Planning Board - Regular Meeting

The August 11th planning meeting of the city  of Pan City is now in order. Please take the   role. Board member Carroll here. Board member  Stamps here. Board member Barker not here. Board   member Rich here. Chairman Newower here. Are  there any changes or deletions to the agenda? Yes. Um so staff is requesting so towards as you  all know we have an item towards the end of the   agenda item 6 I and we are requesting that that  item be moved up into the agenda. We're looking at to yeah making it 6A. Okay. There any announcements  or disclosures? The board. Everyone has a copy of the minutes from July 14th.  Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve.   Second. Motion. Second. Please take. Board member  Carol. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes. Board member   Rich. Yes. Chairman Debower. Yes. Now I'm going  to read the procedure which the board will follow   during quasi judicial hearings. Step one public  hearing announce introduction of application by   staff. Step two exparty communication disclosures  by board members. Step three identification of   applicant and affected parties that intend to  participate in the hearing. Affected parties   that will intend to make a statement may need  to do so at the public participation part of   the agenda. An affected party means any person  at any level that will settler an adverse effect   and entries protected or furthered by the ELDC  including interest related to health and safety,   police and fire protection, service systems,  densities or intensities of development,   transportation facilities, healthcare facilities,  equipment or services and environmental or natural   resources. The alleged adverse interests may be  shared common with other members of the community   at large but must exceed and decree that general  interest in community could shared by all persons.  

Uh, council now swill in any witnesses that  wish to speak. Uh, yes. At this time, I'd like   to swear in staff and any witnesses that intend  to um provide testimony on any of these items. And if you don't stand at this time,  if you do decide to come to the podium,   just let me know that you were not sworn and I'll  swear you in at that time. Raise your right hand.   Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're  about to give is the truth, the whole truth,   and nothing but the truth? Yes, it is. Yes, I do.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll note for the   record that everyone um here present with us today  stood. So thank you. We'll begin with case A. Case   A. Case number um sorry we're moving we're moving  I beginning. Okay. We will begin with quest I mean uh I'll I'll introduce it. So, um um  the city attorney's office has prepared the   resolution that's enclosed with your packet  um that lays out procedures and consequences   for applicants not appearing uh at the quasi  judicial hearings before the planning board. Um,   and I think let's see it says first non-appearance  if an applicant or authorized representative fail   to appear the planning board shall continue  the matter once to the next regularly   scheduled planning board meeting. second non  non-appearance by the applicant um that um at   the continued hearing without good cause shown  the applicant shall be deemed abandoned and the  

matter shall be administratively terminated  without further hearing and Mr. Mr. Fuller,   would you like me to take over from here? Um,  and what these roles would do is that if the   um applicant does not appear for the second time,  that would be the end of their application coming   before you, it wouldn't go further to the city  commission at that time. However, there is another   procedural safeguard in that that the applicant  may within 10 days of the termination for the   second non-appearance uh provide, you know, a  request to the planning board clerk that would   be forwarded to the board. um and explain the  circumstances as to why they did not appear and   request um that you reconsider their application.  Uh you would have an opportunity at that time at a   planning board meeting to determine if they had  good costs and to reconsider their request. Um   and then that at that time that's when they would  be heard. You can look at this, you can discuss   this resolution. This resolution is um ready if  you would like to sign it. There can be changes   made to this resolution after discussion, but it  is available for adoption and discussion today. Two questions. I see the reference to the  planning board. Does this also carry over   to city commission meetings if if it's the  same application moving through the process or   just specific to this? It it is just specific to  this board. It's a resolution of this board. Um,   again though, if you have someone who  doesn't appear for the second time,   they wouldn't ever make it to  the city commission. I I mean,   if they were absent here and then maybe absent  at the city meeting, but it sounds like it's   just for this point. It is just the rules for your  your board. And then I guess the second question,   I think this relates to maybe an ordinance or  a resolution we did previously on the number   of times someone can make a request. So if that  request is abandoned and then say six months later  

