Regular

Planning & Zoning Agenda November 9th, 2026 Regular Meeting

CITY OF APALACHICOLA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Monday, November 9th , 2026 City Meeting Room – 74 6th Street Agenda Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM 1. Approval of October 12th , 2026, workshop meeting minutes. 2. Approval of October 12th , 2026, regular meeting minutes. 3. Review, Discussion and Decision for Accessory Structure. (R-2) @ 229 Fred Meyer Street. Block 247 Lots 16 and 17. Owner: Nancy Stuart; Contractor: Substandard Structures Inc. 4. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness, Addition, Accessory Structure & Fence. (R-1) @ 65 16th Street. Block 98 Lot 9 and South ½ Lot 8. Owner: Jeff Stephens; Contractor: Self. 5. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness & Accessory Structure. (R-1) @ 15 8th Street. Block 27 Lot 7. Owner: Anthony and Tina Bullard; Contractor: Self. 6. Review, Discussion and Decision for Accessory Structure & Fence. (R-2) @ 11 Shadow Lane. Philaco Shores Block 6 Lots 1-3. Owner: Twin Capital Holdings LC; Contractor: GeoFlora Group LLC. 7. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness, Alteration, Sign & Parking Plan. (C-1) @ 71 Market Street. Block E-2 Lot 20 and SE 20 ½ Lot 19. Owners: H Heritage Inc.; Contractor: N/A.

8. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness. (R-1) @ 106 17th Street. Block 116 Lot 2. Owner: Whitney Shotwell; Contractor: McMickin Construction LLC. Other/New Business: 1. New member orientation / current member refresher by City Attorney. Outstanding/Unresolved Issues: Motion to adjourn the meeting.

October 12th Meeting Minutes Workshop

CITY OF APALACHICOLA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP Monday, October 12th, 2026 City Meeting Room – 74 6th Street Agenda Attendance: Greg Golgowski, Al Ingle, Myrtis Wynn, Elizabeth Milliken, Greg Perkins, Christopher Aitken Workshop: 5:00 PM 1. ARPC Planner introduced the goal for this workshop: a. Identification of recommended solution or solutions for issues (1) discussed at the September workshop, (2) identified by City Planner in the 2023 report, and (3) identified by ARPC planner in preparation for September workshop. The notes column of the table identifies where the issue originates for future reference. b. Identification of an approximate priority level for each issue and solution pairing. See the criteria for priority level on the first page of the table. Note, cost is not precise; it’s a rough estimate. E.g., it’s more expensive to hire a consultant to create a new paid street parking program than it is for the City’s staff to draft an amendment to the Land Development Code to add a definition of “increased intensity of use.” 2. Issue #1 Discussion: a. Al Ingle stated that the City needs a base knowledge of the number of spaces is necessary to determine whether there is a lack of parking or a surplus of parking. From there, a determination can be made regarding how critical it is that the City provide additional parking. i. Elizabeth Milliken added that ideally this work could be done by City staff, without hiring a new contractor. b. Anita Grove, Resident. Stated that former City Planner Cindy Clark already has access to digital maps with information about the number of City-owned parking spaces.

i. Al Perkins commented that because multiple businesses have paid mitigation for the same spaces, it seems that it would be difficult to create a map showing which spaces have been ‘claimed’ using paid mitigation for each business. ii. Greg Golgowski also added that it would be difficult to maintain these maps once created and would require a regular effort by City Staff to update them. c. The Board identified solution #1 as the recommended solution and identified the priority level as high. If possible, a contractor should not be hired to complete this work. 3. Issue #2 Discussion: a. Micah Priest, Planning and Operations Director. Stated that a project to construct a new pervious parking lot by Avenue H, funded by legislative appropriation from the Florida Department of Transportation, will soon go out for bid. More information can be found about this work in the October report prepared by the Grants Coordinate Leslie Glaze, Item #12. b. Greg Golgowski stated that the City could consider offering a different or reduced parking mitigation fee for the creation or use of pervious parking, to incentivize the creation of more previous parking. c. Myrtis Wynn stated that there is not a lot of room for growth downtown, and that the parking for businesses downtown will not necessarily be on the same lot as the business. d. Micah Priest asked for clarification from the Board: What is the issue we are trying to address? i. Greg Golgowski summarized the issues that P&Z has seen with applications in the past year, primarily that businesses struggle to provide the required parking minimums and are then forced to downsize in terms of number of staff, tables, etc. e. Greg Perkins stated that using square footage of the building to determine the required number of parking spaces would eliminate the need for the City to continuously assess whether the intensity of use has increased.

