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 Janet Ponton Lewis, Vice Chairperson and the following were present: 1. Roll Call: Janet Ponton Lewis, Vice Chairperson Matt Shaffer Sue Agresta Grant Misterly James McCune Absent: City Staff: David Toner, Chairperson (Excused) Jerry Dixon (Excused) Mark Knight, Director, Planning & Building Department David Birchim, Deputy Director Ron Brown, City Attorney Carly Mason, Recording Secretary 2. Approval of Minutes None Christopher Gemmell, applicant, requested to offer alcohol sales during the Mumford and Sons concert weekend. 3. General Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda None 4. Use by Exception 4. (a) Christopher Gemmell - Applicant Gerald Leach Owner 50 Spanish Street To allow alcohol sales and consumption at a two day special event. section (a) and 28-2, staff found that the board could APPROVE a Use by Exception to allow outdoor alcohol sales and consumption for a two day special event at 50 Spanish Street, without the support of evidence to the contrary. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 20 certified notices were mailed and three were returned in favor. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. McCune asked if the applicant planned to utilize the same procedures used for St. Patrick s Day, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Misterly asked if surrounding businesses would offer the same type of venue. Mr. Knight replied that due to the applicant obtaining yearly permits, he advised him to continue with the same process. Mr. Misterly asked if Porta Potties would be utilized, and the response was affirmative.

2 Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. AYES: McCune, Shaffer, Misterly, Agresta, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 4. (b) Robert and Michelle Carmines - Applicants Carmines Living Trust Owner 168 Marine Street To expand an assisted living facility (housing for the elderly) as a permissible Use by Exception. section (a) and 28-2 and without support to the contrary, staff found that the board could APPROVE the application. Robert Carmines, applicant, business owner for 20 years and would like to enclose the back area in order to expand the existing business and offer physical therapy. He said the Grafton House was the oldest elderly living facility in the city, which had 13 semi-private rooms and 2 private rooms. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 37 certified notices were mailed. Becky Yanni said she was in favor of the proposal. B.J. Kalaidi said the proposal had no classification to operate as an assisted living facility. Mr. Birchim said the term Assisted Living Facility was not defined in the Code; however, the Code definition referred to Housing for the elderly. He said the term Assisted Living Facility was used at the State level. Public hearing closed. Mr. McCune asked the applicant for further clarification regarding his request. Mr. Carmines explained that the majority of the addition would be used for physical/occupational therapy and for additional rooms. Ms. Ponton Lewis said the request for the room addition had not been properly noticed and questioned whether the board could consider that as part of the request. Mr. Carmines explained that his original application included the addition of four beds and noted that he had plans to build the addition in Mr. McCune asked staff what they would prefer regarding the advertisement and whether the parking would be a factor, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Knight replied that it would be better to properly advertise the information regarding the addition of the bedrooms. Mr. Carmines said he had forgotten to add the information regarding the addition of bedrooms to the application. Ms. Lopez explained that the board would not move forward with the request for the addition of two beds. She said proper advertising would be required and noted that the request had not been included in the application nor discussed in the staff report. 2

3 Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. AYES: McCune, Agresta, Misterly, Shaffer, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 5. Variances 5. (a) Clyde and Robin Porter Applicant/Owners 6 Tremerton Street To exceed the maximum lot coverage for a carport. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. Clyde Porter, applicant, said the carport would provide protection from inclement weather. Exparte Communication: Mr. Misterly and Ms. Ponton Lewis drove by the site. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Ms. Ponton Lewis questioned the style of the carport and the number of cars. Mr. Porter replied that the two car carport would complement the exterior style of the home and would not include any doors or siding. Bart Piniaz explained that from the south the roofline was connected to the addition. Ms. Agresta questioned whether the carport would require a curb cut, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Misterly asked if staff had information regarding the surrounding properties and whether similar properties had exceeded their lot coverage. Mr. Birchim noted that the adjacent property had obtained an approval seven to eight years ago and noted that the other surrounding lots were much larger. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Misterly. AYES: Shaffer, Misterly, Agresta, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 5. (b) John Valdes John Valdes and Associates Applicant Thomas and Nancy Gentry Owners 211 Inlet Drive To encroach into the required side yard building setback for a new garage addition. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. He said the Director of Public Works Department had written a memo to the board asking that they DENY the application, due to an existing stormwater pipe in the ground located in the general 3

