Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And, Chairman, I went to go visit both of the items on the agenda, and I spoke with Alara Gutscher on our comprehensive plan.

I have a question for staff. I noticed in our packet that was mentioned that the owners at 214 that they bought the property that's 216 and now it's their whole property. So if we were looking at this separately and we were looking at this as just 216, would it mean that it would have to have a variance?

Well, if this was just somebody had bought. The address of 216 and had a home there, they would have. That would have been okay if it was a house?

Of 216? Yeah. If it was individually looked at?

I have one question. Going by your property and everything, will your proposed pole barn be behind your fence? Okay. And then It was hard to tell where the po barn would be to the big oak tree that's closer to the road. So how much of an impact?

I suspected that's what had happened. That's what led to me the questions. I thought that Michael would have taken that house down. But we just don't want to have two lots. That's why I absorbed it together. Right. And you absorbed it. Sure. Thank you.

No questions, I know, right? It's just like, Lenny, you don't have a question?

this chair chairman if i if i may i'd like to have a kind of a different conversation with this i couldn't help but scratch my head when i saw this and think about um the property that we had on frankfurt remember the dentist and he had the general um commercial too he had bought the property behind him and hoping to expand his business, but that was residential. And so, you know, the staff recommended denying that request and then we ultimately as a board agreed and denied. I haven't seen them come back yet. So when looking at this property, it looked like we had general commercial two and ri

So has the city commission then approved that? So it so they're taking care. Oh, yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Right. I have kind of a scratch your head kind of a question. So what would the 400 feet enable the city to continue its gateway vision? And, you know, I know a lot of thought has gone into our gateways and purposefully noting those within the concerts of plan in the plan department. So why go back to 200 feet?

So, John, did I read it wrong? You're going from 200 to 400? I thought the strikeout was from 400 to 200. That's right. Correct. So you just made a case. If I heard you correctly, you just made the case. No, don't go 200. Keep 400.

Yeah, I was thinking 11th falls into our discussion, one size may not fit all. Business 98, Harrison, and 11th has the opportunity for consideration to be differently or have the 200 feet consideration, whereas the others could remain 400 feet.

Well, it's not saying you can't develop 200 or 400 feet. It's that your development needs to be aesthetically in a gateway parameter. So it's not saying you can't develop. It's just when you develop in these roads, because they are gateways into our community, they need to look differently. They need to act differently. They need to function differently. Like we don't want what you see, D, it prohibits those use flea markets, dating services, bottle clubs, those kind of businesses are prohibited.

CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE JUST ONE LAST COMMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED IN KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS AN ENORMOUS ROAD DESIGN, AND WHILE IT'S NOT FUNDED, IT WILL BE PART OF OUR FUTURE. The city of Panama City has worked amazingly with D. O. T. and as we look at East West us 98, what we now functionally called malfunction junction and then North South 231 as it comes in, we're going to have. Bridging and we're going to have overlays we're going to have parks underneath the bridging and so as we think about that we're going to have major transportatio

And then do we, and we're adding the recycling centers Properties within a 1000 feet, right? So we're adding that and the impact does the motion have to include both of those?

Chairman, I have some kind of overarching questions, and not necessarily unique to Future Land Use, if I may ask those. Can you help me frame some of the answers that we received? Just a fundamental question in terms of the comprehensive plan and what the state allows. So does the state allow a comprehensive plan? Is there a possibility that a policy within the comprehensive plan is Can we have something that's not required by Florida statutes as a policy in our comprehensive plan?

Okay. And then same kind of question. Does the state allow us to have an objective within our comprehensive plan that's not required by the Florida statute?

Yes. Okay. Okay. So... think that the answers to yes will come into play. When you see some of the questions that I asked in each of the elements, that most of the answers, you may remember in our last meeting, I started asking questions. And we got the responses that most of the items within the comprehensive plan that's being proposed as deleted were mostly duplicative, that that sentence or meaning is somewhere else in the comprehensive plan, so there was not a need to have that sentence or its intent stated in two different elements. So, okay, all right, so then we asked, okay, if this is

Okay. So, and you heard me say this in our September meeting, where is resilience located within the plan? And our answer was throughout numerous policies within the Comfort Plan and mainly within the coastal management. Well, that didn't answer the question. When I think of resilience, I think of our infrastructure, I think of utilities, plans for local hazards, emergency services. I think about things. What do we do to prepare? What do we think to do to respond? What do we think about in terms of recovery and adapting and making this city more resilient? So once again, where are those polici

understand that to be true, but I still, I think it'd be an effective conversation for this board to see the exact policies, the exact objectives related to resilience so that we could look at them and say, okay, yeah, boom, that's got it. It's the best thinking. Got it. Oh, Is there something we can scratch our head on on this one and make it a little bit better as we think about the year 2046?

