One of a notable topics of the meeting was the ongoing effort to amend the Land Development Code. This agenda item involved a review of proposed changes, including adjustments to zoning districts, density regulations, and terminology updates from “lots” to “parcels.” These changes were intended to provide clarity and consistency across the city’s development guidelines. The agency’s legislative role included crafting new ordinances, such as ordinance number 2539 d225, which aimed to restate several chapters of the code. The changes were expected to be finalized by March 4, providing time for additional consideration and modifications.

During the meeting, a historical perspective was provided, noting that the city’s zoning boundaries had not undergone changes since 1978, with the original Land Development Code dating back to 1940. This context highlighted the continuity of intent in the city’s development regulations over the decades. Key amendments included redefining terms for greater clarity and eliminating shared parking arrangements within urban areas, which previously allowed neighboring properties to utilize excess parking spaces during off-peak hours. The board’s decision to remove shared parking provisions was driven by a desire to ensure that all properties adhered to individual parking requirements.

The discussion also touched on density regulations for mixed-use zoning districts, proposing a reduction in density units based on the amount of developed commercial space. This change aimed to balance mixed-use development, particularly given the limited vacant land available in the city. Notably, the meeting referenced the Fountains site, a large property attracting interest for development.

Concerns about residential zoning classifications were raised, particularly in R3 districts, where the minimum lot size was increased from 4,356 square feet to either 5,000 or 6,000 square feet. This amendment aimed to protect existing smaller parcels while ensuring future developments met new standards. Additional changes involved impervious surface coverage for commercial properties, allowing a maximum of 50% coverage if low-impact development techniques were demonstrated.

Concerns emerged about the implications of removing density bonuses and shared parking provisions, with some participants emphasizing the potential impact on the community’s development landscape. The dialogue was characterized by a detailed examination of the proposed amendments and their potential effects on the city.

Another topic of discussion was the zoning change request for a 33-acre parcel on Southwest 6th Street. This quasi-judicial hearing considered a shift from Urban Waterfront to Urban Highway zoning. The Development Director explained that the change would align the development with neighboring properties’ design guidelines, allowing for a more cohesive development pattern along the corridor. Despite the zoning change, the allowed density would remain unchanged, and the applicant agreed to engage with neighboring property owners to address concerns, promising a neighborhood meeting once new plans were submitted.

The board members expressed general agreement with the necessity of the zoning change. The deliberations underscored the potential benefits of consistency in development against the need for community input and the rights of property owners.

The meeting also addressed community concerns regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs), shared parking regulations, and the broader housing strategy. Several participants expressed unease about the commission’s perceived push for single-family developments and restrictive policies that might limit options for families trying to care for aging relatives. The conversation highlighted the need for more inclusive community engagement in the planning process, with calls for professional planners and economists to be involved in assessing the impact of proposed changes.

The implications of zoning changes on the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were also discussed, with concerns raised about the disconnect between citywide regulations and the CRA’s urban code. Participants questioned the relevance of current discussions to the CRA and emphasized the need for unique considerations that align with the specific needs of the area.

Parking requirements were another area of focus, with proposed increases for duplexes and multifamily units potentially discouraging local developers. Concerns were raised about the impact of increased requirements on smaller builders, who might struggle to compete with larger entities. The discussion also touched on the potential for large developers to acquire multiple parcels, leading to high-density housing developments that could displace current residents.

Participants called for a reevaluation of proposed zoning changes and their impacts, emphasizing the importance of balancing developer interests with local needs. The agency recognized the complexities involved in crafting effective zoning regulations and urged a careful approach to ensure that changes serve the community’s best interests.