Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Riali. I'm chairman of the Development Review Commission. I'll be presiding over the hearing today on behalf of the board. Welcome. The Development Review Commission is a voluntary group of citizens appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The commission is responsible for considering requests including special exceptions, 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 A representative for a group organization may be designated, but the representative will only be allowed three minutes Bullying 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 from the city 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 at the podium will be given three minutes to speak. If you have filled out a card, you'll be called on by name and asked to approach the podium. All statements, questions or testimony must be stated in front of a microphone, located either podium on each side of the room to ensure all audios are recorded. When addressing the commission, please begin with your name, address, and confirm whether you've been sworn. Once members of the public have had a chance to speak, cross examination will begin. During cross examination, city administration, the registered opponent, if any. And the applicant will each have five minutes to ask questions of any witnesses. Questions should be directed to me as chair. I will in turn read direct questions to the appropriate person for a response. Following cross-examination, rebuttal and closing statements will begin. During this phase, the administration, the registered opposition, if any, and the applicant will each have five minutes to revive rebuttal and closing statements. If there is no registered opponent, any person who wishes to be a registered opponent may register with the clerk at the beginning of the prior to the beginning of the initial presentation of the case and may participate in the limited purposes 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 rebuttal on 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 today are made in an affirmative manner. It takes a quorum of five or more commission members to take a vote and it takes four concurring votes of the commission for any motion to pass. Once the commission is voted on your item we ask that you continue your conversations outside of the hearing room. Please silence all cell phones and at this time please rise for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic of the World's biggest one nation under the law, a new visible, with the British Union justice problem. And so, okay, clerk, will you please swear? If you're going to speak today, please rise to be sworn in. I don't know. I'm going to go to the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Are 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. Are 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. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Not a lot. Here. We have a quorum. Uh, here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here? Yes. Yes. Here in it. Yes. Singleton. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Minutes passed unanimously. Are there any non agenda item public comments? Err. So we're going to go quasi-judicial then legislative then back to quasi-judicial today because we have a re-hearing hearing so we have the first item on the agenda is case 24540040049 which is 4201 32nd Street North. Your Von Chamble is of development review services presenting the rehearing for application 24-540049 for 1201 32nd street north. The subject property is located on 32nd street north between 12 and 13th avenues north in and the North Kinwood neighborhood. As a bit of background the subject property is owned in T2 neighborhood traditional single family. The property was originally developed in the 1950s with the one store single family home. A permit was approved in 2024 for in addition to the rear of the building for a bedroom bathroom laundry room private deck storage room and an attached to car garage Subsequent driveway permit was also approved to relocate the driveway located on 32nd Street North to the 12th Avenue North Street side Incompliance with sections 16.20.010.11 and 16.40.90.0.0. 0.3.3. These regulations permit no more than one driveway on int zone properties while orienting parking towards the rear third of int corner lots. The following application requests approval of a variance to maintain a second driveway, the driveway that was originally established on 32nd Street North. Just now. Here are images of the conditions of the property, provided by a boundary survey given by the applicant. The survey was from 1983 showing that the driveway that exists today is still in its configuration from that time. Additionally to the right you have a copy of the approved site plan showing the driveway having been removed from the front yard as required by code to the street side yard. And here are images of the site, along with the approved elevations from the 12th Avenue North Street side. And the following is a copy of the approved floor plan from the permit from 2024. Of the 89 single family lots found between the subject block and the surrounding blocks, which are also zoned into into, it was found that less than 10 homes have driveway connections that have more, excuse me, that have more than one driveway connection. This development pattern indicates that there's not a prevailing pattern of single family lots in the media area with the same zoning that have more than one driveway connection that is currently permitted by code. So, here we have an example of a block mate located at 31, 34, 13th Avenue North. This block mate has a circular driveway which aerial images are retrieved from the property of of Prizer's website along with aerial data obtained by the city shows that this driveway predates the 2007 co-change which limits the number orientation of driveway connections in the district. Here's a street view image of 1230 31st Street North, another block of May of the subject property with three driveway connections, all of which predate the 2007 code change. And finally, we have the property located at 1231st Street North, which is the final block of May of the subject property. It has two driveway connections, both of which predate the 2007 code change. In recognition of the applicable review criteria for permitted driveways within the district, the application now proposes the following alterations to the driveway on 32nd Street North to reduce the size of the driveway in effort to retain a connection where it would otherwise be required to be removed. These alterations include the reduction in the driveway's width from its current size down to a 12 foot width, which is the maximum width at the property line for a driveway permitted in this district. The installation of two foot by seven foot triangular flares at the driveway aprons base as it connects to the curb and the creation of a walkway that leads to the curb that separates from the driveway before reaching the property line. Persuading to the review criteria, there are no unique conditions that preclude the property from complying with the applicable LDRs and the conditions of their approved permits. The request is considered self-imposed as the driveway was approved conditionally requiring the removal of the pre-existing driveway off of 32nd Street. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would not result in unnecessary hardship as both the addition permit and the driveway permits were approved in compliance with code. So strict application of the provisions of this chapter would also not deprive the property owner of reasonable use of the property as the single family use can continue with the driveway that is allowed. And the variance request is not considered the minimum because it can both permits for the addition and the driveway at conditions requiring the removal of the driveway from 30 second Street. The request was found to not be consistent with the general purpose of the NT vehicular connection and parking design regulations of this chapter. Additionally, approval of the request does not appear to be injuries to neighboring property owners or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. And the recent set forth in the application do not justify the retention of the variant. With regards to public comment, the subject property once again is located in the North, Kenwood neighborhood. The neighborhood association at all property owners within 300 feet have been notified of the request and five signatures were obtained from the applicant from a button property owners. Additionally, a letter of support was submitted by the applicant fromuant to the reasons outlined in the staff report and previously mentioned in the presentation. Additionally, finding that there are little to no degrees of consistency between the request and the existing pattern. And there being no proclusions related to the building or the site that would prevent compliance with the approvals for the driveway and the addition. And with that staff concludes and are remain available for questions. Questions for staff? No, I have a question. You mentioned there were multiple driveways that are properties that had multiple driveways, and that most of them, the ones that you showed, predated the 2007 code change. Can you say what percentage of the total number with multiple driveways predate that code change, or is it all of them? It is all of them. Oh, okay. So I have. Okay, thank you. Apple good. That's nine John 935 Main Street sweet C4 safety harbor Florida 34695. I have been sworn. I also have a PowerPoint presentation and marked up copies of the HOA email to hand out. So this is case 24540, a block of 4049. And this is the Eskindari residents. I'm sorry I'm fighting the clicker right now to try to make my PowerPoint move forwards and it's not answering All right It's this era. Okay. Thank you. I am so sorry So I'm showing you a property appraiser aerial with a purple arrow apply That is the intersection of of 12th Avenue North and 32nd Street and that's the Eskondari residents. When I sit the Eskindaris, you have Simon Eskindari who is the mom that's her house. She's lived here since 1978 after moving here from Iran. This has been her house the whole time. Then you have Setapa and I am sorry Setapa that I probably mispronounced your name. I'm going to say mom and daughter Eskindari moving forwards because despite having a name like Matt Tania, I know my limitations. And then there's another daughter. And basically, like I said, this has been the mom's house since 1978. I'm going to move into the zoning maps real soon, but this is a very homogenous, leaves-owned area of North Kenwoods, all NT2. It's all single family homes as far as the I can see. One thing I do want to bring to your attention is section 16.2.010.1 and this is just a bit of preamble for the NT zoning and one of the aspirational goals is not a straight out zoning objective is the idea that neighbors can, residents can have life cycle housing. They can live in the same neighborhood for that sense of community throughout the term of their life. It's originally envisioned for that you could live in a single family home and then maybe move into a house in the neighborhood that's an apartment set up in this situation where a lot of single-family homes and again this is mom's home. This is a close, this is your zoning map, I've applied an arrow to the house. One thing I do want you to take note of is to the north there's a split heading up towards 13th Avenue North and to the south there's a traffic circle that does matter to the Kenwood Association. They do discourage parking vehicles on these stretches of road right here on 30 second street because they do have congestion from bypass traffic that unfortunately visits them from US-19. And they do consider it to be a concern. That is shown in paragraph four of your letter. This is just the deed showing that Misesquindari, that mom Esquindari, this has been her home since 1978. And so really what happened was this was mom's home. Daughters are trying to age her in place. And what they did was they added a bedroom for mom, a nicer bedroom, a laundry room and a garage and where the guy in trouble was the garage because the way that mom is always used to the house and this is mom's house, not the daughter's house, you know, as far as it's her home. They live they're taking care of her but it's her home. They're gone during the day working. As this is her living room right here, where these windows are in this door. And then of course, you have this 30-foot driveway, which is pretty big. It's grown over the years. And you can see the original driveway connection from when the house was built. You can see the front door. It's that pink door. And what she does is when people come to the house when the daughters are working during the day, say a attendant, a health aide, ideally someone who's bringing something to the house, no accounting for Amazon drivers even driving on the right side of the road, much less pulling into a driveway. But the known, knowns who are supposed to be there and be let in, and you're able to verify them, trust them, let them in. They park here, she looks out the window. Again, she's in her 80s, she's not particularly tech savvy. She has a text to talk phone, so it's very simplified, big buttons type of situation, not very high tech. So that's the way that she uses her house. And of course, this is the original driveway, which is nearly 30 feet wide. What you saw when daughter Eskondari brought in, she's very strongly an advocate for her mother was a 20 foot wide driveway. What you see in purple. I've also highlighted where the blue, I put a blue oval where the windows are. That she looks out to see people in the driveway. And now I'm showing you the current site plan. I've turned this all to that north is up. And you can see those blue windows. I added a red area. That's where people would legally park on the street without blocking sight visibility triangles. You can see that you have not only is it no longer right in front of the windows, it's not even right in front of the house. It is in front of the house, but it's up north off to the side. So you've got someone who struggles with their vision to begin with, and you're pushing it further up in a situation where the neighborhood would prefer to not even have parking on that road. So what's proposed is a 12 foot driveway. That's a 60% reduction from what was there. And then also what didn't quite make it into the staff report, but Shurvan and I have talked about it, and we submitted this as a condition of approval is that the sidewalk would actually terminate Somewhere prior to even the edge of property. It's literally just to provide connection to the driveway So that way they're loading unloading capabilities The other thing that wasn't spelled out and the staff report is that after 15 years, so theoretically when mothers, when moms done using the house as she uses it, this would go away. It would expire by operation of law. It would be a condition on the face of the variance and then the house would return to a, in its new configuration would return to a code compliance standard. So this is really just an accommodation for mom who's lived here in this house since 78, so that she can use the house in the only reasonable way for her, which is living in the house, looking out the window, maintaining as much independence as possible as she sees herself through her twilight years. And then, once it moves forward, the next actor who comes along, they don't get to sidestep the code. It returns to that code compliant condition. This is just a detail showing. So that way, it's baked into even my presentation, my assertions. Sidewalk doesn't make it all the way down. It's only 12 feet. That makes it to the road. We agree to all of staff's proposed conditions of approval. This was to be approved. I would bring your attention back to the email from Heather Brookie. You have a paper copy on your on your dius. The North Kimwood Board unanimously supports this application. They do think that it's increasingly important, just because generational housing is a thing. And they do think that this provides safety from Mrs. Eskindari, from mom Eskindari, to use her home. And then of course, I bring your attention back to paragraph four that they discourage parking along 30 second street. So I would respectfully submit that this is really the only, you know, reasonable use for mom askandari. We could go into the gory details about creep and they in law of unintended consequences that intend to create a situation where mom would lose her driveway when they started this project. And of course, we've done everything we can to minimize it, including the 60% reduction while it's here and making it go away completely once mom no longer needs it. With that, I would respectfully request that you grant approval of this variance with the proposed conditions from staff and the two conditions that I just laid out to you in my presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Questions for applicant. If I'm in. Yes, on the, neither your presentation or staff's presentation mentioned the new driveway around the side of the house. I thought I remembered from the earlier presentation that that was originally built non-compliant that it was 20 feet wide and it should have only been 12 feet wide at the, has that already been corrected or is that because I don't see that as a condition. Yeah. That is a condition it's baked in there unless it's dropped out but I could a sword that Matt's night John again. Yeah, unfortunately you had a situation where it was approved as a 12 foot wide driveway at the right of way line. When it was inspected and approved and closed out by the city, it was actually 20 feet wide, and this approval is a consent to go back to that 12 footfoot wide. So this would there would be compliance. Connition number two says it. 30 Second Street North is a new one. So that covers both. Additionally the new driveway located. Not it. Okay. Yeah. So. And then actually my second question is for Michael or Christina is Operation of law, expiration of variants of never heard of. Yeah, it runs with the land. So that's not something that the board has the power to grant. Unfortunately. Right. We can... We can... Okay, I don't think we can do it. Right. We want to do that. Okay, that was my question. You have a differing opinion. I mean, I've seen variances expire all the time. If you would like an additional assertion signed by the Escondares, I imagine that's possible. Perhaps a deed restriction, we can make that happen. So that way it is in favor. But the intent is that this would expire at the end of 15 years and not be a perpetual thing. I just have concerns with the precedent setting of that as well. Yeah. I mean, I, like the life of state in the various it doesn't work. Also don't know how it would be enforced. There's reasons we don't have that power. Well, I mean, look, I understand where Ms. John is coming from in terms of the recordation of this. You know, that would be the mechanism to put a future buyer, for instance, on notice that if they were to purchase this property, this had an expiration date. I understand that. This is just a step that it's an intermediate step that I think a lot of applicants would like to come to the board with. And the overriding default law on variances is that they run with the land. And that they are peculiar to the circumstances of the land and not the inhabitant of that land. Mr. Flint, Ms. Johnny, the original application had the driveway remaining, the original one off of the street, which apparently is fine. That would have solved all the issues here. Why would the property owner and or family members knowingly go forward with an expansion of the property that would violate the permanent agreement to eliminate the front driveway, the old one, and continue to build an oversized driveway. I'm concerned that you're approved for something you choose to do something else, and then you choose to do multiple other wrong things over with, for example, on the new driveway. Can you explain how that happens? Matt and I, John, again. And the answer is they wouldn't. This had originally started as adding a bedroom in the project group. or Es Eskandari, who was kind of in the lead seat, and I wish I had been involved back then, but she's an immigration attorney. So she's not zoning. She doesn't realize the intricacies of code, and you might see she's an attorney, but she's an immigration attorney where the world is always on fire every day and it literally, it literally got lost in the sauce. But these are drawings and pictures very clearly showing that the driveway could stay with the original, but then it was deleted during a second, and the driveway that was built was built improperly. So I have some concerns on why that's not caught. We're not talking an elderly person that is unable to read the plans. We're talking about a fully educated attorney now seeing these plans. Next question is gonna be, Commissioner Vadelo made a comment several months ago. This has been before three or four times now, about a camera system that would be able to show who's coming and going. I see that there are multiple ring cameras already scanning the west side of the home. Why can't that be a reasonable option? Because you had argued, somebody had already against that before. Why can't that be a reasonable accommodation for a member of Amazon or medical team to park in the new driveway if it shrunk down to what it's supposed to be and be able to monitor who comes to the front door? So it goes back to mom Escondar's independence and her lack of tech savvy and the way that she checks is looking out the window. And if somebody walks up to the front door and it's got glass doors, glass windows, glass, glass, glass, how do she recognize them because now they're still up at the front door wearing uniform badge whatever what is the difference the difference to the Eskondari family is that the vehicle is close enough that she can actually recognize the other elements that would say that this person is who they are. It's the right car. It's an official vehicle. What if they show up in a different vehicle? Then they're probably not coming in. That just my read from them, just my read from them. Okay, he told me. What if they have ID that is presented at the front door through the glass window, through the glass doors, through the glass panels next to the doors? Again, this is something that become before us multiple times and I've been to this property at least five times because it keeps getting bumped. And every time I look at it, here's a solve, here's a solve, here's a solve, here's a solve. You're presenting this as all or nothing, but you appear to be, or your clients appear to be, ignoring what appear to be very reasonable accommodations to see to achieve the same purpose, but stay within code. As we've already heard, the variance runs with the land. But you provide us a little bit more clarification as to why this is the only option, because there's been zero argument about deficiencies of the land. Could you provide an argument, a reason why these conditions cannot be met to provide her the ability to see who's coming to the door. You know, when you go back to that and you return to conditions of the land as far as people parking in front, But when you go back to that intersection, they would have to park further north, further out of her field of view. You might take and make a position that parking off to the side is acceptable from a security standpoint. At the end of the day, the front door, the house is oriented towards 30 second street. All right, let me feed a little bit more information to this. Again, I've been to the property at least five times, which is probably a record by 12 years of being on this board for having to be able to go and investigate. Take a look at where is the horrible situation here that this is being made out to be when you have 34 street of block to the west that gets your heavy traffic. A block to the east is another thoroughfare. Those take your heavy traffic. The roadway that this property sits on is north South. It's got a large landscape island which traffic calms there. The curved roads are traffic calming. Everything that I'm seeing there is making this one of the safest neighborhoods to park in a street. Yet you're telling me you cannot park a vehicle in front of the home, which I would think broadside view of a commercial vehicle for medical company, whatever, would be very visible. What is making this particular property, and that's a huge part of what we have to look at here, is we have to at the particular property is to what is wrong with this property that requires our approval of something that doesn't meet code. So