Saint John Properties pitches Lucas Tech Park; commission narrows list of sensitive uses and asks for stronger lease/PD language

Saint John Properties presented plans July 9 for Lucas Tech Park, a proposed planned development on roughly 37.195 acres along Southview Drive that would build about 273,560 square feet of multi‑tenant flex buildings in up to seven shell structures.

Rafael Alderman, representing Saint John Properties, said the company builds and operates long‑term flex parks and expects economic benefits including hundreds of jobs across phases. "With the amount of square footage we'd be developing in the three phases, we'd be bringing in total about 821 jobs," Alderman said, outlining phasing, proposed improvements and a TIA that recommends turn lanes and a warranted signal once thresholds are met.

Staff and commissioners reviewed an extensive use chart that included a number of uses not explicitly addressed in the city's base zoning code. Commissioners generally signaled support for allowing light assembly/fabrication, mail/ship operations and many enclosed industrial/tech uses by right where operations would be internal and not water‑cooled (tech storage/server farms that require water cooling would be SUP‑only). They were cautious about uses that tend to generate outside storage, long‑term vehicle parking or heavy truck circulation.

A few uses drew sustained resistance. Several commissioners recommended that automobile collision/repair and automobile rental not be permitted by right (collision services to remain SUP or be excluded), and they flagged concerns about outside storage and grease/oil contamination risk. The commission also debated breweries and tasting rooms: the developer said breweries in the firm’s other parks operate within enclosed suites, limit water usage (developer cited a 10‑gallon per minute production threshold), and include tasting rooms sized to the flex product; some commissioners remained unconvinced that breweries with on‑site consumption fit Lucas’ character and asked staff to return a recommendation.

The developer described lease enforcement tools and quick cure periods for tenant violations; Saint John said its standard leases include short notice and self‑cure remedies and that property managers will enforce outside‑storage prohibitions. Commissioners asked staff to incorporate explicit PD language and lease‑enforcement expectations (including self‑cure timelines) to limit outside storage and to require that service courts not be used for manufacturing or storage activities.

Other technical items covered included: tying signage, elevations and landscape exhibits to the PD, clarifying parking layout (commission requested angled parking in portions of the site), stormwater and flood‑study coordination with the city’s third‑party reviewer, and impact fee timing (impact fees are collected at building permit issuance; the impact fee schedule can be the applicant’s submitted schedule and may remain the basis for the development over time). Commissioners asked staff for clearer draft language limiting water‑intensive uses and requiring sealed civil/stormwater studies with future submittals.

Next steps: staff will return a revised PD reflecting the commission’s direction on which uses require SUP, specific numerical limits or thresholds where appropriate, explicit lease/PD enforcement language prohibiting outside storage and clarifying drainage and parking standards.