►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting 03-07-18 Part 2
Description
Description
A
Go
forward
with
with
this
recommendation,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
we're
looking
at
a
three
and
a
half
to
four
million
our
project
and
today's
dollars.
If
we're
gonna
phase
this
over
time,
it's
probably
gonna
be
something
more
than
that,
but
there's
no
way
we
can
afford
to
obviously
it
to
foot
the
bill
up
front.
But
as
long
as
we
have
a
plan
and
engage
it,
we
should
be
able
to
plan
it
and
bring
this
neighborhood
up
to
to
a
standard.
A
B
Agree
with
Gary
I
think
the
thing
that's
most
important
of
all
of
this
is
that
the
safety
of
our
citizens
is
paramount
and
I
think
that's
the
top
priority
that
we
should
be
looking
at.
Whenever
it
comes
to
anything,
we
decide,
I
think
the
safety
and
security
of
our
citizens
being
here
in
our
community.
It's
that's
got
to
be
our
top
priority,
all
the
way
around.
So
let's
do
whatever
it
takes
to
get
this
done
so
that
everyone
on
all
parts
of
the
town
are
equally
safe
and
secure.
C
D
D
A
You're
not
talking
apples
and
apples
because
in
the
PGI
area
you
have
basically
call
the
sax
or
sequestered
small
little
areas,
low
traffic,
so
for
sidewalk
on
my
street
I,
don't
want
it
well
number
one
but
number
two!
It's
not
really
particularly
relevant
we're
at
the
end
of
a
cul-de-sac.
We
have
very
low
traffic
if
you're
talking
about
Marion
and
Olympia,
it's
a
different
story,
but
you
know
the
main
thoroughfares,
but
in
the
neighborhoods
we
have
very
little
in
this
particular
neighborhood.
You
have
through
traffic,
virtually
every
Street
at
one
point
or
another
mm-hmm.
C
C
C
D
E
E
D
F
Do
we
have
any
pots
of
impact
fees
that
can
pay
for
lighting
and
I'm
just
the?
This
is
why
I
bring
this
up
because
talking
about
Harborview
Road
and
the
Sunseeker
resort,
and
the
traffic
that
that's
going
to
bring
here,
knowing
that
the
county
is
only
collecting
40%
of
what
their
normal
impact
fee
would
be
and
if
Sunseeker
gets
going
now,
those
will
be.
F
The
rules
said
that
they'll
be
building
under
those
monies
collected
would
be
able
to
pay
for
a
Harborview
road
project
instead
of
having
to
go
through
the
FDOT
and
so
I
just
don't
want
the
city
to
get
behind
the
ball.
I
would
like
to
see
I,
don't
know.
If
we
can
include
lighting
in
our
I
know,
we
have
parks,
we
kept
that
in
tact
roads,
but
can
that
include
lighting
and
sidewalks?
It's.
F
E
C
F
F
Still
valid,
yes,
I
think
it's
got
to
be
sooner
than
later,
because
all
the
improvements
that
we
do
on
the
east
side
we're
doing
that
to
encourage
new
development
and
new
building,
whether
it
be
residential
or
commercial.
So
I'm,
just
saying
that
you
know.
In
the
past
we've
we've
relaxed
just
like
Lee
County,
Charlotte
County,
everybody
relaxed
their
impact
fees
to
try
to
promote
development.
F
Well,
now
we're
spending
the
funds,
because
we
really
didn't
collect
the
those
monies
to
do
those
projects.
So
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
it
sooner
than
later
and
I
know.
I
know:
Lee
County
as
an
EMS
impact
fee
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
other
places
have
that
we
don't
have
that.
We
we
have
it
our
military.
F
We
all
talk
about
that
every
year
during
our
budget,
but
I
think
it
should
be
sooner
than
later
that
we
look
at
reinstating
impact
fees
for
the
things
that
people
want
in
their
town,
like
lighting
like
sidewalks,
like
parks
like
nice,
roads
I
just
feel
like
now
is
the
time,
because
if
we
wait
we're
going
to
have
to
use
like
we're
talking
now
we
don't.
This
is
all
unfunded.
What
we
just
passed.
A
Developers
point
of
view
I'm
just
going
to
put
this
perspective.