that individual wants to come back is is there  a policy on how many can they come back after   a certain period of time after the abandonment?  It's one year. Mhm. Has to wait 12 months. Okay. Sheets. Any other discussion? When would this  go into effect? Uh it could go into effect   immediately once you adopt the resolution. Prepare  it to go into effect today. I think whenever the   applicant makes application, they should be given  this notice. And that's that is up to you all. You   can adopt today and say it'll go into effect  at the next um board meeting. Next screen of   applications are what they're about. Yeah. Yeah.  I think they got to be aware that if they don't   show up. Yep. It could be this could happen. Yes,  sir. And just and so and we have it in the packet   and and staff is um just and staff is requesting  that um the direction from the board essentially   to of course discuss this today and then place it  on the agenda for the September meeting and then   based on your decision that's when we can go from  there and start putting people on notice of the   board's decision. So that is our recommendation  but of course the board it is it's it's up to   it's up to you all how you want to approach  it. I'll make a motion pass it a motion second.   Second motion second. Please take the vote. Board  member Carol. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes. Board   member Rich. Yes. Chairman Newower. Yes. Motion  passes 40. Thank you. So, the motion is to bring,   just to be clear, the motion is to bring this back  to the September um meeting or would you like to   adopt a resolution today that um Miss Haley  was I think the intent was to adopt it today,   but move but not apply it today. Correct.  The effective date. Okay. Next meeting.  

Then then I'd like to read the resolution.  We'll have resolution number 2025 0811.1, a resolution of the Panama City Planning Board   establishing procedures and consequences for  applicant non-appearance and quasi judicial   hearings before the planning board  and providing for an effective date. All right. Request A. Item A is case number  0619. It is a variance request. The owner is   Brenda McNeel. The applicant is Ronald Deal. Um  for 1814 Mount Avenue, parcel ID 28226-0000-0000. This is a um item that was continued from the  planning board from July 14th and it is a variance   from the setback regulations for the mixeduse 2  zoning district um regulated by section 104-31. Questions for staff from the board?  Is the applicant here today? Perfect. Hello. Please state your name and address and  whether you've been sworn in for the My name   is Amber High Totower. My address is 1814  Mound Avenue. I'm in standing in place of   my grandmother, Brenda McNeel. Okay. Thank  you. And you've been sworn in? Yes. Okay. Is the request to bring an existing structure  into compliance or are there changes you all   are looking to make? The request is to be  able to split the lot in the same place as   the other lots are split to make it into  two separate lots. A front and a back,  

one with Mound Avenue and one with  Laurel. Okay. And with the split   is where you would need the variance to  to allow for the other building, right? And are there any structures on the building  right now in the front half maybe on Mound   Avenue? There is a structure on mound  but there is not a structure on Laurel. Variance covers the structure being split  parts being split. Any other questions?   Yep. Thank you. Is there anyone else here  to speak on this item? Do I have a motion?   Motion to approve. Second. Motion second.  Please take role. Board member Carroll,   yes. Board member Stamps, yes. Board  member Barker, yes. Board member Rich,   yes. Chairman Dubau, yes. Motion passes 5. Thank  you. Quest B. B is case number 0773. This is also   a variance request. It is also continued from the  June 9th planning board meeting. The applicant   is Stephan Grant Raw and he is also the owner.  Um, and this variance is a uh request from the   setback regulations for the general commercial  2 zoning district regulated by section 104-30.   Thank you. Questions for staff of the board.  See happy it's here. Please state your name   and address for the record and what you My name is  Stefan Grant. My address is 11:05 Yale Avenue and   um we're here about 910 Cherry Street and I have  gotten some drawings if you allow me to pass   around real quick so you guys can get a visual of  what I'm asking for. Sure. Can I hear something?   Is this We may have this is the same we have in  the back. Okay. Yeah, I think that's Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thanks, sir. Two different problems. uh if I if I may the the  there's two drawings. One is the existing floor   plan and the other one is what we would like to  add on the building. And the reason I have this   orange hallway marked is because that would be  a common hallway for both offices. Our goal is   to turn the building into two completely separate  offices which right now is not possible because   of the current floor plan. So, we would like to  incorporate a third of the building. If you're   looking at the building, we're talking about  the left side of the building. As you can see,   we would like to incorporate the hallway and  two offices there into the new floor plan.   So uh the reason we asking for the variance of 2  ft is because once we construct the new addition   the thickness of exterior and interior walls  going to be a foot and a half and then leave   us only with 13.5 ft for a floor plan and we  would like to be as ADA compliant and actually   above and beyond compliant some extra space for  people that they're in wheelchairs. So therefore,   we're asking for that. Oh, excuse me. Can you get  a little closer to the microphone? Oh, I'm sorry.   So, should I repeat? Oh, okay. So, what I was  saying, I'm sorry. Um, that the orange hallway   is going to be a common hallway for staff, for  both offices, and also for fire code compliance,  

