Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Riali, the vice chairman of the development review commission. I'll be presiding over the hearing today as Acting Chairman and the Chairman's absence. On behalf of the rest of the board, welcome. The Development Review Commission is a voluntary group of citizens appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Commission is responsible for considering requests including special exception, site plan approvals, variances, reinstatements, redevelopments and street vacations. Copies of today's agenda are available at the podium to my right, your left. Certain proceedings on today's agenda are quasi-judicial, meaning that all parties will have a chance to present evidence and testimony to assist the commission in making its decision. If you have questions regarding the quasi-judicial procedures, there's a guide available from the clerk at the center console. All persons who plan to provide testimony today will be required to take a note prior to speaking. Anyone speaking before the commission on a quasi-judicial item must fill out a blue card and will be sworn in by the clerk prior to speaking. The representative for a group or organization may be designated, but the representative will be allowed only three minutes. The pooling of time is not permitted. For each quasi-judicial case on today's agenda, a presentation will be made to the commission by a representative of the city administration. Staff, the applicant, and any registered opponent will each have 10 minutes for their presentation. Following presentations, all persons and attendants who have filled out a blue card, located on the podium will be given three minutes to speak. If you have filled out a card, you will be called by name and asked to approach the podium. All statements, questions or testimony must be stated in front of a microphone located at either podium here or here. All statements, questions or testing must be stated in front of a microphone located at either podium on each side of the room to ensure all audio is recorded for the record. When addressing the commission, please begin with your name and address and state whether you've been sworn. Once members of the public have had a chance to speak cross-examination will begin during the cross-examination phase of the proceedings, the city administration, the registered opposition if any, and the applicant will each have five minutes to ask questions of any witness. Questions should be directed to me as chair. I will in turn redirect the questions to the appropriate person for response. Following cross-examination, rebuttal and closing statements will begin. During this phase of the preceding city administration, the registered opponent, if any, and the applicant will each have five minutes to provide a rebuttal when closing statements. If there is no registered opponent, any person who wishes to be a registered opponent may register as a registered opponent with the DRC clerk prior to the beginning of the initial presentation of the case and may participate in the limited process of cross-examination and rebuttal closing statement phases of the hearing. If more than one person wishes to utilize the time for the opponent, the opposition must select one representative to present their case. After a bottle of closing statements the public hearing will be closed and the commission will go into executive session the commission may ask questions of the applicant or the public at any time during the proceedings. All motions of the commission are made in an affirmative manner with a quorum of five or more commission members. It takes four concurring votes of the commission for any motion to pass. Once the commission has voted on your item, we ask that you continue any conversations outside, if other permits, this will allow us to move forward with your fellow St. Petersburg citizens, DRC matters. Thank you for your cooperation. Please turn off all cell phones. And at this time, please rise for pledge of lesions. liberty and justice for all. Can you please swear in the witnesses? Anybody who's going to be speaking of the domestic life today please stand and raise your right hand. If you swear in her firm that the evidence is being stated, it should be the truth to volition and the blame of the truth. And the truth. And I'm going to kiss. Roll call, please. Reed Walker. Here. Joe. Here. Kiernan. Here. Clemens. Singleton. Reiner. Flint. Here. Reale. Here. Madeland, here. We have a quorum. OK, can I have a motion or if someone has a change to the minutes of item? I'm going to write it in. Mr. Chair, could you check on item number 8, 5? We denied that, and yet it's showing 7 yes votes. I don't think it was an appeal or we didn't have to vote to the negative yes was that number again H five yeah we denied the we did neither request the variance but the minutes are showing a seven zero yes vote. Incessantly. Yep, saying it was denied. Okay, thank you. 8H5 for the outdoor play field. No. It should have been the very last item on the agenda. Existing garage into a dwelling unit. Right, that one. Yeah, that we fell tonight. 5439. 5439 is the correct. Okay, I was just making sure that they were sent to denial. Well, there's something wrong there though, because if you go down, the motion was approval of a special exception and related site plan for an existing private school to construct an additional outdoor play field. But the top, it talks about converting a garage. So there's something more wrong with it. They copied the motion from H4. Yeah, that's what it is. So it's all now. Yeah, and this is so I think we can make a motion to defer the approval of these meeting minutes to the next meeting so that they can be corrected. Can someone is a move? Second, I have a motion and a second to defer. Second, also second. To defer the approval of these minutes until the next hearing. Vocal vote. Walker, you were not here, Stowe. Here, Nen? Yes. Clemens? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Reale? Yes. Battle-o. Yes. Right motion to defer his past. Do we have any non-case comment cards? We do not. Okay. All right, so we have a deferral and a misnotice today. The first, the deferral case number 245400522 has been deferred until October 2nd, 2024. I think that's posted outside as well. So if you hear for that, that is not being heard today. Additionally, item number six on today's agenda, case number 24, 540-0059, for 38-48th Street North, that item was not noticed. Is not going to be heard today. If you're here for that item, it is not going to be heard today. It will be heard next month at the September hearing, assuming the notice is properly completed. With that, we can go into our first item, case number 2432-00008. All right. Good afternoon. The case before you is 2, 4, 3, 2, 5, 0, 8. And the application is located in the Central Oak Park neighborhood, east of 49th Street North between 4th Avenue North and 3rd Avenue North. It is zoned NTM1 for a neighborhood traditional mixed residential. The property consists of two plated lots of record, lots three and four, with half of vacated alley laying east of Lott's three. The Lott is 90 feet wide and approximately a hundred feet in depth and approximately 9,387 square feet in Lott area with an access of a 16-foot wide alley of the Raryard. The property is currently developed with a two-story single-family residence built in 1926 with five bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, and an attached front loading garage. The current property owner purchased the cited for short term rental. Applicant received a violation notice on March 5th of 2024. It was reported on C-Click Fix that the subject property was advertised as and used as a short term rental. The property owner has paused establishing any state licenses pending DRC results. The applicant seeks approval by the DRC of a special exception and its related site plan to convert the existing single family residents into a bed and breakfast. Here's a survey of the existing home, the property and the home highlighted in yellow. And there are going to be eight parking spaces on site, a two-car front-loading garage accessed by the driveway of 49th Street North, and six parking spaces to the south and north and east sides of the property that are accessible from the 16-fold alley and front loading driveways. And here we're going to see pictures of the parking spaces and access the three on the side and just out there is 49th. The proposed bed and breakfast provides four guest rooms. Each guest's bedroom features a full bathroom and kitchen it with a sink, mini fridge and microwave. The property owner will reside towards the rear of the premise in the fifth living quarters on the first floor. Common areas for the guests would include a half bathroom, main kitchen on the first floor, interior dining and living rooms and outdoor areas. And these are the four guest rooms. And here are some of the outdoor areas. So this is pictures of the surrounding area. This is east of the subject property. So it's kind of if you're entering the alley off of fourth and you're looking straight ahead, you can see where the portion that was vacated. And this is kind of like a panorama view. So, here we go. So this will be fourth coming out around and then and then here is if you're driving through come in off of fourth and that's the alley alley and this is the view of a 48 looking west towards the property which is right here. This is across the street, 49th street north. I'm gonna see. Try to do like a panorama. And then here's up the street, 49th, so north. And then you can go around and this is a neighbor to the left. And this is their front, that is awful fourth. And you can kind of see their front also awful 49th. And then this is the subject property. And then this is the next door neighbor coming up to the right. All right the proposed project is located in a neighborhood with single family, multifamily, office, commercial, healthcare, and institutional uses. Here I'm calling out the transient uses. The subject property is located less than a mile north from the Central Avenue corridor activity center. Here have highlighted the future major streets surrounded the subject property and within the neighborhood. The subject property in whole is located within the one eighth mile of a high frequency transit route with bus stops and shelters. Where 49th Street is a high frequency transit route. And within 1-5th mile of the Sun of the Sun Runner, bus rapid transit line off first Avenue North. Public transit stops are stations that support transit ridership within half mile and is typically a distance most pedestrians are willing to walk. Q walkability. Staffed some research and saw out previous bed and breakfast approvals and denials by the board. The board previously approved a bed and breakfast at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue, North and 45th Street, North a rare alley access in 2008. And Commissioner approved a bed and breakfast at the North-West corner of 7th Avenue North and 28th Street North with rare alley access on June, in June 2017, where 28th Street North is classified also as a future major street. Based on considerations for review of the special exception and analysis of the area, the bed and breakfast use will have no substantial detrimental effects to the area and should not negatively impact neighbor nearby properties. Additionally, the bed and breakfast section of the code requires specific development standards in regards to onsite management and allowances for special functions. Staff has placed special conditions of approval in the report to address these requirements. Staff did not receive any comments from the Central Oak Park, Live Oak neighborhood associations or Cona and you did receive some communication that is provided to you before this meeting. And here are the locations of the signatures of the support via the neighborhood worksheet and the opposition sent via email and provided to you guys. Thank you and staff is here for any questions and applicant is an audience for the presentation as well. Any questions for staff? Crystal Clemens. Yep. So the property is zoned NTM1. NTM1. Which is a new zoning category. Do you know what it was zoned prior to the change to NTM1? Nt2. Nt2, okay. And so with the bed and breakfasts as a special exception used, is there a maximum density or number of rooms that are mandated under the zone and based on property size or any other criteria? Nope, it's based on a number of rooms within the single family residence. And of course one having to be the owner or the caravan. The density. But there is a requirement that the prevent breakfast that the the owner or manager shall reside on the property at all times. So on the floor plan that you showed us with the kind of the separate little apartment, is that house currently configured? Do you know there was this be a renovation to the existing building? There is no renovation to my knowledge. Yes, so it's first floor, which is where towards the back, where the homeowner will reside in the second story. That floor plan we saw saw as it currently is. Correct, yes. And then I guess, lastly in terms of the parking, they're required to have six, two for the owner manager, resident manager, and then one for each of the four spaces. And it's no better room. They're showing they've got eight. I did notice that one of them seems to extend over the property line. So in the diagram that you showed, there's a tandem space in front of the parking garage, the two car garage it looks like. But that one's not a necessary parking. They're showing eight spaces, but they only need six, correct? You're speaking about the front load and driveway. OK, so I was showing the two spaces in the garage, and then the one space in front of that. The one space in front of the garage is half on the property, half over the property line. No, I think it's based on how their site plan is done. But if you look on the survey, I can clarify a little bit more. Yes, correct, yeah. But that was my car. But in any event, in any parking spaces, they only need six, correct? Correct. So they exceed the amount that is needed. Although they may need to provide one handicap accessible space. If this is a commercial use, which basically a handicap space takes up two spaces. But in either event, they've got the parking. So I'm okay. If one is needed, one can be provided, because I think there's ample enough space, expressually, in the front. And in the rear. Yes. Thank you. I have a question. Does the manager, is there currently a manager that lives on site, or is it solely operating as an Airbnb currently, do you know? The homeowner currently lives on site. You do. And is here, yes. And how does the city regulate that? Sort of the verify, right, that there's a manager on site, and that space is not being rented out, just curiosity. Well, good question. I know it definitely speaks about it in our section. And then after that, they have to go through their change of use with the building and then state license and then a business license with the city. So as far as regulating it. So I might be able to answer that. So, bed and breakfasts do receive state licensure from the division of business regulation, the hotel's restaurants division. They do their own separate investigations and inspections yearly or biannually, but that's separate. Then what we do is the city. And I do believe that they check for residency and that as well we would be able to pull any public records of those reports at any time we wanted to on our end to check that also if there were complaints that this was purely an Airbnb investigations would be made to the types of advertisements like if suddenly they were going to five or six units, availability, if we noticed that, then we could inquire and request an inspection. Thank you. I do have one more question. I'll look at the other. In the criteria it states that the proposed use is consistent with the conference of plan. I didn't see in the report what the explanation and how it's consistent with the conference of plan. So that's criteria one Development Review Commission for review. The use is consistent with conference of plan. So my assumption is, since it is a permitted special exception use that it would not be a special exception criteria unless it was consistent with the conference of plan, but I just didn't hear that explained with a record. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Abernathy, Director of Planning and Development Services. I can grab the comp plan language, but generally the PRR land use category does allow for residential support uses like bed and breakfast and daycare, so there's other type of special exception uses that you see and therefore consistent with the comprehensive plan. Right, and so when we've got land uses under the comprehensive plan, and then we've got zoning, again, you could not, presuming that our matrix is all correct, you could not be either a permitted use or a special exception use Like you were a consistent with the conference that that's correct. There's an underlying Assumption that that there is consistency and that's our obligation to make sure our land development regulations are consistent with our comprehensive plan Thank you. That's what I assumed. I just wanted to hear it. Yep. Okay Have a question. In the comprehensive plan, is there a, seems like there's a general statement about, does it include anything about affordability of homes in our comp plan? I know that when we, a lot of the cases you'll see staff narrative does this increase affordability of homes, does it, you know, impinge on any of these items? Is affordability of homes taken into account in the comp plan? I know there's language that discusses supportive infill and redevelopment to support our population. I'm not sure if the term affordable is in there, but it does speak to generally supply and supporting in fill and redevelopment of our existing neighborhoods. Is that geared towards our residents or is that geared towards visitors applying to have in fill to meet the requirements of visitors or in fill to meet the requirement of residents. Generally that's based on our population projection so that would be residents. I don't know the under in the future land use element anything that specifically talks about provision for demand for transient uses. I'd need to take a look at that. There's probably some language in generally under the policies for economic development that support our tourist-based economic economy, those portions of our economy that are geared towards that, but again, the underlying is premise of the comprehensive plan and is for planning for future growth and infrastructure demands for the community and Okay, thank you Any other questions? I have a couple questions to finish this up here. The C-Click fix, right? The state requires that you identify yourself. Was it one of the neighbors identified on the screen that submitted the initial C-Click fix complaint? I think when I looked in NaviLine, it said C click fix, but they may have been a person under there as well. I can verify for you. Yeah, we'll go on if you can just- We're gonna go on NaviLine really quick. We can identify who that is. And then we can ask this of the applicant, but approximately how long was this operating before the complaint? I know they got their notice of violation in March 5th of this year. All right, thank you. And then you can see also in the pictures in your packet for the active codes case, the dates on which they took pictures of like the Airbnb and yeah. Could we avoid naming the specific person? Could we have just more of an ideas to what the complaint was? And I'm some of the board members here aware I made a code violation against the Maynard and ended up getting threatened because of it. So if we can avoid announcing names here, I would appreciate it. I think it'd be important to know though if it's... If it's a citizen complaint or codes initiated. Right, but where it is. So if you can just identify if it's on that map you show that would be helpful. I think what you're asking is that one of the two oppositions... Or a third. Right, I understand. All right. Is the, uh, any more questions? Is the applicant ready to present? We can come back with that information. Yeah, yeah. We can wait for that. That's okay. Hi. Okay. I'm. That's the answer to your question. Okay. Forward. Here you go. Katrina. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Marianne Holier. I reside at 2084868 Terrace South and I have been sworn in this morning. I am here to represent the owner of the home, Maria Lassick, who was seeking a special exception to be able to operate a bed and breakfast in her existing home. Maria Lassick purchased a home located at 325-49th Street, North in May of 2022. She immediately dubbed the home a high sienna marina. She was born in Poland and she moved to Chicago in 1978 where she spoke no English when she arrived. But she managed to open and manage a successful restaurant there for 21 years. She received her US citizenship in 1993 and after a brief move to Chicago, she worked in hospitality. She relocated to St. Petersburg in 2016, where she continued to work at some of the like the Grand Plaza Hotel in St. Pete Beach. And then she found Hissiana Marina, and she realized that it would make a perfect bed and breath fist. She was informed the home was previously run as a bed and breath fist. So she incorporated in the state of Florida. She got a federal ID. She reached out to the Department of Business Regulations, but she did misunderstand those guidelines. Sorry, what Marina, Maria didn't do was contact the City of St. Pete to learn about the city code concerning the transit accommodation use and section 16.50.040 of the St. Peter's BIRG code of ordinances relating to the bed and breakfast. She did realize she needed to collect proper taxes and she started to use the air bear bear air B and B platform which would accept and pay all the appropriate taxes to the proper agencies. Maria truly believed she was operating a bed and breakfast, not an Airbnb. She merely used the platform to collect payment, pay taxes, and have vetted clients. And she, all times, lived on the property. On March 2nd, Maria received a violation of the City Code referring to transient accommodation uses along with 117 other home owners in St. Petersburg. Apparently understanding the City Code is difficult for many. She did once she got the code she was given until March 28 to reply. She did ask the officer for assistance in understanding the city code and she was referred to the zoning department. On March 27th we started emailing the DRC and sent several emails to request the process for a special exception. She updated her advertising to comply with the 30-day minimum, and it's noted in the Codes Department's case on 328, 424, and 524. On June 6th, the file was ready to be closed when a review popped up on Expedia, and we speculate that the Code's compliance officer assumed that she had changed her minimums and then set the case for hearing. However, the review was from a previous book's stay. She has been in touch with the compliance officer and she and I now understand the special exception is and what is required if granted. Miss Lossick may have misunderstood the city code but she knows her home would make a great ban and breath it's located in the central Oak Park neighborhood whose vision is a harmonious and inclusive neighborhood with unified goals. Surrounded by large oak trees, it is the third largest neighborhood in St. Petersburg. Established in 1920, it does have many historical homes. 