September 23, 2024 City Council Workshop - LDC Rewrite (2024-09-23)

MINUTES WORKSHOP DESTIN CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 ANNEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5: 30 PM The Council of the City of Destin met in special session with the following members and staff present: Destin City Council Mayor Bobby Wagner Councilmember Jim Bagby Councilmember Dewey Destin Councilmember Kevin Schmidt Councilmember Teresa Hebert City of Destin Staff Interim City Manager Larry Jones City Clerk Rey Bailey Community Development Director Tina Deater Finance Director Krystal Strickland Projects/ Grants/ Contract Manager Jeffrey Cozadd Principal Planner Steve O' Connor Senior Planner Daniel Butler Planner Sheri Burney Planner Jesse Hernandez Planner Ashley Dominguez City Attorney Kyle Bauman PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Monica Wallis, representing Destin Water Users, informed the council of a few minor issues related to utilities and Article II of the Land Development Code, specifically involving the right-of-way permit and the TRC ( Technical Review Committee) process. She noted that these were likely minor errors, such as typographical mistakes, and overall, the document looked good. WORKSHOP A. Article 1: General Provisions/ Legal B. Article 2: Administration The city' s Principal Planner Steve O'Connor provided an overview of proposed updates to Articles 1 and 2 in the city's Land Development Code( LDC). Article 1 will retain most of its current provisions but will incorporate elements from the existing Article 2, specifically vested rights. Additionally, a new citation authority will be added, clarifying the city's power to cite and enforce the updated LDC. Article 2 will retain its core elements and integrate portions from the current Article 4, such as noticing requirements, public involvement protocols, and boards and committees' procedures. Two major changes in Article 2 include:

Special Event Process: A new formal process will address special events, an area currently lacking procedural guidelines. This change was spurred by recent challenges involving unregulated events, such as a church carnival, which had to be managed under a temporary change of use" process. Certificate of Appropriateness: Previously combined with conditional use and historical district provisions in Article 4, the certificate of appropriateness will now have a distinct process to streamline historic district regulations. Additionally, Mr. O' Connor outlined a formalized process for special exceptions, particularly for dual-zoned properties. This process, reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, allows for boundary adjustments of up to 50 feet between zones as needed. Updates also include new PUD ( Planned Unit Development) regulations and enhancements in address assignment practices. Language and Format Enhancements: The revised LDC aims to be more accessible by reducing legal jargon, reformatting to improve readability, and ensuring clear references for each section and subsection. Unlike the previous code, which often lacked clarity, the new structure includes explicit section references to reduce confusion. Additionally, the updated LDC incorporates more graphics, like flowcharts, to visually represent procedural steps, enhancing overall user comprehension. Planned Unit Development ( PUD) Regulation Changes: Current PUD guidelines allow broad flexibility, permitting developers to request variances on any aspect of the LDC, subject only to City Council approval. This lack of restriction creates an environment where developers may bypass standard regulations with little oversight or criteria, leading to inconsistent applications of the code. The proposed updates to the PUD regulations introduce stricter requirements, enhancing City Council' s and staff' s control over PUD applications. Key changes include: Minimum Land Size: A specified minimum land area is required to apply for a PUD. Scope of Requests: Clear limitations on the types of variances developers can request within a PUD. Public Benefit Requirement: Developers must fulfill a public benefit criterion based on a new point system. Each PUD must accumulate at least five points from predefined strategies and objectives in the updated regulations, ensuring each PUD contributes positively to the community. Point System Rules: Points are structured to prevent over-reliance on any single strategy within a specific objective, ensuring balanced and meaningful contributions. DISCUSSION: A detailed discussion focused on updates to the PUD process, centering on proposed regulations in Section 207. Mr O' Connor highlighted that the updated section is designed to enhance the city's control over PUD applications, mandating minimum land sizes based on planning areas to restrict smaller parcels from applying for PUDs. He cited the need for Page 2 of 7

