##VIDEO ID:xuvurhj2SRQ## November or I'm sorry actually it's the November 20th meeting is that or no 18th is correct but 20th was included for The Other Board um has everyone reviewed the late minutes from that prior meeting any any changed changes needed okay if no changes then I would just need a motion to approve those minutes motion to approve minutes second roll call please Vice chair Angelus yes member grott yes member aray yes member Perry yes chair hubard yes motion carries thank you we are on to action items 4A which is the resolution 20242 conditional use permit 23085 do you need to read that entire portion I can okay um I don't mind this is so this is a a resolution conditional I'm sorry 20242 conditional use permit 23085 to the city commission for the development of windward Pass Resort Parcels 07321 161 18143 001 001 0 partial 07321 161 18143 001 0020 parcel 07321 67398 001 0170 and partial 07321 16 07398 001 0230 would you like me to read the entire oh I'm I'm sorry does is that do you need to read that entire would you like me to it's up to you if if if it's required otherwise I'm okay to proceed no it's not a requirement okay all right Brandon will you be leading this Okay Wells City attorney does there need to be a swearing in or a disclosure from any board members is it is this on okay have there been any xfar Communications with regard to this property no no no okay and we can have a swearing in of anyone who's going to be test Define anyone who will be speaking to the board making a presentation needs to be sworn in please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give or present to the board is truthful thank you okay if we could pull the staff presentation thank you chair so this is conditional use permit number 23085 associated with resolu resolution 20242 also ordinance 20248 the applicant owner is John a bodak architect to his agent for sungold LLC location is currently unaddressed it was formally 3815 3855 3859 and 3861 Gulf Boulevard located just south of sun Harbor to the north of the sanov apartments this is a two-part request there are two different items on your agenda but they're treated together because they're both part of the same project request versus resolution 20242 the applicant is requesting to construct a 104 unit 54t tall condo hotel with indoor and outdoor amenities which include first and sixth floor outdoor bars with outdoor music 12 class a dock slips which are Hotel dock slips hosting commercial water sports amenities and other commercial amenities that are associated with the resort ordinance 20248 is to draw all 104 requested temporary lodging units from the Town Center Corey Circle in Cina West activity center and by your residential district density pool here's a timeline of the request the applicant held a community meeting at the St PB Recreation Center in September 2003 there was a technical review committee meeting for this request in February of this year it was brought back to technical Review Committee in August there had been some significant modifications to the plans largely a downscaling of what was presented in in February the application was deemed complete for Board review back in November tonight of course is the planning board hearing and early next year will be the city commission hearings for this request here is the listing of exhibits so to summarize the first part of the request which is the resolution again this is the resolution associated with the conditional use permit the applicant is requesting 104 temporary lodging units the lodging building will be 6 stories tall 54 ft in height as measured by the Land Development code which is measured above the base flood elevation it will include 12 Class A lodging dock slips with non-motorized commercial water sports those will be pedal boats and paddle boards as is a significant downscaling of what was presented at the community meeting which is 28 to 30 motorized um slips the applicant is proposing first and sixth floor bars with outdoor music within the main lodging use itself and lodging Associated commercial amenities these include a mini golf course in the northern part of the site an arcade game room in a three story Park and garage building to the north of the lodging building and Qui in feature pools the feature pool containing water slides on the south side of the site and I'll pull up a map in a moment showing how those are laid out the property has a bi residential zoning it is the same future land use um they are effectively identical in terms of their standards is lo located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard to the southern side of the community redevelopment District it's located just north of the maraton neighborhood in the Don CeSar so looking at the Standalone conditional use permits requests these are individually listed items within the Land Development code that require a conditional use permit starting with the primary use the applicant is proposing a 104 unit condo hotel it will be 54 ft in height as I mentioned before that is a six-story building five stories above Park parking this is made effective to Land Development code section 42.4 D the applicant is also proposing 12 Class A lodging slips with non motorized water sports along the seaw wall of the property this is made pursuant to land of elment code section 42.4 B and G the applicant currently has a lease for eight slips of motorized um uh lodging Associated Water Sports so this would increase it to 12 for additional slips however it would be um the applicant is no longer proposing to include any kind of motorized amenities um at at the slips on the Northern side of the hotel the applicants proposing a sixth floor bar with outdoor music the same on the first floor on the south side of the hotel these requests are made pursuant to Land Development code section 42.4 in terms of the accessory accessory lodging used for Quest the applicant is proposing pursuant to section 39.6 F of the Land Development code a separate building that contains indoor arcade with outdoor seating this is this building is primarily used for parking but on the ground floor on the Northern side they will have that indoor arcade to the north of that outside is a mini golf course and on the south side of the site the applicant is proposing quiet and feature pools as well as an indoor restaurant so here's a quick breakdown of the development standard analysis and more detailed analysis is provided in the staff report looking at density the lodging units for the site the applicant is proposing 104 that works out to be 38.8 units per acre that is just under the maximum of 107 lodging units and again these are all allocated through the density pool I'll get into that in a moment so they're requesting 38.8 units per acre they're allowed up to 40 units per acre with the density pool and conditional use permit request the building will be built to the maximum height allowed for the district that's 54 ft about base flood elevation of the rooftop they are allowed an additional 10-ft encroachment for non-habitable facilities they are a foot and a half below that limit 64 ft would be the maximum they at 62 feet 6 in the commercial floor area of the site is significant significantly below what the code allows for they're proposing 0.13 F effectively 13% of the site area or about 15,000 sare ft will be used for commercial floor area that's significantly below the maximum of just under 35,000 ft the impervious surface ratio for the site is slightly below the maximum of 85% at 81.4% the applicant just meets the setbacks in the front sides and the rear for the buildings themselves the applicant has applied in conjunction with his request for a variance to allow for pools to encroach closer to the southern property line and the Land Development code would allow for pools are specifically called out as an accessory element that do need to meet the primary building setbacks on the side of the development I understand that the applicant has prepared an alternative design they have shrunk somewhat that request and I believe they have that plan ready to present but the buildings themselves the scope that is under the purview of the planning boards review it does meet the required setbacks for the devel the development District the applicant is providing significantly more parking spaces and required by code they are required 106 bases they're providing 175 now they do have significant accessory amenities on this site because they are below 02 F most of those accessory amenities they do not need to provide parking for but these spaces are to supplement the accessory uses on the site they are over what they need based on the Land Development code at the F that they're proposing so moving on to the ordinance request which is considered in conjunction and it is an essential element of the conditional use permit due to the request that the applicant is making so the subject Parcels were zoned into the bio residential district back in 2012 that was rezoning from the resort facilities medium District in that District 30 lodging units per acre and 50 ft in height was allowed by ride under the bio residential district the lodging units have increased to 40 per acre and up to 54 ft in height so a 4ot difference there would be permitted with a conditional use permit however none of the units requested under this request are allowed by W they all come out of this density pool so all 104 units that are being requested would need to be allocated from the density pool for the bi residential activity center and Town Center districts there has been one allocation out of this pool since it was put in place back in 2012 it was to the hotels zoraa which shares the same zoning District as the subject property they have requested and received 64 of those units so that the current pool unit count is at 261 based on an original 325 units if all of the unit requested under this project are allocated there would be 157 units remaining in the pool as shown in the associated ordinance so staff has provided responses to the different criteria in the staff report but the summary um we find the following elements supportive of the community redevelopment district and the bior residential district goals objectives and policies the applicant is proposing a public prominade along the exterior of the site that increases water access which is one of the goals of the comprehensive plan that is associated with the policy of increased pedestrian access through these sites there is property consolidation they are taking four Parcels that have historically been used separately they are consolidating them that does reduce the number of curb Cuts considerably they are down to two curb cuts for the entire Frontage of the site which is something that the Land Development code promotes along with the comprehensive plan staff founds staff found the architecture of the development to be of high quality particularly the garage the applicant has done an effective job I I feel at screening the purpose of the garage which contains the arcade building on the northern part of the site staff does have some concern about the mass of the building which we'll talk about in a moment but the architecture itself that art modern or Deco style um does seem to be both internally consistent with the buildings on the site and does seem to be of high quality the applicant has significantly reduced the intensity of the Waterfront functions as I mentioned before they are proposing an increase to 12 slips based on the current eight slips that they have a lease for but they are going to be discontinuing the motorized vessel rentals in in a favor of the paddle boats and or sorry uh paddle boards and pedal boats so that is a reduction in at least the motorized intensity of those Waterfront functions the applicant is proposing some family oriented amenities that's generally supported in the city's comprehensive plan providing districts that are appropriate for families uh with children and it does increase the public amenities and the Landscaping on the site particularly on the southern end the applicant is providing significantly more Landscaping than required by code in terms of some of the staff concerns staff seeks additional support and testimony from the applicant regarding the following now I have spoken with the applicant in the last few days regarding their Technical and financial capacity to complete the improvements I understood that the applicant provided the architecture for this development I understand they'll also be providing um develop services and and acting as the developer for this project I'd ask them for examples of some of the other projects they have had and undertaken in the past that are of similar Technical and financial complexity and I believe they have those projects that they can share I expressed in the staff report some concerned about the massing of the building there's ultimately nothing in the community redevelopment District regulations that require breaks in buildings based on their wi I understand that the applicant does face some challenges given the layout of the site it does have a very unique aspect it is much wider than most properties especially given that the city promotes consolidation in this District it has almost a bow tie design to it it's much more narrow in the center than it is at these sides so I understand there are some challenges faced with the site but the hotel building in particular is is fairly wide and uh I would like to see the applicant if possible um mitigate the the massing of that building uh it does I I did speak to the applicant regarding the essentialness of the feature pull to the devel velopment as a whole the quiet pool on the southern side is in character with other Resort um districts throughout the city's um Gulf boul of Ary development District I asked for some additional support for the feature pool the applicant has significantly Shrunk the feature pool based on the new design so I will let them present that um staff had some general interior access concerns for the development these were minor these were expressed in the in the uh staff report and they are addressed through some of the conditions that we're recommending if the board U moves to recommend approval of this request we had some concerns about the Perpetual maintenance of the prominade around the exterior of the site I understand that this is proposed to be a condominium style development I am not aware and I'm not sure if the applicant is aware at this point how they plan for the commercial facilities and the exterior elements of the site to be owned and and operated and maintained I would like them to speak to that if they if they know that at this stage and the applicant has agreed to provide a transportation study this development is significantly below the required number of trips to for sorry the number of trips generated at peak hour for a transportation study to be necessary they have agreed to provide a study following this meeting prior to the city commission hearing for this request but the applicant will regardless of whether or not they provide a study need to provide a transportation management plan so if they know of any of these strategies at this time um staff would like to hear them so generally um in in terms of a summary staff finds that the project can be found generally consistent with a comprehensive plan if adequate conditions are applied the density pool is a caseby casee request the conditional use permit must be evaluated on the basis of the 20 criteria which staff has responded to in your staff report individual conditional use permit criteria within this request can be considered by the city commission that would include the lodging density and the building height the class a docks with the commercial water amenities and the outdoor bars with music on the sixth and first stories so going through the 30 recommended staff criteria these are summaries of what are included in the resolution um but just to briefly cover what they what they address in terms of density the first two conditions the ordinance must be approved to be to allow for the subject development there is no allowable lodging unit density by right for this site all of the units must come out of ass at ordinance 20248 condition two the resolution uh expires and the density pool units will be returned to the density pool if a building permit is not obtained within one year in terms of outdoor music conditions permanent speakers only may be placed in outdoor music areas outdoor music is prohibited between 1000 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. and similar to other Resort uses that have been approved recently the applicant must allow for noise test and utilize Hardware or software to limit decb to to No More Than 3 DB above ambient when measured from adjacent residential property that is the Threshold at which noise is considered to be from One Source rather than another that is that's the that's the basis is three DB above ambient so that would be the basis that we would use to make sure that the um the music does not spill over to adjacent residential property looking at Resort development conditions the applicant shall provide a circulator drop off expand the frontage sidewalk and Landscaping provide protected pedestrian access through the garage and relocate delivery vehicles from the front edge along with demonstrate compliance with other development standards at the site plan issuance stage applicant shall Implement development standards UniFi Parcels provide aerial utility undergrounding easements and execute restrictive covenants on unit use prior