Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
ST. CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1300 NINTH STREET, 1st FLOOR
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
(Alt 1) P
William Spinola (Alt 2)
Dale Cozeck, Planner
Jack Morgeson, City Attorney
Sherry Taylor, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES: May 13, 2009
Mr. Paulsen made a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.
All Ayes 4-0 to approve the minutes for
May 13, 2009.
1. Request for Variance
(a) CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT: Dulce Sanchez
2989 Elbib Drive
PETITION DETAILS: Applicant
is requesting a variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement of the
Canoe Creek Estates Planned Unit Development (Ordinance # 2005-39) to allow an
encroachment into the rear yard resulting in a setback of 14.4 feet.
Mr. Morgeson noted the Board of
Adjustment board made up of a 5-member board and with only 4-members are being present for this meeting, the applicant can choose
to proceed with the 4-members or wait until the board has 5-members.
Mr. Louis Garcia, acting agent
for the Sanchez? family, introduced himself to the Board and stated he would
like to proceed with the case.
Mr. Cozeck presented the case
(see staff report). For the Board, the Memorandum, dated June 29th,
2009, (Staff Report) is included in the packet and all materials that have been
Acting Chairman Beigel asked if
this was County property that has been annexed into the City.
Mr. Cozeck noted the property was
in the County and annexed into the City in 2005.
Mr. Morgeson noted Mr. Cozeck is
responding to the Land Development Code requires the Board to not consider any
previous cases. Mr. Morgeson noted the Board is required to
consider each of the 6-criteria in reference to this individual application and
make whatever recommendation or motions in support of the findings in reference
to the 6-criteria.
Mr. Paulsen asked if the photo
that was enclosed in the packet was the back of the property.
Mr. Garcia noted it was the back
of the house and appears to be a reserved area. This request is for a
screened porch only.
Mr. Paulsen asked if the slab is
Mr. Garcia noted it is.
Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Cozeck for
clarification to the Memorandum on Page 2, in reference to the applicant
constructing a screen enclosure without the necessity of the set-back
Mr. Cozeck noted that is in
reference to the screen enclosure vs. a screen room. The screen enclosure
would be screening in all sides including the ceiling.
Mr. Morgeson asked if the
applicant was applying for a screen enclosure.
Mr. Cozeck noted their definition
is a sun room, which would be relatively similar to what is called a screen
Mr. Garcia noted a screen
enclosure depicts a screened roof, a screened porch usually has a solid roof,
which is either a pan roof, which is a thin sheet of aluminum or a insulated roof which is a thick, 3? roof. In either
case, water will not come in through the top, because it is a solid roof, but
all the walls are screened in, thereby, the title that is used for this is a
simple screened porch or a screened enclosure with a solid roof. In other
words, it is not living space at all.
Acting Chairman asked about the
drawing for the slab it shows the slab to be to be 30 x 10 feet, but it
reflects 32 x 10.
Mr. Garcia explained that the
roof will extend past the slab.
Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Cozeck if
the applicant would need a variance for a rear set-back for a screened porch,
from the City?s perspective.
Mr. Cozeck noted if it has a
solid roof it creates the need.
Mr. Morgeson asked if it was all
screen, it would not need a variance but because of the roof, it is considered
a screen room?
Mr. Cozeck noted the way the Land
Development Code perceives it, it?s almost an
extension of the principal structure setbacks.
Mr. Morgeson asked if the
applicant needs the variance in order to create the structure the way they are
Mr. Paulsen asked if the
applicant is asking for a 5? setback.
Mr. Cozeck noted the applicant is
asking for a 5? setback, the amount of relief is 5? from the 20? setback.
Acting Chairman asked what the
property was zoned as behind the property.
Mr. Cozeck noted it was zoned as
R-1B, single-family residential zoning and is owned by Osceola County.
Mr. Balser made a motion to
approve the application for the variance that the 6-criteria have been
considered under the Land Development Code and in support of the motion; the
screen room addition must be constructed with a solid roof and screen walls and
may not contain solid walls.
Mr. Spinola seconded the motion
to approve the variance.
All Ayes 4-0 to
approve the variance.
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)
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)
City of St. Cloud
1300 Ninth Street
Cloud, FL 34769
for May 13, 2009
July 8, 2009