325 49th Street North, or High Santa Marina, is one of those historic homes believed to have been built in 1926 by Babe Ruth for his mistress who was the biological mother of his daughter, Dorothy Helen Ruth. The home is a Mediterranean revival style home which were very popular in St. Petersburg and the Lambum era of the 1920s. It's nearly 3600 square feet, offer four bedrooms, four and a half baths, an atrium, and a butler's pantry that leads into what once was a maid's quarter, but now serves as the owner's suite. Its central location is close to public transportation with easy access to the downtown and the beaches. As a bed and breakfast, the common areas for the guests would include a living room, a meeting or gathering room that includes a reading nook and a chest book table, chest board table, and a dining room. Additionally, the guests would enjoy the kitchen, atrium, and back patio. Breakfast would be served each morning with water, fresh fruit, and other items available to the guests at any other time of the day. The bedrooms are large and spacious, offering sleeping space for two to four people. The sunny side and sunshine rooms are adjoining and offers a perfect space for a small family. Each guest room offers a stylish bathroom and kitchenette area with a mini fridge and microwave. The property is beautifully landscaped with plenty of parking. There's a laundry facility on site in an outdoor recreation area for grilling and or just relaxing. Prior to seeking the special exception, the home is offered for special events, such as small weddings, birthday parties, bachelor-at parties. However, at this time, Miss Lassick would like to stick to a traditional bed and breakfast and not offer the space for events. Should she later decide to make a change, she will seek guidance from the city for proper permitting. Bed and breakfast have been around for centuries with families opening their home and providing breakfast for travelers. The Development Review Committee has approved two similar properties for Bed and Breakfast in 2008, 4505 Fifth Avenue North was approved, and in 2017, 2801 seventh Avenue North was established. Hiciana Marina would be the perfect addition to these other successful Bed and Breakfast and a great addition to the City of St. Petersburg. And I just want to say that according to the city of St. Petersburg. And I just want to say that according to the city of St. Petersburg's design guidelines for historic properties, the Mediterranean Revival Style homes became popular in Florida as a symbol of an American Riviera. It was also often associated with wealthy vacationers who could afford to follow a comfortable lifestyle. We hope this committee will consider the special exception and allow Maria to share her home as a bed and breakfast with vacationers and visitors to St. Petersburg. That's all I have. Any questions for the applicant? I have a question for the applicant. Um, trying to clarify, did you say the owner of the home lives in St. Petersburg? The owner of the home lives at the home at 325-49th Avenue. 49th Street North. Is it a home-esteaded property? It is not homesteaded at this time because she was renting out. When she received the code's case, the person who reported it to CClick Fix also reported it to the Penales County property appraisal because it was homesteaded. And she went to the appraisal and they took the homestead. She understands that she cannot get a full homestead. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Okay. Do we need blue cards? We do not. No blue cards, interesting. All right, so city, does the city have any cross-examination? Can we just confirm there's no one in the audience that wanted to speak on this item? I know we didn't have any cards, but some folks came in a little later. Is anyone here to speak on this item? No, we wish to speak. Thank you, chair. Also had answer. Oh, two miles, two miles away north. Okay Interesting as well two miles when I'm running up. It's 1.9 see click It's not one of the they mean properties well they're in site feed Well, it sounds like 117 cases maybe. I think that's important at the same time. Yeah. So someone spent some time on Airbnb's website noted all the locations. The staff have any cross-examination? Pathways. And do you have any cross-examination for staff? I do not. Staff, do you have any closing arguments? Bathways. Do you have any closing arguments? I do not. All right. We will go into executive session then and I will... So we did receive four, am I correct? Four? Yes. Two and two. Two and two. Two and two. Two and two, two and two opposed. Two and favor. But then we saw on the card, there were, I mean, on the exhibit there was several more in favor. And I think there was six and three or five and three, five people who had no problem with it. Three people who did not approve of it, but four people followed up to write letters. You know, the intent of a special exception is that it is potentially a permitted use, but the idea behind a special exception is that if done well, that use that that location can fit into neighborhood. I mean it's context. If done poorly and that can be either through design or inadequate design or through operations, it might not fit in so well. I think I've seen good evidence that the design is adequate for the use. It's got a good apartment for the owner. It's got the bird parking. It's a double lot, so it's a relatively large property. And it appears to be photographs, a really beautiful bed and breakfast. But, and so then, you know, the issue is, is there some indication from past operations since it was operating for about a year and a half maybe, you know, without proper zoning as a Ben breakfast, was it being done in a way that would lead us to believe that it would not be good for the neighborhood going into the future. The letters we received seemed to be mixed on that. Two people were aware that it was being used as a bed breakfast and had no problem and said it had not been a problem in the past. And then one person complained about people parking on the alley and also about music or noise in a couple of occasions. What I heard today from the evidence is that she's not going to put it up for events and use it for events. Then my guess is that the parking problem was probably caused when there was a larger event. I mean, I heard what you said also that if she changes her mind she will go through the proper channels to get permits for the events. That issue I think the issue of parking does come up in review when you do get a temporary event parking is a criteria for approval for temporary events. So all that being said, and given the location, and given the condition of the property, I'm going to support the application. Mr. Cairn. I'd like to those comments. I know this street well. I used to drive it a lot. And I'm swayed by the fact that it impresses me as being a uniquely situated place. It's on a very busy thoroughfare. It fronts that this was located a block in the neighborhood. I'd have different feelings about it, perhaps. But it's not. 48th or 50th? Yeah, exactly. It particularly tight part of 49th at that. Yes. So I can support for all the reasons that Commissioner Clemons pointed out. Mr. Stowe, a quick question for legal. So I'm familiar with variances. Run with the land, special expressions. This one seems a little odd. So I'm assuming the special exception runs with a land. Is that correct? It does, yes. And boy. Yeah, I want to hear what the butt is. Because there's something about this being a B and B that shouldn't make it run with the land. That shouldn't make it. Well, it never sunset, I guess. Yeah, yeah, I guess that's the question. I mean, if the house is sold, if something unforeseen, all of a sudden you don't have somebody on site, how does this, I realize there's probably other licensure and this would be unchecked on a fairly what annual or biannual basis, but how does it work with the city? So it's just, it would be the same as any other zoning approval or development order is that you're approving this with the special condition. So at if any time the special conditions are not being complied with, the city has the ability to revoke that special exception. Generally, if it's in compliance, then it could be sold as a bed and breakfast and go on with that. Or it could be sold as a bed and breakfast and go on with that. Or it could be sold and converted back to a single family home. At that time, I think that the special exception might terminate if they're converting the use back. So a future owner who would want to go back to a bed and breakfast would have to reapply and go through that process. And it would be evaluated again. But as long as it's maintained compliant as a bed and breakfast, the ownership change won't affect that. Thank you. Couple of questions. First of all, the property had homestead. Then they lost homestead because they didn't meet the requirements of homestead. So I have a little bit of concern back in my mind was there misrepresentation because you have to attest to certain things on your application for homestead. And then it was revoked. That might be a question partially for the applicant, but generally the panelist property appraiser, if they receive a complaint or evidence that a home is being used as a short term rental, they will revoke the homestead and that was here. Now, I think that the owner might be waiting for this, they said they were waiting for this potential approval to apply for their state certificate. I think once they get that, they would be able to go to the property appraiser and then at least have a partial exemption because they are residing on the property. But they would need you to approve that to get that state and then to move on from there. And I don't think that, but again, I don't know what steps I'm thinking. There were more follow up questions on that. It's been used as a Airbnb. Apparently the owner was not living there at the time. That is not correct. She has lived there the whole time. OK. And she purchased it. And she was running it, following the rules of running in bed and breakfast by being on site. Okay. So if this gets approved as a bed and breakfast, could they then advertise on Airbnb as short-term rentals if they have a manager on site? What's the difference between an Airbnb and a bed and breakfast? And Airbnb is just an advertising platform and any type of vacation rental including traditional bed and breakfasts may have a listing on that. Airbnb doesn't really have criteria for that. A VRBO does have some criteria where they don't generally advertise bed and breakfasts. It's just a whole house. It's not a house sharing situation, but the platform Airbnb is basically any type of room rental that you do. So they could use that as an advertising platform if they wanted to. They're not required to have their own separate website. That's not something like that. There's no difference between a bed and breakfast of the fact that somebody resides there, either lives there as the home owner or has a manager on site. It's kind of what it sounds like. As far as the advertisement, no, there's a difference. Again, under the code, we do allow a bed and breakfast use. We don't allow a short term rental beyond three times a year in certain zoning districts. So if it was approved as a bed and breakfast, they could rent for one day. Yes. Because it's classified as a bed and breakfast. Yes, as long as they were complying with all of the other requirements of their special exception approval. Okay. Um. Does the city have a legitimate enforcement arm for short term rentals? Everything I see everything I hear. It doesn't exist. I will tell you that per our code enforcement director and administrator Amy Foster gave an update to council at the last meeting that two code compliance investigator positions are being converted from in regular zone positions to just specifically enforce short-term vacation rentals. And I will tell you that we have been enforcing vacation rentals on a complaint basis. Every complaint that comes in is investigated just like it would be with any other complaint. We didn't have dedicated investigators, but they were those complaints were divided out amongst the area investigators. But now that we'll have its own set of two exclusive investigators. As back when I was on code enforcement board for 10 years, I think we had one time that one came before code enforcement board in my 10 years. It's grown significantly since then. I don't know what the, you know, code cases count is at this point. Several years ago, when I first started with the city in 2014, we enforced those generally through the Miss and Ordnance violation process in county court. Since then, we have moved that type of violation back into our code enforcement board process and there are several every meeting. Okay. But I mean if we approve this it's not going to be a short-term rental even if the rentals the stays are short right we're approving a use that we're approving a bed and breakfast use so if a complaint came in as one of the commissioners noted that hundreds this was part of 117 complaints that came in. If this came in one of the first things that an investigator would do would be to run the address to see if it is then that's noted and that case is closed if it's not then there's a procedure but yes that approval would allow them to operate as long as there are otherwise in compliance. No further? I have a question. You were specific about the fact that no special events are planned and I was wondering if there was a correlation between past noise complaints and potentially special events being held At the venue or is this some are the noise complaints going to continue or is the manager on site going to help? Well until until the letter went out talking about this Special exception there were no complaints for noise to our knowledge and then on C click fix. So saying that basically what Maria would like to do is just get back to a basic bed and breakfast and not hosted parking. Although we could find parking plan, we found a neighbor who's willing to let us use parking there. There's other options with the ballet. But at this time, she just does not want to pursue that. So it was being used for special events before? She had used it in the past. Mostly, it was mostly family or friends from Chicago that would come down and stay and host a wedding there. So yeah, thank you. Any other questions? All right. Yeah, of the two complaints, I noted the same thing. One of the complaints basically sounds like it's a complaint against events, which are not going to be held. The other talks about a significant renovation. I don't think I'm suspecting that that party didn't quite understand what was being done since it's been, had been operating as a bed and breakfast. To Commissioner Clumman's point, we don't like after the fact situations like this, but we've definitely seen more egregious violations. And it comes with the ad benefit of seeing the quality of the premises there. So if there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move approval of a special exception and related site plan to convert an existing single family residence into a bed and breakfast subject to the conditions of approval. Second. Kieranit. Yes. Walker. Yes. Sto. Yes. Clemens. Yes. Riali. Yes. Flynnmen? Yes. Reale? Yes. Flynn? No. Fatalya. Yes. Emotion passes. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to case number 2439-00002. zero zero zero zero two. Before we start this can we just note for the record that Commissioner I'm in. Engleton Walker has joined us. Walker stepped out. For a second. Ready this, ready? the is he coming back or is he okay well we need to wait for him if we want to proceed for a quasi-judicial they have you have to hear every bit of the evidence and testimony. We have we have seven without them now so let's move forward. Okay. Well then he Good afternoon Jordan no more planner with development review services. This is case 2439 0000 02 Subject property is located at 6535 by Grand Boulevard North East. This is for the denial of an appeal of a POD approval of a dock variance to reduce the required setbacks to allow for a new dock and wet slip. So this case began as a setback waiver, as you have heard before, COTA allows a dock applicant to get signatures of the most impacted neighbors. The applicant received those signatures of support. It's a notarast signature on the side that it was encroaching. However, it was appealed. Therefore, we have to go through the variance process. The reason it is appealed is because staff was supporting the request. Therefore, the next appeal brought it here to public hearing. So the property is owned in S1, neighborhood suburban. It's a fully platted lot. Platted in 1959. There's an existing single family home constructed in 1969. There's an existing dock constructed in 1969. There's an existing dock constructed in 2000 and a lift constructed on the north side that was added in 2006. The homeowners purchased the property in 2016 and this property has a waterfront with a 55.2 feet measured along the sea wall. Here we have the existing dock permitted in 2000. It is a 3.8 by 60 foot walkway leading to a 18 foot long by 12 foot head with a 4 foot long 12 foot wide lower landing on the end. And there's also a wet slip to the right of it, which would be the south. To be I'm sorry to be clear it's the one that says lower written on it. Yes, lower, it's the center, Doc, sorry. Here's that same Doc permitted in 2006 for the lift that is on the left side or to the north. Here we have the proposed dock. It is a four-foot wide walkway that extends 67 feet six inches out to a 10-foot wide, 12-foot long head with a 10-foot wide, three-foot long head at the end. There is a 20,000-pound boat lift proposed on the north or left side looking at the picture, and they are proposing to reconstruct the wet slip on the right or south side at a zero-foot setback and there is also a 1,500-pound personal watercraft lift behind the head of the dock. So going back to the existing dock it was permitted in your 2000 it is at 492 square feet for the previously approved permit. This new dock they are reducing the size to become compliant with the square footage requirements and it will be a maximum of 420 square feet. So here we have the requirements, 20 feet, set back for a dock, 10 for a lift or a wet slip. So the left side meets for both the dock and the lift. The right side, they're requesting 15 feet or 20 is required. For the wet slip, they're requesting zero foot where 10 foot is required. The applicant did receive a notarized signature from the right side property owner. Therefore, allowing them to go through the setback waiver process, the property owner to the north or left side, which meets all required setbacks is the appellant for the case. So staff received no comments from Kona. We have letters of support from six nearby property owners that will be shown on a map following. We have the signature of support from the most impacted neighbor to the south the letter of objection from the budding property owner to the north and we have received no additional comment on the case. Here's Ariel showing the subject property in yellow red is the objector and then the green are those in support including the most impacted neighbor. Staff is recommending denial of the appeal and approval to uphold the POD approval of the Doc variants to reduce the required setbacks to allow for a new doc and wet slip. That is my presentation here for questions. Mr. O'Morke, could you go back to the overhead showing the colored, okay, on the red one that is the objecting property. Yes. If you look at it there, Doc, is that a wet slip to the south? The south, and let me note, I did forget the north arrow, north is up on this picture. It is a boat lift, it is an elevator-style lift. So the palines are up against the head with the forks of the lift sticking out. So it kind of... So, Ed, do you have the dimensions of that boat off of the applicants property, that lift? I believe the applicant has some pictures to present with that information. Okay, thank you. I just want to confirm there's no changes proposed to the north side. No, all setbacks are met on the north side for the lift and the dock. Thank you. Yeah, so that's basically what I was going to confirm. So there's a permit in 2000 that includes a wet slip on the south side. 2006 includes the lift on the north side. And then basically what we're looking at today is substantial reconstruction, really. It looks like there may be shrink in the area up to get it into code compliance. But the wet slip on the south side's remaining pretty pretty much as is the boat lift on the north side remaining pretty much as is is that fair correct I think the only difference is the head of the dock is is look to the other direction yeah okay okay you know if there are any variances obtained to the dock on the north side for that construction because it looks awfully close to the property line. Not that I'm aware of I did look at past permits so I know the subject dock that's existing did obtain signatures from both the North and South neighbor the North neighbor being the same resident at the time that that previous permit was pulled. I believe reviewing the North Doc applications showed setbacks were met. A lot of the historical docs that we run into, we have converging property lines, setbacks are shown at the seawall, not at the end of the doc where it's gonna be closer to where that extended property line is. So that's where we're trying to get back to where it's properly shown on the plans and approved the way it should be. Thank you. Other questions? I have a question. Can you go back to the slide with the prior approval with all the docs? Yes. No, not that one. Sorry. Is that accurate? So north is left. Correct. That is not the dog that's constructed next door now though. Is it? That I believe is the one that is still existing. So what this is showing is it has a 16 foot setback. 