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 Sue Agresta John Valdes Carl Blow Absent: City Staff: Jerry Dixon (Excused) Matt Shaffer (Excused) Mark Knight, Director, Planning & Building Department David Birchim, Deputy Director Ron Brown, City Attorney Carly Mason, Recording Secretary 2. Approval of Minutes The February 19, 2013 special meeting minutes were approved as presented. The March 5, 2013 meeting minutes were approved as presented. The April 2, 2013 meeting minutes were approved as presented. 3. General Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda B.J. Kalaidi asked that the board speak into the microphone. 4. Conservation Zone Development 4. (a) Ryan Cornelison and Alan Chappell - Corner Construction Services, Inc. Applicants 27 Oak Street Land Trust Owner 27 Oak Street 1 (Previously Tabled) 1 Staff report attached to original minutes To remove one preserved Oak tree for construction of a single family home. Mr. Toner clarified with staff that the item had been tabled to allow the applicant additional time to seek and provide an arborist report. He said an arborist report had been submitted and asked whether staff had ample time to review the report, board could APPROVE the application. Ryan Cornelison, applicant, said he had supplied a photo at the last meeting. He said the photo did not show the true problem and provided an updated photo and provided an arborist report. Exparte Communication: Mr. Valdes said he had a conversation with Ryan Cornelison and Alan Chappell.

2 Mr. Blow said he visited the site and walked around with the survey. Lee Cashusi expressed concern regarding the cement mixer that broke off a 20 foot branch. She said the owner had plans to build two homes on the lot and concluded that she was not in favor of the application. Mr. Blow asked Ms. Cashusi if she lived at 31 Oak Street, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Blow asked if the adjacent home next to the property was in close proximity to the road, and the response was that the home had 12 foot of frontage. Mr. Blow questioned whether the blue home had a Live Oak tree in the rear of the property, and her response was unsure. Claire Norris noted that she was not in favor of the application. Mr. Toner asked staff for an update regarding the broken branch. Mark Knight, Director, Planning and Building Department, replied that the Planning Department had received a phone call indicating that a dump truck had struck and broken off a branch. He said the Code Enforcement Officer visited the site and noted that a 4 to 6 inch in diameter branch had broken off and requested that fencing be placed around the tree. B.J. Kalaidi expressed concern regarding the removal of the tree and whether the tree would be considered one or two trees. Mr. Blow asked if Ms. Kalaidi would consider the new proposed homes to be within the same size of the adjacent homes, Brian Berg suggested that the board take into consideration the City s Annual Arbor Day and to retain the tree. Ms. Cashusi explained that the broken branch had fallen next to the cement truck and concluded that the position of the proposed homes would require the tree to be removed. Ms. Norris clarified that the adjacent home had an Oak tree in the rear of the property. William Rosenthal explained that a daycare once operated on the proposed lot and the tree never appeared to cause any concerns. Public hearing closed. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked why the proposed structure could not be redesigned to a two story in order to avoid the removal of the tree. Mr. Cornelison explained that a two story structure would greatly affect the resell value. After a brief discussion by the board the following motion was made. Mr. Blow MOVED to TABLE application until the November 5, 2013 meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Ponton Lewis. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. VOTE ON : CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 4. (b) Doran Dean Yelton II - Yelton Construction Company Applicant 2

3 Martha Walley Owner 210 Hermosa Street 2 To install a bulkhead and fence. Mr. Birchim said the applicant requested that the item be tabled for one month. Mr. Toner MOVED to TABLE application until the November 5, 2013 meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. VOTE ON : CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 4. (c) Doran Dean Yelton II - Yelton Construction Company Applicant Thomas and Nancy Gentry Owners 211 Inlet Drive 3 To enlarge an existing dock and install two new boatlifts. John Valdes recused himself, due to a conflict of interest. board could APPROVE the application. He said by approval of the application, the city does not make representation, approval or claim of riparian rights to any party. Chip Yelton, applicant, said the owner had an existing dock and noted that the proposal would allow the owner to bring his boat in from a different direction. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Blow asked if the overall dimension was from the base of the dock head and asked if the applicant had received an Army Corp of Engineers permit, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Toner said 12 certified notices were mailed and four notices were returned in favor, and one was opposed. Mr. Blow MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Toner. VOTE ON : AYES: Blow, Toner, Agresta, Ponton Lewis NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 4. (d) Robert Pulak - P & G Construction, Inc. Applicant Caleb King Owner 2 Tremerton Place 4 To enlarge an existing dock. board could APPROVE the enlargement of the dock at 2 Tremerton Place as submitted. He said by approval of the application, the city does not make representation, approval or claim of riparian rights to any party. Matthew Ostross, applicant, said the dock would be aligned with the adjacent docks and allow access to the water. 2 Staff report attached to original minutes 3 Staff report attached to original minutes 3 4 Staff report attached to original minutes