Until we know what the objective or policy is, we don't even know. So the thought is, you know, we talked about a library.

Right? And so I can imagine that there will be better tools, better strategies that we can't implement now, but we can say, hey, let's put this in our library. And that's the kind of conversation I'm hoping that we can have, particularly related to resilience. So totally agree that there may be our most of what we could imagine would be better can't be implemented this year but they can be implemented in the hopefully in two years and maybe that's something that over the next two years we work on to improve but until we have the conversation we don't even know what it is well but then we're st

you know throw out your entire comprehensive plan because you decided something in no way trying to communicate that that's what i'm proposing but until we know again what those policies are what the objectives are we don't know what we need to contemplate related to resilience and for for staff's sake um

That's why I'm asking the question. So your resilience might be different than their resilience.

But without knowing what staff said. Without knowing what staff imagines and thinks about as resilience. How are we as non-planners supposed to know that that objective or policy is a resilience related? I mean, we're not planners. I think the request is simple. It's a simple request. I don't see it as a magnificent undertaking. You guys are planners, you know exactly what resilience is. You know that it's infrastructure, it's local hazards, it's emergency services, it's preparing for, it's responding to, it's recovering, it's adapting, right? So, why can't we have a list of what that is?

So if you'll turn to our comprehensive plan on page 13. I'll get there too. So we have a number five that relates to our north Panama City planning area. And then underneath that five, we have originally I guess A through F and three of the alphabet soups were proposed as deleted. So I scratched my head and said, these are really good. I don't know if these are objectives, but these are really good items. By deleting these items, how would these make Petamol City a better community? So I scratched my head on that and asked the question and understand the answer coming back is the problem point

Okay, so if I looked at the conservation element in an area that's discussing the Deer Point Lake protection zone, would I see a sentence that says stormwater runoff should meet the Florida Outstanding Waterways requirements? Would I see that?

So if I hear you correctly, what you're saying is that stormwater runoff has to meet florida outstanding waterway requirements is inside the county's deer point reservation protection zone correct okay thank you okay so now for what's being deleted item c provide and i don't pronounce i got too much southern in me i don't pronounce this word repin riparian repair repair and thank you you've got too much southern and i have a hard time with that one buffers you know all streams creeks yada yada okay so is that paragraph inside deer point reservation protection zone Ray do you know that if that'

but how does buffers to all streams, creeks, and tributaries consistent with the general, Perry, I can't say it. Thank you. I have tussled with that word all my life. Buffer requirements, but it doesn't say anything about deer point in this sentence or sentences.

Okay. So is there an opportunity to think out loud together that we would say that this deleted item C could be considered up and above Deer Point Lake Protection Zone?

Right. Understood that it would. But is so do we have an opportunity to say, hey, let's put this in our library. And when we have the opportunity to change the plan that we think about this in a bigger way, I guess where my mind's going is, why are we just thinking about Deer Point Lake? with this particular item? Why aren't we thinking about all of our streams, creeks and tributaries to our St. Andrews Bay?

So, this 1 being our 1st example of an opportunity to say, we can't we can't tackle this now because the Senate bill 180, but let's, let's add this to our library. So how do we, as a planning board. transmit that idea to staff and it stay with staff. So when we can make revisions like this one, you have that data. How does that happen?

I have facilitated for cities and counties strategic plans. I have facilitated for cities and counties conference of plans. So I've been a part of these conversations for the last 40 years. And it cringes me to think that when I look at C, I don't see any words that imply that item C is a part of the Deer Point Reservoir protection zone. ICC is something completely different. Yes, it's misplaced. It shouldn't be just north. We shouldn't just be talking about our buffers in our north Panama City. But I'd like to think that even within our constraints of Senate Bill 180, that we could take this,

So because this is underneath north, it'd be difficult to apply it to all. Okay. This year. This time around. Right. So the better answer for this moment in time, perhaps, is to say, okay, this goes into our library and we think about this particular item outside of Deer Lake.

So how do, How does that move now to 2 years from now or a year from now to our visioning? How, how do we, how do we remember.

Okay, so it sounds like related to item c on page three we have the opportunity to say hey let's put this in a library staff is going to note this and that we'll come back and have a broader conversation of where's the best place for this good thinking to exist going forward Is that a way to say it? Yeah. Okay, so y'all got that. Do we need to make a motion or do we need to do that procedure? We'll have it. Yeah, it's on the record.

Okay, all right. Keep on going, guys. All right, so now the last one on this page is item D, and that's consider impacts to floodplain. Any development within a 100-year flood zone shall demonstrate yada, yada, yada. Okay, so when I read this, I don't read this as part of the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. I see this as a bigger picture up and above Deer Point. Is that a correct thought?

That's what I suspected. So in my mind, when I read this, I thought that this was more duplicative versus we omitted it because it shouldn't be in the north planning area. Nowhere in item D does it say Deer Point Protection Zone.

