2025 meeting of the city of St. P Beach Planning Board. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. Aliance 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 Grocott, here. Vice Chair Angelitus, here. Member Perry, here. Member Ray, here. Chair Hubard, here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any
modifications to the agenda? I would like to add an item. Um, I was looking to hear if there was any update um on the priorities that we talked about on our June 16th meeting. you know, the status of resiliency,
looking at outdated ordinances. There were several we had a little discussion there and I just wanted to get an update on where are we if meetings are scheduled or have been scheduled or Okay, I will add that as discussion item 5D. Thank you.
I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as revised. Sorry, just just one modification from staff. Um, if we could move items C 5 C up to um before 5A. We have a consultant on the call. We just want to make sure they have time to present. Sure. Yeah, no problem.
Thank you. Okay. Any Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelitus? Yes. Member Ray? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Member Grokott? Yes. Chair Hubard? Yes. Motion carries.
Okay. Do we have any public comment cards? I'm guessing no. Okay. Uh we have item three is approval of the minutes from the June meeting. Are there any changes?
We did not get those in the packet. So they're actually going to be in the September packet. Oh, okay. They were distributed before the meeting, but they have to be in the Okay. All right. We will if everybody's comfortable with them and has read them, we can add it on there
and approve them. I read through. Yeah. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve them? I move we approve them. I'll second. Roll call, please. Member Ray? Yes.
Member Perry? Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus? Yes. Member Grokott? Yes. Chair Hubard? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. So we have no action items so we can move on to discussion item 5C. Yes. So on the call we have Matt Lewis.
He is our consultant with Stantech. He's been involved in helping put together the finding of necessity which is the first step in the potential establishment or evaluation of the potential of a community redevelopment agency and area. And uh he'll go through
his presentation. Yeah, thank you for the introduction. Uh my name is Matt Lewis. Um I am from Stantech. I'm working with the city of St. Pete staff to uh help determine whether or not the conditions exist to
establish a community revenue development agency and uh potentially tax increment finance to finance improvements to this area that you see on the map. I should actually start with some basic housekeeping and zoom etiquette uh items
and that is can everybody see my screen? Yes. Yes. Yes. Excellent. So today I'm going to do a quick conversation about first what is a finding of necessity. Second, I'm going to look at going to go through the study
area that we're looking at and the known issues in the study area and then uh a little bit about resilience and then finally the next steps. What do we do with this uh finding necessity? So first what is the finding of necessity? It's the first step in
establishing a community redevelopment agency. What it means is that the government is saying, the local government is saying that there are conditions that exist in the geography within the municipality that necessitate a plan and a tax increment finance
strategy to overcome whatever those conditions might be. Um what the statute looks for is three broad areas. Um, one is inadequate provision of for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, open spaces. We'll look
at that. I don't think you're going to have an issue with that in St. Pete Beach. There's plenty of air, light, sanitation, and open space in the area. Um, high density of population compared to population density of adjacent areas within the county or your municipality and overcrowding. um unlikely to see
this condition as well, but you may see some loading patterns that might be obsolete that would point towards this. The one we're really looking at though is the existence of conditions that endangered life or property by fire or other causes. other causes being the
operative word here because this is well let me go back one because we have known issues in the area um the first is that there's a large amount of infrastructure in building
storm roll to major storms you know this we all know this about any barrier islands in Florida is that there are um storm surge issues that you have to kind of you have to deal with every year. Um and the second thing is that there's an availability of workforce housing and
appropriate housing problem area. So this map shows the areas that are inundated in the category of storm. The blue means it's pretty high. Um chances are in the blue areas um your
buildings may be built up high enough so that they are not in the in the category once storms should have been. The red and orange areas means it's lower and you can see you know this is kind of the a little between the red and the blue
areas. Um just uh right about here is where it is. um and those are areas where the structures and the infrastructure are at risk from from major storm events. So that is the the fundamental thing
we'll be looking at through this finding of necessity is what is the level of of risk that the various buildings and pieces of infrastructure in the city of St. beach, what is the
level of risk that they're at? And um can we establish through that that there's a a risk to life and property? I think that's clearly the case. Um where are we going to take this? So, we're at step one.
We're gathering data. What we're basically doing is establishing what this red map means in terms of uh potential risk to people. Once we're finished gathering this data, we'll have a good deal of information.
We'll get together with your staff and assess the potential for a community redevelopment area for St. Pete Beach. Um we'll look at it in terms of what the what Penllis County, the taxing authority, will be looking at for a tiff district. um whether or not we can put
together a um finding of necessity that really gets to what they be looking at and gathers the revenue that we hope to gain to make the improvements necessary. Um and if that's the case, we'll put together a re resolution wherein the city of St. Pete Beach will
say conditions exist that are detrimental to life and we feel that a CRI plan is appropriate to move forward with. Uh once that resolution is completed, then you move forward and put together a plan. So look at your finding
of necessity as your list of things that you have to deal with. Look at your plan as your approach to dealing with it. And that will include revenue projections. It will include projects. Um, and as any plan you've approached, it will in the past, it will
include a good deal of uh of public inputs and and stakeholder groups and all all the things that go along with plan making that you're used to. And then finally, once that plan is adopted and accepted by um both St. Pete Beach and the county, um
you'll be in the position of collecting revenue and making improvements. So, we're kicking this off um this month. It'll be a two-month process. And um I'm available for any questions. I have some I have. Go ahead. Member Perry has questions.
Um, when I was looking at this, I I thought that part of the intention was to focus on the city's infrastructure and be in concert with um what the people in the public works are looking
at in terms of um sewage system and basically the infrastructure. I didn't realize you were going to be looking at like resident or the buildings that are there. I was thinking we were more focused on the infrastructure.
I think that will be a big piece of the of the study is the infrastructure that is at risk. Um because if that infrastructure goes down then that is the impact to to life and and and property um goes along with that. Um,
typically with a finding of necessity, you would look at the entirety of the area. Um, just so you can check off what are the areas that are at risk, where should your as you move into a community development area plan, what are what
should you be focusing on? Um, not only obviously improving infrastructure, but are there elevate programs or or different things you could do to help bring the the most at risk structures out of out of hearts away. But that is something you would look at
for a CR plan is how you how you would implement everything. And I I think that would be helpful because I know one of the things that I saw after the hurricanes we went through is like through all the neighborhoods um that we went through cleaning storm
drains, we could see the sewage bubbling up out of all the manholes. I mean I have videos of it bubbling up. So I do think there is a lot in the neighborhoods. But part of what also concerned me was that if you're looking
at the infrastructure, one of the pieces of our infrastructure that I have never been able to get a status on is the health of the subacquous pipe that goes um under the bay that gets all the sewage off the
island. And I keep hoping that some project will look at that because I was here in 2016 when I had fully formed feces floating by my seaw wall and I don't want to get back to that state. Um I don't know how if you're doing an
infrastructure you can do a part of it like here but not deal with the issue of how it gets off the island. A lot of people think that if we just fix pump station one, we're good to go.
