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

ROLL CALL                                          Pete Placencia    (Acting Chairman)         

                                                            Greg Norris                  

                                                            Kimberly Paulson          

                                                            Carl Beigel

                                                            William Spinola             


STAFF MEMBERS:                                David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Administrative Secretary

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:                    September 14, 2005




1.                  Requests for Variances


           (a)        CASE NUMBER:                  2005-10

            OWNER:                                Scott Boyd/Narcoossee Shoppes, LLC

            APPLICANT/AGENT:          Hanson, Walter & Associates

            ADDRESS:                            Narcoossee Shoppes Out-parcel Retail Building


The Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Sections 3.18.4.A.1 & 3.18.4.B to reduce the minimum required number of bicycle parking places.


Mr. Nearing presented the case.  (See Staff Report).  Staff recommends approval. 


Mr. Tom Bailey explained that he didn’t believe that there would be that many people bicycling along 192 or Narcoossee Road.  Mr. Bailey stated he had been working with the Planning Department on the landscaping plan and if some of the bicycle parking that is not needed was not taken away, it would allow for more potential landscaping areas. 


Mr. Beigel asked how many parking spaces there were.


Mr. Nearing noted 22 bicycle spaces would have been required.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Staff Report indicated 54 vehicle parking spaces would reduce the requirement to 14 bicycle spaces using the 25% ratio to 54?


Mr. Nearing noted that was correct. 


Mr. Beigel made a motion to approve the variance, based upon the 6-criteria which have been satisfied.


Mr. Norris seconded the motion.


All Ayes 5-0 to approve the variance.  The variance was granted.





2.         Election of Officers


                        (a) Chairperson


Mr. Nearing noted he would like for the Board to know that this Board normally consists of 8 members, 7 regular members and 1 alternate.  Staff is recommending to City Council that the size and composition of the Board be changed.  This is due to a previous problem of not having quorum which is supposed to be 4-members.  The Board will become a 7-member Board with 5-regular members and 2-alternates.  In this case, the existing Board being the 5-sitting members, obviously would be the 5-regular members.  If there were alternates, they would not be able to vote. 


Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Nearing if the quorum would change to 3-members.


Mr. Nearing noted the quorum would be 3 and the voting will be a simple majority.


Mr. Morgeson noted the LDC says that there should be 4-concurring votes in favor of the applicant and this would allow for 2 of 3 attending members to pass.


Mr. Nearing noted that would be correct.


Acting Chairperson Placencia asked what the procedure was and where the process was in making the changes.


Mr. Nearing noted it is going to the Planning Board next Tuesday and will before the City Council on October 27, 2005 and hopefully will get an adoption on November 10, 2005.  He asked if the Board had comments or would like to discuss it.


Mr. Nearing noted if the Board had any feedback, comments, or wanted to discuss it.


Acting Chairperson Placencia asked if the Board wanted to discuss this. 


Mr. Beigel noted at times, it has been difficult for 7-members to be present and thought the simple majority was a good idea.  


Mr. Nearing noted it was the intent that the Board could function in the event that Board members could not be present and the simple majority would allow the Board to meet and vote.


Ms. Paulson noted she had been on the Board awhile and at times the meetings could not go forward due to lack of a quorum and thought the simple majority and a smaller board would be a good idea. 


Mr. Beigel made reference to an applicant driving from Tampa and the meeting had to be cancelled due to lack of a quorum.


Acting Chairperson Placencia noted he didn’t mind the smaller Board but that may be the idea of the quorum and may be something Staff should consider that the simple majority may not be fair to the applicant in the end.


Mr. Morgeson noted he may not completely understand the feedback but the quorum is to enable the Board to go forward.  The proposed change will require 3-members to be in attendance for there to actually be a meeting and then the proposed change would require 2-members of the 3-member Board to be able to affirmatively pass whatever relief was being sought.  As one alternative, it could be consistent with how the LDC reads now, and that the quorum is currently 4-members and it also requires that the conferring votes are 4, a unanimous vote, if it was a bare quorum, would be required to pass the relief.  Mr. Morgeson noted it would be even more flexible to the applicant.  The quorum would be 3-members, which would mean the Board could meet and of that quorum, only two affirmative votes would actually allow the applicant to obtain relief.  Mr. Morgeson noted he saw this as two issues and perhaps that was what Acting Chairperson Placencia is identifying. 


Acting Chairperson Placencia noted the applicant would be advantaged by the mix of the people that are sitting on a particular night if there isn’t a full panel of 5-members, if the quorum is only 3.


Mr. Nearing noted that Mr. Morgeson routinely reminds the applicant that they could continue the case to the next month for a full Board. 


Mr. Morgeson noted he would have ordinarily advised the applicant when the Board convenes that the Board is less than a full Board and gives the applicant the option to move forward or wait until the next meeting.   


Acting Chairperson Placencia voiced his concerns about having a simple majority quorum.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Board does not have to make a formal motion or a ruling, in reference to the LDC projected changes; just whatever collective feedback can be given to Mr. Nearing is sufficient.


2.         Election of Officers


                        (a) Chairperson


Acting Chairperson Placencia noted that he encourages discussing candidates, etc.


Mr. Morgeson explained the procedure to elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.


Mr. Beigel made a motion to elect Mr. Placencia as Chairperson.


Acting Chairperson Placencia noted he had been the Acting Chairperson for quite awhile and would like to give someone else a chance at being the Chairperson.


Mr. Morgeson recommended that Acting Chairperson Placencia call for a second and then have a discussion.


Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.


