##VIDEO ID:KjmaLZ6NIM4## e e e e e e e e e the Monday January 27th meeting of the city of St Pete Beach planning board please join me for the pledge of allegiance plge of aliance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for [Music] all okay roll call please member Perry here Vice chair Angelas here member grocott here chair hubard here we have a quorum okay the first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda does anyone have changes they'd like to request I would like to add a discussion item on the city's multimodal Transportation okay I will add that as 5B and if staff can just add a discussion about the February meeting okay I'll make that 5c okay it is audience comments and there is no audience so I assume there's no we just need a motion to approve the agenda oh I'm sorry that's okay yeah can I have please have a motion to approve the agenda I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with amendments second roll call please Vice chair Angelas yes member grut yes member Perry yes chair hubard yes motion carries thank you okay audience comments there are no comment cards all right we'll move on to approval of the December 16th minutes and I believe there me member grot you had changes y on Page in my packet when I down oh I'm sorry if I go by the page three of four if I look at the top part where it says December 16th planning board minutes it's page three of five if I downloaded the packet it was like five of 32 so um it was item they're not numbered sorry so under board members Express concerns regarding it's about uh 3/4s of the page down um there's uh 1 2 3 four several bullets the last bullet reads cumulative noise from and then it says 20 M Pools dining and balconies I just think it's supposed to be from in the okay 20 is that typo okay any any other changes anyone no okay do I have a motion to approve the amended minutes with those changes motion to approve amended minutes second roll call please member grot yes member Perry yes Vice chair Angelas yes chair hubard yes motion carries okay item four is going to be us sitting as a local planning agency so I will adjourn temporarily during the meeting of the planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency okay the first item 4 a is ordinance 20253 artificial turf thank thank you chair if we could pull the PowerPoint so this is based on our discussions that we had at the November and December planning board meetings um this is a ordinance brought back in draft form um hopefully for recommendation to the city commission we do not have this item scheduled yet for City commission review um but I did want to make sure that all of the comments of the board members have been addressed in this ordinance um for when it when it is scheduled to move forward so um this is the summary and again it's based on the um consensus of the board As I understood it from the December meeting um and the content of the ordinance includes additional restrictions and additional regulations related to placement of artificial turf on private property so talking about permeability which is one of the major items that we consider Turf is considered impermeable unless it meets the product and subgrade performance standards that are included in the draft ordinance 80% of the required permeable area of a site must still be vegetated material that's unchanged from what is currently in the code so for typical residents up to 76% of the lot area can be comprised of impermeable surface like driveways the house itself uh the pool deck and so on and then an additional 20% is allowed for this semi-permeable material like Turf uh the remaining 24% of the lot must be vegetative Green Space not necessarily sod we do have other Florida friendly landscaping materials but um Turf is not allowed under this ordinance to comprise more than that 76% when combined with impermeable material material um it does make an exclusion for areas like Putt putts and sports fields and others that may use permeable Turf however this Turf cannot be located in required buffer areas and that ratio still cannot be exceeded so commercial sites don't necessarily have an out um and they just are able to have it be a larger expanse provided that it's used as a sports field or other area that typically uses artificial turf um and as long as it's not within required buffer area the permeability standards are largely adapted from the city of Tampa um they already have standards related to fdot Stone sizing and and so on that um appear to be relatively in line with other municipalities so I I largely adapted that uh from the city of Tampa's permanent requirements Turf must appear lifelike um it must be recyclable it has must have a minimum warranty for maintenance and in general it must replicate the appearance of common Zone 10B grasses like Seashore psum and St Augustine it needs to have individual blades at least a 1.5 inch pile and so on there is no required setback from the water as we discussed last month but it must be located outside of the RightWay it must be staked behind the seaw wall can't be placed on the seaw wall cap itself irrigation must be oriented away from areas with Turf and turf away from areas of vegetation um either through a mo strip Paving or otherwise and the city will prepare Landscaping permit that deals with more of the technical requirements of turf placement um the methods of submitting for product specifications and so on that gives us a little bit more malleability of Standards change in the future we can just have those all brought forward through a permit rather than through uh code changes so looking through the comprehensive plan the amended comprehensive plan um by and large we feel that the comprehensive plan does support um these reasonable limitations on artificial turf especially in the light of the data that was submitted To Us by members as well as through the Tampa Bay Regional planning Council outlining some of the concerns with runoff um especially with the Plastics that are typically included in these products some of the heat