Good evening, and I'll call this meeting to order.

Um, let's see, it's the City of Gulf Court Planning and Zoning Board meeting for Wednesday, May 6th.

And if you could please join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

And Madam Clerk, will you do the roll call, please?

Board Member Gonzalez Hastings.

Present.

Board Member Kelly.

Present.

Board Member McCoachy?

Here.

Board Member East.

Here.

Vice Chairperson Hanrahan.

Yeah.

Chairperson Cowan.

Present.

City Attorney Salzman.

Here.

And Deputy City Clerk Hartman present.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And at this time, we'll go into public comment.

If there's any member of the public that wishes to speak, they'll be limited to three minutes and they can come forward and speak at this time.

Okay.

I don't see anybody running towards the podium, so we have no public comment.

We did, though, I wanted to make sure the board was aware that we did receive one comment that was an e-comment, and that was from Amanda Costa in support of the ADUs, and she had a few questions, which I was just going to ask us staff when the presentation occurred.

I don't know if everybody's had an opportunity to read it, but if you have, then we'll just move forward.

Otherwise, we can have the clerk read it.

And I just wanted to clarify that if somebody wanted to speak specifically about ADUs, that they will still have an opportunity.

So with that, we'll go on to the consideration of the minutes for the meeting that was held on January 7th of 2026.

Do I have a motion for approval?

So move.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, next.

We don't have any applications, but we have two ordinances.

Um, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Gulfport, amending the City of Gulfport's twenty twenty-five comprehensive plan, amending the goals, objectives, and policies to add policy one point four point three and add policy one point four point four regarding accessory dwellings, amending the data and analysis to provide definitions for accessory dwelling units and a principal dwelling unit, providing for separability and providing for an effective date.

Who's our consultant and be working with us?

As you know, that city council directed city staff to adopt to provide ordinances and amendments to the comp plan and also your code of ordinances to provide for the accessory dwelling units.

And this is the information you'll receive tonight is developed through what city council has discussed initially and then subsequently received a briefing from Ms.

Fisher, and this is the substance product, the work product for you as an advisory board to the city council to make any recommendations you'd like to include.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to mention I have a single PowerPoint that will cover both ordinances.

Okay.

Alright.

So I always like to start with an introduction, a reminder to most of you of who I am.

I work for Forward Pinellas.

We are the countywide agency that coordinates land use and transportation.

And we also provide technical assistance to local governments.

And of course, that is why I'm here, as the city manager said, because we were asked to help out.

So this is the ADU study.

It has five phases.

We started with a kickoff to the city council back in December.

Task two was a study of whether allowing ADUs could have any potential impacts on the city.

That was in March, and in your agenda packets is a technical memo summary summarizing the findings from task two.

And now we're at task three, which is drafting a set of regulations for the city to consider and what they would need to adopt in order to allow and regulate ADUs.

We are bringing them to you as the city's local planning agency to make a recommendation.

Tasks four and five will be the actual adoption of that regulatory framework, and those tasks can happen concurrently, and I'll talk a little bit more about them.

So that is a broad overview of the study.

I'd like to just take a few moments to talk about ADUs, just generally and why the city is considering allowing them.

I know that you on the board are probably all very familiar with these issues.

But for any members of the community that are here or are watching, I just like to start with the basics.

So what is an accessory dwelling unit exactly?

It is defined by state statute, it is a secondary residence on the same parcel as a primary dwelling unit, which is typically a single family home, and it has to have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area.

So why would you want them in your community?

Well, they serve some unique roles.

First and foremost, they just provide more housing options.

They're typically smaller and less expensive to rent, but they still fit into neighborhood character.

They're also very useful for extended family households.

An adult child or an elderly parent can live close by, and they can also serve as a source of income for homeowners.

Now we don't anticipate a huge number of them being built in Gulfport.

Part of task two was to project the number of ADUs that we think are likely to be built based on the experiences of St.

Petersburg.

We thought that was a good comparison because there's a lot of overlap in your real estate markets, and the uh the development, uh the development patterns of the neighborhood, the character is very similar.

More ADUs are being built in St.

Pete than anywhere else in the county, and more the last few years than at any time in the past.

But the absolute numbers that are being built are still pretty modest relative to the total number of houses in the city.

So if Gulfport were to see the same growth rate based on the housing stock that you have, it would work out to at most about 15 ADUs per year being built.

Since ADUs use the same infrastructure and services that already serve your existing development, then the impacts to the city would are expected to be minimal.

The most you might see is isolated complaints about parking or noise in specific, you know, specific blocks, but even in St.

Pete, that is very rare.

There are also some concerns about flood zones that I will talk about later on in the presentation.

So those are the reasons why to allow ADUs.

But today we're here to talk about how to do it, what policies and regulations the city needs to adopt.

Now we're not doing this in a vacuum.

In Pinellas County.

Uh, we get because we have so many cities that are all on each other's doorsteps.

We have a document called the Countywide Rules, which provides a legal framework that local comprehensive plans and land development codes need to need to follow.

And this is actually produced by my agency.

There is an optional provision in the rules that says if you allow ADUs in your community, you don't have to count them against the density standard.

So if you allow five units an acre, but you already have those five units built, you can still add ADUs, and that won't violate your density standard.

There's also another document that my agency created called the housing regulatory toolkit, and it's designed to encourage more diversity and choice and affordability in housing.

It has model regulations that local governments can use for all kinds of housing, including ADUs, and that I also drew from that for this study.

So within that very broad countywide framework, it's still up to the city to decide what fits within your community and to make specific choices.

So today, what does the comprehensive plan say about ADUs?

Well, you've got one policy in the housing element stating that the city shall allow flexibility for garage apartments.

Of course, that's just one type of ADU.

And while this is an important start at policy support, it doesn't go far enough to really create a regulatory foundation for ADUs.

ADUs also aren't defined or distinguished in the land development code.

They're treated just like any other dwelling unit.

So currently, if you want to put an ADU on your property, you have to meet the same requirements as if you were building a second house.

They're only allowed in zoning districts that permit two or more houses per parcel, and you have to have a large minimum lot size.

So again, just going over the basics.

I just wanted to emphasize that these are two different documents that would need to be amended, the comprehensive plan and the land development code, and they do different things and they're amended in different ways.

One, the comprehensive plan is more general.

It has future land use categories with maximum density and intensity standards and a list of permitted uses.

Those are the starting point for the city's regulations, and any changes to the comp plan have to be approved by the state.

The land development code is more specific, it sets forth your zoning districts.

It also has standards for density and intensity and permitted uses, but they can be more limited than what the comprehensive plan allows, and they have more specific recommendations for things like building height, setbacks, parking, etc.

And I know none of you on the board need me to tell you that.

Again, this is just for anyone else who's listening.

So as long as the zoning districts are consistent with the comprehensive plan, you can make changes to them without having to get state approval.

Your city council can just vote on it and do it.

And that'll be an important distinction when we get to tasks four and five of the study to amend those documents.

And that gives us a roadmap for what kind of amendments you need to make.

You need to amend the comprehensive plan to define ADUs and allow them as a permitted use.

If you're going to allow them to not count against the density standards, then you'll need to state that.

So I always use a color code in my presentations.

Whenever I'm talking about the comprehensive plan, you'll see purple text, and when it's the land development code, it's green.

Alright, so let's start with the comp plan.

And you have the proposed amendments before you.

Basically, there's just a couple of changes.

Taking that existing policy about garage apartments and broadening it to allow ADUs generally, but in a way that's compatible with existing neighborhoods, and then adding another policy stating that they're exempt from the density standard.

And then adding definitions for accessory dwelling unit and principal dwelling unit.

That's the entirety of the draft comp plan amendments.

The real work gets done in the land development code, and again, you also have those proposed amendments put for you.

The first question is where in the land development code should the ADU section go.

Chapter 22 is your zoning code, and since ADUs could be allowed across multiple zoning districts, it makes sense to put them all under Article 4, which is supplementary regulations for all districts.

Now there is already a section for accessory uses and structures, and that section deals with things like sheds and swimming pools and home occupations.

But because ADUs are such a different use, my recommendation is to exclude them explicitly state that they're excluded from that section and then give them their own section.

So there is a draft new section 22-6.14.

That's added to the end of the supplementary regulations, so nothing needs to be renumbered.

And I'll go through just each of the subsections.

Subsection A just states the intent to allow ADUs and in order for them to contribute to the city's housings.

Subsection B just repeats the definitions from the comprehensive plan.

Now we start getting into the substance of the regulations.

In these sections, some choices need to be made, and I based what's in here on the direction that I was given by city council.

So subsection C addresses where ADUs are allowed to go, any single family parcel, regardless of zoning district, as long as it's outside the coastal high hazard area.

And I know that's something that you're probably going to want to discuss further, so we can talk about that at the end of this presentation if that's okay.

ADUs are also approved administratively by staff, and there's more elaboration about that process further down in the section.

Subsection D is general standards.

These standards affect how densely ADUs can be built.

So one ADU per single family parcel, no minimum lot size, and not counted against the units per acre density standard.

It also states that ADUs can be either detached from the primary dwelling or attached to it.

And I really wanted to include some photo examples, but it's really hard to find photos of attached ADUs because they just look like houses.

So I got you a little diagram.

This section is just the basics, it doesn't address where ADUs can go on the parcel or how they need to be configured.

That's handled in the next subsection E development standards.

It states that a detached ADU needs to be located to the side or rear of the primary dwelling.

And the ADU needs to be subordinate in scale and appearance.

So it needs to be smaller and less visually prominent.

But there's no restriction on height, it can be the same height as the house.

It's whatever is allowed by the zoning district.

And the other dimensional standards for the parcel are the same.

The primary dwelling plus the ADU still need to meet the same maximum building coverage and impervious surface and minimum setback standards of the zoning district.

It's the same standards that would apply if you built one big house, or you could build a smaller house plus the ADU within that same envelope.

And that is just to help keep the scale of the buildings consistent with the existing development.

Subsection F regulates how parcels with ADUs can be used.

The property owner needs to live in either the primary dwelling or the ADU, and they need to sign a restrictive covenant uh agreeing to that, and that would be passed on to any future owners of the parcel.

The ADU can't be sold separately from the primary dwelling, but it can be rented, and it's subject to the same citywide and district regulations as any other residential dwelling.

That includes short-term rentals.

If it's a single-family home in a zoning district that allows short-term rentals, then there's no legal way to stop the ADU being used for that as well.

But most single family homes are located in zoning districts that do not allow short-term rentals in corporate.

Subsection G addresses parking, and again per city council direction states that no additional off street parking is required for an ADU.

Again, we expect that the number of ADUs that are built is gonna be pretty modest per city block, and uh it they should be able to be absorbed into on street parking.

Um and as an aside, I'll tell you uh anecdotally, this is my street, um, and we have a great number of ADUs, we have duplexes, triplexes, a little apartment building, and I almost never have trouble finding parking, not just on the street but in front of my house.

So um that is uh anecdotal, but I did want to mention that subsection H goes into more detail about the administrative approval process, stating that it only requires zoning compliance and building uh permit review, and those are done by city staff, so it doesn't require a public hearing or a vote of the city council to be able to build an ADU and finally subsection I states that an ADU can be added to a legally non-conforming house, uh as long as the ADU itself is conforming.

And that's basically it for the proposed land development regulations.

I tried to keep it very simple.

Um at this point, other than the CHHA provision, is there anything that you want to stop and talk about, or do you want me to just keep going?

Is it is this the right place?

I I had two questions from as you were going.

I have a neighbor, we have a neighbor on 52nd who asked specifically he has two houses on one lot.

And you know, however that got it, however that happened and came to be two houses on one lot, he asked me if he could have two ADUs, and I said, I don't know, but I know who I'm gonna ask.

