Everybody good? We good? All right. It's uh 6:00 6:01 officially. Call the meeting order. All right. So, uh please call the role. >> Chairman Wyoff. >> Mhm.
>> Chairman Cloud. Sorry, >> Commissioner Cloud. >> Commissioner Holloway >> here. >> Commissioner Noble, >> Commissioner Connelly, Commissioner Maher >> here.
>> Commissioner Laroo >> here. >> Thank you. >> All right, we squeaked in with a quorum. Great. Uh, public comment. Seeing nobody here, I'm going to skip the whole public comment deal. Um, we need a motion to approve the minutes that you received in
your package. >> Motion to approve the Jol uh June meeting minutes. >> Thank you. Anybody second that? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Please call the role. >> Commissioner Laroo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maher,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Holloway, >> yes. >> Chairman Wuff, >> that would be me. Yes. We're all good. All right. The minutes are approved. So, under new business, we have uh item A, resolution 2026. 2026-06,
the moratorium on the collection of mobility fee and Kimley Horn impact fee evaluation. >> Yes. And to clarify, I I should have probably made two separate memos because the the uh the I mean both are related,
but the and when you guys do the motion just Yeah. The Kimley Horde impact fee evaluation thing is separate thing. I just wanted to make sure they include it as a discussion but it does relate to this. So basically this resolution continues the current moratorum we have on the collection of our local mobility
fee and uh we that we did last year um because um let me pull up the memo real fast. Um, per Florida statutes uh 163.31805J, a developer may not be charged twice for
the same transportation impact. Um, with the exception of an air local agreement between the city and the county to coordinate the administration of the county's multimotal impact fee is critical to evaluate whether the continued collection of the city's local mobility impact fee results in an overlapping charge. So basically the
board hired uh Kimley Horn to uh evaluate our our fee versus the um counties um and uh they said there's was a potential uh conflict between them and uh so we would continue so this
resolution that's going to the board would continue the moratorum and then city staff would work on how to unwind our our local uh mobility fee. because that could that will most likely involve a comp plan amendment and a um an LDR
amendment. So that'll take time to do. So that's why we're giving ourselves another year of the work on that. um the benefit. So right now we do collect the county's uh transportation impact fee and a benefit to that is it's based on use
versus the like so so it makes sure that commercial things get charged more that have a larger impact than a single family home. And if this and the single family home it um they have different thresholds and if it stays within a certain square footage threshold, there
isn't a fee charged which um so which is beneficial. And then if you do go up the to the higher threshold, you're only charged the the the difference. Um so it's using the county's fees more beneficial uh
especially for for for homeowners around here if they're rebuilding. So um so I have the resolution attached and uh the uh the Kimley Horn impact fee evaluation memo. So basically we
this would just be a recommendation. Um but the well CAF recommends the board of commissioners to adopt resolution 20 26-06 moratorium on the collection of mobility fee. The adoption of this resolution would continue the one-year moratorum on the collection of the city's local mobility impact fee
effective upon adoption until July 31st, 2027, unless the board of commissioners resend or extend the moratorum by subsequent resolution. >> And the the Kimley Horn memo is just a memo. There's >> just a memo. Yeah. >> That's not being incorporated into
anything. Correct. That's >> correct. Yeah. I just wanted to show you why why we're doing it. and and uh probably the most important part of this memo is this like last uh like paragraph next >> okay >> explains kind of why
um and then and then the county is currently working on an update to their um um mobility fees um part of it that stays on hold. So right now they're it's still kind of the it the fees that they
have in the are are going to stay the same for the time being. I one the reason why they're not able to the county is because of SP 180 where the where they couldn't potentially increasing impact fees would be considered more
burdensome. So right now that part of the so as of right now with that it would stay the same just because it start it started talking about in the memo about the update um which I which the city has been involved with going to when they have workshops for when the
municipalities go to talk about different parts of it. So um thank you. Okay. Any questions from our esteemed board of commissioners?
>> I'm just kind of curious like I mean how much has this impacted any projects that have been on the has that been evaluated? Like just in general is pushing it out a year I mean I have no
problem with it but >> I mean >> is that going to impact our ability to do anything? So, I mean, we're still collecting the county's fee and we get half of that back. Um, and I I don't think we've allocated anything with our local one, which we which I guess if we did away,
we would have to um give that, but I I don't think any capital projects it's been allocated to, but I'd have to uh double check. And we'd still keep the county's fee and then the one for uh uh
wreck and for public safety. So, so we'd still be keeping them, just not our local one because of the potential of it be being considered double dipping. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> And that double dipping could open us up to the city up to lawsuits and fun things like that, right?
>> Yeah. And we want to be careful and and it also shows the importance of of the city coordinating with the county because we kind of did a that a study back then without really working with for Penllis. we have a much better
relationship with them now. Um um that uh Jay and I I really worked hard to rebuild that relationship. So um it definitely shows we that we we're willing to work with them and and uh but yeah, it's that's the problem when you
if you don't work with them and you do your own thing, it can kind of lead to potential conflicting things like this. So >> Okay. Well, since you mentioned that when we when we go to reeval so this is this would be the second year that we're
extending the moratorum. >> Uh yes, but are we still charging the county's fee? >> Right. So are we potentially going to have to when we do look at it talk about refunding the difference if there was double dipping? >> Yes. And even even with the local one,
if we don't spend it within a certain amount of years, we would have had to re refund it any anyways. But uh we'll have more details about that as as we bring forward most likely a comp plan amendment and then a LDR amendment to unwind it.