to certificate of occupancy and the applicant shall contribute a proportional cost to a St P Beach Emergency Services master plan moving on to operational design conditions the resort use must be completed and occupied prior to operation of any accessory amenity the owner is responsible for Perpetual maintenance of the prominade no night swimming or night operations of the feature pool is permitted any significant design changes may require City commission re-review that's compared with the conceptual plans that have been presented to the planning board all deliveries must be on site there could be no deliveries from the center lane of Gulf Boulevard dock slips are permitted to only non non-motorized water sports equipment and customer vessels rendering submitted at permitting shall match a design prepared for the conditional use the applicant shall provide a hurricane closure and evacuation plan this is to allow for evacuation of guests to the hurricane watch stage to allow for resources to be focused on residents when a hurricane warning is issued offset utility improvements shall require the applicant to provide Cod compliant landscape screening the applicant shall install the quality density and amount of landscaping shown in the plan and at least 50% % of it shall be Florida friendly Frontage trees with substantial canopies around seating areas at the frontage of the site are preferred reclaimed water shall be utilized and metered for landscaping the applicant shall comply with relevant code Provisions in the timeline specified within the resolution and the feature pool shall be screamed by noise reducing fencing or Hedges from the sanov apartment's development to the South looking at site improvements the applicant shall be responsible for trash cans along the prominade at least every 150 ft they would be responsible for emptying them as well permeable material shall be utilized for walkways and service parking where viable to increase the permeable ratio of the site the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of short and Midterm Gulf Boulevard safety study improvements along their Frontage we've recommended this as a condition of other projects that have been brought forward um the applicant does actually have quite a few proposed improvements along their front edge toward the northern and the southern end as pointed out in the staff report they would um be responsible for median extensions so should the city undertake those in the future the applicant is responsible for the cost of any offsite improvements necessary to accommodate their increased sewer flows payment shall be to the city who shall perform the work so rather than that just being proportional increase with the city responsible for those upgrades the applicant would be responsible for the onsite the offsite improvements rather that would be necessary to bring their uh the sewer system up to capacity to meet their development demand and that would be evaluated at the site plans stage through a uh concurrency certificate the applicant um has demonstrated or if if they're shown to demonstrate Financial in technical capacity to complete the improvements that would be found only for the subject agent and applicant transfer development shall require re-evaluation of this criteria for any new applicant who would undertake the project ending ending with energy and environmental requirements all roof areas not utilized as customer spaes shall be planted with green roofs utilized cool roof materials or similar Frontage fountains and other water features shall utilize rain and leak sensors and finally these are General conditions that we recommend for any case the conditional use permit may be rescinded or modified if conditions are violated and the city condition City commission may periodically review this conditional use permit request to determine if the use is in compliance with the conditions so as I mentioned before separate action um needs to be taken on the ordinance so the ordinance 20248 would be a motion to recommend approval approval with modification or denial of the ordinance to the city commission resolution 20242 would be a motion to recommend approval approval with conditions either the conditions recommended by staff or with additional conditions or modified conditions or denial of the resolution to the city commission that is all I have we do have the agent present for this request I understand they do have updated drawings to share with the board did you have any initial questions for me I had a question about uh one of the first slides that showed the docs um it used the and this is also present in the proposed resolution it used the phrase uh lodging Dock and I did not see that elsewhere in any of this packet so I just wanted to ask is is there any significance to the word lodging being included there no it's it's a basic description based on the Land Development code the city classifies commercial docs as one of four different types and this would fall on under the resort lodging Hotel dock type which is is considered a Class A lodging okay but it's still the same definition of Class A is there to enhance the primary function of the correct okay yes Randy maybe this will be addressed in the new drawings um but I had a question about the Heights and Jan is going to ask you if you could put the second the bottom of the um paper update have the overhead please just the bottom part for right now I don't I guess you can't really see it can make it bigger okay so if I look at the top of the tower it's it says that it is at 67 ft and I thought the maximum was 64 and in the package um it says it it references the top of the elevator Tower but not the top of this so that was one question that I had is I don't the heights aren't working for me okay so with the it's it's the distance above navd is what the applicant is referencing here so I believe the no navd is 74 ft sorry I'm having a I know it's in the packet I think it's around page um I should have been the page down let me see if how I got it um try page 130 of 200 maybe you can see it better so so there there does appear to be about a 1 and 1/2t difference between the actual measured roof height and the top of the stair Tower but it would still be compliant with the overrun I I did present it as the lesser of the two so it appears that the navd measurement of 64 ft above the base flood elevation would still be in compliance with the maximum code requirement as with the actual roof of the enclosed portion of the building at 54 ft above the base flood elevation so it would be compliant with the code limitations on the non-habitable access components but there does appear to be a difference the navd difference is 10 ft and the actual measure difference appears to be 8 and a half so they are showing a slightly different measured distance the stair Tower I I have is 67 ft above base flood elevation yet here in this resolution it says 64 ft above uh I understand so that that is that is 67 F feet above the ground uh level one so at the very bottom of the drawing it's showing level one to start at 5.5 ft navd and it's measured at that that's the zero foot starting point for that so base flood elevation is a number of feet above that and I believe just based on the on the difference there I believe that 8 and 1/2 fet of overrun is correct but it's um the city starts its height measurement at the base flood elevation so that that accounts for that dist well well I I see several discrepancies like that so maybe maybe that all needs to be double checked that um another thing I wanted to ask about and it's actually on the second part oh wait before we go there this thing up on the right side that says um is that a sign the yeah yeah that's the sign I think does that comply with our sign ordinance um if it's backlit it it would not we we do prefer signs of of a smaller area um but I had ask one of the conditions had been for a unified sign plan that's not really something we typically address at the conditional use permit stage but he he would there there are no variances to signs under this request it would need to be fully compliant okay okay and then the second part of that sheet that I asked to be put up there okay what one of the things that I was thinking about was um this the turtles and if you look a lot of the buildings across from this are only one and two stories high so that means that the lights from this building will be seen from the beach and I didn't see anything in this package talking about you know planning for turtle lighting and I I did see The Pedestrian lighting comment and I did see the comment about some of the parking places being arranged in a place that headlights could shine into the residents across so I had a number of lighting concerns is the turtles there's the headlights and there's the lack of The Pedestrian lighting plan um so I just wanted to make sure that somehow that was addressed so this is new development so it will be held to the city's requirements for turtle lighting and and that this current standard is if a light source is visible from the beach it does need to comply um I believe under past developments the commission had ultimately required a condition along the lines of the higher standard of the cities or the um envi Florida Department of Environmental Protection so that might be something that the planning board would would like to consider as a recommendation but the minimum city ordinance Turtle lighting conditions will be applied for this project okay and then on the um on the the boat slips um there I know there's a lot of conditions around boats and I did see the um submerged land lease um and I did look at that but uh there's also the um the license for Livery I mean how how is it assured that all these things that need to be taken care of our addressed do we have to make that a condition or because I didn't see anything anywhere that really talked about those two things specifically the submer submerged land lease I did see one of the um residents put a comment in that I guess only eight so far are licensed so I guess they would have to apply to get more correct yes um that that would be that's checked over at the site plan permit issuance for the conditions we we work with the fdp and the State Board of Trustees on those request thank you um continuing on with that question about the lease uh the use of property description in the lease says this is a lease in conjunction with Upland commercial vacant lot is so is this just something we expect to happen they're going to change it to non- vacant lot Hotel property plus make it 12 slips it it'll have to be amended and that's that's part of the approval process typically would come forward for these City's approval if it moves forward from that the applicant would apply to the state for the expanded lease but there have been condition there have been situations in the past where you know there there might need to be modifications Beyond this but we're setting a maximum development potential here and then it could be changed okay later on I did see your comment about pedestrian access and where the pedestrians were and I I did see that as a potential security issue so I'm hoping maybe in the new PL that will be addressed but I thought the staff made a lot of uh valid points I didn't really see them all reflected in your conditions so I guess how did we make sure that a lot of the valid points you raised are also addressed somewhere so I think there had been a condition pertaining to access to the commercial level of the building I had just asked that the applicant move um well particularly delivery vehicles away from that front edge um that that was something that made it into a condition we also have um there was a condition related to direct access for pedestrians to the commercial level however the applicant would like to establish it one of the benefits is that there is significant excess parking for this development so there is some leeway with making those changes at the site plan if the applicant's amable to it but were there any particular points that you didn't see reflected that you'd like well I think um I think the lighting the the um the part of the beach access by the marar on the south end um I looked at Google Earth and that is a very narrow like passageway and it actually you can see the marks over the dunes where people are walking over the dunes so I know as part of the Miramar they're supposed to be looking at what to do about the dunes um but that's going to be an issue for this as well because right now they're walking through the dunes and you can see it um you also brought up some issues about the um scale of the building and um I agree with you um I feel like there's there's too much being put I know the land is narrow but I don't think that's a recent change so I feel like there's just too much being crammed in there and when you start having to look at setbacks and all these other things I I'm hoping when the new plans come forward that things are scaled down a little bit and some of these things addressed so I I have more but I don't want to take up the whole meeting so I'll let you go ahead and um Brandon I have a a question on the um transportation system capability under standards of review so in the staff report it said that the 2023 uh traffic study um says value to capacity ratio 75 however since 2023 you know we've approved conditional use permits for the sarata the trade wins the Maramar and so you know how we can't continue to look at this point 7 to5 as being the stand what we currently have when we know we have additional capacity already approved so how is the staff looking at that to make sure we're not exceeding it by uh looking at these individual cases instead of cumulative cases so that that is the intent with the traffic study is to treat them as cumulative cases so we've had as these projects have come forward we've asked the later projects to include the impact of approved prior projects within their studies we'll ask the same of the applicant okay um and then as we talk about the utility um capability of the uh utility infrastructure so um I understand in watching the um recent I think it was 10 December uh commission meeting uh the acting director of Public Works um stating that our we don't have capacity for our current um capabilities load is how I understood that we were um at a significant shortfall um for this year and then on a 5ar look out um specifically so um if we don't have capacity to meet our current requirements based on um choke points in the system deteriorating infrastructure Etc I I guess I'm why would we consider going for with a conditional use permit saying you only have a year to get this permitted and then you have to go back to the drawing board release the density that you've been authorized when when it looks like the work that Public Works has ahead of them is longer than that year taale that we're giving the developer so I understood at the beginning of the meeting there was a discussion about the total buildout capacity based on the sewer pipe sizing that we undertook over the last couple of years um you know and that's looking at a potential buildout scenario of of the various districts that make up Gul Boulevard ultimately it's up to the applicant to make those improvements um this is only the first step in the process if the use itself is approved to move forward to site plan permitting um the applicant would need to apply for certificates of concurrency our engineering department would look at the case of that at that point and if there is sufficient capacity if the applicant is able to uh make the improvements that are necessary to support their development they could move forward if that capacity isn't there either the applicants on the hook to provide those improvements um on their on their own behalf or they would need to downscale the project or it would potentially not move forward so okay so but as City we might not even be postured necessarily to be specific on our response to that it sounds like I I don't know at this time and I I don't believe the city Engineers were okay present but yes so it even if approved if the city cannot accommodate the capacity and we are not prepared to be able to say we're at a at a point to build out to make the improvements to support this then the application would be the would be denied correct and that's then the rooms are returned to the density pool if that at that one-ear period correct the the applicant would have the one year there might be other Solutions if they apply shortly after approval they may have time to work out Solutions with the city but ultimately us that would be the condition okay um and then as it talks about um the application and adverse impacts on liability um specifically as we talk about noise and understand the the rooftop bars and the decimal tests I mean I still believe that there's a cumulative effect when you have a Zamora rooftop deck you have a this rooftop deck you have a rooftop deck across the street Etc and I'm not exactly sure how the city is figuring that out but how are you modulating noise from a feature pool um and was a water park but now it's a feature pool um that's you know I see closing hours particular or specifically talks about 30 minutes after Sunset which in the summer somewhere around 8:30 um you know I did have a chance to drive around the community at Val Vista there is a specific cutout and it's on the maps where there is a a a basically an easement it looks like where there's a nice little bench what looks like it's going to make it a nice little Alleyway for noise right down to Bell Vista