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


CALL TO ORDER:                          6:30 P.M.


LOCATION:                                      ST. CLOUD COUNCIL CHAMBERS

                                                            1300 NINTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR




ROLL CALL:                                    Kimberly Paulson       (Chair)            P

                                                            Carl Beigel                 (Vice)              P

                                                            Pete Placencia                                    P

                                                            Greg Norris                                        EA

                                                            William Spinola                                  P                     

                                                            Robert Paulsen          (Alt)                 P

                                                            Deanna Merrill          (Alt)                 UA


STAFF MEMBERS:                         David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning;

                                                            John Groenendaal, Senior Planner;

                                                            Jeff Higgins, Planner

                                                            Jack Morgeson, City Attorney

                                                            Sherry Taylor, Secretary


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 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.


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.


Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel asked Mr. Blackford if it was the first picture or second picture that he was referring to.

Mr. Blackford 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. 

Mr. Beigel asked if the fence was up before or after the purchase.

Mr. Blackford noted it was after he purchased the property.

Mr. Beigel asked if the fence was just put up.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel asked if the current fence is a privacy fence.

Mr. Blackford noted it was and it was recently constructed and is only a temporary and was put up to make sure the back area enclosed.

Mr. Spinola asked if there would be an exit or entrance from that wall that the applicant will put up.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel asked if anyone from the City could address this situation but was there a permit for this fence.

Mr. Higgins noted there was a permit.

Mr. Blackford 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. 

Mr. Beigel asked what the hardship will be.

Mr. Blackford 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 side.

Mr. Beigel noted what the applicant wanted to do is shut the stairwell off.

Mr. Blackford explained that if the fence is added and it would add to security. The stairwell goes up the stairs to the rooms upstairs. 

Mr. Spinola asked if there would be a gate.

Mr. Blackford noted there would be a gate and it is an illusion of security like any privacy fence. 

Mr. Beigel asked what the upstairs was used for.

Mr. Blackford noted it is a rooming house.

Mr. Beigel asked if the tenants enter from that back entrance.

Mr. Blackford noted they did.

Mr. Beigel asked if it could be a fire hazard if there was a gate in front of the exit.

Mr. Blackford noted according to the Fire Marshall it would not.

Chairperson Paulson asked if there was parking behind the fence.

Mr. Blackford noted there is some parking and a shed has been installed, there is a garden area, and picnic tables.

Mr. Beigel asked if there was parking on the street.

Mr. Blackford noted there is.

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Spinola asked to hear from Staff to explain the canyon effect from the City’s point of view.

Mr. Placencia asked the applicant if the fence that comes in from the sidewalk terminates at the building that is in the back.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Placencia noted he was talking about the building that’s behind the property.  Does the fence terminate into that building.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Placencia asked if the applicant would do the same with the new fence.

Mr. Blackford noted the new fence would not enclose any utilities.

Mr. Paulsen asked if there would be walk space for people to walk in between the fence and the building.

Mr. Blackford noted there would be. 

Mr. Placencia asked if it would protrude out towards the sidewalk beyond the building that’s behind the property.

Mr. Blackford noted it does not appear so.

Mr. Placencia asked if the fence would be vinyl.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel asked if the fence was in line with the planter up in the front.

Mr. Blackford noted it was in line with the wall behind the planter.

Mr. Beigel noted the wall of the planter looks like it is parallel with the fence right now. 

Mr. Blackford noted it would be right in the middle of the planter.

Mr. Beigel noted it looked like the fence was in line with the planter.

 Mr. Blackford noted the fence is 10’ off the property line and the wall is 10’4” off the property line. 

Mr. Beigel asked if it was 10’ off the property line now.

Mr. Blackford noted is 10’ off the property line. 

Mr. Placencia 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.  

Mr. Blackford noted he didn’t know if the owner could do immediately.

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel noted when the applicant bought the property, he was aware of the setbacks.  Why is the applicant coming back now.

Mr. Blackford noted the current owner purchased the property in 2004.

Mr. Beigel noted the current owner knew of the setback at that time.

