Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll call to order the Planning Commission meeting for August 24th, 2026. Do you need to do roll again? Okay.

All right.

Deputy City Clerk Jennifer Faulkner, for the record, will call roll for the Planning and Zoning Board. Tony Gray. Here. Or excuse me, the Planning Commission. James Wilton. Present. John Reinders. Present. Charles Lewis. Present. And Heather Broline. Here. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Any announcements for the Planning Commission? Any public comments for the Planning Commission? And we have no minutes for this to approve, correct? right then we'll move on to general business this is a discussion regarding the updates to chapter 26 land development regulations in puna gorda as item 2a and 2b is the land development regulation revisions height and density

and i'll turn it over to staff all right good afternoon carl binge urban design for the record and today we're talking about the land development uh regulation comparisons and this is discussion between between the differences of the 2022 ldrs and the 2024 ldrs This does exclude the first part, I believe, of Article 8, which is the Historic Preservation Advisory Board section, and this is due to an ordinance that's going through that's currently being revamped, and so that will be incorporated into the changes that we make in the future. All right, so the current land development regulations are also called 2022 LDRs. These came into effect in April 20, 2005, and they replaced the LDRs that were adopted November 17, 1953. These LDRs have shortcomings. They are a bit antiquated. They elude older. They have planned development zoning issues. The PD zoning isn't a traditional PD zoning. It's actually just another zoning district and not necessarily customizable what traditional PD zoning are. The environmental regulations aren't really up to date. We like to update the tree species promoted by the cities. And there's no real penalties for not complying to the environmental standards. There's no real good teeth. The landscaping has no real commercial property guidelines. The buffer requirements could be better. And the tree removal doesn't really have anything regarding commercial tree removal and remediation, all stuff that we would like to put in there. So the repealed land development regulations came into effect April 1st, 2024, and they replaced the LDRs that were in effect April 20th, supposed to be 2005. I apologize for that. And they have shortcomings as well. Some of these things are being addressed by the city council, the density, the height, and the downtown parking requirements. The density is a little bit high. It went up to, I believe, 24 dwelling units per acre. I think the conversation now is more around 15 dwelling units per acre. And the height is too tall and they wanna bring that down. And we also wanna have discussions about parking downtown. It needs to be reevaluated to provide more accessibility for the people that we have. So here's a kind of overview of the comparisons it gives each one of the articles and how many issues were called out in each one. And there's quite a few different changes, roughly around 359. So it was quite a task. Some of the most is like Article 3, regulating districts, it had 63. Article 16, which is application review and approval requirements, had about 61. And Article 4, which is uses permitted with conditions, had around 51. However, on the bright side, there were a couple of days where you get to look and Article 14 had zero, so that was great. Article 18, violations, penalties, and enforcement, had zero. And Article 1, the intro, only had one. So those were some pretty fast article reads, so it kinda made you deal with the other ones a little bit easier. So why are we doing this? Our goal is to provide a comprehensive LDR that complies with our adopted comp plan. It's to address city council members' concerns so that we can have a comprehensive plan, update procedures and protocols as it is an out, the current plan that we're using is a bit outdated, So we would like to bring that up to par. And we'd like to address citation and language inconsistencies. This happens in both of them. And this is Scrivener errors. Sometimes just when it says item in C three, it'll say three, three. So it may double itself. So we just wanna correct those small things as we do this as well. We have been out of compliance since the repeal of the 2024 LDR. So staff has prepared these changes to help with that goal in moving forward. The height and density will be addressed separately, and that stuff will be included later on once it's fleshed out through city council. So we just kind of show this to you guys and ask what you think.

First, I want to commend you on the document. It's a monumental task. My first comment was that I see in all the staff notes that you give reasons but no justifications for the changes that are being made. And consequently, that was a question I had throughout the entire document. I kept asking why. And I don't know if that's gonna be forthcoming because I think that's important for us in terms of being able to discuss and make decisions or recommendations on this.

So none of the staff, unfortunately, that are here now were here when the changes were made. So I couldn't justify the changes that were, the differences in between the two documents. However, the only justification I did try to provide was the changes that we would recommend.

