Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Certifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff seeks code change to ease green‑certification burden on single‑family lots
Summary
Staff proposed amending the land development code to add lower, single‑lot compliance options after several state programs changed; the board discussed grandfathering projects already under way and whether single‑family homes in the special planning area should be exempt from the higher two‑certification requirement.
City staff presented a concept to revise the city’s land development code to respond to changes in state certification programs and to reduce the proportional cost of green‑building requirements on small single‑family and two‑family lots in the special planning area. Brandon, a city staff member, outlined options that would allow single‑lot residential projects to meet the Florida Energy Conservation Code plus one lower‑bar certification (for example, Energy Star or Florida Water Star), while larger commercial and multi‑family projects would continue to meet the current minimums (LEED Certified or Florida Green Building Coalition bronze) or an equivalent.
The change matters because some programs the city relied on previously have ended or shifted, leaving projects such as the Miramar resort and TradeWinds in uncertain positions. “We do have the problem in the form of the Miramar development that is currently under development,” Brandon said, and staff noted that Miramar is near completion and would face difficulty retrofitting to meet standards that no longer exist. Staff described the proposal as conceptual and asked the board for direction before drafting code language for a future meeting.
Board members pressed staff for concrete evidence of cost impacts on homeowners. One member who identified themselves as a hotelier asked, “What am I doing with these points? What is my incentive for developing to the higher standard?” Brandon replied that the proposal does not create a direct municipal incentive beyond marketing value but noted energy‑cost savings can be an indirect benefit and that utilities sometimes offer lower bills for energy‑efficient properties. Staff also said administrative certification costs — the outside reviewer fees required to document compliance — are the main proportional burden for small residential projects.
Several board members argued that requiring high‑tier certifications for one‑or‑two‑lot residential redevelopments may be disproportionate and suggested either exempting those single‑family lots through a narrow comprehensive‑plan amendment or allowing a one‑certification alternative. One board member urged protecting applicants who have already complied: “They are in good faith, they complied, they shouldn’t be penalized,” the member said in support of grandfathering or waivers for projects already permitted or under construction.
The board also discussed whether the city should transplant elements of the now‑ended Florida Green Lodging (FGL) program directly into local code to preserve criteria the city values — for example, operational measures such as laundry‑reuse programs — rather than offering a broad menu of certifications. Grant, a board member, suggested the city might “pick the ones that are meaningful for our city” rather than let developers choose from a smorgasbord.
Staff identified legal limits set by recent state legislation (discussion referenced SB180) that could complicate imposing a citywide standard; staff said exempting small single‑family lots in the special planning area would require a comprehensive‑plan amendment, while other changes could be handled in the land development code (LDC). Staff recommended narrow exemptions limited to single‑family and two‑family on single lots, and the board expressed tentative consensus to pursue additional commercial options while relieving the immediate burden on small residential lots.
Next steps: staff will draft specific ordinance language reflecting the board’s direction, evaluate grandfathering or temporary substitutions for projects already committed to certifications, and return with a proposed code amendment and any required comprehensive‑plan changes for further board consideration.