circling back to the parking situation on 30 second street, it's not me saying that you, I have it from the Kenwood neighborhood association from their board. It's their position that they discourage parking on there. It is the first thing I have Ms. Brookie's mouth. And I spoke to her is that they don't, they do not like to have parking on that road because of the traffic circles and people trying to flow around it, because of the split and because they do observe traffic bypassing 34th Street, US 19, using that road. Okay, maybe it's a different opinion here, but again, I visited, I used to direct traffic for a police department 30 years ago, Clearwater Police. So I'm very familiar with standing in roads and traffic flows and speeds. And I just can't, from what you're telling me, gather where the danger is of somebody parking in that roadway, temporarily, to service Mrs. Kandari and I have no further at this point. Other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Clemens? I just like this. See it again. Could you put up the exhibit that showed the visibility triangle at the intersection please? Absolutely. There. So, and so you're showing a 45 foot dimension running north and a 45 dimension running east from the two, from the intersection of the two curb lines. Where did you get that dimension, the 45 foot dimension? The engineer applied that from the land development code. You did not draw that to city engineer. I'd the engineer hired by the Escondaris to license sign and sealed. Okay. License my apologies. And the point of that is to say that although I don't think it is strived, if it was strived for parallel parking, that the first parallel parking space on 32 would be north of that visibility triangle. Yes, sir. I have a question. Why not just not have the second driveway and just keep the current one and maybe just have it to code as part of the addition. But at this point You mean the new driveway going into the... Yeah, getting... Not having the new driveway going into the getting not having the new driveway unless you have to as part of the Edition and just having the existing driveway that she uses to see people have that conform to code I Can discuss it with them you would have a driveway that goes into a yard, or a garage door that goes into a yard at that point. Because yes, so if I may, there is a garage built here. So this was kind of, this wasn't comprehensively planned. There was first the bedroom for mom and the laundry room, and then this kind of grew onto it, is my understanding. Other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Any blue cards, sorry, Register opponent, no. Blue cards, no. Staff, do you have any cross-examination? Staff, waves. Applicant in cross-examination? No, staff. No cross-examination. Staff in the closing statements. Staff, waves. An applicant applicant any additional closing statements? I would just bring you back to, well I don't have any cases on hand, Mr. Dema and Council Dema unfortunately, from practicing around Florida and Georgia, I do know that these approvals can be what you craft them and they're in their conditions. So again, there might be a different of opinion on actual enforcement or comfort level, but I have seen special exceptions and variances that have expired in other jurisdictions. Again, there may be a lack of comfort at this level. And I would also just bring you back to the positions espoused by the Escondares and by the Kimwood Associates, Homeowners, Neighborhood Association, they are trying to avoid parking on 32nd Street. The mom is just trying to maintain independent control of her house. They did find themselves turned around backwards. So that's not me bringing up a position or trying to lie or defraud or mislead the board or anything. I think we do really just have a situation where they got turned around backwards and they're trying to climb out. And I would respectfully request that you approve this. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to raise that in session. Any comments from commissioners? Well, I'll go first with they're trying to climb out. There's like five different sets of ladders and stairs to get out. Nothing news been presented to this board. Absolutely nothing new. Staff is right. no way's no way on Earth. I'm gonna support this. To be succinctly a long agenda. And I'm sorry, this is not even close. My humble opinion. Perhaps not so humble, but that's my opinion. A simple phone call from a provider. Testimonies that the mother has a cell phone. A simple phone call saying, hey, I'm parking in your side driveway. I'm gonna come around to the front door solves everything here The code says one driveway You pointed out mr. Flint there. There's nothing running with the land here.. I mean, we've been doing the variances for a very long time. We know that they run with the land. We know that it's a variance from the land of bill and the code because of the property. This is clearly the occupant. And I totally agree. There are workarounds, many, many workarounds. Call ahead. I'm sure for the most part there are people that come certain days, and we see it by neighbors. They can't get there both in wheelchairs. So they call ad I mean it that's how it's done. So yeah, I can't support this variance request other comments Letters and emotion I would move approval of a variance to install the second driveway subject to the staff conditions. Second. Gernant. No. Sto. No. Singleton. No. What? No. Lemons. Yes. Riali. No. Grinder no motion fails Thank you for your time Moving to the next case is the legislative item its case item two case number two four three three, three, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, seven. Staff. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. For the record, Cheryl Brigallo from Development Review Services. This is an application for a right-of-way vacation at 1833 First Ave South and 1850 Central Avenue. So the request is to vacate the Western 120 feet of the 20 foot wide alley, abouting lots 5 through 8, in block 16 of Fuller subdivision in the corridor commercial traditional to zoning district. The existing alley serves the applicants lots to the north and south and contains a city sewer line and private utilities. The lots are developed with commercial buildings, parking lots and a billboard on the southern lot. In 1996, a minor easement was granted by the city for the location of an existing of an HVAC building connection between the buildings at the eastern end of the alley which blocks access to the Department of Transportation property to the east. The alley does not continue through the DOT property to the east which contains the I-275 elevated highway and a surface parking lot that is managed by the city. So here's the sketch of the area to be vacated. Here's some photos of the alley. The two left-hand most pictures are of you eastward toward the alley from the street and further eastward and the alley is outlined in yellow. And the photo on the right is from the other side looking towards that HVAC building and it just demonstrates that the alley is not under the underpass. The purpose of the vacation is to allow for future redevelopment of the property. A concept plan has been submitted with the application showing a possible development scenario. That scenario includes a six foot wide east west pedestrian walkway in the vicinity of the existing alley and Appears to contemplate removal of that HVAC building connector that currently blocks the alley The development plan will likely be modified moving forward if a public utility easement replaces the alley to add a minimum Remove building elements So there have been several alley vacations in the surrounding area in the past, as shown in the green. So in terms of comments received from city departments and private utilities, water resources objects to the vacation due to the location of an existing eight inch sewer pipe in the alley approval may be considered if a 20 foot wide public utility easement is dedicated over the sewer line. A receipt of a letter of no objection from water resources and compliance with their review memo is a recommended condition of approval. Engineering has a similar objection, receipt of a letter of no objection from them, and compliance with their review memo is a recommended condition of approval. and their memo notes that buildings, building elements such as stairs and parking would not be permitted in a future public utility easement. Transportation and parking management have no objection in the concept plan which shows the six-foot wide east-west pedestrian path that was viewed favorably by transportation and frontier communications and Duke energy have facilities in the right of way, in the right of way. No objection, letters from them are recommended condition of approval. And they would be satisfied with a public utility easement, a private easement, or relocation of their facilities. There were no comments or objections from the public. There were no comments from the public. There were no comments from the Grand Central Business Association, the warehouse arts district or Kona. So staff recommends approval of the application. It meets the criteria for the vacation of right of way is outlined in the staff report. Provided that the requested public utility easement is dedicated or the sewer line is rerouted out of the alley, the alley is not needed for future use by the city. And it does not conflict with or impair the objectives or policies of the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. DRC's role in vacation applications is to recommend either approval or denial to city council and city council ultimately adopts a vacation ordinance. So we recommend approval subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed on this slide and on the staff report. And there's two conditions five and six which are just standard conditions of approval related to expiration and getting permits. So that's all I have. I can wait for questions. Questions for staff? I don't want to make questions, but I want to make one comment. I find that graphic that has recently been showing up, showing the other vacations in the area would be to be very helpful. Oh, OK, good. Pass it along to staff that is really been a big help. OK, thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Applicant. Help's me. Make sense, those are it. Yeah, presentation. Thank you. Craig Taraski representing the applicant, the owner, Penn Cap, LLC. We're not loaded. There you are. Thank you very much. The alley, Bisex, the subject property at 1850 Central, that's immediately west of the I-275 elevated expressway and east of 19th between Central and First Avenue South. It's a survey of the existing conditions of the block. We have an existing building to the north and an existing building to the south of the subject alley down the middle. And at Cheryl pointed out, there is a structure on the east end of the alley making it a dead end alley. This is a view looking north from first Avenue South, looking east from 19th, and looking south from central in 19th. This is the structure at the end of the east end of the Alley, and a view from under the expressway overpass showing the public parking and the east terminus of the alley. That's the minor easement permit for that structure. It's been in place since 96. These parcels are a portion of the platted fuller subdivision from 1912. It's only the west end of block 16 and the proposed alley vacation 20 foot wide. The applicant and owner owns all the parcels that ab but the alley. So the impacts to this vacation, they only are isolated to this block. There's no through traffic and we would propose to concede a public utility easement to satisfy ECID and water resources staff. We do have a pending building permit application for a redevelopment of the block to include the existing structure to the south and new surface parking and new building to the north. It's a two story with surface parking under. The goal of the vacation is to free up that space, to allow them to gain a few extra parking spaces which are very valuable. This is CCT2, we're west of I-275, so you have kind of a step down from your DC districts into the CCT. You have lower density and density restrictions on these properties, making it a little more difficult to accommodate the parking requirements. They're proposing some medical offices in the new building. I'll wrap up with my closing statements. Quickly, please. Sorry, I ran long. Yeah, that seemed short. That's three minutes on a legislative. What's that? Three minutes. Okay. The legislative is different. So I have more time then. No, no. Oh, because it's legislative. Okay. Let me, if you give me 30 more seconds. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. about goal here is we're gonna gain a few extra spaces. We're gonna make more efficient use of this property. This is infill CCT. You know, just to eliminate the sidewalk crossing and we're going to facilitate pedestrian movement through the site and maintain the public utility corridor that is desired by your water resources and ESAD staff. Thank you. Questions for the applicant? I just want to be clear. So when you said that the permit was pending, does that mean it's pending from your team or it's in for review? It's in for review. Okay, so and that includes the six foot pedestrian park walkway? No, so the current permit will have to be, if we get the vacation approved, the existing permit will have to be amended to change the surface parking layout to this conceptual site plan. Currently, the permit that's impending under review leaves the alley as is. Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. Currently, there's no condition in the staff report. Or there's no condition that currently that includes the walkway. No, because there's no site plan approval with this application. It's merely vacation. So any development over the vacated alley, say we come in with a modification to the building permit. That will be reviewed and staff will have the ability to comment on pedestrian movement through the site. I'm wondering if you'd be okay if we added a condition here. To add pedestrian access through the site? From east to west. Or west to east. Making the connection. I'm just thinking that the transportation people looked in that favorably. They liked that because there's a trail. There's connections that they're talking about. And I'd like to see that connection. The trail doesn't exist. Right, right, I mean, again, it was crossing project, is that what you believe? I believe so. Yeah, so it's going through conceptual master planning. It may or may not happen. But the transportation and parking management staff commented on that in their memo, however, they did not attach, they did not take that next step to recommend having a condition of approval attached. Correct. They looked up on it favorably. I understand that. And I do too. And I'm just wondering if we can add that as a condition. You may. I mean, I want to say you could do whatever you want. Your applicant wouldn't have a problem We would not object to that okay. Yeah, that's why I'm trying to get to Since the building to the north is going to be two story mr. Trasky Am I correct to assume that that 20 foot width is going to be clear sky straight up with no overhangs? Yeah, we'll work with ECID and water resources staff to make sure they're satisfied with the location of the easement, and then we'll plan accordingly. Good, thank you. Other questions? Are there any blue cards? Yeah. And we don't go through closing statements and things for this one. So, would that go into executive session? I think we can move approval. I'd like to add that one condition. Oh, that's true. Which I haven't thought I know the word would be. So, I would move to add condition number seven that there be provision for an east west pedestrian walkway I Don't really I don't care where Yeah, we would appreciate the flexibility just in case it has to sit outside of it That's that's what I was thinking. I just like to see an east west and I didn't describe a width so So I finished Here and then yes, but yes, so yes singleton. Yes, Clemens. Yes, really no Grineriner. Yes. That motion passes. Thank you. Well, that's overall. That was a side one item. That was just the condition. That wasn't the vacating. So, entertain an emotion for the vacating. Move approval to vacate the West. West 120 feet of the 20 foot alley. Abutting lots lots five through eight and blocks 16 a fuller subdivision located 1833 first Avenue South in 1850 Central Avenue subject to the revised staff conditions. Does he have to say recommend approval to council? It's fine. So I'll wait. Second. Here in it. Yes. What? Yes. Stowe. Yes. Singles in Reheli. Yes, Reiner. Yes, that motion passes. Thank you Now you can drop the mic mr. Teresky All right, we move on to item number three. We're back to the quasi-judicial items. This is case number 242-0000019. Good afternoon for the record, Cheryl Brigallo with Development Review Services. This is an application for a variance at 826, 32nd Avenue, North. The subject property consists of lot 18 and the western 28 feet of lot 19 and the seminary heights subdivision in the neighborhood traditional to zoning district in the five points neighborhood. The parcel currently contains a house, garage, shed, and associated improvements, which are proposed to be demolished. The total tracked area is 17,952 square feet or 0.41 acres. Here are photos of the site and kind of panoramic style from 31st Avenue North. And here is the same for the view from 32nd Avenue North. So the request is for approval of a three-lot preliminary plot with variances to lot width and depth and you can see the magnitude of the deviation on this chart so 44 feet wide is requested on two lots where 50 feet is required 44 44 feet is proposed where 50 feet is required. And 72 feet of depth is proposed on lot three where 75 feet is required for a deviation of 4%. So the applicant proposes to remove all the existing structures shown on this survey and subdivide the property into three lots for three future houses. And this is oriented, yeah, because it's a long site. Lots one and two to the north require variances to width. Lot three to the south requires variance to depth. The proposed density of 7.3 units per acre will conform with and is well below the 15 units per acre maximum of the NT2 zoning district. It appears that compliance with impervious surface ratio, front yard and pervious surface ratio, building coverage and floor area ratio requirements on the individual lots can also be achieved. Future variances on the lots would most likely not be supported by staff. The hardships related to the property include its large size, width at 88 feet and depth at 204 feet in relation to the minimum requirements of the NT2 district, which are 5800 square foot minimum lot size, 50 foot width and 75 foot depth. The parcel has sufficient area for three lots. The subject block is characterized by a long length, 1,250 feet, and was originally platted with a mix of 50 to 60 foot wide lots. The north-south-oriented lots were platted with double frontage on what are now 31st and 32nd Avenue's north. Most of the parcels have emerged and are split since that time and have a variety of widths, depths, and densities. There are 23 bungalow apartments, two parcels to the east. Oops, I was going to show you to the east. The blocks to the south were platted at 40 feet wide by 95 feet deep, or 3,800 square feet feet and many were developed as one house per platted block. The study area for the substandard law analysis includes the subject block and surrounding blocks in the same zoning district. Here's the map analysis that was undertaken as found in the staff report, you can see the significant number of substandard lots in the area. As Here's the map analysis that was undertaken as found in the staff report. You can see the significant number of substandard lots in the area as indicated by the red dots. The analysis finds that 52% of all lots in the area are substandard. Similar variances were granted by the DRC for the abutting property to the East in 2016. That property was slightly wider and larger at 18,747.6 square feet than the subject property. A three lot plat was approved with two variances to lot width at 45.9 feet wide each, which is a 9% deviation from the 50 foot requirement. All lots complied with depth and area requirements. In terms of comments received, water resources and engineering have no objection to the plat, provided that each lot is served by separate water and sewer utilities because the city's sanitary sewer is located on 34st Ave North, the southern street. Public utility easements are required to traverse the southern lot to serve the northern lots. Those easements are required to be dedicated on the final platt. The city's transportation and parking management, fire, police, and sanitation departments have no objection to the plat. Duke energy objects until easements for their infrastructure are provided. There were no comments or objections from the public, no comments received from the Five Point Neighborhood Association or Kona, and no signatures of support were submitted. So staff recommends approval of the variant subject to the recommended conditions of approval, which is compliance with the engineering of water resources memos, the receipt of the letter of no objection from Duke Energy, and the rest of the conditions are really just standard. There's an expiration date. Staff recommends approval, subject to those conditions. Granting of the variances would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the land development regulations and comprehensive plan as outlined in the staff report. The DRC's role in this application is to make a recommendation to City Council, which will hear the application next. And that's the end. I'll wait for questions. I have a question. Is there a reason for the 72-foot depth variance rather than just requiring it to be 75 feet deep for the southern lot. They could not get the lot area. They could not meet the lot area requirement of 5,800 square feet if that lot was deeper. The other two lots, the northern two lots would be too small. Yes. is a variance for the depth of the Lot 3 three or four. And there's four of variance for this lot area of lots one and two, which is four total instead of three. Well, we can't process variances for lot area, so that was an option. Yes. Like we see in that. Well, that's for already plated plots. We can't create new ones that are too small. Thank you. Thank you. This is a very minor point, but in their Stanford port under, I think it's one E, the very last sentence says, a tree removal permit would not be supported for that particular 24 inch live oak tree. Yes. And if you go back to our standard condition for, you know, a number four, I know it doesn't imply approval, but it's just the way it reads, any application removed trees should be complied with. And then the next set in the separate tree requirements should be required for removal and co-protective trees. I mean, it's not giving it permission. I understand that, but at the the same time I'm wondering if we can just leave it with a very first sentence and leave out the rest because it's I mean it is standard. I mean you're going to hopefully whoever looks at it's going to reject a permit requesting that tree be removed. But I'm just I'm just I'm you made a point in the staff report about that tree and then the standard language says hey, you can apply for a permit So you said straight it doesn't say we're gonna approve the permit just says you can apply for it But okay, so you Suggesting to strike the last sentence of condition number four. Maybe the last two I mean as there's again, and it you would have to apply in accordance with section 16.4, et cetera, et cetera. So just site plans for any future development shall show the location of all dedicated these with some protected grand trees period. OK. Sounds. It's kind of a minor point, but acceptable to me. It's just that since you called out that tree and I'm yes former commissioner Doyle and channeling him. As the covered everything. I think the two points that are key here is that one, this is a neighborhood that has a very mixed bag of lot sizes and so that the configuration that we're proposing is not inconsistent with the patterns of development. And in fact, it's almost an identical copy to what transpired directly next door. So I think that requesting these variances for the lot size or a lot dimensions are certainly within the confines of the neighborhood development patterns. and the only other thing I would add is that this is being done for the owner of the land, for either one or two family residences. Thank you. Questions for the applicant? I have one just following up on the comment about sanitary sewer. The engineering memo