Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the Unite Pan City Planning Board meeting is now  in order Please take the role Board member Carroll   here Board member Stamps here Board member Barker  here Board member Rich here Chairman Newower here   Are there any changes or deletions to the agenda i  have an item I'd like to request y'all add on It's   uh concerning a potential appeal for a dock at  3411 West 15th Street And I don't it doesn't   matter if we add it to the front or the the back  Gotcha Which you you prefer just do the end we   can just do it at the end Okay Are there any  announcements or disclosures for the board members do we need to vote on adding the Yes Did you know  okay Yeah Do I have a motion to add item what's   address it would be item six Uh I I motion to add  item 6 I Second Please take the role Board member   Carol Yes Board member Stamps Yes Board member  Barker Yes Board member Rich Yes Chairman Newower   Yes Motion passes 5-0 Do I have a motion to  approve the May 12th 2025 planning board meeting   minutes so move Second Please take the role Board  member Carol Yes Board member Stamps Yes Board   member Barker Yes Board member Rich Yes Chairman  Yes Now going to read the process for quasi   judicial proceedings The following procedure board  will follow during quasi judicial hearings Public   hearing announce Introduction by application by  staff Exarty communication disclosure by board   members Identification of applicant and affected  parties that attend to participate in the hearing   Affected parties that only attend to make a  statement may do so at the public participation  

part of the agenda An affected party means any  person or any that will suffer an adverse effect   to interest protected or furthered by the ELDC  interests including interests related to health   and safety police and fire protection service  systems densities or intensities of develop   development transportation facilities healthc care  facilities equipment or services and environmental   or natural resources Alleged adverse interest  may be shared in common with other members of   the community at large but must exceed a degree  the general interest and community good shared by   all persons Now turn it over to council to swear  any witnesses We've got a few folks walking in   If you are here this afternoon to speak on any  item with the exception of item G as in goat   as in Nick Sabin is the goat then you need to  stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in Do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony  you'll give in these matters to be the truth the   whole truth and nothing but the truth yes When  you come to the podium to speak on your matter   you'll state your name and address for the record  and that you have been sworn Thank you Thank you   All right Item number A Item A is case number  CPC PLN 2025015 Um they're requesting a final   plat approval Um in new in November 2011 the  city of Panama City approved a PUD master plan   um which is a 700 acre plan unit development um  to be developed through multiple phases over the   next 20 years Uh in November 2023 the city of  Panama City approved a development order for   Sweet Bay Town Center phase 1A and 1B Um so staff  recommends u approval of the final plat with the   condition that the requirements of the TRC are  met and also um a submitt of a performance bond um   for any remaining subdivision improvements or uh  dedications at the time of platting and dedication  

Thank you Any board member questions for  staff on this item is the applicant here   or anywhere here anyone here  to speak on this item please richard Futner 203 Aberine Parkway Um  Deubberry Engineering on behalf of St   Andrew Bay Land Company Uh don't really have  anything to say other than know if there's   any questions from anyone the board or the  public Thank you Awesome Thank you guys Is   anyone else here to speak on this item  all right Do I have a motion motion to   approve Second A motion to second Please  take that That motion and second includes   the conditions of staff Yes sir That's correct  Board member Carol Yes Board member Stamps Yes   Board member Barker Yes Board member Rich  Yes Chairman Nubar Yes Motion passes 5-0 Item letter B Item E case number CPC PLN 20250551  It is a smallcale land use amendment and reszoning   Um it is the request is to reszone from  public institutional to mixeduse 3 to be   more adjacent with mixeduse parcels in  the area The owner is Bay Oaks Village   MHP Inc The applicant's name is Scott Helms  Address is 2414 Michigan Avenue And uh yeah   Thank you There any board member questions for  staff is this parcel associated with any of the   other parcels particularly across Michigan Avenue  or is it an independent parcel across Michigan   Avenue it there's um the public institution or the  church who used to own it Below that there's an R1   Um and then everything else is pretty much Bay  County except for if you go to the north there's   mixed use lots Okay And I guess regardless of what  this vote is is public institution the correct  

zoning for that lot being that it's no longer  associated with the church um that it I guess it's   not really it's there's nothing there that owns it  that is public institutional anymore at this time I would like just to add that there  were some printouts that were set   at your your desk It's um two emails from  some neighboring or nearby property owners   um that want to speak out in opposition to  the resign Thank you Like to enter that as   part of the report Thank you Does  the here to speak on this item i am Scott Helms 2414 Michigan Avenue I'll take  any questions What are your intentions of the   property i was thinking either a small warehouse  flex space or town homes um as well mixed use are warehouses Well there's allowed in mix three Sorry what was the question art warehousing Is  that allowed in MU3 um just a second I think   it allows for neighborhood scale commercial  uses So um MU3 neighborhood scale commercial   uses not to exceed 20,000 square ft of heated  cool space or parcel Uh such uses may include   professional offices and personal facilities  private daycare or private childare or daycare   uh commercial recreational facilities grocery  and convenience retail uh athletic clubs dance  

studios food establishments without  drive-thru window and other similar   uses serving the the neighborhood area Um  typically if someone wants to do warehousing   uh we would direct them to GC2 zoning Um which and  we've got a similar case that's coming up later   on the agenda Okay The thing thing that uh I'm  certainly when you change it you can put anything   you want to You can say today I'm going to do this  but tomorrow you change your mind It's different   But I had preliminary drawings of the warehouse  I don't know if it's in the file there or not   but I've I've you know had preliminary drawings  for a while Uh there is a warehouse adjacent to   my lot 2404 Michigan Avenue is a warehouse and an  auto detail repair shop directly um to the south   And this zoning is just the city zoning but is  it correct that Bay County it's R1 surrounding   that property yes sir It's all R1 Um but the Yeah  the the lot to the um southeast it is considered   light manufacturing Um if you look in the map  there but it is zoned R1 The rest of it is R1 you you have several warehouse structures on  Michigan Avenue as well 25 uh 21 is a mobile   home park but 2311 is a warehouse structure and  then at the corner of um Michigan and 3905 23rd   Court is a warehouse as well I'm not talking  about a big warehouse We're talking about a  