Um the way it's worded is one lot one lot, one single family house.

So he would have already used up his allotment having two units on the one lot.

So would he be allowed to have any ADU added to that lot?

Not the way this is worded, not the way even it's an R3 zoning, by the way.

Um and it's a nine, it's 175 by 53, so doing the math.

Eight or nine thousand square feet.

If the lot is big enough for three single-family homes, then he could build another unit, but in in that case, other than for just single family homes on one lot, anything else would be treated like you know, more than one house per the way it's treated everywhere today, would still apply to parcels like that.

Okay.

Okay, I think I got it.

I'll tell them now.

Um, and I heard you say covenant, restricted covenant, uh that the that's an interesting thing because that means that that all that property is in perpetuity, not a rental.

And not an investment property.

Right.

That's an interesting consideration when you had an ADU.

Is that done in St.

Pete?

That is not done in St.

Pete.

It is done in Pinellas County and a couple of other uh cities around the county.

Uh, just about everybody does it a little differently.

Okay, but not a no big pushback or no, just the way it is.

Okay.

And I I do have probably too much to say about the coastal high hazard.

Um, but just tell me when.

Okay, that'll be um if there are any other questions we can.

I don't know.

She she has a question.

I have some.

I mean, I have lots of questions.

I don't know if we want to deal with them all here, but I have some questions about the the rules here and particularly about this covenant.

So mine because I didn't know anything about it.

My understanding is it goes forever.

Is that right?

And then so what happens if a new owner buys the property and they decide they just want to make it a single family home?

Can they can they is there a process to back that out?

I'm looking for the wood.

So move away from that.

You're saying if if somebody moved in and there was a house and an ADU and they wanted to just have the house, could they demolish the ADU and then get rid of the restrictive covenant?

No, could they did they say this is all part of my house?

So supposing it was attached.

Um like it was a garage apartment, and they said, I I just want to make this a single family home with some more space.

Is there a way for just for my immediate family without having is there a way for them to attach to to move out of that covenant?

So the covenant doesn't force you to rent it, it just says that you can't rent out both the house and the ADU.

So if you're not uh if you're just having family live there, you're choosing not to rent it out at all, then you're not running a foul of the covenant.

So the covenant doesn't really affect you.

Right.

Can I ask a question related to that though?

Like could the renter sublet the other, like having a roommate?

Is that regulated?

That wouldn't be regulated by this.

Um that would be more of a landlord tenant arrangement.

Okay.

So technically you could have two separate renters, but that would be Oh, I see what you're saying.

The owner still has to reside on site, they couldn't the ADU resident could sublet, but it would still be in that unit.

So if the if the owner were to move away and want to rent the property out, the unit would have to stay vacant.

Yes, the owner has to be in one of the two units.

Oh, so that property could never be rented out.

So the owner has is in one of the units.

Interesting.

Okay.

So fact the covenant, how how is it enforced?

How will it be enforced?

And what are the penalties for non-compliance?

Yeah, I have something to do.

So being enforced is an interesting question.

It would probably be complaint driven.

I don't know how else you can enforce it.

Right.

That's that's what my question is.

Well, it was what's what's the monitoring magic mechanism, you know, if the you know, if um, you know, the um it requires restrictive covenant affirming owner occupancy, you know, but if there's no ongoing monitoring or recertification requirement, what is um, you know, if the owner later moves out and rents both units, you know, then it's again depends on the complaint.

Yes, uh based code code enforcement.

So is there any way to to uh add an annual attestation or tie it to a city's business tax receipt or rental registration process?

And does it mean they have the home?

I'm sorry.

It would be just like a single family home.

So there's no business tax, they're exempt from renting a single family home is exempt from the business tax receipt.

So if there was a complaint, um you would go through code enforcement, would there also be an enforcement action enforcing the covenant?

Yes, yeah, we come to the special magistrate if it couldn't be resolved.

Okay, and that rule does not mean that the owner has to homestead that property.

It doesn't affect the homestead.

Do they you're saying do they have to homestead it?

No, but they have to live there.

They have to live there in one of those two units.

I it does I think it does affect the homestead because if you rot the ADU rent it out, I believe that you can't homestead the ADU portion.

That's the property.

Right, you can homestead portion of it.

Right.

But I mean there is but you could still homestead the house.

Right.

Yes.

Right, but there are cross implications there.

So w what are we trying to solve for with that?

We're trying to prevent um building a lot of investment property with another rental unit out back.

I mean, is that is that a concern?

Is that happening somewhere?

Well, it's the how to be a good neighbor.

Right.

Culturally, it's not an absentee landlord.

Yeah.

Landlords on the property.

They can manage the issues.

Right.

I mean, which is true, these same issues apply with any single family home or duplex.

Of course they do.

So we're just saying so it sounds like it's being put in there to get AD to get ADUs approved to make to keep the public generally happy with the idea of an ADU.

Right.

If you remember the basis behind an ADU, right?

The ADU was uh originally being pushed for two reasons.

One, we needed affordable housing.

So we're giving an opportunity for somebody who has a house to provide something for someone else so they stay on the property.

Or it was the old uh situation of you know the old mother in law suite kind of situation.

So that's was the selling point of creating these and and so that's why and as Jim said the problem is if you have a situation where you create it into two rentals now we're not doing what the intent was you know behind this.

Yeah and I and I and I appreciate that what I'm thinking about as a realtor is you know what is this doing to the value of this property long term.

I mean a generation down the road and and does that mean hey you know maybe this couple wants to go travel the world for a year they can't rent their house I mean it it well you remember they could rent the house they just can't have the ADU.

Right.

They can't have anybody if you're leaving for a year you could rent your house you just can't rent your ADU.

Alright so it's not about the okay so it's about the rental of the ADU right but it still travels with the deed so right you could never if the owner's not there you can never rent the ADU.

So if let's assume again in your scenario so I'm traveling I have somebody in my house I have to close down the ADU for that time period.

So no one can inhabit the ADU not even you couldn't rent the whole property to one person where they could access the unit to make to keep it up or anything.

It's closed.

My understanding you cannot have an ADU unless the actual owner lives in one of the two properties.

Because the other part like Jim said is you have control over whoever's in your ADU if you have the owner on the property.

Oh great right so we're not it's it's not turning into an ability to have like two short-term rentals right and I get the logic and I appreciate it.

I'm just looking down the road at the actual potential effect on the property values do you actually might you hurt your property value by building an ADU you know that sort of thing.

Yeah I think that's it's a hard call on that ability that you're acknowledging when you sign the covenant.

Right.

Right.

I would think your property value would go up.

Well the question I think becomes uh the issue that the unknown issue is what happens in that community right yeah the limited use of how are people going to police it correctly so that you're not infringing on somebody else in the community and their peacefulness and those things.

I think that's the concern and that's why again you have the property owner there.

So they're ultimately responsible for their property.

Remember if we did a code enforcement action we don't go against the person who's renting we go against the property owner because you're responsible for your property.

Right.

Did you have another question that you made I have a lot of other questions but I'm not sure this is the right time for all of them.

I mean some of them they're very specific about the policies and some of them are technical where I feel there are some we want you to ask anything that you feel is appropriate for the board in making a decision as to what you want to do with these two ordinances.

So if they're if you feel you need or that the board should know the answer to those questions um prior to you making somebody making a motion and passing them then they then you should probably ask them.

Okay so then I have concerns about the lack of size limits on it, I would have suggested 50% of the primary residence for the ADU with a maximum of I don't know six hundred seven fifty square feet, but but a maximum number of square feet.

Um I don't think the subordinate to is strong enough because I feel that could allow you somebody to build, and if you look at some peat, you see that two-thirds of the new the ADUs built in the last few years were with new primary residences.

That could allow somebody to build what's basically a duplex where one is maybe a thousand square feet and one is nine fifty and it's subordinate, but not very.

So I I have a lot of concerns about that because duplexes are charged differently for utilities.

We talked about these all being on one utility, but with and there's pros and cons to that because the water could be less if you're in a duplex, but things like garbage and storm water and things are duplicated for duplexes, so and the lot size is different for duplex versus a primary residence.

So there could be people trying to game the system.

I had the same thing because I was looking at it and I did the research, and I know you already know this about the St.

Pete, the max the maximum ADU size is 800 square feet, Pinellas County, it's 752 a thousand.

Largo's 50% of primary dwelling capped at 800 square feet.

So I think the ordinance not setting a maximum square footage, you know, and and leaving it up to interpretation, it could lead to some interpretation disputes.

Um it was the direction of city council, that they didn't want to set a maximum size, that they wanted the the building envelope, the the building coverage standard and impervious surface and setbacks to control the size and scale of the properties.

Now remember when you make your motion, you can include any of that language in there.

So any of these issues that come up that you want to make changes, you can certainly put that in part of your uh ordinance, and or you can also send some um language or information to the board to consider when they consider the ordinances, so um this is more of general question.

Is there a limit in our ordinances anywhere?

And I couldn't find it to the number of people that can live in a single family residence.

Do we have any of that in our own?

Some some cities do.

Right, we don't.

Okay.

Um, get back to the utilities.

What in the rules we say we assume that they will put out their garbage and at the same spot?

Are we going to enforce that or are we gonna just make some assumptions about how people are going to behave?

And lastly, on this section, um SB 48 failed or did wasn't complete this year.

Were there any state rules that were passed and state laws that impact ADUs passed this year?

Not this year.

Not for sure.

Okay.

The only one that I know of that's been passed recently was last year that enabled uh a tax exemption if you're using it as affordable housing and you sign, you know, um, another state of country.

Yes, another covenant.

Um these proposed land development regulations do not govern uh the trash pickup or the utilities that would be governed by citywide um regulations.

We're gonna manage that because you're only paying for one, so you're only allowed six cans to use or 300.

If you buy a bigger dumpster, then you pay additional fees.

Right, right.

So that's how it's managed.

Right.

And and so we just want to.

I'm just trying to make sure we dot all our I's and cross all our T's as we go forward.

Um I did have, and I don't I don't know where we want to consider these.

I have some other comments that um in the documentation we received, it talks about 22 615.

It is in fact 22614.

Um, so in the motion to update the ordinances, I think there's another line that needs to be added.

Um, some of the formatting was not correct, or was not consistent with the addition strikes, and I'd like to see the in the comprehensive plan.

There were there were several things in the comprehensive plan, it didn't reflect the same nomenclature as strike throughs when things were removed and underlines when there was new text.

One of the objectives, the format wasn't consistent, and I can give you all my notes if you like afterwards.

And I was a little concerned when I got the package that was this thick, and most of it, 95% of it is comprehensive plan of which there was no change, which seemed I don't know why we all got this.

Highlighted so that I could see what it was.

My other request is the city staff, and I don't know who put this package together.

But if we get multiple documents, MS Wood lets you put the name of the file on the bottom and page one of N.

If you'd put those on there, when I finish reading these and shuffled them, I couldn't get them back together again.

That would really help.

Well, I will work with staff and we'll make those changes going forward.

And I can I can give you these some of these because there were several places.

Well, okay, great.

And if we're gonna pass an ordinance or recommend an ordinance, if we should have the sections numbered correctly.

I agree.

I apologize, I don't know where the typo came from, but we'll um we will make that correction.

There was a question that was submitted through public comment that specifies any ADU would need to be built under the same specs as any structure in the flood zone.

So what's the difference?

Basically, they're asking why are the ADUs not allowed in the coastal high hazard area.

I have some slides that covers that very topic, so the coastal high hazard area question, and I know this came up in some conversations.

My direction from city council was to prohibit them in the CHHA.

But let's talk about the pros and cons.