says, you know, I guess suggests that it probably makes more sense to come from the south from 31st Street. But there is, there are utilities in 30 seconds, they're just not super close. Just as it has the applicant thought out where those sanitary lines are gonna go because I'd hate for us to approve this and We've talked to both water and sewer and we've created the easements so that we can accommodate all the utilities Okay, so that's already been thought out and it's already been discussed and thought out and when we've added the easements required for those utilities. Okay. Any other questions? What this configuration here, are we making it the southern lot, an issue where they, with these easements running underneath that'd be unusual. So now the sun is saying, well, we've got this easement. We can't put a swimming pool there because everybody's sewer line runs through it. You know, we keep seeing where there's lots of splits and people come back and say, well, I don't have room for swimming pool. I got to go close to the property line. I prefer to have more information as to exactly where is that going and tucked up close so that we don't end up with The South property owner having come before this board in the future saying I can't put in a swimming pool I can't do this at any other because I've got sewer lines for my neighbors running there because that is a very unusual situation. So the engineering memo says, manhole F-18005 in 32nd Avenue is 80 feet from the northern lots. So there is sewer available. That was really surprised to hear that. There's a lot of lots of uncertainty live on 32nd. So I wanted to ask the question to know if it had been planned out, but I mean, I've been client to let them sort it out during development, because there is an option on 32nd. They're not totally without that Well, the sewer flows to the south. So the easement has to be in that southern property to have sewage from the two northern homes traversed through it. If it is 15, 20 feet off of the property line of the Southern House, now that kind of makes that area unbuildable and are recreating a future issue requiring variances on that Southern home. Does anybody understand that one? Yeah, I mean, what I'm saying is that they don't have to go to the south. An engineering memo just says that the closer one is to the south. Well, I believe the sewer is going to the south. And so the might, can I use a protocol to respond? Number one, these houses that we're building here are 25 hundred square feet. They're not monster homes. There's plenty of space for pools, accommodate anything you want. When we were debating the width of the easement, it was just, you know, we wanted something less than, the utility departments wanted something more than, we said fine, because there is plenty of space to do whatever you want here. There's no, well, tightness in respect. Can you show on an overhead with the laser, Where are you looking to run that? Because again, you've got to catch two houses at the north, run either east or west across the back yards and it's on the plan. On the plan showing that? The west side of the South Laud, page 17 to 37. Both sides of the South Laud. The sewer lines are conceptually. Lean out there. OK. Proper line. The easement's 15 feet. It's just so they can get access to dig it out. I don't think we should be anticipating future variances that might come up as a reason to oppose this one. If someone wants to wants But if we're making substandard lots we leave an opening in the future where We've created a substandard lot we've created some issues and it has popped up You're saying over 12 years you've seen this before. Yeah, it's only substandard to with Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's for depth But now that I see where that proposed easement is that gives them everything on the west side You know large open area for pool whatever Okay Thank you Any registered opponent Any blue cards Staff do you have any cross examination? Sir, do you have any cross examination questions? Staff, do you have any closing remarks? Sir, do you have any closing remarks? Okay, I'm going to the executive session. I would like to change that one condition. I realize the board may not agree with me, but I'm going to make the motion anyway. So I'd like to amend condition number four to read site plans for any future development. So show the location of all dedicated easements and protected and grand trees. It's the existing first sentence. Second. Curenin? Yes. What? Yes. Sto? Yes. Singleton. Clemens? Yes. Reale? Yes. Yes. Do. Singleton. Clemens. Yes. Reale. Yes. Griner. Yes. Emotion passes. I move approval of the 82632 Navy to North of the state's preliminary plat to create three billable lots with the variances to lot width and depth subject to the revised state or specific conditions. Second. You're in it. Yes. What? Yes. Stone. Yes. Singleton. Yes. Clements? Yes. Reallee? Yes. Griner. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, the next item case 24. Sorry, agenda item number four, case number 2454000124. This was one that the commission continued from the January 8 meeting. Sure, Von Chamble, so of development review services here to present the continued application for 24-54-00124-4678 38th Street North, uh, Street South, excuse me. The subject property is located on 31st Street South between 67th Avenue South in the Tampa Bay in the Greater Pinellas Point neighborhood. The subject property is owned in S2 and neighborhood suburban single family. The property consists of one plat at lock. That has been developed in the 1970s, excuse me, with a one-story ranch-style single family home. This application proposes a variance to reduce the required 30-foot front yard set back to 25 feet and a design variance to allow a flat roof addition for a one bedroom one bathroom addition to the front of the home. As an additional background, the subject property is considered a substandard for its current NS2 zoning. NS2 zone lots are required to maintain 100 foot minimum lot widths and 8,700 square foot minimum lot areas. As planted, the subject lot has a lot width of 65 feet at the front property line and is about 8,645 square feet. This application seeks again to add a FOIA bedroom, a bathroom, and a flat roof deck. Since the commission's original review of this application or the hearing of this application in January of 2025, the applicant has revised the request to reduce the magnitude from the requested 25 foot front yard setback to 27.3 feet in consideration of feedback provided by the commission. So to the right we have a copy of the site plan. The subject property's living space currently sits about 49.5 feet back from its front yard line and it's a budding right of way or it's greenway is approximately 28 feet in depth. The original request was to have the addition aligned with the existing garage with a set of stairs, a spiral staircase in front of the front door. And so here's a copy of the revised site plan showing the change in the front yard setback. So there is a bit of a shift. The garage will maintain a 25 foot front yard setback while the living space has been pushed back in an additional approximately 2 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 4 inches. Here were elevations from the presentation in January, showing the flat ref edition against the gable and did ranch style. In consideration of staff and the commissions, feedback from January, excuse me, The applicant has revised the request to shift the living space back. They have added a feature wall to help visually shield the majority of the spiral staircase used in front of the living space to access the rooftop deck over the addition. And they have also incorporated parapet walls to help visually shield some of the recreation equipment that will be housed above for the outdoor space. Here we have images of the neighboring properties. Directly across the street you have a multi-family development so they are a mix of apartments and condominiums. All of which have recreation spaces that face the subject properties front yard and then we have images of the neighboring properties. Both are single family homes of one story scale. The image on the bottom is of a home that essentially almost mirrors the development pattern of the subject property. And then here are additional images that were originally presented back in January of other homes showing various setbacks along the street. And then also an additional home within the block on the opposite side. Pursuant to the review criteria although the property is substandard in terms of its width there are no other unique conditions relating to historic resources, significant vegetation, preservation, public facilities, or neighborhood character that will preclude the property from future development and compliance with the LDRs. The existing conditions related to the lot, and excuse me, to a lot size, and to the size of the residents are not the result of applicant action. the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would not result in unnecessary hardship as the code does identify a buildable space that could just go through plan review if an addition was planned within the permitted 19 and half feet in front of the home. Although the property has a 28 foot right away but in the subject property, the request is not considered the minimum necessary to allow the continuation of development on the site. Again, there's about 19 and a half feet of buildable area in front of the home and consideration of staff's feedback along with the commission, the applicants again have revised the request to reduce the magnitude by nearly half, almost half. In terms of the granting of the request, it does not appear to be within harmony for the general purpose and intent of the regulations of this chapter. And the approval of the request does not appear injuries to the neighboring properties or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. The reasons set forth in its application do not appear to justify the their granting of the variants and other non-conformities were not used to provide the staff's determination in this analysis. And finally, the request, The VARANCE request does not appear to reinforce the conditions unique to the Ranch style architecture or the coastal architectural style identified by the application. With respect to public comment, again, the properties located in the Greater Pinellas Point Neighborhood, the neighborhood association and all properties within 300 feet of the subject property or notify to the request and no public comments were provided in support or objection. 10 signatures of support have been obtained by the applicant from surrounding property owners. In conclusion, staff continues to the recommendation of denial now based on the rationale provided in the staff report and the reasons listed in the presentation. And I remain available for questions. Questions for staff? Did we decide that this staircase in fact, did it doesn't need to be called out as part of the variance? No. If the commission continues with the approved 25 foot front yard set back then the stairs are fine. The stairs are fine. Yeah because the garage is at 25 feet right so the right so to cover the stairs are within 25 foot and what he's showing is that the the the structure would actually be set back more than 25 feet. Correct. They've designed the living space to be set back so that it doesn't align, so to speak, but in providing the feature wall because the feature wall encroaches into the front yard and it's elevated more than four feet in height. If the commission just approves the 25 foot setback for the feature wall, they can also They can also entertain a second motion to approve the living space at a 27.3 foot setback so that both items are addressed together. He's saying if we want to limit both to what the site plan is, right, we could do two-sever motions for it, but the 25 feet includes the staircase, right? Correct. The reason it doesn't appear in the staff report it was because the revised plans, unfortunately, were given to us around the time the reports were due out for publishing, which is why I'm explaining it this way. Okay. You good? No, but it's okay. Well, I mean, ask away. It's as executive session later. Okay, all right, all right. I many looks pointed to me? Other questions for staff? Has staff done an inventory on other homes in that neighborhood with a front setback variance or the cable drew variance? Are there any that have? So for this particular block, there haven't been any design variances approved. Okay. And field and a field is actually two separate field visits. An inventory of the subject block because we can't use the multi-family development across the street. There are other homes that have expressions of the 25 foot setback or less, excuse me. Out of the nine lots, there are approximately three or four of them that have similar expressions at the 25 foot setback while the others generally do comply with the required build and setbacks at 30 feet. I think discussion in the January hearing was pointing out that the ones that are closer to the 25 foot setback, it just predated the code of the flag, right? All right. Oh, that actually reminds me. I was not here for that item in January. Does that matter at all for this purposes of this? No, because this is a complete presentation today. Okay, I agree. All right, good job. All right, thank you, applicant. I have not been sworn in. I'm going to put him. He's wearing a... Yes. He's wearing a very good... He's wearing a firm again and said, about to get in the chair for whole-chains, about to get in the chair. I'm willingness to collaborate with the commission with the city. It's hard to change like your vision, but we adjusted and you know came up with something I think looks just as good maybe even better. We've made it tie in a lot better. We've blocked the stairwell so you can't see it as much. Moved it further back. So what we're looking for is to kind of get it in alignment with what the other houses on the street are. I also want to add in too because Shervon talked about the 19.5 feet of buildable space. That includes what we need is a front entryway and a bedroom with a bathroom and a closet. So it might be 19 and a half feet in depth, but when you talk about the width, unless you walked into like a really tiny hallway that would not really be aesthetically pleasing for any home. So I really don't think that that's enough space. We do have a substandard width and we are told that we could move out like withwise another three to me, look kind of ridiculous. It wouldn't be an alignment with the side of our house. And we use that right side for storage. You can go to the next slide. So... I'm sorry, I'm too... Forgive me. Did you say your name to the record? I just can't remember. Ashley Henry. Mark Fender. Thank you. doing a little searching was doing a little searching like the lawyer who went first, but so the history of the suburban neighborhoods is to meet the needs of families and as most of you heard this our current house no longer meets the needs of our family. Our current square footage is is 1,170 square feet. Our addition that we're asking is 472 square feet, which would total 1,642 square feet. And I did a little Google search. You can see like the average size home for a family of five is between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet. And the commission identified in January that everything that we're asking for, none of it, even with the 25-foot setback was extravagant. We're asking for a little bathroom, a little closet, and really a little bedroom. And I also want to note that our architect watched the DRC review from January to help us make all of these modifications based on your feedback and we cram some things around. So the image that you guys are looking at is our bedroom furniture really like just fitting in there with enough room to walk around to access the drawers that are in our dresser. So really nothing more, nothing extravagant. So all neighbors on our street love the idea. They signed on on it. Our you know our immediate neighbors are really actually pretty happy that we're not choosing to go upward so that that would invade on their privacy or their view of the water. So they've all been in support of this. The design to me has a lot of taste, a lot of character. And our neighborhood is unique. I mean cars come up and down our street at the coldest act to take a look at the water just the other day we're out front viewing the dolphins so we'd like to enjoy that aspect of it too. Also the code that I saw, they want to establish character to the people who pass by and the number one passer-buyer that I read online is the pedestrian and the pedestrians are the people who live in our home and all of which signed off on our design and are set back of the initial ones. Go to the next one. So the design must be pleasing to the eye. This is what we could come up with. That gives it character. This new wood look kind of goes with the existing planks that are already above our garage So we wanted to continue with the same material that the city wanted so that's how we came up with that wood look I think sure Von put cedar in the plan, but we would like in the conditions to Allow either the cedar or that wood tile that's on a lot of those new structures, all those new buildings that are on 34th Street. We just would like to have that flexibility if this is approved. But I do think it has richness and character and I think it's beautiful. This was a map of houses not in compliance and the ones that are. I wanted to make special note that the two at the top are actually corner houses and they don't even face our street or 30th 30th street. So they're actually facing 67th street. So those are their side yards and if you take those out we're well above 50% that even have that 25 foot setback. So we're willing to budge. If you look at the very last house even though it's close to compliance it's still not in compliance of the city code. And that is just our block but what really stands out is our street which is on the next slide. And I just went through and I circled all of the homes that do not have the setback. And I did not include those two corner homes that I circled because they are actually not on 31st Street. But of the 11 houses on 31st Street, seven are not in compliance with the setback and that 63%. So really, all we're asking for is what everybody else has. And the state and alignment with the rest of the street. And room for our little baby, who I miss so much right now. So like we said before, it is a narrow lot. And we could have according to Shurongan, three feet out, which I think would look poor and it would take away a lot of our storage that we have currently. And that's one of our biggest challenges in our home. And then another, the architect for the city also discussed putting a gable over the rooftop and the reason that was not what we wanted to do is because it would shade our solar panels so that would be like the alternative. And this is what it currently looks like that's the area we would like to use as a set of the plans with the rooftop drawn out with the wall that they requested. And you know, I know that the view doesn't really matter in terms of code, but you know, it was stated that by the city that there's nothing special about this lot. this lot and I wholeheartedly disagree. Mark got up on the roof and took pictures of what the view would be from a flat rooftop and that's just dropped at gorgeous. So we just want to utilize our entire lot, maximize outdoor space and just... Right, Carlton Arms across the street has like a two-year waiting list and people always love to have the balcony lots. Like we've known people in there, and they want to have those lots for that view. Okay, I have a question I'm going to start and then I'll just want to confirm with you all. You talked about the wood facade there. So the actual condition says, the use of a wooden accent sighting shall be consistently applied to the gable end of the garage and the parapet walls. I think that's sufficiently broad. Is that work for you all? You're coming out about the cedar? Yes, can I also add one more thing just since we have two minutes and there are new faces. We are a family of five. We just had a baby. She's seven months old. We adopted our first kid. He has autism. He might be a lifelong roommate, so to say. And then we also have a four year old boy. So our two boys cannot share a room due to their age difference. Our boy and our girl cannot share a room long term due to their gender difference. And so that's just our family dynamics that really makes us need another bedroom is for our youngest daughter. And due to our oldest son's disability, he cannot share a room. So I think you all are sick. That is it. That was all I wanted to add. Well, but a lot of your presentation in January focused on that. Yes. And clearly you took a lot out of what you saw at that hearing because your presentation today focused on different things. And but it is important to note that. And I was going to note that, you know, it's for not that it weighs in the decision, but it is for a good cause. Yes. Are you have any other questions for the commission? I wonder if you could go back to that slide, or I think it was red and green. What I want to ask you is, okay, perfect. How many of those neighbors were you able to get a, so we have addresses, but if you could just let me know which one said yes. So I went up and down 31st Street. I was unaware of the whole block, but everybody on 31st Street except for the house on the water and that is a rental house that honestly is not even taken care of. The house, the verbal yeses, the 26.3 foot, they are a verbal oh yeah let us know if you want us to come to the commission. Same with the 35, 8, they are 100%. Let us know whatever you need. We'll be there. That sounds great. We love that idea. So I would say the only ones that we did not are the huge mansion, other house on the water, and the 31, 3 are the only people who we did not talk to. That's very helpful, thank you. You're welcome. You mentioned that your solar panels would be obstructed by like a gable roof. Is it these ones that are facing the water? Yes. Those are most efficient panels. Those are the six. OK. They're not in the picture, but yeah, the one right. It wouldn't be all of the solar panels It really would because if the roof was there as the sun goes up the ones in the back would be shaded too all of them would be shaded Okay during during different times of the deserts the sun moves on different times of the year as well Well, not when the sun moves, I guess the earth is The earth does move the does move. The sun does not. We're all moving. We are right now. Other questions from the commission? What are the busy terms? Thank you. Do we have any registered opponent? We do know. Do we have any blue cards? We do know. Okay. Staff, do you have any cross-examination questions? No, staff waves. Do you have any cross-examination questions? No. Okay. Staff, do you have any closing remarks? Just as a point of clarification, so I just reviewed the application, along with the diagram that the applicants provided in their presentation, they did receive signatures from both immediate neighbors that were shown in my presentation earlier. Okay. signatures from both immediate neighbors that were shown in my presentation earlier. Thank you. And then closing statements? Please say yes. Thank you. So with that we'll go into the executive session. I'd like to start off just because I made comments at the last one. I have no issue with the design variance. That block may be a little normal, but the neighborhood is quite eclectic. I drove it. The pink streets in particular, which are our adjacent, have a lot of different home designs. And as far as the setback variance height, I think your architects really took what we said to harden on, I can support the way this has been changed. I drove it. Did you see other, I guess the rooftop component, the rooftop deck, did you see others? I didn't see that. No, it was the flat roof that I saw on a couple of places. They didn't have, it didn't have the rooftop amenity. I just feel a lot better if there was the back there, something front. That's just me. Yeah. From the design step when I'm... I don't know Mr. Clemens I would hear for the first one I Would know the view of use the other direction But now that group the Just to clarify It's only because they're doing an addition to a house that this issue of flat roof versus gable roof has come up. Both are allowed within the zoning code, but when you're doing an addition to an existing house, the code requires that the addition be sympathetic and compatible with the original style of the house, or that you do a significant enough renovation that you completely