Homepage -Family

Go To Search
TwitterFacebook
YouTube
 

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

 

CITY OF ST. CLOUD

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES

March 8, 2006

 

CALL TO ORDER                                6:30 P.M.  

LOCATION:                                        ST. CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS

                                                            1300 NINTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL                                        Kimberly Paulson           (Chairperson)                 (P)

                                                            Carl Beigel                     (Vice Chairperson)        (arrived 6:39)

                                                            Pete Placencia                                                    (arrived 6:35)

                                                            Greg Norris                                                       (P)

                                                            William Spinola                                                  (P)

                                                            Robert Paulsen                                                   (P)

 

STAFF MEMBERS:                                David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Administrative Secretary

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:                    February 8, 2006

 

Mr. Robert Paulsen noted that one correction needs to be made.  On Page 3, the 10th sentence beginning, “Mr. Morgeson noted”, there appears to be a word missing. 

 

Mr. Morgeson noted it should read, “Mr. Morgeson noted it would be 60 days from the date that the variance was granted”.  The word “be” was left out and was a typographical mistake.

 

Mr. Spinola made a motion to approve the minutes with the one correction. 

 

Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion to approve the minutes.

 

All Ayes 4-0 to approve the minutes. 

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

All parties were sworn in at this time.

 

Requests for Variances

 

1.         (a)        CASE NUMBER:                        2006-07

                        OWNER:                                   Anthony Cardone

                        APPLICANT/AGENT:                Anthony Cardone

                        ADDRESS:                                500 Missouri Avenue

 

VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS:   Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Table III-4 to allow a reduced side street setback in the R-2 Zoning District.

 

Mr. Anthony Cardone, the applicant/owner, was not present.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Nearing presented the case (see staff report).  The 6-criteria have been met.  Staff recommends approval with the following condition:

 

            The applicant shall execute a legal document provided by the City Attorney to permit the existing encroachment to continue until the encroaching portion of the structure is in any way removed. 

 

Chairperson Paulson asked what the actual amount of the variance is.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that Staff is recommending 15’ for the existing structure and for the new addition Staff is recommending 7’.

 

Mr. Norris asked how far into the setback it is now.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it is about 4”into the right-of-way.  One of the important things to know about setbacks is a lot of times the side street and front setbacks are set on properties in anticipation that at some point in time, a road will be widened.  None of these roads will ever be widened.

 

Mr. Beigel asked if the house was crooked on the lot or if the drawing was inaccurate.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that is how it is, that is from a survey.

 

Mr. Beigel asked if the new home would be square or crooked.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it would be squared off and will be blended in with the existing structure.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the structures would be connected.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the applicant would be connecting the structures and will eliminate the kitchen from the existing structure which renders it no longer a full living unit.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the applicant would have a breezeway. 

 

Mr. Nearing noted the drawing is not what the applicant is building.  That is one of the ideas the applicant has.  Mr. Nearing noted the applicant knows he will be building a house with that dimension and he knows where he wants to attach to the existing structure. Mr. Nearing noted the applicant has plans but has not completed the final design and when he has a final design; it will be approved by Staff before a permit will be issued.  Mr. Nearing noted for the new structure, the setback would be 8’ from the side street property line.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if that would be Missouri Avenue.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it would be 5th Street.  The new structure would be well away from Missouri Avenue, it would be well outside the 25’ setback.

 

Mr. Placencia asked if there was a concern that the applicant could be building a mother-in-law dwelling, or a duplex.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Nearing noted Staff had discussed this issue with the applicant and when he comes in with a

plan, Staff will be looking to ensure that there are not 2 complete dwelling units and that there is, in fact, full physical connectivity between the structure and the old portion.

 

Mr. Norris asked if “full connectivity” means that the side of the building will be connected 31’ on the other addition.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that  full connectivity means that you don’t have to leave the building to change your location to another part of the structure.

 

Mr. Norris asked what “leave the building” means.

 

Mr. Nearing noted, that means to go outside and physically walk around. 

 

Mr. Norris asked if a 10’ wide enclosed hallway be connected.

