##VIDEO ID:US5ErI69i4Y## e e e e e e e e e to order the meeting of the planning board for September 16th 2024 we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance con to the flag United States of America to the stands nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all can we please have a roll call member Ray here member Perry here here member Angelus here member grocott here member hubard here we have a quorum okay I would like to move on to approval of the agenda do we have any amendments to the agenda as proposed I don't have anything to add I just want to welcome our new members so we have Shawn way we have Cindy Perry and Terry Groot so welcome we have our two seasoned members Sam and David so we just appreciate you volunteering your time and being part of this board so welcome thank you um M goat you had discussion item for agenda okay all right um I would like to modify the agenda if I can with some additional discussion items um first one I would like to discuss continuing to be designated as the liaison to the city and commission on behalf of the board for my intent to Advan the comp plan and development code efforts that we've undertaken so I would not be expressing opinions of board members just going to the meetings interacting with the city to encourage this uh process to continue the I would like to add an item to discuss the current state of the comp plan consultant statement of work and the I would like to add an additional item to discuss the where we're at with the historic preservation board changes and what those next steps are I would like to oh that's it all right uh is are you all in agreement to add these yeah Sharon I just have a question with those discussion items does that um happen before we head into the local planning agency after are the action items after four are those discussion items or do we add them on at the end of the agenda let's add them on at number seven where it says discussion items okay so re reconvene as planning board to do that part yeah okay that's the direction I just wanted to make sure okay can I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended so moved do we have a second second roll call please member Perry yes me Angelus yes member grut yes member Ray yes member hubard yes motion carries okay approval of minutes is the next [Music] item do we have any changes to the minutes I do have a question okay in the minutes it said there was a summary of the SWAT discussion that went to the board members um I'm I presum me previous board members and are we able to get copies of that for U Brandon would that be a question for you can we obtain that and we could definitely send that over okay can I get a motion to approve the minutes move to approve the minutes and a second second roll call please member Angelus yes member Groot yes member Ray yes member Perry yes member hubard yes motion carries okay first action item 4 a skipped audience comment oh I'm sorry uh I did we will uh open the floor for audience comment none okay I'm sorry um we will move on to 4 a election of officers I am I would like to nominate myself for being the chair if if there are no objections okay um I will need a motion to appoint me as the chair I motion to appoint David as chair of the plan a second roll call please member grow cut yes member Ray yes member Perry yes member Angelus yes member hubard yes motion carries thank you and who would like to be a vice [Laughter] chair okay um motion to appoint uh Sam as a vice chair do I have a second second roll call please member Ray yes member Perry yes yes member Angelus yes member grot yes member hubard yes motion carries thank you and so at this point we need to adjourn as the planning board and reconvene as the local planning 4 a 4B planning board I'm sorry first time doing fine okay action item 4B plan board meeting dates for 2025 calendar year does anyone have changes they would like to suggest I do um I will be out of town for the February and March dates so I'm flexible around those both of those months just uh if there's no objection to I don't know if anyone has a preference for going earlier in February like the 10th or later in the week of the 24th doesn't matter to 10th is Monday yeah okay and March 17 tell me what date that was yes the February meeting we would like to move to February 10 2025 um okay February 10th got it uh March similar situation I'm traveling on the 17th and 24th could we move that to the 10th okay um we would like to move the March meeting to March 10 2025 is it Patrick's day anyways oh all right Cory may be busy so okay yeah so can can I get a mo to make those changes motion to approve the uh board meeting dates as amended second roll call please member Angelas yes member rut yes member Ray yes member Perry yes chair hubard yes motion carries okay now we are ready to adjourn as a planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency okay so the first item is the 5A ordinance 2024 d03 and I'll need some guidance on this part do I how do I proceed at this point do we want to do staff presentation or how's that going to work yeah Brandon can present the good afternoon if we could pull up the PowerPoint thank you so this is ordinance 20243 this is a privately initiated request there are two changes that are requested under this ordinance the first is to attach single family as a residential development type in the resort facil medium District the second is to allow loot coverage to be calculated at the attached single family zoning lot level rather than at the individual parcel level and I'll go into a bit of detail on both of these so the associated project uh the applicant is present Eli Payne for Smiley Snack Shack St Pete Beach this is a property that is owned at 3700 Gulf Boulevard it is an a companion request to this project the plat itself is not part of the request being reviewed tonight but these items will move forward together to the city commission the plat was reviewed late last month by the board of adjustment and it was recommended to the city commission at a vote of 5 to zero uh this is a request to construct Town Homes at the property it would be a complete site Redevelopment and you can see the arrangement of the Lots there um I believe I have a better graphic coming up but those green lines show the uh the parcels that are proposed and then the remaining of land the the driveway and the other Green Space outside of those Parcels would be a common ownership um by the homeowners association of those four units so the first request is an amendment to division 14 Resort facilities medium District under permitted principal uses and structures this would add attached single family as a residential dwelling type the city does allow for residential development in the resort facilities District however we only allow for multifamily and the City does distinguish between multifam which would be an apartment or a condo style development and attached single family which would allow for that fee simple subdivision of individual lots to allow for ownership with an overall tract uh there's a minimal expected impact from this request in in the past back in 2003 when the city went through its Citywide rezoning the majority of the beach resort Parcels were Zone Resort facilities medium where this change is proposed that included almost all of the large resort district and almost all the properties south of the county parking lot down to 37th Avenue um excluding the subject property as well as the property just immediately to the north of it also what is now known as the bio residential district in 2008 and 2011 the city made major amendments to its zoning code and its zoning map and most of those Parcels were taken out of the resort facility medium district and place into the new community redevelopment District zoning categories there are presently 11 developments that are remaining in the resort facilities medium District of them only the property that is associated with this request as well as the Don CeSar Hotel are not condominium IED those properties that are condominium Condominiums are typically looked at as unlikely to redevelop due to the hurdles that are associated with that Redevelopment and so expected immediate impact outside of the associated request is fairly low I did want to mention that this request only offers a different residential development type it does not increase density intensity height or other development standards the applicant had originally come forward with this project earlier this year to develop it as a resort time share type development um they did decide to instead operate it as residential but the development itself is not changed the building the height the layout in the lot has not changed they're just seeking to develop and have it available for for residential long-term rentals or long-term home ownership purposes moving on to the second request for attached single fam specifically in our subdivision division of Our Land Development code lot coverage is looked at at the individual parcel level so going back to the subdivision that's being proposed each of those four individual Parcels that contain a residential unit currently under the code are required to maintain 30% permeability on the lot and I'll show a graphic in a second but they do the center two units do not meet that threshold the outer units appear to the applicant is seeking to change the code to allow for that calculation to be made at the zoning lot level so that the entire parcel y level they would be responsible for maintaining 7 70% impervious or less 30% permeable at that zoning lot full parcel level and you can see that here in this graphic on the right you look at those Center two units unit two and unit three they have the unit themselves the east side is the driveway which is not part of the parcel the west side is under the unit owner's parcel but it contains a balcony it contains a pool and a small deck and there is a small amount of grain space further to the West just along side the property line however these units do not meet that 70% maximum impervious they do exceed D so this would calculate the impervious ratio at the full parcel level and they would be compliant at that level this standard would apply to any Town Home Development City why they are not very common in St P Beach we do have a handful that have been developed uh 15 to 20 years ago there's no significant immediate impact that's anticipated I did want to say this doesn't affect the parcel wide impervious surface ratio limitation it would just be the limitation that's placed on the individual unit it would be calculated at the entire parcel level not the individual unit level staff has reviewed this request both relative to the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code we do not take issue with the other request we do find them to be generally compliant with and supported by other language in the comprehensive plan and Land Development code staff recommends approval as requested in terms of Your Action options um you're welcome to make a motion to recommend approval if you feel that there should be modifications this ordinance but you ultimately wish to make appr approval recommendation you're welcome to do that or you can recommend anial to the city commission for ordinance 20243 the applicant is present if you have any questions about what I just presented I'd be happy to answer them any questions what is the the permeable rate for the two units as it stands now I don't have the exact number I believe it's about 85 to 90% for those two Parcels that I pointed out does the driveway count as permeable surface no it would be excluded the city allows for a limited amount of permeable surface when it's for example if they were to use permeable papers on a permeable base a small portion of that could count toward the ratio but the city requires 24% of the lot to be vegetative Green Space for any new development so if if the pool deck for example were to be permeable they would be able to count a small portion of that but ultimately about a quarter of the lot would need to remain Green Space so you're saying including the driveway it's it's 70% for that entire parcel yes as as I as I estimated it and they will go through a site plan if this is ultimately approved so they they'll have to demonstrate that compliance so BR is this is going to apply across um you know moving forward is there and this was kind of a science question is there any impact on permeable surface when we look at at Mass versus volume so when we start saying you know we're going to take a larger larger lot and say as long as the larger lot has the 70% is there any negative impact on that long term do you think ultimately they're still responsible for storm water requirements and overall permeability um what I could see this affecting especially in larger town home developments if we were to ever see one of those moving forward there's very little vacant land for that type of development but if it were to occur um you might see a difference in how the lots are ultimately laid out there might be less landscaping around the town home unit itself and more toward the frontage more toward the common space just because this would allow for that to occur instead of it needing to be split up so that the units individually have that 30% permeability But ultimately that the storm water requirements would not change they still have to retain the same amount of storm water so I wouldn't expect any change in that regard and saturation isn't impacted by how that 70% is laid out across the lot um it could it could affect the local lot um especially if there's a lot of impermeable development toward the center but ultimately they're still responsible for the same sitewide retention they have to hold any development in STP Beach that's new has to hold a 25y year 24hour storm on the lad before it runs off either um you know in this case it would be to the storm drain so that that'd be their responsibility is there a way to address this as a local one property as opposed to making a change that's Citywide the the second request would need to be a Citywide change um barring any kind of change to the plan as they have it laid out there would have been another option for the zoning request there is the res residential medium District just immediately south of here they could have requested a rezoning to that it would have probably required a future land use map Amendment as well um they they made this request as as proposed so but that they would have had an alternative for that that part I guess one of the worries I have is any unintended consequences when you make it Citywide and I know we're talking about looking at our codes and things pretty soon so I just didn't know if it made sense to make zoning changes right now understood um I think with this this would be outside that area of focus at least as we've drafted the scope of the comprehensive plan um I did want to say for the the request itself is really just it the residential is permitted uh for request number one and the type of development is permitted it's just combining the two that the applicant's seeking to to allow for um but I understand your your concern well one of the things that um in a in a townhouse