Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Stop the Dow PUD

Neighbors, 
The story in this morning's Record about the 3-2 City Omission vote to send the Dow PUD to a second reading and public hearing is in the link below.  Moving to a second reading was an expected outcome,but it was heartening that the our commissioners were willing to take the time to hear from the public even though this was not a public hearing on the PUD.  It was also very good to see that most of the commissioners and were familiar with the PUD's details and concerned about its impact on the neighborhoods around it.  The issue is far from decided and much work remains to be done.  Second reading is expected to be on August 24th.

Although accurate overall, there is one error in the article, the public comments were not "about evenly divided." Fifteen speakers were against the PUD and 11 in favor. (58% against- 42% in favor). In an election, a 16 point margin of victory would be considered a "landslide." Many thanks to those who came out last night and shared their concerns. It was good to see our supporters continue to maintain a high standard for a civil debate and decorous conduct in the hearing room. 

Click here for the article: Dow PUD Moves to Second Reading

On behalf of Protect HP-1,
Lee Geanuleas
287 St George ST

​ 

DAVID BARTON CORNEAL's HOUSE OF CARDS BEGINS TO COLLAPSE -- DOW MUSEUM OF HISTORIC HOMES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STARTS TO IMPLODE At ST. AUGUSTINE CITY COMMISSION FIRST READING

St. Augustine City Commission votes 3-2 to advance Cordova Inn PUD to second reading
Posted: July 27, 2015 - 11:09pm
The Cordova Inn project is on the former Dow Museum of Historic Houses of St. Augustine property on Cordova Street.

By SHELDON GARDNER
sheldon.gardner@staugustine.com
St. Augustine commissioners voted 3-2 to advance a PUD for the former Dow Museum of Historic Houses on Cordova Street after close to an hour of presentations and questions that went late into Monday night.

Commissioners voiced concern about changes in the PUD as well as what they saw a loose ends in the application, especially with parking requirements and a request to keep uses in existing zoning.

“I want it more buttoned-up,” said Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline, who voted against moving the PUD forward.

Mayor Nancy Shaver also voted against it. Commissioners Todd Neville and Leanna Freeman and Vice-Mayor Roxanne Horvath voted in favor.

Officials said more details can be worked out at second reading. The focus of first reading was making sure the application is sufficiently complete.

Major concerns centered around additions made to the application, such as keeping existing uses in the property’s historic preservation zoning district, which commissioners questioned.

David Corneal, who purchased the property, has already started renovating two buildings for use as an apartment, though he plans to use the property as an inn, said Ellen Avery-Smith, an attorney for the applicant.

He has done that to bring in revenue as he awaits a final decision on the PUD and in case it does not pass, she said.

However, if the PUD was approved the apartments would be converted back to use for the inn.

That change was made in July.

Corneal, who is also renovating property on Bridge Street, plans to build an inn at the property, but some neighbors have been opposed. Resistance to the plan includes zoning protection concerns, while others have voiced support for the plans.

The item was on first reading on Monday so a public hearing was not required. Still, more than 20 people spoke during general public comment at Monday’s meeting, even though their comments technically cannot be considered by commissioners in their decision-making.

The comments were split about evenly between those in support of the of the development and those who spoke against the development or spoke in general against the idea of commercial growth and rezoning in historic residential areas.

“Save our heritage ... and what remains of residential St. Augustine,” said Lee Geanuleas, of St. Augustine.

He said his comments were directed at protecting zoning in general, though he is against what has become known as the Dow PUD.

Frank DuPont, of St. Augustine, said he has lived in the city for more than 70 years. He was in support of the PUD.

“This will be part of the charm,” he said of the development.

Nancy Noloboff, encouraged commissioners to protect livability.

“I’m against changing the zoning,” Noloboff said during a break in the meeting. “We have zoning in place. We need to follow it.”

The PUD is expected to come back for second reading in August.

In May, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the PUD with exceptions that included limiting special events at the property and requiring the property to be open on a weekly basis for public tours.

The Museum of Arts & Sciences of Daytona Beach owned the property for many years, which is a collection of historic houses that date back to the 1700s.

In 2013, the Children’s Museum of St. Johns backed out of plans to buy the property.



In other business

■ Commissioners passed an ordinance on first reading on Monday night that would require an order to approve a certificate of demolition to become effective 31 days after the order is issued. The ordinance also allows the city manager and the City Commission to waive the waiting period process under certain conditions

■ Commissioners delayed an ordinance regulating special events venues, saying they wanted defined requirements for grandfathering in existing businesses.

Commissioners said they wanted more items wrapped up.

Commissioner Leanna Freeman, who said she would not vote for the ordinance without having more information.

The ordinance creates a definition for special events venue and regulates what categories the venues can be located.


Share on email
Share on twitter

Follow This Article
0
Your rating: None
Comments (2) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
sponger2
MORE
2711
POINTS
sponger2 07/28/15 - 04:55 am 81Are they written on toilet paper?
Why have zoning laws in the first place if they can be arbitrarily discarded? They are there for a reason. If I bought in the historic district, I would expect (and this is part of what I paid for) the character, density, parking, and turnover to remain the same. If they are to go ahead with this, the neighbors should be property tax exempt for life, and the life of their descendants, if they choose to live on the property. I can guarantee you this, money is changing hands somewhere regarding this BS.

