Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBerth 1 & 2 (11-17-06)L1f L f J GuuO 1=. (.0 e 4-40O—:) u0 ZONJNc �OM1P1W1 MATION /.DE�JEL 0PNEN7 REVIEW 4r0VPPCH9A1SrUC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN Hi$70A/C PRESERUATIM CULTURAL RE80URCEo" NOVEMBF- R '1 7, 2006 CITY OF FORT PIERCE 2005 Fionde League of Cities "city of Excellence" Award Winner DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Destin Leach, Inc Mr. Lloyd F. Bell, Jr. C/O Ann Bell 1008 U.S. 98, Destin Towers, Destin FL 32541 "IMPROVING THE WAY WE D© BuS1NESS" V J�� d Box B G (p /✓ 0 RE: Berth 1 & 2 — Cargo & Berthing Facility Dear Mr. Bell: �/1 The City of Fort Pierce Planning Department staff, in coordination with Saint Lucie County Develcpment Review Committee staff, conducted a review of the Berth 1 & 2 — Cargo & Berthing Facility 'conceptual plan submitted on November 13, 2006. As you are aware. the City of Fort Pierce scheduled this matter for discussion at its December 4. 2006 meeting. The discussion of this `conceptual plan' is also sc.heduied for the City of Fort Pierce Planning Board special meeting set for November 29, 2006. Allowing the Planning Board to review and provide comments to this subject is advised to introduce the board to the proposed use of the port. Upon Site Plan application, the review and approval of the proposed development must follow the Special Planned Unit Redevelopment Review Procedures specified by Section 22-42(o) of the City Code which requires public hearings. As the proposed development neither meets these requirements nor follows these procedures, any Planning Board or City Commission action taken with regard to the proposed development is nonbinding, I recommend that the staff comments are understood and addressed prior to the City Commission meeting on December 4, 200E This letter is a summary of initial comments from the various department/agency staff members. Upon request, I will forward the actual staff comment memorandum to you if you see the need. Additional time for a more thorough review would likely result in additional concerns, however, our understanding is tnat the intent of this review is to establish a level of comfort for the proposed development. As a general statement, many of the staff comments pertain to matters that can be addressed during the site plan review process, meaning there is a distinction between Conceptual vs. Site Plan related comments. Therefore, the review is summarized as follows: Conceptual Plan Issues: P.O. Box 1480 FORT PIERCE. FL 34954-1480 ^ 772-460-2204 Lir 1 r �E7✓Jb 1b: to r rl-4bb-7bC16 _1 i r ur r, 1 rlcr. rNac NOVEMBER 17, 2006 PAGE 2 The Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan, adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, allows for iimited cargo operations in the Berth 1 area. The proposed development includes improvements to portions of Berth 2 for cargo operations. The following comments are provided with regard to the proposed development and the Goals, Policies, and Objectives for the Port of Fort Fierce Master Plan and Comprehensive flan. 1) As dictated by the 2002 Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan, cargo operations shall be limited to the Berth 1 area. Policy 2.1.2 states, "The Port of Fort Pierce will continue as a deepwater port that will accommodate limited cargo operations. Gentrification of cargo areas shall be emphasized and flexibility shall be retained in the Berth 1 area to allow either limited cargo operations or marine industries or a combination of both. All such uses shall be consistent with the general mix of uses described herein and compatible with adjacent land uses and natural resources," 2) The proposed development includes the improvement of approximately 300 feet of the Berth 2 bulkhead. It is not specified as to the reason of the improvements. As dictated above ;n Policy 2.12, Berth 2 improvements for cargo operations are not permissible under the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan. 3) Security measures dictated in the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan require specific fence, parking, and lightning requirements. The proposed development does not conform to these requirements. 4) Policy 2.2.1 states, "The Port of Fort Pierce, In cooperation with other governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, should develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing public port facilities and landscaping to encourage new and expanded business development_" Landscaping has not been provided to conform to this policy. 5) Environmental protection to the Indian River Lagoon waters and shorelines is a priority within the Port of Fort 'Pierce Master Plan. The applicant has not undertaken the appropriate measures to ensure that the quality of the lagoon will not be detrimentally harmed by the proposed cargo operations. The proposed Stock Pile Area is a concern as no measures have been identified to ensure that the stockpiled material is contained. (3) The Future Land Use is designated as I, Industrial, which allows for the use of storage and distribution facilities. 7) The revised vision of the port shifted the primary and exclusive use of the port from one of cargo to a mix of recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan were developed to ensure that the mix of uses would be in harmony with one other. Berth 1 being used as a limited cargo operation facility would not be injurious to the other undeveloped parcels of land at the port if certain restrictions are used to provide compatibility to future development such as providing landscape buffering, aesthetically pleasing buildings that act as visual buffers, and limiting its operation to daytime hours only. Based on the information provided to date in the proposed site plan, restrictions have not been identified which would ensure compatibility with future development of the surrounding parcels. 