>> That'll be taken into account, I guess, when you're saying when you go back to do that. Okay. >> Were there were there a lot of people charged both of these? I'd have to I' I'd have to look back and and write up a memo to go through that because I I don't I don't want to make
any assumption. But I mean, it would have been we had in place for the last couple years, but I I I'd want to like re research more and bring that back. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, the only reason I I mean, we don't want to double dip, but [clears throat] the only reason I asked
is because they gave this like weird caveat like well technically you can still collect things and I just as but if nothing's been allocated then seems like it's a no-brainer just get out of the way of scrutiny. >> Yeah. Some of the things right now too
is, you know, if there's a way to to lessen the burden on people trying to rebuild because I I know I I've heard from some people being in the business that I am that they're like, "Man, I can't believe the impact fees I got to pay and and they're substantial, you know, and then if if this is another one
on top of that, that's it's really pretty burdensome." If you look at the number up there, um, on the single family dwelling at 288 a square foot for a 2,000 square foot, it's another, you know, almost six grand. And some of these people that are building bigger
houses now, you know, they're going to be it's going to be pretty strong. So, it's it's a lot of dough on top of what the countyy's already charging. So, it it gets up there pretty seriously. I mean, >> had one developer that was a luxury and it was a 5,000 foot house. So you'd take
that times 5,000, you know, it's a pretty strong number on top of what the county is charging. So >> So even with our local, we would take off the existing square footage if they were demoing something. But um as as shown though, I think this is pretty important showing that we the county
charges based on because a shopping center obviously has more impact than a single family house. So, because as you see well with our local one there, it it charges a good amount more for the single family than what the county would. So, I I think I think it um and
and I've read through um since I we've been involved with the their update to their mobility fee and it seems like especially since they deal with the transportation like so so for Panelis is made up of both the MO metropolitan
planning organization that does the transportation planning like the long range transportation plan and then they also have the penellis planning council which does the countywide plan for like land use. So they they have a lot of staff that that's very uh skilled at calculating these things. So I just like
it makes sense to just go through them with this. >> Sure. >> And and we got half the money back any any way. So it it works in our favor just to work with them. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Well, I wish I didn't, but I'm going to ask. Sure. >> Um [sighs]
I'm potentially wondering if I actually paid this fee and if I need to recuse myself from being able to uh >> Well, I mean technically I don't think right now it affects you. It's just a moratorium going forward for another year. So it shouldn't affect you. >> Okay. Well, I've done other things
before this year though. We did like for example, would it cover any type of renovation, any type of addition, anything like that? Right. >> Yeah. So, you would have got charged an impact fee for the addition. >> Yeah. >> But [laughter] like Commissioner Woff
mentioned, >> I feel like this is more a moratorum just going forward. >> So, possibly when we vote on like doing refunds, it would affect you, >> right? Yeah. If we do something later where we're changing the comp plan to address a refund or something, then
maybe that would be where you would do that. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> All right. Just need a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve resolution 2026-06 moratorium on collection of mobility fee.
>> All right. Anybody got a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any other discussion on the motion? Excellent. Let's call the role, please. >> Commissioner Maher? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Laroo? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Holloway? >> Yes.
Chairman Wyoff. >> Yes. All right. Pass. Resolution passes. Thank you everyone for that discussion. Uh the next item is our uh discussion on landscaping regulations. Assume this is you Joe.
>> Yes. So a few items I tried to highlight in the memo. The reason that we're bringing this forward primarily is from number one. That's what's really causing us issues. And then as we went through it, we figured we'd go through the whole section of the code since we're opening
it up anyways. And number one is about uh residential landscape requirements for like substantial improvements, new homes, which obviously there's a lot of going on right now. Currently, the landscaping section of our code requires that a quarter of all single family,
duplex, or triplex lots has to be living ground cover, like grass, for example. So when you drive around the city and you see people with like a lot of shell or artificial turf, it doesn't meet that requirement. Uh now we're doing landscape inspections on all new builds
and if it doesn't meet the current code, then we're required to fail the landscape inspection which could cause issues obviously getting a CO or closing out the permit. And we feel like based on the feedback that we've received from the community and and our own professional opinions,
the 25% living ground cover requirement might be a little too stringent than really necessary. Uh we brought this to the city commission and they also agreed. When we brought it to the commission as a workshop item, we highlighted a few different areas. We
didn't necessarily recommend completely removing it. We just provided that as one of the options and the commission pretty much was all in favor of just removing the landscape requirement like the living ground cover requirement for the residential and just to be clear
there's still ISR which is very important we want to preserve that that's typically in the zoning section of the code this is more for aesthetic purposes so that the landscape is is the primary concern and then that's highlighted on pages 16 and 17 is some
of the proposed amendments to kind of address that. Uh, one of them I want to highlight a lot of times when the city's made code updates in the past is we focus on actual text of the code, but I do want to highlight that it is in the purpose of the section. So, uh, we
would want to reclassify the purpose if we decide to take away the living ground cover requirement or reduce it. Next item is uh, rightway landscape materials for like years now. public works has always
talked about how it's a challenge when there's turf in the right of way or or other sorts of ground cover that aren't really natural for doing utility work. Most cities and I have a list of some other examples I can provide if
interested, but most cities do restrict the city's right of way on what cover can go there. Our code is one of the few that doesn't have any restrictions. So, we're not able to prohibit or limit anyone from putting like artificial turf
in the rightway. Originally, when we brought this to the planning commission after working with the public works director, we provided a recommendation to like prohibit it almost completely. But then the based on the feedback we got from the commission and after
talking with the public works director uh we revised the ordinance in the packet to say more of as long as we get you get consent from the city that basically what we envision is based on the commission's feedback is having some
kind of form that anyone that's putting turf in the rightway acknowledges and potentially records on the property record that if the turf is removed then the if the city needs to remove the turf say to do any utility work then it's the
property owner's responsibility not the city of the city doesn't have to pay for that um in this current proposal I wrote I specifically wrote that in the code about um the agreement after talking with attorney Tras I he felt it wasn't
nec necessary to specifically say that we need to require the agreement so um in the language that You'll see when we bring it back based on that feedback, I basically just rewarded it that it's at the public works director's discretion. Um, but we would allow it as long as
that agreement is provided. Um, that's number two. And then that kind of jumps into number three, which is artificial turf in general. So going back to number one, how right now the code requires a quarter of the lot to be living ground cover. Obviously artificial turf is not living. This
doesn't meet that requirement. Also about a month ago, the FT released some guidance that overrides the city's current ordinance for single family homes and says that the local government cannot restrict artificial turf on
single family lots. So right now our ordinance is in conflict with that. So part of this would be to bring it into that and the way our code is currently bro broken down it puts single family duplex and triplex into one category and then everything else basically in another category for the landscape
requirements. So this ordinance, the way we wrote it kind of keeps that together and we basically would allow the turf to qualify as landscaping for those single family duplex triplex and then also the multifamily has a 10% landscape requirement instead
of 25% but it also has landscape buffers which generally don't have turf. So kind of separating that. So this the proposed artificial turf section of the code comes from the D guidance that was released about a month ago and is
attached as well as Clear Water passed a pretty elaborate artificial turf ordinance about a year ago. So we took a look at that and theirs is pretty like specific. Like for example, they required once they passed that ordinance, anyone that installed
artificial turf in the right ofway had to get a after the fact permit to even decide if they could keep it or not. Ours is kind of what we're proposing here is kind of a more simpler version of clear waters. Since we have less staff, it's more manageable to enforce.
