2026 meeting of the planning board. Please rise and join me for the pledge of >> allegiance. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Roll call, please. >> Member Izzy, >> here. >> Member Perry, >> here. >> Chair Hubard, >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have changes to today's agenda? >> Okay. Can I please have a motion to
approve the May 18th, 2026 agenda? >> I motion that we approve the May 18th I mean the agenda. Yes. >> I'll second. >> Roll call, please. Member Perry. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Chair Hubard. >> Yes. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Do we have any action? I'm sorry. Do we have any audience comments? >> No. >> Okay. Uh I will move to item three, which is approval of the April 20, 2026 minutes. Are there any changes to those?
>> No. >> Okay. Uh roll call, please. or I'm sorry. Uh motion to approve those minutes as written. >> I motion we approve the April 20th minutes as written. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes.
>> Chair Hubard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. I have no action items today. So we will move on to 5A discussion items. First one is the sign ordinance. >> Good afternoon.
This was a board requested item from last meeting. I just have a very brief presentation just to get us up to speed to two of the members present today probably remember this well because we just majorly amended our sign ordinance last summer. If we could pull the PowerPoint up please.
>> And so this is what you sent was the amended one that's not approved or the approved one. >> That is the amended. >> Okay. >> Approved. >> Okay. Can we pull that PowerPoint up, please?
So, I'd sent some examples of current code compliance signs out. I have those slides to reference if you would like, but we did majorly amend our sign code in the summer of last year. The the major driving force for this originally was to comply with Reed versus the Town of Gilbert. That was a 2015 uh landmark
Supreme Court case. There are a couple other cases that have come in the wake of that that really the major applicable impact on our sign code was to remove the contentbased regulations. Um, as you're probably well aware, government speech is or government limitation of
viewpointbased speech is is very limited, but this case came out and said um in terms of applicability to sign codes that the city also cannot differentiate based on content. For example, we previously had regulations that allowed for different size signs and signs to be located in different
areas if they were if they pertain to a real estate matter compared to a construction um project. We took out that reference. We have now timebased signs. We have placebased signs. So, are they appropriate in a certain area based on the height, based on the square
footage, the type of illumination and so on. And then manner. Um how is the the manner of the message delivered? Is it through an LED sign? Is it through a um you know a standard uh channel letter sign or so on? Our second intent was to
provide uniformity between zoning districts along Gulf Boulevard and Ply Pass Road. Prior to that, we had over 12 different sign districts. There were often very minute differences between districts. We flattened those down to four districts. There's now much more uniformity between types of signs that
are allowed in the various zoning categories throughout the city. We do differentiate between Passagril and Southern Gulf Boulevard, which is separate from the downtown area, which is separate from the more general commercial areas. But those are really the distinctions that we currently make
in our sign code. Initially, our plan was to pass stricter sign compliance requirements for non-conforming signs. We have a large number of non-conforming signs in the city. Many of them are two, three times the size of what we would allow today under the sign code. That was our intent. It did make it to the
city commission in the interim between it going to planning board and the city commission. Senate bill 180 was passed um that prohibits any kind of stricter regulations and that would have fallen under that um even from a development standpoint. So we did remove that. Um it is something that we can certainly
discuss um having stricter um regulations related to compliance for non-conforming signs, but that can only be after the conclusion of Senate Bill 180. We expect that to be in October of next year. So, here are some recent examples of signs uh posttorm and pre-torm that have
been made compliant with the city sign ordinance. This is the Remax sign. It really took some serious damage in the storm. The pole sign has been replaced with the new non-conforming sign. It's 50 square feet in sign area, 8 ft in height that complies with our current standards. It has the landscape setting
and it's um colored to look like the building. Those are some of the current requirements. Looking at the former Bay Care sign, again, a pole sign. It was too tall. It was too large. Uh they now have a new non-conforming sign. Bayare is no longer present, but the location, the square
footage, height, those are all compliant with the current sign code. Looking at the Walgreens sign, uh similar arrangement, formerly a pole sign. They use the same base. Uh they have not installed the landscaping yet, but it does meet the height. It does meet the area limitations based on our
current code. Here's one from a few years back that was prior to the sign code amendments last year. This was a poll sign for the Chick-fil-A. At the time, they required a variance for both sign square footage and height. One of the changes that was made with the uh
sign amendments last sign code amendments last year was to allow for a little bit higher of a height in the zoning district. They now comply with the height limitation for that sign at 12t tall. Um, so this is a sign that was precurrent sign code, but does still comply with the current sign
regulations. And this is a unique one. We've only seen one of these so far. This is the postcard in on the beach sign. It was recently reinstalled as the the loose uh the rebranding of that hotel. This sign exceeds the height allowed. It exceeds the square footage allowed. However, in
reviewing with the city commission last year, they did want to allow for those signs that were not substantially damaged, that were associated with properties that were undergoing restoration, provided that they applied for permits for restoration within a set period of
time. They kept those current while the sign was being restored. And again, when the sign was not destroyed or requested to exceed the height or the square footage of what was in place previously, they did allow for those signs to be reinstalled when again when they're associated with a catastrophic event.
So, I don't have a photo of the Luc's current sign, but that has been reinstalled. It's effectively the same sign that was there previously. It's a little bit shorter, uh, but the square footage of the sign has not increased. So, this was a special circumstance. It was something that was allowed based on those sign code amendments and uh was
not in place prior to the amendments last year. So with that, I just wanted to provide some examples, some background to how we got to the sign code as it exists today. Happy to answer any any questions. I have a few. So
can you give me a list? Not now. You don't have to do it now, but unless you have a list, but of the restrictions that you removed because of Senate Bill 180, you know, what were the things that were going to be in it that are now not there?
>> So, the major change we were going to make, we currently have a non-conforming sign standard of 50% depreciated value just like you would have with with a home. If any kind of maintenance or elective restoration of that sign or damage restoration were to occur that
exceeds 50% based on the current sign code, that sign needs to be brought into compliance with the current sign code. Our proposal was to reduce that down to 25%. A lot of the restoration that we see falls into the 30 to 45% range based on the scope of work that they're
undertaking. with a sign, there's a lot more ability to, you know, drop certain maintenance um requirements and so on. Our intent was to lower that threshold to require those signs to be brought into conformity. We were also not proposing what you see on the screen, the the allowance to restore signs that
had been a request that had been made once the once the sign amendments were underway. Um but that was that was our intent. We made things a little bit more permissive. Like I brought up with the Chick-fil-A sign, the height limitation went from 8 feet to 12 feet. Square footage didn't change, but the height
was allowed to be a little bit taller. Uh the trade-off with that would have been for those signs that are very tall, that are well over the square footage we allow based on our current sign code, they were going to have a lower threshold to come into compliance with that standard. We unfortunately had to take that out because of Senate Bill
180. That hadn't something that both this board and the commission had wanted included. We just didn't have the ability to pass it. Was there ever any discussion about um poll signs in general being, you know, removed or not being allowed?
>> Uh we we don't currently allow for poll signs. So that would, you know, again, this one being an an exception. Under the current code, we would not allow for poll signs. >> I thought I saw that. I I must not have read that correctly then. So,
businesses that are there that currently have a poll sign, let's let's just pick one. Doesn't matter. And I'm not picking on anyone any I'm just I'm focused on poll sign, right? >> For safety for one, right? Especially that that's the main thing. But let's
say a tall one like the Waffle House, do they ever have to remove that and be uh get in conformance with a um what are they called? Monument signs that is that what that's what we're calling them. >> Correct. We we don't currently have an
immortization schedule for those. We do for LED signs. Uh so that's coming up, but for those we gave about a 10-year lead on requiring them to come into compliance. I think the compliance deadline is late next year, but we don't currently have a set date that they need
to bring their sign into compliance. >> Okay. So, there is or there I'm I was confused by that last statement. So, we have a deadline for people in >> So, the only the only compliance
deadline that we have is for LED signs, electronic message board signs. We don't have any based on the height, the type of sign other than LEDs area. We don't have a certain deadline for them to come into compliance. It's based on the maintenance cost for the sign or the damage the sign sustains.