4 area. He said after a site inspection it would not appear that the stormwater pipe would be located underneath the garage. John Valdes, applicant, explained that the current building was 5 ½ foot off of the existing setback and used 30 inch eaves. He said the previous proposal requested approval to add 1.7 % lot coverage. He said the current zoning would allow additional construction up to three foot without an approval of a variance. He said the second issue was due to a stormwater drainage pipe and noted that staff would determine the permit approval process once the direction of the stormwater drainage was located. He noted that once the drainage pipe was located that would determine the location of the construction. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. McCune asked if the board approved a Variance that the approval could be denied by the Public Works Department. Mr. Knight replied that the Variance and lack of easement with the storm drain would be two separate issues. Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. AYES: McCune, Shaffer, Misterly, Agresta, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. Conservation Zone Development 6. (a) Robert S. Martin Applicant/Owner 235 S. Matanzas Boulevard (Previously Tabled) To install a floating dock onto the terminal end of an existing dock. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. He said by approval the city would not make representation, approval, or claim of riparian rights to any party. Mr. Misterly questioned the length of the terminal platform. Mr. Martin replied that the landing portion of the dock would be 8 foot by 12 foot. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 10 certified notices were mailed and four were returned in favor. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Misterly said the drawing appeared to be out of scale. He said the neighbor to the east appeared to not have a dock, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Misterly asked if the dock would be blocking anyone, and the response was no. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked if the platform would be on the bottom at low-tide, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Misterly MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by. Mr. Shaffer. 4

5 AYES: Misterly, Shaffer, McCune, Agresta, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. (b) Carter Environmental Applicant Fountain of Youth Properties, Inc. Owner 1305 N. Ponce de Leon Boulevard Strap# To install a retaining wall and to remove one preserved Cedar tree. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. Ryan Carter, applicant, was sworn in. He said his application packet met the Conservation Overlay Zone requirements and included were graphics as well as photos of a cross section of the retaining wall. B.J. Kalaidi expressed concern regarding the bulkheads, removal of trees, and concluded that she was not in favor of the application. Mr. Shaffer said the property was zoned commercial and not allowing the bulkhead would not preclude commercial development of the site. Mr. Ryan explained that the wall would be built in the uplands, which would not affect the wetlands. He said the construction would consist of a five foot swath and noted that trees from either side would be protected. Mr. Misterly asked to what degree the Oak trees would be affected. Mr. Shaffer asked if the preserved tree could be preserved. Mr. Ryan replied that the wetland line to the marsh had a two inch slope. He said in order to build the wall it would be impossible to avoid the trees. Mr. Shaffer asked if the DEP would allow a certain amount of space that would be an exception. Mr. Misterly questioned whether the trees shown in green would be safe from future development, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Shaffer asked if the point system was used for the trees. Mr. Birchim replied that the applicant took advantage of the credit/debit for tree mitigation. Steve Binninger, property owner, said the property had been in his family for 90 years. He explained that a retaining wall would be required in order for construction to take place. Ms. Ponton Lewis said she had concern regarding the removal of trees and suggested that the applicant/property owner seek approval to build the wall within the wetlands. Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. 5

6 AYES: McCune, Agresta, Misterly, Shaffer, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. (c) Carter Environmental Applicant Steve Binninger Living Trust Owner 1 Oak Tree Lane To install a retaining wall and to remove one preserved Cedar tree. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. Ryan Carter, applicant, explained that the construction would have a negative impact on the tree s health. Mr. Misterly asked for clarification regarding the bulkhead and how the bulkhead would tie into the neighbor s property. Mr. Carter replied that they would build a couple wing walls out to bring back into the slope and noted that the neighbor to the north had a larger piece of property. Ms. Agresta said one of the public comments mentioned that seawalls in the area had caused excessive flooding in the streets from the non-seawall properties especially during extreme weather. Mr. Carter replied that a storm drain was located directly to the south of the property. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked if the other trees on the property would be affected, and the response was no. Bill Rosenthal said he had received a public comment form; however, chose not to return the form, due to him serving on the Code Enforcement board. He questioned whether the board would require the applicant to replace the tree. Claire Norris said for every retaining wall/bulkhead built in her neighborhood she experienced additional flooding. She said she was not in favor of the application. Sandra Nelson explained that root system of the trees were at risk. She asked that the applicant be required to plant two replacement trees. Mr. McCune asked staff if the applicant would be required to replant the trees. Mr. Knight explained that the Code had two separate requirements as follows: 1. Trees being removed for development purposes 2. People who remove trees in their backyard, due to the health or fallen limbs Mr. Knight explained that number two would require the person to go before the Code Enforcement board and would be required a two for one replacement for a minimum replacement. He said the board had the option to impose additional conditions on replacement trees; however, the debit/credit system had originally been written for larger developments. Mr. Carter said he proposed to replace the tree with a Cedar tree. Public hearing closed. 6

