HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-28-2009
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
January 28, 2009
3
9:30 a.m.
4
5
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the
6
Growth Management Department along with these Minutes, a fee is charged. In
7
the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the
8
compact disc shall control.
9
10
11
CALL TO ORDER
12
Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at about 9:35 A.M.
13
14
ROLL CALL
15
Ron Harris .................................. Chairman
16
Bob Bangert................................. Vice Chairman
17
Diane Andrews ............................ Board Member
18
Buddy Emerson ........................... Board Member
19
Richard Pancoast ........................ Board Member
20
21
OTHERS PRESENT
22
Jeffrey Johnson ........................... Senior Planner
23
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith ......... Assistant County Attorney
24
Michelle Hylton ............................ Senior Staff Assistant
25
26
27
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
28
29
Approval of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 26, 2008.
30
31
Mrs. Andrews indicated a few non-substantive errors.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Pancoast seconded.
34
35
The motion carried 5-0.
36
37
ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39
Mr. Harris stated Agenda Item #2 - Election of Officers will be moved to the end of the
40
meeting. Mr. Harris presented Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith,
41
who stated for the record that she represents the Board at these hearings, not Staff.
42
43
Prior to hearing Gazzara Retail, Mr. Harris stated he had prior knowledge of the project,
44
so must recuse himself from participating to avoid a conflict of interest, and passed the
45
gavel to Mr. Bangert.
46
Page 1 of 8
Public Hearing Sabastiano & Cecelia Gazzara
1
January 28, 2009 BA-1120081534
2
3
Agenda Item #2 – Gazzara Retail
4
5
Jeffrey Johnson showed a presentation about the project. In his presentation he stated
6
that the petitioners are requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(B)
7
and Section 7.09.04(A), of the St. Lucie Land Development Code to allow the
8
construction of a building that will encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot set back.
9
10
During the presentation, Mr. Johnson mentioned that the location of the project is
11
planned for future right of way expansion and Public Works, through their review,
12
requested 17.5 feet of right of way.
13
14
At the end of his presentation, Mr. Johnson stated staff was recommending denial of
15
this variance because it does not conform to a strict interpretation of the standards of
16
review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, and
17
may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County
18
Comprehensive Plan.
19
20
When the presentation concluded, Mr. Bangert turned to the Board for discussion.
21
22
Chief Emerson asked if there was any documentation from the City of Fort Pierce
23
regarding possible annexation. Mr. Johnson said no, but the convenience store to the
24
south of the project was annexed.
25
26
Chief Emerson inquired to the likelihood of annexation, and Ms. Smith said she did not
27
know.
28
29
Mrs. Andrews asked when the property was rezoned from residential to commercial; Mr.
30
Johnson said he did not have the information.
31
32
Tim Maslin, agent for the petitioner explained the background of the Gazzara Retail site
33
plan beginning with a pre-application conference with the Growth Management
34
Department in 2001. At the pre-application conference, the Gazzara’s were advised
35
they could build a 3,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Maslin said after allowing for required
36
infrastructure the building would not fit.
37
38
The Gazzaras bought the adjacent lot and attended another pre-application conference
39
in 2003, where they were told they could get a 6,000 sq. ft. building due to the size of
40
the property. In March of 2007, the Gazzaras submitted a minor site plan for a 4,500 sq.
41
ft. building. Prior to the submittal of the minor site plan, Mr. Maslin attended another pre-
42
application conference where they were advised to submit. He said there are no
43
structures at the site, but they are proposing to do infrastructure.
44
45
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Maslin said the County contacted the applicants and told them they were not eligible
1
for a minor site plan, and should be submitting to the building department, since some
2
people interpret the Code as saying if the building will be less than 6,000 sq. ft., you
3
submit a building plan instead of a site plan. He said at that time, his clients had to
4
purchase a building, put a deposit on it, and have the building designed before a site
5
plan was finalized.
6
7
Mr. Maslin said they have had to continue with the South Florida Water Management
8
Drainage Permit process, the Fort Pierce Utilities Permit process, because their permit
9
submittals were already made. He said they have subsequently had to retract their site
10
plan application and submit a building application in December 2007, and his clients
11
had to make a large deposit on the building that was planned for the site.
