Planning Board - Regular Meeting

The October 13th Panama City Planning  Meeting now is in order. Please take a   role. Board member Carol here. Board member  Stamps here. Board member Barker here. Board   member Rich here. Chairman Newower here. Are  there any changes or lesions to the agenda? Nope. We can move forward with the agenda  as it's been originally published. All   right. Are there any announcements  or disclosures for board members? Okay. Uh do I have a motion to approve  the minutes from the September 8,   2025 meeting? Some move. Second. Have a motion  to say it. Please take role. Board member   Carol. Yes. Board member Stance. Yes. Board  member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.   Newower. Yes. I'll now read the procedure for  quasi judicial proceedings which are items A,   B, and C. Step one, public hearing announce  introduction of application by staff. Step two,   ex party communication disclosure by board  members. Step three, identification of applicant   and affected parties that attend to participate in  a hearing. Affected parties that intend to make a   statement may do so in the public participation  part of the agenda. An affected party means any   person or entity that will suffer an adverse  effect to an interest protected or furthered   by the ULDC, 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 and natural resources. The   ledge adverse interest may be shared in common  with other members of the community at large,   but must exceed and degree the general interest in  community good shared by all persons. Uh now turn   to council to swear any witnesses that make need  to just make a statement. At this time for item A,   if you wish to um testify on this um please go  ahead and stand and raise your right hand and   I'll swear and all staff at this time as well.  Staff, you'll remain under oath during the entire  

proceedings. Do you swear and affirm the testimony  you're about to give? Is the truth the whole truth   and nothing but the truth? Yes. Yes, I do. Okay.  And if you do feel you need to speak after I've   sworn in um people, please just come to the podium  and I'll swear swear you in at that time. Thank   you. All right. Requests letter A. All right.  Item A U case number 11 190. It is a variance.   The applicant is requesting a variance from the  setback regulations established by section 104-31   mixed use 2 zoning district of the city of Panama  City Unified Land Development Code. The owner and   applicant is Lucian Dragita. The address is 4443  West 19th Street and staff is recommending denial. Any questions for board  members from staff for staff? Right. Is the applicant here wish to speak  on this item? Does the applicant here? So, uh, sir, you will you raise your right  hand. Okay. Do you swear and affirm the   testimony you're about to give as the truth,  the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes,   I do. Thank you. Okay. So, um, and your name and  address for the record. Name and address. Uh,   my name is Simon Dragira. I'm the owner contractor  of the lot situated on 4403 West 19th Street. And   I was uh requesting the board to have a allowance  for three extra feet for uh the driveway to be   extended. And I have here a a picture I took from  the garage to the edge of the sidewalk which was   20 ft. And as you can see in the picture, the  truck itself is 19 ft. So, it's like a quarter  

like 2 ft of the back of the truck is going to  kind of sit in the sidewalk. So, I was asking   uh the board if I could get an additional 3 ft  so the house could sit more towards the back. So, is that is the is the truck is that on  backing into 19th Street or is it Yes. Yes,   it's from the 19th Street. Yes. And like  the where the back tire is is like a foot   of the truck is kind of going to sit in the  sidewalk. Is is the property now a dirt lot?   Is it cleared? Is that correct? Yes. It's just  dirt. There's nothing there. Okay. It's just dirt,   but it's like the back of the truck. It's like  when you walk on the sidewalk is like really   like the truck is going to be like right here. I  got you. So that photo is representative of where   the sidewalk and park. Okay. I got you. Yes. The  truck itself it's it's 19 ft. So 20 will be like a   6 in between the garage and the front bumper and  6 in between the back bumper and the sidewalk.   So, I was thinking like a foot and a half to  go in between the front bumper and the garage   door and another foot and a half between the  bumper and the sidewalk. So, a total like of 23. Uh the drawing I want to mention the drawing  that I made over there is actually the old plan   where the architect put it on 17 ft and I went  with horizontal planning and I asked him if we   could go to the max setback which is 20 foot as  a per discussion with Mr. Orlando and he says,  

"Simon, you can do that." And I measured I put  a steak at 20 ft and still is not enough. So   I was asking respectfully for another 3  ft, which will give me a foot and a half   for the front between the garage door and the  truck and another foot and a half between the   bumper and the sidewalk. This rear part of the  This side is just just a patio. Oh, I'm sorry.   I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. I was looking at  the back setback. I'm sorry. Yes. The front   is Yeah. Okay. And this is the patio right here.  Yeah, that's the patio. I'm sorry. Yes. Actually,   yeah, the front from the 19th street to the  garage. Yes. I apologize. I would like it   to be 23 ft cuz the truck is 19. So, right  now the plan that I submitted is on 20 ft,   which is 6 in in the front and 6 in between the  sidewalk and the back of the truck. What what does   the property back up to? What's behind you? Uh  it's a neighbors fence which is actually oriented   uh towards uh Danfort. Yes, that's right.  Yes. 1821. It's facing uh Danford Avenue. Is the rear patio a cover patio under roof? Yes.  Yes, sir. So I guess this this may be I was asking   about 18/19. Is it at the backyard? Wouldn't  that be the backyard? So he's asking for a leaf   on this rear set back. Correct. So he can that's  what the request is. Yeah. His house faces this   way. It faces that way. It faces this way. Faces  that way. Yeah. Okay. The side yard. Okay. Yeah,   I saw that. But yeah, I think your your question  was the the relief we're looking for has really   nothing to do with the front rear. the house.  It's really It's a 17 ft versus a 20 ft. Can  