i. Anita Grove gave more background about the City’s past discussion about parking in the winter of 2023 and spring of 2024 and stated that basing parking on square footage instead of use was already discussed. However, the City ultimately did not proceed with the recommendations created at that time because the subject of parking and paid parking mitigation was unpopular. f. The Board identified solutions #1 and #2 as the recommended solutions. The priority level was not determined. 4. For the sake of time, and to avoid repetitive discussion of issues already considered by the City Commission in 2023, ARPC Planner suggested the Board move ahead to focus on those issues specifically identified at the most recent workshop in September 2026. 5. Issue #10 Discussion: a. Christopher Aitken stated that increasing the limit is a no-brainer for the City if the desire is to encourage people to park further away and walk to their destination. He would recommend the limit be increased to the greatest distance possible. i. Al Ingle stated that people can generally be expected to walk around a quarter of a mile. b. Greg Perkins added that there is always overflow parking that exists around the City; once all available parking is taken in a given area, then designated overflow parking further away can be used instead. c. Attorney Hartman clarified the legal requirements for the different methods of measuring this distance (e.g., property line to property line, pedestrian walking distance from door to door, etc.). In his experience, it is simpler to measure the distance from property line to property line. d. The Board identified solutions #1 and #2 as the recommended solutions and identified the priority level as high. Specifically, the location of off- street parking distance limit should be increased to 1,200 feet and be measured from property line to property line.

6. Chair Golgowski asked Anita Grove if the City had considered metered parking and impact fees in the past. She stated that these things had been discussed in the past, and that it would be easier to implement a paid parking program now that physical meters are not required (i.e., users can pay with their phones). Workshop adjourned at 5:56 P.M.

October 12th Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting

CITY OF APALACHICOLA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Monday, October 12th, 2026 City Meeting Room – 74 6th Street Agenda Attendance: Greg Golgowki, Al Ingle, Elizabeth Milliken, Myrtis Wynn, Greg Perkins, Christopher Aitken Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM 1. Approval of September 14th, 2026, workshop meeting minutes. a. Motion to approve by Elizabeth Milliken; 2nd by Myrtis Wynn – all in favor, motion carried. 2. Approval of September 14th, 2026, regular meeting minutes. a. Motion to approve by Greg Perkins; 2nd by Elizabeth Milliken – all in favor, motion carried. 3. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness, Sign & Parking Plan. (O/R) @ 92 Avenue E. Block 30 Southwest ½ Lots 4-5. Owner: Jehu Westmark; Contractor: N/A a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Elizabeth Milliken asked if the parking area on this property is regularly flooded. i. Jehu Westmark, Owner – Present. Stated that the middle of the lot, where the parking is located, doesn’t regularly flood. c. Motion to approve by Al Ingle; 2nd by Greg Perkins – all in favor, motion carried. 4. Review, Discussion and Decision for Accessory Structure. (R-2) @ 20 Adams Street. Neels Addition Block 5 North 150’ Lots 1-2 and West 20’ Lot 3. Owner: Anna Keel; Contractor: Dan’s Aluminum. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Anna Keel, Owner – Present. Received no questions from the Board and made no comments.

c. Motion to approve by Myrtis Wynn; 2nd by Greg Perkins – all in favor, motioned carried. 5. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness & Accessory Structure. (R-1) @ 114 8th Street. Block 69 Lot 3. Owner: Graham Knox; Contractor: Self. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Graham Knox, Owner – Present. Stated that the shed will go in behind the house, and no trees will be trimmed or cut down to do so. c. Motion to approve by Elizabeth Milliken; 2nd by Myrtis Wynn – all in favor, motion carried. 6. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness, Relocation, Addition & Accessory Structure. (R-1) @ 120 7th Street. Block 60 Lot 5. Owners: Karen Jumonville & Jay Townsend; Contractor: Erin Rodriguez. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Erin Rodriguez, Contractor – Present. Received no questions from the Board. He commented that the Owners value the historic character of the structure and thus opted to move it rather than demolish it and build new construction on the same lot. c. Greg Golgowski asked the Planner to confirm if this is a historic structure. Planner stated that this address is not listed on the Florida Master Sile File Cultural Resource Roster for the City of Apalachicola. Accordingly, it does not meet the definition of historic structure in the City’s Land Development Code, unless it is listed separately on the National Register of Historic Places. d. Motion to approve by Al Ingle; 2nd by Greg Perkins – all in favor, motion carried. 7. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness & Fence. (R-1) @ 87 Avenue D. Block 23 Lots 9-10. Owners: Glen Perkins & Amelia Hodges; Contractor: GeoFlora Group LLC. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report.