The
way
we
collect
the
impact
fee
if
we're
gonna
impact
these,
if
they're
gonna
be
an
upfront
cost
that
can
impact
a
developer
greater
than
if
it's
spread
out
over,
say
a
five
year
period.
I'm
not
saying
to
give
a
reduction
in
the
impact
fee
for
that
develop
or
anything
of
that
sort,
but
to
also
take
in
mind
a
payment
schedule
for
that
impact
fee.
A
A
Know
if,
in
residential
okay
good
I
mean
I,
don't
care
whether
it's
an
apartment
building
or
whether
it's
a
builder,
that's
gonna,
put
up
five
or
ten
houses
or
anything
like
that
with
its
commercial
residential
apartment
or
residential
individual
I.
Just
think
that,
sometimes,
if
you
know
for
a
larger
developer,
somebody
that's
putting
up
multiple
buildings,
that
could
be
a
factor
that
could
be
tempered
without
necessarily
forgiving.
If
we
schedule
and.
F
D
C
F
A
D
F
Right,
thank
you.
Okay,
unfinished
business.
We
have
continued
discussion
of
building
height
in
the
city
center
zoning
district.
Can
you
just?
Can
you
just
take
a
moment
and
couch
this
in
a
way,
that's
understandable,
to
say
the
reason
why
there
aren't
any
details
as
far
as
the
numbers,
because
this
is
still
a
discussion.
Can
you
just
speak
to
that?
For
since
we
had
some
citizens
comment
on
that,
I
think.
G
What
is
the
appetite
for
changing
the
existing
regulations
and
there
has
definitely
been
strong
interest
in
changing
the
existing
regulations
because
they
don't
appear
to
be
working
because
we
keep
getting
these
variance.
Applications
which
I
think
the
city
attorney
is
very
eloquently
put,
is
probably
not
the
best
way
to
do
that
from
a
legal
perspective.
G
So
in
terms
of
building
height,
we
know
that
our
quaint
little
downtown
has
very
little
in
terms
of
building
height
and
what
people
think
when
we
talk
about
built.
Changing
the
building
height
is
something
like
this,
which
that's
not
downtown:
Punta
Gorda,
that's
downtown,
Fort,
Myers
and
those
are
300,
plus
foot
tall
skyscrapers.
We
don't
want
that.
G
Punta
Gorda
isn't
that
today,
and
but
in
order,
probably
would
never
be
that
even
if
we
change
the
building
height
to
allow
300
feet
tall
buildings,
there's
no
market
for
it,
but
we
definitely
don't
want
that
in
our
community.
It's
not
appropriate
in
terms
of
talking
about
building
height,
we're
talking
about
the
city
center
zoning
district,
that
is
the
area
highlighted
in
purple
on
this
map.
G
G
G
In
terms
of
the
the
city
centre,
zoning
district
realistically
redevelopment
is
hard.
If
you
want
to
redevelop
a
property
that
already
has
an
existing
building
on
it,
you
have
to
make
the
financial
justification
to
throw
away
that
existing
building
so
that
that's
a
very
difficult
financial
proposition.
G
Any
developer
will
tell
you
we'll
have
a
much
more
eloquent
explanation
of
that
than
I
could
so
realistically
we're
looking
at
the
vacant.
Lots
that
exist
within
the
city
in
terms
of
granting
entitlement
in
terms
of
granting
building
height
above
some
baseline
number.
We're
really
looking
at
the
large
lots.
The
large
parcels
so
highlighted
in
pink
on
this
map.
Those
are
the
existing
large
vacant
parcels
that
are
left
in
our
downtown.
It's
really
a
handful
of
parcels
now.
G
Could
one
assemble
a
collection
of
parcels
with
that
are
vacant
or
that
have
you
know
existing
small
buildings
on
them
and
demolish
them
and
assemble
those
Lots
together
and
create
one
large
parcel?
Certainly,
but,
as
any
developer
will
tell
you,
our
Charlotte
County
can
tell
you
from
direct
experience,
it's
incredibly
expensive,
difficult
and
time-consuming
to
assemble
a
large
number
of
Lots
contiguously.
G
How
does
how
do
we,
as
as
residents
visitors
of
our
fair
city,
how
we
experience
the
street
and
most
of
the
street
experience
for
us
has
to
do
with
what
happens
on
the
street,
so
traffic
volume,
traffic,
speed,
Vic
Euler's
our
separation
from
those
vehicles?