Right, but I meant the justifications for the changes that are coming. We have something that's existing. Correct. And you tell us what you're going to do in the staff notes, but you don't tell us why it's necessary to do that. And that was my question. For example, and heightened density is the easy one. I know that's later. but the justification for why what is existing has been shown to be insufficient and it needs to be changed?

Essentially, yes, that's the reason. So when you look at the 2022s, all of that is outdated for the most part. Unfortunately, it's the code that we're having to use. The 2024 code, even though there's the code overall is better written and more up to date. So the whole principle of these two was we want to make it as much up to date as possible and with the 2024 being the most up to date, we were trying to make that go from the current to the 2024s as the default verbiage.

So the changes that you've made in terms of the recommendations or the proposed language, you're saying are a re-institution of the 2024?

Essentially, yes, because the only changes that we, well, it depends on what the issue is, so I shouldn't say that, because that's not a universal thing going across the board, so I shouldn't say that. It really depends on what item you're talking about. I tried to justify it as much as possible. The whole main goal was to bring the, what we call the 2022 LDRs, up to the 2024 standards without changing much of the 2024. We're trying to reduce how much we have to get into the weeds here because it can get very expensive if we have to go out and have somebody rewrite this. So essentially what we're doing is we're just calling out the differences between the two and trying to do the best we can to use the 2024 language since it's the most up-to-date. That's the best I could justify it.

But you haven't done that universally, and so.

Well, each item, I tried to justify each item as it went. We may could do a better.

Is there a part you're thinking about?

Yeah, is there a specific, maybe I could help, because it really depends on what it is. Yes, and that's another thing, is we're trying to keep consistent with the comp plan. So if there was something in the 2022s that needed to be changed to be compliant with the comp plan, then those changes were made. Because our objective is to be in compliance.

Okay, so the comp plan is set.

Yes.

All right.

Because that was never repealed. That was something the council kept. So that is our guiding document. And so we're trying to get the 2022 LDRs back to that. The 2024 were already compliant. So that's why we wanna use those as a basis. And so we're doing the best we can at making the changes identified in the 2022 comply with those guidelines. So it too can be compliant with the comp plan.

Well, I will confess that I was overwhelmed when I looked at this. And I think that this is a lot to bite off in one fell swoop. But we'll see how this discussion goes.

So initially, this project was taken on to be a supplemental for the conversation because we know moving forward, this is what we're trying to do. And it is a lot to bite off. Essentially, you're looking at three codes. You're looking at the 2022, the 2024, and a proposed. So it is a lot, but we figured that if we're gonna do this, we need to do it the best that we can, call out as much as we can, and it doesn't have to be done all at once. We can break this up, this is presented to you all at once, However, the council can choose to bite this off in three articles at a time. This is just something for them to use as a supplemental document when they're having those discussions. They can visually see the two difference and see what staff would recommend.

We may need to ask you to do that too, but we'll see how the comments go.

Can I just ask a question? So red means the language was removed.

Correct.

And it might have been removed twice. like it was like it was in 2022 it was in 2024 but it will not be in the future so there should not be any oh man there shouldn't be much red in the 2024 because not much in the 2024 was taken out like this is item 3.5 the district is not intended to be available for future code amendments and you have something that this section was removed for the magdalena rezone

Okay, yeah, yeah, so that was removed from both because that was something that wasn't called out as an actual change, but because I worked on the Magdalena project, I knew that that had changed, so I was able to make that on the fly. That actually won't happen anywhere else except for that because I was involved.

Okay, that's where it got kind of confusing. I'm like, which one are we removing it from?

Yeah, so that's a very specific example of just because I was involved in that project and when I was looking through, I noticed that that was there and we had taken it out. then the green text means it was added in to get to our final correct yep and purple are things like name changes or small updates but not necessarily enough to signify an actual remove replace board comments questions chuck anything

This is a lot to digest. I think it, first of all, I don't.

I'm so sorry. If you could please speak into the microphone. I cannot hear you over here.

Thank you so much. How's that?

That's perfect.

