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 Kimberly Paulson (Chairperson) Present
Carl Beigel (Vice
Pete Placencia Present
William Spinola Present
STAFF MEMBERS: David Nearing, Director of Planning
Taylor, Administrative Secretary
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
Mr. Placencia made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended.
Mr. Norris seconded the motion.
All Ayes to approve the minutes with amendments.
(a) CASE NUMBER:
ADDRESS: 719 Maryland Avenue
Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development
3, Table III-4 to allow a reduced minimum lot width to allow a lot split for a
second buildable lot.
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.
Paulson asked the applicants if they would like to proceed or wait until the
applicants noted they would like to proceed.
All applicants were sworn in at this time.
Nearing presented the case (see staff report).
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.
Placencia asked why the applicant has to demolish the garage.
Nearing noted the City did not allow accessory structures to be a primary use
of a lot. It has to have a principal structure.
Placencia asked why the lot has to be split.
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.
Placencia asked if the Land Development Code does not allow for two single
family dwellings on a single lot.
Nearing noted the Land Development Code did not allow that. It will allow a
duplex, but not two single family detached homes.
Norris asked what the block structure was shown on the plan.
Nearing noted it is actually where the new unit will be built.
Norris asked if a duplex could be pursued.
Nearing noted they each want their own single family unit to live independent
of each other.
Norris noted he had a question for the applicant.
Dubinsky approached the Board.
Norris asked the applicant what the status, as far as drawings and beginning
construction on the house.
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.
Norris noted before the building permit can be obtained, you have to have a
floor plan, but he was not sure about the demolition.
Dubinsky noted she would have to meet with the CAD operator to draw up the
floor plan before a permit can be obtained.
Norris noted there would be a demolition permit and a building permit.
Dubinsky noted she would not need a demolition permit if she is going to build
within 30 days.
Nearing noted if it appeared that the 30 days would not be sufficient, the
Board could allow 45 or 60 days.
Placencia noted it seemed the applicant would need more time.
Dubinsky noted she wanted to preserve the garage because it was new.
Placencia asked why she was having a 2 bedroom home and not a 3 bedroom.
Dubinsky noted that her parents were elderly and a 2 bedroom was enough room.
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.
Nearing noted that because of where the applicant is in the process, he recommended
it be extended to 60 days.
Norris asked how long a lot split would take.
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
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.
Dubinsky noted her survey on Maryland shows 103’ and the paperwork she received from Planning
said 100’. There is 3 additional feet.
Norris asked if the language in the variance needed to be changed.
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.
Placencia asked if a time limit was not set, would the applicant have 6 months
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.
Norris noted the LDC imposes 210 days and then have 30 days to obtain the
Morgeson noted the way the LDC reads, that is correct.
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.
Spinola seconded the motion.
Ayes 4-0 to approve the variance.
(b) CASE NUMBER:
ADDRESS: 623 New York Avenue
Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development
3.20.3.A.2 (a) to allow a two-story garage, exceeding the 15-foot maximum
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”.
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
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
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 7th Street by paved driveway.
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.
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
Placencia asked if there should be a height restriction.
Nearing noted no height restriction should be applied.
Placencia asked if no detached garages allow for a water or power supply.
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.
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.
Spinola asked what about the access to get to the 2nd story. Is it
an outside entrance or inside entrance.
Brian Scheckman noted it was an inside stairway.
Spinola asked if there would be windows on the second story.
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 7th
is, on the 2nd floor and also one (1) on each side.
Placencia asked if the roof going to pitch from the back towards the street.
Brian Scheckman noted it was going to pitch the same direction as the house
pitches and that is from New
going back towards 7th
so the garage would also pitch that way and would drain on the side of the
house, going down 7th
Placencia asked how tall the structure was going to be.
Brian Scheckman noted it would be 20’ and that puts them 5’ over what the
Placencia asked what the height is of the house to the north.
Brian Scheckman noted he thought it was at least 20’.
Placencia asked if the applicant had plans.
Stephen Scheckman noted he could get plans.
Nearing noted the height of the structure is where the peak of the roof would
end, which would be behind the parapet.
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.
Paulson asked if the roof line would be similar to the roof line in the photos.
Brian Scheckman noted it would be exactly as the photos.
Placencia noted his concern is the watershed, and then asked if there have been
Brian Scheckman noted he has received no complaints and noted his main focus is
to put a washer and dryer in the new garage.
Placencia asked where the watershed is.
Brian Scheckman noted it drains off the back of the house.
Nearing noted it drained into 7th Street, because 7th Street is lower than the yard
itself and is not aware of any flooding problems in the area.
Brian Scheckman noted the City is installing new drainage.
Placencia asked if there was any standing water after the last storm.
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.
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 2nd story.
of the Board about the conditions.
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
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.
Spinola made a motion to approve that 2006-02 has met the 6-criteria with the
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 1st 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
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 7th
a paved driveway.
Placencia seconded the motion.
Ayes 4-0. The variance was approved with the conditions.
Placencia made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Norris seconded the motion.
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