What
happens
at
the
ground
floor,
the
buildings?
Are
there
plenty
of
windows
and
doors?
Is
there
lots
of
architectural
detail
and
on
the
sidewalk,
do
we
have
lighting,
do
have
street
trees?
Do
we
have
other
amenities?
G
G
G
66
feet
is
pretty
generous
when
you're
only
dealing
with
horses
and
carriages,
but
when
you
start
dealing
with
multiple
lanes
of
vehicular
traffic,
sixty-six
feet
gets
really
narrow,
really
quick.
So
there's
not
a
lot
of
space
left
over
for
for
the
pedestrians
walking
down
the
street
and
shopping
in
the
shops
and
finding
in
the
restaurants.
G
So
in
terms
of
this,
we
looked
at
trading
height
for
setback
and
other
provisions.
So
currently,
if
you
want
to
build
a
four-story
building
in
the
downtown,
you
can
pretty
much
do
that
by
right.
Within
that
50
foot
height
limit,
it's
can
be
technically
challenging
because
of
the
modern
construction
methodology.
We
think
Oh
a
story
is
ten
feet.
G
Well,
the
store
is
really
1214
because
building
height
and
structural
systems,
at
any
rate,
a
five-story
building,
is
more
or
less
outside
the
parameters
of
being
able
to
be
built
under
that
50
foot,
high
limits
so
at
a
five-story
building
if
they
want
to
get
to
the
fifth
floor,
give
us
an
additional
setback.
Make
the
sidewalk
space
wider,
give
us
more
public
space
and
you
get
the
additional
entitlement
of
being
able
to
go
up
an
extra
four
at
six
storeys.
G
G
G
We
also
looked
at
the
possibility
of
adding
a
seventh
story,
so
they
would
still
be
looking
at
the
same
provisions
of
the
step
back
in
the
setback,
but
going
back
to
the
actual
site
itself.
What
I
said
hey
give
us
some
more
additional
open
space
and
that
would
be
5%
of
the
total
lot
area
and
that
space
could
be
public
or
semi-public
depending
on
the
building
type.
Certainly,
if
it
was
residential
you,
you
would
probably
see
it
as
semi
public
space
for
that
building,
but.
G
G
G
So
currently,
under
the
code
as
it
exists
today,
there's
zero
foot
street
yard
street
front
setback
and
a
50
foot
height
limit,
and
you
get
ten
additional
feet
for
non
habitable
space
above
that.
So
in
essence,
you
could
get
a
64
65
foot
tall
building
when
measured
from
the
existing
sidewalk
and
the
building
footprint
would
look
something
like
that.
G
G
The
highest
part
of
the
building
would
be
stepped
back
from
the
street
you're,
looking
at
20
feet
away
from
the
property
lines
for
those
tallest
stories
in
terms
of
five
percent
of
the
open
space.
Again
you
have
the
building
footprint.
There
are
many
options
they
could
do.
They
could
choose
to
put
all
of
that
space
that
they
were
required
to
grant,
which
is
approximately
on
this
site.
1.1
acres.
G
They
could
put
it
all
on
one
side,
so
you
would
have
a
wider
street
yard.
If
you
look
at
this
scenario,
that
would
be
make
Taylor
Road
Taylor
Street.
Excuse
me
roughly
the
same
sort
of
setbacks
as
you
would
see
on
Marion
Avenue.
So
that
would
be
a
nice
look
and
then
push
the
building
closer
towards
the
more
heavily
traveled
street
of
41
north.
G
G
C
What
height
are
you
acceptable
with?
So
we
can
work
our
way
back
because
right
now,
if
you
want
it
to
go,
let's
say:
seven
storeys
and
you
wanted
to
have
high
floors.
I
mean
you
could
have
you
know
each
let's
take
20-foot
floor.
I
know
that's
kind
of
high,
but
you
could
that's
140
feet,
that's
not
what
we're
proposing,
but
we
need
to
have
some
kind
of
direction
as
to
what
height
are
you
willing
to
consider
so
that
we
can
take
that
and
actually
put
it
in
our
regulations.
