The schedule meeting of the City of New Storm RnBH planning a zoning board and land planning agency for Monday, May 5th, 2025 may come to order. Please silence all cell phones. Stephanie, could you please call the roll? John Cawsey? Yes ma'am. You're not John Cawsey. John Cawsey. John Cawsey. Here. Tomas Bean. Here. John Hall. Hall. Stephen Eates. Larry Weakraf. Curtis Hodges. In Kippulpher shirt. Thank you. Next we have approval of the agenda. Do you have any changes to the agenda? I do have two changes. One is minor, item 5B. The title says Z-1-24. It should be Z-1-25. It's just a minor. Scribner's there, there. And then item 5D, which is a special exception to review, and give a recommendation to City commission for a special exception request for a house of worship to use Current House of worship property located at 629 South Pine Street has been withdrawn so we will not be hearing that item tonight Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you Okay, next we'll go to approval of minutes. We have April 7th, 2025. Any discussion about the minutes from the board? Okay, if there's no discussion or comments, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from April 7th? Motion to approve from April 7th. I appreciate it, do I have a second? I'll second. You got beat. Okay, Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote? Member Hodges? Member Holvershorn? Member Cazzi? Member Hall? Member Bean? Yes. And to your week graph? Yes. The motion to approve the PNZ. In accordance with resolution number 11-89, a three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the planning zoning board. This is the opportunity to dress any item not a part of tonight's agenda. The floor is yours if anybody would like to come forward. Okay, seeing none, public participation is closed. We have no old business, so we'll move right into new business with A-5-25 at 1198 North Golf Lake Drive. This is the review and first public hearing of a voluntary annexation rezoning in small scale conference of plan amendment to the future land use map. City staff, do you have a report? Yes, sir. So the property owners have requested a voluntary annexation. Small scale conference plan amendment and a rezoning from Lucia County Future Land use category of rule and of Lucia County zoning designation of A3, transistual agriculture with A attached with the airport height notification zone. To a compatible city future land use category rule and compatible city zoning designation of A3 transitional agriculture with an A attached for the airport height notification zone. The site contains a product of 0.36 plus or minus acres and it's located on the west side of north Golf Lake Drive south of Mayport Avenue Staff recommends that the plan is only for give a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request of annexation Small scale confidence plan amendment change of the future land use to city rule and rezoning to city a three transitional agriculture With an a attach for the airport tight notifications zone. I have provided a summary of the staff report, such any questions at the board may have. Thank you. Any questions to city staff? Okay, seeing none, thank you. Is the applicant a representative present and if so would you like to come forward. Okay, seeing none, we'll move into public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning Zoning Board. If anybody would like to come forward to speak on this agenda item. Seeing none, public participation is closed. Discussion and or questions by the board. Any further discussion on this item? Okay. Seeing none. Is there a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use? To have a motion. you have a motion to approve a 525 1198 North Golf Lake Drive. I have a second for the recommendation. Thank you. Seven. Can you please call the roll though. Member Hodges. Yes ma'am. Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Hall. Yes, ma'am. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hulferschhorn. Yes. And Chair Wheat graph. Yes. The motion to recommend approval to City Commission for A-5-251198 or Golf Lake Drive as submitted. The vote is six in favor. Zero vote. The motion passes. Thank you. We'll move to item B which is Z-11 excuse me Z-1-25 at 1016 Dylan Circle. This is the Thank you. We'll move to item B which is Z-11 excuse me Z-1-25 at 1016 Dylan Circle This is the review and first public hearing to give a recommendation to the City Commission on a proposed Resoning from a 3e transitional agriculture to R a rural agricultural State for property located at 1016 Dylan Circle City staff do you ever report? Yes, sir. So the property owners have requested a rezoning for the property that's located at 1016 Dillon Circle. The property is generally located in the southwest section of Dillon Circle north of Bay Drive. the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city rezoned that property in the city A3, transisting agriculture is part of an overall annexation application. So this slide shows the current zoning map and a proposed zoning map. The map on the left is the existing zoning map which shows the current zoning of A3. The map on the right side shows the proposed zoning of RA. And as you can see on the map on the right shows that other properties that have annexed into the city were zoned RA, our culture state. So