SkateG
MORE
13
POINTS
SkateG 07/28/15 - 09:12 am 30Pulling the Rug Out
Not to be overlooked, Corneal really pulled the rug out from under his few supporters. This from the article: "David Corneal, who purchased the property, has already started renovating two buildings for use as an apartment, though he plans to use the property as an inn, said Ellen Avery-Smith, an attorney for the applicant. He has done that to bring in revenue as he awaits a final decision on the PUD and in case it does not pass, she said."

What?!! He's creating apartments at the Dow when all along his side has decried making apartments there and harped on the evil of renters?!! "Run! Hide the chickens and the kids, evil renters are coming to downtown St Augustine!" Talk about a slap in the face. If I stood up and said it can't be apartments because of some (mostly inane) reason and then had my Dear Leader's minions announce that they're making nine apartments, I'd feel gut-punched. Guess renters aren't so evil when they pay the bills. Ouch!

Also it would appear the owner is under-capitalized if he's so desperate for cash so soon in the application process that he has to take steps that completely undermine his argument for the PUD. Remember, he twice asked for delays in his application being heard by various boards. Applying in April and having a final decision in August is not at all unusual.

Dark days in PUD Land.

Monday, July 27, 2015

"RAMPANT" DOW PUD Supporters Appeal to Anti-Renter, Anti-Family, Anti-Children Prejudices in Violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604?



Unless you are in an over-55 community, rental units cannot discriminate against members of protected classes.  Period.  That includes discrimination against families with children.

Speculator DAVID BARTON CORNEAL threatened "a fallback position," to "rent to anyone I want." His supporters have sent E-mails that children would run "rampant" in rentals.

The only thing running "rampant" is DAVID BARTON CORNEAL and his Gang of Four -- four bought-and-paid for City officials:
1. Ex-Vice Mayor DONALD A. CRICHLOW, illegally lobbying city officials less than two years after leaving office. F.S. 112.313(14)
2. Fired Planning and Building Director MARK ALAN KNIGHT, practicing law without a license.
3. HARB Vice Chair PAUL M. WEAVER, III, testifying before PZB and bragging of lobbying nuns, and
4. JEREMY MARQUIS, HARB member.

That's what I call "rampant," redolent of the stench of corruption and lawbreaking.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

FDLE Dismissed As Defendant in JEREMY BANKS' Civil Rights Lawsuit; Agent Rusty Ray Rodgers Must File Answer



On July 22, 2015, United States District Judge Brian J. Davis dismissed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a defendant in JEREMY BAKNS' civil rights lawsuit concerning the investigation of the September 2, 2010 shooting death of Michelle O'Connell in BANKS' home. Judge Davis denied FDLE Agent Rusty Ray Rodgers' motion to dismiss.

The case against Agent Rodgers will now proceed to an answer and discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

FDLE was dismissed based upon Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

"Viewed in the light most favorable" to BANKS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6), Judge Davis ordered that Agent Rodgers remains as a defendant. Judge Davis so ruled based upon BANKS' Amended Complaint stating an "at least plausible" complaint upon which relief can be granted that Agent Rodgers "lied" concerning Agent Rodgers' alleged "misrepresentations and omissions."

Judge Davis noted with frustration, in text and in a footnote, that both parties don't want to disclose facts alleged in search warrant affidavits and that without them, the Court could not determinate their "relevancy to probable cause or its absence."

Privatization Threatens Authenticity, Livability in St. Augustine, Florida





Privatizing public resources is a growing threat to livability.

St. Augustine Foundation walled off our Spanish Garden in 2001. You can enjoy our statue of Queen Isabella only one day annually.

Burghers hounded street artists, attacking our First Amendment, for decades. Our City embarrassed us in the eyes of the world, repeatedly losing First Amendment lawsuits. Meanwhile, our once-lively downtown is now "a t-shirt shop," says PZB member Cathy Brown. Another lawsuit is pending because City Hall still deprecates tourism worker rights.

In 2010, City Commissioners outsourced the 450th celebration to "First America Foundation," handing over $275,000 to a new group, intending to avoid Sunshine and Open Records laws. We stopped them, thanks to pro bono legal representation by Holland & Knight of eighteen of us (we also stopped an illegal five-commissioner Spain trip to "conduct business").

In 2012, our Colonial Quarter was "outsourced" to Pirate Museum proprietor Pat Croce. Result: fewer re-enactors, more alcohol, more merchandising.

In 2014, County Commissioners sold our St. Augustine Lighthouse to a "non-profit": neighbors are now forbidden to walk on former parklands!

In 2014, our City renewed a no-bid, below-market lease with Len Weeks and Joe Boles for 81 St. George Street (Florida Cracker Cafe).

In 2015, Commissioners voted 4-1 (Mayor Shaver dissenting) for no-bid, below-market 20-year lease of our former Salt Run Community Center and Lighthouse Restaurant to St. Augustine Yacht Club.