b. Drew Robertson, Contractor – Present. Commented that sheet 3 of the presentation submitted with the application shows the site layout very well; and confirmed there is no concern about the distance from the intersection. All of the fence styles offered fit the historic character of the house. c. Motion to approve by Greg Perkins; 2nd by Elizabeth Milliken – all in favor, motion carried. 8. Review, Discussion and Decision for Accessory Structure, Addition & Fence. (R-2) @ 6 Ellis Van Fleet Street. Block 264 60 x 174 ft. Owners: Eric & Cristin Walker; Contractor: GeoFlora Group LLC. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report, and recommended that the Board make two motions, one for the detached accessory structures and fence; another for the attached accessory structure/addition. b. Drew Robertson, Contractor – Present. Asked if it would be possible to bring the existing screen porch back and into compliance with the front setback. Planner confirmed yes, and that the setback distance is measured from the property line to the vertical support of the roof covering the structure. i. Attorney Hartman read the definitions of ‘building setback’ and ‘building line’ from Section 101-8 of the Land Development Code to confirm the accuracy of the Planner’s statement. c. Motion to approve the detached accessory structures and fence by Christopher Aitken; 2nd by Greg Perkins – all in favor, motion carried. d. Bryce Ward, Contractor (see item #9) asked when the City began enforcing the provisions about expansion of nonconforming structures, as many properties in the City would be considered nonconforming and therefore could not be expanded legally without a variance. i. Attorney Hartman stated that this is language in the Land Development Code as written, and that the Board does not have the authority to change this language. The City Commission is the appropriate body for requests to change language in the Code.

ii. He also stated that there is the option of obtaining a variance, and roughly outline the requirements for doing so. He noted that variances can be very difficult to obtain. e. Elizabeth Milliken asked about the approval for 160 Avenue D at the previous meeting. i. Planner explained that this item was approved because the deck was not structurally attached to the house and therefore not an expansion in square footage of a nonconforming structure. f. Motion to approve the attached accessory structure/addition on the condition that the existing covered porch which encroaches into the front setback must be brought into conformance with the required setback (15 ft) before the requested attached structure/addition may be built by Greg Perkins; 2nd by Christopher Aitken – all in favor, motion carried. 9. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition & Addition. (R-1) @ 211 Avenue G. Block 117 Lots 1-2. Owner: Carolyn Johnston; Contractor: Bryce Ward. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Bryce Ward, Contractor – Present. Stated that the subject property consists of two lots, with a large portion of the area at the rear of the property unused. The right-of-way is quite wide in front of this property. Additionally, he stated that it doesn’t seem fair to prevent a property owner from doing something with their property because of something that was done 100 years ago. He asked what could be done with the property. i. Planner stated that it is only the nonconforming structure which cannot be expanded; a detached accessory structure can be placed in the rear yard without issue as long as all other applicable requirements are met (i.e., setbacks, impervious surface). ii. Planner also stated that if the footprint is not changed, the existing porch can be converted to heated/cooled area. 1. Contractor stated that the existing covered porch is too small to be useful to the Owner.

c. Attorney Hartman summarized the options for application: Table the item to specific date (e.g., next month’s meeting), withdraw the application for revisions, resubmit the same application once a variance has been obtained, or request that the City Commission imitate an amendment to the Land Development Code. i. Contractor asked for more information about the City potentially changing the Code. 1. Attorney Hartman stated that the issue would have to be presented to the City Commission during public comment. The Commission would direct City Staff to draft revised language, at the Commission’s discretion. At a minimum, this process would take 90 days but would likely take longer. d. Greg Golgowski asked if the encroachment ordinance the City is working on has any bearing on this situation; Attorney confirmed it does not. e. Contractor stated that it doesn’t make sense that additions cannot be added onto the sides of the building which are not nonconforming or encroaching into the setbacks. In his opinion, this requirement will have a negative impact on development within the City given the number of existing structures which are nonconforming. i. Al Ingle stated that the Owner can always consider putting a detached accessory building next to the existing house. He gave an example of a home he used to live in, where the bathroom was in a detached structure very close, but not structurally attached to, the principal building. f. Item withdrawn by Applicant. 10. Review, Discussion and Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness & Alteration/Renovation. (R-1) @ 172 11th Street. Block 149 Lot 2. Owner: Charles Leonard; Contractors: Ashley Leonard, Tyler Poloronis. a. ARPC Planner summarized staff report. b. Ashley Leonard, Contractor – Present. Stated that the existing house has a roof issue, with a series of shed roofs which have all been patched

together. The existing attached carport discussed at the September meeting will be converted into a screened porch, but the footprint will not be changed. c. Motion to approve Al Ingle; 2nd by Greg Perkins – all in favor, motioned carried. Other/New Business: 1. Attorney Hartman will prepare an overview for the new members / a refresher the current members on the basic functions and responsibilities of Board members. E.g., how to make motions, applicability of Sunshine law to the Board, etc. Outstanding/Unresolved Issues: N/A Motion to adjourn the meeting by Elizabeth Milliken; 2nd by Greg Perkins. All in favor – meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.