7 Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. AYES: Shaffer, Agresta, Misterly, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. (d) Ryan Cornelison and Alan Chappell Applicants Corner Construction Services, Inc. 27 Oak Street Land Trust Owner 27 Oak Street To remove one preserved oak tree for construction of a single family home. section and without the support of board could APPROVE the application. Ryan Cornelison, applicant, requested to remove the existing tree, due to the construction of the proposed single family home. Mr. Misterly asked whether the tree was 22 to 24 inches in diameter, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Cornelison explained that the tree leans forward and covered the majority of the lot. Mr. Misterly said the site plan referred to a 22 and 24 inch Oak tree, and whether that was two individual trees or considered as one tree. Mr. Birchim said the trees had grown together and each the measurements represented each liter. Mr. Shaffer asked if an attempt had been made to save the tree. Mr. Cornelison replied that the home would be required to be built close to the front, which would affect the square footage of the structure. Mr. Shaffer asked the applicant whether it would be possible to remove one liter and whether he had spoken to an arborist, and the response was no. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 17 certified notices were mailed and four were returned opposed. Claire Norris said she was in favor of trimming the branches; however, she was not in favor of removing the tree. Public hearing closed. Mr. Misterly asked staff if the application should be for cutting down two trees or a much larger one tree. Mr. Knight replied that staff viewed the tree as one tree, unless they had an arborist report that made a statement that indicated that it was two trees that had grown into one. Mr. Misterly said the Oak tree was located in the center of the property and noted that the footprint of the home would be within a normal range. Mr. Shaffer asked if the credit/debit system would be used in this application. Mr. Birchim replied that the applicant was preserving the following trees: 22 inch Cedar tree 18 inch Oak tree 2-12 inch Oak trees 7

8 Mr. Shaffer asked if the preserved trees would be on file for future use. Mr. Misterly said he would like to receive an arborist report that would state the location requirements of the building distance in order to save the tree. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked how far the branches would extend. Mr. Cornelison replied that building a one or two story would be impossible without removing the tree. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to TABLE application until the October 1, 2013 meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Misterly. AYES: Shaffer, Misterly, Agresta, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. (e) Matt Cason Concept Development, LLC. Applicant J & J Mopar, Inc. Owner 92 and 94 S. Dixie Highway Strap# To remove preserved trees for new commercial construction. section and without the support of board APPROVE the application. Daniel Young, CHW Engineer, proposed to remove trees in order to build. Jeremy Marquis, Marquis Halback, explained that the site plan had been changed to preserve as many trees. He said the property had the following trees on the lot: North: 22 inch Live Oak tree 17 inch Live Oak tree 16 inch Live Oak tree South: 30 inch Live Oak tree 23 inch Double Live Oak tree 22 inch Live Oak tree Mr. Marquis noted that the property had a number of Cedar trees on the property and all of the invasive trees would be removed. B.J. Kalaidi said the proposal would not impact South Dixie Highway and noted that they would enter/exit from State Road 207. She expressed concern regarding the railing being placed next to the Oak tree on 92 S. Dixie Highway and asked how that would affect the health of the tree. Public hearing closed. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 17 certified notices were mailed and two were returned with comments. Mr. Misterly MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted with the condition of final Annexation. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. AYES: Misterly, Agresta, Shaffer, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 8