4 Mr. Toner questioned the representative s relationship to the applicant, and the response was he was the office manager. Public hearing opened; however, there was no response. Mr. Toner said 16 certified notices were mailed and two were returned in favor and one was opposed. Ms. Agresta asked if the dock had been measured and was in alignment with the surroundings. Mr. Ostross replied that he had used Google Earth and the measurements in order to try to be in comparison with the surrounding docks. Mr. Blow asked if the applicant could provide accurate measurements to ensure the overall length of the proposed dock. Mr. Valdes said the letter from P & G Construction indicated that the length of the dock would be approximately 240 foot of the existing with the additional construction of 60 foot. Mr. Birchim clarified that the board should be reviewing the 17 criteria for which a dock should be approved. Mr. Knight said the board could put a condition on the approval that would include the as-built survey be provided and placed on file. Mr. Toner MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted and provides an as-built drawing to be submitted and would be placed as a permanent record. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Blow. 4 VOTE ON : AYES: Toner, Blow, Agresta, Valdes, Ponton Lewis NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 4. (e) Michael and Katherine Rolandelli Applicants/Owners 96 Santa Monica Avenue 5 To remove one preserved Oak tree for construction of a new home. Mr. Blow recused himself, due to a conflict of interest. Mike and Katherine Rolandelli, owner/applicant s and Edward Conlon, arborist was sworn in. board could APPROVE the application. Mr. Rolandelli asked for removal of one Oak tree that was located to the rear of the property. He concluded that several trees would be preserved. Brian Berg said he lived across the street from the applicant s lot and noted that he was not in favor of the application. He said the neighborhood currently had a treed neighborhood and by approving the application would remove the existing tree canopy. He felt that if the board approved the application it would set precedence for others to ask for the same type of request. He offered to pay for an independent arborist to have the tree evaluated to see if the proposed tree should be removed or considered preserved and asked that the 5 Staff report attached to original minutes

5 new owners be responsible for making all necessary improvements. Mr. Toner clarified with staff that water and sewer would not be reviewed by the board, Mr. Toner asked staff if the determination of the tree had been reviewed, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Birchim replied that the applicant made the request to remove a tree, and staff determined that the tree was considered a preserved tree. Carl Blow was sworn in. Ellen Avery Smith, representing Carl and Lynne Blow, asked that the applicants hire a civil engineer to ensure that the drainage to the Blow s residence would not be increased. She said her clients appreciated the proposed layout of the home; however, she asked that the Code be enforced. She said number three of the staff report notes the existing drainage concerns and that a drainage plan be supplied by the applicants and submitted to staff for approval. Carl Blow provided an overview of the property s history. He said in 2002 a local investor purchased the property, which he intended to rent the home and then decided to sell the home in 2005; however, he sold the garage lot to another individual, which left two remaining lots, which previously had a pool. He noted that the previous owner filled in the pool and then performed a surcharge on top of the pool to compact the soil. He said instead of removing the fill brought in to perform the surcharge the previous owner spread the soil throughout the two lots, which changed the natural drainage of the neighborhood. He said the dirt blocked the flow from his property and his concern was with the purchase of the lot and construction of the home it would increase the drainage causing additional flooding. He said the lot was currently higher than his existing garage and had great concern that the proposed construction would cause flooding to his home. He concluded that only one of two water mains serviced the road and traffic access to the road during emergencies was a concern. He addressed the drawing submitted by the Rolandelli s and expressed concern regarding whether the drawings were to scale and had the proper dimensions. Ms. Ponton Lewis clarified that the additional fill was spread over lot four and seven, B.J. Kalaidi asked if the city could have an independent arborist visit the site and provide a report. Public hearing closed. Mr. Toner said 9 certified notices were mailed and five were returned and two were in favor and three were opposed. Ms. Mason noted that one return response was been handed in and was opposed to the application. Mr. Rolandelli explained that he had the previous owner write him a letter in response to filling in the pool. He said he had a request for availability from the Public Works Department pertaining to the water/sewer. Ms. Ponton Lewis MOVED to TABLE application until the November 5, 2013 meeting. The motion 5