Residents in the CHHA disproportionately need to evacuate during major storms, and ADUs, you know, just would simply add a few more people in those areas.

Countywide, we already fall short of the public shelter spaces that we would need for a worst-case evacuation scenario, but so those are the cons.

However, typically the rates of people who seek public shelter fall far short of these planning scenarios, because people generally prefer to shelter with family and friends or they make other choices, and the number of new ADU residents is so small that it's very unlikely they would affect those evacuation rates.

So there's arguments to be made on both sides on that account.

The more critical issue is that it could potentially affect the city's community rating score for the national flood insurance program.

More housing units in flood zones don't automatically mean a lower score, but it's possible.

It's based on the individual factors that the city earned points for, and whether it specifically got points for restricting development in the special flood hazard area.

I have been trying to get clarity on that for literally months.

Unfortunately, FEMA was cut caught up in the partial government shutdown, and so no one has been communicating.

I've sent numerous emails and and left voicemails shutdown, finally ended last Thursday, but I'm sure they have a backlog to catch up on.

So I I really wanted to have an answer on that question tonight, but I don't have one, so I apologize for that.

That those are really the big reasons.

I just wanted to clarify some of the terminology, uh, why we sometimes use the term coastal high hazard area and sometimes special flood hazard area.

Uh, they're designated by different federal agencies.

Uh, the coastal high hazard area is established by NOAA, and that is just flooding from coastal storms.

Special flood hazard area is designated by FEMA, and that includes flooding from any source and inland flooding.

In Gulfport, they're almost the same thing.

On this map, the special flood hazard area is transparent yellow, and you notice you can't see any yellow, and that's because it's all laying on top of the blue coastal high hazard area.

So it's a little bit, CHHA is a little bit bigger, so that's why I went with that terminology, and that's also used in Florida statutes for uh for land use regulation.

So that's basically what I have.

Again, the direction from city council was to go ahead and leave them out of the the CHHA, and those are the reasons why.

Can I ask a question?

Um, how many single family homes would be a limited like excluded with this?

Or I guess it was a chart.

I apologize.

I did not bring the technical memo with me, but but we did look at that for task two.

Um the difference.

So on the previous slide, I talked about the projected.

Um, the projected rates of ADUs.

So this is the chart.

Have you got this document?

Yes.

This is page 18 in the technical document.

There's no total there by zoning districts.

Okay.

I can't do that mess in my head that that's fine.

There we go.

Um, so the projected growth rate of between nine and fifteen new ADUs per year.

I believe nine per year would be excluding the CHHA, and 15 would be including it, I believe.

And we did it over 10 years, so it was like 90 versus 150.

I do have some comments on that.

I don't want to jump in front, but I wrote them up because I thought I would forget something, and they're not all that great.

I did listen to the council discussions on this.

It was not like listening to the Nobel Prize Committee talking high-level stuff.

I heard a lot of, yeah, sure, what do you think?

Um, 40% of the council has changed since then.

And um, this subject, nobody, there was no thoughtful debate that I heard.

I heard no thoughtful debate on it.

It was just, oh, that seems reasonable, and on they went.

So if you don't mind, I'll read my comments and some of them are gonna be a little redundant.

And uh I want to call attention to the private property rights element of the comp plan.

Policy 1.1.1, the right of a property owner to use, maintain, develop, etc.

Their property.

Uh for the uh subject to the state and local ordinances.

Of course, we balance homeowner rights and the public good all the time, but we're supposed to have the rights of the individual homeowner firmly in mind when making decisions.

The rights of the individual should not be taken away for no good reason.

Paragraph C3 of the ordinance would do exactly that.

It seeks to deprive those living in coastal areas of the right to have an ADU when in fact they cause no demonstrable harm to the public.

The argument for depriving these homeowners of this right centers around the concept of density.

It is suggested that one adding ADUs increases density, and two that density somehow causes a harm to the public good, and is planted that in our minds.

Like, oh, don't want to have density.

Okay, let's look at it.

And the very next paragraph, D2, it states that ADU shall not be considered a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating maximum residential density.

Just want to make that point.

In fact, greater actual density is created by erecting very large homes.

Uh, more of that in just a moment.

And the harm, my take on Hurricane Helene's results.

I have some experience with it.

And the aftermath is that the public harm done was damaged to homes and buildings from flooding, and with a very uh with a small amount from wave action, and that incremental density played no role whatsoever in the damage to any structure.

Specifically, the presence or proximity of a struct of structure A had no effect on the experience of structure B.

The damage in destroyed buildings were designed around much earlier building codes, if any, this accounted for 100% of the damage.

Therefore the solution for avoiding flood damage to structures and coastal areas is building them to meet or exceed current FBC and FEMA guidelines.

I want to share a photo of a uh demonstration of just how binary this design issue is and we can pass it if you like that was um hurricane um hurricane uh Michael yeah went through uh Mexico Beach as a cat five one of the worst storms to ever hit cat five went right over that house um as one of the worst storms to ever hit uh the United States and as you can see everything was obliterated except for a house that was built correctly in other words it's a straight up issue of building code and it is not an issue of density people tend to mix those I know what a chaos it was after the storm it looked like such a mess and I I think people saw that and thought oh we don't want to add more residency into that mess I if we have a three or above storm come over golf port my estimation would be it is going to be these older houses well out of the flood zone that are going to be absolutely blown to bits and that anything built to FEMA regs is probably going to be pretty okay it's just my guess.

So that was that and then I just like to call attention uh to page uh 13 of the executive summary paragraph two and three if ADUs are allowed within coastal zone they will be subject to the same elevation of flood resistance standards as primary dwellings that's all from a risk management perspective they're no different um reading the executive summary carefully you'll see that there's no case being made that ADUs present a danger in coastal areas it's not the number of bedrooms that determine the risk but how those bedrooms are built and for that I just took a picture of this this house uh being built on Baywood each level of that is 4,000 square feet um so that's a lot of density going into a single home okay um you could easily have a smaller home and an ADU and not have nearly as much uh going on much many bedrooms much density um so lastly just wanted to say circling back to our first point we're intended to respect individual property rights and deprive people of these rights only for very compelling offsetting public go to benefit I see no such compelling or substantial benefit to paragraph C3 and if this CRS score becomes a factor in time I see that suggest we take other steps to mitigate and manage this one should not be preemptively deprived of their rights because of a small issue that may or may not happen in the future and that others have dealt with if other communities can do this why not golf port so I'm in very in favor of the ADUs uh but would ask that that line that paragraph that uh subsection be removed.

Thank you.

Okay I am against doing allowing ADUs in the high hazard area at this time and my primary concern is the CRS rating for the city of Gulfport.

So if if it has potential to affect the flood insurance rating for every property in Gulfport and city properties there that could be a significant impact there and I think the problem the problem is that you can't get a definitive answer on that and FEMA's been a little unsettling recently there have been changes back and forth changes in the administration's approach to it.

So I'd prefer to say let's not allow it in the high hazard area.

For now, that's not a long-term thought.

A long-term thought is once we establish that it doesn't affect uh flood rating and a flood insurance for everybody in the city, and there's not a huge financial impact, then we can go ahead and do that.

I appreciate that.

I I think in there comes how big a problem is it, and is there any other mediation that could be done along the line?

I mean, I I don't know whether everything is binary with FEMA or not, and you would know better.

But, you know, has anybody made the case?

I mean, if other communities are able to not deprive people of these rights, um, you know, what is it about us that couldn't be like them and still not suffer and is suffering and and is the hit uh a big head?

I mean, I pay flood insurance, I don't want a big head, but is it a big head or is it a uh a tiny head, you know?

So I appreciate wanting to know that I do um I would prefer that we go ahead and address that as it comes up, and if it were to be, oh my god, this is gonna double our rate, it doesn't it doesn't work that way, it's a cumulative uh aspect that affects your rating.

So it's you you do this, this, and this, it reduces your rating.

You do this, this, and this, you you increase your rating.

So it's a cumulative effect.

We couldn't say, like they're not gonna tell us this one thing is going to do that.

And only six cities in Hanois County participate in the national flood insurance program, you're one of the six.

So comparing it to when saying, you know, other people do it, there they may not be facing the issue because they don't participate and don't have a flood ordinance that you have in 10.5.

But doesn't St.

Pete.

I don't believe they participate.

I thought they did.

I don't know if they do, but I know that it's individualized to each community.

Each community gets as many points as they possibly can, and then they get a score, and that determines what kind of discount their residents get, um, with the NFIP.

And so that, and I I don't know for sure if that is um something that Goldport gets points for or how much they do.

I have not been able to verify that.

No, and we we are we have a six rating which provides a 20% discount.

So are we ever going to be able to quantify this one?

That's the question.

I don't think that would give us anything.

No, because when I've litigated these cases, um, it's been the cumulative effect of of what you're doing and what you're not doing, and there's steps that move you up and down, um, and I don't think I think you get a review and you don't get a definitive saying, like if you did if you only did this, you know, or if you so it doesn't, I don't think it works that way.

Yeah, there are points assigned for each qualitative thing that you're doing, um, but I I agree it may be difficult to exactly quantify the effect of this one thing, but we don't have any information at all right now because we can't get right the government to talk to us, right?

Am I understanding um this correctly?

So when I look at the table that you have in the memo and you have the zoning districts and you have single de fact detached family uh or single family detached parcels, you identify those that are outside the CHA, and then you identify all.

So a simple subtraction will show you the ones that are in the CHA in each zoning district, and so by a rough estimate, and I'm not math is not my strong suit, um, but I'm gonna say it's about six hundred and thirty-one homes that are that are in the CHA that would be ineligible under the current to have an accessory dwelling.

With that, is that so I I'm just trying to understand why is you're not changing your floodplain ordinance, you're not adding density.

Why is this an impact to FEMA?

Be and I ask that because the structure that's going to be built is going to be FEMA compliant, so raising it out of the floodplain, so that it's not eligible for the same claims.

So I'm I'm just trying to understand why is why is that an impact?

So it's not defined as an increase of density for the purposes of Penellas County, but from FEMA's perspective, you're still adding new households in an area.

And you're you're if it's detached, you're adding new buildings.

But that are compliant.

Yes.

But there is a score that some communities receive for just limiting the number of buildings and and households.

That's what we're trying to resolve.

Is whether or not they'll accept it if it's compliant, it shouldn't be calculated in that, but are they going to.

Exactly, because a large segment of those houses are already built to FEMA specifications.

Right.

The west side of the city in passing out country flow other than Schummer Point, the newer homes are all built to specifications.

So you're absolutely right.

Yeah, and I would think for older homes, if they couldn't rebuild theirs or weren't going to, but they were going to build an accessory dwelling, they did meet it, now they have a structure that's compliant on their property, which would help with some of the mitigate some of the other effects.

Then you get into the factor of the 50% rule.

Can you add the ADU within the 50% rule?

Interesting.

True, true.

Well, but it's not a it's in it's a separate structure.

Yeah.

My understanding is that it runs with the structure.

So if you were building an attached ADU that would trip the 50% rule potentially.

If it's detached, I don't believe it counts, but again, that's another thing we would need clarity or something.

Yeah, this has been very frustrating.

I want to give you these answers and I just haven't been able to get them.

This is not you know this is not an easy agency to get any information when they were fully I know yes, very familiar, but okay.

Just making sure I'm thinking about it in the right way.

Okay.

And in comparison to an enormous house with more area than two smaller that that doesn't factor into FEMA.

I mean, an 8,000 square foot house is like, okay, that's one house.

They count the number of buildings, is my understanding, and and households.

Yeah.

So it a person with an 8,000 square foot uh a family with an 8,000 square foot house is probably still they're probably very wealthy people that are going to take up a lot more space than two households of smaller units.

