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.
CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NINTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Kimberly
Paulson (Chair) P
Beigel (Vice) P
Paulsen (Alt) P
Merrill (Alt) UA
STAFF MEMBERS: David
Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning;
Groenendaal, Senior Planner;
Morgeson, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 11, 2007
The minutes of April 11, 2007 were not included in packet for this meeting. They will be
included in the packet for the June 11, 2007 meeting.
All Ayes 5-0 to review the
minutes at the next meeting on June 13, 2007.
1. Request for
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.
Mr. Jeff Higgins presented the
case. Staff evaluated the project for the 6-criteria that they must address in
order to be considered to be approved for a variance for this code
requirement. Staff recommended Denial for this variance request.
introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Blackford presented binders to the Board
for review. Mr. Blackford noted the first thing that is seen in the handout is a
couple of pictures showing the property as it looked in December, 2006 and as
it looks today. There is quite a change that the owners have made to that
property. Next, you will see the real tell on this, when we talk about the
canyon effect, when Mr. Higgins spoke of. The property along here abuts a 90’
right-of-way. It’s not a typical 50’ right-of-way that is found throughout
most of the state streets within the City. He noted this picture demonstrates
this. The next picture shows the subject area to be effected by this
variance. The picture that is pictured will be moved 7’ closer to the road.
asked Mr. Blackford if it was the first picture or second picture that he was
noted that the picture is titled Subject Property – Area affected by Variance
Request - As you can see, the building behind the property does almost abut the
right-of-way line. They are seeking to move the fence to be basically in line
with that building and 3’ off the right-of-way line and bring it forward up to
the closest corner that you see of the building. They are looking on
terminating the fence and go into the building at that point. He did some
research on the Internet on what the canyon effect is. He said he would go
into that in his comments. There are some examples of some fencing that is
being considered. He drove around the City and is thinking about putting a
vinyl fencing up or some kind of combination masonry/column fence that will be
constructed along there. These are some examples of what they would look
like. The last page is a blown up sight plan. It has been outlined in orange
where the fence will go. The applicant does not want to run it up to the front
property corner, but would like to run it to where the front planter is as
something the public can enjoy. This adds to the aesthetics of the building.
In going through Staff’s notes, in Item #1 Mr. Nearing speaks about a fence
currently being there. The fence is temporary. The owner feels to maximize
the use of the property, specifically the rear and east side yards; he needs to
have the fence moved closer to the sidewalk. The requested fencing along Florida
Avenue will allow an additional 1350 square feet of yard to be enclosed
inside the fence, therefore, be enjoyed by people on the property there. The
owner is also asking for a 7’ instead of a 10’ variance. He does not want to
go all the way to the sidewalk because he wants to leave a landscape buffer
between the fence and the sidewalk. As for the canyon effect that Staff refers
to, Staff refers to this as one of the main reasons to deny this request. A
canyon effect refers to the definition of a canyon effect. He advised the
Board they could refer to the handout and there are some articles as well as some
pictures of what true canyon effect is, that he has found. (See Binder/handout
material) The fenced in area will be Item #3 - the current owner purchased the
property for 3 years. The proposed location, if the variance is granted, will
be 23’ from the edge of the pavement. Add to that another 10’ or so for the
on-street parking space and you’re over 30’ from the drive-isle on Florida
Avenue. This is not a typical road; this is a very wide right-of-way. The
canyon effect just doesn’t seem to apply here. Item #3, the hardship is the
result of a lot size and a building placement on the lot, neither of which does
the current owner have any control over. The current owner purchased the
property 3 years ago and has decided at this time to enclose the back yard.
asked if the fence was up before or after the purchase.
noted it was after he purchased the property.
asked if the fence was just put up.
noted about 4-6 weeks ago. It is a brand new fence around the property. The
current property owner feels that in order to secure the property in that
neighborhood, he needs to have this fence around the property. The owner would
like to expand it out and include this additional land.
asked if the current fence is a privacy fence.
