Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

No, not I don't see anything. I thought it was already Yes. Okay. Okay. She said we're ready. Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning meeting of July 9th, 2025. Um we ask that everyone silence all cell phones and electronics at this time. We're going to begin with a short prayer in the pledge of allegiance. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Father in heaven, we invite you to preside over this meeting. Give us unity of spirit even when our opinions differ. Help us to listen politely to other points of view and to remember that we are all a part of the same community. Direct our thoughts, words, decisions, and actions toward the right path in the best interest of our city. We ask this in your name. Amen. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the standy.

Okay. Our first application tonight is Jackson application for special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Lorenzo and Jessica Jackson. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling on a lot exceeding 15,000 square ft. The property is located at 947 Old Spanish Trail, parcel 137K-2-36-009.0000 part fractional section 36, the property zone R1 single family district. Is the uh applicant here tonight? Yes, sir. Can you come up and state your name and address and tell us a little bit more of the need for varian? You know, I might do this for a few before that says, "Let me just go say so this property, if y'all know which one it is, by soup soup street and I put in the letter in 2015, there was a permit issued to build a back structure, which is now a house. That's before I was here, before anybody in the building department was here. It probably it should have went before planning and zoning in 2015 and this is previous owners from the Jacksons to go ask for an accessory dwelling. It didn't um two 2000 I think probably three years ago they got another permit to do some more work to it. It never got the true approval because the building department then did not realize it never got the zoning improvement approval previous previously which the building department issued the permit anyway. So what's going on before now is if the Jacksons ever sell their house and we come across this all the time a bank's going to call us or going to call us is do they have approval for having two dwellings on one piece of property. I would go pull the file and I would say like actually they don't and it causes a huge huge mess. So I asked them they turned came in to bring some construction plans sometime

last year. I like hey I can't let y'all do it because truth be told it shouldn't be there. So right now I asked them to bring in an application to ask for the special exception to have the accessory dwelling. So a we fixed it. We're doing it right a decade later. Plus so they can get a building permit for their house just in general. They're not going to be building another house. They they're not even allowed to build another house. It's not zoned for that. What's there is what's going to be there. The most they could ever go build that's another accessory is just a actual shed. Not even a they can't even ask for a house. Yeah, I was going to say I think you summed it up well, but I but I guess the problem is I know the one question was was when the public notice went out, it seemed like they were going to get another accessory dwelling, right? I just did not I couldn't draw a picture and say this is actually what's only going to be there. So I know that was some of the questions with the neighbors. Did anyone have any questions? And I didn't um have anybody signed up to speak, but if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for the application, you're welcome to come up and do so. I'll entertain a motion. Motion by Miss Brown, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I Motion passes. Please be present at the next city council meeting. It's actually going to be Thursday the 24th at 5:30 p.m. in this room. Yes. Yes. And they'll they'll have the final decision. The next application is Bay St. Louis Homes and Properties LLC. Application for sketch plat approval for phase 2B of Shieldsboro subdivision. Applicant is

requesting to change the configuration of three parcels of land into 70 new parcels of land in two detention areas. The sketch flat has indicated that the proposed subdivision will comply with the special use district standards which allow for single family dwellings on parcels with a minimum lot width of 70 ft, a front yard setback of 15 ft, sideyard setbacks of 5t, rear yard setback of 10 ft, and a maximum lot coverage of 65%. The properties in question is located in the general area of the Shieldsboro subdivision, which lies along Old Spanish Trail between St. Charles Street and Spanish Acres Drive. Partial 137R-44-051.0000. Part 203, Fourth Ward, B St. Louis 79 AAA38-6366, Parcel 137R-44-50.0000, Part 196, Fort W St. Louis, parcel 137R-44-049.00 Park 166, 167, and 195 Ford bay, St. Louis. The property lies in an R2 two family district in an R3 multif family district with a special use district overlay. All right. Before I want to go interrupt, our professional one, but the history on this in u Mr. Clark asked me in November October of 2020 came before planning and zoning commission, which you were still on, but November of 2020, after probably three renderings, there was a 144 lot development called Shieldsboro phase uh 2 A, 2B, and 2C um presented with a special use district that's going to have 70 foot lots that are 60% lot coverage and spells out the setbacks. They're all going to be single family houses.