island effect concerns and so on um in the future land use element there's numerous policies that um focus on minimizing runoff promoting native and drought tolerant Florida friendly Landscaping not directly addressing artificial turf but you know again maintaining support for that 80/20 ratio that we currently have in the code and that we will be maintaining a reduction in net impervious surface to reduce Urban heat and pollution uh and post-development runoff not exceeding pre-development conditions in our Coastal and conservation element um we have a policy that provides support for the boka sea Bay aquatic preserve management plan um one of the main focuses in that plan is reducing pollutant runoff due to the development of the barrier islands and pel County in general uh policies also that support minimizing impervious surfaces and conserving and protecting native vegetation so hopefully this ordinance captured uh what the members were focused on back in December um if you feel that it does we would like motion to recommend approval of this ordinance to the city commission if you feel there are amendments um feel free to let staff know we'll get those included and to find the ordinance consistent with the St P Beach Comprehensive do you have any questions for me the I I had one question is so how's the easement classified like the utility easement between the curb and sidewalk so that would be an actual so that would be considered right away um as drafted any easement on the property itself which I don't believe was the focus of this ordinance but if we were to include you know preventing Turf in a maintenance easement or a um some other form of easement we would um we would need to D that into the language but that would be actual easements on private property that are still owned by the property owner not the not the right of way oh okay okay all right um that that was my only concern so yeah I don't I don't have any other concerns is that something you wanted to recommend prohibiting or not no it was more curiosity um that's obviously the place that will be most likely to get dug up by someone other than the property owner so I was just curious what the the if this would allow artificial turf in that easement area and if if there were any concerns So based on current um and again it's really staff policies we don't have any regulations one way or another Turf has been allowed in that right of way previously but this ordinance would prohibit it in the in the city's right of way okay would would existing Turf be grandfathered they could continue to keep the turf in place but when they come for Rel Landscaping if the homes um substantially modified or developed um they would need to bring it into compliance okay to follow up on that so I know a lot of times when utilities have to gain access to that right away um they Reade residents so if a utility needs to gain access to a home that currently has artificial turf they will not need to replace that artificial turf they will need to come in compliance and resod that's correct and our our right away and our RightWay maintenance permits do specifically say that we're not responsible for replacing anything other than standard sod now in in practice we do try to maintain the materials if they're in the right way if they can be maintained um but there's there's no guarantee of that if the city needs to put back sod they'll put back sod so thank you so if they can peel back and put back the turf they will but if it's too substantial they won't and and especially based on the standards we've adopted for the um you know the under lay and and so on being able to maintain that is is going to be a challenge so I want to expect that to occur but that makes sense okay if there are no other questions do I have a motion I'll make a motion to a recommend I'm recommending approval okay recommending approval of ordinance 20 25-3 as written a second second that motion roll call please member Perry yes Vice chair Angelas yes member goott yes chair hubard yes motion carries okay and Brandon is that it for local planning agency yes okay all right I'd like to adjourn as the local planning agency and reconvene as the city of St P Beach planning board 5A seaw Wall height compliance and and there are no public comments I assume sorry so if we could pull the PowerPoint back up please so this is a general discussion uh no no ordinance or draft code amendments to to bring forward right now um but it might be an item that we bring back in ordinance form in the future this was a directive from the city commission about a month ago to talk about seaw Wall height compliance plans so to give some background until late 2024 the city did not have any required maintenance standards for sea walls specifically we had General wall maintenance standards but those um appeared to provide more for maintenance of Upland walls not necessarily seaw walls in in specific so last year uh the city passed an ordinance that did multiple things um the first was in re-enabling administrative relief standards for seaw walls when an Upland non-economic hardship is faced the reason those standards were put in place was because the city had a few years prior to this adopted um minimum height standards for seaw walls these were not changed based on last year's ordinance they were reinforced they do still remain in the code unchanged but those are standards that required a 5 foot navd88 height for new seaw walls on the G on the bay side and a 6ot navd 1988 uh seaw Wall height on the Gulf side the ordinance also Al removed outdated construction and material standards for seaw walls um it really deferred a lot of that information and those requirements to the engineer and a required compliance with minimum seaw Wall height when replacing more than 50% of the seaw Wall's length when the repair cost exceeds 50% of the depreciated seaw wall value or when elevation change occurs along more than 50% of the seaw Wall's length now that probably is going to put the seawall into one of the other two categories but um those were