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
CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
STREET, 3RD FLOOR
CALL Pete Placencia (Acting Chairman)
STAFF MEMBERS: David Nearing, Director of Planning
Taylor, Administrative Secretary
Morgeson, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 2005 & August 10, 2005
Mr. Beigel made a motion to approve the minutes
of June 8,
Ms. Paulson seconded the motion to approve the
All Ayes 5-0 to approve the Minutes of June 8, 2005.
Chairman Placencia noted the Minutes of August 10, 2005, reflects him as having
an Un-excused Absence. He asked for the Minutes to be changed to reflect him
as being Present for the meeting.
Mr. Morgeson noted because there was not a
quorum, the minutes are essentially chronology of what occurred. This only
deals with the attendance and the fact that there wasn’t a quorum, there doesn’t
really have to be approval because there was no meeting.
Chairman Placencia asked if the minutes could be
Mr. Morgeson noted the Minutes are fine as is
and that they are not really Minutes, they are the Clerk’s statement of what
occurred and that there was not a quorum for the August 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment
Chairman Placencia noted he would like to make
the one change and asked Ms. Taylor if she would change the Minutes to reflect
him as being Present for the meeting.
Upon Mr. Nearing and Mr. Morgeson’s request, Ms.
Taylor stated she would change the minutes to reflect Mr. Placencia as being
(a) CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT/AGENT: Hamilton Engineering &
Surveying-Jonathon Eveland, P.E. ADDRESS: 1601 Kissimmee Park
Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development
Code; Section 3.9.4, Table III-3 to allow a reduced minimum side setback
adjacent to a Medium Density Residential Land Use.
Nearing and the applicants were sworn in.
Nearing presented the case. Please refer to the Staff Report. Staff finds
that all 6-criteria have been met and therefore, Staff recommends approval.
Placencia asked if there was anyone there to speak on this case.
Beverly Hoagland was sworn in.
Beverly Hoagland introduced herself to the Board. Ms. Hoagland noted that this
is a HUD-202 property designed for seniors. Many people are on a waiting list waiting
for affordable housing and a safe place to live. Ms. Hoagland noted due to the
hurricanes last year, many of the mobile homes that the seniors lived in were
destroyed and this will help the seniors that live in this community. Ms.
Hoagland asked that the Board grant the variance.
Beigel asked Ms. Hoagland if the oak trees on the property would be kept.
Hoagland noted they would be kept.
Placencia asked how many units the 2-story building would have.
Hoagland noted there would be 50-units.
Placencia asked if they would be efficiency/apartment-style.
Hoagland noted they would be a little bit bigger.
Placencia asked if they were deeded apartments.
Hoagland noted they are subsidized.
Placencia asked if there were any other questions or comments.
Morgeson requested that if anyone wishes to speak, they need to come forward
and speak into the microphone.
Placencia noted it was a formality and anyone wishing to speak would have to be
Castillo was sworn in.
Castillo introduced herself to the Board and noted she lives at 4724 Pine Lake Drive, right behind the
property where the senior housing will be built. She noted she has a concern
that the property will not be maintained, because the other day was the first
time they had mowed in 4-months.
Hoagland noted that they had been going through a bid process because they were
not happy with the company that was mowing before, so that is why the lapse in
Stovick was sworn in. Mr. Stovick lives at 602 Sequoia Circle, which is at the east
end of the property. Mr. Stovick noted he had a problem with some trees which
has been addressed and taken care of. He stated that the company has taken
care of everything that he has had any problems with and has no problems now. He
noted he has a concern that there will be a problem with vehicles accessing the
Beigel asked Mr. Nearing if it was possible for a left-turning lane to be created
going to the property.
Nearing noted when the site-plan goes through the process that will be the next
step. If the variance is approved tonight, Staff will take a look at the
issues, and the County may permit them to turn left from the southbound lane into
their site. It will be directional, which means; unless you really want to try
hard you won’t be able to make a turn going Southbound. This will be looked at
during the site plan process and if so perhaps, the back could be opened up. A
tree survey will have to be submitted that will show the size, the type of trees
and where they will be located and some of the other issues will be addressed
at that time.