transform the look of the house to be consistent with a new style. So the issue here is that the concern by staff, I think that correctly brought this to our attention is that this is a ranchstyle house, ranched with a gable roof, and now the proposals to put a flat roof addition. And we discussed last time, I brought up last time, that a lot of the ranch-style houses did have actually flat roofs for like patios and enclosed patios more often in the rear than the front. But that, I believe, that what they've done working with their architect has come up with the design that ties it together in a much more cohesive way than what we saw in January. And although it's stretching it to say perhaps that this is a purely architecturally consistent addition to a 60s or 50s ranch house. I think again overall it's done in a way that sympathetic and to the house, and to the style of the house, and not to diminish the architectural qualities of ranch houses. but their architectural styling is not as coherent or consistent or as, I guess, identifiable, as you might see in a Mediterranean revival, or some of the other more traditional architectural styles that contemporary buildings would think have more variety of commissioner Rihale pointed out. I did print out a picture of the first design that we were requesting and then the changes. Sorry, we're all tied. We just, we have procedures. If we have a question, we can ask you, but we have to stay in. So that's it. I'm done. You're basically saying they could bulldoze this house and build something with a flat roof and it would be allowed. Right. it's supposed to be architecture coherent, but it's only because they're doing an addition to a ranch house that the addition should be consistent with it, which brought up the whole issue of the flat roof versus the gay roof. Flat roofs are not strictly prohibited. Mr. Flint? First of all, I did owe everything. Tim Clemens has said. He's always lays it out. The flat deck roof, biggest issue back in January was, it just had the open sides with the rails. And that made that flat deck just really stand out as being the roof. The fact that they've enclosed the facade there and recessed it back a couple feet so it's not the same plane as the garage. His tied it together much better. The open, obvious decking of just the railing didn't mesh well at all. So I think this is a very good compromise to tie the two together and meet the spirit of this code. Other comments? No, you just be echoing. I'll entertain a motion then. Question first. Oh, sorry. She asked about the title instead of saying wooding on number four. So, but it's a wooden. So, yeah, we can come from with staff or with Cory. It says wooden accent. That doesn't mean it has to be wood, right? It could be another material, Cory. Yeah, I mean, there could be a hardy board. Yeah. Can it be tile? Tile wouldn't go, I mean. Because you know they have tile that looks like wood now. Well, if it has a wood look to it, yes. That's fine. I think you're us thinking mad rubber. Yeah. So, okay, so the material is less important. It's the accent that's important. And the consistency between the two, yeah. I mean, I was debating, just striking the word, wood so that we'd say accent-siting. But I think that's long as staff is supported, I don't think we have to go through that effort. Okay. Do we think that these staircases handled without doing a separate... Oh, you mean procedurally? I do. We can ask council. And if we if we approved the way it is now when this came in for permit drawings and everything else, the staircase would not be an issue. For a setback because the way it's written to fifth 25 feet. Yeah. And the stairs within 25 more. So let me try and change the question then. So the question is does it require a separate variance approval for the staircase in the front there if it's within the 25 foot variance there? I think that's a staff question. Okay. There was, I think Chevron already applying that. It's not an issue, right? It is, but it's something that can be addressed. Oh, can there am I okay so explain Do we have to take action to address it? Yes, okay, so it changes yet the whole time I'm thinking you have no point here and you do have a point here So I'm sorry, okay, okay, okay, okay, so we need to create a new condition of approval and I can help you okay Could you please help us? So you can move approval. So the first one would be to address the feature wall. I think that's probably the easiest thing to do. It would be more than 4 feet tall. Correct. And in doing so, you can also add the staircase to it because the stairs exceed more than three feet in height and they're in the required 35-hour setback. Okay, now remember. Right, we can... We can... Yeah, it was essentially revised so that you can address them at the same time. So you can move approval of the variance to the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet to allow a feature wall and a spiral staircase. So we just add that to the one first part of the original request. Well, I think it has to include the improvement, too, though, right? Because that's, while it's not at 25 feet, it's at 27. So you're going to give us another line item for that? No. OK. Understand. OK. You're welcome to come up with it if you like. No, no. I'm just making sure we're not leaving a piece out. OK. So I'm not making a motion yet. But if we were going to do this as two motions, the first motion would be approval of the variance to the front yard set back from 30 feet to 25 feet to allow for feature wall and spiral exterior spiral staircase. Why does it have to say what it's addressing? Because there are exterior features. What I'm concerned about before you get into it, commissioners, that were adding on things that weren't noticed. Exactly. So right now, the variance for the front yard set back is pretty generic. That's what I was. That's what I was when we were. And I think that generic nature would actually be beneficial for the applicant here and changing what it's asking for might not be necessary, I guess. The way it's written now is to, and a design variance to allow a flat-root addition to an existing single-found residence. Now that the design has been pertinent to us in its I Could I would argue that the words design variants Covered in the features that are part of that design as presented to us which would include the stair and the feature There's two different variances one structural one's the design And also, but there's a tax side plan and building Elbations that depict what they're requesting so they go hand in hand and in the of the vehicle hasn't shown the addition now 25 feet because that's not a plan show. Right. So if you want to add a condition, if it's not already, and they're that they significantly resemble the drawings. Isn't that substantially resemble it? So we already have that covered. Yeah. Yeah, that's going to be a default requirement anyway for the variance. So if Council Dimas opinion is that the generic 25-foot setback covers everything and then we have the design. That's where I was when we were talking about it before. Living spaces now would move back to 27.3. Yeah, but it has to follow the site plan. I think that the request as shown on the SAF report works. So if there are- Right. Yeah. Making this a whole- I agree. And in the absence of a compelling reason to change that from the request that was noticed, I think that this accommodates what the applicant's requesting. It's understood that the flat roof addition includes the stair. That's a dental architectural feature to the flat roof. I think it could be reasonably inferred that you would need a staircase to get to your flat roof. Is it adding or is it that's a smaller magnitude though. That's why I'm okay with that. The noticed magnitude was for five feet. Correct. Correct. Correct. And then this that portion of it, the living area is down to 2.3. Seeing somebody unscrupulous could gain back 2.3 feet. We could have the site plan. Well, we'll verify the site plan. Because of the site plan, then. And then the site plan's going to lock in the particulars. Yes. Got it. I'm good. OK. I'm going to move. You're replacing them. I'm moving approval as they're into the front yard setback. 30 feet to move. You can please. I'm going to move approval of variance to the front yard setback. 30 feet to 25 feet. And a design variance to allow flat roof addition to an existing single family residence. Second. So, object to conditions of approval. Second. Cureton. Yes. What? Yes. Stowe. Yes. Sing, Riali. Yes, Granger. Yes, motion passes unanimously So that you're clear because of all that confusing talk the way you presented it was approved. We didn't change anything Thank you for translating Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. All right. The next item is number five. It's case number, oh, do we need a break? I wonder. I think we do. Yeah. Okay. We'll take a, or do you have to ask before we break? No, that's what I asked. Okay. We'll take a break and reconvene at 3pm. and you and I'm going to go to the bathroom. 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 go to the same thing. and 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. music Thank 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 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 go 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 go to the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. 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 go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go 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 make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the head. 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. Thank you. you you you you I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to do 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 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 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. All right. So we will pick back up. We're on item number five, which is case number 2554400014. That's very Sure, Von Chamberlain, so I've developed... the submit review services. We're here to present the application to 5-5400-014 for 3101 17th Street North. The subject property is located on 17th Street North between 31st and 32nd Avenue North and the Oakwood Gardens. Neighbor. The subject property is located on 17th Street North between 31st and 32nd Avenue North in the Oakwood Gardens neighborhood. As a bit of background the subject property is a corner lot zoned into one. The property consists of two platted lots under common ownership that have been improved with a two-store single-family residence, one garage, a patio cover and a spa which were purchased by the applicant in December of 2023. A permit was applied for back in 2024 for the addition of a swimming pool where corrections were placed on the pool permit, citing the increased presence of impervious surfaces and a patio cover that encroaches the rear yard property line with no record of a permit The encroaching patio covered According to the application materials as an interior side yard setback of approximately 5.1 feet Where six feet is required and a rear yard setback of 0.7 or about nine inches where 10 feet is required. This application requests approval of an after the fact variance to setbacks to retain the patio cover. The following are images of the property from the street side yard, both from the exterior and the interior of the rear yard. And then here are images of the patio report, staff received information from the city's engineering department, clarifying the presence of a three foot utility easement that is situated at the rear of Lot 78. This three-foot utility easement consists of sewer laterals that run north-south through the block. These sewer lateral connections serve as the subject law and then the neighboring lock behind it. The applicant has been made aware that engineering has provided feedback that any incumbrances or any structures present within the easement would need to be removed. The applicant again has been made aware of has been made aware that they would need to clear the easement of any obstructions and they have agreed to it effectively revising the request. So instead of maintaining a roughly 9 inch setback from the rear yard property line, the patio cover could have its eaves, uh, portions of its eaves removed so that their encroachment into the easement itself, uh, the structure would comply with the rear three-foot setback. The subject block does show a presence of accessory structures aside in the application located towards the rear third of neighboring lots. As constructed, the patio cover does comply with the height allowance for accessory structures. and bring properties do appear to have accessory structures found in somewhat similar areas. They're just not of similar sizes The applicant was able to provide aerial images of the property prior to their 2023 purchase where the structure has been identified. These aerial images date back from the present the present 2024 or the prior 2024. They date back to 2005. And here are several of those images that were provided as attachments in the staff report. Aerial images of the property were acquired using the Pinellas County's aerial image retrieval system. They appeared to show that the original patio cover was constructed sometime between 1997 and 2002 and then the portion of the original patio cover located where the spot is on the site plan was later enlarged to the east between 2011 and 2014. Presumably to the review criteria, the property is a conforming site which has no peculiar conditions that would prevent compliance with the land development regulations. The request is not the result of applicant action as the property was purchased in 2023 and the applicant was able to provide aerial images of the conditions under which the property was purchased. Literal enforcement would not deprive the applicant of use of the property as the single family home could continue unaffected by the patio cover. However, literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would include the applicant from using the structure as constructed. The request is considered the minimum variance necessary to make use of the structure as built after the encroaching portions of the ease and all improvements in the easement are removed from it, which the applicants already agreed to. The granting of the variance does not appear to be injuries to surrounding properties otherwise detrimental to general public welfare. The request does not appear to be in harmony with the purpose and general intent of this chapter. And the reason set forth in the application do not appear to justify the granting of the Vance's patio cover, could be constructed in available lands on site that could comply with the built-in setbacks. With regards to public comment, again, the subject property is located in the Oakwood Gardens, which does not currently have an active neighborhood association. All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property have been notified of the request, and no public comments have been received and response to the request. Three letters and signatures of support were provided with the application from surrounding property owners. Two of the three signatures provided are the most directly impacted property owners located to the east or directly behind the subject property located at 1635 31st Avenue North and 3110 Prescott Street North Those letters have been passed out prior to this hearing to each commissioner In conclusion staff maintain to approval of denial or recommends denial of the requested variance to the setbacks due to the site having the ability to have the patio cover constructed in an area where the variances this to setbacks are not required. And that concludes my presentation. Any questions for staff? The required setbacks that are listed in the report, those are under the current NT one zoning ordinance right. All right. If this as appears to be the case, if the original portions of this cover structure were built prior to 2007, do you know what the required setbacks would have been at that time. I do not. Okay. Other questions for staff? Has there been any code violation citation or anything like that that's been cited on this property in the past? Not that I'm aware of there are no open cases. For this, you know, patio. Pretend it's a patio cover no. Okay. Other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. See how I can hear. For the record, I'm Pito Connell. My husband and partner of 38 years is in the back where the owners of 3101 17th Street North. And confirm you have been sworn? I'm sorry, I have been sworn. Thank you. So thank you for your attention today. We are old and so is the patio cover as opposed to what you just did a few minutes ago with a young family not becoming their parents that we are. We're active retirees. We moved, as we said in 2023 here, we moved from Key West, where we were six feet above sea level. One of the attractions of this particular property was that it is at 58 feet above sea level. And we did get flooded once down in Key West. But we do have health issues. Keywest does not have good health issues and facilities, so we did move here mostly because of the health. And of course, a vibrant and diverse culture that's accepting. Here's a good picture of the property. This is from the actual listing. The covers we're talking about are here. You can see what the neighborhood looks like. This is an older house that's actually only two feet from our property line overhangs the property line. This one is in the three foot right away that we found out about yesterday on both sides of this fence which is the line. as you can see is interfered all the way along that line. The items in the report, we mostly agree with it. Obviously we don't agree with the denial, but other than that, there are a few things that we just want to do for emphasis. It was in existence at 2012. We have photographic evidence of that. That was during a two-story addition, permitted addition, inspected position, signed off addition. It was in existence at that point. Spots been removed. The request is not, you know, because of us, any actions we've done, all we've done is try to improve the structures that are there. The neighboring properties do show, as you'll see in a picture in that last picture, similar setback issues all the way along. If this is denied, we will have to remove basically all the structure, rebuild it, and put it up somewhere else if we were to keep it. That's an expensive thing. We're getting estimates, verbal estimates of around $50,000. So and it's not injurious or detrimental to the neighboring properties and there are those letters of support. All the neighbors tell stories about how it was the neighboring gathering area. So we purchased it in 23. We did our due diligence. We did the things that we were advised to do to determine what was good or bad about the property. We looked at the structure and reviewed it. The disclosure statements on the offer said there were no code violations. It was just sold by John Parker who actually built those structures in 2002, the year before we bought it, to the person in between us, and he also signed off that there were no code violations. And we'll see a little bit more about him in a second. The analysis appraiser and appraisal shows that as an open-improved porch, and it was additive to the assessment for several years. So we check that. It was on there. The fact that that's is used for city and county taxes. The time frame indicated that it was built by the licensed contractor owner prior to 2012. It was a two story addition. Conversations with the neighbors assured us there were no issues. Nothing was brought up in title insurance or anywhere else. A while ago we later consulted and confirmed by staff was that it's almost impossible to determine whether those structures were included in the two story addition or some other time. The only thing that the staff can tell us is they cannot find a permit for those structures. And it took them several months. We started this process in October. The aerial photos show the history of the patio cover. It's in three phases. Phase one was the original 1939 garage structure and a permitted garage extension. When the builder tore those down, he used that footprint and that existing roof structure for a attached porch. The single-swept one was built somewhere around 2006 as far as the photos show. And then the aerial photo taken in 2012, which is a blow up at the end of the presentation, show the extension of patio cover was in existence of phase three during the two-story addition. While code was there, while the permit was approved, it was all there. So the variance package shows the details. The structure has the low profile. It's all post and beam, hurricane strapped and clipped, braced and secured, has professional electricals in it, and it appears to have been built to the code at the time. So there seems to have been missed opportunities by code enforcement throughout the history of this property. There were two specific things, phase two and three covers. Patio covers clearly existed during the construction of the permitted two-story addition. No action was taken at that time by the city code compliance and obviously we are bearing the brunt of that. In 2003, just before we bought a driveway was added and the old driveway taken out. It added 641 square feet of impervious surface and was permitted but appears not to have triggered a site plan review for adding that much impervious surface. And there's a lot of impervious surface on it because John used it for his business. I don't think approved but that's the way it was. So here's a shot from that roof down the property line. And you can see right to our rear property line. There is this structure, this overhangs the property line. And this one down here overhangs the property line. I'm not sure how there is still an existence of sewer line down through there, but that's what we're told yesterday by their staff. Here's a good shot of the inside of that, showing all three phases. Phase one is the permitted old part of the garage in white here, then the single slope, which has less of a setback issue than the double slope one. In order to comply with the engineer's request for the sewer line, there would have to be removal of at least this much of the overhang part to bring it into the three feet from the property line. The neighborhood we talked a little bit about but it's got 522 homes, 72 with the properties within the required notice, 28 year obvious rentals so we have a lot of rentals in that area. 10 homes are currently on the market, 63 are newly constructed replacements for some of the old cottages. I think the future of this property is sure to be redevelopment when we get too old to retain it. And the lot lines have been fluid as you see. This is a little history of John Parker and how he was a top builder. He was ranked in the top 18% of Florida contractors. He built 56 projects during that time. The history of when he purchased it is there. He built a big garage, the cover as we said was in phases and the estimates we've gotten so far are in that range. So thank you for your time. And we really appreciate Siobhan's work on this. He spent a lot of time on it. I think I got our $500 worth from him. So we completely commit to the condition set forth in the removal part. Here's the picture of 2012. This is the construction. You can see the front wall shadow. So the first floor was put on. Here's the first phase, which always existed. Here's the second phase, and here's the third phase that existed while an active permit for a two-story addition was being executed. That's all I had. Oh, here's the driveway one. This is what the driveway looked like before the previous people bought it with open space. And then they added this 641 feet and they cut back 60 square feet over on the cold drive lane. Thank you. Questions. Any questions for the applicant? Did this all start with your application for a pool? Yes. We wanted to put a 12 by 15 pool and it would have added about 300, this is going to report somewhere in my thing. 