noted it was and it was recently constructed and is only a temporary and was
put up to make sure the back area enclosed.
asked if there would be an exit or entrance from that wall that the applicant will
noted there would be a drive-gate there for the driveway so the backyard can be
accessible with vehicles. There will be one and if more are needed per code,
it can be moved, but another man-gate can be installed somewhere else on the
property, that can be done as well. There are two man-gates, one on the west
side and one on the east side, as well as the drive-gate.
asked if anyone from the City could address this situation but was there a
permit for this fence.
noted there was a permit.
referred to Item #6 – on Staff’s notes, the canyon effect was discussed. As
far as the health, safety and welfare issues that Staff mentions in the report
he is not aware of any, and Staff has not made him aware of any that might to
bear on this decision.
asked what the hardship will be.
noted the fence cannot be built any further forward and still make use of that
side yard there because it will cut off on the stairwell that comes down the
noted what the applicant wanted to do is shut the stairwell off.
explained that if the fence is added and it would add to security. The
stairwell goes up the stairs to the rooms upstairs.
asked if there would be a gate.
noted there would be a gate and it is an illusion of security like any privacy
asked what the upstairs was used for.
noted it is a rooming house.
asked if the tenants enter from that back entrance.
noted they did.
asked if it could be a fire hazard if there was a gate in front of the exit.
noted according to the Fire Marshall it would not.
Paulson asked if there was parking behind the fence.
noted there is some parking and a shed has been installed, there is a garden
area, and picnic tables.
asked if there was parking on the street.
noted there is.
noted this might be a good time to remind the Board the 6-criteria under the
Land Development Code, must be independently considered and answered in the
affirmative in the event the Board wants to grant the variance.
asked to hear from Staff to explain the canyon effect from the City’s point of
asked the applicant if the fence that comes in from the sidewalk terminates at
the building that is in the back.
noted the fence terminates at the base of the stairwell. There is actually a
magnate that extends on down the same angle of the stairwell wall to where that
gate turns in. That is the termination of the fence at this point.
noted he was talking about the building that’s behind the property. Does the
fence terminate into that building.
noted it does not. The fence goes across the back. The property line is up
against that building. The power company and telephone company has access.
asked if the applicant would do the same with the new fence.
noted the new fence would not enclose any utilities.
asked if there would be walk space for people to walk in between the fence and
noted there would be.
asked if it would protrude out towards the sidewalk beyond the building that’s
behind the property.
noted it does not appear so.
asked if the fence would be vinyl.
noted upon approval of this variance, would probably move the current wood
fence out and eventually, the fence will be replaced with the vinyl fencing.
asked if the fence was in line with the planter up in the front.
noted it was in line with the wall behind the planter.
noted the wall of the planter looks like it is parallel with the fence right
noted it would be right in the middle of the planter.
noted it looked like the fence was in line with the planter.
noted the fence is 10’ off the property line and the wall is 10’4” off the
asked if it was 10’ off the property line now.
noted is 10’ off the property line.
asked if the Board approves the variance with the condition that the fence is
built out of a specific material as a condition and not wood.
noted he didn’t know if the owner could do immediately.
noted the LDC allows a variance, unless the Board gives it a different
implementation, it has to be implemented within 6 months, per the LDC.
noted the current fence would be left where it is. If the Board wants to make
a condition stating the fence will be built out of vinyl or a masonry, vinyl,
combination as outlined, the owner could do that within the next 6-months.
noted when the applicant bought the property, he was aware of the setbacks.
Why is the applicant coming back now.
noted the current owner purchased the property in 2004.
noted the current owner knew of the setback at that time.
noted if the owner looked into constructing a fence.
asked if there was another fence there before the wooden fence.
noted he did not think there was. The lot is only 50’ wide and that is a small
yard. The variance is for another 7’ of the yard in the back and will allow
security of the stairwell going up stairs.
