Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gateway Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates gateway‑overlay exceptions, considers super‑majority and design standards
Summary
At the first public hearing on ordinance 32‑94, commissioners discussed allowing case‑by‑case special exceptions to prohibited uses in the Gateway Overlay, debating use‑specific prohibitions, a super‑majority threshold, and design criteria to limit clustering and protect gateway aesthetics.
The Panama City Commission held the first public hearing on ordinance 32‑94 — a text amendment to the Gateway Overlay (ULDC §104‑66) — and directed staff to return with draft language incorporating commissioner recommendations.
Staff said the amendment would allow the commission to grant special exceptions to uses otherwise prohibited in the overlay on a case‑by‑case basis and to impose conditions to mitigate adverse impacts. Commissioner Street argued that the ordinance should require a super‑majority vote for exceptions to protect stability and guard against stacking a commission to change policy. "I would like a super majority vote required to do an exemption," the commissioner said, noting concerns about political cycling and clustering.
Commissioners also debated whether specific uses should be singled out as prohibited even if a super‑majority vote could grant an exception. Commissioner Street recommended adding gas stations, vape shops, pharmacies and cannabis dispensaries to the list of restricted uses; other commissioners raised questions about the legal sufficiency of precluding certain uses entirely and whether design criteria should be required as part of an exception.
City attorney staff explained how a super‑majority requirement could be written into the ordinance so that the ordinance itself is adopted by simple majority but exceptions could be conditioned on four of five commissioners approving a request. Staff also noted chapter‑wide design requirements exist in a separate section of the code (chapter 105) and said it could provide that text for commissioners to review.
No members of the public spoke on the item during the hearing. Commissioners asked staff to return with revised ordinance language that: (1) inserts a super‑majority requirement if desired; (2) lists any uses commissioners want permanently precluded; and (3) clarifies how the gateway design standards in chapter 105 would interact with any special‑exception criteria.
The item will return for further consideration after staff drafts the changes discussed at the hearing.