300 square feet, 283. Whatever it was. Now, are you still pursuing that? Well, once we get all this, we can't move forward until we get this resolved. And then we have to go through removing all that gravel, which we are very, very glad to to do because we don't like gravel yards at all. We're really plant people so as you can see by some of those shots. Okay thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Sorry, any registered opponent? I don't think so here. No. Any blue cards? No. Staff, do you have any cross-examination? Staff, waves. Sir, do you have any cross-examination questions? No. Okay. Staff, do you have any closing arguments? Staff, waves. Sir, do you have any closing arguments? I just wanted to just read. Please come all the way to the mic. Just to reiterate that we purchased this and really we did our everything we possibly could and that's confirmed by the fact that they can't even find the plans for the two-story addition. They're not in existence anymore from 2012. There were a lot of opportunities for the city staff to intercept this at an earlier date before we were stuck with it, and that's about it. Thank you. Thank you. So we're going into the executive session. Anyone want to start? I know we have a lot of strong opinions on after the fact variances, so the fact they require it sort of indicates this one's a little harder. It is. I'm I'm I'm sympathetic here. They he's done a good job of documenting the due diligence that they did. The fact that we don't have a good documentation of what exactly was included in that permit when the two story edition was done and it appears that that last phase at least was a middle phase I think was done in conjunction with that or soon before or soon after is interesting to me I'm also not exactly sure what the codes allowed and didn't allow when the main portion of this was built. I don't think it would have allowed a one foot setback, but it may, but some portions of this may have been actually within the setbacks at the time. Finally I'll note that it does appear that it was built well. And that's one of my concerns when we have some of these after the fact, the fact that it's is that we see sometimes some poor relationship that concerns me as much for safety issues as it does for zoning issues, although our main task here is on zoning issues, not construction issues. That does bring up a question. I did mean to ask whether it's Trevon or Cory. If we approve this very incident, they then have to get an after the fact permit. No, it's not a condition. Yeah. It is. And applicants are aware of it Okay they would have to verify then that it's built properly. I assume they would. I know that it wasn't explicit. Yeah so the applicants will continue to work with city staff as well. The zoning staff plan are more than likely myself along with the engineering department so that we can get assurances that the eaves are out of the setback and then it can apply for after the fact permitting while they also have the pool permit since the plane's already here. And then my final comment is just that the people most affected by it have lived with it for 15 years or for as least as long as they have owned the house if they bought it more recently but they bought it knowing it was there if they have bought it more recently, and actually are supporting the application. So I'm going to vote for it. I understand staff's position. I think staff took the proper position in terms of its evaluation, but for all of the reasons that they did, I'm going to support the variance. We often have Commissioner Flint's soapbox on when the building is built in the wrong spot that some we should have had and this is a good soapbox. I'm not picking on him here. You know that someone in the process should have you know had the survey or state the corners and verify this and well particularly it's an oversized lot and you jammed everything in a one corner. I mean, it's shame on you. I was actually going to go a different way with it though. So from a lawyer, I get to have a soapbox today for the lawyer's perspective. Right, so the title insurance, the gentleman we're talking about, when they buy the property, they probably have a survey, you get title review, but my guess would be that unless someone specifically asked for it to be removed, that the title exception for the survey still exists on that title policy. So you get a survey, and then you go to the title company and you say, hey, you said this was OK, and it encroaches, and the title comes in to say, well, you didn't clear this exception. And it's a bit of a broken process that I don't think we can fix here. Actually, I know that we can't fix that here, right? And no one's going to cry for the lawyers to say the lawyer should be part of the process, but if a lawyer reviews a title policy, the goal would be to remove that exception. So that, that, leave me, it's some of my concern with some of these conditions, because the question becomes at what point is at the result of the owner. I know that we always hear the owners a lot and build it so it's some of my concern with some of these conditions because the question becomes at what point is at the result of the owner. And I know that what we always hear the owner is a lot of it and build it so it's not my fault but you can move that back somewhere, right? Like someone should have done a different diligence than was done. But that and the idea that the city permitted this, you know, didn't catch it on prior permits that would have been before the ownership took place. I do find that more persuasive than normally. And Mr. Dima, there's no a stop-alargument or anything from the city based on that is there. I don't think I usually see that on my practice. With the city asserting a stop-al? No, with the applicant asserting a stop-al? No, with the applicant here asserting a stop-o because the, this, this, because the city didn't notice it in other permitting applications. Yeah. I don't think so. That's, that's, that's, it's a pretty hard, it's a pretty limited stop-o when you're going against the municipality is way I understand it. It is, I mean, it would have to be done with knowledge the city to approve something and then make a pivot away. It speaks to vested rights. Is it way I understand it? It is. I mean, it would have to be done with knowledge of the city to, you know, approve something at that and then make a pivot away. It speaks to vested rights. And so I find myself in a similar position in Mr. Clemens where I really, really don't like to hear these applications, but the injury of the neighbors is so minimal if at all. I'm sort of swayed by the position they've been put in. Sounds like it's a place they all go and hang out. So, I mean, the applicant, they raised a good point that this was, there was no citations, no nothing, how would you know if you were purchasing a property that this is, was know, was against the code. I mean, there were no open violations or anything. And so- That's my soapbox, right? Yeah. Survey reviews, the issue. The flag it, yeah. I'm not to jump in, but I just know down in my mind these homeowners who just bought this place are totally fall free. They didn't create this condition. But having said that, it might be the most overbuilt lot that's ever come before so I've ever seen I mean we're talking well a one-foot setback nowhere on the planet without it'd ever been approved looking looking at that one aerial to it looks like code enforcement could have a field day in this part of the city you could walk from roof to roof yeah that's what it looks like something from overseas back in stand or or something like that. I guess the squirrels do. Or the branch of it. I have a question about the third portion of the canopy that was mentioned. I guess it came to light yesterday that a portion of it would need to be removed. Do we add this as a condition of approval? I don't believe it's necessary. The applicant has already agreed to remove, to work with City staff and the engineering department to remove the EVE sections. Would there have to be another variance request for the poll as well? Or is that at this time I couldn't really speak on it. So the applicant has already begun to remove the gravel, which kind of significantly contributed to the increase in the impervious surface. So because there are other areas where hard-scape could be removed, I don't think that they would need it, but I would also have to take another look at the pool plant to see what the average was. I mean, there is actually quite a bit of open area on the site on the two street sides just not in the back corner at least that corner but at least at least the back corner that's most hidden from public view and once the plants have largely taken over from the gravel then I think the site won't feel nearly so hot when you look at it from an aerial photograph. But you're not waiting for it. It's so bucks time. Yeah. There we go. It's always buyer beware on these. I remember we were on code enforcement board, both Joe and I. It was really common code violation to pop up. But really, how do you blame the city? We don't want police force out there jumping and looking at everybody's satellite photos and diming everybody for we're saying why didn't the city jump on this? Well, do we want the city jumping on everything on every property? You know, we're not a police state and I don't think code enforcement should be jumping on every property. My biggest concerns here are, you know, making sure that the easement for the utilities that run along that property line have their easement clearances. That's absolutely, I don't think we have anything because if the sewer line runs back there, if crews can't get to that sewer line to clear line, replace it, whatever, we got a major problem. Normally when we've had these issues pop up, a lot of times it's the houses in the wrong spot. So that's where we put people out of homes. We're not putting anybody out of homes here. The home itself, we're comfortable. It's in the right spot, close enough, whatever. So we're talking a patio. Would we approve some of this encroachments if they came before a snast for it? I don't know if we would. Would we be comfortable if they were to cut off some of the eaves on it? I mean, I'm not seeing any solid plans showing what portions would be cut off. Maybe it could be sketched out on the overhead, but I'm a little more hesitant to approve something that is not part of the residential structure that's putting somebody out of their home. This is just an amenity that they'd like to have. Maybe eliminate a part of it. What parts to get it to a palatable size of encroachment? Also persuasive. Yeah, the utility is what really bothered me when I saw it's like, all right, it's not a problem to something happens, right? This is a big problem. Yeah. You know, on these things, you have to come down. I, I, I, I really sympathize with. I miss they're in a terrible spot, but I can't support it. I can't. Primarily because of the utility issue. And as everybody says, we all agree. The Homeowner did nothing wrong. They're unfortunate victims in this thing. and the homeowners typically are innocent party. What's concerning is the home inspections that come in, don't notice, well, this is unusual. Why is this house so close to the property line? There's certain things where you hire experts for home inspections that say something doesn't look right here. Why is this thing so big and so close to the property line? I just don't know if I could live with approval of such a large structure so close. Any comments? Under the current, I mean, I believe that the, and I know the current ask is for .7 feet for the rear, but it's actually going to be three. Is that, once they take the eaves off. Right. So it'll actually be three, which I mean, it's still 70% magnitude. But given this aerial view and the other building, I mean, basically right on the property line, and they have signed off and said that they're okay with it. Yeah, I mean, this is a real, I mean, Commissioner Rehall, you had it right in the beginning, is this right on the edge? Well, I wouldn't lead this go ahead and change the 0.9 feet to three feet though. I understand. We do that, just that it's not necessary. Oh, because again, well, that's increasing. It's not, it's increasing the compliance. It doesn't decrease the compliance. In the case earlier where Mr. Dean was concerned that we're doing something that wasn't notified. But in this case, we're actually making the setback greater than less, so we're improving it from a public point of view. So you would agree that that is a different condition, right? That's correct. That's how we've long viewed these. Yeah. So I would think that we should go ahead and just do that. Well, and then if we're talking about magnitudes also, one of these is the EVE, right? And one of them is how far back it goes. Not the EVE, right? The Gabel End. Right, yeah, if you cut off the Gabel End, isn't that one of the encroachments? No, it was the one of the encroach, yeah, the rear. That's not when you're not affecting the trust and the gable, that's probably depending on where the support is. It's usually cut off an overhang on the event. I mean, the photograph you could see where the two, the single slope roof was back about three feet. The double slope roof was, I think, the 0.9 feet. Is that correct? Right. And had the nice carved rafter tails, unfortunately, you're going to lose those. And so you'd be pulling that back so that the two, if you'd like to put the photograph back up. Yeah, can we? Because I don't want to get this. Because that was a good photograph to the interior view. It was under the canopy, and you could see the two side by side, the two structures side by side from below. This one, this one. That's right. It's the applicant's presentation. I like checking everything It's wired for sale man That one The one that's up one right there with mouse. Yep. So in the foreground is the single slope roof structure and then just beyond it where the speaker is, just beyond the paddle fan, you can see that the double slope roof structure and how it extends about a two feet more to the right, closer to the fence, to the far right. So to the right is the interior side here, it's that back, correct? The right is the mountain. Right, right. The back is the rear. The rear. Okay. Okay. That's the one you really have a problem with. and on the end comes closer to the line, but the neighbor's house actually is 1.8 feet to the foundation from our line. Where's the nine? Oh, that's the, I'm sorry, I'm ringing back. It's the 0.7 feet. So the one, the double slope roof is not the 0.9. See, the requested is 0.7. That's supposed to be 10 feet back, but it's only 0.7 feet. In other words, you know, 8 inches or so. And that's to the right. To the right. Yep. And that's the rear yard set back. So that 0.7 feet should be, should be three feet to comply with the easement. And I'm suggesting that we would just go ahead and change that 0.7 to three feet through our motion. Well, and I'm looking at the interior side. That's a smaller variance. But is there is there no overhang looking into the depth? So sir, if you if you are the very far end here. Right overhang there. Yeah, I mean, wouldn't wouldn't that be within the point nine feet? Wouldn't that eliminate one of the variances? Well, no, that would be... No, because the columns, I think, I think what we've got are the columns are probably a couple of inches... So the whole structure is 11 inches over. The columns are probably a couple of inches over and probably the overhang is probably only about six inches usually on those ends or maybe even less. The columns are approximately four and a half feet from the back edge of the property. That's to the right. To the right. Yeah, but we're talking about the other. To the other end, there is a overhang. You can see the brace there. There is a small overhang in that peak. Does it look does it look the same at both ends? It's not as bad as the neighboring properties encroachment. Yeah. And that's and that one isn't impacting the the easement. No, but it is an easement for it. And it is a various. In fact, when. Yeah. But again, that's one that, that's the one that specifically I was wondering about. I know, but in 2007, you know. My point is I'm not sure you have to tear the structure down. I don't think we have evidence right now. No. So do you have another photograph showing the far end of the double gable structure? It is somewhere to this end. I can't see. Again, where's the pointer? It's looking to your staff report. There's a hand drawing. And there that shows the property lines of the effects. Yep. So it looks like it's on page 36. I'm going to put it on the back of the effects. It looks like it's on page 36. It shows the distance from the property line to the columns. Oh, okay. That's the roof. That one? Nope. There's actually like a side plan plan view. So it's up next. Yeah. Don't come from the pages. The top of the sheet is actually going to be the north property. There we go. There it is. This is three and a half feet to the overhang and somewhere there's a 4.75. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm going to set a 5 to the property. All right, so see the 5.1 feet? Yeah. There's actually a 6.7 foot overhang on that. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah, yeah. So, sir, could you cut off one raft or tail? Sure, I mean it's built the same way as that other photograph we could cut. I understand what you're saying, yes. Could that one, this is to keep moving? That's about a six to eight. You told me. I mean, I saw it was like every six inches of a raft. Could, could that one assist? That's about a six to the eight. You told me to do it now. I mean, I know it's like every six inches of the Raptor. Could you cut it that one round? And that is seven, five. Is that what it's, 7.5 is required there? It's six. In your five point, it's probably a huge, if you can cut. We only need to be able to do the beneath this. So 11 inches would need to be removed. So it's probably a one, one raffer bay. And so the reason I know we're putting a lot of thought into this. But if we're talking about it after the fact variance, I would like to minimize that request. And so I, you know, I, the way to minimize that is just to deny that. That variance, variance, which men would work for- And then a men yours to three feet. Not yours, but the other one. Yeah. I'll give you six, you give me three. Yeah. So, right, that the first variance, I would suggest that if you think they should correct that to be six feet, you'll just vote against the variants. They would be required then to correct the structure to be six feet, to take at least 11 inches off of the structure. And then I'm going to suggest that the point seven foot variants be increased to three foot. So I mean I think I agree with what you're doing there. I don't think we have consensus. So why don't we start making motions? Yeah. Can I have a question? Yes, please. It relates to that three foot along the top of the drawing there. How much is concrete directly underneath that overhang? Is it just within the supporting columns, a concrete pad that's impervious? or does it go all the way out to the end of the rafter tails? It's all pavers. It's all pavers is a good result way up to the property line. It goes pavers to its end, the dotted line there, three and a half feet. There's about a foot maybe to the property line. The property line is really unknown there from the survey. The fence, where the surveyer put the fence is not where the fence is. It has actually a jog around an old telephone pole. So we're going to get that boundary actually resurveyed so that we know exactly where everything sits on that. I'm not sure that papers are prohibited within the easement. No, just if that had anything do with the impervious surface issues back there with all the canopies that they have. I would not have decreased some impervious surface. Although if it's under roof, it's still going to count as impervious even if you took the papers off. But if your rafter tails are cut back to be three feet off now that water can come down that gives a little bit more leeway on the impervious surface. And it's a lot easier to take care of if it's pavers rather than to cut a slab. Right. So, Chair, it's acceptable to you. I'd like to do this as two motions. Are you going to change the magnitude of the one-in-the-motion? Yeah, okay, please. So I move approval of an after-effect variance to the required interior side yards set back from six feet to 5.1 feet subject to conditions of approval. Second. Cunen. No. That yes. Stowe. No. Singleton. Yes yes Clements No Reality no Grinder no emotion fails and I'll move approval of the after the fact variants to the required rear yard stuff that from 10 feet to 3 feet subject to retain a patio cover subject to conditions of approval. Second. Here, then. No. What? Yes. Stoke. Yes. Singleton. Yes. Clements. Yes. Reality. Yes. Griner. Yes. Emotion passes. Okay. In baseball, you batted 500. Next is item number six, which is case 24540122. Okay, I actually have a couple other people too. I'll just do everybody at once. Okay. Okay. Okay. Just what you email this. Okay. Okay. We saw this. Yes. Okay. I can't wait. I said it was something yesterday. I think, wait, yesterday. Yes. So this is all this different. Okay. It's red. Okay. It's red. It's new. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. I'll show it. I forgot that. A little challenge. challenge. That's like, goody. Does that help? Yes. Oh yeah, just give him the commission a second to look at this. Yeah. Okay. There's one, two, two, right? This is one, two, two. Okay, staff. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Laramore, planer 2 for development review services, presenting case number 24-5400-122. The subject property is located at 5823 Emerson Avenue south and an interior property with a rear alley located between 58th and 59th Street South. The property is three fully plated lots in the Pasadena Bear Creek neighborhood. The subdivision was plated in 1925 and the existing single family home was built in 1957. The current property owner purchased the property in September of 2008. The property is located in the NS1 zoning district and is an oversized parcel with a width of 135 feet and approximately 17,145 square feet. The application today seeks approval of variances to the minimum lot width, lot area, and interior side setback to allow for the separation of an undeveloped lot from an existing developed parcel and allow for the construction of a new single family residence and detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit above. There are four total variances being requested today, two requests dealing with the land and two requests relating to the existing and proposed structures. The minimum lot area and lot width for the easternmost lot to allow for it to be separated from the other two lots, as well as the interior side setback for both the existing home to remain, as well as the new proposed home and detached garage and accessory dwelling unit structure. The subject property is comprised of three plated lots under one parcel ID. The proposal today would separate Lot 16 from Lot 17 and 18 and Lot 17 and 18 would remain combined under one parcel ID. The proposed one story home and two story accessory structure would be then developed on the Eastern Lot 16. The existing single family home would remain as is across the other two combined lots. The new property line would create a non-conforming setback with the existing home at six feet from the new shared property line where seven and a half feet is the district minimum. The new structures are proposed with an eight and a half and 11 foot interior setback to the shared property line, but this creates a deficiency for the setback to the neighboring property to the east with six foot, that's requiring a variance. As part of staff review, the development pattern of the original plated lot dimensions and current parcel configurations were analyzed. While the original plated lots are deficient to current standards as shown in the center column, the eventual parcels they were developed into are generally compliant to today's NS1 zoning district standards. The original plat, shown here on the left, contained two blocks, which if not developed, would be severely deficient to current NS1 standards. However, over time since the original 1925 plating, the blocks have been developed in a more suburban pattern, with generally larger parcels containing more than one plated lot. This development pattern results in neighborhood layout that reinforces the NS1 development standards. No comment from the Pasadena Bear Creek Estates Neighborhood Association nor the Citywide Council of Neighborhood Associations was received. Opposition to the request has been received by neighboring property owners since the publishing of the staff report. Nearby property owners have either provided comments of objection as shown here in yellow to the neighboring property to the east or have filed to be registered to be registered opponents to the request today. Their property is shown here in red. In analyzing the request for variance review, staff found that the requests do not generally meet the guiding criteria of the code. This analysis is expounded upon in the published staff report. And lastly, based on the stringent standards of approval contained within the city code, the development review services division staff recommends denial of the variance requests subject to the conditions outlined in the published staff report. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Questions for staff, Mr. Clemens? Maybe this is hypothetical and you haven't really thought about it. If the proposal was to demolish the existing house and split the three originally platted lots into two lots, does that something that you think would fit the neighborhood pattern looking at the lot sizes that I saw on your. It would better fit, however, yeah. You wouldn't likely need a variance for a lot size or likely need a variance for set beside drug type access. At that point it would be administrative because the lot width would still be slightly deficient for both, but that would fall under our 5% allowance to administratively approve them. You could do it administratively then. OK. Yeah, at that point, if the 135 was split into. Exactly. 5%. Yep. OK. Got it. Thank you. Other questions for that? Oh, applicant. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Oh, applicant. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the commission. My name is Holyo Ramo. I'm agent representing Miss Nancy Biddle. I will be getting the picture. Thank you. Need you to confirm your address, and then you've been sworn to, please. The address 58, 23, Emerson Avenue South, and I have been sworn in, and I am not an attorney. So I got involved in this process after learning from my dear friend, Mr. Acidas Sola, who was in the audience today that Ms. Nancy Biddle, whom he has worked for over 15 years, was trying to separate a lot for her parcel to sell him at a very minimal price so that he could build an affordable house for his family. He asked me if I could speak with Ms. Nancy to assist him with this matter. I have no Ms. Alcidas, Mr. Alcidas, or 21 years. He has also done a lot of work for me and I am very grateful to him and I told him that I would assist him however I could. After speaking with Nancy in August 2024, she told me that she was in the process of trying to separate a lot and had submitted a billable lot letter application to the city on March 2020 and 2024 and that she had received the response from the city on April 3rd regarding the billable lot letter. The letter stated that certain variances were needed and that to move forward she had to request a pre-application meeting for the variance application. However, she told me that unfortunately she had no time to pursue that at that moment. I asked her if she would allow it, I would be willing to act as her agent to begin the process since we both shared a common goal in trying to assist Mr. Acidas, obtain affordable housing and she agreed. So I'm going to start with the slide one. The Biddleball Lot Letter received from the city referenced the following variances needed due to non-conformance of LDR section 16.60. that 030, that 2, that 3, that A, and section 16, that 60, that 030, that by reading that section. those two sections. Since the POD may administratively approve an application for development, which otherwise complies with the land development regulations on a platted lot when 80% or more of the loss on the subject block and any loss on the surrounding block faces, which block faces are wholly or partially within 500 feet are of the subject law are also suspended for width and or area and point B states. If the non conformity is equal to or less than 5% of the required width and or area. So slide two of the staff report, slide two, this is page two of the staff report, shows that 25 to 75.76% of the current 33 parcels are substandard and lot width according to NS1 standards. This is only a 4.2% deficiency of the 8 required 80% rule of the subject lot separation to have qualified for approval to be granted administratively without a variance of the R section 1660.30.2.30. The staff report also shows that 5, 15.16% of the current 33 parcels are substandard in La area according to when it's one's only requirements of 5,800 square feet. The subject law as well as the other five current parcels that are deficient in area are only 1.47% deficient, that's only 85 square feet. This minor area deficiency of the subject law qualifies for approval to have been granted administratively or be granted administratively due to less than 5% deficient per LDR section 166032.3.B. Slide three shows a map. I want to point out that the five current parcels that are deficient in area are on the same street as the subject lot on Emerson Avenue, one of which is next door to the east of the subject lot, subject lot is starred, and three of which are directly across the street south of the subject lot highlighted in yellow. At the bottom, no. Back to slide two. At the bottom of page two, the staff report states, if approved the dimensions of the newly formed parcel comprising of lot 16, would be the narrows and be among the smallest parcels in the subdivision. This comment is not entirely true and somewhat misleading. They will not be the narrowest lot, but equal to the five other surrounding lots. Slide four. Page three of the staff report, Section F, neighborhood character, states that the underlying suburban zoning encourages larger homes with larger yards and setbacks and that the proposed separation and development of the singular plated law is well below the typical size of properties in subdivision. Back to the map. The 16 parcels on Emerson Avenue consist of seven of the 15 parcels being substandard and locked with, five of which are 45 feet wide, highlighted in yellow, and two of which are 50 feet wide, highlighted in blue. The subject lock, which is also 45 feet wide, is in the immediate surrounding area of six of the substandard locks. The remaining 18 parcels, the remaining 18 parcels on the black faces are all substandard perennas, perennas one standards they're highlighted in red. Only six of the existing parcels in Emerson Avenue highlighted in green. Have that one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one? Have a house built on it that uses more than only six of the existing 15 parts of Emeralds Avenue in Hollywood and Green have a house built on it that uses more than one of the 45 feet wide original lots plotted in 1925. That was 100 years ago. Slide 5. This slide shows the addresses of all the houses at Emerson Avenue in the year they were built. The most recent house built at Emerson Avenue was in 1980, 45 years ago. This shows that there have been no development patterns in the immediate area that support the underlying suburban zoning requirements of NS1. It is my honest opinion that in granting the requested variances, the neighborhood character would be maintained and enhanced by creating an opportunity for a single family residence on the same end of Emerson Avenue that will complement the other parcels in the immediate area. This slide shows, this is page four of the staff report, points 0.5, states that the proposed separation of lot 16 creates an unnecessarily small lot when NS1 standards are applied and that the proposed reduced setback infringes on the existing single family residence on the neighboring property to the east, a lot 15.7 of the staff report goes further and states that granting the reduced setback would be detrimental to the neighboring property to the east, lot 15. This slide shows lot 15, the size setback of lot 15 currently. I would like to point out that the proposed reduced side setback of six feet for the subject lat is the same side setback existing on the parcel to the east on lat 15 who also has a buddy neighbor on lat 14. The remaining parcel of the applicant to the west would also have a six foot side setback with only a two inch encroachment from the front wall of of the existing house, and that is on 10. So I don't know if you can see. But currently the existing house there's a six foot set back from the back corner. However, apparently this house is built in a slight tilt and it's only five foot ten on the front face there. So it's only a two inch from meeting the reduced setback of six feet. This shows the new construction plans. I would like to point out that the proposed construction plans reflect their property that is only 30 feet six inches wide with a six foot size setback on the east and an eight foot six inch size setback on the west side. That was done intentionally to kind of offset a little bit that two inch difference on the west side. The construction plans themselves conform to NS1 building coal requirements. And this is a couple of pictures of the surrounding houses across the street and of the proposed lot, which is right here next to this home. Next to the lot, 15 home, currently.. Think I'm running out of time, so I think all I have for now. Thank you. Do we have questions to the applicant? Sorry, can you explain again why it's six feet on one side and eight feet on the other side and not, you know, why not make it in the middle? It could be put in the middle. I was told from staff that that actually favored me because of the fact that the house on the west side had that five foot ten. So keeping it separated would assist in that. be have to be more favorable to getting it passed than not. And also due to the detached garage of the proposed requires an ADU parking space in the back. So we all set it that way to help out with the two inch difference reduced set back here and also to be able to have the ADU parking for the rear. And the applicant owns that existing? The applicant owns, oh yeah, this whole parcel, which is the one. The person opposed to them is the one. The person opposed will be the over here on the lot 15 Well, not a poll I don't think there are no Person that pulls you I think it's made a comment, but I don't think she's that person currently is here That was a staff comment that it was detrimental to that parcel 15. That was to the east. Yeah, no We are to the east. Yes a lot 15. This is a bit bit this is a lot 16 here 17 18 18 17 16 and a lot 15 is the one the staff report wrote that will be detrimental to that lot May saying that that current lot has the same setbacks currently of six foot But if we if the building was centered You would still violate a setback somewhere, right if I'm doing the. If the building was centered, I would only be deficient by two and a half inches of the seven foot, five inch, seven foot six inch requirement for NS1. So if you're seven and a half on one side, then you'd be seven and a quarter on the other. Is that what I'm, seven foot one? It's actually five inches. Okay. So I think this has come up before because the existing house is only 6 feet off and because the zoning setback is supposed to be 7 foot 6, 7 foot 6 plus 7 foot 6 is 15. Since that one's 6, what the city is suggested, you should make the other one 9 and we've seen this before in this kind of condition, and 6 plus 9 equals 15, so you still get the separation, the 15 foot separation between the houses. So there are 8 foot 6 instead of 9 foot on that side, so there would only be 14 foot 6 inches between the two houses, close to the 15, and then the justification for the 6 foot on the east side that I heard is because the other existing house only has 6 feet right. Exactly. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start if the lot split was approved, I would still have problems with improving the variances because you can always take a couple feet out of the house. I mean you wouldn't even take a couple feet you need. Well, I think think you need six inches on the east on the west side so you'd have 15 feet between the two buildings. Do you need 15 feet between the two buildings? I mean that's something that staff's suggesting but I don't know that we have to... We're not required to do that. Well it's just a argument in favor of approving a substandard law but as long as you have a compliant homeowner to the west, which she does, because she's the applicant. And then, yeah, so you just need... So we'll probably discuss that. Yeah, right. Yeah. Other questions for the applicant? All right, and did I see in the screen as a registered opponent? Yes. Okay, so a registered opponent? I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a red shirt opponent. Yes. Okay. So a red shirt opponent. Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Wages. I reside at 5853 Emerson Avenue South, and I was sworn in. All right. Thank you very much for your time today. I want to kind of touch on some of the factors that you all are probably way more familiar with than I am. This is my first time going through this process, so, but I want to touch on some of the factors that we think really cut against granting What is being requested here today and to my right? I do have Jackie Jones who is the owner of lot 15. She is here today She does oppose the The applicants request as well I have been asked to speak on behalf of her and the neighbors that oppose this application. So unlike the applicant, we did actually go around and ask the neighbors if they would be in favor and opposition to this. So we received, I think, if I counted correctly, approximately 28 signatures opposing the application. And so we have all of those listed for you here. And there's a diagram of the signatures that were opposed. You'll notice on the application notice the leemacing is that there was no request by the applicant to by any of the neighbors to whether or not this would be something that they would be in favor for or against. And so obviously we have a significant number of people that are in opposition to it. But lot 15 is not just lot 15, lot 15 belongs to Jackie Jones. She's a real person and this more significantly than me three houses down is really going to negatively impact her. And I think that's one of the critical factors that you should look at here in terms of the negative impact this will have. Jackie has lived in her home for 45 years. She currently enjoys the peace and tranquility of her backyard. She has a pool and she's been able to enjoy that for the 45 years that she's lived there. What the applicant is asking to do is build a single story structure in the front and a two story structure in the back and that two story structure will directly look into her backyard and her pool. We so we have some photographs. This is Jackie's pool where you can look to see to where that two story structure would be built where the circle is. And then here's some additional photographs. This is the the lot where they're attempting to build from the from the front. And I have some additional photographs that photograph as we go on that show from the lot over and sort of into her pool. So I'll circle back to that when I get to those in the slide. The building of this structure is going to cause increased maintenance, upkeep, etc. for her pool, dirt, pollution, increased use of the alleyway. Another factor I'd really like you to focus on is the character of the neighborhood. I currently live in a house that has two lots, I believe. And similar to this one, and I'm three houses down. And it really is the character of the neighborhood to have these multiple lots and to have the setbacks and the lot size that we have. And trying to cram a small tiny home into this space is really not consistent with the neighborhood and the character. Obviously I showed you all of the signatures, many like myself and like Jackie feel the same way and we oppose that for the reason of the loss of character to the neighborhood. Another factor, there's no hardship on this applicant. The way I read the city code it would really need to deprive her of any reasonable use of the land building or structure. She's currently been able to use the land. She's been using it since she purchased it in 2008. She doesn't live here. She rents that property and it's my understanding that she's rented it out. I believe since purchase but don't quote me on that. I don't know that for sure. And so she's been able to collect rental monies and make profitable use of this property for a very long time. We asked a local real estate agent to just put something together in terms of, you know, potentially how else this property could be used that would still be beneficial to the owner and bring her in a profit that she's likely looking to get as a result of this. And so a way to do that, Jackie has offered to purchase a portion of the lot. That would keep the green space, that would give her the applicant money in her pocket still and still allow her to have use of this lot that she claims not to have the ability to reasonably use absent this variance being granted. This is just a letter indicating that Jackie would buy the property. The owner of this property owns many properties. I mean, this property owns many properties. I mean, this is a real estate investor, real estate business person that is asking for this application. This isn't a poor individual homeowner who's suffering some hardship in their individual residence. This is an investment property for her. So these are the other property she owns, and we wanted to highlight that essentially, this is not something that's personal for her, unlike Jackie, for which it's very personal. Here's some additional photographs of the lot that they're seeking to develop. So this is looking into what is the sort of from the alleyway into the yard that is currently owned by the applicant and is currently being rented out. I think that's it. So applying all of those factors, we think that the application should be denied. We would ask that you vote to deny the application. This was self-created. This is not a hardship. She would still have reasonable use as she's continued to have. And we've offered other options in which she could continue to use the land in a different way and still remain profitable. I think the most significant factor is really the hardship that it would place on on Jackie if this were to be granted. It would completely change her ability to use her backyard in the way that she has for the last 45 years. And I believe that's all I have. If anybody has any questions. Thank you questions for registered upon it. No, I want to make a suggestion. She's, I don't, I'm sorry, I don't know Jackie's last name, but the neighbor that owns lap 15 is not identified as a registered opponent. Is that is that she's not correct? May I speak? Well what I would suggest is that she completes a blue card and then speaks for three minutes. I'd like to get it on the record that she is opposed. I know you said that but I would very much like to hear her say that. You don't actually have to speak. You can just write a pose on it and I can. That's true. That's true. Other questions for the applicant? Yeah, that's not the same. No. No. Sorry. Restored opponent. I'm sorry. Okay. And then we have, um, so with no questions, then we go to blue cards. I have one here, which is Nancy Bittle. You wish to speak, or do you want me just read it in the room? OK. I do have communication with Jackie Jones about. You come to this lecture and you have three minutes. Please say your name, address, and whether you've been sworn and then your testimony. I have been sworn. I'm Nancy Bittle, and I'm at, I'm not a corporation. I was a mom of a two-year-old when I hit Florida 45 years ago. You need to say your address to me. My address is 3335 West Mayor, a Tanner Drive, St. Pete Beach, Florida. I live in a home that I built 45 years ago. During the years I worked, I'm retired now. When I had additional money, if there was a house available, that I could afford a down payment on, I would buy it, get a mortgage, and over those 40 years, I paid off those mortgages. I am not a big company, I'm not a corporation, I am an individual with a family. The properties that I purchased over the years, I purchased as my retirement plan. I don't like the stock market. I like real estate. My kids say I hug houses, I do. I like houses. Being profitable in this property that's being talked about today. When I bought it in 2008, it was great because it had three lots. The yard was huge. Families who wanted to rent my home from me found it very attractive to them. The problem is both my husband and I now are in our 70s. And I can't mow three lots. And the expense of paying others to come in frequently to take care of three lots on this property is a hardship that I don't have it any other property. Most of my properties, it's one house one lot. This is unique in that way. I did get a call from Jackie. She called me. She said she wanted to buy the lot and I told her I already had an agreement with a friend who has worked on my homes over the last 15 years who intended to build and let her know that that was not possible because I had already agreed with this person to sell the lot to them. So again, I hope that brings more perspective. It's just me. It's not anybody else. And I'm kind of offended by the implication that this is about me making some money It's not for sale. I don't want to sell it. I want it to continue to provide income for my family in retirement and I Think it would be a beautiful thing for his family to be able to have a home in a nice neighborhood Which Emerson certainly is located in. If anyone has any other questions, if me I'm happy to answer them. Thank you ma'am. Any questions? Next is Jackie Jones and ma'am if you don't wish to speak I can just note that you're against but you do have three minutes if you wish to speak Good afternoon I'm Jackie Jones and I do live at 58 11 Emerson Avenue South lot 15 That's adjacent to this variance request If this variance request is approved, my backyard is 100% different. We're not talking just a single family home. We're talking on a small lot, two homes. And the alley, because the bottom part is slighted to be a two-car garage, would have constant traffic rate in the alley, where my pool has the 10 feet span that it was supposed to have when the pool was permitted and put in years ago. And that's where they would be coming into their garage. And as the picture showed, the garage apartment upstairs, absolutely is right there. Here's my pool. There's the house overlooking my property. And the maintenance, while it's being built, if you approve it, my pool is instead of like once a month, once a week, with the dirt from the alley, the dirt for the construction. There's never been a house or anything on this lot, so that means electric, water, everything's going to have to come in. And I'm the one that walked the neighborhood and talked to everybody. And the people directly behind this lot is they object to it because of the biggest reason is the second story over the garage, because now they can just see in everybody's. And again, you're already saying it's a small lot, and to really allow two families on this one lot is really unfair to all the neighbors. Pretty much what I have to say, you know. You have any questions? Thank you, ma'am. So now we go into cross-examination. Staff, do you have any cross-examination? No sir. All right registered opponent, do you have any cross-examination? Thank you. I understand I direct those questions to you. Yep. Okay. Um. Are you directing it too? Like who ultimately? So that formality, it doesn't have to be very robotic as long as everyone can maintain decorum. You can ask the question. If we start to lose decorum, we will go with that. But um, who are you going to be asking a question of? Well, either Miss Biddle or her representative. Let's go with the representative. So there was an indication that the hardship, I guess, is that it's too much to moe, where she can't afford to moe. And that's, I guess, the only basis for a hardship that I heard. So I would like to know, is this a yard she in fact has ever mode or intends to mo on her own and if she's paying somebody, what is the actual financial hardship that she's unable to afford? Well more than the maintenance which she's already discussed, she's also trying to assist and and help. Acidas who's worked for her 15 years and being able to give this lot, but a minimum cost to him so that he's able to build his affordable house for himself, which that's more part of her goal and as well as myself to help assist him in this thanan along, which costs $20 or $30. But that's more of her concern is to assist Mr. as he does, who she's been able to work for her for 15 years on her properties as well as myself. And I really appreciate him. And I think he's very deserving of that opportunity to be able to have affordable housing, especially when he's being able to provide him a lot for very minimal costs, which does not exist anymore. I mean, I don't, no. She said the director to either he spoke, we're gonna if she directs In terms of the plan that was drafted I don't see a name on there who did it I'd like to know like what are the qualifications? Who is the person that drew that how How do we know that that structure as suggested that the variance be granted based upon? How do we know that that can in fact be done? And what are the qualifications of the person that prepared that? Well, the person who drew the plans is an architect, well, a known architect. And according to Helm, everything on the plans itself do conform to NS1 standards as far as the pervious areas and as far as the ADU being allowed to be built because of the Ali Access. All that conform to the NS1 standards for the proposed house is going to be built there. You have the name of that architect? Probably on the plans, but let me see. His name is James E. Jackson. And then I think my last question would just be that presumably it sounds like there's a contract that exists between Mr. or Miss Biddle and the person that she intends to sell to and I'm not unsympathetic to needing to find affordable housing. I know that's certainly a problem. We've a lot of us in here are faced. So what is the contract price that she has with him to purchase the property? I don't know if there needs to be this close, but it's very minimal. It's less than 50,000. Look at that way. Unlike lots nowadays, they go for 200,000. So that's a big, big difference. I don't have any other questions. applicant do you have any cross-examination questions? Yes, can I see the clicker again? Just to make clear this is cross-examination not closing. You will have an opportunity to close. Well, I want to show I know she the flappy thing is she had a concern about that's question. Do you have a question for anyone. Oh, no question. No question. No question. You're gonna address that in your closing Okay So staff do you have any closing remarks? No sir And then Richard opponent do you have any closing remarks? Nothing additional. I think we've covered everything. Thank you. So now you have five minutes for closing remarks. And I put the slide back. So I mean I'm empathetic to her concern about the pool. So on the side of facing her, which is this side here, there's only one, I'm sorry, this side here. So only see that small window here, it's a bigger window here. I won't have no problem reducing that window like, high so that only, because in the back side of it, there's already an egress window here. I think that I can do that to give her more privacy. And in closing to summarize the facts, there's only a four point excuse me. There's only a 4.2% deficiency of the required 80% rule of the subject loss operation to have qualified for approval to be granted administratively without the variance. To the subject loss as well as the other five current parts that are deficient in area are only 1.4% percent deficient in area, only 85 square feet. The minor, this minor area deficiency of the subject law qualifies for approval to be granted administratively due to less than 5% deficient per LDR section B. And three, the proposed reduced side setback of six feet for a lot of 16 is the same side setback existing on the property to the east on lot 15 and the same on the applicant's remaining parcel to the west with a section for that two inch. and for in good faith I stated to be willing to mirror the proposed house to expand the size set back to the neighbor on the east to eight foot six. And also could do with the window, you know, how about a smaller window to give it more privacy. And five, in granting the requested variances the neighborhood character would be maintained and enhanced by creating an opportunity for a single family residence on the same end of Emerson Avenue that will complement the other parcels in the immediate area. I believe the requested variances are truly minimal in scope to allow an affordable single family residence to be built on last 16 for Mr. Acidis and his family. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you. We're going to exact your. I have a couple questions. Mr. Clements, the questions for staff. Mr. Lairmore. The 5% deficiency. The applicant stated that the lot with the request, not a lot area that's requested is less than 5% and that gives City the right to administratively approve that one. Is that one listed because if there more than 5% and at least one of the issues, you just then list everything that's deficient and you don't get the exception automatically then? Correct, yeah. If you have to ask for one, you have to ask for both essentially. Right, so in other words, if both the lot width was less than 5%, and the lot area was less than 5%, then you could have administratively approved it. I believe so, yes. But once one of them was more than 5%, which the lot width is, it's 60, 45 out of it. Yeah. Deficient. Then all variances are back on. as the DRC. Yes, sir. Okay. I thought so, but I wanted to confirm. My second question. Sorry. I have a follow-on related. Go ahead. So, um, and if, if that administrative variance was sought, would it include notice requirements? Uh, if it, it, administratively, it would just be done through a buildable lot letter no notice no hearing Yeah, so the only opportunity to appeal would be for someone to know that it was happening Are there is there no opportunity to appeal? I don't believe there is no appeal. Okay. Thank you Regarding the ADU So NS1 allows ADU's? It does as long as there's a handful of different criteria that they have to meet, whether it's minimum 10,000 square feet or they're located on a rear alley or a corner, et cetera. So this one, because they're getting a variance for a lot area, if they're granted the variance for a lot area. Does that automatically get them the ADU or should that be? In other words, to me that's sort of two different things. One's about the minimum lot area just to be a lot and the other is about the minimum square footage of property to qualify for the ADU. Under your calculations if the variance This is approved. Does this property at its square footage qualify for an ADU in NS1? Is that what I'm saying? Yeah, I believe it does. Yeah. I might. I'm having trouble internet access in the internet. What are those criteria? Can we? Can someone look up the NS1 zoning and what the minimum square footage? Usually it's like a unit's breaker, right? Or is it 15 units per acre in NS? I don't know. The architect said it did meet the requirements. I'm just trying to confirm. The countywide rules exempt ADUs from density. Got it. So, but I'm looking it up right now for you guys. Sorry. Thought you were addressing me. Me, okay. Yeah. I'm just curious. Would we, as the DRC, have authority if we were to hypothetically say, I will allow the variance, but no ADU? Is that something that can be done by this body? I would be hesitant to do that. I don't know if I could. I'm just curious. If it's even something that… Yes, it's a cyclone. Question for Council I I mean that that runs pretty counter to yeah very specific policies that the city has enacted over the last couple of years to make sure that Every zoning district has access to ADUs So it would be unusual At least and potentially un. But of course, I respond to things that are specific. And so if there's a more particularized request, I can respond to that too. So, and here it says a lot, this is for NS only. A lot of area shell Shelby at least 10,000 square feet or the Lot is located on an alley or corner. And the Lot conforms to the District Minimum Lot Area and with standards. So there you go. So to my point is we could grant a variance for the Lot with area perhaps, but I'm not sure that automatically applies into the ADU, but that is not what we're here today to vote on. So, they have to request a separate. The pipeline shows an ADU so part of our approval is at a cyclan, so that's it. Yeah. They have to request a separate variance to the lot requirements under this section for an ADU. Section of your reading. Section 16.50.010.5.1. That's kind of under A and then two. I think that is going to be based on the number of a lot of data. Of the district. You say the number again? Right, that's the in a second. It is section 16.50.010.5.1. And that is under A, then number two. Because that would be improving the variance for density, and you can't approve variance for density, right? Well, again, ADU's don't count towards density. You may not, but ADU's don't count. Yeah. The county... We're still having a minimum lot that the city's allowed to... There are two... Lots of eyes. There are two things that allow it in an NS district. Again, the at least 10,000 square feet or the lot is located on an alley or corner and the lot conforms to the district minimum law area and wit standard, which is 5800 and with standard, which is 75 feet. So even if this law, even if we approve the variance, is still have to agree that the ADU is not would not be permitted on this lot it would not be permitted It would not be it cannot be permitted that you're that you're interpreting it's it's it's it's not ambiguous at all Okay, establishment of a new accessory dwelling unit shall only be allowed if That would be it's the applicant understand that that even if, well, but the part of the variance that I'm here for today is because on 75.6% of the subject lasts in the area are are substandard in law with. We're not. What we're saying is that even if we even if we approve the variance for the law and approve the separation, the lot does not meet the code standard for an ADU It would meet the standard for a single family house that it would not meet the standard for an additional ADU So only the house could be built not an ADU in addition to the house I'm sorry, but I did research just with the architect and he says that it does meet. He's wrong. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead. I've seen ADU. He's a bit of a whivical. This is the city attorney who determines these issues. So OK, thank you. That's, I mean, that's. Well, and that's interesting too, because one of the thoughts I had was that the primary concern was this ADU. And in my mind, the ADU was gonna be, was permissible anyway, right? But it's not- I kept trying to look it up on my phone because I thought, anyway, we got there. That's my question, thank you, Mr. Lermont. Can I have a ask a question of staff? So the zoning official met with them in March of last year and Brota and actually had it on your slide presentation. And the result of that was it's not really would not be approved. Have y'all had discussion with them since this? I know we have got some discussion back and forth about if it meets the criteria, if it does meet the criteria. Have y'all had discussions with the applicant regarding the letter that was sent in March of last year? So you're talking about the Buildable Lot Letter, the initial Buildable Lot Letter. I wasn't in the initial talks of it, but I have met with Mr. Ramo a couple of times. But it's pretty clear that it says no, that this doesn't really apply for administrative approval. Correct. In the billable lot letter, it says it's explicit that variances are required to be requested. That's why we're here today. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody understood. Yeah, in the bill, I mean, we're not going to do, provide a good decision if a variance could be supported at that level. We usually in pre-out meetings, we have a general understanding. If you have it's going to be supportive. Give them a pretty good vibe of what would we approve or not. But we don't do as extensive research as we would when an application comes in. Understood. I don't know. Oh. That's not good. So in terms of starting, you know, everybody finishes the question. Start just commentary. We're in it. You can have questions. Okay. All right. Um, I live in a 25 foot wide lot. I've got an 11 story building 18 feet from my backyard, from the back of my house. I, you know, I, um, I live, but I live downtown. So I like urban living and I'm all in favor of urban living and I don't think it's a bad thing to have houses close to you And I don't think it's necessary a bad thing to have a two story 80 you In your sight line from your backyard, but we have different types of neighborhoods in this city and So not everybody wants to live the way I live and I can appreciate that. So this is just too much of an ask. Even though there are 45-foot, some existing 45-foot lot houses in the neighborhood that comprise 25% of the houses in the neighborhood, even though it was originally plated to a 45-foot lot, most of those have been combined into one and a half for double lots. And this just isn't even close to my mind to being consistent with the character of the neighborhood as it's defined today and really for the last 60 years or so. So I'm gonna oppose this variance request. So I agree with that, it's not only character of the neighborhood and I think that's important. But another thing is hardship. The opponent kind of briefly described it. But the applicant has 18 other properties in St. Petersburg and besides this one, some of them are duplexed, striplexes. The idea that it's a hardship to pay for the grass to be cut is kind of a huge stretch for me for somebody who owns 19 properties in St. Petersburg alone. So I don't think that this really qualifies on the character of the neighborhood. I think it's too close. I don't think it's appropriate. And I don't see any hardship at all. So the criteria that would fall for granting this variance, I don't think it's appropriate and I don't see any hardship at all. So the criteria that would fall for granting this variance, I don't see that this has any stature. I have to disagree with my colleagues. I feel like I drove over there and there are a lot of smaller lots. There are a lot of lots that, I mean, as the table shows, most of them are deficient in width and nearly every single one is deficient either width or area or both. And so I feel like this isn't actually out of character for the neighborhood. And so, I think we need more housing and same peat. And I think that having more lots is a good thing. I think I do think that if we were to approve it, I would like to see us adjust the location of the home to allow for more equitable interior side setbacks. But I think it's not that out of character in my opinion, especially since now they cannot build an ADU and that was the primary objection. I just, I think it makes sense. I'd like to point something out. Actually, the majority of the lots are not in compliance with size or area as they were originally, if you go back to the table you're just looking at, as they were originally platted they were, as they've been developed they are not. So in other words, 59% of the lots were platted to be less than 75 foot wide, but only 25% have been built under 75 foot wide. Well, I think they're originally platted at 45 feet width, right? Which is what this one would be, so this would actually be. But I'm just saying it's not the majority. What happened is the majority of the lots have been combined, so that today only 25% of the, that table. Yeah, but I'm just, this is not the only one that would be at 45 foot width. Right. There's five others on the one. Yeah. Out of character. Across the street there are four in a row and then going to work. Right. Yeah, there are three in a row. Yeah, and then there's two 50 foot lots in the corner. Yeah. So I understand. So I guess I just don't understand that it's out of character. When you're driving down the road there, you're looking at oversized lots, and that is the character of that roadway. So I guess I just don't understand the, it's out of character. When you're driving down the road there, you're looking at oversized lots. And that is the character of that roadway. Yes, you've got some that are small, but the overall character of that roadway is larger lots. Now, even if the property is under size, does the separate item here? Yes, they can't build an ADU in the back, but they could put a separate bedroom with bathroom above a garage, and they would still overlook the neighboring property. So there's a couple issues there. You can still on a small lot build the separate room in the back. But I think the city is right. This is not the character of this roadway. And as Commissioner Clemens has said, there's nothing wrong with narrow lots. There's nothing wrong with the, you know, neighbor 18 feet from you. But that's not the expectation of this neighborhood. You expect it in downtown. Orin, well, to rephrase to clarify my personal opinion, I would be in favor of rezoning this, these neighborhoods as radicals that sound to allow the 45 foot lots and to allow 80 use, but that is not the current zoning. So I don't write the zoning rules, which I did sometimes. But so it's just I respect the rules that we have in place. The rules that we have in place are that if we have a substandard lot that was plated, but in majority by today's zoning but the majority of the lots in that neighborhood are still substandard then we've got a different kind of situation. One thing that I have point out is look I think we're going to have to just take this to a vote without consensus. It always goes to vote anyway. But the way that the request is written, right, it's approval to variances to a lot of size requirements, existing interior side setback for an existing home, and then a proposed interior side setback for a proposed little lot. I couldn't, I would ask for this to be broken up when the motions may because I can't support everything that's listed there. But I would also ask staff. So let's say some of these variances were approved. What would happen is it just get approved and not without the ADU. And then what happens if without the ADU if they want to change the structure that's proposed? Does that require them to come back here or resist health? Should we include that under the conditions of approval? I mean, the first ones as it should, the plans and elevations for permitting should substantially resemble these. And I think we're agreeing that they won't, right? At least the. Yeah. Could we just require them to comply with all the other zoning requirements? I mean, that's the commission that you can make that decision. But is that sufficient? And the question would then become, you know, I don't know if the commission's going to support this or not. And so I don't want to take us down this. I will. Okay. I think if we don't approve the lot separation then the setbacks become moot, right? Right. So we can do a motion for the first initial lock. So we can do the motion first on the lot width and lot area. But the lot with lot areas based on the conditions. No. No, but it doesn't. Well, but then we can talk about setbacks and then vote on those separately. Is what I'm suggesting is that right, but if you approve the lot size and existing interior side yard setback that that's tied to this high plan, right? Orin. Well, that's the existing lot. So then you have the proposed lot which were that's where you get the proposed and chairs side yard setback discussion. So I think that's why the word substantially is in the sentence, though, is that this is not unprecedented where a site plan is presented to us, but then some setbacks are adjusted through the conversation. And there's an amended condition. And of course, the new site plan then has to comply with the amended conditions or the adjusted setbacks, but still substantially conform to what we saw. And I think we rely on staff for that discretion. Right, and I agree with that. I just think that removing the ADU may cause the site plan to change more than what would happen normally. Let's not allow them. They may want to build a bigger house. They may want to build a bigger house to incorporate that. They can, the square footage that was in the ADU. And they can more easily, I think, fit within the setbacks. But I think in terms of the setbacks. But perhaps, yes. And I would think that if we approved the law separation and we approved whatever setbacks we wind up approving, then it's just back to this owning code largely. Right, but the condition us that that's exactly what I'm saying, but the condition would have to reflect that. Yeah. So the only thing is though, what's before each today, even if the 80 was gone, I mean they still do, like Commissioner Flint said, you know, accessory living space above the garage instead of an accessory dwelling unit and physically it won't look different. They could eliminate what's on the garage and just have a detached garage which still fits the floor plan. They could out what's on the garage and just have a detached garage which still fits the floor plan. They could have accessory living space. Right. They just make that distinction for everybody. It just can't be a legal separate unit. They could have space over the garage. It just can't have a kitchen and can't't be rented out to a... Can't have a separate address, separate meter, and kitchen, or range. Correct. You're 100% correct. Think it has, it could still have the living space. That square footage would look functionally the same from, you know, it is. It just wouldn't be a leasable. I would say that the footprints in front of you today cannot change, if you support the proposed variance to suffix. Because again, that footprint goes with that setback. Now they can decrease the variance. So instead of six foot, they come in and it's six and a half, that's fine. But they couldn't make it necessarily one large structure now. Because the house is up front and then you have a detached garage to the rear. So the footprints have to remain the same or they can get less where you're decreasing the... So that's just to frame that. As the zoning official, that's how you would say when they came back in, you would be saying, here's your envelope, here's your footprints, and then conform to that. And I suppose that the bow on this would be, we've identified a problem, it's not necessarily our job to fix it. So, that's not our job. And any more comments, or should we? I'm just gonna say if we break this down and the first one, the last size, the lack we create a lot, I'm going to propose a motion that there not be accessory living space above the garage. This, so you know, I want that to go away. Whether it's Rincolornon. Nothing above the garage. Can you say we can't do that? I said that I wasn't comfortable if they were otherwise allowed to have an ADU to say that they can't have an ADU. But they're not allowed to have an ADU because of the lot dimensional restrictions for NS1 that they don't meet. You guys have made decisions in the past about stories on buildings, so I think that's within your purview. I would have a bigger equal protection concern if this lot was otherwise eligible for ADUs and you decided these ones can. Right. But they can't anyway. So it's a moot point. The commission in the past has done that with lots of the variances where the one house is one story, the next house is two story. The has happened before. I said, if we get there, then we'll... Well, right. If it gets broken up though, the first two have to go together, because you can't create a lot without an existing interior side setback. And then the second... No, no, no. Oh, I see what you're saying. the existing house comes with the six foot. So that one has to be- Only. I see what you're saying. The existing house comes with the six foot. Yeah, so that one has only. Okay, so do you want the width and the. I'm taking the existing house is only six feet from lot 16. So by creating the lot, we are creating a variance de facto. They facto. For the existing house. No, no, no, the current foot. I'll wait. The existing house. The existing house. Everything goes. Oh, the existing house is only six feet. OK, I see it's your. So by creating that law, we would not be talking about the variance. OK, so everything before the end has to go together. Okay, the existing house. The existing house. Yeah, okay, I get it. And the lot size includes both with an area then. It's a double. It's by saying lot size. That includes the width in the area and one. Got it. Okay, so I move approval of variances to lot side requirements and existing interior side set back for existing home subject to conditions of approval. Second. So just to be clear what this would, this would, this would create a lot. Motion passes, this creates a 45 foot lot that's 85 feet short of the required size. And it allows for the existing house to have a variance of six feet on its east side to the new lot. I would point out though, Commissioner Sir was talking about addition limiting development that would have to be tied to this motion. That would be for the new house. Right. Right. But if you create the last. We're creating the plan. We're creating a lot. But the next one has the very, the setback variance. Yeah, but what if we say no, if you said yes to the first and no to the second, there were no condition limiting the second story. So if you say yes to the first, you have a lot that can be built on. Yeah. Look, I don't think it hurts. I think what this first motion is addressing as a threshold question to the entirety of the vision here, obviously. But I suppose there's