So it would be fewer households.

And and I found this picture, which was in the back of the comprehensive plan, but not included in the package, interestingly, where the blue shows you all the single family homes, and you can see there's a whole cluster down the bottom that are east of 49 that are all in the high hazard area.

So those are those are a lot of the areas that are eliminated with this, but I found this useful.

I wanted to be able to superimpose these two, but I didn't have the technical software to do that.

Okay, are there any other questions?

I only have I hesitate to bring this up.

Um 226 um 15 F4 states accessory dwelling units may be rented in accordance with applicable city regulations governing residential rentals, and I'm wondering if that should be strengthened for an explicit statement.

Either uh prohibiting uh prohibiting uh short-term rental use of ADUs or um you know permitting it under certain conditions or cross-referencing the specific city ordin ordinance that governs governs uh short-term rentals.

So um the Airbnbs and and others um, you know, in terms of um you know the the second unit possibly being uh used as a short-term rental.

We can't create any new restrictions that wouldn't apply to single-family homes within a zoning district, but we could cross reference that section.

I don't I don't know.

I was just thinking about the Senate Bill 48, which is pending, that uh preserves municipal authority to regulate short-term rental use, but you know, and I know that go that Goldport is grandfathered in.

Um so I just I wanted to make sure that this affirmatively act and instead of um just to spell that out um so Senate Bill 48 just to clarify did not pass it it died um we've seen it two years in a row so we may see it again uh the short term rental issue was actually what killed it because the Senate wanted to uh allow local governments to um prohibit short term rentals and the house didn't agree and so they couldn't get on the same page and two years in a row it died so thank you can I just ask one more time on this calculation from FEMA I know this is difficult because we talk about something we don't know but the total discount of our right is 20% and that's based on you know a bunch of parameters and this is one small part of that.

Um if that score goes up or down do we suddenly lose a 20% discount or or is it become a nineteen and a half percent discount or go to 21 and a half there are steps so you're at a six right now you if you lose points because of this issue theoretically you might drop to a five and I don't know what that would equate to and relative to the scoring in sections.

So I don't know what the exact percentage would be.

Right it goes in right okay um just one clarification on the ordinance for the change to the comp plan um just kind of to the point that was made can we go ahead and and add in there that um what we're amending are the following policies you say under the appropriate residential objections that it's in the future land use element um yes it was in the housing element it is in the housing element are you asking if it can be if you're are you asking if it can be moved to the future no I'm asking it that the element be identified oh okay because like I said I right we were kind of given the whole plan and so I didn't know whether which element you were adding it to yeah I apologize that did not make it into the ordinance title so we come on the titles on the top of the pages it talks about the transportation element before it actually gets the transportation element.

So which element was which was a tad confusing.

So the ordinance that I have only includes those policies it doesn't include the rest of the plan.

Yeah it's just two pages.

But I can work with city staff to if there are some formatting issues with the comp plan as a whole I can separately I can work with staff to get them a new copy with that addressed.

Right.

So I I think we just need to work to clean up some of these and I don't I don't think the details those technical details affect the concept of the ADU and the rules which I'm in favor of ADUs I'm I'm not in favor of them without a size constraint.

So again whoever makes a motion in the second you can include the conditions in your motion and or the motion could be amended to include the conditions.

Can we make a motion at this point?

That's up to the chair.

Yeah if there's no further questions or comments then um we can make a motion at this point though just so that we keep it clean we're only dealing with the ordinance on the company.

Right.

Not section not the we'll handle that next.

There's two separate motions.

They're gonna be, yeah, two separate motions.

So yes, if if there are no further questions or comments, then I'm looking for a motion on the proposed ordinance amending the comprehensive plan.

Madam Chair, if I could just clarify, we wanted to um amend the ordinance title to include the words housing element.

Is that correct?

Um yes, to amend both actually.

There are other uh I know in the motion, someone um would would need to make yes, I would ask that the housing element qualification be included not only in the title but also in section one to clearly identify where the change is occurring within the comp plan.

Is anybody want to make that motion?

Do you have everything clear in your in your mind which what would be affected by this?

For example, Mary's reference to size that would not go in this, correctly.

That would go in.

That's correct.

That's the second one.

So and then also her um correction with regard to the numbering would be in the second one.

So what it's just trying to help out what what has been referenced here that that changes people offered that would apply just to the comp plan.

I think the only thing that would apply to the comp plan is um the change in the ordinance title in section one of the ordinance to reference the the housing element.

So this is the recommendation of um recommend approval to city council amending code of ordinances chapter 22 zoning article six.

Uh this is the comprehensive plan amendments.

So unfortunately, the memos didn't have the agenda item number on them.

Okay, means I've shuffled those two.

Since you know the title exactly what you want to say, why don't you make the motion?

She would have to pass.

Okay, sorry.

If it's helpful, there's a proposed motion that's on the second page of the um agenda memorandum.

And um we would just need to add to that to include housing element in the title in section one of the ordinance.

So I'm happy to make that motion if you'd like.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance for the amending of the comprehensive plan to include um the addition of policies 1.43 and 1.44 to the how regarding accessory dwelling units to the housing element of the comprehensive plan and amending the data and analysis um sections of the comprehensive plan.

Second.

Board member Gonzalez Hastings.

Oh, real quick.

Just before we take the vote, I just want to make sure there is there any further public comment before we vote on this item.

We haven't had any public comment yet.

Well, I mean, we asked earlier, but there wasn't any.

I just want to make sure before we vote.

I I have a comment.

Please come forward.

I'm uh my name is uh Kevin Connor.

I'm an accidental real estate investor.

I bought a home for my daughter and her my son-in-law, who is going to be a firefighter in St.

Pete, he took a job elsewhere.

And so I um have a home that um that I've renovated, and um I was contemplating uh putting an ADU on it.

I will tell you, and I know we're talking about the comprehensive plan right now, but the specific covenant to be a be uh a present resident there, I find overly restrictive, and um it has caused me to rethink entirely to put an ADU on the unit.

It's a very large yacht, would be perfect spacing for one, and um you can see I'm a little dirty.

I do very good work, it would you know it would beautify the neighborhood.

Um the there was one thing also in there that I thought was a little bit um maybe it wasn't clear.

Um, but it was the notion that if someone left and you rented the unit, can the renters utilize the ADU?

And the answer seemed to be no, which fundamentally I find ridiculous, because you could rent it out and say, now you have a studio or an office, right?

Um, and you have more living space in there.

So um I would be against that as well.

But fundamentally, um, you know, that's my comment that I'm not real happy with the notion that you have to be present to to rent, and I find it restrictive for resale value as well.

There's two other things that from the rules I think should be added.

Number one is the amount of um impervious surface.

Uh I know you're talking square footage, and that kind of gets to the point, but I think the real issue when you're worried about flood is impervious surface.

So that would confuse me when I when I went to do it.

The second one is um I find it very vague that no new parking would be required.

I'm from Washington State, incidentally, where you can't even believe you know you guys went through a hurricane and gotten very good about permitting, but you can't imagine in the Seattle area what the restrictions are.

Um, they're really something.

But um one of the restri one of the requirements that I thought was very um useful was demanding a separate entrance, perhaps a gate, etc.

for one that's a detached unit.

Um because I can see a world where people might not honor that, and they also require parking for the individual.

Um the notion of no new parking uh on street was just vague enough to like lift my ears, like uh-oh.

I wonder if anyway, I think that that should also be um added.

Incidentally, thank you for the discussion.

It was really interesting, and I love that you all take this so seriously.

Thanks for letting me comment.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Um if we have any other questions from that comment, unless it's pertaining to the comp plan, I'd like to go ahead and and take that motion, and then when we talk about um the land development regulation change, we can also talk about additional comments and questions we may have.

Is that good with the board?

Okay, board member Gonzalez Hastings, yes, board member Kelly, yes, board member McCoachy?

Yeah, yes, Vice Chair President Hamarhan, yes, Chair Person County, yes.

Okay, and with that, we will take the second ordinance before us tonight.

That's an ordinance of the city of Gulfport, Florida amending the city of Gulfport's code of ordinances, amending chapter 22, zoning, article six supplementary regulations for all districts by amending section 22-6.3, accessory use and structures to accessory use and structures excluding dwelling accessory dwelling units, and by adding section, and I want to make sure this is right, 22-6.15 or 14 should be 14.

Okay, 14.

Um, accessory dwelling units, ADUs providing for applicability, providing for definitions, providing for general standards, providing for development standards, use and occupancy requirements, providing for parking requirements, providing for administration approval, and providing for nonconformities, providing for codification, several ability, and for an effective date.

Um we've already had presentation on that.

We've heard some comments, but I'm gonna open it back up.

And does anybody have any other questions or comments on this issue?

I have a sorry, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

That in a lot of the area where these will be allowed, there's very small homes too.

So if we suggest something like a 50% for the smaller 672 square foot Florida builder homes, they'll end up with like a tiny little nothing.

So just a consideration for that.

So I'm not I'm not set on 50%, but I am set on that being some limit, so right.

50% maybe two-thirds would be acceptable, but it needs to be significant smaller, in my in my opinion, and there needs to be a physical cap.

Otherwise, we've we've seen the new houses that have been built boundary to boundary front and back, occupying the whole lot, and I'm really don't want to see an ADU creating that kind of same mass on a block.

I agree with you.

So I'm in favor of a percentage.

I'm open to discussion on that, the amount of percentage.

We could do a percentage with a minimum and a maximum, so that you know, uh, either way, it it's gonna be this percentage, but it can be at least 500, and it can't be under any circumstances be over 900, something like that.

You follow what I'm saying to make up for that when you have a tiny little house or a really big house.

You know, we don't want a three thousand foot ADU, you know, which would could happen okay, you know, in a few cases.

So I could see a percentage with a min max kind of a and a height?

Uh I think that's fair.

It's already you can't be taller than the primary.

So I think that takes care of it.

Gentleman's comment on impervious surface, that's already covered.

So I don't think that needs to be brought again.

Again, an FAR, same thing.

That's covered by uh the existing by existing uh city.

Yeah, yeah.

If if you're already on the edge, you're not gonna be able to build an ADU, you know, you're gonna have to open up some perviousness.

I don't I don't you whoever's talking has to be at a microphone.

Sorry.

Um because just because we're video yeah, keeping this, this is for our minutes.

I I apologize, didn't mean to interrupt.

So I do want to clarify something in that conversation where it said that the ADU couldn't be taller than the primary.

I is that really true?

It could should it be that the ADU can't be taller than the zoning for that area?

Because otherwise, if you're in the in an area where you have to elevate you have to elevate a separate building and and you'd be against that.

Yeah, that that is yeah, that's probably go ahead.

That's correct.

It there's no restriction against it being taller than the primary unit, but it can't be taller than the maximum height of the zoning district.

Did you see what's happening in Tampa with that Michael Martin?

No, he's being sued by his neighbors, and he's currently in jail on contempt of court because he has spent about a million dollars on his ADU, his pool and a pickle court.

He was permitted, yeah, he got his permits, everything.

The neighbor got mad because it was blocking the sunlight.

So he got a lawyer, the judge, and he was permitted, the judge said tear it down.

He's already got a million dollars invested.

The demolition is gonna be about eight hundred thousand dollars, and he said no.

So the judge put him in jail for contempt of court.

So this high height thing, you know, I I think something maybe, and something the gentleman said also kind of concerns me.

Um I'm not big on having to live in the property.

Um, I think as a homeowner, if you want to rent your house and the ADU, I think you should be able to.

That's just my I wanna I agree.

I'm really uncomfortable with that covenant.

It it uh it just seems like bad government.

