CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE Planning and Zoning Board Regular Meeting The Planning and Zoning Board met in formal session Tuesday,, at 2:00 p.m. in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Sue Agresta, Chairperson and the following were present: 1. Roll Call: Sue Agresta, Chairperson Matt Shaffer, Vice Chairperson Jerry Dixon (Arrived at 2:10 p.m.) John Valdes Carl Blow Deltra Long Cathy Brown City Staff: David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Sharon O Keefe, Community Development Planner Isabelle Lopez, City Attorney Laurie Atkinson, Recording Secretary 2. General Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda John Danahy stated he was concerned with zoning, and the intent to use 100 Flagler Street as a small events venue and parking. BJ Kaladi asked if there are any changes on the agenda or if items are going to be continued if the board could please advise the audience prior to the meeting. Susan Rathbone stated she also had concerns regarding the zoning at 100 Flagler Street. Isabelle Lopez clarified that they would not be discussing a specific property, that this was not a hearing on administratively rezoning any specific property. She said that what had occurred was that after a particular item was heard at the last meeting, there was a lot of community discussion on the concept generally of administrative rezoning s or the possibility of other methods that the city could look into regarding allowable uses in zonings. She stated that this was not a rehearing of a prior quayside judicial hearing, she stated that case was separate and distinct, what had occurred was that members of the community wrote a letter and asked to simply have a discussion on the broader question of what, if anything in terms of administrative rezoning s this board might recommend to the City Commission. She reiterated that there was not going to be a detailed discussion or hearing on a particular applicant and that item 8 (4) would not be a hearing, it was merely a workshop discussion amongst the Board members as to whether or not the Board wanted to recommend as the next step, that the City Commission consider looking administrative rezoning s. Mr. Valdes stated that a workshop would be beneficial and that at this point in time, hearing public comment would not be conducive. There was a discussion on what the workshop would entail.

2 3. Approval of Minutes August 5, 2014 Minutes were approved as presented. Mr. Blow MOVED to APPROVED the August 5, 2014 minutes as presented. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Valdes. AYES: Blow, Valdes, Brown, Long, Dixon, Shaffer, Agresta September 2, 2014 Minutes were approved as presented. Ms. Brown MOVED to APPROVED the September 2, 2014 minutes as presented. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Long. AYES: Brown, Long, Blow, Valdes, Dixon, Shaffer, Agresta 4. Use by Exception 4. (a) Glenn Hastings Applicant Glenn and Tracy Hastings Owner 31 Rohde Avenue (Continued from August 5, 2014 Meeting) To encroach into the required side and rear building setbacks for a screened pool enclosure. section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, Staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a variance to encroach into the side and rear yard building setbacks for a screened pool enclosure at 31 Rohde Avenue. Glenn Hastings reviewed his prior plans with the board and stated that he had adjusted those plans per the Board s recommendations at the last meeting. He said that they intended to remove the wooden fencing and replace it with a concrete brick with a stucco finish and that the enclosure would be installed on top of this. Mr. Blow clarified that they plans now showed that the screen enclosure sits on top of the wall and the structure would be at least 10 feet from the property line on any side. He felt that the issues last time seemed to have been resolved. He asked if they had selected a contractor. Mr. Hasting stated that they were deciding between two different contractors. 21 certified notices were sent, 8 returned in favor, 0 returned opposed and 1 had Public comment was opened, however there was no response, Public hearing was closed. Ms. Long stated that she had a conversation with the applicant. Mr. Shaffer confirmed that the original setback of at least three feet was moot, as the applicant was installing the enclosure at least 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Valdes MOVED to APPROVE application The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Dixon. 2