And basically, we already require permits for turf because it falls under our definition of a structure, which means anything that's permanently fixed to the ground. So adding this into our code wouldn't be anything more strict than we're already requiring. It's just more specific to make sure it's
permeable. Um, so it basically would just be a spec sheet to demonstrate it's permeable, which we've already been requiring, and then a certification from like a contractor at the end that goes installs in accordance with that specification sheet. So that's basically what that proposed section 10637
comes from. Next is intersection visibility. So the city's code has like three different sections when it comes to intersection visibility and they all three kind of contradicts each other. So one of them is in the landscape section. What we're
proposing here is to strike it from the landscape section and just reference the section of the zoning code which is where where it really belongs. That section is also where there's information about how to measure setbacks, what counts
towards the building height and doesn't. So that's where we find is really the appropriate section for that. And originally when we brought this to the city commission uh we kept it at so basically there's a triangle where the
the intersection aligns and this diagram is kind of visualizes it better. This is similar to how most cities enforce it. We looked at a few different municipalities and we we're keeping this language keeps our current interpretation of the
conflicting codes except we reduce the the height. So the low point of the visibility triangle right now is 3 ft 36 in and based on one of the commissioners feedback we're reducing that to 30 in
30 the range that we've seen in other municipalities somewhere between like the 2T and the 3ft range. So the 30 in is in line with that for the low point. So like shrubs can be maintained or a fence can be maintained below that 30
in. Uh unfortunately lowering it to 30 in also brings other sections of the code in that would conflict. So uh the fence code for example um on page 33. We didn't bring this to the commission originally
[clears throat] because originally we were just going to keep it at 36. But just clarifying that it we're just referencing that section instead of putting it directly in there. Um, and then the other thing that we have that's not really related to landscaping, but since we have to open the section
anyways is uh section 110 4473 in the which is the fence section. It says you can't have a fence that's closer than 18 ft uh from a seaw wall on the Gulf, but that it's not really feasible. We already have a restriction
that you can't have a fence beyond the coastal construction control line which is what most municipalities have or is more enforceable. Uh so that shouldn't be too controversial. Just striking that. Um and then the last item
is just the trees. Uh basically just updating our tree list. Right now, the tree list we referenced for the species. First of all, it it's a little more complicated than we needed to be. Like it says like 50% of the trees have to come from this list or some of them have
to come from this list. So really just we looked at the comprehensive plan and the intent is really to preserve Florida native trees and drought tolerant trees. So just for the permitted trees, I know it looks like everything's getting
struck out. Um, but if you scroll down to uh 106-71, any species from that same list, and then we can add some of the other ones, too, um, would count. And and the
list is it's pretty user friendly. If you Google it, there's all like hundreds of trees that would fall under the either Florida native or the drought tolerant of meteor or higher. And that list gets updated on its own. So we don't have to have the species directly in our code. >> Okay,
>> which is more modern in a lot of other C's codes. And then also the prohibited trees. Um in this ordinance I also just reference Panel's county's list. Uh but after talking to attorney Tras um I put
a few I put some of I basically just put them into our code cuz the undesirable species don't really change. Um and there's only like six or seven of them. but basically the same same ones. So that'll come in the next one. Uh only
other things that are not included that are worth considering. Um we want to get some feedback on what should be allowed in the right of way when it comes to like shell uh get a consensus of on how the planning
commission feels about right-of-way material. also discussing uh there's a section that wasn't stroking strict out in 10633 which is the residential landscape but same
intents uh just removing that vegetation is would not be required with this proposed ordinance. So let me highlight that real quick. shall include it says 25% um vegetation
just anything that references vegetation for single family would be striking. Um and then we can also consider a lot of other municipalities give credit. So basically every lot is required to have a certain amount of
trees. A lot of municipalities have tree credits where if a tree is a certain size an existing tree, you get credit for preserving the existing tree. Like for example, the city of St. St. Pete Beach has if the diameter at breast
height, which is like 4 and 1/2 ft, is between 10 and 20 in, then that would count as two trees. So, we could consider adding something like that so that you can get credit for existing trees and not need to replant as many.
>> All right. So you're looking for our input on on some of the more subtle parts of this or maybe not so subtle when it comes to the right of way that so that's kind of a confusing >> part of this right >> that and then the only other item would
be that I didn't talk about is screening of backflow preventers we have in our code that they have to be shielded from public view um but if you drive around they're not all shielded so what we were thinking about doing is uh striking it from the landscape code and then we're
going to be redoing our maintenance code soon and then putting in there that it just has to be properly painted and and orderly appearance. But yep, that's all that's what we're looking for here. >> Okay. So, you understand our task? We're just supposed to provide a little bit of
input and guidance so we can get this dialed in right. Um, if you're looking for an opinion, you know, when it comes to the right of way, I don't, you know, I don't know that it's fair. That's not the right word, but doesn't make sense to make everybody
have grass if the rest of your yard landscaping is not grass, right? Cuz, you know, they got to go buy a lawn mower or a weed whacker to do that little strip of grass. So, but I think anything that's if it's turf, then you you sign off that says, "Hey, if we have to do utility
work, it's on me to put it back in my yard." I I get that. Um or you can have anything else that's, you know, replaceable. That's a common element. I don't know how you define that, whether it's shell, marble chips, whatever that might be. Um not a solid surface, right?