I understand what I just Is that correct,  Joanna? Yeah, I got you. I got you. Yes. So,   what what the request that was submitted? It's  it's the 3T of relief from the rear setback. If it's at 20 or 23 in the front, yes, that that's  kind of irregardless of what our request is,   but he's saying if it's at 23, that pushes the  whole thing back to 17. Yeah. Yeah. That that's   that's my understanding. And and staff's um  staff's main concern here particularly with   his house faces 19th Street. Is that what he said?  So this would be the backyard. Mhm. Okay. What is   back here? That's what I was curious. What's that  concern? That's the sideyard cuz that one faces   that way. So it's the side door. Okay. To the  right or to the left you talking about? to the   right there's like a city building like a I think  a water treatment or something like that to the   right. Yeah. What's the city Joan? What's this?  So So the main um issue that staff had with with   this request and the reason for recommending the  now is simply that it's we we believe that it it   is a design issue as reflected per the staff  report. So we we're not saying that there are   no challenges to be overcome. It's just it's in  based on staff's recommendation. We believe that   reconfiguration of the site plan and and design of  the development can better remedy this issue. And   we say this because based on the information  provided in the variance application, we're   unable to see where the applicant has sufficiently  justified the variance request. So this is this is   the reason for for denial you recommend one the  hardship requirement is not supposed to be caused   by the applicant. Correct. Correct. Okay. Was  was the plans already drawn up? Say that again.  

The plans are already drawn up. The architect's  already drawn. Yes. And and and when did you come   to the conclusion, oh, this needs to be farther  away from the sidewalk? Exactly. Was it after the   fact? Yeah. When I parked the truck and I put like  a stake right here like which represent 20 ft like   is on the plan that has been submitted. I realized  like the back of the truck is on the sideway.   Would you like to see this picture? No. No. I I  see it. Yeah. So, I mean this wasn't something   you had drawn up and saying, "No, I'm just going  to do it." And it was something that after the   fact you're looking at this. I mean I I I kind of  agree with the fact if a truck backs up that close   to the sidewalk, somebody's walking or coming the  bicycle. you know, it it could be, you know, it   could be a accident waiting to happen. So, that's  my outlook on the thing. What What is the I say   the side, you have a reference to five feet. Is  that 5T side step back or five is it 5T from the   property line on both sides? Yes. 33 on one and  five on the other. Yes. Correct. Yes. But Joan,   I think your point is if you were to change  the shape of the building, you get the same   square footage, but you're not Yes. Again, yeah,  we we staff is staff staff has yet to see evidence   provided by the applicant that indicates that  this cannot be overcome through through through   design and through reconfiguring the site. Um, of  course, if that information was provided, our our   recommendation would may have been different,  but based on the um the justification provided,   we still failed to see how how this warrants  varying from the code. Is there anybody here   to speak against? Is there is there any other  questions for the applicant? Oh, okay. Okay. See   if there's anyone else here to speak on this item.  Is anyone else here to speak on this item? Okay.

Um, I guess my concern is practicality. You  can build a house like this and then just   block the side off. So, pretty much Yeah.  I mean, pretty much is the effect of moving   it back 3 ft on the back or the sign of the  other person do anything to Yeah. That's uh can I say something? So in the picture if you  look at the this facility building I think it's   a Comcast building I measured it from here to  actually the edge of the sidewalk they actually   have like 25.8 if I remember correct and the  house next to it I don't know exactly what   number it is. I think they have like it sets even  further back. They probably have like 30 measure   from the sidewalk in. So mine if you're going to  be looking on the 19th street all the way down   pretty much all the houses are going to be between  25 and 30 I'll say and mine is going to be like   at 20 super super close to the to the sidewalk. I  mean it's just not even going to look good. If you   walk down the sidewalk, my truck is just gonna be  sitting in the side in the sidewalk pretty much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, is there anybody here to talk  against it? That's why I was ask   nobody stood up. Okay. I make a motion  we approve the variance. I have a second.   I'll second a motion to second. Please take role.  Board member Carol, yes. Board member Stamps,  

yes. Board member Burgerer, no. Board member Rich,  no. Chairman Newower, no. Motion fails. Reach two. All right. Request letter B. Item B, case number 1030. It is a major  development. The applicant is requesting to   develop an 8,000 square foot warehouse within  a heavy industrial zoning district. And any   development in the heavy industrial zoning  district is subject to a major development   approval. Um the owner is CW Roberts Contracting  Incorporated. The applicant is Scott Relford of   CSR and Associates, Northwest Florida, Inc. Um  the address is 122 Center Avenue and staff is   recommending um approval with the condition that  a commercial development uh order shall be issued   and requirements and conditions of approval  of the technical review committee are met. All right. Are there any  questions from board for staff? Is the applicant here to speak on the side? Is anyone here to speak on this side? You can't go  on. What's that? Does somebody have to be or is it   uh I don't think we ever changed the rule  that someone had to be here. That's correct.   I believe it was, if I recall, and I'll  ask council to correct me if I'm wrong,   the board has the option to table it to the  next meeting if um if an applicant is not   present. That's what we That is correct. So it's  not required but we have the option and staff's   recommended to approve it with conditions.  What's the conditions? So the conditions of  

