um you go through that extra effort. Most people are not going to do that, right? They're they're going to have their coffee or they'll look out their window or their sliding windows which now have no balcony because they're within a setback. So, I had asked Brandon earlier about about that. Should we consider, and I I obviously I think we should, this is why I'm bringing it up, for PO folks to have outdoor living space in a house which they they're raising to become more resilient um to live here and enjoy the things that they've had. Should we allow them to have balconies in the back, even if it goes into a setback to a certain level, to a certain size? And I don't have a necessarily a size in mind, although I kind of do. Um, but I think one of the, you know, one of the impacts of raising your home, and I've seen them, if you've seen some of the homes that have been raised or they've added another story and you look from the back, it's like a sheer wall, right? And now they can't they've either had to fill in their slider sliders, um, but they can't enjoy from their from their current living level, they can't really enjoy the outdoors anymore. They're they're back. They can't be outdoors unless they purposely have to go now downstairs outside. And there's all kinds of issues with now stairs. You know, people are having front stairs.

Are they gonna have back stairs? Some people can't have back stairs because of setbacks. So, so what I'm I'm why I'm bringing this up is proactively should we have this conversation now about letting folks have some outdoor living space which they've lost basically um with raising their home trying to do the right thing. Um, some folks at multi-story homes that are raising and had balconies or have balconies on that second floor already that are say 7 feet, 8 ft, but now because they don't meet the setback requirements because those houses, you know, were non-conforming. Um, but they're now they're being told they can't put a balcony up on which would now be their second floor because it's within a setback. So, I would think, you know, at least let them have what they had before. Um, so I know it's a new topic and I know we're trying to and like I said, we're trying to get this done quickly, but I'm having a lot of conversations on this right now. Quality of life, it meets one of our core values. It also improves um and enhances our um property values ultimately in the long run to have that outdoor space. So, should we consider that? and I would I would like to offer up that I think we should. So, we'll leave it at that.

Chair Hubard, on on that point, I'd like to say quality of life for the homeowner. Yes. Quality of life for the neighbors, not necessarily. Um, you know, I and I understand it's a tough tough battle and decision on how we protect homeowners property values. Um, and the fact that people are investing a lot of money to elevate their houses. Um but as that stands for so many of these property owners and and we're seeing it where you know they're next to single stories and they're hulking over them now already and then if we extend that more to say and put a balcony out there and go into the setbacks and now you're outside with that. I mean having the home itself so many of these homes themselves already being so close. I mean we're not living on large lots here. Um I'm just concerned when you then start doing outdoor activities at that elevated level so close to your neighbors on waterfront lots in some cases um that we're then you know perhaps you know maybe sacrificing the the values of many for the values of one um on the surrounding property. So I would just you know throw that out there as my my opinion how we would balance that. That would just be my concern is balancing the property values across the neighborhood. Uh, in those cases,

would you be okay with if someone already had an existing balcony on their second level, but they're now raising their home, would you allow them to put the same balcony back at the same basic spot that their balcony was before they raised their home? Oh, because the attachment point was the second floor which is now attachment was the second floor. So there's no like they're not asking for anything more than what they had previously.

Would that not currently be allowed? So, they're allowed to elevate an existing balcony with the home, but if they were to now make the home three stories, if they had a balcony on the second living floor and then they elevated it, they could not put another balcony onto the first living floor. So, they would lose what was previously a walk out deck space at grade. If it's in the setback, correct? if it's in the subac.

But to I mean to your point about the neighbors and whether I agree with it or not they're not it's no real different than what was there before. Right. So would we allow existing balcony you know the existing type yes exactly

I I feel like I would be okay with that if it was the same footprint same type of balcony in the same place it had been. It's not encroaching any more than it already had been. So, I mean, yeah, that wouldn't bother me. I I agree with the go cut on adding a balcony that had not been there uh post elevation because if you're already at the setback limits, I feel like a reasonable size balcony is going to have to have 5T of depth. So, you could potentially be at your lot line and pass a grill or perhaps going from 10 ft to 5 ft. that that seems like it would be pushing the limits. Uh unless you're maybe beachfront and then I probably wouldn't care.

Would you care if it was waterfront? I don't think I'd care in that case. There's not an adjacent neighbor off that direction.

So, I'll say I have one of those very oddshaped properties that goes like this and then it goes like this. If I had a balcony, I would be hoping over three of my neighbors. Um, if I don't look at that house, that singlestory house. Um, and and because the lot is a very again weird weird shape, I would be absolutely looking at them every day. It's just I mean that's why we decided not to elevate to begin with is, you know, just that very weird weird thing. But I'm had I had we done it and then put a balcony on that was non-conforming on top of it, it would be a really disadvantage to my to our neighbors. It would it would hurt their property value significantly. I feel

yes it would improve mine but at the cost of three others.

I think one of the things we need to think about and I I thought about it a lot in this particular agenda. We need to try to understand why the setbacks were put there to begin with. Um, for example, not to take a tangent, but I don't understand why in brand new construction we need to make exceptions on the setback because you can design things for your lot. And I think if we do that, and I see it in here, then we're opening Pandora's box. And I don't really know that we've had enough discussion about the ramifications like you're raising to really make sure we understand what we're talking about. So, um I I think we have to be very careful when we're looking at setbacks. Um just because we don't want to hurt other people. We want to help everybody.

What are the purposes of of setbacks? What's the stated purpose of a setback? Is it is it for is it for your neighbors or is it for fire and safety and what have you?

Oh, it's it's all of them depending. And typically side is fire and access, front is visual encroachment, overcrowding, things like that. And in some cases we not not here in St. P Beach, but there's frequently um you know front yards and and things like that. So um it's it's a combination. I think the other thing we need to remember and I know it's a it's not you know your number one choice but we do have the board of adjustments and we do have other methods. So if we if we don't really understand or have thought through the full implications of a global change then you know it's not like people are just being told no you can't do it. um they may have to go through an extra step but I think that does put the thoughtful consideration of why this doesn't fit in a good in a good process.

I agree with that. um you know because people can go through the design process, they can work with a professional that can you know try to get to a solution that is is compliant and and again you know going through the board of adjustments you know be able to articulate e you know either this was cost prohibitive this was not structurally feasible I mean there are reasons why people cannot make it work and in that case to your point I think you're you're absolutely right that's why we have the board of adjustments that so people can go in and artic articulate that and provide their documentation and and have thoughtful case by case, you know, decisions on those non-conforming requests.