the three standards that were adopted and again that would be compliance with either the 5- foot or 6ot nabd standard or the applicant would have the ability to pursue administrative relief through that um that modified hardship criteria so when we talk about compliance thresholds um currently all Seawall height compliance standards those three items I just talked about are based on improvements to the seaw wall itself not anything related to Upland development last month the city commission requested a discussion to consider accelerated compliance with seaw Wall height standards based on potentially Upland development any kind of changes on the Upland property this topic is for discussion purposes only at this time staff in the city's attorney's office will need to review any input against existing statutes and limitations so the basis for that 5 foot navd on the Bas side of course that's where we have most of our sea walls is based on a look out to 2050 St P Beach faces a nearly 1 foot rise in mean sea level between between 2020 and 2050 based on the Noah intermediate projections so these aren't the high these aren't the very high projections these are based on a middle ground intermediate projection additionally um we are susceptible to King tides of as high as 3.6 feet so the 5 foot nabd standard that's currently adopted in the code was selected as a threat plus freeboard about two two fth of a foot level of safety just like we have free board for new residential development where the home uh living level must be elevated to at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation that 100-year flood risk um the seaw wall would also have about two fths of a foot for a level of safety um just in case we Face Higher King tides in case that no intermediate projection is actually a high projection um it would put it over that 5 foot or sorry that 4.6 feet um that we would be susceptible to just based on the minimum uh data and the reason for this is because the seaw wall has a lifespan of 30 to 50 years so this new 5 foot navd standard that was adopted in the late 2010s um we may have property owners in 2050 where we expect to see these threats they may have had a seaw wall put in in 2010 2015 which the usable life of the seaw wall could be another 10 15 or even even longer um than that than uh the uh the 20150 Outlook would provide for so we wanted to talk about some compliance options that aren't necessarily tied to the three that are already codified um those options include going from the least to the most regulatory of course with the option to do nothing allow seaw walls to be elevated as repairs are undertaken uh moving toward a more regulatory standard from that these would all be additional standards that are not currently adopted in the code we could look at reducing the elevation threshold for repair cost or linear footage So currently we have that 50% uh linear footage 50% substantial damage threshold we could look at reducing that potentially to to a lower percentage uh we could prohibit administrative waivers after a certain year and actually this this ordinance was based on Broward County's 2050 Horizon their 2050 plan for seaw walls they are prohibiting administrative waivers after 2035 so staff could continue to uh issue administrative waivers up to through 20135 after that that option would be taken off the table um a more restrictive option would be require requiring compliance based on substantial upin improvements so if a new residence were be were to be uh constructed if the home were to be elevated and the home were to be substantially improved that would require the seaw wall as well to be brought up to that 5 foot navd standard or U potentially have a standard based on um a more strict requirement which is compliance based upon some threshold of Upland Improvement uh one of the items that was brought up at the city commission discussion was that a renovation exceeding a certain percentage of the home's depreciated value not necessarily new construct construction not necessarily um compliance with the flood plane ordinance the elevation of the home just some kind of renovation that would put the home over a certain threshold would require that seaw wall to be brought into compliance so looking at um similar Land Development Code Compliance thresholds by and large the Land Development code and the code of ordinances almost always requires substantial Improvement the the value of that structure being improved in more than 50% of its depreciated value to trigger a threshold for improvements not related to the structure itself being improved that the seaw wall Improvement um something that goes above and beyond that so looking at for example our standards for landscaping when a residence is substantially improved it must comply with the Landscaping ordinance as if it were a new development um if it's a kitchen renovation if it's a new driveway something along the lines of that the Landscaping um for the site typically does not need to be brought into compliance looking at signage for commercial businesses non-conforming signage must be made compliant if the business is substantially improved or repaired even if the sign is not damaged or otherwise altered but if a business undertakes a kitchen renovation um if it partitions an office space if it makes some kind of non-substantial alteration the signage does not need to be brought into compliance it's that substantial Improvement of the business itself uh that requires our compliance to be brought into code looking at setbacks and impervia surface non-conforming buildings must be made compliance with setback and impervia surface we did discussed last year we opened up that limited elevation waiver uh for storm damaged homes but other than that substantial Improvement is what triggers the setback and impervious surface ratio compliance we do have one major exception in the code um this is actually in the code of ordinances where the threshold is set at less than a substantial Improvement to the primary structure and that's for commercial