12
13
Mr. Maslin said in 2008, a month after they submitted the building plans, they still had
14
not gotten any site plan comments. He said they received their first round of comments
15
for the building plans in May of 2008, which was six months after their initial submittal.
16
Subsequently, they went through two rounds of commenting, revising the plans, and
17
resubmitting. He said finally in July of 2008, the right-of-way donation of 17.5 feet was
18
requested, eight months after their initial submittal.
19
20
Mr. Maslin said since then, they have been reevaluating the project, trying to make
21
things work, to come up with the best solution possible so that they can get some kind
22
of improvement out there, and they can use their property. He said what he has found
23
through this hardship timeline, is that through the Code and through the interpretations
24
of the Code, there is an unfavorable building permit process, where you have to put the
25
building before the site plan.
26
27
Mr. Maslin said with the type of plan that they are proposing, there is approximately
28
$121,000 of additional public infrastructure that this project is going to have to do. He
29
said they have to improve Avenue A all the way to the property line; they have to run a
30
force main across Avenue A and up the street until Avenue C, approximately 607 sq. ft.
31
32
Mr. Maslin stated, in terms of hardships, he believe the right-of-way donation
33
requirement being commented eight months after site plan submittals puts a hardship in
34
where the building had to have been purchased already and the site plans were already
35
designed. He said they are asking for a solution that would give everyone what they
36
need. Mr. Maslin stated they were asking for an adjustment to the side setback. The
37
variance is for an irregular shaped lot, which makes it unique. He said the hardship was
38
in the process, along with the economy as it is right now. Mr. Maslin said they are trying
39
to build something, trying to improve things, and trying to reach a compromise with the
40
County to move forward instead of redesigning where they have already spent the
41
money.
42
43
Mr. Maslin stated he believes this variance will grant, not impede the future right-of-way
44
and traffic improvements. He said this variance is a minimum that they feel is
45
appropriate whereas all dimensional criteria are met exactly with this 10 foot side
46
Page 3 of 8
setback and they wouldn’t be met otherwise. In his opinion, Mr. Maslin stated he
1
believed that denying this variance will effectively terminate and possibly bankrupt this
2
project, since their funds are exhausted.
3
4
Hearing no further comments from the public, Mr. Bangert returned to the Board.
5
6
Mrs. Andrews asked Mr. Johnson why it took eight months before the petitioners were
7
told about the setback. Mr. Johnson responded the date stamped on the plans that were
8
st
submitted to the building department was February 21. He said he believes the
9
applicant made an official submittal back in December, but there wasn’t any type of
10
review between December and February. Mr. Johnson said once the plans came in,
11
they went through a completeness review; they were then dispersed to the various
12
disciplines in the building department, and other departments for review.
13
14
Chief Emerson asked the petitioner if they signed an annexation agreement with the
15
City of Fort Pierce relative to utilities when they applied through Fort Pierce Utilities
16
Authority for permitting. Mr. Maslin responded there was a developer’s agreement they
17
started that was not finalized. He said the utility infrastructure that they came up with
18
was agreed upon.
19
20
Mr. Bangert returned to the Board for discussion.
21
22
Mrs. Andrews stated had it not been for the delay on the part of the County, she would
23
probably not vote in favor of the petitioner. Mrs. Andrews said the delay does infer a
24
hardship that wasn’t there before. Mr. Bangert said he felt similar to that, and the fact
25
that there are no homes in the immediate vicinity.
26
27
Mrs. Andrews asked staff if there were other 17.5 foot dedications north and south of
28
the property on Angle Road, or if this property would stand out. Mr. Johnson responded
29
he thinks this was the first dedication through his discussions with the Engineering
30
Department.
31
32
Chief Emerson asked the petitioners if they discussed the project with the City of Fort
33
Pierce. Mr. Maslin stated he had not directly other than the utilities; he understands
34
there is a possibility of annexation but he has not sought it.
35
36
Mrs. Cecelia Gazzara, the petitioner, said when they first began the project, her
37
contractor did not know whether the project was City or County. They submitted first to
38
the County and were told they were in the City, and the City told them they were
39
County.
40
41
Chief Emerson asked if they had approached the City about annexing their property, Mr.