You can't What if it's concrete? I mean, I know we have driveways that go in the right of way that are >> solid concrete. What's the policy on that? >> So, we have another section of our code that specifically talks about the maximum width of driveways and sidewalks. So, basically the language
here says anything that doesn't fall under that category would have to meet this section of the code. >> Okay. So, so on that note, right, I I think one of the things that's collectively
confusing about this whole section is and I think it's starting to be addressed, especially with saying changing pvious impervious a little bit to being like meeting landscaping requirements. I think that's important, but same thing in this public rights
away. Um, you know, I think loose shell or gravel or something like that, it's pretty easily removable. I mean, no one's going to be putting in a trench load of that on
their property. So, I think same thing with impervious surface and where there's like a a to me there's a lack of definition on that a little bit. Um, but if it's loose and it's movable and maybe it's of a certain
di maximum diameter or whatever that that's not going to you're not going to get hit with having to remove that, right? I I mean, I can scoop shell up with a shovel. You know, you don't need a >> heavy machinery to to move that. So, I
think putting it in that context and in rights of way if it impacts your property in terms of appearance. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think I think there should be some caveat for something that's more >> permanent
>> permanent versus movable, right? Um obviously installing turf in a ride of way is definitely more permanent than grass. >> Was there is there a way to define what would be considered I I guess that's
what we're getting at. what is okay and that would be replaced if disturbed versus what would not be replaced by the city or county if it were disturbed. So, we're saying turf, right? The artificial turf is on the the property owner.
>> Yeah. >> If you decide you're going to put turf in the rightway, you can, but if it gets destroyed in the act of upgrading or repairing utilities, that's on you, the property owner. Would there be a way to
define a smaller group of things that are would be replaced by the city or county and then everything else not? >> Well, to that point, what is it? Are we trying to limit what's there because we
may have to go in and remove things and there's a cost associated with that? Are we trying to look at something that's visual? Right? Are we trying to have more of a scheme? I'll say um but in that regard to the permanent not
permanent are there a lot of mailboxes that are in the right of way that are permissible in a lot of other municipalities with their guidelines and so would we approve uh a mailbox being there or a CBU right if it's a larger
development if we're talking about um the removal cost associated can we balance it to to have some of that as Well, >> yeah, that's a good point. So, it really could be aesthetic or the primary
concern is cost. Um, but it could be aesthetic as well. As far as mailboxes, the way that the language is proposed, it specifically talks about just the surface. You have to remember it's in the vegetation code. So, I tried to keep
it focused on that. So mailboxes and all of that, this wouldn't prohibit or limit that in any way. But that is a good point. We did think about that. So what we could do is possibly instead of trying to define like what's
permanent or not permanent instead of saying artificial turf here we can like reward it in such a way that it's really at the discretion of because it's going to be case by case discretion of
the public works director. um any such surface um that would cause [snorts] you know cost to the city would be at the owner's expense something along those lines. >> Yeah. I think I think devils in the
definitions on that I you know and not to steer this a different way I want to get here eventually but like there's still there's still references to imperous surface and then if you go look at imperous surface it doesn't to me it doesn't really clearly define what we
consider an impervious surface and but but there are sections that kind of allude to what materials are considered impervious. Uh, I could be I mean, if I'm wrong, um, that's fine, but it doesn't explicitly give that direction. So, if we're going to say,
you know, permanent ground cover or something like that, you know, I think we just have to add a definition for what that is or at least list it up and, you know, put it up front. I think you're going to run into some trouble there clearly defining it
because there are so many products that are out there >> that are pvious, impervious, you know, and you can't say it's only this is impervious or only this is considered pvious. I mean, without getting into like >> percolation
uh amount, you know, definitions in your so then then it gets crazy, right? Do I have to bring the specs of my mulch in to, you know, that it percolates at this rate? So I think that's hard. I think that's kind of hard. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. And and also we looked at I included our
definition of imperous surface and it is pretty consistent with a lot of other municipalities. >> Okay. >> And it is pretty broad for that purpose. >> Yeah. >> And I just want to remind you guys that
the impervious surface requirements are in addition to the landscape requirements in a different section of the code. and the ride ofway doesn't count towards the impervious service ratio. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, and like I said before, I think the the edit to
10632 where you've you've kind of changed some of that to be more descriptive of, you know, what landscaping requirements are for the 25 for that 25% rule or whatever is definitely an improvement. as a, you
know, as a homeowner, I think it makes more sense than kind of this vague uh definition that [clears throat] we had before. So, it's it's an improvement and I that makes sense on the impervious. You can't really >> yeah define that as well. >> And just to add to that, the the only
reason that we could have just stricken the whole landscape requirements entirely and just relied on the impervious surface to carry that out. The reason we're not doing that is because we still other municipalities for imperous surface actually do like
for permeable pavers they might only give you 50% credit towards your ISR requirement. We don't do that. We give we don't have that since we don't have anything like that in our code. We give full credit for permeable pavers. So until such time that we evaluate that we wanted to keep something to prevent
somebody from just completely putting permeable pavers that aren't going to be maintained over the entire lot. So that's why we still have even though it's not really landscaping, depending on how you look at it, there's still a requirement for some ground cover.