>> Okay. Is it is that something we when Senate Bill 180, we're not under that anymore. Is that something we could potentially look at? >> I I think we could definitely look at that. Um I think we had a couple proposals that would have made the sign
code a little bit stricter. It was more of a trade-off at the time, but I think we can certainly look at at at that. >> Yeah. Because we're never going to get to any You said it the uniformity, right? I'm not sure what the again this this goes
back to a lot of things that I I'm confused with on on the city because there's no vision for a lot of things that we're doing. But if I were to ask what is the vision for the uniformity? What does that mean to us in the city? you know, currently what does that mean?
Someone should be able to say, well, it means, hey, we really we really only want uh for for all the reasons safety, etc., etc., right? We only want monument style signs, we don't want lighted signs, we, you
know, we don't want backlit signs, we don't want LED, obviously. So, we've done something there. Um, and we don't want this. So the uniformity that we want in the city is going to be this and then
we can decide you know what does it take to get there. Um so I think when Senate Bill 180 kind of expires or or gives us more permissions to do things I think we need to be ready
for that. But it's hard when there's not a real vision. I mean, I could tell you what I I think, you know, in general, we should do based on other city. Every time I go to a city, you know, ever since I've moved here and tried to get involved with a little bit of what's
going on with our city, every city I go to now, I look around and say, "Okay, how, you know, how come ours looks this way, theirs looks that way, you know, whether it's sidewalks, signs, or whatever, right?" But I'm not an expert. I'm not a city manager. So, so how do we
get to a place signage-wise um that we want to go to uniformity or whatever whatever we're getting to would really be nice if we could define that as well, right? You know, what is it that's acceptable for us when you drive
up and down G Boulevard from a safety perspective, from a aesthetics perspective and all that? What is it that we want this drag to look like >> in 5 10 years? I don't even know like and so so let's say we came up up with something. We go through all this
girration. How how long of a time frame or how short of a time frame really is what I should say without really what's reasonable without putting too much stress on businesses too, right? We can't say overnight tear everything down and build everything. That's not fair,
right? So what is the kind of the norm in this kind of process? because obviously there's an appetite to change something, right? That started before uh the storm. What is the time frame that we need to get to where we want to go?
How does that normally work? Brandon, if you could kind of give it a little background because we did have a consultant that we had reached out to and I think that was I don't know in what year we started with the sign code ordinance or the sign change. So it does
take a number of years and we did have a consultant and I'm just trying to super sleuth as I'm sitting here but it it did take some time. We had some community engagement, went to commission, um, you know, for an overall like a big overhaul of our our sign code. Um, did
we did it come out to the way we want it? Not necessarily, because we did have some restrictions placed on us. Um, but from what I can recall going to commission, we did kind of put a a purpose and a sense in there as far as what they wanted to see. Um, and I don't
know really the sense that we got out of that as far as like designer signs or monument signs other than bringing things a little smaller and closer to the ground. >> Yeah, that was going to be my question. Did it produce design standards or did did it just produce here's what we
definitely don't want for these reasons, so don't do this, but not we'd really like you to make it look this way. >> I don't think we got a real clear sense of direction on that. So s it sounds like to me, you know, the city, you know, I think we all, you
know, the funny thing about St. Pete Peach, we all kind of want the same thing. We just argue the heck out of how to get there, you know. Um, we can't seem to figure out how to bring the thoughts together and the people together to get to the product we want
or to the vision we want. Right. Sounded like sounds like there's an appetite in this city based on the work you've already done to have a better signage experience as you come into this town for safety and other reasons.
Do we need to go back now and because we're going to get some relief and we can put some of these other restrictions back in place that were already agreed upon but we had to back off of them. just to go back to that kind of starting
point and go, okay, this is, you know, if we're able to do this, this is what this sign signage ordinance or would look like. >> We would put these other things back in place. Is there anything else that we want to put in place and entertain? You know,
I I could come up with a lot when this is not the time to to do that, I don't think. But, you know, I'd be happy to be part of that effort. I just want I just want us to you've heard me voice my frustration many times about we don't get things done because we don't have the first step which is the
vision right what is that vision of what we want it to look like and then we can get in with a workg group or whatever we're going to do to figure out how to get there right you know help craft the wording to get there so I I I just I
know we got problems with the the poll signs that are still there and I would like to see them come down as soon as possible. So if they're no no longer you know so we we would have to do the same thing you did with LED right by this whatever time you got to get rid of them
>> correct >> you know we got to start doing some of that stuff so how how can we get there from here you know what I'm asking I I don't want >> most the sign codes around the country have what they call a mortitization period >> um and there's tax amortization that the
IRS has which is five years, but you can also write off your sign in one year if you want to do that. But the amortization for sign codes is more like a return on investment or recover the use of your sign and then when you update your sign, you go to the new
code. They go anywhere from less than a year. Uh most of them are three years um or five years. Um there's some that go all the way to 15, but that's only like two out of 117. When the American Planning Association
looked at it, they were usually three years or five years. And there were some that were less than one, but not very many, like 10 out of a hundred, right? >> So, you kind of want to figure out how much it costs for a pole sign, how long has it been there already? Um, have they
gotten the lifetime, useful, life use out of it? Is it time to trade in now for a new sign? And I think for the LEDs, we give five years. >> Well, it was originally 10. Um, but to your point, the city has not allowed pole signs except ones granted a
variance for, I believe, 20 years now. So, you know, based on a 30-year usable life for a, you know, strides, >> it's been there for a long time. >> And that's that's another one of my points is, you know, 20 years from now, the G Boulevard boulevard is going to look the same
unless we start doing some things and putting some things in place, right? Um there's other cities out there that you can drive through um and you look around, you go, "Wow, this, you know,
looks really great." And there's nothing there's no danger, of course, of a pole sign falling on your head during a hurricane. But in just in general, the way the way it looks is just fantastic. You drive through and you go, "Wow, you know, this could be us, right?" Or or
something like this. But >> again, um I I don't know what else to say from this point other than I I would really like us to do an effort on this, but I'm not I'm not a commissioner, right? I can't dictate to any of you any of this. I I just what's what's the best next
best step to try to at least fulfill what was the appetite was the restrictions that were taken away. >> You know, h how do we go? Where do we go from here? and what can I do to help, you know, really. >> So, I think the first step would be to
engage this board on the 2025 sign code to see if it's still in line with what your intent is, what what you would like it to say. We did engage the city commission back in 2024 on what became the 2025 amendments. And at the time,
they did want to see uniformity in color between the signs and the building, but they did not want uniformity in design of signs across the city. They also didn't necessarily want there to be a requirement for the same materials of the sign or the sign base to match the
building. So, we might see uniformity, whatever that takes shape as in terms of getting rid of the pole signs, making them compliant with the remax with the Chick-fil-A signs that you saw on those slides. But if this board wanted more than that, if the city commission wanted more than that, that was not the
direction we got at the time. Granted, that was a I believe a completely different commission or potentially just one commissioner still. So there might be a different direction today. Um but we have some time. We have 15 months now. So we can definitely work on um the
amortization is really just picking a timetable that we think works for everybody. I think to the city attorney's point, most of the poll signs with the exception of a handful have been there for 15 to 20 years at least. Um, so you know, we I think we'd face
less of an uphill battle than if they were put in last year. Um, so that might be a little bit easier to achieve in terms of uniformity. We're just going to have to define what that what that means. >> Yeah. And also, >> we do have a couple historic signs too um that Brandon and I have worked on.