And I'm not convinced that that's true. Okay. Expanding on that, I guess my question would be, can a CRA apply improvements to resources that might be shared between jurisdictions? Looking at that pipe, for
example, it's partly St. Pete Beach and it's partly the municipality it connects to. Can a CRA improve that pipe or do we need agreement from other stakeholders? I think when we get into the the the CRA
plan making phase of this um which is a bit down the road um that would be something that we'd have to look into closely. Um I don't know the nature of the agreement if you know ownership maintenance you know as you know with these types of agreements there are a
lot of things that can happen within them. um whether or not the CRA could take the whole cost of that. Um I don't know if that's allowable or even advisable or if you'd have to enter into more agreements with adjacent
jurisdictions to to share that cost. But that would be something to look at as part of the CRA plan making and certainly it's a an important source important place to spend CRA funds. Um then then we want to
make sure they uh appropriate there. Okay. I I understand in years past what has been proposed for the CRA may not have met the bar of what Penel County had it defined as. Uh are we of the opinion that
the this city has suffered damages and could be at risk for loss of life. And if there were a repeat event and would the current definition of what Penelis County would allow a CRA to accomplish,
do we meet that? I think that is what that uh second phase of this is for assessing the potential for the CRA is once we establish the the risk of those areas for endangering life or property.
um is is we further examine whether or not we've got something with the resilience and sustainability elements of of this study that Panelis County will look at and say this is something that we can agree is eligible for CRA
and taxment financing approaches. It's not something that's previously been looked at. Okay. So, the the collect step one, the collecting the data, there's a lot more to it than what we already know occurred. Right. Right. So, in the past, up until
recently, CRAAS have been largely thought of as kind of like downtown revitalization districts. Um, there have been a few in Florida that have started to look at resilience issues. Um, and more and more CRO are updating their plans. They're putting this in into
their plans because it's, you know, it does affect others. Okay. I I have two comments on that. One is um I know several people that are trying to sell their homes now and I want to be
careful that we don't you know make St. Pete Beach such a blight that we end up decreasing their home values even more than they are already being decreased. And I do worry about the implications of lower value on properties with the the tax shift on this but that's another
topic. Um, the second concern that I have is I feel like we need to be focused and prioritized and I every time we do a study, somebody new comes in and they look at the broad scope of things to filter it down to areas of focus that
we probably already knew, but a lot of resource, time, money, um, staff focus is lost. And I feel like we need to prioritize like everything we do in the city at this point we should say does
this contribute to resiliency or does this contribute to fixing our infrastructure which we already know is not in a good place because everything else is a distraction and could be taking away resources from what the city so desperately needs.
So that's that's probably my biggest concern is how do we get focused and not go on an exploratory that I've seen consultants come in and they have the the road map and they they lay everything into it and then they
they crank out their sort of canned reports with a few tweaks here and there and I just don't want to take anything away from the focus of resiliency and infrastructure. So that's my worry. noted and and one one of the reasons
that we're really we're really working on this is because it has that focus on resiliency and infrastructure and um it's a it frankly it excited us. It's it's a very interesting idea. It's a very great
idea to use a a CRA approach to hopefully fund infrastructure residency improvements. Um, and that that is where our focus is as well. Brandon, was was there any particular goal with this discussion that you were
looking to have the board form an opinion on or I don't think so at this time. I think we were just bringing it to you as an information and discussion for input. This is, as Matt mentioned, really the technical first step. as we get further into it, if there's even any justification to move forward at all,
we'll definitely engage you in a more meaningful role. Okay. Matt, I have a couple questions. Um, so under the CRA um I would guess my question is why wouldn't we be applying under item um a for inadequate
sanitation when we know a preponderance of our sewers and pump stations etc. failed. You said you didn't think we would meet that criteria. Could you kind of frame why you don't think we'd meet that criteria based on our past experience during Helen and Milton?
Um I was actually uh not aware of the failures at pump station. So that will be one piece that that would come come to light. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. And then um regarding the areas that we're looking at, so the
southern border of that I think leaves out two districts which um Donsar I think is almost below sea sea level at some point. I mean if we're looking at going with sea and loss of property and life due to flooding, we're taking out, you know, some pretty lowlying districts
there. um if we're stopping that southern border of the um study short of what district three it looked like almost down there. Is there a reason for that? I I'll take that one. I'll take that one. Laura Canary,
community development director with the city. So, um just one thing, this map is the proposed area preliminary boundary. So, this is subject to change. The one nice thing about when you're conducting a finding of necessity, it's not parcel specific. So you can once they get to
that more southern area, if it makes sense to look beyond that or they have recommendations either which way that it just makes sense include this area, they'll be making that as part of their recommendation. Um there were a couple other things that but let me hear the rest of your So they will look at that area and then
decide if they want to include it. Yes, I think you only need to drive through some of those districts to see that like I said of damage to the properties down there. So as they're looking at that criteria because we feel confident that there's within that area there it'll
meet certain criteria for sure and so when you look at then expanding the boundary it's okay if you have few parcels or an area in a neighborhood that maybe that those conditions don't readily exist if you will um you can still include that in your boundary. Great. Thanks.
And um just a couple other things that I wanted to mention. So, as far as the infrastructure and resiliency, this truly would be the first like infrastructure and resiliency centric CRA in Penllis County. Um, it's a little
bit trickier when you try and identify blight as an infrastructure condition because as we know, it's kind of what you don't see under the ground. Um but one of our um really our kind of focus with this and probably the primary one is to be able to partner with the county
to address these infrastructure needs and resiliency improvements. Um so when we talk about the F and those conditions, there's the state criteria. So the state statute is what dictates, you know, if you're slum or blighted. And then separate to that when we were
talking about the county criteria that's the additional criteria that Panelis County has put in place to determine what their tiff contribution will be if any. Um, so I think that's really important because it's that criteria, not that I mean we're worried about the
statutory requirement, of course, but it's really looking how we compare up to the county's goals and objectives and what they're looking to achieve and how we marry that up with capital improvement projects to really be able to look at it from their standpoint as
an investment in this area and where we'll be able to say, okay, yes, this is the city of St. Pete Beach. But this obviously also benefits the county from a regional standpoint plus our visitors. The other thing is um there's a lot of CRA projects that cross
either that CRA boundary or jurisdictional boundaries. So, I'll use the example of in Panellis Park, they made improvements along 62nd Avenue that had to be um it was a joint project between Panellis Park CRA, the Leilman
CRA, and then of course the county and city were involved in that as well. For some reason, a lot of CRA boundaries like to split right in the middle of a street. So, you'll have where like CRA funds can be used on the north side, but not the south side. And so that's where the the kind of leveraging and layering
of the funding really comes in handy because you're able to say, "Okay, CRA Penllis Park, you handle the the north side, Lillman's going to handle the south side." So going back to the the pipe. Um I think that absolutely um one
of the things that I think is going to become really important with regard to that in particular is when you think about that boundary. One thing that I have not um I'm not familiar with the CRA whose boundary has actually went out into the waterway if that makes sense. So that's something that we're going to
have to look at and consider knowing the infrastructure improvements that are needed and that you know when we think long term but let's just pretend for a moment that you can't take it out into the waterway that you're limited. What we could do is of course when it comes to the funding, focus the funding on the
pump station that kind of offsets some of the funding required for the piping and then it's a shuffling game and then again through an interlocal you could join forces with the other participating jurisdictions to make those improvements potentially. But again just want to
emphasize the importance of at this step with the findings in particular. It's not only just saying yes, we acknowledge that the need is there for infrastructure improvements, but it's that additional step of okay, because the county is going to want to know um what type of projects we're looking to
actually um take take on. And so they're going to use that in their determination of, you know, factoring in whether we meet. There's like three levels of criteria. If you're at a 50%, 75% or 95% contribution.