Uh I don't mean that there's not a reason to do the things, and I understand the motivation.

I think it's a good motivation.

I'd like to know the motivation.

Motivation is to prevent, if I have it correct, to prevent greedy developers from taking advantage of what is being presented to the public as an opportunity largely to help uh family members, friends, or renter for a primary residence, a primary resident to increase, you know, help pay their mortgage with a rent, with a renter, things like that.

These ADUs, everybody thinks, oh, affordable housing that they're very expensive.

They're not cheap to put up, they're very expensive.

I spoke at length with my um architect that built my house, and he says they can run it the cheapest version would be converting your garage.

But those other ones, you know, the detached this, that, they can run into 250, 300, 400 a square foot.

So they're very expensive.

Yeah, I mean, uh not not getting into that for the moment, because I mean, they can be for sure.

Uh I think what I'd be interested in is the the reasoning.

I mean, I I get the reasoning.

I think I understand the reasoning.

How prevalent is that?

How successful is it?

Um, what is the experience of cities who've not had it?

Or is there any way to modify it?

Like it times out or something, something that doesn't, you know, odd infinitum work into this crazy little odd mix of who's staying in the ADU and who isn't.

And it it doesn't seem like a code I'd be proud to have my name on, you know.

Um, is there any way to know that stuff?

It's a policy decision.

Um it is a a best practice that is promoted by the Florida Housing Coalition and uh American Planning Organization to as they promote ADUs, that is uh an established best practice to help preserve community character.

But it is a policy decision of whether you all feel that it is right for Gulf.

So it was the rationale behind this was that I think you said that there wouldn't be absentee um property owners, so you wouldn't have a street that was all rentals and one homeowner, but that you would still have property owners trying to keep that neighborhood type feel, but allowing that rental.

That's the rationale behind the restrictive covenant.

Correct.

Because if you allow two units to be built and rented out, that doubles the incentive for investors to come in, uh, and that could change the character of the community over time.

It increases it, it doesn't double it because the ADU is considerably smaller.

For previous conversation.

Two rental incomes instead of one rent.

True, true.

But but you're you're right.

Yeah, but I mean we're gonna get down in the weeds on this.

I can tell.

So I think, you know, it matters.

Um I also think that because these aren't allowed to be short-term rentals, just because someone's renting doesn't mean they're not a community member just as much as someone who owns a home, and so it would be very sad for a block of homes that have ADUs to maybe all the homeowners have to leave and now all the houses are rented anyway, and then there's a bunch of empty spaces when people need houses.

So, I I think you have to look at the legislative intent.

That's what I mean.

I'm looking at the statute, and the legislature finds that it serves an important public purpose to encourage the permitting of accessory dwelling units in single family residential areas in order to increase the availability of affordable rentals for extremely low income, very low income, low income, or moderate income persons.

That was the intent behind here, which there's more to the actual intent, but it's talking about allowing affordable housing in residential areas, you're not making these into uh multi-family areas, right?

So you have to remember if you're allowing complete rentals of your multiple families in the same property, that is not a residential neighborhood that that's multifamily, so this is a single purpose was created to allow this, right?

Um a couple of questions further questions.

So when we were talking um about both impervious surface, sizing, and the height.

In here, I know it says that the dw accessory dwelling units shall comply with the applicable development standards of the zoning districts, which includes the maximum building coverage, the required yard setbacks, the maximum building height, and the minimum green space or impervious or I'm sorry, or pervious surface requirements.

So has there been an analysis or i I know it probably wouldn't be easier to do citywide, but I mean have there been like even spot analysis on how restrictive that is the current development requirements are for what could be built as an accessory dwelling unit?

Because to this gentleman's concern about and you know impervious surface area, we have pervious surface requirements, so that's in there.

To the concern regarding should there be a maximum or uh um minimum number or percentage is I mean it I just don't know for what's current what the current building stock is, how significant.

Well, the significance of city council that was one of the things that they talked about that the new structure would be in the same setbacks as a single-family home, it would also have to be less than forty percent of floor area ratio as Mr.

McCoachy spoke of.

Yeah, and the 20% pervious surface.

So those guidelines are throughout the city.

It wasn't meant to be council is pretty adamant about why they wanted to maintain the setbacks that exist today.

No, but I'm saying with those, what is the the practical ability for for people to truly build on their property and build of an ADU of significant size for the concerns that we're having?

That would be a variable because you have different lot sizes, understood to look at it from that perspective.

Yes.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.

I was just wondering has there been like have we looked in the different zoning districts to say, you know, in the zoning district, you're probably not gonna have a significant, but in this one you really could have something that's as big as the house, and I know it's gonna vary for each property because some folks have multiple lots, some have ginormous lots, some have little tiny lots.

But um, I'm just wondering, you know, when we're talking about adding additional requirements that are gonna have a maximum, a minimum or percentage.

Are we i i how how necessary is that additional regulation for what could truly be built on the housing stock that exists?

Sure.

And there again, it's your your zoning district has a sixty by hundred seventy hundred and thirty-five foot lots.

Yeah.

You can build forty percent of that.

Someone who has a five thousand square foot lot still has to meet the setbacks, so yes, you're right in that fact that that would control it.

That's one of the reasons Ms.

Fisher spoke of there's only a minimum that can be built, because you're not gonna be able to one of the questions that we asked of council was the prohibition of granting variances.

It was just a topic because I have a rear setback and I want to extend to get bigger.

Right.

Is council willing to let the Board of Adjustment entertain variance of those type setbacks?

So that was those are questions as we spoke of it's policy questions.

And what was the response with regard to stay strictly?

No, I mean to entertain variants.

No, that was their intent was that you're allowed forty percent of your lot, meeting the setbacks, and that's what so one of my concerns was the line that said two-thirds of the new ADUs that were built in St.

Pete.

Well, new single family homes and driving around looking at the number of houses that I see demolished in Gulfboard and the size of new houses going in and the way developers are going in.

I'm concerned if we don't have any definitive rules, people are gonna use this as an opportunity to build a duplex and call it a single family house and an ADU, and work around the because a duplex lot has to be much bigger.

True.

And work around some of the the density rules that we have.

And you're absolutely and that's why council is very restrictive of meeting the setbacks and maintaining the as this gentleman spoke of the floor area ratio at 40%.

You're still limited because it as we talked about the bigger house can be forty percent.

We have houses that are at 35% of the lot, 37%.

Subsequently, you can build to that forty percent, doesn't matter what you build, but as long as you can meet the setbacks and do not exceed forty percent of that.

Approximately within that number.

And Mr.

Coach can tell you there's still you have he's trying to build, he still has to meet setbacks.

We had a big discussion about setbacks and things to that effect on how your lots laid out.

There's the variables are all there because you're in a situation where what you build still only can be 40% or six foot, you have six foot set back side setbacks in your neighborhood.

A lot of these homes that we're talking about are in this neighborhood.

There are deed restrictions may prohibit them.

So there and we're ex we're not covering those things.

So that's where the issue is, but the the limit is there.

Right, and I'm I'm thinking about the limit on the size of the ADU to keep it.

Sure.

Well, so I uh smaller reading of it.

You could build a bigger house and make your basically your uh the 800 square foot Florida builder home into the ADU if you can meet the setbacks and you can go stay within 40 percent.

The two bedroom, one bath on Fremont Street can become the ADU, and behind it I build a bigger home because the lot size has but the ADU has to be behind or to the side.

I can utilize it.

I can live in the ADU and rent the front house.

I have to be on the property.

No, but the rules say that the ADU has to be behind the right.

He's saying he would build the bigger structure behind it.

Yes and and call that the ADU and live in that and rent out the front house.

I could not do that.

Because the ADU has to be in the side or the rear and it has to be smaller, smaller than the contact.

But I mean that's where we talk about people trying to game the system.

That's I'm I'm just gonna try to make sure that we address all those.

And that's what that's why I'm here, because council's intent was to be very restrictive, as you're speaking of.

They were okay with doing it, as you know, that you were at in attendance.

It was just put these restrictions on it.

So um, so here where it says the accessory dwelling unit shall be subordinate in scale, therefore not as big as the house, but could be close, um, and appearance to the principal dwelling unit.

So just tagging back on that height issue.

It you know, the first restriction in one says that it has to meet the maximum building coverage, maximum building height, all of that.

So it's got the same restrictions as the first house.

But if I have an older home, and it is um not built to the maximum height, and you were gonna build an ADU behind it, being subordinate in scale and appearance, does that mean that the ADU would have to be the same height or less than the primary unit?

I think that's a policy question, and I agree that that is a little ambiguously worded, and that's something that we talked about, because you do have structures that are allowed to be 35 feet.

Right.

So I mean, I'm just thinking of the zoning district, uh you can build the 35 foot.

And to me, I mean, I think that the accelerate or accessory dwelling unit being subordinate in scale makes a great deal of sense.

I think that's exactly what it is and what it's intended to be.

Um but subordinate in appearance, I I'm just a little worried that that's gonna build in some ambiguity with how tall it can be.

So we either need to say it can't be taller than the primary, or we say we just leave it alone and say it can be the maximum building height that's provided for in the code.

Or you could get specific because what we're mostly talking about is a non comp a non FEMA compliant primary, building a FEMA compliant uh uh ADU because we don't limit in the coastal high hazard area.

Well, no, I mean, so or a garage apartment, yeah.

You could yeah, you could build a garage and apartment above it for a small house that didn't have a garage, yeah.

Yeah, you know, right which there are a lot.

But these are all home or these could be for many homes that aren't in that special, or the C C H H A.

Um and so they wouldn't have that.

I was just wondering if there's a way we can craft something that uh gives people reasonable amount of freedom, but you don't end up with like a Frankenstein situation.

Yeah, right.

Um I mean ultimately my opinion is every single house in the CHA is ultimately gonna be elevated.

It's just a matter of time.

Yeah.

Um and so that shouldn't be a holdup for somebody building an ADU down there and then later rebuilding the primary.

You know, under but I mean just I'm just talking about for the ordinance before us, if i if it's not going to and this is a question, i you know, are we gonna recommend that it include the CHA, or are we going to say until you find out from FEMA, we're not gonna include the CHHA.

We're gonna go with the way that it's written.

If we're not including the CHHA, then we come back to if you're putting the accessory dwelling unit on top of your garage, it could end up being higher than your principal structure.

So are you gonna be excluded because its appearance is not subordinate?

So, or are you gonna be allowed?

My understanding of the intent was more like the one on the right hand side that it is it's it's allowed to be taller, but it's very clearly smaller in scale.

But if the if the scale and appearance is too ambiguously worded, that's something you know, we can tighten that up to square footage and I think you're absolutely right, Madam Chairman, in the fact that a lot of this w nineteen sixty five there was a lot of it was a lot this ordinance that you're fussing with started in nineteen sixty five with the proliferation of garage apartments in the Stetson area.

Okay, the the one the the second floor over the garage.

Yeah.

That's what this is based on.

And those houses, the uh Mediterranean looking homes that had a garage one car garage off to the side, and they said he was trying to control the density issue when they started allowing quote is why our code says garage apartments.

Yeah.

That's that's what where the genesis of this was.

So now here we are fifty sixty years later.

We're talking about the same thing.

So are you gonna allow and that's where we get back to the massing.

None of those were as big as the house that was next door.

Yeah.

And I think ma massing is such a big aspect of what we're talking about.

How you control the massing is the setbacks and in those type of things, and with height, in the zoning district.

If you stay within the zoning district, there's other comparable properties.

I I think we're not creating an anomaly because you're it's happened in the neighborhood.

Someone built a two-story home next to the eight hundred as we you read one of the members referenced the eight hundred square foot home or the small Florida build builder.

And that that's where you're pro you know, that's happening already.