6 was SECONDED by Ms. Agresta. The motion was tabled with a unanimous voice vote. VOTE ON : CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 5. Rezoning 5. (a) Susan Bloodworth McClure Bloodworth, P.L. Applicant St. George Street, LLC Owner 110 St. George Street 6 To rezone the property from Historic Preservation two (HP-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Mr. Birchim said staff would not make a representation concerning the rezoning applications. The Planning and Zoning Board s responsibility is to make recommendations to the City Commission regarding the application. Susan Bloodworth, applicant, noted that the elevator would be tucked in the shaft and the air conditioner would be placed underneath. She said the school board information had been included, due to residential homes in the area. She said the addition of the elevator would exclude the 33 square foot. B.J. Kalaidi expressed concern regarding the application for a PUD to allow the elevator and concluded that she was opposed to the proposed use. Public hearing closed. Mr. Toner asked staff if once the PUD was approved would any modifications require the applicant to return before the board for approval, Ms. Bloodworth said the County saw PUD s as a positive addition and the City would place control over the PUD for the process. Mr. Blow said the PUD would put additional restrictions on the landowner compared to a straight zoning classification. He asked if the City Commission changed the HP Ordinance to a PUD and whether the change would mesh with the revised HP-2. Mr. Knight replied that it would depend on the change; however, they would be required to return before the board. Exparte Communication: Mr. Valdes had a conversation with Les Thomas, architect regarding the application. Mr. Toner questioned the number of PUD s that had been approved over time. Staff s response was as follows: 1 King Street 32 Avenida Menendez (Hilton Hotel) Columbia Restaurant Flagler College Communication Building Bubble Room Flagler College Administration Building San Marco Hotel (Old 3D World/Best Western) Mr. Blow MOVED to APPROVE application as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Ponton Lewis. 6 Staff report attached to original minutes 6

7 VOTE ON : AYES: Blow, Ponton Lewis, Agresta, Valdes, Toner NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 6. Other Business 6. (a) General Discussion Parking Requirements for Restaurants Mr. Knight said Commissioner Freeman asked that the board review the restaurant parking requirements for surrounding cities. He said outside of the requirements for Jacksonville Beach and Daytona Beach other cities had similar requirements. Mr. Toner questioned whether the 47 spaces provided by staff included the offsite parking, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Toner asked if the documentation had been forwarded to the City Commission, Ms. Ponton Lewis clarified that off-site parking had to be within 400 foot, and the response was affirmative. 6. (b) Review of St. Johns County School Board Work Plan Mr. Toner explained that the document would provide information about the schools located within the city limits, which would notify them if one of the schools were to be impacted. He said PECO Revenue was a State Funding for new construction and the report indicated no funding was currently available. He said the impact received was $10 million and over the next five years would equal $50 million, which would equal at least one school. Ms. Ponton Lewis asked that the abbreviations be spelled out. Mr. Toner said he would ask the school board to provide a coversheet that would outline the definitions. Mr. Blow asked if St. Johns County was paying for other counties charter schools. Mr. Toner replied that the majority of the charter schools were private. Mr. Blow said the breakdown per school noted that R.B. Hunt was at 99% capacity and asked if the new portables would include that capacity. Mr. Toner explained that the old units had been replaced with new units, which would be more efficient for the schools. Mr. Toner MOVED to ACCEPT and recommend that the plan move forward to the City Commission. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Valdes. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. VOTE ON : CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY 7. Adjournment Having no further business, Mr. Toner adjourned the meeting at 5:06 P.M. 7 David Toner, Chairperson 7 Transcribed by Carly Mason 7