approval typically when we have major developments  and this will apply to the next item as well. Mike, were you trying to say something? Did you pass it? Yes. Yes, we did pass the  resolution. Yes. So, if the applicant isn't there,   then he uh moved this for the next meeting to give  the applicant an opportunity to appear. That's   what I thought. Right. So, it's automatic. Okay.  Ask ask Mike um does he is he saying that it was   automatic or is the option of the board? Well, I  think we was automatic because we make it optional   and then we can choose and pick which ones we want  to do in all. I think it's either all of them or   none of them. either you're here that because  isn't that on the application when they take   the application that they have to have somebody  present. I guess they are notified and if it's I   mean we can't choose and pick which ones we want  to do just I think we either we're going to get   ourselves in trouble. I'd rather just say you do  not hear as what it says on the application. Well,   I think I think that's what the resolution  was was automatic. I think it was automatic.   I don't think we need I don't believe we  need to make a motion. That's just a rule.   Item letter B will be tabled to the  November meeting. Move to item 11 C. Item C is case number 1192 is also a major  development request. Um the applicant   is requesting to develop a fourstory  apartment complex. Um any commercial   development over three stories in height  is subject to major development approval.   The owner is VCP Creekide LLC.  The applicant is Matthew Chapman   with Panhandle Engineering and it's  located at 1427 West 30th Street. Any questions for board for staff?  That's the whole trailer park,  

right? Yes, that's correct. Old trailer  park is going to wisen. Okay. Is the   applicant here to speak on this item?  Yes. Please come forward and say good,   good. Please come forward and state your name  and address and uh council will swear it. Hi,   I'm Doug Crook with Panhandle Engineering.  Do you swear and affirm the testimony you're   about to give as the truth, the whole truth,  and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. There any questions for just to make sure I understand. this for  staff. This is not a reszoning request. This   is exclusively a development development request.  Yes. It's a major development development and what   will go there will be a lot better than what's  there as far as your eyes. I mean, you know,   not to but yes. Right. No questions. Anyone else  here to speak on this item? We're good. Thank you.   All right. Do you have a motion? Miss motion to  approve. Second. A motion to 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. Item letter D. Item D,   case number 118. It is a smallcale land  use amendment reszoning request. Yeah, is   um requesting a small scale future land use  map amendment and reszoning change from the   general commercial and general commercial one  zoning district and excuse and excuse three   land district zoning district. The owner is  Marco Menses and Katrina Alen Armenty and the   is Katrina Elena Armente and the address is 1817  Beck Avenue. Staff recommends the city of Panama   City Planning Board transmit recommendation  of approval to the city commission and the  

city commission approve the future land use  amendment and resigning request. Thank you.   Is there any questions for board for staff?  All right. Is here to speak on this item? Katherina Elena Arment 1714 Montana Avenue  Haven Florida. My name is Mark Cormenta. The   address the address of the house of we 174 74  Montana Avenue Haven. Nerous. You want to do   they need to be sorted this? That's not cause  I did. Okay. Any questions for advocate for? Well, I just curious is what what's the purpose  of want to change it from general back to   uh so it's um the um property consists of  two lots and one lot. Uh there's a small   um duplex that was already there that is  was um the general um commercial. However,   it always was residential and there is no  people living there. And the next lot uh   it's for now it's a empty lot and uh that one is  a mixed use. Mhm. So we're trying to combine the   lots. Okay. Is that where the fencing is where the  vehicles are parked? Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.  Is anyone else here to speak on this item?   Go ahead. So, um, and I have an extra comment.  So, we had, um, comments come in from underground   utility staff after the agenda had already  been published. So, I want to read, um,  

the comments from staff into the record. And, um,  so the the concern from underground utilities is   that if the lot there's the lot next door that's  not combined, um, it can interrupt sewer access.   So let's say somebody sells the lot adjacent to  it. It could cause an interruption in sewer. So   um there needs to be some type in easement for  the sewer and for the applicant staff can work   with you on that. This is something that we just  want to make sure is clear to the board that this   can be worked through during the development order  review process. So, this is not something that we   deemed as um um worth um recommending denial over  as these are issues that can be worked through   during the development order review process  because they can take time and that's on the   subject property you're talking about 187 take  place. Okay. Yes, that's correct. But but it to   approve it with conditions. I I think so. So are  No, I was just reading it into the record because   the agenda was published at um the these comments,  yes, these comments were received after the agenda   had already been published. And so I wanted to  read Underground Utilities comments into the   record, but this is something that can be worked  on during the development order review process.   Okay. Thank you. 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 Dubar, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Thank you. Item letter E. Item D is case number   1130 and it's a request for annexation, small  scale land use amendment, and reszoning. Um,   and they're asking to be reszoned from residential  Bay County to residential 1, Panama City. The  

