The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPPROVED BOA 052213BOA Minutes Page 1 of 4 May 22, 2013 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 May 22, 2013 3 9:30 a.m. 4 5 A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the Planning and Development 6 Services Department along with these minutes. A fee is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written 7 minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control. 8 9 CALL TO ORDER 10 Chairman Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 Ron Harris ............................................. Chair 14 Bob Bangert .......................................... Vice Chair 15 Ron Knaggs .......................................... Board Member 16 Richard Pancoast .................................. Board Member 17 18 ABSENT MEMBERS 19 Buddy Emerson .................................... Board Member (excused absence) 20 21 OTHERS PRESENT 22 Katherine Barbieri ................................. Assistant County Attorney 23 Leslie Olson .......................................... Planning Manager 24 Beverly Austin ....................................... Executive Assistant 25 26 ANNOUNCEMENTS 27 Mr. Harris congratulated the Planning Manager on receiving her AICP credentials. 28 29 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes of April 24, 2013 30 31 Mr. Bangert motioned approval of the minutes as written. 32 Mr. Pancoast seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 33 34 Agenda Item #2 – Petition of Gary Sofen for a variance from the provisions of Section 35 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow an outdoor display 36 area for commercial merchandise with an awning to remain in the side yard and 37 encroach 10 feet into the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for the project known 38 as the Unique Antique Shop in the CG zoning district. 39 Ms. Olson stated the petition of Gary Sofen is for a variance from the provisions of Section 40 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow an outdoor display area for 41 commercial merchandise with an awning to remain in the side yard and encroach 10 feet into 42 the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for the project known as the Unique Antique Shop in 43 the CG Zoning District. The subject property is located at 4559 N US Hwy 1 and is on the 44 BOA Minutes Page 2 of 4 May 22, 2013 west side of US #1 and is bounded on the north by the foundation of a warehouse that has 45 been removed. As shown on the survey prepared by Alexander Piazza dated March 7, 2011, 46 and submitted with the application, the commercial building sits at a slight angle on the lot. The 47 survey reveals that along the northern property line, the side yard is 16.59 feet at the front 48 corner of the building and 14.96 feet at the rear corner of the building. This is where the 49 outdoor display area is for the commercial merchandise. The side yard set back is required to 50 be 10 feet and the display area occupies the entire 16 foot wide side yard. There is a Code 51 Enforcement Case Number 73718 due to the need for an “after the fact” building permit for an 52 awning that was installed over this entire side yard. 53 This is a quasi-judicial public hearing. Proof of advertising was printed on May 9, 2013 for this 54 public hearing. The mailing list confirms that 12 adjacent property owners were sent the 55 standard notice by mail. The Planning and Development Services department received 3 total 56 responses; one in favor and two with no opinion. Staff has reviewed this petition and 57 determined that the request does not specifically conform to the standards of review as set 58 forth in Section 10.01.02 St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 59 • Variance is not the result of conditions that are unique and peculiar to the land involved but 60 is a result of the outdoor display area occupying the full 16 foot wide side yard; 61 • In addition, the property owner installed a permanent awning over the entire 16 foot wide 62 area. 63 • Granting the variance is not expected to impair or injure other property or improvements in 64 the neighborhood. 65 • The proposed variance is not needed to make possible the reasonable use of the land in 66 the side yard, however will allow the existing commercial display area and awning to 67 remain. 68 Staff is recommending denial of the requested side yard variance because it does not fit the 69 strict definition of a hardship. If the Board of Adjustment decides to grant the variance, it would 70 result in a 100% variance in the side yard. 71 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 72 Mr. Pancoast clarified there is a 16 foot side yard and requires a 10 foot setback, so the 73 applicant could have a six foot awning but a 16 foot awning was put up so it’s utilizing 100% of 74 the side yard. 75 Ms. Olsen stated that was correct. 76 77 Mr. Knaggs confirmed that the neighbor to the immediate north of the property did not respond 78 but was written to. It seems that the applicant is not the owner of the property, it this true and 79 proper. In the pictures that were displayed, he expected to see a door on that side coming out 80 of the building; why this side of the building and not the other side. Seems the other side of 81 the building would not have created variance issues. Are there any fire equipment access 82 issues? 83 84 Ms. Olson stated that neighbor to the north may have responded in one of the three responses 85 given but there was no “Not In Favor” response. Mr. Sofen is the owner of the property. The 86 BOA Minutes Page 3 of 4 May 22, 2013 business use the other side of the building as a drive way; the applicant can explain it better. 87 Plus this being on the south side which would be more sun and heat. There have not been 88 any fire equipment issues identified. 89 90 Mr. Harris asked about page 3 of 5 of the staff report at the top of the page, the statement 91 regarding the chain linked fence being erected on the property line; how is this known? The 92 survey is over 2 years old and does not show the fence nor the awning. 93 94 Ms. Olson stated a survey is not required for the erection of a fence so it is an assumption. 95 96 Mr. Harris disclosed that he visited the site a few months ago as a county employee to 97 take a look at the applicant’s parking lot in the back; to discuss what we could do to 98 assist. This will not affect his decision in this variance. 99 100 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 101 102 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 103 104 Gary Sofen of 1816 Wildcat Cove Drive, Ft. Pierce, Florida was sworn in and explained the 105 reason for variance. He stated the awning is strictly for shade. He gave the true dimensions 106 of the canopy. 107 108 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 109 110 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 111 112 Mr. Pancoast stated he generally does not support a 100% variance but with this being a small 113 business and the property to the north is vacant with no complaints and the applicant’s 114 explanation; he has no questions. 115 116 Mr. Knaggs asked if the canopy would permanently be attached to the building, if the variance 117 is granted. He asked about a wind requirement. 118 119 Mr. Sofen stated yes. Regarding the wind factor…once the wind exceeds 70 mph, the tarps 120 have to come off. 121 122 Mr. Knaggs motioned to approve: After considering the testimony presented during 123 the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth 124 in Section 10.02.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. I hereby move 125 that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Gary Sofen for a variance from 126 the provisions of Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to 127 allow an outdoor display area for commercial merchandise with an awning to remain in 128 the side yard and encroach 10 feet into the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for 129 the project known as the Unique Antique Shop in the CG zoning district because it is 130 safer to attach it and allow it to stand attached to the building and there are no 131 objections from the neighbors. 132 133 Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion and added that no one close is against the petition. 134 135 The roll was called: 136 BOA Minutes Page 4 of 4 May 22, 2013 Mr. Pancoast Yes 137 Mr. Knaggs Yes 138 Mr. Bangert Yes 139 Chairman Harris Yes 140 141 OTHER BUSINESS 142 None 143 144 ADJOURN 145 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 AM. 146