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

ROLL CALL:                                    Kimberly Paulson       (Chair)            EA

                                                            Carl Beigel                 (Vice)              P

                                                            Pete Placencia                                    P

                                                            Greg Norris                                        P

                                                            William Spinola                                  P                     

                                                            Robert Paulsen          (Alt)                 P

                                                            Deanna Merrill          (Alt)                 EA


Ms. Kimberly Paulson is absent and Mr. Carl Beigel will be Vice Chairman for this meeting.


STAFF MEMBERS:                         David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Secretary


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:            February 14, 2007


Mr. Morgeson noted on Page 2, about 7 lines from the bottom, Mr. Morgeson noted the sentence should read, was 6 months, unless another time frame was prescribed for implementation of the variance.  That’s how it should read. 


Vice Chairman Beigel asked for motion.


Mr. Norris made a motion to approve the minutes from February 14, 2007 with the correction from Mr. Morgeson.


Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion.


All Ayes 5-0 to approve the minutes.




            1.  Request for Variances


(a) CASE NUMBER:            2007-04

APPLICANT:                   Timothy Wright

OWNER:                          Roy and Becky Eyre

ADDRESS:                      1515 Dakota Avenue


VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS:  Who are requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Table III-4 to allow a reduced minimum lot width in the
R-2 Zoning District.


Mr. Nearing presented case.  See Staff Report.  All 6-criteria have been met.  Staff recommends Approval.


Mr. Morgeson advised the Board that there is a memorandum provided by Staff dated March 28th, summarizing the 6-criteria.   The Land Development Code requires the Board to consider in making a decision on the applicant’s request.


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if there was a similar case.


Mr. Morgeson reminded the Board that each case is individual and the Board not consider other similar cases.


Mr. Nearing noted one of the rules of zoning is if there are an inordinate number of variance requests, because of a certain, specific requirement, it’s typically time to look at the code and determine whether or not that restriction is still pertinent. 


Mr. Norris asked if this variance is approved, will the existing residents fall within the setbacks.


Mr. Nearing noted it would be fully conforming.


Mr. Norris noted it looked kind of tight along the property line.


Mr. Nearing noted it was right on the line.


Mr. Norris asked if all that was needed was the 12 ½ variance?


Mr. Nearing confirmed the 12 ½ variance was needed.


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if the applicant had any comments.


Mr. Timothy Wright, applicant, introduced himself to the Board and noted he is proposing to build 3-4 bedroom, 2 bath home, approximately 1600 square feet.


Mr. Placentia asked if he resided in the existing property.


Mr. Wright noted he did not live there.


Mr. Placentia asked if he was leasing the property.


Mr. Wright noted he was not.


Mr. Placencia asked if the property is vacant.


Mr. Wright noted it was.


Mr. Placencia asked about the elevation.


Mr. Wright presented a drawing to the Board for the record.


Mr. Paulsen asked if the lot would be splitting Lot # 19 and #20 from #16, #17, and #18.


Mr. Nearing noted that is basically what will be done.  These are 5 previously platted lots which were joined in one ownership. 


Mr. Paulsen asked if the new house would be facing Dakota Avenue. 


Mr. Wright noted it would be.


Mr. Paulsen asked how the other house has access if that was the driveway and front entrance to the house behind it.


Mr. Wright noted it would be on the side of the existing home. 


Mr. Jeff Farmer introduced himself to the Board and noted he lives at 1422 Dakota Avenue.  He noted he had been a resident for approximately 8-10 years.  Mr. Farmer noted his home was on 3 lots, a corner lot.  He noted this property was bought for to make a profit.  This will bring the property values down. 


Mr. Placentia asked about water standing on the property.


Mr. Farmer noted his home was an older home and wants to maintain the value of his home and maintain the value of the neighborhood. 


Vice Chairman asked if there were other homes on 50’ lots.


Mr. Farmer noted he could not do anything about the existing homes; the applicant does not wish to live there but wants to build and sell to make a profit.


Vice Chairman asked if there was an existing home on the lot now.


Mr. Farmer noted there was not.


Mr. Norris asked if he would do anything to the existing home. 


Mr. Wright noted he would be re-siding the property, installing new windows, re-roofing and also some additional landscaping.  He noted he bought the property for $185,000 and the property will be listed for $225,000 - $235,000.  This projected property will be listed for $256,000 - $275,000 price range. 


Mr. Paulsen asked if the elevation would be the same as the existing home and the front be setback the same.


