Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-28-05 minutes 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA September 28, 2005 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Pancoast, Bob Bangert, Buddy Emerson, Ron Harris, and Diane Andrews. OTHERS PRESENT: Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, Linda Pendarvis, Planner; and Veronica Torres, Senior Staff Assistant. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Pancoast led the Pledge of Allegiance. Announcements: No announcements. 2 Public Hearing Robert and Gail Sheets File No.: BA-05-021 Petition of Robert and Gail Sheets for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the Land Development Code, to allow the construction of a carport which would encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the minimum front setback of 25 feet required in the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family – 3 du/acre) Zoning District for property located at 1301 West First Street. The Sheets would like to construct a carport on the front of their home, which would encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required front setback of 25 feet. The proposed carport would replace a previously existing carport located in another location on the property. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Mr. Harris asked if the board has ever granted a variance similar to this before for a carport. Hank Flores replied not that he could recall but they may have. Public Comment Mr. Robert Sheets stated he had an existing carport which was in compliance. It was an aluminum structure and the hurricanes took away. He is trying to build a carport and the only way he can do it with his existing roof is to come out from the front of his house and make a drive through. It would be more substantial and better looking for the neighborhood. The problem is that his existing carport went 307 feet behind his house luckily it didn’t hit anything else. He could put aluminum back up but it won’t be as substantial and won’t look as good. All his neighbors in the surrounding area are all for it and had no problem with it. Mr. Harris asked if that was a single carport that was there previously. Mr. Sheets replied that it was a double car. He wanted to add that he has knee problems and is having therapy at this time. He just had knee surgery. The existing carport that he had before was open more and had more rain coming in. This carport would be closer to the house and he would not have to walk on the wet concrete as much, it would be a lot safer for him. 3 Mr. Bangert asked if Mr. Sheets realized with this carport he would be just as susceptible in the next hurricane. In high winds they go even faster than mobile homes. Mr. Sheets said he will put trusses, tie it down and put a lot more anchors with the aluminum carport. In fact, he is going out to the house with the trusses and has four columns across the end of it to hold it down. Yes it could go but it is a lot more substantial than an aluminum carport. Mr. Pancoast stated that with the building code at this point it should be okay. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Mrs. Andrews made motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of Robert and Gail Sheets for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(a), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to allow the construction of a carport which would encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the minimum front setback of 25 feet required in the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family – 3 du/acre) Zoning District, because the new carport would be more substantial and Mr. Sheets has a handicap and he would benefit from a carport that is much closer to the house. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 4-1 vote, Mr. Bangert against. 4 Public Hearting Jarry Lewis BA-05-022 Petition of Jary Lewis for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow for the continued use of a swimming pool screen enclosure which encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the minimum side setback of 6 feet required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development – (Spyglass at The Reserve) Zoning District. The subject property is located at 8732 Bally Bunion Road. The variance sought arises from the desire of the applicant to continue the use of a swimming pool screen enclosure without having to relocate it at considerable expense. Mr. Lewis had a screen enclosure constructed around his swimming pool. When the pool contractor conducted a final survey, it was determined that the screen enclosure encroached 7 inches into the setback. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews asked if the owner of Lot 46 which would be on the side of the encroachment did that person respond. She did not know what the address was. Hank Flores stated the address of Mr. Lewis is 8732 and there was an address of 8728 that was in favor of the variance. He was not sure if that is next door or not. Mrs. Andrews commented that it looked like they were jumping 4 numbers. That is what she wanted to verify. If that is true, that neighbor has no problem with it. Mr. Pancoast commented that the screen over the pool got put up and it is 7 inches over the line. Public Comment Jary Lewis stated it was obviously not intentional. He didn’t think it was 7 inches. He does not have surveying equipment. He did measure the best he could the closeness to the neighbor’s house and it comes to 11 feet and 9 inches measured to the steel cage. They obviously don’t have 6 feet 5 twice it didn’t quite make 12 feet. This is the first pie shaped lot going around the small curve there. Something didn’t get set exactly right with the house. If you look at the site plan submitted before the house was built it shows it is across that line, he did not know if that was a mitigating circumstance or not. It was approved for building that way unfortunately and neighbors on both sides approve. Mr. Keller is at 8728 and he said he faxed it in saying he approved. Mr. Lai on the other side asked Mr. Lewis to personally drop his letter at the post office that serves this building Saturday morning because he was just down for a couple of days and headed for Boston. Mr. Lai asked him if he would get it to the board. Both recommended approval Mr. Harris asked Mr. Lewis who verified the pool would fit before the construction began? Who verified that the pool would fit within the setback before the construction was done. Mr. Lewis said it was done as part of building the house, part of the overall development. He hadn’t moved from northern Virginia at the time this happened. He could not answer his question. Mr. Harris asked if the builder laid out the pool. Mr. Lewis said the builder or his subcontractor, the pool builder. Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Lewis has had a final survey to certify the actual amount of encroachment. Mr. Lewis replied that he believed so. He has a drawing that shows it is 5.4 feet. When he went to closing on the house. Hank Flores said there was a letter in the packet from the pool company saying, “Upon final survey Advantage Pool Builders discovered that the pool deck had a Five. Four (5.4) side set back. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Mr. Bangert made a motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of Jary Lewis for a 6 Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(a), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow for the continued use of a swimming pool and screen enclosure which encroach a maximum of 1 foot into the minimum side setback of 6 feet required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development – (Spyglass at the Reserve) Zoning District, because the board has approved other similar cases with greater encroachment and the close neighbors have no complaints. Mrs. Andrews seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 7 Public Hearing Julian Bryan and Associates, Inc. BA-05-023 Julian Bryan and Associates, Inc. for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.05.02(A) (9), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to allow the construction of a permanent dead-end street, which will have a length of approximately 2,000 feet and exceed by 1,000 feet the maximum length of 1,000 feet allowed for property located on the South side of West Midway Road, approximately ¼ mile west of South 25th Street. The applicant has proposed the development of a Planned Unit Development, which would contain a Permanent Dead-End Street, with a length of approximately 2,000 feet. The Land Development Code permits the construction of Permanent Dead-End Streets, but limits the length of the street to 1,000 feet. If the variance is approved, it would allow for the proposed street to exceed by approximately 1,000 feet the maximum length of 1,000 feet allowed. The variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique and peculiar to the land involved, but rather from the proposed design of the project. The developer of the project may be able to meet the requirements of the Land Development Code regulations by redesigning the proposed project. This Board has, however, approved similar variances in the past with other developments. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the requested variance. Chief Emerson asked how many units are in the proposed development. Hank Flores replied there are 120. Public Comment Julian Bryan stated that there are two significant things that impact their inability to provide a shorter cul de sac that would be within the 1000 foot rule. First is the vegetation that they are trying to save; they monitor it very closely. The environmental preservation committee deliberation over an ordinance they passed the last several months regarding the preservation of uplands and upland set aside. They met on multiple occasions on the property with Amy Mott in determining where is the best and most appropriate location for tree and wildlife preservation. That really drove their site plan. They could have shortened the cul de sac by placing the 8 road across the canal at midpoint of the property east and west but that would have split the preserve into two parcels separated by a roadway. Staff was very much opposed to that. Another significant issue is the number of crossings that the drainage district would like to see occur over the canal because of the interruption of the flow of the canal. If they had placed it on one location they could have put it in east end or the west end but it still would have led to a cul de sac of greater length than the code allows. The last thing is their inability to access through this property to the south, east and west into any other public street because either development is completed and built out, or the property is platted. There is no platted street that abuts them. To the east there is some undeveloped land but they have approached those property owners; they were unwilling to sell and would not entertain an offer. So they feel like they were boxed in. Only about 60 of the 120 homes will be in this particular portion of cul de sac. They recently spoke to the environmental department and agreed to place an emergency access out to the west that would be at the south end of western most preserve which would then in an emergency scenario reduce the length of that cul de sac to about 1,500 feet. What that would require is that they provide emergency access out onto Christensen and gain an easement at a later date over that portion of Christensen because to complicate matters a little bit Christensen has just submitted a petition to the adjacent owners on the west side to make the road private. They have indicated however that they would be willing to give them an easement over it for purposes of emergency access. That would then give them three ways out of the property. Mr. Pancoast asked if the emergency exist that he was speaking about now is it not the one they have on their survey at this point. Mr. Bryan replied that is was not. The board has an access onto Christensen just north of the canal and this would be perhaps 500 feet south of the canal. Mr. Pancoast asked if this would be a third potential exist. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Mr. Harris made motion to approve. 9 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board Of Adjustment approve the Petition of JULIAN BRYAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. for A variance from the Provisions of Section 7.05.02(A)(9), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to allow the construction of a permanent dead-end street, which will have a length of approximately 2,000 feet and exceed by 1,000 feet the maximum length of 1,000 feet allowed, because previous board action and developer did work with county to preserve uplands that did dictate the layout of the roadway. Mrs. Andrews seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0 vote. 10 Public Hearing Vito and Joan Fede BA_05-025 Petition of Vito and Joan Fede for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A) 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a carport, which would encroach approximately 2 feet into the minimum 7.5 foot side setback required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development – Savanna Club) Zoning District for property located at 3155 Columbrina Circle. The Fedes would like to construct a carport on the side of their home, which would encroach a maximum of 2 feet into the required side setback. The need for the requested variance is created by the desire of the Fedes to have extra room on the side of their home to accommodate Mr. Fede’s wheelchair. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews asked if the board had approved any other variances in this neighborhood. Hank Flores replied a few years ago, perhaps 8 or 9 years ago they had a couple in Savanna Club for carports. Chief Emerson asked what kind of carport was it. Hank Flores stated the applicant was present but he thought it would be similar to others out there. Mr. Harris asked if a survey was received with this package. Hank Flores stated that he did not believe so. Public Comment Mrs. Joan Fede stated that recently they had to purchase a larger van for her husband’s electric wheelchair. It cannot come up under the carport as it is situated. They need 2 feet more on the side to put the overhang so they can come up under the overhang so her husband can get out of the van and up to their home. It will be all aluminum construction and the same kind of construction as they had before, except it will be up to code. 11 Savanna Club did not have any problem with it and their neighbors on either side did not have any problem with it. Mrs. Fede commented that she is just trying to give her husband the best quality of life. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Ron Harris made a motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of VITO AND JOAN FEDE for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A) 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a carport, which would encroach approximately 2 feet into the minimum 7.5 foot side setback required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development – Savanna Club) Zoning District, because they do have community support and Mr. Fede does have a disability. Chief Emerson seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5 – 0 vote. 12 Public Hearing Raymond and Gloria Black BA-05-026 Petition of Raymond and Gloria Black for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A) of the Land Development Code to allow a single- family lot, which would lack a maximum of 6 feet of the minimum 30 feet required for road frontage in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) Zoning District, and for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A) of the Land Development Code to allow a single-family lot, which would lack a maximum of 24 feet of the minimum 150 feet of lot width required in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) Zoning District for property located at 4820 Christensen Road. The Blacks would like to subdivide their 2.25 acre lot into two separate lots. The subject property is 150 feet in width and has 150 feet of road frontage. One lot would have road frontage of 24 feet and, therefore, have a deficit of 6 feet of the 30 feet required. The other lot is proposed to have a lot width of 126 feet and, therefore, have a deficit of 24 feet of the 150 feet required. All other lots requirements would be met. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variances. Mrs. Andrews asked what the cutout on south west corner was making the cutout which would otherwise be a rectangular piece of property. Hank Flores stated he believed it was a parcel that was cut out some years ago. Mr. Pancoast commented from the aerial it looks like a house with some citrus trees on the parcel. Mrs. Andrews commented that it must not be in conformance with the zoning code. Hank Flores stated that it is a non conforming lot of record. Mr. Bangert asked if this is on same dead end road as the two other cases the board had before. Hank Flores replied no, it is on the other side. The other project was on the south side of Midway, west Midway. This project is on the north side of west Midway. Christensen is dead end to the north. There is an out road, Divine Road but did not believe it was an actual right of way. 13 Mr. Pancoast said a couple of them go out to the east on a dirt trail but was not sure what that counts as. Mr. Harris stated that was a county road. Divine Road is a substandard right of way. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Pancoast asked Mr. Black if he wanted to divide into two single separate properties. Mr. Raymond Black stated the first part out at the road would be 1 acre and he would have a little over 2 acres in the back. The reason he would like to do so is that his kids are gone; he did not need the acreage anymore. It is a hardship to maintain it, he suffers from emphysema. He can’t keep the property the way it should look. He did have a buyer for the property and he did have a contract on it depending on the decision of the board. He would like to sell the property and bring up to standard. In the back he does have some damage from the last year’s hurricanes and insurance didn’t cover everything. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Chief Emerson asked what the future land use designation was for that. Hank Flores stated it is Residential Suburban, generally that allows the maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre. Chief Emerson stated it has a current AR zoning the plans for future land use designation of RS. The plans for the future say that it could potentially take more units than it currently has per acre. Hank Flores replied possibly twice as much. Chief Emerson stated his general opinion is that AR-1 zoning designation is specifically given to protect agricultural properties and lower densities in a given area that is why it is zoned that way. Through the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the future land use element the county plans for future growth in certain areas. In this case its future land use allows for greater densities. He did not see any reason not to support his request. Chief Emerson made motion to approve. 14 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Raymond and Gloria Black for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(a) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow a single-family lot, which would lack a maximum of 6 feet of the minimum 30 feet required for road frontage in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) Zoning District, and for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(a) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow a single-family lot, which would lack a maximum of 24 feet of the minimum 150 feet required in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) Zoning District, because the County’ Comprehensive Plan does have a future land use element which allows for greater density for the subject property and it is a reasonable request on that basis. Mr. Bangert seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 in favor. 15 Public Hearing Kenneth and Sandy Carrier BA-05-027 Petition of Kenneth and Sandy Carrier for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit reconstruction of a single-family home which proposes a lot coverage by buildings of 3,032 square feet, thereby exceeding by 4.5 percent (392 square feet) the maximum 30 percent lot coverage by buildings allowed in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family – 4 du/acre) Zoning District for property located at 238 Bermuda Beach Drive. The Carriers single -family home was damaged during the recent hurricanes and they would like to reconstruct it larger than allowed. The subject property is 8,800 square feet in size and the zoning allows maximum lot coverage of 2,640 square feet (30 percent) by buildings. The proposed home would have lot coverage by buildings of 3,032 square feet or 34.5 percent, thereby exceeding by 4.5 p percent (392 square feet) the maximum lot coverage permitted. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Hank Flores stated staff just wanted to note that this is one of several variances in the same neighborhood. Public Comment Mr. Kenneth Carrier stated that they had substantial damage and they want to reconstruct so that they may not have this hardship again. Mr. Pancoast commented that the good news is that the building codes are such now that next time he should be in a lot better shape. Unfortunately, what was built 20 or 30 years ago they found a lot of things wrong. It will get better. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Comment Closed Mrs. Andrews made motion to approve 16 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of Kenneth and Sandy Carrier for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit reconstruction of a single-family home which proposes a lot coverage by buildings of 3,032 square feet, thereby exceeding by 4.5 percent (392 square feet) the maximum 30 percent lot coverage by buildings allowed in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family – 4 du/acre) Zoning District, because this board in recent months has approved two similar petitions where the variance was even greater; one was 6.12 percent and 8.75 percent and both were on the same street. Mr. Bangert seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 – 0 in favor. 