drainage full sight storm water compliance is required when a parking area is expanded by 10% building floor area by 5% a renovation costs exceed 25% of the depreciated structure value and the reason for that is because by and large the city's businesses the city's um large commercial Enterprises were developed prior to the city having any kind of drainage regulations whatsoever so the city made a determination that having these lower thresholds was really essential to get those businesses into compliance with the storm water codes of the city so I wanted to bring this to you I know it's a lot of information um but the the focus is primarily at least based on what the commission uh requested based on bringing homeowners bringing businesses into compliance with the 5 foot and 6 foot navd standards for seaw Wall height I want to get the board's input um if you had anything else related to seaw walls you want to discuss we can definitely take that forward as well Brandon I have one more thing to add to that um and I don't know if you can uh put up the one that says uh section 69-72 so listening to that meeting there were a couple of things that that came up and certainly this trigger was one of the main topics and then there was you can put on the overhead thank thank you here if you pass it down here we go I see so there there was talk about the trigger um and then there was also talk about some kind of Maintenance or inspection or monitoring because I guess we had seaw walls that failed so um when I was researching on this I came across um a draft uh that Treasure Island has and I thought it was interesting because it touched on a lot of the topics it said you know it has to be constructed in accordance with any new substantially improve building or seaw wall major repair and the dot dot dot is cuz I took stuff out um but they did say a new seaw wall will not be required when the highest existing seaw wall elevation is less than 12 in below and part of the reason they were arguing about that is let's say I just put my seaw wall in two years ago and it's at 4 feet 6 in and um so now I'm doing some major work on my home and all of a sudden I have to add six Ines to my seaw wall um so they were trying to um address some of those kind of scenarios um the other thing they said is but if if the seaw wall is not required because I'm at 4 feet 6 inches um but the calculations on my new seaw wall show that it could have a cap added to it that would bring it up then I do have to bring it up so they they went into this I guess in a little more depth in terms of the potential scenarios that could occur and I I thought that they they raised some pretty good points for us to consider I agree so we had we had looked at it and again it's really handled through that administrative waiver process where um some of the basis for issuing a waiver is based on AB budding properties but we definitely didn't look at it from your perspective which I think is an important one to consider where um you know we've we've seen it with elevation of homes as well where their flood zones Changed by one foot and you know will they need to comply with that additional foot um even if even if they're an elevated residents so I think that is something important to consider so when we talk about maintenance so so I think that was like say part of the issue is that we have failing seaw walls that have not been addressed it is um you know they're further compromised based on on Storms but I mean just regular erosion So currently the city has no like City mechanism for for evaluating seaw walls is that correct it's it's I mean there's no one in a boat from the city driving around and regularly viewing private property seaw walls is that correct that's correct so it's really on the individual homeowner or me as my neighbor having to say my neighbor seaw wall is failing now I'm in a position where it's affecting my property I want to report that and it's going to cause my neighbor to have to make a you know substantial Improvement on their property I mean seaw walls are not cheap let's face that so you it's it's difficult because we're putting Neighbors in difficult situations in monitoring you know an ordinance versus the city monitoring the ordinance um is there any any mechanism to to get around that I mean does this like inspections of some kind yeah I mean like water side inspections of of of homes I mean if it's a city ordinance or are we going to continue to leave it on neighbors to report neighbors kind of thing so I I have heard as part of the post storm you know evalu that at some point the city is likely to perform that evaluation I don't know if it's going to be a routine but it's it's something I believe at least our code staff are looking into so I think it's you know would certainly help the city if it I mean it doesn't need to be a I'm sure like a you know we need somebody out on a boat constantly but I would think that an annual you know post storm inspection and I know that there's a a storm recovery task force but like an annual post storm recovery um just a visual of the island of the of the homes that are on Coastal to see you know what the status is and if there are some that need to be addressed would be an appropriate um action on the side on the on the city certainly um because again especially after a storm no neighbor wants to have to go after their neighbor after they've been through so much already to say oh and by the way like I'm going to report to the city on top of everything else she dealing with um which is also something that you know with the if we go back to you know some of the thresholds um I think it's difficult when we talk about substantial Improvement of the property you know again we have folks that are having to substantially improve their properties are we then also going to trigger them to have to invest in trig in investing in their their seaw wall and I don't know if the SBA Loans or other think other um processes are available or other avenues of funding are available in a preemptive manner but it