Mr. Kenny Rife noted his lot adjoins the applicant’s property.  He noted he lives on the corner, 1501 Dakota Avenue, and his property adjoins the applicant’s property.  He noted he had 4 lots, 100 x 150 lots.  He noted he had been there since 1989 and bought his property from his Mom.  He noted his house is in the center of the lot.  He does not want a home put on 50’ lot.


Mr. Morgeson noted this is an issue of the lot size.  The Board needs to focus if the 6-criteria have been made. 


Mr. Rife noted that the elevation will be a problem and cannot have the same elevation as the existing home.


Mr. Morgeson noted this is a pretty narrow issue with regard of the variance of the lot size.  It is a matter of whether the 6-criteria have been met.  


Mr. Rife noted he feels it is a mistake to let investors come in to just make a profit.   


Mr. Ralph Farmer of 1500 Dakota Avenue noted Mr. Wright bought the lot to make a profit.  This is not the best interest of the City or the neighborhood.  Mr. Farmer has been in Florida since 1948 and bought his house to be here for the rest of his life.  Mr. Farmer noted he feels there will be a burden on the City to grant this variance.  Mr. Farmer noted it would flood every time it rains.    


Vice Chairperson Beigel noted one house in the neighborhood would not cause a flooding problem.


Ms. Maniese.  Ms. Maniese noted she is present to represent her father who is on 1516 Vermont Avenue.  Her father is right behind the lot where the applicant is planning to purchase.  Ms. Maniese stated the notice that was received; it shows that the property line is on the mark, and asked if that where the property line is. 


Mr. Nearing noted it extends to the east side of the alley.


Ms. Maniese asked if it was exactly where it is and won’t go any further.


Mr. Nearing noted that is correct.


Ms. Maniese noted one issue is when there is a drainage issue.  If the applicant is going to have to elevate his property, the water will run into her father’s back yard.


Mr. Nearing noted the City has two licensed engineers and their job is to look at new construction and to ensure, based on their engineer experience and know how, that when the water runs off these lots, if they’re altered, because they have to be raised, that the water will run not to intensify the flooding.  A lot of times, the water used to actually run onto this property and wasn’t supposed to and now it has no-where to go and it collects.  Their job is to ensure all the concerns over flooding don’t happen.  Their job is to look at the lot, when the house pad is put on it, and sometimes they recommend that it not be built up to the code, but that they get a surveyor’s certificate of elevation and that it be lower in order to prevent some of these issues.  This will be evaluated in the field by the Civil Engineer inspectors.  A lot of these concerns regarding flooding, he does not think will pan out.  A lot of work on drainage has been done because the drainage issue has been addressed.


Mr. Placencia noted that Ms. Maniese’s father has flooding already.


Mr. Nearing noted he did not feel he could comment on this. 


Mr. Farmer asked when this went before the City Council.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Board of Adjustment is the Board that will approve or disapprove the variance.


Mr. Farmer noted the City will have to do something to take care of drainage.  This is strictly for money and is not concerned about the drainage. He thinks the Board should not consider approving the variance.


Mr. Morgeson asked Vice Chairman Beigel if he could ask that someone be appointed to speak and move on to a new case.


Ms. Maniese asked if the applicant has already met the requirements, that everything had been set and the Board has made a decision or the Board will listen to the concerns of the citizens.


Mr. Morgeson noted this is an application for a variance request to the Board.  The Board will make a determination as to whether or not the 6-criteria have or have not been satisfied based on the application and the facts and the evidence presented and the Board will make the decision.  The Board will make the decision.  It will not go anywhere within the City’s administrative process other than this Board.


Ms. Maniese asked if the applicant has met the 6-criteria.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Board would discuss that and makes a motion and a decision as to whether or not that’s been met.


Ms. Maniese thanked the Board.


Mr. Morgeson asked if the applicant wanted to speak to the Board.


Mr. Wright noted they are not a “purchase and burn” operation.  The people that bought this property are missionaries and basically what they’re doing is to raise funds to support themselves and they are planning on doing this with the highest degree of integrity.  Mr. Wright noted he cared about St. Cloud, he lives in St. Cloud.  Mr. Wright would not demean the property values in St. Cloud.  They knew when they purchased the property; they would have to get a variance.  He purchased the property with the intent of improving both units. He has met with the Planning Department just on this unit and will have to move forward with the plans that the City will approve.  There is no intent to build a house and sell it for the most amounts, using the cheapest materials and leaving everyone around with the problems.