I'm certainly not opposed to discussing it further. I don't think we're going to solve it today, but if you wanted to make recommendations to how we modify the code, that can be proxied through Brandon and we can easily add it as a discussion item for next meeting and do some deep dive into that topic. And certainly if the board believes that some of these items need a little bit more time for discussion and we can move others on today, um happy to do that as well. It's it'll be a recommendation of the commission and if they give direction we'll bring those back for

Brandon simp simply for me then just based on because I want to move forward the wording would be basically you know replace in kind and like something we've already kind of done with other things. So to keep it very simple and to potentially let it move forward next week with the commission. Okay. And that would be specifically for balconies being reestablished in setbacks. They would be in the same footprint, openness, design that as the balcony that was there in that same location. Yes,

I think that makes sense. Would they forfeit the previous balcony that would be going up a level? wouldn't tell them. We wouldn't ask them to tear down the other one, you know, but you you know and again the re part of the reason I'm bringing this up, I'm just thinking about the living space issue. Yeah. Right.

Before raising your home and people are doing it for the right reasons. You enjoyed you walked out of your main living area. You you enjoyed your outdoor living space. people raising their homes for again for all the right reasons. But now enjoying your living space is different than what it was. And part of the appeal to live down here is enjoying the outdoor living. And that's being taken away inadvertently because of this. And so the so the point was to bring back some of that quality of life for folks so they could step out in the morning and have their coffee or do whatever. I I obviously don't agree with with what was was said about the neighbor part earlier. You know, I think I have a very I guess definitive thought process about you know properties property lines and stuff but um but I understand it and understand it. So just to get something you know moving where people had something you know there already you know that solves very small number of people that had a balcony on their first floor already on their bedroom level and were able to you know at least they can have the same thing they had right um because because it is an issue you know and I've talked to a lot of people who have raised their homes before or bought sold homes and bought got an elevated home and they have said the thing they miss the most is is spending time outdoors because you just won't do it right. If you have to take those extra steps now to go up and down the stairs, especially as people are getting older, you know, we have, you know, the aging population, they're just not going to have the same quality of life. and and it

how important is that to us right to to the big picture of you know neighbors setbacks property lines and all that. Um so if we can just let people right now have what they had then it's a start and then I guess we can address it in the board of adjustments or or what have you. J I have a some questions on the gazebo pool key page um sure

discussion as well. So, as I understand it, you know, if they're non-conforming now, but those structures themselves are not being um significantly improved, just the houses as it's written, those could could stay. So, if I have a a pool cage and it's attached to my home and I have to detach it from my home to elevate that house, haven't I put it in a position where then has to be substantially improved basically because I've now detached at least part of it to elevate that and I've watched them do these houses. I mean, they have to get around those houses to do those improvements. Mhm.

So, at that point, aren't they then themselves going to have to be substantially improved because we've probably had to take off at least enough of it to get all the way around that house to do the elevation at that point? You're probably not miss hodge podgeing a cage pool cage back together. Um, your thoughts on that? I mean,

well, we we would we would have to add in pool cages to this exemption. We would have to tweak it if we were to account for something like that. we see so few pool cages that it's it's it's it's a rare circumstance. But with deck covers, we have had situations where the property owner is looking to elevate the home. They're looking to keep the deck cover. It was detached or they're detaching it in the elevation. Um but they haven't been able to keep it because they're elevating. They're substantially improving. So, this is really what that was intended to address. But we would have to modify the standard to both add pool cages and to not consider the substantial improvement of the structure because you know the value of that would be much lower than a than a pool or a

right. Right. Right. Okay. So we're mainly talking about like detached structures then because again anything that's attached to that house once you elevate it is pretty much done. I mean it's got to be taken off. you've got to have that span for those beams to go in which go well extend well past the the perimeter of the house as they elevate those houses. So I would think that they would be not you know they wouldn't be able to be survive that in most cases. So if you're saying it's a detached what we're looking at is detached gazeos that are maybe like in the center of a yard. Correct. That are into the setback and they just want to keep that. Correct. Yes. I understand that. We don't prohibit pool cages currently. Do we? No, we don't.

Okay. I was just trying to understand what the like anything attached to a house again I can't imagine it surviving the elevation of a house if it's attached to a house because it's going to have to come down to have that work done. So it's it's we're talking about independent structures that are in the setbacks and just leaving them as be because nothing's happened to them and nothing's going to happen to them. They weren't damaged or or whatever that is. Correct. How that's being monitored. I don't know. But yeah. Okay. I understand that. Okay. Um, member Izzy and member Perry, are you do you feel that changes need to be made before you can recommend approval for the landing topic or does it as written

meet your

Well, I I've actually gone through the whole document and I have questions all the way through it. So, um I I don't think the landing in as it exists and I appreciate Brandon saying that this was, you know, a draft and that he he wanted or recommended modification. So, I think he was trying to put some a straw man out there for everybody and I think he he did a whoever did this did a great job. I don't think the landing section is flushed out in here well at all. And that was one of the reasons that I brought in some working papers because I I do think there needs to be some more work done on that. Um and I found other inconsistencies. So I don't think as it's ready right now, it's not ready.

And I don't know you. No, I I agree. I think some of the questions that were asked at the last meeting weren't addressed yet in in the landing. Um, you know, obviously the landing should meet any Florida building code requirements and then, you know, anything else that we think being necessary for safety or what what have you. But it should be in there. should at least say say that the two the two foot on either side was just because I know we we were asking those kind of questions last time. Yeah. Yeah.

Are these are these changes you feel could be adapted into it without changing the overall intent. So we recommend with modifications and trust Brandon to implement. Yes. Yes. Okay. If there are no questions. Oh, go ahead. There's a list of question. There's a list of questions not related to landings. Okay. Um,

can we Yeah, we'll go on to Sure. So, non-conforming uses and I think that that came into discussion when we were talking about some of the land development codes and and especially I think in this area, the town center area. So, I just want to um make sure I understand what what exactly this is recommending. So, um what page are you on? I'm on page seven right now. Okay.

Um and it says no structure which non-conforming us is located shall be enlarged, altered, improved, or relocated to occupy other portions of the lot. So anything that is in a non-conforming deemed non-conforming use right now if it is improved it doesn't say substantial it says improved period that is not authorized it would have to come into a conforming use that

correct so and this this is the current code standard we're not making any changes it's something we'll be talking about in the next item but um currently if someone has a single family home and the home is in a commercial district, they can't add a add on to the residence. They can't elevate. They can keep exactly what they have, but if they're looking to do any work that would add on um including if it's a substantial improvement, they can only do that work if they're going to convert to use. So, and I think it was more we had some businesses that bring non-conforming use um as well. I think there were also some single families in like around Corey area.