eress, and agress. And then if we try to stay  within the current 15 ft of a floor plan,   by the time we construct it, the exterior  walls and the interior walls are going to   eat an additional foot and a half of floor space.  And that would put us really tight in compliance   with the ADA requirements. And we actually really  like to go above and beyond when it comes to ADA   compliance and make it as comfortable as possible  for people with disabilities since we're not sure   exactly what this office might end up being  right now. You know, one of the plan is for   the Hatcher law firm to stay in one of the sides  and then the other one will be able to rent and   and this is the main reason we asking for that  2 ft of variance. And uh if you open that page,   the width of the page is exactly two feet. So  this is this is about that much we asking for. So this building right now is offset to the  west side. Yes. So if you're looking at the lot,   the building would be on the left side of the  lot. So it looks like you have 80 feet to the   east side. I guess I'm curious why why do an  expansion where you only have 20 feet versus   the side of the property with 80 feet? Because  of the current floor pler, if you look at it,   then we have the lobby and it would be like really  very counterproductive to trying to expand to this   side to the right side. Also, all the plumbing  and everything is right in the left back corner.   So practically speaking, trying to expand to  the right right now would be cost prohibitive.  

Bathroom is is the left hand side of the drawing  considered side parcel. Michael where the 20 ft is   that would be this side. Yes, that's Yeah. Okay.  So the minimum setback on that is 5T and he's   asking to go to three instead of five. That's  correct. Okay. And and if I may, uh if we're   to put a like a a storage building or something,  we have a pret. So for accessory structure. Yes. Have you talked to any of the other property  owners curiously? Yes. the the guy that bought   the corner lot and the uh the Mondo Cafe. I spoke  with him and he has absolutely no problem with   that. And then uh Chris Kramer and his brother,  they own the property right there in the corner.   I talked to them, they said that they're not doing  with anything with their property right now. So,   they kind of pretty much don't care. And then the  three-foot on the rear that that's just to bring   the rear into compliance, I guess. Yes, sir. I  mean, we we can't move the whole building. Yeah.   Yeah. Right. But I guess two two different  requests. One to bring it into compliance on   the radar. No changes there. And then to the  west, I guess to the east, I'm upside down. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anyone  else here to speak on this item? So any other questions? If I may before we  go on, I misspoke earlier. I said this was   originally scheduled and tabled from the  June 9th. It was actually tabled from the   July 14th meeting and the subject property  is 910 Cherry Street Parcel ID 20986-0. Just wanted to correct that  in the record. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Do I have a motion?   Motion to approval. I'll second. All right.  Have a motion, a second. Please take role.   Board member Carroll. Yes. Board member Stamps?  Yes. Board member Barker? Yes. Board member Rich?   Yes. Here. Yes. Motion passes. 5-0. Thank  you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Request. Item C is case number 0551. The application  type is a smallcale land use amendment and   resoning. The owner is Bay Oaks Village MHP  Incorporated. The applicant is Scott Helms.   The subject um property is located at 2414  Michigan Avenue. Parcel ID 2699-00005-0. This one was um also originally planned u  from uh earlier and tabled. Um the applicant   uh who wishes to reszone from the public  institutional to a residential to zoning   district and board. I just want to point out  that this was actually remanded from the city   commission meeting. It wasn't tabled. Correct.  Um, and it was after u Mr. Fuller, correct me   if I'm wrong, but the city commission adopted a  land use change that allowed for this density. Uh, the commission did not take action on the on  the land use. They did not take it. Okay. And so,   but it was remanded from the commission. Correct.  Forget the exact reason, but there was a land use  

