Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Approved Minutes 12-09-09Page 1 of 13 1 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 2 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 3 December 9, 2009 4 9:30 a.m. 5 6 A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the 7 Growth Management Department along with these Minutes. A fee is charged. In 8 the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the 9 compact disc shall control. 10 11 12 CALL TO ORDER 13 Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at about 9:30 A.M. 14 15 ROLL CALL 16 Ron Harris .................................. Chairman 17 Diane Andrews ............................ Board Member 18 Buddy Emerson ........................... Board Member 19 20 MEMBERS ABSENT 21 Bob Bangert................................. Vice Chairman 22 Richard Pancoast ........................ Board Member 23 24 OTHERS PRESENT 25 Katherine Smith ........................... Assistant County Attorney 26 Linda Pendarvis ........................... Planner 27 Larry Szynkowski ...?...................... Senior Planner 28 Jeff Johnson ................................ Senior Planner 29 Kristin Tetsworth .......................... Planning Manager 30 Michelle Hylton ............................ Senior Staff Assistant 31 32 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes 33 34 Approval of the Minutes for October 28, 2009. 35 36 Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the Minutes, Chief Emerson seconded. 37 38 The motion to approve carried 3-0. 39 Page 2 of 13 1 Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff 2 December 9, 2009 BA-620093988 3 4 Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff 5 6 Linda Pendarvis, Planner, presented the petition of Ethel Berkoff located at 7614 7 Greenbrier Circle. 8 9 Mrs. Berkoff had a spa and screen enclosure installed and when a form board 10 was submitted to the building department for sign off it was discovered that the 11 spa and screen enclosure did not meet the minimum side yard setback of 6 feet. 12 The building department did not approve the form board and the permits for the 13 spa and screen enclosure never received a final inspection. 14 15 Should the variance be approved the applicant’s intention is to renew the expired 16 permits and get a final inspection which will allow the code enforcement cases to 17 be abated. 18 19 The petition was presented to the Board of Adjustment on August 26, 2009 but a 20 signed and sealed survey was not provided with the documentation and there 21 was not the appropriate date on the sign affidavit as to when the public notice 22 was placed on the property. The petition public hearing was continued by the 23 Board. 24 25 On December 4, 2009 a survey was hand delivered to Growth Management 26 signed and sealed by James a. Fowler a Professional Surveyor & Mapper. The 27 survey indicates a setback of 4.67 feet. An updated picture of the Public Notice 28 Sign and Affidavit has been provided in the staff report. 29 30 Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict 31 interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land 32 Development code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies 33 of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore recommending denial of the 34 requested variance. 35 36 Mrs. Pendarvis told the Board Mr. Strype, agent to the applicant, was unable to attend 37 the hearing. 38 39 Mr. Harris noted the measurement of the covered brick patio on the survey at 5.11 feet 40 and verified with Mrs. Pendarvis that it since it is covered, it should be outside of the six 41 foot zone, therefore encroaches into the side setback. He stated this particular petition 42 only addresses the screened brick where the hot tub is. 43 44 Mr. Harris then opened the public hearing; no one spoke, so he returned to the Board 45 for discussion. 46 Page 3 of 13 1 Mrs. Andrews asked Assistant County Attorney Katherine Smith if the Board were to 2 approve this would they be allowed to include the covered brick area Mr. Harris pointed 3 out. Ms. Smith stated it is not part of the petition, and the applicant was not present to 4 amend their petition to request it. Mrs. Andrews stated it seems the Board should 5 continue the petition to give the applicant an opportunity to amend it. Mr. Harris 6 concurred. Chief Emerson stated he thinks it is irrelevant since the question has not 7 been raised by either the County or the applicant and it is appropriate to rule on what is 8 before them today. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Smith for her opinion. Ms. Smith stated what is 9 before you is just the screened brick and hot tub, and it would be the Board’s pleasure 10 whether they wish to continue it to let the applicant look into it, but Chief Emerson was 11 correct it is not what is before the Board today. 12 13 Mr. Harris stated he understands but the applicant will be back to the Board again even 14 if they approve the variance for the one encroachment since it is on the signed and 15 sealed survey. Mrs. Andrews stated she agrees but would still go along with continuing 16 this to save the applicant an additional $850 fee. 17 18 Chief Emerson asked staff if the reason they were brought before the Board was 19 essentially so they could get a final inspection on the spa and screen enclosure. Mrs. 20 Pendarvis stated that is correct and added that Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager 21 said we could make this a condition of approval that the applicant would have to come 22 in for the additional encroachment. 