Yeah. Yeah. So there is is no use for that. Okay. I just wanted to understand that. And then I had one other thing that was included in this and that was the um auxiliary structures as far as the

accessory structure. Uh the yeah accessory structure 6.13 on page 10 um it said no mechanical equipment shall be operated within or within the attached within or attached to such a building. When I just Googled the definition of mechanical um equipment it's really diverse. So do we and then when I went to city code and looked for a specific definition for mechanical equipment there wasn't a specified I think the closest I got was section 65. It said uh anything that would be normally used for domestic or household purposes. I mean is my drill I I get a little concerned when we use a really broad term like equipment. I mean can I put a you know small

window air conditioning in my shed if I want to use it for refernishing furniture for example? Is that considered mechanical equipment? Can I can I have my drill in there? I mean what are we considering mechanical equipment or can we define better define mechanical equipment in this section I think would be very helpful. Okay. It's too bad. In my opinion, it's too bad as Thank you. I would I would Is it accurate that such equipment air conditioner for example would not be allowed because presumably the shed would be below flood? Okay. Correct. But I just want specifications. Yeah. But

again, Google definition was diverse. I I think the intent was probably to avoid establishing a workshop or something like that in the shed. But we could definitely clarify that. I I agree. But we're going to make a shed larger than presumably we're going to have more people going like great have a new workshop. You know, it's a good point. One present present company included. Great. Somewhere else to do more do more projects. So I just washers and dryers. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. We want to make sure that we're we're specify what that is. Is mechanical the zoning term for air conditioning the way it is in building? Is that what they intended?

I I don't know. I'll have to trace back. This this was probably in our code since 2003. So, I'm not sure what they meant by that, but that type would be a good guess because mechanical contractors typically the AC people. So, I would expect that to just be compressors and stuff, but it' be anything. Yeah. Is a residential accessory structure allowed to have electric service? Well, um we we do classify garages under that. So, yes, but we we we specifically call those out. So, yeah. So, detached garage can have electricity, but a storage shed cannot.

That's a good question. Um I don't think it explicitly says no, but I' I'd have to talk with the building department about that. Okay. Member Perry, if you don't mind, thank you very much for these drawings. These these are excellent. Um, I did want to ask about the landing just for for direction. I think what we drafted into the code was a six-foot width or the Florida building code requirement, whichever is greater. When you were talking about the landing side needs size needs to be fleshed out. Were you referring more to the depth or is there more work to be done on the width as well?

Well, I think the the width is pretty much done. I think the depth probably needs to be talked about. But if you if you look at the at the code, I think it does talk a lot about the width. And you and here you also mentioned the width. Um, are you talking about depth as it how far it comes out from the house into the right because one of the things I I have that I want to talk about is um and I I'll let you finish um like when it talks about um I've got all my stuff written going into the front setback um what page

well I I should probably just start at the beginning if it's my turn because otherwise I'll be jumping all around but um okay so um the first question I had I think is a very simple one it's on page nine of 24 and I must be just not thinking clearly but um if you go where it says number one reduce setbacks for stair for stairs both associated with and disassociated with substantial improvement So to me that is everything. Is that am I reading that correctly?

Correct. We have the standards in 3.10 that would apply to non-conforming structures that are elevated. The 6.22 standards would apply to all residences as as drafted. Okay. It just it to me I got a little confused when I read that. So I don't know if there's a way to make it any clearer. Is that in the agenda cover sheet? It is. Yes. The agenda. You're taking the agenda packet and you're telling the page number that's on the bottom of the download for the whole agenda packet cuz some people download and print by sections, right? So, everyone were on the PD the complete PDF of the packet download. So, Brandon, the new any new builds would be afforded the same flexibility with staircases.

It's it's not as flexible. The 6.22 22 standards would apply and they currently apply to new builds as well as non-conforming structures, but in most cases 3.10 would be beneficial for those homes that don't currently meet the setback and they're being elevated. Um, those standards would would prevail in most cases. So,

okay. So, um, the next thing that I was talking about was on page 11 of 24, which is the ordinance. And I was getting confused about the elevated residence and the newly constructed, which I I believe the newly constructed is in the is in section six and the other is in the section three. Um, but I was very concerned about some of the stuff in section six. Um, I I didn't know why we're bringing in so much new construction and and maybe we can talk about that when we get there, but it's almost like at that point, why have any setbacks defined at all? Um, because we're basically undoing um and and for new builds, there is a lot more design flexibility. Um, okay. So, let me see these unintended consequences. And the other thing is some of the other places and I know we've had mixed uses on this, but I know like in the minutes it it specifically says that we were looking we weren't looking at new builds. So there's some conflicts in here, but things may have changed since the minutes were done. Um, okay. If we if we go to page um 14 of 24 and 15 of 24, I have um several things. Um, one is on the 14 of 24. I know you were trying to underline any changes,

but um, there was some inconsistency in that. So, like if you look at um, 3.1, the number two in parentheses at the bottom of the page, I think except as provided in subsection 3D below, I think that was supposed to be un underlined. And so I was getting confused because there were things like that where I couldn't tell if it was old or new. So um please forgive some of my questions if they're pretty obvious. No, please point those out when you see them.

Um the next page 15 of uh 24. Um I believe when it says on a 3A the structure may be moved vertically only such lowest habitable floors elevated above the required design flood elevation. I believe that's a minimum. So if I wanted to go as long as I didn't hit the building height the maximum height if I wanted to go I don't know four feet above the flood I could do that.

You could. Yes. And so I I thought somewhere in there we might want to say that it's a minimum um to make that clear. Um, another thing I I agree, you know, if if you're especially if you're in an AE zone, making a garage makes a lot of sense. But one of the things I questioned, and this is something I brought up before, it says um, may be converted to parking, storage, and building access if in compliance with the structured flood zone, and habitable floors were reconstructed in the same footprint and the same floor height as the existing habitable floors. So, I hope in your packet um there's a page that looks like this, Jenny. It's got a blue um banner on it. And and I brought this up before. So, if you look under the This is St. Pete Beach, Florida Code, August 19th. It's current. It is under chapter 106 flood control and it's section 106-54 single family homes and duplexes. And if you go down to letter four, it says there shall be no fill used as structural support higher than 16 in above the crown in the road with the exception that the interior of stem wall construction may be filled. And so when I read this on page 15 to 24 and it says it has to be the same floor height as the existing habitable floor, that takes away the ability of somebody that's raising their house to put a stem wall in because they've got to put new walls to hold the house anyway and be able to raise their garage. And I know so many people that had their cars flooded and if they had been able to put the stem wall and put, you know, do do this. So, they're keeping their water on their own property.

Um, they wouldn't have lost had so much damage. So, I don't know why if somebody's raising their house, they would they not have the same opportunity as somebody building a house to put in a step stem wall and raise their garage.