5,000 square foot space with nice you know  landscaping facade in the front It's Is this   for personal use or commercial i was going to  use one side and rent out the other Yes sir Is   the staff recommendation based on the adjacent use  of property with the the automotive building no it   is based off the surrounding um particularly the  city's um surrounding um the MU to the north Okay   Um and it's more so of the change of the  zoning more so than potential warehousing Would you have to have the zoning change  just call it an overcar oversized garage   Well I'm trying to do it right So okay All  right Thank you See if there's anyone else   There's a lot of Is there anyone else in  the audience that wants to speak on this   item let's let her give a chance to speak and  you can answer any questions that may come up   I do not have an agenda So this is uh Bay Oaks  Village Okay My I'm Robin Morrison and I'm at   3900 West 24th Street and I am still against this  future land use amendment because it mainly adds   multifamily apartments and condominium units and  I don't want that within 300 ft of my property   Um I'm concerned that it will lower the uh value  of surrounding properties and I don't want it to   be or turned into a dirty rundown housing with  poor living conditions I went by the two Bay Oaks   Village mobile home parks U one on School Avenue  in Springfield and the one on North Kimber Kimbell   Avenue in uh Callaway And I would not want to live  there Um it looks like some are FEMA trailers and  

whether they are or not the parks are run down Um  and I know last year y'all um denied his request   and I'm asking you to do so again Um and the main  point I'm trying to make is that I don't want   something within 300 ft of my property that will  devalue the asset that I own Um and I thought it   mattered what he wanted to do with the property  if he wanted to put a warehouse or storage unit   there But it doesn't mean he can't change his mind  and put multif family apartments there or a condo   So please deny his request Thank you Ma'am you  were sworn in earlier Were you sworn in earlier   no sir Would you Did everything you just said  was that the truth yes sir All right Thank you   Yeah Let's see if there's anyone else that wants  to speak on this item first Anyone else wish to   speak on this item go Yeah please go ahead  Just for clarification I had to keep the Bay   Oaks Corporation name because I have other real  estate um properties in that I sold those mobile   home parks back in 21 I haven't owned those in  five years So I have nothing to do with that   And I don't run my properties like that If they're  run down now that has nothing to do with me Thank   you All right Is there any other board member  questions or discussion do I have an motion anyone wish to make a motion to approve or deny i'll make a motion to deny Have a second Second We need a vote Okay Have a  motion to second Please take roll  

Board member Carol Motion No  Board member Stamps Yes Board   member Barker Yes Board member Rich Yes  Chairman Newower Yes Motion passes 41 Commission Item letter C That  will go to the commission um July 8 2025 for the first reading and  then second reading July 22nd 2025 Okay Item C is case number CPC PLN 2025 0605  Um the applicant has requested to vacate an   8-footed platted alleyway and a 22 foot strip of  land designated as city property that does not   retain any underground utilities or infrastructure  The applicant is Dunlap and Shipment on behalf   of Ronald and Dorothy Hamlin and it is located um  south of East Second Court between Sherman Avenue   and Main Avenue Thank you There any questions from  board for staff as far as the city it's not going   to do anything with that right away No there's an  alley there and then the 22 FFT strip I guess at   some point it was dedicated to the city as a as  a roadway or a gas station that was used to be   there or was proposed to be there at one point  but city isn't doing anything with the property   Thank you Any other questions is the  applicant here to speak on this item good afternoon I'm Denise Rowan Um 558 Harrison  Avenue I'm here to answer any questions

Questions all right Thank you Anyone else here  from the audience wish to speak on this item all   right See none Do you get one oh we do Okay Go  ahead I'm sorry sir Yeah I'm Holton Harters Uh   we're right next door to Mr Hamlin property where  the Eastman is there All there is is a power line   that goes down that feeds our dock and used to  feed some of his property at one time but it's   been an easement forever And what do you do if  you're going to delete it are you splitting that   22 ft we get 11 ft He gets 11 ft What's the plan  that's what I was told by the city I was under   the pressure of the public department Yeah you  the the abandonment would be uh divided down the   middle as you said So if you've got property on  one side I think I remember looking at it You do   then you would get part of that um abandonment  and then they would get the other part of Okay   Yeah Because this easement where it comes  in comes right in our back gate where it's does that go it doesn't it it terminates before  it gets to your the abandonment does before it   gets to your it goes all the way Have you see  where that checkered mark on your board is   that's where we got a lower yard and an upper yard  Yeah where it goes right where the if you're going   south that's where the main power pole is and then  from there it goes down into your what I meant it   was it does not affect your access to your your  property It could but you have access to it now   We've got access on Main Avenue but that's the  back gate where we can we can come We we we don't   use it that often except for when we have heavy  heavy trucks coming in because it's all industry  

here you know where we need to make a loop where  we don't have room to turn around Okay So are you   saying you use this alleyway periodically is that  is that what you were just saying where you have   trucks turn around we do from you know from time  to time So the the biggest thing is is where the   property lines are really there you know that you  can't find any property I mean we know about about   where they're at And the telephone line ought to  be the center line It should be the center of that   easement It should be is what I'd assume So is it  It all depends You have to go down there and look   at it or we need to get Buchanan or Harper or  somebody to survey it and really see where that   line is Um if the telephone pole is the center  line you know we'd get that 11t east of the center   line and if it's split they'd get 11 ft on the  west side Mike if they close this and we abandon   the thing and they get one gets half the other  gets half who's responsible having a survey before   because before you can do a deed if you're going  to deed it over to them you're going to have to   have a survey We will not do a deed It'll be where  it's just abandoned It's just an abandonment And   so anybody can still drive over You can't put a  fence in that just because it's been abandoned You   can't put a fence in there over that in the middle  of can you once we aband if if the city abandons   it yes they could potentially put up a fence on  their portion of it 11 ft Well how do they know if   it's their portion they don't have a detail Well  they they'd be responsible for getting a survey   Yeah they'd have to get their own survey at that  point right he'll take our that Mary's question is   whether what's the instrument that tells the world  that this is somebody's property There's not a   deed What yeah How how if he gets ready to sell it  goes to sell it or she they go to sell it How do   they know that's a part of their property because  we're dealing with one over in Walton County now  