So if I follow up on that, so we have to sort of lean forward on what type of projects we would want to apply a potential funding to. I heard you mentioned during the city commission meeting St. Augustine, for example, um were able to use, I believe you said CRA funds for a parking garage, which could
potentially be tied to infrastructure, you know, road safety, etc., etc. So are those type is there strict limitations left and right parameters on what the funding potential funding could be used on or are we do we have um you know pretty broad stroke of of saying using
the term infrastructure public safety etc in your opinion? Well for ours specifically because we are truly going to be so infrastructure and resiliency centric we're going to have um some flexibility there where it gets a little tricky. So the projects
will be identified in the plan. Sorry. So at the step of really going to the county and seeing what their contribution, what that might look like, they're going to be wanting to see what we've identified, going back to what Matt said, what are our what are our problems? Because the plan should align with those problems. The plan should
just basically be coming up with that kind of financial aspect of how you intend to undertake these activities. The other thing that's kind of um a little bit different with a community redevelopment plan um in comparison to some other types of planning initiatives is that you kind of want anything you
could potentially want to undertake in that plan. Even if it's kind of pie in the sky, you want to put it in there because if it's not in the plan, you can't under undertake it. However, you don't have to undertake everything in your plan. So, you kind of want to go big with your plan. Um, but then on a we
usually do it on a five-year basis, set up more of a a CIP schedule for the projects. And that gives you more of a a realistic, you know, kind of vision of what really you're going to undertake in a 5 to 10 year time frame. Um, when it comes to the county and the parameters
that they've put in place, they also have identified what they want county tiff dollars spent on and what they don't want county tiff dollars spent on. And so they um think of it as like those big buckets of transportation, mobility, housing. Those are things that yes,
shared goals and objectives, no problem. Spend the money on it. Um where I think one that was um that I remember and it could have changed since the last time I looked at it, but I remember one that they they were okay with um facade improvement grants from like an economic
development standpoint, but not with home improvement grants. They wanted that to be funded through CDBG. So just funded a little differently, but they put that parameter in place. And so what that meant for the CRA that I was working for at that time was just okay,
we had a home owner improvement grant program for in the CRA and and and outside of the CRA. It became again a shuffling of funding to know that to keep the program going that okay you had to be able to pull from general fund now to fund the you know the home
improvement grants over here and then it just you know shuffling. So they do have that oversight, but it it all comes back down to those kind of those big goals and objectives. And then I think as um as some of the CRAAS around here be got very successful, you know, and and kind
of they say that the goal of a CRA is to put itself out of business, you know, to be that and you should see the the property values increasing. That's the whole intent of a CRA. Um, but as some of them became more successful, they got bigger in kind of their efforts from
doing anything from more public art installations, which are are great, you know, from a revitalization standpoint, but going back to tying it back to that original finding of necessity, you know, it wasn't like they maybe had in their original FO that they didn't have enough
public art and therefore it was causing, you know, slum and blight in the area. I think that the caution is protecting our vulnerable portion of our society that could potentially be taken care of because a developer comes in and says, "Oh, your property has been deemed
blighted." And we know that it's still a beach community. There's still only so much property here. It's still very valuable property, but just protecting our our vulner population from being taken advantage of by people utilizing that term in a malicious way. I think
that's that's you know something the city would have to focus on and I think not getting distracted from our priorities. That is one of my biggest concerns is there's a lot of um as my mother-in-law used to say there are wants and there are needs and I feel
like sometimes the wants get in the way of the needs and we need to make sure that doesn't happen. And to the to the point of because just similar to like a brownfield when a property is deemed a brownfield you know it has that negative connotation it's the same when you talk about slum and
blight I just the definition is just you know I wish at this point that they'd update it or at least changed some of the terminology in there but what we've really tried to emphasize to um you know individual property owners is is really just understanding that this is a reinvestment area and this is means good
things for your properties. This means that now it does not mean that your taxes are going to go up, but what it does mean is that we can guarantee that a portion of your taxes are going to come back into this area and go towards infrastructure and resiliency improvements in this area.
And you can't always say that depending on where you're at in other places. Slum and blight are mid 20th century terms that you know this program, the state program kind of
adopted and uh incorporated into its uh its findings um into its its DNA basically. And the fundamentally what the the CRA does is it recycles revenue
into an area for the purpose of increasing property values. Without the increase in property values, um the CRA is not successful and it's not it's not going to last. that the CRA
plan has to be implementable to such a degree that everyone's property values increase. If it doesn't, then you're not going to be able to do anything you plan. you're not going to have any and then chairman for for your comment I
do think that what's changed from like the original time of because when there when there was a finding of necessity conducted 20 some years ago I think that a lot of the same conditions are are still exist right but I think what maybe has changed is just um number one the
environment right now for I would think that if you tried to say St. Pete Beach was slim and blighted a a year and a half ago, you'd get a different response and and appetite for the potential of a CRA than you absolutely would now because I think that it's it's seen through a different lens, especially
when you're talking about the infrastructure and sanitation needs on our beach. I think that it's just more apparent to others now outside of the community. I think the residents and and those that work for the city kind of knew those things, you know, and it's why it was looked at so long ago. But I
think that right now it's in my opinion anyway, it's a kind of opportune time that look there's a lot now it's really been a lot has surfaced of what the needs are in the community moving forward to be more resilient. Yeah, I I completely agree. My you know
when I see multi-point steps uh that we have to make it through to see this hopefully to a great conclusion I don't know how long those items take. Are we talking about, you know, to quote former Commissioner Boholland, are we
talking about three years of of workshops and studies and or is this more of a a six-month kind of thing? Um, this our disaster is fresh in the mind and that would be the great the great time to petition the county for their
support on this. Uh, but if it's years down the the line and other disasters have occurred or there's different attention throughout the county, I don't know if we'd get the same response. So I'm I'm just wondering how quickly this moves. So as Matt said the F is about two
months and then from there we'll take the conditions and the findings and what's found in the study and then take that forward. at that time is when we would consider if we're going to move forward with the establishment of a CRA looking at the boundary solidifying that and then in essence if we were to move
forward with the CRA plan update creating the plan um it can be we've talked to the the team internally and externally it can be anywhere I mean I've seen CRA plans developed in seven months I've seen them take a lot longer I think time is of the essence and so
we're really going to want to um rapidly do this. Also understanding we already know what our conditions we know what we want to address. So that's one good thing. And um I think as far as you know you not only we want to be able to
really sit down with the county once we get to that step of if we are going to pursue this and move forward really be at the table with them in developing this plan to make sure that we're looking at again those shared shared goals and objectives. The other thing that I think is worth mentioning because it's came up in other discussions and
there is the possibility that we could go through this process and then that the conditions maybe aren't as strong as we thought or to meet the criteria. And so what is it for at that point? Well, at that point, at a minimum, when we have a finding of necessity that's updated 20 years later, kind of
documenting these conditions more today, it's going to give us a good tool. It's not for nothing. I mean there are other grant opportunities and that just gives us a a really good fresh starting point to be able to apply that towards again maybe it's other grant opportunities maybe it's for other planning
initiatives that that come into play with what we're doing with the comp plan update you know so where it's something that's not going to be for nothing is you know I think that it's going to be a really good fresh look at at how you know where we really need to look at you know mitigation and resiliency efforts
since the funding does come from property tax. Are there times of year that we need to keep in mind to have applications submitted or are goals for having it approved? Uh or does it not really matter? The even though property
taxes come due on a certain date, CRAAS can be funded when they're approved. Is is there any concept of that? depending on when everything if we were to move forward and when we actually were to get it before the county and if they were to approve again they could essentially approve it and say go ahead and do your
CRA but we're not going to contribute you know but let's say when we get in front of them and we look at what that partnership looks like at that point um that is when the base year will be determined that year when it's adopted and so that's the most important because what they're going to do no matter what
time of the year they're going to take the valuations collect effectively for the properties in that area and that'll be the base year for the CRA. So, it doesn't really matter what time of year. It's just going to be associated with that year when it's actually approved by county.