Acting Chairperson Placencia thanked the Board but noted Ms. Paulson has served on the Board for quite awhile and would make an excellent Chairperson.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Chair could make a motion since it is an Organizational Meeting. 


Acting Chairperson Placencia noted he thought it would be good experience for Ms. Paulson to be Chairperson.


Mr. Norris noted that everyone had a copy of the by-laws and wanted to know if there was anything stating the term of the Chair.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Chair position was for 1 year.  Procedurally, the Board will vote in the order in which they are seconded.  If there is none, the Board will take a vote.


Acting Chairperson Placencia made a motion to nominate Ms. Paulson as Chairperson.


Mr. Norris seconded the motion.


Mr. Morgeson explained that there were two (2) nominees for Chairperson, Mr. Placencia was nominated and a second was made, so he will be the first individual to be voted on as Chairperson and depending on what happens with that vote, Ms. Paulson has been nominated as Chairperson and there was a second to her nomination.  Unless there are other nominations for that position, votes will be taken. 


Acting Chairperson Placencia asked if there was any opposition of not wanting to be nominated as Chairperson.


Mr. Norris asked Ms. Paulson what her feelings were about being the Chairperson.


Ms. Paulson thanked the Board but asked if she could decline the nomination.


Mr. Morgeson noted it would be a good service to the City to whoever is elected to carry out that position.  The Board needs to come to a collective decision for the coming year on who will be the Chairperson.  He noted he was trying to make sure the Board followed procedure. 


Acting Chairperson Placencia nominated Mr. Beigel as Chairperson.


Ms. Paulson seconded the nomination.


Mr. Morgeson noted if any of the nominees are not approved, other motions can be taken.  Procedurally, Mr. Placencia should be the first to vote on.


Mr. Beigel made a motion to close the nomination.


Ms. Paulson seconded the motion.


Mr. Morgeson noted Acting Chairperson Placencia should call for a vote in favor for Mr. Placencia for Chairperson for the coming year.


Acting Chairperson Placencia called for a vote for the first nominee. 


Mr. Beigel asked for a vote for Mr. Placencia as Chairperson.


Ms. Paulson – Aye.


Mr. Beigel – Aye.


Mr. Spinola – Nay.


Mr. Norris – Nay.


Mr. Placencia – Nay. (correction request from 11/09/05 meeting to add Mr. Placencia with Nay vote)


Mr. Morgeson noted the next individual to be voted upon is Ms. Paulson.


Acting Chairperson Placencia asked for a vote for Ms. Paulson as Chairperson.


All Ayes 5-0 (correction request from 11/09/05 meeting to change 4-0 to 5-0) to elect Ms. Paulson as Chairperson.


Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Placencia to pass the gavel to Ms. Paulson.


(b) Vice-Chairperson


Ms. Paulson called for nominations for Vice-Chairperson.


Mr. Placencia nominated Mr. Beigel.


Mr. Norris seconded the motion.


Ms. Paulson called for a vote for Mr. Beigel as Vice-Chairperson.


All Ayes 5-0 (correction request from 11/09/05 meeting to change 4-0 to 5-0) to elect Mr. Beigel as Vice-Chairperson.


Mr. Nearing approached the Board and noted that a copy of the by-laws had been included in their packets. Mr. Nearing suggested that the Board review the by-laws and if there are any revisions, they could be discussed at the next meeting.  Mr. Nearing also noted that the Board may want to change the process of voting from a written vote to an oral vote.


Mr. Spinola asked if the purpose of the written ballots was for court purposes.


Mr. Morgeson noted it would be for a variance that the applicant was contesting.


Mr. Beigel asked why there couldn’t be Aye or Nay votes and not have names on the ballots.


Mr. Morgeson noted that it was advisable, even though the Board could go to an oral vote, that the actions of the Board, it will be apparent of who is voting and how they are voting.  A secret vote procedure would not be advisable but could certainly go to an oral vote as opposed to a written ballot.  Mr. Morgeson noted the oral vote is easier administratively and is also maintained on record.


Mr. Nearing noted that the Minutes of the meeting would reflect the votes and the Findings of Fact form would also be signed by the Chairperson.  The Findings of Fact is an official document and it should be recorded by the owner of the property against the property. 


Mr. Placencia noted if the property owner does not record the Findings of Fact, and that property sells, how would the prospective buyer know about the conditions of the variance. 


Mr. Nearing noted the variance is against the land, it is not against the individual owner.  Mr. Nearing noted the variance is to grant an exception to how the land is developed.  It is not to give someone special permission. 


Mr. Morgeson noted the variance is tracked through the City records.  If the applicant fails to record the variance on the public records, then the applicant is giving themselves a disadvantage in terms of when the property is marketed.  It is the property owner’s responsibility when a variance is received, to take all steps to protect themselves or the property for future litigation.


Mr. Nearing explained the process of issuing a permit on a property through the City’s computer system.  When a variance is approved on a property, the information is entered into the City computer’s system and is accessible to the department that would be issuing the permit.


Mr. Placencia asked if the City could be responsible for recording the Findings of Fact and then charge the applicant for reimbursement.


Mr. Morgeson noted it was the responsibility of the property owner.


Mr. Placencia noted the applicant was charged a fee to advertise and the recording fees could be added to the applicant fees.


Mr. Nearing noted it could be built into the fee system. 


Mr. Morgeson noted it could be discussed.


Mr. Nearing noted that this fee could be discussed.




Chairperson Paulson noted if there were no other discussions, the meeting would adjourn.


The meeting adjourned at 7:20 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