Minutes from the March 25, 2024 meeting

Certificate of Appropriateness 24-03 - Monument Sign - 616 Orange Avenue

The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 24-03 for a monument sign located at 616 Orange Avenue.

The City Attorney explained the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.

When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board is held to certain procedural requirements.  Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but are more formal than the other aspects of today’s meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process, and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, board members have a duty to conduct quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators.  This afternoon, the Board will follow the same uniform procedure in all quasi-judicial hearings.

Chairman Hayek called the proceeding to order. 

The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement requirements. 

Chairman Hayek inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:                                                        

Ms. Starke - no
Dr. Frisbee - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Ms. Anicito - no
Ms. Davis - no
Chairman Hayek - no

Chairman Hayek opened the public hearing.

The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided the history and architectural significance of the church.  She explained the request was presented to the Board at the January 22, 2024, meeting and the Board requested the sign look more like the architecture of the church.  Ms. Lewicka said the new design of the sign has the same colors as the church, along with an architectural foam topper that looks like a stucco finish.  Ms. Lewicka provided the Secretary of Interior Standards for consideration along with the Design Review standards.  She stated it is important that the design scheme is consistent and compatible with the distinctive architecture of the church.

Board questions for staff: Ms. Davis asked if the sign blocked the view of the street. Dr. Frisbee asked if the sign would be an obstacle to pedestrian traffic.  Chairman Hayek asked if anything else on the sign changed beside the top facade.

Applicant Presentation: Gregg Rosslow, Chairman of Trustees for the First United Methodist Church, sworn, stated the church sidewalk area used to be grass and the city put pavers all the way up to the building.  He said in addition to the top portion of the sign, the trim around the street address was added, and the sign trim matches the wall and trim color of the church. Mr. Rosslow noted the street view picture of the sign is not correct.  The sign is actually smaller than what is shown.  He said the sign would announce events the church is doing in the community and also be a message board.  Mr. Rosslow said the topper on the sign is made of tough architectural foam.

Board questions for Applicant: Chairman Hayek asked if the trim around the address was made of architectural foam.

Public comment: none

Staff final comments: none

Chairman Hayek, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing. 

Comments by the Board: Ms. Anicito said the electrical box doesn't impact the sidewalk any more than the sign would.

Certificate of Appropriateness 24- 20 - Demolition of Accessory Structure and New Kitchen Facility - 239 S. Indian River Drive

The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 24-20 for the demolition of an accessory structure and a new kitchen facility located at 239 S. Indian River Drive.

Chairman Hayek called the proceeding to order. 

The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement requirements. 

Chairman Hayek inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:                                                        

Dr. Frisbee - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Ms. Anicito - no
Ms. Davis - no
Ms. Starke - no
Chairman Hayek - no

Chairman Hayek opened the public hearing.

The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, stated the Boston House has been in front of the Board multiple times.  She said the last application was for the addition of the open bar building. Ms. Lewicka stated the applicant is requesting approval for the demolition of the non-contributing accessory building and construction of a new structure, for a small kitchen facility, in lieu of using the existing accessory building. She provided the history of the Boston House and showed pictures of the new site plan with the proposed kitchen facility.  Ms. Lewicka noted that although the modern simplicity of the proposed building does not incorporate design characteristics of the Boston House, the building will be located behind the main buildings and practically invisible from the street view.

Board questions for staff: Chairman Hayek asked if there was a common wall between the new kitchen addition and the bar building.

Applicant Presentation: Michael Jacquin, Applicant Representative from Jacquin & Sons, sworn, said there were many things done in the Boston House prior to him getting involved.  He stated an investigation was done to check and see if the structure as a whole was structurally sound. The pictures taken showed there was no foundation and there were other compounding issues. Therefore, the kitchen will be its own freestanding building with possible roof connectivity to the bar building.  Mr. Jacquin highlighted no neighbors will be impacted from where the new building is located.

Board questions for Applicant: Mr. Westbury asked if the glass elevator would remain on the side of the building to access the ADA bathrooms on the 2nd floor. Ms. Starke asked how the food would get from the kitchen to the existing building. 

Public comment: Mike Menard, Architectonic, sworn, stated several years ago they were the architect for the renovation of the Boston House, which included exterior stairs, interior renovations, kitchen renovation for the first floor, vertical accessibility wheelchair lift, ADA bathrooms on the first and second level and a 2nd story glass elevator. 

Staff final comments: none

Chairman Hayek, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing. 

Comments by the Board: none

Certificate of Appropriateness 24-19 - Carport with Variance - 712 Beach Court

The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 24-19 for a carport with a Variance located at 712 Beach Court.

Chairman Hayek called the proceeding to order. 

The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement requirements. 

Chairman Hayek inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:                                                        

Mr. Westbury - yes
Ms. Spivey - no
Ms. Anicito - no
Ms. Davis - no
Ms. Starke - no
Dr. Frisbee - no
Chairman Hayek - no

Chairman Hayek opened the public hearing.

The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided the history and architectural significance of the structure. She stated the applicant is requesting approval for the addition of a carport at the front of the house. The proposed carport will have a wood framed structure with a metal roof corresponding with the current style and architecture of the house and the color will match the front porch. Ms. Lewicka said the requested carport location requires a variance to deviate from the front yard setback of 25 feet whereas the proposed depth of the front yard setback is 13 feet.  Ms. Lewicka concluded that the proposed structure, although encroaching in to the required setback, is light and open and does not create a visual barrier.

Board questions for staff: Dr. Frisbee asked about the setback distance to similar structures near the subject's property.