>> We do. We we have the Bon Bonire >> Bonire on >> the Keystone Hotel motel. So >> I would recommend instead of get hiring yet another consulting firm to give us yet more information we don't seem to do
much with um is find a cast of volunteers from the city to be your consulting firm on this. Right? You use the people here who have an interest in this who would really you know pull pull their sleeves up and go
investigate how other maybe other cities are doing. you know, just I think there's a an appetite and it would help pull the community together too as well for something like this is big. It's huge. It's it's it's how you know it could shape the way our whole city looks
for the next, you know, 50 years if we do whatever we do. Anyway, but I do thank you for bringing this up. >> Brandon, can you refresh my memory on what triggers extensions of SB180? Was it is it still hurricane track within 100 miles?
>> I think it's hurricane landfall within 100. Is that >> Well, you have Senate Bill 180 has two different sections and one of them dealt with the Milton and >> uh >> Helen >> Helen and and those will expire in 2027.
But then there's another provision that if there's another hurricane, it's uh for one year after that hurricane. And I can look up, but I think it's u I'll see if it's 100 miles from landfall, but it might it might be where they've named a
state of emergencies. Let me take a look at it. I'll let you know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, hopefully >> be in perpetuity. >> Yeah. Hopefully we never have that happen again. But I feel like one of the bills used language of just the track being predicted to come through here was sufficient to extend the moratorum. But
it >> it'll be a new one. It would be an extension to be a new one based on a new storm. >> Okay. Okay. Um, are there any other triggers that require sign replacement? Like if the property is demolished and
Yes. If if the property is demolished, if it's redeveloped, all the signs on the property need to come into compliance. if it's abandoned. So if a business goes out of business for a certain period of time, now that's told based on the storms, but if five years
from now a building is still vacant, it has a poll sign that's too tall, um we, you know, if the state of emergency is expired, we would be able to require them to come into compliance. >> Okay. impacted local government is within 100 miles of the track of a storm declared to be a hurricane by the
National Hurricane Center while the storm was categorized as a hurricane. So that is just the track then it doesn't even have to hit >> if it peters out you know then then it doesn't but while it's a hurricane 100 miles from >> okay
>> from that loc any county and all the cities within that county >> okay >> within 100 miles of the track >> so might be stuck with these signs for a bit >> yes >> yeah but I true >> if you have a window of opportunity
seize it because it may not be there forever >> you won't be able to seize it if you're not ready. >> Exactly. >> So, we have to have a document ready to go. >> You know, it's almost like you would had the other sign ordinance on the shelf that you the things you had to take out
of it, the restrictions, you'd have another one sitting here ready to go as soon as you know we're able. If we but if we don't do the work now, >> okay? you know, by the time we start the work and then, you know, a year later do it, then a storm comes, you know, you're
going to miss the opportunity. And so this, you know, the next one I was going to ask you about was uh to see if we can get some more info on is the sidewalk thing because I I know we were heading in the right direction regarding sidewalks, but I don't know if that got
way laid as well. But those very important safety related um things for our city h we have to be ready th those are infrastructure things that just can't keep getting kicked down the road you know
anyway. All right. Anything anything else? Okay. Uh we will move to discussion item 5B updates to seaw wall ordinance. Um I know member Perry has a presentation. What order?
>> Brandon has one. >> Oh okay. >> Must be Luke. >> Who's first? Good afternoon everybody. Luke Curtis, building official for the city of St. Pete Beach. We can get the presentation up on
screens. Perfect. Thank you. So, um, we were tasked with, uh, coming up with some changes to our seaw wall ordinance, uh, to help clarify and kind of streamline the approval process, if you will.
There's we don't have a whole lot of uh people that are looking for changes or variations from the elevation requirement, but when they do for certain hardships, um sometimes it can
get complicated and um the code needed a little bit of tweaking. So, what we did is we went in and we looked at the variance criteria that we have currently in our code. And there's there's five basic criteria that it has and I say
basic but some of them are a little bit more entailed. Um so the first one is uh there are special conditions of the upland subject property existing upland structures or buildings or vested and permittable upland structures or buildings which the applicant has taken
reasonable investmentbacked steps to construct for which the application of the subject standard will present a hardship. So if the seaw wall u being elevated to a certain point poses a hazard to that then that was that one step one condition. Uh the second one is
the hardship is not predominantly financial in nature and that's that's typical of any kind of variance from uh codes that we have is just because of the the financial aspect of it is not uh uh a reason for an application or an
approval of the hard a variance. The third point application of the subject standard will imperil the subject or a neighboring property. So obviously any work that we do, we don't want to negatively impact our adjacent properties. The fourth point gets a little bit more
detailed. The hardship does not result from the upland property owner's unwillingness to modify the site to accommodate retention or detention of a 25-year 24-hour storm. or such modification would itself rise to the
level of a hardship that deprivives the application applicant reasonable use of the land structure or building. So um when we're looking at storm water and if there is a means to or well if the claim
is elevating a seaw wall is going to create for the black back lack of a better term a backflow or pooling of uh rainwater. Then what the code is looking for is to redirect that rainwater, direct it to the back to the street so
that it can go through the storm drain system. Um, and so that's what this is talking to in this section here. So for example, let's just say there is the elevating a seaw wall creates a pooling
area. The intent is well, we could do a couple things. We could create swailes on either side or one side of a property to redirect that storm water back to the street. Or we could have a retention or detention pond uh or area which could be
you know you think of on a small scale a French drain can be used to accommodate rainwater so that it's not just sitting on top. Um and then we get down to the fifth point. uh the variance requested is the minimum necessary to reasonably
mitigate the peril that the application of the subject standard would otherwise cause. So again what is what would be the minimum elevation without causing this peril. So with these these points in mind this is what brought up the
questions as far as well how how can we be more refined in this? how can we uh alleviate that uh requirement of the five-foot elevation where warranted. So, we needed to clarify that and um and so
some of the points that we came up with to uh that when we addressed this with the commission was uh just right here. So, looking at adding language to the codes to require caps on seaw walls to be designed for uh future upgrades to
the required height. So, in those instances where the seaw wall is not at the five- foot uh elevation, they are lower, but they're designed so that they could be accommodating of an elevation or adding to it at a later date. The
hardship variance would be granted if the cost to accommodate storm water exceeds 20% of the value of the primary structure. So, this is looking at trying to set a threshold. Uh so just like we have uh the 50% rule for substantial
damage if it tips that threshold then you know there's I'm sorry that's a little backwards looking at it but by setting a threshold it helps to identify what is too much. So in this case setting a threshold of say 20% of the value of the building. If it exceeds
that then it's excessive and they wouldn't be required to do that. But if it's under that, so going back to the example of swailes or retention or detention or maybe even something as simple as uh we have some properties
that have 100% imperous area on the lot. We so we have limitations on how much impervious area because that's just going to in those scenarios the rain water is just going to sheet off the property and to the street or wherever.