Accessory Structure 229 Fred Meyer Street

STAFF FINDINGS REPORT PROPERTY OWNER: Nancy Stuart AGENT (if applicable): N/A CONTRACTOR: Substandard Structures Inc. PROPERTY ADDRESS (if available): 229 Fred Meyers (8 th ) Street → Block 247 Lots 16 and 17 PARCEL ID: 01-09S-08W-8330-0247-0160 HISTORIC DISTRICT: No HISTORIC STRUCTURE: No CORNER LOT: Yes ACREAGE: -- ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 Multifamily Residential WETLANDS: No FLOODPLAIN: “X” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: → Construction of a 13’ x 8’ (~108 SF) elevated deck around a portion of an existing above-ground pool. o Referred to P&Z by Code Enforcement; the deck has already been built. STAFF FINDINGS: CODE OF ORDINANCES: → Section 101-8. Definitions. o Accessory building (and uses) means a structure (or a use) customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal structure or use and located on the same lot. Accessory structures shall not be used for habitable purposes. Accessory buildings shall not be constructed until a principal structure is in place. (LDC, Ch. 101, Art. 1, Sec. 101-8 Definitions.) Accessory structures shall include, but not be limited to: patios, decks (pervious and impervious), gazebos, sheds, pools, spas, and mechanical swimming pool or spa equipment.

o Corner lot means a lot abutting upon two or more streets at their intersection or at a street corner having an interior angle not greater than 135 degrees. All boundaries abutting streets shall be considered front yards, and all other boundaries shall be considered side yards. → Section 111-269. R-2 Multifamily Residential. o Development standards:  Minimum lot size: • Single-family & home occupations: 6,000 SF (60’ x 100’).  Minimum building size: • Single-family: 800 SF.  Minimum building setbacks: • Front: 15 ft. • Side (interior): o Single-family: 7½ ft. each side, or any combination on each side that equals at least 15 ft. No such setback shall be less than 5 ft. • Side (corner): 15 ft. • Rear: 25 ft. (principal structure); 5 ft. (accessory structure).  Maximum building restrictions: • Lot coverage: 40% or 2,400 SF. o Existing: 1,588 SF (total area of existing house only, per property appraiser o Proposed: 108 SF. o Total: 1,696 SF. • Building height: 35 ft. o Applicable regulations:  In residential districts, and on any lot used for residential purposes, no accessory structure shall be located in required front yards. • Accessory structures are not permitted within the required 15’ front yard setback; contractor confirmed over phone call on 10/30 that the structure does not encroach into the front setback.  Unless otherwise specified, special exceptions must comply with development standards as referenced. RECOMMENDATION: Approval.

Certificate of Appropriateness, Addition, Accessory Structure & Fence 65 16th Street

Example Carport

Example Pool & Pool Screen

Existing Fence Example Porch

STAFF FINDINGS REPORT PROPERTY OWNER: Jeff Stephens AGENT (if applicable): N/A CONTRACTOR: Self PROPERTY ADDRESS (if available): 65 16th Street → Block 98 Lot 9 and South ½ Lot 8 PARCEL ID: 01-09S-08W-8330-0098-0080 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Yes HISTORIC STRUCTURE: No CORNER LOT: No ACREAGE: -- (~8,922 SF) ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 Single-Family Residential WETLANDS: No FLOODPLAIN: “X” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: → Installation of a new 22’ x 24’ carport, 10’ x 22’ screened porch addition in rear yard, and 12’ x 24’ accessory pool in rear yard. Installation of a new portion of 6’ wood privacy fence in the rear/side yard around the pool, to match existing fence. Removal of existing rock driveway and installation of new pervious gravel driveway. o Existing vinyl siding on principal structure also to be replaced with board and batten siding to match new carport. STAFF FINDINGS: CODE OF ORDINANCES: → Section 101-8. Definitions. o Front yard means a yard extending across the front of a lot between the side lot lines and being the minimum horizontal distance between the street line and the principal building or any projections thereof, other than the projections of uncovered steps, uncovered balconies or uncovered porches.