substantial land to ensure that PUDs deliver significant public benefits, pointing to newly established minimum land requirements that vary by area. For example, the Town Center and Gulf Resort areas require a minimum of five acres. Councilmember Bagby expressed concerns about some minimum lot sizes, particularly in high- density areas like the Harbor planning area, where the minimum size is set at 0.5 acres. He emphasized that small parcels lack the capacity to offer meaningful public benefits, particularly given the PUD's aim to allow exceptions from standard zoning rules in exchange for substantial community benefits. Councilmember Destin also questioned the value of allowing PUDs for small lots, observing that such allowances could undermine the PUD process if exceptions are granted to developers without ample space to provide robust public benefits. The council members discussed increasing minimum acreage requirements, suggesting a threshold of 5 acres across the board and proposing even higher minimums for specific commercial hubs. Councilmember Destin supported this adjustment, advocating for higher standards to ensure PUD projects make significant contributions to the city' s infrastructure and recreational offerings, rather than allowing developers to avoid standard zoning rules on smaller parcels. Regarding the public benefits required of PUD projects, Mr. O' Connor noted that developments in certain zones, such as Town Center Mixed-Use areas, must provide affordable housing, designating at least 20% of units at an affordability level of 80% of the Area Median Income ( AMI). Councilmember Bagby inquired about the specificity of the AMI standard, suggesting it could be narrowed by ZIP code for greater relevance, to which the city attorney confirmed legality. Mr. O' Connor clarified that the PUD's objectives, particularly around open space and recreational amenities, are designed to demand larger lot sizes to meet goals for accessible community spaces, parking, and potentially community gardens or local food production areas. Further discussion touched on the inclusion of public spaces as PUD benefits. Council members voiced concerns over the adequacy of such benefits in previous projects, referencing instances where proposed parks or gardens lacked general accessibility, particularly parking, making them less beneficial for the wider community. They emphasized that benefits should be clearly defined to ensure developers provide accessible and meaningful public amenities. The city attorney reinforced the updates by noting that the new PUD standards are more objective, reducing subjectivity in approvals and ensuring legally defensible standards. Concluding, the council members agreed to pursue further refinement of the acreage requirements and public benefit standards to align with the community' s long-term goals, reinforcing that the revised PUD process should prioritize significant, measurable public contributions rather than flexible zoning leniency alone. Special Event Approval Process: The current code mentions special event approvals in various sections without defining a formal approval process. When applicants propose events that do not align with standard uses, they have typically applied under the temporary change of use process. However, this process often triggers stringent requirements, potentially making it challenging for temporary events to meet current development standards. The revised code introduces a dedicated special event approval process focused on specific criteria: Page 3 of 7

Event Feasibility: Evaluation criteria include parking availability, restroom facilities, and other event- specific needs. Conditional Approvals: The new process gives staff and city council the authority to set conditions on special event approvals when warranted to address site- specific concerns, ensuring events can be managed without imposing undue burdens. DISCUSSION: Council members discussed regulations and exemptions for special event permits, focusing on events held by churches and schools, as well as defining thresholds for when special event permits are required. Key issues addressed included the need to balance community impact and regulatory oversight without unnecessarily encumbering routine gatherings at religious and educational institutions. Mr. O' Connor explained that the current LDC lacked specific guidance for events such as church carnivals, which led staff to seek council review. This proposal aimed to codify a process for assessing special event permits, ensuring that community- impacting events are reviewed without burdening small gatherings. Councilmember Destin raised concerns over the criteria for requiring special event permits, especially for routine activities like Vacation Bible School, which typically would not require extensive permitting. He suggested creating specific thresholds based on attendance numbers or other criteria, proposing that activities with under 100 attendees might not necessitate a permit. Councilmember Schmidt echoed the need for clear thresholds, mentioning that large events with hundreds of attendees would likely need regulation due to their impact on traffic and surrounding communities. The council explored whether certain institutions, like churches and schools, should be exempt from special event permits, unless events reached a size or impact level significant enough to warrant review. It was suggested that while small, routine church events should be exempt, larger-scale events impacting neighborhood traffic and parking should be regulated. Mr. O' Connor clarified that under the proposed standards, institutions such as schools with large, recurring events ( e. g., football games) would not typically trigger special event permitting, as such uses are already included in their development orders. Councilmember Hebert noted the importance of addressing safety for large gatherings at schools or other high-traffic areas and ensuring coordination with local law enforcement as part of the permit review. Councilmember Schmidt proposed that attendance numbers and operational hours could be used as criteria to determine when a permit is required. For instance, events expecting more than 100 people per day or continuing beyond 8 p.m. could be subject to special event permits to minimize neighborhood disruption. Council members agreed that these thresholds would allow for common sense in enforcement while preserving community safety and standards. Mr. O'Connor also emphasized that these thresholds would be flexible based on council feedback and could include specific exemptions for regular community activities. Page 4 of 7