Castillo noted there was another comment she wanted to make. She stated that there
is a road off of Ponderosa to the existing villas. It is chained, and could possibly
be opened up and have access through there to the property.
Placencia asked if anyone had any other concerns or comments. Chairman
Placencia asked for a motion.
Beigel made a motion to approve the variance. All 6-criteria have been met.
Spinola seconded the motion to approve the variance.
Placencia read the ballots – all Ayes 5-0 to approve the variance.
(b) CASE NUMBER:
B. Robertson/Robert Jenkins
Engineering, Inc./Skip Holtkamp, P.E.
ADDRESS: 1700 E. Irlo Bronson
The Applicant is requesting a variance to the
requirements of the Land Development Code, Section 3.18.4.A.1 & 3.18.4.B to
reduce the number of bicycle parking places from 45, the minimum required, to
Chairman Placencia asked that everyone that
would be speaking on the next case come forward and be sworn in.
All parties were sworn in.
Mr. Nearing presented the case. Please refer to
Staff Report. Staff is recommending approval.
Mr. Beigel asked if it was the size of the
property that formulized the 45 spaces.
Mr. Nearing explained that the number of bicycle
parking spaces is based on a percentage of the number of the automobile
parking. In this case, there are 449 parking spaces required for the size of
the facility they are planning on building, which translates to 45 bicycle
Mr. Beigel asked why Wal-Mart only has 7 bicycle
Mr. Nearing noted Wal-Mart has a 7-bicycle bike rack
with that area in front of the store, where they sometimes display merchandise,
is a designated parking area. There is room there for possibly 90 bicycles. The
Land Development Code requires that the bicycle parking be provided; it doesn’t
say you have to have a bike rack.
Mr. Spinola noted that the bike path goes behind
Mr. Nearing noted the area behind this
particular site that goes down to 17th Street, envisioned by the City
as being an industrial area. To the North of 192, it is going as Commercial
and Industrial as well. This is an area of town that hasn’t had the kind of
residential build-up that has occurred elsewhere.
Chairman Placencia asked about homes going in to
Mr. Nearing noted there would be about 1,800
single-family attached and single-family detached homes.
Mr. Beigel noted it was quite an impressive
Mr. Nearing noted they have had success and want
to see if they can duplicate Magnolia Square.
Chairman Placencia asked if this would be an
Mr. Nearing noted it would be a combination of
Mr. Spinola asked if the bike spaces would be in
several different places.
Mr. Skip Holtkamp, of RDH introduced himself to
the Board and explained that the sidewalk is designed 9’ wide, with a 2’
overhang for the cars, and that there will be additional bicycle parking in
front of the store if needed. Mr. Holtkamp noted at some time, gas prices could
go up and bicycle usage could get more popular.
Chairman Placencia asked for a motion.
Mr. Norris noted all 6-criteria have been met
and made a motion to approve the variance.
Ms. Paulson seconded the motion to approve the
(c) CASE NUMBER:
Wagner/Advanced Marine Services
Engineering, Inc. /Skip Holtkamp, P.E. ADDRESS: 1322 Carolina Avenue
Who is requesting a variance to the requirements
of the Land Development Code, Section 3.20.28.C.5 regarding paved surface
requirements for display areas.
All parties that were going to speak on this
case were sworn in.
Mr. Nearing presented the case. Please refer to
Staff Report. The 6-criteria have been met, therefore, Staff recommends
Mr. Beigel asked if the shaded area is where the
concrete will be.
Mr. Nearing noted it was.
Mr. Beigel asked if the other grey on the
diagram would be where the gravel will be.
Mr. Beigel asked if a swale is needed here.
Mr. Nearing noted that is yet to be determined.
The applicant has to go through site plan approval and will still have to deal
with the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Nearing if any of the
improvements had been put into place, in reference to the Memorandum and the
variance being approved on March 9, 2005.
Mr. Nearing noted a temporary fence was
installed for security purpose. The Board approved a temporary fence. None of
the conditions will go away by approving this variance. It is a separate
action. If the variance is approved and construction begins, the fence will
have to be installed and the screening materials will have to be put up with
Mr. Morgeson noted the reason he asked the
question is that the Land Development Code state does that if the Board does
not put some type of time frame when the variance will be implemented, the Land
Development Code gives the applicant that receives the variance, a 6-month
period of time in which to do so. In the event that these things might take
time, the Board may want to give some sort of perimeter of when the variance
should be implemented or at least for the work to begin so that there is some
sort of time period in which the applicant can move forward. There have been
some unique circumstances with the Board not convening in August and so forth.