42
Maslin and Mrs. Gazzara responded no.
43
44
Mr. Maslin added farther north on Angle Road 600 or 700 feet there are still properties
45
that haven’t given up the right of way that equals this area yet. There are still properties
46
Page 4 of 8
that are one step behind and this property would be two steps forward. Mr. Johnson
1
said as the applications come in and get developed, that is when the County requests a
2
donation.
3
4
Chief Emerson stated his opinion that the project will ultimately wind up in the City of
5
Fort Pierce, so he is hesitant to grant a variance to the County’s requirements when he
6
does not know the City’s requirements. Chief Emerson added there are other things in
7
staff’s comments that have to do with aesthetics that the Board would also be altering
8
by granting the variance, which he is not comfortable with, so his inclination is to agree
9
with staff recommendation.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews disagreed and said it is in the County now and we can’t predict what the
12
City will do.
13
14
Mr. Pancoast said he is reluctant to approve it based on the easement we are putting on
15
major roads. He said he knows there are other properties around the County where we
16
have enforced it, though he does not like the situation that went on.
17
18
Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to see Chief Emerson’s concerns addressed, so
19
maybe a continuance to see how the City wants to develop that area if and when they
20
annex.
21
22
Mr. Johnson said the City and the County coordinate their efforts, so the County will
23
seek the donation regardless. Mr. Maslin added with the variance, they would still be
24
giving the entire right of way requested. He said they are also giving a 10 foot
25
landscape feature, though the required landscape buffer is 15 feet.
26
27
Mr. Pancoast asked Mr. Bangert if he may extend a hand to Mr. Harris for his
28
knowledge, though he has recused himself.
29
30
Ms. Smith said Mr. Harris has been recused, but the Board may ask a specific question
31
the way they would with anyone else’s testimony. She said it is not looked upon
32
favorably because it would be difficult for Board members to weigh his opinion.
33
34
Mr. Pancoast asked Mr. Harris if there was a way to determine distance from the center
35
of the road to the northeast corner of the building on the Site, Paving, Grading,
36
Drainage, and Utility plan; and does this show the 17 foot right of way they are giving
37
back.
38
39
Mr. Harris said the plans show clearly the 17.50 foot right of way donation that was
40
requested by Public Works on July 17, 2008, the first time Public Works saw this
41
project. Mr. Harris said the only way to measure from the centerline right now is with a
42
scale. Mr. Pancoast said he can make an approximation now on that distance, based on
43
the other numbers.
44
45
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Pancoast asked if adding the 17 foot donation to the County’s existing 85 foot right
1
of way was a reasonable donation from that side of the road toward the 120 feet that
2
would ultimately be needed for the road.
3
4
Mr. Johnson said when the owners on the other side come in to develop or re-develop,
5
or when the County moves ahead with the project on Angle Road, they will have to do a
6
17.5 foot donation, so we get the full 120 feet along there.
7
8
Mr. Pancoast asked if there will still be a sidewalk on the east side of the building and
9
planting. Mr. Johnson said there is a sidewalk planned on Angle Road, but he does not
10
recall which side. He said to the south there is an existing sidewalk.
11
12
Mr. Pancoast said he would support the variance because he believes the 17 feet they
13
are giving up would be a reasonable donation to the county to expand the road. He said
14
he thinks there is a hardship involved in the fact that the project has been around for
15
over a year and they are only this far, which is mostly the fault of the County.
16
17
Mr. Johnson said to address the concerns about aesthetics and landscaping with the
18
reduced buffer, the Board could entertain a condition of approval that would require the
19
applicant to enter into a licensing agreement with the County for landscaping to be
20
placed in the right of way. He said at that time that an agreement would be in place for
21
any type of landscaping that can be removed as necessary if the County deems it a
22
hazard or in conflict with any plans for Angle Road in the future.
23
24
Mrs. Andrews asked if the applicant is agreeable to that, Mrs. Gazzara replied she
25
would. Mr. Johnson said it would have to be worked out through the Engineering
26
Department.
27
28
Mr. Johnson said the licensing agreement would still have to go through the Board of
29
County Commissioners for review and approval, but the Board of Adjustment could still
30
make that a condition of approval if they so desire.
