to approve the June 22nd, 2026 meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Question. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes. >> Chair Huard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Okay. Action item 4A is
sitting as the local planning agency. So I will adjourn temporarily as the planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency. Okay. 4A. Brandon, are you leading this? Yeah. have a brief presentation. Thank you.
Could we get the PowerPoint pulled up, please? So, this is a followup to the discussion we had last month about chap section 39.9 of the land development code, which requires two energy and environmental development standards for any new or
major renovation project in the community redevelopment district. So, just to remind you of the purpose, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has discontinued its Florida grain lodging program. That was one of the eight major standards that were
available to projects within the CRD. It only applied to temporary lodging projects. However, the Myiramar, which is under active development, had chosen that as one of its two certifications. The Tradewinds project, which is currently under appeal, also has the
Florida green lodging program as one of its two standards that it was intended to um be achieved once if it does move forward for development. There were also some outdated um references within this section leading the Florida Green Building Coalition
certifications have changed since the code's adoption in 2008. There are now standards related to site development, not just related to building design and development. There have been some updated standards related to renovation, new certifications related to indoor
environmental health, including indoor air quality and and so on that needed to be updated into the lead and Florida Green Building Coalition certification requirements. As discussed with you at the last meeting, staff also felt that there was a disproportionate burden from this
standard placed on new single family development that is particularly for redevelopment of existing detached single family homes not related to any kind of new subdivision development or new condominium style development. Um that stems from the cost of registration
review and so on. The cost of receiving those certifications as a proportion of project cost is significantly higher on single family homes for some of the options that were offered. And as I mentioned before, since 2008 when the
standard was originally adopted, there have been emerging environmental health considerations. Indoor air quality is now a big part of LEAD. Outdoor environmental low impact landscaping is now a big portion of the Florida Green Building Coalition and so on. these
certifications or requirements weren't as heavily considered back in 2008. So the intent was to capture some of those updates into this ordinance as well. This require or these requirements are supported throughout the comprehensive
plan majorly in the future land use element, housing elements and coastal and conservation element. Um, in the future land use element, the city has city-wide goals, objectives, and policies for carbon neutrality, environmentally sensitive design, and requirements for Florida Green Building
Coalition LED and energy start energy star certification explicitly written into its regulations. In the housing element, there are incentives for better energy efficiency and environmental considerations rather than certification chasing. So again,
achieving those higher standards as we discussed last month and as we hopefully captured in this ordinance and then also just general promotion for energy conservation and in the coastal and conservation element a focus on saving water, protecting aquatic and terrestrial environments and preserving
native vegetation. So looking at the major changes, we didn't deviate too heavily from what we discussed with the board last month. looking at the ma the maintaining of overarching requirements those being lead and Florida green building coalition of the certifications that are
still in existence since 2008 we would continue to require at least one of the two currently the only options available to most development projects are to obtain both lead and Florida green building coalition this would require maintaining certification at least one
of the two should they strive higher and achieving that gold status which is much more difficult than the entry level for either of the certifications that would count as both certifications. So that gold status would would achieve certification in both of the two
required for any new development. If LEAD and Florida Green Building Coalition are not both achieved for a single project, one additional standard would be required. These are all new introduced standards based on the discussion we had last month. There is
the Florida Water Star program that uh promotes both indoor and outdoor water conservation, low impact development. There's a green building initiative, green globes, that's a more holistic consideration much like lead or Florida green building coalition. I believe it
does have an international focus, but it has a similar um all-encompassing um standards like lead and Florida green building coalition. the state of Florida model sea turtle lighting ordinance compliance. This would be an optional voluntary certification that they apply.
They bring their entire development into compliance with that model lighting ordinance. And that would be for those beachfront properties only. And then the EPA's indoor air plus gold standard that is applicable only to residential. It can apply to standalone
residential projects as well as the residential component of mixed use. They have two standards. gold is the higher of the two. That would be another standard that they would be eligible to achieve. We had discussed with this board removing entirely the single family detached home requirement.