Developers demanded City land south of Riberia Street (historically Punta de Buena Esperanza, or Cape of Good Hope), called it "Riberia Pointe" and wanted it for a coral-growing tanks, aquarium and children's museum. Lincolnville residents Nancy Shaver, Cash McVay, Blake Souder and Judith Seraphin stopped them -- it's now parkland, and Nancy Shaver is now Mayor.

In October 2014, Commissioners approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the massive Shipyard development along our San Sebastian River, without sufficient protection for public rights to walk along the boardwalk.

Kenneth Worcester Dow gave nine historic homes to the Daytona Museum of Arts and Sciences (DMOAS) to be protected forever. Our State of Florida paid some $2 million for restoration and exhibits. DMOAS sold it to DAVID BARTON CORNEAL, who wants to inflict a $500/night hotel o n our HP-1 historic district. He's already demolished Carpenter's House. Commissioners, please vote "no" on DOW PUD.

There's hope for preserving livability, authenticity, history and nature in our Ancient City.

On January 15th, Commissioners rejected a building permit for a 7-Eleven in our historic area on eleven legal grounds. Unanimous. 7-Eleven appealed and quickly settled, with our City Commissioners spending $1.4 million to buy the property at the congested corner of May & San Marco. Unanimously.

On January 26th, Commissioners rejected two 70-foot tall buildings on U.S. 1. Unanimously.

Commissioners are now making decisions without fear or favor, based upon the facts and law of record. It's about time.

Enough privatization, conflicts of interest, no-bid contracts and historic building demolition derbies. This is our time. This is our town. Help preserve and protect St. Augustine's history and nature forever from developer flummery and dupery. Support reforms and City Charter amendments. "It takes a village" to save "our village," as veteran environmental lawyer/manager Henry Dean said, referring to our smaller neighbor of St. Augustine Beach (where under his guidance, voters opted to put a Charter ban on buildings taller than 35 feet).

Let's preserve what we love forever. For our 450th legacy, let's join our late Mayor Walter Fraser and Senator Claude Pepper, et al. who in 1939 first proposed a St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore. www.staugustgreen.com It's up to us.

Ed Slavin (B.S., Foreign Service, Georgetown University, J.D., Memphis State University, now University of Memphis) has lived in St. Augustine since 1999 and helped win more than 30 public interest community victories here since 2005.

Overheard Omen re: St. Augustine Record's Future

On July 25, 2015, a man working for The St. Augustine Record at a table offering St. Augustine Record subscriptions (and a raffle) told a prospective subscriber asking about the Florida Times-Union: "Oh, they're the same, but the Record is cheaper."

DOW PUD Does Not Meet Legal Requirements -- City Commission Must Reject on First Reading -- No Favoritism For DAVID BARTON CORNEAL and His Gang of Four (DONALD CRICHLOW, PAUL WEAVER, JEREMY MARQUIS AND MARK KNIGHT)

CITY COMMISSION must reject Dow Planned Unit Development on first reading 7/27: it does not meet legal requirements. It would destroy our most historic residential neighborhood (Old City South) and HP-1 zoning. It would increase congestion. Anything less than a rejection on first reading would be a dereliction of duty and Commissioners' oath of office and potentially invite an FBI investigation.

DAVID BARTON CORNEAL (center) speaks with non-lawyer mouthpiece MARK ALAN KNIGHT (left), fired City Planning and Building Director, and ELLEN AVERY-SMITH (right), partner in Rogers Towers law firm.  (SAR)













PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS -- St. Augustine City Code of Ordinances
Sec. 28-286. - Intent.
The intent of a planned unit development (PUD) is to permit flexibility from the strict application of traditional zoning district regulations by identifying each waiver, variance or exception to such regulation and providing an alternative development condition for that specific PUD. A PUD is a zoning category that can be beneficially utilized in order to create site-specific regulations to address specific development or topographic conditions, historic or architectural features, existing structures, neighborhood patterns or transitioning uses of land. PUDs may be created as in-fill development or redevelopment, or may be developed as traditional residential subdivisions of vacant land. The regulations found in this section may be generally applicable to all PUDs, while others, such as section 28-291, are intended for traditional residential or mixed use subdivisions of vacant land. Amendments to existing PUDs shall comply with the same requirements as found herein for PUD rezoning.

(Code 1964, § 33-70; Ord. No. 05-37, § 1, 12-12-05; Ord. No. 2013-08, § 1, 5-13-13)

Sec. 28-287. - Defined.
A planned unit development (PUD) shall mean the zoning district for the development of a particular parcel of land under unified control which is planned and developed as a whole in a single or programmed series of operations and conditions, with uses and structures substantially related to the character of the entire development. A PUD, established pursuant to ordinance of the city commission, must also include an attached final development plan with specified development conditions and a program for the provision, maintenance and operation of all areas, improvements, facilities and necessary services for the common use of all occupants thereof. As a zoning district, the terms and conditions of a PUD shall be enforceable in the same manner as enforcement of all other city code provisions. All city rules, codes and regulations shall remain in full force and effect, and shall apply to the PUD unless a specific exemption, waiver or alternative condition is included in the approved PUD text and site development plan.

Sec. 28-288. - Permissible uses.
Any use which is permitted by the comprehensive plan may be included and approved in a PUD. Those uses allowed may be allowed in a PUD, but must be specifically identified in the PUD development narrative text. Such uses approved in conjunction with a PUD must provide a justification for the requested use and include defined development criteria in the PUD to mitigate any potential negative impacts of the uses.