on on something That's why I wanted to there never  was a clearcut of who got the deed who who you   know how was it deed over right it's the ordinance  of abandonment that will be the instrument So it   acts as a effectively a quick claim deed Okay  the city Yeah The city just says we have no   more use for this So we we're vacating it and by  operation of law it goes as as they were saying   it's 11 ft on either side u or whatever the the  center line is But that's just by operational law   So an abandonment effectively as I said is really  a a quick claim deed where the city just says we   have no use for this property So it goes back to  the underlying fears No we can't sell it We might   have a bidding war We'll give Miss Roan a chance  to respond It seems like she may answer some of   your questions So the only thing I would add is  I don't disagree that when um a municipality or   um local government body abandons property that  is split between the owners but I think that the   parties um and more of a civil nature would have  to identify exactly where that 22 foot is because   I don't know that that this drawing accurately  depicts where we think it is based on our study of   the chain of title So but that would be something  we could work on Mr Carter provided the city   um has already determined they don't have any need  for it anymore So if if Mr Hamlin owns entire the   entire property around the 20ft strip and the  other strip then arguably it would go to him If   in fact Mr Harter does then yes it would be split  But we would have to work that out with Mr Harter   First step though is for the city right that's  right Yeah Okay Well what I think if it looks like   the city don't know you don't know you don't know  what you're getting and we don't know what we're   giving Uh that's a conundrum for me You know I I  think we should table it until uh we find out what  

we're doing I guess from the city's perspective  though there isn't they don't understand it But   to keep both parties at at u ease with it they're  asking for something They really don't know what   they're asking for We they're asking us to give  something and we don't really know what we're   giving even though we abandoned it and that's  it that can create problems for either one of   them Is this Are we abandoning a an easement or  a public rightway it's a rideway Okay There's   there's two easements that technically there's a  22 foot which I think falls within his property   um the applicant's property and then there's an  8ft alleyway that's outside of it I think that   8ft alleyway would get split in between but the  22 foot would go to the applicant and to clarify   we know what we're asking for We're asking for  an abandonment for something the city doesn't   use And I understand that these this property  was uh before the planning commission before   because the city was just in general cleaning up  some some easements and rightaways that it just   doesn't use anymore But then there was a question  about the location So this was already pulled off   And that's when Mr Hamlin uh retained my office to  study the chain of title to determine where these   rightaways lie And so we're we're comfortable  with where we think they are Um but that's why   we're pursuing the city's abandonment because  the city doesn't have any use for it anymore and   hasn't for a long time I'm not saying you don't  know what you're asking for but you don't know   where it begins You don't know you have if you can  if somebody can show us where it begin and where   it end and he can set be satisfied with If he's  already using it uh that that creates a problem   for me If somebody's already using it what you  ask him to be abandoned for Now if he he doesn't   use it that's fine Mr Barker my understanding is  he seldom uses it He has access for a different   um a different route And um I mean otherwise I  mean it's really just between two neighbors in  

terms of figuring out where that property lies  Are you willing to work with her what's that are   you willing to work with them oh yeah I'd like  to see the equipment I mean originally that that   strip right there back 30 years ago when Hol  shipyard owned that property railway and that   was the main road going into the shipyard Now it  might have been an Eastman back way back when but   that that's the main trail going in there We  keep it we keep it mode right now We keep the   whole thing trimmed So just in case we need the  power truck you know keep come to microphone just   so it gets recorded for the the Zoom call Yeah  I forgot to tell you my address My address over   there is 115 Main Avenue in Millville Um so the  alleyway the easement which we knew it was there   but that was the main road going in right under  the power lines So what we've we've done I mean   even you can drive down there this afternoon You  can see it's we keep it mowed just in case power   come because it feeds our dock and shore power for  all our tugs and whatnot Are you in opposition to   the city abandoning the seizement right away uh  I'm not in opposition to as long as it's fair   You know that's that's the main thing I don't  want to lose the back gate If if we're going   to lose our back gate I'm against it And to  clarify you said you're at you have 115 Are   you also the owner of 111 yep All right So yeah  So yeah Three three in a line up on right off   second court all the way down to uh East Second  Street We're right right next door Yep Yeah I   was just making sure from you know I see 100  200 on this side Yeah 111 is where the house   is Can you still make Can you still get access to  your back gate with 11 ft probably So I mean it's  

not denying you access to your back gate If  if you get 11 foot and you're not losing that   then you can still have access Yeah I need need  to measure it off and see We can go down there   after the meeting and you can see you'll see  what I'm talking about All right Okay Thank you   Okay I want I want to clarify something You said  whoever made the application get the 22 feet Is   that what you said based on the meetings we've had  and what we've looked into it the the 22 feet is   within the is that 200 Sherman Avenue It's within  the property lines and then you have right next   to that easement there's an 8ft alleyway I have  a drawing if you all just want to have an idea   Um I'm not saying Mr Charge will agree to it and I  think Mr Hamlin would really like to speak because   he's got a lot of historical knowledge You all  want me to pass this around sure Like Sure So   Mr Barker part of the property part of the 22  ft uh lies within Mr Hamlin's property So this   is a 22 ft all This is right here That's But this  is where This is confusing because we got GIS It   looks like it's here but our study shows that it's  not It's all within his property It says 8 ft So   where's the current property well it looks like  it would be right That's his that's his brother But this is where stop it start  It's the result of a different   point of beginning It's about 30 ft  different ways The way it looks like this is the drawing showing the 22 ft all within  the um Mr Hlet's propert this this 22 is already   in his property That's already his property  This is just these and this is the road right  

away This is the AC This is right here is already  within here It's just confusing where it looks on   GIS because it's not really this is this is one  example where so hard on this property No he's   over here He's never usually used this for his  We don't think so but you can ask Mr Hum very Yes Mr Ronald Hamlin 218 South Co Lane Panama City  Florida My wife and I own the property in   question Uh we purchased it in I think it was  1986 roughly Um and their legal description of   my property the legal description of Mr Harders  properly property are both equal to equal sizes   and come together at this alleyway And yet for  some reason the alleyway has always been depicted   in these drawings as though it's over toward  my side of property which is totally incorrect   Mr Har's property was fenced up until after the  hurricane They removed the fence To be honest at   the very front of the property the fence was out  of whack for about eight feet coming down about I   don't know what 30 or 40 feet and it went back to  the east I don't know what somewhere between 8 and   12 feet and then went straight down the property  to the south all the way down the property line  