When I got here, they were in the middle of doing it. Over the last five years, they opened up Chilro phase 2A, but never finished the Rex. Well, I think a year and a half, two years ago, we adopted new planning and zoning regul subdivision regulations, which means they have to come back before to meet our new regulations, which doesn't change the whole plat, but during this planning process, there's some more stuff that more hoops they're going to have to go through. But um they but the answer that Clark asked earlier, did we already approve this? Y'all already approved what these looked like five years ago. It has to come back before y'all because the process kind of has to start back over, but um planning and zoning and city council approved what these 70 lots looked like five years ago. And what would be some of the additional requirements trees? So, no. So, they're going to have to have sidewalks in this space. And it used to be our subdivision regulations were from I think the 70s which truth be the storm water requirement was a little bit different like it might have been 20 10 year storm water management that's no longer I think it's 25 and 100year storms and then also uh it used to be that if you have a engineering stamp that says hey these these plans work they can just start constructing it how Bay St. Louis requires the developer to get a stamped professional to say, "Hey, these are my water utilities, everything." And then we review it ourselves with our own engineers. How for 50 years did they not requ St. Louis not require like have a second? I don't know. But now they're going to be subject to that also. Oh yes. The last phase though they put

in this most recent phase they we never required gas natural gas lines. Now you have to have water sewer and gas installed in any subdivision. So it's going to be a better it's got can make some more. So, um, if I might, um, so this, uh, it actually ended up being reduced down to 114 lots to begin with back in 2020. Started off at 140, but we changed it. The first phase, which we're going to call a two, is 37 lots and basically been built out. We pretty much have all done except for about five lots. The next phase, which is what's before you tonight, taking B and C phase and converting it to just B only and that's going to be 70 lots. There were some minor adjustments we did to the lot lines to protect the live oak trees, hopefully avoid requests for future variances, but other than that, it's pretty much as it was before. uh we won't be seeking any variances of any type and I'm aware of that and u basically it's as straightforward as that um as as Jeremy pointed out all this was approved both by the planning commission and by the city council back in 2020 in this same configuration. So, um, I can go on, but I think I'll answer any questions if you have. So, just to go say if this pass sketch passes by city council, then they start doing more engineering work. So, if somehow this configuration doesn't work with drainage or whatever else, they're going to come back for you and say, "Hey, we're going to have to do

something with the lots." But the hard work starts after this for them. This is conceptual design. Any questions? You want to show them Bobby? Get up close. Well, we have And I saw you already. That's right. Just so I'm clear, Jeremy, all these documents, your staff report, the application, the previous documentation from all that will be part It's almost it's in our packet all right about that. Um, anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application? I don't know if anyone signed up. No, we haven't received anything. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. A motion by Mr. Is there a second? Second by M. Brown. All those in favor? I

I I motion passes. Uh it's the Thursday the 24th. I'm going to keep saying Tuesday. 5:30 p.m. Thank you. Our next application is Smith application for variance of the zoning ordinance submitted by Don Smith. The applicant is wanting to reconfigure two parcels of land. Both parcels will not meet the required lot area and one will not meet the required lot width. Parcel need a variance of 2,000 square ft resulting in 10,000 square ft to the minimum lot area and a variance of 25 ft resulting in a total of 75 ft to the lot to the minimum lot width. Partial two will need a variance of 4,500 ft resulting in 7500 ft to the minimum lot area and a variance of 25 ft resulting in a total of 75 ft to the minimum lot width. The property is located at 415 Thomas Street, parcel 144-19-247.0000. Part 101 first basel 144-19-248.0000 101F first WSL. The property is zone R1 single family district. The applicants here tonight. Could you come up and state your name and address and then tell us a little bit more about the request for the Okay. Can I read these into the letter into the record? Okay. Well, look, I'll just say Ditto and read their names. Um, are their address? Yep. addresses are on here. Dear members of the planning commission, I am writing to express my support for the proposed reconfiguration of lots by my neighbors Rodney Lacost and Dawn Smith at 415 Thomas Street, B St. Louis, Mississippi. As a nearby neighbor at 414 Thomas Street, I have reviewed the plans