type of situation is it it mentions in here that there would have to be some agreement around maintaining the green space or the the permeable areas but I did not see anything that I think about normally on a townhouse in terms of some the external characteristics like if these are all fee simple each one could the owners make each one a different color or different roof or I mean it usually there's some kind of document with the HOA that calls for some type of consistency um and I don't know does the city have that for town houses or does that need to be added to the ordinance to it's not part of this request because they're in the resort facilities medium District they're not in one of the city's design districts so there are no design criteria to add um the applicant is present he may know more about the homeowner association roles and and what what that'll entail but that's not something we typically address for this type of development at least in this location so actually um I I just had a thought uh typically before this type of proceeding Begins the City attorney would have asked for disclosure of xart communications and that affects me specifically so can we proceed with that at this point Thank you Mr chair yes uh we can go ahead and um disclose any expart Communications which may include any written Communications um site visits any research that any of the board members may have done um regarding this application okay uh does anyone have anything to disclose I I visited the site as well okay so I my wife and I were at the elave lounge tequila bar on Saturday August 24th and we interacted with the applicant and the project engineer who just happened to be there that same day we spoke briefly about the project conceptually but not about the business before the board today okay so Brandon my question is the Land Development code defines residential dwelling unit multifam uh I'm sorry condominium is defined in the same way that the LDC uses multifam in this case and is it accurate that this could be developed in the exact same way as a condominium without this change being required it could it's it's really down to the fee simple partialization the subdivision that's that's what would be enabled by the town home attached single family development um we the city doesn't really have anything directly to do with Condominiums Apartments convert to condos all the time that's really handled through the state so they would be able to develop this building and go for condominium isation if they wanted um it's the it's the fee simple partialization that's okay and it could also be developed as presented as Apartments correct yes mhm so would the owner of the town house then own that parcel within the bigger parcel they they would own one of the four parcels and I don't know what the arrangement would be at this point the applicant may know for how the proportion of ownership of the homeowners lot would would divvy up but there would ultimately on the city Side what we would be looking for like member Perry brought up before there would need to be some kind of agreement that all of the unit owners would be responsible ultimately if there were a code violation on the common tract they would all need to be enforc responsible for that tract so okay I also wonder about just how renovation might look down the road for an individual unit in that understood yeah so because this is outside a Design District we usually don't impose design standards on them but the the applicant may have something in mind for how they plan to I mean zoning purpos is you know the permeability if they wanted to expand their townhouse right so it's it's still ultimately it's it's a zoning lot so we would treat this as one development they would be individually owned But ultimately we would be looking at permeability and if there were to be any kind of shift of lot lines in the future that is something that needs to go back to City commission so it is stricter than you would see in a typical neighborhood where we occasionally will have homeowners purchase the lot next to them and expand their home that would not be an option here with Town Homes if they would ever be a request to combine two or more of the town homes or expand one out to take up a different portion of the parcel that ultimately has to go back to City commission it is part of the Plaid okay and would that apply as well to like exterior features such as um papers or or things like that if somebody wanted to expand their patio and it affected the overall permeability of the lot Rich RIT large it would be assessed at the whole parcel level now if it stayed within their parcel lines it might not necessarily need to be something that comes back from for public hearing but it would be it would be reviewed at the parcel level for permeability so I saw in the let's see it was the sorry I'm looking through my notes Here the July 17th technical review the applicant stated that the surrounding neighbors had pushed back on transient rentals and they did a market analysis to about converting it to a for sale product my so my read through our development code it it appears the way the city has enacted prohibition on short-term rentals is by way of defining that at the zoning District level in the permitted principal use definitions and in this district there is no such prohibition so regardless of this being a condo or or single single family attached would still not be a Prohibition on short-term rentals is that accurate correct now they would have to go through a process of converting to a short-term rental if they were to do so of course if there were any kind of homesteading on the property or anything like that that would be lost um but currently it's permitted to have residential again in a different Arrangement but also short-term rental in this District so they they could choose either one and they are voluntarily bringing this forward so okay and in that same meeting the city Chief Operating Officer uh asked about letters of support from the Donar Property Owners Corp the response was I'll have those support letters for what we're looking to do 100% the August 28th Board of adjustment asked again for letters of support none were provided at this point do we have letters of support I have not received them but the applicant May okay speak okay um one of your comments um in your summary recommendation is some safeguards are put in place to ensure individual owners in the de development are collectively responsible how are those safeguards implemented how are they included in this if we make an ordinance change we could they could show us everything we want to see here but we still have that potential that that loophole is left open so it seems to me that if you're going to have some kind of HOA and they're going to have there has to be a condition or there has it has to be added somewhere to be there for the future and that is part of our Land Development code in the subdivision division we do specify that there needs to be common responsibility at the property owner level for any changes to the tract or any kind of code violations on the tract that would be something that we look at prior to final plaid we would have we ask them for some kind of agreement but again you're still talking about one property and so I'm I'm confident these people will give you what you need I'm just afraid you know that three years from now nobody remembers and thing is written in a certain way that can be interpreted and and completed in a certain way and it doesn't address that future possibility so how do we how do we make our intent clear for everything across the city and not just this one property there there could be an accompanying code change if if the language isn't currently clear enough um I I felt that it had been that it's the city's responsibility staff's responsibility when we get to the final plat stage and ultimately to this the site plan stage if this is approved that that is something that we need to look at it's a document that would be recorded with the property that certifies that the individual property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the common tract and again I'm concerned about different the whole exterior not just the the whole appearance if we were to be looking at design standards that would need to be a a code change that would extend to the resort facilities District just north of here in the bi the sorry Boutique Hotel condo we do have design standards and you'll hear about that in the next case currently in in Resort facilities we do not so that there would need to be a separate code change for that is is that is there a reason that that wouldn't be desirable to be consistent and you know make it clearer I mean I I'm I'm not struggling with what they're trying to do I'm just struggling with how we are administering it understand it it would be desirable I I would say that the applicant may already have a of course they presented their design they uh we brought that to the board of adjustment I don't think it was part of your packet but they may already have some kind of homeowners association agreement that covers that part of it um they could speak to that and if they don't have anything in mind that might be something the board might want to consider and in addition to them speaking to it we need to have some place that's referenced for anybody else that comes along several years from now okay the the only other question I had is from a city code enforcement perspective should the common area fall out of compliance what does that look like from a violation perspective how is that enforced when you've got for owners so that's part of the agreement and ultimately it'll need to go through our attorney's office but it would be some kind of either partial responsibility some percentage based or some kind of joint responsibility for maintenance of that track so the citation would be to each of the four Property Owners on to respond to the tract non compliance okay so that that HOA entity they're the ones served with the violation and the bylaws that have been enacted are how the enforcement happens right it would be the responsibility of the four owners too I have another question on your business impact estimate and I I not sure uh number four says additional information the governing body deems useful and then it goes on to talk about this ordin it applies to all persons similarly situated being Property Owners possessing a seaw wall whether residential or commercial and I didn't think there was any seaw wall at all involved with this no there there's not I think that might have been a typo leftover from another another business impact statement okay sorry so you just clean that up yes okay do anyone have further questions for the city okay uh can we hear from the applicant good afternoon Katie Cole with the law firm of Hillard Henderson representing the applicant uh very good questions and thank you this is a unique request as it's a text Amendment and appreciate that you don't see very many uh citizen initiated text amendments so um those are all very good questions that you all have asked to be concerned about the city-wide impact of that um as Mr Barry stated the resort facilities medium category is very limited in nature it's a small group of properties in this vicinity and then um an odd property to the south of this area most of these are well all of them are already developed and as Mr Barry's report said um unlikely to be redeveloped in this manner and so this would be a limited impact change which is why the applicant desired to move forward with a text Amendment as opposed to a rezoning um candidly looking at the uh potential negative impacts to the neighbors of increasing um the intensity of a land use and Zone change this seemed like a more reasonable ask because it's very specific to this project that has been already gone forward to board of adjustment there are very few other Citywide considerations while you have raised them the number of properties that are affected in Resort facilities medium is so limited that uh it felt like this was the best way to limit the ask the ask is exactly as Mr Barry said while this development is permitted in its form as it is now it's not permitted in the ownership that the um developer desires and so the fee simple ownership gives uh in our client's opinion um and based on their discussions with the neighborhood um gives the owners of the individual units a vested interest there's only four units they're very interested to work together there will be um as Mr Barry stated your subdivision code requires a Property Owners Association if there is common property that that will exist and will be provided to the city as part of the platting process I did want to share with you um while not pertinent to the request I know it is of interest um if we can look at this at the board of adjustment meeting when this project was originally approved prior to um the plat moving forward so this was the first Board of adjustment meeting um there were conditions of approval stated that were specific to the design of the project and what it looked like how it um how the uh Windows lined up how large the garage doors were Etc so your colleagues over at the board of adjustment were very intentional about that uh as Mr Barry stated uh the likelihood of other significant town home projects that would not have um a common ownership or Property association because it's required in your subdivision code would be unlikely uh can I interrupt for one brief moment I realized nobody asked me to swear in any of the people testifying would you like me to do that now yes please okay so if anybody is going to be um testifying or providing information to the board would you please stand and affirm that any information or factual representation you are giving to the board is truthful thank you yes um the last thing I wanted to share was with respect to the Don cazar neighborhoods Association um the developer did have several email correspondents with them and conversations with their support I apologize that those emails were not forwarded for your reference in the record um but they are there I don't know if Allison I don't see Allison here so uh but that did and at the board of adjustment meeting last month um one of the members of the board is member of that Association and confirmed that so that's on the record from that meeting as well uh we would request your recommendation of approval for this change to the commission uh the condominium form of ownership is a complex form of governing ownership and this request is truly a form over substance um allowing for the owners to have the same type of unit the same ownership um rights without being burdened by the condominium form of ownership and to to make that uh facilitate that um ownership so Eli Payne who's the engineer on the project who worked with staff with respect to these specific changes is also here and can speak to it as well as the developer Representatives if you have any further questions uh but uh with that I'll just leave it and happy to answer any questions I don't want to be confrontational but I I will tell you part of where I'm coming from in terms of the future implications a lot of the buildings were