Local Planning Agency asks City Commission to separate East Stewart review as it advances land‑use code rewrite

The City of Stuart Local Planning Agency (LPA) on Tuesday reviewed Ordinance No. 2539-2025, a proposed amendment that would rewrite large sections of the city’s land development code, and voted to forward multiple recommendations to the City Commission — including a request that the East Stewart provisions be handled separately and that commissioners reconsider proposed parking and density changes.

The ordinance, described in the meeting packet as an amendment and restatement of the City of Stuart land development code covering zoning districts, special zoning codes, resource protection standards and on‑site/off‑site development standards, was presented by Jody Kugler, development director. Kugler said the draft contains many “clean up” edits and several substantive changes the commission requested during the zoning‑in‑progress process. “One of the first changes that the board requested was that we do away with the half units,” Kugler said.

City Manager Mike Mortel framed how the package reached the LPA: after the newly constituted City Commission directed staff to tighten the code, commissioners initiated a zoning‑in‑progress and staff worked through items the commission outlined. “The commission… moved for a zoning in progress,” Mortel said, explaining the expedited review pathway and the sequence of workshops and hearings that followed.

Why it matters: the draft would change rules that affect existing neighborhoods and future projects. Major items discussed include a minimum parcel size change, limits on mixed‑use density accounting, elimination of shared parking allowances, higher multifamily parking minimums, and new rules on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Key points raised at the meeting

- Minimum parcel size and grandfathering: Staff explained the commission directed that parcels recorded on or before September 4, 2024, be deemed legal parcel records, but that newly created parcels after that date would require a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum. The change would revert several zoning tables toward a uniform 6,000‑square‑foot threshold for R2 and R3 zones; the Comprehensive Plan currently references a minimum of 4,365 square feet in some contexts. City Attorney Lee Baggett and the city manager told the LPA the commission intends to treat existing platted parcels as buildable where they were recorded before the zoning‑in‑progress date.

- Density accounting: The draft ties some commercial floor area to residential unit counts by requiring 800 square feet of commercial area to be counted as one dwelling unit for density calculations — a change staff said will reduce “dual counting” of space that previously inflated residential unit potential in mixed‑use projects.

- Parking and shared parking: The draft strikes language allowing shared parking between commercial and residential uses. The code would raise some multifamily parking minima (for example, one‑bedroom units to 2 spaces, two‑bedroom units to 2.5 spaces, and duplexes to 2 spaces per unit), and staff noted state preemption eliminated a local mandatory EV‑charger requirement.

- ADUs: The draft includes an owner‑occupancy requirement and language limiting ADUs to a single water/electric meter; staff said the intent is to preserve single‑family character and avoid covert conversion to multiple dwelling units.

Public comments and property owner concerns

Residents and property owners urged clearer protections and more outreach. James Christie, who said he represents several East Stewart residents, told the LPA, “That plan talks about protections for the community, for the residents, current residents of East Stewart.” Christie said residents are seeking a community‑directed governance mechanism to approve major projects affecting the neighborhood.

Property owner Marcela Campbellore, who said she has platted 10 R3 lots and is building single‑family homes under that approval, told the board, “These amendments are threatening my investments and threatening my reasonable development backed expectation.” Campbellore and her attorney argued the posted draft was inconsistent with earlier public statements and that certain table entries could leave her project without clearly stated setbacks and heights; staff and the city attorney responded that the commission’s intent is to deem pre‑existing parcels legal and to preserve the ability to rebuild those parcels in the future.

Board discussion and motions

After the presentation and public comment, the LPA debated motions and amendments. The LPA approved a motion to forward to the City Commission a request that the East Stewart section of the draft be handled separately and that the commission take under consideration a plan submitted by East Stewart residents the evening the LPA met. The board also approved a separate motion asking the commission to reconsider increases to parking ratios, to retain shared‑parking options in some circumstances, and to request further analysis of the proposed floor‑area/density conversion (the 800‑square‑foot metric).

Votes at a glance

- Motion to ask the City Commission to treat the East Stewart provisions separately and to consider the resident plan submitted the evening of the meeting: approved (recorded vote: Board member Strom — yes; Board member Bromfield — yes; Board member Bowles — yes; Vice Chair Peterson — no; Chair Loreen — yes; Board member Vogel — yes).

- Motion requesting the City Commission not increase current parking ratios, to retain shared parking allowances, and to commission further analysis of the floor‑area/density conversion: approved (recorded vote: Board member Vogel — yes; Board member Strom — yes; Board member Bromfield — yes; Vice Chair Peterson — no; Board member Bowles — yes; Chair Loreen — yes).

What was not decided

The LPA did not adopt the ordinance; its role was advisory. The City Commission will take the LPA’s recommendations into account at upcoming public hearings, including a first hearing and a second reading currently scheduled in the ordinance timeline. Staff noted the zoning‑in‑progress period expires March 4, and the commission may pursue comp‑plan amendments or other changes at its hearings.

Next steps

Staff said it will incorporate the LPA’s feedback and that commissioners will hear the ordinance at future meetings. The LPA requested additional outreach specifically targeting East Stewart residents so that the community has a clearer opportunity to review and comment before the commission acts.