this slide shows the future existing future land use, which is rule. This future land use is compatible with the other neighboring properties. This application is not requesting a change in the future land use. The future land use will remain the category of rule. In the plant-apartment receives an application for zoning. Staff must review that application for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and the city's land development regulations. After reviewing the application against the city's comprehensive plan staff would propose that the application would be consistent with the following. Element number two, which is future land use category rule. Element two, future land use go number two, which is the general land use patterns and under element two, future land use, go number two, objective one, future land use go number two, which is the general land use patterns And under element two future land use go number two objective one future land use map And after reviewing the application against the city's land of element regulations the two zoning disks will have a few different regulations First the current zoning of a three which is transistor agriculture requires a minimum 1 acre of lot size. Two, the current A3 zoning district requires a front and rear yard building setback of 40 feet. The proposed RA, which is real agriculture state zoning district requires a minimum 2 and a half acre lot size. TheA. Zoney district requires a front and rear yard setback of 45 feet. So after reviewing the application against the city's land development regulation, the two zoning districts had a few different So that's an application review staff would also review if there was a change of zoning would affect adjacent or closely related neighboring properties. The neighboring annex properties are already zoned to R.A., residential state. The proposed zoning would be consistent with the neighborhood. And after reviewing the application against the consistency of the city's comprehensive plan and the land of elk regulations. The planning department would recommend that the planning zoning board give a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the rezoning application, changing from A3 to agriculture state. That's a brief summary of the staff report. Subtract questions questions, the board members may have. Thank you. Any questions, the city staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative present? You don't mind stating your name and address for the record. Absolutely. Good evening, Jessica Gava, Cobb-Cowell-Offerm. One day to end of Boulevard, day to end of Beach Florida. I think staff went over this one really well. It's a little bit of a down zoning, going from that one acre locked to the two and a half acre size. Setbacks get a little bit bigger. We originally came in the adjacent owner, I'm gonna say to the north on that figure, is proposing to sell an acre to our client and in order to combine that with our lot, they all need the same zoning. And so we're adjusting ours to match the pattern in the overall area. And I'm really here for any questions you guys have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? So the applicant. One quick question for you, a few to mine. Since you're mentioning that they're gonna sell off an acre to them, would that make make the property that's selling less than the two and a half acres? It would not. So that one's about 3.6. Okay. So sell it off there still at that 2.6. Just wanted if it created a non-conforming law or not. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and open it up for public participation. me a pose of less otherwise granted by the board. If anybody would like to come forward now is your time. Seeing none, public participation is closed. I imagine city staff has nothing further. Saying what they applicant. Discussion and questions by the board. Any further discussion? Seeing none, is there a motion to recommend to the city Commission to approve the requested resounding? I'll make a motion that item Z-1-25, 10-16, Dillon Circle be recommended for approval to the City Commission. Thank you, do I have a second? I'll second it. I appreciate it. Seconded. Could you please call the roll, though. Member Bean? Yes. Member Hall? Yes. Member Cazzi? Yes. Member Hodges? Yes. Member Hulvershorn? Yes. And Chair Weakwrap? Yes. The motion to recommend approval to City Commission for the dash 1-25-1016 Dylan Circle as submitted. The vote is 6 and V for zero. 0 opposed the motion passes motion passes I appreciate it Move to item c which is v dash 5 dash 25 at 6 18 a Faulkner street This is the public caring for a variance to allow a reduced side yard building setback on an existing single-family parcel city, do you ever report? I do. We have applicant and property owner, Tracey Ziegler, 618 Faulkner Street in his murder beach, requesting two variances, a side yard variance from the LDR to extend a house 4 feet, 4.8 inches from the side property line, a variance of three feet, 1.2 inches requirement is 7. feet, and a side yard variance to allow an eave to encroach 2.2 feet, 5.2 inches into the side yard setback. I hate doing this 2.5 tooth thing, but I'm trying to translate there, doing the 5.9 feet, and then just give me straight inches, so it puts me into this getting kind of convoluted with my number here. So