built 40s 50s I mean I do think many of of them over the next 10 years or so something they're probably going to be torn down or replaced I don't think it's as unlikely unlikely makes me nervous because I don't think it's unlikely um I think we need to think about the future so um like I said I I don't have any qualms about the proposal I think it's if the homeowners like it and I hope you will send us those letters because I'm sure it'll come up again at the commission meeting or wherever it goes next um but I do think that we we need to think through what we're doing for the future certainly yeah I don't know if if you want to pull up Mr Barry's PowerPoint I think the zoning map showed I didn't count the parcels you probably know off the top of your head it's 11 11 Parcels yeah so the resort facilities medium is 11 they are that's why I'm saying some of them are pretty old so you have um those in but they are under those are under condominium form of ownership which would obviously make it a bit more difficult for a Redevelopment of those so any other questions that being the case why is there not an interest in doing it as Apartments as Apartments because home ownership seems to is preferred uh having an investment in your own home is a preferred okay as opposed to rentals I have I have I have mixed feelings on this the I certainly like the project um I also understand why the applicant would probably not want to change zoning districts to one that allows single family attached because their heights would decrease to 30 or 35 ft from 50 ft the so Resort facilities medium sounds like what they would like to keep it um that being said we're our board is tasked with maintaining the comp plan and the Land Development code we've been trying to do this work for a year and a half and not much progress has been made so we were also given a strong advisement that it not be done haphazardly or without expert consultation that's why we have executed a contract with a consultant on how to modify this plan properly without Downstream effects that we might not anticipate so I'm concerned that we're going to go and modify the LDC to fit one person's desired business model when they could build this project exactly the same as a condo or an apartment and I I understand home ownership and I understand condos are more complicated but at the same time this this seems like a a very large ask that could have effects we're not anticipating because we're not experts in this area I feel like I would want a independent land use attorney or our consultant to orchestrate a discussion with one to know that this will not backfire on the city in some way if if I may Mr chair I I think candidly that that was what Mr Barry's testimony and staff report included um your staff did look at that if you review the TRC minutes and um Miss McMahon might want to speak to that as well but um that's certainly something that is always of a concern with text amendments how to limit them and keep them most narrow which is why I know that your professional staff here at the city um did that thorough analysis did that involve the consultant on the C plan I think we can touch base with the consultant they just signed the agreement or I don't know if it's been fully executed but and before it goes to commission that could be something that is included in our report I would I mean I personally would lean towards denying this change until I hear that type of testimony U that's my personal opinion um I don't know how anyone else feels on the matter I feel there is potential for unintended consequences I I like what they're doing but um you know I've already expressed my discomfort that this is a Citywide change for a single property and that's why I was asking is there another way to do this that would be less long-term uh possible implications I like it but I agree with with you about speaking with the Consultants okay should we in case there's anything that we miss that could come up in future development yeah and I'm not I'm not opposed to having such a discussion um I I don't feel like I know enough at this point to make an educated decision um so is the uh scope of the comp plan review involve this District No so those Consultants weren't currently they're not being contracted to have discussions on this the district yeah okay yeah um we could I mean we could ask for the commission's opinion on if the statement of work could be modified to look at this one item um I don't know what their opinions on that would be we'd have to have that conversation um so this would only affect those 11 properties correct correct what are the the existing is this the 12th or are there 11 Edition and what are on the other 10 do we know so because what we're really considering is what's the impact on these specific 11 locations so if the other 11 locations are in a position where they're not going to be redeveloped or it's not likely to be redeveloped I'm not sure how much of an impact this has well two of the 10 or the Don cazar Resort themselves the resort and its Associated parking that's then this and then um could you pull that M back up again oh sorry I was looking at the map so the it's the brown the brown in the northern part are the condos North of PCI right M there's some on upam beach is there not and the one parcel to the South there it's a different Zone so I had I had the same thought if it's 11 and most are already condom condos except for the parking lot maybe it's not that big of a deal but at the same time I don't know what the process looks like for an entity asking to be zoned into rfm so I don't know that it remains 11 or these 11 so that that was one of those questions that I Fair Point don't I can't answer so but that would have to come before the board as well correct yeah the to be Z zoned in yeah zoning changes would have to um but if there's precedent that suggest we should approve a zoning change because they meet all the criteria of the rfm district perhaps we're encouraged to approve it I I don't know these you know these are just all the questions that I feel like I want answers to before I could make such a decision it if the city um Administration feels as though the consultant could answer this limited question we would be happy to request the continu to allow that to happen but I don't know from a timing standpoint if it's even reasonable to expect them to answer that to provide this analysis in addition to the staff analysis I don't know that we've met with them since um commission approved their contract at this point well I I don't know either I I don't have that answer um I am at this point I'm opposed to the change so we can we can ask for a motion if anyone would like to make one is there any way the the question I raised earlier um because I understand completely what you're saying um the the wording as it exists right now to me it feels too broad because I don't know what the unintended consequences could be um if there's a way to either narrow this to this one property by doing it another way or to put the right conditions into the ordinance so that it just can't be interpreted in the future some way that wasn't intended because like I said I don't have an issue with what they're trying to do I just have an issue with how it's being done what do you mean she's she's not opposed to the project as presented she's opposed to the way they're trying to facilitate it being possible to execute so Land Development code change we she's not in agreement with but the project itself and and I feel the same way I I from what I've read I like the project but we're not here to look at a cup request we're we're here to AV evaluate a a Land Development code change and those are two different things so the concern is that if something like this happen in the future because of this change we wouldn't review it it would just pass right yeah I just don't know what this will cause Downstream yeah the changes would Encompass the townhouse or single family resident uh joining single family representants or allotting the density to the entire plot not just the individual units and that's the permeability but there there's two changes that are asked they're being requested the first is for single family attached which doesn't change this design or the the building itself if they build it as condos it stays the same it's just the ownership of the units that how the ownership changes correct and then the second will be the permeability so the concern with the permeability is instead of being in the individual lot it now goes to the entire lot yeah now that that part of the change I'm not I I don't have any opposition to that that is my understanding is that's just legal housekeeping where we're adopting the same standards that would already apply to other types of permitted construction so we're we're just saying now that we've added single family attached as a valid type of build in the rfm we're also going to employ the same standards for permeability so what would potentially be the down downside of another development doing a single family attached in that small area that that's raising the concern I don't know that there's I don't know I can't answer that question that's that's my concern the it sounds like there's the Land Development code as it exists today is what you have a problem with correct right I well that's what we have right now today right and we have to make the decision off of what we have today we have to make a recommendation of approve or deny on the alteration to the Land Development code so we're not we're not looking at the project or you know we're we're asked to complete this task of modifying the LDC or recommending against it right what we have today says multif family only and and it wants to be changed to attach single family and so with with that now you've getting it's it's not a problem but you have to get into this HOA and and all these things that go along with and and this is not providing for that the way I read it so you know maybe that's another way to correct it but it also doesn't provide for an ho the HOA requirements for a multif family just to clarify that Mr Barry answered you before and perhaps it wasn't clear but the Land Development code as it exists today in the subdivision section the Land Development code does require a POA to be provided to the city and recorded as part of the final plat process that is a current requirement the only change that is happening being requested for your recommendation today is changing the word multif family only to include attached single family because your city code defines attached single family differently than multif family so the POA requirement that exists today does exist and doesn't change the setback requirements and everything none of that is changing or being proposed to change it's adding the fact that you could have a town home development as opposed to condominium form of ownership and ensuring that the entire lot is considered as opposed to each individual a lot which is independent of the type of ownership how your code treats every other development it's just because your because attached single family is a defined term D your code that other change is necessary so that's the only I just want to be clear that that's the only change so many of your your concerns are very valid and heard and addressed in the subdivision code that is not being proposed to change right but again if it's single family if it's fee simple MH then that changes what the owner expects to be able to do with the property as limited by the POA documents that your code requires to be file so if I bought one of these properties and I wanted to paint my house orange with purple dots um I could do that or I can't do that there is no design guidelines here whether it's a condom minum form of ownership an attached single family ownership or an apartment so there are no design guidelines that said this project did go to the board of adjustment for approval and the this project has very specific design parameters because of it right but your concern is not specific to the ownership your concern is specific to any property residential property that would exist whether it's a condominium or Fe simple so which is really outside of the scope of what we're being asked today yeah these These are either shortcomings in our rfm definitions where we would like design guidelines but that's different discussion or these are things that could be looked at at a cup level but that's not what we're asked to right I don't really think design is much in the planning not in that anyway I so if if a would it just make sense to to make a motion in either direction okay I'd like to make a motion for approval I I second to approve roll call please member Angelas yes member grocott yes member Ray yes member Perry no chair hubard no motion carries 3-2 okay so we are moving on to ordinance let's see here uh this is 5B 2024 d07 and are are we looking at this as a combination of this plus 22408 that's that's how it's being presented yes 0708 yeah they this will move the the pool units to that property okay if we could pull the PowerPoint this is conditional use permit 24038 it's presented in your agenda as resolution 20248 which is a requirement for all conditional use permits associated with ordinance 20247 which is the density pull request and I'll explain that in a moment the applicant is Katherine E Cole chire of Hill Ward Henderson for Miramar Resort St Pete LLC the request is to partially redevelop an existing temporary lodging use including construction of a new 8-story 30 unit lodging Tower with rooftop restaurant that will extend to 76 feet in height with non-habitable overrun not to exceed 86 ft in height this will increase total site density to 64.2 units per buildable acre here's a brief timeline of how the applications moved forward in April the applicant held a community meeting at the subject property August 2nd the application was deemed complete there was a technical review committee meeting held by staff on August 28th and then of course tonight is the planning board hearing I wanted to summarize the request um the conditional use permit 2438 encompasses the 50 lodging units in the Land Development code any development project that exceeds 30 lodging units or 50 ft in height is required to come to the planning board for review prior to the city commission the applicant is proposing 50 lodging units on just under 78 Acres they're requesting 38 units based on the base development standards that's the boutique hotel condo District which allows up to 50 units per acre they're also requesting to draw 12 units from the boutique hotel condo density pool that's the associated ordinance the new tower will be 76 ft in height above base flood elevation that's to the top of the house itable roof again any project new project that exceeds 50 ft in height does require this review there are associated requests that aren't necessarily covered under the scope of the conditional use permit these are elements that the applicant could undertake if they wish to move forward limited interior commercial of course the rooftop restaurant with the bar that would be part of the conditional use permit but they are permitted limited interior commercial uh Landscaping