17 Public Hearing Harbor Federal Savings Bank BA-05-029 Petition of Harbor Federal Savings Bank for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 9.01.01(E) 0f the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the construction of a ground sign which will exceed the maximum height of a sign allowed in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District for property located at 5100 Turnpike Feeder Road. The Land Development Code restricts the height of signs to a maximum of 10 feet on properties with a residential Future Land Use classification. The subject property had an existing 20 foot high sign that was destroyed during last year’s hurricanes. Harbor Federal would like to replace the sign with a new sign with a maximum height of 14 feet 3 inches in a new location. The variance sought arises from conditions that are unique and peculiar to the land involved, but do not constitute a hardship as defined in the Land Development Code. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the requested variance. Mr. Harris asked if the board had anything like this before, in the last 10 years. Hank Flores replied not in the last 9 years; there have been other sign type variances, not similar to this. They are more for size of the sign versus height of the sign. Generally they are for new signs versus replacing an existing sign. Mr. Bangert asked if there was any reason why they wanted a sign that is 50% bigger than allowed. A new sign ordinance was just completed and signed in this county. Is the staff recommendation based on the old or new ordinance? Hank Flores commented that according to Linda Pendarvis the provisions in the sign code for this type sign have not changed. Public Comment Gina Neilli stated they wanted to put up a newer and a nicer sign. In December they submitted their new sign for permitting but because the county is backlogged it took a while to find out it was not in compliance. They wanted to move the sign to a new location; they did receive a minor 18 adjustment for a minor site plan for that new location. At that time they resubmitted to permitting and found out the sign was too big. Their sign company spoke to the zoning department personnel four different times and was told that a 20 foot sign was permitted here. Based on that they fabricated the sign. Hence their predicament, the sign is already made and fabricated; it is 14 feet, 3 inches. If anyone has been past the sight they know there is a large frontage there. It is heavily wooded on either side of them so they want to move the sign closer to the road so it is more visibility for their tenant who is also attached to their building and for their customers. Chief Emerson asked if the entire thing they are looking at in their production sketch is prefabricated. All of it or just the sign elements within the structure? Ms. Gina Neilli said sign is done. Chief Emerson asked if it was just the sign elements and was it a one piece assembly. Ms. Gina Neilli replied that it was. The reader board is a separate component. The frame is actually one piece but then as you can see you have three separate components. The sign face, the reader board and then the tenant sign face. Mr. Pancoast asked if the problem with the sign was the potential future use of the property if it changed to Residential Urban. Hank Flores statedthe sign code is if you have a future land use classification of residential it limits the height to 10 feet, but if it had a commercial land use it is 20 feet. Mr. Pancoast commented what is now commercial property if that area is commercial that sign would be okay. Hank Flores said that it still has a residential future land use. Mr. Pancoast stated the likelihood that someone would want to build a house on Kings Highway or Turnpike Feeder Road is pretty slim. Hank Flores stated that is why it is zoned Commercial/Neighborhood so lower intense commercial type use. Ms Neilli wanted to state that Harbor Federal has been around a long time, they own 16 properties in St. Lucie County. The properties are kept in very 19 good shape and this sign looks better ascetically than their previous sign which was a pylon sign. As we all know pylon signs did not survive in the hurricanes, monument signs held up a lot better. It is a safer sign and it and will be safer for the employees to have this size sign. Public Comment Closed Mr. Bangert made a motion to approve. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of Harbor Federal Savings Bank for a variance from the Provisions of Section 9.01.01(e) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the construction of a ground sign which will exceed the maximum height of a sign allowed in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District, because in this whole area it is mostly commercial and not residential in that neighborhood. It is becoming more commercial all the time. He would much rather see this kind of sign Harbor Federal is presenting here rather than the numerous and uncounted 1 and 2 foot signs allowed all over the place on every street corner we have in the county as they blow around and look terrible. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. Motion passed with 5-0 vote. 20 Public Hearing Cherokee Park, Inc & Fellichio Family BA-05-030 Petition of Cherokee Park, Inc. and the Fellichio family (Steven Ball, Agent), for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the Land Development Code, to allow the construction of a mid-rise condominium, which will encroach approximately 40 feet into the side setbacks of 64 feet required per the building spacing formula for property located on the East side of South SR A-1-A on South Hutchinson Island, directly north of Shuckers Restaurant and south of The Princess condominium. The applicant would like to replace a previously existing bed and breakfast with a high-rise condominium consisting of 6 livable floors and 12 units. The pre-existing structure has already been demolished after being heavily damaged by the hurricanes of 2004. According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, the proposed structure would be approximately 78 feet in height as determined by the regulations for building height in the Land Development Code. Applying this figure in the building spacing formula results in a setback requirement of 64 feet from the south and north sides of the building to the property line. The variance sought arises from conditions that may be unique, but do not necessarily qualify as a hardship as defined in the Land Development Code. The need for the requested variance is created by the desire of the applicant to construct a mid-rise condominium on the site of a previously existing 2 story bed and breakfast facility. The previous use of the property could be reconstructed in the same location as long as the applicant met current building codes regulations. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews stated at the request of Mr. Grande she went by and looked at the property and the stakes where the building would be. Public Comment Ben Fillichio stated he wanted to thank the board for giving him the opportunity of coming back before the board again. He was representing his family who has owned and operated the Hutchinson Inn for the past 15 years. After the last meeting in July he immediately went back to the architect to see what kind of changes they could make to address the 21 board’s concerns as well as the concerns of their neighbors at the Princess. He also held meetings with the residents of the Princess to get their comments and input as well. His first reaction was to take the original building that they presented at the last meeting shift the entire building toward Shuckers that would give them additional space between their property and the Princess. He realized that would be a band aid and would not be a sufficient enough change. They decided to lower the building down to 7 floors; by doing so it enabled them to shift the entire building 20 feet to the west. This change addressed some of the concerns of the board members as well as some of the Princess. His first reaction was to shift the property toward Shuckers. Lower the building and move 20 feet to the west concerns of board members. By shifting the building 20 feet to the west he felt they had addressed Mrs. Andrews’s concern as far as the canyon effect. The building will no longer be in line the Princess or with Shuckers it will be offset and in front of the property. By lowering the building and getting an additional foot from the property line he feels that they have addressed the concern that Mr. Pancoast had about the height of the building. Also, the Princess was concerned that they would be blocking the ocean and river views. By moving it the 20 feet they will no longer be blocking anything. As Mrs. Andrews said they hired an engineer to go out and stake the footprint of the building so the residents of the Princess could get on their balconies and look down and see that this building will in no means impede or block any of their views. He knew the 4 or 5 feet that they have picked up by moving the building is irrelevant as far as the building formula but over the last 8 weeks when he met with some of the people of the Princess there was a misinterpretation. There is a concrete wall that separates their property with theirs and most of the people thought that the concrete wall was the property line itself. In essence there is 8 feet additional of the Princess’s property on their side of the wall. Now with them shifting and lowering the building this new building will be 32 feet from the concrete wall. Keep in mind there will be an additional 140 feet from the concrete wall to the Princess itself giving them 175 feet of separation. It would be a little unrealistic to think that he is going to be able to address everybody’s concerns and the Princess’ residents as well. He feels that his family has shown a lot of concern, they have lowered the floor of the building, and they have lost 2 of their 14 units which represents 15 % of their building. He was sure the representative of the Princess will get up and say that all of these changes and modification still does not alter the fact that they still do not meet the county formula. That is why he feels this is truly a hardship that because of the shape of this property this property cannot or will not ever address this formula. He does 22 hope that his family has made the necessary efforts to address the issues which concerned you in the last meeting and justifies your approval of the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews asked if Mr. Fillichio was saying that the proposed building is now so much further west that it is west of the western most portion of the Princess. Mr. Fillichio replied yes. Jane Cornett, stated she is the attorney representing the Princess Condominium. As you can tell and as Mr. Fillichio mentioned there was a prior public hearing on the same property. There was a much larger group in attendance. There are many who would have liked to be in attendance but for a large variety of reasons they simply could not attend. In the packet she was sure was noted that more than 400 of the neighbors at the Princess Condominium sent in letters indicating their opposition to this variance. One of the things that many of them pointed out to you is that the variance is still a very major variance. It is not a minor change that has been requested, it is a very major one. We have talked a lot both now and in the past about the uniqueness of this property. It is unique because it is small, that is what is unique about it. It is no smaller or different in configuration than it was when these folks acquired this property 15 years ago. The same piece of land as they bought at that time. The codes haven’t changed. The codes are the same today as there were at the time the property was acquired. This side setback ratio relative to the building has always been in place. So it has always been reasonable for people of the Princess to anticipate that any structure on this building would be a two story structure. That is what can be constructed no mater how it is configured on the property; whether it is a matter of replacing the bed and breakfast which they have indicated they don’t wish to do. Not that they can’t do; or if it is a matter of placing it in a different configuration. One of the things that she noted in the application of Mr. Ball, the representative of the property owner is that he has acknowledge on page 6, paragraph 15 that they could build a narrow structure. His only justification for not doing that is that he claims it would be an ugly structure. That is strictly a matter of opinion and there are a lot of places where you will find structures that are narrow; and can be constructed in an attractive fashion. Her own building is on the St. Lucie River and it is a very narrow building. She hopes it is not ugly, it has been there for 30 years and she thought it 23 was a pretty attractive structure. The applicant has acknowledged that there are other alternatives. One of the things attorneys like herself is suppose to do is talk about the law. She was sure everybody knows what the requirements of St. Lucie Code are because the board has been sitting for many months hearing these kinds of cases. One of the issues in the code has to do about the question of what is a hardship. She was going to do what attorneys do best and tell the board about a case. The case of Maturo versus the City of Coral Gables and is found in So. 2nd, 619, 455, which is the recorders that attorneys look at. This gives a definition of a hardship. A hardship required for a variance will be found only where the property is virtually unusable or incapable of yielding reasonable return when used pursuant to zoning regulations and the hardship peculiar to the property. The law has said that a hardship that is something that arises when you have no other reasonable use of the property. To try to make a determination and to guide them as to whether or not there were other reasonable uses she retained and architect and his name is, Jack Ahern. Mr. Ahern is admitted in the State of Florida and in the State of California. He is a member of AIA with is a licensing organization for architects and she provided a copy of the letter for board members One of the questions she asked Mr. Ahern was could you build something on this site to accommodate condominiums units that would not be ugly? Mr. Ahern made the following comments. A narrow building could be constructed on this property that would not require a variance and would accommodate anywhere between two (2) and twelve (12) condominium units, depending on the size of each unit. The buildings would not necessarily be ugly. There are a variety of architectural approaches that can be used to make a narrow building aesthetically pleasing. Admittedly, that is not what they want but the point is they have that as an option. They cannot meet the legal standard to show what a hardship is. It just is not there. At the prior hearing Chief Emerson inquired if the Princess itself was in compliance and they could not answer that. In Mr. Ahern’s letter states even though the Princess was built prior to the date of the building height requirement as it exists today. The Princess went up in 1983 that is what they can tell from the plans, it does comply. In fact the setback for the building is greater. It is not a matter of them saying we don’t meet the requirements but you should. The Princess does in fact comply with those requirements. 