Chair entertain a motion to approve the agenda order.

So move.

Moved by Mr.

Second.

Creel, seconded by Mr.

Tisdale.

All in favor?

Those opposed.

I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr.

Tisdale.

I have something to attend to.

Gentlemen, y'all have fun.

The first thing I will tell you, colleagues, is that I will not hit the gavel that hard.

My ears are still ringing.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Jerry?

Jerry, if if you don't mind, um, would you come up and kind of just tell us what we're doing here with this change in the text amendment, and then we'll open it up for questions.

Okay.

Is this working?

I think some loan.

Okay.

Is it working?

Okay.

Um questions had arisen recently about short-term rental uh short term residential not being allowed in a PDC.

And if you'll recall a few weeks ago, I got it explained about the evolution of the Monarch Village property up there, that that started off as a rental community, which allowed single-family houses there.

And then after they got into it and had permits and were had all the houses under construction, they came back and decided that they wanted to sell those houses, which meant that they had to go in and subdivide it, which they did, and they got approval to sell those.

But the question came up about why single-family um houses not allowed in a PDC.

And to be honest, I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be allowed in a PDC.

I have a handout.

Thank you.

Is an overlay district that means planned development or planned district commercial.

And uh we've actually had some cases where uh developers have come in and said, I want to do a PDC, but I'm gonna have to have a residential element to it.

Uh Glenn Miller, if y'all are familiar with his property, which was up highway 67, had stated that uh he was gonna do his theme park here several years ago, and he said, I'm gonna need a residential element up there because I need a place for my boys to be able to buy a house and to live.

With the strict interpretation that single family is not allowed in a PDC, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

But the reason I I printed this out for you is because you can see that under a PDC, it does state in the middle there that limit limited moderate and high density residential uses are appropriate when integrated into the development both on upper stories and as standalone development so as to encourage uh pedestrian access and activity.

So the language clearly seems to indicate that residential would be allowed uh in a PDC overlay district.

This is the the description here, and the density would be written into the master plan uh to be considered by the planning commission and the city council for approval.

Um the next handout that I'm gonna give you.

Uh Jerry, if we if we could just right here just to clarify.

So under plan development commercial here, it currently states, as you read that section, limited, moderate, and high density resident residential uses are appropriate when yada yada yada.

And in the table that's associated with this, which uh okay, is your next handout?

It doesn't it doesn't indicate that on the table, correct?

Yes, sir.

So this will resolve that issue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And trying to consider why would single family houses not be allowed in uh a PDC.

But this is the current table, I think.

Try to consider it.

If you'll look on that table where I've highlighted, this may be what it's adding, I don't know.

Take a look.

Up at the up at the top in the dark blue, you've got each of the zoning districts that we have LB, NB, CB, RB, DT, and WF, those are our commercial zoned districts.

And if you look down at single-family detached dwellings, single-family detached dwellings or single-family houses are allowed as a use by right in every one of our commercial zones, our standard commercial zones.

And then if you'll look further over to the right from the single-family detached dwelling, uh, they're also allowed in a PDR, of course, which is Plan Development Residential, a PDT and D, which is a traditional neighborhood district, and then lastly in a PDI, which is Plan Development Infill.

So single-family houses are allowed there.

If you go one up, single-family attached or townhouses, they're allowed in PDC.

Multifamily is allowed in PDC, and live work dwellings are allowed in PDC.

So it it almost seemed to be maybe a typo that single-family houses would not be allowed in the PDC, the Plan Development Commercial, when it's allowed in all of our commercial zonings, it just didn't make sense.

So what this would do is a part of the workshop today is that we were proposing that we would add single-family houses to a PDC so that they could be incorporated into it, not necessarily as a a full residential development under the overlay, but that there could be a residential element to a commercial development that was coming in.

And to be quite honest, in going around the table, this is not a decision that I just sit over there and make, you know, we discuss it with our planning people all the time is to can you think of one reason why single-family residential houses would be prohibited in a PDC, and nobody could come up with an answer to that.

So now the the last question would have to do with the density and the density in a PDC, the the density, the developer is not held to the strict density limits on the density table.

So in other words, when you're doing a PD, you get flexibility on setbacks, you get flexibility on parking, you get flexibility, you basically write your own rules on there, and then the planning commission and the city council uh consider it and vote to determine whether or not what they're asking for is reasonable or not.

And is is that in conjunction with a master plan?

That's correct.

But there has to be a master plan, correct?

Okay.

Whenever, whenever they uh the developer uh submits uh their plan, you know, initially they'll come in with just a a sketch plan.

Here's what I want to do, uh tell me what I need to do.

As a part of the evolution of that project, they would write a master plan that would describe to the planning commission and the city council, here are the setbacks that we're gonna uh propose, here is the density that we're gonna propose, here's the parking we're gonna propose, and anything else that might not meet the stringent requirements of those other zone districts.