so how are we planning on modulating noise for the residents of B Vista from a from a feature pool so I'm going to let the applicant present the modified design because I think it has significantly modified that feature area to place it behind the building which I think will provide a buffer um but other than that it would be the hours of operation and the additional Landscaping buffer the Landscaping buffer is conditioned that would primarily benefit the San Cove residents it would not be as much of an effect on on build that stuff okay and then um I have one other um comment on you there was staff comments about the fountain and uh water conservation and I think you know again I go back to that feature pool I don't know what water consumption is for a water slide of lazy river etc etc um is there some sort of information on that and and some how the the applicant is going to you know try to um modulate at all you know the amount of water that's going to be involved with this feature um and and you know water conservation as it's an important aspect of our community they may have that information I don't have it at this time um they have based on the design I'm looking at and they're I believe they're prepared to present they have significantly scale down the size and the the volume of the pool so okay and then I'm sorry one more thing if I could uh the the 12 docks I understand they're only leasing uh non-motorized sports are all 12 of those docks going to be available though for Mo motorized visitors to come into the property so the applicant had not requested that they had requested specifically the pedal boats and the paddle boards there are General references in the comprehensive plan to just water front amenities and I had added that in as a component of the condition to allow for customer vessels to visit I don't know if that's the applicant's plans or not they might be able to get more detail to that but they had specifically only ask for the non-motorized uh equipment okay so I'll wait ask yeah as as a follow up on some of that um in the comprehensive plan it talks about this District being a transition area between higher intensity commercial uses and the density in the residential areas and it it the comprehensive plant says a small bonus commercial component will be allowed on a limited basis so I I have similar questions to you in terms of like that's a very very narrow Canal or a Waterway um and it's very shallow in there and a lot of manatees spend time in there um so I don't know that I would call what's been proposed a small bonus commercial component on a limited basis I think we need to um hear about the new plans and see how it's been downsized but currently I don't find this consistent with the comprehensive plan um I would I would I'm happy to move on and hear the applicants presentation but before we get started with that on page 113 there's a sunbiz print out for an MBT Management LLC out of vocar rone and that's the only place I've seen that so I just want to understand who the owner operator of this project will be I'm sorry can you give me that page number yeah page 1133 is that on the application yeah it was in the agenda packet uh the big packet yeah I'm trying to find it on here because it wasn't loaded on the iPad the C application attachments I I'll let the applicant speak to that because that was part of the submitt packet I believe um I I understand they them to be the the developer for this project at this point in time so they'll they're the owner of the property currently they'll be developing it and they will also presumably be the hotel operator so the the agent for the project present today is not the owner um it that is Sun gold LLC but they will be performing development services for the for the site okay and will sungold LLC be the operator of the hotel after completion that I'm not sure about they they can speak to that to look at the uh Land Development code I just wanted to point out that in section 42.2 um secondary uses primary uses residential secondary uses commercial uses as a mixed component eating and drinking establishes may include outdoor dining in or drinking areas provided they do not provide for outdoor music so the Land Development Cod specifies that they do not want to have outdoor music and so that's that's I see that as a variance but I don't I mean maybe the whole cup is just a big variance well it's it it is distinct um the applicant is applying for a variance for the setback for the pools only however everything else is allowable through a conditional use permit with density pool allocation so what what you just pointed out for the secondary use that is an allowable use to have those outdoor amenities without outdor music under Section 42.4 which is allowable conditional uses that's where they can make application for their to be outdoor music but we staff could not administratively allow outdoor music without a conditional use so so going back to that if I could just pck you back on it really quick so on your um outdoor music operation conditions it talks about the first and sixth floor and it says any and any other area of the site where outdoor music is established I read that is that gives the property owner the ability to establish outdoor music anywhere on that site the mini golf area the the swim up bar at the quiet pool the so so we don't know again the total sum of where this is going where there's going to be outdoor music and and what that effect is cumulatively going to have is that correct so the city has General density regulations you know typically I've I've seen in the past where many golf courses and other amenities like that do have some form of outdoor music the applicant can speak to their their intents with that but it's specifically in the code that outdoor music asso with associated with outdoor dining and drinking areas that's where the city regulates um otherwise it's through the the decel levels that are already established in the code but that higher standard what's referenced in condition number five related to the 3 DB above ambient that's a way that staff has found to enforce the provisions of the code because in the community redevelopment District it's actually stricter to decel limitations you're not supposed to be able to hear music from adjacent residential property so that's what we set in place to attempt to um enforce that that requirement I I think one of my concerns is living on the water I can tell you sound carries and I can hear stuff a mile away from my house down on Gulf Boulevard in my in my yard so I think that's why that's a concern um another thing I want to just mention is in the Land Development code section 42.4 allowable conditional uses for the Bayou residential district there's a list of what they can have and the the dock is there the temporary lodging um but there's it says under 42.5 all uses and structures not of a nature specifically or provisionally permitted herein are hereby prohibited in the bayou residential district and as I look at that list there the parking lot there's different but and there is some outdoor uh dining and things but it doesn't talk at all about you know the feature pool or the mini golf it's it's yeah there was a a public comment that raised this concern as well where these accessory uses are not in the explicit list of conditional uses for this district and so this is a this is one of the allowances for a temporary lodging use and it's not in that District division specifically but section 39.6 of the Land Development code item F talks about that temporary lodging uses may include accessories uses such such as recreational facilities restaurants bars meeting space fitness center Spas parking structures and so on items that are typically associated with a temporary lodging use so is the code arguing with itself then I mean because it clearly says what's allowed in one place and and something different in another place so I think those would also some of those uses could be operated as Standalone for example the current lease for the dock is for a dock on a vacant parcel of land a vacant commercially Zone parcel of land some of those conditional use permits could be operated separately if that were to be the entire primary use of the development but in cases like this temporary lodging uses are allowed as a conditional use and through that these additional accessory uses can be enabled as well as you know as David said we we did read all the um resident comments and I can see where people would be confused is you know people are sending us parts of the code and it says requires this and then so I think I can see where there would be confusion understand the other um thing that I was looking at was the uh drainage easement that's on the southern part of the property that I believe the diagrams are looking to move it more to the middle and um I I what was going through my mind as I looked at that was what A disruption that would be on Gulf Boulevard to try to relocate that easement I don't know at all you know what's involved in that but it sounded to me like it would be a major change for Gul Boulevard to move it that that is an on-site easement so the applicant will need to demonstrate at site plan permitting if the use is approved that the site retains its pre-development um store water would you have to move pipes and things to to relocate that is is this EAS just a storm drain from Gulf boulard I I believe it's just a drainage is they yeah they' probably chop up the sidewalk anyway as part of this and just relocate the pipe okay and I I know you also asked for the two green um building standards to be met and I don't know if that's happen happened yet or if that's still an open item it is not um the applicant may have in mind what he plans to introduce okay r on the um the wall um that's an item 21 for landscaping requirements it's 6 feet in heighted to one of the following and and it gives the sound uh fencing or um live Hedges Etc is 6 fet based on a on a on an existing code um because I believe those apartments that are right next to it um they do they have garages underneath those so the first actual residence is probably even above the six feet that's going to be right there where that pool is um is what why did the staff come up with six feet as um it might be taller the intent of that was really to mitigate the atg grade noise from users of the pool um just to limit that to some degree but there's no limitation could be taller um you know certainly a headed would probably be considerably taller than that so again I think at great just as parking spaces to that property to the South Because the actual residents start on that second floor I believe um and be the front of that excitement any other questions for right now should we I'm anxious to see the new good evening or whatever it is afternoon yet uh Jack boak um a local architect and developer um I've been involved in development in on the beaches and throughout Florida since 1968 uh I'm 80 years old I've been around here quite a bit I've uh I've played an active role as the primary developer of major projects uh Cabana Club on sing Key I I did a joint venture with City Corp uh beach cottage and uh Lighthouse Point I could name you know over a hundred projects that I've been the developer on um I uh undertook this project uh I in that I had uh been uh taken uh into place as the architect on three previous occasions on this site where plans were put together everything was ready to go and and uh the people that were at that time under contract to do it over the last 15 years um after going through all the initial steps uh decided not to do the project uh a lot of the reasons that the project has been somewhat difficult to put together is the unusual nature of the site uh really is quite uh a conflict to deal with if you notice the site um I guess I best thing is for me to get this on the on the screen if you don't mind oh if I could figure out how to do it here we go uh let me get to the uh you can see on this illustration this is the best one um the site is at its widest points and most developable points on the uh extreme ends where the 62t set back comes into place uh the drainage easement that you had addressed uh during your uh review um as you can see is in the middle of the site right now the draining eement goes almost straight not quite back to the water in review with the engineering department they um had said they would entertain they would uh be in favor of uh we would not relocate the intake the intake is on Golf Boulevard the intake the pipe have got some problems and need uh to be uh rehabed um and we agreed that we would undertake the rehab of the pipe change the angle slightly on the easement and that's why you see uh that is where it is it was not on the perimeter of the site it's always been right in that location and the drain is about where you see those two little red arrows uh you know the it's an unusual site because the you can see the narrowest point on the site which is down where you see what looks like a parking lot um they're buildable when you take the 40 foot setback out of the the road Frontage and the 20 foot out of the back I believe the site has less than 75 ft in that portion so as the site goes towards the middle it gets narrower and the the a larger percentage of the land is taken in by the set packs the 62t set packs on Beach extreme so as opposed to most of the sites that you see even on the adjacent properties up and down the beach this site instead of being wider or deeper and narrower it's so extensively wide because it's made up of a bunch of components and I'm sure most of you recall over the years the bar the liquor store the small hotel everything that was strung along there and all these little properties that were combined to to become this one site uh of large size um it it's got a strange shape to it and it makes the site more difficult to build because you can't build in the front because of the 40ft setback you can't build on either side where the most buildable land is because of the 62t setback so it is a very difficult site to work with uh we felt that as one of the components I've I've been my first job out here in 71 I did a little job with I don't remember the guy's name some of you may remember that wacky guy that wore uh jungle gear all the time and had a little shop on the west side of Gulf Boulevard kind of across from where shells is um and uh so I've been on this beach for quite some time and the um the uh the the difficulty with this site compared to most of the other ones is that it it lacks depth and when you have when you're given a pallet to work with that has width and no depth you just have to work within it it's it's a condition of the site with all the different things that were there before they were relatively narrow and small uh Parcels the uh so I think that the um consideration of the uh drainage easement going through the middle and the large setbacks on the sides as well as on the road front uh greatly limit the ability to cons consolidate this site and make it look like most of the ones across the street which are very deep and very narrow to address for a minute uh having worked on some of these sites even recently the most of the small sites across the street especially in light of the storm damage it's taking place I think you're going to see a lot of those small one-story sites that are built on the ground disappear um you know FEMA is just pushing everybody to elevate and I think that they're not going to be able to rehab uh those small one-story sites they're going to have to entertain um making a bigger use of them I've done a study on one one of them already and um you know the only thing that makes the sites viable across the street that are call that as being all a lot of them are one story uh is the fact that they have height ability uh the ability to go higher as much as um additional height up to 70 80 ft is not uh the most desirable thing these sites somewhat are limited by their either width or by their depth in this case it's depth not with most of them are with um I think that the uh I did I lived on B Vista uh for quite a few years and I uh I do understand uh about the Waterway going back in you know and how narrow it's been that way you know since I lived there uh I don't know why it's never been dredged properly and it just always seems to be a very difficult spot to maneuver to get out in the boat um the I would suggest that the uh we tried to preserve one of the things about this site is the public has been limited as to access to the Waterfront in St Petersburg beach and in most of the beach communities we attempted as a compromise recognizing the width and the unruly nature of the site for development we attempted to put in this prominade that would be uh a public access easement that would C you know circumvent the entire site and try to avoid the limitation of the public if you have these huge art setbacks what do they do if nobody can walk through them or go any place I mean it to me it seems like you're going to have 62-foot setbacks uh you would want to have the public have so availability to get to the Waterfront yet and we did locate some seating areas uh along that area all the way around the site as well as the prominade as we call it in our presentation that goes around the entire site uh to address the boat docks for a minute I I think Brandon and I may had a minor um we originally had somebody that want to put jet skis in there and the people cross the way objected to it so we limited it to non-waterfront uh we did uh still want to allow visiting boats for people staying at the