and understand that the reconfiguration is intended to accommodate the construction of a swimming pool on their property. I have no objections to the proposed changes and believe that the improvements will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The project does not interfere with my property privacy or access and I support my neighbors efforts to enhance the use and enjoyment of their home. Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Thank you for your consideration. And that's Esther L. Greenbomb. And then the other ditto letter is from Sharon and Terry Han and they're at 418 Thomas. Um so I mean we we've got a you don't have an official survey. No. But more or less What we're trying to do is the the primary lot right now is just a 50 foot lot. So I mean we're right on our lot line. So you're actually making your primary lot better primary. That's how I understand is the main purpose of the whole thing. Um she argues with me all day long that we don't want to uh just combine them. I said well you never know what's going to happen in the future. you know, if something were to happen to you. And it's also more importantly, I know everybody doesn't have the the flat of the neighborhood in front of them, but probably 90% of the lots on that street are 50 ft. Yeah. 50 and 75. And that's why we make it like we did the So, it is more in keeping with the neighborhood than what's actually currently there. Any questions from the commissioners? Was there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against I'll entertain a motion. Motion to accept by Mr. Breland. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I Motion passes. Please be present at the next city council meeting Thursday, July 24th at 5:30 p.m. and it'll be in this room as well. Sounds great. Thank you all very

Okay. Uh, next is Rust Enterprises application for major site plan review for a recreational vehicle park submitted by Rust Enterprises. The property is in question is located at 10160 Chapman Road and is identified on the Hanok County land rolls as parcel number 138H-46-028.00 0 legal description part Gaton to me claim part southeast 14 section 27-8-14 west the property is special usage yes sir all right I'm Nick Gant Brown Mitchell and Alexander 131 Magnolia and Beluxy engineer agent on behalf of the owner Chandler Rust couple you know months ago we came before you guys and got a special use district for this recreational vehicle park. Uh now we're you know moving on to the next step which is major site plan review. So we've submitted you know plans to the city for review and that's what we have before you. Uh we're looking at 200 RV pads uh with 300 parking spaces. Some of those will be on the individual pads. Some will be coupled around the amenity area uh at the front in the entrance. Um the way this will be set up is you know all the roadways are existing. We'll make improvements to those. So the roadways uh water, sewer and drainage that exist inside this parcel will remain private uh to the owner. Um the only thing that we will do is there's an existing ditch on the south side of the parcel that drains from east to west um that the city currently maintains. public works does, but there's no easement over the property. We will give an easement to the city so that they can properly continue to maintain that. Um, and that's really all I wanted to say.

I'll hear, you know, to answer any question and then anyone in the audience is welcome to comment. I mean, we're not really debate debating. We're just as much as reviewing and making sure we covered everything. The one addition that we asked him that they're going above and beyond is six foot fence is what you want blocking. We asked them to um put an 8 foot basically wood fence privacy fence along the road that faces the soccer field like you know like buffering everything but kind of even buffer it. They'll probably enjoy it more. think as parents we probably prefer it more that way too so they don't go run out and then um just some of the other stuff that I realized it still has this is 15 acres 20 acres so it has to go to MDQ for a large site permit construction that's so let's say that's 90 days approval nothing B St. They submit it to make sure you know nothing's going to go upstream and but before no work's going to be done on this until we get that true construction documents and we're going to double check to make sure every drainage outlet that it's going to be draining into because it's such a large site is graded correctly and stuff like that. Yeah. So, you know, this approval I'm not getting city council approval and then, you know, turning up dirt the next day. you know, this is still, you know, we've still got some things to do and figure out. Uh, you know, we're just here to make sure, hey, our configuration looks good. You know, we're meeting all the ordinances as intended that the city has set up and not missing anything before we really get into. But yeah, we're, you know, as Jeremy said, you know, probably at least 90 120 days out. Anybody see?