And the legals on all this stuff to me are  what should control this whole thing And not   someone saying that they drove a truck down there  because it wasn't a gas station It was a Texico   oil terminal which I purchased and had all the  tanks taken down I had my office seafood company   there until a hurricane did away with it and I  never never redid it I finally just tore it down   But after years of staying away from the property  Harter's fence stayed there all these years until   after the hurricane And then they took it up and  have mowed this strip which I guess is what they   are saying is their entryway To my knowledge the  entire time I was there with the seafood company   they never had a vehicle come down that path The  only alleyway that was there was a very tiny strip   which had two ruts in it when it left the high  when it left second forward up there I guess it   is whatever that straight is and it came down to  a cluster of trees and then went from the cluster   of trees to the east and then meandered back  and forth It was the intent of it was it was a   part of the entrance to the terminal The terminal  entrance on the other side was on Sherman Avenue   and it went back about 60 ft into the property on  on what was always thought to be Sherman and seems   like since the hurricane everyone is moving fences  They've done the same thing on the other side of  

the property And this is after years and years And  I've owned my property longer than Mr Harters has   owned his over there And it's very simple when  you use a legal description And as it turns out   the 22FT strip is not even where they thought it  was If you read the legals I'm not good at reading   legals because I can't find the range markers I  had those kind of maps I could but you know to   me we're just all out of whack The Mr Harter's  property line down toward the water also ends   way before he built his seaw wall For some reason  they came along later and continued this seaw wall   on across into what is my property And years ago  before this all occurred they had barges in front   of my property and I sent them a bill for rental  to place their barges there They immediately   removed the barges but after the hurricane it all  started over And because I was I was never over   there I never went over there It's all grown up  And you know we can all say what we want but it   comes down to what does one party legally own and  what does the other party legally own There's all   kind of screw-ups in the legals and surveys over  there throughout the entire place not just where   I'm at but on down the road in different parcels  But you know I just I just don't understand why I   should have to give part of my property to the  adjacent property owner The 22 foot if it were  

located where the city thought it was it still  came off my property It did not come off their   property Thus should it thus it should go back to  me not split 5050 with an adjacent property owner   Thank you Let let me clarify that what he's what  he's saying there because that was a question   earlier The law says that when the city abandons  a right of way or vacates a right of way of an   alleyway road whatever that it goes back to that  it's divided among the property owners who abut   that And so if Mr Hamlin's property surrounds all  of of the major portion of this then it goes to   him because he's all within the envelope right  the alleyway think of an alleyway uh you know a   traditional cove alleyway that's the the abuing  property owners on either side that's when it   would really get divided down the middle So if  there are if there's a if the 22 feet I think   I heard eight foot alley in there ultimately what  it sounds like on this position this point would   be four feet is going to go to either side of it  Does that make sense to you because 8t of that is   outside of Mr Hamlin's property and is adjacent to  Mr Harter's property But if the city vacates that   easement then it's just going to go to whatever  property lines are actually there Correct Split   that way Right Yes So so who determines the  legitimatess of the property lines a surveyor   will go out and do that And then you've got title  and that that's what Miss Rowan was showing you a   minute ago is that's not a survey they've done but  that was a a document prepared by someone who is   knowledgeable in the area of title and legal  descriptions But if the city vacates it then   that's on that that's for the parties to determine  Yeah We don't we don't determine the title to it   Even my example of the alleyway and the cove we  would we would not go and try to determine we the  

city would not go and try to determine who owns  either side of that We we would leave that to the   to the property owners ultimately And it's usually  resolved pretty pretty quickly by a a survey that   just shows who it is and who owns the title to  both sides Is it fair to say the property lines   are there regardless the easement is just on top  of those property lines The rightway there's the   easement right the rideway that's that's where  the confusion I think is coming the rightway   is his on his property the easement is between  the two or the alley or whatever it was is there   so I I understand what he's saying I understand  what's going on if nobody has any more questions   I'll stop but I just wanted to I mean clarify that  yeah the 22 ft and the 8 ft 8 ft I think is really   the alleyway um that might be in question I don't  know that the 22 ft is but either way um I mean in   terms of the city needing these two um rightaway  easements um it doesn't look like you guys do Um   and again this was the they were part of a batch  of of a of other rideaways other easements that   were previously abandoned and Mr Hanland came up  and asked questions wanting to know the location   and then that's what prompted all of this to um I  guess the further discussion to then come see me   to understand or see my law firm to understand  where the the lines are located and what comes   next So but there's no utilities you know there's  no issue with Comcast there's no issue with   um you know water sewer anything like that City  doesn't has doesn't have a use for it But to the   extent that Mr her might have a claim you know to  a portion of that property because of his usage   of it over a period of time then certainly we'll  have to we'll have to work that out Um outside   of you know the city's non-use of these easements  your abandonment is not going to affect the power  

line Those are other ements that are exist by  other parties So it doesn't affect that Thank you different properties we have usually on an  easement there is a power line going and   it's going the way it looks because there's no  monuments now we have a monument the city owns   property on the east side of us right next to  Mercury a little skinny strip there's monuments   there but as far as on the west side in between  in between us we've never found it you know it's   like it's hard to tell golf power has easement  that's not this but but most of the time on an   easement like where there's the power line going  that's down the center line of the easement and   so that's what I'm saying where that center line  that's where we've been keeping it mowed right   down the center line you know so is it ours or  it hit you know we need a survey on it then you   know where the property line is right thank you  any other questions are y'all both agree able to   get a survey done and or and so that there's or do  you feel that's I'm agreeable with a survey that I   don't understand why legal des legal descriptions  do not carry in property when you have two parcels   one is a right hand side of a block on the  left hand side of a block as pictured up there   u and the drawings and it distinctly has  each parcel with 198 ft in in the alleyway   way of 8 ft then 198 ft into his property So  I really don't understand how when you have   legals that show that why would any of this have  anything to do with them I'm sorry but it just  

