View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version


CALL TO ORDER:                         6:30 P.M.


LOCATION:                                     ST. CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS

                                                            1300 NINTH STREET, 1st FLOOR




ROLL CALL:                                   Carl Beigel                 (Vice)              P                                 

                                                            Pete Placencia            (Chair)            EA                 

                                                            William Spinola                                 EA

                                                            Donald Bassett                                   P                     

                                                            Robert Paulsen          (Alt)                P

                                                            Jeffry Krotts              (Alt)                P


STAFF MEMBERS:                        April Boswell, Senior Planner

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Administrative Assistant


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          July 9, 2008




            1.  Request for Variance


            (a)        CASE NUMBER:     2009-01

                        APPLICANT:           Angie Fritts

                        OWNER:                   Angie Fritts

                        ADDRESS:                1625 10th Street


VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Applicant is requesting a variance from the interior side yard five-foot setback.  The applicant seeks to be granted a zero-foot interior side setback. 


Mr. Morgeson notified Mrs. Fritts that there were only 4-members present and a full board consists of 5-members.  He explained to Mrs. Fritts that she could have the board hear her case at tonight?s meeting or wait until the next meeting when the members could all be present. 


Mrs. Fritts noted she would like to go forward with the case.


Ms. Boswell presented the case (See staff report).


Mr. Morgeson noted there is a memo in the packet dated March 11, 2009 that discusses the conditions number 1-6, and analysis.  Mr. Morgeson recommended that Ms. Boswell tract through those conditions so she can have those at her disposal and questions and so forth.


  1. 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.

Staff recognizes that the application did not demonstrate the conditions that circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, building or structure;

  1. The second condition that is required for analysis is whether special conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. 

What Staff found in the applications narrative, from the applicant, is that they stated responsibility for installing the structure within the setback without receiving a permit.  This identifies that the circumstances have resulted from the actions of the applicant;

  1. The next part of the analysis is Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by those that have other properties in the same zoning district and would work un-necessary or undue hardship on the applicant; 

Staff?s analysis looked at the application really didn?t demonstrate that.  Literal interpretation would require those setbacks just like they would for any other properties within that zoning district.  In looking at the survey that was provided, it appears that there?s space in the rear yard in both the exterior side-yard, which is a secondary street side yard that could accommodate a structure that would meet setbacks.  There is no setback required for the other side-yard which is adjacent to the street and there is approximately 19 feet from the property line to the residence on that side.

  1. The fourth criteria is whether the variance, if granted, is the minimum request that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure;

The applicant did not demonstrate that the variance or other action, if it was granted, is the minimum request that would make possible the use of the land, building or structure.  Because of the previous condition, that there is room on the property or to scale back or to relocate a structure, that is where Staff felt that is where it did not meet that criteria.

  1. Granting the request will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district;

The applicant has not demonstrated how granting the request will not confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied to others in the CBD-2 zoning district. 

  1. The granting of the request will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these zoning regulations, will it be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare;

The only required setbacks for properties in the CBD-2 zoning district, Central Business District-2, are on those interior side-yard and rear-yard setbacks.  There is flexibility on the front and also on the side street.  Staff feels the request violates the intent of harmony with the zoning regulations.





The Board and Ms. Boswell had discussion about the case.


Ms. Boswell noted any building requirement questions would need to be deferred to the Building Official, Robert Wood.


Mr. Morgeson noted the narrow focus of this meeting is in regard to the variance application for the rear and interior side yard.   In order for the application for the variance for either or both components to be approved, three (3) members of the Board have to vote affirmative to each of the 6-criteria.  A motion would have recognized that each of the components has been met to the Board?s satisfaction in the affirmative for an approval motion.


Mr. Wood, the Building Official, noted if the structure was not in the setback, it still requires a building permit.  If the Board approves this variance for the setbacks, a building permit is required.


Mr. Morgeson noted the application for the variance is because of the setbacks have been encroached.  This is not related to the permit issue.  The issue before the Board is just dealing with whether or not there should be a variance allowed for an encroachment of the setback.


Mr. Wood noted if the Board approved the variance, the Building Department can issue a building permit, but if the Board denies the variance, a building permit cannot be issued because it is in a setback.


Mr. Morgeson asked the Board to refer to a letter from the applicant dated February 5, 2009 and a revised letter dated February 12, 2009.  The applicant is present. 


Ms. Fritts presented the request for a variance. 


Ms. Boswell placed the survey on the screen and demonstrated where the structure was located. 


Mr. Morgeson explained to the Board that it is important to go through the 6-criteria and conditions need to be tied to the property, not to the owner of the property. 


Ms. Boswell placed the pictures on the screen so the Board could see the covered area and in relation to the adjacent properties. 


Mr. Morgeson noted if the Board members are not independently wishing to get into a discussion, either with the City or from the applicant, the next stage would be that someone would put forth a motion in regard to the application and in view of the 6-criteria. 


Mr. Krotts made a motion to accept the variance as requested.


Mr. Morgeson noted Mr. Krott?s motion would be that the 6-criteria have been considered with regard to both of the variance request and that all 6-criteria have been answered in the affirmative?  The motion should be that you have considered those criteria and then move appropriately.  You need to either move that the 6-criteria have been met or move that one or more have not been met.  That would be the way one of the Board members would make a motion.  All 6-criteria have to be met to approve the variance.


Mr. Paulsen made a motion to not approve the variance because it does not meet criteria  #1 and #2.


Mr. Krotts seconded the motion to deny the variance.


The vote was 3-1.


The vote was 3-Ayes to deny the variance with 1-Nay to approve the variance.


            The variance request was Denied.




If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Committee/Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearing/meeting, such person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for this purpose, such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, and which record is not provided by the City of St. Cloud. (FS 286.0105)


In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the Secretary/Clerk of the Committee/Board (listed below), prior to the meeting. (FS 296.26)


Sherry Taylor, Secretary                      City of St. Cloud

Board of Adjustment                           1300 Ninth Street

(407) 957-7203                                               St. Cloud, FL  34769