→ Section 111-268. R-1 Single-Family Residential. o Development standards:  Minimum lot size: • Single-family & home occupations: 6,000 SF (60’ x 100’).  Minimum building size: • Single-family: 800 SF.  Minimum building setbacks: • Front: 15 ft. • Side (interior): 7½ ft. each side, or any combination on each side that equals at least 15 ft. No such setback shall be less than 5 ft. • Rear: 25 ft. (principal structure); 5 ft. (accessory structure).  Maximum building restrictions: • Lot coverage: 40% or 3,569 SF. o Existing: 2,171 SF. o Proposed: 976 SF (carport + screened porch + pool). o Total: 3,147 SF or ~35%. • Building height: 35 ft. o Applicable regulations:  In residential districts, and on any lot used for residential purposes, no accessory structure shall be located in required front yards. • None of the proposed accessory structures will be located in the front yard or within the required front yard setback. → Section 111-288(e). o Requirements apply to all zoning districts and the historic district. a. Application for approval of any new fence or material alteration of an existing fence must be made in the same manner as for authorization of a building permit with a full description of materials to be used, dimensions and placement clearly stated on the plans. It is not necessary for a landscape architect or engineer to draw or sign and seal the plans. b. Fences shall be erected on the lot of the applicant and shall not extend into a public right-of-way. Fences may be erected within the required setback area (i.e., area between the front, side, and rear property lines and the front, side, and rear setback lines). c. A fence may abut but shall not be located on any property line. o All residential districts.  A fence extending from the side of a principal structure to the side lot line shall attach to the structure no closer to the front lot line than

where the facade (not including any covered front porch, uncovered porch, uncovered steps, and uncovered balconies) is located. These fences shall not exceed six feet (72 inches) in height.  No fence or wall in excess of six feet (72 inches) in height shall be allowed in side and/or rear yards. These fences may begin from the rear of the principal structure facade. • The proposed 6’ fence will be connected to the rear of the principal structure, at the new addition.  All fence construction, repair and replacement of any section or portion thereof must be consistent with the remaining fence on the property. The intent of this section is to ensure that all fencing erected on a property is uniform and consistent in construction and appearance. → Section 111-288. Supplementary Regulations, in general. o (c) Alleys. Ten-foot alleys are intended to accommodate utility lines, such as water and sewer, and are not intended to support traffic. Ten-foot alleys are not to be used for ingress and egress.  The alley to be used for ingress and egress is 30’ wide. → Section 111-288(i). Parking Requirements. o There shall be provided at the time of the erection of any principal building or structure parking space with adequate provisions for ingress and egress no less than the following space requirements.  Dwelling. One parking space for each dwelling unit or room for rent. • The proposed carport will be used to meet the minimum parking requirement. → Section 41. Decks, patios, hot tubs and pools. o Modern installations of decks, pools, patios and hot tubs should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The appropriateness of such modern features should vary according to site, size and design. Amenities such as pools, decks and hot tubs should not be located as to be highly visible from the street. Brick patios and wood decking with excessive square footage in proportion to the area of the lot damages historical integrity and appearance.  Wood decking or brick patios are allowed in side or rear yards. Wood decks should not be built on the front of any house.  Wooden decks in side yards not adjacent to a public right of way should be set back and screened with fencing or landscaping.

 Best efforts should be made to ensure that decks, pools, hot tubs and patios are not visible from the elevation right of way by use of landscape or approved fence screening.  The proportion of decking, patio or pool dimensions should not exceed fifty percent of the total lot minus the building footprint. • 50% of total lot area: 4,461 SF. • Existing building footprint:1,644 SF • Maximum permitted deck/patio/pool area: 2,817 SF.  No swimming pool should be built in a front yard of any structure in the historic district. • The proposed swimming pool will not be located in the front yard.  Swimming pools may be built in a side or rear yard adjacent to a public right of way only if the pool is located directly behind the principal structure or it is set to the rear half of the side yard. → Section 42. Accessory structures. o Construction of excessive outbuildings detracts from the quality of an historic neighborhood and lessens its intended appearance and historical design by taking away areas devoted to landscaping and open space. The Architectural Review Committee reviews all new outbuildings, permitting them only if they are compatible. o The construction of all accessory structures including garages, carports, guesthouses, pools, storage sheds, pool cabanas, studios and similar structures should be subject to the following conditions:  Accessory structures should be compatible with the principal structure on the lot in materials, detailing, color, style, design, height, scale and massing.  No accessory structure may be built in the front yard of a structure in the historic district. • The attached carport will not be built in the front yard.  Accessory structures should not exceed the height of the principal building on the site.  The design of new outbuildings must be complementary to the existing streetscape if they are visible from the public right of way.  The addition of "gatehouses" in conjunction with enclosed walls or fences is not encouraged.  The construction or installation of metal, plastic or cloth covered garages, storage sheds or other buildings is not encouraged where visible from the public right of way.