So, they they definitely can. And this was everything on this page with the exception of making the um sub items lowercase was passed late last year or exists in the code previously was just amended. But the reason for that standard was and we don't want to go too far in one direction because it's very hard to walk it back. If someone has an eight or nine foot floor height and they choose to instead of elevating they choose to convert that level to parking storage and access which is allowed by the flood plane codes and then rebuild above they would be limited to that floor height. It's it's it's only for homes that are non-conforming to the setbacks. If someone conforms if their home conforms to the setbacks they're not subject to that limitation. So,

so, so then we basically are forcing them to be lower than what they could possibly be in in that case potentially. Um, I have seen one project where they did abandon the lower level. They reestablish the living level above, but they added on three or four feet to that lower level, and that would be permitted the same as if someone elevated in place. Some homeowners don't have the ability to elevate their homes,

right? And I understand there's the maximum height and there's other things, but I guess what I would like to see out of here is the requirement that that has to be at the same floor height because I believe as people are going through the work of raising their homes and trying to do things to be more resilient within, you know, the code, they should be able to raise their floors a little bit if they want to. I don't see the harm. And so I'm trying to understand why we wouldn't let them do that. I think the well the logic at the time and again we we hadn't really seen many of these cases then we've seen a lot more now is that um it's to prevent significant o you know overages above what is existing today the same way that somebody could elevate in place they would retain that same floor height um somebody who's abandoning and rebuilding would keep the 8 foot or the 9 foot floor height they have now instead of going to something much higher. Um, I understand the concern that we just, you know, especially back then, we didn't really know the issues we were going to be facing. So, that was the logic.

So, so I understand that we are a lot smarter now that we've been through a couple of big storms. Um, so is there a way to adjust this now to take this out so that they have the same they can follow this same code as someone who is building new? And I realize there's a lot of other variables and parameters, but I don't know why we would just tell them they have to be at the same floor level in the garage.

We can we can absolutely modify that. That's not a building code limitation. That's entirely zoning as long as they're out of the flood plane. The building code would be fine with that. And as you pointed out, um the height would still be limited to the zoning district height. So it wouldn't change anything. I the the logic for that was just if somebody had a you know 8 foot ceiling height and they're at a three-foot setback from the property line where they need to be at seven they can at least preserve and go up but building back you know a floor height of 11 ft you know something substantially higher than what they had today um was something we just didn't want to allow at that time not knowing how many of these cases we would have and it's it's actually not as frequent as I thought it would be we get maybe a handful of them um a lot just elevate in place. But um we can certainly look at changing that if the board agrees.

Yeah, I certainly agree with that. It it's actually written in a confusing way because it it says in the same footprint and the same floor height as the existing habitable floor above, which makes no sense uh because it's obviously not at the same height as a floor above. Yeah, I was just referring to the floor height. So that's you know se ceiling a floor height of of 8 feet. But I I see what you're saying. We can make that clear. Ratio. Mhm. Okay. Go ahead.

Well, I think um also the the paragraph after that where it talks about the VE and the coastal and then it talks about the AE. Um that whole section is kind of wobbled. So, um I definitely think if if you wanted to clean that up, there's an opportunity in there to to straighten it out a little bit. Um okay. say the same ceiling to floor height. Well, I think that's something we're looking at potentially removing. So, it we would is the board in consensus that we would remove the ceiling to floor height as a limiter for those residences where the living level is being reconstructed above the converted. Yeah, I Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. If you want 10 foot ceilings on your livable floor and 9 ft on the lower floor so you can get that floor height higher, that sounds perfect. I think I think building code handles most of the inconsistencies too that that would arise from this. As long as someone's not digging under to make a deeper garage if they raise their house six feet. Mhm. But I don't think anyone would want to do that. I don't know how it would help.

Um okay. If we go on to page 16 of 24 and um I'm on letter E and then there's a little I, two little eyes, three little eyes, three little eyes, and then a four. So I don't think double three little eyes, right? There are double three little eyes.

Um but the thing I I really wanted to talk about in here. Um so in the in the second three little eye, it talks about the stairs project from the front of the residence encroach. no closer than 10 ft to the front property line. And one of the things that um I was trying to show in the in the stair drawing is that you can do quite a bit um without having to go 10 ft uh to the property line. It's seven would do it. So, um, actually, you know, if you look at the the top one, it's the stairs are 6' 6 in over to the right. On the top one, that's 10 foot above grade. In this particular example,

building, it's it's 6' 6 in from the house. Um, and on the bottom one, which was where the stairs didn't go all the way across, but they went and turned and came back on on the second drawing, that one is six feet from the house. So, as far as going into the um why I don't understand why we need 10 ft to the property line, and I know there's many ways to draw this, but that was where my question came from. This is this is saying no closer than 10 ft to the property line. So, six is fine and 10 is fine. You just can't go more than 10, right? But, um this is 6 feet six from the building, right? Not from the property line, right?

Where's the property line? Well, there there isn't really a property line on here. It was just to show that you could fit stairs in without having to go out 10 feet. Okay. The 10 feet I think was from the property line,

right? That that is a minimum. But to your point, um section 6.22, and that was for new construction, regardless of which direction we go with that, that was an actual projection off the front of the home because that's based on a current setback standard. this if we were looking at potentially a 7 foot projection standard not to be less than 10 feet that would address both the minimum setback as well as making sure that there is sufficient space for the for the two rows of stairs. Um so potentially we could consider something like that a 7 foot projection not to be less than 10 ft if if the board's amendable to that.

Yeah. So, I I think we should whatever we do, we should allow the homeowners, you know, some flexibility in the type of stairway they want to have, too. I mean, I understand we can we can, you know, come up with stair stairway designs that keep everything so jammed up against the house, but, you know, kind of goes back to the balcony discussion. you know, folks are raising their homes proactively for whatever whatever reason, all good reasons. They still want a home that they, you know, are are proud of living in and, you know, like the design. And I think it's it's more their like than what other people might like, right? And I think that we got to give them enough flexibility because we've because they're having to go up. We have to give them some leeway and flexibility on some design stuff so that they're happy with their home. We we would all come up with different designs for staircases or balconies or what have you if given the choice on any particular home because we all have different styles. allowing them to do something but then doesn't as long as it doesn't you know impede on fire safety or

you know some other issues I I think that's that's where I'm getting and and I hear you and I appreciate that and I think um some of the other drawings I've done for example a lot of times it it will influence where cars can park for example

and so um you start running in unintended consequences So I I just think we should always be thoughtful when we're when we're changing something and and quite frankly most of the people in the city have built to these you know codes without you know much issue. So I hear what you're saying and I again I think we don't want to just open Pandora's box. We want to be thoughtful and at this broad level you can't look at every consequence. So that's why I think we have the board of adjustments. So, I just think we need to be thoughtful.

Is is there a situation where we've got a non-conforming property that non-conforming structure that is at 10 ft from the property line? So, that this would prohibit them from adding stairs at all.