owner is Richard and Brea Keell and the applicant  is William Holland. It's located at 3719 Shoreline   Circle. Thank you. Any questions for staff? I  that sorry I'm sorry I have one more similar   to the one before just just to make it clear to  the board again we received a comment after the   um the agenda was published and so for this  property for the shoreline uh property uh   underground utilities provided comment that the  subject property does have access to water but   to gain access to sewer they'll need to install  a grinder pump and connect to the forest main in   the new development being next to them as you  all aware to the there's the newer subdivision   that's come in. So, there's going to need need  to be some additional coordination during during   their development order review process. But  again, that's something that can be worked   out later on during development review. Gotcha.  Thank you. I was happy here speak item. Yes. Richard Capital 2302 Pelican Bay Courts for  that. Yeah. Assuming this is annexed to get   city utilities, right? Second. Any questions?  Right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else here to speak   on this side? Do I have a motion? Do we need  to make it conditional to the adherence to the   connection requirements or is that not necessary?  It could be done at the development order. Yes,   it's something that that we'll have to work  through at the development order review stage   anyway. So, again, these are just comments that  we want to make sure are entered into the record.   um before we move forward to the city commission  just so everyone's aware the board is aware and   also the applicants are aware. Okay. So, gotcha.  And motion to approve. Second. Motion to 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. Thank you. Item letter F. you want to Oh, yes. So, item F is going to be um  we're going to ask Stacy Ross, the city engineer,   to come up. Um so, we have several staff,  different stuff that that y'all will meet this   evening. So, it's an exciting evening, but she'll  she's going to be presenting um 6F. And of course,   if you have any questions for development services  staff, we're we're happy um um to speak as well,   but Stacy Ross with city engineer with the public  works department, engineering uh division will be   presenting this item. Yes. Hello everyone. I  am Stacy Roush. I am the city engineer in the   engineering division. Like Dwan said, um these uh  text changes really came about in the effort to   kind of clean up a little inconsistencies that  I see just with our code and then across other   codes with the beach and with Bay County.  So we see a lot of times when people submit   um some best practices that are suggestions in  our review processes, a lot of times they say   it's not in your code. I don't have to do it.  Um, we feel like these are items that should   not be discretionary. They should they protect  our resiliency of our community from to bounce   back from storms. It protects us from delayed  maintenance by these property owners. It protects   um us sometimes when it becomes our infrastructure  to make sure that it's done correctly. So you'll   see in the tax changes um primarily uh centers  around storm water ponds. One of the code changes   is to add the 6 in freeboard requirement which  right now our code does not require any freeboard  

in ponds which will allow a pond to stage up to  the surface in a 25-year storm. Um, and obviously   we know that we have some years where we have  heavy rains and we may get a couple 25 year storms   back to back and that cause causes our ponds to  overflow into our parking lots into our roads.   So this 6in freeboard is the same requirement  as Panama City Beach. So it's not anything new   for our engineers in this location. Um, and then  we also added the requirement of the having to   model the 100-year storm to show that your pond  does not over top in a 100-year storm. And that   is also the same requirement as Panama City Beach  and Bay County. So again, nothing new. It's just   an extra requirement in our code to um hold these  engineers accountable to best practices. Um one of   the other major changes is whenever we accept a  road, a developer builds a road for the city and   expects the city to take it over. Right now we're  relying on visual inspection. Whereas whenever we   accept a utility, they have to do certain tests  to prove to us that it was installed correctly. Um   when we accept a road, a lot of times we just have  to go on visual inspection. Now um that does not   always bode well for the city. So, um, one of the  major requirements I added were some stipulations   of what the engineer and the contractor have  to provide to the city to prove to us that they   didn't just install it to our standards based on  their word. They have to provide some measurable   um, reports that show it was designed to our  standard. And then um probably the uh biggest   requirement that's added in there is um right now  the the FDOT standards for a new construction road   would have that the seasonal high water table be  3 ft um max or minimum from the um bottom of the   road base. Now that has been a suggestion to some  of our engineers uh in especially in our areas of  

high water table and they will um go closer to  the base and uh and that that over time causes a   maintenance issue for the city. Um we have added  the suggestion or the requirement for them to   go and get approval of myself, the public works  director, the city manager and then once all of   those are approved, go to city commission and get  approval for that because we think the commission   should know what kind of maintenance long-term  they are committing to by accepting that road. Are those are those I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.  Go ahead, Eron. Are those plans required to be   provided upfront as well as once you get done  to verify those results in comparable reports?   Yes. So, um up front in the development order is  usually when we make the comment of you know your   water table is is less than 3 ft from the bottom  of your base. Um and now right now they can just   provide us a um modified pavement section but in  this case it would have to be taken to commission   and then again at the end they would have to do  a geotechnical study to show us what their roads   um profile looks like and then to also show a  post construction seasonal high water table level.   Thank you. So a couple of questions. So, you say  you're going to have a test done on a road to make   sure it meets its requirements and you have a 2 mi  of road. How often are you going to have to do a   test? Um, so right now in our uh city standards,  when you do geotech on a road, it's every 500 ft   or um every um road segment, whichever is less.  You have to do a test. Now, uh it's not in it's   not in the requirements right now, though. You  said yes. If you were to be reconstructing a road   in the city, it's in our city standards that you  would have to do a geotech. So, what is the what   is the test that you said they had to I thought  I heard you say they had to do a thing to certify   that they meet the requirements, right? So, that  it's it's a requirement for reconstruction on our  

