the April 21st 2025 meeting of the planning board please join me for the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with
liberty and justice for all roll call please member Ray present member Perry here member Grocott here vice Chair Angelites here chair Hubard here we have a quorum thank you um for the agenda I
would like to add a discussion item 5A for House Bill 1535 does anyone else have anything they wanted to add what was it again house Bill uh House Bill
1535 motion to approve agenda as amended can I have a second second uh roll call please member Grocott yes member Perry yes member Ray yes vice Chair Angelites yes chair Hubard yes motion carries
okay do we have any audience comments for in general not related to agenda items no okay we will move on to approval of the March 24th 2025 minutes does anyone have further
changes okay can I have a motion to approve the minutes motion to approve as submitted second roll call please member Perry yes member Grocott yes member Ray yes vice Chair Angelites yes
chair Hubard yes motion carries okay okay for the next section we are going to adjourn as a planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency for the action item 4A ordinance 2025-10 do we have any audience comments
no okay is this you Brandon yes okay thank you if we could pull up the PowerPoint please so this is a followup from last month's meeting staff tried to address the input of the planning board um there had been clear direction on several
individual items as well as potentially making it a little bit easier for businesses in the wake of storms to um you know reinhabit their structures and and go through the permitting process and deal with everything that comes with a storm um without necessarily needing
to contend with new sign regulations so to just briefly go through the changes that we made um we added a purpose statement pertaining to wildlife protection to that section of the division uh we did define lawful message is effectively any message that is not
otherwise prohibited by state or federal law we allow for banners um we expanded the permissions for banners our current policy is to allow for banners 30 days after issuance of a business tax receipt that is the only situation in which they
can be used other than through a special event permit uh special event permit which has its own process uh we added two other options when a business begins operating after a local state of emergency we do provide a permission for them to have a banner on their business at that time it doesn't need to be
attached to the building it needs to be secured um but they are permitted that as an additional um additional temporary sign during a local state of emergency and when a permit's been issued for an attached sign till the sign is installed if there's a few week interim between
that permit being issued and the sign uh the attached permanent sign being installed they would be able to place a banner in that location we had modified the monument sign face measurements when distinct from non-commercial elements the intent of this was to just reduce staff discretion when making these
interpretations there is language that stays in the code related to not measuring the architectural elements but when there's a distinct background with text on it on a sign um that is the basis for the measurement that we'll use
and that's a graphic that we'll come up with prior to moving this Honda to city commission currently our code allows for monument signs to be larger for those properties with significant frontage if they choose to combine two signs to make one larger
monument sign uh we did move that over from the current code the code is per um permits a 60 square ft monument sign for any business that is in a standalone building if properties have more than 400 ft of frontage they would be allowed
two 60 foot monument signs this would permit them to have a one 120 foot monument sign it wouldn't be need to be located at least 10 feet outside of the front setback so these would really just be for very large developments um they would be able to combine those two 60 ft
signs to one 120 ft sign um we did change the code um as was pointed out at the last meeting that was that attached signs be limited across the board to the second story they are allowed to exceed the second story they cannot be placed above the fascia or the
parapet of the roof depending on the type of roof that's um being used on the building uh there was concerns about the sign area width um being used as a loophole to create larger signs that's um we did prohibit sign area widths that
exceed an aspect of 2 to one with their height so if a sign for example is um 4 feet tall it would be allowed a sign area width of 8 feet or or less we provide for additional regulations in pass grill if adopted in the future this would not require
amendment to the sign code if they if there are then additional restrictions or permissions placed in the passer grill sign regulations um they're not proposed at this time it just gives that option in the future it also exempts well-maintained signage from being considered abandoned during the local
state of emergency that would be retroactive to the date of the event so if an state of emergency is declared a few days after a storm it would be retroactive to the date that the event occurred um while the property is being restored under an active building permit so as long as the property owner obtains
a building permit to remediate the storm damage um understanding that the building is not going to be occupied during that period of time um they would be exempt from the abandonment clause during that period of time and then after they complete the work for 90 days it allows the occupant to get back into