3 AYES: Valdes, Dixon, Brown, Long, Blow, Shaffer, Agresta 4. (b) Brian Ely, BECC Contracting, Inc. Applicant Steve and Beth Motzel Owner 38 E. Park Avenue (Continued from September 2, 2014 Meeting) To exceed the maximum lot coverage and to encroach into the required building setback for a new garage. section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, Staff finds that the Board can DENY a variance to encroach into the required building setbacks and to exceed the maximum lot coverage for a new garage at 38 E. Park Avenue. Brian Ely stated that the applicant had reconfigured their inside space and no longer felt the need to have a garage and therefore would like a carport instead. He said that his concern was that if they could not have the garage or carport that they would have to put up a tent for parking purposes. Mr. Blow asked what the conditions were for having a tent structure on the property. Mr. Birchim stated that every structure has to meet the wind load requirement and a skeletal tent structure can meet that by removing the tarp topping at night, but in totality those buildings cannot meet the State Building Code. He stated that if they receive a complaint regarding one of these they deal with them on individual basis. Ms. Agresta clarified that a carport was considered in lot coverage. Ms. Long asked if they wanted to build a single or a double carport. Mr. Ely stated that they wanted to build a double carport. 13 certified notices were sent, 8 returned in favor, 0 returned opposed and 2 had Public comment was opened. Sandra Nelson stated that she was concerned that they applicant may want to enclose this area in the future and make it part of the house. She stated that she was opposed to this application. She stated that her concern was the environment in the marsh area as she owned the majority of the back lots on the marsh, with the exception of the far eastern end of that marsh zone. Steve Motzel stated that he felt that Ms. Nelson had a good point in regards to encroachment; however he would like to have a cover for his vehicle without offending anyone. He stated that he was open to what the board suggested. Mr. Blow stated that this was a difficult case as they could not find a hardship. He stated that he understood why Mr. Motzel would like to have car coverage. He said that the only solution he could think of would be to put a second story over the prior garage area and reopen the first floor as a carport and therefore would not need a variance. Mr. Motzel stated that he would be willing to consider doing that. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Blow stated that if it does not meet the hardship requirements that they could not give a variance. He stated that he was concerned with setting precedence and that they needed to be consistent with their decisions. 3

4 Mr. Valdes stated that he agreed with Mr. Blow, and felt that the suggestion of building a second story and opening up the garage was a good one. He said that he had no choice however but to deny this application. It was the consensus of the board that while sympathetic, they had no choice but to deny this application. Ms. Long stated that she had a conversation with the owners and that they had discussed their intentions. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to DENY application The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Dixon. AYES: Shaffer, Dixon, Brown, Long, Blow, Valdes, Agresta 5. Use by Exception 5. (a) Unity Tattoo Applicant W J Collins & Associates Inc. Owner 3501 North Ponce de Leon Boulevard To allow a Tattoo Studio Business as a permissible use by exception. Section 28-19(a) and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a use by exception for a tattoo studio at 3501 N. Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite I. Bart Andrews provided documents to the board showing their work and providing their Bio and Credits. 1 Ms. Brown asked if they felt that they could survive with so many other tattoo establishments in St. Augustine. Karrie Rosenbaum said that she felt their quality of work would sustain their business. 4 certified notices were sent, 0 returned in favor, 1 returned opposed and 0 had Public comment was opened. BJ Kaladi asked that codes be enforced and that this business have an appropriate sign. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Dixon felt that the applicant s work was extremely nice. He also felt that the location was fine. Mr. Blow stated that he was comfortable approving this application. Ms. Long asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Andrews stated their anticipated hours would be from 10:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. None. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE the application The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Blow. AYES: Shaffer, Blow, Brown, Long, Valdes, Dixon, Agresta 1 A copy was attached to the original minutes. 4

5 5. (b) The Tasting Tours Applicant La Caleta Inc. Owner 59 Cuna Street To allow a Wine Bar Business as a permissible use by exception. Section 28-19(a) and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a use by exception for a wine bar at 59 Cuna Street. Jo Anna Engel stated that they do wine tours but that when the patrons come into their business that they would like to be allowed to serve wine. She stated that they were not looking to open a wine bar, just to be able to serve a glass of wine to patrons when they are waiting on the premises. She said at the most they only had room for 8 people at a time in the business. 22 certified notices were sent, 1 returned in favor, 0 returned opposed and 0 had Public comment was opened. Ron Mickler stated that he does not have any concerns with this application and that he had talked with other neighbors and that they were also in favor of this application. Sandra Nelson said she was opposed to this application. Public hearing was closed. None. Mr. Blow clarified that this exception runs with the applicant. There was a discussion regarding sundowning these types of businesses and it was the consensus of the board that this was not necessary for this business. Mr. Birchim reviewed alcohol licensing with the board. Ms. Brown MOVED to APPROVE the application The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Blow. AYES: Brown, Blow, Long, Valdes, Dixon, Shaffer, Agresta 6. Conservation Zone Development 6. (a) Doran Dean Yelton, II, Yelton Construction Company, Inc. Applicant Ted Tedesco Revocable Trust Owner 117 Inlet Drive To construct a dock. section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a dock at 117 Inlet Drive. Chip Yelton stated that they had State and Federal approval and were now asking for this Boards approval. He said that per a neighbor s request to shift the dock, they had amended their plans. He provided a photo outlining the new plans and reviewed them with the board 2. Mr. Blow asked if they were asking for the boat lifts to be approved as well. Mr. Yelton stated that they were. Mr. Blow asked what the length of the dock was. Mr. Yelton stated the overall length of the dock was 300 feet and was six feet wide. 2 Copies were attached to the original minutes. 5