roads. So, that that would be like if the city was  reconstructing the road. We don't have anything   for re new construction in our codes for them to  certify after the fact that it was done correctly.   So whenever you're con when you're reconstructing  a road um you are finding what the conditions are   at that time and those conditions are not going  to change. You're not developing a whole bunch of   homes around it. You're just reconstructing  the road. When these people come in and do   um I'll pick on Sweet Bay because they're  completely developed in new roads, right?   So um say when Sweet Bay came in and they did  their initial geotech, there were no homes there.   it was just a green site. So now they come in,  they put in homes, they put in imperous surface,   they put in ponds. It's not unreasonable to think  the water table elevation is going to change and   they should have accounted for that in design.  So whenever they come back afterwards, they have   to do another geotech that shows we accounted for  this. It still meets your city standards. There is   still a 3-ft separation or more cuz you're saying  that the construction itself can change the water   table. And so a preconstruction water table and  a post construction water table may be different   in a large scale development. Correct. And that's  where typical engineering factor of safety would   come into play. So we just want them to prove to  us that they engineered this correctly and they   accounted for that shift. We're not expecting  the water table to change 2 feet, but we are   expecting in some cases, especially where we  see a lot of wetland development right now,   we do expect that there's going to be some shift  in the water table. And we don't feel like that is   something that we should just have to assume they  did. They should be able to prove it. And you're   asking the engineers to provide that upfront  that this is what's going to how it's going to   affect it. I mean, um, up front they would just  provide their design and then at the end they   would provide the geotech report that shows that  what was constructed met their design. And that's   every 500 ft. Yes. Or every road intersection,  whichever is less. Okay. All right. Does this  

speak to what happens if they don't meet that  acceptance criteria? We wouldn't accept the   road. Okay. It could still be a road, but the city  would not fit into their maintenance. Correct. Or   they would have to fix it if they wanted accepted.  Yeah. Okay. So, actually on that point, they can a   neighborhood could build the road and maintain  it themselves and it still be in compliance,   but the city would never be able to accept it  should they not correct meet this requirement. Um,   for example, um, the Morning Side development,  uh, we did not accept that road. It is now all   O HOA owned because it did not meet our criteria.  Is there a co what's the cost impact on requiring   something that from the developer? Do you have  any idea? I I don't I do not have that number.   Um I know that in Morningside they were willing to  accept that over the cost of bringing it to city   standards. Um one of the issues in that case is  that the road was brought into the city not owned   by us and they wanted to accept it after they had  built all of their homes. And so it was kind of a   a weird situation. Most of the time up front we  would know which roads would be brought in and   they'd be building them brand new. They wouldn't  be trying to get us to accept a 20-year-old road. I had a question. I mean I hear you talk about  25 year storm and 100 year storm. How do y'all   determine that? That it's a uh it's a standard.  So there the Noah and FDOT and all of these um   agencies have these storms already developed. So  if you look up like a 25-year storm, it'll it'll   it's broken up into ranges based on um which areas  see what type of rain. So, our area in with an   FDOT, I I have a whole sticky note on my desk that  I could tell you each storm duration, but if you   said like a 25-y year, 1-hour storm, you would you  would expect like 2.54 in of rain. And so, each  

storm would go up obviously in the amount of rain  per the duration. But, um, we our code right now   is based off of a 25-year critical duration, which  is a 25-y year, 8 hour storm. A 25-year storm is a   storm that typically occurs once every 25 years.  That's just what that verbiage means. Um, now you   know, Hurricane Michael would have been probably  a 200year storm, for example. Okay. You referenced   freeboard. Yes. Can can you just describe what  that is in relent? Absolutely. So freeboard would   be um and this would be in a 25-year storm which  is what we model around which is kind of like a   typical storm. Um and that would the freeboard  would be the top of the water at the peak of that   storm. So the highest the water level would get  at that storm to the top of the burm around the   pond. So that would be essentially your factor of  safety. And right now we don't have that. Right   now it's zero. There is no requirement. Now um I  would like to say that 6 in I mean when I was on   the private sector 6 in would be an ideal you know  design element. Um I'm seeing anywhere from 1 to 2   in on a very regular basis being submitted. Now  I ask people to supply a six but a lot of times   I get the comment that's not what your code says.  Who did you work for in the private sector? Uh M   McDonald. Okay. So, you have some knowledge about  all the stuff and everything going into it and   everything. Okay. Okay. Are these text amendments  consistent with the uh county and Panama City   Beach? Yes. Okay. Okay. And with our comp plan  and who with our comp plan? Oh, okay. Okay.   Okay. Sure. Any questions? Thank you. Do I have  a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Motion to  

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. Thank you. Item letter G. Uh, item G is request to amend the uldc of the  city of Panama City. Um, specifically amending   chapter 111, um, chapter 102 and chapter 116 of  the Unified Land Development Code. So this um and   for the record Jan Haley uh planning and zoning  division manager development services department.   So this uh text amendment of the uldc came out of  a now it's probably about to be 6 months 5 months   um the governor signed into law back um on  June 20th uh to amend section 177.071 071   of the Florida statutes. And the whole point of  this is to streamline the platting process. Now,   um just to make it clear, what the new legislation  requires is that um at at this point, it is no   longer requirement that plats and this and this is  specific to subdivision plat major plat our code.   um are no longer required to go before the the  board um the planning board here and the city   commission. It is now purely an administrative  review process. So that is what we are charged.   We had to either um draft a resolution and bring  it before you all in the city commission or move   forward with an ordinance um uh re um review  and bring it before you all and the and the  

city commission. And so staff moved forward with  providing ordinance. It's cleaner. And we also   needed to clarify requirements for lot splits,  also known as limited part um um partitions,   lot combinations, and lot line readjustments. So  if you're making a minor readjustment in between   lots, this ordinance um aims to streamline  and clarify those processes as well. So,   we have been um um we we established a process for  those types of applications, but we wanted to make   sure that they were for the sake of transparency  codified so everyone's on the same page. So,   um so if you have any questions, I'm I'm fire  away, but that is the gist. And so again,   the whole point is to streamline and you know  that you might be thinking well if we don't have   to see these anymore then why are you coming um  to us asking for us to review it. It is because   we are amending the code. So we are we we are  amending the unified land development code and   as you know any amendments to the uldc we  have to come forward and um have you all   um consider it. So, um, for most details,  I'll defer to my staff my my staff report,   but if you have any questions, I'm more  than a and more than happy to answer them. I think we want to see every application.  Is it fair to say this makes the process   for a developer more streamlined because for  Absolutely. We we anticipate in some of the the   um um the the more frequent applicants that  are working with your of course your larger   developments uh your subdivision developments  um they're estimating up to potentially a 60-day  