change. Okay. Did they they they remanded it. So  the applicant requested to change their um request   from MU3. If you recall the original request  to go from public institutional to MU3. And   at the July 22nd um city commission meeting, the  applicant revised the request to go from public   institutional to residential 2. And upon learning  that, the city commission decided to remand the   request back to you all for consideration. That  is exactly what I remember. Good. Exactly. There's   been a few meetings in between. Thank you. I'd  like to disclose I did speak to the applicant   earlier today on the phone. I believe I received a  voicemail from the applicant, but I had not chance   to return it to Scott. Sorry. Okay. Any questions?  the applicant like to speak on this item. Scott Helms, 2414 Michigan Avenue. I  I was just trying to oblige some of   the neighbors around there. You know, they  were didn't want a commercial type building,   which I was going to do a flex space. So, you  know, town homes are the best fit for it now. So,   I lowered the, you know, the request to  R2 before the last commission meeting. So,   and then I figured it would come back here so we  could vote again. Any questions for applicant? I   guess from a planning standpoint, I'm u and this  would be a question for staff for specific. Um,   the majority of this area is F County. Correct.  Correct. And so we only have a handful of   properties which is public institutional  R1. There's that MU3 above it. So I guess  

any concerns with having a third spot of zoning,  you know, just a different zoning blend. Again,   being that it's a blank slate, it's hard to say  what the kind of concurrent properties would be,   but any concerns with that, staff? Um we don't  have any concerns mainly because yes we're   talking about um the current land use pattern  surrounding as you can see in the on the vote   on the picture I'm sorry the map sorry the map on  the screen surrounding is R1 which is Bay County   residential. We're still going to go to our  own residential future land use map category,   but we're just requesting a slightly more  intense version of residential than what's   already across the street on Michigan Avenue  further to the south there um to the west. So,   the applicants requesting FAR 2. You have MU3 to  the north. Um, we do believe that the request is   still consistent with the development pattern and  the land use and the zoning pattern in the area   even though it is mostly county. So, we do we do  feel we we're obviously recommending approval, but   we do believe it's consistent and it's compatible  with with um the general area. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there anyone  else here to speak on the side? Robin Morrison property is at 3900 West 24th  Street. And this uh land use is better than   the previous one, which I appreciate, but does  this can he have trailers there? No. No. No,  

ma'am. Okay. So single family or multif family.  Okay. R2 allows single family, duplex, triplex,   town homes. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Is  there anyone else to speak on the second? I'll make a motion we approve. Okay. Second. I  have a 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 50. Thank  you. Requests D. Item D, case number 0828. The   application type is an annexation or smallcale  land use amendment reszoning. The owner and   applicant is Gene Steel. The subject property is  located at 2800 Jameen Drive. Parcel ID3027-118-0. and request is the annexation to the city  amendment of the future land use map to   reflect the land use designation of residential  and reszoning of the property to a residential   one zoning district. Thank you. Any questions for  staff? Mr. Chairman, if you allow, I want to add   one more thing to staff's um one more comment  rather to staff's presentation. We did receive   uh comments from underground utilities earlier  this afternoon and I just want to u make sure   those are included into the record. So uh there  is language from um the fire department about   utilities not being available, not being extended  already down towards Jameen. Um but it does they   do say that the property does not have water or  sewer available. um closest water and sewer is   over 500 ft away from the property and the city  does not have the capacity at this time to make  

such an extension and uh so staff will have to  work with the applicant at a later date to make   sure that utilities are available per the comp  plan. Um we just need to make sure those services   are available and that capacity is available  at the time of a certificate of of acceptance,   but we'll have to work with the applicant  at a later date. I'm sorry. Certificate of   occupancy rather. Thank you. If we approve  this, we're not obligated to run all the   water and sewage to it. Are or there? There's no  legal obligation. Um we would annex them because   there's availability. Um but there would be um  there could be a requirement on the applicant to   uh add money into bringing the utilities to them.  We we we done that in King's Point years ago and   you know you can do it but it's not cheap. So it  is not cheap. That's a long way to go. Understand   that we do this. We're not going to the city's  not going to be obligated on the hook immediately   to go in order. Exactly. No. And I did consult  with Mr. Zimmerman on this and he wanted to make   sure they knew it that it could cost um them as  well. Is that here to speak on this item? Sure. Jean Steel, 2911 Marin Drive, Panama City 32405.  Um, yes, I'm aware of all of that. I should have   wait till you talk before I said something.  Pardon me? I said I should have wait till you   said something before I I actually Any other  questions for that? No. Thank you. Is anyone  

