Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05b_04/14/1994 �-r� ` VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DF3ART]�NT OF CONQNUNTiY DEVELOPIv�NT ;%; Post Office Box 32�3 • 357 Tequesta Drive . � ° Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 •(407) 575-6220 ( t � ° Faz: (4(77) 575-6203 ., t 7� CO M �� BOARD OF ADJII$T2�NT C / ,��; PIIBLZC HEARING Z�" � b�ETING ffiINIITES JANUARY 17, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, January 17, 1994. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Kenneth Northamer. A ro.11 call was taken by Cathy Coleman, the Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: Chairman Kenneth Northamer; William Kirkland; Alfred DeMott; Edwin Nelson; Raymond Schauer. Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, and village Clerk Joann Manganiello were also in attendance. II. APPROVAL OF AGFNDA Boardmember Schauer moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Reaneth Northamer - for William Kirkland - for Alfred DeMott - for 8d�vin Nelson - for Raymond 3chauer - for The motion was therefore pasaed and adopted aad the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PA$VIOIIS MSBTING Dt=NIITSS (Meeting Mir:utes of Dec. 13 1993 ) Boardmember S�hauer moved that the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of December 13, 1993 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Renneth Northamer - for �illiam Kirklnnd - for l�ilfred De�tott - for Sd�►►ia Nelson - for Raymond Schauer - for The motion aras therefore passed and adopted aad the Minutea �ere ayproved as sub�itted. Rec�cled Paper Board of Adjuotmant �eetiaQ Dtiaut�• � � Jaauary 17, 1994 PaQe 2 N. BOARD OF AD�7II3T�NT REORC�NIZATION 1. Appointmeat of Chairmaa Mr. Kirkland moved and Mr. Nelson seconded for Mr. Northamer to be chairman of the board for the coming year. The vote on the motion was: Renneth Northamer - abstain William Rirkland - for Alfred DeMott - for . 8dwin Nelson - for Raymond 3chauer - for the motion was therefore paseed and adopted. 2. Appointment of Vice=Chairman Boardmember Kirkland moved for Mr. DeMott to be Vice Chairman and Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Renneth Northamer - for �Tilliam Rirkland - for Alfred DeMott - abstain 8dwin Nelaon - for Raymond Schauer - for The motion v�as therefore passed and adopted. 3. Appointment of Clerk of the Board Mr. Ladd was re-appointed the Clerk by unanimous consent. (Village Attorney Randolph announced that all those in attendance who wish to speak either in favor of or against the applications on the agenda need to be sworn in by the Village Clerk prior to speaking. The swearing in reads, •Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.'J V. NEW BIISIN83S" (A) An application fro� Fidelity Federal 3avinQs Baak of Florida, 171 Tequeeta Drive, requestinQ a variance to tbe terms of the Official Co�prehensive Zoning Ordiaance of the Vi11aQe of TeQuesta, Ordinaace No. 355, as ameaded, Section E�I, BiQn Regulatione, Subeection (E), Technical Aequiremeate, Paraqraph 5.b., to alloqv.for the iaetallation of a nea freeatandiaQ siQa to be located in a parkiaQ lot laadscape ielaad which ia 48' from the aide property liae aad aot �vithin the middle one- third of the property, ia lieu of said aiqa beinQ located �ithia the middle one-third of the property frontiaQ on the public atreat, as required by the ZoninQ Ordinaace. 2 Board of l�djuatm+�at , �eatinQ �inutes January 17, 1994 paQe 3 � Howard Ferrin of Ferrin Signs was sworn in by the Village Clerk. Mr. Ferrin represents his company, Ferrin Signs, and Fidelity Federal. He explained that it had become necessary for Fidelity to move the existing sign due to the new sign ordinance. They are requesting permission to install this sign 48' feet from the side. property line. Its proposed location would be in an existing landscaped island - where the American flag also flies. This is the most practical place to place the sign. The new proposed sign is part of a program they are using at all of their offices. Mr. Ferrin showed a photograph of a new sign recently installed in Martin County. The sign that is planned in Tequesta is smaller than what would be allowed by code and is not as high as what would be allowed by code. The new location is 27� back from the front property line. Boardmember Nelson moved to approve the application for the placement of the sign as requested. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer - for William Rirklaad - for Alfred DeMott - for $dwia Nelaon - for Raymond Schauer - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. (B) An application from Hermsn Drazick, owner of Lot 41 � S. 1/2 of Lot 42, Tequeata Subdivision, lxated at 151 Point Circle, requeeting a variance to the terma of the Official Cc�prehenaive Zoning Ordinance of tbe Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as a.mended, 3ectioa XV�, Uniform i�ates�ay Control, Subaectioa (B) Dock and Pier Leagth, �vidth aad Confiquration, Paragraph (1), to allovv the constructioa of a 4' z 32� exteneion to an existing 6� x 78' dock, for a total leaQth of 110', in lieu of no d�ock or pier being comstructed which exteads v�aterward from thQ mean high �vater liae in escese of aeaeaty-five feet (75'), as required by the ZoninQ Ordinance. Those who requested to speak, Mr. Gene Wehage tDolphin Marine Construction) and Gerald Stashik (143 Point Circle), were sworn in by the Village Clerk. Gene Wehage, representing Herman Drazick, explained that the reason for the request of the extension of the dock is because Mr. Drazick has a boat that he wants to park there that needs the extension. This has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers. The existing platform will be removed. 