But it might mean in some instances uh the property would need to be made conforming to that if we if that's what's po uh causing an issue. Um you know and then revising the criteria for
administrative relief uh setting a minimum elevation of 4T NAVD. So in the instances where we do allow for seaw wall to be lower than the standard setting at least that minimum of four feet
and then lastly new construction to require seaw wall to be made conforming. So in the in the case where we have a brand new home that's conforming with all the regulations, the property itself is is conforming to all the regulations having that requirement to make the seaw
wall also conforming because ultimately at the end of the day for our seaw walls they're in place to protect us against tidal flooding. Um, you know, the the argument is, well, by raising a seaw wall, we have potential rainwater that's going to be stopped up and and cause
issues. So, we just got to keep in mind we're we're talking about two totally separate issues. Um, the seaw wall is there to protect us from that tidal flooding and we have other scenarios uh or other uh factors that can help us to
accommodate for that rainwater that that storm water. Um, but we have to make sure that we're looking at them separately and because we're gonna we're going to handle them separately. And that's that's it. Uh, that's the basic gist of what we were tasked to do.
And we we're directed to bring this before you to see if you had any thoughts or ideas on the matter. And um, I'm open to any questions if you have any. C >> could I see two slides ago? >> Yes. Um,
okay. So, the question I had on on the next slide, it, you know, it defines that potential for if installing this new seaw wall would would potentially cost more than 20% of the value of the structure, the primary
structure, then we could potentially allow it to not be required. But I was I was thinking the the oldest homes are the most likely to exceed that number. And now you're potentially imperiling the
neighbors by not requiring them raise their seaw wall. Um >> the 20% isn't the cost of the seaw wall, it's the cost of the storm water area to hold the rainwater that's held behind the seaw wall. >> Right. Right. But I'm I'm thinking
>> area of the rain garden or the soil. >> So that you could >> that 20%. >> Okay. Oh, okay. So mitigation can't exceed that. Okay. Um so and just just to quantify that it's not that it can't exceed that if somebody because we want
to promote anybody that wants to make their property more conforming, better to handle the storm water, whether it's tidal or from rain, we want to promote that. the the 20% is is a cap that we we set in there that we can't require it if
it exceeds that because then it's um it it's just it's might put an over harder burden on the property owner if they wanted to, >> right? >> Uh they could. So that that was just you
know in as far as dealing with whether it's building code or city codes you know we have in different areas we have these thresholds like for example a commercial building if it's not conforming to accessibility we uh can require them to make
improvements that uh come up to 20%. But if if the improvements to make it ADA compliant or accessibility then we can't require it if it exceeds 20%. But we can require up to that 20%. So same here, if there are improvements on the property
that would help mitigate those damages, not this not the seaw wall itself, but help to mitigate potential damages to the property or building, then it it would be set there. >> Okay. I guess well I guess my concern is with accessibility that's specific to
the property in question but if we allow variances of seaw walls then we're potentially placing other properties at risk and even imperiling city infrastructure. I mean if somebody's seaw wall is way too low and they are
refusing to mitigate drainage and we just happen to have a pump station next door and now there's a flood that could have been avoided. uh you know it's just a lot of downstream effects. So that that's my concern. >> Yep. There is that there's it's a
two-edged sword is you know we want to set regulations to uh make things safer, make things more resilient. Um but you know typically we see it on both sides. We we don't want to put too much burden on the property owner. So there is
usually caveats in there to allow for you know if if warranted and that and that's what it comes down to is is these uh these conditions. How do we want these conditions or at what point do we want to say okay yeah we understand your
house elevation is at 4T so we're going to allow you to be lower or you know something to that effect. Uh but yeah, ultimately we we want everything all our seaw walls to be elevated to to five feet because that will protect us from
that tidal flooding. Uh case in point, I was earlier today I was down in the Donses neighborhood and we have a really high tide and the roads are flooded. But if we had the if we had our seaw walls up in place and elevated to where they
should be uh or even even if they were uh not exactly where they should be but if they were up a little bit um it wouldn't take a whole lot to protect it but you know going forward we have to they say every journey starts with a
single step. So over time, if we can uh get these taken care of, then ultimately we're protecting the whole city. >> Yeah. I I think I'm thinking a little bit like you on this. I'm not sure
why we'd even give the variance, you know, if a seaw wall needs to be replaced. See, and I and also though I I want us to be very very careful about putting these other criteria in because you know it it should come down to whether the seaw wall needs to be
replaced or not. If it needs to be replaced, it should meet the new standard. I don't want us to get into a a point where we go onto the property for something else. Let's say we're someone's doing a renovation of, you
know, of their singlestory home. you know, it's within FEMA compliant or FEMA amount to do, but then someone from the city goes, well, you know, your SEAW walls, you got the old height and you know, we need to mitigate something and
you know, unless you can come up with a, you know, something that's less than 20% or whatever, you know, we're going to make you put a new se, you know, fix the seaw wall, you know, that's like >> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Yeah, something you said there triggered that to me like you know well we
shouldn't be talking about flood mitigation uh regarding the seaw wall to someone who buys you know or has an older property just because the seaw wall is at the current height because then that's kind of like forcing them to to
get a new seaw wall maybe when the seaw wall is in good repair it's just lower one day it's got to be higher so as long as the focus is only on you know when the seaw wall needs to be replaced you have to go up and you have
to meet the standard. I ju I just I just want to make sure that you weren't thinking or nobody here is thinking that there could be a situation where we go to a a home let's say just pick my home for example and you know I'm going to do
some renovation maybe you know maybe if another flood comes or whatever and someone says well you know your seaw wall needs you know unless you unless you can do this 20% thing we're going to make you do a new seaw wall there you don't envision that ever happening
So I I it's hard to say. It just depends on lawmakers and and what what they want to do. I haven't seen anything like that. Right now there's uh I shouldn't even say right now. Right now there's there's two criteria that uh would uh in
in our code that would make us take a step towards saying you have to update your seaw wall. Uh and that's so if it's in if it's in disrepair, >> right, >> and basically tidal waters are are flowing through it because what happens in that scenario, it starts eroding the
dirt from behind it and eventually that wall is just going to collapse. So that's that's number one. The number two is if they're doing work on it. So if you're if you're working on your seaw wall, if you're if you're uh repairing your seaw wall, then you have
to bring that conforming. But as far as work on the house itself, that that isn't a trigger. Now, the one thing that we're we're proposing is with a brand new home where everything is going to be made conforming that we're proposing to add it into our code. With a brand new
home, yep, you're going to bring your seaw wall up to >> What if it's a brand new seaw wall and it's only two years old and it just doesn't conform because it was not high enough? I mean, isn't there I I see if there's a new home, there could be a requirement that the seaw
wall is inspected. Um, and I think there are a lot of other things and and to be honest, I think we're sort of barking up the wrong tree. >> Um, and I have a lot that I want to say about this. >> Can I say my last thing? And then since you have a lot, I I only have But it
goes to what I what I think uh member Perry said there was If someone had just decided to sell and leave St. Pete Beach because of the they got flooded and someone came in and bought that
property, that property has a fairly new seaw wall and cap or new cap or whatever on it, but it's good. There's nothing wrong with it. The requirement is to that I have to put a uh you know a raised an elevated home, right?