Paulson noted there was another question about the canyon effect.
noted the when the canyon effect was brought up in the Staff report, Staff was
looking at it in the area it is located. Primarily, this operation is
operating as a residence and what we compared it to is more of an urban
setting, a downtown area, have extensive buildings and they’re showing canyon effect
where it’s basically closing in roadways and as you look further and further
down, there are big high-rises and look narrower and narrower. Staff is
attempting to show is with the fence moving closer to the edge of the property
line, it’s actually making that property expand closer to the public area, in
which in this case, would be the 3’ from the sidewalk. Not necessarily that
far away from where the edge of the pavement is, but are moving closer and
closer to the sidewalk, where that becomes public property. Staff outlined in
their recommendation that if the Board chooses to allow this variance, that the
height of the fence be limited to 3’. This would not visually obstruct the
pedestrians that would potentially be in that area but it would also aesthetically
be a little more pleasing than having a 6’ fence which is encroaching that much
further out into the public. Staff finds that the 10’ setback does allow for
the privacy that they have in the back yard and it was meant to still keep the
public right-of-way. Staff is still seeking DENIAL.
noted the drawings show that both sides of the road are basically the same
height. In this case, across the street, there’s only a 1-story building where
this is a 2-story building, he does not understand where the canyon effect
would take effect there.
noted that Staff is looking at the fence encroachment rather than the building
encroachment, thereby enclosing the property out more towards the street than
the building itself creating the canyon effect seeing that fence extend out to
Paulson asked how high the fence is.
noted it was 6’.
noted that he thought what Staff is saying in reference to the canyon effect is
it is the constriction of space into the setback from the property line, which
he understands the sidewalk area. The canyon effect is that space in regard to
the fence which narrows, from the City’s perspective, in their presentation,
the visibility both from the public sidewalk area as well as potential traffic
issues coming from that area as opposed to a New York City narrowing of the
thoroughfare. Could Staff confirm or disaffirm if he understood that
noted that is the point he was trying to make.
noted he didn’t see how it would obstruct the right-of-way.
noted he is looking more for the pedestrian obstruction than the vehicle
obstruction. If it was brought forward closer to 10th Street, then
yes, you would have that visual triangle that it was obstructed and would be
closer to the roadway, but the pedestrians would be more infringed than the
noted it is interesting that Planning is using the term encroachment. The plan
is to stay on the property and will not be encroaching onto a right-of-way.
The reason for a 6’ privacy fence is to maintain privacy from the general
public. Pedestrian traffic was never mentioned in the comments. Mr. Blackford
noted he understands how it can be crowded when walking down a 5’ wide sidewalk
and there is a fence right there and having to move over when passing someone.
What was brought up in Staff’s comments is traffic is affected by this. Mr.
Blackford maintains that with 50’ of pavement centered at 23’ to the fence,
there is no traffic issue, no constriction; it is a 6’ fence. When we set in
our vehicles, we set 3’ off the ground. He doesn’t understand the canyon
effect being mentioned here and then the pedestrian traffic. As far as the
term encroachment, that is a biasing term. The applicant is not encroaching on
anything, simply trying to make use of their property and getting a variance
through the land development code.
noted that fences are usually erected to keep something or someone out or
something or someone in. He asked the applicant if this building is a
noted it is a rooming house. There are 6-rooms in use for sleeping at this
time. The tenants usually recreate inside the fence in the back yard. This
house at one time was a serious drug house issue. That has stopped as of February 1, 2007. The current management has 0-tolerence for alcohol, drugs or tobacco on
the property. The fence is being erected to keep people out.
noted if you own property, you should be allowed to have privacy, what is the
intent of the owner long term.
noted he wanted to reiterate for the record, with to Mr. Placentia’s point,
want to make sure that in regard to this case, it has to be considered on to
itself, other cases cannot be considered. He wants to encourage the Board to
keep fixated on this application, this property and these 6-criteria.
noted in reference to Criteria #6, what is the owner’s intent and motivation long-term,
short-term plan with regard to capturing this property and enclosing it.
noted the intent of the owner is to operate the rooming house long term and
continue remodeling and improvements that have been made to the property in the
Paulson asked if there was anyone else to speak on this case.
noted Staff would allow a fence; it has to be set back 10’. With respect to
the comments of the use, the applicant is stating that this is a rooming
house. There is not an approved certificate of use for this property as of
yet. That is due to the fire marshal going and inspecting this property and
finding the fire code classifies this property as a dormitory. The LDC does
not have dormitory listed, thereby, a certificate of use cannot be issued.