would certainly be devastating to many homeowners to have to do that simultaneously with recovering from their home now I totally understand when we're talking about a new home a home is leveled on the water and we're you know we're going to develop a new home there I think that that is a great opportunity to say in building that new home you know your seaw wall okay you're elevating your seaw wall to the standards regardless of when it was done I think that is an appropriate because a builder is going to tie into the cost of the the property at the end anyways I mean so it's not really then the burden on the on the resident so much as it is or at least if I'm shopping for a home or a lot and I know that that's going to be the requirement I know that going in as as a as somebody shopping for a home in this area or a lot in this area to build new that I'm going to be required to do that so I can factor that into my my pricing when I'm shopping so I don't think that is an unreasonable um thing to ask at all and and build that in yeah I I think there's another major component to that um and it and cost is clearly a factor but there's another Factor um and I don't know Jenny if you can put up the one that says at the seaw wall property line so I think one of the key objections that people have when they're told they have to bring their seaw wall to 5T is that if they cannot fill behind it they've created a bath tub and um if it's rain the water can't get out so now we can have mosquitoes and if it's something came over the seaw wall then we can kill all the vegetation with the salt water um and so one of the things I looked at um and again this this may have come from Treasure Island but there should be a way to put Phil behind your seaw wall and still have a grade like right now um our house is higher than our seaw wall so our yard slopes down if we were to raise our yard in theory then the water that currently leaves us and stays on our property could be forced someplace that we don't want it to go so I think just saying the seaw wall has to be five ft and not looking at the finished grade I think we could have some unintended consequences um and I know that you know and I put our ordinance on this this 98 Dash this is this is um St Pete Beach ordinance and it looks talks about when you can use um non-structural fill um but most of the stuff I've seen um and looking at other cities is that as long as we have a provision and we don't allow drainage onto adjacent property so whatever waters on my property stays there whether it's salt or fresh I have a way to deal with that could be a retaining wall it could be you know maybe the slope is such that you can put a little behind and intersect your slope and nobody's the wise or it still runs down the way it always did I mean there's there's several ways to achieve it but I think we need to also address this Phill question because we will have unintended consequences we'll fix one problem and we'll cause two more and generally speaking FEMA does and doesn't matter if it's in the velocity zone or the the AE zones they do typically accept um any kind of fill for drainage purposes the the real Pro the reason why we have prohibitions in the coastal a and the B zones is to prevent any kind of scour beneath the buildings um just because they are subject to those additional wave actions during those 100-year events so um I will check with the building official just to make sure they have the same interpretation but I believe that regardless of flood zone uh fail is always permitted for drainage so and and if you're raising to the 5 foot height then you could justify Phill for drainage equaling that height correct um you know just to make sure that again it's not causing adverse impacts to adjacent property that's okay right if there's if the flow is going to hurt somebody else then that needs to be addressed but there shouldn't be like right now when I look at our our Phil um reg Land Development code it it basically says you can't do it and I think if we change anything on the seaw wall we need to do a corresponding change um in this section because they really do each other I think I think it could definitely be clarified that this does not include any kind of you know fill brought into support seaw wall dur it you know drainage be on seaw walls so I think it brings up an interesting conundrum because at my house we have that new elevated seaw wall along with our neighbor on one side we did it in conjunction so that we could have one continuous seaw wall then our neighbor on the other side has an outdated seaw wall and we don't have any fill so you the yard goes to that seaw wall about a foot and a half higher than the yard MH and it looks great but the water just comes right around through the neighbor's yard and it sits in there and then it drains out and it doesn't really serve the intended effect of raising the entire neighborhood eventually to you know I think everything has to be raised at some point in order to have the desired effect right and I believe that's That's the basis for Broward County's administrative waivers there's a point in time where it's we're getting close close enough to you know 2050 that it it might be and of course 2050 is an arbitrary year but that's that's the standard they they picked so if I'm understanding correctly how Broward does it if a triggering event occurs now they could potentially allow you to not raise your Seawall for the next 10 years okay that's my understanding I think that's why Treasure Island tried to put some parameters around it mhm to try to give it some some basis do we do we treat the combined seaw wall and cap as one entity uh so 50% damage uh or 50% Improvement it's the it's the combination of the two in total that's correct okay because a lot of times the seaw wall is fine and and the cap needs to be replaced and that's a time that it could be raised as well but if you're treating it obviously replacing the seawall itself costs a lot more than just replacing the cap so you might be able to avoid triggering the 