Not 10 ft, but I'm aware of a few. One of which went to the board of adjustment where they were, I believe, at 12 feet. So, and and to to member Perry's point, we we won't capture every single situation. There are many properties that we couldn't write standards for in any reasonable way that need to go to the board of adjustment, but the intent of this was to really get maybe 70 to 80% of the ones that we see on a regular basis. And I I certainly think we could add in a maximum projection off the front of the building standard. So those homes that are at 20 ft where they need to put two rows of stairs up and you know they can comply with a 13t setback instead of a 10, that would be what they would be limited to. Um if that's something the board would would like to consider.

How do you feel about that? I I think we're looking for a solution. So I think you know Yeah, I I would be okay with that. Something protrusion of the house measurement as opposed to SFA. Yeah. Yeah. And and one of the other things, Brandon, on this um I looked at this section and also 6.22 on page um 22 of 24. Mhm.

And I wasn't clear that um these two sections I know this one references 6.22, but I'm not sure they all match. Um because when you get down to section 2.2 two letter one and then you go into stairs. Um earlier we were talking about um three feet on page 16 to 24 here it says 2 feet and I thought in your presentation you were talking about 3 feet. So I I think there's some um inconsistencies perhaps or maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Well with with 6.22C1 22c1 um open stairs are allowed to encroach three feet provided that they're not set back less than two feet. Is that

okay? I know. I know. I was listening to the commission meeting and one of the commissioners, I can't remember who it was, but she said something to the effect about having someone's stairs come like within stopping within 2T of her property and that was uncomfortable or, you know, somebody could have a window there or, you know, I mean, again, I think to to me back to the quality of life, if if your neighbor is going to be, you know, basically having to walk through your, you know, yard to get to their place. I mean, it's just, it can be a little uncomfortable. So, that's what I was asking about that because it is a quality of life for everyone. Okay. Um, the next thing I had was on page 18, I think, of 24. And when we were talking like at the bottom of page 8 on on um 18 to 24 it it's number one at the very bottom it says any non-conforming shall be brought into conformity with regulations whenever the accessory structure is substantially improved. And I started trying to remember where I had ever seen like an SI or an SD on an ancillary structure. So, I didn't know how that was determined and I kind of was looking for some clarification because I I haven't seen a way that you can do a separate SI and SD on like a stand garage or something.

So, it won't be a FEMA certification. It won't be something that's, you know, part of the appraisal in most cases, but we will get estimates and we see it frequently for signs that are non-conforming. we do get an independent estimate to determine whether it passes that threshold and it's not just looking at it from a flood plane standpoint. Um we will be looking at the actual depreciated value as as defined. Did you need a minute? Um yeah, if the the board's amendable, could we take a quick fivem minute intermission? Okay, thank you.

back on page 18 of 24 and 19 of 24. Um we were talking about um number one substantially improved and I just to me I thought it was confusing when I saw substantially improved um or substantial damage because I immediately went to the FEMA definitions. So, I don't know if there's a way to to make that clear because even if you go down on um 19 to 24 at number A, the accessory structure is a deck cover, gazebo, or pool that does not sustain substantial damage and is not proposed to be substantially improved in conjunction with the primary structure. So, that's part of the reason I was saying, gee, do we have an SISD on a um ancillary structure? Okay. Now, um, also on page 18, where was it? No, there was a

There is an AB. Oh, I I lied. It's back on page 18024 and it's number six. Um, and it says, "Permits to rebuild under these provisions shall be obtained within one year of the catastrophic loss." And I know that we're trying to rush this because we want to help people as much as we can right now. So I'm assuming that this whenever this goes forward, there's going to be a request for an extension or somehow some process um associated with that.

Correct. Yes. And we've had multiple homeowners and that that is specifically to those homeowners who have a non-conforming number of units that want to redevelop. The only change there was to bring it into compliance with our current code, which is a requirement for design flood instead of base flood. But we we're aware there's going to need to be some declaration to extend. So,

okay. All right. On page 19 of 24, um, if we go down to the letter F at the bottom of the page, it says repairs and maintenance maintaining safe condition. It says repairs and maintenance of non-conforming structs are permitted. And I didn't know if that meant you needed a permit or if that meant they were allowed because on the next page you have something about placement of reg storage building shall require a building permit. So my permitting is getting confused. Okay, I we could change that. I understand.

Okay. Um Okay, let's see. Okay. Okay. And then we already talked a little bit about 6.1.3 where um we're we're talking about new construction in this whole section. I believe um some of this I just I again I think about making sure we think about unintended consequences. Um, if we go to page 22 of 24, um, towards the top of the page, there's a number one. And it says, "The bottom of the equipment shall be elevated no higher than one foot above the structures lowest floor." And I was trying to determine if you meant the lowest living floor or the

Yes, that's um that's a flood plane term. And the lowest floor for rating purposes typically follows that is um the lowest living floor. Okay. I I don't know that most people would know that reading. I was like, is it garage floor or is it the low? Especially if we're talking about a place that's up high. Um the next one I had is number five. The top of the equipment shall not exceed the height of the ridge roof of the structure to which it is attached or associated. And um this goes to your point. A lot of people are putting these things on top of their roof, so they're definitely above the ridge line.

And the only this would only apply to that equipment that is located within a required setback. They can certainly put it on their roof if they wanted, but this would be for that equipment that doesn't currently conform with the code setback. They would be able to elevate in place. Okay, thank you for that.

Okay, let me see here. Okay. And then we already talked about um the two and three feet. So I think um may encroach up to seven feet required front yard provided stairs no closer than two feet. So here's here is 7 feet and here's 2 feet. So again I was just trying to tick and tie all the all the different footages and we don't really talk too much about the side property line. In some places we say it has to be a minimum all the way around, but um in other places we don't talk about the side set back. So I just wanted to to point that out to see if there was any um places where that might need to be clarified.

Well, the so the purpose with this was not to allow any additional encroachment into the side or the rear, although we did talk about potentially adding um the balconies into the rear, which I'll bring back. Um, this was specifically for the front property encroachment. So the side, even if it were to be open with an open base, the side setback encroachment allowed would still only be 3 feet. That that would not change. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

So just and this this is a major item. We'll probably take this forward to the city commission next week just to give them the initial feedback, keep it as a discussion item and then bring that back to this board. Thank you all for the feedback. But is it the consensus of the board or um are there differing opinions on the elements of this that apply to new construction? Um what are your thoughts on the additional stair encroachments for new construction? And I guess storage buildings would apply as well. That would be a new construction permission.

My my thought on new construction is I don't know why you need it because you can design to meet the code. And if we open it up to new construction without any kind of parameter, then we don't have a code. It's open to everybody. And I I I worry about unintended consequences. And you know, we built a house here several years ago. We did things within the code. I mean, that's what we had to do. And I still think we have a fine house. Sure you do. I would agree. I just want to ask the question like, why are you even asking the question?