This is an operation that is on-going and other issues need to be worked out.
That comes into play when Staff is evaluating this property. Primarily, Staff
has issued a permit. A permit for a fence can go on this property but just
have a specific 10’ setback.
asked if the property owner was operating without a license.
noted the thought it was advisable to stay off that issue. He noted he could
understand there being potential relevance to it but really think the narrow
issue is whether or not the property can receive a variance to the setback for
the location of this fence and if the 6-criteria are satisfied in the Boards
estimation and authorize it with whatever conditions, if any deemed appropriate,
if not, it would be denied. He advised the Board to stay away from some of the
other issues that are relevant, certainly to other aspects of the City’s
operation, but not for tonight’s case.
noted there is a long story that is behind this permit application. The
business moved in, they applied for a permit when they were notified they
needed to. Yes, they were cited by Code Enforcement about operating without
the occupational license, or tax and use certificate. It was immediately applied
for the permit, the application was made and it is now sitting on the desk over
there. The reason is there seems to be a loggerhead between the fire marshal
and his classification there because of the occupancy number, the number of
people, and the planning department unwilling to say what we are by their
code. He has taken steps and met with Major Hart. This issue is going to be
resolved very quickly hopefully and he stated, they would get through the
planning department and then go deal with the fire marshal. The Fire Marshall
has indicated he will not talk to us until we get through Planning. Planning
continues to tell us that until the Fire Marshal says something, they are not
going to do anything. Those are meetings that he had with planning just last
week. They have applied for the permit, it’s sitting on desks, we’ve got
something happening here between the Fire Department and Planning. When that’s
resolved, we will be fully permitted and will be legal.
noted he is glad the applicant said that, but that is not the issue.
asked if the applicant had a problem with a 3’ fence.
noted he would have a problem with a 3’ fence. It is not a privacy fence. It
is a decorative fence. He would be happy to agree to using the same materials
as the fence in the front yard. A 3’ fence affords none of the aspects of the
6’ privacy fence would.
Paulson asked if there were any questions.
noted it is up to the Board and whether or not the Board thinks the variance
should be approved or denied. The Board needs to move forward.
noted he had a problem with Criteria #6.
asked if the applicant had any objections of cutting the fence short of the
Mr. Blackford noted
the fence is already short of the stairwell. They would like to run up to the
corner of the house that is shown on the survey. Geometrically, it would look
better, it would allow the use of the side yard as well, between there and the
stairwell. There are two exits out the front of the building that come down
the stairwell inside the building. Those go right out to an un-gated fence.
advised the Board, unless they have questions for Staff, to close the public
hearing and for someone to make a motion based upon what they think is
appropriate and annunciate what they think and if seconded, it can be
discussed, and vote on it, if it doesn’t have a second, it will die for lack of
Paulson asked if there were any questions. That part of the meeting is
closed. She asked if there was a motion from the floor.
Mr. Beigel made
a motion 2007-05 that the 6-criteria have not been met and recommends this
variance should be denied.
noted the Board needs to call for a second and failing a second, the motion
Paulson asked for a second.
No response to
a second motion.
made a motion for 2007-05 has met the 6-criteria have been met and allow the
setback to be reduced from 10’ to 3’ without conditions.
asked if Mr. Spinola’s motion was in the affirmative.
noted it was.
asked if part of the motion was implementing any conditions or allowing the
setback to be reduced from 10’ to 3’.
noted it included allowing a setback.
asked without conditions.
noted without conditions.
seconded the motion.