• The carport will be covered with board and batten siding.  Pre-existing historically appropriate outbuildings may be repaired or restored.  Construction of new outbuildings must comply with all criteria or new construction in the historic district.  The design of gazebos or other open outbuildings should be complimentary in terms of scale, proportion, color finish and details to the primary building. Landscape features including an arbor, trellis or pergola (at least 50% open) will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  The location of gazebos or other outbuildings is an important consideration and approval may be denied if the siting is deemed inappropriate or intrusive.  Temporary pre-fabricated metal or plastic storage structures are not encouraged. Exterior storage areas should be enclosed by a solid wall with solid entrance and gate RECOMMENDATION: Approval.

Certificate of Appropriateness & Accessory Structure 15 8th Street

20' x 30'

STAFF FINDINGS REPORT PROPERTY OWNER: Anthony & Tina Bullard AGENT (if applicable): N/A CONTRACTOR: Self PROPERTY ADDRESS (if available): 15 8 th Street → Block 27 Lot 7 PARCEL ID: 01-09S-08W-8330-0027-0070 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Yes HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Yes CORNER LOT: No ACREAGE: -- (~6,500 SF) ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 Single-Family Residential WETLANDS: No FLOODPLAIN: “X” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: → Installation of a 20’ x 30’ (~600 SF) open metal pole barn in the rear of the subject property. STAFF FINDINGS: CODE OF ORDINANCES: → Section 101-8. Definitions. o Impervious surface coverage means those hard surface man-made areas that do not allow, or minimally allow, the penetration of water, that reduce the natural rate or percolation of water or result in an increase in the natural quantity and rate of storm water runoff. Examples include but are not limited to roof tops, parking, clay, asphalt, concrete, brick, compacted gravel, paved recreational areas such as pools, tennis courts, and landscape pavers. → Section 111-268. R-1 Single-Family Residential. o Development standards:

 Minimum lot size: • Single-family & home occupations: 6,000 SF (60’ x 100’).  Minimum building size: • Single-family: 800 SF.  Minimum building setbacks: • Front: 15 ft. • Side (interior): 7½ ft. each side, or any combination on each side that equals at least 15 ft. No such setback shall be less than 5 ft. • Rear: 25 ft. (principal structure); 5 ft. (accessory structure).  Maximum building restrictions: • Lot coverage: 40% or 2,600 SF. o Existing: 1,976 SF o Proposed: 600 SF. o Total: 2,576 SF. • Building height: 35 ft. o Applicable regulations:  In residential districts, and on any lot used for residential purposes, no accessory structure shall be located in required front yards.  Unless otherwise noted, special exceptions must comply with development standards as referenced. → Section 42. Accessory structures. o Construction of excessive outbuildings detracts from the quality of an historic neighborhood and lessens its intended appearance and historical design by taking away areas devoted to landscaping and open space. The Architectural Review Committee reviews all new outbuildings, permitting them only if they are compatible. o The construction of all accessory structures including garages, carports, guesthouses, pools, storage sheds, pool cabanas, studios and similar structures should be subject to the following conditions:  Accessory structures should be compatible with the principal structure on the lot in materials, detailing, color, style, design, height, scale and massing.  No accessory structure may be built in the front yard of a structure in the historic district. • The proposed pole barn will not be located in the front yard.  Accessory structures should not exceed the height of the principal building on the site.

 The design of new outbuildings must be complementary to the existing streetscape if they are visible from the public right of way.  The addition of "gatehouses" in conjunction with enclosed walls or fences is not encouraged.  The construction or installation of metal, plastic or cloth covered garages, storage sheds or other buildings is not encouraged where visible from the public right of way. • The pole barn will not be visible from the public of right-of-way once the adjacent vacant lots are improved.  Pre-existing historically appropriate outbuildings may be repaired or restored.  Construction of new outbuildings must comply with all criteria or new construction in the historic district.  The design of gazebos or other open outbuildings should be complimentary in terms of scale, proportion, color finish and details to the primary building. Landscape features including an arbor, trellis or pergola (at least 50% open) will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  The location of gazebos or other outbuildings is an important consideration and approval may be denied if the siting is deemed inappropriate or intrusive.  Temporary pre-fabricated metal or plastic storage structures are not encouraged. Exterior storage areas should be enclosed by a solid wall with solid entrance and gate RECOMMENDATION: Approval.