the business begin operating without there being um concerned about being cited for abandonment of a sign and needing to to take it down and and comply with the current code there were items that were discussed that we did not address um concerns
regarding artwork that's something we can explore separately it was outside the scope of this um really district specific sign amendment standards for the community redevelopment sign regulations those can be explored in amendments to the division regulations
division 39 of code um and then again as I mentioned before additional standards for the pastor grillil and CRD 8th Avenue um that's langu we did add language that allowed for the standards to be enabled in the future without needing to come back and amend the sign code um but that would allow for
amendments through the divisions that um regulate the pastor grillil and the CRD 8th Avenue divisions um I also wanted to thank member Perry for pointing out a few um corrections that needed to be made to references we have made those changes they're not in the draft that
was published with the agenda but we will carry those those corrections forward so with that um we'd I'd be happy to answer any questions if not we do ask that you move to find ordinance 202510 consistent with the comprehensive plan as stated in the agenda report and
recommend approval to the city commission with any modifications today if if you see fit i had one question u it was section 26.1 uh item O this is a new item that or I'm
sorry it's a modification prohibit signage that will substantially and negatively impact imperiled wildlife i was curious if there would be any opposition to just removing the word word imperald uh I don't see why we would want to approve any sign that is substantially and negatively impactful
to wildlife whether they're endangered or not no I have no concerns with that i I include it in peril just because it's an FD term but no issue i had I had one on the um artwork i went back to the Google wording would you
mind putting the paper that's up there um I just hate to leave it open for some future point that's not defined you know I always want to try to tie things up so I basically added the Google wording um
it serves as a means of communication expression and cultural understanding just to try to give it a little more substance to somebody trying to interpret this i don't know if it's possible to add that or not
that would be fine to add thank you any other concerns i just have a question um on section 26-1 item C and item M are they they seem I don't
know let's see if we can find our C is uh these sign regulations are intended to improve pedestrian and traffic safety mhm and then M says M regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with obstruct the vision of or
distract motorists bicycles or pedestrians that improving their pedestrian and traffic safety yeah they're both in the code right now mhm um they seem like they're the same subject matter m seems a little more
detailed I guess mhm i guess if we were going to take one out I would take out C seems like one is more about making more about improvement and one is more about restriction to me but it's true two
sides of a similar coin yeah you know in reading I guess in going through and starting to read these I realize how wordy we we are in our um code and I'm always looking for opportunities to minimize where we can but that's kind of
I mean we could always take C and make it a appended to M with a clause that the goal is to improve pedestrian traffic safety okay that's the consensus okay i also um Brandon I know you and I exchanged some email about this but the
40t from the visible water line we talked about last time making that the knee high tide and then you responded to me that that might be more difficult for the field to enforce which raised the question in my mind are different people doing enforcing because if we have this in
other ordinances then that would suggest to me that they are trained in how to do that so it may be different entities or whatever but I just felt the consistency if if it's a problem for this ordinance why is it not a problem in the other
ordinance so with for example we use mean high water line setbacks for the cabana service areas for the resorts and we will go out and inspect after the site plan is approved so we do a one-time inspection based on details that we know based on the survey um for
a for more snap judgment of the agent agents when they're out there looking at just the placement of an A-frame sign they preferred visible waterline um just because it helps them you know they something they can measure in the field instead of referring to a survey
but if the board would prefer it be mean high water line we can certainly take that i I do want to say that this regulation only applies to a few of um a few resorts citywide so it's not going to be used that often and we we have to keep it in because those are permissions
for them i'm okay with that what section of the code did that appear at i'm trying to find it it was um on page 22 of 23 it's under the section 26.18 standards for specific sign types and
it's like three pages in it's um I have 41 pages so okay all right then it would be 26.18 uh letter G uh number three sandwich board signs
okay yeah these Brandon these are typically like the uh beach concession vendors of uh what jet skis and things like that correct and we have we have only two entities that offer this within this zoning and um our code department
had asked that the setbacks be from the visible high water line just because it helps them when they're out in the field they can make that judgment at that time okay and I it would allow them to move the sandwich board sign with the tides it sounds like correct but it would it would never place it closer than 40 feet
from the mean high water line just because of that you know i mean would you technically need survey equipment if you were going for mean high water line yeah or at least a recent survey um we and we for more permanent installations we do require that information but just for the placement of the signs it's just