I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Motion by Miss Brown. Is there a second? Second by Mr. All those in favor. I I motion passes. Please be present for the city council meeting July 24th. Next agenda item is Gunning. It's application for variance to the zoning ordinance submitted by Philip Mi and Candace Gunning. Applicants are wanting to construct a new residence on the property. They are requesting a variance of 174 in resulting in a 7 foot 8 in set back to the front yard and a variance of 6'1 in resulting in a 13t 11 in set back to the rear yard. The property is located at 401 South Avenue 149-129- 050 uh 260A second. Louis the property zone R1 single family. All right. So Mr. Phillips up here. They came here to get a permit. This is more pervert zoning. You have a year to activate the permit being their builder wasn't whatever they dropped off plans 14 months ago, year and a half ago. The variance just expired like it expired. So, building official said, Jeremy, you need to go back and get the varian. So, it is the exact same house y'all approved in I don't know what it may 23. It says October. October 2023. It went through historical. They are teed up, ready to go. And unfortunately, they had to wait 45 more days. I mean, I felt bad. He does have black eyes. It didn't cost you $250. I'm sorry. I hope I can use my half of what I paid for the building.

I didn't have any questions. I've seen it before. The only calls I got were people that said why they have to go back for them. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for again? Um, I'll entertain a motion. Let's go ahead and approve it. Motion approved. Motion by M. Brown, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I Motion passes. Please be present. City Council meeting July 24th. Hopefully, you'll be ready to go. I was told it was the 22nd. They they moved it last night. They moved it because there's a conference. Wait another. Okay, that's fine. I just They had some kind of conference. Yeah. the 24th. It's a Thursday. Okay. Thank you. Corbett Nico LLC application for a variance to the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance submitted by Corbett Niko LLC. The applicant intends to construct a 4unit boutique hotel. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of four off- streetet parking spaces to accommodate the four sleeping rooms in the hotel. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for no required onremise parking resulting in a variance of four parking spaces. The located at 105 Northeast Boulevard identified on the Hanok County land partial number 149 L-29-035.0000 legal description 510 first board bay St. and partial number uh partial number 149 L-29-03600 legal description part 512 board the property zone C1 simple business district and just for a note this is for the variance the next item is the site plan that doesn't have the parking spot so okay yes

um so uh in front of y'all. I believe uh three or four months ago, probably December, I think December of last year. Basically, originally we were going to do parking underneath the hotel at the hotel above it the city the city would lose. So in the letter I said it a site plan we went to. We just kind of unsolicited the county road and say if you have four parking spots here, I think there's three in front of them, but because of sight lines, they couldn't figure it's either be six or seven on Beach Boulevard that would be lost if they used it. talking through that. We basically said what better option to do that. The goal go ahead and do parking off site at Toro which is uh that is 565T away from the parking lot and the variant the uh the current outside of the required area for parking. And so our goal come back. So like Okay. So okay just go hotel sleep each sleeping room needs four and just so not just people here. So if anybody's watching a restaurant doesn't require any retail doesn't hotels, condos and single and residential in this zoning district required parking. They needed four part of our zoning ordinance is 400 ft. You can have alternative. Well, they don't

have a 400t alternative. So they're requesting no parking on site. Now, they do lease the lot right next door to Toro where their actual parking lot is for Toro, which is north just north of 600 feet. So, that's what they're offering in return. Unfortunately, like our zoning says 400 foot. So, at the end of the day, they're asking for no onsite parking. So, yeah. So, your parking is behind rags, right? No, ma'am. Well, yes. Yes, it is a high but it's two build rags empty lot to empty lot. Okay. So, and we're going to dedicate four of those spaces to the hotel. Okay. Toro and the candy shop. But so, how many parking spots are already there at your We have 12 I think I want to 10 10 and 12. Okay. And that and that restaurant does not require any parking at all. We just put it there because I'm just like thinking so like what is what's the alternative if like the restaurant's super busy all those lots you know like I understand that those are four dedicated spots but it's already congestion in the area. No, I mean I agree. I think to whether in my view we're allowed to put a restaurant there, right? At at the 105 North Beach currently, right? Right. And you don't have to have parking, but I'm just saying. Okay. I don't not like the idea. It's just the safety aspect of, you know, we see it with the hotel already, an unloading zone, like not having any unloading zone. It gets so congested. And then I'm worried about your handicap people because I see you went ahead and put in an elevator, which is great. Some people try to work around that. But then where do we drop them off at if No, I guess from our standpoint, I guess