Okay. It can't go retroactive, can it? If you do have a CRA in place, you'll be projecting revenues with the latest tax revenue tax goals um on a year basis. Okay. And to there has been times when it was
uh in Clearwater where the base year was actually reset because it was their second CRA was um established in like their East Gateway area and it hadn't been that the valuations weren't increasing and then it was around that time of the recession like 1997 they
ended up resetting the base year to 1998 I think you know to base it because it wasn't generating any revenue and that's the whole purpose of it. And so um again that that would um be another discussion. Hopefully we won't see that happen. But the um but that question has
also came up as to is now the best time if the valuations have been impacted just from and like you always want to try and when the valuations are lower that's when you would want to establish. Okay. Anyone else have questions?
No. Okay. Thank you for your time, Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Okay, we can move to discussion item 5A. Thank you, chair. If we could pull up
the PowerPoint. So, we wanted to bring this item to you. This is still at the discussion stage. We're still trying to define a framework for this item, but this is a portion of the evaluation of the comprehensive plan that the city commission had authorized
a few years back, um, as you may be aware, two meetings ago, I believe it was, um, they made the decision to not move forward with the large resort district amendments. Uh, Senate Bill 180 precludes a lot of the considerations that I I believe are going to be
undertaken for that district. And they also advised that they would like a more narrow scope for the town center. Um, particularly the town center too, but we can speak comprehensively about the town center today as well. Um, and this is what we wanted to present to you today. Just give some background, give some
some staff thoughts and and get your input and and potentially direction. So, this summarized what I just said. um narrowing the scope down to the town center zoning districts address unintended land use and zoning consequences that were made evident from
the recent storm impacts. Um this district's been in place for well over a decade now. Land development code standards have been in the code since uh 2011, but a lot of these, you know, elements related to redevelopment didn't become apparent until after the storm.
when we saw substantial damage in this district and and there are some limitations on redevelopment that maybe weren't as um you know the public wasn't as cognizant of uh prior to the storms. So looking at the town center area which
is our area of focus um the zoning does match the land use in this area. The parcels that have the TC1 zoning have the same land use. The parcels that have the TC2 land use have the same zoning. It comprises two distinct areas. We have
the town center 1 which is Corey Circle. That's the center of the town center area. It's about 32 acres. We also have the TC2 town center. On the west side, we have Coina West. It's just over 6 acres. The east side is the Corey Circle
District. Uh like I mentioned before, these districts align the same parcels have uh zoning and land use. So there's no need for any kind of future land use amendments to take advantage of the zoning. There's several guiding documents um that have been accepted that have been proposed and developed by
staff. Um the special area plan which is what created the land use districts to begin with. It also created the activity center uh which is referred to as the overall county level designation that allows our um special area to exist. We
of course have the comprehensive plan. We have the vision study that was accepted back in 2015 for Corey Avenue. We have worked through um it hasn't been accepted by the commission yet, but we do have a complete street study that was undertaken in 2023. And then we have the
forthcoming Corey Corey area historic resources survey. We were given a grant by the state. Uh we'll be undertaking that and that is something we'll be bringing forward to the commission to accept once the survey has been completed. This isn't necessarily a um
regulatory document. This is just a survey of the area knowing what we have from a historic resource standpoint. So, of course, we have the comprehensive plan. It's probably the most referred to guiding document. it takes from our special area plan that we have with the
county and it obviously informs and guides the land development code and in the comprehensive plan um because we have that um attachment between the land use districts and the zoning code they tend to be fairly well aligned. This document promotes downtown as a
live work play environment with a self of pla sense of place. That's what it should be. um has safe multimmoal linkages to reduce vehicular dependence, promotes commercial revitalization, recreational expansion and waterfront recreation, and promotes human scale
architecture. And those are all standards and requirements that come into play with any new development in the downtown area over half an acre. There is a significant focus in our current comprehensive plan on parcel assembly. Um especially on the west end those three blocks in the town center
coina west there are significant benefits to consolidation of property. Currently the city uh promotes effectively entire block level assembly to really take advantage of those those large mixeduse density and intensity bonuses uh that we still allow for that
parcel level revitalization but mostly for commercial um commercial and office uses which I'll talk about in a moment. Uh the comprehensive plan does promote the west and east sides as anchors for catalytic redevelopment of Corey Avenue.
So um it really promotes those large um block level or um area level redevelopments um that will be used as a catalyst for redevelopment of Corey Avenue and the adjacent avenues. We have the 2015 vision study as well.