else here to speak on this? Yeah, here. Anyone  else here to speak on this item? Right. Have   a motion. Move to approve. Second. Motion  to second. Please take both. Board member   Carol. Yes. Board member Stance. Yes. Board  member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.   Chairman Newower. Yes. Motion passes. 5-0.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Request E.   Request E is case number 0820. The owner and  applicant is Benjamin directions. Uh he is   requesting the property be reszoned to Muse  3 and it is located at 1906 Louise Avenue. Thank you. The current zoning is  what? MU2. Yep. See that? That's it. Any other questions for staff? Was it  currently what just mixes? MU2. MU2 and   he wants MU3. Correct. Do we know why he wants  MU3? We wanted to go up to mix use 3 because   of the density allowance. So he needs MU3 to  be able to build duplexes. Right now he only   can put one unit based on his acreage. The  maximum units per acre in MU2 won't allow   the duplex or two units on the property. Okay.  Is the applicant here to speak on this item. Have that rule yet? Huh? Not yet. You just missed  the cut. Is there any further discussion? Do I   have a motion? We can board it till next  month. No. I make a motion we approve. I don't I don't like that. Well, I guess  I guess I'll make a motion on the table. There's a second. I'll open for further  discussion before we vote. I I'll second,  

but I'm going to have the same question that I had  before. I mean, is the city okay with a variance   of the existing use from increasing the intensity?  Mainly because it would have been allowed if   it was a slightly larger parcel. It's just  doesn't allow that many units per acreage. So,   the issue is you the the the size of the parcel  just won't allow two units. And one of the things   and that staff looked at again, we looked at the  surrounding land use and the surrounding zoning,   but we also looked at what's existing  in the area. And we do see a trend   um with we have a um a few parcels in the  vicinity that have more than one unit on   on on the parcel. So, we're kind of looking at  what's actually on the ground in the area as well.   So that's part of the reason why staff move  forward with a um recommendation of approval   on this versus a variance because it's still two  units aren't allowed of setbacks or anything like   that. So Oh, I see what you mean. So in terms of  of variance, we wouldn't be able to cons the the   code has a list of um of different requests  that can come forward to the board regarding   variances and that gets into density and  so d so now we can't we typically don't   bring that before you all because the code  does not so it's density number of residents   rather than actual a setback or something. Yes,  correct. It's a density issue. Okay. Thank you.   Any further discussion? Got a motion second.  Please take role. Board member Carroll. Yes.  

Board member Stamps. Yes. Board member Barker.  Yes. Board member Rich. No. Chairman Newower.   Yes. Motion passes 41. Thank you. With you.  So that's it goes to the city commission on   September 9th for the first reading. Sep 23rd  for the second reading. All right. Request E. Is that right? F. Sorry. Request F  is case number 0277. Um the applicant   is requesting a vacation of rideway. Um the  applicant and also M&J Land and Marine LLC.   Um, he's requesting to vacate an abandonment of a  portion of High Avenue South of West 21st Street. Thank you. Any questions for staff from the board?  Do we know the original intent of the rideway?   Was it just to have city access to the water? I  mean, like to the not not water line, but to the   actual canal. I believe in the past, I think High  Avenue went all the way through to West 20th and   we vacated the bottom portion prior. So, I don't  know why they didn't vacate the entire thing,   but we there used to be a right away south of this  as well. Yeah, you can see it on this exhibit. Okay. the the shade in in gray is is  area area or rightway that's already   been vacated. So this part by the way  cross a creek with no bridge. Yeah. Is the applicant here to speak on this item? Here  it shows the whole thing is the whole but this has  

already been vacated or something. No sound. Oh  this part. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, got you. My   name My name is Mark Mulligan. I'm at 1106 West  11 Street and I was sworn in. Uh the reason why I   made the uh application because we've cleared the  land and we have to constantly use uh High Avenue   just to access our property because there's no way  else to access it other than it is not uh improved   road. And so instead of asking the city to improve  the road so we can develop it, I think it'd be   easier we just incur that expense and that give us  a little bit more latitude when our civil engineer   survey uh engineers the land to give us some more  maneuverability and that's the reason and then   that road does go to a dead end. It just goes down  to the water but it's just like a little creek.   It's not really. So, did you say you're at 4209  or which property do you own? I own the property   uh to the west that goes all the way down. Let me  see. I don't see it up there on the land up there. Oh, there you go. There now. Oh, there it goes.  I want that triangle piece right there. That's   on the water. Okay. Yeah. To the west on  to the west of that. And that only way we   can really access cuz to the north of us  is another like like an alley type thing   um that goes down so the other house on the  water can access it. But the main when we've   been clearing the land is that high avenue is  the only way we can really access it. Okay. So   you're not on the east side then? No, we're on  the west side. That triangle piece on the west.   Okay. That's just there's already there's  a house on the east side already, right? plans to build something there. Yes. Yes. We had  uh we had the property reszone um to R2 and we  