pool and parking lot improvements and the applicant is proposing to renovate 20 remaining lodging units in this project so the top of the screen shows the existing conditions this is from the survey the bottom of the screen shows the proposed site plan looking at the existing development the applicant is generally looking to retain the existing Northern building that contains those 10 units there is a Lobby to the east that is being retained as well to the South the existing building there are 10 units that are being retained two levels five on each level there are seven existing units 10 that are entitled that makes the 30 sitewide that are being demolished and being replaced with parking landscaping and then to the South End a beach access point in exchange for the 10 units that are being discontinued the seven that are being de demolished as well as the three that are be being given up for the new development the applicant is constructing a 30 unit Tower with a rooftop restaurant that's set to the West western side of the property and is a new completely new development so back in 20121 the applicant did come forward with a project and they were approved for a request for this property this was resolution 20214 same number for the associated ordinance I just wanted to put together a small table that went through the differences in the two development proposals the density has come down slightly from that request they were previously approved for 54 lodging units they are requesting 50 under this proposal the height has not dramatically changed the height is still built to the maximum allowed for the zoning District which is 76 feet above base flood elevation what has significantly changed is the proportion of the building that is built at or near that height limit the city calculates floor area for buildings in this District based on certain amenities as well as guest room square footage and based on those calculations the applicant is proposing a building and that that's inclusive of the existing buildings that are being renovated of about half the size as the one that is that was approved back in 2021 the impervious surface ratio has slightly decreased it has gone from 85% down to 83% that's a reduction of 2% 85% is the maximum allowed for the zoning district one change is the number and the total size of the beach access the applicant is retaining both of the existing buildings there was a originally a beach access under the 2021 approval that was proposed for the northern side of the site that building is remaining there and they are proposing Landscaping on that side but no beach access the southern beach access the property to the south of here along the Northern end of the site does have an existing six- foot beach access the applicant has as they agreed to back in 2021 to expand that beach access to 10 feet so that would be a 4ot encroachment onto their property there is ultimately a reduction of that one beach access along the northern side which is 3.5 ft I did also want to point out before I move on from from this slide typically development approvals expire one year after they're issued there was an appeal of the request that went forward in 2021 that Drew out the approval to November it had originally gone forward to the city commission back in April of 2021 the State of Florida has a fairly unique statute that whenever a county is under a state of emergency if there is an exist development approval within that County it is extended by the state of emergency and once the state of emergency ends it can be extended up to an additional six month plus the time that was told we have actually been under a state of emergency for Hurricane Ian for going on two years now that was within the one-year approval limit for the 2020 2021 approval so the applicant might mention I might mention later on the presentation that 2021 approval is still technically active and the ordinance was written to address that to ensure that the old project at some point in time if this is approved is eventually discontinued for for the new project I just wanted to bring that up in case it's mentioned later on staff request testimony from the applicant has followed we did through the staff report look through the 20 criteria that appli to this project we did find that the project was generally in compliance with the criteria there were a few elements that the applicant we would like to just provide some additional testimony for the first is the flood proof grouping efforts to safeguard the renovated buildings into the future a technical Review Committee we did ask what was being done to the renovated buildings to make them flood proof they were developed in the 1950s they long proceeded any kind of required FEMA compliance for new structures in our city which came around in the 1980s the applicant did um indicate that they were going to be installing flood panels to help protect those units but a portion of the remaining buildings are seaword of the limit of modern wave action Line This is not a velocity Zone but it is adjacent to the velocity Zone and it's where under a 100e storm there could be waves of 1.5 to three feet based on the model estimate so under a new development it would be expected that those buildings were raised that there' be either deep foundations or piles set the buildings are not currently compliant with that I I don't understand the applicant to be making those improvements under this scope so that is something I just wanted them to speak to how the buildings are going to be blood proofed into the future with the investment being placed into them uh the financial capacity to complete improvements in the proposed construction timeline speaking with the applicant I do understand they wish to move forward relatively quickly on this development I did speak to the applicant after TRC they did indicate that um they had secured funding for the development but I just wanted them to speak to that on the record and also any expected late night operation of the rooftop restaurant and it's out the balcony patio as communicated through the staff report there have been some improvements to what could have potentially induced noise to the adjacent properties under the previous developments um there were the elimination of the side balconies there were a few other improvements that I felt would have mitigated those those nuisances but just the late night outdoor balcony operation I didn't want the applicant to speak to through their testimony tonight staff recommended some conditions if the board does wish to recommend approval of this the first is that the accompanying ordinance must be passed to allow for the subject development again that is the ordinance for the 12 additional units above the 38 that is based that is allowed for the base owning they are available on the pool based on the discontinuation of the 2121 approval there would actually be units going back into the pool because it is a reduction of unit count under this request but we did just want to make that clear that is a recommended condition for the conditional use permit the second is that approval this project will devest units awarded to the project under the 2021 approval I did speak to the applicant just before this meeting they did ask that the language be changed to divest the units after the appeal has completed I have no concerns with that that's an understandable change and they may bring that up in their testimony the third is at the outdoor balcony space next to the restaurant not be permitted any kind of permanent seating or outdoor music after 10 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. that is a city's typical lower decel level hours it goes from 65 down to 55 and uh we do we do request that for this project we request that the applicant prepare a Dunes plan easement Green Building standard identification and sidewalk easement before site plan approval and condition number five that they be implemented before the Hotel Tower is opened that any significant changes in color facade material massing or similar may require the project to return to the city commission for reconsideration this would be after City uh city manager review The Land Development code already protects these type of projects from any significant footprint expansion any additional units any additional height that would automatically trigger a return to City commission so that's already covered under the code these are additional elements based on the design of the building which staff did find to be consistent with the area with the design criteria we did request that any significant changes be brought back to the city commission for reconsideration we did ask that all Hotel deliveries shall take place on site by the CEO for the hotel the applicant has indicated that they would make that occur now Val service shall be maintained for the life of development the city's Land Development code does allow for valet service but based on the layout of the parking spaces on the lot that would need to be maintained for the life of the development Landscaping shown is the minimum that shall be proposed to the site plan in a lot of cases we do have applicants swap out species swap out different ground covers and so on but the Landscaping they're shown the quantity the height standards that would be the minimum based on what's being presented to the planning board and the city commission if they were to swap out species they would need to keep the same number the same height standards and so on reclaimed water shall be used for irrigation leak monitoring equipment shall also be used the development operational aesthetic requirements of the code shall be met at the relevant stages of the permitting process as laid out in the resolution canopy trees shall be planted along the side Beach pathway where viable the applicants currently proposing Palms we are asking for canopy trees just provideed a little bit additional shade in the parking lot as well as to the beach walk trash can shall be installed the Southern Beach Access permeable pavement shall be used to maintain for Pathways where viable green roofs cool roofs or similar techniques shall be used on the roof of the building we viable and the 16th and 17th conditions these are applied to any project moving forward the approval may be for sended if conditions are violated the city commission can review the project from time to time to ensure that criteria being implemented and followed I do want to pass this along to the applicant to make their presentation but I did want to mention that I did present this as as both applications together but I did want to mention that separate action does need to be taken on the ordinance again this is ordinance 20247 a motion to recommend approval approval with modification or denial for the 12 requested density pool units to 4200 Gulf Boulevard the resolution is 20248 motion to recommend approval approval with conditions or denial for the requested 38 base units and 12 then City Pool units covered under order ordinance 20247 in a hotel exceeding 50 ft in height to 4200 Gulf Boulevard that's all I have um I am available for questions and I believe the applicant has a presentation I have a question about um the rooftop music because I've been at other meetings and seen other meetings where people were given a very specific approach to the music how loud actual decibels were quoted um a a particular system that could only be managed by a few people or one person and I'm just curious as to why we don't have a consistent like this one just says not after 10:00 and so it's different than what I've seen in other instances and so does the city have a standard thing for rooftop bars so I I think that one's covered in the conditions because there was a requirement that the music be on the indoors part of that upper level and not be piped outdoor through the use of amplif amplification equipment speak right but it's still not stated consistently with how other rooftop bars have been asked to do it there's no mention of the decb that I saw so I'm just wondering about why we would not be the same from Project to project and it could be that could be a recommendation of the board the reason why the condition was different was because based on what was presented in the floor plans I did not expect there to be any kind of outdoor dining that doesn't change the music of course the applicant could still play the music Outdoors um prior to 10 a 10 p.m. as as recommended by staff the other major difference is that the Land Development code doesn't have specific decibel standards but it does instruct staff to treat properties that are res adjacent to residential differently in terms of the decibel standards the way it's actually written in the code is that after a certain period of time budding property shouldn't be able to hear any outdoor music at all there shouldn't be any Amplified music heard at all from those property lines with this property being in the location that it is not being next to those residential um that that was the reason why those standards weren't set but again it's it's entirely up to this the planning board to make that recommendation if you wish so it could be approved with like with a condition for the consistency if you had deciel standards you like to recommend like you pointed out with some of the other projects there had been specific decel limitations at the property line and at the deck and so on so yes so the two adjacent properties are both transient loding yes okay Brandon I have a question on the uh Land Development code so and I'm going off the first pack up so my page numbers might be a little bit off but um on page 54 it said that the Land Development code does not require demolition or relocation of existing non-conforming structures unless they are substantially approved and then the packet goes on to say that I think it's on page uh 44 that the units are being substantially renovated so where do we draw that line as a as a city so substantial Improvement and and truthfully probably could have used a better word than substantially renovated they're not they're not passing the city's substantial Improvement threshold based on the conversations I've had with the applicant they could probably speak more to that but substantial Improvement under the city's code is an improvement that cumulatively exceeds 50% of The Proven value of the depreciated value of the building o over a 5-year period And speaking with the applicant they do not plan to pass that through threshold and that is the point at which some of the zoning standards related to setbacks related to other elements do come into play um they are not passing that under this request for the for the remaining developments for the new development they will need to be fully in compliance because of of course so we don't look at that the Land Development code we don't look at the entire project then because clearly that Tower is going to increase the value of this property more than 50% overall for this plot and it's it is specific to the actual improvements to the renovated buildings now there are Land Development code triggers that occur based on the amount of development taking place on the site some of the Landscaping requirements for