hotel or visiting boats for a day uh to uh come in and use the Docks but we were not going to have uh jet skis and that type motorized um you know water vehicles of that type so that kind of um I want to clarify that point I do understand the turtle lighting and all we do um we probably have 20 active architectural projects up and down the beach we currently have have uh four hotels waterfront hotels in the beach communities uh along here and down into Bradenton as matter of fact so we do deal with that on a regular basis and we understand how it has to be handled uh I think that's uh an important aspect of of working a project at this magnitude in I think that the unfortunate thing is that this site has been vacant and misused and unused and and and just not properly used for such a long time that now it's down to one of the last sites of any size left on the beach and when I've seen these Mega projects across the way get approved and push their way through I I felt like they don't have half of the desirability of this site and that we tried to consolidate the growth or the buildings into the middle and leave the make proper use of the accesses around the site now as to uh Brandon's comment about the um the feature pool uh I do have I don't know can I put this on the screen some what I okay do this way okay what I did is I created about 40 uh foot of landscaping and um and Rel relief from the adjacent property lines now um I will tell you that the adjacent building is of a similar height in a way the older building that's been there across the street there are some highrises and as I mentioned with the current dilemma that we're all faced with out here on the beaches uh of the the destruction we faced you are going to see other highrises there or higher buildings across the street uh I think that you're they greatly limit uh even if you take 20% or 30% of their side yard setbacks they're only 150 at the best feet wide they're going to create a a side yard setback of you know 30 feet you know uh they're not going to be very accommodating to view or access for the public um basically the um let me try and get my notes together I kind of went off track because I wanted to answer answer some of the questions that had come up specifically the shape of the site has created what we have here today and I think that when you take a look at the building um let's see if I can whoops can I get back on this again you can see where by the way I did pull the uh the feature pool from what it was on this view all the way back uh by about 25 ft further from from the side property line in order to accommodate the concern that Brandon had expressed uh about its intrusion into the site the sidey yard setback I the the reason we created additional parking was there if you look at everything on the beach presently there uh we were approached by a major um uh company that is in the process of trying to put facilities on the beach we didn't think they were a good fit because it was Sports illustrat and the uh they had ideas about all the sports facilities and all this stuff and but when we started to look at the um at this with uh with Sports Illustrated our concept was that there really are no full Resort um with a lot of people come to the beach with their kids they spend the they come for a week they spend their first day on the beach the kids get fried they come back to the room second day they go to the beach they bake the kids a little bit more by the third day the kids are saying what else can we do we tried to create a situation where we put enough um of a um amenities let's call them on the site that people would be in really a a total Resort where they didn't have to leave the site every day to go to something else so I think our concept was uh to do that and create really a total Resort type facility um funny conversation I had with the prior city manager was um we were talking when we first started looking at this site um and I said I wanted to put additional parking on site he said we don't want any additional parking well six seven years ago we were approached about putting some of these additional parking lots up and down the beach people are going to come to the beach whether you give them someplace to park or not unfortunately that's what here in Florida for and and we're talking about residents as well as visitors and um when he said that it was like they're going to still come to the beach but we're they're going to park someplace or it's going to become a h you know a problem uh that you have to either deal with or try and just ignore it and I think that we tried to deal with it and realize that we are going to have people coming in uh to the resort to visit people to make use of the facilities and uh we wanted to try and create a facility that was attractive and did create additional parking aside from what we needed the would would that suggest you're go would that suggest an intent to sell Beach parking pardon me would that suggest an intent to sell Beach parking um I'm I'm not sure that we would necessarily sell Beach parking but we felt like we're going to have additional people coming onto the site realistically if we put all these additional facilities I you know whether we we really hadn't thought about using it as a pay for parking lot uh it would probably help the area significantly but uh that is not part of our intent um you know we um as I said the shape of the site has 650 60 ft long 70 ft according to how you Dimension it uh you measure it and a width that goes down usable to about 45 ft um in the most buildable part of the site uh we had a tremendous handicap to deal with on this site and I think that we we tried specifically to consider making the best use of the shape of the site it's just unfortunate that it does make the building look much longer um Let me show let me show you the elevations and I can explain a few different things now on on on the uh whoops okay just a minute okay uh the pool that you see on here would come back and uh the the feature pool you see where the 99 figure is on that the the uh it would be now pulled back to within that uh 10 ft of that line that uh setback line uh so it would not go out into the set set back 50% of the way the way it's diagrammed on the on the one that you see before you can you explain exactly what a quiet pool is cuz I I think children will be noise we figured that the that the feature pool is going to be one where there're going to be a lot of kids uh we tried to tuck it let me go back to that again and I'll show you you notice how we tucked it behind the building to Shield it from the Waterway uh that's why we put it behind the building and then we put a pool up in the front that would be more the adult pool and would uh accommodate the people that wanted to go not have kids splashing around on you know slides and and swimming around uh making a lot of noise so we tried to Shield the noisier element by pulling it now even further behind uh that end of the building so I think that's adjacent to the water so that will that's adjacent to the water so that will travel right across the the quiet pool yeah but we we're going to limit you know close it at sunset uh you know and and not have you know any real lad the the bar that's there is really small I mean it's not a a 25 seat I think or 30 seat bar it's not meant to be a bar um accessed easily by the public uh the rooftop to address your concerns about noise uh I do understand that I've been you know I I the swigwam I dealt with you know 20 years ago down here uh when um Bill gay and uh uh excuse me not Bill gay um Bill next door I forgotten his last name um I dealt with quite a bit when we were getting the project uh that South and of Cory Avenue approved at that time and but after that the Swig mom was a noise Factor we reorientated the bar changed the direction of the sound and um and we wound up accommodating the condo next door so noise can be controlled um I think that the management of this thing would have to we uh we were previously had a tentative uh interest from Marriott and I would say tentative approval the local Marriott agent we do work closely with Marriott um we work closely with uh we did the Cambria up in uh madira Beach and we've done several uh other hotels um I think that the man agement of thing is not meant to get around the rules or or create a noise element uh when we spoke at first to Brandon about it we said you know we don't intend to put a a rooftop bar that attracts unusually loud crowds they're you know they're large clar out excuse me they're relatively small both of those bars are they're mainly uh a function for use by the uh the visitors so um now the quiet pool has a swim up bar in it right pardon me the quiet pool has a swim up bar is that accurate it doesn't have a swim up bar actually it really has a it has a little Pavilion above uh like a just a a dry covered Pavilion you know you can only sit in the Sun so long by the pool and and uh it's nice to have some place to go to that's uh so which amenities are intended for general public use and which ones are targeted for the hotel visitors I I think the main target is the hotel visitors with naturally the hotel the restaurants the um um those facilities we would like to uh attract uh a limited outside use we had addressed that once in our comments please recognize that we started this quite some time ago and we Brandon I think we'll back up the fact that we unfortunately got behind the uh the trade winds and um the the sarata and we were delayed a few times on on the process so and we just we're fine with that um the um so this project has taken a lot longer to get before you today um so how is how is that enforced I mean what if people wanted to come and use the game room and all that I mean is it enforced by the number of parking spaces or uh the the the the um the miniature golf the put putt golf and uh the enforcement on the um on the pool uh the the feature pool would be by limited uh limited availability to the public uh of the the the pool the the put putut golf course we intended to run with the game room um a lot of you remember down on Treasure Island the old Treasure Island Game Room I mean on the beach now outside of going out to the beach there are not a lot of things to do for visiting family it's gotten kind of greatly limited um the old Treasure Island Game Room I'm sure everybody here either went there or was drugged there had your kids or grandkids drag you there like I have um that uh that used to be a major facility on the beach nothing like that anymore uh very limited for the fature pool can can you define limited if you're going to allow non- guests to participate we we had talked about when we ran our economics uh we ran an element of outside use of between 25 and and uh percent and uh and 30% roughly so how does change the name from featured pool or from water park to featured pool if you're allowing people from the outside really change that well I mean most the hotels on the beach allow outside visitors uh you know Tradewinds serata they all they all allow outside visitors we didn't think that was an unusual U uh unusual approach uh do they accommodate uh do they plan to accommodate the parking and everything I don't think so not in the original plans we're trying to accommodate not just the parking there but also uh parking generally for the uh for the facilities around us Brandon are there any clarifications on water parks being an amusement park is there different Zoning for something like that so I think it's intended for it to be a accessory to the resort I I do agree with the applicant we don't restrict Resorts from having outside guests who aren't staying at the hotel use the facilities I think it really comes down to a judgment on the extent um the degree to which it's held out to the public how it's oriented on the site I would definitely feel that the other amenities to the north side of the site are oriented they're accessible by the public there's you know dedicated parking area at the northern part of the site for those facilities so that I would say is probably more held out something like this just based on certainly what they provided for the amended size of the facility do we do we have any other quote unquote Resorts that AB but resident residential other than Silver Sands and and I know they would disagree with the noise coming from what used to be the swigwam in the back of PCI uh they still have problems to this day so I I don't know that I agree that that has been mitigated uh but I can't think of any other situation other than Zamora which generates similar noise complaints and the um red white and booze who's now suing the city U because we seem to get noise ordinances very wrong which makes me inclined to not want to Grant exceptions well I believe Tradewinds and serata both abut the C Mark which is residential yeah um in terms of single family it would be the hotels Z MOA with the residences to the east Okay so sir I just want to clarify so you have removed the swim up bar from the plans because they were in the site plans they were in the plans in the packet that there would be a swim up bar in the quiet pool so that is no longer going to be present there is a bar there's not a bar outside there is a an indoor uh a small indoor I I remember right it's 2530 seats the maximum indoor uh the idea was just that it could serve um not so much an entertainment function that it could serve drinks to people that were using that adults using that pool we were going to limit that to adult use um let the kids play in the uh in the future pool okay and I think just you know for General comment I think you know obviously a lot of concern but you know there was an article in the 6 March Rising St Pete and I believe you were interviewed in that and talked about um an Indian Rocks um similar development that had had been in effect and said it grew in it grew in incredible crowd and I think when we hear terms like this feature in another location grew Drew an incredible crowd has to most reason to kind of pause and think about and continue to ask those questions so I just put that out for comment yeah the one though with the other uh at the the holiday in up on Indian Rocks Beach that stands in the parking lot and is um has its own parking and is is set up as a feature not primarily related to the hotel it is really uh if you've been up there and seen it it's I mean it's it really is an outside function it's not a a function of that hotel um so it's totally different approach we're taking an approach of the primary use is going to be Resort related uh you know we just felt that if you look at the resorts on the beach I mean there just really are no real total facilities that offer all the ENT the the family functions that uh would encourage a family the units are all two-bedroom uh they are condo hotel units we we do intend to run them as a condo hotel operation uh we've done a bunch of condo hotels we were involved in the in the uh the madira beach one uh uh which uh you know density uh does generate taller buildings and uh but we did um the condo hotel units enable you to control a little bit differently the functions that and how they're handled within the building uh that's why we kind of felt like we could maintain some kind of control and that's also why we had no problem with trying to move the uh the feature pool out of the setback more and tuck it further behind to shelter the U the people over in B Vista from noise uh you know there were bars on this site before with outdoor seating there were you whether you remember the old ones that were there in the uh the liquor store um you know uh to me I think we've done a pretty good job of trying to control the elements to try and keep them from uh and take the people in B Vista into an account as far as trying to at least do the best we can minimizing the uh the effect uh even as to the the noise um generated by uh jet skis um we had a guy that wanted to rent you know half of the slips as jet ski now the they presently is a lease for I think 32 spaces out there uh um the docks are are still partially there underwater but you know that site's been through so much you know you talk about lights and cars it's been a parking lot it's been had fences around it it's had landscaping around it and it's um you know I think it's time that the site get put into a use that is well thought out and that um that is more uh accommodating to you know the Beach Community or the Beach visitors which which really is is one of the main functions out here um do do we have a measurement of the distance from the water slide to the apartment building to the South well the apartment building to the South that's the water slide is 65 ft plus I think it's a 15 or 20 foot 15t setback on that side it's about 80 foot okay my my concern is I well my daughter's here and she's well behaved right now but kids on water slides make a lot of noise and if I lived in those apartments and I was working from there and listening to kids yelling all day long I I imagine it would be a little frustrating so my concern is that noise going in that direction um well that's why we we attempted to try and limit the hours somewhat not Mak it a night and day type uh operation um I think that you know the as I say it's un forunate that had this site been shaped like most sites on the beach and had the depth to allow us to put the properly arrange all these and decide whether we're Sheltering the people in B Vista or we're Sheltering the people in the apartments next door um you know it would have been a much easier site to work with but you have to look at the great