Good. It's a lot to digest. And I think that at some point in time we're going to be looking at items that we're gonna be asked to make recommendations to city council, but they already have workshops in place to identify this so that they can direct city staff as to how to narrow down the field. And I think they've only had one meeting. I don't think that's enough. I think it needs to go back to workshops. I think they need to get a clear a clearer directive to city staff, and then when they do that, I think they can put it forth. I mean, I was looking at some of the overlay stuff, and they still have the hospital as part of the new zoning area, and it's not even gonna be there. It's gonna be down on, you know, closer to Burns Door. And then the multiple use zoning that's up there was, in my opinion, unnecessary. And then the other thing was I didn't like the environmental setback. I mean, the whole point for us to having a buffer around Punta Gorda is environmental protection. Now they're encroaching with this zoning that's being proposed to start being able to build into that environmental area. I don't know that that's a good move.

And there's no traffic study.

And then when you start talking height and density, that is a direct correlation to the amount of traffic. And then we gotta talk about parking. and then heightened destiny is gonna do, so I don't know. And again, the state regulates, the state mandates that you involve the public when you are doing LDRs. So I don't think we've had enough meetings at the workshop level. My opinion. Thank you.

So, just a clarification. We are not asking for anything to be approved. This is strictly, this document was created as supplemental, and because there were so many questions on it, that's why it was brought as a presentation. I'm not asking you to approve any of this. This still needs to go through, like you said, workshops. City Council has to review it. This is a supplemental document so that when people have the discussion, they have a reference to look at, and they can see the two differences without having to bring the two coats up.

Yeah, well, again, I think the cart's before the horse.

May I ask what the purpose of our discussion today is then? What are you asking us to do?

This is really just informative and just letting you know that this document exists, that we're having these conversations. And for conversations that we have about this in the future, this can be a document that you use as a reference.

That's all this really is.

We're not asking where this isn't going for approval.

No, I understand that.

This is just a supplemental document that when we move forward with the discussions with the differences between the two LDRs, this is a comprehensive document that has the two differences together along with staff suggestion, whether it gets used or not. It doesn't even matter. It's just something that people can look at and reference.

Well, are we not being asked to do anything substantive with this at all other than just look at it and say, oh, that's a nice document?

Just be aware that the conversation is happening and is going to happen moving forward because we are trying to get the LDRs in compliance with the comp plan. This is to let you know this document exists. It's very large. Be aware of it, use it if you desire. That's its intention. Its intention is to make this process moving forward easier for staff, council, and commissioners, or planning council.

So I'd like to say that I think it is a really helpful document to have them here lined out one by one. And I don't know who made it, but that's a lot of work. I'm grateful for that I think it would also help to have like a process by which we can say hey 322 doesn't look right or I'm worried about the environmental setback or I don't understand the reasoning for this is there a way that we can

so that's how you guys can break these discussions down as a board you can determine how much you believe you can chew off again that's that's why this document is created to show you each article this has been brought up in councilman with each article isn't equal you like one will be one issue one has 63 so this is a document so you can use it moving forward to help you make educated decisions on how you would like to to process the changes that need to be made to the LDRs.

So just to clarify, as far as the information that we've received, it was very helpful. And of course, having this granular level of detail to be able to understand where we are and what we're looking at here, it obviously is something very complex that we're going to need to take step by step. Should we make a motion today to have time to review this, maybe create some concerns, a list of questions, move forward and kind of, you know, re review this again at next meeting and

you know that way each one of us can kind of have a list of things that we'd really like to go into a little more depth on staff would take any notes that you have that's that is the purpose of this document is to help you do your job better so that we can do our job won't our timeline be dependent upon what council's timeline is well things changes to the ldr have to go through you guys first have to go through i understand that but what does what's council's wish so about when they want to get this done Well, this is going before council, this particular presentation, September 9th, to have the same discussion with them that I'm having with you, letting them know this document's here. Because making the LDRs comply with the comp plan is something they want to do. So it all depends on their timeline, which is why this is coming to you to give you guys a heads up.

So should we be participants in council's approved workshops rather than do this twice?

