Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code Phase2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board narrows Land Development Code Phase 2 hot topics; tree protections, lot grading and missing-middle housing to get deeper review
Summary
At an extended public discussion the Planning Board narrowed LDC Phase 2 'hot topics' to lot grading, missing-middle housing and building-height language; community speakers pressed for stronger tree protections and procedural changes, and the board set a schedule of May discussion, June follow-up and a target vote in July.
The City of Pensacola Planning Board used April 14’s meeting to move Phase 2 of the Land Development Code (LDC) rewrite forward, designating May for public discussion, June for additional review and targeting a July vote to forward recommendations to City Council.
Nanette Chandler (S15), representing petition signers and the Pensacola Preservation Guild, delivered a detailed proposal for stronger tree protections: raising the required retained combined trunk diameter from 10% to 25% in many infill contexts, clarifying penalties for unauthorized removal, and routing site-condition removal exceptions to the zoning board rather than relying on single-staff approval. Chandler tied tree retention to stormwater mitigation and cautioned that existing rules can effectively allow large trees to be removed for a fine.
Board members and staff acknowledged the issue’s contention and agreed that some topics — notably tree protections — may require separate workshops outside regular meetings. Staff said consultants (Inspire Placemaking and engineering reviewers) are engaged and that public workshops and targeted white papers will inform the May and June sessions.
Members debated specific technical topics at length: lot-grading and stormwater management (including whether civil-engineer plans should be required for certain thresholds), missing-middle housing tools (preapproved plans, form-based code, or adjustments to allowable unit types), and building-height measurement language (clarifying whether building height is measured to the bottom of the main roof, parapet, or midpoint of a pitched roof; board members asked for diagrams to reduce ambiguity). Several board members expressed concern about procedural fairness, implementation cost and enforcement capacity if new engineering requirements are broadly applied.
The board narrowed the list of hot topics to lot grading, missing-middle housing and building height for concentrated review and asked staff and consultants to prepare clearer language, diagrams and options for de minimis exemptions where appropriate. Members emphasized planning workshops and public outreach before any final vote. The board agreed that contentious items may follow a longer vetting timeline and pledged to continue engagement after adoption of the core LDC package.
Next steps: public discussion sessions in May, additional deliberation in June, a target vote in July and expected City Council consideration in August, though staff cautioned timelines may shift pending consultant input and public engagement.