limitations we've had on here with you know the the best the most buildable part of the site's less than 50 feet uh front to back could the could the pools be located at in the middle between the two buildings at well then you have to you know uh let me show you a little bit we we did make attempts at the The Bu the building is not as one-dimensional as it seems like that's a really long indentation in the middle that you see where it's like a courtyard in the middle of that and when you get to the rear of the building um let me try to give you that's one of the street front in the street front in the 40 foot what we decided to try to do was um create public uh along the public right away create seating areas and and uh wherever we you know got a chance to try and create these type of of uh sort of breaks in the sidewalk um when we originally looked at this they were encouraging um retail along a strip retail along there first three plans that I think we did for people on this site uh had commercial retail on that uh that site area um let me see here okay let me show you um we attempted to try on the waterfront to we we've attempted to try you can see the three- dimensionalized part of the building it's not a flat run of a building all the way across uh we tried to avoid that that's why we inset some of the courtyards it also reduces the number of you know balconies and and things overlooking adjacent properties uh uh throughout now whoops I was going the wrong way nope I was trying to get to the uh public prominade I I wanted to show you the the water front side of it is is pretty broken up when you see um the uh elements that we tried to on the rear here's the Waterfront facade you know we made it a pretty decorative we didn't just spend all our money on the road front we made a pretty decorative uh rear to it and it has different setbacks like you see the gray part in the middle is setback significantly everything steps back as you go along and we created uh as I say the we tried to preserve public access to the water because you know if you're going to say you're you're trying to attract uh people to this uh facility uh you you just you just can't cut people off now this is the original elevation that we had on this and you can see where we attempted to soften it pull it down a little bit break it back and forth um as it was shown on on this one and N I don't have a better shot of that it uh you know basically as I say um there are existing boat slips approved there and we were looking to do a significant reduction because I do know from living on B Vista I'm amazed that in 30 years that nobody has gotten that uh dredged out I mean that just is unbelievable it just it seems like there is a lack of coordination on getting access to to the back of the B Vista uh h Homes um I think there's a significant portion of seagrass in there and a lot of minties in there that may be why because minity area behind my own house I have I can't get out at low tide and I would love to dredge it but uh I've been told but there are people that get out of there that do chew up the seagrass or whatever's on the bottom too I mean you can't say that you're I mean that's like saying we're going to limit everybody on Bell Vista at that end um you know it's a it's a sticky situation there is a coastal Wildlife concern there that in that particular area in fact one of the thoughts I had was and I know there constraints about where you put docks a third in from whatever but the further you go towards the end of that because it it dead ends yeah the the more the closer the docks are to that dead end the more residents are going to be disrupted by the boat traffic it almost or's the exiting end you mean no the the dead end oh the dead end don't make people go all the way to the end yeah I well that's I live down towards that end for so I mean I think and I don't know how navigable that is I mean I look at these beautiful pictur pictures and um I've been there in a kayak and I'm like no I don't remember anything that would accommodate that well that's why we got rid of most of the U of the the motorized boat docks and Li tried to limit what comes in and out I you know in conversations I have heard that they were trying to improve somewhat that access up into that Waterway but um you know I have not been active in that um yeah I I don't know that they would I think with the with the manatees being in there the way they are I think that that's probably a barrier maybe that's well once one point they have to take into account flushing we've done we're we're major Marina um Architects also we've done probably 15 major marinas all over the South if you go to Key West the gallion and um the yacht clubs of America one at uh the old out on Stock Island that major one out there that's we built back in the uh gosh just 408 I mean um Flushing also is important to that access or the it's it's going to become an issue up in that value um and I think at one point somebody's going to over or think more about flushing that area out uh when it starts to stagnate more I wonder about flushing I just thinking about the storm we just had um that sure flushed a lot of things out it flushed it flushed refrigerators and all kinds of things into the bay um so there is some some nature does take care of some of that yeah I I'm not here to get in debate that I mean but I just think that there are two sides to everything and I think at one point if I still lived at the other end of that value I would be concerned about because you know I I had a a whale or or a uh excuse me a moo that was about a 22 or 23 footer and I know going out of there I had a watch when I went out and um at one point some of the people at that end are going to feel that well if it starts to not flush properly it's going to be a pretty so so speaking about flushing and and the water runoff and things you've made me think about in your plans you you do raise the property I think it was 4 or five ft it's not quite four or five ft some parts of the property at four and A2 5 and A2 they vary across the site so I don't know um I know for my house we had to put in swes and we had to do things so that we just didn't have our water run off onto our neighbors's property and I don't know I didn't notice anything in terms of your storm water management um I guess it would be good to see more detail about what the plan is for that because I didn't see a lot of detail so I don't know how any of that's going to be addressed well with 62t 65t setbacks that are all you know basically uh you know unbuilt on more or less they're they're you know we have plenty of room for the uh and we have gone primarily to uh to storm Tech type systems underground storage um um and we've done that to in order to try and keep the ground on a relatively reasonable basis uh above so we we would that would be that would be helpful to see because I know like for the trade winds and some of the other cups that have gone forward there was a lot of information provided and in terms of how they were going to manage or try to manage the storm water yeah yeah we we actually have put some thought into that and as I said with all the all the Green Space we really do have around us that's not a very difficult thing to to manage at this on this site uh we do have a significant amount of area that we can put it in that and parking lots that we can storm you know store through and yeah could I you were it's like maybe one or two slides away there's a a rendering looking at the southern end of the property where you can see both pools 146 Su oh let see if this is yeah there you go uh that one yeah so I I I found it in the cup application on page 72 it does State there's a poolside swim up bar and that looks like a swim up bar so well it's not actually swim up if you look at it though it is up out of the water I wish I it is not it's not one where you sit in the water it is a pavilion on that corner see where the stools are kind of so that is a bar water on that white concrete yeah yeah it's not a it's not a uh in the water bar so just to confirm the quiet pool will have a bar at the pool it's actually a seating area it's not a bar that that serves it's just a seating area around there and the intent was that we have a 25 roughly seat uh total on inside what prevents it from operating as a bar once it's built as depicted well I mean we'd be glad to specify that it's not we it really is intended to be a pavilion so i' be glad to relabel it as a pavilion to make it's not labeled as a bar I don't believe but uh I'd be glad to to relabel it and I can eliminate the counters that are out there you know one of the things we can only on a project to this scope you can only address things as they come up and that's never come up before and we just never intended for it to be an outdoor bar um okay yeah the only reason I askul to that yeah it was labeled that way and I just know adults drinking at the pool all day don't tend to be Qui it so that that was my concern I understand but I think we can you know assure you that we don't intend for that to be an active bar uh uh if you look at the overall plans you'll see that there is a bar inside with uh with seating and I'd be glad to stipulate that there's no intention of putting an outdoor bar remember Perry mentioned the uh drainage and you reference the 65 foot setbacks but in this picture uh on the south end it looks pretty much built out in one way or another to the to the edge of the property and in the north side of the property uh you have the P put golf yeah and that's all grass and and permeable it's all permeable yeah okay let me let me show you though the the can we go back to this photo right here the one that's on the counter here how do I do that I'm I'm te technically uh limited my so why I have a lot of young people that do all the electronic drafting stuff can we get the overhead please pardon there you go um you can see where what we did is now we cut that back to where it's about a 40 foot landscape buffer off of the uh side property line and we see you'll see it's mostly trees in there we're trying to do a a a combination of high and low bu buffering to kind of limit the sound uh diffusion going out that direction and I uh I have given a copy of that uh to Brandon to uh to put into the package we you know uh when we got into the discussion about this and the first comments were brought up by staff that you know it might be intruding too far into the setback we that's when we went ahead and made this we made this modification recently to try and eliminate that uh issue and give you an additional 25 ft of uh landscape heavily landscape buffer in the in the February version of the narrative there was a mention that this review requires no variances or special except exceptions but there was not a site plan at that point did was there a change made that pushed the pool into the setbacks that required a variance or no actually we we didn't think we needed a variance for it because um you know pools typically have been in the setbacks and a lot of uh a lot of the uh projects going up and we had a discussion with at one point I think staff decided that it was large enough and there was an you know this was a little bit different and they we were to bring it before the board and that was when the decision was made by staff correct Branda that it was so we we did address it after the application had been made but it's it's based on how it's presented in the code this is a commercial use but the standards and the code are for residential pools but we did air on the side of caution with this one so okay yeah that's why we modified it to uh U to come before you with it so as a is that compressing the pool or is it just shifting it's compressing it yeah yeah we we don't intend for this to be aaz like the one up in uh at what do you call we do we want it to be an attraction yeah I'm not going to tell you we didn't and that's why like when it when it attracted the Sports Illustrated people um I mean I've got the brochure in the office you want to see Jazz I mean they were like uh you know uh all kind of sports activities in the in the setbacks and all that talk about noise it would have been you know it would have been tremendous but it was just too flashy and too much in not in the direction we wanted to go we really wanted to create a family orientated project that gave people some place to take the kids after the third day on the beach and do something besides just walk across the street to the beach and you know and also we felt like the preservation of the walkway around the thing yeah it doesn't seem like much but how many developers do you have come in and dedicate a walkway around their property to try and preserve an element of uh you know not cutting the public off sorry you want to come to come through the hotel and pay a fee um I think that we tried to be a little more thoughtful on this and and make it uh make a certain amount of um trying to really make it a family orientated thing uh sir I think sir can I just ask you a question really Qui I just want to before we get too far you just you had made a comment that this is going to be a condo hotel what does that mean for the number of expected occupants per room well what it does is it um it creates uh for example Marriott has a program that we're working under and uh already on and Marriott has already about a year ago when we first started this they had a tenative um their local representative who happen to have bought a condo from me uh the uh he came down and looked at this and uh he had approved it as a Marriott uh potential Marriott site and the uh condo hotel businesses um we sell the units to individuals who buy them as Investments they put them into the rental program with either marot or one of the major components of of marketing and um they it generates income to them uh for example on some of the ones we've done uh we've done a ton of development as I said over the years and um some of the ones that we've done in the beach communities here generate a tremendous return uh because they're first class facilities and we try to do them with um you know enough attraction on site that there is more of a reason to go than just to be sitting in the hotel room and you know look out over the water but not not have a lot of activity on the site we're trying to really make this into a resort it's a quality Resort so so do people buy these units or is it more like a time share NOP they buy them they buy one owner yeah one owner buys them okay so then there has to be the condo association and all those it has a condo association that uh requires um you know that manage the property properly and I'm sorry I don't think you answered my question though I asked how many how many occupants are you expecting would be how many occupants would each unit accommodate I guess is the question what is the it's two bedrooms can I ask a question a different way I think yeah you have you're asking for 104 temporary lodging units you mentioned that each unit is a two-bedroom unit is that bedom yeah 208 bedrooms it's 208 bedrooms yeah they're it's a family project it's not a not a um U we set this up to be a family project with where we have come with kids you so and then in uh condo hotels that I've experienced in the past the uh the owner is responsible for the uh the furniture within the unit no okay uh will there be a living room in the unit there's a seat yeah there's a living room so there'll be a pull out bed um there potentially could be yeah yeah okay so technically we could have up to maybe 312 beds um yeah you could that's that's pushing it a bit yeah I mean that's yeah typically the ones that we've done have had maybe a pair of bunk beds and no not a pull out in the uh uh in the living room and we've had a but there's nothing that stops you from doing that technically there's not but it's the same way in a hotel you know any hotel you have they can put a pull out bed in it I'm sorry I didn't know if that answer your question better but I yeah that was the direction going potentially but they are they are tightly managed they're not uh they're not run like uh where you come in and put your own furnitur you stay there whenever you want you don't your your use of the units are very limited you have to have them in the rental program and they're managed very well any of the rooms big enough to fit two queen beds in pardon me are any of the rooms big enough to fit two queen beds in uh no no I don't think so I don't think so if you have a pair of bunks that's four in one room Brandon I saw in the in this application there was a statement that even if you are an owner of a unit you you cannot stay accumulative 30 plus days per year is that accurate that's correct that's a cross one year and that would be a requirement of just the Le development code P and that's pretty standard for a cond ofel okay yeah it is yeah you're right it's uh you know the better condo hotels are run properly uh the ones where they allow people to you know kind of wink and say well yeah you know if you stay an extra a couple weeks or a month you know but but we you know we deal with some pretty professional uh management is the owner required to use your uh property management or can they go into okay yes one of the reasons that uh some of the condo hotels up in in Clearwater are are Marriott related for example and they are positive because you really have Professional Management that's no loopholes uh the negative is you get people that don't want to buy in there because they want to kind of oh well we want to stay three four months a year you know and and use it as almost a