16 feet from the property line to the dock itself, the walkway, but I was just looking at it from the boat and the aerial looks like it sits right up pretty close. Okay but there's no I guess wet slip or lift for that boat to boat just park parallel to the dock. Not shown on this is the plans page for the applicants previous dock so the neighbor to the north years after that I believe believe, added the lift. I'm not sure what year it was. I think what's misleading about this is we're not showing the curve. They're not showing the curve. Therefore, the converging lines that's been all sort of flattened out there. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, the next is presentation by the appellant. Good afternoon. My name is Dale Ensminger on the owner resident of 6601 by a grand boulevard northeast. On the north side and thank you for giving me time today to speak with you. Sir, can you just stay on the record that you've been sworn? I've been sworn. So, I live in Tanglewood, those of you familiar with Tanglewood. Our backyards look out to the right as shorakers, Venetian Isles. Across the channel is Weed in Island. To the left is a sand bar. Very popular sand bar. On the weekends, we get hundreds of boats going back behind us. So my only objection and concern today is from a navigational safety concern. I have no issue with their dock whatsoever. They're just going from a 9,000 pound lift, which I did sign a variance for back in 2006. For Mark Bugg was the owner of the property at that time. And that's fine. But now they're putting in a much larger lift. So they're going, the cradle will be two feet wider. The poles holding, the cradle lift will be out that much further. Did you all receive my documentation, presentation, docs? If not, I have enough for everyone. Is it the same as what you have on the screen here? That's the applicant's presentation. Maybe somebody might have to share. Is it the same as what you have on the screen here? That's the applicant's presentation. Maybe somebody might have to share. And if you turn to page two, I've taken a picture right pretty close to our property lines. So you can see the present lift, which is 9,000 pound lift, we sit pretty close together. I measured it with a laser from the edgamy boat to their current pole, their seven feet of clearance. And I'm a great boater and very well at docking, but you need some leeway, some area you know when you're maneuvering all the boats going by we have two currents come together behind our house there's two channels a lot of activity I'm just afraid with the much going from a 9000 to 20,000 pound lift and and I'm sure eventually if not right away they'll get a bigger bow. It's going to be very restrictive and difficult for both of us to boat. My only suggestion is that they move the new boat lift to the south side of the dock where they have a lot more room, switch the lifts around, put the way runner lift on my side. We both have a lot more clearance, a lot more room to maneuver our boats. It will be much better, safer for all parties concerned. That's really it. It's all I have today and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for the appellant? I have a question. for the appellant. I have a question. Not too familiar with terminology, but wet slip, I'm assuming, is for like a sailboat sitting in there and tied up. Is that correct? The floatings, yeah. Okay. How would that affect if there were poles put in on the north side and you have potentially a significantly longer sailboat would that create its own issue? Yes, yes, sir. I don't think there would be room for a sailboat on the north side or wet slip. Wet slip. Okay. All right, thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you. I'm sorry. Other questions? All right, thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll now hear from the applicant. I'm Tyson Rossen with Edge Marine Construction. I've been sworn in. Really the only reason we're here is because we had to get the right hand neighbor's signature, which then put us through this process where it gets sent out to every neighborhood within ... sorry. Everyone with a neighborhood, it gives people an opportunity to object to this. The person who is objecting now is not affected in any way. We've actually designed this dock and built it to stay within the setbacks that the city allows, so this wouldn't infringe upon him. So we knew this would be an issue. So like I said, if we're not saying we're doing this, this is hypothetical. But if the doc was not within the side setback, we wouldn't even be here today right now, no one would have the opportunity to do this. So we had the support from the right hand neighbor. In turn, you might have to bear with me with using this thing. Okay. So I think Mr. Flint had asked about an idea of measurement of what's existing out here. I took these, this is from the Taxup Prezers website, anyone has access to it, they have a measuring tool on it as well which you can see was utilized here. That's showing the distance from the Richter's dock to Mr. Asminger's dock or his boat while it's actually in the process of either leaving or coming in. I think it was stated and shown in the paperwork that was submitted that there was a seven only a seven foot clearance in between those two. That right there shows you just shy of 13 feet while the boat is actually being used. That's to show you right there the distance from the edge of the dock to the existing lift, which is almost 27 feet. And that's the beam of his boat, which is just shy of 10 feet. So if there was only 7 feet there, I mean, obviously there's more than 7 feet in between his boat and the lift. Try to thank here. When he said, the actual lift itself I think is going to be two feet two feet away or two feet further to the south now with the way we're we're building the stock and designing it. It is a it's a wider lift but the setbacks are going to be maintained where it's what the city requires for us to build in these for these docs. I said this is, we wouldn't be here if we didn't have to go through this. There would be no opportunity to do this if we didn't need the signatures from the other neighbor who did give it. I can take any questions. So the lift is going to be larger, but the two feet wider is going to be accommodated by the change and that size of the dock. Yes, sir, because everything's getting torn out. The existing dock that there is now is getting ripped out. It's actually in pretty bad shape. It's falling apart. So it'll be completely ripped out, rebuilt, and everything will shift over to where it'll meet the setbacks required for that vet neighbor there. This neighbor here. Thank you. So the neighbor to the north, the concern was that it would narrow that gap between their lift and the new lift, but that's not true. Your distances are going to stay as they are now. They're actually going to increase a little more. There'll be a little bit more distance between the neighbor and the lift where it sits. So I think there might be some misunderstanding. From what I understand, the concern is about the telling the so the channel that goes out to the sand bar runs right at the end of these docks. And I think the concern is that the larger boat is going to stick further out in the channel is what I understood. It has nothing really much to do with the spacing between the boats. It has to do with a larger boat sticking out into that channel because all the boats coming around that corner right there have to cut way in by the dogs to get out to the sand bar. But I'm not I'm not I'm I'm I'm getting there Kevin. So I just want to clarify from what I understand from the staff's presentation, we're actually pulling the head of that dock in closer to the sea wall as well. Is that correct? Yes, it'll be. And how far are we pulling that in? It's a few, I don't know the exact, it's a few feet though, lower than be shorter. The dock, the overall length of the dock will be a little bit shorter. And that was because we had to build, we wouldn't, it'd be nice to keep, because you're allowed to, you can permit what was previously permit. You can reparm it what was previously permitted. So it would have been nice to keep the dock with the size, with the length. But since we knew we wouldn't get the signature, we wouldn't be able to keep that dock without changing the footprint. So this is why we're here. So we're shortening the dock now because of this situation in order to get to build what's what they do. How much larger of a boat can you get on a 20,000 pound lift versus a 9,000 pound lift? About a 10,000 pound more boat. No, I don't. You could probably be in the mid-30s. It all depends on... Yeah, yeah, that's you're that good but yeah yes what and what do you think they can get on there now with a 9000 pound boat in terms of length what the how I think it's like a 26-foot boat like it's like it's actually six to eight feet longer on the side and so and how far you pull in the well I guess you probably have half of that hanging out the front and half on the back so say three to four feet. No, you'd have more of the stern hanging off the back. The bow of the boat would push further forward. Trying to be good for you, but I'm sorry. No, you're fine. So if you got, say an extra six to eight feet hanging out the back, how far have you pulled the docking closer to the seawall? Can you say that again? extra six to eight feet potentially a boat hanging out the back side. I just want to clarification on how much closer the head is to the seawall on the new dock versus what is existing because I think the existing was 68 feet. Is that correct? And I can't read this drawing here. And I'm just wondering, did we pull the head from 68 down to 62 and we're mitigating the effects of a larger boat? Or is what the appellant saying correct and around about way? No, so the way we would build the, the way we would build, sorry, the way we would build the dock and place the lift next to the dock is to where you would have full access to the boat along the side, the straight side of the, the way it's shown on there. So the boat itself wouldn't exceed past the end of the dock. It would stay within the envelope, the overall envelope of the dock as it extends out. OK. We're talking about the boat on the left, right? Yeah. So it would be. The boat doesn't stick farther out into the channel. Right. What I'm getting at. Yeah, it would not. OK. Yeah, I would not. The questions? I have a question. The, what's gonna go in the wet slip? And I'll give you the follow-up question now, because how do you get the ski out if there's something in the wet slip? So I believe that is used more as a, for people coming over to hang out on the links as it was said earlier. It does get a little busy out there on the weekends. So it's safer to have a boat tied up in a wet slip like that. So and then with a jet ski, if there was a boat in there, you would put the jet ski lift down, back it out or go forward and then go around that, whatever was in there. If there was anything in there. Okay. Other questions? Okay. We will go to public comment or there are any blue cards. There are none. Across examination. Let me get this right. Yeah. City. Do you have any cross-examination? Staff waves. A pellant. So sir, do you have any cross-examination for either the city or the applicant? Yeah, wait, wait, you need to come to here. Why don't you come over with this staff here? Yeah. And this will be questions. And if it's not a question, you you get a chance to have a closing statement Okay And sir do you have any not it has examination? Okay? And then for rebuttal closing City do you have any closing remarks? I just have one thing to touch on, Commissioner Walker, talking about the extension of the boat. So the wet slip does go out a little bit further than the head of the dock. So it's still further on the wet slip side than the left side would be. But it still meets requirements. It's no more than 25% of the waterway with and we're on open water. So they had the square footage they could go up further. Is the wet slip moving? Yes, it's coming in like the six, seven feet. It's everything's coming in a little bit. Yeah. Anything else? That's it. Now the applicant, any closing remarks? Yeah Anything else? It's it now the applicant you're any closing remarks Closing And now sorry appellant you are any closing remarks I just one correction Tyler's picture showed I think it was nine feet from the outer poles to my bow, but that actually is a lift structure itself because the edge of my bow goes out of a couple of feet, so it's really a seven foot distance. That's it. Okay. We go into executive session. We don't have any comments to start with. I'll start on. I respect the gentleman who appealed it and I understand his concerns, but I think I have to agree with Jordan. I mean, this everything on the north side fits easily. The head of the dock is being moved closer in towards the sea wall. I don't see any reason not to deny the appeal. They're supposed to be from front of us. Well, as usual, I defer to staff, especially when it comes to docs. I agree. I mean, we're looking at something that definitely meets the setbacks. There was an earlier email in our packet that indicated that I think the appellant thought that there was a code violation. And obviously, that is not the case. So I'm just wondering you know at that point when he found out that it does meet the setbacks then you be then you kind of into a safety issue which is way out of my purview that's a very wide channel. I know I hear what you're saying, Commissioner Walker, but I just measured it on Google Earth and it's about 300 feet after after the end of the doc. So there's plenty of room to maneuver. I just don't see an issue here. Other comments? That was the motion go. Yeah you moved to approve the appeal. Got you okay isn't the affirmative? Yeah right. Just as a reminder so approval of the appeal is denial of the application. Denial of the appeal is denial of the application. Denial of the appeal is approval of the application. Right. Terrifies it. I'm not just alexic. So that, it's the worst thing again though, especially for people in the audience. So everything on this board is affirmative. So the motion will be for a yes. So it would be yes for the appeal which would deny the original application. So a yes vote denies the application and a no vote approves the application. And I'll entertain a motion. Chair, I'll move approval of the appeal of a POD approval of a dock variance to reduce the required setbacks to allow for a new dock and what slip. Second. Can it? No. Stoke? No. Walker? No. Singleton? Clements? Reale? No. Flynn? No. All right, the motion to appeal has been denied. Okay, going to our third case. Case number 2439-000003. Who has this one? Oh, you have this one again? Okay. Good afternoon, Jordan. No more again with Planner. Planner with Development Review Services. Subject property is located at 720 Pinellas Point Draft South. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the maximum square footage to install a new dock. Property is owned in S2 Neighborhood Suburban, has a lot width of 107.5 feet, a lot area of 65,126 square feet. It's within the Greater Pineelice Point Civic Association boundaries. There's an existing single-family home constructed in 1973. The homeowners purchased the property in 2021. This property has 140 linear feet of water frontage according to Penelice County property appraiser. Here we have the proposed dock. The city counts our square footage starting either from mean high water or if a sea wall is present from there. So they're requesting a four foot wide by 284 foot long walkway that leads to a 20 foot wide by 16 foot long head. They will have a 24,000 pound lift to the east and a 13,000 pound lift to the west. Here are the dock requirements. Earlier we mentioned 20 feet for a dock as the minimum setback. They meet that on both sides, 10 feet for a lift on both sides that is also met. The request is for the square footage requirement. City code allows four square feet per linear foot of waterfront. That would be 560 square feet. Code also allows an additional up to 200 square feet for a walkway exemption. So by code they could have 760 square feet of dock. They're requesting 1,680 square feet. It's an increase of 920 square feet beyond the maximum, which is 121% increase in size. We've received no comment from Kona or Greater Penales Point Civic Association. No signatures of support were submitted with the application. We did receive four emails and objection to the request, as well as one registered opponent, and additional phone calls just requesting additional information on the application. Here we have the subject property in yellow. One email and objection came from the neighbor to the left, the west side. The remaining objection emails and registered opponent are from the property to the east on the right. Staff is recommending denial of the variance to the maximum square footage to install a dock. And that is my presentation. Any questions? Any questions for staff? Come, come and go. So in the applicant's variance on narrative, they note that there's a number of other docks in the area that have similar sizes and links. And a note length is not a criteria, but just area, but area consists of length times width. So, you know, even at four foot wide eventually you're going to get up to 760 square feet or beyond, right? So, I'm looking at an aerial photograph and that does appear to be the case, have our zoning rules changed such that these other docks were perhaps legal at the time they were built, but now would not be legal today because of the condition of having to extend so far out into the water. Yeah, so some of the docs are grandfathered situations. I did a review of several of the docs in the area. Most being from 10 by 10 to 10 by 12 heads. Some of them had a three foot lower landing on the end. There was one, a few properties to the west. I believe received a variance through Pinellas County. It was a long time ago when that was approved. You know, staff stance was based on, are they minimizing their request? You know, could they have narrowed the walkway down? They didn't show that they could narrow the head down to something, you know, similar with what's already existing in the area. Okay, thank you. And Jordan, several questions. It seems like here in the doc review commission, we seem to look at a lot of some of the information where you, if the property owner and either side approves, you guys can approve it administratively, but that seems that typically that deals with setbacks more than the actual space. Right. So that's a long way of asking you, had you not received any objections, could you have approved this one administratively? Not based on the square footage. Right. So our setback waiver is strictly for the setback. And looking at the aerials, and I kind of know aerolibut would decently well, at least, that it seemed to me, and to sort of Kevin on this, he knows it's supposed to be what I do, but to get to navigable or usable water, they have to go way out. It seems like looking at what they're confronted with. So my question is this, did they explore with you? I mean, by which making the, and you may have already addressed this, the footprint smaller to comply with the allowed square footage if you will, to get out as far as I have to get out. I guess making that skinny RGS or narrow work is that doable, have that has that been discussed? In the pre-application meeting I did discuss, when they were requesting it, we're gonna look at are you minimizing the ask to either narrow the walkway reduce the head. So it was brought up in the beginning. And did they, I mean, is this the, no, this was what was originally proposed? Thank you. I have a question. Is it an issue how far out they're going, meaning does the property line extend that far into the water? Annellis County, I believe their maximum length is 300 feet. So they would be going out the maximum distance the county allows. Okay, so it's a factor of that's the maximum distance, but also you have to take into account the width of the waterway. There's no particular width to contend with here. Right. Okay. We're basing our four square square feet by the 107.5 width of the lot. Okay, thank you. Based upon other docs, variants, to this seems like I believe we had one off of Park Street several years ago and City Legal said that there's no guarantee of navigable water that you can have a dock that is not necessary navigable. So there's