>> Makes sense. >> I mean, I like the the looking at it from a cost perspective, too, for the removal feels equitable >> for the right away thing. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know how you you know how
how that flies with the property owners or legal uh you know saying it's going to be evaluated on a case by case basis up to the community development director or the public works director I don't know how >> right
depends on the mood that day >> well I mean there's some subjectivity to almost everything but there's got to be a a ceiling or a floor placed on it, right? Um, but I think that would be the best way to go. If there's if there's some, you know, burdensome cost to the city, whatever that definition of
burdensome is, then then it's on the property owner. >> Yeah. I think anywhere and Joseph brought up kind of like in Z Beach where there's a kind of a credit for trees,
right, of a certain diameter. Thank you. >> Like anywhere we can provide some clarity that the public is going to have some sort of a credit for things that maybe were already there. I I think that's a pro. You know, we don't want this to just totally read as
well, you know, we could get, you know, we could get you later or this could retroactively affect you or whatever. I think maybe defining some more of those things. If there's if there's other examples of that, I think the St. BPH1 was a good example. I don't
know of any myself, but >> it would be helpful. >> Yeah. And just to add on to that regarding to the tree regulations that so a lot of this proposed change is more like explaining stuff like organizing things a little bit better. Like for
example, some of the tree requirements are in all different sections of the code. I kind of tried to put them all in one section. um the credit for existing trees wouldn't if we added that since we don't have that right now. It wouldn't really be a
clarification thing, but it would be something to help um homeowners not need to provide as many trees if they have larger trees. So, that's something we can add that would be consistent with other municipalities to reduce um like needing to plant new trees if
there's existing trees. I've got a question about a lot of the redevelopment that's going on. Um, when a house is being an existing home is being elevated versus a tear down and rebuild, >> are are is the landscaping plan looked
at differently? >> No, it's pretty much the same. So, if you look in the definition section of our code, new construction is defined as a substantial improvement in which elevating falls under >> So, they would have to rework the whole landscape plan on a house that's just being elevated. >> Correct. Right. Okay.
>> Okay. That that was just a personal question. I didn't relate to this exactly, but it just kind of came to mind. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you for that. >> All right. Any other input for our >> fine folks over here to consider as they're trying to straighten us out. I think it's really wise, by the way, to
bring it to the county's stuff, you know, to to get us in line with the county because I see it all the time, you know, where where there's inconsistencies and if the city's wrong, the city's going to be wrong and you're going to get taken to task on it, you know, and the county is always going to win. And now that we have a what appears
to be a much better working relationship with the county, it certainly helps. But I think it's and a lot of the builders, they're having trouble with all the different municipal subtleties and if a lot of us could revert back to what the counties are doing, I think it would make it would
streamline the process for everyone. >> Yeah, agreed. >> Just a question on the tree removal piece of this. >> Um, >> what's the permit fee? >> So, right now there's no permit fee for a tree removal permit. we don't really
get that many of them and honestly that section has barely been enforced in the past. It's this section of code I mean hasn't been updated since like the 80s. So eventually when we redo our free schedule we could add like a small administrative fee because I know
there's a lot of legislation that's pushing local governments to do more with less money. So, um I just struck out the like no fee thing um in this section so that if we did >> bring the fee schedule, that's an
option, but as of now, it's not in our fee schedule. So, there's no fee for a tree removal permit. >> Really, the permit's more to make sure they're not they're they're not removing protected trees and >> basically. Yeah. And it's basically if
if new construction is required to have a certain number of trees, if you didn't need a permit to remove it, then you can just >> tear them down as soon as you got the CO. >> Gotcha. Right. [laughter] Yeah. Not that that's ever happened.
>> Um I think I do have a question on the artificial turf piece. >> Um and I think it's good. I you know they there's been a lot of advancement in the products and stuff in that and I think a lot of people are nervous about putting down grass and if you're me and
you're fighting weeds every day even when we're in a drought um you are looking at that as an option. So, I think it's good that there's like, you know, some like the subsection C
um of 10637. Was that is that consistent with, you know, being able to find a readily available product that's reasonable that is proven like, hey, here's the manufacturer data. This is what I'm putting in. Y
>> you know it like is that [snorts] >> I just want to make sure it's very like attainable. >> Yeah. So the most probably I would say restrictive of the requirement would be the permeability >> and >> C4.
>> Yep. C4. And we looked I took probably about 10 spec sheets from artificial turf permits we've gotten in the past and they all meet or far exceed that. Um that 10 in per hour comes from the DP
guidance. So it's not just a number that staff made up. Um and then also uh Hol's Beach also has a pretty elaborate artificial turf section and theirs is 30 in. So that's more restrictive. >> Wow. >> Yeah. So, and I I've even seen spec
sheets that say like 500. So, I don't I don't concern I don't think that the 10 inches per hour would be preventive. >> So, So, what about um the one that I has me hung up a little bit is um B4.
It's like closer than 10 ft. It's it's prohibited from being installed closer than 10 ft to the mean high water line along water bodies including canals except immediately landward of or on top of a seaw wall. So explain like I'm five like if I have a
home that backs up to a canal and I want to install land I want to install this up to the seaw wall that's landward of the seaw wall right. >> Yep. So that would be fine. So there's very few situations where B4 would restrict anyone in Madiraa from putting
turf because all the canals have a seaw wall around them. >> Yeah. Right. >> So and the second >> it's like if you're running down to a to a natural embankment you're kind of Okay. >> So like it would I would say the Gulf,
but you there's also uh requirements if it's beyond the coastal construction control line. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, so that really we just took that from D guidance. Uh, but if you have a seaw wall, then you wouldn't have to worry about that. >> Okay, cool. That that makes sense
because that's most like you said, most houses have a wall. So, it's like I just want to make sure you can go >> Yeah, you can go all the way to >> Yeah. I mean, I think it looks good. >> Any more? All right. Did that help in anyway? Hope
it did. Hopefully. Thank you. Y and we'll bring this back with the changes and uh changes that attorney Tras wanted and then we can vote on it at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Next item, >> nonconformities and business tax receipt requirement. Is that where we're headed?