example kick in um this property is not large enough to require a beach access but had it been it would have needed that but based under the building code based on some of the other substantial Improvement codes they they don't need to make the current buildings compliant so that 50% is based on the existing value now correct based on the the new development correct it does leave out the new development there are there are elements that are trigger the storm water requirements for example they will need to make the whole site compliant with the storm water code but anything related to the substantial Improvement of the existing remaining structures would would not be triggered based on what they've expressed they're going to do and then on our um city process for determining impact fees to the city so we give a developer credit for um units they're demolishing in calculating what their impact fees are to the city am I don't understand that right we do for for lodging it's just a set fee um in certain types of residential for example it's based on the unit size but lodging is just across the board a set fee so they would receive a credit for the existing remaining units on that on that same issue why is the sewer connection unknown I mean is that stuff you do at the site plan or yeah so it's it's based on meter size and at the site plan they would be assessed that fee based on the meter size and under the um public benefit and amenity analysis I I saw that for the beach easement it says the staff to request the 15 ft has has that happened and that change been made it's in here as a request that is in the resolution that is something we're proposing a 15t easement on the me high water so when you're proposing it if and we approve this does that mean that's included or is that another condition how does that work that that is currently proposed in the resolution so that would be if if you were to accept all of the uh staff's recommendations that would be part of it okay all right and then I see that they're encouraged to provide the um economic impact analysis and uh the taxable value increas is expected and I I see that it says you encouraged I didn't know if that had come in and I just had not seen it yet no the one item that's been provided since your packet was produced was the transportation management plan that was left at the Das but I have not received that no so is does that come in like before it goes to the commission or when does that actually enter it's not a requirement it might be something that the applicant can either estimate or it might be something that they have funding documents that they would be willing to share but it's not something that for a project of this scale we we've required so it's it's at their own discretion if they want to provide that I I would think it would be helpful to the city so maybe as we look at our future requirements you know that's an area that needs to be looked at right one more qu question for staff and that is we require that the um developer holds the community meeting which they did hold the community meeting um does the staff see those comment cards because they're not obviously part of this packet so what happens with the comments that are gathered at those Community meetings and how do we know resolution has been issues have been addressed we do we do take those in um I I did list we we received only a few comments for this one and I was I was at the meeting I did um you know I did attend um there were limited comments on this request but they were I felt they were more questions than they were actual comments or requests for additional improvements to the plan in this casee typically the staff adjudicates that with the developer before it gets to us is what correct yes yes thank you thank you Mr chair yes ma'am excuse me Mr chair sorry Miss Cole um before Miss Cole gives her uh presentation um can I just take a moment to remind the board that this portion is a a of a quasi judicial procedure in nature um it is a little less formal than that of a court proceeding um but there are um you know procedural requirements that we must comply with um in accordance with the Florida law um such as you know basic standards of notice and due process um and the board of course is to make their recommendation uh to the city commission based on comp competent substantial evidence um I know that the clerk did swear in um those who are coming going to be coming before you to speak however I have a limited view so I don't know if anybody else has stepped in that has not been sworn in yet um of course Miss Cole um exempt from that as an attorney um but also if um just real quickly um on this matter if there's any expar Communications that any of the board members have had um regarding this application um any written Communications research site visits anything like that um would you please make those disclos Mees I went to the community meeting that was held on this on their site that's all okay I walked by the site just to scope it out I also went to the community meeting I was uh in attendance at the community meeting of course it was prior to being a member of this board I had a conversation by phone with the Vista Property Management Miss pin Albertson um I had him several questions with uh for the staff and and reached out to uh Mr Barry on those and I had one um brief conversation with my D4 commissioner Mr M Holland on a on a subject that pertains to development r large uh and then I did just stop by the property one more time just for uh to re you know re uh remind myself what the what the layout was thank you good afternoon Mr chair uh Commissioners Katie Cole uh hillward Henderson representing the applicant who's here today Kevin Bowen so thank you Mr Bowen was sworn in um we'll go through a brief PowerPoint and answer any questions that you may have we also have uh Jack bodak the architect of record and Sean cashen the engineer of record who can also testify as to uh the the com consistency with the development code and the comprehensive plan with respect to this I did have a question for the City attorney with the density bonus ordinance the board sits as the LPA but with respect to the conditional use permit I believe they sit as the planning board can that just make despite the fact that we're doing one presentation can they just make that distinction at the time of vote who they are sitting as yes at the time of the vote they can um do the the vote for the ordinance uh 20247 as the LPA and then reconvene as a planning board and make the vote on the conditional use terit recommendation thank you I appreciate that I just wanted to clarify for the record that despite the fact that you're sitting as two boards today we are going to move forward with one presentation we appreciate that so thank you um as Mr Barry testified this is both a density bonus ordinance and a conditional use application this is a project um at 4200 Gulf Boulevard that was approved in 2021 I I failed to put this in the PowerPoint because I really wanted to focus on the current application but I was hoping to get the overhead switched over so I could just show you um the comparison this is the approved project that was the subject of an appeal in 2021 and was litigated uh and eventually the project was settled and the settlement allows for the construction generally of the project building permits have been submitted to the city and are under review all the fees for those reviews have been paid uh but during that process the owner Mr Bowen and his family um looked at the operations of the hotel looked at the surrounding community and really felt that the revised design that you're seeing today uh better served the community at large um that said one of the conditions as Mr Barry said speaks about the recision of the density units that are applicable to this project and that is an amendment to the conditions we would like to clarify to ensure that the fact that there are submitted building permits that those units are not divested until um any appeal period has has passed so I just did want to show this to you for reference this is the existing myar Hotel an aerial and a and along the street so you can see the two buildings um um that will remain and this is how it's proposed so the front of the building and Mr bodak will walk through this in fact I'll just pause there with the pictures because everything else is pretty pictures for him to talk about and I'll get into some of the details um in April there was a neighborhood meeting and at that meeting it was interesting because there were several things that were going on in the city right around the same time and that meeting uh I have to say I attend a lot of community meetings three of you were there I hope you have the same impression that it was quite a positive meeting the news coverage was very positive it was something that I'd never experienced before and it's quite Pleasant to um see the results of that um the amended approval uh creates a more quaint development that uh Jack and his team really look to fit into the 1950s type of uh development theme of St Pete Beach as I said the building permits are in process for the 2021 approval um but this request reduced the amount of density units from 15 to 12 as stated in the staff report um I would like to introduce Kevin Bowen who's the owner of the property and operator now and he can speak a little bit about um the financial capacity and the operations of the of the hotel as it exists and his vision for the property as well everybody um my name's Kevin Bowden um came came in back in 2020 um 21 and got the original approval obviously uh live right over here in St Petersburg um and follow a lot of the planning board meetings followed all of the development of of all the hotels coming and we decided just to try to take it down a bit um like to keep with the 50 rooms go with more of a motel feel um financing was approved back at that time uh when we applied for the building permit um then it got sued it took about a year just to solve that um and uh now we've gone back to the same bank and we have approval to build this hotel as well um decided uh we we own the Cambria Hotel up in madira Beach which which has a rooftop bar um decided to bring this rooftop more of an inside event um it it will have sliders the outside deck is small most of the seating is inside um we'll close those doors after 8:00 p.m. or 900 p.m. to keep the sound inside um we will have dining at breakfast we'll have dining at lunch and we'll have a dining at dinner outside and in but we've also run into the problem um with the weather comes at 6:30 at night and it rains and it kind of uh we have kind of a large restaurant a rooftop bar that kind of get closed so it it it kind of works out better for us as well um I I think uh putting it inside will help keep the noise down will help protect the neighbors from it and uh we'll let our experts go and talk about the rest I guess I I just want to talk about those things thank you thank you like to introduce Jack bodak who's the architect of record and he can review his credentials on your for you I'm sure you've seen him before and he'll go through the project good afternoon um I um I've worked in this beach for quite a number of years as a matter of fact I'm sure a few of you I've run across in the past uh and I've always enjoyed the relationship with the city the uh the project that we've presented today the owner of record on this Mr Bowen who you've Mr Bowden who you already heard from he um as you know the property was approved from this 47,000 ft building with a large deck and there was quite a bit of appeal to Mr Bowden about the the size of the building they missed the charm of the old building that had dis there were buildings that were disappearing and at one point he came back to us and said you know what can we do to redesign this retain some of the old charm and accomplish something that financially worked that's how we initially got into the redesign of the project the old project still stands approved and partially permitted actually even the foundation permit was issued but Mr Bowden decided that he'd like to take a shot at trying to do something that was more Community friendly and that that kind of gave people a little touch of what they wanted while economically allowing the project to be successful that's how we came up with this plan uh the plan that we have basically is that we would demolish about seven of the existing 27 units and we would uh be able to then fit the tower on the front of the project far back from the road and Remodel and update the existing units under the separate building permit uh allowance which is in the code so we got into reappraisal of the existing building that would allow us to do undertake the work that Mr Bowden would like to do the idea was that we would have the 20 uh existing units that would have the old cache about them the old look of as you can see from this U photograph this uh rendering would retain a certain amount of the charm be jazzed up a little bit to have a bit of a u uh a look of the The Deco say sort of style uh we try to retain some of that as we get up to the building the main building uh which has 30 units in in it plus I'm sorry my voice is a little bit um which has the uh rooftop uh small restaurant facility uh we have as I say we did this under the separate structure uh appraisal U portion and uh we retain 20 of the existing units we have 48 parking spaces plus four motorcycle we meet uh we meet or ex exceed most are all segments actually of the required code requirements with this resubmittal that we've put in the building is actually 74 70' 4 in above grade to the top uh level floor level which is the way it's measured for for height by the fire department uh the building has an overall height with the elevator towers and everything that's closer to the 85 uh the ISR allowable is 8 is 85 we're at 083 the U Landscaping required is 15% we're at about 177% so I think in the general overall picture we try to meet and come up with an accommodating response to all the requirements uh to take I don't know do I use this to take it through a okay essentially you can see the uh this is the front entry which is where the existing office is across from that there is where we're removing the uh existing seven units I'm going to try this but I'm not uh not sure I let's see which way we go here at the computer oh okay there we go all right let me try to Y got it uh this is a beachfront view of the unit we uh attempted to try and keep it in in the uh a contemporary U Deco still style the main appeal of course is on the on the roadside view uh very difficult to make balconies um uh look one way or the other we did retain uh a relatively nice little setback uh of the rooftop uh where we created the balcony uh the patio balcony area rather that uh actually creates a little bit of a set back to the restaurant on the roof the idea was that that would be a place that uh seating and and people could come out and and have an actual a lot of people like to go out in the fresh air and enjoy the uh the outside uh View um this is another uh shot from the road you can see where the the building on the left is much shorter than the one on the right they both