(Code 1964, § 33-72; Ord. No. 05-37, § 1, 12-12-05)

Sec. 28-289. - Procedures, application requirements and narrative PUD text.
(a)
Application for rezoning to PUD. Each application shall identify and address applicable criteria to its specific plan of development. An application for rezoning to PUD shall proceed in general as for other applications for rezoning; and, in addition to the information usually required for such applications, the following shall be required:
(1)
Plats and/or metes and bounds description of the area within the PUD.
(2)
The name and address of the owner and, if applicable, evidence of the assignment of an agent who represents the owner.
(3)
Evidence of unified control of the entire area within the PUD with all owners within the area of same identified.
(4)
An agreement by all owners within the PUD which includes their commitment to:
a.
Proceed with the proposed development in accordance with the PUD ordinance and such conditions and safeguards as may be set by the city commission in such ordinance; and
Provide a written narrative PUD text that clearly identifies by corresponding numbered and lettered paragraphs responses to the following criteria:
1.
Consistency with every relevant goal, policy and objective of the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to density and intensity limitations of the Future Land Use Map category for the property; and
2.
For properties currently in the HP-1, HP-2, HP-3, HP-4 and HP-5 districts requesting rezoning to PUD, identification of the specific proposed benefits or enhancements to the property that promote the goals of these historic districts; and
3.
The need and justification for a rezoning to PUD or PUD amendment, including identification of each proposed development condition that would otherwise not be allowed under the existing zoning, including, but not limited to, maximum lot coverage, signage, setbacks, allowable zoning uses and uses by exception; and
4.
Compliance with the intent and criteria in section 28-286; and
5.
Compliance with section 28-288 and justification for any zoning uses; and
6.
The phasing of the PUD or PUD amendment, including all sub-phases; each phase addressing the types of approval required or obtained (i.e.: entry corridor, HARB, building plan, landscaping, etc.) and the proposed commencement and completion of such development according to the plans approved by such ordinance or other related permit; and
7.
Identification of the legally responsible entity or entities for continuing operations and maintenance to such areas, functions and facilities as are not to be provided, operated or maintained by the city pursuant to written agreement; and
8.
A termination date after which all or part of a PUD that has been abandoned by failure to timely commence and complete development of all or part of the phases of the PUD as identified pursuant to subsection (6) shall act as a reversion of the zoning to its pre-PUD zoning district for the areas not in compliance with the phasing schedule; and
9.
If a reversion to pre-PUD zoning district pursuant to subsection (8) would otherwise be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the reversion, said reversion shall not become effective unless a Comprehensive Plan amendment is duly adopted; and
10.
A signed statement voluntarily acknowledging and binding the applicant(s), property owner(s), and each of their successors in title, to every commitment made in their application and at hearing relating to the rights, terms, conditions and limitations of the PUD text narrative and final site development plan, including but not limited to the phasing, termination and reversion clauses.

(b)
Materials to accompany applications. An application for rezoning to PUD shall be accompanied by the following, in sufficient copies as deemed necessary by the planning and zoning board for referrals and recommendations:
(1)
Plans, maps, studies and reports, as may reasonably be required by the city commission and the planning and zoning board in order to make the findings and determinations called for in the particular case. For proposed PUDs currently zoned HP-1, HP-2, HP-3, HP-4 and HP-5, a streetscape demonstrating the size and scale of the project in context with the adjacent properties and existing historic district development patterns. The streetscape shall include at a minimum the subject block and facing block to illustrate how the proposed project meets the scale of the surrounding context. This streetscape requirement is not mandatory for projects that create no visual impact to the exterior of an existing structure. Structural changes in roof lines, exterior facades and elevations and any exterior additions or reconfigurations may require a streetscape, as deemed necessary by staff or the historic architectural review board concurrent with project details.
(2)
A written PUD text narrative compliant with all parts of sections 28-286 through 28-291, as applicable. Such PUD text narrative shall also include as an exhibit a final site development plan at an appropriate scale and consistent with the terms of the PUD text narrative, an introductory statement explaining the intended plan of development, clearly indicating where approval of the rezoning to PUD or PUD amendment will benefit the future occupants of the proposed development, will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and will forward the goals, policies and objectives of the city in general. Such justification shall be based on the intent of the PUD, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with all requirements of rezoning to PUD or PUD amendment as found herein.
(3)
A final site development plan at an appropriate scale supporting the above statement illustrating:
a.
The location, grouping and height of all uses and facilities.