makes no sense Just a question Just a question And  Miss Rowan referenced um about the 8-foot alleyway   Um back in February of this year uh the city  abandoned the 8oot strip on the two blocks north   of this one Oh cool If you remember Yeah Thank you  Any other questions do I have a motion motion to   approve Second Got a motion to second Please take  role Board member Carroll yes Board member Stance   yes Board member Barker yes Board member Rich yes  Chairman Newower yes Motion passes 5-0 Thank you   Item D sub Item D is case number CPC PLN 20250623  It is a request for a final plat The owner of the   subject property is Dear Horton Incorporated The  applicant is Sean Kelly with Dr Horton The address   of the subject property is 4500 Northstar  Avenue It's approximately 123 acres This is   um the developer Dr Horton is seeking their final  approval for the phase 11 subdivision plat Um and   this consists of about 238 lots Thank you Any  questions from staff i mean from board members Is anyone here to speak on this  item right See none do I have   a motion make a motion Second  Motion in a second Conditions Motion in a second to approve with conditions  Who was the second barker That's my condition   Please take the role Board member Carol Yes  Board member Stance Yes Board member Barker  

Yes Board member Rich Yes Chairman Dubau Yes  Motion passes 50 Great Item number E Savannah   Item E is case number CPC PLN 20250624 This is  also a request for a final plaque The owner is   Dr Horton Incorporated The applicant is Sean  Kelly with Dr Horton The address of the subject   property is 4500 Northstar Avenue Um this subject  property is approximately 1617 acres This um the   developer is seeking approval of Liberty phase  5A and 5A um doesn't contain any individual lots   for residential use but it's for city rightway  and other infrastructure improvements mostly   uh Liberty Boulevard Thank you Any questions for  board members is anyone here to speak on this item   please take a motion We'll get here next time Mr  Knight nobody Nobody Nobody left except him Motion   to approve Second That motion second Please  take role Board member Carol Yes Board member   Stamps Yes Board member Barker Yes Board member  Rich Yes Chairman Newower Yes Motion passes 5-0 Letter F Michael This is case number CPC  PLN 2025 0620 It's a text amendment to   the land development code Specifically  it's a request to amend section 104-33E8 which is the permitted encroachments uh  in the downtown district zoning district   Um the primary um purpose or what we're hoping  to accomplish with this is to um is to prevent um  

any column supported structures from encroaching  into into the Harrison Avenue public rideway Um as   you all are aware uh the city's undertaking the  Harrison Avenue streetscape project Uh and with   that there is a concern that um any businesses  that come in and want to enhance the front facade   of their building do so with while allowing for  some encroachments like canopies balconies and   stoops but do so without uh having any column  supported um structures like that from from   um impacting the the new streetscape project  uh that section of the code uh allows for those   encroachments canopies uh balconies um stoops  sidewalk cafes Um what we're asking to do is to   either make them canal levered um and and not  um not have columns that that are encroaching   the rightway down in the ground Yeah So that's  where this is coming from I I'd like to to get   um some feedback from the board as well Um you  know the downtown district zoning district was one   of those that was was uh crafted after a series of  public workshops um that were were done by Dover   Cole Um downtown district was one of those things  that came out of the the work that Do Cole did   So I I don't I don't want to take uh amending  that very lightly um because there was a lot  

of time and effort that went into crafting that  zoning district But um but I think this was also   done uh before the um you know the pavers and the  wide sidewalks on here avenue was contemplated It would be a correct assumption that while this  is the code if there was a special circumstance   somebody could still come to request a variance  if they had a unique situation where they needed   a they could Yes column supported for something  Yeah If there was something unique um truly unique   about it and and and they demonstrate a hardship  um for a reason why column supporters needed then   yes they could do that This would just make the  standard for those permanent encroachments either   can levered or something that doesn't have columns  supporting it C can you describe the stoop element   like the the balconies and the the canopies I  get but I guess can you just sure clarify what   the stoop is in rough stoops are like a set of  stairs or a raised platform and um the reason why   um we're wanting to to amend that piece of it is  with the new streetscapes um the the the sidewalk   is basically at the same grade as as the front  doors of these businesses along Harrison Avenue   So there's really not a need for a stoop on on  Harrison Avenue However some of those side roads   like Fifth and Fourth you know we could see a a  stoop being something that that someone would want   to do in that case So this would keep the stoop on  the interior of the property line not in the right   of way Yes they could not they could not project  the the stoop out into the public rideway and  

because of the grading they're doing with the new  streetscapes I mean this the sidewalk is literally   um you know same level same grade as as  the front entrances of all the businesses Michael this this part about the 120 ft What  is that part of they something they can do 120   ft Build a building in one of these areas I mean  it's at the bottom of uh it's under unified land   development code regulations It's number four  in V4 vertical height The vertical height Yeah   I don't that that's not a change though That's  hard to exact Yeah that that's the current height   restriction allowed in downtown district downtown  there They could build Okay to 125 ft Yes sir   Michael on the balconies is there any kind of  width limitation that we should put into that   um well I right now uh or the way I've I've  I've got it drafted is like for a balcony   um that they could do no more than than 8 ft out  into the ride ofway Um but again it would have to   be canlevered Um is that the width of the sidewalk  no I'm talking about I guess if the building is   60 feet wide they do a percentage of that or is it  just the entirety of They could do the entirety of   of the building facade Um is as far as the depth  goes there are some areas in like the gallery of   art that's um I think it's what is that Fourth  Street whatever Um the uh there are some power   lines that go there that may limit some of like a  balcony to step out there There was a building I   had looked at a while back that the you could do  a balcony but the power lines were so close Yeah   Do we want to put some kind of encroachment into  the street or the curb that it can't be within a  