24 Copies of the case was submitted to the county attorney and recording secretary. The copies of the case that she cited that explains the legal standard for determining that a hardship does exists and also a copy of Mr. Ahern’s letter that indicates that there are other things that could be constructed on this property; it might not be what the applicant desires to build or as large but it is still a reasonable use of the property. A reasonable use of this property exists and the folks at the Princess are entitled to expect that those codes and requirements be upheld by the board. They were always there it is not like the codes changed and the property was subject to it they acquired it after. That is just not the situation. They respectfully request that these major variances be denied. Mr. Tony Fillichio stated fifteen years ago he bought the Hutchinson Inn and it was called the Bates Motel when he bought it. It was a dump. Fifteen years later it was called the jewel of the Island. The fact that it was said that he could go back into the business, he would love to go back into that business. He loved every day of it and every minute of it. He and his wife and a great group of people worked there. He did not get enough money from the insurance company to go back in business. He would have been back in business and started all over again. This is not his choice. His choice is to make sure a beautiful building is placed on that property because he was very proud of it. It was a great place to own and be part of it for the years that he was there. He did not want to see this happen. This is not what he wanted. He waited months before he made a decision of going into business. Financially he could not go back in business because he could not afford it, to start all over again and to work as hard as he did for the 15 years that he was there. Everyone of the people who looked down on him every day knew what a great place that it was. He was part of their entertainment all day long. His place was their entertainment and you knew how well he kept it up. It was in mint condition, it was one of the prettiest places on the island. The place that they are going to build is also going to be one of the prettiest places on the island because he is behind it. He wants to see something nice; he would not sell it down. He loved what he was doing, he misses it tremendously and he is not going to give it up that quickly. He could have sold out and went on with his life and forgot all about it. His son is taking it over because he cannot do it anymore. He did not have the drive to do it anymore. He lost something that he really misses. Mr. Bangert said it mentions nothing about costal construction line. Is this within the coastal construction line? 25 Hank Flores stated Linda Pendarvis was the reviewer on the project and said that it was, west of the 78 coastal construction line. Mr. Grande stated that he was speaking as Chairman of the President’s Council of Hutchinson Island. As you know the President’s Council is an umbrella organization. Their membership is virtually all of the homeowners associations and condominium associations on the island and quite a number of the local businesses. This past spring the President’s Council heard a presentation for this particular project at two separate meetings. The project was approved by their membership as a potential new neighbor unanimously. That quite frankly included the vote of the Princess representative to their council. This piece of property has the ocean to east; the owners to the south and west continue to support this project strongly. To the south is the Schuckers restaurant which is attached to a four story condominium. The Princess is a 20 story building with approximately 200 units really questioning a 7 story building of 12 units and there is more than 175 feet between the two buildings. He wanted to address a couple of the things that Ms. Cornett brought up. They could build a two story project there and actually without any approvals they could build three stories over parking, so the difference of what they could build and what they are asking for is really not that great. This property is unique but not so much because it’s small but because it is narrow. Based on the size of the property they are actually proposing to build now fewer units than allowed by their density. While it is true that the Princess may comply with the current side setback requirement keep in mind that this particular property and the Princess property have 125 foot height limit. The Princess could not be rebuilt today or they would be asking for 75 feet variance on their height. So what you are looking at if you remember the original graphic it is actually the Princess that would be overpowering next to this building; as opposed to this building having any impact whatsoever on the Princess. This application brings us the lowest possible density, the fewest possible trips impacting the roadway out on Hutchinson Island and the most positive impact on the property values out there. The Presidents’ Council strongly suggests approval for the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews asked if it is a three floor structure and multi-family it still requires you to abide by the spacing formula. If she reads Section 7.04.00 purpose of this section is to ensure the minimum distance between any 26 multi-family except to and three family structures, hotel, or motel two floors or greater and any other building. Hank Flores stated generally anything with more than four units or any building with four units in it or more must follow the building spacing formula. Mr. Steve Bartelstone stated his practice has large land development component. He is on the 6th floor; it looks directly on the proposed Windward Grande project. He has walked the site and looked down on the site from his balcony. This project will directly affect his unit, it will block his view. The view is the primary reason he and his wife purchased a unit in this building, on this side of the building. He was not anti-development, he represents many developers. He represents developers who are working on projects in Palm Beach, Florida, in Nantucket, Rhode Island, in Connecticut so that is not something he lightly do but he is just opposed to this development on this site. He attended the last hearing and he listened with an open mind the proposal by the developers. He has listened to the developers argument has reviewed their plans but he has concluded the current proposal isn’t significantly better than the last proposal. It is inconsistent with the zoning regulations and the plan of development for this area. The word to describe this proposal is unresponsive. The developer did not come back with a significantly reduced request for a variance as suggested by one member of the board. He is still requesting a variance of approximately 40 feet or 63% of the side yard requirement. If you look at the report that was filed by the engineer it is really not just one variance that is being sought and he thinks in that respect that application is misleading there is really four separate elements of the zoning regulations that this request violate. The developer did not consider townhouses, or low rise multiple units as suggested by another member of the board. The developer did not consider a different shape to the building which is more consistent with the shape of the lot as suggested by one of the other owners of the Princess condominium. It was suggested by the engineer that they went out and hired. This project overburdens this small and narrow lot. The new proposal doesn’t request the most minor variance to allow a reasonable use of this property but the maximum variance he thinks he can get away with to increase this profit. He listened intently at the last hearing to discussion by members of this board about this proposal, they could not respond any further because that portion of the hearing was held after the public portion had closed. Frankly he listens with dismay to certain members of the board that disregarded the law and supported the proposal. 