So, this this was an addition since the la the last discussion we had on this with the planning board. Um, we were not talking about new construction. We were talking only about elevation and reconstruction. um getting homes up to a minimum flood plane uh standard. It was added on to the commission and the reason why I came forward with seven feet was because that is and and member Perry, you showed how it could be accommodated with less than that, but we do have property owners who in redeveloping have expressed an interest in having a landing. uh 12 feet is where it kicks in, but we've heard even less than that just for various access purposes. They they want a landing on their stairs. And if they build the home at 20 ft, having that projection, it's either one run of stairs at 3 ft wide or with the landing, they're at 6 to 7 feet in in depth off the front of that structure. So accommodating a landing at the front would require they set the front of the home back further than the minimum setback required by the code. you know, maybe that's what they have to do. Um, but that's why that was was brought forward and that's part of the discussion we had with the commission. So, I think that new builds have have enough parameters to work with in the front for staircases from the designs I've worked on and seen.

Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement with that as well. Mhm. Thank you. See, did you have any items? So, are we comfortable with a motion? We need a recap kind of the changes are for Brandon's. Yeah. Brandon, are you comfortable with a motion to approve with suggested changes that if if you don't I just like to go through the suggested changes first. I'll try to

Yeah.

So, we would look at just starting at the top of the list and going down. We would look at allowing additional balcony encroachments into the rear yard when they're in the same footprint. Um, same enclosure as the balcony that was existing prior to elevation. Um, we need to look at the depth of the landing that is permitted. It looks like the stairs can be accommodated with a little bit less than seven feet, but that is a standard we're likely I'm going to look likely look at moving forward. Again, currently 7 ft is the allowed encroachment for new home stairs. I'm going to look at removing that. We are not looking at new homes. Um it's the recommendation of the board that we only address those homes that are being elevated or reconstructed. It would be a 7 foot projection maximum off the front of the home, minimum five- foot setback for homes in most areas of the city. In passil it would be five feet minimum setback 7 foot projection. We need to talk about um we need to better define uh what a mechanical equipment is in the context of storage buildings. Um there were some scribers errors that need to be corrected related to um repetition of sub items. We need to fix the language in the agenda packet. um the language about um stairs associated with and disassociated with which is changing anyway because we are not looking at new construction based on the recommendation. Um we're looking at making sure that the language on page 14 of the packet which pertains to non-conforming structures is consistent with what is currently in the code. just making sure that none of the language that's shown on your packet page 14 um was amended under these under this

current ordinance um without being noted as such. Looking at page 15, we need to better clarify that elevation above the flood plane above the design flood is a minimum. It's not a requirement. Uh we are looking at rem removing the same floor height limitation for those homeowners who choose to abandon the first level, turn it into parking, storage and access and reconstruct the living level above. If they had a 8 foot floor height previously um ceiling floor to ceiling height, uh they could go to 9 or 10 if they desired as long as they're compliant with the height limitation for the zoning district. Uh there's some cleanup that needs to be done in the seceding section. There were a few pages where we um repeated the three I's and then uh I believe on the following page there was a B repeated as well. Um we are looking again at the maximum 7 foot front extension um in section 3.10 look at the um use of the term substantial improvement and substantial damage throughout the code to make sure that it is clarifies that it's not just a flood plane requirement. and it applies to accessory ancillary structures as well. Um the bottom of page nine of the amendments, which is page 19 of your packet, um change to allow that repair and maintenance of non-conforming structures are allowed or something that's not related to building permits. And then top of page 22, um we need to change that to lowest living floor, some other language that is clearer. And then um just just to repeat, um new homes we are is is recommended by the board would not be allowed the additional stair encroachments that are proposed. So that uh section 6.22 would be stricken and

some parts of that would be moved into 310, the openness requirements. and so on. Does that does that appear to cover everything? I have just a quick follow question. What what's the purpose for the pass exception again? Just provide their their setbacks are naturally less. Um they're pass proper. Is that Vena as well? That's only pass. Vina has a 20 foot front setback. Pass is usually 10. So Okay. Thank you. And then in uh it was 6.22G you were going to attempt to strike Culdeac. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Um and this is in 6.14 and 6 Yeah, I think it's just 6.14 and 6.22. There are a few instances of stricken language that had yard setback and then the replacement language just said yard. So I I think that was just left off. You had said 6.22 and the 6.14. Thank you. For example, 6.14D, the the new D um encroaches into a required yard versus yard setback.

Thank you. Okay. Does that cover everyone's concerns? Okay. Yeah. All right. Do I have a what would be a motion to approve a the modifications that we discussed? I move that we approve with the modifications just outlined. Can I have a second, please? Second. Roll call. Member Grokott. Yes. Member Izzy. Yes. Member Perry. Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes.

Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Uh that concludes the local planning agency business. So we will adjourn as a local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board. So we are on to discussion item 5A October 9th town center. Thank you, chair. A short presentation. This is a follow-up presentation to a forum we had on the 9th. I know we had at least one member present. If we can get that PowerPoint pulled up. So, this was uh just a week and a half ago. On Thursday, October 9th, we met with property owners, local residents, and business owners to discuss the Town Center 2 Cookina West District. Just like the east side um which has um formed in Corey Landings, the TC2 West currently promotes large block level parcel assemblage that has not been realized um as it has for the Corey Landings property. The effort that we are undertaking is intended to address short and medium-term code permissions for redevelopment. It does not address the more significant visioning um that also accompanies these efforts. is type of visioning the city undertook in the mid 2000s, early 2010s um to generate a vision and um and that the policies for these areas. We're looking really at at short and medium-term code modifications, trying to be respectful that there may be future efforts, whether it's a comprehensive plan re-evaluation, um moving forward with a community redevelopment agency, should that be addressed by the commission? um any any potential um amendments that could come forward based on the area being being considered a historic district. These are things we're going to try to be respectful of in these amendments, but we're really looking more at the zoning

and the land use as it relates to development potential at that on that side of uh the town center district. So, we've identified a few challenges. Um several others were brought up at the meeting. The first is that the area currently has a horizontal mix of uses. Vertical is the development type that is preferred. Again, looking at the lot areas, the the acreages of each of those blocks at the time when this was being put together in the mid 2000s, early 2010s. The vision was that each of these blocks would be purchased. They would be redeveloped as one large 7 to eightstory redevelopment project. um you would have the commercial, the office, the restaurants down at the ground level. Above that would be lodging or residential. That has not come to fruition on this west side at at this point in time. I believe several years ago there was a proposal for a less than one full block um redevelopment that that never took hold and and we haven't seen it since. Um there are significant setbacks and buffering requirements for commercial adjacent to standalone residential. So that is a challenge we're going to have to address if we move forward with any kind of code amendments. Currently, these are lots that have between 80 and 110 ft in depth. The code requires for commercial that is adjacent to residential, especially single and two family residential. The setback is 30 to 35 ft. In some instances, there's very significant buffer requirements. So, if this is an area where the city would like to preserve commercial, we do need to be respectful of that. For anything that we allow over and above what the code currently provides for, we need to make sure that those commercial developments can continue to thrive. Um, we can continue to see that that horizontal mix if that's something that is desired. Um, this district and why we're bringing this forward to look at to begin with is that there is a very large concentration