relief in some cases because staff,  you know, we have our own timeline,   but developers, you know, you have to really  be planning ahead for a lot of this stuff in   advance in order to hit the deadlines  that you need to meet. So, um, staff,   of course, it's it's it's mandated, but we do  support it. We do believe that it will help   streamline a a lot of our applications, quite  frankly. Um, but of course, we're open to any,   um, suggestions or edits, but, um, we we do  believe that the proposed ordinance will will   better help streamline the the subdivision of  land, combination of land within the city limits.   So who who makes the final decision of whether  they're going to pass it or not? So the process   um so currently how this works and just to provide  some additional insight. So in the past as you all   know you have viewed you have reviewed subdivision  plats in the past prior to it even getting to you   all there is significant amount of staff review.  The only difference that's going to change in that   process is that the appointed bodies and the  elected bodies will no longer be involved. So   staff is still going to be still going to review  which is why it's important to codify requirements   so we have strict guidelines that we can follow  to ensure that it's consistent with our code.   The committee that's going to make the decision.  It's the technical review committee review. Yes,   the technical career the the the the technical  review committee is actually the same committee   that reviews sub the development orders for  subdivision plat. So before a subdivision plat   um prior to this legislation being adopted,  you have to have a development order for  

um major subdivisions. Now that's still the case,  but the plat would need to go through, you know,   to the planning board and to the city commission.  Now you can have you have the option of having   your subdivision development order and your  subdivision plat review reviewed concurrently if   that's what the developer would like to do. So the  technical review committee is comprised of as far   as development services is concerned. Everyone you  see right here uh city engineer Stacy Rouse she's   left but she's also on the committee. So it's  staff it's it's a staff committee. It's u made   up of staff members of who review development.  So, it's something that we've already been doing   and we'll just continue to do the jobs that we  were charged with doing prior to the legislation. And that's also and we make sure we  make it clear to define all of that. So,   the that's why definitions needed  to change. So, that's clear as well. Questions? All right. Questions, comments.  All right. Do I have a motion? Motion to   approve. All second. Have a motion. Second.  Please take a poll. Board member Carol. Board member Carol. Yes. Board member  Stamps. Yes. Board member Barker. Yes.   Board member Rich. Yes. Chairman  Newower. Yes. Motion passes 5. Item letter H. All right. Item H, I guess we don't have  our slides at the moment, but item 6H is  

a text amendment to section 103-2 uh C  of the Unified Land Development Codes,   which amends the process of appointing  members to the planning board.   The requested amendment which comes from to  us from the city commission will allow each   commissioner and the mayor to appoint one member  to the planning board. Those appointments will   then run concurrently with the commissioner's  term. Um this amendment this is an amendment   to the um unified land development code  which requires review and consideration   by the planning board. Um furthermore, the uh  request uh provides that the planning board   continue or planning board members continue  to serve for 120 days or 4 months or until   reappointed or replaced by the commission. Happy  to answer any questions. You getting rid of us? How many of us are out of zone? As you would say,  out of um Well, who's who's Mr. Who's in the name   of commission? Who's in Robbie Hughes's own? All  three of us. I think there's three of us in it   was me anyway. You three of us. And whose own  are y'all in? I'm in Brian Grers. Brian Grers.   I'm Janice Lucas. Okay. I think the only um  u ward not to have a planning board member is   um um well, Josh Street's W. Three. St. Anders.  St. Anders. Yeah. So, is it meant to say that   the commissioner in that ward would appoint  someone directly or require within their ward   or are they able to appoint anyone within the  city? It's just at their discretion. That's   it's it's at their discretion. They can appoint  somebody outside their ward if they so choose.  

And the process right now is someone would  need to apply and then the discussion among   the city commissioners and then it would be  voters. It's like a collective decision among   uh all the commissioners or does this one  the the PL uh the Bay County um commissioners   appoint planning board members the same  way they do a ward or whatever area they   geographic they don't have a mayor of the county  do it no they have a chairman the chairman get   to appoint one or the mayor get to appoint mayor  get appoint mayor counts as a commissioner Yeah,   I I do think in section two it should reference  section 7 uh per vacancies cuz it kind of leaves   it there and then I feel like it should say as  identified in section 7. Just my personal opinion. Um say that one more time. Um, I think section two  at the very end it says any vacancy in membership   shall be filled for an unexpired term by the  city commission. Um, but I feel like it should   reference section seven which is vacancies on how  that process works that way. Gotcha. That's just   my opinion on it. Um, and then in section five,  at the very end of section five, it says it's   talking about a vote of at least three members  necessary to make a favorable recommendation.   And if somebody is missing from that, it says  that it requires a concurring vote of majority.   So I assume if we have four people, that still  means that we'd have to have three. Correct. All other actions shall require That's just  talking about the quorum. Yes. So since you're   a five member board, it requires three for a  quorum at any time. Okay. Mhm. Yeah. And that   and this language wasn't never changed. This  language is actually in the land development  

