CALL TO ORDER                                6:30 P.M.  

LOCATION:                                        ST. CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS

                                                            1300 NINTH STREET, 3^RD FLOOR

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL                                        Kimberly Paulson (Chairperson)               Present

                                                            Carl Beigel (Vice Chairperson)                 EA

                                                            Pete Placencia                                        Present

                                                            Greg Norris                                           Present

                                                            William Spinola                                      Present

 

STAFF MEMBERS:                                David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Administrative Secretary

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:                    October 12, 2005 

 

Mr. Placencia noted on Page 4, the record needs to show that Mr. Placencia’s vote was a Nay vote.  (corrections made to October 12, 2005 Minutes)

 

Mr. Morgeson noted he was going to ask for that change also.  On page 4, let the record show that Mr. Placencia voted Nay as well.  The vote for Ms. Paulson for Chairperson should reflect a 5-0 vote.  On Page 5, in regard to Mr. Beigel as Vice Chairperson, should reflect a 5-0 vote.  (corrections made to October 12, 2005 Minutes)

 

Chairperson Paulson asked for a motion to approve the minutes.

 

Mr. Placencia made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

 

Mr. Norris seconded the motion.

 

All Ayes to approve the minutes with amendments.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.                   Requests for Variances

 

           (a)        CASE NUMBER:                       2006-01

            OWNER:                                  Carolyn J. Dubinsky

            APPLICANT/AGENT:               Carolyn J. Dubinsky

            ADDRESS:                               719 Maryland 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 lot width to allow a lot split for a second buildable lot.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted that all 4 members of the Board would have to vote in the affirmative to approve the variance. The applicants may want to consider whether they would like to wait for the missing Board member or move forward tonight with the four (4) member Board.

 

Chairperson Paulson asked the applicants if they would like to proceed or wait until the next meeting.

 

The applicants noted they would like to proceed.

 

All applicants were sworn in at this time.

 

Mr. Nearing presented the case (see staff report).

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it is Staff’s opinion that the applicant has met the 6-criteria.  If the Board chooses to approve this variance, Staff recommends one condition.  There is a garage that will be free-standing on one of the new lots.  The City does not permit accessory structures constructed prior to a primary structure.  Staff recommends a condition that within 30 days the applicant either obtains or executes a demolition permit on the existing garage or obtains a permit and begins construction of the new home.   

 

Mr. Placencia asked why the applicant has to demolish the garage. 

 

Mr. Nearing noted the City did not allow accessory structures to be a primary use of a lot.  It has to have a principal structure.

 

Mr. Placencia asked why the lot has to be split.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it had to be split to build 2 single family homes.  The intent is they want to split the lot and build a home on the lot and the applicant wants to bring her family here to live in the house.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the Land Development Code does not allow for two single family dwellings on a single lot.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the Land Development Code did not allow that.  It will allow a duplex, but not two single family detached homes.

 

Mr. Norris asked what the block structure was shown on the plan.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it is actually where the new unit will be built. 

 

Mr. Norris asked if a duplex could be pursued.

 

Mr. Nearing noted they each want their own single family unit to live independent of each other.

 

Mr. Norris noted he had a question for the applicant.

 

Ms. Dubinsky approached the Board.

 

Mr. Norris asked the applicant what the status, as far as drawings and beginning construction on the house.

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted she has a builder but they are still looking at floor plans.  When receiving the fax showing the stipulation that the garage has to be demolished or have a permit pulled within 30 days, Ms. Dubinsky noted she has not heard back from the builder to see if the 30 days would be a problem.  She noted that she wasn’t sure if she had to have a floor plan before the permit can be pulled.

 

Mr. Norris noted before the building permit can be obtained, you have to have a floor plan, but he was not sure about the demolition. 

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted she would have to meet with the CAD operator to draw up the floor plan before a permit can be obtained.

 

Mr. Norris noted there would be a demolition permit and a building permit.

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted she would not need a demolition permit if she is going to build within 30 days.

 

Mr. Nearing noted if it appeared that the 30 days would not be sufficient, the Board could allow 45 or 60 days.

 

Mr. Placencia noted it seemed the applicant would need more time.

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted she wanted to preserve the garage because it was new.

 

Mr. Placencia asked why she was having a 2 bedroom home and not a 3 bedroom.