what we have, as you can see, I kind of drew a little red squiggly line on the back of the house there. That's kind of about the extent of where they want to put an addition on the back of this house. Subject parcels on the west side of Faulkner Street, approximately 300 yard south of Wayne Avenue. was measured 49 feet, 0.96 feet wide along the Faulkner Street frontage and 167 feet deep. For the appraisers page, this house was built in 1920 and is thus roughly 105 years old. R2 setbacks require a house to be 7 and a half feet. As I mentioned, this is kind of their survey, where they are rough sketch drawn in. As you see, they'll blue highlight an area towards the front. It's 3.9 feet, and then as you go back, it skips over another six inches. So that back porch, which you'll see right on the lower picture to the right, that would be coming off, and it's about six feet, and then it'll extend roughly 10 feet past that for a total of 16 feet. With the eaves on the house I took a tape measure and they appeared to be roughly 22 inches off the house and that's basically I assume the line that they're going to maintain. I didn't see these plans that you guys brought in and all. I was kind of their sketch that they gave me earlier. Again, I mentioned there's a porch that's coming off. What they're going to do is they put a 27 by 6 foot addition, I'm sorry, a 27 by 16 foot addition on a backer, increasing it 4 and 32 square feet. So I go into the criteria. Special circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the applicants. Land structure are building. They do not generally apply to the neighbor's land structures or buildings in the same district or vicinity. Again, this is kind of a, and we get in this area here, along Faulkner, we have a lot of older homes that were built along before the LDR was in place. So this house is 105 years old. As mentioned, it's 3.9 feet from the property line. In general, I think it was the intent of trying to maintain our historic neighborhoods. I think that I can't support this given that we were trying to preserve existing houses and make them more livable. So this isn't become a big mansion by any stretch of the imagination. It's still a relatively small attractive home. And I think this is being met. A strict application of the provisions of this LDR would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. In this instance, a variance would bring 10 feet of the 4 feet, 4.8 inches from the side property line for the appraisers page. The enclosed portion of the house is 1,064 square feet, including the open and covered porches. The house is 1,365 square feet. With the proposed addition of total area under roof, it would be 1,167 and relatively modest house size, which is being met. The special circumstances and conditions exist that do not resolve from the director or indirect actions of the present or current property owner. Again, this was built long before any local zoning regulations. They closed portions 41.7 feet long. The whole house would be just 51.7 feet long. It's not even a third of the length of the whole lot. While we're all till the coast of the property line, they're still adequate space to maintain the proposed structure. And as it actually is six inches further from the side property line than the original section was it. Jollocks over. We do recommend that if you vote to approve that it be guttered and stormwater diverted away from the North property line. But we look at that as being met as well. The granny of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes in the intent of the LDR. I don't see this as impacting neighbors at all. It's gonna be set back. The house behind it is even further back. But I don't see in any way possible that it will have an impact on it. And then it actually allows older existing homes into area and historic districts to stay. Look at that as being met as well. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege that is denied by this LDR to other land structures or buildings in the same district. Given the size of a lot in the distance from the property line, because we're not casting a grant of special privilege, the owners are keeping the aesthetic of them home, while adding a relatively small addition to the rear of the house that will make it more functional. This criterion has been met. And I would add, I had two people, neighbors come in in person to ask about it, and they both said that they supported the variance request. They did not get their address, but they did say they supported it. So we recommend the two variances be approved with the condition that the house, the addition be gutted to the work waterway. Any questions for me? Any questions of staff? No. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant represented a present You don't mind stating your name and address for the record. Good evening. It's Tracy Ziegler and it's 618 Faulkner Street, sorry. Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to share with the board? Sure I cannot add to the eloquence in the accuracy of that presentation. I think the two things I just want to stress is, I think it just keeps the aesthetic and the maximal amount of green space on the property that we want to keep. This is it. There's nothing else and I just really need a laundry room. That's what really I'm trying to do is get my laundry room out of the kitchen and a little bit of space for some storage and that's it. I think that's an important part of your home. Is there any questions to the applicant? Okay thank you. Okay thank you so much. Okay we'll go and open up for public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. If anybody would like to come forward this is your time. Seeing none, public participation is closed. I would imagine nothing further from city staff and the applicant. Discussion the under questions by the board? Yes, I had a phone call also with support of the development of the property moving close to their property lines. They are supported it, but I didn't see in the plans where there was a gutter on the plan drawn in. So is that can that be added to the okay that was a condition offered by this. If you don't mind talking into the mic so that way way the workers can. It's not on there because we're extending the exact same roof line, so it's that sort of a line. And there's not a gutter in place on the current. And basically it just strips straight down off of that. I mean, we can put that in. It just has not been and Something we've looked at it up till now, okay because of the a line of the roof So we would just be extending straight back and it's it's the roof line that's so close to the property line Yes, more so than the house so when I was talking about it's the right side north side of your property The roof does go down that way and goes like this looks like correct Yes, and but that would be on the east, that would, the ending of it would be on the east and west portion of the house. The north side of the house is the side. So the roof goes. So the extension is going down towards the east. Yes, the front of the house and the back of the house. Yes, not to the north south. Is that what it shows in the cleanses? Well, this is the Faulkner Street right here, okay? Right. Either way, you look at it. This is the front of the house. This is the right side. This is the right right elevation. Correct. Now, this would be the left even though it says right. But if you're looking at this way, the front of the house faces the road. Right. the right side, see what I'm saying. I do. OK. So on the plans that were submitted, and. the house faces the road. Right. The right side. See what I'm saying. I do. Okay. So on the on the plans that were submitted and maybe city staff might want to jump in on this one. It shows that the extension is extending to the north not to the east. Now the extension is extending to the west. It's the north wall but it's the roof line is west. Do mind taking a look at a jake east to west? You come here just for just one second. This is Faulkner Street right here. This is the front of the house, correct? Yes. And so this is what I'm talking about. That right side where we're so close to the neighbor's yard. This shows the front end of Faulkner Street. Yeah, this is a bad scenario here. is the addition. So there will be close to be close to the rubber line. I don't remember which way the the front end of the Seagull Street. Yeah, this is a patch area here. There's the addition. So there will be close to be close to the rubber line. I don't know which way the roof is sloping. I said, I believe you. Are you keeping the pitch of the roof? You're extending the same. Exactly. The same. The bridge line will go west. Your roof will then pitch. You see you go to the back and it's an up and over north and south. You see yeah the same as it does now. Yes Yes, yes, that same roof line not the roof that your roof will then pitch. You see you go to the back and it's an up and over. North and south. You see the same as it does now. Yes. Yes. That same roof line. Not the roof that you're removing, which is a shed roof that goes to the west. Right, and that covered porch that's in existence comes off the house lower than it is, and that's on the west side. OK, so you'll be extending the ridge line The exact same original house. That's awful. And so he's saying, since you're so close to that north side, he'd prefer a gutter. Yes, just, you know, it's all, it does show it on the plants to go just like this. Yeah, just the one side that's, you know, I mean, we don't have a problem with that. It just that way it will then direct the water from shedding off. Yes, possibly onto the neighbors keep it on to. On the current roof line, it doesn't. It comes straight down into our flower bed, but I understand what you're saying, and it's not going to hurt anything to add it. So that sounds fun to me. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Are we comfortable with? Yes. OK. Any other discussion? and are questions by the board. So that would be a condition of the motion. Right. And it was a part of the staff report to recommend the guttering on the north side as well. Any other discussion. Okay. There's no other discussion. Is there a motion to approve the requested variance with a condition that the eaves on the north side of the house are gutted and the rain runoff be diverted away from the side property line as indicated in the staff report? Sounds good. It's a motion. A motion to approve. We just dropped the numbers off here. Okay. I'll give you the address though instead. 