G
G
Architectural
features,
certainly
so
decorative
roof
structures
towers.
We
could
write
that
section
to
be
more
specific,
so
you
could
have
a
certain
height
allowance
for
those
features
of
the
building
that
are
absolutely
required,
like
HVAC
systems
and
elevators,
which
do
have
to
protrude
above
the
roof
to
work
in
a
multi-story
building,
and
then
a
separate
allowance
and
height
for
purely
architectural
details
and
features.
One
of
the
concerns
that
was
brought
up
early
in
this
process
was
the
fact
that
we
don't
want
the
whole
city
to
be
flat
at
one
level.
G
D
First
of
just
and
I'm
not
saying
to
go
here,
but
understanding
in
our
history,
buildings
have
gone
204
feet
like
the
the
Charlotte
Harbor
myself
or
another
hotel
regarding
this
I've
talked
to
Realtors,
who
know
the
prices
of
our
land
as
they
XE
are
right
now,
and
they
asked
for
what
that
number
would
be,
and
they
said
between
between
between
75
and
90
feet,
and
me
personally.
I
think
like
79
feet
is
a
good
number,
because
it
could
allow
for
a
good
six,
possibly
seven
story.
D
Building
regarding
this
I
think
we
have
to
preface
the
importance
of
our
commercial
sector
and
and
and
the
fact
that
we're
in
a
very
vulnerable
place,
because
we
don't
have
one
for
in
a
lot
of
our
residents,
who've
moved
in
the
last
20
years
to
understand
the
Punta.
Gorda
always
had
a
strong
commercial
sector,
though
we
don't
have
one
now
and
that
having
our
goal
of
25%
commercial
to
residential
mix
is
really
essential
for
our
sustainability.
D
And
on
this
note,
and
not
you
don't
be
as
ambitious
as
this,
but
like
this
weekend,
I
actually
had
had
dinner
with
the
mayor
of
Altamonte
Springs
and
her
husband,
Altamonte
Springs
has
5050,
they
have
their
city,
has
no
debt
whatsoever,
they
pay
for
all
the
capital
improvement
projects,
cash,
they
do
not
borrow
money
at
all
and
they
have
robust
services
like
we
do.
The
point
being
is
that
a
city
can
only
afford
to
be
able
to
not
raise
taxes
provide
good
services
if
it
has
good
commercial
infrastructure,
and
the
millage
rate
is
three
point.
D
One
point
being
I
think
that
we
have
experts
here
in
urban
design,
they're
giving
it
this
is.
They
know
how
to
do
this?
They
know
how
to
do.
The
setbacks
know
how
to
do
that's
the
light.
The
wind
they're
not
gonna,
give
us
anything
which
is
not
gonna.
Look
good
for
the
city
of
Dutchess.
Our
people.
Don't
do
that,
and
I
think
that
we
should
trust
them
in
their
advice
on
this
I
and
in
with
the
said
to
in
this
I
lived
in
the
passing
district
in
Tokyo.
D
Where,
like
you
said,
all
your
eyes
are
directed
Street
line,
I
can
tell
you
honestly.
I
did
not
know
how
high
any
buildings
were
because
of
the
architecture
likelihood
they
weren't
skyscrapers,
but
I
didn't
know,
because
you
could
architecture,
architecture
and
I
think
that
we
have
a
good
team.
That's
gonna,
that's
giving
us
very
good
advice
and
I
personally
have
seen
this
in
effect
and
I
know,
but
this
this
will
only
enhance
our
skyline
and
enhance
our
ability
as
a
city
to
be
sustainable.
Thank.
F
B
B
I
I
am
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
doing
an
ordinance
as
long
as
it's
based
on
the
number
of
feet
and
then
let
the
developer
establish
how
he
wants
to
build
that
building
and
how
many
stories
he
wants
it
to
be.
I've
brought
with
me
a
picture
of
the
rendering
that
the
original
City
Market
Place
building
that
was
approved
by
City
Council
back
in
2005
and
6,
and
this
was
only
going
to
be
a
six
story
building
at
the
highest
point,
and
this
was
totally
acceptable
to
that
developer.
B
This
was
something
that
everyone
in
the
city
went
along
with.
They
approved
it.
They
liked
it
Planning
Commission
approved
it
unanimously.