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted that her parents were elderly and a 2 bedroom was enough room.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted from a legal perspective, if the Board is in favor of granting the variance, and imposing a condition(s), technically, the conditions have to be complied with, or the variance is retracted and the property falls out of compliance, so if there is a need to impose a condition, it would be advisable for the Board to make it a condition that is collectively reasonable and one that the applicant has a legitimate ability to meet.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that because of where the applicant is in the process, he recommended it be extended to 60 days.

 

Mr. Norris asked how long a lot split would take.

 

Mr. Nearing noted a lot split could be done in a matter of days.  A surveyor has to be hired, draws out the two new maps, takes them down to the property appraiser’s office, they get assigned two new ID numbers, they are entered into the computer and then they’re legal.  It should be a quick process for an experienced surveyor.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted that if the Board allows for the variance to enable the lot split, and there is no other time implementation, the Land Development Code requires that it be completed within 6 months.  The Board would be looking at 6 months and 60 days by Mr. Nearing’s recommendation if there were no time frame to impose the lot split.

 

Ms. Dubinsky noted her survey on Maryland shows 103’ and the paperwork she received from Planning said 100’. There is 3 additional feet.

 

Mr. Norris asked if the language in the variance needed to be changed.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the extra 3’, depending on how the applicant wants to split the lot.  If the applicant wants to split it between the two, basically a variance allows the applicant to go down to 50’, so if it’s more than 50’, it’s not a big deal. If it’s 51 1/2’ that’s fine.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if a time limit was not set, would the applicant have 6 months to build.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted the way the Land Development Code reads, if there is no time in which to implement the variance, there is a 6-month requirement that the applicant has to achieve to have the variance put into place, in this case, getting the lot split.  If the Board adds a condition, once the lot is split, within a certain amount of time, the permits being pulled, etc., that essentially would add on to the 6-months.

 

Mr.  Norris noted the LDC imposes 210 days and then have 30 days to obtain the permit, etc.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted the way the LDC reads, that is correct.

 

Mr. Norris made a motion that the 6-criteria have been met and the variance be approved with the condition that either a building permit or a demolition permit be obtained and executed with 30 days of the lot split.

 

Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.

 

All Ayes 4-0 to approve the variance.

 

           (b)        CASE NUMBER:                       2006-02

                       OWNER:                                  Brian Scheckman

            APPLICANT/AGENT:               Brian Scheckman

            ADDRESS:                               623 New York Avenue

 

The Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code;

Section 3.20.3.A.2 (a) to allow a two-story garage, exceeding the 15-foot maximum height allowance.

 

Mr. Nearing presented the case (see staff report).  Mr. Nearing noted he would like to change a typographical error.  On comment #5 – The last sentence should read – “would not be conferring a special privilege”.

 

Staff is recommending approval with conditions.  These conditions are intended that the new garage does not detract from the appearance of the existing architectural style, fits into the neighborhood and will preclude it from ever being converted into a dwelling unit.  The conditions are:

 

1.       The archectural style and exterior finish of the proposed garage/storage building shall be designed to match that of the existing residence.

 

2.       The height of the garage shall not be greater than that of the peak of the home on the lot immediately to the North, a 1 ½ story.  Staff is recommending that this be verified by a licensed surveyor.

 

3.       The garage/storage building shall not be connected to a water supply.

 

4.       No 220 wiring shall be attached to or contained within the garage/storage building.

 

5.       A form-board survey shall be provided and approved by the Building Department before any slab is poured.

 

Mr. Nearing noted there was a previous case where someone had a form-board inspection and it passed poured the slab and when it was done, and had the final inspection, it was too close.  Because the yard is so compact, need to make sure the form-boards are in the right place before the slab is poured.  Normally, they would have to have a final survey for a garage so with the form-board survey, the final survey will be much less expensive because the surveyor has already started his marks.

 

6.   The building permit for the garage shall include a drainage plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the      City prior to issuance.

 

Again, it’s a small, compact lot, it’s going to be a 2-story building, the drainage plan may consist of nothing more than gutter and downspout, but want to make sure that Civil Engineering looks at it and says that it won’t dump water in the neighbor’s yard.  The Contractor can probably come up with one of those without having to get an Engineer.  Staff is not requiring engineered drawings.