certain amount of feet that way of the the actual  power line or just that it can't come too close   to the street that way on a on a balcony some kind  of limitation that way So if there's a large truck   going by it's not I see the road Yeah Yeah or  anything that's encroaching into the road that   way I I would think we'd want to have something  where it can't come onto the road or pass the   there at least or maybe a couple cover more than  a certain percentage of the sidewalk Yeah Kind of   thing maybe Or limit it so it can't be two feet  I think we had two feet somewhere else that was   um I don't think you're limited to six feet  right six feet in width Depth of six feet I   heard eight earlier but so that takes care  Yeah I think in that area that's not much   not more than like six feet that but we may  want to put a limitation that it can't come   within so many feet of the edge of the curb  or street or something like that That's a good   example though if you look at that building  next to Gallery of Art that used to be the   uh framing shop That's one where the  power lines are very very close Yeah Okay So rather than have a maximum distance it can  go out you want to you're you're you're wanting   to measure it from the I think we should probably  have both a curve or something like that Yeah like   an ore Yeah gotcha Okay that's good The sidewalk  cafe if I can ask about that Um there are now that   we have the wider sidewalks and limited parallel  parking on Harrison do we want to continue to have   that on Harrison Avenue to where they're allowed  to use parking spaces adjacent to the property   so I feel like the the wider sidewalks have been  for that purpose right yep That Yep That that's a  

good point the the uh so yeah we'll strike out or  on street parking spaces particularly on Harrison   Avenue Yeah that that might be something to think  about Yeah that's good feedback I know there are   well and I guess it used to be some of the ones  that are now have sidewalks are able to do it   but I know that was a feature of several places  before they extended the sidewalks I don't know   if the adjacent streets Yeah like Trigo is doing  it but now they have wider sidewalks in front of   Trio Alberto is on a side road is on the side road  but it has it's part of their property though It's   It's in the parking Okay I got you So I my my  point is that I know we're mainly referencing   the middle of Harrison Mhm I I do think there are  places on the outer side of Harrison that that may   still be acceptable because they still have the  narrow sidewalks and the limited areas So I don't   know that striking it or or in its completed  to Harrison Yeah Yeah just say on basically on   Harrison Avenue not using the on street parking  on on Harrison Avenue for the sidewalk cafe but   still leaving that open to I I I call them the  intersecting streets or the side roads Um still   have that available on on the side roads I would  think you'd want consistency on Harrison Avenue   that way since the streetscape is there but  the off streets then be more flexible on it   Yeah Just say anywhere where there hasn't  been streetscapes If there's streetscapes   then you can't sixth street basically You know  there's not if there's there's not streetscapes   then you can park you know you can extend  it to it Mhm Yeah Make it simple Okay Okay   That outdoor dining though is subject to  another ordinance So you'll have to amend  

that ordinance Yes As well Okay Well I think I  think actually that ordinance was already amended   um a year ago a year or two ago we amended  that ordinance that basically accounted   for the streetscapes but uh that that little  section that piece in the downtown district   zoning was stayed in our downtown district  That's right I thought we we changed it up All right Any further discussion i I just have one  other question Is there any kind of design review   committee that's that looks at those things and  reviews them to for consistency currently there is   not Um with um um the review is is all the design  review uh is currently handled by planning staff   as part of the overall plan review for a new  project Okay Yeah All right Thank you I I I'm   not against I just got a question Well not even  a question just a statement I just believe we'll   we're going to be coming in here with in David  with column requests cuz I don't think many of   those buildings are designed to have balconies  Uh so if they come in I think most of them are   going to have to come in and request uh college  It's just looking at the buildings there built   the years that they were built I don't think  they're designed to support a balcony without   columns I'm just saying we we might as well  you know get prepared for the columns request   U when we do this cuz when you're looking at  the structures if you start building a balcony   like that the structural engineers have to look  at it They're going have to approve it and then   Well that's what I'm saying I don't think they're  going to be able to do it even with structurally potentially It's going to be expensive And this  this actually came up uh and I guess what what's  

kind of initially drove this was um as part of  the hometown revitalization uh program or grant   um these businesses that are receiving the  grant to fix up the front facades of their   buildings In this case Tom's Hot Dog um proposed  a a balcony on the second floor which had columns   that came down uh and it encroached into the  rideway which they can do per this Um but   um it became apparent that that the new  streetscape projects had utility lines   placed in that section of the sidewalk  So um the columns was not an option there Okay So is the game plan to tweak it a  little bit then come back again i can do   that Yeah Okay Um I jotted down some notes  and yeah we can table it to the next Okay   Okay Motion to table Second Please take roll  Board member Carroll Yes Board member Stamps   Yes Board member Barker Yes Board member Rich  Yes Chairman Newower Yes Motion passes by zero Item lettered G Michael again Okay Um jotting  down a few notes here Go ahead Thank you Okay Um this is case number CPC PLN 2025 0756 It's  another uh text amendment to the unified land   development code Specifically it's request  to amend section 104-37B the allowable uses  

in general commercial one or GC1 Um and  the proposed change would be to allow um warehousing and and storage of goods and  materials not exceeding one acre in size per   parcel um in in GC1 Um currently uh anybody  that wants to do warehousing or or storage   um we've they has to be located in GC2 Um this  came up recently with um a gentleman that that   is trying to accomplish that Um but uh zoning  his property GC2 we feel like is not appropriate   uh doing given its proximity to residential areas  and the map that's included with your packets   um shows those parcels that are zoned GC1  currently and their proximity to R1 or the   single family residential zoning So um you know  I I I do want the the board to bear in mind that   um you know if if we go through with this um  text amendment you know those pink colored   parcels could potentially be warehousing  and and outdoor storage Um you know but   I I think it could serve a neighborhood purpose  problem is there's so many things in GC2 that we   don't want next hour one that are allowable  but correct yeah I I agree I mean we've had  

that where it's like we understand the request  but we we can't give the full latitude of DC   um are there are there restrictions or or can  we I guess what what's the mechanism for saying   light warehousing or something to that degree  whereas I realize it's limited to one acre uh   or are there other code restrictions that would  allow it to be more neighborhood friendly even   if it does have warehousing doors on it we  could also add that as for the warehousing   um specifically like it could not exceed a certain  square footage of warehousing Like if you see in   in in this same section uh under allowable uses  it it it says neighborhood scale commercial uses   not to exceed 20,000 square feet of heated cooled  space You know we could probably if we wanted to   apply that same sort of standard like warehousing  not to exceed blank square feet of of heated and   cooled space Um that'd be one way to to kind of  and it'll already have to increased setbacks if   it's a budding resident Yes So that's true that's  going to make take care of all and and this would   all hinge on the fact that that property is either  GC1 already or is getting reszoned into it Yeah Any other questions or comments do we do we think  that the R1 folks are going to want that right   adjacent to their properties that way i mean you  know I mean on one hand I see the the functional   part of having it near a residence but at the same  time just like the folks expressed earlier they   didn't want a warehouse across the street from  where they live I mean I feel like it's kind of   the same mentality I don't if it was me I don't I  don't know if I'd want it I I'd use the example of  