residential we we you know you you got to keep control of these and you got to have professional management and and we would be um you know um trying to make sure that we were either in a Marriott perview or a similar type uh management uh uh you know I think what we're asking today is yes we we are trying to keep be attentive to the details that are that have taken into account the uh the Bell Vista issue um there are a lot of things that could be built there that would be noisy too uh it's a commercial property I I'm not sure that this isn't really uh I believe my strongly believe this is a really relative use that that offers a uh compromise that has an element of control in it and I think that um that we would um do a professional job and see to it that the property was properly handled sir can I um ask a question about the site plan and the docks yeah um so are they distributed across the site or are they you kind of see they're spread they're not they're in two clusters you can see right there it's it's basically two you can maybe consider that a third cluster down the end uh as I said there are technically the lease for the I think it's 32 docks is still in place and and being paid on uh there were 30 something docks there um that have all fallen in disrepair you can see the pilings down in the water um you know the site the site's long past due to to to be developed but there are docks down closer to that end where it it it really Narrows and that can on the bou and and goes towards the towards the end okay um I also wanted to ask I think I had asked Brandon um so there was a staff comment about the fountain and coming out of a drought period and um talking about water saving technology and techniques such as Splash and rain and so I'd really like to understand the water cons consumption of this feature pool um and and the impacts of that on on you know and I I you know to be honest with you I mean the water consumption I was not prepared to address I mean we've done some water park work in the past um there is not uh an unusual consumption above what a pool is is except for the fact that when you do have moving water it does tend to evaporate a little a little quicker um but um I don't think it's as substantial I've and all the ones that I've been you know peripherally involved in as the architect I've never seen uh any real attention given to the fact that it took excessive amounts to water of water oops sorry about that it it is a concern again just because of that water's going somewhere and a lot of jumping kids so we want just want to have some sort of idea of what that that would the impacts of that would be into our into our systems when Hotel Zora was built uh the units were built with lock offs where there could be divided into two units are any of those no no intention of doing lockouts uh uh you know lockouts I I get clients occasionally that think they get away with I don't I don't U I don't really ever um I don't do projects where people intend to cheat on what they're doing uh you know and as I said with all we've done 4,000 plus units of our own throughout the state and um you know uh you know you hear about condo developers having issues we've never had a lawsuit on a project and we we stick by the rules are all the units identical they're not quite they're they're a percentage of them are one bedroom I I forgot the the numbers are in the plans but there are there are a number of one I guesstimate about 25% are one-bedroom 75% are the two-bedroom the two-bedrooms the most desirable I mean everybody wants uh um you know wants something they can bring a family into approximate square footage of units they're exactly 750 square fet you know I know this um I I did as you know we've been through a few hearings and the and the neighborhood meetings with the B Vista people and I I understand their issues and I think we've tried to take them into account absolutely as best we could up to and including this recent site plan revision to try and tuck it keep it all within uh tucked behind the main building um but we've tried not to ask for any variances or we not requesting any real Varian es we we stayed within the limit the height limits the height by the way was the reason we had to go to the maximum height is because of these huge setbacks and the shape of the site if it was a square like this desk would have been great we could have stacked units you know front to back as well we have no choice but to go Sid line to side you know side property line to side property line it's the nature of the site and you know we've discussed with people breaking the site up to overcome the um the um the side setbacks and that it's just not a you know there are so few sites of this size that are left and um you know so we tried to do as responsible of a job as we could sir what is the uh inway being in here and I just didn't see it the um seaw Wall height the seaw wall Heights typically right now they're approving them right around five and 5.5 above uh you know the the the thought process may be very on that but they're approving them at 5 to 5.5 I've lately heard some at six uh Brandon do you know what they minimum is still 5 feet that might be reevaluated in the future but for now that's the minimum but what are we understand the minimum the city's intent going forward is to increase that would we ask this developer as part of that to in consider increasing the seaw wall to be our sustainability we certainly could um one of the things that we have to consider with that is going to be the impact on adjacent properties certainly if they have a seaw wall of less than 5T currently if they were to go to a higher standard we wouldn't want there to be any additional impacts to them but it's something we could we could explore considering they have this what they're considering a very large setback on both sides for drainage though I would assume that that would help mitigate any impacts to neighboring agree we don't start somewhere and increasing seaw wall Heights just won't get I've been amazed at how the cities have overlooked Seawall Heights I mean you know way back when we did uh beach cottage up in uh in um what's that in Indian Shores um you know we uncovered a a uh a wood seaw wall out there that was from the God knows when the the turn of the century who knows but at that time you had to put seaw walls on the Gulf side they would they would encourage you to put then suddenly as it got into the uh the70s they started to discourage that I mean to me on the inter Coastal side I would think that you'd want to go to six feet you know or or you know but then you got to figure out how you accommodate everybody that's adjacent and how it all works but uh yeah I think that we be we'd be glad to go to whatever height we could go that would not impede the properties adjacent to us thank you glad to answer any other questions you have or um can we go back to my question on MBT management who's who's going to operate this property as a hotel condo well we we we have Professional Management we work with on two other projects um and um uh they are they both manage in excess of a thousand units along the beach the beaches um and uh when we talked to Mary originally Marriott um wants to come in if you do a Marriott project they want to they naturally there's no question they want to manage it the reason that the Marriott is a little it limits some of your sales which is fine with us it limits it because they really as you mentioned No Nonsense you either go by the rules there's no lockout units there's no you know the owner can stay for 3 months and we'll kind of wink at it uh it it you want to go with a management company like the two that we use out here on the beach for years uh we've been using them for 20 something years um and um you know I think you want to stick with a professional we passed on the the um the the what do you call it the Sports Illustrated thing CU they are getting ready to do one in clear waterer and to me that's that is a conflict with neighborhoods around you it's Outdoor Sports and it's a lot of outdoor you know noise uh potentially so would would sungold remain the owner of the core property we got sungold would remain the owner no it will not we're going to transfer we actually had a commitment uh back when we kind of got put off a couple times on on being able to move ahead and it wasn't a big deal I mean we you know at the time they had two major projects going through and we were delayed from coming in um we actually had a um an offer um from a management team um to bring in a um as a partner in the deal uh a u California um what do you call it um like not a Teachers Fund but a fund you know a retirement fund um that you know was going to with looking for an investment to finance the deal with us and um you know we still have a lot of options out there so Sun gold would see the development through to completion will transfer the property be out of it after completion no no prior to when we before we start construction because some of the asks in this application are not transferable as far as I understand is that accurate um well I mean I don't think that's the case I mean you can't you can't do it you know you you have to form a separate shell to build this thing you can't do it in but this application is the in the name of sungold as far as I can tell that's who we have the contract with yes okay purchas and we had to get their uh their sign on for us to go ahead with it I thought there was a thing in the cup that if the ownership changed it had to be resubmitted or something Brandon you right so development rights unless specified otherwise usually run with the land however in the case that we do have these 20 criteria for the conditional use and one of them is specific to the financial and Technical capacity of the developer to complete the project um and that would be the the agent who's currently requesting this project they would be the ones performing the development services under the assumption that that criteria is met um but the the ownership is not really it it would transfer because the unit owners would change there would be a management that took over different aspects of the parcel so that that would not be limited as far as I'm aware does that apply to the units assigned from the pool as well it would it would be assigned to the development project to the parcels so it would be you know they would not be transferable to a new project without reconsideration okay in other words you have to stay with what you've got but the land the zoning goes with the land and you know we we have to naturally put it in a separate shell in order to handle the the whole transaction yeah sir on the site plan for the I I think they called it a load loading zone um I know in most of the other um developments they are encouraging a um like a driveth through for for drop offs for Free Beach Ride Etc it looks like in your site development plan a Free Beach Ride would need to enter into the property do some sort of turnaround and come out for anybody who's lived on the beach we know that doesn't happen they're going to just stop at the curb and drop people out they're not going to take the time to go into a development and and turn around and get stuck in with guest traffic unless there is some sort of drivethru um is there a way that can be addressed well what most if you look at the parking layouts the only one to the left where the uh thing is is the only one that's a dead end the other one Loops underneath the building it doesn't that's a long loop I mean a Free Beach Ride and Uber a lift is not going to go through and and get stuck in with your your gas traffic they're well everything else we that we a few of the other hotels that we've done uh have been purely um valet management of of the spots um the only place that I could think I mean I to be honest with you I don't I don't know how you solve that with a property that's as long as this thing is uh a loop is is pretty impractical it's really very difficult to do but you know the valet is is a major factor in most of the beach hotels now that we do uh in fact you know the mirar is going to be all valet 24 hours everything um the Cambria that we did 24hour valet uh valet has a much better control over the parking elements and avoids issues and uh and um you know when we first did it at U at cambri I thought that was a little bit much but it's worked out well and and uh the Mr Bowden that were doing both of those hotels with uh and another two U he has stuck to the rules on that all the way through and I believe it's part of the condition use per permits are both the Sera and the trade winds that was a requirement was it not and we'd asked for one with this as well um staff saw some opportunity in the front of the arcade building to possibly have a loop for drop off as well as expand that uh Green Space buffer at the front there it is a little bit narrow or shallow rather and um the site is considerably over its parking minimum so that would you know I I think that's where we proposed it but we could work with them if that's what the board would like I think to follow on that there was also question about having a loading dock because the way things would be dropped off for you know Services was also a point of concern for some of the residents we have a loading uh elevator a service elevator and a loading dock under the building you know that is close to the facilities that would require like the restaurant and the laundry in that area there are can you show us where on the map the garbage collection will occur I'm sorry where the what where where trash collection will occur um well trash collection is can we get the overheads okay let me get back to trash collection occurs whoops let me get to the site plan that shows the uh that's going the wrong way okay okay I just saw it on here a minute ago now I'm level four and I don't see levels we got to get back to the beginning of this to um I can show you where let me see if it's here hold on it is right up in the in the front area when you you see that big space off to the right when you come in the main entry there to the right of drainage ju yeah just to the right of the entry mhm those are see how those are oversized spaces the trash collection is right in that area okay so it's right easy access they can back out and come back out to the street okay when I think it's a question for you but since this is a condo hotel and if owner is in occupying at time of hurricane watch are they subject to the same rules of they will they will vacate the premises at Hurricane watch as part of the evacuation regardless of the fact that they're the owner of the unit MH so part of the limitation in the code is that all temporary lodging uses as long as they're properly registered or treated the same so I this would not be treated any differently from the other developments with the same condition so it will be regard was vacated at Hurricane watch correct yes um any other questions I'd be glad to so at this point we don't have a good view of traffic impact because there's not a TMP at this point and there's also a concern that the itu guide that's used to establish trips doesn't include several of the uses for this property so we we really don't have a good idea at this point what traffic impact this will have well uh we were we didn't know that we had to have it prior to this we had discussed with Brandon and the staff that we were going to have the traffic study you know done as soon as we had you know some of the details worked out so we knew what we were dealing with if I if I can pick you back on that David I think doing some basic math they're talking about 600 people potentially every day wanting to walk over to the beach and that side of Gulf Boulevard I mean I know all of us who drive through there know how dangerous gol Boulevard is unfortunately the tourists don't know but um that's a lot of people crossing the street walking to an easement and then having to walk well basically the whole thing to get to the county park is about what is it a half a mile and I I just can't see parents with children and their paraphernalia you know unless you've got an arrangement with some of the condos or things along the beach that that you can use their beach front also it's quite a hike and I believe that only addresses people staying at staying there so if there's more people coming for the ppck golf the watercraft or the the pools I think that increases that so I I think 600 people a day is a heavy occupancy I we don't experience that I mean it's it's more more typically you know a family with one or two kids you said two two twin beds in one bedroom so that's four kids or four bunk beds or yeah so it's two kids one bedroom and the other right isn't a bunk bed too so if you is it two two bunk beds or no it's one bunk bed or two single um you know single okay I I misunderstood I thought you were saying I know I mean the typical load that we typically get in most of the condo hotels is in the three to four documents um you know usually it's especially these being family oriented it's going to be parents and one or two kids maybe uh I mean there some of they're going to be three some you know you know uh but I think that um it's you know um uh we're trying to put enough facilities on site that we keep them there and keep their attention most of the time as I said in my beginning of my presentation I think after the second or third day on the beach they're kind of looking for some place to go or something else to do and I think we're trying to provide as much activity on the site and that's why we tried to make