Planning and Zoning Board

CITY OF PUNTA GORDA, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 23, 2025, 2:00 P.M. 120 LAISHLEY COURT PUNTA GORDA, FL 33950 MEMBERS PRESENT: Harvey Goldberg, Chair Charles Lewis, Patrice Petrik, John Reynders, Robert Sifrit, James Wilton MEMBERS ABSENT: Toni Gray CITY STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Barry, Zoning Official; Interim City Attorney Leskovich; Alexandra Friend, Board Recorder CALL TO ORDER Mr. Goldberg called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Mike Polk spoke against granting the administrative appeal that was scheduled for hearing this date, opining same would lead to an oversaturation of self-storage facilities in the City. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.a May 20, 2025, Meeting Minutes. Exhibits: Cover Page May 20, 2025, Minutes Mr. Sifrit MOVED to approve the May 20, 2025, minutes, SECONDED by Mr. Reynders AYE: Goldberg, Lewis, Petrik, Reynders, Sifrit, Wilton ABSENT: Gray MOTION CARRIED. 2) LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS There were none. 3) QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Alexandra Friend, Board Recorder, swore in all participants. 3.a AAD-01-2025 - Appeal of Administrative Decision related to total floor area allowance for the property located at 2530 Tamiami Trail Exhibits: Cover Page DRC-01-2025 Staff Report Application for Appeal

Applicant's Presentation Renderings of Proposed Structure Ms. Rachel Barry, Zoning Official, stated the applicant had requested the application be continued, noting same was within the Board’s discretion. Mr. Sifrit MOVED to continue the hearing. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Ms. Barry reviewed the application for administrative appeal, confirming all Board members had received an updated copy of the applicant's presentation. She reviewed the history of the application, noting a special exception had been granted for use of the property; however, the application was denied administratively due to the parameters of the proposed development. She then reviewed approval criteria for granting appeals of administrative decisions. Mr. Sifrit questioned if the application had identified the size of the storage facility since its original date of submission. Ms. Barry replied affirmatively. Mr. Goldberg opened the floor for public comment, calling 3 times for same. Mr. Mike Polk spoke against granting the appeal request, opining the market for self-storage was oversaturated. He opined the applicant’s request was misleading and would not create jobs or generate revenue for the City. Consensus of the Board was to close the public hearing. Mr. Goldberg provided the Board with a copy of Chapter 26, Article 3, of the City’s Code of Ordinances, questioning whether the applicant met the conditions of same. Ms. Barry replied discrepancies had been identified in the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs), noting in instances where a discrepancy was identified, staff referred to the previous version of the LDRs. Mr. Sifrit stressed the importance of the LDRs being concise. Mr. Goldberg opined the LDRs should be applied as written without assuming discrepancies in the language of same. Mr. Sifrit questioned if the Development Review Committee agreed with Ms. Barry's interpretation of the LDRs. Ms. Barry replied a public meeting had not been held with the Development Review Committee; however, no other administrative comments were submitted in the staff report. Mr. Lewis questioned if a moratorium had been placed on carwashes and self- storage facilities. Ms. Barry replied City Council had recently moved to enact a moratorium on same; however, an official resolution had not yet been adopted. She explained this application would not be affected by the potential moratorium as it was submitted prior to Council’s action. Mr. Lewis questioned if the property was vacant. Ms. Barry replied affirmatively. Mr. Lewis questioned how Senate Bill 250 would affect the application. Ms. Barry replied same would not affect the application. Mr. Lewis questioned whether the petitioner had vested rights. Interim City Attorney Leskovich stated the proposed developer of the property did not own the property and therefore did not have vested rights. Mr. Lewis opined the Board did not have authority to grant an exception of this nature, suggesting same would set an unfavorable precedent for the City.

Mr. Wilton confirmed with Ms. Barry that the Board was the final decision-making body for the appeal request. Mr. Lewis spoke against granting the appeal. Mr. Sifrit noted the Board should use the City’s Code of Ordinances to govern their decision-making process as opposed to using personal opinions to navigate same. Mr. Wilton confirmed with Ms. Barry that the applicant had obtained all the required approvals from the property owner to submit development plans to the City. Mr. Goldberg opined the applicant had met all criteria prescribed by the City's Code of Ordinances, emphasizing the Board’s decision should be based on the predetermined criteria within same. Mr. Sifrit opined denying the appeal could subject the City to legal action, noting the applicant had disclosed the intended size of the proposed development when the application was submitted 2 years prior. Interim City Attorney Leskovich concurred, acknowledging the City could be liable if the applicant appealed the decision to the County circuit court. Mr. Lewis opined the Board should allow City Council to make a decision regarding the administrative appeal. Mr. Wilton stated his personal opinion aligned with that of Mr. Lewis; however, he did not see a legal justification under the existing Code of Ordinances to deny the appeal. Mr. Sifrit MOVED to approve the appeal of administrative decision, SECONDED by Mr. Reynders. Interim City Attorney Leskovich requested the Board amend the motion to include the condition of the applicant gaining possessory interest of the property. Mr. Wilton MOVED to amend the motion to make the approval of the appeal contingent on the applicant gaining possessory interest of the property, SECONDED by Mr. Sifrit. AYE: Goldberg, Petrik, Reynders, Sifrit, Wilton NAY: Lewis ABSENT: Gray MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lewis MOVED to amend the motion to include the condition of the applicant taking ownership of the property within 90 days to continue with the appeal. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Goldberg called for a vote on the motion as amended, to approve the appeal contingent on the applicant gaining possessory interest in the property. AYE: Goldberg, Petrik, Reynders, Sifrit, Wilton NAY: Lewis ABSENT: Gray MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lewis cited his reason for a nay vote was due to his opinion that the decision should be made by City Council. 3.b AAD-01-2025 - Appeal of Administrative Decision related to total floor area allowance for the property located at 2530 Tamiami Trail Exhibits: Cover Page DRC-01-2025 Staff Report Application for Appeal

Applicant's Presentation Renderings of Proposed Structure Marble-Creek-Self-Storage-Proposed-Project.pdf There was no additional discussion for AAD-01-2025. 4) GENERAL BUSINESS 4.a A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Punta Gorda, Florida reaffirming the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Local Mitigation Strategy as the formal guide for hazard mitigation activities. Exhibits: Cover Page Draft Resolution - Local Mitigation Strategy.pdf RES 2021-141 Adopting a Program for Public Information (PPI) Plan.pdf Ms. Barry reviewed the County/City Local Mitigation Strategy as the formal guide for hazard mitigation activities, requesting a recommendation from the Board. Mr. Wilton MOVED to recommend adopting the Local Mitigation Strategy, SECONDED by Mr. Sifrit. AYE: Goldberg, Lewis, Petrik, Reynders, Sifrit, Wilton ABSENT: Gray MOTION CARRIED. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Sifrit acknowledged this would be Mr. Goldberg’s last meeting as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, thanking him for his service to the City. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m.Chair Board Recorder