Right. And I scratched my head on that as I saw the response that the reason that the The reason they're being deleted is because it's for the North planning and it's like, okay, so does staff have the ability to implement any 1 of these? If it's not. A property in North not to protect them. Yeah, this is limited to just animal city north and I assume that that was what the answer was going to be. Um.

Right. We've got floodplain. So why was this even in North?

Okay. So I guess for this one, the opportunity is as we get to conservation and as we look at what's inside conservation, look for the key policies or objectives that address floodplain and see if this two sentences are already embedded in something we already have in a different element. Does that make sense? So as opposed to, say, in library, because we intuitively know floodplain is in our concrete plan in another section. And that would be conservation?

So if we could table this thinking to conservation, coastal management, and do a comparison at that time.

All right. Oh, we're ripping. That's the first question. All right. Now, the next question is on page 20. If you'll flip to page 20. Policy 1.2. 4.5 through D, the heart of the question was why were these deleted? If duplicative, where were they? So the answer, as you can see, is energy efficiency policies are no longer required by Florida statutes, and that's why it was removed. So with the zeal for greatness, I don't see what's wrong with the city having a policy that says establish energy efficient land use pattern policies. I mean, why would we delete that? Why would we delete discourage u

I mean, why do we want to have a city that's minimal? Why do we want to say we're going to, we want to vote for minimal. We want the most minimum thing that we can have with our city. You know, I don't, I don't think that way. When I was a business owner, I didn't say I'm going to, I'm going to be the minimalist consultant that I can for my customers. I didn't think that way. I said, what's the greatest thing that my company can do? If my business is going to perform and we're going to be touting ourselves as the best, then we're going to be the best. So, I mean, I get it. Florida statutes don

Well, not 100% because there's other things that we've not had time to discuss that it's just patchwork thinking. And an item is over here in this element, and then that same topic is in another element, and then that same topic is in a third element. And so it's just like, okay, can we bring that one topic, think about it holistically, and bring it into one or two elements, not three or four elements.

Right. I hear what you're saying, and it's not that I'm opposed, but I don't know that you can say today, okay, boom, everything that's deleted, we're going to vote on it, and it's okay.

Well, not necessarily because within what's being added is you've got the addition is that establish energy efficient land use pattern policies and discourage urban sprawl through the use of development controls. So it's kind of removing A and D. It's just removing the A through D and putting them in a sentence form. that make sense it's like a blend but you like the specificity of A through D though it doesn't have to be it I mean it reads the same I think you could you could It doesn't mean that staff couldn't employ the intent of that policy.

Yeah. Because you've got them listed in Senate's form. It's just how can we go about doing it?

Okay. Yes. But I think the policy as it stands now with the addition of those keywords is good.

Right. Sure. OK. We've got two questions down. Yes. All right. So question 21. policy 1.8.1. When I read this, you know, my mind just went to data centers when it says the city shall provide land use needed for public utilities. So my radar went, how, if we're going to shall provide public utilities, does that mean data centers no it's public utilities water sewer no for data centers water water for a data center utilities for a data center I was just concerned that we're opening ourselves up by the retooling of the sentence that somebody could come in and imply that, oh, well, I know we're go

So the nuisance could be, our safety net. Correct. The nuisance part is... We don't want to provide necessarily the utilities that a data center needs. So we're going to deem it as a nuisance.

Okay. Okay. All right. Okay, keeping on page 21, objective 1.9, my bigger question is where's the action in this objective? I see conservation, I think of, maybe of historic resources within the city.

Okay, okay, thank you. Conserve historic resources within the city? Is that actionable enough?

OK. And that's a part of our statute, too. Good. Thank you. So within that, then going down now to the policy, we've got kind of my, And this is where I think historic resources, historic building, archaeological is a patchwork within different elements. And here's one example of that. So in this section, we're talking about historic resources. So if we'll just flag that. So when we get to other elements that talk about historic resources, we can come back to this one. Because what I'm seeing here is the city shall seek grants, yada yada. Good and or develop a master plan, and so one of my que

Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. So which department would this objective and policies fall within in the city? So who's going to be in charge of conserving our historic resources?

And that may be why it's our historic buildings, historic resources, archaeological sites, you know, that spattered of those kinds of words within the different elements. And, you know, is, so I guess I kind of ask the question is future land use element the best place for this objective?

Understood that to be true. So, but I think the historic element of our city, if we could, when we get done with this, if we could look at it and say, okay, we've got it in future land use, we got it in record. We got it into recreation. We got it in X element. Have we thought about all the all. everything we need to say about our historic places. What I'm seeing is it's more like if you were gonna make a shirt, I see one sleeve is over here, another sleeve is over here, and the front part of the shirt is here, but there's no buttons. There's nothing that ties it together, and there's nothing