  • b.
    In the case of residential development, the number of residential units, their location and number of stories.
    c.
    A multi-modal circulation system including any vehicular, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle access points, driveways, walkways or crosswalks, parking areas, transit shelters or bus stop loading areas, bicycle racks, and rights-of-way, streets or sidewalks to be dedicated.
    d.
    A system of open space and recreational uses, with the acreage to be dedicated and that to be retained in common ownership.
    e.
    A topographic map at an appropriate scale showing contour lines, including all existing buildings and wooded areas.
    (4)
    Statements indicating how the problems of maintenance and ownership of common facilities will be resolved.
    (5)
    A schedule of development, including the staging and phasing of:
    a.
    Areas to be developed, in order of priority; and
    b.
    The construction of streets, utilities and other improvements necessary to serve the proposed development; and
    c.
    The dedication of land to public use, if any.
    (6)
    Each of the above elements shall be listed as to their relative order of improvement with an estimated time schedule for their accomplishment. It is, among other things, the intent of this requirement that the schedule of development be such that a staged implementation of the PUD would not result in land use conditions which would establish a precedent for the use of adjoining undeveloped property for purposes other than that shown on the approved PUD.
    (7)
    Developer neighborhood notice. At the time of filing a PUD or PUD amendment application, the applicant must submit to the city's planning department a copy of the developer neighborhood notice mailed to the Neighborhood Council of St. Augustine, Inc., or its successor, by regular U.S. mail at the current mailing address provided to the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as made available on that agency's website. The developer neighborhood notice shall include the following information:
    a.
    The project name, property owner(s) and applicant(s); and
    b.
    The existing zoning and requested rezoning, the physical address or location of the project, and a brief description of the application request; and
    c.
    The developer's project coordinator contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone number and email address; and
    d.
    The following statement in prominent font:
    "Please contact the developer's project coordinator directly if a courtesy neighborhood informational meeting is requested of the developer. The courtesy neighborhood informational meeting will be presented by the developer, not by City staff. It is not an official City meeting or hearing on the project application. The developer neighborhood notice is not intended to be a legal notice, nor should it be relied upon to provide affected party status or standing. The developer neighborhood notice is an additional, courtesy informational tool provided to the public to facilitate early, voluntary and direct communication between the City's neighborhoods and PUD development applicants. This document was prepared by the developer and the City does not warrant its accuracy. The official complete application public record will be available for review after filing at the City of St. Augustine Planning and Building Department, 75 King Street, St. Augustine, Florida, during regular office hours." 
    e.
    In addition to the developer neighborhood notice, the city planning and zoning department may provide additional courtesy information regarding pending applications to individuals and organizations that request it or as part of the city's public information outreach initiative. Such additional courtesy information may be provided in person, by U.S. regular mail, electronic mail or posting on the city's website, as reasonably practicable. This additional courtesy information is not intended to be a legal notice, nor should it be relied upon to provide affected party status or standing.
    (c)
    Action by the planning and zoning board and the city commission. Following the public hearing as required for all applications for rezoning, the planning and zoning board may recommend and the city commission may enact an ordinance establishing a PUD, including any special conditions related thereto, based upon findings that:
    (1)
    No adverse effect finding. The proposed PUD does not adversely affect the orderly development of the city, the health and safety of residents in the area, the natural environment, the use and development of adjacent properties or the general neighborhood.
    (2)
    Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and PUD regulations finding. The proposed PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the intent and criteria of sections 28-286 through 28-291, as applicable.
    (3)
    Need and justification finding. In order to permit the use of more flexible land use regulations and the most advantageous techniques of land development, the PUD must affirmatively comply with each applicable PUD regulation found in this section and clearly identify the need and justification for rezoning to PUD. The objective of a PUD is to encourage ingenuity, imagination and design efforts on the part of builders, architects, site planners and developers to produce residential, commercial, industrial or institutional developments, or combinations thereof, that effectively integrate existing historic and neighborhood patterns, or effectively transition between adjacent development uses.
    (4)
    Site-specific conditions and mitigation finding. The site-specific development conditions for the proposed PUD:
    a.
    Permit a creative approach to the development of land; and
    b.
    Accomplish a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the existing zoning district requirements; and
    c.
    Provide for an efficient use of land; and
    d.
    Improves the appearance of the area through the preservation and enhancement of historic and natural features, recreation areas and open space, and effectively transition from existing development patterns to the PUD; and
    e.
    Provide an environment of stable character compatible with surrounding areas; and
    f.
    Retain property values over the years.
    (d)
    A PUD or PUD amendment shall first be reviewed by the planning and zoning board, followed by review by the historic and architectural review board if such review is required. The city commission may remand a PUD application for further review by its planning and zoning board or historic architectural review board, such review shall be limited to the scope of review as expressed by the city commission. The city commission may expressly limit the additional review to only one such agency, after which the PUD application shall be promptly scheduled for further action by the city commission. Nothing in these regulations is intended to remove the historic and architectural review board's reviewing authority after a property has been rezoned to PUD.
    (e)
    Deviations from ordinance creating PUD. In order to facilitate minor adjustments to the plans approved as part of the ordinance creating a PUD, the city commission may approve changes in such plans, without the adoption of an ordinance to modify the PUD ordinance, if as a result of such changes:
    (1)
    There are the same or fewer number of dwelling units and/or floor area; and
    (2)
    The open space is in the same general location and in the same general amount, or a greater amount; and
    (3)
    The buildings have the same or less number of stories and/or floor area; and
    (4)
    The roads and drives follow approximately the same course and have the same public or private rights therein.
    (f)
    Expiration of time limits provided in ordinance creating a PUD. If development actions required by the ordinance creating a PUD are not taken within eighteen (18) months from the date of approval by the city commission, such ordinance shall become invalid and no further action shall be permitted under same.
    (Code 1964, § 33-73; Ord. No. 05-37, § 1, 12-12-05; Ord. No. 2013-08, § 1, 5-13-13)
  • Sec. 28-290. - Implementation of a PUD.
    (a)
    Development plan. The final development plan shall be attached to the PUD ordinance as an exhibit and shall be the only development plan associated with the PUD unless and until an amendment to the PUD is pursued via amendment to the PUD ordinance or via minor amendment procedures.
    (b)
    Record plats. If the PUD ordinance requires the recording of record plats, such plats shall be submitted to the city commission for final approval.
    (c)
    Approval of development plans. The planning and building department shall review all development plans; and, if found in compliance with this Code, and the PUD ordinance shall approve same.
    (d)
    Permits required. All construction in the development of a PUD shall proceed only under applicable permits issued by the planning and building department; and no building permit, certificate or other document authorizing construction or occupancy within a PUD shall be issued, except in accordance with the approved PUD ordinance and all regulatory provisions in existence at the time of the permit except as otherwise exempted or waived in the PUD text.
    (Code 1964, § 33-74; Ord. No. 05-37, § 1, 12-12-05; Ord. No. 2013-08, § 1, 5-13-13)
  • Sec. 28-291. - Standards and criteria for stand-alone residential and mixed use PUD subdivisions.
    The following performance standards are intended for standalone residential and mixed use PUD subdivisions. These projects typically include exclusively residential uses or mixed use projects developed on vacant parcels with defined boundaries and a self-contained subdivision identity separated from adjacent properties through a visible perimeter break. 
    (1)
    Density of developments. The total ground occupied by buildings and structures for residential use shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the total ground area of that portion of the PUD devoted to residential use. The density and intensity of development within a PUD shall be consistent with the density and intensity allowed within the City of St. Augustine Comprehensive Plan.
    (2)
    Open space. The PUD may include residential lots of smaller size than would be permitted by the zoning regulations otherwise applicable to the site, provided the overall density is not increased. The excess land shall be utilized as open space. The open space shall be utilized as a park, for either passive or active recreation or as a conservation area. The open space shall either be dedicated to the City of St. Augustine or be maintained by a community association composed of residents of the PUD. Land recorded as open shall not be encroached upon by any residential, commercial or industrial, primary or accessory use.
    (3)
    Waiver of yard, dwelling unit, frontage criteria and use restriction. Minimum yard, lot size, type of dwelling unit, height and frontage requirements and use restrictions are waived for the PUD, provided the spirit and intent of this chapter is complied with in the total development of the PUD. However, the City Commission of St. Augustine may, at its discretion, require adherence to minimum zone requirements within certain portions of the site if deemed necessary in order to maintain the spirit and intent of this chapter.
    (4)
    Support legal documents for open space. Legal documents which assure adequate management and maintenance of the open space area must be provided by the developer for all areas proposed for common ownership by the residents of the PUD. Legal instruments provided for dedications, covenants, community associations and subdivision controls shall:
    a.
    Place title of common property in a form of common ownership by the residents of the PUD; e.g., a duly constituted and legally responsible community association, cooperative, etc.
    b.
    Appropriately limit the use of common property.
    c.
    Place responsibility for management and maintenance of common property. The St. Augustine City Commission, at its discretion, may require the applicant to enter into a contract with St. Augustine for maintenance of commonly held properties.
    d.
    Place responsibility for enforcement of covenants.
    e.
    Permit the subjection of each lot to assessment for its proportionate share of maintenance costs.
    (5)
    Access. Access to each single family dwelling unit shall be provided via either a public right-of-way or a private vehicular or pedestrian way owned by the individual lot owner in fee or in common ownership with the residents of the PUD.
    (6)
    Privacy. Each dwelling unit within the PUD shall be provided visual and acoustical privacy. Fences, walks and landscaping shall be provided for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of property and the privacy of its occupants, screening of objectionable views or uses and reduction of noise.
    (7)
    Community facilities:
    a.
    All utility facilities proposed for dedication to St. Augustine must be acceptable by the city as to the size, shape and location, and shown by the applicant to be of benefit to the general public.
    b.
    All requirements for off-street parking and loading (article IV, division 2) shall apply to the PUD unless otherwise waived or modified.
    c.
    Access and circulation shall adequately provide for firefighting equipment, furniture moving vans, fuel trucks, refuse collection, deliveries and debris removal.
    d.
    All PUD's shall provide for underground installation of utilities, including telephone, power and cable television in both public and private rights-of-way. Provisions shall be made for acceptable design and construction of storm sewer facilities, including grading, gutters, piping and treatment of turf to handle stormwaters and prevent erosion and formation of dust.
    e.
    Specifications for street design, publicly used driving and access aisles, sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, including those providing interconnectivity between phases of the PUD or between the PUD and adjacent properties, shall conform to the rules and regulations adopted by the City of St. Augustine.
    (Code 1964, § 33-75; Ord. No. 05-37, § 1, 12-12-05; Ord. No. 2013-08, § 1, 5-13-13)
2007 St. Augustine Record Editorial re: National Park: Gift Idea for St. Augustine's 450th -- when will Record endorse the Park and Seashore?
Support for National Park: Gift ideas few for city's big 4-5-0

