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, 3RD FLOOR


ROLL CALL                                      Pete Placencia              (P)      

                                                            Greg Norris                  (P)

                                                            Kimberly Paulson         (P)

                                                            Carl Beigel                   (P)

                                                            William Spinola (P)


STAFF MEMBERS:                            David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning

                                                            Michelle Orton, Planning Technician

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:              April 13, 2005


Mr. Morgeson noted that there was an omission on Page 4 of the minutes regarding the motion by Ms. Paulson and the 6 criteria having been met as recognized in the motion.  It’s an omission of who seconded the motion back on the 13th of April.  Based upon the attendance that night, it would have been either Mr. Norris or Mr. Beigel.  He stated there needed to be clarification on that. 


Mr. Beigel informed the Board that he had seconded the motion. 


Mr. Morgeson noted that was the only change he noticed.


Acting Chairman Placencia asked for a motion to approve the minutes of April 13, 2005.


Ms. Paulson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.


 Mr. Beigel seconded the motion.


All Ayes to approve the minutes of April 13, 2005.










1.                  Requests for Variances


           (a)        CASE NUMBER:                  2005-06

            OWNER:                                Marianne Watson

            APPLICANT/AGENT:          Marianne Watson

            ADDRESS:                            2006 Cypress Avenue


The Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code; Section 3, Table III-4 to allow a reduced minimum rear setback for a new detached garage.


All witnesses were sworn in at this time.


Mr. Nearing presented the case.  (See attached staff report).  Mr. Nearing stated that all 6-criteria have been met.  Staff recommends approval.


Mr. Beigel asked who staked the garage out.


Mr. Nearing noted he was not sure.


Mr. Beigel asked if the garage was inspected by the City.


Mr. Nearing noted that it was.


Mr. Beigel asked what the size of the garage was.


Mr. Nearing noted the applicant could answer that.


The Applicants were swown in at this time.


The Applicant noted it was a garage, electricity, no plumbing – 2-car garage facing predominately the west and a side entrance.  


Mr. Beigel asked how the applicant would get to the garage doors.


The Applicant noted it would be through the grass, eventually they would apply for a drive-way permit.


Mr. Beigel asked if the applicant would have to drive on other properties to get to the garage.


The applicant noted she had a concrete approach going to the garage door, maybe 3-4 feet long and does not plan on putting concrete all the way to Cypress Avenue.


Mr. Beigel noted he thought that was what the applicant was going to do.


Mr. Nearing noted there is an 18-19’ setback between the edge of the home and the western property line.  An 8’ driveway would easily fit within that and still maintain the 5’ setback which is the minimum setback from the property line so they could easily get a driveway through there.


Mr. Beigel noted a car would not have room to turn around without getting on the neighbor’s property.


The applicant explained that she moved to St. Cloud in October, decided to build a swimming pool and a garage.  She stated she met with the Building Department and the Planning Department to make sure she was doing everything correctly.  She hired a contractor to build her pool and when he poured the concrete for the pool he said he could pour the concrete for the driveway at the same time.  The surveyor came out and staked everything out, and then the pool guy’s cement person came out and put all the forms down, the City came out and approved it, then a couple of days later, they poured the cement, they came back and removed all the forms.  Two months later, she got a survey showing it was only 6.5’ from the property line.  The garage had been built on the assumption that, everything was correct. 


Acting Chairman Placencia asked the applicant if the garage sets at an angel and if the garage could be moved towards Cypress Avenue 1’.


Mr. Morgeson reminded the Board that the variance is for the setback, not how she would get into her garage.


Acting Chairman Placencia asked the applicant if the guttering would go around the entire building.


The applicant noted she was not sure if it would be the entire building, her husband would be handling that, but noticed with all the rain falling, that gutters are needed in the rear by the pool.


Acting Chairman Placencia asked if there was any run-off in the back yard.


The applicant noted there was no run-off but the pool overflowed from the rain, gutters are needed.


Acting Chairman Placencia asked the applicant where the run-off would go.


The applicant noted that guttering will be installed on that side of the garage and then somehow have it go down along the side and up to Cypress Avenue because all the drainage is on that side of the house.


Mr. Norris asked which way the roof sloped on the garage, from the north to south, or front to back of the property.


The applicant noted it would be northwest and southeast.


Acting Chairman Placencia asked if anyone had questions or would like to speak on the case.