Accessory Structure & Fence 11 Shadow Lane

STAFF FINDINGS REPORT PROPERTY OWNER: Twin Capital Holdings LLC AGENT (if applicable): N/A CONTRACTOR: GeoFlora Group LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS (if available): 11 Shadow Lane → Philaco Shores Block 6 Lots 1-3 PARCEL ID: 01-09S-08W-8370-0006-0010 HISTORIC DISTRICT: No HISTORIC STRUCTURE: No CORNER LOT: Yes ACREAGE: -- (~9,000 SF) ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 Multifamily Residential WETLANDS: No FLOODPLAIN: “AE” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: → Construction of a new 12’ x 15’ deck and 6’ tall wood privacy fence along the property abutting Lot 4. Re-gravel the existing driveway and add a new circular driveway. STAFF FINDINGS: CODE OF ORDINANCES: → Section 101-8. Definitions. o Corner lot means a lot abutting upon two or more streets at their intersection or at a street corner having an interior angle not greater than 135 degrees. All boundaries abutting streets shall be considered front yards, and all other boundaries shall be considered side yards.  Front yard means a yard extending across the front of a lot between the side lot lines and being the minimum horizontal distance between the street line and the principal building or any projections thereof,

other than the projections of uncovered steps, uncovered balconies or uncovered porches. o Fill means any material, such as, but not limited to, sand, soil, gravel, lime rock, rocks, shell, bricks, concrete, rubble, asphalt, wood or waste of any kind, that is: placed, stored, or dumped upon the surface of the ground resulting in an increase in the natural surface elevation; deposited on the land surface to fill depressions or contour the land (e.g., soil and sand); used as a landscaping material (e.g., topsoil, organic material, and sod), or used as a surfacing material for walkways, surface drive areas, and patios (e.g., rock, shell, impermeable or permeable concrete, and brick pavers).  A fill permit must be completed and submitted to the Building Department for the placement of new gravel for the driveway(s). o Nonconforming building means any building or structure which existed lawfully at the time it was permitted, but that does not comply with the current regulations of the zoning district or the adopted comprehensive plan land use designation in which it is located. o Pervious decks as described herein and items identified on a site plan as a best management practice to treat stormwater shall be allowed within open space and not considered impervious. Pervious decks are defined as decks with a minimum spacing of 1/8 inch between decking boards. Pervious decks shall be limited to an additional ten percent additional total lot coverage (i.e. ten percent additional total lot coverage above the code maximum for impervious coverage applicable to each zoning category; e.g. if max impervious coverage is 40 percent then a deck may be added which covers additional lot area up to a total of 50 percent lot coverage when adding the total impervious lot coverage and the pervious deck coverage). → Section 111-269. R-2 Multifamily Residential. o Development standards:  Minimum lot size: • Single-family & home occupations: 6,000 SF (60’ x 100’).  Minimum building size: • Single-family: 800 SF.  Minimum building setbacks: • Front: 15 ft. o The setback on the Alpha Ave side is 14.02’. • Side (interior): 7½ ft. each side, or any combination on each side that equals at least 15 ft. No such setback shall be less than 5 ft. • Side (corner): 15 ft.

• Rear: 25 ft. (principal structure); 5 ft. (accessory structure).  Maximum building restrictions: • Lot coverage: 40%. • Building height: 35 ft. o Applicable regulations:  In residential districts, and on any lot used for residential purposes, no accessory structure shall be located in required front yards.  Unless otherwise specified, special exceptions must comply with development standards as referenced. → Sec. 111-322. Historic and nonhistoric nonconforming structures. o Expansion of historic and nonhistoric, nonconforming structures. The intent of this section is not to permit either historic or nonhistoric nonconforming structures to be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended, except as allowed through the variance process at section 101-61(2). Existing nonconformities of a structure shall not be used as grounds for adding other structures prohibited elsewhere in the same district.  An expansion in square footage for either historic or nonhistoric structures shall be permitted where such expansion meets all requirements of this code, including those of section 101-61(3)b when a variance is needed.  An expansion of either an historic or nonhistoric, nonconforming structure is permissible when it is required by law or ordered by the building inspector to secure the safety of the building. → Section 111-288(e). Fences. o Requirements apply to all zoning districts and the historic district. a. Application for approval of any new fence or material alteration of an existing fence must be made in the same manner as for authorization of a building permit with a full description of materials to be used, dimensions and placement clearly stated on the plans. It is not necessary for a landscape architect or engineer to draw or sign and seal the plans. b. Fences shall be erected on the lot of the applicant and shall not extend into a public right-of-way. Fences may be erected within the required setback area (i.e., area between the front, side, and rear property lines and the front, side, and rear setback lines). c. A fence may abut but shall not be located on any property line. o All residential districts.