23 24 The Board agreed, and Mr. Harris asked the Board for a motion. 25 26 Mrs. Andrews made the motion: 27 28 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 29 staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in section 10.01.02 of 30 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of 31 Adjustment approve the petition of Ethel Berkoff for a variance from section 32 7.04.01(table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit 33 the continued use of a spa with deck and screen enclosure that encroaches a 34 maximum of 1.3 ft into the minimum side yard setback of 6 ft required for the 35 project known as Greenbrier @PGA Village, final development plan, located in 36 the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District, because it is a minimal 37 setback; because it effects no neighbors at all; it borders on common property of 38 Association; the Association has approved this. But it would be subject to the 39 applicant returning to get a variance for the 5.11 setback on the covered brick 40 patio. 41 42 Chief Emerson seconded with the amendment that it be a variance of 1.33 feet since it 43 is 4.67 feet from the property line. 44 45 Mr. Harris stated he would like to make it 1.35 to allow a variation with the 46 measurements. Page 4 of 13 1 The motion maker and second agreed. 2 3 Mr. Harris asked the Board if they should put a time limit on the condition. Ms. Smith 4 stated it is the Board’s discretion, and stated they should word it for staff that the 5 applicant should apply if needed since the issue had not been looked into. 6 7 The Board stated 60 days would be the time limit. 8 9 The motion maker and second agreed. 10 11 The motion to approve carried 3-0. 12 13 14 Public Hearing Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center 15 December 9, 2009 BA-1020094017 16 17 Agenda Item #3 – Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center 18 19 Mrs. Pendarvis presented the petition: 20 21 The Petition of Hospice Foundation of Martin and St. Lucie, for a Variance from 22 the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A)(Table 7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land 23 Development Code to allow construction of a three (3) story building with a 24 maximum height of just under 47 feet which is approximately 7 feet greater than 25 the 40 foot maximum building height allowed in the (I) Institutional Zoning District. 26 27 The subject property is located on the Southeast corner of Midway Road and 28 Dunn Road. The property consists of 5.58 acres of land area. The subject 29 property is zoned Institutional and the Future Land Use is Public Facilities. The 30 southern portion of the subject property is currently developed as the project 31 known as Hospice of the Treasure Coast Minor Site Plan. 32 33 The surrounding properties are to the North, Liberty Baptist Church and 34 Educational Facility; to the South, is vacant AR-1 zoning; to the East is Castle 35 Exchange Club Center Prevent Child Abuse; to the West are vacant Institutional, 36 and the Royal Care Assisted Living Facility. 37 38 These are pictures of the existing facility that is located on the subject property. 39 (Showed pictures) 40 41 This is a diagram view of the proposed three story building from Dunn Road. 42 (Showed diagram) 43 44 The height of a structure is measured from vertical distance between the 45 minimum finished grade and the average distance between the eaves and the 46 ridge of the sloped roof. Page 5 of 13 1 This is a partial elevation from Midway Road because the diagrams are so large. 2 (Showed elevations) 3 4 The proposed structure will be set back from Midway Road approximately over 5 200 feet, that includes an 85 foot Canal right of way located between Midway 6 Road and the subject property along the northern property line. 7 8 This is a diagram of the approved site plan. (Showed diagram) 9 10 The table indicates the dimensional requirements allowed in the Institutional 11 Zoning District as well as the proposed building and the existing one story facility. 12 The setbacks that are on the site plan indicate the actual setbacks to the 13 proposed three-story building. 14 15 Staff did not receive any not in favor of response forms from the adjacent 16 property owners. 17 18 Staff recognizes the uniqueness of the proposed structure needed to allow 19 Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center to function in this location however the 20 requested variance does not necessarily qualify as a hardship as as defined in the 21 SLC Land Development Code. 22 23 Staff is therefore recommending denial of the requested variance. 24 25 Mrs. Andrews asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit that expired on December 2, 26 2009 in the Board’s package was for the first building or this one. Mrs. Pendarvis stated 27 it was for the complete site. 28 29 Mrs. Andrews asked if the Board should be concerned with the expiration date at this 30 point. Mrs. Pendarvis stated the fact that it is a use that has been in process on the 31 property, the approval has been satisfied. 