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 David Toner, Chairperson and the following were present: 1. Roll Call: David Toner, Chairperson Janet Ponton Lewis, Vice Chairperson Jerry Dixon Matt Shaffer Grant Misterly James McCune Absent: City Staff: Sue Agresta (Excused) Mark Knight, Director, Planning & Building Department David Birchim, Deputy Director Isabelle Lopez, Assistant City Attorney Carly Mason, Recording Secretary 2. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the January 8, 2013 Regular Meeting were approved as presented. The minutes from the February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting were approved as amended. Mr. Misterly asked that his conversation located on page one be corrected to reflect Phil McDaniel instead of resident, and after review it was determined that a correction was not necessary. Last Page, left hand column, Mr. Misterly asked if a clause could be added for individuals to seek a variance. 3. Appeal of Staff Determination 3. (a) Jeremiah Mulligan Mulligan and Kautte, P.L. - Applicant David and Denise Aiken Owners 148 and 152 Frontera Drive (Previously Tabled) To determine that the Old Sebastian Point PUD does not require an amendment to allow a bulkhead to be installed on the property. Mr. Birchim said the owner had appealed the staff s determination that a PUD amendment was necessary for bulkheads in the Old Sebastian Pointe PUD. Jeremiah Mulligan, applicant representative, provided photos of the property. He said Maritime Construction had been contacted by the owners to build the dock and the last approval was to receive approval from the city. He said the language in the PUD was not clear that a bulkhead would be restricted in the area. He asked for approval to build the bulkhead to avoid massive erosion. He said the lot lines in 2008 extended out into the creek and overtime the erosion had increased. He said by foot of the land had been eroded and by allowing a bulkhead it would preserve the property. He said the PUD Ordinance allowed his client to build a bulkhead and were open to

2 working with the city to make sure the plan would be appropriate. Mr. Knight said he had spoken to the applicant and how the item would be addressed. He said if the board chose to focus on erosion and not just the criteria for amending the PUD, he would like to make a presentation regarding the erosion aspect. Mr. Mulligan said a portion of the property had been cleared and noted that the developer was responsible for the clearance. Ms. Lopez asked the applicant to specify, which section of the PUD language his client would fall under. Mr. Mulligan said the PUD was listed on page five, new development altered/unaltered shoreline. A bulkhead ran from lot 41 thru 49 and noted that the PUD language referred to conservation overlay zone two and believed that the bulkhead would be allowed. He noted that the development currently had bulkheads. Mr. Misterly clarified that the applicant would fall under an unaltered shoreline. He asked what the definition would be for a restoration plan and why staff felt that the application would not fall under that definition. Mr. Knight said under PUD language stated that an undisturbed 20 foot natural vegetative buffer shall be provided adjacent to the land or jurisdictional wetland boundary. He said the other bulkhead had been placed 20 foot away from the jurisdictional line, which would allow the 20 foot of the upland natural buffer to be retained and provided enough room for maintenance. Mr. Misterly questioned the location of the proposed location for the bulkhead. Mr. Mulligan replied that the line would go diagonally seven to eight foot from the original building line and eleven foot from the southeast house line from the other side of the home, which would fall within the twenty foot requirement. Mr. Misterly said a restoration plan shall be developed to achieve the 50 percent criteria above for those sites already disturbed, not more than a maximum of 50% of the basal area of the trees and a maximum of 50% of the total number of saplings shall be removed for any purpose within a 20 year period. He said he would interpret the language to mean that the restoration plan would require 50% of the materials before it had been disturbed. Mr. Mulligan explained that his clients would like to add the bulkhead and maintain the current site and had no plans to plant grass and would entertain the option of planting the appropriate vegetation. Mr. Dixon said every property owner and lien holder would be required to sign off on a PUD amendment. Mr. Toner asked if every lien holder would be required to sign off on the amendment, and the response was no. Mr. Mulligan commented that an HOA would require all signatures. Mr. Dixon asked if proof would be required by St. Johns Water Management District (SJWMD). Mr. Knight s response was no, as long as the bulkhead was built past the 20 foot buffer. 2

