Minutes from the March 11, 2024, Planning Board meeting

Annexation - DT Ventures 1 - 3804 Sunrise Boulevard

Mr. Altizer gave an overview of the annexation. He stated the subject property has a St. Lucie County Future Land Use of RU, Residential Urban, and a Zoning designation of RS-3, Residential Single-Family, and the proposed Future Land Use designation is RL, Residential Low Density, with a Zoning classification of R-1, Single-Family Low Density. Mr. Altizer said the current taxable value of the property is $319,550 and the site area is approximately 11.84 acres. He concluded with the Future Land Use comparison showing an increase of a maximum of 17 units.

No one spoke for or against the annexation.

Rezoning - Planned Development - Fort Pierce Commercial - 301 Florida Avenue 

Mr. Altizer gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board regarding on-street parking spaces. He said the request is to change the zoning on one (1) parcel of land that is approximately .38 acres, from General Commercial (C-3) to Planned Development (PD), to accommodate a 7,000 square-foot building on a commercial infill site, providing up to four (4) commercial office/warehouses in the Community Redevelopment Area district (CRA). The current Future Land Use is (GC) General Commercial. Mr. Altizer stated the front portion of the building will house retail/office space and on-street parking is incorporated to facilitate access for customers. Mr. Altizer said the PD allows for reduced setbacks and reduced lot coverage. Mr. Altizer showed the site plan, landscape plan and rendering of the building. Mr. Altizer noted the applicant met the Engineering comments and an updated site plan was provided for the presentation.

Mr. Freeman explained there is going to be a combination of city property and the applicants' property to set up a template for improving the CRA. He said staff encouraged the applicant to rezone to a PD because the city did not want to see a 25-foot setback in the CRA and to allow the applicant flexibility in designing a building that fronts a good sidewalk, on-street parking, and good landscaping.  The intent is to end up with a street section where on-street parking is made part of the activity on the street.

Chairman Kreisl reiterated the reason for changing to a PD is the size of the building on the lot, the overall layout and to get better frontage and access.

Marcela Camblor, principal of Camblor and Associates and applicant representative, stated the applicant wants to invest in infill properties and create a walkable environment.  She said the CRA site was picked purposely with the understanding that the code would render a building that would prioritize the pedestrians, sidewalk and on-street parking.  Ms. Camblor said, to their surprise, the use was allowed but none of the urban rules and walkability was permitted in the C-3 zoning. She said she worked with staff to understand the intent of the CRA.  She said they moved the building closer to a very wide sidewalk with on-street parking for customers.  Ms. Camblor stated deliveries and employee parking will be in the back of the building and the building will have an industrial look with Florida vernacular architecture and four (4) bays.  The front of the building will be retail and office space. Ms. Camblor said the building is 7,000 square feet and the office space will be roughly 1,500 square feet with the storage and warehouse space in the rear.  She explained to the Board that the ratio of parking is not the same as if the building was completely a commercial use.  Ms. Camblor concluded that hopefully, over time, on-street parking will develop, but right now the proposed parking should be sufficient. 

Zoning Text Amendment - Sec. 125-3 - General Definitions.
Providing Consistency with the State Statute and the City's Comprehensive Plan

Mr. Freeman gave an overview of the zoning text amendment, and he explained that staff identified conflicts and inconsistencies with things that are currently being worked on, like provision of housing, and the use of small lots in neighborhoods. He stated the city does not have the code to support good design and planning in moving the city forward.  Mr. Freeman stated the item was presented to the Planning Board at the March 11, 2023, meeting and the Board requested additional definitions for Workforce Housing, Affordable Housing and Urban Farming be added.  Mr. Freeman noted that staff looked at state statutes and the comprehensive plan to rationalize conflicts in the code.  

Mr. Freeman said comparisons and references to state statues were used to strengthen the definitions. Mr. Freeman provided definitions for accessory use structures, family amusement center, agricultural use, boardinghouse and roominghouse, density, modular, mobile and manufactured homes.  He highlighted that the accessory use definition change is to help the residential needs in the city for families, extended family members or for income generation and the definition is for what the use is and not how it is controlled.