It
was
we
pushed
it
through
and
then,
of
course,
the
project
fell
apart.
But
my
point
is
this
was
based
on
the
same
concept
that
Mitchell
is
proposing
with
the
step
backs
and
all
of
that
and
I
and
I
like
that
idea,
but
I'm,
just
not
in
favor
of
going
with
the
uniform
six
stories
or
seven
stories
kind
of
a
change.
B
I
think
we
need
to
really
be
aware
of
the
fact
that
this
is
not
that
kind
of
a
town
and
respectfully
it
is
not
Tokyo.
It
is
not
Altamonte
Springs,
which
is
on
the
side
of
Orlando.
It
is
not
that
kind
of
a
town
we
need
to
find
developers
who
are
willing
to
come
to
our
city
and
build
something.
That's
compatible
with
our
downtown.
F
F
What
you're
saying
I
guess
your
comments
are
confusing
me,
because
if
we
just
changed
the
height
alone,
they
will
not
have
to
give
the
concessions.
They
will
just
be
able
to
build
the
building.
If
we
say
okay,
70
feet
is
now
the
number
I
mean
I.
Think
you
missed
the
technical
aspects
of
what
Mitchell
was
trying
to
propose.
Is
that
that's
how
we
get
those
things?
If
we
change
it,
that's
how
we
will
get
those
things
that
and
we've
already
heard,
that
the
variance
process
is
not
the
way
to
go
about
it.
F
So
I
think
what
Mitchell
has
done
is
try
to
take
what
you're
saying
and
make
it
doable
and
he's
asking
us
right
now.
What
is
what
is
her?
There's
still
gonna,
be
a
height
limit
right.
There's
still
gonna
be
a
height
limit,
but
if
we
don't
put
the
verbage
in
like
he
was
just
saying
about
the
mandatory
appurtenances
and
the
architectural
appurtenances,
then
they
don't
have
to
do
any
of
that
they
can
just
I'm.
B
F
D
A
And
I
just
want
to
put
a
couple
little
romantic
points
out
here.
If
someone
were
to
build
a
six
storey
house
averaging
12
feet,
it
would
be
72
feet
tall
plus
a
little
bit
more.
If
you
were
to
make
14-foot
stories,
it
would
be
84
feet
right.
Okay,
on
the
other
hand,
as
long
my
biggest
concern
is,
is
I
want
to
see
this
architectural
feature
and
setback
feature
set.
It
I
don't
want
to
see
another
Sun
loss.
Personally,
that's
that's
my
motivation.
A
A
But
he
might,
as
an
architectural
feature,
have
some
type
of
atrium
type
of
structure
that
has
a
50
foot
ceiling
in
it,
and
you
would
certainly
be
able
to
do
that
as
long
as
he
much
the
setback
criteria
and
their
architectural
features.
That
I
think
are
de
parar
been
designed
to
people
as
jaha
was
saying
they
have
that
concept,
that's
their
business,
they
understand
it.
They
haven't
failed
us
yet
so
I
think
all
we
I
think
we
should
stop
talking
about
stories.
A
I
think
that
was
a
unfortunate
verbage
that
we
put
in
when
we
said
seven
storeys
nine
stories
we're
just
throwing
that
out.
I,
don't
think
anybody.
Anybody
meant
that
quantitative
manner
that
we
want
to
have
nine
story
buildings.
We
want
to
have
80
foot
buildings
max,
that's
what
we
want
or
what
or
70
foot
whatever
we're
gonna
decide,
but
we
I
think
I'm
getting
the
senses.
We
understand
that
it
needs
to
be
greater
than
50
feet
or
60
feet.
The.
D
D
A
In
the
background
I'll
correct
that
we
don't
have
the
mountains
in
the
back
okay.
But
the
point
is:
is
that
tearing
that
that's
being
presented
to
us
and
whatever
that
formula
needs
to
be?
That's
what
I
think
we
need
the
direct
our
urban
design.
People
say:
okay,
let's
set
it
70
feet
or
whatever.
That
is,
and
then
have
them
come
back
to
us
with
the
way
to
architectural
II,
tear
it
and
accoutrement,
so
that
we
can
write
that
code
and
go
forward.
A
In
other
words,
from
our
perspective,
we
want
to
keep
the
KISS
principle
with
one
or
two
S's.