Mr. David Johnston introduced himself to the Board and noted he does not live at the neighboring property, it was purchased as an investment and he lived on Lakeshore.  He stated that the adjoining property owner put in a pool and it has always had a flooded front yard.   He stated that he wants to make sure the water will be going away from his yard. He would like to have an independent surveyor go in and take elevations of the lot and make sure the water is falling to Cypress Avenue and the drainage of the roof of the garage is going to Cypress Avenue.  Mr. Johnston noted he had a background in drainage and just because there would be downspouts and channeled to the Southeast does not mean it will drain to the road.  The water issue is very important and he would like to have documentation that the water will be draining to Cypress Avenue and would like some assurance that the water will run somewhere other than on to his property.


Mr. Morgeson explained in addressing the variance issue, the Land Development Code allows the Board to impose conditions that they feel is reasonable and appropriate and if the Board imposes conditions on a variance that becomes part of the variance, and as long as the conditions are met, the variance is in place.  If the conditions, for whatever reason are not met, that serves as grounds for revocation of the variance.  He recommended that the Board ask the applicant if she is in agreement with the City’s recommendation to address the property to the North’s concerns...


Mr. Norris asked if the conditions would be to request gutters.


Mr. Morgeson noted it would be whatever the Board thinks the appropriate conditions should be.


Mr. Norris noted if the Board places a condition on the variance to survey the property to see if it drains from the North to the South, and they find that it doesn’t drain from North to South, it could be a major issue.


Mr. Morgeson noted that the conditions deal with the variance.  The variance tonight is simply a rear setback it’s not dealing with the issues of drainage; it’s dealing with a 1’ encroachment into a rear setback. 


Acting Chairman Placencia asked if there were any other comments.


Mr. Robert Schneider introduced himself to the Board.  He stated he has lived at 2023 Lakeshore Blvd, for 34 years and he knows the applicant and her husband.  His concern is the large garage and that a business would be started.  He then stated the water drains off to Dakota Avenue in the big canal to the big lake. 


Ms. Watson stated her husband is not an auto-mechanic, and the reason they have such a large building with electric, air conditioning, etc., is because they have two classic cars and it will also be used as storage.  There are no plans to do automotive repair.   


Mr. Morgeson reminded the Board that when making a motion, specify that the 6-criteria that were contained in Staff’s memo have, or have not, been met, and either move in favor or denial of the variance.


Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Morgeson if there could be something in writing for future homeowners of his property.


Mr. Morgeson explained that the Board would address the variance, if the variance is granted, it will be in the record with the minutes and if there’s conditions imposed, it will be in part of the file and anyone can pull those records and if it is denied, it will be the same record. 


Mr. Johnson asked if he could get a copy of the records.


Mr. Morgeson noted he could have a copy, that it is public information. 


Acting Chairman Placencia asked if there was any discussion.  The floor is open for a motion.


Mr. Beigel noted he wasn’t sure if the Board could put a condition on the variance about the drainage.  He asked Mr. Morgeson for guidance.


Mr. Morgeson explained that the Board needs to express on record and go through the 6-factors that are listed that are more abbreviated in the Staff memo of June 1st.  The 5-members of the Board need to discuss the 6-factors and talk about whether or not a condition needs to be imposed. 


Ms. Paulson noted she is not comfortable in making any guarantees. 


Ms. Morgeson noted the rules of the BOA are not making a guarantee.  The Board has to focus on if the 6-factors have been met.  If so, is there a condition or set of conditions that the Board feels should be attached; a Board member would suggest them through a motion.  It will either die for lack of a second or it will be seconded, discussed and voted on. 


Mr. Norris made a motion finding that the 6-criteria have been met. He moved to grant the variance with the condition that the gutters and downspouts are installed on the garage in order to divert the water towards the South of the property towards Cypress Avenue


Acting Chairman Placencia asked if there was further discussion, amendments to the condition or a second motion.


Mr. Beigel seconded the motion.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Board could discuss the motion or take a vote.


All Ayes to approve the variance with the conditions noted.


The motion was approved with the conditions noted.


Ms. Watson asked that a correction be made – it is 2006 Cypress Avenue and her name is not Marion, it is Marianne.


Acting Chairman Placencia apologized to Ms. Watson.


Mr. Beigel made a motion to adjourn.


Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.


All Ayes to adjourn the meeting.


The meeting adjourned 7:35 p.m.


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