>> Yeah. If you're building a new home, >> if you're building new elevated home, >> Yep. >> So now, I mean, yes, a lower seaw wall water could come over it, but I'm now I'm living in an elevated home. >> So why would why would you force some
someone who's built a brand new elevated home to actually, you know, worry? I mean, because the worry isn't there. They're going to have to address the seaw wall if they put, you know, if there's a pool situation or these other situ. But I think I I think the notion
of forcing someone to put a new seaw wall in just because they've built a new home. I just I don't like it. I don't think that's that supports the residents. I don't I think it's just barking up the wrong tree. And so that was the second
thing I have. Thank you. I I have I would have to imagine the logic behind that is we have a seaw wall height goal for specific safety reasons. Safety of everyone, the city, the neighbors, the property in question. And
seaw walls have a service life of could be 40, 50 years. So we don't want if if there's a triggering event, we don't want that to say, "Okay, well then we'll just leave this seaw wall alone for another 40 years and let it keep causing problems every time there's a flood." So I I imagine that's why that logic
exists. I I kind of support that. Uh you know, if I've got a non-conforming seaw wall and I just rip my house down and unfortunately I did my seaw wall two years ago, well uh for the better of the city, it has to come up. >> Yeah. I just I just I I just don't see
first of all we're saying then the seaw walls let's just take this last storm for example that the that the seaw walls you know would have prevented the damage and it's just >> it no it it wouldn't and I don't think the seaw walls are going to prevent you
know really much in a hurricane other than you know the erosion of the of the property. What is a seaw wall for right? So seaw wall is not for storm surge, you know, to put in perspective. I'm sorry, interrupt. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. No, so exactly my point there. Um the seaw wall is to protect the land and to make sure that the the sea and the land stay separate, right? And that there's protection there. Um for us, you know, I don't I hope we
don't have another storm for another hundred years, but it was a hundredyear storm. So I I I see us putting a requirement like this as a as a you know being a little bit trigger happy on the residents here who are I mean
that's not cheap seaw walls 40 plus thousand you know depending on how much waterfront you have just because we want it to be five feet why do we want it to be five feet what's what's what's the reason so you know I mean not all the
streets flood on a on a king tide. >> You know, there is a section of this town that does, you know. So, let I I just again I I don't like when we put these, you know, mandates because we because we think it
would be better for the city, you know, that that's just that's just me. But anyway, I'm done. Let's see. So, if I can comment on that. So, I just wanted to Yeah, you're 100% correct. Seaw walls do not protect against a
storm storm surge. Obviously, if it's a a minor storm, then we have the potential protection there. Um to put it in perspective, when Helen when we got the flooding from Helen, the storm waters were at 7T NAVD. That's North
America vertical data, which is roughly above sea level. So 7 feet above sea level. Our seaw walls are or well our seaw wall code is looking for five feet NAVD or 5t above sea level. So we were roughly in in our areas where we have
conforming seaw walls we're roughly 2 feet over that with our storm surge. Um keep in mind we got sideswiped with Helen wasn't a direct hit. To put it in perspective I think um Cedar Key got a 14 foot storm surge. So they're they're
not in place for those storm surges. They're in place for the tidal flooding. Now, that being said, the the logic behind setting this height is not for our not necessarily for our lives today.
>> I'm not debating I'm not debating the new requirement of five feet. >> No, I I just wanted to I wanted to comment on on the question. So part of the reason why they set that that elevation is um studies for potent
whether you know I depending on who you talk to some people believe in sea level rise and some people think it's a it's >> whatever so no matter what your opinion is you know that was part of the reason for to accommodate for that potential
sea level rise uh so that if and when that happens 50 60 70 100 years down the road that we've taken steps to help get to a safer point. That being said, to put it in perspective, the um
Broward County uh they adopted a a requirement and they set their the elevation similar to us at five the seaw walls to be at 5T. And what but they took it a step further and the county said to all the municipalities said,
"Oh, by the way, you have two years to adopt a similar code to get the seaw walls to this higher elevation." Um, in anticipation of that potential and uh, you know, the saying goes, uh, better to be prepared than sorry, you know, so to
air on the side of caution that that's where the five feet comes from. uh the the elevation of five feet was came up by uh was determined by somebody much smarter than me that has done studies on tidal flooding and all that. But uh just
to give you a little bit of backstory on that. >> My turn. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay, I wanted to tell you I've looked at this from a little bit different perspective. Um,
one of the things I was wondering, you know, why this was on the agenda and I went back to a meeting a while ago and I think it was Brandon you said our seaw wall codes were developed 65 years ago most of them the base
um they've been updated for variances from 1997 and uh so basically the material that we are trying to create variances for is woefully out of date and I just wonder if we aren't solving the right problem.
So I thought a lot about this. You talk about vision, you know, why are we doing this? We we want to have an overall sustainable resilient community and in October 2023, the city of St. Pet Beach had a
vulnerability assessment done by Kimley Horn. I've got papers from things This was one of their things. I don't know if we can get that displayed. This was a um St. Pete Beach vulnerability assessment. Is there any
way to get that displayed? How do I do that? >> I'm seeing it. It's up there. >> Oh, it's up there. Okay. Thank you. Um so at that time they were talking about you know things like storm water, sewage infrastructure, things that had been um
really not properly maintained over the years. The seaw wall has fallen into that same category. Um so they were basically looking at the risk for the city and how what a priority it should be. And I think there is some value in going back to that report and trying to
isolate that vision and where are we going and why are we trying to get there. I think another thing that um you mentioned Broward I've got that that was in that report and it talks about sea level rise increasingly and how do you
adapt things you should do about it. Um, the other thing that we had back in 2022, you asked about how long does it take to do things, I don't know how many people have looked at the uniform resilient shoreline protection model ordinance template,
but there are several things out there. There are several cities that are way ahead of us. Um, I feel like uh what we're trying to do is we are trying to make a patchwork quilt work and the whole ordinance and I'll go into why. I
think the whole thing needs to be relooked at and maybe we need to do some interim strategies but for the long term we can't keep applying bandaids to where we are right now. So um I know that there was a city
commission meeting um where the city commission looked at some of these things and um they asked for how to get really there's talk about how do we incentivize people how do we
you know as long as we have a 4 foot and a five foot and we have the saw tooth I could argue that putting a five foot seaw wall in my yard if my neighbors have four feet and all their water's coming into my yard why are they being allowed to do that to me. So, I mean, you can look at it from the opposite
angle. So, we did have this at the planning board meeting and there were five um or more items that came out of that that were supposed to happen. Um and I have here from the meeting summary
we were going to get um city to do posttorm evaluations. You know, how big is the problem? At least for the storm water and the sewer system, we're getting the data. How big is the problem? How many of these things do we need to fix? How long is it going to take this city to get to five foot seaw
wall the way we're doing it? What how big is the problem? Do we even know? Um so we're supposed to be looking at things to help us along that journey. So what I would say is that this is extremely important. Um, just like the
sign ordinance, I think resiliency for our city has seriously got to be looked at and I do see that happening for the storm water and sewage system and other things, but I think we need to look at our code. So, the next thing I said is
that um we have this sheet when you're doing the seaw wall elevation worksheet and I'll put this on a second. There's a checklist for people so that they know what they need to get done. But you you fill out the sheet for seaw wall and it
doesn't tell you how the data is used or what the height criteria are. What determines how high a seaw wall can be? I know we talk about a five foot minimum, but should I have six? I mean, is it what how how does the lowest level of my existing house need to be or my
neighbor's house or what if there's a pool and does there need to be a retaining wall? Um, and if there is a retaining wall, if I've got mine at five and you've got yours at fours, then should you build the retaining wall because you're the one that's, you know, having the water come in, not me. So
there's there's so many things that are unclear and not defined for the I don't know how anybody in the city actually does a seaw wall because I tried to sort it all out. It's terribly confusing. So I don't know what this means, but it would be really nice if there was some
way in this worksheet that we knew what calculations were being done and I'm sure that you know the building department could tell us that. But there's nothing in code. There's no guidance in the code that I could find. Um, another thing that I looked at in
terms of our current status, we have a lot of different regulations. So, I looked a lot at the um, flood control and I looked a lot at several of the others. I'm just putting this up here so that you'll know where I get all this stuff. I didn't make it up. And then, of
course, here's our St. Pete Beach ordinance. And as I read these, um, they conflict with each other. So, um, and I will tell you this is not my area of expertise. So, I could certainly be
educated on a number of these things, but some of the things that I saw was like if you go to the flood control and you look at the drainage uh plan, it says section 106-542, single family homes and duplexes.