no guarantee that we provide a dock of sufficient length to get to navigable waters. Is that correct? That's generally correct because even if something is approved there's no accounting for a natural accretion or erosion. So something that may have been built navigable, we can't guarantee that. And that wouldn't be a criteria for someone to come back and get extensions automatically because they're no longer navigable. So in other words, more of a, yeah, call it common sense that hey, that's two miles out to get navigable water no you can't get a dock two miles out four feet wide essentially is what they're saying so city is established the width a lot times four square feet and whatever that gets you. And then the length is the planner so this based on allowability from Pinellas County that 300 feet out and that's a base mark that's based. All of this is based at this core common law right of riparian rights and what you get but the ownership of the sea bed of navigable waters is transferred to the state and they use the county and that's why they're the ability to permit that out so you don't your property lines may extend for riparian rights but you don't own the underlying sea bet in most cases including this one it does not appear that they have submerged land ownership. So they they have water available at 50 feet out, it won't fit the Titanic, but it'll fit maybe a jet ski and doesn't matter. It's what you got. Whatever they can fit within that 300 feet line that's established by the county permitting and what they can do based on our criteria. Okay. Yes, but no, we do not we do not guarantee that you will be able to get a boat of any size in and out at all times. Okay. The county's criteria, I think, is more strict on, you know, where the lift can be with depth. And the city's not really considering depth. Is that correct? Right. Yeah. The county's going to look at the water depth more seagrass beds, which there are there. So it could go through the county review and they say, you need to go out a little bit further. We can accept this and you move out a little further for seagrass protection. And then they're requesting even more square footage at that point. Other questions for staff. Okay does the applicant ever presentation? Good afternoon Mr. Chair, commissioners my name is Nancy Simpson I'm acting as agent on behalf of the property owner and the Marine contractor who was hired by the property owner, Anderson Dockin Lyft. Thank you. So the property is located at 720 Pinellas South. Record please. Oh, sorry, my name is Nancy Simpson and address is 1811 Pommas Solobullavard in Braydenton. And I have been sworn. All right, so we've had a bit of discussion about the water depths and we've seen several aerial photographs. I wanted to show you some historic aerials from Google Maps. As you can see, the dock at the property was existing in about let's see. Here, there was an existing dock as far back as 1994. And as time went on, it degraded, degraded, degraded to today, which now has nothing. This is a wider aerial shot with the survey overlaid on top of the property to show the property lines, and a little bit closer up. As you can see, the water depth there is quite low, there is sea grass present, and we are well aware of that situation here. This is prime area for sea grass growth because of the water depth in that area. And if we go back to the historic photos, you can see that this sand bar has been there since, at least, 1994. So, to be able to reach water depths to ensure that there's not prop dredge that affects sea grass is why we are proposing the walkway be extended as far out as it has. And as Jordan mentioned, we did discuss during the pre-application meeting narrowing the walkway. However, four feet is the standard and also just for safety concerns. The property owner has parents who use wheeled medical devices to ensure that there's enough space on each side to get them out to a boat to enjoy the water with their family. And this would help improve property values for this specific property. And we did entertain reducing the platform size, but we went ahead with the original proposal just to see. And what we are amenable to reducing the platform size to help with the overall square footage issue. And as you can see here we have two neighboring docks, one to the east and one to the west that are quite large. So the one to the west goes out at least 240 feet and is it right about 932 square feet. And the one to the west is the property neighbor immediately to the west of the subjump property. And it is at 1458 square feet approximately. And the walkway widths on those are right around five feet maybe up to six feet and the terminal platforms on each of these are 10, 12, 16 somewhere around in there. So we would be amenable to reducing the lot, the platform size to accommodate, to help accommodate the issue of the square footage problem. And just a note as well, this blue line here is the water line, the high water line, and their seawall for whatever reason is further back at the furthest point here, around 31 feet further back than the high water line. So justifications for this variant. They previously had a dock that previous owners did not maintain, it fell through, would have been grandfathered in if it had been maintained. And it is smaller but similar size, it is oversized for the current codes, if enforced strictly. The shallow water does go out for at least 240 feet from the high water line just from what I can tell from Google Earth because we have not done an actual Bethemetric study out there. But the other reason, too too would be property rights enjoyed by others as you can see from other aerial imagery there are docs that do extend at least 200 feet out and have these platforms that are right around that 120 square foot platform size so I that's my presentation. Adam, did you want to add anything? You have to come stand and do the things. Okay. If you're going to speak, please say your name. I guess. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Name's Adam Barshan. I have been sworn in. Address 3273rd Street, Northwest Brains, and Florida. Just to add to Nancy's point, my apologies. I did want to comment on that we did take a study off of the NOAA site and as you can see, you know, the water depth does get, we have to go pretty much the entire length in order to get to the water depth or navigable waters for most vessels that's pretty much it. Any questions? Any questions for the applicant? I have one question. In the justification, it says nearly 40 linear feet of sea grass. So A, does that mean linear feet north to south or east to west? From waterward to, or from landward to seaward. So essentially where you see the platform here to here is approximately 40 feet. Is that, and that's where you've identified the location of the seagrass you're saying? Correct. Just from aerial imagery. I work in land use planning and I'm a floodplain manager and I do a lot with sea grass monitoring and so being able to identify from aerial imagery what sea grass looks like and that is an established sea grass bed and to make sure that we're not prop dredging not C-grass The platform does need to come out that far. Oh Don't want to although I do it all the time. I'm trying to avoid pretending like I know more than I do C-grass usually it was something like six seven eight or nine feet where the depth get beyond that It's too dark then at the bottom. Depths beyond six feet. Six feet. And is there a minimum depth or a sea grass? Minimum depth I think is about two feet. Otherwise it'll get sun bleached because it needs to be staying underwater at low tides as well. Okay. Thank you. I have a question. How much is the applicant willing to decrease the size of the dock at the end? I would say as much as needed to have a dock that would accommodate motorized craft. So we haven't discussed directly, but I would think he would be amenable to a 10 by 10 as recommended by staff. Should be sufficient to accommodate the two lifts and other things you may need for your boat. the the the the the the the the he needs to do that, reduce that, I'm to hopefully about 12. So 16 by 10 instead of 16 by 20? I was gonna say 16 by 12 or 10, whatever. So yeah, so like Adam was saying to accommodate the C grass as well to ensure that the props do not dredge the C grass, the 16 feet of the platform goes from the landward side to the seaward side that adds the additional depth to accommodate the motors of the craft. So the walkway ends basically at where the sea grass extent would end. So if we pushed in further by narrowing the platform, we would have to extend the walkway. So there would have to be a give and take there. I mean, we can discuss like exact design, but if you wanted to do an approval with condition that the square footage needs to be reduced by X amount, we can work that out. Fair to summarize your comment there to say making it narrower but not shorter. Correct, yes. There was the south end of the head. It needs to stay where the south end currently is. Otherwise the boat would start to encroach into the sea grass. Correct, yes. The way the boughs are situated now, they are facing north and so to accommodate the sea grass bed and to make sure that the lift doesn't drop into the sea grass as well. We have to have the platform that far out. Right. I have a question for you if you don't mind. So the sea wall on your property you mentioned is 31 feet behind the neighbor to the east sea wall. Is that right? Is that what you said 31 feet? Yes. And that relatively new sea wall. Why was it constructed where it was constructed? I have no clue. It seems that the sea wall has been there for a while. If we went back and looked at the historic imagery, you can see where it was installed, who I did not look into the permitting on it. So yeah, you can see. Yeah, so there in like 2002, it looks like it lines up pretty closely with the neighbor to the right. And then same as 2007 and 2010, it starts working this way back. And then when you go to the right. And then same as 2007 and 2010 it starts working this way back and then when you go to the current arrow you can see the jog very clearly. Right, yes so the seawall is back here. Yeah the seawalls way back now. Right and so the current property owner as Jordan said purchase the property in 2021 So whatever happened before that I Don't know the previous owners understand and the reason I'm asking is I wanted to beach 30 well 31 Feet times 4 feet wide as an additional roughly 125 square feet of doc that Right, if you just left the wall where it was, the variance really isn't as pronounced as- Right, and so I guess maybe for the legal council, a little clarification on the ordinance where it says sea wall and or high water line, does one take precedent over the other or is it whichever one is more water word? the city's past practices and prior applications have been if a seawall is existing then we take the measurement from the seawall. Okay. Correct. So my interpretation is that we have a lot of questions about the city's past practices and prior applications have been if a seawall is existing then we take the measurement from the seawall. Okay. Correct. So my interpretation and review of this was so we don't do a site visit I'm going based on aerial imagery. Me it appeared there was no longer a seawall there so I'm taking it from mean high water. So that extra 31 feet is not included in their request. Oh, so that's an additional 125 rough. Interesting. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Okay, we have a registered opponent. Please state your name, address, and that you've been sworn. So, after new money is Brendan Keane, I live at 6.50 PNL's point drive south number 228. I come before the commission today as not a member of the... You confirm you've been sworn? Yeah, I'm sorry. And that podium will come up. There's a switch on the side that will raise the podium for you So you don't have to hunch over it's okay. I can get it. Oh Okay There you go. Thank you I come to as a member of the I'm not a member of the board of the velvet cloak condominiums Which are two properties, one property down from the applicant. We basically have two reasons for a complaint. One of them is how it would obstruct our view. If you look at the geography, if the point goes, this dock will protrude way further than any dock and will obstruct our view of the water, of the Skyway Bridge and everything around it. But the biggest reason we have is historical with the owner and I'm impressed that he's not here today because I would like to talk to him. There's been a lot of problems with his property with respect to respecting other neighbors. Approximately 11 months ago, either him or someone his kids or something had a bonfire on that beach of pommfrons, and I believe was stuff after a storm. Instead of bringing it out to the street and having the city pick it up, they burned it on the beach. Which if you ever burn p palm fronds, they flame, but they really smoke. Causing all the smoke to come over to our dock and our enjoyment on the dock, we had to call the fire department. I actually went down the fire department yesterday to get the documentation, but they couldn't give it to me at the time. I only, you know, one of the things I failed to do for this meeting was that I don't check my mailbox regularly because I'm retired and everything's online. So I didn't really understand, you know, when it came to us about the doc and the picture that I got and what we talked about was, you know, oh, they're gonna put in a. And we're like, well, you know, that's kind of like a formality. And, you know, they just want to put in a dock. Well, when I came down and talked to Mr. Elmore about it, and when I saw how huge it was and how far it went out, you know, we, some of the reds, we talked about it, and we were not real happy about it. Last Thursday when I spoke to two members of the board of Unbecation up north, and they told us how big this was going to be and that the church next door was opposed to it. The county is opposed to it and I guess the whatever the city used there opposed to it. The county is opposed to it. And I guess the whatever the city used there opposed to it also. There's just been a lot of problems with cutting down mangroves and I believe he cut down a live oak and a big pine tree on the property. And I don't believe that it was permitted. And you know, just a lot of things are going on over there. That this is a retirement community. We like to keep things quiet. And we really enjoy the peer that we had that we had rebuilt. We have the park on one side. And weekends, that's kind of loud. And then what was going on over there was you know just we're just concerned about it. What else? Now I know he has a boat I've seen it it. It's probably about a 24, 26-foot single-engine center console boat. Now this is calling for a lift of a 24,000 pound and a 13,000 pound. Now I've owned boats and I've looked up on the computer and 24,000 pounds is a 32- foot grand bank's troller I think. That's a pretty big boat. You know, a 36-yellow phone with 3,400s, about 12,000 pounds. Those are pretty big boats. There was a dock there. I think he moved in there three years ago, so why he's starting this process now. We could have maybe looked into grandfathering what would used to be there. And you know, you talked about shifting sands. What's to stop this sand from shifting even more, requiring him to build his boat, his dock out further. And the dock directly next to him and directly next to us is not really looking too good either. So, you know, it would have been nice if you would have contacted the board and we could have had to sit down and we could have maybe found some middle ground to how we, you know, because I would never, you know, I love boat love boating. I don't do it too much anymore because I'm retired. But, you know, there's plenty of boat ramps. There's one next to us. There's a boat ramp at Bay just the park. There's boat ramps at Maximo Park. There's a boat ramp at O'Neill's. He has plenty of options to launch his boat and use it. But this just seems to be too much to us. And we hope you will not allow it to go forward. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions for Ezra Poonett? No, thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have any blue cards? We do not. Get this order right. City, would you like to cross? F-waves. Sir, you have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or the city do you have any questions. And applicant do you have any cross examination questions. Applicant waves. All right, the city any closing. Effilies. And sir, you now get the opportunity to close if you would like. Yes. Sorry, the red shirt opponent. Yes, sir. Well, this one was found in the grass, which means it had to go over the trees three weeks ago. This one was on the dock. Now, if you look at the Google Earth, he has a putting green and I guess a net where you can drive balls. There's nobody at the velvet cloak now that's who plays golf. They're all on vacation. And I haven't played since May, so somehow these balls ended up on our property. And again, it's just one of those things that, you know, no one ever came over and said, hey, sorry about that. We won't. It's just one of many things that have occurred of just in the three and a half years that I've been there. So just out of respect alone, I think, I think you should reconsider if you're gonna prove this or not. Thank you. Avogate, any closing remarks? When neighbors do get involved in the process, however, I would say that some of these comments were extraneous and not relevant to the conversation. As I said, we are amenable closer to that size, so then that's similar sizes right next to each other. And then that would provide property rights enjoyed by others to the current land owner. Anna would ask that the commission taking consideration the facts and not complaints by neighbors. Thank you. Any more questions from molding into that executive session? So we're an executive session. And I do have a question for Dr. Moore. So we saw evidence that the previous doc, which is now gone, was 1525 square feet, was 5.5 foot wide, had a 10 by 12 platform at the end. If they had come in in a timely manner to rebuild that, would they have been allowed to rebuild that without variance? If there was record of the previously approved county permit for that dock, that is correct. I did do a search and wasn't able to find that specific dock permit through Pinellas County's Asella website. So in your experience in dealing with these types of cases, is that not unusual for older properties to have not had a permitted dock? I mean for have we been permitting docks, I guess, in Pinellas County? I mean, I've got, I think I've seen, you know, 70s, maybe late 60s I've seen. So it's, thank you. Oh, well. And I'm just looking at the property raises website, the house is built in 73. So that's in that range. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I definitely agree with staff. And actually, I think applicant agrees as well that we do not have the minimum variance. But I have a horrible feeling we're going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what that number is. So I'm going to throw it out there right now that maybe we can do a no greater than and then let them play with the design. And instead of trying to come up with a number, I don't think we can come up with odd number. I have a problem with a four foot wide. I'd love to see a three foot wide because it is so darn long. And if you do that, and if you go down to a 10 by 12, but what I'm not playing with that, I'll throw out the first number. The first number I will throw out there was no larger than 1,250 square feet. So speaking to that, I was doing some math. I've done a lot of math. Yeah, so just doing some real quick math. If you went down to a three foot wide walkway, added the additional 31, then your feet. Oh, I didn't do all. And then went to a 16-match-well of head. You're looking at 113737 and so what's the target number again well right now they're at 16 yeah right now they're 16 20 I think and and they're at a 16 80 16 80 they're at a hundred and twenty one percent variance this would get them down to 49 percent variance so my my thoughts on this is not to reinvent the wheel. I can't support this and I am going to vote no and it doesn't matter how we try to reconfigure this. I'm gonna vote no and let them try to figure out a plan that they can make amenable with city staff and the neighbors and we can look at it, are y'all come look at it after I've gone to the sport? Thank you, months. But, you know, I agree with Commissioner Stowe and this one I got to support staff. I do think there's a solution that we can get to that works, but I don't think we can get there without substantial changes, and which allows them to the opportunity to come right back in anyway. And so, you get it. Well, I was gonna hold my comments at the end, but they're in response to that. I actually, I don't think the code contemplates this at all. I think this is exactly why with a variance process, and I actually would support it completely as proposed. And if we want to reduce this I some, as long as they can still get to the 300 feet, I could consider that. But this is just, the code can't consider this. And if the code considered this, you would have monstrosities on properties and canals. And so we're asked to look at what's reasonable. I think it's a relatively reasonable doc. If you're gonna go 300 feet out, I wouldn't want it to be much more narrow. And frankly, I appreciate the neighbor coming out, but that's just not confidence and substantial evidence. So I think that it sounds like the concern from the first, you know, two that spoke here is magnitude. And, you know, I'd like to at least discuss what other members of the commission could support because I could support it as is. I'll chime in right now and it says the same thing. I think they have a right to have a doc. This is a very unique spot in the city of St. Petersburg in our geography. I, George, look, Jordan's right. I agree with you guys as a code is written, but I also say I don't think the code contemplates this unique predicament. And I look along here, every doc looks like long peer to me. They're all huge. Because they have to be. They're also, they're varying in length, but they're all going right beyond the show. That's exactly right, which is what they're trying to do. And I respect the name for coming in, but I'm sorry those comments are absolutely of no moment to me that we're not in neighborhood dispute program here. And I agree with what you're saying in principle. It's just they have taken no effort to minimize the variance requested. But going from four feet to three feet. I understand, I'm just saying. I mean, it's the greatest deal of things. They did in their testimony. Yeah. Yeah, at the head, you know. Commissioner, close that. A loss by train of thought there first. No one. No, no, somebody. No, I think the comment that getting them out just beyond that shelf where you have the sea grass, as we all are aware, sea grass has an immense value that we are in a way protecting that seagrass by allowing this doctor go out as far as it is. Otherwise, you'll get jet skis coming in going through there. Now you have natural destruction of seagrass which we want to protect. And I agree, the code didn't contemplate this. This works on all your little canals we deal with all the time. It works perfectly fine for that, but this is an unforeseen type of situation. Now if they want to go out two miles, I'd say, nah, come on, that's ridiculous. Since we have all those others long, they're very similar in length. And then as you look further west on the aerial, you'll see that once that sand bar goes away, everybody goes back to your standard dock. I'll go back in. So it's only due to this sand bar right here, which is subject to change over time. But you know what? Docks go bad, and it might have to be redone at some point. So I would be in support of it, and if they can live with a three foot on it, that'd be great. I can understand the request for four foot, when you're walking a narrow sidewalk for a short distance, not a big deal. You're walking a couple hundred feet. Now it's getting to be a little bit more of an issue for safety. I need to sit down and take a rest. Exactly. Yeah, I mean, we don't even permit sidewalks at three feet. It's so much commissioner and comments. I do learn things here. I mean, I had never, or see things in you light. I had never really thought about that, you know, we talked earlier, there was some comments earlier about, well, there's no guarantee just because of your property's condition that your doc may get you out of shallow water. But in reality, we don't want the docs in shallow water where there's a potential for seagrass to be growing. So that's something I had not calculated, I thought about before. I will defer to other people on widths of dock. I'm not convinced by the need, don't take a person on a wheelchair 400 feet out. Whether it's three feet or four feet, that's just seems like a bad idea. So I'm not convinced by walkers and wheelchairs, but just even able-bodied people, I think, four-foot, just safer or more reasonable width. Then lastly, on the platform, I don't think it's 16 by 20-foot. Platform is necessary. The previous one was 10 by 12. Maybe that's a little small, but 12 by 12 or 12 by 16 is the most. So now I've heard what Commissioner Walker said. Commissioner Stowe, I am willing to sort of do a little bit of math and come up with a number and see if there's something that we can approve today. I'd like to ask the applicant a question. Have you submitted any permitting to the county yet? Not yet, we were waiting for the decision from this body. So, you know, the permitting is not done, right? They're gonna have to deal with C grass with the county and they're gonna have to deal with the length with the County and they're going to have to deal with the length of the County. We just have to consider, well consider the variance and consider our code which as we see these applications all the time. As many of the dogs that there's a consternation over the County would permit correct. Yeah, so the County Mayor may not permit this. Right, we're concerned with the same vehicle. So actually, I just did some quick math and I'm coming up with around 1500 square feet. The previous stock was 1525. I know that that sort of. Neither here nor there because previous stock doesn't exist. I get and made out of him been permitted, but maybe 1525 is a number that gets some. Now 1525 would allow for a four foot head, I mean a four foot wide dock, it would allow for the additional 30 feet and would allow for about 160 feet of a platform. So that's 12 by 12 or 10 by 16. That's what 1525 square feet would get you. When you're talking about sea grasses, having that smaller head casting a smaller that are two shaded area is is better for the sea grass area. I'll see you. I'll see you. Would that be acceptable to the applicant? The numbers have been suggested. Sorry. Yep. 1525 sounds great. And a smaller yes. The smaller platform does is make sense for casting shadows as well. We would be amenable to redesigning to accommodate that. I don't know. Commissioner Vattle has been waiting patiently. I just like to chime in that I agree that reducing the magnitude of the variance would be warranted because maybe we don't take issue with 20 by 16 but what if they came in with a 20 by 20? Is that the moment we take issue with how much bigger it is? I think if they're looking for a variance they need to create a minimal impact as minimal of an impact as they can and I feel like perhaps reducing since it's been stated publicly now that they're willing to reduce the size of the dock then I would agree that that is probably a good idea. And just to reiterate, the five says variance proposed to be granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reason to be used in this property. Yes. So they gave testimony that they were willing to go down to three for the wine. They gave testimony that they were willing to use the size of the dockhead. They gave testimony to Seth very simply that they were willing to help meet the minimum variance necessary to meet what they need. And this board is still sitting here saying, I didn't hear them say that they were willing to reduce to four feet, three feet. I thought they said the opposite that they wanted to maintain the fourth foot. They did. I did that. They did that job. What I heard is they were willing to, they didn't want to shorten it. They didn't want to shorten it for reasons of getting beyond the grass. They didn't want to reduce the width, but they were willing to reduce the platform. And at 1680, the difference between 1680 and 1525 is 155 square feet. So that takes you from a 20 by 16 to a 16 by 10. It basically gets. It's also at the Seagrass. Right. Yeah, it still needs to stay outward for a while. That's for them to kind of figure out the final configuration. But any other comments in this end? No. All right. I'll entertain an emotion. Sure. I'll make a motion, but I'm not sure. Since we want to I want to make a motion, but I want it to incorporate the maximum square 40. We've talked about the 1525. Well, adequate. We just added as an added condition then. So we forget we need to vote on that. Yes. Let's vote on the condition adding the size maximum condition first please. Okay. Is the variance in the packet does it give a script? No, it doesn't. It just says variance to maximum square footage. So yeah, we should put a condition. Why make a minimum? A trail make a motion should put a condition. I think they're giving them a chance. Charles making motion to add a condition. Read the first condition. It's going to say right away that site plans have to be identical to so we don't want that. OK. So one second. So I would recommend I would I think we do if the plans are changing, I think it's probably warranted to modify condition number one. I do think though that since the request is changing that the motion should include the square footage as opposed to that being in the condition, too. Condition number one. And you delete the first sentence. Every place it may be. Yeah, we could delete the first sentence and then do a motion that has the maximum. Because it's one of the more clear variances we have with the docs. It's very straightforward. And staff, could you could you work with that to find? Yeah, and just for clarification, because Commissioner Walker brought it up, whether you're granting the square footage from the mean high water or the sea wall. And you measured it now from the mean high water, right? Correct. Then the prior, the old doc, you didn't make that measurement. There wasn't any documentation of it. line there's a tree line there. Okay, I think I can do it. So, Chair, I'll make a motion to starting with the conditions of approval first to delete the first sentence from condition number one and to replace that with a sentence that should read to the general effect of a plan shall be submitted with the maximum square footage of the dock structure not to exceed 1,525 square feet and that the length of the dock structure should be measured from the mean higher water line. Okay, I think the county will decide the length, but for our purposes, that's for the person who ordered it. That's my motion. Curenin? Yes. Walker? No. Stoke? No. Singleton? Yes. Clemens? Yes. Reality? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Thatallee? Yes. Flynn. Yes. That motion passes. I'll make a motion for approval of variance to the maximum square footage to install a dock subject to the conditions of approval. Subject to the amended condition. Wow, so close. Subject to the amended conditions of approval. Okay. Kieranen. Yes. Walker. No. Stowe. Okay. Kiernan. Yes. Walker. No. Stowe. No. Singleton. Clemens. Yes. Riali. Yes. Flynn. Yes. Motion passes. We will take a short recess. We'll start back at 320. . . you you you you you you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to put it on the top. . you I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. you I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. you. you you you All right. We're going to stay in recess. Thank you, sir. Yes, getting too much of a call. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to stay in recess. Thank you, sir. Yes, getting to work. My life's mission. Go on in my life, go. you you I want to come alternate. There's only a little bit. All right, we're back in session. Next case, case number 2441-00-00-04. And Chair, part of that recess was to do a little potential housekeeping with respect to this case. Council was recently retained as of yesterday. And they would like to maybe address the board before starting the hearing. Are you comfortable with that procedure, Lee? I am. Okay. Okay. Council. Good afternoon. Thank you, staff, for for allowed me to talk. This is, uh, this will be relatively brief. Um, but my name is Chris Paragin. I'm an attorney with Lewis Longman and Walker located at a hundred second out of South here in St. Pete. I was previously sworn in and providing an affidavit affidavit of authorization to staff before this hearing Like it so I represent the appellant owner of the property located at 5024 Emerson Ab South, which is the property at issue in this property car interpretation appeal. Staff determined that the property's use is illegally multi-family dwelling. So I'm actually here before you to respectfully request the continuance of this matter to the next DRC hearing to allow time for council to review the file, understand the issues that play a little better. Our firm is actually just retained as council yesterday evening and I just spoke to the owner of the property for the first time this morning. There is a little bit of a language barrier with the owner, which I have a feeling has made things a little difficult with the history of this property. But moving forward, that shouldn't be an issue. Another reason for this last minute request is that the owner originally attempted to retain a law firm they've worked with in the past, but who was unable to assist with the case and refer it to our firm, Lewis Lamin Walker. My goal really is just to help the owners of this property legally comply with zoning code. However, that might be done. We're requesting additional time to figure out the best course of action. Hopefully work with city staff who I briefly spoke with yesterday and I think thank them for helping me understand the issues a little bit because haven't had too much time to dive into it. I don't believe that a continuance will be prejudicial here. I understand there's, you know, I think this has been lingering, but the owner has now finally retained us as well into, you know, work through some of the issues. I think there are tenants that are currently living in the property. So, anyway, that could, though we could move forward to, I guess, cause least disruption to them would be preferable. But I do thank you for your time consideration. Welcome any questions I can take note of. Is anyone here in the public to eat on this item? Mr. Demon, do you think 30 days is sufficient? Chair, just a little more context. This issue is brought to our attention yesterday afternoon. And by code, the applicant is out of time for an administrative extension of the time to hear an appeal, which has to be 90 days from the receipts of the notice of appeal, which occurred in May. So here we are at 90 days. So that's why the applicants or the appellants councils making the request of the board today with respect. Do you need the power to grant the continuous past 90 days? It's my opinion that you would have that power if you so choose I think that it needs to be re-noticed so whatever needs to Have enough time to accommodate re-notice Is of my kind of like procedural concern on this, but it's totally up to the board's will. There was not notice associated with this appeal application. Okay, well then, we don't even have that. Mr. Plint. I have concerns about giving an extension here to hear this. I, it's one of the rare ones I've gone back and done two site visits to, because I'm like, there's more wrong to this than my first visit. And sure enough, there's multiple what I consider life safety issues on this. And I know we're not here specifically for code violation, but the code violations are still existing on this property. And even appears potentially that the Southwest structure is a shed that was converted to living space that we have people living in this and kicking further down the road for resolution on something that the property owners have a professional local management company. We've you know in our packet we've seen a lot of was a ten star something like that which may even be the prior owner of the property because I see there was a Transfer ownership from a ten star and now it's managed by ten star so I don't know I I want to allow people time for legal representation, but I'm concerned of the safety issue of kicking this down the road. Yeah, nothing we do to hear today is going to solve the safety issues. The code, the code. We can't solve the code, the code enforcement problem. But what he's saying is if it was denied and those people had to move out, then that would happen sooner, then if we sit and wait in 30 days or maybe people. But I hear Commissioner Flint and I value his judgment. I'm trying to figure out if that's something that, yeah. Yeah, when you have units being built that don't meet metamum fire egress from bedrooms When loading Yeah, and my second site visit today just there's so much wrong with that property That I would hate to do anything that would slow down the codes enforcement for existing conditions. And I understand this is for a second dwelling unit, which is allowed if they meet certain requirements, they would be able to have an ADU, but that's permitted, that's its own process. Mr. Dima, would this potentially slow down any of the life safety enforcement on that that codes would take? It should be independent from that. If it's a life safety issue, but I would defer to zoning and planning staff as to the interaction of those processes. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Abernathy, planning and development director. I have been sworn. My understanding is that the code's cases usually typically are placed in a base until the zoning action is goes through. And they don't move forward on that, because what they're going to do for permitting and plans, it would be dependent on the action of, on the zoning action. So this current code's case is active about the electric being split four ways. That's going to be unholding. Right, that would be unhold because the remedy for that would depend on what the determination is for the number of dwelling units. And you know, again, fire egress from bedrooms where people are asleep and who knows what kind of fire sources are there with ovens and properly wired all these issues. Again, as a contractor going there and looking at it, and I'm sure engineers would do the same if you look at it, they're even missing all their sewer caps at the roadway. I mean, they're just minimal, minimal maintenance on this property that if we were to defer this, I would not want to defer it any more than 30 days if we do agree to this because of the seriousness of what I'm seeing on that property. I would be fine, you know, 30 days, but 60, 90, because we are putting that code violation on hold. And I don't know if you could speak on behalf of your, well, I don't know if you could get too much stuff. Yeah, yeah. Hearing this, 30 days maximum, and I'd ask for a representation from you as a lawyer, that if you find out what I think you're going to find out that you take a meaty dash off your client, you don't speak to your client yet, I understand that, but to remedy these situations, because you've had very knowledgeable people expressed extremely, extremely disturbing things about this property. When I read the file, my hair stood up, but here in this now. Well, so that's the other thing, too. We all have reviewed the file. And as you point out, Mr. Keirney and I are both lawyers. And so I always Would want to give someone the right to representation, but The Let me ask let me let me but I'll just hold that comment mr mr. Dima Would we be able to continue this during executive session if we to. Can we hear some of the evidence before we... You may. Thank you, may. The deferral option, which this body has exercised many times over the years, generally occurs in the executive session portion of a hearing. So if we were to hear this case today in rule on it, we have man-promised yet, but here we hear the case in rule on it. What's the real net effect difference if we give the 30-day extension supposed to do something today? It's not sure what the net difference is. On the outcome you mean? Yeah. And they're right to be represented. But we can also, but we can make that determination to hear in the facts, right? Mm-hmm. So I get to sit in the seat today. So we're not going to take a vote and then do the vote later. So I would like to proceed with the case and we'll consider your request for continuance after we hear presentations. So Saf, can you please, your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Chelsea. Freeman, I'm a staff planner with development review services and I have been sworn to recap. We are here to discuss the property card interpretation appeal for the property located at 5024 Emerson Avenue South. Case number 24-41000004. The subject property is located in the NT1 zoning district on Emerson Avenue South between 50th and 51st Street South. The subject property consists of platted lots, three and four of block five in the Forest Hills subdivision, which was platted in 1923, part of the Westminster Heights neighborhood. The property located, uh, measures 85 feet and width and contains a lot area of 10,795 square feet. Given this lot area, the property currently qualifies for one single family home and one accessory dwelling unit. Here we see a project timeline. The current owner purchased the property in December of 2021. A tenant complaint was received in December of 2023, shortly followed by a code investigation. On March 12th of this year, the applicant submitted an application for a property card interpretation or a PCI. The PCI was completed on April 8th, which concluded that one dwelling unit was legally constructed on the property. A reconsideration request was received on April 19th. The reconsideration letter was completed on April 23rd, which found insufficient evidence to overturn the previous conclusion, and appeal was submitted on May 3rd. The application materials received the PCI application consisted of the general application page, an affidavit to authorize an agent for the property management company. The application narratives, as seen on the top left of the screen, the application describes four dwelling units, four rooming units. The owner does not occupy the site. A site plan, which I have superimposed over an aerial image of the site here. The historic property card, a copy of the 2022 City Business Tax receipt, and the violation notice from the active co-s enforcement case. The Penales County property appraisers records show that three dwelling units have been reported at the subject site. The footprint of the building area as reported to the property prasier is shown here. Superimposed over an aerial image of the site, it is notable that the area claimed as dwelling unit number four in the Southwest corner of the site on the applicant site plan is not described in the property prasier's records. The property card shows that the house with a two car garage was constructed in 1953. It was built with two electric meters and one kitchen range. In 1962, a 112 square foot addition was made to the home. The precise records could not be located, but the historical areas appeared to indicate that the highlighted area was the location of the new