Unfortunately, we would need to amend both the comprehensive plan and our special area plan in order to do that. We will work toward that. Um we'll also get input from the city commission when we bring this forward for land development code amendment whether that's something that they would like to
see in the immediate term. we were able to update these certification options without amending the compreh comprehensive plan. So we are reducing the standards and the requirements for detached single family homes. The first would be compliance with the Florida
Energy Conservation Code. That is a default requirement for any new development. So that that would be automatically achieved for any new home being built in the community redevelopment district. We also added the Energy Star certificate certified home program as an option. This is a
significantly lower standard than any of the other ones on the screen. It can usually be achieved at a fairly low cost and a lot of homes, I would suspect, already are fairly close to achieving this standard based on the uh the requirements for for achievement. There have been millions of homes nationwide
that have achieved this certification. So, there were some considerations as I mentioned before. Um, we did not move forward with the comprehensive plan and special plan amendments. That is a much longer process. We will bring that back in the future for this board's consideration.
We have attempted to substantially reduce burdens on single family detached residential development. That is single one lot residential redevelopment. That would not apply to new subdivisions or new condominium style development. They are held to the higher standards. Most
importantly, this does not remove the city commission's ability to assign higher standards from higher intensity projects that receive a conditional use permit. This would only be for administratively approvable development projects. To point out examples, the Sorado and Tradewinds redevelopments.
They both committed to lead silver. They committed to other water indoor water use reductions that go above and beyond the minimum standards that are specified in this ordinance. that would be considered as part of the redevelopment conditional use permit process, not necessarily the minimum code standards
for those developments that seek higher densities, intensities, and so on that that rise to the level of a conditional use permit. So, with that, I'm happy to answer questions. If you do not have any questions, we ask for a motion to find this ordinance consistent with the St. Pete Beach comprehensive plan and
recommend its approval to the city commission. Just just for clarification. So we're we're able to relax a requirement from the comp plan in this that's that's acceptable. >> It is acceptable. The comprehensive plan outsources the actual certifications to
the land development code but it specifies that all development projects require two and it doesn't exempt single family. So we would need to amend the comp plan to do that. >> Okay. >> Is is there any ongoing audit or is this just at time of CO?
We require before we issue the site plan or the first major permit for vertical construction that they have a consultant involved that has gone through and and effectively review the plans to certify that if they build it as proposed they will meet the standards at the end.
>> Okay. But if if changes in the future happen at the property that would have it come out of compliance. We don't know that. >> Oh, I understand. It's not an ongoing certification. No. Is there another inspection when it's done that it was done according to plan?
>> There is. >> Okay. >> Anyone else have questions? >> Yeah. One one question going back to the Can you go back a couple slides? Let's see. Keep going. Right here. The state of
Florida model lighting ordinance compliance. I think you you also you said turtle lighting in that >> correct? Yes. >> So if take the uh the Myiramar for example. >> Mhm. >> Well, that's a bad example because we're already past them. But let's say another
a new new development comes up, right? >> Um if they only achieved one, either the lead or the FGBC and they were then forced to achieve one of these four, right? That's that's where But if one of
the four is not the turtle lighting, then how do how do we get them to comply with turtle lighting on the on the beach? That's >> so the city has minimum standards already in place. So for the Myiramar, for example, they will need to install
turtle glass. They'll need to make sure that any exterior fixtures are pointed downward and so on. They use the amber lighting. The model lighting ordinance does include several components that are more intense than what the city requires. It's also that would be
developmentwide. So, if there were a project where they only redeveloped one lodging facility on a on a property with two facilities, they would need to also bring the other building into compliance. That would not be required based on the city's code currently. >> All right. That that's the issue we have
where we can't currently adopt the model ordinance because it's more restrictive than our own or current ordinance. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, this is just a higher standard for turtles than the city has. >> Correct. Based on our current code. Yes. >> All right. So, there's no more fighting
right now with any new development and and the city on lighting like we've been fighting with the trade winds for years. Right. That that fight's going to be over moving forward with anything new that ever happens on the beach. >> Correct. They they have agreed as part and again this is part of the development that's currently under
appeal but should it move forward they will be bringing the site up to compliance as as it moves forward. >> Thank you. >> Uh member Izzy that would so that would not include a property that is not subject to a cup where that requirement had been added. Our our current
ordinances are less burdensome than the states model lighting ordinance and we can't currently adopt that as a requirement. So someone Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong. Someone not in need of a COP where that requirement is attached could
potentially build just beachfront compliance with our lightning ordinance, not in compliance with the state's ordinance, and that would be allowed. >> Correct. Yes. >> So hopefully we get there at some point when we're allowed to revise our code again. But
>> yeah. So is our our turtle lighting what we have our requirement is is not good enough or we just want it to be better with this state of Florida model being more restrictive. This would give them the option at least for the next year and a half until we have the ability to
update our land development code based on the current expiration of Senate Bill 180. This would give them an option to bring it up to a higher standard. The major issue with our lighting ordinance and our code is that it was based on, I believe, the 1993 state model. The
current state model has been updated as recently as I think 2021. So, the use of amber lighting is not explicitly required in the city's code currently. Um, we allow bug type bulbs and other bulb types that are a little outdated. They're not as effective for
um causing false crawls and so on. So, this would require them propertywide to bring it up to that newer standard until the city is updates its code to bring it into compliance. >> All right. So, ours isn't isn't um isn't good enough. >> That part that part I didn't know. So,
okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Could we have that slide with the desired motion? >> Okay. If there's no other questions, does anyone have a motion for this?