I like that idea. Yes, I think that's a great idea. That I don't know.

again um i think we're still trying to get clarification of what we're being asked to do here sounds like we're asking nothing today well i think it's not our purview to be able to do that i think i think what we're being asked to do if i understood correctly is just acknowledge that the document exists and make any recommendations i've got three days this weekend i can prove that it was existing existing So if we have any recommendations on how it might be changed or improved going forward But we're not being asked to do anything today other than saying fine. We've seen it. It's nice we might suggest that you do these things going forward and That's it. That's what I'm understanding. You're asking this board to do

Yes, so this is to spark the conversation. And as you've said, it's a very dense document. So the longer you have to have that conversation could be the better. And again, this all stems from a supplementary document that raised more questions. And so it just kind of got highlighted itself. And so this is again, this is just to let you know that this conversation is coming and hope this helps.

I can make some recommendations on coming forward if you'd like absolutely first of all if you could identify what the article is when you have it there because all it says is article and there's no title and I have no idea so I was going through it without going back to the original which I pulled so I had to keep going back and forth to find out what section I was in when I was reading it okay I had no idea second thing is that I would recommend that when it comes back it be broken down for us if we're going to be asked to take any action on it. Possible suggestion is I know that there are some things as you went through that are no or minimal changes that could be handled in a meeting. Have a meeting where you sow the ones that have some change or moderate changes. And then for anything that has substantial changes, we dedicate a meeting for each one of those.

so that we can get into the substance and have time to review them so that we can give you effective comment going forward i might suggest another uh layer to that um the planning and zoning commission know what our current and recurrent issues are so maybe we could start with some of those those ones that affect us the most and get those make sure we get those done you know

I think we're going to have to go through all of them. Yeah, I think so too. I was just thinking if we get rid of the minimum and minor changes first, we can get those off the table and save the things that are going to be more substantive and that we really have to spend some time with and wrestle with the later ones and dedicate full meetings to those.

And depending, I don't know your schedule, and maybe if you have a light schedule one month, you slip an article in or something to help out.

Well, we'll do what we have to do.

But like you said, it really goes off council's timeline. I won't know more about that until the September 9th meeting. And again, they're probably going to say the same thing. Why is this coming? But again, it's a document that hopefully helps make the decisions moving forward simpler or eases them.

Are you going forward to city council with a recommendation on where to start?

No.

That might help them. It would help us. A fast way to do it is to say we recommend you approve as it is right now and then we spend the next year going through and fixing because the people that come before this board are frustrated having to live between these three different things so it'd be a lot easier just to have something that existed and then we go back and fix it than it is to be pulling from 2005 or

That would be optimal if they did approve this all in one swoop and then we just went back and touched on things. But no matter how it gets approved, there's going to be changes that happen. Nobody goes through a code and it's perfect the first time. You're always gonna flush things out as they come. So we know that even if they did this all in one change, we'd still come back from changes, but that would be optimal.

It seems to me that the issue here is process. Yeah, what we're really talking about is an endgame of the approval of council. Here's where we are today I think staff needs to lay out a plan that they're going to recommend for councils consideration how we get from here to here and and it's gonna require a lot of public input that we're then going to listen to as well as we have our discussions and eventual recommendation to council. So I think it's going to be important for you to consider taking a process to council for September 9th.

Yes. Two processes, that way they pick one. Here's the fast route, here's the slow route.

we absolutely could however it is their discretion on the path that they choose so we could we could actually we could propose routes that's something we can think about I'm just looking I think staff should recommend to counsel a process that includes substantial public input as well as ours to eventually make that decision that we all know so important

Absolutely. So again, this is a part of that whole process. That whole process will include the public meetings.

So step one, you gave us a document.

Yep.

Step two, public meeting. Well, you'll give that same document on September 9th.

Absolutely.

With the recommendation of a process, I hope, that takes us to the end.