addition. The garage was converted to a bedroom in 1969. A 10-foot-by-10-foot steel utility shed was constructed in 1973, this location is an estimate. In 1974, a 300 square foot slab was poured with existing footers with plumbing rough in for two bathrooms. This appears to be incorporated with the 1974 described addition of 650 square feet of living area and 112 square feet of accessory area. In 1991, waiver was granted which allows for two bedrooms to rent with no cooking facilities. The remaining permits on this property card relate to utilities and regular maintenance of the home. In 1995, an after-the-fact permit was opened related to the pool and spa. The permit was not completed and was administratively closed. In 1996, an after-the-factit was opened to relocate the utility shed. The permit was revoked and closed. In 1999, a permit was opened to add a 10 foot by 10 foot addition to what is described as an existing 10 foot by 20 foot shed. The permit was not completed and was administratively closed. The remaining electronic records related to this property are related to utilities and regular maintenance of the home. This case relates directly to the definitions of dwelling unit. The zoning department relies on the land development code definitions as it relates to the case. The land development code includes the following definitions. A dwelling unit, which means a living space for a family with cooking, bathroom, and sleeping facilities. An accessory dwelling unit is an ancillary or secondary living unit that has a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area existing either within the same structure or on the same lot as the primary detached single family home. An accessory living space is an additional living space which is separated from the principal residence which does not function as an independent dwelling unit and which utilizes the same cooking facilities, street address and utility meter as the principal residence. And lastly, a cooking facility, which means a kitchen or other design food preparation area in a structure that is equipped with a range or oven. The area may be presumed to be intended for use as a cooking facility if it includes a refrigerator or sink and has a 220 volt electric outlet or natural gas hookup which is not being actively used for water heaters or close-drivers. The code's enforcement record supplied some pertinent history on this case. In 1996, notes in a case record indicate that two bedrooms were being rented by foreign exchange students in accordance with the 1991 waiver approval. In 2003, a case was referred by the fire department because the single family house contained four rental units in addition to the house. The garage was reported to be having been converted to a three bedroom apartment, contradicting the property card description that described the garage as having been converted to a one bedroom in 1969. The PCI relates to an active codes enforcement case in which the tenant filed a complaint in December of 2023 regarding illegal dwelling units and improper splitting of electricity. The codes investigator conducted a site visit and reported that illegal dwelling units and proper splitting of electricity. The co-investor investigator conducted a site visit and reported that illegal dwelling units. As the site only has one kitchen, the definition of a dwelling unit per the land development code contains a cooking facility, code enforcement's conclusion of illegal dwelling units relates most directly to the building and life safety code requirements, such as legal egress from bedrooms, fire alarms, and interior connectivity within the home. Examining the history of the property, the subject property was not eligible for a multifamily development from its construction in 1953, per that year's code or under the 1961 code, it might have been eligible for a multifamily development under the 1977 code, but would have required a special exemption, no special exemption records were found. A garage apartment was permissible under the 1953 code, but was not permissible under the 1961 or 1977 codes. Accessories dwelling units are now permissible on the property under the current code. No records exist for legal construction of a garage apartment or an ADU. Here we see photos of a site from Emerson Avenue South, the front of the property. Here we see photos from the site from Emerson Avenue South, the front of the property. Here we see photos from the rear of the property. It's taken from the alley. Here we have interior courtyard photos from the Coz Investigators records from their January 17th and March 21st's additional reinspections. To summarize the analysis that was performed for the property card interpretation and this associated appeal, neither the property card nor the digital record permits describe any additional kitchen. In 1991, the waiver approved two rental bedrooms with no cooking facilities and this does not constitute approval for additional dwelling units. There are no registered additional or supplementary addresses associated with the site. Historical street views show that one mailbox was present from at least 2008 through 2019. The co-sinvestigators inspection as well as my own site visit on July 23rd, found that three additional mailboxes have been recently installed. The property appraiser shows three dwelling units having been reported, but their records are for taxing purposes only and do not constitute approval for additional dwelling units. And the city business tax records are inconsistent. It was paid for two units, for 2004 and 2005, and for three units from 2006 to 2013 and 2018 to current. City business tax does not establish a use nor does it constitute approval for additional dwelling units. Lastly, the historical city directories as provided by the St. Petersburg Museum of History show one address. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to overturn the PCI conclusion that one dwelling unit was legally constructed, with approval remaining to rent out two bedrooms. Staff recommends denial of the appeal to the conclusion of the property card interpretation. Should the commission deny the appeal, the property owner must obtain permits with inspections to return the subject property to the last permitted use. That being a single family residence with continued approval to rent out two bedrooms with no additional cooking facilities. The property does qualify for an accessory dwelling unit. The property owner may pursue additional permitting for new construction or conversion of an existing space to create an accessory dwelling unit. Thank you. On the code enforcement photos, it looks like all the photos are of the interior of the Southwest building, which is a net, if you could stop it. Yeah, the photo all the way to the right, that appears to be a shed that was converted, some version of a shed. The pictures of the inside of that one, does that show a kitchen? I couldn't really tell from the photos. There were no pictures of additional kitchens. There were photos of interior bedrooms and of bathrooms, but no kitchen is pictured and only one kitchen is described in the property card record. Is there any record to show that that was built? The best guess that I had was the relocation of the steel utility shed and then the expansion with a roof permit for what was claimed to be a 10 by 20 where a 10 by 10 was previously described. It was 10 by 10 then it was moved and then later another 10 by 10 was added to a 10 by 20 so somehow. Something like that yes. There is a 10 by 10 really old shed that's sitting in the parking area along the southeast corner of the property. So that doesn't even look like the original shed. That's just its own complete separate structure at the southwest corner. Okay. Is your conclusion of the inspection conclusion that it's a single failing, because there's only one kitchen. So there's one dwelling unit with four bedrooms for rent or would it be three bedrooms for rent because the dwelling unit is just trying to figure out how far over the two they are. And then ignoring the shed which I'll ask a question about that in a second So the the rooming units the two rooming units that would have been associated with the 1991 approval are subsidiary to the primary use which is a single family home. They are part of the single family home. So you know if would it be possible since the owner isn't live there for basically three, you have whoever's renting the home and then two rooms, is that the way it would be interpreted? Potentially. There are additional bedrooms where the garage was legally converted. Right. Okay. And it's not claimed. The somewhere. Bedrooms's not clinging. The somewhere. Bedrooms are in each unit. Exactly, okay. And then the shed, if there's no kitchen in the shed, is that accessory, or we're calling it the shed, I don't know, the 19, the, we'll go back to the aerial slide. The 1999, the green area that changed over time, if that doesn't have a kitchen, is that accessory living space then right now? It would be accessory living space, as it's a detached living space structure, with no records of a kitchen, yes. But there are no records of permitting for the construction of this accessory living space. Okay. You could potentially have three male access. Right. I mean, I'm trying to process all that too. Yeah, and you could add an AD. Well, the two bedrooms could be technically 1A and 1B. You could have the main house. The ADU's not permitted. Yeah, the main house and the two rental. Yeah, it's my three. But let's keep going through so, Commissioner Clemens. Well, I mean, the St. Petersburg restrict the number of unrelated people that can live in a something. No, they're free to have roommates in a single family home. In that kind of a situation, maybe that's not relevant. It remains us today. Just thinking about the mailboxes, I've got roommates, are they allowed to have their own mailbox? I mean, it's the same address, isn't it? Right now, there's one legal address for the property. Good afternoon, Elizabeth. I'm an empty director of planning and development. I'm not aware of any restrictions on how many mailboxes you have. Now, we wouldn't issue extra addresses for rooms. So I'm not sure somebody just wrote an ABC and had people address it that way, would that work? I am, we don't, but we would not officially give that address. And I'm not sure if the post office today would do that, like maybe if it's been there for. It wouldn't be anything until I go through you. Right. So I don't think that the post office would issue that today. You know, maybe they've been there for a long time and date back to the roaming units and at that time perhaps the policy or did it allow for separate mailboxes and that predates any records I have that relate to that. According to the Google Maps records, those mailboxes have appeared since 2019. The different topic, and again, maybe it's not germane to the issue of legal units but how many total bedrooms then do we think there are in the property? It's unclear, Frank. Okay. So do we know how many parking spaces they're required to have and do they have any legal parking on the property? On their site plan they do show two parking spaces in the front and foreign the rear. It's haven't been measured or. I don't seem to be sufficient in a T1 for almost anything. What's interesting here though, is they're not asking for approval. Sorry, I can't get you. Yeah, no. Exactly. I don't know what we're solving. No, no. Yeah. And then my last question is, if we deny this appeal, what is there recourse? Yes. Is it an appeal to City Council or to the Circuit Court? In other words, if we don't continue it, and if we vote today, and we deny it. I think this is final action of the body. Let me confirm. Well, while she's confirming, I have a following question related to that. What if we rant the appeal, and maybe this is a question for the applicant, but what would the appeal do to help the applicant? They would still need to take the same action of obtaining permits with inspections to correct the life safety issues if it is assumed that this is a grandfathered multi-family use at that point. So that's the request. Because your presentation was great and I thought that I was following when I read the report and then when we got into that while I tracked what you said very well, I think I lost track of what's trying to be accomplished. So it would be multi-family is the argument that it's a grandfathered multi-family use or a- And they would also need permits, they'd have to put kitchens in because you can't rent out a unit without a kitchen. But do you understand that to be the goal though? Because I don't know. OK, OK, yeah, we'll ask that. Code violations don't get cured. Yeah, that's my problem. So even if so is this whole thing been to just stall and delay having to deal with the code violations, because they had to get through us first before. I don't know. Well, so that was actually what I was going to ask because this is just an appeal of a property card interpretation. Right. And so that's how I was listening to everything you said. And I just wanted to make sure I had this correctly. So you've interpreted that legally there's just a single family residence there currently. There's not a single family with an ADU. Correct. They could obtain an ADU. They have a single family right now. And so either one of those buildings on the Southeast or Southwest corner could be modified to be illegally adopted at ADU, no matter what happens here today. Yes, they would have to go if you're building. And then it's also your interpretation that this is currently effectively functioning as a multifamily-type living situation. Is that kind of what I gathered? Is there one kitchen? With the one kitchen. Now I understand, this is I think where I'm kind of getting lost because there's all these different additions and everything else and so I understand the main house and then I understand the additions and everything else and so if you interpret it as a single family and the code still allows single family and a 80 you I don't understand why they're appealing the interpretation if they're not doing something more than that. That's what, yeah. So maybe, yeah. I think that staff mass had. And so that's why I was asking, did they, you know, when you were dealing with them on this and your interpretation, you know, did they give you any reasoning of why they were here? Okay. I just want to confirm, I did look it up and the DRC is the final decision maker for the city. So this is not appealable to the city council. Do you have one question related to the property card on the 74 building portion? It's 726-1974. It says addition of 43 feet by 15 feet 10 inches to bats and two bedrooms with a little storage area but then it says in parentheses and parentheses 112 square footed accessory area. Do you see that? Yes. So I'm assuming even though it says accessory area in here that doesn't necessarily qualifies an accessory dwelling area, especially in dwelling unit, correct? No, with my presumption would be that would be semi-fimished utility area. Okay. Okay. There's no plumbing. There's no plumbing. No, I understand. Yeah, I was just making sure because they had the word accessory in here. Yeah. Okay. One comment is if they did get a determination that one of the accessory living spaces or when that dwelling unit was made legal, it could relieve the building code compliance portion of that project. When you build a building in the state of Florida, you have to comply with building code at the time it was built. If 50 years later you build a new building, you have to comply with the building codes that were built at that time years later. But it doesn't mean that the building built 50 years ago has to automatically upgrade itself. So in other words, wind load speeds are a lot different now than they were in the 1950s and 60s in terms of. So it could potentially relieve the amount of code violations or permitting process or that dwelling unit if it was determined to be legal. So that may be part of the thinking. Yeah, and so the reason, so if you go over to the plumbing though, in 74, they did pull a plumbing permit for two laboratories, two drains, two tobs, rough it only. It doesn't state, it's a different date since same month, but it doesn't state that it's in the same building as yet. When I was reading this, I had a really hard time understanding when I was reading. It makes sure I'm clear and understand what the interpretation is, why they're appealing it before I make a decision. Let's try and hear from the applicant and see how much they can say. So, I'm pellant, to the extent that you're ready to present, and we understand that you may not be fully ready to present, and we are still going to consider your request to continue. If you can just make a whatever presentation you're prepared to make, please. Yeah, thank you. And first of all, I was a great presentation. It helped me understand the issues more. I think, like what's been talked about, we don't take any co-inforcing enforcement issues lightly, so we would certainly work with the applicant or with the owner to resolve those as expeditiously as possible. In other words, we're not here to delay this. I think the discussion on what would granting the appeal provide us without knowing a lot of the facts. I don't want to represent the facts that I don't know. But I think maybe there's a vehicle to obtain permits necessary to allow for multi-family use that is in compliance with code, I think for the owner that would be the most beneficial thing. Like I said, when I talk with them this morning, they are more than willing to work with the city on this. They actually bought the property in 2020, I believe. And I have a feeling there's a misunderstanding with that. It also seems that these buildings have been constructed since 1999. So it seems that this use has been going on for quite some time. The issues are just rising now. So I think more time would allow us to look into that further. Maybe there's other evidence of permits or pictures that we can provide. Like I said, at this time, I can't speak directly to facts like that. But I think additional time would Allow us to explore those options for city and work towards a resolution Thank you. Any questions for the applicant. I don't know how much We're getting it for answers Yeah We're getting it for answers. So, As the attorney, do you want us to consider the Continuance now or should we continue with the procedure and continue to consider during executive session? Do we have any blue cards? We do not. Pardon? Yes, we have any blue cards. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. There are none, right? I guess it doesn't particularly matter, because we're probably going to have to redo presentations, anyway, when this is brought back. Certainly, at least for The appellant and a recap probably from staff some And we go into executive sessions. So I mean, let's go through the procedure here to make sure we have a right because I do have one Final question for for city staff before we decide on the continuance, but so that was the initial presentation of the appellant And we have no blue cards correct and we have no registered Or no, we don't register to point so city do you have any cross examination not at this time and Appellant do you have any cross examination of the facts presented by the city not not at this time? City do you have any closing? And. Yep. That's all right. Any closing? OK. And so we're going to the exact session. I'm going to start with a question. Could the property or record card review show a multifamily use? I see no evidence of a multifamily use. I see no evidence of a multifamily use from the property card or the digital records. Anything that has been said, Abernathy? I mean, I think what you're asking when you say a multifamily use is multiple dwelling units, which again, are defined by our code is the kitchens. I think that and I'd have to look more into the code back when the rooming units were approved and we don't have such a thing in our code now because boarding houses and rooming houses were taken out of the code in 2007 to see what that review process was for that specific use. We don't have that today. You as a landlord can have roommates, but the existence of multiple rooms and different people living in a structure does not in and of itself create a multi-family use. Be the best I can describe that. I'll give my last commentings like a session then I'll hear from the group going out of order there, but I'll say that, you know, I'm willing to hear out, but I'm ready to vote today without a continuance, but I'll hear the group that I can be persuaded. I just wanted to follow up on your question for a definition. An accessory dwelling unit is not really considered a multi-family use, right? It's an excess. It comes with a single family home and it's... Right. I mean, it does have cooking facilities and can be rented separately and have a separate address and a meter. So it's functioning as a second unit on the property. We don't count it towards density. We don't then define the property or the overall uses multi-family. We still say it's single-family with an accessory unit. Right. And the reason, so, and then my follow-up question to that is, the zoning history was always some version of a single family zoning, correct? That's correct. So it was never zone multi-family. Yeah. So it could have never legally been built as multi-family, unless the rooming house and boarding house issue that this Abernathy brought up was an interesting one I hadn't thought of that. I was starting to go that it could have never been. The most it could have ever been was a house. And that's from trying to get out. Yeah. How else could they've ever been was a house? That's from trying to get out. Yeah, right. So, if we don't mind, can we put the aerial back up that had all the different years on it? Just, I just need this from all the modification. So this 1950s, 1960s, that's the original single family house, roughly. The 1974 