This is more focused. This focused more on design, the block level layout. Um really a focus on placemaking, public amenities, and some of the current policy challenges. Include several zoning districts, not just the town center, but it focused on Corey Avenue
in the vicinity. Um we have the library, for example, that was included in the scope that is in a different zoning district. uh did promote some amenities, the sunset and sunrise parks at the end caps, a public parking garage and on street parking as was just addressed
during the uh prior presentation. Gateway elements and connectivity throughout the district, street design and on street parking. Um that's also something we looked at through the 2023 study. Again, that has not been accepted by the commission yet, but we we will be queuing that up soon for them. It also
focused on some of the development related challenges at the time. Again, this is about a decade old at this point. Um, looking at parking requirements, um, we currently wave parking requirements for changes of use in the downtown area, but for any kind
of redevelopment, um, there is a requirement for on-site parking. That can be a challenge, especially for small block level uh, redevelopments. There's an inadequate residential density to promote redevelopment. Um, I can't speak to that directly, but we
have not seen mass redevelopment in these areas over the last couple of years. Um, we have seen a few proposals and of course we have the Corey Avenue District on the table, but that does draw from a density pool available throughout our community redevelopment
area. Um, so it's not just drawing from that base density, it's drawing from a bonus pool um as as proposed. And as I mentioned before, um some of the land assembly requirements for mixeduse bonuses on the east and west anchors are high. The east side, um what is
currently being proposed for the Corey um Corey Circle redevelopment, Corey Landings redevelopment, um they do consolidate to make use of those bonuses on the west end. Looking at those blocks um on 75th Corey and 73rd, we have not seen that type of consolidation that
we've seen over on the east end. Hey Brandon, um sorry to interrupt in the so in the upcoming slides there's a lot of discussion on redevelopment purpose and intent. Do you know what led to this vision study? Was there a
problem that they were trying to solve? Uh what was the situation like 10 15 years ago that led to that? I think at the time I don't I don't know that it directly came out of this but that was the time that we were beginning to settle our comprehensive plan. I
think that maybe around 2013 was the period of time and and those who've been here longer than I have might know better than me but um that was a time where we really started to have solid standards in place and I think that might have been part of the reason why the city undertook this. Isn't this also
part of the um failed CRA? Because like that work group and everything uh they were trying to do a CRA and um so many of the ideas it it really concerns me that you call this a guiding document because my recollection of when this
happened um is that people were very much against it. They had that coupling traffic pattern thing. They had a bunch of things that people were very very against and that this thing basically died because it wasn't um embraced. Uh
so it it concerns me that we would call it a guiding document today when what I remember about it was basically it was rejected by the residents in the community. It's certainly not realistic in terms of like you said the the west end where
buoys and everything is. I mean they had you know the block and all this community stuff which which might have been lovely but certainly I don't know how we would pay for it and um the plan was this was rejected. So, I go back to needs and wants and anything that takes
us off of infrastructure or resiliency is going to be a concern of mine. I could use better phrasing for that, but I did just I wanted to hold this out because really at the at the development level, these are um still considerations there in our comprehensive plan. They're
in our land development code for that type of block level promotion that I don't think we've seen come to fruition. And I do feel that some of these development related challenges are still in effect and and we'll talk about those in a moment. I would love the parking deck. That would be awesome. I mean, you know,
there are a few nuggets in here, but so there are some challenges related to zoning and land use. Um these are not necessarily based in any of either the vision plan or the comprehensive plan. Uh these are just challenges that exist in these areas um relative to other
areas in the city which is that uh the town center area has some of the highest density of legal non-conforming uses in the city. These are uses that were legally established at some point in time. Many of them back in the 50s and the 60s um prior to any significant
citywide uh municipal zoning. Over time, zoning districts have changed. These uses have been phased out. They've gone through different iterations of land development codes even, but the uses have persist. So what might have been originally zoned for residential or higher intensity commercial or
industrial is no longer zone that same or we might have taken uses out of those areas that are no longer available for new re development. Um but those uses persist because they they've been around for 60 70 years and uh they continue to
operate at these locations. some of those uses and and this is a different from from other cities that I've worked for is that we do tend to have a lot of single-use residential in these areas. Uh we have single-use temporary lodging, we have storage uses, adult entertainment establishments that are no
longer allowed in the town center district and so on. You can see on the map on the right hand side of the screen. Um I didn't spec focus on any specific parcels at this point in time, but those are blocks with at least one non-conforming use um within the block
boundaries. We have other uses um that at the time they were redeveloped, they might have been a permitted use. Um they may not have been subject to the conditional use permit criteria that we have in place today. Uh we have the gas stations. We have existing uses with drive-through service that under a
current development proposal, something moving forward today would have gone to the city commission for consideration. There would have been higher standards, higher considerations that may have been then may have been in place back when they were originally developed. Um the city has non-conforming density
um throughout the city. It's not focused in any one particular area. Most properties that were not developed um the last couple of decades with a multifamily um development tend to be non-conforming to density. The city is not very strict when it comes to non-conforming density. Those uses can
persist. They can be added on to um they can be renovated, remodeled. With non-conforming uses, the city's current regulations are very strict. They don't allow for any kind of rebuilding. They don't even allow for elevation of non-conforming structures. So, if someone had a residence and they wanted
to elevate it out of the flood plane. The only way they could do it is if they could manage that work without it being considered a substantial improvement. Once they elevate, they lose the use. They would need to convert the use to something else. That's obviously a challenge. If someone's trying to elevate a residence, especially one that
was built 50, 60 years ago, it might be a more modest development. um it presents challenges that residents in um conforming zoning districts may not face. So that's that's one challenge that we we've identified. Um and another is property
consolidation. As I mentioned, all of the town center to Corey Circle um parcels have now been consolidated under one under one ownership. But on the west end, we do not see that. So that block level development that's really promoted through the comprehensive plan to take
advantage of these mixeduse developments, it hasn't come to fruition. We have varying owners throughout the various um the three blocks and the west end. Uh this was identified as a challenge in the 2015 vision study. It it is still a challenge
today as we've as we've identified. And then uh use compatibility is another challenge and that's looking forward and really something that we might face as we take direction from the commission and look at these this more um narrow focus on whether our current code whether our current comprehensive plan
really meets the needs of redevelopment meets the needs of the owners on the west end of uh the town center district. Um, as I mentioned before, um, due to mid-century development that preceded many of the current zoning standards, the city has a mix of residential, lodging, and commercial, especially over
in the West End, um, many of those more modern and high intensity uses can be located next to one another with sufficient buffers. So, you have a lot that may be 100 ft in depth, you would be able to put a 10-ft buffer and that would meet the zoning code, that would meet the use compatibility standards
that we currently have. So if you had a multif family development next to a commercial, for example, a mixed use next to a lodging or commercial, you would expect about 5 to 10 to 15% of the project uh site the site depth for a typical platted parcel to be taken up by
buffering and setbacks and so on. Looking at city standards for commercial, especially in mixed use next to detach, single and two family residences, those buffer and those setback requirements go way up. they double or triple in some cases. So
you're now looking at a 20 to 35 foot setback for a parcel that may only have at its current ownership, current platted dimensions, 100 ft in depth. Once you factor that in, you factor in the front buffers, the parking requirements, it doesn't leave a whole lot of space to work with within a um in
in an existing parcel. There might be loading area limitations under the current code for um retail and restaurant uses in particular. We also of course now have drainage requirements may not have applied back in the 50s and 60s when these parcels were originally developed. We now require sites to
accommodate their drainage on site. So these are the type of things that we need to be considering as we move forward is use compatibility if we're looking at anything related to a change in use of some of these parcels allow for maybe parcel level redevelopment without looking at the block level um as
we move forward. So, as mentioned, um, we have been directed to handle this round of amendments. We may seek some assistance from our consultants. Um, but this is something that staff will be taking forward and looking at it in a more peacemeal fashion, looking at these um,
likely the Town Center to West area and, um, looking at some of the challenges that residents and business owners have faced um, due to the recent storms. The amendments will likely require updates in the comprehensive plan and the land development code and potentially the special area plan. Um, we would remain
subject to the countywide rules. I will say that generally the countywide rules have quite a bit of slack in them compared to what we have in our own comprehensive plan. We're not right up against those density or intensity provisions that they have at the county level. Um, there are some use provisions that we would need to be account for. We
wouldn't allow for um storage buildings, for example. That's not something the county would allow for today, but we at our 18 to 20 units, 24 units per acre, we are in line with what the county would allow. So, I don't see that being a significant challenge. As I mentioned before, um we are looking
to present this in a community meeting format. We really just want to understand from the owners of property in this area, what challenges have they faced? What are they looking to do? Have they faced any initial challenges? I have met with several of the owners in this area um specifically residential
property owners. They've conveyed their challenges which is that they can't redevelop under the current code. They're looking to um potentially look at a you know singleuse or a or a multifamily redevelopment and that's uh primarily on the north side of uh the
district facing residential. So that's something we would look at but also hear from some of the business owners and some of the challenges they've faced in this area. Um we are recommending that the focus be on the coina west district. Um we don't face the challenges in the TC1 district.