I mean so if you put a hotel there and have parked underneath it, I guess there be enough parking spots in the downtown area, right? And it sounds like you wouldn't be and you wouldn't be able to, you know, use the reserve the spots and, you know, they're almost right there, you know, so there's no way to load and unload. Just the practicality of someone with suitcases, much less being in a wheelchair is what I'm really concerned about. So, I guess you think better. Well, I'm worried about you having enough. It just might not be a feasible thing. You know, still would lose at least one even if it was just for one car to unload like a temporary unloading zone to drive. You still would But then also like would you be able to back out and look behind you and see in the road have enough clearance what I'm saying because it's so close to the road there probably would be enough Y already major cycling right now. Yeah. I think Whatever. So the original just so I can understand the original proposal for the

parking what? So it might have been there's probably They redesigned it for sleeping room wise. So now they have four sleeping not a p I don't remember what it was pen house that had two whatever. So now it's but but we still had issues with parking still right kind of well they were going to park underneath. Well no the issue there was because it was never addressed is you have parking underneath. question was going to be is the access to it because they have three parallel parking spots in front of and I like I'll tell you like I when it comes to M dot guidelines and stuff I know nothing I have to go at we have to have somebody much more smarter than me you know M do requirements which just trying to use them if you're backing in you're not really supposed to back into a major thoroughare so Not just highway nigh too. Is there any way to get a minimum of one? Well, no. I guess I I'll be hon. Yeah. Like I don't know the answer of who gives up. You're going to be removing a parking spot to add it on there. You're putting a curve like I don't know person director is it dot or county city of St. Yeah, I'm just thinking about getting y'all through city council with you know. Oh, so you would say

I think the compromise I'm saying if we don't if we don't pass here or we don't pass through city council the compromise be finding a way to do some kind of loading unloading. So one thing that's allowed from I think we've done this before recently if you ask for Generally, it's the arc, but if you're asked for four parking lot varants, but you say, "You know what? We're only going to give you one, we're we're going to require you to have two." It's public notice was sent out. So, anybody who's against all the parking will be here anywhere. Now, if it's less, you know, nobody more is going to probably come. So if you're asking for four four spot parking varants and you only agreed, you can't give a six one, but you can give up one. So you have one parking spot on there and three three car. No, but if you if y'all say, "Hey, no, we want all four on there." Somebody says, "Hey, I want there. Yeah, they may not be able to sacrifice. Well, the thing would be the site plan because did we have any letters? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for? Can you come up to the podium? We're being live streamed. Can you state your name and address for us? My name is Barbara Pway and I manage a business at 111 Main Street, Paracco's Bar. Um, my boss asked me to come on his

behalf. He built the Pearl Hotel. He does have a parking spot for every room. Um, I have 12 spots in my parking lot for the bar, which is very And I'm constantly, it's a full-time job. We have to chase them out to stand out there and chase them out. Majority of them are going to the restaurants um to the other bars. There's no parking down there. Four spots doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. You know, I have 12 spots. It's when we go to work to open up, they're full. And I have I've never had any carbs cut out of there. I don't want to do that. I don't want to cost somebody money, but it's a constant battle. Um, if you have people on vacation staying in a hotel, they're probably going to get a golf cart because they can rent them anywhere. So, they're going to need somewhere to park the golf cart, you know, so do what comes too. No one's there's already a parking problem down there. It really is. It's sad, but I do worry about the safety of it, you know, being able to people in sleeping units and stuff. You can't even really pull on the road. And people don't for some reason know that garage is over there. You know, tourists don't when people come out of town. A lot of local Yeah. And they don't know where they're going. finding would be difficult just to get instructions to walk down street, you know, to if you're not familiar with I just see for some problems. Mathematically speaking, we're not eliminating any, right? So, we're not getting rid of the three out front of the building. We're actually adding four It's not like they're going to be out there at random trying to figure out