9 7. REZONING/LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 7. (a) Gerry Dedenbach Causseaux, Hewett & Walpole, Inc. Applicants J & J Mopar and the John Arbizzani Trust Owner 92 and 94 S. Dixie Highway To remove one preserved oak tree for construction of a single family home. Gerry Dedenbach, applicant, represented Concept Development, explained that he had been working on piece of property that was positioned between South Dixie Highway and State Road 207. He said the annexation approved by the City was the first step in the process. He said the St. Johns County Land Use was located on the western half of the property and had a mixed land use and the east portion had a City Land Use. He said the proposal would include a modification Land Use pattern so that the properties would be contiguous to the City s Land Use Plan. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 17 certified notices were mailed and two were returned in favor. B.J. Kalaidi expressed concern regarding the impact fee for the new construction, which would affect the condition of the roadway. Public hearing closed. Mr. Shaffer said he understood that the uses and intensity would remain the same: however, asked for clarification regarding the zoning portion placed inside the County. Mr. Birchim said the residential portion was positioned in between two medium intensity type zoning categories. Mr. Misterly MOVED to recommend to the City Commission to APPROVE the Land Use Amendment and that the board found that the application would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. McCune. AYES: Misterly, McCune, Shaffer, Agresta, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY Mr. Misterly MOVED to APPROVE application for rezoning and the board found that the application would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Regulations. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. AYES: Misterly, Agresta, Shaffer, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 7. (b) Susan S. Bloodworth McClure Bloodworth, P.L. Applicants Virtu Cathedral Associates, LLC Owner 24 Cathedral Place and 44 Avenida Menendez Mr. Birchim said the zoning would be changed from HP-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said the intent of the PUD was to allow an events venue such as weddings, parties, and receptions with 9

10 alcohol service in the lobby of the former bank building. He said the application had been slightly modified, since the packets had been delivered. He concluded that the applicant would provide the board of the changes. Susan Bloodworth said the PUD Application would allow for the following: Allow special events use Allow sale/consumption of alcohol associated with those uses and retain any use of alcohol 100 foot away from the eastern boundary of the Cathedral Basilica Recognize the existing telecommunications located inside the cupola Ms. Bloodworth said exhibit D, F and a legal description had been revised and provided the board with a copy. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked if the entirety of 24 Cathedral Place would become a PUD. Mr. Knight replied that the PUD would encompass the entire building and in theory all seven floors could be used for entertainment; however, it was the applicants request to operate on the first floor. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 15 certified notices were mailed and two were returned in favor. Father Tom Willis expressed his support for the proposed application. John Valdes noted that the PUD would be tied to the HP zoning. John Arbizanni, potential owner, said the PUD would allow liquor sales to be contained indoors and to provide a nice venue. Ms. Ponton Lewis questioned the capacity of the proposal and whether the location would be used for venues or a place where drinks could be purchased. Mr. Arbizanni replied that the property was intended to provide a venue for weddings and noted that the parking lot would be entirely utilized for large events. Ms. Lopez stated that all the uses itemized plus the uses for cell tower equipment, special events, and alcohol could be utilized throughout the building. She said the discussion heard by the project developer was not the intent. Ms. Bloodworth stated that the building had a capacity of 95 people and noted that the owner had no intent to utilize any of the upper floors. Mr. Misterly said the number of people had been limited in the past or the frequency and asked how often the space would be used for weddings. Mr. Arbizanni replied that weddings would be held on Friday evenings and Saturdays, events would be held for the 450 th and the Cathedral Basilica. He said placing restrictions would impact the future use. Mr. Misterly asked if a clause could require the application to return before the board at a future date. He said the type of clientele would be a positive addition. Ms. Lopez replied that any concerns should be added as a condition. Mr. Shaffer clarified that if a PUD was approved and a restaurant would still be allowed; however, the restriction for the

