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
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
LOCATION: ST. CLOUD
NINTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Kimberly
Paulson (Chair) P
Beigel (Vice) EA
Paulsen (Alt) P
In absence of Carl Beigel, Robert Paulsen is acting as a
STAFF MEMBERS: Mr. John
Morgeson, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 12, 2006
Ms. Paulson noted on Page 5, about ¾ of the page down, for
clarification, she requested that a correction be made on her last name, it
should be Paulson.
Mr. Placencia made a motion to approve the minutes as
Mr. Norris seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved with the corrections noted.
(a) CASE NUMBER: 2006-13
& Steve Smith
& Steve Smith
Pawley’s Loop North
VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: The
Applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Ordinance #2003-68, page 8 of 20 to allow a reduced rear
setback for a pool and pool enclosure in the PUD Zoning District.
Mr. Groenendaal and Mr. Smith were
sworn in at this time.
Mr. Groenendaal presented the
case. All criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Norris asked Mr. Groenendaal
why this was coming before the BOA and why the PUD could not be changed.
Mr. Groenendaal noted that the
Staff Report that Mr. Nearing wrote alludes that the applicant could have
requested a PUD amendment but that would have changed the zoning for the whole
POD of Stevens where this is a particular case for the Board of Adjustment and is
a better fit where you have a site specific hardship. The neighbors could
request the same thing but they just built their pools smaller. The applicant
is the last homeowner who backs up against the conservation area.
Mr. Norris asked if the other 3 neighbors
Mr. Groenendaal noted that was
Mr. Norris asked if the other
pools had been designed to stay within the 10’ setback.
Mr. Groenendaal noted that is
Mr. Norris asked if any work had
been started on this pool.
Mr. Steven Smith introduced
himself to the Board. Mr. Smith explained that their 3 neighbors had their
pools put in and are not full size pools, they are called cocktail pools and
his basically is mainly for the decking to extend into the 10’. The pool
company drafted the drawing but no work has been started as of yet.
Ms. Paulson asked if there was
any feedback from the neighbors or problems with the setback.
Mr. Groenendaal noted Staff has
not received any negative feedback.
Mr. Norris asked if the pool
could be built 1 ½’ smaller.
Mr. Groenendaal noted that could
be the determination of the Board. Staff is pointing out that the applicant is
on a 50’ conservation easement and that is the special circumstance and Staff
feels this is the grounds for granting this variance.
Mr. Smith noted his pool was not
any bigger than anyone else’s but the floor plan of the house is 2800 square
feet and sits back deeper on the lot. The neighbor has a smaller home but the
lot is much larger.
Ms. Paulson asked Mr. Morgeson if
the Board had enough members.
Mr. Morgeson explained that it
would take 3 members voting in favor of the variance for approval. The Board’s
size was reduced down to the size of a 5-member regular Board in which the
quorum would be three.
Mr. Groenendaal noted
historically the Chairperson has given the option thatif there was not a full
Board to continue until there was a full sitting Board in the event it would
result in failure and as such would then create some consequence to the
applicant procedurally. That can be made available to the applicant.
Mr. Morgeson explained to the
applicant that three (3) affirmative votes and there is one member that is
missing from the Board in terms of voting. When there is less than 100%
attendance, the applicant is given the option to go forward or to table it for
Mr. Smith noted he would proceed
with the case.
Mr. Norris noted that he would
like to refer to #2 and #3 criteria that are outlined in the Staff Report: #2:
The Special Circumstances do not result of the actions of the applicant. The
applicant chose that size pool and that size deck to put back there. He could choose
a smaller pool and he would be within the setbacks; #3: Literal
Interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations. Numerous homes
in the Stevens Plantations have pools. None of the neighbors have come forward
asking for a variance on a setback.
Mr. Morgeson noted under the Land
Development Code, the Board cannot consider neighboring properties in the same
area or the conforming properties in another area of the City when deciding
this case. The Board is to consider this application to the 6-criteria with
the facts presented to come up with a decision.
Mr. Smith noted the majority of
the houses that have pools went through the builder and are basically custom
designed and are cocktail pools.
Mr. Paulsen noted on page #1 of
the Staff Report it refers to a pool and a screen enclosure. He asked if the
pool would have a screen enclosure.
Mr. Smith noted it would be an
open pool with no screen enclosure.
Mr. Placencia noted his concerns
dealing with zoning issues in this and other developments and going before the
BOA vs. the Planning Board.
Mr. Morgeson noted this was an
avenue that was available to the applicant and the most direct and conducive to
the site specific issue and as opposed to a raising issues about the entire development
through the zoning issue which is broader in Staff’s perception. The Board is
to consider this application to the 6-criteria with the facts presented to come
up with a decision.
Mr. Norris asked, if a home
builder had 20 lots, could that go before the Board of Adjustment instead of
the Planning Board.
Mr. Groenendaal noted that the
PUD would have to be amended.
Mr. Morgeson noted non-conforming
properties within your area or conforming properties in another district or
neighborhood in determining whether something should or shouldn’t be granted a
variance. The LDC really wants to be target into the property, lined up with
the criteria. It tries to keep a narrow focus on the variance of the subject
property, site specific.
Chairperson Paulson asked if
there was a motion.
Mr. Morgeson noted whatever
motion is made; expressly state that the 6-criteria were considered.
Mr. Placencia made a motion to
approve the variance. All 6-critera have been met.
Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion.
All Ayes 4-0 to approve the
The variance was approved 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 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)
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)
Taylor, Secretary City of St. Cloud
of Adjustment 1300 Ninth Street
957-7203 St. Cloud, FL 34769