I'll motion to find ordinance 2026-15 consistent with St. Pete Beach comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city commission. Do >> you have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh Brandon, is is your discussion item for LPA or >> you you can >> Okay, I will adjourn as the local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board.
And we're on to discussion 5A, elevated equipment. >> Thank you. We just wanted to get the board's input on this. This is the last minute addition, but we've been seeing more and more variances for this topic, and we just wanted to bring it forward for the planning board's consideration
or input. So, as you might recall, um it was part of the ordinance that we brought forward at the very beginning of the year to update some of the standards related to non-conforming homes and equipment. St. Pete Beach allows near grade, which is
less than 2 feet elevated equipment to extend up to 4 feet into any required yard. Once equipment is elevated higher than 2 feet, it must meet all required yard setbacks. The exception that was added earlier this year is that homes being elevated are allowed to bring
their equipment up with them in place. But for any newly installed equipment or equipment on existing homes that's installed for the first time, if it's elevated, it needs to meet all of the required yard setbacks. We have been seeing especially over the last few months a growing number of variance
requests specifically for generators inside yard setbacks. We allow, as I mentioned before, we allow equipment to be elevated with the home within a yard setback. But if someone is installing new equipment within the yard for the first time, it needs to be located out of the required
yard area. So, this reason for setbacks in the city's land development code in general have to do with visual encroachment, avoiding the overcrowding of land with generators, condensers, any other kind of equipment that we tend to see
elevated in sideyards. They're typically set on platforms only 3 to four feet in width. That can vary, of course. commercial developments tend to have much larger equipment than that. But the generator, the condensers that we tend to see, they tend to be three to four feet in width. They don't generally
represent a major visual encumbrance, especially when they're located away from the road toward the middle of the residence in the sideyard. The other consideration, and what I believe is probably one of the main drivers for why the city adopted the standard in the first place, is related to noise.
Condensers generally run at 60 to 70 dB, measured at 5t. During the summer they run pretty much continuously. Generators generally exercise at 75 to 80 dB measured at 5 feet. That's much higher. A every 10 dB is effectively a doubling
of perceived loudness. However, generators generally only exercise one to two times a week. They generally only exercise for 5 to 10 minutes. At full load when they're in use, they have an even higher decibel level. usually 80 to 85 for the examples that we reviewed for
this slide. Um that is considerably out of range with the city's noise ordinance. However, the city does exempt during emergency periods the running of generators. They're not subject to the noise ordinance. Um what during an emergency period like a posttorm event, they are allowed to be used
continuously. Uh most generators at least residential generators are rated to run for one to two days continuously and one to two weeks uh with minor maintenance breaks in between. So with generators in particular, we've been seeing more and more variances and
a lot of the basis on which the application is made is that it's a life safety concern. They have a reason that they need to get back into their homes immediately after a storm. they're planning for the future in the unlikely case that there is a major storm that that wipes out power where there may be
days or weeks without power to their neighborhood. Most of the homes in St. P Beach, certainly the ones that are built to the flood regulations, which went into effect in the '7s, were planned with condensers in mind, but many were not built with generators in mind. We're seeing a lot more homes that are being
requested to be uh have generators installed. And in a lot of cases, especially when the homes were built to the required side setback, they may have a lot of windows at the rear and the front of the home that prevents them from being located at those locations. The sideyard or on the roof is really the only location that they can be
placed on. We have issued 53 permits since October 2024. Uh there were only 27 permits in the year preceding that. So in less than two years, we have almost doubled the number of permits that have come in uh for generators.
