Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today is Thursday, June 4th, 2026. It is 9 a.m. We are in the city chambers, and I call the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board meeting to order. First item is roll call. Will the board members please, beginning on the right end, please state their names for the record. Michael Paterkoski.

Linda Waugh.

Charles Wolfe.

Richard Gortz. Marat Bogayev.

Apparently, Mr. Keough is absent.

No, he's here now. Was he here?

Oh, he just got here. All right, good for him. All right, so we do have everyone here. All right, shall we all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance?

United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'll ask the board specialist if she has any submitted public comment cards for public comment.

There are no public comments.

There are no public comments, okay. The next item is approval of the minutes of the April 16th, 2026 board meeting. Move for approval as submitted. Second. All right, Mr. Gortz has moved for approval and Ms. Waugh has seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, can I record your votes, please?

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right, the motion carries unanimously. We now proceed to the agenda item, public hearing, DMA 23-249. Consideration of Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan Amendment for the development of a self-storage facility in the planned community zoning district pursuant to the 2010 City of Northport Unified Land Development Code Section 53-116 and the 2017 City of Northport Comprehensive Plan. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. Will the board specialist please read the petition title?

Petition DMA-23-249, Consideration of Tuscalo Commons Development Master Plan Amendment for the Development of a Self-Storage Facility in the Planned Community Zoning District. Pursuant to the 2010 City of Northport Unified Land Development Code, Section 53-116, and the 2017 City of Northport Comprehensive Plan.

Are there any agreed party status requests?

Hold on, let me, I got to just swear in everyone. Okay. Is everyone who's wishing to provide testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? Thank you.

All right.

And there are no agreed parties.

All right, no agreed parties. Has there been any ex parte communication?

None. I drive by the area three or four times a week.

That shouldn't be a problem. No, it's not ex parte.

I went by the property to see the layout.

No ex parte communication. No, have none.

I don't think we have a problem. All right, I call for a presentation by the applicant. 20 minutes, please.

Hi, good morning. My name is Linda Stewart. I'm a certified planner with Peyton Dawson representing the applicant for Tuscola Commons self-storage. This is an aerial photo of the property located in the southeast corner of Tuscola Boulevard and Murillo Lane, just north of Tamiami Trail. It's located in the Tuscola Commons condominium subdivision. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan to modify the site to include a 29,209 square foot footprint four-story self-storage facility on PID number 0999-01-1005. The property address is 5632 Tuscola Boulevard. It's a 1.29 acre parcel. One of the parcels located within the 14.08 acre Tuscola Commons condominium subdivision. The site is currently vacant and it is zoned PCD. We are not asking for a rezoning, just a modification to the existing zoning for the use on the property. The subject site is within the City of Northport Future Land Use Category Activity Center 1. This is a site layout of the property located on the parcel with the adjoining uses for the subdivision. To the west is an existing Lowe's and Hampton Inn to the east with various retail uses also located within the commercial subdivision. These are some architectural renderings for the property. It is a four-story self-storage building with a proposed FAR of 0.95 with an allowable FAR of 1.0. So this is in compliance with the intensity as noted within your land development regulations. For the pattern book, as outlined in your land development code with the architectural renderings and colorings, this is in compliance with those regulations as outlined. The traffic impact statement notes that the overall trips for the property on an average weekday is 146 trips. The a.m. peak hour is $5. or nine entering, nine exiting, and the same for the PM peak hour at only nine entering and nine exiting per day. The previous approved development master plan, this site was intended to be a convenience store gas station with 16 fuel pumps. This convenience store was going to be a 6,000 square foot building, which is a notoriously high trip generator. The traffic impact statement submitted at the time actually said that this would be a daily trip of over 2,600 trips. This amendment request for this use is to revise to a self-storage facility, a notoriously low trip generator. As I mentioned, it's nine in, nine out, versus the overall 2,600 previously proposed. This will help reduce the overall traffic trips on the roadways, a benefit to the City of Northport. We did a traffic, or a, what do we call this? Truck turning template. Thank you. Our civil engineer. For the garbage trucks and for the fire trucks to show that they can maneuver within the layout of the subdivision and the outline for the self-storage facility. They can enter and exit appropriately. The parking required for the property is only noted for the on-site office, which is a 1,500 square foot office located within the building with six spaces required. The parking provided is nine spaces with one handicap space, which meets code. A neighborhood workshop was held on February 5th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Since we had no one attending to ask any questions, the meeting was closed at 6.30. The applicant has no objections to SAF's conditions in the staff report. In my expert opinion, this requested modification is in compliance with the City of Northport Unified Lane Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. And we are available if you have any questions.