Zoning Text Amendment - City Code Sec. 125-212 and 125-213 (Planned Development Zone - PD)

Mr. Freeman gave an overview of the text amendment. He explained there has been lots of discussion with the City Commission on what constitutes a Planned Development (PD) and a conceptual plan.  He said there is not a good definition between a conceptual plan and a final plan. Mr. Freeman noted the conceptual plan is commonly used and helps the applicant remove the expense of final plans that could change and waste review time by staff, Boards and City Commission. Mr. Freeman stated Section 125-213, Planned Unit Redevelopment (PUR), allows a conceptual plan, but the code is convoluted and complicated and refers to sections of code that are no longer in the code. Mr. Freeman said staff needs a clear process.  He said a lot of research was done on neighboring municipalities and a common process is through a Master Planned Development and Final Planned Development. He explained the difference is what is required during the application process.  Mr. Freeman showed a chart with the required documents needed for both the Master Planned Development and the Final Planned Development.  He noted the items listed with (x) can be provided but are not essential items.  Staff will be encouraging applicants to provide the non-essential items to help staff and the Planning Board with their review. He said this would provide the Planning Board and the City Commission with a good idea of what is coming forward. The intent of the code is to clear out what is in place already and eliminate the PUR zone code entirely. Any Planned Developments already in place will be grandfathered in. Section 125-212 will be deleted and replaced with another section entirely related to the Planned Development zone code, which will give the applicant the choice between a Master Planned Development and a Final Plan Development.  Mr. Freeman said the Master Planned Development will need to go to the Planning Board and City Commission and once that is approved, the applicant can work on the drawings for the Final Planned Development, which will need to come back to the Planning Board and the City Commission to ensure it meets the intent of the Master Planned Development.  The applicant has the choice to come in with a Final Planned Development in the first stage.

Chairman Kreisl expressed concerns about the expiration of a PD since not all plans have come to fruition. He said it does not make sense that a rezone from C-3 to PD would stick if the applicant decides to pull out. Chairman Kresl asked if the PD zoning stays with the property if the PD completely dies.

Mr. Freeman said the new code will need to have a timeline set on the site plan in order to be approved. If completed in one phase, the anticipated commencement, permits and final completion of occupancy will be needed and anything outside of that would need to apply for an amendment to the PD.  The timelines would be discussed at the site plan approval because it is understood there may be other agency permits required that could take 6–18 months for approval depending on the type of work.  Staff wants the timelines to be flexible, so the applicant can explain what timelines they need based on external agency permits needed. Mr. Freeman noted the Planning department constantly receives requests from PD owners to extend the expiration timeline based on the State Declarations of Emergency from the governor due to hurricanes.

Mr. Freeman explained it does cause a problem when converting a PD back to the previous zoning designation. He said it is up to the site owner, if they want to rezone back to straight zoning.  The PD zoning would expire and nothing could be done until a new plan was submitted or a renewal of the same plans was submitted for a completely new staff review with updated standards.  He noted the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Board to justify the change, and they may be held to stricter timelines of development.  Mr. Freeman said there are no loopholes for someone to say they are going to let the PD expire and build whatever they want. The staff and Planning Board have a say in what comes forward regarding timetable, design, and alternative uses to such an extent that if it changes the original intent of whatever was approved, it will have to go through the whole process again. Mr. Freeman highlighted that a PD gives the staff, the Planning Board and the City Commission more control of what the city looks like and what gets built. 