27 The supporters of the proposal did not come up with one factor recognized by the courts for the granting of a variance in determining a hardship exists. The fact that the developer is a nice guy they don’t dispute but it is irrelevant. The fact that his business was destroyed by the hurricane is also irrelevant. Whether the Princess could be built or not be built today is also irrelevant. The Princess when it was built complied with all zoning regulation. The fact that the businesses community would like to have more customers on the island is also irrelevant. The fact that a real estate agent testified that he believed that this could possibly affect their values is also irrelevant. The claim that this property might otherwise be used for a project that they like even less is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether this request for a variance meets the requirements of the zoning regulations and the decision of the Florida courts. The answer to that question is a resounding no. The definition of hardship is not to be found in Webster’s dictionary or an architectural book as suggested by the application. It is to be found in the law as set forth in the zoning regulations and the decision of the Florida courts. Those decisions of which you have the leading case in front state that a variance can only be granted if there is a hardship unique to the particular property which is created with the zoning as applied to that property would prohibit any reasonable use of the land. The hardship cannot be self created. The hardship can not be just economic. By his own admissions there are other uses that can be permitted on this land. They have suggested at their own expense an alternative suggestion compliant in all respects with zoning that permits reasonable use of this land. It may not be the use that gets the developer the most money but not one of them is assured they can use their property in a manner to get them the most money. We are all subject to zoning and the various restrictions that zoning implies. What the developer has essentially requested amounts to this board rezoning his parcel. You have been entrusted to apply the law consistent with the zoning regulations and decisions of the court. The threat that if you reject this proposal you may not like the next one as well; is the typical developer’s canard which he recites when his application cannot stand scrutiny. Is it likely that given the value of this land as it sits on a prime piece of development property worth in excess of four million dollars can economically be developed for anything that is not a quality project? That is the threat that was utilized by the developer in his meetings with the residents of the Princess. They don’t buy into that threat and neither should the board. It appears that the real issue here is that the applicant and certain members of the board don’t agree with the requirements that the legislative body has imposed on development in this area through the adoption of spacing 28 formulas. That is the province of the legislative body not the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment does not have the power to change this by your discretion by finding hardship where none exists. What will happen if the board approves this variance? They will appeal, everyone will spend a lot of money, the project will be delayed, the court will overrule the board and the developer may miss the market. Is that in anyone’s interest? If the board is inclined to somehow vote for this variance he would like to mention a couple of other issues you need to consider. We have no quarantines that once this variance is granted this developer will complete the project. The developer can flip this project tomorrow. Since the variance is not personal to the developer once the variance is granted what is their guarantee that a different developer with a different project won’t precede? What authority does this board have to require this developer to build this building, to build this particular building in the area where he is setting forth he plans to do that in accordance with the site plan. What authority does this board require that this particular building be built? His point is that once you grant the variance you have no control over what happens and they are at risk. Finally, the Florida courts have also stated that the adjacent owners, like him have a right to rely upon the zoning that is in place and variance should not be granted except in extreme circumstances. He has relied on this current zoning in purchasing his unit as have others who have purchased their units in the Princess. This building will undoubtedly affect and his view, his enjoyment of the pool, the pool deck, the spa and the other recreational areas and in additional they presently have a right to build other structures on the undeveloped portion of their land, next to this site which could also be adversely affected by this project. The value of their property as a result will negatively be affected. He respectfully asks the board to do its duty, follow the report of its professional, find this use inconsistent with the development code and the comprehensive plan, find no hardship, keep their trust, enforce the laws required by the Florida courts and reject this application. Gary Hartson stated in the packet there is a letter that was sent by Joe Long. Joe Long is the president of the Island Dunes Oceanside I Condominium in his last paragraph he states; again he is on the Board of Directors and he never met the gentlemen that was speaking for the Presidents’ Council and he also reiterates that his vote or opinion on this 29 project was not sought and the president of the council does not speak for them. He did not know how many of the other condominium associations fall into this situation but he knew that he and his neighbors they don’t agree with it so he was sure that there would be other condominium complexes. Contrary to the other two speakers for the Princess he was not a lawyer and he is not a builder. He is permanent resident of the Princess Condominium in Jensen Beach, Florida. He is also on the Board of Directors because he is a concerned resident of this area. What he likes about Jensen Beach and what he likes about this panel is what you have done over the past 20 years with your interpretation of the laws, the regulations, and the building codes that leads to the structures on lands such as they are discussing now. He is a laymen in these situations