a little difficult for them to judge in the field i think this is a practical approach yeah this would be probably better for this particular application we do have different people that review building department and planning department review the as final asbuilts but they're not out there in the field
every day enforcing the placement of these jet ski signs that's code enforcement board and the sheriff's department and then it's difficult for them because the tide comes up and down and the wet sand even changes but they can measure to where the water is yeah no I I understand i just with a rope and
then so it might be easier for them good question yes okay any other concerns can I please have a motion with the additional uh text with agreed upon
modifications i'll make a motion uh to find the ordinance um consistent with the comp compreh comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city council commission roll call please
member Perry yes member Grocott yes member Ray yes vice Chair Angelites yes chair Hover yes motion carries okay we are on to action item 4B ordinance
2025-07 is there any audience comments do we go back to the planning board i believe these are all local planning agency is that Yes yeah no audience comment okay brandon if we could pull the PowerPoint back up and chair if you don't mind I'll
take both this and ordinance 202508 together okay thank you so these are amendments to the Pastor Gril historic overlay district uh what is currently the overlay district without historic title and uh CRD 8th
Avenue um these of course were reviewed by the planning board at a workshop with the historic preservation board late last year um we also had a separate workshop with the city commission early this year back in January where we received uh relatively limited feedback
at that workshop but I'll go over the few changes made since the workshop that was held last year um it had been the consensus of the historic preservation board and the city commission that pools only um can be permitted in the front
yard there had been a blanket prohibition on accessory structures in the front yard in the code at the time it had been reviewed um there is a preference for pools to be allowed only when the setbacks and frontage requirements can be met there is a requirement in the code um it's
currently in the code it would be preserved moving forward that buildings need to make up a certain frontage of a build to line in the passer overlay it's typically 10 to 15 ft from the front property line for a single family residential construction where the
building needs to occupy at least 50% of the width of the property line at that setback um this would allow for presuming that that buildout is is met um it would allow for pools in the front yard and the reason for that is there were concerns among the board especially
for some of the smaller lots in getting both driveways in the back of the property which is obviously a preference of the board um keeping that access off the alleyway when it can be done um and also accommodating a pool so this would allow for for both of those on the same same property uh the other major change
was requiring that all structures located on a platted alleyway um to have driveway access from the alley instead of the main street um that is those alleyways that are still maintained as public platted alleys uh not those that have since been vacated um when it was
presented to the planning board at the workshop it had been only an alleyway of 15 feet or greater that would require that the access be from the alleyway they have changed that to be any structure any sorry any lot located on an alleyway of of any platted width
however given that all new development is through the design review um when there is a difficulty that can be demonstrated through that design review that the alleyway is less than 15 ft in width um as it accesses the parcel access from the frontage can be considered by the historic preservation
board the property owner would not need to go on to the board of adjustment to request a variance that is something that could be handled through the design review when there is a difficulty that can be um justified for those alleys that are 15 ft in width or greater if the applicant is seeking to install a
driveway that connects from the main street a variance will be required for a driveway from that street there's only one major change in ordinance 202508 that's the Community Redevelopment District 8th Avenue um and that is regarding height how height is
measured back in back up until 2015 including when the CRD 8th Avenue was originally uh developed height was measured from the required flood elevation that is not a defined term fema uses the term required design flood
elevation that was changed in 2015 um I believe it was unintentional and it was changed across the board to be measured from base flood elevation that is how we measure height elsewhere in the city however I believe the intent at least in 2013 when the CRD 8th Avenue was adopted
was to measure height from basically the level at which the habitable or occupiable level of the structure was constructed so this is really just correcting that unintended error in the 2015 definitional update which allowed for all measurements to be from base
flood elevation that did afford additional building height um it varies across the 8th Avenue zoning district but more or less on the east side pass a railway that's an additional 6 to 7 ft along the Gulfway side that's an additional four to 5 ft um that appears
to be unintentional as it related to this district so the definition was changed back height is measured from the required design flood elevation for the structure what that means is that structures that can be built to grade those that those that are commercial office mixed use when they can be