of non-conforming standalone residential and lodging. Currently, this district and as we talked about in the uh proceeding item, the city is very strict when it comes to standalone non-conforming uses. They cannot be added on to, they cannot be redeveloped, they can't be elevated, substantially improved. It's not just a flood plane issue, it's a use issue. So, once they pass that threshold, they can elevate the building, but they can't have the residence in anymore based on the current standard. So we have a large number of those in this area, particularly on the south side of 76th, on the north side of 73rd. The vast majority of those properties are standalone residential or lodging uses. Um so they may be um compatible with what's across the street, but they're not compatible with the with the zoning. So that's something we need to uh be careful with. And we also need to look at if the desire of the community is to still see those large block level mixeduse projects, allowing one property on a block to redevelop is likely to preclude them unless we lower the acreage thresholds. We look at ensuring that these large developments could still be um could still be conforming with and still um be able to be developed with a parcel or two on the block um missing. So you can see here, this is a map similar to what we presented last week. I did update one of these properties based on the feedback I received at the meeting, but you can see that there really is a horizontal use mix in this area facing um 76th Avenue facing 73rd. You do see primarily residential. There is one property in the middle of 76th that is licensed as a lodging, but it's my understanding it's being used for longerterm uh residential. But this district got to the town center in a few

different ways. Those properties that face south and face north had previously been zoned for residential. Those properties toward the center where you do actually see a a significant um density of commercial uses. Those had originally been developed as commercial and they were zoned as commercial going back decades and decades. Some of them preceded city zoning but they've been used that way um for a very long time. The properties that face towards 76th and towards 73rd had previously had a residential zoning which is likely why you see that mix that that we have today. So, what we heard from the meeting, this didn't cover every single issue, but it looked really at what we're we're looking at moving forward, is that there did seem to be some consensus on allowing for redevelopment. There was interest in seeing redevelopment in that area of the city. There were concerns about um well, there was interest in having flood plane compliant buildings and a beautified streetscape. Some of those um embellishments that come along with redevelopment. there was a desire to allow for multifamily development without mixed use or full block consolidation. So that's again getting into the future land use getting into the zoning of the properties. There did seem to be not consensus we didn't poll but there did seem to be interest among those who spoke at the meeting that there would be allowed that a multifamily development type um that is not currently allowed under the code. That is particularly the case where residential faces across um the street from standalone residential that is currently allowed under our codes to be residential. Those would be the properties um on the south side of 76th, the north side of 73rd avenues. There did seem to be some interest in reconsidering height and number of floors. Um that would be for the standalone developments. Currently the commercial projects can be up to three stories tall. Um the residential projects are only allowed as part of the

mixed use and they would be allowed to be three to four floors in height, but for any kind of standalone residential, there was interest in keeping it at a lower height than what the code would currently allow for those mixeduse projects, looking more at the three to four floor range. So 30 to 40 ft in height at at maximum. There was still interest um in preserving and allowing for commercial development. the there was not any interest expressed that I heard um on disallowing commercial development or phasing that out. Um they did want to see that horizontal mix um and allowing for multi- multi-tenant uh commercial developments if possible. Looking at something, one of the examples brought up was a uh a smaller John's pass. There were concerns about rooftop uses adjacent to residential, but one of the comments brought up at the meeting and I believe they were a residential property owner is that there is an understanding that some of those buffering and setback requirements may need to be waved to preserve that commercial character if this is something that we look at moving forward on um we might need to address those rooftop uses where a landsc landscape buffer or um a greater setback wouldn't necessarily help in in a significant regard. But in terms of a retail use or restaurant use and enclosed space adjacent to residential, there was some understanding that we would likely need to to look at reducing those buffers in this area. We did hear from one commercial property owner. I don't believe they owned property within the TC2, but it it likely applies here as well. Um they just had a disinterest in redeveloping any kind of backrade commercial. The flood plane permissions allow for flood proofing for commercial structures, office structures that are built at grade, but just from a insurance standpoint in terms of resiliency for that property owner, they did not have any interest in developing accessible atgrade commercial development. Um, even with the Corey Landings project, what we're seeing is

that they're not elevating a full story, but they are going above the flood plane with the commercial development that they're undertaking. So um that is you know we haven't seen a lot of at grade development um of commercial in the city and at least among the recent projects we have seen some degree of elevation to them. Is multif family allowed to be at grade?

It's not no it's the same for lodging. Lodging also cannot be developed at grade. Um speaking of which there was some interest in allowing development to or sorry lodging to remain and redevelop. We have the Bellis Arena in. We have the project that is now being used for longerterm rentals, but they maintain that lodging license on the south side of 76th Avenue. There was interest in allowing those lodging properties to redevelop. I did meet with the Bellis Arena uh property owners right after the storm, and that was something they expressed to me. They would like to look at elevating just getting their structure out of the flood plane, which is currently not permitted based on the based on the non-conforming use standards. We recognize, and this was reiterated at the meeting, the district does face unique pressures due to the extent of damage nonconformities. There's really nowhere else in the city that has this use mix where you don't see the vertical mixed use. You see the horizontal. We do have areas of Pastor Gril, particularly around 8th Avenue, but that still has that vertical mix in certain areas. We don't we don't really have that, and we haven't seen that here along uh 75th Avenue and Corey in the town center, too. There were some items that were brought up that really fall under a more long-term visioning process, particularly a community redevelopment area if that's something that the city chooses to move forward on. Looking at one-way streets west of Gulf Boulevard, relocating the street or public space to be along the waterfront. These were items that were brought up at the meeting. Um they they maybe extend a little bit past what we're looking at in this phase, but it's certainly something we can look at in the future. So just talking about next steps, this is going to be a little bit more involved of a process. It's not as simple as putting an ordinance together, making the modifications, and taking it forward. Um, we are going to present the meeting outcomes to the city commission with the concept ideas in November. I believe we may only have one meeting, so that'll likely be the first meeting in November. After that, we will engage

with our county partners with Ford Penllis. Penellis is a relatively unusual county. Um, we have both our local comprehensive plan that always goes to the state, but we also have the countywide rules. And in this area, we have what is known as an activity center, not our zoning activity center. It's an actual designation the county institutes. And that allows us to have more flexibility in land use and zoning than we would be allowed under a typical zoning code. We will have to likely amend that in order to be able to move these comprehensive plan amendments forward. So it'll be both the zoning code, it'll be the comprehensive plan, it'll be our special area plan through the county. We're projecting that once we have consensus on direction, the process is likely to be about four to six months. Of course, we'll be bringing drafts and concepts back to the planning board. Um, but we will need to go through our local hearings, our county hearings, and we do provide for up to three months for state review. They get up to nu. So based on that, um, I just wanted to share where we were at. Um, like I mentioned, I know we we had at least one member present. If you have any feedback or any feedback on what I just presented, generally be happy to hear it.