Okay. So this section of the code, I just want to preface the entire non-conforming section of our code needs to be like completely redone. Um that is on our list and it's going to
take some more public feedback cuz really every building is not almost almost every building is not performing in some way. So that's something we want to spend a little more time and and research and get feedback from the public before we change that whole thing. Uh, but this is just more of a
reactive ordinance. Basically, there's a section a few se sections of our non-conforming code that didn't typically get used before Helena and Milton, but now they're getting used all the time, and it's about rebuilding after a declared disaster or getting
damaged more than 50%. And those two sections allow you to rebuild non-conforming uses which would include like a duplex in R1 zoning for example and meet not have to meet the current like single family requirement. So, if
you had what you a duplex, you can rebuild it. But there's a stipulation that those sections don't apply if you didn't have a business tax receipt, which the city requires a business tax receipt for anyone that's doing business or renting in the city at all. Um, and
not a lot of people don't realize that. So, the commission felt like it was a hard hard punishment to take away somebody's ability to completely rebuild just for not having like a $10 business tax receipt. Uh so, and there were two
specific properties that were denied. One of them did a whole put a whole set of plans together for a forplex and we denied it because that they didn't have a business tax receipt. Um so, this was brought to you guys at the request of the commission. Well, the ordinance was
redone at their request. That's the primary reason the section is coming to your attention. And what we're doing here is we're not completely striking it. The commission wanted to keep the intent of the BTR, but what we're doing
is just saying as long as you submit your permit by a certain date or I think it's 3 years from the storm or get a zoning verification letter, which is a simple process. you just apply to the city to get in writing that yes, you can rebuild this. And the reason we wanted
to have that is so that we have some documentation cuz without a BTR, it's going to be hard to document what is legally non-conforming versus what was done illegally. So, we put that in there so that we can have cuz the non rebuilding there's no time limit on that. So, we want to have some
documentation to be able to tell years from now what was legally non-conforming even without a BTR. Um, number two, the redevelopment planning process basically is a section that if it's not hurricane related,
then you would be able to rebuild the non-conforming use or density after it went through a public hearing. Um, and that section of the code specifically exempts the R1 zoning district. We're proposing to strike that based on
the kind of vibe, for lack of better words, that the commission is getting that they want to be able to they want people to be able to retain their non-conformities. And just one thing to keep in mind is
it the intent of the non-conforming code is to end non-conformities. A lot of these sections of the code allow you to keep them, but it would allow you to allow everyone that's in every other zoning district to
be able to apply for the same process. Uh, and the R1 is this, you know, mostly residential. So allow striking that would allow like someone that has a duplex to apply for those same rights. Without striking that
if someone had a duplex in R1, un unless it caught fire or there was a hurricane, there's no way they'd be able to rebuild it unless it was less than 50%. Uh third item >> is in that section as well as the red uh
rebuilding after catastrophic loss. Uh the commercial of the section is kind of vague. It right now says that you can rebuild in the same footprint. Um and you have to meet these requirements, but it doesn't specify what about all the other requirements. So this is our
interpretation on what the intent of the code was. Floor area ratio is more the limiting factor when it comes to commercial rather than residential. It's more comes to setbacks. So, this would allow a business to rebuild what they
had in terms of floor area ratio as long as they meet all the requirements. And then the last item that's really a change here um is the deadline. We talked about at
planning commission meeting a while ago that the there's a deadline to rebuild if your damage is less than 50%. and that deadline is September of this year. So, we're proposing to extend that another year. We sent uh letters to
about 500 properties that are either sitting abandoned or did unpermitted work trying to get them to pull after the fact permit or pull permits. And we got a lot of feedback that there's a lot of programs that take time for people to even just rebuild under the 50% rule. So
extending that a year would give those people more time to comply with the regulations. And this is not a section of the code that's required by FEMA, but it helps us a lot with ensuring we get the documentation we need for when FEMA audits us. We're expected to provide
documentation on every single property that's not elevated and why they're still there. And so this helps us get that data. Um, that's all I have. Happy to take any questions or answer any feedback. This is giving them another year to get
their permit. >> Correct. >> The big red light writing on the bottom of all the city emails saying the deadline is 3 months from now. >> Exactly. Yep. So that's that's exactly what it is. It would be another year for that. >> I think some of that comes from some of the programs as he mentioned like
Elevate Florida. There's not one building that's been started under the Elevate Florida program anywhere. So >> true. But also just want to clarify that if you're elevating, we have another section of the code in here that allows you to rebuild the non-conformity.
So elevating is substantial improvements more than 50%. That deadline is specifically to less than 50%. So that's lab on grade houses. There's no deadline for someone to elevate their house. >> Okay. >> One uh quick clarification. Uh
so with rebuilding after catastrophic loss, that would be your your structure got uh uh damaged during the hurricane and you fully demo it to build a new structure. Um and it allows you to retain um like the non-conforming
density. Like let's say you have a a forplex on a on a lot that could only fit a single family house. currently you'd be able to build a new FEMA compliant forplex and retain that density. Um and then rebuilding after a
redevelopment planning process is voluntarily doing that where replacing a non atgrade structure with a FEMA compliant structure. Well, so I just wanted to clarify that because
there was some confusing in the board meeting about because some parts of it relate to someone fixing their existing house and some parts relate to building a new house or or structure or residential structure commercial what that that has like let's say non-conform
density or and then with the F thing it so commercial we we use F to uh uh regulate it and it's kind of weird to talk about rebuilding commercial and talk about the footprint, but we don't really look at we look at the F. Um,
very few properties would be in, but it would be good just to have because you wouldn't want a property that that's that great that covers most of the lot and then you find out the F is higher than 0.55. Um, because that that's kind of what we ran into in John's past where you had these
buildings that don't look that large but had very high FS um there. Now those are at least with the with the activity center now the FS are correct down there but >> okay >> I like it.