um you're not required to submit a formal drainage plan in accordance with the other requirements. Um it talks about the 70% impermeability and it talks about swailes should be along the property lines to help direct the storm water runoff. So that's that's perfectly
reasonable. But then if you go to section 98 104 number four relief from seaw wall bulkhead living shoreline whatever um it's talking about storing water on your land um accommodating the detention or
detention of a 25 year 24-hour storm. So I said okay that's a 25 year 24-hour storm. So, a 25 year 24-hour storm. Um, it it talks you about that and basically that
would mean that I have to have 9.52 in retained on my land, but the other part of the code says I can get it in a swale and get it out of there. So, this is this is very confusing. Um, and the thing about the thing that was
presented to us today is you see it up here on the screen. the hardship variance does result in the patient in the property owner's unwillingness to modify the site to accommodate a 25-y year. Nowhere in the code could I find I found it in the variant section this was but I
couldn't find anywhere in the code that it said you had to hold 9.4 in or 25 year 24-hour storm. So the code is in conflict with itself as far as I can tell. Um,
I don't know where that 25 year holding the nine inches came from. Um, and it it really doesn't make sense if you look at some of the other things I hear people looking at. For example, here's one that is section 981 bulkheads and seaw walls must be
designed to and it goes on to be basically um imperable. >> So, okay. And I know you put this stuff in for the hydrostatic pressure relief, but if we can have things either through
swailes or I've even heard talk about in some of the neighborhoods that get flooding, we're going to pump it over the seaw wall, then why would we have a regulation that says it can't go over the seaw wall? You got to hold it.
It doesn't make any sense. So, um that was another area of confusion. Here's one. This is um section 106.59. A proposed development talks about
grading and how um I forget what the exact wording is, but it has to do with the fact that the the grade of the the yard has to be along the cap of the seaw wall. I've seen another place where it talks about your seaw wall might need to be 9 in higher, I guess, to hold things.
Um, but basically, we have requirements that we can put the seaw wall in, but then we don't want to make a bathtub when it rains. So, why can't we grade our lawn so that it goes to the cap of the seaw wall? And yet, I
can't tell looking at our things. It says um talks about and there's AE versus B zones. It does say that in an AE zone minor amounts of fill shall be allowed. So does that mean that I can fill my yard so that it's at the cap of the seaw
wall? Um I'm not really clear. So I guess um I'll get into the stuff that was given to us for this meeting. Now, the first one talked about adding language to the code for the um cap
design. And I think um that may be just a thing to try to consolidate words on a slide, but um you couldn't just look at a cap design. It has to be the the thing that it's sitting on has to be designed to hold it. >> So, um that probably may just be a
slight thing. Um again, the hardship is 20%. The 20% came out of the air from everything I can tell. I cannot find a reference anywhere and I don't and when I thought it said primary structure I thought it meant the house. So, you know, maybe I didn't read that carefully
enough and it was had to do with a retention. I don't know. It's just I don't know where that came from and I don't know that it makes sense. Um again, this this whole um revised
criteria of administrative relief, the minimum elevation set to four. We've talked here briefly about if somebody just put in a seaw wall two years ago and it's 4 feet 6 in, are they going to be required to go to five? I don't think we want to adjust the variance that we
can just arbitrarily go to four feet. But I do think that we may want to have some verbiage in there related to age. And as far as if somebody is building a new home, I don't think it would be unreasonable to get an assessment of the lifespan of their seaw wall. I don't know that you necessarily
are going to mandate that they build a new one, but there should be some criteria in there so that um everything shouldn't have to be a variance. It should be, you know, clearly spelled out what it is that we want, what is the goal, how are we going to get there? And
um I just think that um I just think that applying looking at the approach of coming up with new ways to do variances on the code that we have which is based on 65year-old code that's been bandated and bandated
and bandated. I just don't think that's the right approach. So, I feel like we need to take a step back, get our vision, look at what we're trying to do, do some analysis. How many seaw walls are we talking? How long is it going to take the city to get to a five foot? And
and just basically have a plan and update the code. And I'm not saying we don't have to have variances and things in the short term because everybody can't come to a screeching halt while we modernize, but there's tons of resources out there. Um, you know, I did I even
this is from the Kimley horn, but I thought this was interesting. So, this is the 25 year 24 rainfall, which I have no idea where that came in as a variance, but um if you look at the blue, that tells you how many feet it is. And I know this is hard to see, but
you can see the blue everywhere. So, I just took our little island and I said, "Okay, for 25 year at our little island, see who what would be underwater." So trying to retain that an owner's
unwillingness to try to retain this that it I don't understand. So that's why I feel like we're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think what we're trying to do here is figure out how to do variances. I think what we really need to do is figure out how we
are going to do resiliency in this city for seaw walls. And that that is my point. >> Yeah. I I agree wholeheartedly with everything member Perry just said and it goes down to this and and this is key in anything
that we ever attempt to do. We should ask this question every time. What is the problem we're trying to solve? What is the problem? Is it
we want SE seaw walls at five feet? So that's that's the problem we have to solve. Okay. Is it do we need to replace seaw walls that are in disrepair? Is that the problem we're trying to solve? You know, we
we just we just need to focus on the problem ident problem identification and then we can come up with the solutions. I think the city's done that already in terms of how high they want their seaw
walls, how high we want them. And I and I don't think anyone's com anyone's disagreeing. There are a lot of people that probably don't like it, you know, for whatever reason, but a 5- foot seaw wall seems to be reasonable. It's been
the reasonable standard for a while. So that that problem is solved, right? What how high do we want our seaw walls? What's the next question you want to ask? Well, how how do we get is the question do we
need all seaw walls in this city to be 5T by a certain date? Um can we live through some type of attrition to get them to 5T? Do we need to focus on a part of the city
um first? you know, do we need to focus on the south end of our city before we focus on the north end based on elevations? You know, though, you know, what is the problem and what is the priority for the problem? I I don't think trying to stick
homeowners with additional cost is the right way to go on anything, you know, unless you're going to say it's solving this specific problem, which has to happen. And I don't hear any of that or see any of that. Um, and the to
member Perry's, you know, point there is confusion out there and that that just needs to be cleared up. I don't think there's any confusion or any disagreement about 5 foot seaw wall. So, how do we get to the place we want to
be? So, what what is that place? How long do we have to get there? And then what do we need to do to put in place to get there? you know, o otherwise, and no, this is no offense to the staff, otherwise this
is the staff goes back and does hard work to try to solve the things that the commissioners give them and this that and the other, but we got we got to stop you guys sometimes from going down all all these um rabbit holes and and doing
all these things without you should come back to us and ask the or to especially the commission, what is the problem you're trying to solve? Otherwise, it's just some experiment you're having me do for no reason. Uh
that and it's not going to if you don't identify the problem correctly, you're never going to produce a solution that's the correct solution. And we do this all the time. We run down these roads coming up with all these solutions and all they are solutions looking for a problem.