code right now. Only the underlying language is  added. Am I correct to assume that if we only had   three people present that we would still have to  have three votes to pass in that in that case? No,   I mean it would be majority vote. So if you had  three members present, you would it's majority   vote. Okay. I just want to make sure I read that  section correctly. Is there any way uh that the   members here could serve out their terms before  this take effect? Um actually I believe there are   currently three members whose uh terms are up or  about to come up uh currently. Well, I'm read I'm   getting you got three here from the same district.  Mhm. Are they going to come out at the same time?   It it's not appointed by ward. It's so this change  would make it appointed by commissioner and so and   commissioner could choose someone that doesn't  live in their ward to be appointed. And all this   is saying right now is that your terms would run  concurrently with the commissioner that appointed   you. And so this is consistent with how the county  does it. And it also provides that once this   ordinance is adopted, then the commissioners will  have 120 days to appoint to either reaffirm you or   appoint you. But each one will pick a member to  appoint. So So a commissioner appoints somebody   then that person's on then does have to go through  the other commissioners. Is that correct? That's   that's correct. It would be each Why is this a  better plan? that I can't I'm not a commissioner.   I could not answer that. I'm just curious. I  mean, you know, why is this a better plan? I mean,   I'm just trying to Why is a better mil strap? It  seems like there's less accountability. I mean,   I had interview with all five city commissioners.  Mhm. And, you know, you had to kind of make sure  

that they felt like you were competent to do  it. I mean, if I am a city commissioner, I can   point what's his name over here? And I talked to  him commissioner and I said, "Hey, why don't you   point them?" I mean, it seems like you can kind of  I I'm you don't I I I mean, it would kind of be a   relief. I talked to Ray Debuke about that who's  been on there 24 years and he thinks it's a bad   idea. Mhm. uh just because he you know the longer  you're on the board I'm not saying you won't stay   on it because you know we don't get paid a whole  lot but uh when did we get a raise but but but I   think you lose some of the knowledge because I  mean a lot of these land changes and stuff it's   not the easiest stuff to try to you know learn  and read it and if the you city commissioner   there's what four years uh yes four years and then  except for the mayor the mayor So the mayor points   somebody get the mayor for instance whatever but I  I don't know I just well and I I I do think there   is a bit of an accountability reference here says  any member may be removed by majority vote of the   city commission with or without cause. So even if  an appointee is made and maybe they're just not a   good fit that the other commissioners can still I  assume take a vote to say that that planning board   me on the back end and not on the front end. Um I  guess I I I just I just my question I guess would   be the execution of that I is it let's say we  have three members up for reappointal which three   commissioners are choosing the first three members  or is it just kind of up for them to maybe decide   an order of how that works? It's going to be  all of them. Yeah. Once this is adopted each one   will make an appointment. Potentially the board  could be wiped and five new members or they would   potentially one. Now we haven't heard that just so  you know. Let's not spread that rumor but yes. No.  

Yeah. But in general this restarts it. It's not  like just the three. Correct. You you restart and   then you would and um some of the commissioners  are within a term. So it would be for their term   and if they get reelected hope you know they  would reappoint whoever that um board member is.   Well, I agree with him. You know, this could be  hairy because it's not an easy thing coming up   here and being planning board member because  of the regulation that changes so often. Uh,   and if you going to change every year cuz  you get or every time somebody get reelected,   you put more pressure on staff, put more pressure  on the people that's up here. I don't know. I I   think the idea originally was that uh having equal  representation amongst the wards was kind of the   gist of where it came from my understanding of it.  So I think to some extent staff's always trying to   I can see that if we were elected but you know  being appointed is a little different being able   to pick people from their area just point one  person that he wants to appoint. Mhm. And I mean   I just I mean do they have more when they appoint  someone does it get does it have to be affirmed at   that time by the rest of the commissioners? It  it will be the idea is that it'll be appointed   at a city commission meeting. So and they're just  they're just um affirmed. Either way you going to   have two people from the same uh district anyway  because the mayor's going to appoint somebody. He   doesn't have a district. So he's going to appoint  somebody from somebody somebody's going to have   two. Sure. Let me send the districts into it. So,  uh, yeah, that's why it wasn't based on district.   It's just based on commissioner. Yeah. You could  have all five people from the same board. I mean,   can't do that. It's just who they pick. They don't  they're not obligated to pick from their city,  

but they have to be a city resident. Yes. The  only obligation is that you're a city resident. I didn't think we were picking  on St. Andrews, but Mr. 30. Yeah. I don't think we can still get the  vote on this. I think we're being told,   aren't we? All right. Do I have a motion? No motion. I don't see how happy the way it is. I guess we have to take a vote either way. Yeah.  Do I'll take a motion to approve or deny. I I'll   make a motion to approve it then. Yeah, I that's  fine. I I will second motion. All right. Have a   motion to second. Please take a role. Board member  Carol. No. Board member Stamps? Yes. Board member   Barker? No. Board member Rich? Yes. Chairman  Ebo? Yes. Motion passes. 32. Chairman Newower,   this was a public hearing. So if the um  members of the public did want to speak,   it would be appropriate to Is anyone  here to speak on this item? Seeing   none. Okay. Thank you. All right.  Thank you. You're welcome. Letter I. All right. Item 6I is another proposed text amendment to the  uh land development code. This one would allow or   amend the allowable density in mixed use 2 or MU2  zoning district as provided in section 104-31 A3.   Um simply the the requested amendment would  change the allowable density from 10 dwelling  