Okay.
Hopefully
we
just
have
to
go
with
the
first,
the
first
s
and
we
don't
have
to
add
the
secondary,
but
that's
really
I
if
I
get
good
in
his
senses
and
that's
what
Howard's
asking
for
us
that's
what
urban
design
is
asking
for
us
is
just
for
us
to
say:
okay
84
feet
whatever.
That
number
is
a
consensus
among
ourselves.
What
we
can
support
and
then
they
will
put
these
together.
So
we
don't
have.
A
The
talking
about
this
for
another
two
years
said,
makes
sense
Howard
what
I
just
said
there
we
went
a
height,
so
I'll,
open
up
the
discussion
say:
look
if
we
go
sixth
floor
average
at
14
fight
would
be
84
feet.
If
it
was
5
foot
at
14
foot,
it
would
be
70
feet.
I
would
say
that
we
go
right
around
that
84
foot
level
would
be
the
max.
That
would
be
a
basically
a
92
foot
with
all
the
accouterments
on
the
top
of
it.
E
E
We
as
a
group
of
residents
went
to
Delray
Beach
and
working
with
Jaime
Correa
saw
what
they
had
done.
The
step
backs
start
before
the
third
floor.
They
actually
started
the
first
floor.
They
start
in
some
buildings,
some
buildings,
they
started
the
second
floor,
there's
a
quite
a
variety
and
they
keep
stepping
back
talks.
E
Stepping
back
the
floors,
okay,
to
prevent
the
canyon
of
fact
this
Mitchell
was
talking
about,
and
in
some
cases
you
don't
realize
how
tall
building
is
because
it's
been
stepped
back
so
many
times,
and
it's
I
think
the
the
diet.
The
picture
that
mr.
Kidwell
demonstrated
was
really
great
as
far
as
it
shows
the
contrast
between
what
could
possibly
be
across
from
a
one-story
building,
and
so
it
brings.
Even
though
we
try
as
best
that
we
to
put
numbers
and
and
parameters
in
place,
I've
heard
from
quite
a
few
people.
E
F
F
H
Problem
with
the
variance
process
is
that,
in
order
to
be
entitled
to
the
relief
that
the
variance
process
gives
you
have
to
demonstrate
and
I'm
talking
about
a
classic
variance
process,
you
have
to
demonstrate
that
there's
a
hardship
and
and
the
hardship
in
every
case
is
self-created,
because
you've
decided
to
violate
the
standards.
That's
not
to
say
we
can't
create
a
process
that
gives
you
discretion,
but
let's
say
a
special
exception
type
process.
H
I'm
just
gonna,
throw
out
numbers
not
for
any
other
reason
than
just,
for
example,
we
think
we
heard
historically,
the
highest
building
is
104
feet.
We
heard
that
84
might
be
the
desirable
limit.
Let's
just
use
those
numbers
for
discussion
purposes
if
we've
set
as
a
maximum
limit
by
right,
84
feet
and
in
that
84
foot
maximum
height
by
right.
We
also
have
set
step-back
requirements.
H
H
We
might
be
able
to
entitle
that
developer
to
build,
with
your
permission,
an
additional
20
feet
up
to
the
hundred
and
4
feet
as
long
as
based
on
the
where
that
building
is
to
be
located.
What
other
things
that
they
might
do
to
ameliorate
the
impacts.
You
know
more
or
less
the
special
exception
type
process
that
has
certain
criteria
involved.
H
But
ultimately
you
have
to
decide
whether
or
not
it's
in
in
the
best
interest
of
the
of
the
general
public,
so
I
think
that
would
be
workable
if
we
don't
think
of
it
in
terms
of
a
variance
but
in
terms
of
some
sort
of
other
special
exception
special
permit.
You
know
what
number
of
different
processes
out
there
that
doesn't
give
the
city
council
unbridled
discretion
because
there's
otherwise
it
might
be
concern
to
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
your
decisions,
but
nevertheless
some
discretion
based
on
the
circumstances
of
that
particular
case.
F
H
A
The
community
is
sensitive
to
this
issue
and
there's
the
various
myth
buildings
going
on
that
happens
because
of
people
getting
excited
and
emotional
about
this,
but
I
think
is
there's
a
con,
so
we
have
to
get
our
arms
around
this
gorilla
to
some
extent
so
that
we
don't
have
at
this
point
time.