Very good. Is there anyone else speaking for the applicant?

Have any questions?

Any questions?

I have one question. I just saw that page in here. It shows like about parking. It says like six parking. Yeah, one space per 150 square foot for non-storage. But this is storage, right? Or are they confusing here?

Yes, but in your regulations, you provide parking just for the office that's located within there. Since people don't really park, they pull up, load, unload, and they leave. So there's six spaces required due to the square footage of the office, and we're providing above that. We're providing nine. WHICH INCLUDES ONE HANDICAP. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE ARE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

Good morning, Adriana Silva, Planner 2 with the Planning and Zoning Division, and I have been sworn. We are discussing the Tuscola Commons Self-Storage Development Master Plan Amendment under petition number DMA 23-249. The applicant is Pape Dawson, formerly known as Morris Engineering. The property owner is Mr. Daniel Olberski as a registered agent and manager of the Tuscola Commons LLC, and the request is to amend the Tuscola Commons development master plan in order to modify the layout for the construction of a 29,209 square feet self-storage facility located at 5632 Tuscola Boulevard, and the entirety of the development master plan site is 14 acres. This application has undergone a full staff review, starting with a pre-application meeting held in August 16 of 2023 with formal submittal on September 26, 2023, followed by a review for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and the Unified Land Development Code. The staff conditions provided on the application will be ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOLLOWING THIS APPROVAL AND COMPLIANCE WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT TIME. THIS IS A VACANT SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERN MOST PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TUSCOLA BOULEVARD AND MARILLA LANE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING VACANT PARCEL ON THE SITE. THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER SITE HAS BEEN BUILT OUT. So this application has been reviewed for consistency with the 2017 comprehensive plan as that is the comprehensive plan that was in effect at the time of submittal. The future land use element goal one requires that the city ensure that the character and location of land uses is maximized for potential economic benefit and enjoyment of natural and manmade resources while minimizing threat to health, safety, and welfare. This is in the activity center, future land use, and these areas are designated to provide coordinated development of industrial, commercial, professional, office, residential, public, and recreational uses. Staff does find that the petition is in consistency with the future land use goal one of the city's comprehensive plan. Goal two does state that the city must promote an intensive mixture of employment, goods and services, and residential uses within the activity centers, providing a wide variety of residential and employment alternatives to achieve the highest standards of quality in the urban environment, providing a balanced and healthy tax base. Policy 2.1.1 specifies that activity center number one where this parcel is located, that it shall be established to provide retail, office, commercial, and limited light industrial uses along the US 41 corridor. Staff has reviewed the petition and finds it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policy 2.1.1. THIS PROJECT WAS REVIEWED AGAINST POLICY 2.1.2 THAT DOES DICTATE THAT THE ACCESS ROAD AND CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TO PROMOTE AN EASE OF INTERNAL TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND LIMIT REENTRY DIRECTLY ON TO US 41. THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FUTURE LAND USE POLICY 2.1.2 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The future land use element has objective three speaking to the economic base that it shall be increased and diversified relative to the city's entire economic tax base through planning and development activities to attract new businesses and industries. while encouraging the expansion of existing businesses and industries as indicated in the economic development element. Policy 3.3 specifies that we shall promote overall sustainability and tax-based diversification to pursue a goal of at least 18% non-residential development and allowing this self-storage unit would help the city meet this goal. So staff does find the petition to be in compliance with future land use policy 3.3 of the city's comprehensive plan. The transportation element of the comprehensive plan does state that the determination as to whether the existing roadway can adequately serve the existing and future demands is predicated on the ability to estimate the maximum amount of traffic roadway can safely accommodate. This project does have an updated traffic impact study and has a reduced level of traffic impact given to the original expected use of the parcel. So staff does find that this petition is in compliance with the transportation element and the roadway levels of service in the city's comprehensive plan. The economic development element of the comprehensive plan has policy 1.1.5 where the city recognizes the value of continuing to establish land use regulations that allow industrial and commercial uses in appropriate locations that have limited options for locating in other areas of the region. These uses must employ best management practices to reduce negative on and off site impacts and must be appropriately buffered to AGAINST POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. POLICY 1.1.6 DOES STATE THAT THE CITY SHALL SEEK TO DIVERSIFY ITS TAX BASE THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS THAT ATTRACT ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS AND ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS AS THIS IS THE FINAL REMAINING VACANT PARCEL ON THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER SITE AND IT IS BRINGING IN APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL USE, STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE PETITION IS IN COMPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY WITH POLICIES 1.1.5 AND 1.1.6 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AGAIN, THE 2010 UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS THE REGULATION IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL, SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2010 UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED AS A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and those areas must provide for coordinated development of industrial, commercial service, residential, and government uses within a park-like setting. The proposed amendment does comply with all applicable 2010 Unified Land Development Code requirements and further compliance with Chapter 53, Sections 103 through 114 for applicable height, buffering, landscaping, and screening requirements. shall be demonstrated and further detailed at the time of site development and infrastructure plan application. This petition was properly noticed and a pub and neighborhood meeting was held. Postcards were sent out to all property owners within a 1,320 foot radius of the site on May 19th. And the petition was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as well on May 19th. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 53-5.E of the Unified Land Development Code, the applicant did host a neighborhood meeting virtually on February 26, 2026 at 6 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Division does recommend approval of petition number DMA-23-249 on a cell known as PMCPA-23-0000249, Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan Amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. There being no agreed parties, I guess we should proceed to the rebuttal. Is there a rebuttal by the applicant? Yes, sir. There is no rebuttal, no rebuttal by staff.