No response to
noted there could be discussion.
Paulson asked if there was discussion for conditions.
noted he wanted to clarify. The motion from Mr. Spinola was the 6-criteria
have been met and that the variance be granted and it was seconded by Mr.
Paulsen. That is the motion now that’s up for discussion.
noted he disagrees because without conditions, the applicant can erect any type
of fence they want to. He is concerned about aesthetics and safety of the
residents. He noted he does not want the applicant to build the fence up to
the stairwell. He does not want the stairwell to be behind a 6’ fence.
noted that if there is another motion that is seconded, the Board must vote in
the order they’ve been seconded. Mr. Spinola’s motion and seconded by Mr.
Paulsen would be the first one taken up. A vote can be called for now or call
for another motion but that motion will be voted on first, unless Mr. Spinola
wants to amend his motion.
noted he would like to amend his motion that the existing fence be allowed to
be built out to the 3.9’ that would match the building behind it, with the
similar fence to what is in front, the white vinyl. The area in front of the
fence to be erected at 3’ picket type fence, with the opening at the sidewalk,
to be brought up to the flower box as requested.
asked Mr. Spinola to re-clarify his motion.
noted that basically allowing the existing fence to be moved up to that 3’9”,
from the property, to be at the same exact as the building behind them, so it
would be level with that, to where this one terminates. From where this one
terminates, allow the 3’fence to come forward to the flower box that would
match with the same materials as the fence in the front and to be equal and the
same exact 3.9’ or whatever that exact number is from the building behind it.
asked if there was any particular description in terms of the fence itself.
He asked if there was any particular description in terms of the fence itself.
noted it would match the front material.
asked if there was a height.
noted there was a 3’ to the front piece, a 6’ to the rear piece.
noted that was Mr. Spinola’s amended motion.
Paulson asked for a second. (Request by R. Paulsen that correction be made
from Paulsen to Paulson). Correction made 6/15/07.
Paulson asked for those in favor. Chairperson Paulson noted the Board is
voting on the amended motion.
approve the variance.
passed with 4-Ayes and 1 nay with the conditions above.
asked if the secretary could read back the conditions.
noted he could read them if the secretary wanted him to.
noted as he understood, the conditions would be that the existing setback be
modified to 6.1 variance off of a 10’ setback at the existing rear property,
brought forward to the point of the now existing fence that is there, then from
that point where the fence towards 10th discontinues to allow the
variance to encroach 7’ into the setback coming forward, equal with the flower
plantings at a 3’ height similar to the front of the fence materials on 10th.
2. Request for Variances
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 has been cancelled/withdrawn by the applicant.
3. Request for Variances:
VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Who
is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code,
Section 3.20.3 (A) to reduce the front yard setback for the purpose of adding a
deck to the front of the home.
Mr. John Groenendaal presented the
case. See staff report.
The application is not supported
by Staff. Staff recommends Denial of this variance.
Mr. Mike Vaz introduced himself
to the Board. He stated he lives at 1509 Massachusetts Avenue – he asked that
the Board approve the variance. Mr. Vaz noted he wanted to enjoy the sunsets
in the front of his house. Mr. Vaz noted there is another property that does
not have a roof over the deck and he has pictures.
Mr. Morgeson noted if he
submitted the photos, they would be part of the record.
Mr. Vaz noted there is a house
that has a large deck in the front of their house that wraps around one side of
it along with the front. It has no roof, it is uncovered.
Mr. Morgeson noted he had advised
the Board many times, under the Land Development Code, other properties in this
district or others, there are non-conforming or conforming properties in other
districts can’t be considered by the Board. The Board just has to consider the
applicant’s case tonight.
Mr. Spinola asked if the
applicant had a problem with adding a roof over the deck if the variance was
Mr. Vaz noted he wanted to enjoy
the view of the sunset. He presented photos of the deck.
Mr. Beigel asked if this was
built without a building permit.