want to put some duplexes and we cleared out um  all the trees and I'm trying to figure out the   best way to access our property. and we'd have to  go through High Avenue and so we just look at if   we abandon it we can make a better project there  I believe so and we can take on the expense of   um that road because I don't think that asking  the city to pay that road for us I'm not sure if   they would so that's so abandon it will half  will go to east the 4209 guy gets half right   that is correct yes it once it's abandoned  it'll revert back to the um adjacent land   owners half and half. Okay. Are you going to build  something like you built there on 11 street? Yes,   something like that. Yes. That's nice. Okay. Okay.  Any further questions? Anyone else here to speak   on this item? Nobody left. Move to approve.  Second. Got a motion second. Please take ro.   Board member Carol. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes.  Board member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.   Chairman Nubar. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you.  Thank you. Thank request G. Quest G or it is case   number 0620. It's a text amendment to the Unified  Land Development Code concerning section 104-33E8 uh permitted encroachments in the downtown uh  district, downtown zoning district. Um the uh the   this item was tabled at the June 9th hearing um  based on uh some additional um comments from the   the planning board at that time. Specifically, uh  the planning board, uh considered the matter and  

recommended additional changes. Um specifically,  a provision limiting canopies and balconies within   a certain proximity of the street curve. The  planning board also for you guys also recommended   removing the text allowing outdoor dining to be  located in on street parking spaces on Harrison   Avenue. So, um, in your in the staff report, um,  at the end of the staff report in red is the,   uh, additional language that we added in following  that June 9th meeting. Uh, and for canopies,   it says a canopy may not be located within 10  ft of the outer face of the curb on Harrison   Avenue. Same thing for balconies. And then with  regard to the sidewalk cafe bay, uh it it says with except for Harrison Avenue, outdoor dining  may be located on sidewalk or on street parking.   That's except for Harrison Avenue. They will not  be allowed or sidewalk cafes will not be allowed   in on street parking on Harrison Avenue. With the  wider sidewalk now on Harrison Avenue, there's no   reason to have um to have a sidewalk cafe extend  out into the There's not much road there. That's   right. Yeah. So, they can be on the sidewalk.  They can't be in the parking places. Yep. Michael,   is there a design review process as part of  this? Yeah. Yes. Yes. any the sidewalk cafe   or all of it requires review. Yeah, I guess any  of it. But particularly I was talking about the   sidewalk cafe. If somebody wanted to use the  street for dining for those parking spaces,  

they would need to get city review of that review  process and and there's an actual sidewalk cafe   permit that's issued. Okay. Remind me how how wide  is the sidewalk on Harrison? And I only asked cuz   the the canopy may not be located within 10 ft of  the curb which I don't I couldn't remember it as   it varies but I think on average it's about 18 to  20 ft. Okay. So that would allow essentially for   an 8 to 10t balcony covery. Yeah. Yep. Canopy.  Okay. That's with the new streetscape, right? I just didn't want the sidewalk to be 12 ft.  Yeah. Maybe you only have 2 ft of sidewalk,   right? Any questions? Got a motion? I'll  move we approve. I'll second them. 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. Request H. Request H. Request H is is another uh proposed text  amendment to the Unified Land Development   Code concerning section 104 or excuse me  110-4 which is the accessory structure   u section but u this actually has to do with  boats and uh or docks and boat structures uh  

which is in subsection G of of that section. And  uh this comes after a request by a member of the   city commission that staff research ways to prot  protect and preserve the manly and natural channel   at the mouth of lakes Huntington in St. Andrews  Bay. Uh the intent is to provide an uninstructive   channel for ease of navigation to and from Lake  Huntington. staff is proposing an amendment to   the ULDC which will prohibit construction of  docks and boat slips from encroaching into into   a defined area at the mouth of Lake Huntington. Uh  the proposed ordinance uh if adopted will make uh   any existing dock within that defined area at the  at the mouth of Lake Huntington a non-conforming   development or non-conforming structure. Uh should  the ordinance be adopted by the city commission,   uh any existing non-conforming docks may remain  in existence but may not be expanded or extended   if damaged by more than 50% of the value of the  structure. The non-conforming dock may not be   rebuilt unless it complies with the standards  set forth herein. Basically, as long as it's   built outside of that zone. Uh, and the proposed  ordinance defines that prohib prohibited area. Uh,   unless y'all want me to. I won't read the the  actual description, but there's a uh, there's a   there's a a map or illustration of of of what that  area is. I I read that foot description about 10   times trying to understand it. So I assume it just  means the rectangles on the drawing. Yeah. The the  

