One of the most discussions centered on whether accessory structures such as detached garages and ADUs should be allowed in front of residences, either as a right or as a special exception. This topic generated debate as committee members weighed the need for maintaining neighborhood aesthetics against the demand for flexibility within the code. The committee contemplated specific language to ensure that accessory structures match the character and appearance of the primary residence, using terms like “similar” or “compatible” to describe the desired appearance.

The issue of setbacks for various types of structures, particularly in downtown areas, was another focal point. Members expressed concerns over confusion and potential inequities in the setback requirements and reached a consensus to revisit the issue later. The allowance for detached accessory structures to be connected to the principal structure by a breezeway was also debated, with concerns about how this might circumvent setback regulations.

Fences and walls as accessory structures sparked further discussion, with a focus on the regulation of height and placement, especially on sloped properties. The committee ultimately decided to leave the regulation of fence and wall height to the discretion of property owners, increasing the maximum height of front fences to four feet.

The meeting also highlighted the committee’s approach to food trucks in the city. Members debated the need for a specific permitting process that could allow for longer operational periods without requiring a full site plan. While there were concerns about the impact on existing businesses and parking spaces, the committee decided to maintain the current process for permitting food trucks, which involves special event permits and site plan reviews.

The committee discussed the placement of pools, patios, and screen enclosures in residential districts, debating whether to allow such structures in front of or on the side of lots. Specific examples of well-landscaped properties with side enclosures were cited, but concerns about overcrowding of yards were raised, particularly when ADUs are also present. The committee agreed to conduct further research before making a final decision on the matter.

The regulation of fences and walls, particularly in relation to the right of way, was another topic of debate. The committee suggested changing the language from “FDOT requirements” to “ASM requirements” to allow for flexibility at the discretion of public works and deliberated on the materials for fences and walls, exempting single-family detached lots from material standards.

Furthermore, the committee addressed setbacks from property lines, especially concerning natural surface water bodies and wetlands, aligning the language in the Land Development Code with the Comprehensive Plan’s requirements. New language was added about the placement of fences outside the visibility triangle and all easements.

The committee also tackled the issue of ground-mounted equipment, debating screening requirements to ensure such equipment is not visible from the public right-of-way. Additionally, they considered the inclusion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential zoning districts and made changes to clarify regulations for existing non-conforming uses and lots. The size limit for ADUs and the potential for deviations from numeric standards in the code were subjects of debate.

A notable point of contention was the inclusion of public art as a mitigation strategy for development deviations, with the committee considering a monetary contribution of $5,000 to $10,000 per deviation. The feasibility and potential impact of this requirement on development budgets were discussed, with the committee acknowledging the need for further exploration of this topic.

Finally, the committee delved into the definition of building facades and the restructuring of code sections, with an emphasis on combining and reordering sections for clarity. The definition of the “rear” of a building was proposed, with a focus on servicing sides including parking facilities, loading docks, and trash removal spaces. The inclusion of public art as a possible mitigation for development deviations sparked a discussion about establishing clear standards and guidelines.