Step two, approve the process. Yep. Well, and I think going back to your comment, John, on the... being able to have a workshop where we now that we've been able to review the information in more detail and we all have things that we would love to consider discuss to be able to have even maybe a workshop with you know the City Council you know the council members and just say yeah because I think that'd be a great place for us to be able to start to kind of have everybody you know that has currently the document in hand have a meeting at that point and then maybe even have some of that lined out prior to public discussion and public hearing you know i don't know i mean i know that those meetings will occur in public needs to weigh in and have their say by all means but it might be good to even have a one-off meeting you know with our team here our board and the city council meeting well those will be public too so that's right right well but that would be

So anything we do is going to be a public meeting.

Anything we do is public.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Yeah, the state law is 163.3181, public participation in comprehensive planning process, intent alternate dispute resolution. That's one. And then there's another one. So there's got to be intense participation. should be intense public input and it has to be at the City Council level and we can make recommendations after that after it goes back to city staff and comes to us and then we can make a recommendation we can fine-tune it and put it in front of them yeah I mean I don't know if you know the order on how this is supposed to happen if you do tell us

In order for me to take this document to city council to get the information that you guys need, I have to take it to you guys first. This is the process.

For us to say that we've seen it.

yes it's florida statute everything has to that goes through a land development regulation change has to go through planning council so in order for me to take anything to city council that's land development regulations it has to go through you guys first this idea is a supplemental document that's not seeking approval of any sort it was just a document to help Both staff and elected officials make educated decisions on a path that we're taking moving forward. Unfortunately, it has to come here before I can take that to city council so that they can see it and they can give us direction on... when to make workshops, when we can have the public meetings, so that this can all be reviewed and approved the correct way. This isn't trying to overlook anything or go past anything. This is just a document that's helping staff and elected city officials moving forward and the public, whoever reads it. It shows the two differences and shows staff recommendations. This is just a tool and a process that we're going forward with. That's it.

So again, not trying to be redundant. All you're asking us to do is acknowledge that we've seen it.

And take note to make changes because parts of this is going to come before you. We would like to hear your recommendations. There's going to be workshops. So just understand that this is a conversation that's starting to happen and we all need to start thinking about it and hopefully this document will help keep the thoughts to the two different changes. By the way, this document doesn't include any addition. So like I mentioned, the HPAP stuff that's currently going through council, that isn't in here because this was just a comparison between the two documents. not necessarily an addition of what we want, like we would like more landscaping, we would like more tree stuff. None of that stuff is added in here, it's just a comparison between the two documents and how staff would like to resolve those two differences. That's what this document is.

Any other comments or recommendations on 2A for Carl?

Yeah, I'd like to, as you take this to city council, ask or let them know that the Planning and Zoning Commission are standing by to get on these issues and we'd like a prioritization from them. And then maybe that'll give them a go-do to turn around and task us with work.

I don't see how we're going to be tasked immediately. They have to have some public input and that's going to take a minute.

Right, and we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, because all we're being asked to do is today, as I understand, is acknowledge that we have seen this document. And that's it. That's what I understand.

But Heather, what I'm hearing you say is just prioritizing a workshop at some point.

Like help them get started. Like we're ready, pick a topic, and we'll put in our two cents, the public will put in their two cents, we'll follow the process that one of the gentlemen here laid out, and whatever council picks, but we're ready.

Well, the first topic has kind of already been picked out with the heightened density. That's why it's excluded from this. It'll be handled separately and then incorporated into it as it comes. So I anticipate those, that same thing will happen. They have certain interests and those interests will probably be appealed to first and then we can.

How do you decide on heightened density without a traffic study?

I didn't. I'm not presenting high intensity.

How did you say? That's next on the agenda, Chuck. Oh, next. Yeah. So we're dealing with 2A now. And when we finish our comments on 2A and can give Carl our recommendations or thoughts on this as it exists, then we'll move on to 2B.

Do we have further comments?

I don't know.

Any further questions?

Anything else for Carl from the board?

How do you spell your last name?

Benj, B-E-N-G-E. B-E-N-G-E.

Thank you.

No problem. Yes, and thank you very much. And again, we look forward to discussion. That's what this is supposed to spark, so thank you very much.

Is anybody else going to speak on 2A?

No, just 2B.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Then we'll move on to agenda item to be land development regulations, revisions, heightened density.