Chairman Placencia asked when the variance takes
Mr. Morgeson noted if the variance is approved
tonight, it takes effect tonight and the 6-months will start with this date.
Chairman Placencia asked if it had been 6-months
since the previous variance had been approved.
Mr. Morgeson noted it had not been 6-months. He
stated he knew there were times the Board could not meet, and etc., but if
there are no conditions set by the Board if the variance is approved; the
applicant will have 6-months from this date.
Chairman Placencia asked if the variance would
run with the property. If the property is approved for a boat-type business
and it is sold, would a car dealer be entitled to the same variance.
Mr. Morgeson noted it would depend on the basis
on which you’re granting the variance and if there are conditions attached to
the variance. If the Board is going to condition the variance approval, based
on a particular use or operation, then clearly, once those conditions no longer
exist, the variance would be revoked as well.
Mr. Norris noted that one of the 6-criteria
specifies that Staff is recommending approval based on the fact that it is boat
sales. He asked if that would protect the variance if the property was sold
and couldn’t put a car dealership in there.
Mr. Morgeson asked which condition Mr. Norris
was referring to.
Mr. Norris noted it was condition #3.
Mr. Nearing recommended that a condition be
attached that says this variance is for boat sales business only and if any
other type of vehicle sale takes place, the provisions of the Land Development
Code need to be met.
Mr. Holtkamp noted that as soon as the Board
approves or disapproves, there are still processes that have to be approved and
a site plan through Development Review Committee, so construction can’t be
started tomorrow, the processes have to be met. Issues have been worked out
with Staff. If there are no paved surfaces, there would not be a swale at
all, but a paved center strip is mostly for handicapped accessibility more than
anything else, and because of that paved center strip being less than 5,000 square
feet, they are exempt from DOT permitting, but do need to meet South Florida’s
criteria, so there will be some swales along the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Beigel asked if there was a swale in the
Mr. Holtkamp noted this particular lot was added
after Jason bought it after the fact, and this particular lot drains to the 192
right-of-way. From the front of the building to the back, it drains to the
back. The City of St.
requested no drainage be put to the back, because the system is probably
undersized and there are problems with the system in the back, and the swale
will be in the landscape buffer.
Mr. Beigel asked if there were swales on all
Mr. Holtkamp noted that of the whole front lot,
at least half of it was pond and swales, to meet DOT criteria.
Mr. Beigel asked if the swale that is going in,
is the requirement of DOT or the City of St. Cloud.
Mr. Holtkamp noted it was the South Florida Water
Management District and the City of St. Cloud.
Chairman Placencia asked what type of material would
Mr. Jason Wagner noted he would be using 1-3”
gravel, which is more of a rock.
Mr. Holtkamp explained that this gravel keeps
the boats from rolling.
Chairman Placencia asked about the timeframe
based upon the approval of the variance in March.
Mr. Morgeson noted that the reason he was
pointing this out is that the Board can give whatever amount of time to
implement the variance the Board thinks is appropriate. He was pointing out to
the Board that nothing is mentioned with regard to a time to implement the
variance request. The Land Development Code says the applicant has 6-months,
so from tonight, assume the Board does not give a larger period of time in
which to implement their request, they would have 6-months.
Chairman Placencia asked about the March case.
Mr. Morgeson noted he thought that the applicant
being present and it being addressed again and the paving issue, the Board has authority
to approve the variance with whatever conditions are appropriate and suggested
that the Board be cognizant that they will have 6-months to implement the
request or the Board could give a larger or a shorter amount of time. It is at
the Board’s discretion. Since this case dates back to March, the applicant is
in the 6-month time period, so going forward, the Board may want to consider whether
they want to put some type of time limit or expand a time period in which this
variance is to be implemented.
Mr. Beigel noted the plot layout is different of
the fence than it was originally. He asked f this variance is approved today, would
this supersede the variance from March.