6 He said that it was not their intent to have their dock extend farther out than the docks already in place on either side. Mr. Blow asked why they wanted the dock to be six feet wide as opposed to a five foot wide dock. Mr. Yelton stated that the client wanted a six foot dock which was allowed. 12 certified notices were sent, 2 returned in favor, 2 returned opposed and 3 had Public comment was opened. Norman Nelson provided three pictures which he reviewed with the board 3 and stated that he lived across the street from this property, and that he was in favor of this application as long as he has maneuverability from his dock. Wolfgang Schau stated that it was very difficult to maneuver a boat in this area due to the currents. He stated that he would like for them to keep safety in mind and would like to see as much space as possible between the docks. Mark Matthews suggested reducing the size of the dock for safe maneuverability of boats docking and departing. Diane Elliott questioned the length of the dock and was concerned with the conservation area. Mr. Blow stated that they were going to address the issue of the length of the dock. BJ Kaladi stated that her concern was precedence in approving a six foot wide dock. Public hearing was closed. 3 Copies were attached to the original minutes. There was a discussion regarding the width of the dock. Mr. Yelton stated that his client was being accommodating and had agreed to move the dock towards the South as he was asked to do by the neighbors. He reviewed rules and regulations for docks and spacing and felt that the amended dock would work for everyone and that his client should be allowed to build this dock. Mr. Blow clarified that if they were providing the 55 feet that Mr. Nelson was asking for and if the Colliers were willing to have the dock 25 feet from their dock, based on 105 feet total distance between the existing docks there was a buildable area of 25 feet. He said that with the boat lifts they would need 30 feet. There was a discussion regarding the spacing of the dock in comparison to the existing docks. Mr. Blow stated that he felt that this matter should be continued so that the neighbors and the applicant could come to a compromise. There was a discussion regarding what they had permitted in the past for other docks and boatlifts. Mr. Valdes stated that he had spoken to Wolfgang Schau and Mark Matthews regarding the positioning of the dock. Mr. Dixon MOVED to APPROVE the application with the conditions that it was 25 feet from the current dock located at 115 Inlet Drive, that it does not exceed the length of the docks on either side of it, that it was no wider than 5 feet and that it only have one boat lift that was to be placed on the 6

7 North side of the dock. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Valdes. AYES: Dixon, Valdes, Brown, Long, Blow, Shaffer, Agresta The Board took a break from 4:20 p.m. to 4:31 p.m. 6. (b) Rains Maintenance LLC Applicant Poinciana Land Trust D Owner 22 Poinciana Cove Road To construct a dock 5 feet wide x 150 feet long to a 10 foot x 20 foot terminal platform. section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a dock at 22 Poinciana Cove Road. Thompson Rains stated that he had been retained to install a dock for the owner. He stated that they had used an existing dock as a basis for their design, and they also chose the same dock to determine the point of maximum extension. He said that it would be a low profile dock with no lifts, just a terminal platform at the end. He stated that he had been secured by Poinciana Land Trust to build three docks on their properties and that the other two would be before this Board next month. Ms. Brown asked if this would be considered an observation deck. Mr. Rains stated that all they were hired to do was to install the platform dock. He said that someone in the future may want to add a boat lift. Mr. Dixon asked that all of the surrounding properties were currently undeveloped. Mr. Rains stated that the land trust has not given him a full survey which he would have to have prior to building a dock. 9 certified notices were sent, 2 returned in favor, 0 returned opposed and 0 had Mr. Blow visited the site. Public hearing was opened, however there was no response and the Public hearing was closed. Mr. Blow stated that he did not have a problem with what the applicant was proposing as far as the dock, but was concerned with the other two docks that this applicant anticipated putting in and the trees in the area. He stated that he felt that he needed a survey to be able to make a decision. He asked if they would continue this to the November meeting so that the applicant could come back with the survey and the proposed plan for all three docks. Ms. Brown agreed with Mr. Blow. Mr. Rains stated that all he could bring back were plans for the dock and not for the development of the homes for the subdivision. Mr. Valdes stated they would also need an aerial shot of the properties. Mr. Blow to CONTINUE the application to the November 4, 2014 hearing. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Long. AYES: Blow, Long, Brown, Valdes, Dixon, Shaffer, Agresta 7