3 Mr. Toner questioned the time and cost to amend the PUD. Mr. Mulligan replied that amending the PUD would require consent of each of the unit owners. He said there were 80 lots and 20 homes that had currently been built, which had been built by different contractors. Mark Knight provided photos from 2002, 2005, 2008 which displayed the buffer area and then photos for 2009, 2010, which still had a natural buffer and a photo from 2013 which no longer had a natural buffer and would require the buffer to be placed on the side of the original buffer, but do to the proposal the applicant is requesting to add a bulkhead into the natural buffer area. He said the developer was allowed to clear up to 20 foot up to the buffer. Mr. McCune asked if Mr. Knight considered the property an unaltered shoreline. Mr. Knight replied that the property would now be considered an altered shoreline. He said technically the property would become a Code Enforcement issue; however, the applicant was already in the process of applying to go before the board. He explained that an aerial from 1993 showed the river s pattern and then printed an aerial from 2013 and over a 20 year period the pattern had not changed and noted that making alterations without a permit and causing problems would that justify the concern to come back and obtain approval. Public hearing opened. Charles and Pat Stanfield said the property had a problem with erosion and noted that the river was approximately 21 foot from the property line and now less than five foot away. Public hearing closed. Mr. Shaffer said the board would decide whether the PUD documents met the criteria and interpret whether the application would meet the standards for an unaltered shoreline. Mr. Dixon said the shoreline had moved in and after listening to the adjacent neighbor s testifying that the area had erosion and would consider the property to be altered. Mr. Misterly MOVED to UPDHOLD Staff s Determination in finding that the addition of a bulkhead required a PUD Amendment and the addition of a bulkhead would not require restoration activity for application The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. AYES: Misterly, Shaffer, Toner NAYES: Ponton Lewis, Dixon, McCune FAILED 4. Variance 4. (a) Charles Johnson Applicant Charles and Janice Johnson Owners 35 Nesmith Avenue To encroach into the required side yard building setback for a residential addition. Mr. Birchim said based on a review of Section and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff found that the board could DENY a variance to encroach into the side yard building setback at 35 Nesmith Avenue. Charles Johnson, applicant, proposed to install a screen enclosure to the rear of the 3

4 property. He said he would prefer to place the screen area to the side of the building. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Toner said 19 certified notices were mailed and three were returned in favor and one was opposed. He said the applicant provided two notices from neighbors that were in favor of the application. Mr. Dixon commented that these types of projects had been completed before. He questioned the roof material. Robert Montgomery said the roof would include a composite material that would be aligned with the existing roof of the home. Mr. Birchim said the enclosure would be able to become an enclosed addition in the future. He said the proposal had a technical issue with setbacks. Mr. Misterly said the maximum lot coverage for this property was 30% and noted that with this application the addition would still fall under the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Toner asked if the alignment with the home would create a unique physical condition. Mr. Misterly said the position of the home was a physical disadvantage that was not created by the homeowner. Mr. McCune MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Ponton Lewis. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. AYES: McCune, Ponton Lewis, Dixon, Misterly, Shaffer, Toner, NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 5. Use by Exception 5. (a) Joe Tringali Pierre Thompson Revocable Trust Restaurant Owner Sebastian Lofts, LLC Parking Lot Owner 123 King Street (location of restaurant) 90 Riberia Street aka (location of off-site parking lot) To allow off-site parking for a restaurant as a permissible use by exception. Mr. Birchim said based on a review of Section 28-2 and and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff found that the board could APPROVE a Use by Exception to allow off-site parking at 90 Riberia Street for a restaurant at 123 King Street, as submitted. Les Thomas, architect, said the parking lot would include coquina pavement and appropriate landscaping. Mr. Toner said the applicant would be utilizing a leased property and asked what would happen if that leased expired or was terminated. Mr. Knight replied that the seats would be reduced or become a Code Enforcement issue. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Toner said 25 certified notices were mailed and four were returned in favor and one opposed. 4

5 Mr. Misterly MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Ponton Lewis. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. AYES: Misterly, Ponton Lewis, Dixon, Shaffer, McCune, Toner NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 5. (b) Brent Morrison BNM Enterprises Applicant B&B Family LLC Owner 56 S. Dixie Highway #13 To allow a used car sales business as a permissible use by exception. Mr. Birchim said based on a review of Section 28-2 and and without the support of evidence to the contrary, staff found that the board could APPROVE a Use by Exception to allow used vehicle sales at 56 S. Dixie Highway, as submitted. Brent Morrison, applicant, said vehicles would be retained in doors and purchasing vehicles for people. He said the vehicles would be shown by appointment only. Mr. Toner clarified that the applicant would warehouse the vehicles, internet car sales, and by appointment only. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Toner said Janet Hudson, Learn to Read, expressed concern regarding the drainage problems and had no problem with the proposal. Mr. Misterly clarified that the cars would remain indoors with the exception of scheduling appointment times for viewing the vehicles. Ms. Ponton Lewis MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Shaffer. AYES: Ponton Lewis, Shaffer, Dixon, Misterly, McCune, Toner NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. Conservation Zone Development 6. (a) Jill Miles Applicant David and Jill Miles Owners 65 Dolphin Drive To remove preserved trees for construction of a new single family home. The application had been formally withdrawn. 7. Other Business Mr. Toner said the board would like to continue to hear public comments for each item and asked how the item should be handled when someone wanted to make a comment that was not on the agenda. Mr. Knight said the board could ask if anyone had any comments regarding the minutes or non-agenda item at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Misterly said he preferred the comments to be placed at the beginning of the meeting with a three minute comment period and then if the discussion would require action 5

6 the item would be moved to the end of the agenda. Mr. Knight said the board could have discussion and any action be moved to the next meeting, which would allow time for proper advertisement. 8. Adjournment Having no further business, Mr. Toner adjourned the meeting at 5:15 P.M. 1 David Toner, Chairperson 1 Transcribed by Carly Mason 6