the first part of that paragraph describes the  upper rectangle, the smaller rectangle, and then   the latter part of that paragraph describes the s  southern part of that of the large rectangle. So   the the current ordinance, is it fair to say, is  fairly generic and not specific to a certain area?   The new ordinance looks to protect this one  channel. That's correct. And actually defines   a channel more or less geographically with GPS.  And and I guess are there other channels similar   to this that there are being discussed to protect  in the same way or is this one exception based?   It's pretty much limited to to just this one. Uh I  guess we could um expand our research out to other   channels. Um, but really this one and and this all  centers around the the recent doc, the appeal. Um,   so that that's why this one's such a hot topic  right now. I I agree with Chris though. I think   if there's other ones that are similar in nature  that might be potential issues going forward,   it would be better for us to be ahead of that and  to look at the mapping and see if there's other   ones that we want to include in similar language  in the future. Um, I agree with him. Yes. Because   the difficulty right now is we we don't know what  what folks are going to request and and you know   the I think we were kind of constrained in the  last discussion which was do they have a permit   is it navigable and and so we were constrained  so I was just trying to think of you know are   there other type you know or areas that might  have a similar yeah impediment potentially.   Well that that gives us an opportunity to  get stakeholder involvement as well. Also,   if we identify that there's three or four of these  throughout the city, then we can get feedback from   the citizens and and see if it's something that  we want to do the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. I'm  

sure there's some language that goes along with a  little bit of direction, but not having to define   every single item. But yeah, just I mean, this  is basically specific to what we had last month,   that conversation. But what if the EP comes back  and permanent and said, "Yeah, you're fine. You're   in good good shape." Well, this would still be  in place that mitigate against future things.   starting to rebuild their lot down the road if  a hurricane did by you know messed up. So I mean   do they have an argument that you know that  this is just pointed towards them and because   it really doesn't affect anybody else as I see  or are there any other docks in that geographic   area? I just want I mean if you know if DPP turns  them down then we're we're good then we can pass   this ordinance and then you know nothing could  I just I just want to think about that. I mean,   there is I don't like I didn't like I'm glad we  turned the last one down, but I still don't want   to make it feel like we're just picking on this  one person. There is I guess we're really not,   but there is remnants of a of an old dock. You  can see it in the aerial that Oh, that was further   south. I got would be affected. I think there's  also discussion of something further north. I   think there's a smart trying to stop. Yeah, they  did. Okay. Well, this takes out the question, what   is the navigable waterway? Yeah, it's essentially  because that was the difficulty with the appeal   was one currently we don't have provision in  the code that says you can't build the document   channel which that's not a requirement. Um, and  then I I took it out of this version because um   I've got some feedback from some of the residents  over there, but I had uh a um proposed change   to where it says currently says a dock structure  shall not impede the flow of water nor navigation.   I was going to propose to change that to say  dock structure shall not impede the flow of  

water nor adversely affect navigation. And the  reason why is um that's a essentially a lower   standard to meet. Um, in that last case, I could  not say that the dock was impeded to navigation,   but I could say it it wouldversely effect. Um,  but um after feedback from those residents,   I I just I decided to leave it out because I I  think they like the term impede um better. All right. Okay. Further discussion. Do I have a  motion? Move to approve. Second. That motion.   Second. Please take the role. Board member  Carroll. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes. Board   member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.  Chairman Bower. Yes. Motion passes 5 Z. Have   one quick question. I Does this also apply to  the variances because they're not in this short.   you talking about the I a variance is quasi  judicial. Yes, sir. Because you're applying   the code to um to a request. So, um it applies  I was under the impression they were not. So,   all right. This brings us to audience  participation of the question agenda. Problem I guess not second. So, did we uh we were going to look at