Generators really can be tied to life safety. They can help accelerate reoccupancy following a storm, bring life back to neighborhoods, and importantly, they can help to mitigate or prevent mold growth during extended power outages. Allow those units to be run, especially the whole home
generators that we are seeing more and more of, not the temporary ones that tend to be purchased and and run for for refrigerator or other small appliance. So, we're really just asking for your feedback today. Um, we want to bring
this back for consideration in the near future, potentially for an ordinance should we receive um, feedback from the planning board. We're looking for your input on allowing equipment in sideyards, whether is a cantalvered platform or on a pedestal or stand. Uh, to remind you, the ordinance that we
brought forward last or sorry, earlier this year, um, did allow for equipment to be brought up with the home when it's elevated. That's allowed on both a platform or a pedestal or a stand. It does need to be at least three feet from the property line as is currently
required for nearrade equipment. We'd also like to if if this is something you would like us to move forward with, we would like to get your ideas on any kind of restrictions that should be applied. Should we restrict it only to generators? Should we allow it for all equipment? Um, we tend to see condensers, generators, elevated pool
equipment in the sideyards. Those tend to be the equipment um that residents are seeking to install at an elevated um at an elevation. Should it be applicable only to existing homes or all homes? And should we specify minimum setbacks as
are currently in place for those homes that are being elevated with the equipment in the sideyard? So, with that, happy to get uh input and board discussion. I after Helen I wish there had been a requirement to elevate full equipment
because mine was destroyed. But um >> is are are these types of elevations known to be compatible with hurricane winds? Because I would be less inclined to want to see this if it means a condenser is going to go flying into
somebody's house. >> Any platform or cantal lever. Um it it does need to meet the wind loads. Okay, >> I I have a question or actually I have several. Um I thought generators had a requirement that they had to be 10 ft
away from any door, window or vent because of the possibility of some kind of fumes. >> They do need to be located and it it might be manufacturer by manufacturer. I believe the building code requirement is five feet but manufacturers may specify
10. So, >> because I think the other thing we need to think about is not only is it 10 foot away from, you know, my vent, but is it 10 foot away from my neighbor's vent? Um, I think it's not only the sound. Um,
it's it's really the gases that I think are an issue. Um, one of the other concerns I have is in some of the other meetings that I've listened to or attended, there was concern about access, like I guess the setbacks need
to be able to allow like firefighters with all their equipment on or EMS access or I don't know, stretchers, whatever they might need. And so I don't know, you know, usually in the front of the building or the back there's a little bit more room. Um, so I think
we'd we need to think about emergency access. Um, I also think where's the tank going to go? Um, if it is a whole house generator, it probably, you know, sometimes it's a propane tank.
>> Um, it could be other things. And so I think when you're thinking about where to put the generator, you also need to think about where's the tank going to be. Um, so I think there's other safety issues
besides the mold and and I mean there's safety issues on on both sides. So I do think there needs to be a setback and needs to be, you know, other considerations um for a generator in particular. Um, for the pool, I I agree with David if
it's secured. I mean, it it seems kind of silly to lose your pool equipment, uh, because in many cases, the pool equipment is not it's it's not in the way of emergency people accessing it or anything like that or getting by it. It it's usually
in a a place off to the side. But, you know, to be able to raise it, I I think is a lot less risk. Um, doesn't involve neighbors or things like that. And to your point, for the tanks, which we see almost almost every tank is
buried in the front yard, that does have a 10-ft structure offset. So, >> are are above ground tanks required to be secured? Because I know in our neighborhood, several floated away from their houses. >> They they are. Yes.