How do I close this?

Okay. Good afternoon, Boyd Lawrence, urban design planning director. And I just want to before I get into my add a little bit of context of what Carl presented. And as he says, just supplemental. Nothing new has been proposed. He's just comparing the code What we refer to as the 2022 code compared to the 2024 code. Those are both codes in place within the city Last year that 2024 was repealed and the 2022 was put back in place So this is just a supplement to show you what was and what is again? We had a workshop in April with the City Council and Our proposal of staff, because if I back up, the 2024 LDRs were done in conjunction with the comprehensive plan that were implemented, I'd say in the spring of 2024. April 1st. Yeah, April 1st. A lot of time, meetings, workshops, and money with consultants was put into that. I want to say like $400,000 of work. So staff's recommendation was let's take that 2024 code because it is consistent with the comp plan, but let's work on those issues that the city council was not happy with. And those issues namely were the building heights and densities, residential densities, waterfront environmental protection or the setbacks. So we want to bring those back. downtown parking, and historic preservation. And historic preservation is being worked on because you saw that. So that was one of the components. I'm presenting alternatives for the height and density. And yes, we can do, if it requires a workshop, we can do that. We were instructed to work on these by section and come to the commission and then go to the council. So I just wanted to give some context on that. Okay, so the purpose of this LDR update is advance consistency with the comprehensive plan, reestablish the zoning districts aligned with future land use categories. Because right now, the 2022 code, the zoning districts don't match to what's in the comprehensive plan. And I should back up a second. Comprehensive plan is your legally required document, and then your LDRs have to be consistent with that comprehensive plan. We want to promote downtown walkability and mixed-use development, which is embodied in the comprehensive plan. Preserve neighborhood character and promote environmental resiliency and establish development standards that balance community concerns and redevelopment opportunities. I'm sorry, I'll have to hunch over a little bit here. This is low for me. Line update is needed. The legacy zoning districts do not align with the comprehensive plan categories. Inconsistent zoning district structure, difficult to implement policies, limited form-based standards, so it gives you less predictable outcomes, and downtown and mixed-use districts not clearly differentiated from other districts. We want to keep that mixed-use more downtown, kind of like a sun loft type of facility. So the staff approach was the current code does not fully implement the comprehensive plan. The previously adopted 2024 code better aligned implemented the plan, but concerns were raised regarding building height and residential density. Proposed code will restore the regulatory framework while reducing the previously adopted height and density allowances. This is a chart kind of running down. Can everyone see that OK? I have to expand mine here. Rachel, would I expand this on my screen? Because I've got the next screen showing. I've never seen this before here. Thanks. Okay. So you can see the base density in the code. When I say previous code, that's the 2024 code that was in place a little over a year ago. For the downtown core, we want to bring that back to 15. The previous maximum density was 50 with mitigation. Mitigation, that would be offsets for parking or open space. And that would be done through an agreement with the developer or the property owner. So maximum then would be 30. then the stories so in each case we're reducing the height and density that was proposed in the 2024. i guess that's a simplified way of looking at and you can go down each each line could i ask a quick question um are those changes to bring it into compliance with the comp plan or for other reasons we would still be consistent with the comp plan under either um yeah What was the previous 2024 was more consistent because you look at the comp plan, it did allow these maximums. But what we have to do with our LDRs is to implement the goals of the comp plan. We don't have to do it all in one swoop. So it's a 2040 plan. We're in 2026. So the city council can have a policy that we want to reduce the heights and densities so we can reduce them and still be consistent with the comp plan in implementing it.

Right, but the reason for proposed changes is different than just coming into compliance with the comp plan. Is that accurate?

Yeah, it's to be consistent with the comp plan overall.