618. I hope. Are you good with that Stephanie? Yes. Okay. He's making the motion based upon what I just, okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Thank you. All right. Stephanie, could you please call the roll though? Remember Hodges? Yes, please. Member Hulfershorn? Yes. Member Cazzi? Yes. Member Hall? Yes. Member Bean? Yes. And Chair Week? Member Hodges. Yes, please. Member Hulfershorn. Yes. Member Cazzi. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Chair Wheatcroft. Yes. On the motion to approve the dash by dash 25, 618 Polkner Street, with condition to add a gutter to the north side of the home to divert the water. The vote is 6 and V was zero posed. The motion passes. Thank you. Since item D was withdrawn we'll move to comments or statements by the board. Anything that anyone wants to bring up. Okay. Sounds good. Oh, go ahead. Thanks. And I'll just blame it all my ignorance is being a new newest person on the on the board. You put the mic in toward you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I better. Yep. OK. We've got an extremely large amount of big scale projects that's coming down the road. It's finally coming to fruition, mainly west of 95. And I'd like the board to consider whether or not it would be fruitful for the developers or those large developments to provide scale models of the entire development that we could link all three developments together with a picture of what the futures look like based on what we know as they start because they're bound by the MDAs and the PUDs that they signed back in 2011. So they know what they have to build. And I think it would be very beneficial to the public if they could come in and see at a workshop or just somewhere in the planning office in the future, what those models will look like. And they become property of the city, but as they they expensive the developers to produce those models. Fooge with all. I'm suggestion for city staff. I'm not entirely sure that that could be enforced unless we put something like that in the PUD. I would imagine that there's nothing in in the land development regulations that would require it either, I don't believe. But I mean, it's something that staff could probably ask for. I think the board, if it sees that it's a feasible and reasonable thing. And if you notice, when you go into most large developments, there are sales department. They have a miniature scale model of what the entire development is going to look like all I'm asking is why not bring it to the city larger scale and have everybody on the same page and of course this would have to come from the city commission I'm just throwing it out to float the idea to see what any supporter, thoughts and comments, one way or the other that this board has. Are you talking about like the one at the model they usually have showing the little trees, the houses, the whole thing? How it's going to lay out? Bring that in here and show that to us. And then it becomes property because that would be what will we do when we put it. Well that's not our problem right now. I'm just trying to figure out they bring you're talking about bringing that model of that thing to us. Let's take Deering Park for a very good example. You know we're talking about light industrial we're commercial, we're talking about stores, all this floor space and so forth. Do we even have a clue what's going in there, what services it's going to require? You know, we do know the services what's going in there, but all the different businesses they don't know. And I'm sure they don't even have a clue of what they're, you know, who are the people that's going to buy in there if there's going to be a McDonald's or publics? And then that goes to another discussion of us getting on the hook for a big scale like that. And if they don't know what they're going to do, or who they're trying to court to bring in there, then we could be on the hook for quite a bit of expenses down the road. But again, I'm just throwing it out there. I have my own opinions. And I'll express those with the commissioners. But I wanted to bring it here first to... I know it hasn't been done before, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. You're talking about a project that's probably going to take 5, 8, 10, 12, 15 years. So to put something on that literally build it like you're saying now what they're going to have to have is a set of plans. Each area that they're going to go into commercially, industrially, the different apartments, multi-family, single family. That's all designated and that'll have to be approved and that can go up on the board. But to go and use a physical model, it's something that probably, it's not going to be that way. And it's like you say, how do we control what goes in? Well, if it's a commercial piece or an industrial warehousing, it's been zoned for it. So they're not gonna give you the fascia, that they're not gonna know what Amazon might want. Or you know what I'm sharing with you is, it's hard to do that on a project that's not going to be built over the next two years. This is a long-term project. And a very well-made change. Well, it will change over and over again as it exchanges hands. But each time it changes, the physical model will have to be changed. I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about, you know, three iterations, four iterations down the road. The project's not going to look anything