>> Yeah. I have an above ground one that needs to be secured. >> Um, go ahead. I was going to say I think that an exemption to the setback for this equipment would be fine in the rear of the house because then you know you
don't have to see it and then it's not impeding the sideyard getting too close to your neighbor's house making too much noise and then you're allowed to be flexible in your property without impeding on anyone else's you know if you feel you need a generator I think
and you want a variance I think the the backyard we could have an exemption and then if they really want the sideyard it could be a case by case variance basis. >> Out of all those permits you mentioned were those how many of those needed a variance? Were they all variance
requests or was that just how many permits? >> No, that's just how many permits and a lot of those were associated with new construction. So they had planned for the generator. Um I believe we are up to six or seven variances for generators
this year alone. Have have they generally been approved? >> They have been. Um to your point, we you know the opening from the adjacent window or from the adjacent properties windows does need to be taken into account. I believe the building code
requirement is typically 5T. So you typically do have that setback, but um that's certainly something we would start looking at. >> What's the current setback from distance from the side? >> Uh for most properties it's 7 ft. So it it it varies based on the width of
the property, but between six and seven feet citywide. >> So that's where a firefighter getting between a a generator, especially a whole house one's a pretty good size generally. >> Although if it's elevated, it would be
in way >> unless the structure depending on what it's standing on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I >> so I I would be inclined to not allow
the encroachment for new construction because that's your opportunity to build a notch into the house if you really want it on the side because your your utilities entry point is near there. Um I I mean I built my house 12 years ago and it has exactly that. The generators
set inward and so are the condensers. Um, it's it also makes them safe from the sun and safe from the wind. So, any anyone that has an existing home, then of course I I don't want to encumber them from adding a generator, but if you're building fresh, you have
the opportunity to install it in a compatible manner. >> I would agree with that. I mean, in my case, we're still in the process of elevating, and I can tell you there is no place on the back of the house to put a none. Mhm. >> So, I've gotten estimates to put it on the side as my two new compressors. Um,
I think they still meet the setback requirement, but like I said, there's no other option, but so I would agree with that. For new construction, you have the option to do that for existing. You don't want to encumber people from preventing having a generator. >> And that's basically the gist of of what
my input was going to be for. And I think you you guys do a pretty good job of taking care of, you know, you case by case and helping people who had, you know, houses that were already built. Um, and I think we need to just continue
to do that. For anyone that has an existing home that now wants to add a generator because they, you know, it's a life and safety thing. >> I I think I think we should just allow it. But I mean, I think it's not really going to hurt anybody, right? As long as
it meets the safety requirements by, you know, away from windows and doors and things like that. I think we have to have some leniency um for the people who have homes here that um unlike the new homes, uh you know, I have the same opinion that build
build it in your plan there. There's no reason you have to get a variance for that because you should build it in your plan. the folks that have existing homes here, they should be given the leniency. It's not going to hurt and it's not going to be a whole lot. Let's let's face it. And
let and and there's more to this issue by the way. Um because as you elevate things like like condensers or generators now you the next question would come to people mind is well how am I going to
access that for maintenance? And I also think we need to be lenient if it comes up. I'm not saying we have to write it down, but I would hope the ver the board of adjustments would be kind to this. Some people would like platforms that they can actually get up
there and then access so it's safe for technicians and it's safe for themselves. They would do that in a new home. You would you would build something there so you would have access. to I I think potentially you may see some things come through that say,
"Hey, you know, we want to put our condensers and our generator, but we would really like uh not a patio, but a you know, like a walkway or something where it makes it safer and easier for people to access." And I I just think we need to be reasonable out about those
requests. And, you know, it is what it is. you know, unless you build a new home, you you have to deal with what you have. And I think you have a right to to make it safe and a right to save your pool equipment. I've thought about the same thing. You know, uh that stuff's
not covered by insurance. So, you know, what what can you do now? Anyway, but you guys do a good job with that. So I think if you just you apply the common sense and not you know try to box people in with certain hard
>> I would just like to clarify um I think I I have confidence the board of adjustment I think that it should be done through a variance. So I think the board of adjustment should look at the variables how close they are to the neighbor
etc. And um if it's an existing home I think it should be looked at you said we've had a half a dozen of them in a couple years. I think it to me it's a it's a board of adjustment variance process. >> Okay. >> And I agree with other members that if
it's a new build, there's many ways you can accommodate it. Um and that would that would apply to existing builds as well, though you believe those should still go to the board of adjustment. >> Thank you. They don't have to right now for for
stuff that's inside the setback that was already there. So, we're just talking about stuff that may be outside of a setback. >> Correct. Any any newly installed equipment, but on potentially on only existing homes, homes built prior to the effective date of the ordinance. that
that could be a um >> Oh, so it it could include current equipment because encroachment is allowed at ground level but not when elevated. So this could be people elevating existing equipment. Um
>> I I would disagree with me Perry. I would I would prefer seeing something enacted uh rather than sending everything to board of adjustment so that the city has that opportunity to state in writing this is what we would like to see and then the board of
adjustment can just deal with deviation from that rather than everything goes to board of adjustment and it's a judgment call on case by case basis. So I I personally would prefer to see something along what we've been discussing put into writing in our code. I I think I
would I would too. I mean, we did it already once. We we can do it again, right? And with the intent is right is is right for why we did it, why why we adopted that. So, I agree. >> So, what are the running the generator
rules again? you you have to run your generator only when you need to basically in emergency or >> so I I brought that up because the the noise ordinance typically does not apply to basic life safety considerations f
during an emergency event. So, a generator, my cons, you know, the concern I brought up on the on the screen was the the noise. Um, typically 80 dB would exceed the city's noise ordinance, but while there's no power to a neighborhood, they're allowed to run. It's not a violation. So,
>> but then they couldn't run it just on a normal day. >> Correct. They they typically exercise at a lower decibel. It's usually right in line with the maximum under the city's code, but that's usually 5 to 10 minutes a week. So it's not frequent. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Dur during a non-emergency if someone were voluntarily running their generator some some other weird purpose our noise ordinance would cover that scenario. >> Okay. >> I think the canal lever does a good job
of keeping it out of the passage around the house. So, I think in tight spots it would be better to require that so that you're not totally walling off the setback. >> When when the city passed that ordinance
earlier this year, we did specify a minimum mounting height for the equipment. So, it doesn't resolve every issue that we brought up today, but we could at least make sure that there's that clear head height as well as the setback to to maintain. So, we'll we'll talk with the fire department about what
what they'd like to see there. And the yeah for the minimum setback as well how close it can get if it's encroaching >> and again I think it should be required to look at the neighbor's house because you don't want to guess your neighbor.