 

Mr. Nearing noted Staff would have to look at that, the applicant has been told that the structures have to be attached.  It has to be one structure, under one roof.

 

Mr. Spinola noted that if the applicant is squaring the inside of the lot, instead of on the 5th side, it would make it a much better transition.

 

Mr. Nearing noted there will be an indent, but the applicant does not want to be right up on 5th Street.  If you are right up on the right-of-way line that is not much room between you and vehicles.

 

Mr. Beigel asked if the code states the setback is to be 5’.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the Code states 15’ for a side street yard.

 

Mr. Beigel asked about the house next door.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the side setback is 5’.  The applicant is asking for  one (1) variance,  and it has to meet all the other setbacks.

 

Mr. Norris asked Mr. Nearing if Staff is asking for a 2nd variance.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that was correct.

 

Mr. Placencia asked about executing a legal document.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the applicant’s house currently encroaches about 4” into the right-of-way for 5th Street and because it is located in the City’s right-of-way, Staff wants to make sure that the applicant presents a document that says if the house is ever destroyed in any manner, that they will not build back into the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Placencia asked where the document was.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the document had not been prepared yet.

 

 

 

Mr. Morgeson noted it is a condition that the applicant will have to execute as a condition to the granting of the variance.  And again, if conditions are imposed on any variances that are otherwise granted by the Board, and the applicant fails to meet the conditions, the variance would be revoked and they would be out of compliance.

 

Mr. Placencia noted it is an odd shaped lot.  He wanted to know if there have been any problems with the neighbors.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the property has been posted, the certified mailings were sent out to the surrounding property owners and to his knowledge, no negative responses have been received.

 

Mr. Placencia noted he was not clear about why a legal document is needed.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted one of the factors that are considered by the Board is whether or not the variance request that is being made is the minimum need to otherwise stay within compliance and if the structure is removed, thus arguably, is the requirement that the existing encroachment be repeated. He would essentially be signing off on an acknowledgement that says the structure is in the setback and if the structure is removed, the problem will not be repeated and will build within the structure of the setback requirements.  Because the structure is there and there is no setback in this area, I am acknowledging that if this existing structure is removed or any part of it, that we won’t violate the setback in the future of a rebuild. 

 

Mr. Norris asked if the setback would be 8’ in the variance that is requested tonight.

 

Mr. Nearing noted it would be 8’ because it is a new structure.

 

Mr. Beigel noted the property is almost 75 years old.

 

Chairperson Paulson asked if she could make a motion.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted it was appropriate to let one of the Board members make a motion.  He said whatever motion is made, to make sure the conditions in the Staff Report of March 2, 2006 are included in the motion. 

 

Mr. Beigel made a motion to approve the variance with the following condition:

 

            The applicant shall execute a legal document provided by the City Attorney to permit the existing encroachment to continue until the encroaching portion of the structure is in any way removed.  All 6-criteria have been met.

 

Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.

 

All Ayes 5-0 to approve the variance.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted the property is in the name of Mr. Anthony Cardone, the applicant, so it is not a matter of taking ownership to a part of that property.  It is the usage and the setback. 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         (b)        CASE NUMBER:                        2006-08

                        OWNER:                                   Leonard P. Robinson

                        APPLICANT/AGENT:                Leonard P. Robinson     

                        ADDRESS:                                806 Virginia Avenue                                           

                       

VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS:   Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Table III-4 to allow a reduced front setback in the R-2 Zoning District.

 

Mr. Nearing presented the case.  All 6-criteria have been met.  Staff recommends approval.

 

Mr. Morgeson noted that Item #4 states that a variance or action is the minimum request.  The Land Development Code states that a factor of discussion with the applicant and the City should discuss what the actual minimum request is in order to make use of the property with regard to a variance.  There has been discussion that a 2’ variance is needed to comply with the setback.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the applicant has asked for a 2’ variance.  The actual living area in the house, which includes the enclosed front porch, is 15’ from the front property line; the applicants may wish they would have come in for a variance for 10’ instead of 2’ because they may decide they wanted to square off the house too.  Staff is recommending the Board grant a 10’ variance instead of a 2’ variance, which would allow them to match up with the front of the existing structure. 