So, so let's identify the next problem because the first one's already been identified and solved. That's the five foot. So, what's the next thing that we're trying to do here? And maybe that's three or four questions that need to be raised and answered. But
until there's clarity on that, I don't know how we move forward. Go ahead. >> Hello, Laura Canary, community development director. Um, I think it might be good to just maybe do go a step backwards because again going back to the intent and purpose of even having a
stop at the planning board since this isn't really something that usually you all will see. Um, so we were really looking at this to look at the variance process itself where we we weren't looking at it necessarily to see if the five feet should change or anything as we know that was changed shortly before
the hurricanes and then the hurricanes happened. And so going back to many of your's points of how you would hope to maybe achieve that five feet over maybe a decade, two decades, you know, over time you would see properties redevelop and we would achieve that. Well, the storms kind of, you know, made
all of that kind of thrown out, you know, and so it kind of changed things in that we had >> I I I would disagree that the storm didn't didn't change anything about the five- foot requirement for the seaw wall. No, it change. What I'm saying is it changed the timing of when you would
see those properties come forward. >> What timing? >> The timing of properties naturally redeveloping over time. Whether it was a home that over time was going to be torn down and rebuilt or it was a home that maybe was destroyed by the hurricanes and the seaw wall as well. So now they're in a situation where they need
to look at redoing their seaw wall and they wouldn't have been in a situation to have to redo their seaw wall at that time had it not been for the storms. >> Okay. I >> do you not think that there were a lot of instances where people's seaw walls were >> I think there was there were there were
a few there were a few incidents of seaw walls that that that you know failed >> that maybe otherwise >> it wasn't it wasn't across the city right what it's done though what it's done though it wasn't a citywide failure of seaw walls okay what it has done
though is really in the psyche of of people has said do we need now need to move quicker her to get to a 5-ft seaw wall across the city. That's that's what the discussion >> I disagree. >> Okay. >> Well, I don't understand what you're trying to say then.
>> I I disagree. I think that what I'm trying to say is that over time when you have a goal of say a resiliency plan and by 2045 we're going to hope to achieve that 90% of our seaw walls are at 5T. >> Was was that was that our goal? I'm I'm saying that as an as an example as an
example because oftent times with a resiliency or redevelopment plan you'll call for whatever that goal may be and then it'll say that over time so as properties go one by one and redevelop they'll be you know they need to bring it up to code they need to bring it up to code and so over time that that is
achieved. What happened with the storms is that it just put us in a position where we have more properties that are being redeveloped now than we would have ever anticipated in a two-year time period. So, we have a huge number of properties that are coming forward,
>> but you don't have to you don't have to if your seaw wall is fine, you don't have to address your seaw wall when you're redeveloping your property. I went I went through all this, okay? And and a lot of people have gone through all this. You can re remodel your home.
You can demo it to the point where it's FEMA, you know, FEMA compliant. And you don't as long as your seaw wall is is in good condition, you know, whether it's at the 5- foot level or not, you don't have to address the seaw wall. So, what you're I hear what you're saying, but
it's incorrect to say that because people are redeveloping their homes or redoing their homes or remodeling, they now have to consider their seaw wall. Well, no. you you have to you had to consider your seaw wall anyway. And if your seaw wall your seaw wall is still
in good repair, you're not going to redo your seaw wall just because the storm, you know, took out your home and now you had to gut it and and put it back together. What you're the premise of what you're saying is not correct. And that's that's why I'm bringing bringing this up. >> I don't that's not what I'm saying that
you're that you have to bring your seaw wall up to code. And the what I'm saying is each project we've seen a number of instances where maybe it's a conforming structure right conforming po postfirm and they're looking to make improvements maybe they were not substantially
damaged so they're able to make the improvements and they've posed they a situation where they're they want to make improvements to their seaw wall but they're saying that they for whatever reason have requested a variance because they cannot come up to the five feet does not work for their project
>> and I think most of us or at least two of us clearly stated that we don't agree with variances to seaw walls. >> So what what I'm trying to say is that we have a variance process in place. There's currently one in place and we
basically needed a process in place to if you want to appeal the decision of the variance. So if the variance was denied and you want to appeal it, what does that process look like? And we did not have a process in place. Doesn't it look like every other pro appeal process
you have for variances? >> No. >> Why would it be Why would it be different? >> Ralph, can you please explain that? >> Well, we have um regular variances that are heard by the board of adjustment and those are reviewed in court by sir Sherari. Then we have something called
the administrative variances where Luke applies in these seaw wall type cases where someone says I want to get a variance. And we had just one fact example helps you get to some understanding of what's happening. There was one house where um the seaw wall
needed to be replaced. Um but the house was here and the pool was here and they built the house so that they didn't have to step down to the pool deck. It was right at the same level as the living room. So you walk out to the pool instead of stepping down a step or two.
And so, um, if you raised the, um, seaw wall up another foot, that left nowhere for the rainwater to go because the rainwater currently went over the existing seaw wall into the Gulf or through holes that are no longer would
no longer be allowed. So, the s the rainwater would have nowhere to go. It would back up into the house. Um, so they came and and Luke worked with their engineer and they looked at rerouting the storm water from the pool deck and accommodating it elsewhere on the
property. And then of course you can always engineer a solution. is just how much does that engineering solution cost to gather all that storm water that was falling on the roof and going to the pool deck and going to the to the Gulf but now or to the bay but now going into
a storm water collection system that wasn't on the property because we didn't have that before. So that's where like this administrative variance request came in. And it was it's they argued that it was unreasonable and a hardship to have to create this new storm water
system that cost more than the house that was there. >> So that's the administrative u appeal process. So then the question is so if um if Luke denies that variance and the people still think hey I should have been gotten a variance to keep my sea
level at four feet so I didn't have flooding in my house and didn't have to spend 300,000 on a storm water system. how would I appeal that variance? And we didn't have um a way to bring it to city council for a review or to a board of adjustment and
then to city council. So, it's that's kind of an administrative procedure that we could deal with somehow deciding where we want those appeals to go to. >> Well, the to me there's two questions. One is the process question which you're talking about which is if if there's a
need for variance, if there's not a process, there needs to be a process. But the second side of that is where did some of these things come from? Like having to store this 25 year 24-hour storm. Why can't stuff go over the seaw
wall when we're going to pump it over the seaw wall in some of these neighborhoods? I just feel like the rules that we're trying to get variances around need to be looked at because I I'm not I'm not denying we need a variance process. >> Let me have Luke come up and address that. But I think that has to do with
water pollution in the bay >> and and before you're absolutely right >> the water quality >> the whole code needs to be reopened. We need to have a very robust and comprehensive visioning and relook at because as we
know not only are things outdated but there are things that have changed. And I think that one of the things all I was trying to say is that some of those longerterm goals or visions, you know, when the storms happened, it just kind of made things kind of surface faster. And when we got to this point of having
a variance for a seaw wall in particular, and then as as Ralph um explained when we were asked, okay, well, if I want to appeal this decision, what's the process? We had no process which was okay until the code is opened back up, we at least need a solution in
the interim so that if somebody is required to do this and is requesting a variance that they have an option or at least a path forward of what that would look like if they want to appeal it. >> I I agree completely they need a process, but some of the stuff like you're talking about pollution. If you
could put I don't know eight inches of fill that would filter that. I mean it's the same thing as when it goes through and weeps through. I mean I just I just please educate me. >> So just just to clarify um part of the
code is looking at options. So uh and I'm not sure 100% the the code section that you're saying that you where you have to retain it or detain it. There's also an option of creating a swale to get it off the property. the the primary
concern for retaining or detaining the storm water on the property is to not impact the adjacent properties. Uh but it's perfectly acceptable to have an excess and that's what the storm drains are for. An excess to be transmitted off
the property into the street which ultimately goes to the storm drains. >> So um there are options just like >> I've been to your house. I know what your house is like. Can you explain this number for then because I'm not understanding it. It's it's wants a
variance criteria >> because the hardship does not result in upland property owners unwillingness to modify the site to accommodate retention or detention of a 25-y year 24 storm. I I don't understand where that came from.