 No fence or wall in excess of four feet (48 inches) in height shall be allowed in the front yard (for corner lots, the two sides of the lot paralleling the two streets). • The portion of the fence between the front façade of the principal structure and Alpha Avenue cannot exceed 4’ or 48”.  A fence extending from the side of a principal structure to the side lot line shall attach to the structure no closer to the front lot line than where the facade (not including any covered front porch, uncovered porch, uncovered steps, and uncovered balconies) is located. These fences shall not exceed six feet (72 inches) in height.  No fence or wall in excess of six feet (72 inches) in height shall be allowed in side and/or rear yards. These fences may begin from the rear of the principal structure facade.  All fence construction, repair and replacement of any section or portion thereof must be consistent with the remaining fence on the property. The intent of this section is to ensure that all fencing erected on a property is uniform and consistent in construction and appearance. → Sec. 115-2. Fill and lot grading requirements. o Fill, lot grading or landscaping involving up to ten cubic yards of fill. Fill as defined, lot grading and/or landscaping activities involving the deposition/addition, movement and placement of soils involving less than ten cubic yards of fill on an individual lot or parcel shall require a building permit and floodplain management permit. o Fill involving more than ten cubic yards. Fill or lot grading involving more than the deposition of ten cubic yards of fill shall require a building permit and floodplain management permit. Additionally, the application requires a sealed grading plan prepared by a Florida licensed professional architect, surveyor, or engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deck. Approval on the condition that: a. The deck must meet the definition of ‘pervious deck’ per Sec. 101-8. b. The deck cannot be attached to the (nonconforming) principal structure. 2. Fence. Approval on the condition that any portion of fence in the front yard cannot exceed 4’ or 48” in height.

Certificate of Appropriateness, Alteration, Sign & Parking Plan 71 Market Street

STAFF FINDINGS REPORT PROPERTY OWNER: H Heritage Inc AGENT (if applicable): Ricky Holtz CONTRACTOR: N/A PROPERTY ADDRESS (if available): 71 Market Street → Block E-2 Lot 20 and SE 20½ Lot 19 PARCEL ID: 01-09S-08W-8330-00E2-0200 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Yes HISTORIC STRUCTURE: No1 CORNER LOT: Yes ACREAGE: -- FUTURE LAND USE: C-1 WETLANDS: No FLOODPLAIN: Predominantly “X” minor “AE” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: → Replacement of existing sign and awnings, and associated parking plan, for a new business at the subject property. STAFF FINDINGS: Code of Ordinances: → Section 111-288(i). Parking Requirements. o There shall be provided at the time of the erection of any principal building or structure parking space with adequate provisions for ingress and egress no less than the following space requirements. When calculating the required o number of parking spaces, fractional numbers of spaces go to the next whole number. ▪ Retail Establishments. One off-street parking space for each two persons at work on peak shifts (1space : 2 employees), plus two for the first 1,000 square feet of floor space devoted to merchandising (2 1 According to the definition of ‘historic structure’ in LDC Sec. 101-8.

spaces), plus two for each additional 300 square feet used (2 spaces : 300 SF). • Total employees: 2 employees; 1 required parking space. • Total merchandising area: 1,100 SF; 2 required parking spaces. • Total required parking spaces: 3 spaces. o Required off-street parking will be provided either on the same parcel of land as the principal building or structure or on a separate parcel located within 500 feet of the principal building or structure. → Section 111-294. Parking Mitigation. o This section allows developers to substitute payments toward off-site parking for on-site parking in C-1, C-4, and RF districts. o Mitigation may be used to offset up to half of the required parking spaces for a development. The other half must be met by on-site or approved off-site requirements as established in this Code, unless otherwise referenced for historic structures or development on one lot as identified in section 111- 288(i)(11) or (12). ▪ The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the number of required parking spaces for the principal buildings, structures, or uses to be provided for designated city parking areas by the rate of $5,000.00 per required parking space. The rates are intended to offset the city's reasonable cost to construct new parking facilities of each type, and to maintain them for a period of 30 years. o All proposed parking mitigation contributions shall be placed in the parking mitigation fund, which shall be used exclusively to establish parking to serve nonresidential uses in the commercial districts. → Sec. 101-8. Definitions. o Awning sign means a sign placed or painted directly on the surface of an awning. o Projecting sign means any sign affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall. ▪ The proposed sign is 20 inches wide. → Sec. 113-2. Definitions. o Building facade means that portion of any exterior elevation of a building extending from grade to the top of the parapet wall or eaves and the entire width of the building elevation, including window areas.