We also have the upcoming historic um survey that might open some other avenues for a for a main street and some of the other um development promotion strategies that that aren't currently in place. So with that being said um we just
wanted to get your general feedback on this scope. um if you've heard anything from residents, from businesses on the west end, if there's something that you would like us to focus on when we're looking at this area, do you feel that the three blocks on the town in the town center coina west is an appropriate
scope for this kind of undertaking? Um what we've been directed to do is really look at existing challenges. I don't think this is going to be a broader visioning stat um undertaking. I think we're going to be focused primarily on
um dealing with the existing issues as they've become apparent from the recent storm. But again, happy to hear the planning board's feedback on on how to move forward on that as well. So, you had mentioned on page well, I'm not sure which slide it is. It's page
nine of our packet. Um this is the zoning land use challenge non-conforming uses slide. The So if you are currently a legal non-conforming owner and you were substantially damaged, you're not allowed to repair? No.
Okay. Is so did the district and its restrictions come to exist after these uses had begun? They had. Um the zoning has changed several times. It's it's been variable throughout the area. We had previously
the commercial general district that comprised most of the town center area that was in place from 2003 forward. I believe there was significant reszoning out of residential use particularly on the west side in the 70s or 80s and and to just to clarify the prior point um
that you had asked they can repair but they have to change the use to a conforming use. Okay. So a a residence could be converted to an office building for example. Okay. Is there a
could these have been granted via variance in a way that follows the lot? So there's no way to stop the non-conforming use or is it always been a conditional use type change?
So, uh, speaking about the non-conforming uses in particular, because because our zoning mirrors our land use, we can't grant variances to the comprehensive plan. So, that would require a re-evaluation of the comprehensive plan if if we were to look
to introduce new uses to this district. Yeah. On the two slides ahead, land use challenge. um is let's say we realize there's a
deficiency that commercial won't build because of these setbacks due to a property abuing a single family home that has a higher setback requirement. Are we able to relax that requirement even though it would potentially damage
the value of the adjacent home? We can relax it. Um, one of the I don't want to call it a benefit, but one of the opportunities that is available with um the current use provisions if is if
we were seeking to relax the standards to allow a lower acreage threshold for mixeduse development, for example, or allow standalone residential in particular areas. That is a new use that wasn't previously available. So we could work through the land development code
if we wanted to relax those standards. And that's particularly for standalone single family and duplex. If we were to allow multifamily, for example, those those buffers aren't as significant, but building back single family homes would significantly limit commercial and and
office in some. Okay. Okay. Anyone else have questions? Question. Go ahead. Yeah. Um if we could go to slide six. This is just kind of a broader question on how we drew our zoning. So
yeah, so where the the cut through is at the town center versus the DCR for example, you have it kind of going through a probably a back alleyway there at the at the one end. So were those drawn based on the use at the time of the drawings or what we wanted to what
we envisioned for the future use of those properties? I can say I can't say for every single parcel some of those were more of a um I I believe it was residential office retailer and equivalent district which is more of a low inensity mixeduse district. That's
the um the the church the um library and and then the parcels to the east there that's more of a transitional intensity district from town center. Okay. And that's specifically the parcels I was I was kind of curious about is why the the library and that
that the large commercial which was a church was not included in town center but um put as residential. Um and if there so what is our process? So just out of curiosities to change those those lines to in districts, is that
considered if you changed a district, would that be considered making something more restrictive by the comprehensive plan and therefore prohibited by new state um requirements or or what does that look like if we if the city wanted to or needed to change a
district of of a plot? So, if it's city initiated, um I I can't say for sure that that might be something that's challenging over the next two years. Now, if it's community initiated, I mean, what we've heard from
some of the residents on um the north side of or sorry, south side of 76th is I've heard from a number that would consider a town zoning. you know, that could be something that they could initiate out of the town center to allow for residential. When it's when it's
owner initiated, that's not off the table at any point in time. The city would still need to review it. We would still look at compatibility and go through those challenges, but anything city initiated in the next two years might be difficult if it zones someone out of a property that they have a have
a vested right to. So, okay. Um, thanks. I was just kind of curious on that. And then um you know just kind of going back a comment you know member Perry made. So the intersection of all of these plans and studies and
like there was a vision plan and I wonder if it ever was finalized or accepted because our copy says final draft. It doesn't say final plan like it was never and that was 2015. Our comp plan that we've initiated we looked at multiple times over the years. you know,
the study that started and has since been stopped by the commission on the review of the comprehensive plan, the CRA plan, you know, where is the intersection of all of these plans, the time that's going into them, the money that's going into them, and overlay with
our priorities, because again, if you look at at the comprehensive plan and what it says our our priorities and policies and goals are, they may not overlap with what we're now saying from a CRA perspective of the pol of what we
want to see our our goals be for the our stated goals be and priorities be. So so kind of who's how is that that process unfolding between all of these these plans and things and pri and setting priorities. Yeah. So, we wanted to keep this more
narrow and focus starting out. Um, again, you know, I think our first step is going to be to have a community meeting, just hear from the residents likely in the town center, Cookina West. That's the residents and business owners, hear some of the challenge that they face, what are they, we don't even necessarily know what they're
considering doing with their property at this time. So hearing from them on on how they want to move forward and what their considerations are from there. I think if we're looking at a much more expansive pin to bring up visioning, but you know, if we're going to go that route or if
we're going to look at something that ties in with the CRA, that's probably something we would handle further down the line. We're not going to peacemeal address this district. I think the direction we've gotten from the commission is to really look at the parcel level limitations. Are there
simple, comparatively simple solutions that we can come up with in the next six months to the year to allow property owners to move forward with logical redevelopment of their parcels because we again we do have those who want to redevelop residential that don't have the option to do so. Um, and if that's
all it is, that can be handled in a much less comprehensive way than looking at every single block throughout the town center and and deciding how we're going to move forward. Okay. And then do you do you know at this point do we have property owners that had nonconforming
that were damaged that cannot be now upgraded, fixed, maintained that are also then facing um fines through the match process because they're kind of in this stuck place where we can't allow them to become conforming or they can't
they have to become conforming. So they're they're not they had a non-conforming. been substantially damaged or or damaged to the point where it needs to be upgraded. We're telling them they can't do the repairs, but then we're finding them for not doing the repairs. Do we is is that a situation we may have have property owners involved
in? I don't think that's a challenge at this point in time, but I have heard from a few property owners who know they need to make tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of repairs. They're looking to elevate, which will substantially imp substantially improve their property, and they don't have that
option to move forward. So they're they're kind of in limbo waiting to know how to move forward. Yeah, I think that ties into um the issue that I've been trying to bring up about outdated ordinances because there are several people that
are trying to recover from these storms. And I know I've brought up the ability to to fill where one person I know his garage would have salt water in it every high tide, every whatever. And the solution was put in a lift. Well, I don't know how many lifts are going to
withstand a daily, you know, monthly, weekly saltwater bath. So, I mean, I'm I'm asking to make it a priority that we look at some of these ordinances, constraints, whatever they are that are preventing people from being able to
recover. I mean, I think this staff has to do a good job in terms of upholding the rules that we have, but then we have an unintended consequence of hurting our residents because some of the things that we have are outdated. So, I I was
looking for the priority to try to find these outdated things because people are getting permits now. They're being told they can't raise their garage more than 16 in right now. And why would you tear your house down and then rebuild knowing you're going to be flooded all the time?