Mr. Morgeson noted it would be an advisable unless the Board wants to take additional comments, to close public discussion and then the Board can discuss and work towards a motion.


Mr. Norris noted each of the criteria should be discussed.


Mr. Morgeson noted prior to the changes to the Land Development Code, the applicant would not have to have made application for a variance, but back in 2001, once the changes were made to the LDC, created or increased the minimum lot width by the City and at that point, that’s why we’re here tonight with regard to this circumstances and that is what is being pointed out by Staff.


Mr. Norris noted #1 has been met.


Mr. Norris noted #2 was a result of the actions of the City.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Board could continue working through the criteria, but it may make some sense to discuss what, if any issues are troubling the Board with regard to achieve one or any of these elements and if so, focusing on those and whoever will be comfortable in making a motion, obviously, the motion should expressly state that the 6-factors have been considered and either all have or some or none have been met, in support of your motion.


Mr. Norris noted he thinks #6 should be discussed. 


Mr. Spinola noted he had a problem with #3.


Mr. Morgeson read the Land Development Code concerning #3. 


Mr. Spinola noted the applicant purchased the property knowing what the zoning of the property was, so they created the situation themselves, in his opinion.  The City did not create the problem; the zoning was already done so he doesn’t see how the applicant has any commonly enjoyed by other people because the other people are living there.  A lot of the cases, the people are living there and they are requesting things.  This is a totally different item and doesn’t feel the applicant meets the criteria. 


Mr. Spinola noted this would fall back to #2 also. 


Mr. Norris noted the special conditions do result because the lot was bought knowing that it was non-conforming or what they wanted to do would be non-conforming.


Mr. Norris noted #6 should be discussed because there was a lot of discussion about how the residents thought this would hurt the neighborhood.  He wanted to know how the rest of the Board feels.


Vice Chairman Beigel noted he drove by and there is no conformity as far as sizes of the lots.  There are all different sizes.    


Mr. Paulsen noted even if the applicant built that 2nd home, and sells it, the existing home that is there now is empty.  There is no guarantee that anyone will buy the house.  His main concern is flooding both houses could sit there empty and not be sold.  


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if this area had a flooding problem.


Mr. Nearing noted he was not aware of any flooding issues.


Mr. Morgeson noted all 6-criteria have to be met before the Board can move forward with a motion and approval for the variance.  The applicant will require 3-affirmative votes of this Board.


Mr. Norris noted he thought #6 has been met.  There are safeguards to help protect from flooding.  He thought a new house would be good for the neighborhood.  He is concerned about #3 and the applicant knew that this property is non-conforming.


Mr. Placencia noted this is something commonly enjoyed by several people.


Mr. Spinola is having a problem with buying the house and the sole reason is not to live there but just to go in there and build a second house. 


Mr. Placencia noted criteria #3 says; not granting the variance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. It doesn’t require that the applicant live there or have been there at the time that when the LDC was amended in 2001, there would not have been a problem.


Vice Chairman Beigel noted the Board could not decide whether you live in a house that is purchased or not.


Mr. Morgeson noted unless there is an exchange that needs to happen in terms of the facts that have been presented, as they may apply to any of these criteria, if not, I would like to discourage you from soliciting an opinion about how you will vote on these thing.  He noted he thought it was best to discuss the facts that apply to each of the criteria and then someone go with a motion in whatever direction they think is appropriate and let the board respond to it. 


Vice Chairman Beigel asked for a motion and have that as part of the motion.


Mr. Morgeson noted that the motion can be seconded or die for a lack of a second, or be voted down or any number of discussions.


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if there could be discussion after the motion.


Mr. Morgeson noted there could be discussion after the second motion.


Vice Chairman Beigel asked for a motion. 


Mr. Norris made a motion to approve the variance, having found that the 6-criteria have been considered and met.


Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion.


Mr. Morgeson noted the Chairman can call for a discussion or a vote.


Mr. Placentia noted he thought the drainage issue will be taken care of.


Mr. Norris noted the issues he had with criteria #6 has been overcome. 


Mr. Spinola noted he still thought criteria #3 was created by the applicant.


The vote was 3 Ayes 2 Nays


Mr. Robert Paulsen – Aye


Mr. Pete Placencia – Aye


Mr. Greg Norris -  Aye


Vice Chairman Beigel – Nay


Mr. William Spinola – Nay


The vote was 3-2 in favor of approving the variance.


2.  Request for Variances


(a) CASE NUMBER:            2007-05

APPLICANT:                   Eric Blackford

OWNER:                          David Fine

ADDRESS:                      1102 10th Street


VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Who is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Section 3.20.2 (C) to reduce the side yard setback from ten feet to three feet. 