>> So on the 500 letters that you sent out of these non-conforming general singlestory homes in your opinion what percentage of those people are actually trying to get into a program that they're going to get some assistance from?
>> That's a good question. And I don't have it exact. It feels like a lot because when somebody like gives you information, it's like, "Oh, wow." But what I can do is I can look at the I can get with
4ERunner and because that's where we're tracking all the properties and by the next meeting I can see how many of those properties we either received because we'll track conversations. The city gets CRS credits
for tracking conversations related to flood plane in 4Erunner. So I can and so when somebody comes in and says like, "Oh, I got this letter, but I'm waiting on funding." We'll keep them on like the no permit status. So they'll still be on that like 400 property list, but we'll
put a note in there so I can get see if I could get a number on the amount that we got notes from and then give you like a rough percentage at the next meeting. >> Yeah, that'd be interesting to know. right around the neighborhoods. There's a lot of them that just look like >> nothing
>> front doors laying on the ground. You can see the refrigerator still in there >> type. >> So, >> yeah. >> Interesting to know that. >> Yeah, it would be. >> But at the end of the day, the the goal wasn't cuz if this deadline passed, then
we would just be forced to deny all the remodel permits, which we'll see. We would see how that goes. but it could potentially even cause it to be longer because it'll take longer to elevate or build new. But also, we do get a lot of complaints
that about people trying to sell their property affects the property value when they're surrounded by properties that look like they've been abandoned. So, trying to find that balance. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think I brought this up the last time we
talked about extending the deadline for this was trying to I mean besides the notice of commencement but trying to at least get an idea of to to your point like who's actually trying
and you know maybe there's a instead of perpetually extending the deadlines getting to a point where it's like okay we understand this is taking a while, but at least you're showing a good faith effort of doing something, you know, you know,
before the deadline so that you don't get just completely cut, but it almost feels like it perpetually extending it feels like it just continues to allow for
continued kind of pushing off. And and I you know everyone's situation is different. I'm just kind of reading it like that a little bit. >> Yeah. So >> am I saying in here that we're taking this 18month deadline and now making it 3 years to get started?
>> So originally it was 18 months to complete the repairs. We recently ordinance 2026-02 we changed it to for Helen and Milton. Uh just so we're on the same page as
section 110-93 uh 3C, >> right? We extended it from 18 months to complete to for Helina Milton 2 years to get the permit and then this
would be extending that another year which that deadline the 36 months would be in line with the RV deadline on when people have to remove the RVs off off the property.
>> Yeah. I mean to John's point to see all the house there's a lot of them out there that nothing has been done and this is just another 18 months of or another year of nothing. I don't know I'm
>> not sure I should comment uh but I will uh I am currently in uh this particular situation and we have I would say Five days after the hurricane, I signed
an elevation contract and my house is still elevated, not completed. And I could give the uh varied reasons for that. And uh Joe particularly has heard from my husband probably at least every two weeks since that time. Um but it's
it's certainly not for a lack of trying. >> Yeah. No, I don't think that's what we're referring to. I mean, there there are places that there is zero done. You're you're in the process, right? You're there's something happening there. >> I can take you up and down the streets and show you where >> I can show you too on both sides of my
current house. Absolutely nothing has been done. The garage door is still off like half off hanging there. The windows are broke, you know, windows are broken out of the back. The, you know, it's just a mess. And and the ne the other one is all locked up and you can see the mold on the windows. I mean, nothing
zero has been done to either one of those. and so who knows yeah >> yeah you have you have tangible progress going on progress and even if you're in process >> and what I was what I had suggested um
previously was maybe it's not tangible from the street but it's tangible to the city that you are making progress and like how do okay
that checks a box right versus versus nothing, you know? I I don't know. >> And I guess to to your if you're tracking this already for another purpose, then it should be easy
enough to say, okay, yes, we've received [clears throat] substantial communication or substantial work. We've seen it. We've heard it. I guess kind of goes back to the earlier conversations we were having on another and it um specifically I had a question on this
section um that's going to be within your purview or that you know the city's purview and are we concerned that someone's going to come forward and say well I've been trying to get this contract completed or I've been trying to get my contractor to
respond and it's been like where's do we need to have maybe if we're going to agree to this timeline, do we need to have a little bit more structure on substantial progress? >> And if and if that's something you guys could
>> monitor and is that is that too much >> on you guys to have to do? >> Yeah. >> Some of some of the house I'm talking about too may be more than 50% damage so they don't even fall into this. >> True. >> Yeah. >> Right. So there nothing's been done, but
it doesn't apply. So maybe that's not a thing. >> Unless they wanted to appeal the decision, then >> because we do see a lot of pe people that are initially assessed as substantially damaged submit the proper documentation and get it reversed. That would >> they wouldn't be able to do that after the deadline passes.
>> And are some of them waiting to see what other homes have done? So the value will that make a difference? So that won't make a difference because the value of the structure is based on before the damage. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I I don't know. I I don't love
that blanket extension to go that far out. >> I guess you got to give something somewhere. >> And I mean at this point, how okay, every property in Madira Beach, right? I mean, we're almost September 2026.
How many have received their substantial damage letters that were supposed to like on a percentage basis? >> I would say like more than 90%. >> Yeah. So, so at this point every >> almost every property that was impacted
from that storm and needed this clarification should have already received it. >> Yeah. Correct. And therefore, if they wanted to appeal, I mean, I would I would I would be itching for that information, you know, if if if it were if I'm in their shoes.