were the same length out to where the canopy presently is we retained the two-story segment uh that you see up in there and we demolished the seven units on that side and a couple units that were up in the front where the uh new building is proposed in a two-story structure uh we did did demolish a couple units there also uh the parking is all valet parking um and it makes it a lot more manageable on the site a site this small in order to retain these many units without going to a big elevated building as was previously approved and presently stands in the approval process oh okay this um will show you the uh 70 foot 4 Ines is from the grade to the highest floor level uh which is the Restaurant level uh the boutique District the 50 unit density is the allowable uh the bonus allocation that exists already is from the pool uh we will want to retain some of the bonus units uh to maintain to get to the 50 units an acre the um reduction from four but we actually reduced the building by 4 units even though uh the prior uh approval did have four additional units we just didn't want to there it just became a jam if we went very much further with trying to squeeze units on site plan wise you can see the lower section here where the parking is is double parked Valley parked uh that's where we tore down the seven we're proposing to take down the seven units plus uh there are uh two units up in the front where you see the eight story building that area also has a couple units being demolished so they're the two areas of demolition uh you can see the four basically five units that would be parallel to the ones across from them in the front the uh present driveway there are presently two driveways going into the site it's essentially just nothing but driveway out by the road uh we would naturally consolidate it up to the current code and that brings in the one single driveway which is much more uh compatible with the road Frontage and and with the current regulations it is within the current regulations there are presently two pools up in the front if you know the property at all and um we are consolidating those two pools into one pool uh that comes partially under the building the uh beach access is on the southern end of the property you can see that uh existing access that is six foot wide uh Mr Bowden is dedicating the other 4f foot to enable it to be a much more manageable um beach access so I think overall um the owner has tried to really make this into more or less a an accommodation of trying to do something that's a little more uh in keeping with what some of the sentiments that we were experiencing through the approval process and uh present something that really still had a lot of charm to it the con comprehensive plan do you want to cover these yeah okay there you go thank you Mr Barry's staff report went through each of these comprehensive plan considerations so I won't belabor it by repeating by repeating what he's already um testified to and was included in the report that you all reviewed and um really it I think we're just would like your recommendation of approval for the density allocation and your approval of um the conditional use approval for the increased density as well as the increased height today uh I did want to specifically say that there were three conditions Mr Barry spoke about and uh I apologize we didn't H have these conversations until over the weekend and today so they're not specific on my slide but I want to walk through the three conditions that we would ask you tomorrow modify um the first condition is the timing of the grant of the units um which is condition number two in your staff report and our ask would be that you include the language uh that of non-appealable approval so they would divest at non-appealable approval as opposed to the commission's approval which is how it's stated now uh condition number three which discusses an additional use request um that was unfortunately some miscommunication between the the staff and the applicant uh we had a lot of discussions about the operation of the rooftop restaurant and and bar and because seats weren't shown outside there's been a code change that requires a specific authorization for the outdoor use on the rooftop and that hasn't been included in your request but we would ask um that you all consider it today and it would be included and updated in the agenda for the commission meeting and then uh to the extent it is necessary to do so uh the noise limitations um that were discussed on page uh by Miss Perry and Mr bar it's what we expect and so I think they're discussed further on page 115 of the packet um and condition 4D with respect to the Dune walkover Miss McMahon and your engineering staff visited the site there's an extremely large Dune that is adjacent to the public access entry uh we would ask for the same consideration that other projects have as the city's doing its own Dune renourishment and maintenance um projects that didn't include this Dune in that the cost of the applicant to construct a walkover and permit a walkover on that Dune would um could could be significant if D even allows it and so we would ask for some flexibility there to work with the staff with respect to the Dune walkover and instead of it just being as practical by D um just have that a bit more open-ended with respect to both the city potential city funding as well as the city's cooperation and consideration of the Dune walkover we don't anticipate that a cut through is ever going to be permitted by DP it's just a matter if if a walkover is reasonable at this location yeah it's the cccl falls right at the end of the property line where the current wall is where their pool is and if you've been to their property a lot of you said you'd walk in see sand even comes over the the wall onto the pool deck um and our goal is to make that a beach access for the public and if you currently use that be beach access to the south of their property it's um you might need a hatchet to get through and actually access it so and then when you get up onto the actual Beach you are at a raised level it's quite a large Hill so our goal is to work with the because it's Westward of the cccl we have to we're not going to be the ones determining what can be there our goal for the city and I think um for Kevin is to make it sorry there you are um to make it accessible and the best way that we can do that so we looked at different options and and it might be a conversation because we're doing something similar to this in some of our uh walkovers in passig gril to work with the Army Corps as well so um just know that that's our goal is to make it accessible and we had a good meeting out there um but there is a lot of vegetation um that currently if you walked that path it's very difficult to get on and then when you're on there um 12 feet up just walk through the property now right right we don't want people to walk through the dunes and that's where the path is right now so we came up with a couple things but at the end of the day it's D that's going to direct us in this so D is the the first step and if they say a walkover is acceptable to them then it's you're saying it's the city's interest to have that constructed but it would be we want to definitely make it accessible because that's our goal here and that's why we're asking for the 15 foot um to make this accessible for the residents to be able to get to that 15ot easen onto the beach right um so there's a lot if I'll just encourage you to walk to the south side of property and try to get onto the beach Kevin will'll gladly meet you and the offsets of the current property the building that's not moving on the North side prohibits an access on the North Side Access right but we could you couldn't construct one on the North side in Li of the one on the South Side the way that the lot is designed there's an equally large D there as well I the Dune is just big grown s we bought the property about eight or nine years ago and they've just grown I mean they are uh one on the North one on the south we have a little way out of the property in the Middle where there like a right volleyball court out there the other thing I should mention is we we closed the hotel um the week after Labor Day um we're committed to build now this you know we could either build the original plan that was approved or or this one but we're committed to going to construction before the end of the year um because the hotel has just gotten older and older over eight years and uh we we we do want to give the people the accommodations they expect when they come to the beach so um we have signs and everything but I just want to PL know that Happ and I told you the wrong Condition it's not 4D it's 5c sorry about that so the conditions sought to change are number two number three and 5c can Brandon can you pull up your PowerPoint so we could see the conditions do you have those listed they they were abbreviated okay so I just want to understand what your ask is for new language are you wanting to have the city perform that construction at the city's expense or are you wanting to share it or I just want to make sure I'm understanding I think the condition may be more reasonably worded to say to work with the city on the construction um in other projects the city is if funding is available going to construct it and we would like that same consideration so yes as to city funding but we first need to get to the cooperation and consideration if it's even an option yeah yeah I can yeah I can understand I mean yeah if if DP says you need to build a 20 foot high concrete bridge that's you're not something you want to do corre uh so I'm just wanting to understand what how that language would look do you is there like a cap on expense or how how does that get worded or is or is the C would the city find it acceptable to just word it as applicant and city will work together work together work that's a pretty broad term yeah yeah probably Sharon I don't know if your thoughts on this but I would rather not be so Broad you can include something to match cost us $250 or $250,000 right right you can include something to match what what's been done in similar spots like sigill maybe for example so there's kind of a standard well those are walkovers not priv private property um Sharon do you have any suggestions and how you would want that worded I apologize was it about the one of the conditions the sound was cutting out when the uh one of the board members was speaking the yeah the our question is the applicant obviously wants to protect themselves from being forced to build a prohibitively expensive Dune bridge but at the same time there's an interest by the city to work with the applicant to make that happen should D say it's approved so how do both sides protect themselves from an undue burden the way the to your point the way the conditions drafted now the only out is if it's unnecessary to preserve the Dune and clearly a walkover is going to be necessary to preserve the Doom to your point Mr chair it it is such a large Dune that it yeah the the potential expense would be significant so um I don't know we have a we we haven't gotten has the city received bids for any of the other Walk we're still working with the Army Corps okay um on a design um we looked at another option so it doesn't go over the Dune but as soon as you get to the Sandy Beach um kind of exiting the Dune system to the north instead of going up and over and down so it's a very unique property that Dune and and it's a healthy Dune and we don't right now when you walk through it to get to the beach you're walking over actual sea oos yeah would it be Poss I'm gonna get in trouble by saying this out loud before saying it to my client but instead of construction of a dune walkover it would be um accessible beach access an accessible beach access you're right I think I think because it's very potentially going to be around it to get not to go over the Doom which is on is on our land so I think I think work to get that access but yeah I I mean I think that the applicant is willing to provide access from the beach access point it just most likely is not going to be over the Dune or through it yeah that seems language that says accessible construction of a access point Point construction of a beach access then I would suggest is that re yeah yeah some at um when it goes when or if it goes to commission if we put the two options out there and show how it connects to the 50ft easement perfect like I I think a visual would be very beneficial for that um because it's I think all the sand on the beach has arrived at this location yeah agreed I mean I and I think you you hear from the applicant they're they are committed to providing beach access it's just I think we need the access actual to get to the beach and then we need to have access to that 15ot easement if we can connect the dots I think think that would be helpful so but I I agree that the if practical language is is Broad in today's days so um if we can say construction of a beach access across the southern property line um that connects to the 50 Foot that connects to the 50 Foot easement is that yeah I think okay and going back to condition three that requir was to add the ability to have outdoor seating correct but not you're not asking for outdoor Amplified music correct the change in the condition would be to delete without issuance of a subsequent conditional use permit because we would ensure that the commission sees that request as part of this conditional use permit and then the change to condition number two again would be um instead of immediately upon passage of both immediately upon the unappealable I'll look at Sharon approval or effectiveness of the ordinance it depends how you I'm sorry um if I may um Miss Cole and Mr chair um just to correct a procedural issue you um you guys are sitting as the planning board for both of these items both the ordinance and the conditional use permit um and doing some research while the applicate was presenting um I just wanted to inform you of that okay thank you thank you as opposed to the LPA I think she was going I I think it would say immediately upon the unappealable approval of both ordinance and resolution okay those would be the three changes could I request a super brief intermission I have to go to the restroom we have been sitting for a little while I don't know how to handle that um I'm just wondering what the procedures are for that um Madam clerk how do I ex you can just call a recess and say how many minutes till we return 10 51 all right uh let's call a five minute recess e e e e e e e e e e e e so yes so thank you and sorry to belabor and and and kind of clumsily do that but we appreciate your consideration of those three changes and with that with the testimony on the record and the evidence before you um we would appreciate your recommendation of approval of both of these items we also have the project engineer here if you had questions about parking and valet and the access points and the transportation management plan as well as the traffic study that were part of the application incorporated as well as um our two architects uh you already heard from Mr bodak but if you had any other questions for him um so with that