So, I I think these things are related and I worry about bringing in more consultants and doing more studies. Um I just feel like we need to really focus on what we need most right now. And so I I I feel like you're bringing
up the same point that I was trying to bring up from a different view. Yeah. this one and not not to um you know ignore your point which I I absolutely and I have an answer for that when it gets to that discussion item. We are going to be moving forward on on looking at some of those outdated
ordinances that you brought up at the prior meetings. But um this is really just a this is a staff level. You know, we're just going to be handling this at the community meeting level. So this is staff level and we're not going to like bring in a consultant. you just want to understand what the issues
might be because I I also worry about unintended consequences because um some of the things I've heard from some of the developers like um the Winward Pass um where they were saying well it was because of the setbacks they they
totally ignored the fact they were trying to put a resort in a residential area but they focused on the setback changes. So I think we need to try to think through any unintended consequences as well. Absolutely. Anyone else?
Okay, let's move on to discussion item 5B. the legislative wrap-up. Pull up the next PowerPoint, please. So, I know we've talked through especially Senate Bill 180 at length over several of the past planning board
meetings. So, I won't go into too much depth on some of these, but I just wanted to bring back some of the most pertinent zoning and planning related items. uh they will definitely affect us uh for the next couple years and some of them are are permanent. Um so we can we
can talk through those just briefly. Um there were several bills out of this last session that were directly um or directed at local planning more than typical. Uh many of the signed bills were preemptive. They placed greater requirements on municipalities. Uh there
were some wins for local control. Um those included customary use of the beach reest reestablishment um historic district exemptions for live local act projects and uh allowing municipalities to assess fines for unpermitted demolition of historic structures in in
certain cases. So I know we've talked about Senate Bill 180 um several times. It again just to summarize the three big points as they relate to planning. There's several other um elements that are pertinent to our community development department, but for planning in particular until
October 2027, uh it prohibits any kind of burdensome a more burdensome amendment to development in the comprehensive plan or land development code. Privates any kind of moratorium on development and reconstruction. It also really limits any kind of more
burdensome review, approval or issuance processes for development permit issuance. Uh development is defined in the statutes as very broad and includes any kind of exterior appearance alterations, any kind of reconstruction and even demolition. Uh development
permits going back to the review and approval process that includes any building or zoning permits. So even items that you know you may not immediately think of as falling within a flood related ordinance like sign location or uh fence height things like
that those are uh likely under Senate Bill 180. Um we haven't been challenged yet but those are those are um limitations that are placed on municipalities through October 2027. Development does not include maintenance or changes in use independent of the above. Um, one of the items that we're
going to be bringing forward to the beach stewardship committee on Wednesday pertains to sea turtle lighting and a lot of it has to do with the maintenance of light fixtures and requirements for exchanges of bulbs and and other fixtures on the exterior of buildings. That will likely fall under maintenance.
Um, that's not necessarily directly related to development. It's not an additional development requirement. It's defining a um a maintenance requirement. But most most things that we review, most things that we do in in zoning and planning um involve involve development. So that would be precluded under this
bill. It also prohibits impact fee increases when replacement development is of similar impact and it prohibits permit fee increases within 180 days of an emergency. We of course are outside of that for the uh hurricanes that we
encountered last year. Um but the impact fee increases is something that isn't a direct impact in our jurisdiction. We only have one local impact fee currently. It is our um parks and wreck fee, but it's something to consider as we move forward. For some of these sites that had development um it may have they
may have been demolished in the early 2000s, late 90s. If they are coming back with that same use, we would not collect impact fees on that new development at the same density and intensity as it may have been originally. Looking at Senate Bill 1730. These are
live local act amendments. Um I believe this act's been amended since it um every year since it went into effect. Um this is the preeemption on local jurisdictions when uh the projects have a certain percentage based on the um
based on the mix of um affordable housing. They are allowed in any commercial or industrial zone. There were some additional preemptions placed on municipalities this this year. uh limits the required square footage of mixeduse affordable housing residential
projects approved under the live local act to 10% of the project floor area. My understanding is some municipalities were requiring 20 30% of the floor area to be commercial um that can be unviable when you have five six stories. Putting commercial above the first level um can
can be a challenge. So it's been limited to 10% of the project floor area. It requires a parking reduction um for affordable housing. Previously, we had to consider a 15% reduction and it is now required. And it says July 2023 look
back for floor area ratio height and density limitations. So, should post um Senate Bill 180, cities look to limit floor area height and density in certain districts in its uh city, they would still be able to look back to what was
in place in July 2023 when looking to move forward with a live local project. So, cities could not downzone certain districts to limit live local projects. There was one additional permission that was added to municipalities that would affect us here in Pastor between 4th and
13th avenues. It would allow municipalities, should we ever get one of these projects down in in Pasigrail between 4th and 13th, uh we could limit it to the highest allowed residential height within 3/4s of a mile. Um depending on the use down there, that is
typically between 35 ft and and 50 feet. So in those historic districts, you uh municipalities would be able to limit the height of developments. Looking at Senate Bill 1622, this is one of those um those uh you know local
winds um relates to customary use. It restores the right to recreational customary use when use of the beach land word of the mean high tide line. Of course, anything water word is already held in the public trust. This applies to the beach land word of the mean high tide line has been established as
ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute. So there is still that burden on municipalities to prove that that public right has been established, but it repeals what is an arduous hearing and court driven process. If you've been following what's been going on up in
Walton County, um the bill that this repeals went into CA uh went into effect back in 2018 and that was a 7-year process. It was a very long process, very arduous. Uh was driven by both the courts and local hearings. That has been repealed. Uh we are back to the
establishment of those four that are in quotes. Looking at Senate Bill 1080, um this affects impact fees and development order issuance. It requires an increase in impact fees that exceed phase in thresholds to be incremental over a 2 to fouryear period that was previously um
voluntary. It ties phase into updates within the past 5 years, which really can be a logical and and um understandable process for cities to undertake. It effectively says that a if a city has not looked at an impact fee within the last five years, it can only
increase the impact fee a certain amount within the phase and period. Basically keeps municipalities on their toes about looking at their impact fees, making sure they're still relevant. Um, again, we only have the one, but it's coming up on the five years, so it's something we're probably going to need to undertake in the next couple years.
Do you do you mean looked at as in modified? Um, it just needs to be evaluated. we need to reestablish that rational nexus and it could be that the fee remains at what it was. Um there may not be an additional you know increase proposed but we do need to evaluate it at least every 5 years.
Is the definition of evaluating it uh inclusive of commission discussing it? Like if a year ago they said we really need to revisit these impact fees because we're not paying for our sewer infrastructure. Does that meet the bar? So, we're not subject to the limitation
or so more formal. Our only current direct impact fee is a park and recreational fee. We do have our connection fee for wastewater that was last updated I believe three years ago. So, we're still in range for that
one. But from my understanding, it needs to be an actual undertaken study. And it it's not a complex study. If you're using the prior firm, it's something they can use existing data and update. But um you know especially here with parks and bre we haven't seen a significant population growth and that's what generally drives that. But I
believe there does need to be some kind of actual technical evaluation. It also sets um different time frames for applications when they're brought in. Um so we currently have 120 days from the time that a site plan is submitted to either approve or deny it.