32 33 Chief Emerson asked if staff knows if any of the surrounding properties have buildings 34 that exceed the height requirements in the Institutional Zoning. Mrs. Pendarvis said no. 35 36 Having no further questions of staff, Mr. Harris allowed the applicant to address the 37 Board. 38 39 Robert Snow, architect for the project, stated the issue is with the height, because of the 40 size of the rooms that are required, mainly the community education room room on the first 41 floor which was designed for 200 people. Mr. Snow stated the issue arose because the 42 rooms had to be quite large; the ceiling heights had to move up, the duct work had to 43 move up, and they just ran out of space. 44 45 Mr. Snow showed the actual roof height on the elevation slide from Mrs. Pendarvis’ 46 presentation. He explained the roof height is 44 feet which is four feet higher than the Page 6 of 13 1 maximum requirement. Mr. Snow explained they were trying to create a tower look to 2 the building to dress it up and to have it fit in with the existing building next door. 3 4 Mr. Snow stated the Land Development Code does not address parapets. He said in 5 addition to the 44 foot roof height, there is a three foot parapet that goes around it to 6 hide some mechanical equipment on the roof; and the walls are poured concrete, with 7 impact glass designed to be a secure building in the event of a hurricane. The parapet 8 walls help the wind resistance of the roof by reducing the suction pressure of hurricane 9 force winds on the roof. 10 11 Mr. Snow stated there would be no increase in traffic because it would be the same 12 three-story building allowed in the Zoning District. He also stated the building would still 13 be 100% commercial fire-sprinkled, so fire would not be an issue. Mr. Snow stated that 14 a fully occupied viable building on the site would increase adjacent property values, and 15 not decrease them. 16 17 Mr. Snow concluded stating he did everything he could to reduce the height of the 18 building and still have it function, but when there is a room for 200 people, you need a 19 certain ceiling height with the column span. 20 21 Mr. Harris returned to the Board for questions of Mr. Snow. 22 23 Mrs. Andrews stated her only possible objection to exceeding the height requirement 24 would be casting shadows, but that is not a factor here since the vacant residential land 25 is to the south and is not affected by the sun. 26 27 Lou Benson, CEO of Treasure Coast Hospice, stated the Community Education Room 28 provides an important location for social service agencies to meet. Mr. Benson stated if 29 they cannot get the height, there would need to be pillars throughout the room which 30 would break up line-of-sight and not make the meeting room conducive. He said the 31 other reason is for an open floor plan on the upper floor for the staff locations where the 32 teams can meet and communicate with each other without having to try to build around 33 the various columns. 34 35 Having no further comment from the public, Mr. Harris returned to the Board. 36 37 Chief Emerson asked of staff if there was no differentiation of architectural structures on 38 the roof for parapets and other things that extend the maximum height. He asked if a 39 church steeple would be considered in the building height as well. Mrs. Pendarvis 40 responded there is nothing in our LDC that addresses architectural design except for a 41 slope on a roof, which goes to the medium of the pitch. 42 43 Having no further questions, Mr. Harris turned to the Board for a motion. 44 45 Chief Emerson made the motion: 46 Page 7 of 13 1 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 2 staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of 3 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of 4 Adjustment approve the petition of The Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, 5 Inc., for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(a) (table 7-10), of the 6 St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a three 7 (3) story building with a maximum height of just under 47 feet which is 7 feet 8 greater than the 40 foot maximum building height allowed in the (I) Institutional 9 Zoning District, because it is consistent with the use of the surrounding properties 10 and the future land use. 11 12 Mrs. Andrews seconded. 13 14 The motion to approve carried 3-0. 15 16 17 Public Hearing Benton W. Chambliss 18 December 9, 2009 BA-720093993 19 20 Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner, presented the petition: 21 22 A petition of Benton W. W. Chambliss for a variance from Section 7.04.01 (Table 7-23 10) and Section 8.00.04 (Figure 8-1) of the St. Lucie County Land Development 24 Code to allow 13 masonry columns, 2 walls and gate, 7 feet in height, at a 25 maximum of 22.59 feet into the required front yard setback of 25 feet in the HIRD 26 (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District. 27 28 This petition emanates from a Code Enforcement case #61208 cited on 29 November 25, 2008 that addressed the failure to obtain a permit for the privacy 30 wall including columns and any electrical. 31 32 The Future Land Use is RU (Residential Urban) and to the south of that property 33 is Public Facilities, Middle Cove Beach. It is on the southern end of the HIRD 34 Zoning District on that part of the South Island. Further south is CPUB 35 (Conservation Public) and there is a PUD (Planned Unit Development), 36 Watersong 1/3 of a mile south. 