11 foot away from the church would be tied to the restaurant, and the response was affirmative. Father Tom Willis said he supported the application to ensure that no alcohol sales or consumption would take place outdoors. Mr. Misterly asked for clarification regarding the space. B.J. Kalaidi expressed concern regarding the activity that would be used for the other floors of the building. She said the entire building would consist of a PUD.. C.B. Hackworth explained that he was a tenant at 24 Cathedral Place. He said the proposal would enhance downtown and was in favor of the application. Public Hearing Closed. Ms. Bloodworth said the following were proposed: Wedding rehearsals Bridal showers Church functions Mr. Shaffer said he appreciated the proposal; however, had a number of concerns. Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted including any events be contained to the first floor and recommendation to the City. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Misterly. AYES: McCune, Misterly, Agresta, Ponton Lewis NAYES: Shaffer Motion Carried 4/1 7. (c) Susan S. Bloodworth Applicants Riberia Holdings, LLC Owner 112 Riberia Street To modify the Ice Plant PUD to allow for a mural, handicap ramp, and a screened wall around outdoor equipment at the St. Augustine Distillery. Mr. Birchim said the property was currently a PUD and the PUD amendment must be reviewed by the board and a recommendation is made to the City Commission concerning the application. Susan Bloodworth, applicant, said the amendment would allow the application of the murals and a handicap ramp on the east side of the building. She said the handicap ramp would become one long ramp and a ten foot fence out back. Mr. McCune clarified that the applicant was seeking approval for minor changes and noted that the board had previously required the PUD application. Ms. Ponton Lewis said 14 certified notices were mailed and four were returned in favor and one was opposed. Exparte Communication: Mr. Misterly, Mr. Shaffer, and Ms. Agresta met with Susan Bloodworth. 11

12 Phil McDaniel explained that two copper stills had been installed and noted that the final process should be completed in December or January. B.J. Kalaidi said the mural would be considered advertising and concluded that she was not in favor of the proposal. Public hearing closed. Mr. Misterly questioned the concern of a mural being considered as advertisement. Mr. Knight replied that all murals were considered signs and would be required to obtain proper permitting. Ms. Lopez explained that because the property was a PUD the owner was allowed to request a custom style for signage (mural). Ms. Ponton Lewis said she was not in favor of the signage, due to it being advertisement. Mr. Shaffer asked if the applicant had an elevation of the handicap ramp, and the response was affirmative. Les Thomas, architect, said the ramp would go straight down from the sidewalk to the front of the building. He said the main entrance to the distillery would be located on the southside and the east entrance would be the entrance to the bar and the northside would have an entrance off to the side. Mr. McDaniel explained that he had researched fonts at the Historical Library and noted that the buildings were actually two separate buildings, which still had the bridge cranes located inside the building. He said the mural would consist of using an acid wash, which would provide an aged appearance. Mr. Misterly MOVED to APPROVE application using an acid wash material and to send to the City Commission for review. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. AYES: Misterly, Shaffer, Agresta, McCune, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 7. (d) Don Crichlow, Architect Applicants Robert E. Giebeig, Jr. et al Owner 100 St. George Street Mr. Birchim explained that the 100 St. George Street PUD was a commercial property consisting of a mix or retail/restaurants on the corner of St. George Street, Hypolita Street, and Spanish Street. He said on the Hypolita Street frontage of the property there were three courtyards used for public access and outdoor seating. He said the applicant requested a PUD amendment to install a retractable awning inside courtyard B off of Hypolita Street for a new restaurant. This zoning design is required to be reviewed by HARB if there is a positive recommendation after this presentation. Don Crichlow, architect, requested to install an awning at 100 St. George Street, which required going through a PUD modification. He noted that the Casablanca Inn and a location on Spanish Street had obtained approval for the use of retractable awnings. 12

13 Mr. Misterly asked why the proposed awning would be retractable. Mr. Crichlow replied that a permanent awning would be included in the lot coverage. He said the awning would provide coverage for a hot food service area and noted that the material would be flame retardant. Ms. Ponton Lewis questioned the size of the awning, and the response was 12 foot x 18 foot. Ms. Ponton Lewis questioned whether outdoor seating would be available, and the response was affirmative. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Misterly nominated Janet Ponton Lewis to continue service as Vice Chairman of the board and Mr. Shaffer seconded the nomination and Approved by a unanimous voice vote. 8. (b) General Discussion Parking Requirements for Restaurants Mr. Knight said Commissioner Freeman asked for an evaluation regarding parking requirements. He said the information had been provided to the board for review and any questions could be discussed at a future meeting. 9. Adjournment Having no further business, Ms. Ponton Lewis adjourned the meeting at 5:54 P.M. 1 Ms. Ponton Lewis said 19 certified notices were mailed and one was returned in favor. Mr. Shaffer MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. McCune. David Toner, Chairperson AYES: Shaffer, McCune, Misterly, Agresta, Ponton Lewis CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 8. Other Business 8. (a) Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Ponton nominated David Toner to continue service as Chairman of the board and Mr. Misterly seconded the nomination and Approved by a unanimous voice vote. 1 Transcribed by Carly Mason 13