3) St. Lucie County Growth Management Department summarized comments from several county agencies and all of these comments are pertinent to conceptual review: P,0. Box 14a0 FORT PIERCE, FL. 34954-1480 772-460-22CO 11f 17/2006 1G: 28 772-456-581H8 (-'i I LN- F I F'1Eklk 11t NCvr=NABER 17, 20M PAG+ 3 A) The proposed conceptual plan is not consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. B) The proposed conceptual plan is not consistent with the Port Master Plan. C) The proposed increased cargo use of the port has not been supported with any environmental assessment, even though environmental impacts may be substantial. U) The proposed Increased cargo use of the port, based on this comments from the applicant, is for bringing in aggregate material. However, there is nothing in the proposal that limits the cargo to aggregate material in any legal enforceable document. Other cargo may create different environmental and transportation impacts, and different facility demands. E) The proposed use of the port includes no legally enforceable proposal to limit the size and number of vessels using the port, or to limit the size and number of vessels lying in harbor at anchor in the Indian Fiver Lagoon or waiting offshore to enter the port. Significant demands for public facilities and services may result from uncontrolled expansion of shipments. Significant environmental impacts, safety. law enforcement, security, and navigation issues may arise if traffic is not clearly limited in a manner that is both defined and legally enforceable, E) The proposed increased cargo use of the port is inconsistent with species protection and habitat protection standards of the adopted St. Lucie County comprehensive Plan. G) There is no assessment of the increase in heavy truck traffic on road maintenance costs or on transportation systems capacity. An increase in truck traffic may have a substantial on road maintenance costs and road capacity. H; There is no assessment of how the project will be related to hurricane storm hazards and its impact, if any, on coastal evacuation, how cargo vessels will be secured to prevent bridge damage, and pollution, etc. 9) It should be further, noted that the proposed parcel map includes the abandonment of Avenue M and the public right-of-way and the incorporation of this land into the proposed development for private use. Address the reconfiguration of Avenue M 1D) Explain the extension of the rail spur lines, any railroad crossings of streets.; and whether the plan anticipates the removal of any rail spur lines in the area. 11) Provide additional information on the estimated quantity of dredged material arid how it is to be removed and processed. 12) Explain the modification of the bulkhead design to accommodate future: expansion of the port operations and how that complies with the Port Master Plan, Site Plan Issues: The property of the proposed development depicted by the Site Plan is zoned Planned Unit Redevelopment (PUFF). The City Commission may consider the proposed development to be appropriate for this zoning district in accordance with Section 22-42(c)(14) of the City Code. According to the City Code, proposed development within a PUR zoning district must follow the Special Application Requirements specified by Section 22-42(n;, P-®, Boy: 1480 > FORT PIERCE, FL 3495e--148G 772,460-2200 L 1 I 1 f! L'JVO 1 = . LO ! f L-4`JO 'J C'VO t11 T L- r , r1G"'�C i - U11 - NOVEMBER 17, 2006 PAGE 4 The following comments are provided with regard to the proposed development and its compliance with other aspects of the City Code: 1) Appropriate provisions far avoiding environmental hazards and for the preservation of natural features such as shorelands and wooded cover have not been made to comply with Sections 22-42(b)(1) and 22-56 of the City Code. 2) It has not been demonstrated that the development will not create excessive traffic congestion on nearby streets or overburden public facilities and services to comply with Section 22-42(b)(2) of the City Code. 3) It has not been demonstrated that a need exists for the development at the proposed location and that the appli-ant has the capacity to assure completion of the project to comply with Section 22-42(b)(3) of the City Code. 4) Common open space has not been provided to comply with Section 22-42(e) of the City Code. 5) Provisions to ensure adequate separation of dust -generating processes and concentrations of motor vehicles from surrounding development and to control runoff from the stockpiles have not been specified to confirm compliance with Section 22- 42(f) of the City Code. 61 No off -site improvements, such as to North 2nd Street, Harbor Street, or Port Avenue, have been identified as part of the proposed development to comply with Section 22- 42(g) of the City Code. 7) An attractively -designed and maintained buffer has not been provided to comply with Section 22-42(h) of the City Code. 8) Landscaping has not been provided to comply with Sections 22-42(1) and 22-187 of the City Code. 9) Parking for the employees and the disabled and lighting have not been provided to comply with Section 22-60 of the City Code. 1C) Sidewalks have not been provided along Harbor Street to comply with Section 22-62 of the City Code. 11) The screening of the outside storage of materiais and its limitation to 15 feet in height have not been provided to comply with Section 22-67(e)(5) of the City Code. Conch siens• Based on the expansion of cargo operations into Berth 2 and the lack of measures provided to ensure security, aesthetics, environmental protection, and compatibility with the future development of the surrounding parcels, the proposed development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Based on the information provided on the proposed Site Plan, the proposed development does not most the requirements of the City Code. P,Q. Boy. 1460 FORT P(ERct=, F! 34954-1490 772-460-2230 11! 1 r! LlJ 6.7r 1=: 10 r rL-�LOO-�aYJ� NOVEMBER 17, 2006 PAGE 5 uoI UJ Staff comments: As the proposed development meet the requirements of the development. is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not City Code, Staff recommends disapproval of th_sed It should be noted that based on the limited nature of the information provided and the review period, this Staff review should not be considered comprehensive nor complete, and Staff reserves the right to provide additional comments with regard to the consistency of the proposed development with the City Comprehensive Plan and its adherence to the City Code, Please provide an additional seventeen (17) copies of the proposed plan; five (5) needed for Planning Board and twelve (12) for the City Commission. Feel free to contact me at (772) 460-2200 ext. 200 with any Questions you may have. Sincerely, Matthew G. Marootta, ICE I Director of Planning MGMlbms cc: Brian Root, CSM Engineers. LLC (via facsimile and email) Dennis W. Seach, City Manager David L. Recor, Deputy City Manager Douglas M_ Anderson, County Administrator (via facsimile) P.C. Box, 148C 0 FORT PIERCE, FL 34954-1480 -, 772-460-2200