37 38 Property owners within 500 feet of the location at 4580 S Ocean Drive have been 39 notified, and we have not received any responses. 40 41 On July 16, the application was received, and included a survey which showed 42 that there were 13 columns ranging from the south to the north; and walls 43 connected between columns 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 creating a gateway across the 44 driveway. 45 Page 8 of 13 1 The first survey did not indicate the height of the columns and walls in reference 2 to the centerline of the adjacent roadway, SR A1A. It did show the encroachment 3 of these columns by showing the distance to the property line and the maximum 4 is 22.59 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback which is determined according to 5 Section 3.01.3 (AA) (10 a) indicating that the HIRD Zoning District is the same as 6 the RS-4 (Residential Single Family – 4) Zoning District as listed in Table 7-10. 7 The first survey also showed two CBS walls as three feet high, but those three 8 feet high walls looked akin to a balustrade and they are placed upon a base 9 which makes them higher in elevation. 10 11 On October 12, 2009 staff obtained additional information in the form of the base 12 survey with added elevations for nine of the structures and the elevation of 100 13 feet at the centerline of SR A1A. Staff numbered these structures starting from 1 14 at the south, to the north at column 13; and the two walls as wall number 1 to the 15 south, wall number 2 at the north side of the driveway. 16 17 Mr. Szynkowski then explained the table containing the measurements of the structures 18 that was included in the staff report, with a correction to the height of wall number 2 19 which is 5.0 feet. 20 21 The maximum height violation on one structure is 97% above the four foot 22 allowed height. 23 24 Staff’s finding is that the variance arises from conditions that are not unique, and 25 not necessarily a hardship and the variance is requested because of Mr. 26 Chambliss wants to be allowed the continued use of the thirteen columns 27 attaching to the two walls and gate. 28 29 The petition does not conform to the standards of Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie 30 County Land Development Code staff is recommending denial of the requested 31 variance. 32 33 The Board having no questions of staff, Mr. Harris allowed the applicant to address the 34 Board. 35 36 Mr. Chambliss stated in his contract agreement with his contractor, the contractor was 37 to obtain all necessary permits, complete them and see the sign off. Mr. Chambliss 38 stated the contractor built the walls and told him they had been certified by an architect, 39 so he had no reason to suspect they were not in compliance. He stated he started 40 receiving notices from Code Enforcement that several things were not done the way 41 they should be, and they had been having trouble getting in touch with the contractor to 42 straighten the issues out. 43 44 Mr. Chambliss stated when he requested the contractor bring this up for a variance, the 45 contractor said he was finished with the project. Mr. Chambliss stated the project has Page 9 of 13 1 many more problems than the current discussion, but he has tried to do what he can to 2 get the project satisfactorily approved. 3 4 Mr. Chambliss stated in the complaint it said it blocks the visibility of the ocean and the 5 dunes, but you can see the dunes, but not the ocean. He said it was originally all marsh 6 land, and when the storms came in 2005 they filled it in with sea sand so it is not 7 suitable for building anything without doing either a massive amount of bridge and refill 8 or pilings. 9 10 Mr. Chambliss stated the sign for Middle Cove Park was mentioned as being hidden, 11 but the sign is six to eight feet in front of the wall next to the highway so is easily visible. 12 13 Mr. Chambliss said he had originally planned to build a wall between the columns but 14 due to the overruns in the cost of refurbishing the house, he elected to try to save some 15 money and put the hedgerow through there. He said the columns are two-by-two and 20 16 feet apart, and the hedgerow itself which is only two or two and a half feet high. 17 18 Mr. Chambliss stated another purpose for the wall is as security to prevent the public 19 from using the property as a thoroughfare to the beach, and vandalizing the property. 20 He said the wall has curtailed 95% of the traffic through the property, but there are still 21 people who walk around the edge of the fence next to the ocean. 22 23 Mrs. Andrews asked if hedgerow would be like a solid wall when it grows. Mr. 24 Chambliss stated it would unless the Board dictate he keep it low. He stated he 25 submitted several pictures with his application that show properties similar to his that 26 have the higher wall, and from that he assumed it was going to be ok. 27 28 Mrs. Andrews stated as a resident of North Hutchinson Island, she has had problems 29 with these walls that block the view of the ocean; and we have a building separation 30 ordinance which at least allows you to see the ocean between some of these tall 31 condos. She said she does not like to see land where there are no condos also blocked. 