>> And so, if there was an appeal to be made, you'd think it would have already been made. >> And I guess those are the kinds of I think if I'm picking up what what I'm saying, what everyone else is saying, is like there's a handful of pro of properties where just seems like nothing
has been going on. And you know, is there a way to quantify and identify what that is? And how do you introduce some sort of a structure where it's like, hey, we're going to do the extension, but you know, if you haven't
done XYZ by this date, then we move forward a different way. I I don't know like >> like you said, instead of a blanket just okay, everyone gets the extension again. Um [clears throat] I don't know. Oh, well, one benefit with us adding the
zone zoning verification letter to protect density is that it'll allow people to demo these uh properties and know that they're they're uh uh property rights are protected when they cuz cuz right now um interest rates are like
costs are high. it's hard to rebuild, but they still want to keep that density because if they lost it, then that then it's like your your property lost half the development potential. Like let's say you have a lot that could only normally fit a single family. You have a duplex. If you lost that right to
a duplex, then you're you're you lost lost a unit. So I I'd hope with us adding that in it would kind of some people sitting on the fence with some would be more willing to demo if they know that they can come back and get the
density they want when if economic conditions improve. >> That's true. the and I was just thinking like we maybe we can add similar language to this this section here, but really a zoning verification letter for
if your diamond is less than 50% wouldn't really give us the documentation we need cuz then anyone could do that and it's I yeah definitely valid concerns. It's just tough trying to think of a way to
>> put it in our code to force people to get going. And you know, obviously it's not unique to Madiraa Beach. If you drive through all the communities, there's you're seeing similar issues. Like for example, Penelis County. I was at the Florida Flood Plane Managers Association
conference a few weeks ago, and they don't have anything like this in their ordinance. Um, but they're planning on starting to do code enforcement for properties that were were substantially damaged and didn't do anything. They're
starting they talked about starting doing that in January. So, we'll see how that goes. But, yeah, it's it's tough to because because then also you have to think about I mean, we've never been in this situation. I don't know the answer, but
if the deadline passes, what does that actually mean? Then we would just be denying their permits. I mean, it's something like I mentioned in the beginning, we have to redo this section of the code eventually anyways. Hopefully before that second deadline if
if we adopted that. And hopefully by then we can come up with some better solutions. But if if we didn't extend the deadline and the deadline passed, which is a few months away, does that really get us to our goal of
getting everybody that has an abandoned property not abandoned? Cuz I also asked attorney Tras after we passed it the first time, does this mean that anyone that didn't get the permit after the deadline, we can send them to code enforcement and make them demolish the
house? And his answer wasn't exactly like, yes, you can do that. We need like proof that they actually violated a section of the code. So, it might not even help with because then it's going to take longer to get a rebuilds permit
as compared to a repair permit. >> Yeah, it's it's definitely complicated. I think I think just the concern is properties that seem to have no intention are the ones that that I think were obviously we want
everyone who wants to be here and wants to rebuild and all that to be here and come back. It's, but there's definitely going to be a handful in this situation that are just like, "Nope, turn the keys back over and move on." And, you know,
then we're kind of dealing with it on our end, right? Um, but >> well, to to what you were just saying, Joe, if they if the deadline is not met, they would be in violation of the code,
right? Would you start finding them? And at what point are we talking force demolition? And do we want to do do we want to get into that with
without some other documentation that we've, you know, tracked it? Can we do a substantial hardship? I mean, are there things that you're talking about doing in the renovation, I'll call it, of the code language, um, at a later point that might address some of the concerns, too?
>> Possibly at a later point because right now, like Andrew mentioned during his presentation, we're limited by Senate Bill 180, which says we can't make anything more restrictive than it already is. And if our attorney already interprets this code to say that you
can't force demolition, then for us to put something like that in there, we would want to wait until after Senate Bill 180. >> And I think that's supposed to sunset next year. >> Yeah. And I think if we force the issue that we we open up a different can of
worms, right? If all of a sudden we're saying now you can't rebuild, you can't repay your house, then we're going to have a lot more that are sitting around a lot longer while they're stuck in, you know, potential litigation situations. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. I mean I mean there's the humanity
factor, too. There's some hardship cases out there we probably need to be sensitive to. >> Yeah. >> It's not it's it's not just people not doing something. There's a reason they're not doing something in most cases. >> Y >> Yeah. Whatever. Take that for what it's worth. I don't know.
>> But if you are tracking that, it'd be nice to know how many are uh you've heard from, let's say, versus Yeah. No communication. >> Yeah. I'll definitely at the next meeting when we vote on the item, I'll get with 4Runner and see if I could get
a rough percentage of the properties that we have on the no permit status that we've logged a conversation and that will at least give us like a rough idea. Yeah, that that would be nice to know because it's just it's weird to like say, "Yeah, let's do" and then
we're not really privy to the data of the collective, you know, what's going on and >> Yep. >> That would be really helpful. >> Sure. Is the city doing any code violations now with like I assume when the grass is
x number of inches tall and they're doing that and then if there's just junk and debris and garbage laying on the >> ground are they addressing that yet or what's the situation? >> Yeah. So we have that would fall under the maintenance section of our code and we are trying to be more proactive with
that. I would say a lot of our code enforcement cases are work without permit because there are a lot of life health safety violations where people did the repairs and there was electrical exposed to flood waters and now they're renting it to somebody and we have a
really big backlog with code enforcement. We only have one magistrate meeting a month which is the same that we had before the hurricane but we have like five times the amount of cases. So, those life health safety ones are taking the priority. And then, um, we're also getting a push from the Commission on
short-term rentals. So, those will also be taking a priority. But, that is another section that we're starting to do more code enforcement on. Okay. All right. Anything else we need to dive into?
We good? Good enough? >> Yep. Thank you. All right. We don't have any other old business. Uh or we don't have any old business. Any administrative or staff presentations beyond what we've already gone through? Anything new we need to talk? All right.
Anything uh planning commission wants to discuss in general? I do have something we probably should put on the next meeting agenda. We don't have a vice chairperson. >> H it's on there. >> Okay, perfect. Yeah, I thought of that as I was stuck [laughter] as I was stuck
in traffic. I'm like, uhoh, who's going to do this? Uh so yeah, we'll we'll have to elect a vice chairperson. Um next meeting scheduled for August 3rd, uh Monday here 6 p.m. See you then. And uh we'll call this thing adjourned.
Thank you everyone. Thank you everyone. Thank you.