parking. There's going to be specific instructions on where to park the entry as far as the loading and unloading. They can walk from there. Yeah. But you see where we're getting at the congestion aspect of like you're trying to unload your luggage, it's pouring down rain or they get to Toro and those four spots are full and there's nowhere for them to park them. Where do they go? But the four spots of Toro won't be full. They'll be reserved. for them specifically reserved for them but it's still a great distance. So you're suggesting they go yes signed and barber the hotel we need to put a pole right there and for my guest um they can have a code to get in for hotel parking and then they won't be so we're assuming because it is an assumption we're assuming that these out of towners are going to know to that they have to park at a restaurant, walk all the way over, park at a restaurant to for this hotel, even though that they have signs and, you know, my think of it is we've all used Airbnbs, we've all used rentals, and they might have instructions of this is where you, you know, go and whatnot, but it's still going to be an issue of unloading. It's still going to be an issue of trying to find closer parking. And so either even though y'all have these dedicated spots, we're still going to lose some spots somehow someway because people are going to try to find closer parking. I mean, if I had a handicapped person or an elderly person, I'm going to park as close to this hotel as possible. There there is an unloading zone right across the street. Okay. But that's still kind of falling back. Or are you talking about Pearls? That's not Pearls. Anybody? Well, but my thing of it is we have an issue there, too. That still ties into the congestion. restaurant right across. But yeah, I I know who you are. So, I mean, but it still ties into the

congestion issue. And so, you know, we're adding this property here. It's not making the situation better in my opinion. We're just trying to learn from our mistakes a little bit to make sure we don't make the same mistakes that, you know, you hear these complaints. I mean, I know it's kind of like, well, they were there first, but we are addressing these issues and if we have a chance to do it right, it has to be constructed. Let's do it right. Let's way that everybody's agreeable with. I mean, the city came to us said they were going to lose four. We thought we were doing better for the city by advising giving. I have nobody I want to give parking at a restaurant that's only parking around. I just don't really feasibly see someone who's in a wheelchair parking. They're going to stop in the road and they're going to drop them off even if it's on the unloading, you know, realistically or with a lot of baggage. If you're staying a long time, they're really not, you know, you tell people do the right thing. But as you know, she said they're gonna still park at Caracus, you know, and walk because that that space is open no matter if there's a sign up there or not. Right. I I mean, I understand I understand where you're coming from, but understand where we're coming from, too. You know, we've been sitting here for two, three years now since everything's been constructed about hearing the congestion every single month in the property. And it's a safety factor, too. I think be able I mean when you can't even get down Main Street or Beach Boulevard sometimes on a Friday or Saturday night. What if there's an emergency? It's just addressing some of that congestion issue and also making it a little more pleasant for your guests to you know not have to walk. What do you what if the parking was 400 ft though the same argument would not I mean see what you're saying but say we take away the 600 put 400 you still hang I mean I would see that as less of an issue right

still I guess the question you're saying you're okay with it being the Yeah, I would be okay with that. I feel better about that. I think we can do that. I just think I mean aesthetically the best. No, but for safety and someone physically staying there. Yeah, I think we can absolutely do that to us. When you do that, you're going to lose the whole commercial area over a sidewalk in the middle of the next county. Well, I I don't think the city can have access to I don't if you were able to make a parking lot work and safely get in and out. Yeah. I don't think so. I think we have to back right I guess you're going to have a hotel with a bottom park. There's room. bar restaurant. We can sleep in here, you know, a little bit.

You have to cut the curve anyway, right? Yeah. Well, I mean that would still have to be that would have to be resitted, right? And then when you're talking about cutting herbs and everything else, like that would be city and a public works, but I think it would have to be the first one was correct. Right. Let's just talk about this one that's on hand right now. How about that? Yeah, you've already got one that's already talked about four spots. Let me ask Jeremy a Let me ask Jeremy a question. So would it be ready better for them to pull this one and go there? Well, let's say currently what we're talking about is No. And I guess as I prefer the site plan that's number seven is has no parking on it. So like let's say just theoretically somebody says it gets voted no parking this parking variance as present. It's not obviously kind of a m point of parking variance because what's reflected in seven isn't isn't even allowed. So that's just not talking through it now. I know there was discussion seemed like somewhere spending away that hey you don't have four that's great but give me two whatever was obviously coming back with different cycling still going to need do but reflect whatever the parking requirements going to be there now and we're talking about because currently it's a hotel only a hotel discussed from day one like it's never going to be a

condo never going to be a timing. Um, but as they said, if it's any other use, if it's just commercial throughout, they don't have to have in downtown we have a similar issue where we had a building and restaurant. analysis on hotel versus hotel versus restaurant. And then I guess at the end of the day I'm just surprised nobody was said we're just a recommendation body. I always say that and I was gonna say I know but I'm trying to get the wheels turning here just so it's not straight denial down the road like we're talking it through so we make something happen. I was wonder did y'all explore any idea like the would it be the county that in charge of those parking spaces in front? I don't like would they, you know, would they would since you'd have to curb cut uh one regardless, would they be open to the possibility of those two being designated loading and unloading zones? That might be kind of a New Orleans style deal. even the three, you know, or I mean, I think a minimum of two in my opinion.