Mr. Beigel asked if the porch was enclosed and if that would be part of the living area.

 

Mr. Nearing noted the porch was totally enclosed, which makes it living area under the Florida Building Code. 

 

Mr. Beigel asked if lots 3-7 belonged to the applicant. 

 

Ms. Linda Penny noted she is also the owner of the property and they own lots 3-10.  She noted they owned the subject house, the land in between, and the house next door.

 

Mr. Beigel asked how far on the right hand side of the new addition is there going to be for the lot line.

 

Mr. Robinson noted there would be 5’.

 

Mr. Beigel asked where the concrete drive would be.

 

Ms. Penny noted the concrete drive would not be covered.

 

Mr. Morgeson requested that Ms. Penny state her name for the record.

 

Ms. Penny stated her name for the record and noted she was also the property owner.

 

Mr. Norris asked if the new addition would be a garage.

 

Ms. Penny noted it would be a great room.

 

Mr. Paulsen noted the existing driveway appears to be inside the area where the proposed addition will be.

 

 

 

Mr. Robinson noted it is and the slab goes back further, but will become part of the driveway. 

 

Mr. Paulsen asked if that portion would be removed to pour the pad for the addition or is that going to be part of the pad.

 

Mr. Robinson noted it would have to be torn out and pour footer in there.

 

Mr. Norris asked if that driveway went to anything or is it only used for getting onto the property.

 

Mr. Robinson noted it was a 4” slab and would not support it.  It would have to be cut out, have steel reinforcements and then concrete would have to be poured.

 

Mr. Placencia asked where the 10’ variance and the 2’ variance would be.

 

Mr. Robinson noted the 10’ comes all the way out to the existing house.  Originally, he was going to bring the addition to the first corner where the existing porch used to be, the main body of the house jets out further than the main part of the porch.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that the 2’ variance would be to build the proposed addition; however, Staff’s position is that the existing structure lies within 15’ of the front property line; therefore, it is Staff’s position that a 10’ variance is needed to validate the existing structure.  This is now considered living area.   

 

Mr. Placencia asked if the proposed construction will be shifted forward even with the front of the house.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the applicants will be building this proposal, but Staff feels it would be a good idea to grant the variance to validate the existing structure.  Also, if in the future, the applicants decided they wanted to add to the front porch, they would have the variance in place so that they could continue their front porch across the addition.  Mr. Nearing noted it is still located in the setback and is attached to the principal structure, so it was still in violation, when it was made into living area, then it became a more significant issue, because now, if the house is ever destroyed, that is living area and it will be allowed to replace it as a footprint and including into the setback.  Staff is saying if the applicants have plans in the future and instead of having to come back and ask the Board for a second variance, that they would be allowed to continue their front porch, have the same setback as the existing across the front of the new addition.

 

Mr. Beigel asked the applicants if they were thinking about doing that.

 

Mr. Robinson explained he would like to add a front porch to the front and make the house look like it did originally.  When he bought the house, the porch was already enclosed.  The extra variance would be nice.  The driveway is in front of the house. 

 

Chairperson Paulson asked if the variance was approved for 10’, if that would be the minimum.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that would be Staff’s position.

 

Mr. Spinola asked how #4 would be worded for a motion.

 

 

 

Mr. Morgeson noted the Board should determine if the 6-criteria have been met.  With regard to #4, the City has injected a sub issue; to what degree would the variance be appropriate use for the land.  Whatever the motion would be, whether it would be 2’ request which is the initial request for the applicant for the proposed addition or whether it would be the reasonable use of the land, building or structure something more significant. 

 

Mr. Spinola made a motion to approve the variance that has met the 6-criteria, in accordance with #4 that the Board supports the 10’ setback variance for reason of the structure to square off the existing of the building with the porch and that would make the minimum request. 

 

Mr. Beigel seconded the motion to approve the variance with 10’ minimum setback.

 

All Ayes 5-0 to approve the variance with a 10’minimum setback.    

 

 

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