From Staff
Publication Date: 10/06/07

Gift ideas few for city's big 4-5-0

We asked readers last week to suggest the best gift for the city of St. Augustine's 450th birthday in 2015.

We got a few.

Perhaps most people don't think there's any gift to be had when you reach 450.

Here's what readers told us:

Editor: Our Minorcan family has lived here for some 230 years. For our 450th, to save St. Augustine, our city needs a national historical park, seashore and scenic coastal highway to showcase to the world and to preserve forever our precious cultural, environmental and wildlife heritage.

Drayton Manucy

St. Augustine

Editor: I support Ed Slavin's Nov. 13, 2006 proposal for a St. Augustine National Historic Park, National Seashore and National Scenic Coastal Highway. This beautiful historic place must be preserved forever (or else our history and heritage and beauty will be destroyed forever). Congress must act swiftly.

David Brian Wallace

St. Augustine

Editor: The newly formed Theatre Saint Augustine has planned a meeting for all members of the community to develop thoughts on how the artistic and historic community can work together towards events for the 450th celebration. The possible development of a revised Cross and Sword, Florida's state play, will be a focus of discussion at the St. Johns County Main Public Library, 1960 N. Ponce de Leon Blvd., for Oct. 22, at 6 p.m., For additional information visit www.theatresaintaugustine.com

Kiki Tovey

Theatre Saint Augustine

St. Augustine

Those are some good ideas.

We'd add, too, that perhaps city officials should visit Kansas City, Mo., where beautiful fountains and bronze statues of all sizes delight visitors and residents alike.

Some commemorate events, others people. We've got some statues and fountains already but nothing like you will find in KCMO.

The city is proof, you can never have too many fountains or statues.


Click here to return to story:
http://staugustine.com/stories/100607/opinions_10062007_037.shtml

National Park Service Criteria For New National Parks

Throughout the Nation, people are working to conserve natural
resources, protect historic sites, and to provide recreational opportunities
for a growing population. Many communities also are looking
for ways to combine conservation with efforts to attract visitors
who will help support the local economy. The National Park Service
is responsible for carefully screening proposals for new park units
to assure that only the most outstanding resources are added to
the National Park System. Regardless of economic considerations or
other factors, a new national park area must meet criteria for
national significance, suitability, and feasibility. Various other management
options are also weighed. For those with proposals for
consideration, this page explains the criteria applied by the National
Park Service in evaluating new park proposals, outlines the study
process, and lists some of the other ways to recognize and protect
important resources outside of the National Park System.

How are national parks created? What qualities make an area eligible to
be a national monument, historic site, recreation area, or other units of
the National Park System? These questions are frequently asked by people
throughout the country. Some people think a scenic part of their
community deserves to be a national park. Others want national recognition
for their favorite historic house or geological formation. These sites
may deserve to be protected, but how do we decide if action should be
taken at the state or local level instead of by the Federal Government,
and if federal action is appropriate what agency should take the lead?
The National Park Service has established criteria for national significance,
suitability, feasibility, and management alternatives that help answer
these questions. This page presents the criteria and the study
process established by Congress and in the National Park Service’s Management
Policies. People with suggestions for new parks can use these
criteria as a yardstick to see if their proposals are likely to merit further
consideration.
Units of the National Park System are managed under mandates differing
from those guiding many other Federal, State, and local agencies. The
National Park Service is responsible for managing areas to provide for
public enjoyment in such a way that will leave resources “unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations.” Since 1872 the National Park System
has grown to include almost 400 areas. The System will continue to
evolve, reflecting the progression of history, new understandings of natural
systems, and changes in patterns of recreation. However, the areas
managed by the National Park Service are a small part of the broader system
for protecting important places. Addition to the National Park Service
is only one of many alternatives, and the National Park Service also
operates several programs that help others preserve natural, cultural,
and recreational areas outside of the System.

Proposals for additions to the National Park System may come from the
public, state, and local officials, Indian tribes, members of Congress, or
the National Park Service. To be eligible for favorable consideration as a
unit of the National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant
natural, cultural, or recreational resources; be a suitable and feasible
addition to the system; and require direct NPS management instead of
protection by some other governmental agency or by the private sector.

QUALIFICATIONS
How are national parks created? What qualities make an area eligible to
be a national monument, historic site, recreation area, or other units of
the National Park System? These questions are frequently asked by people
throughout the country. Some people think a scenic part of their
community deserves to be a national park. Others want national recognition
for their favorite historic house or geological formation. These sites
may deserve to be protected, but how do we decide if action should be
taken at the state or local level instead of by the Federal Government,
and if federal action is appropriate what agency should take the lead?
The National Park Service has established criteria for national significance,
suitability, feasibility, and management alternatives that help answer
these questions. This page presents the criteria and the study
process established by Congress and in the National Park Service’s Management
Policies. People with suggestions for new parks can use these
criteria as a yardstick to see if their proposals are likely to merit further
consideration.
Units of the National Park System are managed under mandates differing
from those guiding many other Federal, State, and local agencies. The
National Park Service is responsible for managing areas to provide for
public enjoyment in such a way that will leave resources “unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations.” Since 1872 the National Park System
has grown to include almost 400 areas. The System will continue to
evolve, reflecting the progression of history, new understandings of natural
systems, and changes in patterns of recreation. However, the areas
managed by the National Park Service are a small part of the broader system
for protecting important places. Addition to the National Park Service
is only one of many alternatives, and the National Park Service also
operates several programs that help others preserve natural, cultural,
and recreational areas outside of the System.
Proposals for additions to the National Park System may come from the
public, state, and local officials, Indian tribes, members of Congress, or
the National Park Service. To be eligible for favorable consideration as a
unit of the National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant
natural, cultural, or recreational resources; be a suitable and feasible
addition to the system; and require direct NPS management instead of
protection by some other governmental agency or by the private sector.