the cove in in the sense of there are you know  there kind of little sections of of commercial   right next to residential and and I know at  least there's at least one or two properties   that are essentially brick storage areas that are  allowed there Um I I I don't see it as being as   disruptive if we have some language in there  to limit it and make it not you know a noisy   warehouse where big trucks are coming through but  again make it Yeah How do you word that so that   it's limiting enough to not be out of control you  know I think potentially you could limit limit the   size of of that warehousing I mean you know a a  big warehousing operation you know is more likely   going to be louder and more congested if it's  you know 100,000 square feet But if you say we   allow warehousing not to exceed um 10,000 square  ft that will that'll definitely limit it Yeah Yeah   But I I also think if we're making the decision to  make a commercial one to begin with some of those   considerations of proximity and noise you know  are already in play because otherwise it would   stay you know regular to one or whatever There's  a lot of stuff you do in commercial wine Yeah Yeah   Probably one of the least intrusive ones that you  could probably do as far as noise goes Yeah Book   shot tires Tires I see where we're coming from too  Aesthetically you know how do you make it match Make a motion We approve We have  motion to have to make a motion   Well are there edits that can Can we  make a motion with edits or is that a Yeah Make a motion that we do it with the edited  with minimum So we we establish like a maximum  

size a warehouse can be 10,00 10,000 square ft not  to exceed 10,000 square feet depending on the part   size of the parcel I would say Well it's limited  right now to an acre to an acre and driving So I   would think 15 to 20 20 to 15 half the size of  an acre Half an acre So somebody could come to   us and ask for an exception to that They could  ask for Yeah They could ask for a variant So we   could start with 10,000 if they want a variance  and they come That's what I'm thinking That's a   good good point Okay Okay Have a motion to  have a second Second All right Any further   discussion please take role Board member Carol  Yes Board member Stamps Yes Board member Barker   Yes Board member Rich Yes Chairman Newower  Yes Motion passes 5-0 All right Item letter H Item H is case number CPC PLN 2025 0707 Um  the applicant and owner has requested a use   determination appeal Um the owner is requesting  to operate a tire shop at 2717 East Fifth Street   The owner is Jose Alamderez and the applicant is  Superstar Auto Repair Um Lois Ma is representing   them Um we originally got this request  they they wanted to operate this tire shop   um at this existing location uh but it falls  within the neighborhood boundaries So it was   reszoned in January to neighborhood general Um  the owner purchased it in February and when they   came in with the request to operate a tire shop um  we initially denied the request based on the the   zoning district Um repair shops are allowable in  GC2 So that would be the best location for us So   historically this was a service This is a tire  shop before It was a tire shop before Yeah And   there there's stuff right around there that's like  automotive type repair I think across the street  

there is And there's a trailer repair place right  down the road like the next block over Um just add   to that Uh well first of all these two pieces of  paper were the actual documents that the applicant   submitted And um the land development code allows  someone to appeal uh a determination done by an   administrative official So she's actually  appealing uh our decision to to say that she's our determination that that a tire shop  is not appropriate in in this particular zoning   district Um basically she's appealing that that  we aired in in in our decision to deny that   And and is it fair to say if this was  an operating tire store maybe similar   to some of the other existing businesses the  code was changed they would be grandfathered   in until they sell that business or sell  that property Correct Versus this is one   that maybe was a vacant lot or not not being  utilized when it went dormant Yeah Yeah Went   went dormant maybe was a better way and now  is asking to come online again However that's   correct The future intent of that area is not  to continue of large commercial It's actually   to be more neighborhood ccentric Right Right  Let me ask you a question Uh like like he was   saying everything around there is business and  and this is facing business 98 Matter of fact   it is own business 98 And you got two stores Well  you got like you said the auto repair shop across   You got a nail shop or something right there on  on the right You got a faithful right down the   street And you had a grocery store until the storm  came across the street They're not going to put no  

houses there Nobody's going to build a house on  major highway like that The zoning district does   allow like neighborhood commercial uses It  just doesn't allow no longer the auto repair And the only reason the other place is right  there adjacent to it or allowed to operate is   because they were grandfathered in Am I correct  yeah I think a lot of that on business 98 was GC2   before before the neighborhood plans were enacted  and then it they all got changed to neighborhood   general So the existing ones are grandfathered  in but being the fact that they purchased it in   February that's we're kind of kicked at So if  if the place across the street stops operating   they're not going to be able to reopen as the  same kind of entity Is that correct yes Yes Okay   Unless they they would have to reszone or Well  they Yeah they have to res and I think I mean   to reference some of the Victor do coal element  This is how you change neighborhoods is is by   setting a code and as businesses you know kind  of turn over the new intent of the code allows   them to be in you know a different area right  it it I was getting at the same thing because   the intent of it is to to change it so that it's  a certain style of businesses through there So the   the irony of this is it was a tire shop before  and he's wanted to do a tire shop again and he   and he's not you know it's the the motion was to  deny but the intent is to to change that you know   section of that area and if we approve it then  we would be doing a disservice to that thought   and mindset of trying to change it You also don't  have anybody here testifying that Well right It   was a Well I think it's going to come up over  and over though like as that phases in Yes I'm  

just from a procedural point Yeah You have no one  here making a case or making the case or should we   ask or or should we ask if they're in attendance  we got we make me feel good though Mike That was   their argument though Technically it was Well I  was just wondering why y'all had denied when it   was originally right because it was res before  That was that was my It was resone and then the   new ownership came after the reasoning happened  She just came at a bad time Is it a function of   ownership or business ceasing to operate i  think it's both Either the if they're vacant   more than six months if the ownership changes  expanding square footage all that triggers the   the new updated contract Do do we know when the  last time the tire shop operated i realized it   was historically but I didn't know when the  last time it had like had it been 5 years 10   years from the time a business had operated at  that location I think it was before the storm   I I lived in that area and it was unfortunate  thing is the guy bought it didn't have any ide still goes to the uh mission I'm seeing no  one's in the room to address this item We   have to kill the business Uh the motion  to approve the denial Do we need to do   it i think we'll get Larry made a motion  Okay Second Sorry Take it There's a motion   to deny Motion to deny Oh I thought you did  I'm sorry Too many people talking All right   So you need a motion We got a motion  I'm still mixed up Yeah And then we   need a second I'll second All right Motion  second Please take role Board member Carol Yes Board member Stamps Yes Board  member Barker Yes Board member Rich  