They're building 35 foot homes next to that 800 square foot now.

So what are you looking what what you know it's what people ask us as staff?

How do you define character?

I mean, it's subjective to what's character today is different than the character that existed in nineteen sixty-five.

So that's that and that's why as Ms.

Fisher spoke of that's a policy question.

That's the best I can tell you is that you do have variable things happening in neighbors, even in that neighborhood where we talk about the garage apartments, those big Mediterranean houses owned the whole block.

And they were chopped off to build the eight hundred and sixty five foot home you're speaking of because uh that's how they were infilled with those.

Um it's we we're kind of copying St.

Pete is at least we benefit by their rather large experiment.

Um how do they do all that?

Are we using language very similar to theirs?

Uh their maximum is sixty seven percent of the primary structure, uh or I believe it's eight hundred feet is the 800.

So it's whichever of those is smaller.

And it doesn't address height.

Not to my knowledge.

I favor um when in doubt.

Give people more freedom.

You know, we run the risk there'll be things we don't like.

There's plenty of things I don't like, there's no law against them.

Um, just I think we I would like to see Galport not be an HOA kind of town where you got the wrong colored front door and whatever.

Um so just generally speaking, I mean, there's when in doubt if we're agonizing over a little detail, I'd rather we go for a more relaxed uh point of view, knowing that it'll be minor, it'll be rare, it'll not be everywhere, and uh, you know, let people get on with their lives just generally it's philosophical.

I totally agree with him.

I don't think there's gonna be a mad rush for people to be putting these things, especially when I I think there's gonna be major sticker shock because they are very costly and very expensive.

Yeah, so um I don't think there's gonna be an overwhelming, you know, rush at the permitting department for these things, but I think if somebody wants to do it, um they should be able to do it, and like he said, I I don't think that the owner needs to be there, and like again, I don't think that's gonna be that many situations where it's gonna be overwhelming, and but I also agree with Mary.

I think that there needs to be a cap on how big they can be and the height because of what's going on over in Tampa.

I mean, here's this guy spent a million dollars on his property and somebody oh you bought the sun.

What is that?

But he has that right.

They both are right.

So one of them's in jail.

And one of them is in jail trying to prove that he's right.

It's a little much, but hey.

So let's let's go to go through those.

So with regard to height, you're um right here, right as it is now, it says maximum building height that's allowable in the code, which is I don't know.

That's the zoning area, right?

Okay.

So let's say zone three for ward three or whatever.

Sorry.

It had to be it had to be me.

The troublemaker.

I believe it's thirty thirty and thirty.

That's where you get the thirty-five.

So you have let's say a little house from the sixties.

That's what.

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's it's single story.

Single story eight, nine to ten feet.

Okay.

Theoretically.

As long as it's it that's how if you have a percentage, you couldn't it wouldn't be sort of tall, very tall and very skinny.

Right.

But then you've got people your neighbors overlooked.

Yeah.

So you're talking about R or one R1A.

Because then you've got people, maybe the neighbor has a pool, and then there you have this thing that's 30 feet in the air and they're like overlooking the pool.

Well thirty feet is R1.

That's the maximum.

The relevant question is could someone come in and build a single family home.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that would be the material difference.

That's what's going in now anyway.

So I I don't see is that I think the area limiting the size will take care of a lot of that.

Um because you would only build the full, let's say eight hundred or thousand or nine hundred whatever square feet if you had a pretty big primary to begin with.

If we use percentage.

So you're not, you know, it's gonna be somewhat scaled just by virtue of that.

Um thirty five feet.

It's three it's three stories, right?

Mm-hmm.

Right, so it's three stories.

So it'll do two living is the max.

So it would be have to be two over parking.

So we could do a garage and then do right.

But I mean, I'm thinking like that three.

You could use like the under I'm assuming it would have to be elevated, correct?

With the new building code.

So pulse of the city you don't have to elevate.

Okay, so but like where you do have to elevate, could you use the lower part as parking?

You can't be habitable space if you have to be elevated.

You could use it as parking.

Like in the lower, okay.

Parking, it's two stories over, but you can put a bathroom in.

Okay.

So in the rest of the city it's two stories.

If you don't have to elevate, or no, you're still allowed to you're still allowed to elevate.

Right, you can still go up to three two over parking.

Up to thirty feet.

But as the chairman said, the um that's a delevation issue when they elevate, they do the parking underneath.

So they have more green space.

I think the problem is self-solving.

Uh, generally by virtue of the area, the percentage.

And there is no law against designing something that other people don't like.

Right.

You know, that that exists right now.

And uh there's plenty.

I mean, you know, everybody goes by tearing up other people's choice in houses, but you know, that's that's all fun.

I think to me that I could build a new structure and I could build it to whatever the code is.

Why would uh m from my thoughts are why when I'm building an accessory structure wouldn't I be held to those same standards even if the primary isn't, it doesn't mean I won't come back and redo the primary or do them both at the same I mean who knows.

So I would personally I would leave one as it is, which would dictate that it meets all the code with regard to maximum building height, um setbacks, all of that, and I would just clarify three maybe to take out a parents and say scaling and massing or some other language that just just that's trying to say it it still needs to look like a residential home.

You're not, you know.

And I think that was the big concern that city council.

They want to put a lighthouse.

No, no.

Well but as much as the neighbors would love it, no.

Does that exist now though?

I mean, do we have any language in permitting um involving that right now?

That the permitting department is making value judgments about the aesthetics of a house.

No, I and I'm not asking for aesthetics about the house.

I'm just saying the the language they have in here that says it's subordinate and scale or massing to the principal structure.

I think that meets the size, it further supports you're gonna build to the code, but you're gonna be this is a subordinate to them right primary.

The the state allowed previously not to get off to practice law, you have very c qualified attorneys here in the fact that they used we had design guidelines.

The state then removed our requirement to to uh have design guidelines.

So it's the aesthetics.

Yes, we previously ten, twelve years ago we had design guidelines and we had you had to offset the porches and all those type things.

It's determined the city cannot utilize design guidelines.

Gulfport's an artistic city, I'd love to see some artistic architecture.

And somebody won't like it.

Yeah, exactly.

But the legislature has determined I can't do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So so are would that be acceptable to you?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Everybody's good on height.

And then the other issue that was brought up was sizing.

I'm just getting this down to if we need to change anything.

So um a maximum.

A maximum either is percentage or max min?

What are our thoughts on that?

Do we have a consensus on what that would be?

I'm good with a percentage and a maximum.

I don't think a minimum's necessary.

I didn't just say I didn't mean a minimum, like you can't make one smaller.

I meant that um, what did I mean?

You can't be forced to make one smaller.

Like if you've got a a nine hundred foot house, um or an eight hundred foot I don't know.

It's w how often's that gonna happen.

Um, lost the thread.

Yeah.

But you can't know how often it's gonna happen, but if it does happen one of these things, then we have no one you know, that's that'll be mad at us.

Yeah.

Well, you you're trying to you are trying to put in legislation for the m for the majority of the things, so that I mean that's th things can happen, right?

Things can fall through on any place with language.

It's difficult to figure out every situation.

Yeah.

Is it is it is sixty percent, fifty percent?

What is a typical percentage that you see?

Uh in St.

Pete it's sixty seven.

Most places tend to just have a flat maximum like eight hundred is really common as a maximum.

St.

Pete does an either or.

Yeah.

I mean if you went with the maximum, then we know what we're gonna be looking at as the most.

It's like you were talking before, when you start percentages, could you have something a lot bigger?

Sure, assuming that the lot uh would allow for that, right?

So when you start looking at the lot at sixty-six percent, roughly sixty seven percent, you'd have to have a pretty big lot.

Yeah.

To have a house that's gonna really make you think, oh my gosh, this ADU is is huge.

Yeah, no, we wouldn't want I was thinking like if you have a nine hundred foot house on a good size lot, which we have had at some of here, and you're like I wanna build an ADU to live in while I then go ahead and build my build a new primary, you know, appropriately sized.

Um, and then oh I can't because two thirds of my primary is only five hundred feet or something.

Yeah, it's a good point.

You know, and that you know, I mean it's it's trying to design for every little scenario.

That's right.

That becomes impossible.

So you have to do for what you think is the general situation.

Yeah, and then what if you never build the primary and now we've got a and the forty percent floor area ratio goes a long way in controlling this.

It should.

Because we can play, you know, what if, but I think if you stick to the as this gentleman spoke of the previous surface requirement, the forty percent floor area ratio, that's a big part.

That way you're managed by the lot size.

They city attorney spoke of different neighborhoods are gonna have different type things being able to be fitted, because as I spoke of there's fifty-four hundred square foot lots on the south side of the city, there's seven thousand square foot lots on the north side of the city.

So they're gonna control what can go in the backyard well so to speak.

You th um, Miss Fisher, do you believe that eight hundred foot or maybe nine hundred?

But do you think that cap maybe you feel like that's successful?

Like keeping life simple and you see it working in St.

Pete or that is a typical maximum that local governments who have a maximum size tend to use.

Again, this is gonna be a policy decision for what you feel is best for the city.

It's easier to enforce that.

Yeah, as opposed to having to calculate percentages.

And square footage on primary homes is is very off many times and and did you mean living area?

Did you mean total area?

Did you what about the garage and we didn't, you know?

But a question is, are you going to allow everyone to build an 800 square foot ADU regardless of the size of the primary unit, or are you still gonna require it to be subordinate in scale?

It's still you know, so that that would dictate that it still has to meet the setbacks.

I mean, I people could come in for a variance, but yeah.

I mean, I I think that's the same argument.

You come in for a variance and you're trying to put too much on on a small lot, you're not gonna be able to get that variance.

You won't get it anyway.

Right.

So the only time that would come into play would be large lot, small primary, right?

Right.

Where somebody says, Yeah, I got an eight hundred foot house and I want an eight hundred foot ADU.

Right.

And re prevalent, it's not not the intention of the ADU.

Although if you have a big enough lot, what is wrong with having I mean you're in essence saying you're gonna have two units.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, you essentially have a duplex without having a exactly in a residential neighborhood.

So it's not in the same lot and it doesn't pay the same.

But I gotta say that the city bills as a duplex does.

But I think it's a temporary phenomenon to the extent that Gulfport is is gravitating upwards, you know, steadily, and I I don't see any sign that's gonna stop.

I think the next buyer of that property is gonna you know put a larger primary on it, you know, be happy to have the eight hundred foot ADU, but they're not gonna live in an eight hundred foot primary house.

Not for the money they're gonna have to pay for.

Well, right.

If you consider somebody's putting in an ADU, it's probably somebody also that is wants to stay in that property.

Yeah.

They're going to have a nice primary.

I mean, that is what you're seeing.

Or like, you know, new housing that's coming in.

Yeah.

So okay, so we're talking about like how big what do we want to say like between six hundred feet and nine hundred feet?

Square feet.

Well, the lower end is going to be dictated by what the the constraints of the the property.

So I mean, they have to be within the setbacks, they have to be within the impervious area.

So I think the smaller number is going to be dictated or well, no, I guess I should say the number is going to be dictated by that.

Yeah, I think the max is what we need.

Yeah, the max is only really need for a map.

Are we going with a minimum when when we're talking about percentages and thinking, wow, what if that ended up with that you have to build a 300 foot ADU?

I mean, that's not realistic.

So maybe you you're allowed to build at least 500, but you cannot build over 600 and 900 square feet.

Yeah.

Something like that.

If you put a minimum in there and say you're entitled to build at least a 500 ADU, you're then going to have to have then you're saying you can do that regardless of whether or not you comply with the building coverage and then curve a surface.

Yeah, then we can't have the right.