Mr. Blackford noted if the owner looked into constructing a fence.

Mr. Beigel asked if there was another fence there before the wooden fence.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Chairperson Paulson noted there was another question about the canyon effect.

Mr. Higgins 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  

Mr. Paulsen 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.

Mr. Higgins 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 that area.

Chairperson Paulson asked how high the fence is.

Mr. Blackford noted it was 6’.

Mr. Morgeson 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 correctly.

Mr. Higgins noted that is the point he was trying to make.

Mr. Spinola noted he didn’t see how it would obstruct the right-of-way.

Mr. Higgins 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 vehicular traffic.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Placencia 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 village/complex. 

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Placencia noted if you own property, you should be allowed to have privacy, what is the intent of the owner long term.

Mr. Morgeson 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. 

Mr. Placentia 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.

Mr. Blackford 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 past.

Chairperson Paulson asked if there was anyone else to speak on this case.

Mr. Higgins 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.

Mr. Spinola asked if the property owner was operating without a license.

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Mr. Beigel noted he is glad the applicant said that, but that is not the issue. 

Mr. Placencia asked if the applicant had a problem with a 3’ fence.

Mr. Blackford 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.

Chairperson Paulson asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Morgeson 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. 

Mr. Beigel noted he had a problem with Criteria #6. 

Mr. Placentia asked if the applicant had any objections of cutting the fence short of the stairwell.

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.

Mr. Morgeson 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 a vote.

Chairperson 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. 

Mr. Morgeson noted the Board needs to call for a second and failing a second, the motion would die.

Chairperson Paulson asked for a second.

No response to a second motion.

Mr. Spinola 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.

Mr. Morgeson asked if Mr. Spinola’s motion was in the affirmative. 

Mr. Spinola noted it was.

Mr. Morgeson asked if part of the motion was implementing any conditions or allowing the setback to be reduced from 10’ to 3’.

Mr. Spinola noted it included allowing a setback.

Mr. Morgeson asked without conditions.

Mr. Spinola  noted without conditions.

Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion.

No response to the second.

Mr. Morgeson noted there could be discussion.

Chairperson Paulson asked if there was discussion for conditions.

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Placencia 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. 

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Spinola 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.

Mr. Morgeson asked Mr. Spinola to re-clarify his motion.

Amended motion:

Mr. Spinola 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.

Mr. Morgeson 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.

Mr. Spinola noted it would match the front material.

Mr. Morgeson asked if there was a height.

Mr. Spinola noted there was a 3’ to the front piece, a 6’ to the rear piece.

Mr. Morgeson noted that was Mr. Spinola’s amended motion. 

Chairperson Paulson asked for a second.  (Request by R. Paulsen that correction be made from Paulsen to Paulson).  Correction made 6/15/07.

Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion.

Chairperson Paulson asked for those in favor.  Chairperson Paulson noted the Board is voting on the amended motion.

4-Ayes to approve the variance.

Mr. Placencia Nay.

The motion passed with 4-Ayes and 1 nay with the conditions above.

Mr. Blackford asked if the secretary could read back the conditions.

Mr. Morgeson noted he could read them if the secretary wanted him to.

The secretary agreed. 

Mr. Morgeson 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


(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 has been cancelled/withdrawn by the applicant.


3.  Request for Variances:


            (a)        CASE NUMBER:      2007-08

                        APPLICANT: Michael Vaz

                        OWNER:                    Michael Vaz

                        ADDRESS:                1509 Massachusetts Avenue


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 approved.


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 door was.


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 the curb.


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 the curb.


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 two advertisements.


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 clarification.


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 agrees.


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.


            4.         Request for Variance           


            (a)        CASE NUMBER:      2007-09

                        APPLICANT: Joseph C. Irwin

                        OWNER:                    Joseph C. Irwin

                        ADDRESS:                722 Wyoming Avenue


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 lot line.


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 variance.


Mr. Beigel made a motion to adjourn.


Mr.  Spinola seconded the motion.


All Ayes 5-0 to adjourn the meeting.




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