8 6. (c) AVID Construction & Consulting Inc. Applicant Dwight & Karen Kennedy Owner 141 Oyster Catcher Circle A complete lot tree removal for the construction of a single family home section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a dock at 141 Oyster Catcher Circle, with the condition that the mitigation for this tree removal was done according to the submitted landscape plan. Dustin Frick stated that they were looking to clear the lot and bring in fill dirt to bring the property up to the flood plain and to avoid the necessity for steps up to the front door. Ms. Brown asked if they had considered any other option other than tree clearing. Mr. Frick stated that after he reviewed the Arborist s report that there were a couple trees that they could build a bulk head around, however he felt it would look unsightly. He stated that his client would be replanting per the mitigation plan. He reviewed Mr. Lippi s arborist report with the board and stated that there were a couple of trees on the front of the property that could probably be saved 4. Ms. Brown stated that trees were an important commodity. 20 certified notices were sent, 5 returned in favor, 0 returned opposed and 0 had Public comment was opened. BJ Kalaidi stated that she was not in favor of this application. She stated that this was a tree city and that the applicants knew what they bought and should not be looking 4 A copy of which was attached to the original minutes. to destroy the trees currently on the lot. She feels that the owners should try to work around the trees currently there. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Blow stated that he had reviewed the lot. Mr. Frick stated that they had already adjusted the homes to save as many trees as possible. There was a discussion regarding the history of the property and the removal of the trees and the possibility of keeping some of these trees. Karen Kennedy stated that they have moved and shifted the plans to accommodate trees. She stated that on this property there was no avoiding tree removal and that only approximately 4 of the trees that they wanted to remove were in good condition, the others were not. Mr. Blow stated that it was a real issue when you have someone wanting to build the biggest possible home allowed on a property and there was a protected tree or trees that fall in the homes footprint. He felt that the home should be built on a smaller scale to save the protective trees. He stated that this has been an issue in the past. He reviewed lot 10 and the two cedar trees that are towards the northeast corner of the lot which he felt could be saved if they tweaked the plans for the home. There was a discussion regarding raising lots and the damage it causes as well as the impact on the surrounding lots. Mr. Valdes confirmed that the applicant wanted to build a two story home on the property. Ms. Lopez directed the Board to the staff report which showed the standard of review 8

9 and the criteria they were expected to apply. She stated that on page 2, 1(b) one of the criteria was the necessity of removing a tree to construct proposed improvements in order to allow a reasonable economic use of the property. She further stated that the property owner or the agent would not be unreasonably affected in shifting the location of the proposed structure, etc. She stated that these were the rules that the Board should consider when making their decision on this application. She said that they could not base their decision on what they wanted the rules to be in the future, only on the rules as they currently stand. She stated that they should look at Advanced Tree Care s report. She said that on the first page, second paragraph it stated that they found only four of the trees to be in generally good to fair condition. She stated that this was information that they may want to weigh. There was a discussion on the appropriateness of clearing trees to build a new home as opposed to adjusting the home s footprint to accommodate the tree. Mr. Frick stated that they fully intended on the property having a beautiful landscape. Mr. Shaffer reviewed the plans and asked the applicant to identify the tree on the property that appeared to be in good health. Mr. Frick stated that it was tree #1. There was a discussion regarding the four trees in the report and which could possibly be saved, as well as the issues of using fill dirt and drainage. Mr. Frick stated that they would be willing to put in six foot tall cedar trees. Mr. Valdes stated that the reality was that the code allows them to build a house to their setbacks of the lot coverage. He said that they had an arborists report stating tree #1 was in good health with the rest being not healthy as well as a list of the replacement trees that the applicant was going to put on the property, he stated that they did have the option to require larger trees. There was a discussion regarding tree mitigation and what trees could actually be saved on the property. Mr. Frick agreed to try his best to save the tree on the front northeast corner which was circled in red on the site plan identified as a tree #1, a 15 red cedar. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE the application with the condition that the tree identified as tree #1 on the arborist report be preserved and protected according to code. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. AYES: Shaffer, Agresta, Brown, Long, Blow, Valdes, Dixon 6. (c) AVID Construction & Consulting Inc. Applicant Dwight & Karen Kennedy Owner 145 Oyster Catcher Circle A complete lot tree removal for the construction of a single family home section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff finds that the Board can APPROVE a dock at 145 Oyster Catcher Circle, with the condition that the mitigation for this tree removal was done according to the submitted landscape plan. Mr. Frick reviewed the arborist report on this lot with the board. He stated that only tree #7 was in good health and towards the front of the home and could possibly be saved. 9