The Council discussed the timing for special event permit applications, with a 90- day advance submission for large events and flexibility for smaller gatherings. Councilmember Bagby raised concerns about ensuring fair enforcement and consistency, especially to prevent applicants from underreporting attendance to bypass stricter review. Mr. O'Connor assured the council that the current proposal includes mechanisms for enforcement, including citation authority for code violations and the ability to shut down events that exceed approved attendance numbers. He confirmed that enforcement responsibilities would primarily rest with property owners or event coordinators. Councilmember Bagby questioned the designation of the City Manager's authority in permit approvals, emphasizing the need for a clear hierarchy and accountability in enforcement. Mr. O'Connor clarified that the City Manager could delegate approval authority to the Community Development Director, but significant or impactful decisions could still be referred to the council for final determination. Mr. O'Connor suggested that organizations hosting regular, recurring events apply for a minor Development Order ( DO) amendment rather than repeat special event permits. Examples included car shows at The Palms and weekly beach services, where a standing amendment could simplify compliance and reduce administrative overhead. Council members supported this approach as a practical solution for regular events, reducing the need for repetitive applications and permitting processes. Addressing noise, Mr. O' Connor confirmed that noise ordinances under Chapter 14, Article 2, would remain in effect. This included restrictions on excessive noise and specific requirements for events involving amplified sound. Council members expressed confidence in this aspect, ensuring consistency in managing noise complaints and public safety. In summary, the council aligned on the importance of creating clear, fair, and enforceable standards for special events while minimizing unnecessary regulation for routine or smaller gatherings. They emphasized striking a balance between flexibility for the community' s regular events and protecting public safety and neighborhood tranquility. Staff committed to refining the criteria based on council guidance and ensuring that both the permitting process and enforcement actions are reasonable and effective. Next, Mr. O' Connor provided an update on the review process for major subdivisions and related developmental projects. He presented that the Local Planning Agency ( LPA) recommended major subdivisions undergo LPA review as a preliminary advisory step rather than proceeding directly to the city council. This would enable a structured pathway where the LPA acts as a recommending body, allowing the city council to make final approvals after an initial review by the LPA. Council members generally agreed, noting this structure would avoid potential delays if projects needed substantial revisions following council review. Harbor and Waterways Board Review A comprehensive discussion unfolded regarding the Harbor and Waterways Board' s review process for marine construction projects. Mr. O' Connor outlined three distinct project categories, each with varying requirements: 1. Category 1: Primarily residential dock projects that meet state- level self-certification. These would proceed directly to marine construction permitting without needing Harbor and Waterways Board review. Page 5 of 7

2. Category 2: Includes residential docks requiring more oversight ( three to nine slips) or seawalls not qualifying for exemption, which would necessitate review by the Harbor and Waterways Board and would then proceed to the city council as part of the consent agenda. 3. Category 3: Covers non- residential and multifamily marine developments or residential slips with ten or more slips, requiring both Harbor and Waterways Board and city council public meetings. Council members discussed potential complexities with seagrass and state permits, questioning how these environmental factors might impact projects under these categories. Mr. O' Connor noted that any non- self-certifiable project involving state- regulated marine areas would likely fall under Category 2, demanding Harbor and Waterways Board review. Simplifying the Public Notice Process Several council members voiced support for standardizing public notice timeframes to simplify administration and enhance public accessibility. They noted inconsistencies in current notice requirements, which span from 24-hour to 21- day advance notices based on project type and medium ( newspapers, websites, or physical postings). Mr. O' Connor explained that the range in timing was partly to prevent excessively early notices ( e. g., six months in advance), which may reduce public awareness by meeting only minimum notice standards close to a hearing date. The council members agreed that standardizing notice times— such as adopting a consistent 10- day minimum— could reduce confusion, streamline compliance, and improve transparency. Councilmember Schmidt suggested leveraging additional digital platforms and online public notice postings, which may increase accessibility for residents. The City Attorney proposed implementing QR codes on public notice signs to allow residents easier access to detailed project information. Addressing Quorum and Committee Attendance The council also engaged in a robust discussion about challenges in maintaining quorums for committee meetings. Ms. Sandy Trammell, current committee member and former councilmember, highlighted the issue of absentee members leading to frequent quorum issues, noting that some members seldom attend meetings, while others attend only briefly to be marked present." She advocated for stronger council oversight to address attendance patterns and suggested mandatory workshops for more essential committee matters to ensure participation. Councilmember Bagby supported enforcing attendance requirements by implementing a system where members are contacted after three absences, allowing them an opportunity to resign if they cannot consistently participate. Councilmember Schmidt raised the possibility of reducing the number of committees or consolidating overlapping responsibilities to alleviate the administrative burden on staff. He noted that boards like the Harbor and Waterways Board have stringent requirements for diverse roles( e. g., sports fisherman, environmentalist) that may complicate the recruitment process. Page 6 of 7

Other members of the council expressed support for exploring simplification opportunities, especially given the strain on staff resources; noting that consolidating tasks and revisiting the roles of some committees could indeed make council actions more efficient. ADJOURNMENT Having no further business at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7: 00 PM. teV itletA 44, obby Wa- i rT' r ATTEST: Rey, Bailey, • • E, Page 7 of 7