floodproofed accessible at grade that measurement is going to start at grade structures that must be built above grade and in the CRD8th Avenue District that's only lodging facilities that do not have a commercial or office level at the ground level they must step back the
floor above 35 feet from grade 10 feet that standard was in the code when it was reviewed by the planning board at the workshop late last year but it had not gone into detail on the types of uses that are required to um step back
that upper level lodging is the only use type that the city allows in the zoning district that is required by the Florida building code by FEMA to elevate the lowest level of the structure so we don't want to take away that feet that those feet that um the structure needs to be elevated but they will need to
step back that upper level above the 35 ft from grade so those are the two uh three changes that we're proposing relative to the um workshop we we did make some grammatical updates and and some reference updates um but we do ask for
motions for each of these ordinances separately define them consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend their approval to the city commission any concerns i just have some questions um so on the charts where they talk about the um requirements for each each
type of building and they talk about lot coverage that is for the building itself so so for house medium for example lot coverage um is max 70% so what they're saying is at least does that include pools patios driveways etc it includes
any any structure on the lot so if they choose to use and for most residential structures the maximum impervious surface is also 70% so they have a little bit of leeway with for example if they wanted to shell driveway that might work but it would be any structure on
the lot inclusive of for example detached garages or garage apartments or structures like that so that's I guess where I'm getting so they they have to that that building structure has to be actually be less if they want to put a pool on the lot in order to meet the
imperious um service okay correct thanks um and then on the singlestory commercial building um small and medium small ends at max 50 and medium begins at 60 so I'm just curious what happens
between 51 and 59 is that a is it covered I guess is my question so I believe because we have so few commercial lots in Pastor Gril I believe that's based on the actual existing lot
dimensions that we have but that is a good point i I'll definitely point that out to our consultant to go back and look at that okay um and then it talks about the um porches under I believe it starts on section 20-16 and it talks about the setback and
um stairs being able to go then into these setbacks so that you really the stairs could be two foot from the from the public area it says the pool um setbacks have to align with the front of the building does that include those stairs meaning the pool can then also be
2 ft from the from that public area or or no does it have to be even with the actual structure of the building so the intent is to have the the porch is part of the building and therefore needs to end at the 10-ft setback which is typical for
the residential properties the front of the primary residence would not be located at the 10 feet that would be the front of the porch as an element of the building um for the steps that come out those it would not be considered relative to those steps coming off of
that frontage element so in another in other words the pool would always need to be set at least 10 ft for those house medium and large structures just one additional one there was do we need a clarification in there excluding steps or something to that
effect we could certainly add that just worry if questions come up now they could come up in the future so we'll try to address some which of the two ordinances did that apply to so it's uh well pass yeah talks
about the the pool setbacks are not to exceed the the front of the building but then it says steps okay can encroach into that setback by an additional 3 ft so I'm just wondering if then the pool can encroach by additional 3 ft of the what are they considering the front of the building for the pool dimensions
okay 2025-07 right pag start with 2016 is So what I what I will add in is that the the pool needs to meet the street set back based on the building type so that sets an
actual flat number that needs to be met thank you and then uh 2018 and it talks about the off streetet parking and they added the um ability and I think we're talking about that with the
um ability to uh do street cutbacks if they were unable to negotiate the um the alley yes um so how does that work on streets where there's public parking in front of those houses just that's more of a curious question well the the standard as it is
currently is that if someone is requesting a curb cut from the streets that have public parking we do allow them the the typical number of curb cuts which in a lot of cases especially for the lots that are 50 ft wide it could be the entire frontage of the property based on the current standard so um this
is an intent to really orient most parking to the alleyway in the back and not allow for curb cuts when when there is a case where someone faces a genuine hardship with accessing the property from the alleyway that's something that the board can consider at that time you
would lose the parking space where the curb cut is right and we we currently are that's that's been a recurring issue so on uh 20-24 uh it says this is just a typo it says after completion uh item four it says after completion of the design
review in four above and it says it in item thank you oh thank you i'm sorry 20-22 you could just say after completion of the design review mhm