units per acre to 12 dwelling units per acre.  Uh the proposed amendment is consistent with   the conference plan which allows up to 20 units  per acre and uh in the mixed use future land use   categories. Um MU3 currently allows the maximum of  of 20 units per acre. So, it it's probably good to   have some separation there. Um, but overall, I I  I don't I don't think it's going to have a huge   impact to increase the allowable density from  10 to 12 and I'm happy to answer any questions. We have a So, right now, mix use is  10, correct? Mix use two. I mean,   yes. MU2 allows up to 10 and MU3 is 20. That's  correct. And is what we're seeing on the screen,   the dark yellow would be the currently  zoned MU2 throughout the city. Yeah,   we um put this um picture together to to kind of  show you um you know where MU2 zoning districts   were in proximity to like single family MU or R1.  Um you can see there are some areas where MU2 is   is pretty close to to R1, but um then what is R1?  That's R1. That's single family. Yeah, but I know   what it is. But I mean, how many per units per  acre 10? It's 10 10 units per acre on our walls. Practicality doesn't work very often.  Is that practic in practice? I don't   think you hardly ever can get  10 of an acre, right? Same one.

And I guess just context, what's the reason for  increasing it by two units per acre? Well, it it   it actually came up during a commission meeting um  where um we were a reszoning was being considered   uh that would reszone something from MU2 to MU3.  Um, basically so this guy could build a duplex   on his property. Um, and uh, if if the if the  allowable density in any 2 was increased just   a little bit to like 12 units per acre, it's  more common. He'd be able to to do a duplex   on his property without having to reset. Is it  reasonable to say that this increase actually   helps to protect a lower density because you're  not having to jump up to 30. You get a little   incremental to to fit, you know, probably a more  broader shrimp rather than giving anybody kind of   free reign to say, "Hey, you can go up to 20 or  30." Yeah, that's a good point. Good point. Has   10 to 12 been an ongoing issue or is that just  a one time thing that came up? A one time thing.   I think it was a person that we turned down  with was it him that was in the recent there   was a person we had turned down for that and so  I'm just wonder if that was when he went to the   board that something came out do you remember  that I think Tim was kind of arbitrary too but   we've had these um of course we've dealt with  this um not necessarily with density but with   R1 and R2 with you know lot size just trying to  readjust instead of try trying to figure out ways   to kind of maximize our code rather than you know  people having to constantly come back and ask for   these jumps because I'm sure there are a lot  of we we believe staff just and it's a quick  

analysis we can't give you hard numbers that  this could help a lot of people automatically   come into compliance so think about all the time  and money saved and resources with just two unit   jump so we we we think it's um we think It's  reasonable. Staff believes this this increase   is reasonable. We don't believe that it's um  overkill in any way, shape, or form. And we   think it could help not just this this property,  but a lot of properties around the city. So, is there anyone here from the audience that  wishes to speak on this item? See none. Do   I have a motion? Motion to approve. A second.  Motion second. Please take role. Board member   Carroll. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes. Board  member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.   Chairman Dubower. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Can we  reduce residential to eight? Can we get any more?   Item letter J. That' be a super commission  question. You want to introduce it? Yes. Uh,   planning board members, uh, for our last item,  um, item 1346, we have Michelle Zurkel with the   Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA, and she  will be presenting the community redevelopment   amendments and comprehensive plan updates  um, for your consideration this evening.   Good evening. Michelle Zurkel with Community  Redevelopment Agency. We're here today to   uh ask the planning board to review our proposed  amended comprehensive plan updates for consistency   with the city's adopted comprehensive plan of  2018 and determine that it is consistent with   applicable goals, objectives, and policies across  the key comprehensive plan elements. And we just  

need to know if you approve and provide that  approval to the city commission. uh or if you   have recommendations which we would then need to  be provided to our legal council within 60 days questions still you have questions for  staff people rereading it it's a link Reed,   there any highlights you'd like to pull down or  There is. We cite several um goals and objectives   and policies that are consistent with certain  elements in the staff report. Um it's nothing   too detailed cuz for the most part, community  redevelopment plans are vague in order to allow   a lot of different opportunities and programs.  Um, but if you look in the staff report,   like for example, the coastal element one, I'll  let that's like one of the shortest ones. So,   let me pull that out for you. Um, it just says  that we're going to make sure to, you know,   keep it uh access linking waterfront areas to  community amenities by stimula and ex stimulating   the economic activity through revitalization  projects. Um, and those actions demonstrate   the city's commitment to ongoing waterfront  redevelopment efforts and are consistent with   the coastal management goals and objectives  in the comprehensive plan and we cite all of   the key elements that are within the plan. And  so what's the next step after the discussion   today? You said it goes to the city commission. It  does. It would go to city commission for approval   and we have two ordinance readings that have to  happen in order to finalize that for approval.

These do get done every 5 years though we  have not done this in about 15 years. So yeah, any questions for anyone else here  wants to speak on this item? Any discussion? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion.  Second. Please take role. Board member   Carroll. Yes. Board member Stamps. Yes. Board  member Barker. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes.   Chairman Newower. Yes. Motion passes 5.  Thank you. Any non action items? No non   action. We have none. We don't have any  audience participation for agenda. Does   anyone wish to address the hand to the person  that takes? I see none. Are these books ours?