appreciate your consideration and ask for your support thank you sure yeah um I do have some questions from the transportation management plan that was submitted today we've got the language that the proposed on-site parking facilities will be serviced by valet staff at all times is it the intent to have ballet be mandatory it's not a combination self- parking Plus Val if you want itce yourself Sean cashen uh the the site is going to be valet 247 at all times okay would you so we've also got that as a condition number eight valy service shall be maintained for the life of the development would you be amenable to inserting the word exclusively so it clearly states that the intent is to make valet the only option that's fine okay um the August 28th TRC meeting there was a discussion of the fire department needing to turnaround due to the 150t distance from Street to the new building has that been resolved yes Sean cashion again uh I've corresponded with Kelly in and we prepared a uh fire Tru turning exhibit to her showing where the truck would access the property where it would park and we did meet the NFPA 1 criteria for less than 150t backout maneuver for the fir truck or any emergency vehicle okay is that the so there's a small graphic on what was the prior page 117 I think now 124 is that the diagram is it yes uh a couple Pages later one page later I have looks like this uh look at what but if this works too um will you hold that up again Mr chair yeah oh that was the original okay yeah that one I was it's yeah that was the original submitt that the comment was made about and this is the updated okay how's that any questions about that exhibit that's shown on the are these are these turnarounds dependent on cars being moved out of the way to allow the turnaround to occur uh actually there's no turnaround this shows the um the fire Tru and there's a lot of blue and red lines but those are the wheel path as well as the outer points of the in this case the fir truck so that shows the Ingress movement of the fire truck into the site um and it shows 146 feet from the edge of pavement on Gulf Boulevard to the back end of the of the fire truck and the fire truck would back out the same way that it enters the property and some of the other designations for Kelly the blue BL I apologize I had a bunch of my cad guys sick with covid so I drew this up um but some of those blue lines and designations that was showing her that uh we would have less than 250 or less than 300 foot hose lengths so the fire truck could be able to access all points of the property um for fire suppression less than 300 feet okay and I'm a Spoke so to clarify the page that you were looking at in the small this is simply a picture of these blue and red lines oh got it okay all right and I keep looking over my shoulder at the fire at Kelly and the engineers to be sure I'm not speaking out a turn um there was mention of a valet queuing plan I assume that's not prepared at this point because there's not a valet service hired um do you have a rough idea on on how that would look the the only reason I ask is I am a regular patron of the the applicants Madar property at the tiki bar and I see Vehicles queued up out into the street I know this property is obviously a lot deeper than that parking garage so I just want to understand knowing from the TRC meetings there's an intent to host weddings and big events there could be a sudden influx of cars I just want to understand what the plan is on how to get get them off of G Boulevard Sean cashion again U as far as the valet I mean a valet company will be employed and the way these guys work they'll be working in Tandem and they'll have a chart or map showing the location of certain cars where they're parked and often times you're going to have two Valley guys one guy's going to have to move the car um out of the way so the back car in this instance can be accessed and provided uh to of the patrons and in the same way to park them as well okay it's it's I've seen it work it's it's a choreography and they they do it quite well okay do you know the intent uh this might be a City question what would the hurricane evacuation plan look like would it be evacuate at time of named storm hurricane warning is do we have requirements and they're agreeing to abide by those or and or are we trying to adopt something more stringent I saw it mentioned but there's not a plan yet that's our comprehensive plan and other municipalities follow it as well the expectation would be at the time of watch so that would be you know get the guests out of the city so we could focus on the residence okay so when that plan is submitted we would just validate that it matches okay correct so there's a condition seven is no deliveries from the center lane of Gulf Boulevard but there's also a uh let's see it was page 44 that stated there's no dedicated loading space I just wanted to understand how that will be accomplished the applicant can confirm this but in speaking with them they aren't going to have larger trucks they are going to be the smaller delivery vehicles really it's for I I assume laundry and just the limited rooftop restaurant um I they they did say that they were able to accommodate this on S so okay does anyone else have questions yes I have several um so on page uh 47 of the original staff report which was talks about the transportation um and it talks about Peak trips Etc um was that calculation based um solely on the uh patrons of the hotel or does that also accommodate in individuals coming into the property to to use the um New rooftop restaurant amenity that is based on the guest rooms typically with developments like this and and it would be possible to to calculate those in I did run the numbers I don't I don't remember them off hand I could get them for you shortly though um even based on that if we were to consider the rooftop restaurant as a typical restaurant that's held out to the public it would be under the threshold that we usually recommend a transportation study for but typically with Resort developments they do include the the accessory restaurants in that calculation okay thank you and then uh going back to the uh vent parking I think this for the developer uh the event parking and understand that there's going to be a valley in place have you contracted with another um location to move those cars too um because you won't have sufficient parking I would assume on your property if the guest are fill and then you have an event a reception you the documents are like say weddings and receptions and things like that so where is the plan that those cars will go to there has not been a contract yet but in the in the event there's one necessary that is what the owner would have to seek to do okay and then um the only other question is would the developer be amenable to um contributing to uh a city's supplemental transportation system and the amount equivalent to those um peak hours or Peak trips identified in the transportation portion of the uh staff report so that we're offsetting the cost to the city for what we're currently contracted as freebie but it could be another supplemental Beach Ride which is something consistent which we've asked for from other developers I'm un unsure are you asking for the developer to basically not take the credit for the 10 units they're demolishing no no no I'm talking about for the for the additional traffic that they're generating through the traffic report which was the those Peak out Peak trips that I was referring to on the page 47 well they will be paying a transportation impact fee so they are so it's based on those peak hours or is it B based on those or those Peak trips or is it based on the peak trips plus the what you're expecting restaurant traffic Mobility fees So currently the only fee would be for the transportation impact and that would be based on the room count and that that is usually inclusive of all the development so we wouldn't separately charge for the rooftop restaurant um but any additional fee if you're referring to past developments that was a specific condition of either the conditional use permit or the development agreement in those cases we would not collect those without a at a without a condition in place okay so we have impi applied those conditions in other develop redevelopments recently correct yes correct and that was specifically for a multimodal fee you know proportional to the relative impact that we would expect for the development so okay so that's what I'm asking is if the developer would be amenable to paying that multim modal fee proportionate to I I don't know that I can answer that question on behalf of the developer because we have no idea what that calculation is what the number it would be based upon how it would be calculated how how it's been the other projects in which that has been done has been such an increase I mean I think you're saying um you're talking about the 7.6 trips you want a fee assess to the Seven Trips it is it's looks like 19 peak hour trips considering all that's a total site W so the increase is Seven Trips so total right right but so there already is trips there now understand so there's Seven Trips city is paying for through the multimodal system currently we bear the cost of those theoretically or that that's a long policy conversation but I I don't know that we we cannot agree to something that I have no idea what you're asking for I mean I I hear your words I just don't know what that number is I don't know how it would be assessed I don't know um how it's calculated for these types of projects it's nothing that we've discussed or the city has asked for in the past so just the the two other projects you're referencing automatically because it's over three acres they're already had to be a shuttle service provided that is in our code this project doesn't even require them to do a traffic study right at the size so they're providing that um to us but that wasn't a requirement for that understand so um I don't I don't know what that would look like or what the cost would be how difficult would it be to determine what a cost would be Seven Trips is is it Seven Trips a day is that what that what the seven represents yes 7.6 over the cost of a year over the cost of five years over I mean that how difficult is it to figure out I mean it might just be not worth it but it might I don't think not looking into it is NE I don't know that that's how the mobility fee ordinance is drafted to even be able to calculate that but I'll defer to and that that is Seven Trips at peak hour so it wouldn't be per day for the 20 units that's at the 4 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour we would expect seven additional trips per hour during that range the mobility fee we collected on behalf of the county so they set the rates for that and that's that $328 per unit that that's a number that they've adopted um my understanding was the reference was to the other projects and there had been a separate local multimodal fee that had been partially worked out that was partially calculated based on trip generation and trip ends for the for the freebie service it wasn't exclusively for freebie but it had been based on that um that's something we could come up with the proportion would be much much smaller but it's we we do have that data we could look it up so that that's all I'm asking is if we could look it up and and and take a look at it this is something that continues to come up in budget meetings for the city things that continues to come up to taxpayers is the cost of this and who's bearing the cost of it so I'm just asking can we have the staff look into it and at least provide the commission that information when it goes to commission so that they understand what it is what that what that would be okay um and then on the new transportation management plan it references um the uh full service restaurant pool Beach facilities Cabanas bars Etc and I just want to um call out this that the staff specifically said that there is no permitting currently in place for the property owner to have Cabanas Beach Bar Beach service Etc so is that that will be addressed correct as as you're aware the city's reviewing its customary use ordinances and we would anticipate once that happens there's also they will either seek to or not seek to permit those uses okay great thank you there's also the beach stewardship um which is working on a new beach ordinance which addresses Cabanas and things and I'm assuming I don't know if that has to be stated as a condition but it is something that everybody will have to comply with um and so maybe that needs to be a condition because I know in some you can't have Beach service on the beach without a permit for alcohol service so if that's what he's doing he' have to apply for a permit okay so that however that's outlined okay currently in our code if you're doing alcohol service there's a process in place okay um and put commas out you don't need a permit from us but I I don't know what might change around Cabanas cuz I don't know what all the new ordinance will be approved so nether do I and then I I think you touched in this when we when you asked us to change the the verbage on the rooftop bar um I know ex currently it said that music would not be piped out I recognize on the drawings that that is a retractable wall between the bar and the rooftop deck area so either that door will close at 10 o'clock or music will cease inside at 10 o'clock correct okay thank you um and then on page 51 of the staff report they talk about litter on the beach and oh I think that's where it was T because they're not permitted for any sales um the only thing that and it might be in in the way that the city manages going to site plan or occupa you know certificate of occupation is uh a couple things and that includes like um posting no alcohol signs Beyond this point uh at the that access out to the beach is that already required by yes the okay great excellent perfect um the reclaimed water there were several references throughout the staff's report that said if AA connected to reclaimed water if available what would prohibit this property from being connected to reclaimed water Sean cashen I believe there is reclaim water available to the site and we're all for using reclaim water for the landscaping Great thank you thank you um I did want to talk about the um sea turtle um uh the Land Development code for 44.4 um I know in page 52 it said lighting would be compliant um and I assume this means all buildings old and new um the glass tinted windows old and new as required by the Land Development code for SE SE uh the sea turtles um additionally um we I'd like to know if the uh property owner would be amenable to educational postings on the property um again we've asked other developers to do this just to say hey this is what on the beach if you dig a hole cover the hole um you know please trash trash is important to us you know if you have if you're up on a balcony please keep your blinds closed after 10: things like that um just just general information to the public to help them understand what's important to the it wouldn't be to the public I mean it would be to the guests to the guests yes to the guests I to clarify yes okay great