>> Yeah. Because taking away the variance process takes the neighbors say out of its which could be a risk. The neighbor is going to be happy when they come over to charge their cell phone.
The person that's generating power, >> take their Omaha Stakes over there. like one person who had a generator around. Everybody was plugging their phones in there and it was >> Do we want this for air conditioners as
well and pool equipment as well? >> If you whole house generator, it'll run your AC. It'll run everything. >> Yeah. Well, I mean the setback. >> What do you mean as a as a different unit? >> Variance or allowance for air condensers
as well? Cuz if the if your neighbor puts a condenser right outside your bedroom window and it's in a setback, so it's only like 8 ft from your window and you have your window open. Could be pretty loud.
Brandon, do you have do you have data on perceived noise versus distance? Like if if uh if a neighbor's house is elevated and the condenser becomes
right across from their window instead of what had been at grade, >> will they perceive that is significantly louder? Um well based on based on the data we collected for this typically a condenser running even continuously of course
outside an emergency event most condensers would still meet the city's decibel limitations of of 65 at measured at the the window in this case of the the neighbor's home. But you know you typically see a 15 decel give or take
dampening from the average hurricane window 15 to 20. though that would still be at the upper end a 50 decel that's it's noticeable it you know um we could always look at coming up with a
standard that it not be located immediately adjacent a window that would be looking similar to the gener you know we could take a look at it but I I don't know what kind of condensers are out there creating a lot
of noise but I I have one that's few years old now right outside a window on my house and I can't hear it when I'm inside and when the condensers are running it usually means it's hot >> usually means windows are closed and AC is on. I really don't think this is a
problem to be honest with you. There may be a few cases out there where someone has some kind of noisy condenser >> or old windows >> or old Yeah, but even old windows, you know. I agree with Grant. I
>> I don't I don't see this as an issue. If it's if it's a no if it is a noise issue for someone, then they can they can get the city involved and they can go out and do a decibel check and it can it can go under the noise ordinance thing and then
they can talk to their neighbor about upgrading their equipment. But the the equipment is so quiet now. You know, even the industrial stuff you can barely hear. >> Yeah. If you if you wanted this to include air conditioning equipment with
all of the same restrictions we talked about, I'd be okay with that, too. >> Agreed. >> And and similarly, uh new construction doesn't get that magic exemption. Yeah.
>> Anything else? Okay. >> So, what would the maximum encroachment be into the setback? >> Is there is that established or >> I believe and it it's been some time, but I believe when we last spoke with
the fire marshall, 3 feet was generally the recommendation for clear space adjacent to the property line. That's in line with some of the other standards we currently have in the code, including for atrade equipment. um which you know certainly might be harder to get around compared to something that's cantally
levered off the side of the building. I will speak to to her about that, but I believe staff would probably recommend at least 3 ft. >> Okay, >> that would be in any case. If if they need to get closer, they would go to the board of adjustment for their specific case. >> I think >> so at the at grade minimum would just go
vertical. >> Correct. Okay. >> Just tell someone want someone having it at 3T lifting it and pushing it out. >> Yeah. six feet. >> And for any compliant home, I don't believe we've seen a variance request for less than three feet. We do have a
few homes down in Pastor Gril that have asked for one to two feet setbacks, but they already have a home at 4T off the property line. So, it it just works out that way. Thank you all.
Okay, that was our only discussion item. This meeting is adjourned.