No, I wouldn't uh no, you'd still have to comply.

No, because you're you're violating every other rule we have.

Yeah, it has to be uh in my opinion, Jennifer, the max right, right.

Everything else is dictated by the property.

Yeah, because the percentage thing got too complicated.

So we could skip that means we can skip the minimum, skip the percentage and just have a max.

So it's an hour or two.

What is that?

I would I would push for 900.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, from what I've seen from St.

Pete and uh Margo and it's 800.

Okay.

I I would go with 800, but so just to clarify, we still want to we we are still requiring that all the building coverage pervious surface, um, so it would be worded like under no circumstances shall the size exceed eight hundred okay.

But does the clause that it shall be subordinate in size to the primary structure?

Does that still apply?

Yes, yes, okay.

So it leave the other things the way they are, except maybe change appearing to appearance to massing.

And s um I would recommend that for that number three, since there was some um confusion, uh say this shall not apply to height, just to make that clear, and then s uh create a number four that says under no circumstances shall an ADU exceed eight hundred square feet.

Or what whatever number you choose.

We say eight or nine, how do we?

But I think we need to the eight hundred square feet living space.

I agree.

Because if you if you do it as an option three there, you're over a garage.

And that's what's in your neighborhood.

Yeah.

Exactly.

That makes sense.

We're all familiar with who lives where, right?

Um Attorney Salzman, is that wording acceptable to you the under no circumstances shall it exceed?

So eight hundred square feet living space.

Yes.

Yeah, because I was looking in well, you were saying that I was looking at number three also.

I don't know what's right.

Okay.

Do we have any other comments or questions or conditions?

Uh this is section twenty two.

Is this a part the CHA section?

Um we have anybody any other public comment on this?

'Cause we didn't we didn't have that.

We didn't get we didn't ask for public.

Oh I didn't have a motion yet, so I just hadn't called for it, but we can call for it now if you'd like.

Right, we need a motion and I was gonna do a motion a second, then I was gonna call for public comment.

Okay.

Okay, I see.

But from the from the board.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Could I just clarify what I have for in terms of edits?

Absolutely.

Uh so the title of the ordinance is going to be changed to reflect section 22-6.14.

Um and then on that section under subsection E development standards, we're going to add a number four under no circumstances uh shall uh an accessory dwelling unit exceed eight hundred square feet in living space.

And then under subsection F um number uh number four, we're going to add a reference to the short-term rental section of the code and just make it clear that that those citywide restrictions on those also apply to ADUs.

Yep, and the the one change to three also you had you were taking an appearance.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that.

Yes, massing.

And I yeah, that's all I have.

Okay.

So language about the CHA.

I'd like to see it.

I'd like to see it removed.

I understand the argument for it.

Is um does anybody else agree on that?

I I know I understand the argument the other way.

I'm what I'm worried is it establishes a momentum that'll never be reversed, and it's just gonna be the way it is.

And I feel like people are being deprived of their rights for a potential problem, a potentially small problem or a non problem that may or may not ever be really known or resolved, is what it sounds like.

Because we may never really know the effect, because the other things will change on our score and then our score changes and we don't even know who did what.

When is this I don't think that's how we ought to do.

When is the city's next audit?

You just had recently received one, so it'd be about three years.

Okay, okay.

Um my concern is that if we go ahead and allow it in the high hazard area and it causes a problem, there is no path back.

And flood insurance is already pretty pricey if you look in a look an extra five five ten percent because we've upset the down that we get.

You know, Mary, it's been going up twenty percent a year for reasons that don't have anything to do with our score.

So I understand I understand it's going up.

I'm just saying that if there's a way that we can control it not going up at quite at such a rapid rate, then we need to consider that.

I understand.

And I don't feel like it's a it's not a long term thought with me that it should be that way, but I do feel that FEMA is a little bit in flux at the moment.

Um not stable and they make the decisions.

They don't necessarily consult with us on what we've I feel like if other cities don't have this problem we shouldn't have it.

I mean it it's it's a fairly substantial loss for one group of people over another.

I mean it's it's not an inconsequential thing for the affected parties and it's over some like bureaucratic huh?

And if other cities don't have that same question, is there a way we could not have that same question.

That's a that's a big policy decision by the city council because they would have to determine that they're gonna put their 20% discount at risk.

I don't think that's a good idea.

Is that well really that the I I thought there were more communities participating in the told it's only six.

Didn't Fort Myers County no in Pinellas County Fort Myers Beach lost the they lost theirs.

They lost theirs yeah I I just don't think we should people because the people the unincorporated does Penelas County does.

Maybe that's where the maybe um one second we'll take a public comment in just a minute.

Yeah I have to say that I I don't have any problem having a recommendation that we move forward and a recommendation that this be revisited at a particular date to the you know commission and saying during that kind of tasking staff with during that time trying to obtain something from FEMA with regard to this but I would have I would have a hard time saying we're just gonna risk it without really fully understanding what that's going to be for the folks that are are are paying the the flood insurance.

Is there some way to put language in there that does memorialize what she just said because I know how things work that we like we all agree on this now here and then bring it six months from now is like wow well what we would do is we would bring that to council as the chairperson spoke of in your recommendation that you're making as an advisory board your re one of the recommendations that we'll list in the memo in staff report of tonight's meeting is council and you of course no you can get up at the meeting and ask them to consider that's so effective.

If if we but I'm just I mean realistic that that's where the issue becomes because they have to make that ultimate decision to and I think if you even if we went to them with an ortage change that put something like that in there I think you'd get pushback very candidly.

Is is everybody if if there was no if there was no effect on the community rating system would we have consensus that we all would agree that it sh this it should be allowed in the CHHA.

Then I think we include that in our recommendation that we're going forward with the ordinance with the changes we've discussed but that we would recommend if there's either not an effect or a very minimal effect to the community rating such as it's not gonna affect the flood insurance that they allow that in that area.

I like that yeah that would be appropriate that would be that would be good.

And then we could list that in our memo yeah and they'll and they'll watch the video you know things like that.

So we can reflect that that one of the discussions that the group did have was to remove that requirement.

Yeah.

Okay I can that's I can go with that.

Thank you.

Because when we get through the presentation just like this to the council and we get to this section I can interject or Miss Fisher can interject because it'd be the same type presentation that it was concerned by the board about eliminating the sections of the city that are in the coastal control high hazard that is that fair?

Yeah.

No, I I I'm good with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we need a motion.

There is a draft motion in again um in the agenda memorandum.

Um there would need to be a a change to that motion just to recognize that the section is 14 and not 15, and then with the other recommended changes that we've discussed here.

I ask for clarification on the restrictive covenant.

That was not I didn't hear a direction to change that, but there was some comments.

I I think it's a concern for some of the folks, but I didn't hear a consensus to remove that.

Thank you.

Um I'm sorry, to remove wage the restrictive covenant.

I heard that it was a concern by a couple of members.

I just didn't hear that a consensus on removing it.

And you're free to make flying against when you want the I mean we're getting a lot of wisdom from Ms.

Fisher here, and I I don't like going against that in any way.

Um I d I I don't think it's good.

I don't think it's good for for the, you know, overall, I think that I would I wish I had a month to sit and think about it because it seems like ought to be a better way.

Um to accomplish some of that same in in the language of the restrictive covenant, um there's language that it can be released by the city, right?

Isn't there generally a language that if it was met or there was a change in the code that the city could review?

Well, absolutely, yes.

That's what I was wondering if an if an owner could if there could be an appeal on a case-by-case basis.

No, okay.

I I was only asking that question because I was thinking if this was in place and it did become onerous or we were gonna have the issue like what you described where you have a house and you have an empty ADU in the house and an empty ADU and this was becoming problematic.

If there's language in the restrictive covenant such that the city can if it changes it in the ordinance, it could release those covenants from that property.

That would be a that we could do, but it would be all or nothing.

Every covenant, all no covenant.

No, we could I mean they could pick and choose uh covenants to I mean because you have a rational basis, right?

We have a bunch of empty uh we would have to say in this zone or this area or like there have to be some criteria, not this one over here and this one.

Right, no, you can't do spot kinda that's like spot zoning.

You can't do that.

Right.

Yeah.

What I would recommend is if you someone came to us, just like if someone takes a duplex and changes it into a single family home, they have to show us they're removing the second electric meter, the second water beater.

Someone comes in with design plans to convert the construction plans to convert the home into a single family home again.

Well, that's proof that they've invested in that, then you could remove the covenant.

But till they came to you, I wouldn't want that blanket given it up because then people would do things like somebody else and they would just, oh, I'm doing this.

No, you're gonna have to give us substantial proof, as Andy always says, you know, substantial proof of the fact that and documentable that you've invested something to make that change.

Right.

I think you do on a case by case basis, you could do that.

All right.

So that's removing it for like a a difference in order.

Like if I had a house and I had an ADU and then I decided you know what?

Sure.

I I just wanna rebuild and I'm gonna sell it.

Right.

I could tear it all down and rebuild and and sell it and have that removed because I'm demonstrating that I'm doing it.

Right, because you've removed the issue.

And you've given us substantial proof that that's your intent.

But but the other issue was if there if the commission decided at a later date, we don't want to have this in there.

Right.

There would be something within the restrictive covenant that would allow them to release the properties that are.

And Andy'd be right.

Andy would be drafting the restrictive covenant that should this be determined that it's no longer utilized, right?

Not trying to practice law, but I have no idea what it is.

But I understand that we're not going to you're not gonna do a covenant on property if you you're not gonna do that to someone because that becomes a it's Jennifer and I know this one, that becomes a taking.

And and uh we don't want that.

What if it timed out I mean, if it timed out in five or ten years, you would prevent an investor from deliberately taking this track this tag, right?

What do you mean by timed out?

I mean in other words there's a restrictive covenant that during that time primary must live on site.

Right.

Five years or 10 years.

Five years, 10 years, 12 years what a substantial enough period of time that nobody would ever deliberately go, yeah, I'm gonna buy that and I'm gonna really play the system and in twelve years I'm gonna be able to you know nobody would do that.

Unaware of that the ability to do that because remember these you you're dealing with property restrictions, real property restrictions.

That'd be well it would be very difficult to enforce, but I'm not even talking about that.

That I I don't think I've ever come across Jennifer have you ever seen that?

No.

I haven't seen it where it expires like that.

No, it's difficult when you're recording things on property and restrictions and covenants and encumbrances to have them just expire.

That would be because normally it's tied to a particular condition that you're trying to to address.

Yeah.

Um I'm just picturing that down the road down the road the the activity that the house is for sale and there's these limitations on it and they're only tied to the use that you're you know if I'm gonna buy your house and you have an ADU, right?

So I know I'm buying that if I'm keeping it in the condition that you have it in then that covenant remains and I know that when I'm buying it if I want to come in and let's say I want to expand my house and get rid of the ADU I mean then the covenant goes away right so we don't know you're right we don't know ten years what's going to be in fashion to do but but you you could still do that.

So so a buyer's limitation is always just gonna be I can't rent it as two units.

I can't leave and rent it as two units.

In again in a residential zoning remember that's what we're you know we're talking about because I think the one thing only because we deal with this with short term rentals and remember we can't make any changes to the short term rental uh ordinance because if we do then you no longer can enforce uh any restrictions on short-term rentals.

So the state took that away so we're also we see a lot the circumstances where things during in certain areas um in Pinellas County where it becomes difficult to enforce when you have uh renters that are you know not good good renters normally those are in areas that are that are waterfront or you know those kind of things but um when you take away those restrictions you're taking away our ability to enforce that and what we get is a bunch of residents that go, well why aren't you dealing with this particular issue uh and then we're pitting neighbor against neighbor so we're trying to avoid some of that yes we're not trying to be an HOA but we're trying to make sure we're not creating um these issues that that people are going to come back and go why'd you do that?