50% when you could have otherwise been made to build your new cap to the new elevation uh so that's one thing I I'd probably want to see language around uh if you're replacing your seaw wall cap then it's time to raise it up so um I have a question and I don't know so when people put um pools in water um water Lots with seaw walls um and they didn't have a pool initially um I consider that also an opportunity because for for several reasons one you know you could potentially be starting to get in the way of those tiebacks depending on where they are in your property and two um in a long R you might actually be protecting the residents because once you put a pool on that lot getting to that seaw wall to replace it 5 years down the road probably just became a lot more expensive and cumbersome for you so I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having some language regarding imp substantial improvements such as that um is adding a pool as a triggering event as well just because again in hindsight you're probably doing what's right doing what's right to do it at that time um you know I I know from personal experience that's what we we did and we probably had 10 years left on our seaw wall but again thinking long term of what the cost would have been to tear up our pool to get to a seaw wall after the after we put it in would be much more difficult at that point so yeah and then and I think then we only open up more for financial hardship claims of you know people saying well I have my pool and it'll destroy my pool if I have to you know put my my you know replace my Seawall at this point and so I think we want to try to really focus financial hardship on true financial hardship um versus it'll disrupt my pool yeah because I didn't want to lean forward and do it ahead of time uh one of the other things I heard at the commission meeting um was the question about other types of seaw walls like uh living Shore Etc um and again I I know in uh both the Tampa Bay Regional planning Council and again the Treasure Island draft they do have things about enhancing biological value um they talk about natural and hybrid shorelines and I don't know if if that's a separate place to address that but there are many types of seaw walls and I think we've mostly been focused on the concrete type um so I don't know if that's something to introduce later or uh but we should acknowledge that there are other ways yeah absolutely our our current Seawall ordinance we we added it in there was nothing prohibiting them previously but we did out in living shorelines as one of the options as opposed to the you know gray gray seaw walls but um we can maybe come up with additional standards would you like them to be more promoted than gr infrastructure I don't know necessarily that it's promoted I mean there are places where they fit and there's places where they don't fit um I do know that some of the even the the concrete ones they say there are things you can do to to make them more biologically you know diverse and what they can help so I I think we should look at I think there's a lot of examples of areas around us um that seem to have a lot more comprehensive approach to their seaw wall ordinance than than what we've got but I know that's why we're looking at it is to to see what we need to do yeah I agree I think en encouraging it maybe not as a as a mandate but certainly encouraging I mean even with concrete seaw walls I mean there's a lot of opportunities through um oyster beds and I think there's uh organizations in the city that actually you can go pick up these oyster things on a string or whatever but just encouraging in general for you know resiliency there's a lot of options out there in addition to does the city allow for rip wrap or anything like that yeah they do um there are several of them that have like RI wrap at the base or like in our case we have mangroves in front of our seaw wall um so we have a living seaw wall and we have a concrete one um which I'm sure has extended the life of our concrete one significantly um and I can tell you after Hurricane Milton our mangroves were shredded and I was just shocked at the beating that they took and there were of course branches all over the yard in the pool everywhere but um they really took a beating yeah but I think they did help protect the house oh I'm sure yeah break the waves up as well um Brandon in in the text of our ordin it mentions what constitutes a sew well to be considered in disrepair but it doesn't say what timeline or or what the action is uh I noticed in broward's they mentioned similar language and the homeowner must correct it within one year but also that one didn't mention what what happens so do we Define that elsewhere it would just be like any other code violation we it's not codified but we typically allow for between 30 to 90 days depending on the severity usually when it's something like replacing a whole seaw wall you know I would assume that our staff would lean more toward the longer end of that time frame but and on the commercial side I would certainly um like to see on Commercial properties especially when we're talking about conditional use you know that compliance with the commercial seaw wall standard be included as part of a a condition um when when businesses are coming in for conditional use permits um and there were several other things um I saw everything there's a um again on on Treasure Island there's a whole thing on maintenance and repair um making sure debris gets removed in a timely way um they had quite a few other topics that they put into their ordinance which I I don't know if this is still a draft ordinance it might be um but they they had a lot of other things they were considering one one thing that I looked at which I thought was a bit obvious is they um it might have been the the Tampa Bay one they wanted a real estate disclosure uh when you sell your property which to me that's just blatantly obvious I thought that was maybe going too far but um I think like you were talking about some kind of inspection