Yes Electively Chairman Newar Yes  Motion passes by zero Just a shame So all right Item I um Yes Thank thank you for  for adding this on Um this is a another appeal   um which we'll hear at at the meeting in um  July Um this concerns a a dock that that's   under construction at 3411 West 15th Street which  is um at kind of at at the the mouth of Lake Honey   Huntington You all know where that is yes Um I'll  have maps and stuff for for the actual agenda item   Um so um we issued a stop work order for this  dock because we had received some concerns that   this dock was um blocking the channel Um and  our land development code says that um a dock   can't impede navigation Uh so we issued a stop  work order until we could figure all that out   Um the uh dock owner the guy building the dock  promptly provided us with um with some information   showing that the dock while it may be a little bit  in the channel uh it's not blocking the channel   So we lifted the stop work order Um the appeal  is coming from a group of nearby residents that  

think I aired in lifting that stop work order Uh  we've got four four uh people that are petitioning   Um and that will come in in in July Uh should be  fun Um the reason why I'm bringing it up now is   um the section on appeals in the land of  development code basically say says that   the filing of an appeal stays the proceedings Um  so our instruction to the dock owner doc builder   was to um pause construction until the appeal  is settled next month Uh and however the only   um construction that that they should continue  or can continue on with was if it's a matter   of protecting the property or protecting  health of somebody Um the dock owner has said   uh the only work that he remains has remaining  uh left to be done is to add lighting which would   uh make the dock more visible in at at um at  night um protecting his property Uh and the   other bit of work he has left to be done is to  remove scaffolding that he used um so that the   scaffolding won't get blown off into the water  Both I think which are you reasonable request   um to continue on with However I wanted to  bring this matter to y'all's attention and   um I guess ask for uh what are we asking for  Mike so the code requires that if if um if   uh Mr Fuller determines those two things that he  just said that the these are reasonable requests  

to protect life or or property then he has to  notify the board who can then if you want to   you can tell him no don't do that or you can tell  him yes or if you do nothing he proceeds with what   he's he's planning on doing So it's a permissive  part of the code He's obligated to bring it to you   You're not obligated to act is what I'm saying  Okay Okay But you can't act Is this Rohan no   No sir Okay Okay I've said everything No I didn't  think it was another dock These docks man I think   we ought to let him proceed on because lights on  a dock coming at night is it'd be helpful to know   it's there and it would be protective of anybody  navigating there and if there is any issue with it   being near near the channel and that's whatever  That's for everybody's safety not just his but   is the dock now built and these are the last two  steps that's correct The dock is pretty much done   It's just yeah the last two steps are adding the  the lighting and removing all the scaffolding that   was used to and then I guess next month it comes  before us Will it have Yeah kind of some visuals   and surveys of Yes the water channels So you you  have is it four different petitions or we have   four now yeah Four different applicants We're  going to put it under one Right So you've got   four people that have filed an appeal of Michael's  determination that um the doc does not violate the   code which they have the right to do And so you  will have them at if they're required to hear that   uh within 45 days or the next earliest planning  commission which is going to be your July And so   because of the number of people that we have to  appeal and the the issues involved I'm going to   recommend we run that a lot more formally than  what we've done like today And probably we put   that at the end of the agenda so that we can  get through the rest of it and then have the   because you're going to have so many parties  that are going to need to present and whatever  

folks have already been to D on an appeal and  I don't know if that's Dal dismissed it with   the opportunity to revise their petition So far  we don't know they've revised I'm sorry He was   working on it I'm not sure if it ever got put  through Okay I'm sorry Go ahead I just I just   know one of the the applicants came and actually  met with me in Orlando to kind of talk about like   what what he was looking at what they were trying  to request And um he he submitted it one time they   came back with more questions and he was going  to submit it again I'm not sure Yeah To to D the   state agency I'm not sure if he ever followed  through with that but that was his intent I was   just going to ask is there any way we can just go  ahead the way y'all got it going and allow them to   have temporary lights lighting until Yeah we just  seen a motion for that I just want to make they   weren going to go and do the permanent lighting  just do temporary until they can get away with it   No done That's why my my question because you say  do the lighting they can go out there and do the   big lighting whatever cost somebody just temporary  That's because if you if the sell if the person   that owns the dock wants to spend the money for  permanent electrical if he has to move it's just   going to cost him more That's so let him you know  if he wants to put high dollar electrical in there   they have to move it They have to move it That's  that'd be his call I would think Yeah I know what   you're saying even though he's finished the the  dock for the most part right now and not because   of DP that proved it whatnot Um if after you hear  the evidence you determine that it's in the wrong   spot that's on him He has to So I don't think  it's I don't think it's any uh you're not setting   any precedent by telling him he can put permanent  lighting on there Well it's a protective measure   for his property and everybody else's property  Yeah but it's his risk His correct his risk Yeah   So well I just didn't want to give him an  indication that everything is I think he  

spend a whole bunch of money on that That's why I  was saying this board has has the best option you   ever had You can act You don't have to act If you  don't act then Mike proceeds So you don't really   need a motion to to move that unless you think  that you that he shouldn't that Mike shouldn't   decide that way then I would probably get I think  it's Mr Carol's uh po point was very well made   Just put it back on mic I'm used to it Do what  you think is right You need a motion to Okay   All right Thank you all Thank you Uh any audience  participation thank you Uh meeting [Music] caller