That's just my opinion, but we got to we're going to have to do something. They're going to have to be able to load and unload somewhere either on site or right in close proximity. I I think if y'all have a recommendation for us, we would love to take a That would be mine because you can tell them we're going to lose a spot regardless. Yeah. Uh no matter what we do because we got to get garbage in and out of here, too. Absolutely. Eliminating some of my safety concerns about it, but I still don't like the parking without parking right there in front. Yeah. So, or at least to unload and unload and then go, you know, if you have someone handicapped, let them off and then you go park at Toro and you can walk the rest of the way. just be signed. I mean, you have to do it style pretty much. Taking those parallel spaces because you're going to take at least one of them anyway getting garbage into them. I was like people do use that loading

unload. I actually there's actually not enough loading and unloading space for the pearl. Hindsight's 2020. There should have been something on site where they can load and unload. It's dangerous because people can't see and then they're coming both directions and someone's unloading here and so they're walking out in front of cars trying to grab their suitcase. I'm trying to avoid that on the main three stop sign right there. Can I tell you how many times I've already, you know, they're drinking and they're looking back and they're just walk Yeah. Yeah. County as it is an all or nothing saying there needs to be something worked out ahead of time like let's think since we have the opportunity. Let's think through everything. the county own city. I don't think the city I think it's always been county. Well, I know the beach is think I just don't want to say yes. There's probably an argument over it. Miles, that's probably an argument over that. So, I think so. County go a little bit back.

And like I said, my favorite saying is to approve you or if we do I've seen it. All we're doing is recommending them what we think is best. Is it better for us just to I think I think I think Amy's suggestion was the best feedback for the purp so they can move forward to city council. No, no, no, no, no. This matter, this agenda item is going to the B city council. All doing it's going to go with a recommendation. Their recommendation body planning and zoning is the one that they could all said yes and they all say no, it's a no. They can all say no. City council all say yes. It's a yes. Yeah, they can overturn. You can still no matter what if we say we deny it because of the parking spots. You go next week and change is there any way to go back to our original plan? Well, because that's not what was advertised for this meeting. We have to go back reverse. This is the public notice. Yeah. Like this. The other one's already approved. Go ahead and get rid of that other one.

Well, we still need What's on the line on there? What's going Yeah. And currently what's going on? We're just voting on this one right here. That's all we're That's why I asked him before, does it have to be resubmitted? Because it would have to go through again when I asked. Yes. That's why I was saying the previous version was already approved. Yeah. But when you were talking about the revised one, you know what I was talking about. I asked him and then I said it would have to go through again. and he asked about how long it would be. The original one that you're talking about that y'all want, that one's approved. But if y'all did some revision like Amy was talking about, that would have to get Yeah. So, we need to vote on this one here. And it's on this one here. Like I said, nothing to do with the site plan yet. just strictly on what we're voting on is yay or nay to zero on site park. That's what we're that's all the plan this right here just on the park. Right. Right. Um if there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor I I Okay. So, the application has failed, but you're still going to go to the city council meeting on July 24th on that Thursday in this room and they'll have the final say on that. And you'll still present this right here. This one here, the full parking spots and then the other one you still have the other. So, um so maybe a motion on the site plan review. If you want to make a motion.

Um, so I'd like to make a motion to table agenda item number eight. Yes. Because the previous application failed and there's no parking allowed on site. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Breland. All those in favor? I pass. Can you make sure you in the minutes that it was denied because no parking is on site and very just so it's reflected in the record. And I'll uh make a motion to approve the minutes of June 11th, 2025. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I. Motion passes. And the last agenda item is a motion to adjourn the meeting of July 9th, 2025. Motion. Motion by Mr. Brand. Second by Mr. Romano.