Mr. Vaz noted he did not know he
had to have a permit.
Mr. Beigel asked if he was 10’
from the sidewalk.
Mr. Groenendaal noted he is 25
from the curb. No sidewalk on that side of the house.
Mr. Beigel referred to the plot
plan, it says Lot 20; Lot 21, and does the applicant’s lot go all the way back
to the alley.
Mr. Paulsen asked where the front
Mr. Vaz noted it is on the truck
side of the house.
Mr. Placencia asked if the
applicant would put up a railing.
Mr. Morgeson noted the Board
should keep the 6-criteria in mind.
Mr. Beigel asked how many feet to
Mr. Vaz noted he might be 2-foot
closer to the street than the other homes.
Chairperson Paulson asked the
applicant if he wanted a roof over his deck.
Mr. Vaz noted it wouldn’t go with
the style of the house.
Mr. Placencia asked if the applicant
would be putting a railing up.
Mr. Vaz noted he would be
installing a railing out of cedar, steps on both sides of the deck.
Mr. Morgeson noted he wanted to
remind the Board about the 6-criteria they need to be considering. There are
specific issues about design and look and all these things, but the pressing
issue is the 6-criteria.
Mr. Beigel asked how far the
applicant was from the street.
Mr. Vaz noted he is over 25’ from
Mr. Beigel asked how far with the
deck is the applicant.
Mr. Vaz noted from the face of
the deck to the curb, approximately 25’4”.
Mr. Groenendaal noted if you
envision a 13’ grass strip to the edge of the road to the property line, and
then 10’, it could very well be 25’.
Mr. Morgeson noted this is the
variance the applicant is seeking.
Mr. Groenendaal noted if the
applicant is willing to put a roof over the deck, then he wouldn’t be
challenging Staff’s interruption of the code.
Mr. Placencia noted he thought
one of the main questions for the City is whether or not a deck should be
permitted in the front of the home.
Mr. Morgeson noted that is
essentially the variance the applicant is seeking.
Mr. Groenendaal noted the
Planning Department advertised for a 25’ setback. If that is the Board’s
direction, and the applicant needs to appeal Staff’s interruption of the code,
then it needs to be re-advertised for that particular aspect and also the Board
considers the implication of that also.
Mr. Morgeson asked Mr.
Groenendaal to explain that again.
Mr. Groenendaal noted right now
Staff interrupted it as, no accessory structure shall be in the front unless
customarily found there.
Mr. Morgeson noted that is 3.20.3
(a) that is what the application was for tonight is to seek a variance from
that provision of the Land Development Code.
Mr. Groenendaal noted he thought
it was to Table-III, to reduce the setbacks from 25’ to 10’.
Mr. Morgeson noted on the Agenda
it is 3.20.3 (a) to reduce the side-yard setback for the purpose of adding a
deck to the front of the home. That is how it is advertised.
Mr. Groenendaal noted on the
application, one is talking about the structure in the front yard; the setback
would actually be tabled for setbacks.
Mr. Morgeson noted the issue here
tonight pursuant to the application, was the front yard setback.
Mr. Groenendaal asked Mr. Vaz if
he wanted to appeal the application. He noted that Staff must have mixed the
Mr. Morgeson noted it might be
advisable to notice this for the immediate property owners for them to have an
opportunity to be heard and to allow the applicant to address the issues as
Staff has presented them in the memorandum. It might be advisable to
re-advertise the case. The next meeting is June 13, 2007.
Chairperson Paulson asked for
Mr. Morgeson noted the Agenda
addresses an issue with regard to a variance being sought relative to reducing
a front yard setback under 3.20.3 (a) per the LDC that was what was published
as being heard tonight. There is that issue and there’s also the issue as
contained in this report dated April 30th from Staff dealing with
the interruption of 3.20.3A.1.a. dealing with accessory structures located in
the front yards. That was not advertised and yet that is an estimation of
Staff an issue to be determined as part of this case. It is probably advisable
that the case in total be re-noticed so that all the issues can have the
opportunity for the neighboring properties to be heard if they wish and out of
respect to the applicant, allows the applicant a little bit more time to
prepare for the presentation.