3 Board of Adjuatment �eetinQ �inut�e � � January 17, 1994 Paqe 4 Mr. Stashik wanted to know why everyone can't have a dock of 100' in length and said he did not know the histozy of this issue and wanted to lmow if this was special treatment. He also expressed a concern about the safety of the proposed dock. It was explained that the Village code only allowed for 75' tlegislation which was enacted 10 years ago). Since then, the State of Florida has changed its criteria for looking at all docks in the State submerged land areas and all the rivers. This requires docks that are geared to minimum water depth and whether or not there are sea grass beds. They do a study to determine where the sea grass is and they make people go beyond the grass. In the past, 15-20 docks that have come before the board all have gone out beyond the 75', some farther than this one. Vice Chairman Kirkland moved to app�ove the application. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Keaneth Northamer - for �illiam Kirkland - for Alfred DeMott - for Ed�vin Nelson - for_ Raymoad Schauer - for the motion was therefore paesed and adopted. (C) An application fro� R. Mason Simpson, as agent for Jupiter Islaad CorD., Otto B. and Betty J. Divoata Partnerahip, owner of property located at 425 Beach Road, Proparty Control Numbere 60-43-40-30-01-000-1931 aad 1941, requestiaq a variance to the terms o£ the Official Compreheasive Zoninq Ordinance of the Vi11aQe of Tequesta, Ordinance l�o. 355, as amended, Section vIi (C), Schedule of 3ite Requiremeats, R-3 District, miaimum aide yard aetback, minimum rear yard setback aad miaimum front yard setback, to alloar the construction of a multi- family reaidential building with a south side yard aetback of tweaty (20�) feet ia lieu of forty (40') feet; a rear yard eetback-of twenty (ZO') feet ia lieu of forty t40') feet; and a froat yard setback of fifteea (15' ) feet for the lo�v-riae portion of the proposed project ia liau of aixty (6Q') feet, as required by the ZoninQ Ordinaace. All those choosing to speak stood and were sworn i.n by the Village Clerk. Village Attorney, John Randolph noted that this was a quasi- judicial hearing and explained the procedures regarding the same. Procedures that are normally followed by the board are that they will first hear from the applicant and any of the applicant's 4 Board of Adjustment �saetinQ ldinutes � � January 17, 1994 PaQe 5 representatives. Subsequent to that, ariyone else who wants to speak in opposition to the application will have an opportunity to speak. Then, the applicant will have the final opportunit�r for rebuttal. After everyone has had an opportunity to speak, it will be turned over to thE board to make the ultimate decision. Philipe Jeck, an attorney in Jupiter from the law firm of Jeck Harris Jones and Kaufman, represents applicant Jupiter Island Corporation. Mason Simpson is president of that corporation and the applicant who is the agent for the owner of the property in question — the Divosta Partnership. The location of the property is on South Beach Road, first vacant parcel after the last existing condominium on the west side of the road — just north of the existing La Mar condominium and just south of where the County park starts. The parcels in question were purchased at two different times - 1968 and 1972 - by the DiVostas. Taxes have continually been paid on this property for the past 22-25 years. The assessed value today of the northern parcel is $350,000 which is based on 14 units of density which has been assigned to that property by the property appraiser at $25,000 per unit. The southern parcel is assessed at $284,000. The allowed density for this property is 32 units for the entire acreage. This property was originally part of the LaMar condominium project from the late ' 60s and early '70s. Mr. Jeck�referred to the rendering he brought to the meeting. He stated that the original plan was to have two identical condominium units built there. At that ti.me the plan was to have the southern parcel be 32 units to be like the La Mar South. The 32 units that now exist are on approxi.mately 38,000 sq. ft. of land. Being proposed on the other property is approximately 22- units on approximately 119,000 sq. ft. of�property that is zoned R-3, 58,000 of which is wetlands. The project consists of one 8- story condominium building with 16 units plus one apartment for the resident manager on the mezzanine level. There will be two underground parking garages as outlined by Mr. Jeck on the rendering. And there will be five townhomes (with their own parking) lo�ated on the northern parcel. The price range is expected tv be approximately $500,000 dollars per unit and also for the townhomes. The total value for this project is expected to be in excess of $10 mi.11ion of tax base. The density that is allowable there is 32 units, however the proposal is for 22 units. Mr. Jeck discussed the proposed setbacks for building and landscaping, which is the reason for the requested variance. There is normally a 60' front setback and the request is for an 18' setback for the townhome area. For the garage parking, 15' setback is being requested and on the side the setback requested for the portcashere and also a 2' side setback requested for the west parking garage. In addition, there is a rear setback that is 5 Board of ]�djustmeat �deatinQ ltinutes " � January 17, 1994 PaQe 6 normally 40 � and the request is for a 20' setback on the Intracoastal side. Mr. Jeck discussed reasons for the setbacks is to enhance the parking appearance and to preserve the character of the neighborhood by using landscaping for