 

7.   The garage shall be connected to 7^th Street by paved driveway.

 

Mr. Placencia asked in reference to #2, what happens if we have another hurricane and levels the peak of the home, or the lot north of the subject property.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the property owner would probably want to rebuild.  It is a very nice house.  It’s an old, craftsman style home.  It is a very marketable piece of property.  With the hurricanes of last year, the roof and trees seem to be fine.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if there should be a height restriction.

 

Mr. Nearing noted no height restriction should be applied.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if no detached garages allow for a water or power supply.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it depends.  Some have been permitted with plumbing but again, that would be a single story. Some have 220 because they could do hobbies or may weld or may want to put their washer and dryer in there.  In this case, Staff recommends that 220 not be extended to this building because then it can never be extended to the building, up to the building. 

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman, the applicant, approached the Board.  The house is a 2-bedroom, 2 bath, is a really small house and has no-where to have a washer and dryer.  The one reason that the applicant wanted to build the garage is to add a washer and dryer and would like to have a utility sink.

 

Mr. Spinola asked what about the access to get to the 2^nd story.  Is it an outside entrance or inside entrance.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it was an inside stairway.

 

Mr. Spinola asked if there would be windows on the second story.

 

Mr. Scheckman noted there would be a few.  The one reason that this is being done is to try to keep it in the same style as the house.  There will be 2 windows in the front where 7^th Street is, on the 2^nd floor and also one (1) on each side. 

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the roof going to pitch from the back towards the street.

.

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it was going to pitch the same direction as the house pitches and that is from New York Street going back towards 7^th Street, so the garage would also pitch that way and would drain on the side of the house, going down 7^th Street. 

 

Mr. Placencia asked how tall the structure was going to be.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it would be 20’ and that puts them 5’ over what the allowance is. 

 

Mr. Placencia asked what the height is of the house to the north.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted he thought it was at least 20’. 

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the applicant had plans.

 

Mr. Stephen Scheckman noted he could get plans.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the height of the structure is where the peak of the roof would end, which would be behind the parapet. 

 

Mr. Morgeson noted it was difficult sometimes to disregard the neighboring properties in the same district or properties in other districts that may be similar to what applicants are looking for, but under the LDC, the Board should not consider any similar properties in the same area or properties in another area that may be non-conforming.  The Board should focus on this property as it regards to the 6-criteria.

 

Chairperson Paulson asked if the roof line would be similar to the roof line in the photos.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it would be exactly as the photos.

 

Mr. Placencia noted his concern is the watershed, and then asked if there have been any complaints.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted he has received no complaints and noted his main focus is to put a washer and dryer in the new garage. 

 

Mr. Placencia asked where the watershed is.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it drains off the back of the house.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it drained into 7^th Street, because 7^th Street is lower than the yard itself and is not aware of any flooding problems in the area.  

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted the City is installing new drainage.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if there was any standing water after the last storm.

 

Mr. Brian Scheckman noted it was about 20 minutes and it subsided.  In the past, there was standing water due to the old drainage, but with the new drainage, the water subsides quickly.

 

Mr. Spinola suggested instead of saying no to 220 volt wiring, could that be changed to a 50amp or 60amp service.  That would exclude central air service or adding more than a dryer or even a welder would fit under that amp but would not cover wiring for a 2^nd story. 

 

Discussion of the Board about the conditions.

 

Mr. Stephen Scheckman noted when he spoke to the surveyor; he said he could shoot the elevations and do the setbacks on the forms at the same time.  The way it reads, before he can get a permit, he has

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the primary issue is not the elevations, but the concern of the water from the building to the street. The garage has to be a minimum of 8” above the ground of the adjacent street.  The applicant could get a building permit showing a gutter leader on the permit.   

 

Mr. Spinola made a motion to approve that 2006-02 has met the 6-criteria with the following conditions:

 

1.       The architectural style and exterior finish of the proposed garage/storage building shall be designed to match that of the existing residence.

2.       The top of the parapet wall shall not exceed 22 ft in height.

3.       The garage/storage building water supply shall be limited to the 1^st floor.

4.       Electrical service shall not exceed a 60-amp service.

5.       A form board survey shall be provided to and approved by the Building Department before any slab is poured.

6.       The building permit for the garage shall include a drainage plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to its issuance.

7.       The garage shall be connected to 7^th Street by a paved driveway.

 

Mr. Placencia seconded the motion.

 

All Ayes 4-0.  The variance was approved with the conditions.

 

Mr. Placencia made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Mr. Norris seconded the motion.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

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