okay okay can I please have a motion for 2025-07 separately with the modifications discussed including the ones that will go to the consultant should they become necessary well with modifications discussed I'll
make a motion to approve item where am I 20-20 2025-07 2025-07 with the modifications can I have a second second roll call
please member Ray yes rocott yes member Perry yes vice Chair Angelites yes chair Hubard yes motion carries and can I have a motion for 25-08 i'll make a motion to approve it uh item
code 20-28 as written 2025-08 2025-08 thank you second please second roll call member Ray yes member Perry yes member
Grocott yes vice Chair yes chair Hubard yes motion carries not on top of my page okay 4 D is ordinance 2025-12 are there any audience comments
okay pull the PowerPoint back up so this is a late edition i sent this out I believe mid last week and it's really just a cleanup ordinance um this is addressing prior ordinances that were passed in 2015 and 2017
pertaining to development rights in two different zoning districts uh there was some language in one case that was overlooked um in one case that was left in but conflicts with the change that was made so the city has a commercial general one and two zoning district the
commercial general one is much more common across the city cg2 um applies primarily to properties at the west end of downtown um around the 72nd and 73rd Avenue street ends and um these
properties um one of them currently contains a restaurant and it's zone CG2 back in 2015 the city amended the district to add restaurants as a permitted use in the district the title
state that stated that full service restaurants were permitted use however it didn't actually make it into the code itself um so limited service restaurants were included so those with limited seating but actual sitdown full service restaurants did not make it into the
code after consulting with the attorney's office we did decide it's not a scrier's error it needs to be something that's brought forward for a vote however it does align with the intent of that ordinance from 2015 looking at the CC2 zoning this comprises
most of the zoning along Gulf Boulevard from south of 72nd Avenue down to uh 64th this is a commercial mixeduse zoning back in 2017 there was an ordinance that accurately amended out
single family detached residential uses from the zoning they were removed from the zoning code that is consistent with the comprehensive plan um that wasn't an error and it was done correctly however there is remaining language in the density and intensity section of the
code 33.7 that alludes to lots of a certain size being allowed a single family unit um so the density standards allow for that unit but the land development code permitted uses section does not actually
allow for single family uses both of these have caused some confusion we have gotten some calls especially in the wake of the storm um about amending these two sections to make sure that they're consistent uh with the code and with the comprehensive plan so we're just really proposing this as
cleanup so unless the board has any questions or input um we do ask that you find this ordinance consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city commission any questions or input
no uh can I have a motion please motion to recommend ordinance 2025-12 for approval to the city commission second please second roll call member Grocott yes member Perry yes
member Ray yes vice Chair Angelites yes chair Hover yes motion carries okay i would like to adjourn as the local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board the discussion item 5A that I wanted to add is related to House Bill
1535 just for an update from what I've read this is similar to the bill from a few years ago after Hurricane Ian that prohibited uh more burdensome legislation related to development code so far it's passed
three committees including the natural resources and disasters subcommittee who you think would actually care about improving development code following a once in aundred-year storm but it seems like this is coasting through so I just wanted to see if the city had received
any other input or guidance on how this is expected to play out now as you mention well I city attorney do you have any Have you received any um yeah it went through three committees most recently last week and um it uh seems to be making its way
through without much opposition um according to the lobbyist and our local representative it's going to be hard to stop this one okay that's kind of what I thought it does say um has two different sections there's section 24 and section
32 of House Bill 1535 and it says restrictions on county and municipal regulations after a hurricane section 24 has a one-year uh limit it says for one year after a hurricane makes landfall
uh local government may not propose or adopt within 100 miles of the of the track of the storm not just the landfall this time but the entire track of the storm a moratorium on construction reconstruction or redevelopment of any property a more restrictive or
burdensome amendment to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations or C a more restrictive or burdensome procedure concerning review approval and issuance of a site plan development permit or development order
and then in that's for one year but in the other section 32 um specifically for Helen and Milton they have a longer time frame name um and it extends it till October 1
2027 the same type of restrictions and it has a retroactive date back to the landfall of the first of those storms anything that was adopted after Milton uh would be void abonio taken off would
be ineffective taken off the books if you will and then you couldn't readopt it until 2027 okay that was my understanding too all right um does anyone have anything else to
discuss nope meeting adjourned