No.

No agreed parties. Is there any notice of any public comment?

There is no public comments.

Okay, closing argument by applicant.

Questions?

Oh, question. I'm sorry, board questions.

I have a question to... On the goal one and goal two, can you switch the screen back to it? It says employment. Goal two, for example. To promote interest and employment. What is that about? How do you guys estimate or calculate employment impact and how many employment will be in that business? It says, like, Goal 2 is promote an intensive and mixture to employment, goods, and services. I understand service, business, storage, but what about employment? Does that mean, like, how many workers will work there? Yes, so... Or how you do the calculation on Goal 2 or...

The Goal 2 would be based off of the use proposed, so... Can you microphone... Oh, can you hear me?

Is that better?

Yeah.

Can you hear me? So the employment is based off of the proposed use, so the typical employment needed for a self-storage unit is, it's just based off the typical amount of staffing that would be needed for that type of facility.

Do you have that number? How many employee who work there?

Do you have the number or no? It's self-storage. No, it's a typical storage unit site.

SO BE ONE OR TWO EMPLOYEES?

I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER SPECIFICALLY ON ME, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE SO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ELEMENT SPECIFICALLY IS MORE SO BASED OFF THE GOODS AND SERVICES FOR THE REGION, AS WELL AS COMPATIBILITY WITH AN APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL USE FOR THE SITE, AND IT IS A USE THAT HAS DEMAND IN THAT AREA.

And then hear about something, how many property cover the land, like should have green grass. What's the percentage of that?

Of open space?

Yes.

So that has been roughly demonstrated on the site, but that is to be specified at the time of site development infrastructure application.

Can you show me the site plan?

The site?

Yeah. Uh-huh. So that blue outline is a property line?

Yes, correct.

So this is a parking. And we talk about that feedback. It's like 15%, right? I just- I talk about that green, his name.

So this...

I forgot how to properly say it, but like... No, yes, the buffering, the buffering of the... It's not a buffer, it's like building and parking should cover no more than like... Okay, the Florida area ratio?

The Florida area ratio? The Florida area ratio, the amount of building on top of the site?

Yes. 75 usually is, but I'm not sure on the property. No, yes.

So the Florida area ratio on this site is outlined here, and it was coming in below what was originally approved under the entirety of the development master plan.

What does that mean?

So it... Sorry, I think you're referencing impervious surface area ratio. That's the building and the pavement combined. And because this is a unified development site, the Tuscola project as a whole, it was originally designed as a unified development site. So the impervious surface area ratio was calculated for the project as a whole, not on a site by site basis. And it is compliant.

The overall project is compliant with the impervious surface area ratio.