thank you and I think that's all I had to say so that was you were asking for that has an additional condition um that's if it needs to be a condition he heard you I don't know that it needs to be a condition I you know I think the property owner if they're willing to to comply with that is is the intent to allow public the the the non- guests to use the restaurant to use the what restaurant correct the restaurant it just for guests or allow the public no it it would be open to the public right yeah okay any other questions do I have a motion public com public comment public comment oh public comment I'm sorry I did not receive any cards okay all right all right now do I have a motion I motion to approve given the conditions and the I guess the new ones I don't know if there or any new conditions or that's just agreed upon is are the changes you're asking for in the ordinance or the resolution just want to make sure that when you make the motion that we the resolution resolution so the conditions so do it two as two separate vote on the ordinance first as the LPL or yep and we're doing it for both and then then do a separate motion for the resolution with the conditions discussed okay three condition I right I I think the attorney advised that despite the agenda stating that the ordinance was as the LPA the code States you're seated as the planning board for both if I heard you correctly sharing yeah yeah so no need to split okay but you'll need a motion for the ordinance and then a separate motion for the resolution not together okay that is correct yeah all right and your motion was for the ordinance sure yeah is it it's the resolution that requires the conditions right yeah correct and um we made adjustments to the resolution conditions that were are on record is but I'm not sure I'm not personally 100% clear on what the actual changes were to the resolutions I can I can summarize I I'll summarize and you guys correct me so in the first one it was regarding the timing it was once there was an unappealable approval of the ordinance ordinance and resolution and resolution okay outdoor seating including without an additional condition use permit permanent seating unless approved by the city commission is what Mr Barry and I thought was reasonable there was go ahead instead of without issuance of the subsequent conditional use permit to change that to say unless approved by the city commission okay there was a talk about the noise limitations but we other than defining closing the doors we didn't Define a decel rating for The Noise limitations and we had discussed standardizing it but we don't have wording for for that now how do we adjust for that without having it you know without having the information currently can we approve that portion of it or vote on that portion of it without knowing it knowing which portion so the the in the noise limitations there was a section regarding noise limitation and it was agreed that they would close the doors at 10:00 or Amplified music wouldn't be heard beyond that uh member Perry requested that there be a standardization of a decel rating that was similar to others that had been approved so I would say currently in our code and this is why 10 o'clock is why we're talking about 10 o'clock is it's 65 decimals before 10:00 and at 10:00 it goes down to 55 so any property on the beach have to comply with that in itself now if you want so so that's already in our code okay for any property existing so we already have that decimal level now if you wanted to add something similar to what we did to um other projects it is a what's it called the oh what's it called there's a fancy word and it might be a knob it's a it's a sound Governor we've set a standard where for for at the residential property line the affected property line for other Hotel projects after 1 p.m. it was set to equal to ambient so it would be you you should not be able to discern the music from the abing property after 10 that's how it was said for the others it I think the distinction was that the others are adjacent to Residential Properties and this is not so well the the bottom line was is if there's a city ordinance that says at 10 o'clock goes down to 55 down to 55 you gotta you got to meet the city ordinance yeah and then the final one which was the accessibility to the beach did we agree to the wording on that I think they were going to work out the specific language but the applicant was to permit construction of beach access point to the 50ft easement in a way that's agreeable between them and the city and that's provided to the Commission in a visual it show that okay I I think what we we would ask for the flexibility that between now and the commission meeting um we could have the surveyor out there to actually survey that Dune and see what the height and the width is and work with staff between now and next month to to see what is practical I know they've already come up with some um proposed Solutions so maybe we could have some more specific options but I think the commitment is to provide each access okay and then there was the addition to eight that valet service be the exclusive parking option correct on the uh Beach easement are we income are we adhering to what the staff's request was because I think there was a difference between originally what the property developer was offering and then what the staff came in and as a recommendation is that correct or is and have they come yeah I think what staff suggested was a con nection to the that connects to the 50ft easement I think um we have hesitation about that because candidly the only potential connection is is right in front of the property's pool and you're Crossing 3/4 of the property along private property to get there um but unfortunately we don't have an appropriate offer which is why I think it would be best if we could say that staff and the applicant would talk about it but I don't I don't have I don't have good language for you um I think we could say construction of a beach access period I just don't know how M how much of the connection we can get is my concern I I we would prefer it if it just said connection of a beach access period right no I'm I'm tracking that um on 4B we had uh the Beach easement of at least 15 feet wide is that that's fine you you're you're agreed on that okay perfect great I'm verify okay so then we need two motions and so and we're also I believe the city wanted this to be inclusive of Staff recommendations is that okay that would be for the second motion right correct this yeah this one is for the resolution right so the first motion should be in regards to ordinance 20 24-3 7 seven I 03 is the one we correct earlier for the town houses okay okay I'll motion to uh approve ordinance 20247 I'll second it roll call please member grocott yes member Ray yes member Perry yes Vice chair Angelas yes chair Hubbert yes motion carries and now we need the motion for approval of 202 24-8 so I want to make sure I word this correctly I recom uh make a motion for approval of resolution 20 24-8 with staff recommended inclusive of Staff recommendations yeah with inclusive of Staff recommendations and do we need to read it find that this is including the conditions we just discussed okay so it would be conditions as amended would that be proper conditions as amended or would those be planning for recommendations well we're acting as both right now so let me reward that uh make a motion to recommend approval of resolution 20-24 I'm sorry 20 24-8 with uh amended recommendations do I have a second I'll second roll call please member Ray yes member Perry yes Vice chair Angelus yes member grocott yes chair hubard yes motion carries thank you for working through those with us we appreciate it thank you okay so we journey as the LPA now and correct taking up discussion items okay so we will now adjourn as the LPA and uh reconvene as the planning board right and we've got you I should have hats I think every discussion item was mine so I'll bring out a new sign I'll just start um okay so back in May when we had three different members um I had asked if the board was amendable to my acting as a liaison to the city the commission and third parties such as this contractor that's been hired to just a basically to nag and encourage a movement on our duties as the planning board to perfect the comprehensive plan and Land Development code so since we've had three out of five board members change I just wanted to see if everyone was amenable to my continuing to act in that role I'm not expressing an opinion on your behalf I'm just there to basically Lobby the commission and the city to move things forward on ways we would want to see no objection I still think that's great yeah okay M considering you're now on the chair position versus a committee person I would might recommend I think that we should consider having maybe one of the non-chair people take that liaison rooll I what does c think uh well I think in other boards the chair is the person that typically will come up okay um again not speak on behalf but there to what's in the best interest of what his role is as chair I I just I I'm thinking of historic preservation board and it was asked for that chair to come to commission and be present when they were talking things related to absolutely if they're requested to come but not speaking on behalf of the board so it would be up to you guys how you want to the question that I have and um I I think in my mind David has the most experience to do this right now but we aren't allowed to talk to each other offline and so how do we get the board's Collective thoughts I mean it's wonderful to have a representative but how do we get the board's Collective thoughts do we have to have workshops or what do we need to do so that we don't break the sunshine laws but we can still all have input into that very important my understanding is I can communicate through the clerk to distribute to the rest of the board and vice versa is that accurate if you want to provide us with a list of things that you're going to speak about we can provide that to the other members okay in in most cases this this is not a discussion of specifics that would come before for the commission or the board I'm I'm basically just wanting to go and and say you know here's where we're at we would like to see action on these things that come out of our meetings so it's not a an expression of opinion on things on work items that are coming before that entity it's just a you know let's keep it moving um that type of lobbying for the board but as board members we all have the opportunity to do that with the commissioners so you're not City staff or city staff so you're not recommending that any one of us isn't also available to no no I'm not recommending that this this actually came from a prior discussion with the city attorney where I had asked if it was appropriate and permitted for me to go before the board as either or the commission as either a board member or a private citizen to Lobby in this way and their suggestion was it would be preferable to to have the planning board agree to my doing that rather than me doing that on my own so this was Guidance the the City attorney had given me okay um I I'd like to talk about it with my commissioner a little bit okay before moving forward with a motion on it if that's okay and so we can re reconvene on a decision okay um again I think if the commission is asking for the planning board to come to them with something then that would be you you you're you know clearly the head or when we have workshops or combined boards that you know that's very but I I certainly in no way want to necessarily limit any one person board members ability to talk to City staff or or the or commissions or yeah not at all yeah the the discussion with the attorney was just they felt if I went before the commission on behalf of the board to say where are we at with the plan review process what are we doing with the contractor the planning board would really like to see some activity that would carry more weight coming from me representing the board versus me showing up to say the same exact thing yeah and I understand if we go in front of commission we have to kind of clearly not kind we clearly have to State whether we're there as a private citizen speaking or whether we're there as a member of the planning board speaking so I just don't want to necessarily limit anybody's ability to sure make that option to go to the commission and say no I'm I'm speaking as a member of the planning board necessarily so let me just talk to my commissioner about it please yeah yeah not a problem um my next item was to just to ask staff to advise us on that that current state of the comp plan it sounds like it's been executed but we're not at the point of defining statement of work um I'm not overseeing that it went to the city commission last Monday with the planning board's recommendations of course we've had some turnover on members but um it it was approved effectively as presented um we didn't have any major changes that were were proposed now a week from today we will be having a discussion with the commission and a land use attorney regarding a potential moratorium on development it was made clear to the city commission by the city manager that the scope of work may change based on potentially the recommendations for the moratorium if one is made so there could be further changes if if those are made I'll make sure to keep the planning board informed but we are somewhat pending that just to see where we're moving forward before we actually execute a contract okay so it would be premature for us to start working with the consultant given the fact that the city commission could change the scope ibly radically I think we might want to wait just till next week we I have reached out to the I'm about to reach out to the consultant but I don't do we would we want to wait another week on that I haven't been involved in the conversations as of late so um next question was ask a question on that as it stands now that scope of work is large resort district and Cory or downtown I don't know the exact of dc1 and those are the left and right parameters as it stands right now okay yes uh the next question was what are the next steps on the changes the historic preservation board recommended where does it go from here uh we took your feedback which we really appreciate by the way I know that was a lot of content to get through in a very short period of time so I I have your recommendations from the workshop I'm going to make those changes the eth I believe is going to be a joint Workshop between the historic board and the city commission y October 8th at four o'cl so that that Workshop the out the outcome of that is the city commission decides next steps if if it if they want to go forward with that change correct so from there we would likely bring it back to the planning board for a for a vote um so okay um let's see I think that's all I have yeah thank you all right I think we've concluded everything on the schedule if uh no one has anything else we can have a motion to adjourn my motion we adjourn do you have a second second roll call please or do we just all right meeting is Jed all right thank you e but