I think you have to look at it from the perspective what would be the market at that time.

I mean you know better than anyone that with the mark it's market driven.

If it's more valuable to sell the house as a single family home then they're gonna do the necessary things to sell it as a single family home.

If it's p if the market's driven for having an ADU then they're gonna address it as an ADU.

The idea that you're gonna turn it into a duplex is very appealing.

I'm not gonna sugarcoat it the idea that if I wait this becomes a duplex is appealing.

And then we get into then we get into the density question and get into those type things.

So it's market driven.

You know what you're buying.

You're not gonna buy something if there's not an outlet.

Yeah so so okay, so my limitation to the buyer.

We'll we alter remarks.

Sure.

Uh a ADU in the bag beautiful blue boo-boo, great for family, blah blah art studio, whatever.

Uh not cannot be no not not available for a separate rental.

Exactly.

That's really the limitation.

That's the only limitation that exists on the property.

Exactly.

Because it could be transferred back.

You could rent the primary and just see.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

I do the Clearwater Code Enforcement Board.

Absentee ownership is horrific to try to get any kind of enforcement.

We've had people, oh, they come into the meeting and we've had all these problems and go, Oh, I didn't know we had that.

Well, yeah, you live in San Francisco and you're using this for rental property, and you're not Oh, I didn't know.

I didn't get those notices.

Well, you know.

That that's what makes it difficult.

And that's and those are real situations that we deal with often in those areas that have, you know, primary people want to come and and have a good time for short periods of time.

How would this affect someone who might want to rent the primary home but use the ADU as a snowbird situation and come back and forth?

Is that that would not be okay either, I guess.

I was just thinking how terrible what you just said for us to do.

I think that they could still I think they could do that.

Yeah, so they could homestead that when I was.

I hadn't thought of that till you said it.

Right.

But you could create it because you could keep the utilities in your name.

Right.

You can create residency.

There's plenty of ways you don't have to be residents.

You don't physically have to be there, it just has to be your residence.

Right, right.

Okay.

Could I ask to go back to something you said a moment ago about residential zoning?

Uh that we can't enforce that except in residential zoning.

Is that what I didn't say we couldn't enforce it?

I I was using residential zoning as an example of why we are the that's the concerned area.

Okay, I understand.

Because it's the we're in and um, and when I say that I'm talking about single-family home.

Residential, and suddenly you have a bunch of renters in there.

Those are the problems that we end up having.

Okay, because there are some single family homes that fall into the end yeah, they're in mixed use areas and things like that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Well, thank you all for talking through it.

I feel better about it now.

I don't know, Joe, how you feel.

No, I'm fine.

I just don't and I understand the rent, you know, the renting of the house and the ADU.

I get it.

I just know I have a lot of real estate, and I would never I'm not into the ADUs.

I I just they're very costly.

I've looked into them and they're very costly, but um, you know, it's for like gentlemen like him that are investing in the community and you know, now he's stuck, you know.

Uh I mean I see his point and I agree with him, but I see our point, and you know I don't love it.

I don't know.

No, I I don't either, but but I but I feel better about it than I did.

I'm I think I think once once you do this that it's gonna evolve and it may evolve in a way that will make you feel more comfortable down the road, but we have to get it in place to start going and then see what the pros and cons are, right?

So I I think we're once we get it going and and then we can see how I mean it it's it's just exactly what you said.

The market is gonna determine those things, and if there are needs that we're not meeting, we're gonna have to change our to deal with it.

So that's something that in the future potentially could be changed.

Yes.

Okay.

We just want to get it going, right?

So we we can at least we talked about it.

When we first had to start in your conversation.

In your neighborhood, it was nineteen sixty-five, and now we're making them legal sixty years later.

Right.

Alright, so with it one of motion.

Yeah, we need a motion.

Okay.

I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion that we recommend to council to accept um the changes to chapter 22 as listed here with the change to make it 22-6.14.

Also we need to add 22.06-03, which was added.

A3E we added something.

Oh, not listed in here.

No, 2603 is listed.

I think 2263.

No, that was on.

Is that as costal high housing?

Um nope.

It's it's subsection E under the new section 22.

Is the new E.

It's not a new E, it's an E4 that was added.

Okay, I have a new E.

Okay, whatever whatever to make that the way it the way it belongs.

Whatever.

Whatever.

Well I make a motion.

I second that piece of paper.

I keep losing pieces of paper.

I had an E.

Um with a restriction to add a four to E, the maximum size of living space would be 800 square feet.

Living space.

Yep, she said it.

Yes, she said living space.

Living space, yes.

And that we recommend we had some wording.

We recommend in the future that um the prohibition in um a high hazard area be reviewed.

Okay for impact.

On the coastal, yeah, the high hazard be reviewed.

And we will put that in staff report and also that we'll make sure we articulate that to the council.

Okay.

And also, was that something else?

Yes, changing s sub three to say um in scale and massing.

Okay, yes, change the wording, and then also in sub four, referencing the short-term rental ordinance prices directly.

Right.

All those things we talked about.

And under under E3, we were also gonna add that the the scale and massing didn't apply to height.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay, I think that's I think you've mentioned all the changes and their recommendation to I think you said the recommendation to not only revisit, but if there is no um impact on the CRS rating to remove the limitation in a coastal high hazard area.

Right.

Right.

That's where we were going with that.

Yeah.

Okay.

And make way for the public comment.

Okay, so we have a motion.

Second.

This is the piece that we added.

That's on I think that's already in there.

It's a clinical scaling.

Okay, okay.

Hold on.

We have a motion in a second, but now we have a question real quick.

Do you have 2263?

E.

Does it have an E?

The original version, because this version does, and I thought it was new.

Where it says applicability, this section does not apply to accessory dwellings, which are governed.

Yes, that should be underlined.

It should all be understood that's what I had noted.

Okay, so in the ordinance we're gonna have to refer to that change as well.

Just put it on it.

I think we already uh referred to the ordinance.

Didn't we do it?

I don't know how that wording happened.

Yeah, I feel sure somebody can do that later.

But no, that's that's good.

Then it needs to be underlined.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, so I don't think that changes them anything in the motion.

No, no, no.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So we're good.

So now we're gonna open to public comment, and I know there was a lady that was waiting to speak.

I'm finding it hard to remember.

I wanted to mention.

Um Karen Schwartz, do you need to know my address?

I mean, I do.

Okay, um, the Lead Avenue South.

So, as much as I love you, Jonathan, I I just I think that part of the problem with having uh higher I know we're not talking density, but having more people having to evacuate, I think that's really the issue, not um the free FEMA.

Not FEMA, yes.

Um see, I'm my head is spinning just listening to all the stuff.

Um that's that's where I see the issue.

It it it's if there's more people, more cars, more animals trying to evacuate.

Um, that that I think might affect the CRS and just affect life.

That's all.

Um I have a gigantic lot, and I don't think I could squit square uh squeeze an 800 foot, I think that would be really hard.

I think it'd be really, really hard.

You don't agree, Mary?

With the background.

Oh, yeah, it would have to be, but then it might be taller than the house.

So I don't know.

Anyway, um this is fascinating.

I've never been to one of these meetings before.

So wow.

Thank you.

Very technical.

Hi, I'm Christine Crosby, and I have a home on the Wood Point Drive.

Okay.

We moved there in 1997.

And I want to tell you just a little, first of all, I want to compliment you all.

You are amazing.

I am so proud to live in Gulfport and know that people like yourself, and not because of Mary to Jonathan, but because he's been talking about this, and I am really impressed.

I love it that you're not just rubber stamping stuff, you're talking about it, you're working it out, you're getting good solutions.

Madam Chairman, I'm especially impressed with you.

So just wanted to get that out of the way first.

But uh the other part was I want to just mention when we bought our home in 1997.

I forget how old I was at the time, but I live in the world where we talk about aging a lot.

And I thought, my golly, our home, I'm gonna age in place in our home.

I'm gonna die there.

I hope.

And always dreamed of having a little ADU on the back where my caregivers could be, and we had that sort of thing with my grandparents.

So I am very much uh glad that you're putting that on the table as an option, because the second point I want to make is it's easy to take people's rights away, but it's hard to restore them, isn't it?

So taking that seriously right now, I salute you for that.

So that's all I want to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and are there any other public comments?

Certainly.

I just can't sit still.

Kevin Connor, uh 21 uh oh nine fifty eighth Street South.

Um, just a little bit of feedback as someone who's considering doing this.

Um the I've already made my point about the restrictive covenants, and I still stand very firmly that it's a terrible idea, but that's my opinion now, isn't it?

Um but thanks for the listen.

The other restrictions that you talked about, the 800 square feet, absolutely I find suitable.

So just as a public feedback on that.

Um the one thing that's a little bit unclear to me.

I do happen to know setback requirements um for the area that I'm in, and for any structure over 80 feet, it's 15 feet from the rear.

My assumption is that that would continue.

It wasn't something that was addressed in the um in this, and I'm actually my my question is is that going to change?

Because again, that that starts to um be a question of measurement.

Um uh Miss East, it was amazing when you asked the question about some sunbirds wanting to spend some time.

This is actually the real reason that my wife and I were thinking of putting an ADU in that where, you know, once our kids decided not to move here, we decided to we'll probably rent the unit.

But we really love Gulfport.

Yeah.

And so it would be great if that was perfectly clear.

Because the way that it's written right now, one must be in the primary resident.

That is how it was presented.

And so, you know, that's something that I think should be reviewed.

Thanks much.

Okay.

And I'll just I I think I have the answer to your question.

Um, and if I get it wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected.

But the uh as far as the setbacks go, it it will be there was no change in this ordinance.

So it'll be exactly as they exist in the code.

And then with regard to the use of the property, there is a provision that says the property owner shall apply, shall occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit as their permanent residence.

So just so that you you have that.

I'm coming with Mike to say thank you.

Okay.

Um with that, I think we're ready for a vote.

Board member Gonzalez Hastings?

Yes.

Board Member Kelly?

Yes.

Board Member McCoachy?

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Hanrahan?

Yes.

Chairperson Cowan.

Yes.

All right.

And with that, um, I think the next question is, is there any other business that the board has or that they want to discuss at this time?

Can I just throw out something?

Other business.

It's not a proposal anything, but we can't talk about it when unless we're together in a meeting.

That's right.

So, the bulkiness, the mass of homes.

We all know what's happening.

We're losing, particularly in the flood area and particularly in the waterfront, losing smaller homes to be replaced by larger ones.

It strikes me that a 40-foot wide lot in downtown Golf Park is has six foot setbacks on both sides.

But a hundred and twenty-foot wide lot on Baywood or Mary, somewhere over there, has six foot setbacks on both sides from a design concept standpoint.

I I wonder if we could imagine a world where the bigger the lot, the wider the setbacks within raising by a formula, not something horribly onerous, but something where we don't end up with the Tierra Verde, you know, block to block to block 12 feet apart every way, all the way down the street, like this big ugly wall.

Um, and it's not great for tidal surge, I can tell you that.

Um, just a thought, as it's been percolating, and I'm just throwing it out there for maybe a future meeting or something.

If if anybody has thoughts on it, I'd love to hear.

Okay, that's all.

Yeah, I think that's an interesting idea.

I I like the not the monotony of houses, the variety of houses.

Oh my god.

Style and age and design and everything else.

Yeah.

I just want to thank everybody for a wonderful job tonight.

I mean, you you all hit all the issues you discussed them as we said.

It was great.

Great meeting.

Wow.

Thank you all.

And with that, we're adjourned.

Muchos de células com a la cella cella, qué período de particular