Well, right, but that's not the sole justification. so the other justification is politics no it's it's to be consistent i don't know it's definitely i understand but there's things other than just complying with the comp plan that are behind the recommendations for changes no no okay so if you don't change for example if you don't change from 50 to 65 feet then you're out of compliance with the comp plan on your slide for height and density downtown core just for example well right now my previous height was 50 feet yeah right now it's 50. right and you're proposing 65. that's at the extreme end with mitigation so we're given

developer a builder that wants to come in and offer some trade-offs for parking or open space the opportunity to go to 65 right before it was 80 in eight stories, which we thought was too extreme So okay, but the compromise it hasn't gone through a political Filter at all. This was kind of staff discussion as to what what we can do to get in between where we were and where we're at now and be consistent with the comp plan and

I understand. I just must not be clear. 80 and 65 both comply with the comp plan.

Yes.

So there's things other than the comp plan that are behind the recommendations for the changes. It's not just to get into compliance with the comp plan.

Well, we were On many occasions, it was expressed that the heights and densities were too extreme in what was approved.

I understand, but it's not a requirement. You're still going to be in compliance with the comp plan if it didn't get changed. Is that correct? Okay, that's all I needed to know.

So you mean a lesser height and density would still be consistent?

Either way. Either way. Either way, it's just you're still in compliance with the comp plan.

So if you take out the mitigation? It doesn't matter, either one.

You pick one or the other. The question is, are these recommendations based on keeping compliant with the comprehensive plan? And you said no. The original and the recommended are both compliant. And so then Jim's question is, so what's behind the recommendation? If they're already compliant, why recommend something different? which I supplied politics because our direction from City Council was to reduce density and height yeah and I guess an overall that was the public feedback as well So, yeah, there you go.

Okay, thank you. I think you're ready. Thank you.

I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, that's okay. That's okay.

If I don't catch it when it's in my brain, I lose it. Any feedback's good.

Just a quick question. Just to clarify, when you said maybe perhaps exchange the height according to, you know, builders that might be willing to bring in extra parking, are you talking about if they're willing to do an underground parking garage?

that would be one component i guess the stipulation has to be public so public open space or public parking that was part of the proposal city marketplace they were offering some of these alternatives okay um that would require an agreement would have to go from the planning commission first for recommendation of the council and they'd have to approve that so it's not a you know by right right by no means so that would be under this mitigation or mitigate category so For example, the base height right now in downtown is 50, so really we would be staying at that, comparing the current codes. But through mitigation, we would allow them to go a little higher if they provide some parking and open space.

And Tony, I'm so sorry, I'm just gonna remind you guys again, I know that it's difficult to speak into a microphone when your instinct is to turn and speak to the person who has asked you a question, but if you guys could try speaking

Okay, and gonna raise us a little bit for me, okay. So yeah, hopefully that explains.

Be clarified, thank you. Okay.

These are the setbacks. These were not all that different from what's in place now, except there was the neighborhood transition had a zero setback, but most of the downtown was fairly consistent

Along the lines of what I said before, if going forward you can show it what the current is, because this doesn't show us what the current one is, does it?

No, you mean 2022 currently in place? Yep. And the reason, one of the issues behind that is districts don't align perfectly. They were modified slightly. But we can do that, can come back and maybe have to show it on maps because they don't align perfectly and their names are not consistent either.

It just helps us if we know what we're moving from, what we're moving toward, what the recommendations are.

okay yeah like the downtown core for example that's your city center but these other areas don't overlap completely but are there changes really made then or the the only change was in this neighborhood transition which allowed a 0 to 20 and that was made 10. and as you can see there's there's variation so it allows some flexibility whether there's a front porch or patios that want to be placed. And then, yeah, because of the discussion on the density, I kind of put together some slides just to put this in context. Everyone's familiar with the Sunloft downtown. It's right now just residential on the first floor. It's a four-story, 59-foot mixed-use building on approximately one acre. Commercial occupies the first through third floors with some parking. There's 15 residential units on the fourth floor. Let's say, for example, if the third floor were converted to a residential use, the density would nearly double without increasing the building's height or footprint. This illustrates that increasing residential density doesn't necessarily require a larger building. And then neighborhood example, one story three unit question.

Yeah. When you do that, this parking, you change that this parking change as well.

There would be more parking requirements. Yeah. But you know, there would be a trade off with the commercial. So the commercialized parking requirements to would have to look at what that trade off is, if you lose commercial, how much would residential requirement plays?