screening and aesthetic purposes. He stated that the consideration for underground parking with very active landscaping and green space was for aesthetic purposes and much nicer than asphalt. Without the variance it would be a severe hardship on the owner of the property. Due to the wetlands (northern parcel), there is not enough land to build on and it would be rendered useless by the zoning code. Mr. Jeck submitted a letter from Callaway & Price which basically confirmed, that without a zoning variance, this land (north side) is worth nothing. He stated that the appraiser also confirms that without the variance there is a substantial loss in value. The northern parcel had been assessed at 14 units density at $25,000 per unit with a total value $350,000, and the owner has paid taxes on that basis for the past twenty-five years, in addition to paying taxes on the other parcel. This project is designed to create the minimum necessary variance in order to let the property owner achieve the true value of the property. The request for these variances are not based on any self-imposed hardship, rather it is based on the changes that haye occurred in the zoning code over the past twenty-five years. Mr. Jeck made note that other older condominiums have 20� setbacks which is what the zoning used to be along that area for the front setback. He stated that they did not think this plan would adversely affect any of the neighbors and that this project is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of its proximity to the property lines. Mr. Jeck stated they are requesting the variance be granted for � 18 months and that the variance be locked in if the building permit is pulled and construction is commenced within that 18- month period. He explained that for a project of this size, they will need approximately six months for the remainder of the permitting that will be necessary for this project, probably another six �nonths for the detailed architectural drawings and the other mechanical drawings that will� be necessaxy for a building of this complexity, and then an additional six months in order to obtain the necessaiy building permits and the general contractors negotiations and bidding. Mason Simpson, President of Jupiter Island Corp., is acting agent for Otto B. and Betty J. DiVosta. He explained that he wants to build a very attractive project a.nd pointed out some details on the rendering which showed the view looking from the southeast to the northwest. This is a 2-unit per floor concept. They designed beautiful landscaping, fountains, terraced over the parking and it will look far more attractive than if they had to do what they 6 Board of �djuetment , lteetiaQ ffiiautes January 17, 1994 PnQe 7 originally planned. Mr. Simpson described his meeting with the LaMar homeowners and others in the surrounding area. He stated that he of fered to meet with anyone to work any concerns they might have, however no one has called him. He is still available. Village Attorney Randolph requested that all the 2' setbacks be identified and more detailed. Mr. J.S. McEntaget of 400 Beach Road announced that the road will be widened some day and the 18' setback isn't large enough. He can't see what has changed in the ordinances since 1974 and doesn�t understand why this variance is even being considered. Mr. Robert E. Smith of 400 Beach Road tserves on the board there) protested the meeting because he had only 2 working days notice and it is being held on a legal holiday. He requested that the meeting be deferred to a later date. He stated that a 45' variance from a 60' setback is no small variance, it is 75� of the setback line that extends up and through to the bridge going across the Intracoastal. To the south of this project, there are four buildings and six driveways. These units will be so far forward, he believes it is a safety hazard. He requested that the boardmembers consider the safety hazard and in giving the people more time to study this proj ect . Mr. Edwin Hallberg, President of 350 Beach Road Association, also protested not having enough notice (his mail is forwarded to Connecticut). Mr. Hallberg was at the meeting that Mr. Simpson held at LaMar the previous Sunday evening. He suggested the board allow more time to investigate the project. Mr. Robert Gregory of 300 Beach Road protested the late notice and would like more time to study the situation. He is interested in knowing more about the environmental aspects; e.g. the mangroves, and the underground parking proposal. Mr. Jeck explained that the there would be a full Site Plan Review by the Village Council. Ms. JoAnn Garvin of 400 Beach Road was interested if the staff made a recommendation regarding this proposal and mentioned that this project would enhance the community�s tax base. She stated that our kind of community adheres to strong standards and believes that an extreme variance is being requested. She requested that the board make their decision based on the long-term effect. Carlos Berrocal of Berrocal & Wilkins represents units 325, 350, 375, and 400 Beach Road. He commented on not having much notice to prepare for this meeting and the issues. He stated that in order to get this variance, the applicant aeeds to show that he is in fact suffering a hardship. Referring to a chart, Mr. Berrocal 7 Board of Adjuetment ]�eetinq �tinutes ° ' Januazy 17, 1994 PaQe 8 pointed out the existing LaMar parcel, the main parcel that is being talked about that was to be the second LaMar, and the parcel that is the small strip of land (northern-most) that five townhomes are being proposed. There has been no explanation as to the main parcel. On the original Site Plans