Mr. Groenendaal noted if the
applicant is willing to build the roof over the deck and reduce the setback to
10’, then he is not challenging Staff’s interruption. If it is the
determination of the BOA and Staff is wrong, Staff would recommend going to
City Council and ask what the reasonable setback would be for accessory
structures in the front yard.
Mr. Morgeson noted it would take
a little further explanation between Staff and the applicant in terms of which
way the applicant wants to move forward for the variance to specify where the
applicant wants to go and re-advertise pursuant to that issue and have that
heard at the next scheduled board meeting.
Mr. Groenendaal noted Staff
Chairperson Paulson asked if
there needed to be a motion.
Mr. Morgeson noted in his opinion
that is what the Board needs to consider, if the applicant is in agreement.
Mr. Vaz noted if he had known
this house would be this much trouble, he would never have built it.
Mr. Mannie Vaz, father of the
applicant, introduced himself to the Board and noted a roof is almost
impossible. To get run-off for the water, you would have to bring the
roof-line almost to the top of the peak. That would defeat the purpose of
building the deck. He noted his son was not aware of needing a permit before
he built a deck. He noted his son made a mistake and they want to rectify it.
If that is what it needed for his son to keep the deck, they will do that. The
front of the house is too low to be building a roof. He noted he knew you were
not supposed to bring up other homes, but there are other homes in the area
that have decks.
Mr. Placencia noted if the
applicant wants to challenge that a deck is ok in the front yard, the case
needs to be pushed up a month.
Mr. Morgeson noted reading
through the report and the way the Agenda reads, his recommendation for the
Board is to continue it. Otherwise, you will have potential notification
problems, possibly all the work that have put forward on behalf of the
applicant, could be un-done through a procedural process which would be much
more frustrating to the applicant than a 30-day continuance.
Mr. Placentia made a motion to
continue the case until June 13, 2007.
Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion
to continue the case.
All Ayes 5-0 to continue 2007-08
to the June 13, 2007 meeting.
VARIANCE PETITION DETAILS: Who
is requesting a variance to the requirements of the Land Development Code,
Sections 3.2.5.C & D and Section 6.5.1 to split off lots 9 and 10 so a new
primary residence can be built on the site.
Mr. David Nearing presented the
case. All 6-criteria have been met. Staff is recommending Approval.
Mr. Irwin introduced himself to
the Board. Mr. Irwin noted he wanted to do the lot split and put another house
on it and make it a primary residence in the future.
Mr. Placencia asked how close lot
11 is to lot 10.
Mr. Nearing noted it would meet
the 5’ setback requirement.
Mr. Placencia asked if the
applicant had a front elevation to what will be built.
Mr. Irwin noted right now he just
wants the approval for the lot split before he gets construction plans.
Mr. Beigel asked Mr. Nearing if
the applicant owned 11 and 12.
Mr. Nearing noted it would be
9-10-11-12 is what the applicant currently owns.
Mr. Beigel asked if 12 was on the
Mr. Nearing noted lot 12 is 2.04’
off the property line. It is an existing non-conforming structure and has no
bearing on this application.
Mr. Beigel asked if the house is
facing the other way.
Mr. Nearing noted it is facing Wyoming
Avenue and it would be the 2.04’ side-street yard.
Mr. Beigel asked if the backside
of lot14 is behind lot 11 and if there were a garage behind lot 11.
Mr. Irwin noted there is a garage
behind lot 11 and 12.
Chairperson Paulson asked if
there was a motion from the floor.
Mr. Beigel made a motion to
approve the variance. All 6-criteria have been met.
Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.
All Ayes 5-0 to approve the
Mr. Beigel made a motion to
Mr. Spinola seconded the motion.
All Ayes 5-0 to adjourn the
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