Okay.

and neighborhood density or density in context for a neighborhood there's a one-story three-unit uh it's just down the street from city hall similar footprint and height to many single-family homes it's a three-unit residential building provides additional housing choice while maintaining traditional neighborhood scale yeah where where was that one again this is on uh west retta

And I can't think of the is that in the historic district? Yeah.

And Gilchrist and Gilchrist.

Yeah, it's right across the street from Gilchrist Park. All right. So that is a triplex. It is. Yeah. And you can now build a triplex in the residential or in the historical district that that's been built.

Yeah, that's preexisting. Let's just kind of give a context and density

know it doesn't always have to be all single family you can provide some housing choices yeah i'm just if i was owning a house in the historic district i don't think i'd want that next door well again this is just an example he's giving it well i know it's an example but i'm commenting we'll get we'll get to that it's a pretty quiet building we'll get to the fire we'll get the fun part later on different meetings

yeah it'd be interesting to see how many historic districts don't have that variety over the years so many people convert their but we just met with the historic district and they were adamant about defending their persona we'll cross that bridge when we come to it yeah okay so here's a summary restore a zoning framework

that better aligns with the comprehensive plan, reduce the maximum height and residential density permitted under the previously adopted 2024 code, continue to support downtown redevelopment and mixed use development, and provide a balanced approach between the proposed regulations and the previously adopted standards. So, yeah, so that gives a little bit of context. This is one component of what the council wanted us to work on. It was the heights and densities. We're also going to look at parking and environmental aspect of it, which I think a lot of it had to do with moving existing code back into that overlay language. Hopefully that explains a little bit.

And again, you are only here to tell us that this document exists and to explain it to us, and that's all you're here for.

Definitely to review and consider. We'll probably come back. All these four areas that we're working on are going to come back as a whole, and we can go in more detail. But how do these compare to the higher heights and densities? Are these more reasonable? Are they more appropriate? And we have to consider what the development community wants to do to fill in some of those parcels downtown.

But today all you're asking is that we shake hands with this document and say it exists?

Yeah, sort of. It's a first step.

Right.

OK. I have a question. Yeah.

You're the director of urban development.

Or urban design, yeah.

Urban design. Are you familiar with the Dover coal document? Have you read it?

The comp plan or the master plan that they developed?

The master plan they developed.

Yeah, I read quite a bit of it. It was kind of a lead-in to the comprehensive plan provided the framework. Okay.

That was paid for by the citizens of Punta Gorda and approved and accepted but never implemented. Some of the stuff that was in there was pretty nice. I think if it goes forward, there should be some sort of reference since we've already paid for it. and maybe can adopt or adapt or have some things that will transcend into a new LDR regulation body.

Well, if I understand things correctly, we're going to get ample opportunity to do those things in future meetings.

I understand. I was just trying to make it a part of public record that it was mentioned and that the director is aware of it.

And that's where the The comp plan and the 2024 LDRs came from, they stemmed from that master plan that was developed by Gopher Coal. And these LDRs came with the comprehensive plan, so they're all done in unison with that, not in unison, but one and then the others. So in bringing this back, we are carrying on that work, but we're making some modifications that the council and the citizens were not completely happy with. So we're not going to try to reinvent anything. We want to bring back that 2024 code that had a great deal of expense and time put into it and just make those modifications that the community and the council can work with.

Thank you. I share your thoughts, Chuck. I'm biting my tongue on a lot of things. Thank you. Because when you talk about development, the only thing that really matters is when you've got a willing buyer and a willing seller. And if you bring a developer in, he's got to be able to make a profit. So if you can't present a plan that's going to allow a developer to make money somehow, you're going to end up with a pile of dirt. I agree. I agree. I'm biting my tongue on this stuff waiting for future meetings because this is coming down the pike.

Because I'm just a poor old dumb farm boy, but I'm looking at this and half of it doesn't meet the pencil test.

No. Any other questions for Urban Design? Well, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any staff comments? Any other comments from the members of the board?

I'm going to take a lead from my friend and bite my tongue.

And if there's no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.

I'll make a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Planning Commission for August 24th is adjourned.