But uh this is essentially what a PD does, it uh it gives them that flexibility to uh make a proposal to you, and then the council would vote to determine.

And that master plan may be phased over a number of years, and in in that interim, it might change a little, but the the developer always has to come back to the planning commission with those proposed changes?

Well, it depends on the level of the changes.

There are some uh specifications or some allowances, the uh LDO where we're allowed to make advanced, you know, as long as it doesn't involve this or this.

But if it sees those uh changes, then yes, it would be considered an amendment to the master plan, and they would have to come back to the planning commission and to the city council for that amendment.

All right, an example of that might be from time to time because casino developments or whatever.

Treasure Bay, I think had had uh some changes to their master plan several years ago for parking and things like that.

Correct.

Casinos are considered PDGE, which is Plan Development Gaming Establishment, and typically any time that they add something to uh to their footprint or make a major change, they have to come back to uh Planning Commission and City Council for approval.

Question.

Go ahead, Mr.

Creel.

So you made reference to the single family dwelling detached, right?

And that or uh is that the only one we're we're addressing, or we're not addressing the single family uh cottage and or the zero lot line, we're not addressing those two, we're just doing the one.

The question came up about zero lot lines too.

If you're gonna allow single family houses uh in if the if the council votes to allow single family houses in a PDC, why not allow zero lot line structures?

It's essentially a single family subdivision.

It's just that the houses are located right on the lot line, just like the definition says zero lot line structures, but it's still essentially a single family house in a residential neighborhood.

So so is this workshop and what's on the uh agenda day, is it just addressing one or is it addressing all three of those?

Um, it's it's on there anywhere you see the line drawn through, get to my packet.

So it it would be addressing the single family dwelling Mississippi Cottage and the single family dwelling zero uh detached zero lot line?

Yes, sir.

What's what is being proposed, uh and what you are considering is adding single family detached dwellings uh as allowed use in a PDC, also allowing single uh dwelling single family detached zero lot line structures uh in a PD.

Okay, so just those two, not the Mississippi cottage.

Correct.

No.

Okay.

So the next question is so currently as we stand today, do we have a single family detached dwelling and or a single-family detached zero lot line in a PDC currently?

That's that that shouldn't be there, or that was that has been approved and it shouldn't have the monarch villas is the first thing that comes to mind.

And what what happened there again is that when they came in to get their initial approval, it was going to be a rental community.

It was not going to be a subdivision.

Which rentals are are included, correct?

The the rental, the rental community, the houses were allowed in a rental community in the PDC.

Okay.

Okay.

But after they got the houses under construction and everything else, they came back and decided that the market had changed and that they wanted to subdivide the property, which they did.

They went through the process and got the approval for the subdivision.

So it went through the process, you know.

Um I believe that was the one where it it got the variance, correct?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, sir.

Right.

And I think that was the whole argument.

The variance was the process of the variance was done correctly.

However, the variance shouldn't have been allowed because it wasn't eligible.

So the process of the variance was was done.

It was publicized all the things.

However, the variance itself was not germane to the project because it wasn't allowed.

I think that's where the argument was coming from a previous council meeting, just the council meeting that I watched.

Okay.

An argument was made, an argument was made that the variant should not have been done.

Um the first thing that we told the developer on Monarch Villas when they came in is that first of all, you gotta have five acres in order to ask for a PDC.

Now you can ask for a variance on that, but you're probably not gonna get it because of the size of the variance.

You've only got an acre and a half, and you know, it requires five acres.

Five we made them aware of that.

They said we're willing to take the chance, and if we don't get the variance, then we'll just be in the rental business.

Okay.

Okay.

So they applied for the variants, they went before the zoning board of adjustments and appeals, they made their argument, and it was granted.

And so after that, after that only is when they made their application or the subdivision for the uh Monarch Villa status.

They followed the process, they went through all the steps they were supposed to go through, you know.

So you question and just from my own piece of mind.

If they would if prior to them getting the variants, if they were to sell that when they were in the rental business, as you said, if they were to sell that, they would have to sell it simply as an apartment complex.

They would have to sell the whole thing as a whole as opposed to individual.

Absolutely, because uh you can't sell individual lots if those lots don't exist.

And the subdivision process was to divide it up into individual lots, yes.

Okay, so that that makes sense.

Okay, so the the next thing would be um, for example, the the uh the development that's behind eFitness, the the the senior living.

That one currently, as it sits, if they sold it, they would have to sell it as an entirety, right?

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Oh they they would have to come back to us for the application.

But they can't automatically do that because it would have to go through the subdivision process.

And to be honest those lots would be so small no way I could recommend them.

Okay so by doing this it wouldn't give them by right.