area, that's connected to the principal structure. By the enclosed porch, there are no records of the enclosure, but yes, that's what the property car and the property praser shows. It's connected, but there's no record of it. That's why you don't have it highlighted. Yes. Yeah, OK. And so I guess my question is, so if we agree with your interpretation today, and the way this is all set up, the building in the southwest corner could be converted into an ADU. The rest of it could all be functioning as a single family. The two, this is where my question's coming. If the two rooms that are for rent are in that unit three down at the bottom, does there need to be an internal connection to the rest of the house to the cooking facility, like a hallway, or can they exit out to the courtyard and go to the house? Yeah, I think it's been our interpretation in the past that there does need to be some kind of a connect connection. Internal or I mean I would need to consult with our also with our zoning official who's not out here today. I would say that accessory living space, detached accessory living space cannot be rented. No I understand so the, so that kind of, it's not attached to the structure. It needs to be, it would need to be. But it's attached to the principal structure. Is it actually attached or? Is it actually attached. Is it, is it an internal? It's an internal, it cannot be built with an internal connection. With an internal connection? Yes. OK. So there would be some pretty significant modifications that would need to happen then so that two bedrooms for rent would still be considered part of the principal structure. That's where I was going. All right. Thank you. I feel like this is the wrong request. I agree. That's what I was going to say. And I would hate to wish to recommend a continuance to waste somebody's money to try to prove to us that the property card stated a multi-family use which it never did and I think this is pretty black and white. I'd much rather the applicants money be spent on the lawyer coming up with a different application for us to review that we can actually. Yeah, how about you let the codes issue in friction this way? Right. So, I mean, there's nothing about this that is a fourplex at all in anybody's imagination. It's being used that way. But it's not legally anything like a fourplex, and it's dangerous. And it's a very concerning situation for the people who are living there. And perhaps the applicant is not aware of that was not aware of that fully, but we are. And so, you know, arguing over property card interpretation, I think is just a waste of time. Because it is a single family unit home. That's what it's always been. It's been used differently. But if they want to use it as a multi-family unit, then it needs to be brought up to that standard. And if an exception needs to be sought for that to happen, then let's do that. You know? I agree completely. Different application. I'll entertain a motion. I'll take a motion chair. Appeal of a property card interpretation, which determined that one dwelling unit was legally constructed. So again for the group approval goes against the city's interpretation and denial supports the city's interpretation. Second. Here, then. No. Walker. No. No. No. Singleton. No. Walker. No. No. Singleton. Lemon. No. Really? No. No. No. Fails. Appreciate the position you put. One question for staff real quick is following me on that swimming pool. Did the swimming pool permit ever get completed past? So even the swimming pool that sits three, four feet above grade was never approved. I mean there's all kinds of wrong here. So, all right. Next case, case number 24, 5400-055. I think staff just eaten at a moment to get a drink of water. Should we take a, does anyone need a break? Or a doke? Should we take a does anyone need a break or a bill? Yeah. I was clearing my throat. Excuse me. Good afternoon for the record. Cheryl, Brigala with Development Review Services. This application before you is for variances at 22426. The subject property consists of plated laws 4, five, and the western 15 feet of three in an approved platt in the historic Old Northeast neighborhood in the neighborhood traditional three zoning district. The lots are currently combined under one parcel ID number. Lot four contains a single family dwelling, detached accessory living space, and a carport. And lot five contains a pool, walkways, fencing and small accessory structures. So here are some photos of the front of the property and the rear of the property on the left and down the alley on the right. And these are from the staff report. As an overview, the request is for approval of variances to lot width, lot area, and side yard setback to create two total buildable lots from two and one third plated lots in common ownership with the existing dwelling and accessory structures to remain. The applicant proposes to remove the structures on lot five which are shown on this survey and construct a compliant house and detach garage on lot 5. Lot 5 is deficient in width and area so variances to that are required. And here are the proposed floor plans as also seen in the staff report. The proposed facade elevations and the plans for the garage. The house and accessory structures on the remainder of the parcel will be retained portions of the existing house that would encroach into the side yard setback will be removed, including the breakfast enough nook and a portion of the screenroom. The exterior staircase to the detached accessory living space will be removed. There is an interior staircase, and the AC condenser will be relocated. The rear accessory structure has a 5.9 or 6 foot depending on the survey you look at, set back to the interior property line, where 7.5 feet is required. Therefore, a variance is required for the set back to that structure. That structure is at the rear of the lot and is not visible from the street. Also the proposed detach garage on lot five is planned to be located on the western side of that property leaving greater than 15 feet between the rear structures on lots four and five. The size and width of this remainder parcel are compliant with the NT3 requirements as well as the resulting building coverage, total impervious lock coverage and floor area ratio. Here are the applicants photos to the interior of the lot. You can see that the sunroom that's proposed to be removed the screen room that's proposed to be reduced in sight and The staircase and deck to be removed from the side setback next to the accessory Libby and space structure This aerial photo allows you to see the setbacks of some of the surrounding properties. The hardship related to the property is the original plated configuration that created the lots. The lots are 50 feet wide, 127 feet deep, and 6,350 square feet in area. Since they're plating, the lots were re-zoned to RS75, then NT3, which required minimum 60 foot wide and 7,620 square foot lots. There's also a hardship related to the location of the accessory structure constructed in 2010, which the applicant wants to retain. This is the map analysis that was undertaken as found in the staff report. You can see the significant number of substandard lots in the area, and those with one house per platted lot, which are all of the red dots. The analysis found that 65% of lots are substandard and 65% of developed parcels contained one house per platted lot, which is what this application proposes. The proposal is consistent with the predominant development pattern of the neighborhood. We receive no comments and no objections from the public or the neighborhood associations. So we recommend approval of the variants, subject to recommended conditions of approval, the two three standard and two tailored, that the breakfast room, part of the screen room and the exterior staircase and AC condenser be relocated from the setback and that all structures shall be removed from lot five prior to separation of the lots and the condition that the plan submitted for permitting of the new dwelling be substantially similar to those approved with the variance application. The variance requested is to retain the plated configuration of the lots, which can be considered the minimum variance. The setback to the accessory structure on lot fours, the minimum request that can be made without significantly modifying the building itself, which was recently constructed in 2010. In granting of the variances would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the land development regulations as outlined in the staff report. So that's the end of my presentation. I'll wait for questions. Any questions for staff? Only one quick question, you don't mind? So the side setbacks on, at least on the table in here, where it says requested 5.9 for lots of four and three, I guess the portion of three, we're only saying that's off that one side where the existing house is. They're still going to meet the side said backs for anything new, correct? Yes. And then the other thing is just a general statement right above that I think you got the required and requested for a lot with backwards. You might just make sure that gets corrected. The 5060? Yeah. I apologize. No, no. I apologize. If you're correcting things on one of your figures, you have block eight instead of block 10. Oh, Pylon. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Or is the applicant here? Wow. I'll start. Check for information Brian Deon from John's POV 490 first evidence south I'm having sorenin Do have a presentation Oh, I guess that I'm here on behalf of the applicants They've been in Sharon Jacobson who are the owners of 22426 Avenue, North St. Petersburg. It's owned in the NT3 zoning district. As staff indicated, there are three variances being requested today, two which are on lot five and then one on lot four. Well, I'm going to call a lot four even though's a lot for and the West 15 feet of Lot 3, but for Lot 5 it's due to the fact that we are restoring it to its plated size. However, that is now not compliant with code. The requirement is 60 feet and the lot size is 50 and then a lot with going with that, I'm sorry, the area going with that would, therefore be smaller as well. The lots were plated in 1910. The request, like I mentioned, is for a lot five reduced, for reduced square area and reduced width of the lot from both which are 17 percent magnitude which is 10 feet smaller than the allowable width of the lot and then for side for the side yard setback for the accessory structure requesting a 1.6 foot variance with a magnitude 21%. These are showing what the two lots would look like side by side. Again, a lot of 550 feet by 127 feet making it non-compliant. Lot four will be compliant with code except for the side-yard setback, but its area and lot width would be compliant. This is just kind of reiterating what I just said so I'm going to go through these. The LDC provides nine factors that need to be weighed by the commission when reviewing varying applications. I highlighted what I thought was the four most important to this application which are the special conditions which are peculiar to the land and the Substandard lot size, the conditions request that are not resolved the action of the applicant, little and for a literal enforcement of the code would result in unnecessary hardship and the granting of the variance is done in jurors, the neighbors, which I will briefly go through. I'm only going to be addressing a lot five briefly. The purpose of lot five would be to build a civil family home. We are able to put a civil family home on the lot with an accessory garage that would be completely compliant with code, including side yard variances and distance from the neighboring property. Again, here's the elevations that staff showed you. Part of the code, special editions that exist that are peculiar to the land. Part of that is substater lot sizes. The lot would be legally not performing. They currently exist under common ownership and they cannot be unmerged about this variance. Section F of the same number for the variance request is neighborhood character and it's how it goes with the character of the neighborhood. As staff pointed out there is 65% of the lots within the area are currently substated in with a lot size which are based on how the lots were planted, which is 50 foot width, which was the code then required greater width and lot areas. And staff also showed this, these are all the lots within the neighborhood that are currently substated in a lot size. The plans that have been submitted to staff and to the county or to the city are completely compliant with all M-2-3 zone design standards and setback standards. The variance approval will allow development of lot five of the single family home, similar situation, situated properties in the neighborhood have been able to utilize that same lot size. It'll be developed in a manner consistent with code. Lot four, like I mentioned before, it will be compliant with lot area and lot width. However, there are structures that are within the side yard setback, the requirements 7.5 feet. These are the five items that are currently within the side yard setback, which is a breakfast look, a floater room, which I just learned today. People in Florida do not call the floater room. I'm not from Florida, so we've always called it a floater room. But it's the accessory room that's off to the side of the property and it's detached. The accessory structure, which is within 1.6 feet of the side yard setback, the staircase and the air conditioning unit, which are completely in the setback. We would be demolishing the breakfast nuke. We would be reducing the size of the floater room to be outside of the setback area. The accessory structure is the only variance request that we have today. And as staff said, it's the minimum requirement just based on the fact that it's an 80, it's a successful structure that has been, to put it simply related to keep, it would be difficult to minimize that existing structure that's been there since 2010, and then we would be relocating the air conditioning unit to be outside of the side yard set back. This is just a visual of basically everything I said, which the breakfast and look is here, which will be completely removed. That is the Florida room, which will be reduced. And this is the staircase and the air conditioning unit. And then the 1.6 feet of the accessory structure that is over. These are just pictures of what we're asking for. This is the breakfast note, which will be eliminated. The Florida room, which will be reduced, you can kind of see this side here will be removed or lessened, and then the staircase will be removed along with the second story deck. It's a 1.6 foot variance. Like I said, we are removing almost all things that are in there except for the accessory structure. There is internal access to the second floor of the structure and there will still be two access points in and out of the accessory structure. We cannot readily minimize impact without, minimize impact within the side yard, set back. The accessory structure is not visible from the street and as mentioned, the accessory structure that's planned to be put on lot five, which is more than 15 feet. It's going to also be on the western side of the property. Properties of the south show that they have either accessory structures or the building itself that appear to be within on the sub-vectorate as well. And this is the mineral request that we can make without making significant changes to impacts to the accessory building itself. Granted, the variance will not be injurious to the neighboring properties, the neighbor to the west is also here in support. And we've taken steps to ensure that the request is not injurious to other neighbors, which includes the location of the accessory structures and minimizing what encroachments would be there. Thank you for your time and I am here to answer any questions. Questions for the applicant? No? Do we have any blue cards? We do not. The blue cards. Staff, you wish to cross. We have any blue cards. We do not. Blue cards. Staff. You wish to cross. Staff waves. How can you wish to cross? Wave. Staff, do you have any closing remarks? Wave. How can any closing remarks? No, thank you for your time. We'll go into an executive session. My only comment is I have heard the term Florida room used in play. Hey. Hey. session. My only comment is I have heard the term Florida room use information. I guess I'm over. Otherwise, otherwise, I think this is very reasonable request. Yeah. I'll understand emotion then. I'm going to have approval of variances to lot with lot area and side yard set back to create two total buildable lots from two and one third platted lots and come in ownership with the existing dwelling and accessory structures to remain subject to the staff conditions of the fruble. Okay. Keenan? Yes. Walker? Yes. Scrooge? Yes. Singleton? Yes. Clements? Yes. We alley? Yes. Go ahead. Yes. Really? Yes. Yes. Emotion passes. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. I have a request for a short break. We only have one more item. So let's keep it short. My computer says 425. Let's recess until 430. And we're going to start at 4.30. you you I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the next one. Yes. All right, we're back in session last item. Case 24, 540-0066. Sure Von Chamblis of Development Review Services. I'm here to present the last case of the afternoon. Case 24-54-00664. The property located at 3629 Queensboro Avenue South. The subject property is located in the Charles Park neighborhood on Queensboro Avenue South between 30s and 37th street south. The property consists of one platut lot and it is also zoned into one neighborhood traditional single family. This application request a approval of an after the fact variance to the required height for porch to be elevated 12 inches above grade. Section 16.20.010 of the land development regulations requires for residences to maintain porch's elevated a minimum of 12 inches above grade and at minimum setbacks of 18 feet from the front property line. Here we have the elevation drawing that was approved showing the porch elevated at the required 12 inch minimum. The site was issued a new single-family permit in August of 2023 as a correction to the staff report. Plants for the new home consisted of a three bedroom two bathroom one store single family home with the 12 inch elevated portrait scene above in May of 2024 a zone in inspection was disapproved citing the front porch having been built below the approved 12 inch height above grade and then here we have images of the approved site plan and the approved as well drawing attached in the staff report. So to the left we have the site plan that clearly shows the grade demarcations or the differences between existing grade and the proposed floor of the porch with a foot difference. This corroborates the elevation drawing that was previously shown in the last slide. And then to the right, we have the as built site point or the as built survey, excuse me, showing the constructed conditions of the site currently. And in it, we have an elevation change of about five or six inches between the existing grade and the tallest portion of the porch. And here we have photos of the existing grade and the tallest portion of the porch. And here we have photos of the existing conditions of the site. Here we have examples of homes along the same portion of Queensborough Avenue South that is shared by the subject property. So in here we have four examples of homes. The vast majority of the predominant pattern of homes established on the street, these homes were constructed prior to the 2007 code change requiring minimum porch size requirements. However, there's a predominating pattern of homes displayed along this portion of the street where homes are elevated above the grid and they typically feature risers of two to three steps or more depending on the homes height as the entry feature. And here we also have some additional images of homes along that singing corridor. And as you can see, they also have steps ranging between two to three risers each. And then to the northern half of the block that about 17th Avenue South, there are examples of homes that were constructed with entryways that are less than the required 12 inches above grade. Here we have four examples, three of which were all constructed, side by side on the same portion of the street. considered self-imposed as a permit was approved in accordance with code requiring the 12-inch high above grade as seen in the elevation drawings in the site plan that was provided. Literal enforcement of the chapter would not result in unnecessary hardship, as the application is considered self-imposed, there are certain alternatives that could be available to reduce the magnitude of the request. And then the request is also considered not the minimum necessity to allow use of the residence. Additionally, in considering the magnitude of the request, the request could be further minimized provided that the porch height is increased and a slope for the new porch height, if increased, provides a required watershed, so that water is diverted away from the front door the residents towards the Abutting Green Space in the front yard and that mature hedge plantings are provided along the perimeter of the porch and compliance with the approved landscape code to further mitigate visual impact of the substandard porch height from the abutting right away. If approved, the request does not appear to be injurious to neighboring properties or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. And in considering public comments, these again, as properties located in the child's park neighborhood, no public comments have been received from the child's park neighborhood association or form ab budding residences who are notified by the applicant. In conclusion, staff recommends denial of this request pursuant to the conditions provided in the staff report and that would be available for questions. Any questions for staff? I have a question. It's hard to tell from the documentation we received because some of it was just partially printed. The scale was a little off, but as the was the residents built at the specified finish floor elevation, meaning that there's just a step outside the front door and the the porch is lower or is everything lower? I believe just the porch is lower Okay, so we it wouldn't be sort of a An issue where the whole house requires remedy therefore. We're looking at lowering the grade outside because that's too much to ask We're really just asking for the porch to raise. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. And just to reiterate on that, because the survey that we have, you can't read anything. I saw it in your presentation, I believe. The porch elevation to the surrounding ground level is about six inches. Is that accurate? Okay, and then the porch, I believe, was is that 31 55 highlighted? 31 85? 85? Okay, so you've really only got three tenths of a foot. Mm-hmm. Three and a half inches. Yeah. So in consulting with construction services and permitting, it just to make the board aware, there is a remedy to consider, which was previously mentioned if there's a way to raise the portion of the porch. We can count the porch height from the back portion of the tallest part provided that there is a slope. So that water is diverted away from the entrance, which is why we're asking for the landscaping as seen in the landscape plan to be surrounding the perimeter so that you can, you won't really be able to tell since we don't really have much wiggle room to try and make it any bigger. Well, they've got a foot in a quarter to the sidewalk, 3166, 343. Could they also just go in and kind of scrape the front yard and smooth it out and drop it? I believe the applicant would like to speak to those particular types of questions or concerns that commission may have. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Applicant? Well, I guess there are no blue cards. No. I have been sworn in. I live at 674th Avenue North. My issue is the whole water drainage. This property was built in inch taller than what was on the plan. So the slab is an inch taller. It is over a foot above the grade, but if you step out the door four inches, then from there you can't get you can't get down grade. You have to dig down grade to have a foot. We are also required which they weren't shown on there as the swales you'll see. From the back alley, which is 120 feet for the entire property, the back alley is two feet higher than the street in the front. So we have to all the water drainage is from the alley all the way to the front of the property. This isn't split half drain into the back half drain into the front. So we have to have a five to six inch swale the entire length on both sides of the property. So to come out and go down a foot and then also have a 6 inch swale on both sides of the property to drain water when it hits the sidewalk. The sidewalk is at 30.43 and they're asking for my elevation next to the porch to be 30.6 which is less than 2 inches. So from the house to the sidewalk with a five or six inch swale, I'm going to drain two inches. I mean, so if I go back and scoop the grade out to make it that, I'm literally going to be making retention ponds on both sides of the sidewalk. So it was approved as this. And when I had the building department out, they approved the drainage and the swales. So we saw it. We did all that stuff, and then zoning doesn't come until after we're ready. Everything's completely done before zoning even looks at it. So the step wasn't even caught by anybody in the building department, because they don't look at the step. They look at, does the property drain from the front, 120 feet all the way to the, I mean from the back, excuse me, 120 feet all the way to the front and whether the sidewalk was existing sidewalk the sidewalk to 30 and a half feet the house is at 32 So you take four inches coming out they they proposed to me to What this is to pour the porch up? But I'm not gonna give somebody I'm not gonna give a client a front porch level with the inside of the home Just after you guys some sure way I'm sure everybody experienced the driving rain. You know, the house is going to flood. It's going to leak at the very least. So we're not in a flood zone. So being a being higher off the ground is not an issue. It's more of getting the water off of the site. So if I go and scoop the grade out to be a foot below, I'm going to have less than two inches of grade over 25 feet for the water to get off the property. Because it has to get over the sidewalk. I can't have a swale that's going to be lower than the sidewalk on both sides of the property. And even which looking back at the approved plan over on the, over here. It's shown the bottom of my swill at 29.7, the sidewalk at 30.44. So how in reality was I supposed to make this without water just pooling here? I'm just, you know, how was I supposed to build that? So I don't know what else to say other than cut the sidewalk out, grade the property completely level, put swales on both sides and let it the water all sit there. But I didn't want to volunteer to pour the porch level with the house and then worry about rain hitting the bottom threshold of an in-swinged door. Questions for the applicant? What's the finished surface of the porch? Just concrete. There's no paybers or tile or anything on it. I have a question for staff for Sivan. In terms of the one foot height, I think you mentioned this and it's my basic understanding, but I don't know that I don't have clear my head details. The 12 inches does not necessarily have to be at all points around the perimeter of the porch. Right. Staff does take into account the changes and grades. So is there a criteria of at least half or one face of it or, to be honest, this happened to me, something very similar happened to a project that I just did recently, and we had to kind of do, we had to regrade it to an extent that make it flatter than I would like, but that was kind of what happened to us is, we did not necessarily have to get 12 inches around all three faces of the porch. My recollection is we had to do it at least on one of the three faces of the porch. My recollection is we had to do it at least on one of the three faces. All right. But I just wanna make sure I understand what the criteria is if we're looking at discussing options here. So what it says from the NT code, Scott Boyard, deputy zoning official. The front porch shall be elevated at least 12 inches above the abutting finish grade level as measured abutting the porch at the front entry period. Okay. Let me say that again, I'm sorry. The front porch shall be elevated at least 12 inches above the abutting finish grade level as measured abutting the porch at the front entry. Could it slow? Then, yeah, miss. grade level as measured abutting the porch at the front entry. Could it slow? Yeah, but so I don't. I don't want to interpret that to be the side closes to the front entrance and then you can go out because again, I think building, you know, everybody wants that front porch to slope away. So it's going to be less above grade at the front than it would up against the front facade. I, if the plan show the foot, but the house is built at the right grid, I guess I'm not understanding where the disconnect is. Is it in the drainage plan or in the, and how that interacts with the building plan? I don't, like normally we know that we will get a survey error and say, oh, we built it in the wrong spot because we didn't check the corners. But this, I don't understand where the error is here. The city has gotten the city engineering department and probably correctly so has gotten more stringent on evaluating grading to drainage around single-family sites, and they're looking for these swells now, and they're looking for continuous drainage from the entire property. So I think what's, and I can tell you what sort of happened to us, that's what happened is our house was designed to be kind of a foot higher than, you know, the porch higher than sort of existing and prevailing grade. But that was based on an evaluation of the existing grades without really thinking through all the drainage that was going to have to happen across the site. And once that was done, we were eight inches, not 12 inches. And so it's something where I think, you know, it was, to be honest, in my case, it was my mistake because I didn't really account fully for the drainage in a single family house as to the kind of stringent criteria we're used to doing for commercial or multi-family properties. So we had it in flat and our front yard to be only have like a couple inches of slope across it, instead of six inches of slope, which is what you really want. But we did and, you know, and it kind of proved and not really trying to make this about my case. I'm just saying I just went through it. So I'm sympathetic to an extent and I'm trying to figure out what exactly the minimum it would take to correct this. So I'm looking at the Asbuilt Survey trying to compare it with what? Hang on a second. So I'm going to, yeah. Let's just go ahead and go through the procedure here because we're basically talking like we're in sex obsession in the room as empty. So procedurally, is there any public comment? I have a question for the owner before we move on. My question is I think we saw an image of the elevations which showed the two steps for the porch. Was that part of the permit package that was submitted to the city that the porch did have two steps? Okay. So the plan was for that it to be built that way, but it appears to Commissioner Realty's point that somehow it got built lower than what the construction documents. No, well the property did not get built lower. We didn't put the second step in because in order to have the grade where it was on the plan, it would have flooded at the sidewalk. So the grades higher, not the properties lower? Can they put this back on? That right. The building was actually built higher than what the plan's called. Yeah, the slab is one inch higher than what was permitted. So you do that for? So the grading information that was provided initially when the design took place was not what was existing on site then? Well, that's what I think the air was. The approved site plan isn't buildable because the showing a swale being six inches lower than sidewalks. So as you come down the property, the existing sidewalk you'd have to come, the water would literally sit in six inches below the sidewalk, which nobody wanted that one though, when they came out to look at the swales. They don't go out with a you know I'm thinking the measure above sea level for the swale. They look to see if it has a you know a slope to it so the building department comes out and checks that then we saw it and everything and it's all good and then zoning comes out and catches the step so because they weren't part of you know, they're not part of the Drain so the goal here the goal is is it When you build a single family home is it to keep water from shedding like in this case East and West onto your neighbors You're not necessarily looking to drain off the property You're looking to keep from flooding your adjacent neighbors at the goal of the soil in this situation? Into the city property, like normally on a property like this, if we had this problem, we would put bubblers and gutters, but because the drainage comes from all the way to alley in the back, we can't get it to drain uphill. We have to do the swales to get it to get to the street. Otherwise, we would just gutter it, leave the, you know, lower the elevation and make it flat and then just bubble it up at the sidewalk. So when it rained a lot it would bubble up and flow into the street. But because we're flowing from the from the alley 120 feet back, we can't do bubblers because we got to collect all that water. It's not just off the roof. So the city's requiring catching water from the alley now? Yeah, the alley's higher. The highest point in this whole property is the alley. It's behind the property. Yes, so it's flowing all the way to the street from the alley. You're allowed to go to the alley. Yeah, so normally, properties peak in the middle where the house is sitting and it just sheet flows to the alley or the right away. But in situations like this, where it's sheet flowing from north You have to account for that water that's flowing by the house. And so you don't want it to flow adjacent to the house. So you grade your site with a swell, so you don't flood your neighbor to get the water right away. And if you look on the bottom right where it says, but he has sawed, there's a 29.7, I believe, right there. And then there's a 30.34 and then 30.40. Is that what that is? So there's a six inch discrepancy. Yeah, the alley's actually higher than the house slab. So was it a permit comment that you received that required you to add the swales? There was not comment, it's required. The hardest part to get through the city now is site plan, not building panels anymore. So this was designed by the design professional designed it in a way where the water just can't leave your site. It's on the north. I guess it would eventually. But it'd be a six-inch puddle right at the bottom right corner. Okay. Thank you. The procedure really lets get through. There's no public comment. City, do you have any cross-examination? Staff cross? Staff waves, sorry. Do you have any cross-examination? I would. City, do you have any... We can... Do you have any cross examination? What if? And city do you have any, we can, it's a lot of questions during executive session. So city do you have any closing? City, uh, ways. City do you have any closing? I'm sorry. Okay. So we're executive session now. Um, we can ask questions and discuss. So I think I have maybe a solution that doesn't require a bunch of work. Okay. So, can we put the, I didn't matter, the site plan, maybe the survey back from the... Not the final surveys to best one. Yeah, the final survey is probably the best one. We got a really great version in the presentation. Fear to read. You just got to get this easier to see. So, the sidewalk that comes into the property from the public right away to the porch. I think if we could, if we saw cut right there at the porch and we dropped that sidewalk from 3137 and maybe 3116, we'd get a foot to the house at that point and that still gives you a little bit of positive drainage to the sidewalk to the front and that's a pretty easy fix which still gives you the foot elevation change that people see. It doesn't make it a foot porch, but it makes it a eight inch porch, a nine inch porch. And so you get from 30, 185 to 3116. So that's 0.7 times 12. So that's 8.4 inches. Right? So I think that's a pretty easy solution because I understand your plight here. There's, he can't regrade this, he's already below this sidewalk without putting a pipe underneath the sidewalk. I think going that 25 feet at, you know, a flatter slope, you'll help you reach ADA, but it'll also help zoning meet the 12 inches that they're looking for. I think visually it'll give us much closer to 12 inches, which is what zoning wants, and it doesn't require a lot of work. I understand the end result of what you're describing there. I don't know what you're saying to get there, so think that's the applicant everything. Does that make sense when I'm saying? Yes. So just saw cutting the sidewalk and dropping it by about three inches and then just you think you'll take the entire length or like half of it? Well he can figure that out. So however far you got to come back to, you know. Yeah they were flexible so if I could get it within like eight inches, you know, closer. So, when you say like 0.16, that's a half. I can do it. Yeah. So maybe between the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small and the small But in residential we do that routinely. But if you, and then if you could just cut out like an inch or two of grade, not even moving the sidewalk, but an inch or two of grade, you know, around the, around the porch, you add an inch and a half up here, you take an inch and a half down here, we're going to go from six to nine inches. But I don't see how you can get to a foot without more drastic. But then the question would be, are we okay with an eight or nine inch? As a reasonable case, but it's... Sounds like the city is. Yeah. All this sounds like you two are a you know more about it than... I think Senator Vino Maniford is on what you guys say. On this one. Interesting in the staff photos, it shows on the north side of the block, the ones that were built pre the code change. But when I went another block to the west there's another house that looks very very similar to this except it has a little bit of a canopy over the front of overhang. And it was the same exact condition. It was a 4 inch step up, 4 inch edge. And I'm like, boy, these are almost mirror images. And they have the same, the same condition. And that houses a year, two years old. So it appears to be somewhat common thing that's happening around there that maybe needs to be addressed a little bit more at the permitting stage to make it clear that we need this 12 inch. But in this case, let's work with that eight inch visual. And I do think the 12 inch is a good zoning. It's a design standard. And you know, it's maybe its origin is from an aesthetic, you know, trying to be with traditional neighborhoods and being more compatible with the older traditional houses. But there's reasons with people in the 1920s build houses 12 minutes above grade, you know. So, but in this case, it's both an aesthetic now because it's a tradition within the Navy. But so that was my thought. As if you added an inch and a half favors, you could cut down an inch and a half and feather that out. You do flatten out your grading a little bit. You lose a little bit at the front door, but we've gone from six to nine inches. In the papers, we'll look good. Yeah, I mean, honestly, I'd rather you guys consider getting rid of that design statement because that's one of the things that kills affordability in South St. P. I mean, we're doing a panellos and you can do a mono slab and you have to do stem wall because of the 12 inch. You know, right. We don't get the mission. That's a That's a different placement. I know they're enforcing what's on the books, but Cost more It costs more. There's a go for affordable unit signs to be 8 inches above. It's 12 inches above. Remember that? What habitat for you man? Yeah, I do remember that one. Yeah. And you have less windows and less frustration requirements. Right. You want affordable? Yeah. Yeah, that's for the Rampinels Park. Commissioner Clemens, I have a question actually. at the front door. Yeah. Because I know by code, you know, by commercial code, right? But I was just going to say that's my response was going to be by commercial codes we don't do steps less than four inches. I think it's pretty common in single-family homes. Yeah, three and four inch steps of two and three and four inches. My understanding is that wouldn't create a tripping hazard, but adding the extra height to the front porch may. They may have to add a step in front of the front porch. Because then you have uneven edge. Because when you go over, what is it? Seven inches is it like seven and eighth? Seven and an eighth. Punch. Point three, three. You need a step? No, it still be a six inch step. Okay. And now it's a four inch step. Okay, yeah, I guess seven or eight inches is where that kicks in. And the seven inch is fine. Seven and a half were single family actually. Yeah, yes. That's true. The porch is sloping up. Although, that's what the dish is. That's what a half is actually allowed by. So rather than us solving it, we've thrown out a couple of ideas here. I think maybe it would be similar to the other one, where maybe we can make a motion where we could approve a variance of eight or nine inches or something. And then that applicant solve it. I will entertain a motion. I move approval of an after the fact variance to the requirement of the front porch be elevated at least eight inches above grade subject to the staff conditions of approval. Can we change the 12-day? Can we change the request if we're making it less of a variance? You may. Do that, right? You may of a variance you may do that right you more of a variance. The only thing I do want to mention though I think condition number one condition of approval number one says if the if a variance is approved the plans and elevations approved for permitting shall be revised reflect the existing conditions of the porch so I think based on this conversation that that would need to be modified is that correct? No Yeah, because it's not existing. Yeah, because it's not what what you're requesting now is changing what the existing condition of the purchase So you'd have to submit a revision to get another data as well survey So it's reading to me You can reflect the existing conditions of the port system as well, sir. That I would agree with Commissioner Walker, that's essentially what staff will be looking for, because it will be required for the certificate of occupancy recent middle in order to address this issue from a permitting stamp. But you're saying the future existing? Right. So that you can process the, you know, clear out the issue and give this yo. Right, because we would process the You know clear out the the issue and give us yo right because we get the old one But we would also need a new one for us to approve as well So if we make the motion at eight we don't need to change that condition that I would agree I'll restate it then just to be clear so I move for approval in the after-fact variance to the requirement that the front porch be elevated at least eight inches above grade subject to the staff conditions of approval Cunen yes Walker yes Stoke yes Milton Clemens Really yes, Lynn yes emotion passes Climbers, Clemens. Yes. Riali? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Emotion passes. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you.