Ms. Carter asked how the rezoning from C-3 to PD fits into the city's vision.  Mr. Freeman explained the C-3 zoning makes it very difficult to develop the site. The Planning Board recommending approval of the PD application gives encouragement to people coming in to be a part of that process. It also allows staff to negotiate early on with the applicant to get on-street parking and the applicant's on-site parking is reduced. Mr. Freeman highlighted that better street sections and sidewalks are generated, along with better landscaping, and reduction in impervious area on the site. It gives staff and Planning Board direction to say this is what we want to see, and it gives the applicant a good idea of what is wanted and will get supported.  It also helps the engineering of the streets to create street sections which improve parking and stormwater.  Mr. Freeman highlighted that PD approval helps to move the city forward. If the Planning Board is consistently making the same determinations in C-3 zoning, these factors can be incorporated into the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Freeman noted the city currently does not have specific codes for the CRA.

Mr. Heaning expressed concerns about not having a requirement for landscaping listed on the items needed for a Master Planned Development.

Mr. Freeman explained the reason a landscape plan is not a requirement is that it allows for discussion with the staff and Planning Board to make the applicant aware of what is wanted, and it will also make a landscape plan more restrictive.  He noted that changing one thing in a landscape plan, may require a change to all the applicant's plans.  

Chairman Kreisl said it is a great advantage to the design professionals to recommend a plan but not require a plan with the Master Planned Development.

Board discussion ensued on recommending but not requiring certain items that the Planning Board would like to see. 

Mr. Freeman said he could add an asterisk next to items the Planning Board wants to see that says, draft recommended.

Kris Einstein, a resident, stated she has suffered through the PD process since September 2023 and has spent $500,000 on plans that are useless.  She said conceptual plans are nice, and it is like dipping your toe in water to see if you like it. 

Chad Ingram, a resident, stated he fully supports the new code revisions.  He said to pay to completely develop a project and then have to make changes would make someone upset.

Mr. Freeman explained that staff sets up meetings with applicants prior to submitting an application to recommend things that staff would like to see and to fix or address certain issues.  Mr. Freeman said a draft plan is necessary because the city should be getting more than straight zoning with Planned Development. He wants the Board to suggest things that will benefit the city. 

Zoning Text Amendment - City Code Sec.125-187 - Allowed Uses

Mr. Freeman gave an overview of the Allowed Uses Zoning Text Amendment. He said the proposed amendment seeks to cure conflicts in the use table, add allowed uses in certain districts, and encourage innovative residential development.  Mr. Freeman stated there is a code that currently deals with innovative residential development and encourages infill development in communities where the city wants to see something happen. It allows slight changes in the zoning districts to allow some of these types of developments to come forward. He said the city is trying to get smaller residential units and smaller lots to make them more affordable and this part of the code allows that, but there are lines in the use table that set you back and restrict what can be allowed. Mr. Freeman said the revised code places emphasis on encouraging the supply of housing through the innovative residential development process. It is intended that partner code amendments to section 125-243. Innovative Residential Developments will be coming forward to the Planning Board.

Mr.Freeman stated other proposed changes relate to Home Occupations (permitted by State Statutes), Boardinghouses and Roominghouses (subject to partner code amendments to Definitions and Zoning Regulation), uses available to zoning districts close to or within downtown, and the allowance of Urban Farming (subject to partner code amendments to Definitions, and Family Amusement Centers (State Statues) and to allow a dock on all single family homes that have water access.

Mr. Freeman said the other recommended option is to replace the option to go from a Conditional Use in certain zoning districts with an Innovative Residential Development Use. He stated the Innovative Residential code has specific aims for residential development which includes design, how they are located, what they need to take into account, what the density bonus could be and all the things the city wants. It is almost exactly like a Conditional use, but they apply for Innovative Residential Use.  Mr. Freeman noted they are looking at proposing changes to the Innovative Development code to make it more useful to encourage residential developments, smaller lot size and affordability in locations where there are currently vacant lots and commercial and residential units.

Chairman Kreisl said it is a fantastic idea and it is so much better than the standard Conditional Use process.  He said it is easier for applicants, the Planning Board and the City Commission.  Chairman Kreisl asked about prohibited uses and prior Conditional Uses.  Mr. Freeman explained that past approvals of Conditional Uses which may now be prohibited uses, are grandfathered in.