32 Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to see the columns being lower and set back further 33 into the setback. Mr. Chambliss stated it could be done but it would be at a considerable 34 expense and hardship on him because the project has run twice what he had originally 35 estimated. Mrs. Andrews stated she empathizes with that but the Board is not allowed 36 to consider financing as a hardship. Mr. Chambliss stated even if there were zero walls, 37 you could not see the ocean with the dune. Mrs. Andrews stated she disagrees with his 38 interpretation and it would be a big difference if those walls were not there or lower. 39 40 Mr. Harris asked staff for clarification if those columns and/or wall were at the correct 41 elevation being no more than four feet above the adjacent centerline of SR A1A they 42 would not be in violation of the front yard setback. Mr. Szynkowski stated it is correct. 43 44 Mr. Chambliss stated he had filed a complaint through Code Enforcement on the 45 contractor, and it is being addressed now. He also said he felt like those walls added Page 10 of 13 1 aesthetics to the property and gave him a certain amount of security and he was acting 2 in good faith but was taken by the contractor and realizes that is not a consideration. 3 4 Mr. Harris stated it is not a consideration, but the Board is sorry your contractor did not 5 follow procedures and come in, if he did, then the wall would have been set back the 25 6 feet and Mr. Chambliss would not be here right now; but there is nothing we can do 7 about that, it is a civil matter between you and your contractor, and hopefully you will get 8 some compensation for that. 9 10 Having no further public comment, Mr. Harris returned to the Board for discussion. 11 12 Mrs. Andrews asked for clarification if the wall was at the correct height at four feet it 13 would not be a setback violation. Mr. Harris stated that was correct. Mrs. Andrews 14 stated it is still 20 some odd feet into the 25 foot setback. Mr. Harris stated it does not 15 apply to fences if they are set at the correct height. 16 17 Chief Emerson stated he could sympathize with the homeowner, but he thinks the 18 variance is too much in this case although it would be some expense, the cost to 19 change the height on some of the columns probably wouldn’t be as expensive as 20 tearing them down completely and rebuilding them, so he is prepared to make a motion. 21 22 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 23 staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of 24 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of 25 Adjustment deny the petition of Benton W. Chambliss for a variance from Section 26 7.04.01(Table 7-10) and Section 8.00.04 of the St. Lucie County Land 27 Development Code to permit the continued use of 13 masonry columns with 2 28 connecting walls and a gate that are over 4 feet in height above the centerline of 29 the adjacent road and therefore encroach a maximum of 22.59 feet into the 30 minimum front yard setback of 25 feet required for the HIRD (Hutchinson Island 31 Residential District) Zoning District, because I do not believe it is consistent with 32 either the Land Development Code or the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 33 34 Mrs. Andrews seconded. 35 36 The motion to deny carried 3-0. 37 38 Public Hearing Robert E. Sheets 39 December 9, 2009 BA-920094012 40 41 Jeff Johnson, Senior Planner, presented the petition. 42 43 Robert Sheets has requested a variance to allow for the construction of a carport 44 to encroach 2.7 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback as stated in 45 Section 7.04.01 of the Land Development Code and to exceed the 30 percent Page 11 of 13 1 maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings in the RS-3. Single Family 2 Zoning District 3 4 The subject property is nearly ¼ of an acre in size and is located in White City – 5 1301 West First Street as depicted on the map. The 2009 aerial photo shows an 6 existing single family residence approximately 2200 square feet in size. The 7 zoning of RS-3, Single Family Residential minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lot is consistent 8 with the future land use designation of Residential Urban allowing a maximum 9 density of 5 dwelling units per acre. 10 11 Just to go back and give history on this case…… 12 13 Back on September 28, 2005 Board of Adjustment (BOA) granted variance 14 approval via Resolution No. 05-021 to allow the construction of a carport to 15 encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the minimum required twenty-five (25) 16 foot front yard setback. The previous 378 square foot carport was destroyed in 17 the 2004 storms and encroached 2.2 feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot 18 front yard setback. The existing building improvements on the property prior to 19 the storms exceeded the maximum thirty (30) percent lot coverage requirement 20 by 1.6 percent or 166.5 square feet. It should be noted that no specific 21 construction plans were submitted for this variance request to determine the 22 specific or exact encroachment. A “blanket” ten (10) foot maximum 23 encroachment was granted by the Board and the maximum lot coverage 24 requirement was not reviewed by staff. 