Somebody
can
go
into
a
minimum
lot
and
in
this
area
and
they
can
build
a
50-foot
monolith.
We're.
A
We
can't
take
that
away
at
this
point
in
time,
so
we
have
to
go
forward
I
believe
with
with,
though
something
on
the
order
that
Mitchell
has
suggesting,
so
that
we
have
setbacks
and
we
have
architectural,
appropriate
designs
and
so
forth.
So
the
developer
can
say:
okay,
these
are
the
rules
and
then,
if
he
wants
to
have
that
extra
couple,
but
he
still
has
that
option.
But
if
we
do
nothing
right
now,
there's
also
the
guy
that
can
turn
around
and
he
could
take.
A
He
could
come
into
the
market
center
with
that
piece
of
a
Kurisu
show
and
build
a
mini
version
of
the
Merchandise
Mart
in
Chicago,
which
is
nothing
more
than
a
square
building
and
not
a
pretty
square
building
with
a
lot
of
square
feet.
He
could
do
that
I'm,
not
saying
that
anybody's
proposing
to
do
that
now,
but
he
could
do
that.
So
if
we
don't
move
forward
now,
we
are
not
protecting
the
sensitivity
of
our
citizenship.
So
we
need
to
come
to
those
terms.
A
I
believe
we
need
to
give
direction
to
Mitchell
and
the
urban
design
people
to
say.
Okay,
we
want
this
minimum
criteria
that
they
come
up
with
other
criteria
which
I
know
they
will
I
have
full
confidence
in
them
from
a
creative
standpoint.
That
would
also
be
beneficial
to
what
we
want
to
accomplish
in
general,
then
we
should
go
forward
and
so
I
just
threw
out
a
height
there
based
on
an
arbitrary
if
it's
70
feet
at
70
Fiat.
A
That's
not
the
the
biggest
motivation
I
have
that
that
we
need
to
deal
with
today
from
my
perspective,
but
we
do
need
to
deal
and
stop
talking
and
go
forward
with
urban
design
to
develop
it
criteria
so
that
we
can
protect
our
community
in
the
future
from
somebody
doing
something
that
was
really
a
kiss
with
two
S's,
then,
if
that
ever
were
to
ever
happen.
That
is
shame
on
us.
F
D
Like
around
the
80
feet
as
a
number,
and
with
with
this
one
thing,
we
have
to
express
to
our
residences
that
we
don't
live
in
a
vacuum
that
we
like
to
believe
we
do
with
Sunseeker,
going
up
and
and
also
more
dog
village
going
up.
We
still
have
to
define
ourselves
as
something
or
we
can
lose.
What
we
have
is
very,
very,
very
easy
to
lose
our
downtown
over
that
and
and
thing
is
we
in
and
see?
D
If
our
urban
design
staff
does
what
they
do,
we
will
have
a
code
which
will
accentuate
what
Punta
Gorda
actually
is,
and
so
we
will
be
different
from
what
is
over
there
and
therefore
will
patronize
us,
rather
than
necessarily
because
we
are
we're
acting
as
if
we
are
the
only
soul
thing
in
the
county,
as
we've
been
for
the
last
hundred
thirty
years,
we're
not.
We
have
several
things
going
up.
We
have
to
think
also
about
maintaining
our
downtown
sustainability
of
that
two
things.
D
I,
have
a
lot
of
people
come
to
me
about
developments
in
historic
district
and
the
two
things
which
harm
harmed
every
single
time
or
there's
two
factors,
one
this
50-foot
building
high
thing
is
it's
a
killer
because
of
the
cost
of
lamb
you
get
to
the
center
center?
The
second
thing
which
which
I'm
saying
because
I
think
this
needs
to
be
in
a
discussion,
is
the
fact
that,
if
someone's
building
they
have
to
have
this,
the
two-story
and
the
second-story
can't
simply
be
a
facade.
D
The
fact
that
they
have
to
actually
build
a
usable
second
floor
requires
people
to
build
to
a
two-story
building
for
a
one-story,
and
that's
all
the
problem
and
I
find
those.