use somewhat of our setbacks our extensive setbacks given the narrowness of the I think you have to take into consideration when you're looking at a site the how well it handled the setbacks and and the limitations that it has on it and this site's an extremely limited sight with these huge setbacks and at the narrowest point coming down to like 45 ft in depth it was a pretty creative task to try and make this work so I I think we tried to make it you know the best resort facility that we could with as much attraction on it as we could and best make use of the setbacks and do something with them other than just plant them and you know um and or concrete them or put parking in them we could have parked it could have been two big parking lots at both ends we decided not to do that and we didn't want to do that uh that's a bad option to me that's a worst opt option then you talk about lights going across the highway I'd rather have them in parking garages and under buildings than two big parking lots out in those 60 some foot that's actually the width by Coincidence of a double-sided parking lot on both ends of the property I didn't want to put parking lots there we we could have saved on the parking garage but uh that was part of what drove our and I do understand your your concerns but I do think that we're trying to do a responsible job and uh we've come up with what I think is a pretty good option on uh our request I appreciate your consideration well I have just to member Perry's point about the distance um so the draw on freeb trive both from the guests trying to get to the beach probably to that you know parking lot and then guests from other hotels trying to get to the amenity of of of your Resort if approved um that looks like a big draw on on the freebie uh potentially so uh what is the city's thought and and or or maybe your thought on support to that to the Free Beach Ride from the developer or the resident and over an enduring period and how do you can we codify that if we don't know who the owner of the property is to say there will be x amount of contribution to the freebie over an enduring period of so many years to support this project so we typically include those as certificate of occupancy conditions so it would be something before the resort were a ble to operate there needs to be payments or you know contributions whatever it ends up being um that has been proposed as part of the transportation management plan I don't want to speak for the applicant yet because I understand they're undertaking a traffic study where that's typically we have a firm engaged to do the study whenever we're you know but we as we had discussed we were not you know it wasn't a requirement prior to this meeting um and and as far as knowing who the developer is we've I mean we're engaged and have been engaged as the principal developers in so many projects that we really don't need anybody else we're doing a we're doing a $22 million development right now approved ready to go under construction you know on Treasure Island I mean you know so we're not we're not new to this I mean we've done 4,000 units that we were the developer on all over the state hotels condo hotels um you know condos um virtually everything you can imagine we've done since 1968 when I first graduated Ed uh that's what I started in the business on uh didn't come from wealthy family just got out and borrowed $5,000 and believe it or not built a 205 unit apartment complex in Jacksonville so that was the heck of a of a run at it right out of out of college but uh we've done you know uh my Finance U uh Financial U uh the people that Finance most of my uh stuff I've you know we've had commitments on this already so uh I'm not worried about bringing anybody in it's uh I know the traffic State talks about Peak Travel hours to and from can we ensure that the traffic study includes the potential load on our free be tride is that is that is that possible because how would we assess what the fee contribution over an endur period would be if we don't have that or do we are we going to make some sort of assumption to do that some sort of call on historical data or some other way to to look at that I think that's something staff could potentially estimate based on our ridership numbers it's going to it's going to vary I believe it varies based on location certain areas are more likely to use the service than others but we could provide some kind of an estimate if the board would like to SC that for if if the traffic stud's completed essentially what's going to do is provide a condition for us to ask for additional things for them in the event that they're agreeing to provide those things it really doesn't give us a a deciding factor of whether or not we want to move forward with this project so or the planning board we making a decision on moving forward with the project if we if that study came back all we're doing is making an adjustment to the conditions brandan or the city would ask for I don't know if that's a deciding factor for me in regards to this I don't think a TR stud addressing what I'm specifically concerned about which is the draw on the existing um City's contract with GRE um again just location they're not on the beach so those families aren't just going to walk out the back door off the property onto the beach they you know they may if they especially are their family oriented and they've got kids and stuff they're going to need that service to get them to access point to the beach probably the county parking lot and again people coming from those other hotels to this resort to play mini golf or use the arcade you know so my concern is that we're placing a demand on a on a limited capacity without asking for um compensation for that but to me even if even if they were willing to compensate us look I believe this is a beautiful project right but I think it's overdeveloped I think we're trying to put put way too much stuff into way too small of a spot okay and I think that when and and I understand your numbers and the lock off and the things of that sort but when you're looking at 104 units with the potential of 312 beds right that could potentially support up to 600 people I understand that's 100% occupancy that doesn't happen all the time but you know what we've had the Super Bowl here we've had other events where where those times are met and the occup rates are at 100% right people are renting out their condos when they're not supposed to be or their houses when they're not supposed to be we know that happens I just think this project is overdeveloped it's a beautiful project it's a place I would want to stay but it's not a place I would want on St b beach and I don't believe that it's it's it meets what the city's looking for yeah and expanding on member grocott's concern if the closest beach access is Miramar and and after our mirar hearing we don't even know if that beach access will be viable because it's covered with a dune that might not be passable or removable that that moves the closest beach access even further so we're going to have people jaywalking and trying to go through undertoe who in years past has had to put up a fence to keep people from passing through because they were tired of people traversing their bar to get to the beach so they're going to move on down to beach house Suites and cut through their parking lot and it I I'm just worried that quantity of people trying to cross G Boulevard to find a random entrance to the beach I think it's a public safety issue yeah I do there's also the 37th Street access which is a lawsuit with the Zamora right now I think yeah yeah I agree with you I I feel like this is a beautiful project but I feel it's out of character I don't think it meets the comprehensive plan or the Land Development codes um it just is it's supposed to be a transition between residential and Commercial and it just it's not a transition so I feel like it's too much it's too much right there it's the the placing of a resort in a non-resort district like a full service everything Resort I live directly across the water from this subject area and I'm concerned about the boat traffic too because the Zamora brings a lot of boat traffic and a lot of people don't adhere to the no wake signs some of them sunk in the storm and haven't been replaced so we've had problems with that and it's so shallow and tripid there visitors don't know how to kayakers come on my Dock and hang out so I don't know that the Waterfront aspect is ideal for the residents of El Vista it's the Waterfront there is not really Resort Waterfront yeah it's it's just a little no and I you know to to your point you know on top of that I mean you've got five stories of balconies overlooking that with potentially six again at Max Capacity six P persons per room you know I understand they're going to try to control the noise from the Amplified which is you know the public amplification but again it will be very difficult to control that noise off coming off of rooms and balconies um on a regular basis you know and again I think you also have to think of the cumulative noise of of the development it's not just this Rooftop Bar that roof it's you know so I I have concerns for the residents of belvista and and specifically meeting the the intent of and the S sier and yeah yes when you're talking about levels of balconies with multiple occupants per room um that that gives me great pause it's a great project it's just in the wrong place I think consolidation in that area is not ideal I think that's the kind of area where you want the smaller boutique hotels that are further up on the bay in B Vista and then restaurants and kind of separate them instead of having this large resort again I understand the the importance of Economics right making this make Financial sense but I don't I mean it's not our responsibility to determine an investors or developers Financial perspective on it right it's our responsibility for sensible development within the city and oh man I and I guess based off of that I I would like to make a motion to deny do I have a second if we could take public comment oh we have to take public comment I'm sorry sorry did we get a second any public comment you can fill it out after and give it to me thank you please state your name and address yes it's Russ maiara 3820 Gulf Boulevard apartment 701 uh been there for a 11 years now and I can show you I can send you pictures from just the yes what was it Saturday we heard the whole bridal party speech from the top of the Zamora we had um just a week ago I can show show you it and I sent it to the Commissioners and mayor a a video again of how loud that can be and that's 11 years of the Zamora has been there for I think 10 years now and that 10 years they have not gotten quiet they have not met code enforcement what makes us think this project will do the same I think the noise is just going to be too much I understand development it has to happen even the height you know it would bother me but I understand it but the noise that would come out of that building I think would be um very detrimental to life and the lifestyle we want to leave lead down here so right thank you thank you sh any other comment do I need to make a motion again or are we good can I just clarify is the motion to recommend disapproval to the commission yeah is that yeah correct need to be yeah okay I just want to make sure I understood it properly thank you do you still need a second so this would be a motion to recommend uh denial of resolution 20242 that is correct okay do I have a second I'll second can I please have a roll call Vice chair Angelus so yes I you're agreeing with or disagreeing with the motion which is I agree with the motion yes member gr cut yes I agree member Ray yes member Perry yes chair hubard yes motion carries and then there be another one for so do we need to do do the same recommendation for ordinance 24-8 does it apply at this point or does it become null and void I'm sorry I didn't hear you do do we need to make a motion for the same on ordinance 2024 d08 or does it become no void from because this is a recommending body I'd recommend that you make a a motion on both I make a a motion to recommend denial to the city commission uh for 24 ordinance 202 24-8 correct okay do I have a second second roll call please member gr cut yes member Ray yes member Perry yes Vice chair Angelus yes member hubard yes motion carries and we are on 4 C this is a recommendation of ordinance 20248 is this you Brandon or it is okay can we do an intermission yeah yeah uh let's do a uh 10 10 minute uh bio break sounds good thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e and we are on to 4C the ordinance 202 24-18 sure so just a quick summary of this I don't have a presentation for it this item was adopted last month month by the city commission is an emergency ordinance it has gone through its first rating um unfortunately we couldn't time up the first rating with the planning board meeting but it'll be going back in January middle of January for permanent adoption which would allow for the turnover of the emergency ordinance to the permanent ordinance and all this does is activate the ability for substantial Improvement exceptions for historic buildings in our city to be um administratively approved and applied as Allowed by the definition of substantial Improvement in the National flood insurance program currently the city's process requires a substantial Improvement variance which is actually a public hearing they go to the historic preservation board it's a much more timec consuming and arduous process than a substantial Improvement exception which is just checking that the structure is on the historic registry it's not going to be precluded from remaining historic and then approving that through a building permit so we've come up with a two-part process I have run this by both the State Certified local government they handle the historic preservation board certification of our program as well as our Florida Department of Emergency and management reviewer who reviews our flood plan um management ordinances uh so I I've run it by both of them and for anything substantial that affects the exterior of the structure that would still need to go through the substantial Improvement variance process that would go forward to the historic preservation board that's to ensure that we are still evaluating these structures if there are major additions major facade changes things like that that could actually alter the historic Integrity of the the parcel um those would be taken forward for review this would be only for interior repairs or minor exterior repairs that are one for one replacement of materials it wouldn't be complete roof change outs um you know shingle a metal roof it would be only the replacement of shingles on the exterior for example and substantial interior repairs to the structure um it would just be a more straightforward process especially with residences we never look at the inside of the structure when it comes to making a determination if it's historic or not it really has more to do with the outside of the structure so this is just a more efficient way for people to get back into their homes when they qualify for that that exception and we hope that um we hope you can make a recommendation on this ordinance so this is effectively already active as an emergency ordinance yes okay and the recomendation that we recommendation that we make would be for approval by the city council yes please do we need discussion is has the historic preservation board reviewed this emergency ordinance they're okay with as written they have they they recommended the emergency ordinance to the commission yes I I don't have any concerns I'll make a motion for recommendation for approval of uh Ordinance 20248 do I have a second I'll second second roll call please member Groot yes member Ray yes member Perry yes Vice chair Angelus yes chair hubard yes motion carries okay we are on to item 5 a continue discussion of artificial turf so thank you to members for sending me your summaries and your spreadsheets showing what your preferences were for a potential future ordinance if we could get the PowerPoint pulled out please we could get the presentation loaded please well we can start talking about it while it gets pulled up um so I had received uh content from members in uh different formats some had highlighted preferences in the spreadsheet some had sent summaries um especially with the summaries I I think there were items that are consistent with some of the other recommendations that the members made but I just wanted to run a few things by you in um the start so in terms of items that I believe that all members appeared to have consensus on those were that um permits must be submitted when Turf is installed there need to be product specifications included they need to demonstrate that the Turf is of high quality it has porous material uh I believe all the members selected that you wanted it to uh emulate the look of natural grass with an 8-year no fade warranty get back to this on the presentation um you'd be looking at things like making sure that the grass is individual blades 1 and A2 inch pile at a minimum again it would be porous material this is something that the board had asked that I look into to both the um subsurface as well as the material itself other cities appear to recommend around 10 in an hour in terms of permeability that was Tamp I believe a few other cities had in that that 10inch per hour range i' have a noade warranty eight plus years seem to be the consensus I assume that's probably a a standard