Adriana is going to get you the percentage for the project as a whole.

Can you show the side plan again? Yes. Yeah, it's like all concrete and driveway and asphalt.

Could you repeat that?

I'm sorry. All right. I have no more questions.

Are there any other questions? Yes.

A question for the applicant indicated that there are nine parking spaces, that six are required. I assume that's for people going into the office, renting spaces, paying their fees, et cetera. How about those pulling up in pickup trucks, whatever that would be, unloading materials, sending it to the second, third floor on an elevator, parking their truck out there for an hour or so? Where would they park?

I'LL BRING UP THE ELEVATION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT. WELL, I GUESS IT'S SHOWN BEST ON HERE. OVER ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, THERE'S A BREEZEWAY And the cars will pull up within that, underneath the building, and the elevators are located underneath. So they will pull up, they will unload underneath, and then they will take their goods and services, you know, whatever they want to do, and take it up to their unit and come back down.

Where do they park their truck while they're up?

They can park there or they can use one of the nine spaces. But the Land Development Code's regulation does not require us to calculate parking for that type of use. But we are providing above and beyond so they could use some of the extra spaces.

I'm looking at the practical aspect of it. You might have two or three trucks there at one time. And are there parking on the driveway? Where would somebody normally park? They're not going to get in their car, drive over to the parking lot, walk back over and go up the elevator. They're going to park it right there.

Well, no. The parking is located. I pulled this one up so you can see the little square in the southwest corner is where they will pull up the parking is right adjacent to that. So if they if they pull up to the elevators, they unload on the carts that are available. They can either leave their vehicle there or they can just go right right adjacent to it and park and go back if they choose, or they can leave it right underneath the portico.

Thank you. No further questions.

Any other questions?

How many units? for storage approximately. It's all going back to parking. In the traffic study, you said at least nine additional vehicles per hour that are going in and out of there. So there you're at maximum capacity for people coming and going from the unit, not counting office staff that's going to be there.

Right.

But again, we're not required to count per unit.

Right. Lori Barnes, Deputy Director of Development Services. We are not permitted to require parking above the minimum requirements in the Unified Land Development Code. That is something that could result in a challenge or a taking under the Burt Harris Act by us requiring something in addition to the minimum requirements. So while it may appear that parking is not sufficient in some people's minds, we cannot require something beyond what our code indicates.

Okay, thank you.

One last question.

Another question? Yes.

Just curious on the height of the building. How does the height of the building compare with the Hampton Inn that's adjacent to it?

So. So.

I am not sure how tall the Hampton Inn is. Your code allows these buildings to be a maximum of 100 feet tall. And we are at four stories, so we are well below what your allowed height is for these buildings within this subdivision.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Any closing arguments by staff?

Staff recommends approval of the petition.

Applicant? None. All right. I am going to close the public hearing and request a motion to approve or deny. Who would like to? Ms. Waugh.

I move to recommend approval of petition number DMA 23249, P-M-C-P-A-23-0000249, and find that based on the competent substantial evidence the Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan Amendment complies with all regulations set forth in the 2017 City of Northport Comprehensive Plan.

Second.

Who's that? All right, it has been moved and seconded. To recommend approval of the petition number DMA 23-249 and find that based on competent substantial evidence, the Tuscawilla Commons Development Master Plan Amendment complies with all regulations set forth in the 2017 City of Northport Comprehensive Plan. Is there any discussion?

Nope.

No. All right. I've already restated the motion. I'll now call for the vote.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. No. All right. We have five yeses and one no. The motion has been carried by a majority of the vote of the board. I now announce any future agenda items, query the board members regarding items to be placed on a future agenda. Are there any?

None.

The board specialists have any public comment cards for public comment?

There is no public comments.

There's no public comment. That being the case, the time...

I do have a couple questions. Oh, yes. I received an email to fill out the statement of financial interest. I just want to make sure people check your spam, because I know a couple years mine ended up in the spam. I didn't...

We're going to do it every two years? This is for real. I've done it once and we're going to do it over and over again? Every year. Every two years?

I was going to ask if we were required by law every year.

Every year, okay.

I did mine it. They still send us an email.

Good to know that. Thank you for raising that issue.

I thought I already did it.

It's for last year.

Okay, I'll check my email.

Time is 9.35, I hereby adjourn the meeting.