A letter from Mr. Blackford (see attached) was presented the Board requesting a continuance of the case until May 9th.


Mr. Placentia made a motion to continue the case to May 9, 2007.


Mr. Norris seconded the motion to continue the case.


All Ayes 5-0 to continue the case to May 9th, 2007.


The case will be rescheduled for May 9, 2007.


            3.  Request for Variances


(a) CASE NUMBER:            2007-06

APPLICANT:                   William Matthews

OWNER:                          C. Gordon Matthews

ADDRESS:                      715 & 711 Maryland Avenue


VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Who is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Table III-4 to allow less lot width and less lot area than is required.


Mr. Nearing presented the case.  (See Staff Report).  Staff recommends Approval.  All 6-criteria have been met.


Mr. Norris asked about the elevation showing a 3-story house being built on the 47’ lot.


Mr. Nearing noted it is a 2 ½ story and if you look at the elevation, the windows on the top are more ornamental, kind of atrium windows.


Mr. Norris asked if there were any height restrictions.


Mr. Nearing noted it is 35’.  He noted it appears from the drawing, an e-wall, like a parapet, and would not fully count towards the height of the house.  Staff would look at the actually roof line. 


Mr. Paulsen asked if there was an alleyway in the back of the property.


Mr. Nearing noted this is a block which is in the Land Development Code which has a special 10’ setback from the rear property line.  This was done many years ago, to try and correct a problem that was being encountered.  There have been great deals of discussion about this.  This is not an “alley”; this is not a travel-way.  This is what is knows as a special setback.  Sometimes it’s because there are power lines, and they created it so that the power lines would be accessible.  Some people are using these as travel-ways, however, that is an issue between property owners that are doing so. 


Mr. Norris asked if that was just a turn around.


Mr. Nearing noted it appears to be nothing more than a turn around.


Mr. Bill Matthews introduced himself to the Board and noted this is an alley.  Mr. Matthews noted his parents were in the existing home.  He and his dad built the home.  The property has been in the family since the 1930’s.    


Mr. Norris asked what his intension for the house.


Mr. Matthews noted his parents are older and are having a difficult time living alone.  They are going to build a handicap suite on the first floor of the new house for his mom and dad and he and his wife will move into that house and his sister will move into their mom and dad’s house so everyone can take care of the parents.


Mr. Norris asked if this was a shared driveway between the two houses.


Mr. Matthews noted it is right now.  There is enough room for two separate driveways. 


Mr. Norris asked if there had to be two separate driveways.


Mr. Nearing noted they would be required to install some time of conventional parking system, a paved parking system of some sort that will accommodate 2 vehicles.


Mr. Norris asked if there would have to be 2 separate street-cuts. 


Mr. Nearing noted there are no street cut there.  This is being used as a travel-way and must be accessing through the rear of the property and would need two rear access points.  The issue being that if in the future, if they wanted to sell one of the homes, then you will have an issue of having a non-family member being introduced into the mix and then civil issues could arise.


Mr. Matthews noted he would be willing to do whatever the requirements might be for a driveway.  


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if you could come up off of Maryland with no driveway.


Mr. Matthews noted right now it’s a gravel driveway and has a wide turning radius and has been gravel all along and his dad has never put in a concrete driveway.


Vice Chairman Beigel asked if it was all family.


Mr. Matthews noted it was.


Mr. Placentia made a motion to approve the variance. All 6-criteria have been met. 


Mr. Morgeson noted just for clarification, the motion is for both variances to be granted with regards to the lot width and the square footage of the lot area.


Mr. Placencia noted the motion includes both variances to be granted with regards to the lot width and the square footage of the lot area.


Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.


All Ayes to approve the motion 5-0.


The motion was approved 5-0.


Mr. Nearing addressed Vice Chairman Beigel and noted he wanted to make sure that Mr. Matthews is aware that once it is established that there was in fact another home on the other two lots, that the Board has just allowed him to create, through the location of the stub-outs; they will be entitled to full impact fee credits.


            3.  Request for Variances


(a) CASE NUMBER:            2007-07

APPLICANT:                   Robert J. Smidt

OWNER:                          Robert Smidt

ADDRESS:                      1385 17th Street


VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Who is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Table III-4 to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks from 25 feet to 5 feet? 


This case will be re-advertised for May 9, 2007.  No action taken on this case.
















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


BOA Minutes


Proofed by John