from when LaMar was built, there was a proposal for the second building but no plans for the adjacent parcel to the north. These parcels were purchased separately, have been treated separately, taxed separately and now that they want the variance, they have combined the two parcels to create the hardship. Mr. Berrocal stated that they have not met the standards of hardship. They have shown only that there is hardship to one parcel and not the other. He requested that the application be denied as a matter of law and that the applicant re-submit the application after due consideration of these issues. Kenneth Meinken of 375 Beach Road commented that not enough time was given to prepare for this meeting. He stated he is representing 32 very concerned unit owners. They met with Mr. Simpson the previous Sunday but want more time to research this . He stated he bought the unit in LaMar based on the original Site Plan. He believes there is a tremendous departure from the original Site Plan. Land to the north was never considered to be a part of it. Mr. Meinken stated that Mr. Simpson guaranteed that the landscaped roof top over the garage would be maintained. Mr. Meinken is concerned that a future association of that condominium would want to spend their money to maintain that green area. He also disagrees with the language of Mr. Jeck in referring to the parking as "underground• rather than •covered." Mr. Meinken requested that the board give the people 6-8 weeks time to investigate further OR to deny this project and its three variances and ask them to start over. John Boeing, President of 325 Beach Road Association, stated•that everything he was going to say had been said. His concern was that 30� of �he units have one view — northerly — which is where this struct�re is proposed to be built. We have another 30� with two views — one westerly and northerly and the other easterly and northerly. These people will lose half of their beautiful views. They are concemed it will impact their values. Mr. Boeing would like the safety issue studied. Mr. Jeck addressed Mr. Berrocal�s concerns and remarked that the hardship exists. The developers are also addressing asphalt and striping of the main parcel. It actually costs more for the developer to put parking in and the landscaping as proposed. They are willing to spend more money because they want it to be a better and more beautiful project. They want the green space. Mr. 8 Board of Adjustmeat �eetiaQ Minutes ` � Jaauary 17, 1994 PaQe 9 Jeck stated that it is not whether this project will be built or not; it�s what the people are going to be looking at - green space or asphalt and striping. Mr. Simpson addressed all the concerns he heard, though he stated that he didn't think they heard 'specific' concerns. He is requesting this not be postponed any longer. They want to move forward with the project. They are meeting all the Village requirements. Boardmember Kirkland stated that this board is only concerned with the setbacks and unless the Board passes this, this project won � t get to the Site Plan Committee. He commented they the Board of Adjustment are not elected officials but elected officials are on the Site Plan Committee. Boardmember Schauer questioned Mr. Simpson about the wetlands. It was stated that this first has to go through the Site Plan Committee, the Fire Department, and the Building Department and that these issues will be dealt with then. Mr Simpson responded that the Site Plan application has been submitted already and an Environmental impact statement was submitted with that. The only sensitive area is the corner of one of the townhouses. Village Attorney Randolph stated that once the board passes on these variances there will not be the opportunity for the Village Council to reverse the actions. What they look at in the Site Plan Review are things such as traffic flow, configurations of the buildings, aesthetics, etc. They would have to work within the realm of what is passed at this meeting. Boardmember DeMott, as a fornier resident of Beach Road, was concerned about what Mr. Berrocal said about this not being a hardship. Village Attorney Randolph stated this board must decided whether or not there is a hardship. They must find a hardship under the ordinance to grant a particular variance. The ordinance sets forth what needs to be considered: 1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. 2) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. . 3) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied.by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. 9 Board of Adjustment MeetiaQ �inutea J � �� January 17, 1994 PaQe 10 4) That literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights �ommonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary a:.d undue hardship on the appiica:.t. 5) That the variance granted is the m�nimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the lar.d, building, or structure. 6) That the grant of the variance wil� be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinar.ce and that such variance would not be injurious to the area involved or othenaise detrimental to the public welfare. Boardmember Kirkland moved that the Application for Variance be approved. Boardmemeber Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer - for �illiam Rirkland - for Alfred DeMott - for Sdwin Nelson - for Raymond Schauer - against the motion was therefore passed and adopted. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM Respectfully submitted, 1 u Cathy L. Coleman , Recording Secretary DATE APPROVED: -� • �-�i- 94 ATTEST: J�'� �D, �z�� Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board 10