schedule certainly for the city I would assume the city would want to look at um theirs but I I know several locations where I can see seaw walls that look like they're failing and um that that should be a code violation for sure okay SE several items to look into I just want to summarize um looks like the board is leaning more toward compliance being based upon elective new Upland development not so much um even substantial repairs from storms and so on it would be based on um someone who decides to redevelop the Upland property um looking at replacing seaw wall caps requiring compliance iance with the 5ot standard um potentially issuing a waiver when the seaw wall being replaced is within 12 Ines give or take of the 5 foot navd standard unless a cap can be added um the city itself providing a post storm um evaluation and potentially looking at a more frequent um evaluation after that I'm looking at things like adding pools elective improvements in the rear yard that aren't necessarily um tied into minimum habitation um anything dealing with conditional use permits bringing in compliance with the seaw wall standards and generally looking at the Treasure Island standards for seaw wall seeing if there are other uh living Shoreline or gray infrastructure improvements that we can bring over does that more or less summarize what we I think the only other thing I think really needs to be expit is the fill question we need to change our need to change our um non-structural fill ordinance to be compati so that we don't create bathtubs yeah okay if you were to build a completely new house and new seaw wall would you be able to elevate your lot as well using Phil well I we certainly need to address what was brought up about you know fill around the around the seaw wall um it's it's the minimum necessary for drainage and Landscaping purposes in the velocity zone now in the AE Zone more toward the interior of the city places in vad delare for example um Phill is permitted um for for stem wall construction and so on but um in the velocity zones and the coastal zones which are now entire neighborhoods in the city it's only allowed for drainage and Landscaping but I can tell you there are ways to do it for example um you can create a wall like like our house there's a wall and our garage floor is actually higher yeah so we have filled I guess inside the wall of our house and it made a huge difference because when there was flooding a lot of neighbors thought that their garages had to be on the ground level and their cars got flooded and we didn't do that we put the wall a retaining wall I guess and we were able to fill in so that we raised our garage and we still we have a little slope on the driveway but it's not bad and we still have the swes and everything so our water doesn't bother anybody else um so I think we need to be careful because I think people would make different decisions they they're trying to follow the rules yeah but there is a way to do what you're talking about which would benefit yeah um yeah because I think we're going to see a lot of new development yeah and no one wants to go through through this again so if you're going through rebuilding you want to try to mitigate as much as you can yeah well we talk this over with the city manager's office um we will likely bring some something back forward to you in the next couple of months thank you okay we will move on to 5B multimodal discussion so um yeah I wanted to uh to visit this um I know during the last the two cups that I sat on um you know we brought up uh developers contributions to our internal City multimodal system being freebie I think is is what it is um and you know we kind of got looked at like we were crazy because they were small projects and they didn't really feel that it was you know should be incumbent on them and I know you know they said they don't meet the uh requirements for the via the transportation plan and peak hours to to impact to have to require you know contributions but um this is came up again during this commission meeting of last the last commission meeting where they did approve that cup and and they did get a commitment from that the Maramar project to um contribute um but it was kind of again done on at time of of of approval back of the napkin math um to come up with a number to say hey would you agree to this and and you know again if we look at our our city comp plan and and I was looking specifically like at objective 5.1 where it says you know City should encourage utilization of multimodal Transportation I don't I'd like to know or find out from from maybe staff if there's a way to um maybe um look outside of the impact fees if we have a way to make a more uh predictable and repeatable process for saying U maybe on a prata you know this is the cost for our city Pro multimodal um system and again I think we we kind of did that one the city would understand based on number of rooms what kind of budget they'd be having to work with when looking at contracts and developers would know what they're looking at when coming in in addition to pelis County based impact fees um what they'd be looking at to be on the hook for um and it would uh you know just give us like I said a little bit more um stability in the proc process versus again just trying to Strongarm each one of them as they come come in front of the commission um not that it wasn't successful it was but but again I think this supports the small business owners that don't you might only have you know 40 rooms and then the massive ones that have hundreds of rooms if we could come up with something with like I said that's just a little bit more um predictable repeatable um and reliable for for all involved so absolutely I wanted to go with that and the developers I'm sure even on their side want to know what they're coming into so um I think there's a few parts to that we as a city are currently about to embark on an impact fee evaluation not just for transportation impact we'll be looking at all manners of impact fees but that will be something that will be