These
are
the
two
biggest
problems
we
haven't
really
put
our
and
Phil
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
address
this
because
the
deal
is
when
it
comes
to
our
downtown.
We
have
to
have
a
critical
mass
of
activity
to
sustain
what
we
have.
D
E
I'm,
not
sure
I,
and
that
would
be
at
the
84
feet
that
day
that
Gary
talks
about,
but
I
think
doing
something
that
would
prevent
another
50-foot
tall,
big
block
and
start
stepping
back
so
start
stepping
back
earlier.
So
if
you
want
to
gain
an
extra
10
feet,
then
you
have
to
step
back
at
a
point.
So
I
think
we
need
to.
It
needs
to
start
stepping
back
early
and
I
having
some
kind
of
a
process
that
would
give
us
some
type
of
oversight
would
be,
in
my
opinion,
favorable,
but
I
I
know.
E
E
A
Well
it
it's
relative
to
this
question.
It's
a
proposal
that
I
have
rather
than
we're,
not
engineers,
we're
not
architects
up
here.
We're
talking
about
setting
a
height,
maybe
I
hate
compromise
that
we
could
make
today,
because
I'm
not
very
married
to
84
feet
is
that
we
direct
urban
design.
We
direct
Mitchell
in
his
in
his
group
to
come
back
to
us
with
a
recommendation
between
76
and
84
feet.
I'm.
A
F
A
B
E
B
Did-
and
that
was
the
last
conversation
that
we
had
as
accounts
as
this
counsel
since
I've
been
on
this
council,
so
I'm,
just
I'm
84
feet
is-
is
going
to
have
massive
outcry
in
the
community.
I
am
totally
not
in
favor
of
that
I
I'm
happy
to
work
with
with
the
city
and
and
work
with
the
architectural
design
on
some
of
these
buildings
that
may
want
to
come
into
our
city.
But
84
feet
is
just
not.
It
doesn't
work
for
me
at
all,
and
I
would
not
support
that
land.
D
Cost
the
minimum
that
bottom
bottom
could
be
75,
but
really
80,
just
a
safer
number
say
to
work
with
but
again,
and
the
reason
why
I
mentioned
Tokyo
was
because
a
whole
point
you
saying
this
is
because
I
can
tell
you
honestly:
I
did
I
could
not
see
the
height
of
the
building.
When
you
have
a
bathtub
yeah,
no
you're
missing,
you're,
not
hearing
it,
it's
not,
it
could
be
anywhere,
it
could
be
on
the
moon.
That's
not
what
I'm
saying
is
that
if
it's
designed
architectural
ethos,
your
eyes
are
on
street
level.
D
If
it's
four
feet
10
extra
feet,
you
can't
see
it
anyway,
because
your
eyes
are
here,
and
the
point
is,
if
we
did
have
say,
84
foot
building,
you
won't
see
84
foot
building
because
it
is
designed
right.
You're
gonna
see
this
direction.
I'm
telling
you
this
is
I've
lived
this
this
is.
You
won't
see
that
building
if
it's
designed
properly
I.
F
D
F
H
C
H
D
H
D
E
And
that's
one
of
the
questions
I
have
is:
what's
the
minimum
lot
size
that
you
would
need
to
have
in
order
for
any
of
this
conversation
to
apply
because
I've
had
somebody
show
me
something
that
was
on
a
very
small
piece
of
property
and
it
was
seven
stories
tall
and
ninety
feet?
Yes,
and
and
it's
like
small
piece
of
property
and
would
be
totally
out
of
scale
and
I.
Think
the
scale
of
our
community
is
critically
important,
but
critical
I
mean
it's.
The
scale
is
that's
part
of
the
character.
Yes,.
G
C
G
D
D
An
ordinance
to
use
84
feet
as
the
maximum
height
for
the
point
of
giving
us
an
ordinance
that
we
can
then
come
back
to
us,
because
it'll
include
all
these
things
like
to
see
I'm
working
off
so
off
of
that
past
presentation.
So
that's
that's.
The
question
like
in
in
my
mind,
when
I'm
looking
at
this
height
I
know
that
most
of
the
downtown
can't
go
that
high.
Because
of
the
fact
he
said
that
the
limitations
of
the
lot
size
and
so
I'm
working
kind
of
off
the
past.