I thought that it the meeting went extremely well. Um, the people were very happy to have an opportunity to speak and you know, I I just think it was very well done and I think the outcome was positive. Okay. Thank you. So did did you get the feeling a lot of the people there were owners in that?

Yes, definitely. And they definitely understood the issues and they also were talking about possible solutions and um I think it was a very good dialogue. It's that's a tough district. I I mean it seems ideal for multifamily and then I know as soon as you put a multifamily unit right behind Toasted Bunky the complaints about noise are going to start rolling in. Um what what kind of feedback did the commercial owners have? Did they want to convert from commercial to something else?

We didn't hear any of that. Um there were not many commercial owners that operated active uses. Um I believe the owner of the storage buildings was present. Um and they were they were listening. They gave great feedback. It was just not related to uh the restaurant uses. But um it's there there was a recognition I believe there were two comments made that the good thing about allowing standalone residential is that making it more permissive. You can you can agree to some stipulations that reduce the buffers, reduce the um you know demands and requirements for the commercial because it's not currently allowed. Um, that's something we can work through. We are going to really need to get down to the parcel level on some of those because we of course do have the commercial uses, but there's a possibility in the future that a commercial use gets developed right next to a single family home and we need to address how that's going to be handled. But I think moving forward staff would agree with what we heard at the meeting which was to allow multifamily specifically. um a lot of our buffer requirements and and just noise limitations and performance standards are lower for multif family than they are for commercial uh for single family. So

okay yeah that was kind of like a transition you know the expectations are different so it was like a transition from the commercial Yeah

to the multi to the single. Yeah, I I think that makes sense. If if there was a high desire for commercial there, several of those lots would be getting built on right now and and just like Cory Landings, it's sat there. Um so, but Terry, I think you brought up or voiced a little frustration or concern at one of the meetings about the vision for the town center couple meetings ago and and I it's something that I agree with and I felt so feedback from me for the commission would be I mean we could keep having all these discussions but until we readress the vision of what we want St. Pete Beach to look like in in the all the various districts then it's it's just you know we'll go through this spinning our wheel about what people think have meetings and town halls and we get but ultimately what is the vision right and the vision needs to be updated because that's where you start right you start with a solid vision that may may not everybody may not agree upon but it needs to be the vision Um, and then you can move forward. Right. Right now, I think, you know, it's just we're going to keep spinning wheels on things because there's no clear vision um out there or there's a lot of confusion over what the vision should be. So, I I thought it was well said the other night by you.

Any other comments? Okay. Next discussion item 5B is member Perry's questions about the state update on Phil. So we've started to engage with them. I did have our first discussion last week and a lot of that is land development code updates but we are talking about Phil from my understanding and my manager might be able to correct me on this but I believe that the city commission is going to be scheduling a discussion on Phil as part of their um strategic visioning. So that's something we're going to have more direction on. We are still going to engage with the state. I just I haven't had a chance to talk with them yet. So Well, thank you.

Okay. And discussion 5C, member Grocott had questions about density pool. Yes. So on the um September 15th, uh the draft report um for the valuation um was expected. I was just wondering where we were with that. Um I know we were going forward with that that first phase of that study. Have we received the results of that?

We are meeting with him on Thursday. Um what we've gotten so far is not the actual real estate analysis and if we ever have that done, we we don't know. That'll be part of the purpose of the discussion. But what we introduced and what we discussed about the Corey Landings project last week was um some of the other communities that do expect some return on value some fee and loo um in exchange for density units whether it's a basis of zoning or whether it's from an actual pool. Um it's it's very very challenging to find another community that both has a pool is our size and has the limit on the number of units there. I I haven't found anything countywide and neither did the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council that really gets at what we're looking at here. There are comparable communities, but a lot of them promote affordable housing. Our our range of benefits are a little bit more extensive, although we do have workforce housing as a um as a potential benefit of a project. So, um we're going to be engaging with them on Thursday and I'll hopefully have and I'll make sure to add to the agenda for for next month.

A question. So is staff's done the research and and looked for compatible communities and are unable to to identify one. Is there a reason? I mean do you there's a reason why there's not a compatible?

So I think a lot of communities and this is really throughout the country. Um I mean we've looked as far out as Seattle and they have a zoning density bonus but it's not a pool. It's um certain communities will have a bonus where if you provide a certain square footage of a desired commercial type or make certain streetscape improvements, they will allow for a bonus up to a certain rate. In some cases, they have a fee in loo um where it may not be possible to provide them right in front of the project site, but they could pay into a fund that's used in the vicinity. Um, Clearwater has a pool, but it's I think 12 times ours. So, it's just and they also have other bonuses that can be achieved. So, um, we're obviously, you know, it's there there aren't many communities that have a density pool that face the flood plane limitations that we do and and some of the um, you know, the state limitations and it's just the confluence of all of those makes it a challenge to find it comparable. Were there any lessons learned from looking at other how other communities are doing it with like the bonus versus the pool or

um I think Tampa gave fairly good guidance when it came to how do we actually value these projects and I think we're looking we're not looking at a particular project we're looking at something portable for any development that utilizes the density pool um it could be extended to the lodging projects as well but what is the actual reasonable return on benefits It's recognizing that some developments are not going to be luxury projects. Some might be median income focused projects that the city still finds to be desirable if it were workforce housing if that's something we would like to see in a development. Um how do we value those projects and looking at how other communities have already gone through the process of defining where do we get these values from? what percentage of the project, you know, many communities look at the bonus intensity or density and they take some portion of that instead of looking at the project as a whole. Um, things like that are useful and as we get more into the weeds on it, we'll um, you know, we'll have better direction than that.

Did we arrive at having a pool because of some type of critical limit we were attempting to avoid hitting? So the large resort district originally allowed 18 residential units per acre and we reduced that to 15. So that balance of 195 is where that pool came from. Okay. The other pools the county was a little bit more permissive on at the time and we allowed those largely for redevelopment looking at existing density. So okay any questions? Okay. This uh meeting is adjourned. Thank you.