We have six months, 180 days from the date that a conditional use permit or any kind of quasi judicial item is submitted to get that to its final decision. Um, that is being retained. What is changing is that we have 5 days to acknowledge an application. So, we
just have to be quick about getting back to applicants, making sure that we've acknowledged those. If we fail to do that, um, they're able to, uh, they're they're eligible for a refund for some of their their, uh, plan fees. Uh, House Bill 683 related to artificial
turf. It preempts stricter local regulations of synthetic turf after the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has introduced regulations. Um, currently we can evaluate turf. We can keep our current regulations. There's no clear timeline that has been
conveyed to me at least for when the D is planning to introduce those regulations. However, at the time that they are introduced, um we will have to either modify our ordinance to be in line with or be more permissive than what they have adopted. It does require
the FT to consider storm water management, permeability, water quality, tree proximity, the exact same uh considerations that I know many of you had when we talked about this uh earlier in the year and last year. So, um it's not necessarily that turf can be allowed
on any property in any um ratio. It's uh they will be generating standards based on potentially quality and storm water management and so on. This will apply only to single family homes that are under one acre. Obviously, most of our residential lots are under an acre in
size, but this would not apply to multifamily development, any kind of commercial development. Um, one of the benefits to this and and DP has this for the marine turtle lighting standards is they have the scale, they have the capacity to evaluate these products.
They actually maintain a repository of turtle safe lighting. It's not just the product is based on how it's installed and that does require that that local evaluation. That's something our code enforcement and and inspection staff will be looking at as we move forward with some of these developments. But um
they do have the ability to evaluate the quality of turf. Um you know, does it does it have PAS? Does it have some of the other concerning materials that that um you know, can really be an environmental challenge. So um that's something that we will have to address
when it when it's adopted, but as it currently stands, we don't um we don't have any regulations for that to to enforce at this time. Senate bill 582 uh related to historic structure demolition when a historic structure
that has been contributing or individually listed on the national register. So the majority of our structures with the exception of the Donsesar are contributing structures to the Passerville Historic District when it's been demolished willfully and without approval of the jurisdiction not
just due to a natural disaster. Cities can impose fines of up to 20% of the just market value of the property. This is not storm damaged homes. Um they are not subject to this. This is during blue sky times. If a property owner willfully
they're aware of the limitations that a city has, they decide to demolish the structure without getting a building permit, without getting historic preservation board um approval. cities have the ability to impose a fine much higher than what we currently have, which is a, you know, a very low fee.
Um, that could be a considerable amount of money. It's not something that has to be imposed. It's just an option for municipalities that's enabled through the state. The last three, um, first doesn't directly relate to zoning. has more to do with just flood disclosures, which
does affect our um our uh CRS points, our our points for our community rating system, which can help with insurance rates. In some cases, it does require landlords to disclose flood damage risk and insurance to tenants in the specified circumstances.
Senate Bill 784 deals with platting. Uh this requires plats and replplats to be administratively approved when they comply with the technical standards of section 177091. If we get very few plats here in St. Pete Beach, most of our property has
been platted. What we tend to see it for is uh for financing purposes of developments when they're being separated. This does require staff to evaluate these. They can no longer be taken to public hearing. And the last is Senate Bill 954 related
to certified recovery residencies. Uh this requires by January 1, city to pass an ordinance providing for standards 2 and specifying means of obtaining exceptions for certified recovery residences. We already have a preeemption similar to this. They're
they're not it's not for certified recovery residences for what the statute describes as community residential homes. These are um homes that have been certified by different state agencies. They're not operated by them. They're just certified. Um they allow for a
certain number of residents in the structure for recovery related purposes. These are not directly necessarily sorry certified recovery residences are not necessarily directly um certified by some of these agencies, but they provide
similar um um similar services. It sets minimum application standards and it prohibits excessive public hearings. So, most of these cases would be handled by um by staff through an administrative process. So, I just wanted to give that update. Um again, a lot of zoning and planning
related bills this year. A lot of them are very specific to certain types of uses. Senate Bill 180 is definitely the most encompassing in the work that's done at this board level. Um but I just wanted to share these with you and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them to the extent I can. Has the
state made any mention of how they plan to resolve the differences between turtle lighting requirements and SB180? No. Um, we've been talking with Sea Turtle Conservancy who does a lot of work with FD. Um, we've shared our
ordinance with them. The good thing about our turtle lighting ordinance is despite the fact that it was adopted in 2007, a lot of the technical standards are highly out of date. The framework is in a pretty good place. um we say, you know, you need to have turtle tint. We
don't specify that visible light transmittance, but that gives us some room to work within the current limitations of our code. Um I think the challenge will be more for municipalities that are trying to introduce an ordinance where they don't already have one. But I I think we're in a pretty good place, at least as far as
that's concerned. Okay. Um while you were talking about it, it got me thinking, you know, trying to avoid statute that's incompatible with SP80. Could we So, if we can't require turtle lighting that meets our standard, can we prohibit the
repair replacement of failed bulbs that that are non-compliant? I think that's what we're looking for. We're looking at defining parameters for what existing and new development is. And we already have those terms in our code. Um, we define construction very
broadly in our code, which is of benefit in this case because we can look at maintenance of individual fixtures, replacement, widening of openings that introduce interior light sources. Those are the type of things that we're looking at. So, okay. Yeah. Anyone else have questions?
Brand going back to the impact fees and it talks about relooking the impact fees and and to um to earlier points. So, as we look at potential new impact fees, does the bill pro I don't read read that it prohibits
the review of consideration of new impact fees? No, not at all. And we we don't have a specified look back. I don't know the exact reason for that bill, but I have worked in other jurisdictions where there was a cut off for development. So
if a development was demolished in 1993 and then in 2025 they come forward with a similar development, they would have to pay those impact fees again. I believe that part of that's part of what the bill was attempting to address to say that if the use existed previously,
if it was the same use or it's not an intensification to what was there before, cities can't charge impact fees. If it is an intensification, we can still collect impact fees. Okay. So thank you. Can we get the slides? Yeah, they were in the packet. It's a good summary.
Thanks. Any other questions? Okay, we will move on to 5D, which is me member Perry's agenda for uh this board. So, we have a meeting we are working on
scheduling with the state um emergency services and we are going to be talking about I don't want to say holistically but we're going to be looking at many of our current land development code
flood storm water related ordinances. Um, now what was brought up, the 16 in of fill limitation, that is in the code of ordinances, but we are going to be addressing these items. I I don't have an answer for you yet, but I expect to have a meeting with them by the end of
the month where we're going to really start this. Um, we're going to be evaluating the land development code to make sure that it's in compliant with some of the state guiding standards and requirements and in line with our code of ordinances. In doing that, we're also going to be evaluating some of these standards in
the code of ordinances. So, what will be brought forward to this board will be the land development code components of that. But, um, we are we are looking into the 16 inches of fill standards specifically. So, and I know behind seaw walls and some of the other things we've brought up um
because we're not, you know, we're not making the requirements tighter, we're loosening them for resiliency purposes. So hopefully you'll bring us some good news or but appreciate the update Brandon. Thank you.
Okay, anyone anything further? All right, this meeting is adjourned.