manufacturing warranty so um it appeared to be eight plus years in multiple codes and disposable at any us landf fill if that is viable um there was seem to be consensus that Turf needs to be installed per manufacturer specifications and anchored and it must be separated from natural Landscaping areas through a bumper a most strip or similar uh do any of the members have any issues with that was there General consensus on those items yeah I was in agreement with all of that yeah okay uh so one major item that I don't know that there was incons consistencies on it just it was addressed differently and the items that the uh planning board had sent over was whether the turf with a properly porous subgrade would be allowed to count toward A lot's permeability ratio so looking at the most strict down to the most lenient um Orlando's code specifically States it's the intent for vegetative material to comprise the perious area of the lot if a lot requires 40% permeability 40% of the lot needs to be vegetative surface Turf is considered impervious it's specifically laid out in their code St P Beach um of course doesn't have all of the product specification standards that other communities have but it does specify that 80% of the required permeable area must be vegetative material 20% can be comprised of a combination of turf permeable pavers gravels and so on so those aren't additive um if someone uses their 20% for permeable pavers they can't use it for Turf 24% of most residential lots need to be maintained as vegetative surface but we do allow that 20% to be comprised of other material Tampa states that Turf can be considered permeable if it meets specifications for materials has a reservoir with 4in plus Stone uncompacted soils and adequate aggregate appears to also require a certain percentage of green space and residential lots but it's not spelled out through their artificial turf ordinance um you can see here there's this is part of their perming packet on the right side of the screen have the applicants lay out what portion of the lot is comprised of turf what is comprised of vegetative surface and what is comprised of impermeable material so I hope I was hoping to get some um consensus from the board on whether you would like for Turf to always be considered impervious if you'd like some fraction of it to potentially count for the perme permeable portion of the LOD or whether you would just like to to allow it to be considered up to 100% permeable if it meets those specifications for permeability so the the opinion I expressed to Brandon in email was I like the idea of supporting both Concepts based on whether or not the underlayment and the turf itself allowed a whatever the City Experts decided was a sufficient amount of water permeability per hour and if you don't do that under layment or you don't have the turf that meets those requirements then it's impermeable but I wasn't opposed to all of the permeable portion of a lot using Turf if it meets those requirements so on permitting then um following that try of thought so then when they when they put in the permit they'll have to say this is what we're going to do we're going to have the 10 did you say 10 inches per hour yeah so we and then when they come out and inspect I'm sorry to cut you off and then when they come out to inspect they'll inspect that and if it's doesn't have the right um subgrade then they'd have to pull it out back to the basically what would be the second restrictive level is that how that would work then yeah I think they would I mean ideally they would present to the city the make and model of turf they want to use beforehand and then the city would know we're going out there expecting to see this specific Turf on top of this underlayment and if it then if it doesn't meet those requirements then fail and try again but then they check it on yeah MH yeah I I feel that it is it should be considered not permeable um some of these workarounds address some of the issues with it but there are many other issues and and May and I know they come up later like the fact it's a heat sink you know the fact that um there's no ecological life in it I mean basically you've destroyed a lot of the food for the birds there's no insects or um so in even some of the bacterial growth and things that normally make soil healthy and help with runoff and things all those things are taken away so um and I I also I think I might have been the only one that said it shouldn't be near the water I mean some of them said keep it so many feet away from the water and these things are made with chemicals they're hydrocarbons I mean there's no getting around it and I just think it's a very unhealthy thing um we put so many barriers into our Wildlife that I just feel it should be kept away from the water it should be considered impermeable I mean I understand my husband and I were talking about doing it on our front yard we thought oh gosh it'll be so great and as as I started reading all the materials that you provided I was like oh my goodness we shouldn't allow this at all this is terrible so following on I mean if we took worst case scenarios say every lot had artificial tur and it was considered impervious and then we talk about the heat factors that the study that the university um provided that Brandon provided talked about like how much hotter that is and then we talk about the issues with red tide and sea levels and things like that so I think there is larger to your point um larger ecological this is one issue um considerations because I think we always have to think like what if everybody went to the furthest extent that we allow them to go what does that do to our waterways what does that do to our you know ecosystems I think if we were to do some kind of can't do it within 50 ft of the water in a place that has so much Waterfront housing we might as well not allow it because otherwise I think 50 ft is is extensive the size of the Lots that's too many so maybe where where are the majority yards of waterfront homes could be a alternative to that majority of the people using it are they using it in the backyard are they using in the front yard typically when we see request for Turf to be placed it is the majority if not the entire lot um that is just what's brought forward to us for a request most you know many homeowners don't need know that they need to bring these requests forward but um it it tends to be the whole lot or or near to that we see it frequently with new homes going in we receive a landscaping plan that shows the entire lot um comprised of turf and then we'll we'll walk back we'll work with them but we're not currently evaluating onsite placement um we're just looking to make sure that they have the minimum vegetation so um when you say the entire lot are they leaving cutouts for trees and shrubs or yes right they they still meet the tree minimum but most Residential Properties in the city we're looking at Ground covering trees only we don't have you know hedge requirements or shrubs or anything like that so so I think it would be difficult to call a permeable service impermeable so I don't I don't know if that we can do that I think the way that you would address it would be by restricting the amount of area that they could cover um but when you go down to like the 8020 number right if you go down to the what's the size of some of some of these lots are what 10,000 ft 12,000 Square ft so looking at 240 is that right 12,000 time no 2400 ft that would be 2400 Square ft of required vegetation based on the current code and of that of that 30% so a 10,000 ft lot uh 600 square fet of that could be artificial turf now that's not if someone has impermeable space that has not been utilized so if they based on the current code if if the driveway and the house and the pool and everything else comprises 60% of the lot area based on the current code they could have 16% because they have that 10% difference in impermeability plus six additional per for the turf um so it could be addressed differently if if the board would like just based on a total amount on the lot or a distance from the seaw wall which you know addresses a certain percentage of lot to begin with it's it really comes down to the board how the board would like to phrase that but that only addresses homes that are on the water so every everyone else can then go to town with the so I don't necessarily think that I like the 8020 rule for for that and then parlay that with if it is impervious or if they want to just say okay it's going to be impervious or have it meet the requirements of permeability mhm and then stick with the 8020 rule I really didn't care until you brought up the ecological impact that it has so I really didn't consider that I personally do not care to mow for the mow the lawn right I was thinking oh man this would be this would be nice but when you take those other things into consideration I think minimizing it not eliminating it but minimizing it and I I agree I like the 820 now in contrast um remember Perry is familiar with my house because we live a few doors down from each other but I have a natural Beach behind my house that seems to collect everyone's lawn trimmings and so we're talking every high tide hundreds of pounds of of mowing that ends up on our beach and yards also come with endless application of fertilizer and Pest Control materials and that all ends up running off into the water as well so it's I'm not as opposed to Turf but you know if the majority of you are opposed to it I would be happy maintaining 8020 and calling it impermeable and that seems to solve most of the problems I because I think you still need to use you don't need to there's other ways to mitigate um weeds but if you've seen people that have it that don't don't treat it then the weeds are coming up through the the turf so so I don't think it necessarily eliminates the runoff of chemicals um and and again I'm always concerned about the the invisible whatever they are the microplastic microbes for sure so I'd like to see it stay at a at a 20 802 and then do we want some kind of Waterfront stipulation I think that would be hard to do in a place like this to say that it has to be a certain distance away from the water mhm I I'm I'm opposed to that only because I know next to your dock is tends to be where people might put chairs or putt put green that kind of stuff and uh that is the one place they might want Turf if even if they're forced to not have turf elsewhere so I don't know and it's not like the turf flying up and into the water so I don't I don't I when it floods everything under water yeah I don't necessarily have the same exact concern because again yes everything that runs off goes right to sewers which was right into our water my concern is just that we I I don't think we need the feed from the water because it just limits very specific people right because everything is so close to the water 50 feet here just right I with you I with you I think the 8020 and let folks figure out where it is that it's most important to them to have yeah just for clarification I mean are we is there a certain point of discussion that we're trying to accomplish tonight is there a certain amount of discussion that we want to accomplish are we looking to make a recommendation or is this just discussion it's it's just discussion I think at some point in the future we'll bring back a draft ordinance free to consider and these were just major elements that I wanted to make sure that there was some degree of board consensus on so it sounds like just to make I just want to confirm that all members are on board with this we will keep the 8020 ratio which would require that at least 24% of most residential lots be maintained with vegetative Green Space however for any Turf the applicant does need to demonstrate that it is permeable whether it's part of that 6% or more is that correct yes okay yes okay few other considerations I think that the guidance you just gave me is probably appropriate for a lot of this but whether Turf should be permitted in drainage features and right of ways I believe most ordinances prohibit that um you know especially on residential lots we have swailes and we don't want those chemicals being carried out so I think it be best if we would not allow for it in drainage features does that right ofo include uh like utility easement in the between your sidewalk and your curb it would yes because I've seen houses that have turf there it it has been permitted in the past oh okay so this this would just be moving forward if the okay go ahead any any thoughts on that any well I was already on to the next one sorry I'm reading that I agree I agree what you I agree with what you said as well yeah okay so um other ordinances prohibit Turf in historic or Redevelopment districts or required to be located behind the buildings I think we just talked about putting grains you know someone may want to have that in the back of their home but um would you want to prohibit Turf in it would be currently the pass Grill and the Gulf Boulevard uh it might be something for the historic commission but it just seems logical that you couldn't have a historic house with Turf in front of it just doesn't seem logical I agree yeah I I would agree with that as well but I would want to defer to them on whether not visible Turf is what their opinion is although you have so many again we're talking not talking about the house necessarily but the district and so now we have a more and more modern homes going into the historic district you see it all the time and those typically are utilizing turs could you go from historic district to home homes that are declared historic historic home we do that we say homes that are declared historic instead of historic instead of limiting it to a district or should we not do that I mean is there I I think it's a good question for the historic I mean that's really their area of focus okay so I I don't feel comfortable making a a recommendation to them they're the experts in this area okay and for the Redevelopment dist districts which is more in the province of the planning board would would you like to hold that to the same standard as residen residences and businesses elsewhere they would have the 8020 split or so in the Redevelopment District they're impervious ratio for for non-residential is different it's 85 right versus 75 so but but they still have the 8020 split within their 085 limitation so that would be 3% instead of 6% could be Turf and then the remaining 12 could be would would need to be vegetation I I feel like I would be fine with that I mean PCI for ex I think it's PCI they have the turf in front surrounding the parking lot where it would be impossible to set up irrigation well but then they still have the grass Courtyard in the middle I mean that seems fine to me reasonable the one next who has the grass Courtyard in the middle I thought it was PCI but it might be beach comr one of those two has Turf out front and grass Courtyard on the inner between the two Hotel sections but most of their lot is there one of them has a grass Courtyard as well yeah yeah I think most development are going to be very cautious again because of how hot it gets and lawsuits with kids and tourists and things like that that they're going to be very independent and cautious of where they decide to put a a true you can't walk on it barefoot a it's going to get that hot so I don't think we need to over I think we're fine with the keeping it the same and letting developers is pretty minimal too yeah Brandon in the previous slide under Tampa they had requirements for underlayment meaning the stone do we have any of that in our requirements at this time uh not currently we would bring something back and I think just for ease of evaluation um because if we are going to be going out to these sites to evaluate on site we'll have a probably probably probably require a sample of the turf and then just the fdot rated Stone it's consistent it's easy to identify what it is um instead of having a bunch of different you know underlayments that could be variable more consistent okay sorry thank you sure um it sounded like there might be some interest in setting a minimum distance from Turf to water bodies um potentially not 50 ft at the have any I don't know how with the small lot I don't know how you really put that I don't think there needs to be one okay yeah I feel the same I I to get into that I'm fine with the water moves through everything in St b beach either way so I don't think it really impacts it okay and last question was whether the owner needed to cap irrigation when it faces towards areas of the site where Turf is newly installed I would hope they'd want to I I don't know a lot of reasons this is the last thing code enforcement is going to have time to go look at I mean usually it's sprinklers spraying across the street I you know I wouldn't want to create that burden they' look at that at time of Permitting I or at time of final inspection I would assume to show that it's capped and if somebody want to go through the work of undoing that the work on yeah I would agree with that condition well I think that's sufficient to move forward we will put something together bring it back in either probably January or February um I did just want to mention that due to limited Staffing we would like it to be front loaded so we are going to ask the applicant to bring in these you know example of the turf specifications and so on up front and then we'll do a limited on-site inspection yeah yeah definitely bless you so okay thank you all right anyone have any other items all right meetings journ e e