Mr. Nearing noted to keep in mind, what was
approved in March is the ability for the applicant to have a fence over 3’ in
height in front of the primary structure and in the side street yard. Where
the fence is located, is something that Staff works out with the site plan.
The variance will remain in tact and provided the applicant submits an
application before the time limit expires, that will keep him going.
Chairman Placencia asked how long for the City
staff’s portion of getting this done.
Mr. Nearing noted it depended on the applicant
and submitting the site plan.
Chairman Placencia asked how long after the
information is in the hands of the City Staff does the process take.
Mr. Nearing noted once the information was in
City Staff’s hands, it is usually in front of the Develop Review Committee
perhaps in 4 weeks. At that point in time, it is decided whether it should be
approved and signed off on or if it should be approved with resubmittal of revised
plans, to do some additions, continued or denied. Mr. Nearing noted he
doubted, given Mr. Holtkamp’s familiarity of St. Cloud, it will ever be denied; the worst would
probably be approval with conditions.
Chairman Placencia asked how much time.
Mr. Nearing noted probably within 6-8 weeks.
Mr. Holtkamp noted he had submitted the current
site plan. A current drainage plans have been submitted to Mark Luthie and he supports
the site plan. Mr. Holtkamp noted the City Council will be asked to approve a
site plan variance.
Mr. Nearing noted Staff recommends that the
variance is approved with the condition regarding the use, that if it ever
changes from boat sales, to any other type of vehicular sales; they must comply
with the Land Development Code.
Chairman Placencia asked if the City Staff had a
problem with the applicant servicing boats in the area.
Mr. Wagner noted mechanical work was done
Mr. Holtkamp noted it would be in the gravel
Mr. Morgeson noted that the Board should ask the
applicant if he would agree to the condition to be placed on the variance that
it will be for boat sales only in that area.
Mr. Wagner noted he did not have a problem with
the condition and that there is 5,000 sq ft under roof where all the mechanical
work is done.
Chairman Placencia asked if the variance is
specific to the land or specific to the area.
Mr. Morgeson noted this particular variance is
to eliminate the paving requirement, which is relevant to the display area.
Mr. Norris asked if in the future the applicant
decided to sell the property, was there anything in the sales contract that
states that the property could be sold to a car dealership.
Mr. Morgeson noted the variance is recorded and
obviously it will give notice to all 3rd parties it runs with regard
to, of the particular variance with regard to that condition.
Mr. Wagner noted it would come up in the
Mr. Nearing noted when there is a condition,
within the City’s computer system; a property can be flagged, and so when
anyone applies for anything regarding that piece of property, the first screen
will say “Boat Sales Only” and that will flag anyone that wants to get a permit
of any kind, any temporary use permit or temporary sign permit. That will give
them the flag for that particular variance.
Chairman Placencia noted the floor was open for
Mr. Beigel noted he was at the property and it
was very clean.
Chairman Placencia noted the floor was open for
Ms. Paulson made a motion to approve the variance
with the condition that the property will be limited to boat sales only. All
6-factors have been met.
Mr. Beigel seconded the motion to approve the
variance with the conditions listed.
All Ayes to approve the variance with the
condition listed, 5-0.
Chairman Placencia asked for any comments or
Mr. Beigel noted he would like to elect Acting Chairman
Pete Placencia into a permanent position as Chairman.
Mr. Morgeson noted an Organizational Meeting
needs to be held to elect permanent officers to the Board.
Mr. Nearing noted the Land Development Code is
being processed for revisions. One of the revisions is going to change the
composition of the Board. Instead of 7-Reg and 1-Alt, it will make 5-Reg and
2-Alt. Also, it will be recommended to Council to remove the 4 votes for
approval provision and go to a simple majority. If there are only 3 members
present, the meeting can still be held. Mr. Nearing noted if there is an
Organizational meeting to be held next month, one item that could be placed on
the Agenda is the Board could vote on a position of the Board, for the Land
Development Code revision.
Acting Chairman Placencia asked if there were
any other comments. Acting Chairman Placencia called for a motion to adjourn
Mr. Beigel made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Paulson seconded the motion to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
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
(407) 957-7203 St. Cloud, FL 34769