Applicant Presentation: James K. Jones, owner, sworn, said the pictures of the similar structures are less than the 25-foot setback.  He stated the proposed carport would add value to the house and the neighborhood.  He said the building code allows the freestanding carport, and he spoke to his neighbors, and they all liked it.

Board questions for Applicant: Chairman Hayek asked if a metal roof would be used on the carport.

Public comment: Mike Menard, Architectonic, sworn, stated he worked on the picture shown for the project on Delaware Avenue, and he provided the setbacks.

Staff final comments: none

Chairman Hayek, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing. 

Comments by the Board: none

Certificate of Appropriateness 24-21 - Addition and Three (3) New Residential Structures with Variances - 120 A.E. Backus Avenue (Avenue C)

The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 24-21 for an addition and three (3) new residential structures with Variances located at 120 A.E. Backus Avenue (Avenue C)

Dr. Frisbee recused herself.

Chairman Hayek called the proceeding to order. 

The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement requirements. 

Chairman Hayek inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:                                                        

Ms. Spivey - no
Ms. Anicito - no
Ms. Davis - no
Ms. Starke - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Chairman Hayek - no

Chairman Hayek opened the public hearing.

The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided the background and architectural significance of the site.  She said the applicant is requesting approval for the rehabilitation of the existing structure and addition of a new porch and a pergola for business use and construction of three (3) two-story cottages for vacation rental.  Ms. Lewicka stated the applicant is also requesting variances to reduce the side setback from five (5) feet to two (2) feet and the front setback from six (6) feet to five (5) feet.  She also said the applicant is requesting variances to reduce the landscaping buffers from 10 feet to 1 foot, 1 foot 6 inches, 2 feet and 4 feet.  Ms. Leiwicka gave an overview of the project narrative and landscape plan, and she showed the cottage colors, elevations and floor plans. Ms. Lewicka concluded the requested project, although interesting and architecturally well-designed, stretches the site's ability to accommodate all the desired elements of the proposal and requires multiple variances from the land development and landscaping code.

Ms. Lewicka explained that with a variance, letters are sent to the neighboring properties.  She said she received a letter back from Fort Pierce Main Street and the major concern was that the live oak on the property was not shown on the survey. Ms. Lewicka stated it is hard to tell which property the live oak is on and with the new construction of the three cottages only being two feet away, the live oak will not survive.

Board questions for staff: Chairman Hayek asked if each cottage home could be the same setback from the property line. Chairman Hayek asked what kind of fence was being proposed on the west side.  Ms. Anicito asked if there is a precedent for cottage #1 being on the front of the property, and she asked if the main building was a single story. Chairman Hayek asked if the site is large enough to have four dwelling units.

Applicant Presentation: Mike Menard, Architectonic, Applicant Representative, sworn, asked what the letter from Fort Pierce Mainstreet stated.  Mr. Menard said the existing structure and the porch and the relocation of the stairs encroaches on the landscape buffer.  He said they would be providing a sidewalk down A.E. Backus Avenue.  Mr. Menard noted the existing driveway configuration does not meet the city code and there are only two parking spaces, and it is being reconfigured using permeable pavers for drainage. The existing ficus landscaping will be removed. He said it is close to the structure and will ruin the foundation and the structure in a heart beat.  On the west side of the property, the fence currently jogs between Cottage #1 and Cottage #2 and on the property line is a giant oak tree that will not be removed, but will be trimmed and maintained. Mr. Menard said he would shift cottages #2 and #3 to the front to maintain the five-foot setback.  He said the function of the site is to make it more of a botanical type garden healing facility with acupuncture and massages and natural activities.  The pergola will have a vine-type roof. Trees can be added by the fountain for more landscaping and in front of cottages #2 and #3.  At full capacity there will be two parking spaces for the cottages.

Board questions for Applicant: Chairman Hayek asked if he could shift the cottages to make them work and the minimum setback he could work with.  He also asked if the client would be willing to put up a 6-foot wood fence instead of a 4-foot fence.  Ms. Starke asked about the species of ficus tree.  Ms. Davis asked if he was willing to change what was submitted. Chairman Hayek asked if the cottages are being built on continuous footers or piers. Ms. Anicito asked if Cottage #1 could be moved to where the fountain is located in order to meet the setback requirement. Ms. Starke asked if the project could happen with only two cottages. Ms. Davis asked why the original request was for a 2-foot setback on all three cottages. Ms. Anicito asked how close together the cottages are and if there is any fire code that prevents how close together they are.

Public comment: Kim Freetly, owner of Palm Sport and Wellness, sworn, spoke in favor of the application. Douglas Granfield, sworn, spoke in favor of the application. Michelle Joseph, sworn, spoke in favor of the application. Dr. Ginetta Bernard, sworn, spoke in favor of the application.

Applicant final comments: none

Staff final comments: Mr. Freeman said, based on the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Board can incorporate conditions that set out what variances from the setback are being approved and provide a quantitative number of trees needed and what type of trees are going to be planted.  

Chairman Hayek, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing. 

Comments by the Board: Chairman Hayek clarified with Mr. Menard on what is needed for the side setback on cottage #1.  He asked staff if the applicant would have to come back for the architecture of the cottages.  Ms. Starke said she wants the property to meet the Edgartown code for setbacks and landscaping and use native vegetation.  She noted the space would be cramped and not a lush lure.  Ms. Anicito said there is not enough space for all the landscape.  Chairman Hayek said there will not be much room for trees on the west side because of the 6-foot fence and the massing of the buildings.

Administratively Approved Certificates of Appropriateness - March 2024