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

A proposed unit will be considered nationally significant if it meets all
four of the following standards:
• it is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource.
• it possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting
the natural or cultural themes of our Nation’s heritage.
• it offers superlative opportunities for recreation for public use and enjoyment,
or for scientific study.
• it retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively
unspoiled example of the resource.

RESOURCE EVALUATION

The following examples of natural and cultural resources are considered
in evaluating the significance of a proposal for addition to the National
Park System.
Natural Area examples may include:
• an outstanding site that illustrates the characteristics of a widespread
landform or biotic area. that is still widespread;
• a rare remnant natural landscape or biotic area of a type that was once
widespread but is now vanishing due to human settlement and development;
• a landform or biotic area that has always been extremely uncommon in
the region or nation;
• a site that possesses exceptional diversity of ecological components
(species, communities, or habitats) or geological features (landforms,
observable manifestations of geologic processes);
• a site that contains biotic species or communities whose natural distribution
at that location ismakes them unusual (for example, a community
relatively large population at the limit of its range or a disjunctn isolated
population);
• a site that harbors a concentrated population of a rare plant or animal
species, particularly one officially recognized as threatened or endangered;
• a critical refuge that is necessary for the continued survival of a species;
• a site that contains rare or unusually abundant fossil deposits;
• an area that has outstanding scenic qualities such as dramatic topographic
features, unusual contrasts in landforms or vegetation, spectacular
vistas, or other special landscape features;
• a site that has an invaluable ecological or geological importance benchmark
due to an extensive and long-term record of research and scientific
discovery.
Cultural Areas may be historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, structures,
or objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating
or interpreting our heritage and that possess a high degree of integrity
of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Specific examples include:
• a resource that is associated with events that have made a significantly
contribution contributed to and are identified with, or that outstandingly
represent the broad national patterns of United States history
and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns
may be gained;
• a resource that is importantly associated with the lives of persons nationally
significant in the history of the United States history;
• a resource that embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural
type specimen, exceptionally valuable for study of a period, style,
or method of construction, or represents a significant, distinctive, and
exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
• a resource with several components that may not that is composed of
integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason
of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition
but that collectively [comprise] an entity of exceptional historical
or artistic significance, or that outstandingly commemorates or illustrates
a way of life or culture;
• a resource that has yielded or may be likely to yield information of
major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding
light upon on periods of occupation over large areas of the United
States.
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties
owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their original locations, and reconstructed
historic buildings and properties that have achieved significance within in
the past 50 years are not considered to be appropriate as additions to the
National Park System. unless the property meets certain exceptions to the
criteria.
Many units of the National Park System have been established to recognize
their important role in providing recreational opportunities. The potential
for public use and enjoyment is an important consideration in
evaluating potential new additions to the National Park System. However,
recreational values are not evaluated independently from the natural
and cultural resources that provide the settings for recreational activities.
Suitability
An area that is nationally significant also must meet criteria for suitability
and feasibility to qualify as a potential addition to the National Park System.
To be suitable for inclusion in the System an area must represent a
natural or cultural theme or type of recreational resource that is not already
adequately represented in the National Park System or is not comparably
represented and protected for public enjoyment by another
land-managing entity. Adequacy of representation is determined on a
case-by-case basis by comparing the proposed area to other units in the
National Park System for differences or similarities in the character, quality,
quantity, or combination of resources, and opportunities for public
enjoyment.
Feasibility
To be feasible as a new unit of the National Park System an area’s natural
systems and/or historic settings must be of sufficient size and appropriate
configuration to ensure long-term protection of the resources and to accommodate
public use. It must have potential for efficient administration
at a reasonable cost. Important feasibility factors include landownership,
acquisition costs, life cycle maintenance costs, access, threats to the resource,
and staff or development requirements.
Criteria for New National Parks National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Throughout the Nation, people are working to conserve natural
resources, protect historic sites, and to provide recreational opportunities
for a growing population. Many communities also are looking
for ways to combine conservation with efforts to attract visitors
who will help support the local economy. The National Park Service
is responsible for carefully screening proposals for new park units
to assure that only the most outstanding resources are added to
the National Park System. Regardless of economic considerations or
other factors, a new national park area must meet criteria for
national significance, suitability, and feasibility. Various other management
options are also weighed. For those with proposals for
consideration, this page explains the criteria applied by the National
Park Service in evaluating new park proposals, outlines the study
process, and lists some of the other ways to recognize and protect
important resources outside of the National Park System.

For more, please see the NPS website