handling at the local level the county is in the process of looking at its multimodal impact fee for transportation of course um different counties handle it different ways in our County we fall under their ordinance we collect those fees and we split we split those fees with the county uh when we take them in it's been a very long time since they've updated their fees um I expect them to go up significantly and um some of the new projects even the ones that have already been approved when they come in for site plan permitting especially the multiphase projects they may they may be subject to those higher um impact fees we made sure to get that into the development agreements um as far as the additional fees above and beyond that and City attorney feel free to intervene on this if if you feel them getting off base but um we we have something called exactions that we need to follow we need to make sure that what we're asking for from developers are relatively in line with both the direct impacts of their projects as well as the proportionality of their projects so when we look at conditional use permits especially when we look at um administrating site plans we are limited to some degree and what we have to we have to justify those exactions but when we come to projects that utilize our density pools um which are actually the two recent projects you saw the Miramar requested a number of units out of the pool the Winward pass project requested all of their units out of the the pool we do have that higher standard we have that caseby case assessment and we would still like to tie it to some monetary value some kind of impact of the project itself but I believe we more flexibility on that because it's not just a a list of Standards we do have that higher standard to request that because we have a limited number of these units in the pool we can require a higher contribution from those developers who are looking to to utilize them now the the real issue is we're only legally allowed to charge an impact fee right we can't charge an ongoing usage fee for freebie is that accurate we don't have anything codified to that um we'd have to look into that but yeah so we we have that flexibility is there a way to um you know again sort of um calculate based on the either the the density that they're trying to extract from the pool or you know some other methods so that you know it's not it's not vague coming in front of us before it even gets to commission that there's you know some sort of understanding from the developer of what is going to be expected from them monetarily like so that we can discuss it here versus like I said the way it it's kind of been thus far right so impact fees are supposed to collect and especially for a multimodal impact fee it's supposed to collect for all of those you know not just car impact or bus impacted it's all of those additional um services that a City offers now most cities in penel County don't have a freebie they don't have a local circulator so that might be something that we could certainly look at collecting an additional fee on top of that as part of our impact fee study and we we do have ways of putting numbers to that we have you know GPS locates and we know more or less how much these how many trips um originate from or go to these projects over a onee period so to some extent those requests that we made of projects in the past were based on those numbers um you know origination and and destination fees based on the cost per trip of of a freebie so yeah I I think that's the hard part I believe that's why it tends to come up during the CP hearings because the amount we would need on an ongoing basis differs dramatically from what we could ask for as a as an impact so when you when you say hey I'd really like to see you fund this amount of money towards the freebie and and we're happy if you pay it over 10 years then they're like yeah we can make that happen even though we're not we can't legally say pay all this money right now for this impact fee because it it isn't Justified in one chunk so it's it's messy uh I wish we were allowed to charge commercial units what what their impact to the city is on an ongoing basis but I uh property taxes our only real Avenue towards that which could be looked at thank you good thoughts uh let's see 5c Brandon staff discussion for February meeting so this meeting was moved back a week because of the holiday the February meeting was moved forward a week so our next meeting is in two weeks um staff does not have anything to bring forward at that meeting I know we have quite a few items to look into but that will require more than the weekly time we have so it's okay with the board we would like to cancel the February meeting uh the March meeting we have at least one major item which is the sign code we anticipate bring forward to you um I might see if I can also put together some modifications to the seaw wall ordinance if the city commission is amendable to or city commission and city manager are amendable to that so we'll have items for the March meeting but we would like to cancel February what's the February date okay and that's the one currently scheduled for the 10th scheduled for the 10th okay all right does does anyone else have any they wanted for that meeting um I just had one question in the packet you had um page 9 19 to 32 there's reference that the city is developing a storm water drainage manual um that will be updated in 2024 and I didn't find that so is are these things that were in this document that you gave us for this meeting are they available so this is based on the kimley hor vulnerability assessment um I don't know the status of that I can check with public works thank you I I was trying to look at that so I had a handle on some of these absolutely yeah yeah um any anyone opposed to cancelling February 10 no okay yeah I think we're in an agreement on that it's pretty soon so I think that's yeah F yeah thank you it's not a lot of time to prep stuff for them okay any further items no okay uh thank you Medan adjourned for