I mean, I I know what it is, but how did that get into this variance? It's not even in the requirements that you do that, which it shouldn't be as far as I can tell because you're right, there are swells and there are other ways. >> Yeah. So, there there are requirements
in the code to um to retain that water. It's it's in the Florida Building Code. It's in uh other standards that we look at. ASCE has has publications on handling storm water. the >> and and I I looked at a lot of that and
it says that for residential you don't have to >> so in um >> is this commercial then and I'm confusing commercial and residential. So you you do so you have to handle and look at it like this. You have if you have a a piece of property,
our lots are very small for the most part. We have some that are bigger when you're talking about commercial, but as far as our residential lots, they're relatively small. Whether that rain is falling on the roof or on the ground itself, it's going to accumulate somewhere. And we have to as
property owners we have to manage that storm water in some form or faction fashion so that it doesn't impact the adjacent properties. Now, to a certain extent, and what the 25-y year, 24-hour storm is alluding to is, hey, a minimum,
it should be able to handle this amount of water, whether it's just natural percolation or or infiltration down into the ground or just being retained on the property and moved off to the street to go into the storm water into the uh
storm water drains. But the there are there are codes that uh require that. Now we only see it with new construction because if we take an existing home then the
let me back up just a little bit. For example, in the building code, we have several different books that we look at. We have an existing building code. with that existing code, we don't necessarily have to bring everything conforming to the regulations. Uh but if we touch it,
so for example, if we uh do a driveway, then we have to make that driveway conforming. But if it's not conforming, then the code says no, we don't have to touch it. >> This particular issue though has changed because when we built our house in 2010, what did we have to hold like one inch
or something? It wasn't what it wasn't nine inches. It was it was one inch for an hour or something somewhere some things got introduced and they're contradictory to other parts of other codes and it doesn't even have it as a requirement. It's only mentioned as
something to do with the variance. So as I tried to put this together the code is so broken and I think yes you need a variance process but you wouldn't need so many variances if the code was cleaned up. And I I think it would be
wonderful to get a group of people together like you're talking about getting interested parties that understand and going through all this stuff and trying to instead of coming up with something this specific and a variance and and 20% of whatever. I mean
I feel like we're trying to make rules to get around a broken thing and if we just fix the thing we I mean I don't have a problem with the variance process. I just have a problem with some of the criteria you're coming up with. So, and keep in mind too, we're not looking for excuses to circumvent the
five foot requirement. >> Nothing to five foot. We agree with five feet. >> No, no. I I I know, but but that's what this whole administrative variance is about is people that don't want to or feel that they can't go to that five foot requirement. >> These would not be the criteria that I
would support for them not having to go to five feet. >> So, yeah. and and understand there's a multitude of different scenarios that that pop up. >> If you if you just did your seaw wall two years ago and it's 4 and 1/2 ft and
it's in great shape. I mean that I think you know there's a good argument that they should get a variance but this is not it. >> Okay. duly noted >> shouldn't be a >> I guess that that's also what I'm saying
that you that scenario anyone has redone their seaw wall before the requirement became 5 foot whether you know whether you like it or not I mean take any kind of personal bias out of this you know that person
should be allowed to have that 4ft seaw wall until the seaw wall fails unless you're going to pay to replace it. You can't we can't be in in a position where we're forcing people to pay for things, you know, just because
we want five foot all around. And I go back to um what's the priority in what areas too for the five foot and when do we want it? What's the timeline for that? We we have none of that. So we can't create
things to force people when we don't even have priorities or problems statements, you know, listed out that we agree on so we can make actionable plans. So anyway,
you guys doing great work as usual. Don't don't >> don't take any of the frustration that I may have or anyone has. I think you guys you guys do great work. I'm I get frustrated when these things get further down the road and they cause
problems because we haven't done the due diligence now. So, it's good you bring it to us because now you're you're getting to hear some feedback before you hear it from somebody else. >> Go back go back and ask the commit, you know, go back and try to ask the other questions. Go ahead. I was just going to
say I appreciate the the perspective that you you had when talking about so new homes going in but the seaw wall is a year too old you know so where's the threshold where we say nope sorry it's not good enough you need to elevate it or is it acceptable so you you bring up
a valid point uh you know in that one scenario and if someone tells you it's not acceptable you got to ask why and my gut tells me someone's going to say because it's got to protect us because it's not five foot and then I'm going to go back and say protect us from what?
It's not going to protect us from a hurricane. You know, it's not. So, you know, I think there's a lot of people think there five foot seaw wall is going to protect you from see we need we the storm came so now there's an impetus to get this stuff done. No,
>> the storm and the seaw wall thing are not necessarily necessarily connected. There there are areas of this town that would great that greatly need, you know, seaw wall heightening as soon as possible. No one's going to deny that.
But you can't mix the cause causal factors right here because then we're going to come up with solutions that don't solve the problem and it just causes hardship on people which then causes problems in the city, you know, etc., etc. And I and I'd also like to
say that I do appreciate the work that you do and and Brandon and Laura and everybody and I probably spend a lot of time looking at this code and like I said, it's not my area of expertise, but I do that because I value the work that
you do and your expertise and I'm trying to take seriously the planning board role of providing valuable insight or thoughts or and uh So there's definitely no um attempt here to take any credit away from the the great work that you
all do. Um but I do think when we have code that is in as bad a shape as this code is in. Yes, you s certainly need a variance process um until that can be fixed. But um I would like to see a plan just like I've seen for the you know
public works where they had a huge mess that they had to deal with and they've tried to sort it out and and get I don't see a plan for this resiliency part of um our city and I I'm looking for that that plan.
Have have we looked at standardized code like what what member Perry pointed out the uniform resilient shoreline protection. Could we adopt standardized code or does SB180 prohibit that type of change? >> Uh so I'm I'm not sure exactly what is
being referenced as far as a standardized code. So we have we have provisions in there and we we purposely um we left some verbiage out of our seaw wall uh code to give the onus on a
designer an engineer uh to be able to design it however they see fit. know to uh leave it open to uh a living shoreline or you know any number of other methods to create that that title
barrier. You know, we we put or the the five- foot threshold has been in there and we've we refined the seaw wall code a little bit, but we took out some verbiage in there. It was just dated. Um and we left it open so that an
engineer could say, "Well, hey, we have this new product or we have this new method. Here's our elevation. We've got that meth now and here's the other design." So, we have an opportunity there for uh a designer or contractor
that works in these areas to uh use their creative juices and and come up with other solutions. But we we just wanted to make sure we got in there the the elevation to help protect the the
city from the title flooding. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, that is the end of our discussion items. Uh does anyone have any anything else to add?
>> Just the one or request like I alluded to earlier. Um again, something small. Again, I could also come in to your office. You don't It doesn't have to be here. I just want to get a little bit smarter on where we
are with the sidewalks, where we're headed with the sidewalks. When I first moved here, um there was a movement of foot to get um you know, wider sidewalks and and including barriers between the street
and sidewalks. So that and at the same time there was all this discussion about the walkability and you know the bike um bike lanes and things like that. And I just I'd like to just get some more information on that where we are, what's the current standing is, where we're
headed. I know with some of the projects and whether whether you agree with them or not, whether they go through or not like the um the trade winds and the supposed to conform to this new sidewalk requirement. I just want to make sure
that where that require I want a better understanding of where that requirement is. And then much to the same thought that I had with the signage, how long is it going to, you know, kind of take to get our streets safe?
uh you know, Gulf Boulevard is mainly what I'm thinking about, but um so I think you you know what I'm looking for. Again, I I it doesn't you don't have to present anything. I can come and sit down with you. Whatever is easier for you guys. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.