31
32
Ms. Smith said if the Board wanted the licensing agreement as a condition, it would
33
have to be in the motion. Ms. Smith added that the licensing agreement would have to
34
go through review with the Engineering Department, the County Attorney’s office, and
35
be approved by the BOCC.
36
37
Mr. Pancoast said the applicants have gone through so much now, and he wonders if it
38
would be out of place to ask the applicants to put plants in the right of way. Mr. Johnson
39
said the sod is a requirement.
40
41
Mr. Pancoast said when he drove past the site, he noticed there were a number of oak
42
trees, and asked if there is potential to keep those trees and sod around it.
43
44
Mr. Maslin stated in the Landscape Plan there is tree protection criteria that enable as
45
many of the oak trees as they can in the landscape buffer.
46
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Harris, as a Public Works employee, suggested the Board word the motion “should
1
the County allow the licensing agreement,” because if the County chooses not to allow
2
the licensing agreement, the applicants will be back to the Board of Adjustment.
3
4
Ms. Smith said that would be an appropriate wording if they want to do that.
5
6
Mr. Pancoast said he is reluctant to put in the motion what his actual view of the
7
hardship is and requested suggestions. Ms. Smith said he could find hardship based on
8
the irregular shape of the lot; or call it, more diplomatically, the length of the process for
9
the application.
10
11
Mr. Maslin said the owners would submit to the Public Works Department the
12
suggestion of a mutual landscape agreement.
13
14
Mr. Pancoast said he would prefer to leave the agreement out because it could
15
potentially tie them up another month or two.
16
17
Mr. Pancoast made the motion for approval of the petition:
18
19
20
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff
21
comments, and the standards of review as set forth in section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie
22
County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve
23
Sebastiano and Cecilia Gazzara
the petition of for a variance from the provisions of
24
sections 7.04.01(b) and 7.09.04(a) of the St. Lucie County Land Development code to
25
Permit construction of a 4,200 square foot commercial building to encroach ten (10) feet
26
into the required twenty (20) foot side (street) yard building setback from the property
27
line and five (5) feet into the required fifteen (15) foot landscape strip adjacent to a street
28
right-of-way, because of the irregular shape of the property, and the lengthy process in
29
obtaining their permit.
30
Mrs. Andrews amended:
31
“…and the donation of the 17.5 foot right of way”
32
Mrs. Andrews seconded after her amendment.
33
34
Under discussion, Chief Emerson said he would not support the motion because in
35
circumstances like this, he would rather support the County Code. He said there has
36
been a lot of editorial comment recently regarding cooperation between the City and the
37
County with respect to the planning of projects, and the reason he would not support it
38
is because he thinks the process was flawed from the beginning. Chief Emerson said
39
had the applicants approached the City and requested annexation from the beginning,
40
the property could have been annexed into the City and they would have dealt solely
41
with the City of Fort Pierce, and it wouldn’t have been a County issue. He said in this
42
case, they will get a variance from the Code, get absorbed into the City of Fort Pierce,
43
and the County will face criticism based on the decisions of this Board relative to a
44
number of factors the City may or may not like relative to their project; it is more a
45
process issue than he thinks the Board should be involved.
46
47
Page 7 of 8
Mrs. Gazzara said they would have gladly worked with the City, but they were told to
1
come to the County.
2
3
After roll call, motion carried 3-1, with Chief Emerson dissenting, and Chairman Ron
4
Harris recused.
5
6
Agenda Item #3 – Election of Officers
7
8
Mr. Pancoast nominated Mr. Harris as Chairman.
9
10
After the vote, Mr. Harris was elected unanimously.
11
12
Mr. Pancoast nominated Mr. Bangert as Vice Chair.
13
14
After the vote, Mr. Bangert was elected unanimously.
15
16
Mrs. Andrews nominated a Senior Staff Assistant from the Growth Management
17
Department as Secretary.
18
19
After the vote, a Senior Staff Assistant from the Growth Management Department was
20
unanimously named Secretary.
21
22
Other Business
23
The next Board of Adjustment meeting will be on February 25, 2009.
24
25
Adjourned 10:35 a.m.
26
Page 8 of 8