No it doesn't no okay and then my last question is the BZA who who sits on the the uh zoning the planning commission serves two roles and uh this was when we did the LDO back in 2010 this was a recommendation of the attorneys that uh helped us put together the new LDO the planning commission is a recommendation body serving as the planning commission they're a recommendation body the only decision making authority they have is on a preliminary subdivision plat.

That's the only thing they can make a decision on everything else is a recommendation to the city council.

Okay so when they hear the cases on the recommendations they open and they close as the planning commission then they will reopen immediately as the zoning board of adjustments and appeals because in that role they're a quasi-judicial body and their decisions are final subject to somebody who may appeal it to court okay those appeals from the council zoning board do not come to the city council they would go to court if somebody appealed it okay so the same same individuals it's not made up of one or two it's just same people same individuals okay thank you I got a question as far as uh city being benefited from it be the same rented or sold you still going to get the same amount of money well it depends on how the county evaluates the property you know I don't know exactly what their formula is for evaluating uh let's say a monarch villas over all versus individual units on that property but uh my guess would be is it more off of individual properties than we do off of one apartment complex or one rental complex and uh and as far as the public goes um what would they not like about either one of them I I can't imagine what this would why this would bother anybody that single family residential houses would be allowed I mean again it's single family houses it's not adult entertainment you know so it's something that uh I can't imagine people being opposed to I think all right thank you Mr.

Marshall I see you came in a few minutes late glad you could make it Mr Glavin is opened the meeting and left um we're covering the on the workshop this uh section of the uh land development ordinances you may have a question or may not or there were a couple of handouts um Jerry I'm I'm going back to before this council was um inaugurated and I'm thinking of Carl Brees on highway 90.

They originally started as town homes then they were going to be I think apartments and then we ended up with um the housing and I can't recall I want to say I I thought at first they were going to be rentals and then they came back and basically followed the same process before Monarch Villas.

Yes sir that would be correct it was a it was the same developer Elliott Holmes same developer project and uh their argument planning commission into the council market had changed had changed and what has always bothered me is that on the on the city side of this we have a process we follow the process um and the developer sometimes in my mind they don't uphold their their end in other words what we approve for townhomes or whatever that was going to be at that site later we come back and they're detached they were going to be for rent but then the market changes and now they're for sale and that has to come back to the council which it did.

So it's like just like a little subdivision and to some extent I think the public is viewing that as an end run.

We're gonna present this we're gonna go through the process then we're gonna come back and if that's the case then it's up to the council if we agree or disagree and some of us agreed and disagreed on the Coral Breeze project but they could certainly follow the process and then it's up to the council to make that decision if the market changes and they want to come back to sell those properties instead of renting those properties.

Just wanted to make that observation thank you.

So you had made reference that it's that they're eligible in the PDR and the PD in the the other plan districts, but not in so I'm assuming PD is the gaming establishment and the other one is a hospitality business.

That would why wouldn't we include them in there?

Or what is the reason we don't include them across the board in a plan development?

Well you you could.

Yeah, no, I have no idea.

That's why I'm the gaming establishment.

I think that there are certain distance requirements that a gaming establishment has to be for residential property, and that would create a conflict within the language there.

That if you've got a casino and you've got single family houses, how do they meet that buffer requirement, that distance requirement between those two uses on the property?

I think that would have it.

And uh hospitality table here again.

Yeah, the the PD gaming establishment, I think that that's the reason that that's that was left out, and that makes sense.

You know, and then the hospitality would be what?

Is that uh hospitality business?

Um you could include it in there.

Uh again, if you've got hospitality business and you've got nightclubs and those kind of things.

Okay, yeah, that that was going to be my question.

What would fall in in between there would be your your nightlife or hotel?

24 hour 24 hour things next to a single family house, you know.

Okay, so is gaming in waterfront or is gaming in waterfront.

Waterfront.

Yes.

So then the difference between the waterfront and the GE is well the waterfront, the waterfront zoning is the first requirement for the gaming commission for somebody to come to them with an application to apply for a gaming establishment.

Okay, then they come back with a PDGE to go into that's correct.

Uh the gaming commission over the years would not even entertain an application unless the people already had the waterfront zoning in place.

This is what happened with Mr.

Woolrich.

His property was not zone waterfront.

So he kept going to the gaming commission.

They said you don't meet the first requirement.

So he ultimately was able to get the zoning change to waterfront.

Then they entertained his application for the gaming establishment.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Nobody has it.

Okay.

Jerry, any concluding comments?

Any or any administrative comments before we close this workshop?

You're the center of you're the center of attention.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So move.

There's a motion by Mr.

Creel's there.

Second.

Second by Mr.

Nail.

All in favor?

It's approved on a 5-0 vote.

Thank you.