25 26 On September 28, 2006 the variance granted by the BOA back on September 27 28, 2005 expired. The applicant failed to obtain an approved building permit or 28 an extension to the variance in accordance with Section 10.01.06, of the St. 29 Lucie County Land Development Code. 30 31 On November 25, 2008, a stop work order was issued by the Code Compliance 32 Division for constructing a carport without an approved building permit. On the 33 following day, the property owner applied for a building permit to construct a 480 34 square foot carport. The proposed carport is to encroach 2.7 feet into the 35 required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback. The total building improvements 36 on the property exceed the maximum thirty (30) percent lot coverage requirement 37 by 2.5 percent or 268.5 square feet. 38 39 On December 4, 2008, contractor was notified by the County Building 40 Department that the building permit application was incomplete and needed 41 further information in order to conduct a thorough review. The Building 42 Department also informed the property owner that the variance had expired and 43 new variance must be granted if the dimensional requirements of the LDC were 44 not met. 45 Page 12 of 13 1 On January 13, 2009, contractor was provided review comments from the 2 Building Department with a comment stating that the proposed improvement 3 (carport) encroached into the front yard setback and exceeded the thirty (30) 4 percent maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings. The petitioner was 5 advised that a variance is required and must be granted prior to the issuance of a 6 building permit. As shown in the photographs, the carport is now constructed on 7 the property. The signed and sealed survey submitted shows this 2.7 foot 8 encroachment. 9 10 The following table shows that as proposed, the 30 percent maximum lot 11 coverage for all buildings on the lot would exceed approximately 2.5 percent or 12 268.5 square feet. (Showed table) 13 14 Based on the circumstances that a variance was previously granted and knowing 15 that there are no negative or adverse impacts to other properties in the 16 neighborhood; staff is recommending approval of the variance requested. 17 18 33 Mailing notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject 19 property. As of date we have received a total of 10 responses in support, and 20 there have been no objections. 21 22 Mr. Harris made a note to staff regarding the motion to approve the Board had stated 23 that it exceeded the 30% maximum but did not say how much. 24 25 Having no further questions of staff, Mr. Harris opened the public hearing. 26 27 Robert E. Sheets the petitioner stated he concurs with staff’s presentation. 28 29 There being no further public comment, Mr. Harris returned to the Board. 30 31 Mrs. Andrews made the motion 32 33 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 34 staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of 35 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of 36 Adjustment approve the petition of Robert Sheets for a variance from the 37 provisions of Sections 7.04.01(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development 38 Code to allow the construction of a carport to encroach 2.7 feet into the minimum 39 required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback and to exceed the thirty (30) 40 percent maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings in the RS-3, 41 Residential Single Family Zoning District by 2.5% or 268.5 feet because based 42 on the variance that we granted Mr. Sheets several years ago, we decided it was 43 in the best interest of Mr. Sheets and the County to grant this variance. 44 45 Chief Emerson seconded. 46 Page 13 of 13 1 The motion to approve carried 3-0. 2 3 OTHER BUSINESS 4 5 Mrs. Andrews asked how the memo to County Administration was received. Mr. Harris 6 stated he had no formal response from the County Administrator at this time. 7 8 Chief Emerson asked Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager, if Growth Management had 9 considered adding something to the Land Development Code regarding architectural 10 features such as steeples and parapet walls on rooflines to distinguish maximum 11 building height. Ms. Tetsworth stated yes, there are exemptions in other counties 12 regarding height restrictions on particular architectural features on different types of 13 buildings. She said while we are going through Code revisions, it is an excellent 14 suggestion that that be incorporated. 15 16 Chief Emerson stated it would be prudent for the Board of Adjustment to make the 17 recommendation that the Land Development Code be revised to accommodate 18 architectural features above the maximum elevations as stated in the Code for different 19 Zoning Districts. The Board concurred. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Tetsworth if she required 20 something in writing for the suggestion. Ms. Tetsworth stated the mention of it was good 21 enough. 22 23 Mrs. Andrews asked if there was anything in SB 360 that applied to variances granted 24 by the Board. Ms. Pendarvis stated the SB 360 applies to development orders; 25 variances are based on getting a building permit, so if a building permit is not applied for 26 within the required 12 month limitation, it would not fall within the SB 360 statute. The 27 SB 360 would take over under the approval of the building permit, not the variance 28 approval. 29 30 Ms. Tetsworth told the Board there were currently no active applications for the January 31 27, 2010 meeting so there may be no meeting. 32 33 Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:38 a.m.