but he feels comfortable because even in the process of this morning he watched the board look at the regulation on the books, look at the zoning and taken it down to a minute idea of 6 inches. To this situation it is minor but that is how you define it. He was happy that the board does that because that tells him that the regulations that have been in place in this county for the past 20 years will not lead us into some of the mistakes that have been made in other areas of Florida considering building such as this that they were discussing today. As a member of the Board of Directors for the Princess Condominium Association he wanted to make it crystal clear to this board their stance which is the same stance that he takes as a permanent resident of the Princess Condominium in Jensen Beach, Florida that please just apply the rules and uphold the laws and the building codes that are currently on the books, no more, no less. Mark Schenburg commented that the letter from the architect that has looked at the site and claims that you can build between two and twelve condominium units. It is clearly a blanket statement from someone who could not have looked at this site great depth. They have looked at it for 1 year now and tried many different configurations and short of going with a penciled in 25 or 30 foot wide building the full 125 feet height you are not going to get more than a couple of units with any kind of function. Even then you are looking at a function of units that are just row houses. They would go much further east than they have now thereby blocking a lot more views than what are being claimed now and which he still didn’t understand the angles and the sun studies he did not see how views are be blocked like they are being claimed. He wanted to point out these are not threats as has been pointed out it is more of a way of showing what this developer is looking to do the best possible building on this site. They could go in a different configuration that would be detrimental to the site. This developer has been refreshing to work with and in his perspective this is someone from the beginning wanted the highest quality building as 30 opposed to someone who is just trying to get the maximum profit out of it. It has been real refreshing for him to be working with this particular developer. Let us hope that this beautiful building does get built. Public Comment Closed Chief Emerson asked Heather Young what responsibility does this board with regards to interpretations of Florida court case law when making variance decisions. Heather Young stated that the board was bound by Florida law. The case that the attorney for the Princess Condominium is relevant in describing what a variance is under Florida law. The facts might be a little bit different if you read the case history on it, it talks about regular lots versus the shape of this lot but it is a valid description of what the courts consider what a hardship to be under Florida law. She felt that they had talked about hardship issues in past cases not necessarily today but previous meetings and petitions that the board has had. It is not necessarily the economic hardship almost anything that someone does one way versus another way is going to have an economic impact so you are looking at the reasonable use of property and that is one of the standards that you see in the Land Development Code it talks about whether you reasonably use the property is permitted or whether a hardship is exist. You have all been those standards many time, they are sent out in your package and that is what staff looks at. It is not really your place to interpret or disagree with Florida law but Florida law is relevant obviously in making your decision. Mrs. Andrews stated as she has said earlier she did go by the site and also looked at the web site and must say the building itself is. It does not belong on this site. She look at the 175 feet between the proposed building and the Princess and she saw that it was approximately 50 feet more than the distance between two twelve story buildings that are currently going up on North Hutchinson Island then she figured that is not really relevant because that is the Princess’ setback. Most of that 175 feet is on the Princess property. The first meeting she was concerned about establishing precedent so she wanted to look at other properties that might claim a precedence if this variance was approved. She was not sure what the status is on South Hutchinson but she is more familiar with north Hutchinson Island. She had identified three vacant lots in the 125 foot zone that likely would and could claim precedent if this variance was granted. Unlike the Hutchinson Inn parcel they are rectangular in shape but they are narrow 200 feet or less. If I were an owner of any of these parcels she would be watching the out come of this hearing with bated breath. A favorable outcome would immediately at least double of the value of her property but more 31 importantly she or her agent would be knocking at Growth Management’s door with architect’s plans in hand in the very near future and would be demanding equal treatment and there goes spacing formula. She to the rest of the is which also 3 floor condo and not go on spacing formula and courts and convinced cannot approve Chief Emerson - Heather is a variance is granted does it set a precedent it is appropriate to look at something different is not automatically under a PUD every one exactly the same that this somewhat rare standard but it is not an automatic guarantee it is not automatic and you need to apply the facts in that case. Mrs. Andrews made motion to deny. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.01.00 OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THE PETITION OF CHEROKEE PARK, INC. AND THE FELLICHIO FAMILY (STEVEN BALL, AGENT), FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.04.01(A), OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MID-RISE CONDOMINIUM, WHICH WILL ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET INTO THE SIDE SETBACKS OF 64 FEET REQUIRED PER THE BUILDING SPACING FORMULA, BECAUSE.... Because a variance of this type has never been before and we are a barrier island and would like to continue and the case law Heather not a hardship Mr. Harris seconded the motion Mr. Pancoast said the staff works in black and white and the board can bend the rules and you have seen earlier this morning. They usually try to help people out. The setback is way too much if 20 feet but 40 feet plus is beyond him. Many other people over the years and the desire of the people here they want to maintain the quality and sometimes they disagree and that is gone and what they have left they have to save smarter people than him has gotten them where they are today he loved the Inn when it was there he is saddened by the loss but at this point looking Chief he did not believe there is a grey are to the black and white surrounding no grey they don’t bend the rules it is how they interpret the 32 rules. He does not think they stray into grey area would go straight to the courts that is their counsel job. He is only one vote the site conditions and constitute impair their neighbors not a canyon effect and he has made some concessions. Pancoast he agrees most of this case they are so close that he can’t get passed. Harris said the vote is pretty overwhelming Agenda Item #9 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF August 24, 2005. Mrs. Andrews made motion to approve minutes. August 24, 2005 approved unanimously.