that was sold to us on that dius right there. Or has the potential of being totally different. It should match that master development map essentially. I don't. is our absolutely. But within that they can do what they want as long as it's a permitted use on that list. If it's going to prove this board in the commission. Well the use is what's approved. The use is generally industrial. They don't know what it's going to be. It could be office. It office it could be warehouse whatever but it's a practical difference too 16 hundred acre parcel model would be so tiny you wouldn't see and he wouldn't know it well okay I certainly have the the understand the feeling of this board and I appreciate your comments I I appreciate your suggestion just providing some. Most too long the city and past people have allowed the developers to get away with not delivering on their promises. You know they come in here and bring their fancy lawyers come in here and hold us to the letter of the law on that MUD That we don't hold on the countable we meaning the city We let them and I won't go into all that we've got a good evening, but I appreciate you entertaining my my crazy thoughts The thought's not crazy. It's the process. If they were going to put a development together over the next one to three years, that might be an idea. Hey, we want to know what you're going to do, because it's going to go so fast. But when you got something that's 10 or 12 years out, the guarantee it's going to change. But if it's zoned and you've got staff that understands what we want and what the commission wants, you should get pretty close. I think in the past, maybe things were going too fast. And they got biased. I'd take a little different attack on it. I think it's an idea that has merit. And I think as a conceptual piece, it's not legally standing, but I wonder if staff could talk to the developers who suggest that might be a good marketing or sales tool for the community. To see a general concept in that sort of a model format, people would see how large is the open space or the open space, or unrelatively speaking, or how large is the industrial. But it's hard for most people to visualize that, and it might help them to understand the project a little better. So it might be something worth approaching and see the developers willing to find such a thing. When my wife and I were looking at building a home in Vieira, we met with Vieira builders at their sales office. You could go on their wall and you could see the construction plans for the next 15 years, including new interchanges like we're proposing on Pioneer Trail. They had that well thought out that they knew when they built this number of homes This infrastructure not only had to be on paper had to be in place and they delivered on it They do a model. Yes, they they know that they do a model or did they have this on drawing? Yeah, that's drawings most of it was was drawings. They had beautiful some models. I've seen it both ways. But I'm just saying that they're the best plan community I've ever seen in that town in the era. And they've owned that land for probably 100 years now. But it was all there. You knew what was coming in the subdivisions. You knew what amenities were going in. The amenities were on the map locked in. And so forth. That's all I'm asking. I think that's a possibility. You're talking about going on. But we're not requiring that today. And all I'm saying is that if we want to be serious about the quality of life and new summer of beach, because whether we like it or not, all that stuff on the west is going to come to the east to go to the beach to go to the shopping and so forth. So you know, that's part of the city too. And I've all messed up blocks. Good, thank you for entertaining. Thank you. Any other discussion, under question? Or not questions, but. Okay, nothing further, a report saying communication by the staff. I do want to let you know that on May 15th, we have a workshop for city commission that will be addressing our landscape coordinates that is still going through the City Commission. And I apologize for not having the script for the motions for you guys today. I will put it on my list. I gave it to you guys last time with the wording for the motions per. What she's referring to is suggested language so that you guys have a template. In other words, not how to vote or anything like that, but just here's the suggested language because we know sometimes as we scroll through, we kind of go past where the language was that you guys can then use. So what we might do going forward is just have kind of a template, because we're always gonna phrase it in the affirmative and then the board's going to vote however it's going to vote. But that might just facilitate getting the motions up and then getting the roll called moving forward. So you might see that next time. It's going to say exemplar so you know what it is. OK. No, that's great because that's what I use whenever I'm asking for a motion. I usually preemptively go through and make any changes to the script. And I know I kind of put a template together last meeting, but I will. I forgot that this meeting, so I'll get it for you guys next time. I know I did. I appreciate you. Anything else, Stephanie? No, that's it. Thank you. Okay. If that's it, then we are adjourned. Thank you.