10 Public comment was opened. BJ Kalaidi stated that she was not in favor of this application. She stated that this was a tree city and that the applicants knew what they bought and should not be looking to destroy the trees currently on the lot. She feels that the owners should try to work around the trees currently there. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Blow confirmed that the applicant would be willing to try and save tree #7. Mr. Blow stated that he had reviewed the lot. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE the application with the following condition that the tree identified in the arborist report as #7 be protected and preserved. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Blow. AYES: Shaffer, Blow, Brown, Long, Valdes, Dixon, Agresta Mr. Shaffer reviewed tree mitigation with Mr. Birchim. 7. Rezoning and Land Use Amendment Application 7. (a) McClure Bloodworth, P.L. Applicant Ponce Hotel Inc. Owner 18, 20, 22, 24 Garrett Avenue & 154, 156, 158 Cunningham Avenue & 185 Matanzas Avenue To amend the Future Land Use Map from Commercial Medium Intensity to Residential Medium Density/Mixed Use and Rezone the property from Commercial Medium Two (CM2) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a new hotel. Per an from the applicant dated September 30, 2014 this item will be tabled and heard at the November 4, 2014 meeting Mr. Blow MOVED to CONTINUE the application to the November 4, 2014 meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Brown. AYES: Blow, Brown, Long, Valdes, Dixon, Shaffer, Agresta 8. Other Business 8. (a) Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section 28-2 Definitions to provide a definition of Special Cabaret Mr. Birchim stated that this ordinance was defining a Special Cabaret, in particular that it was not for an adult performance or entertainment establishment. He said that they wanted to do this so that in the future there would be no confusion as to how they defined this particular use. He then read the proposed Ordinance to the Board. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend this to the City Commission. Ms. Brown MOVED to APPROVE Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section 28-2 Definitions to provide a definition of Special Cabaret and to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. 10

11 AYES: Brown, Shaffer, Long, Blow, Valdes, Dixon, Agresta 8. (b) Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section Design Standards for Entry Corridors to allow for modifications to the Design Standards for Entry Corridors. Mr. Birchim stated that the board had previously looked at a modification that would allow variances to the design standards to the Entry Corridors, however they had failed to modify the enabling legislation that was found in the zoning code and that this was simply a clean-up effort to do so. He reviewed the changes they wished to be made with the Board. He clarified that this would also have to go before the Historical Architectural Review Board. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend this to the City Commission. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section Design Standards for Entry Corridors to allow for modifications to the Design Standards for Entry Corridors with the understanding that Staff will check that it says including buildings and facilities and that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Long. AYES: Shaffer, Long, Brown, Blow, Valdes, Dixon, Agresta 8. (c) Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section Commission may declare improvements necessary; community notice to allow for further public notification during the road vacation process. Mr. Birchim stated that they are now changing the ordinance that addresses public notification to include public notification when someone submits an application to vacate. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend this to the City Commission. Ms. Brown MOVED to APPROVE Consideration & Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Section Commission may declare improvements necessary; community notice to allow for further public notification during the road vacation process and to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Dixon. AYES: Brown, Dixon, Long, Blow, Valdes, Shaffer, Agresta 8. (d) Rezoning Issues Mr. Birchim stated that they had received an from the Davis Shores subdivision with concerns to protect neighborhoods as well as comments from the public earlier regarding rezoning and possibly doing a workshop. There was a discussion regarding the 100 Flagler property, and that it was zoned commercial but there was a parking issue. There was a discussion on what was previously addressed at the prior meeting regarding 100 Flagler. Mr. Blow recommended that they wait until after the City Commission meeting on Monday, October 13, He felt at that 11

12 time, the Commission will ask this board to have a workshop on the matter. There was a discussion on how other areas have been affected by these types of zoning issues and it was the consensus of the board that a workshop needed to be scheduled for this. 9. Adjournment Having no further business, Ms. Agresta adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M. 5 Sue Agresta, Chairperson 5 Transcribed by Laurie Atkinson 12