a world where it's yes to the first and note to the rest. And in that case, if you want to tack on it's not inappropriate to tack that on here. Okay, it's just be a separate motion. So, pardon me. They do this motion depending on what happens with this motion, they can always add that motion to add a condition. Add a condition. And then do the order or would modify it. Yeah, so. Okay. Yeah, you can do that next and then deal with the rest. you can amend the motion or Take a friendly amendment substitute motion whatever there's there's a few different ways to skin this cat This is a lot of discussion because there's not consensus and so it's harder to decide Yeah, I don't make a kind of I don't mind the idea of taking that as a separate motion after this, but before the rest of the request. So then is there a second for that motion? I do. Yes, Karen, it was a second. Karen, it's after this part. Yes. Black. Yes. Still? No. Singleton. Yes. Clemens. Really? Yes. Grinder. No. Emiali? Yes. Griner. No. Emotion passes. Sorry. So we need another motion for the second part and then, but if someone wants to make a third motion, we should do that first. So I think the idea of these make a motion to amend the condition. Yeah, we're looking at condition number one on page six of six of the staff report. So I would move to amend condition number one of the conditions of approval to include a prohibition to accessory living space. Second. Now I'm gonna flip. I don't like this motion. I think if you haven't approved law, you should enjoy the rights that go with that law. And the zoning allows two story houses. I'm gonna oppose a setback variance by the way. Me too. To telegraph. You've got a 45-foot law, seven and a half foot setbacks. You can design a 30-foot house easily enough. But I don't like limiting this to one story. I don't think there are other two story other two story houses in the neighborhood. They're not a majority. But it's allowed by zoning. And I think they, once it's legal, they should enjoy the full rights. Yeah, I agree, because if you limit that accessory living space, then what's to say they're not going to come in and build two stories all the way to the edge of every setback, right? Every other property owner in that neighborhood already enjoys the right to build a two-story accessory living space in their backyard, even on the substandion of the lots, not an accessory dwelling unit, but accessory living space in their backyard. So I don't think this one should be singled out for that any differently. The reason I'm proposing it is I felt it was compelling by the registered opponent that the number of people who were opposed and obviously the one thing that they were opposed was the second story on the garage. So that's why I'm presenting this. I'll ask her some clarification. What did you say private accessory living space? I would say at the second floor. Second floor living space. Just so that way we know that it's really allowed to have one. Okay, thank you. Yeah. So, I have a black. I had a black, it was my second. I don't know if even further specify above the garage. Nice. Yeah, that's the tenor of your motion. Is it not commissioner? Is it, I'm kind of. Detached garage. Vote. I got Kiernan. He restated. Yeah, please restated at this point. So the condition number one would be, would be amended to have prohibition to accessory living space above the garage. Does he need to resect him? I think he needs a second, so yeah. Commissioner Blatt. Do you want to re-re-sect him that? Oh, second. Okay. Kieranen. No. Blatt? Yes. Stowe? Yes. Singleton? No. Clemens? No. Reale? No. Griner? No. Not motion fails. Any one more motion? Move approval of proposed interior side setbacks for the proposed buildable lot to be six foot subject to conditions of approval Second Keenan no What no Black? No. Stoke? No. Singleton? Yeah. Clements? No. Brialli? No. Grinder? No. Emotion fails. Okay. Clear as mud? Yeah. You have a buildable lot. Okay. Just got to conform to the... I'm sorry. I- seven case number two four five four zero zero zero one one two I'm one. Number one. Number one. Number one. Number one. Number one. Number one. Number one.'s yours. You voted exactly how we'd say it. Yeah, I got there. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Laramore, planner two for development review services, presenting case number two four five four zero zero zero one one two and I have been sworn in. Subject property is located at two oh three 20th Avenue North, a corner property with a 10 foot wide rear alley located between Second Street and Fourth Street. The property is one fully plated lot in the Old Northeast neighborhood. The subdivision was plated in 1912. The existing single family home and detached carriage house was built in 1925. The current property owners purchased the property in August of 2020. The property is located in the NT3 zoning district and is an undersized parcel with a list or sorry a width of 54 feet and an area of approximately 5,619 square feet. The application today seeks approval of variances to setbacks, parking and driveway design to allow for the renovation of a detached garage with a new accessory dwelling unit above and a backup generator for the main house. There are a total of seven variances being requested today, two requests relating to the proposed generator, and five relating to the new detach garage and ADU structure, including setbacks, driveway design, and on-site parking. The variances to the new detached accessory structure stem from the relatively deficient property and rear alley dimensions. The already established configuration of the property as well as the specimen tree in the northwest corner of the property. The existing detached garage was originally a carriage house constructed in 1925 and lacks the dimensions to allow for utilization by modern vehicles. The structure was originally constructed to utilize second street rather than the rear alley. The divided median of second street eliminates the option of usable street parking, which also eliminates the typical conflict point that the intersection of a driveway and street parking typically have. The property also contains a grand live oak in its northwest corner. This tree has been determined to be worthy of preservation efforts by the city's urban and its preservation is included as a recommended condition of approval in the published staff report. An interested neighboring property owner expressed their desire to see the trees health prioritized in the request. Also of note, the fence pictured here has a nearly three foot setback from the rear property line with the alley, which emphasizes the narrowness of that 10 foot wide alley. The proposed structure would expand upon the existing footprint and utilize the existing side loading driveway. Requiring additional coat-comblying parking areas may adjeeperize the impervious surface coverage maximum and or the grand livo located on the property. The west elevation closest to the grand livo shown here in the upper right features an uncovered staircase that angles away from the tree. And the overall design of the structure matches that of the original 1925 home. This application also requests two setback fairances, one for the front yard and interior side yard, to allow for the installation of a backup generator for the main home. The generator is proposed to be co-located with existing mechanical equipment on both the subject property and the neighboring property to the west. This neighboring owner to the west has provided a signature of no objection to the application as a whole. The generator would be located behind an existing six foot wood privacy fence. This area is likely the best location for new equipment given the properties existing configuration and existing vegetation. No comments were received by the local neighborhood association nor the citywide Council of Neighborhood Associations. The applicant did provide signatures of no objection from owners of four of the most effective properties immediately to the west, north, west, and east across second street. As mentioned previously, I have since corresponded with one nearby owner about the continued preservation of the Grand Live Oak. And I did tell her that she, her comments would be expressed here today. And I do have a copy of that email that was received after the publishing of the staff report. The subject property is here, is shown here in blue in the center and owners of property that do not object to the application shown here in yellow. In analyzing the request for variance review, staff found that the request generally meet the guiding criteria of the code. Again, this analysis is expounded upon in the published staff report. Based on the stringent standards of approval contained within the city code, the development review services division staff recommends approval of the variance requests subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the published staff report. If you have any questions, a happy to answer. That's area where the generator is going looks pretty tight to me. And they're requesting zero setback, right? For it? No setback was given. It's just kind of an idea by the property owner, but I stated zero foot setback to the side just to cover the basis. Can you bring back that photo of that area between them? See, one of the problems with having an emergency generator is windows and the exhaust, it's supposed to be far and a permanent generator is supposed to be far enough away not to bring fumes back in. I just don't see that as being a realistic place for an emergency generator. Yeah, I haven't vetted this against the building code, so it was just a zoning request. And the building code is fairly flexible about it, but the fuel gas code is a little bit different. It requires a little more operation. Yes, I believe so. I'd like to ask what type of generator it has. Whether that is diesel. It has a diesel. Yeah. It could be natural gas. You know, it's not that often that we get seven variants here. So I was surprised to see without the background that you just gave, I was surprised to see the staff support for this. And is it basically because of the width of the alley and the tree? Those are the two factors that are... Well, there's the width of the lot. There's the area of the lot. The width of the alley, the divided median and the existing driveway. The substandard setbacks, the ISR, is already very, very close to the maximum of 65% coverage. I believe that's most of the reasons, yeah. Any more questions for staff? Okay, applicant. Hello, my name is Tim Wyman. I'm the owner of 203-205 New North, and I have been to least one in. I thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. The first thing before I investigated this product or project at all was to hire an arborist. And I told him, I said one of the reasons I bought the house and one of the reasons that I'm attracted to the Old Northeast was the trees. And I was very concerned with the health of this tree if we were to do anything whatsoever. I was assured by the arborist that just expanding the footprint of the garage just to the degrees that we're asking would not affect the health of the tree going forward. And if you look at that picture down the side of the house there, you'll note that there's also another hundred and twenty five hundred fifty year old oak tree that I want to avoid disturbing as well. So when you look at the generator, that picture is kind of deceiving. The width is more than adequate in my estimation, to put that generator there, putting it more towards that second oak tree or the big live oak tree, sort of would not be indicative. It would harm the neighbor and that it'll stand outside of his window. And it's the proposed placement right now, I think is reasonable given the fact that it would be right next to his air conditioning. So I'm sort of rambling now here at this instance, but what questions may I answer, please? A couple questions. Yes. Raise my commissioner's comments. What, what type of brand of the generator, how generator have you got along your generator? I put down a down payment. It's a general act. Natural gas. Natural gas? Yes, sir. Does any of your neighbors have one of these? I've got one. I live in your neighborhood. I decided to just get them. Yeah, actually the neighbor next door to me who approved this has a gas generator. So, make a difference. Well, yeah, it is. I will tell you that having to sing on the side of your house would like to have a V8 engine there. to me who approved this has a gas generator. So, make a difference. Well, yeah, it is. I will tell you that having to sing in the side of your house is like having a V8 engine there. And it is a big deal. It's a very necessary deal. I wouldn't live without it. And I encourage everyone to get one. My question, I guess, and not to get too far, I feel it, but Commissioner Grine is right. That's a really tight space. And outside of windows, not good. And it all sounds good until you start hearing it. I had to have have explored looking and perhaps hanging off the back of the garage on the alley side I yeah, I mean that would be fine for me. It I certainly be cheaper. I'm concerned with about the theft there of it That no one's ripping this thing off pal trust me. Okay. Take a real work to swipe a generator. It's a big deal. But anyways, I digress. So the issue that Commissioner Griner does, the code requires that these generators if they're using, it's true for natural gas as well, right? Because it's a like fuel gas. Yeah, it just got a point. It's a certain minimum distance from an operable window. So it looks like the two windows in the photograph we could see there on the west side of your house are operable windows. So that's not really our purview, but that's just something you may come up with. That's why I raised it, right? Because I mean, it really is a big deal. No, I understand when then I bought the generator, I put the down payment on it. He said it was about a foot short. short, so that was the reason for the ask of the variance. No, it's offensive. Other questions for the applicant? Okay, do we have any opposition? We do. Good cards. No. Okay, staff, do you have any cross examination questions? No, sir. Do you have any cross-examination questions? No, thank you. Do you have any closing remarks? I do have one. So the one difference between this one and the last case you heard is that this is an NT property. So that ADU question is not going to be an issue because the minimum for this one is 45 hundred square feet. Okay. So, but that's all. That's all. Yeah. Just to nip that one in the bud. Okay. Thank you. Exactly. So, do you have any closing remarks? No. Thank you. I think I'm pretty well self-explaned. We'll go into executive session. You're sitting, that's. It's a really nice design. I was just gonna say I love that it fits right in. You know what it's. But I had the same initial reaction as you. Seven variances. That may be a record for me. By term here. But I think they're not huge. Any of them, none of them individually are huge. There's just a lot of them. And I thought I'd stop to the good job of explaining the conditions. I'm not suggesting we do it, but would it be possible to separate the generator variance request from the other five? Is that something anybody's interested in? If not, it's okay. Yeah, so it would be the first one. There's two for the generator in five. Yeah, but the way the request is written, you could do everything before the end, and then you could do approval, a variance is, or a four installation of a new backup generator for the second one. So it could be broken up. That's the only suggestion I would have. You want to make that motion then? Sure. I move. Just separate. How would you like that word to separate? Just read everything before the end I think. Prove of variance to setbacks parking driveway design to allow modify the request to approval for variance of setback parking and driveway design allow for renovation of detached garage and accessory dwelling unit period. I don't think you can modify. I think you can just make that motion. Is that your motion? Sure. Yes. Well subject to conditions that special condition of the stuff. Oh, that's what you're saying. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. It's a. It's a. It's a. Yeah. Yada. Thank you. So were you my second? Yeah. Here, then yes. What? Yes. Still? Yes. Singleton? Yes. Clements? Bailey. No. Grinder. Yes. Emotion passes. Okay. Second motion. Move approval of variants to request for the installation of a new backup generator. The first two items in the field and the report subject to special conditions in the staff report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cunen. Yes. Black. Yes. Stowe. Yes. Singleton. Yes. Clemens. Yes. Riali. No. Riener. No. Emotion passes. All right. All right. All right. I think you want more Rick? Yeah, definitely. Yeah. So we'll take 10 minutes. We're going to take another 10 minute. Where we got left. you I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. 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. 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 to the next one. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go 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. 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. you you the the I'm and you Thank you. you you I'm going to be a 4-getting. I'm going to be a 4-getting. I'm going to be a 4-getting. I'm going to be a 4-getting. Are we up? Everyone, we're getting back in session here. Do it hard. No, I don't want to. All right, we're back in session. Clemens. The next number, the next item is item eight, which is case number 2432-000010. Staff, please. Good afternoon. Katrina Looning-Gordon, planner with Development Review Review Services for the record and I've been sworn in. The application before you is located in the Central Oak Park neighborhood at the southeast corner of first Avenue South and 36th Street South. Zoned NTM1 for neighborhood traditional mixed residential, the property consists of one plated lot of record. The corner lot is 50 feet wide, 110 feet in depth, and approximately 5,500 square feet in lot area, with access of a 15 foot wide alleyway off the rarearyard. The property is currently developed with a one story single family residence, built in 1951 with two bedrooms, one bathroom, and attached street side loading garage. Is that? This is the back where the alley is. The current property owner purchased the property in June 2024. Upon purchasing the property, the owner submitted a residential renovation and alteration permit in August 2024. The permit is to convert the garage into a master bedroom with a bathroom and kitchenette including a sink and fridge to remove the side loading driveway, parking pad, vinyl fence, covered patios and pavers encroaching in the street side right away. The structures being removed in the right away will be replaced with ground cover vegetation and subject to meet the engineering standards and lastly to provide parking in the rear of the existing 15 foot alleyway. To date, the permit is approved by the city and work has commenced on site. The applicant here seeks approval of a special exception and related site plan to convert the existing single family residents into a bed and breakfast. Here's how it will work. The converted garage into a massive bedroom is the proposed bed and breakfast. The property owners will continue to reside in the main portion of the existing one-story residence. The outdoor area will be a common area for the guests or guests at the and the homeowners. And the proposing three parking spaces in the rear, in the rear of the site accessible from the existing 15-foot alleyway. The 336-square-foot B&B, the master bedroom, We will have a bathroom and kitchenette with a sink and fridge. The 897 square foot main portion will continue to have two bedrooms, one bathroom, a full kitchen, living room, and a study. Here's elevation and highlighted in blue is where the bed and breakfast will be. So this is a surrounded area. North of the subjur property is zoned CRT1 for corridor residential traditional. And there is a parking lot and a burga king with a drive-through. Keri corner to the north is also townhomes. To the south is the alleyway and also zoned N-T-2 neighborhood traditional for single family. It is a single family residence so that's the back where the garage, and along the side of the road, and then here's the front of that home. And to the east of the property is also zoned NTM1, and there's a single family residence. Some more views, and a view of the subject property from the home. And into the West is also zoned NTM1, and it's a multi-family with three units. There's a picture. OK. The proposed project is in an area with single-family, multi-family, medical office, commercial, and health care uses. I'm calling out the transient uses and previously approved bed and breakfast within the Central Oak Park neighborhood. In addition to being adjacent to a public alley, the subject property is located one block south of the Central Avenue corridor activity center. Here I have highlighted future major streets surrounding the subject property. First Avenue south is a high frequency transit route, therefore located within one eighth mile of a high frequency transit route with bus stops and shelters. And within a quarter mile of the Sunrunner bus rapid transit BRT line and the closest station at Grand Central Station. The development review commission is required to review the project for any possible adverse impacts, such as noise, light traffic, circulation, traffic congestion, and compatibility. As the BNBs come in, requiring special exception, review staff has been keeping an account of the location and decision by the board. Here's an updated map for the visual. Based on the 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 nearby properties. A bed and breakfast is defined as a building of a residential character other than a hotel, motel or other other transit accommodation, which provides daily overnight accommodations and morning meal services to transients in return for payment. In addition to standard review for zoning and planning decision, consider the abutting zone in district to the north is CRT for corridor residential traditional, where a bed and breakfast use is permitted. The transit accommodation will not exceed the maximum density in the underlying future land use plan category and zone in district, and shall comply with the definition of a dwelling unit. Furthermore, the bed and breakfast section of the code requires development standards in regards to onsite management and allowances for special functions. Staff has played special conditions of approval in the report to address these requirements. Staff did not receive any comments from the Neighborhood Association nor from Kona, and Staff did receive one communication from a resident via phone call expressing opposition. The applicant has submitted signatures of support from a few surrounding property owners, and here you go. Staff recommends approval, and thank you, and I hear for any questions. Questions for staff? I have two questions. So before I bed and breakfast, the definition of on-site management, does that require the owners of the property to live in it? Correct. It's either a manager that lives on-site permanently or the owner. And lives on it, right? Yes. The residents that was highlighted in red in your presentation can't be rented out also there. No. So someone would have to reside there. And then as a bed and breakfast, is it required to be short term or could it be short term and long term residents? Can they do a long term rental with a bed and breakfast? I know. If it's an apartment, you can't necessarily do a short term. But if it's short term, can you do long term? So technically, yes, you could have another dwelling unit. Because of the NTM, you could have to do four units on the site. Correct. If somebody liked it so much, you just stay for a year. But the reason why we're doing a bed and breakfast is in order for someone to do it short term. We would allow the deductions. Exactly. Understood. What do you know who the opponent was, their address, and what was the nature of the opposition? They did not provide an address. And the nature of the conversation was a bed and breakfast coming in will add to the crime. The one graphic that you showed up there had circles and exes. Does that mean we they came before the DRC and we did. Yes, so the X means that they came before the DRC was denied and then the ones that don't have it approved. For, for, for been approved three of midnight. Yes. And I try to show a location so you can kind of see a white spread. And that's the most efficient background to go between them. We're Google Maps, yes. Other questions for Seth? Okay, thank you. The apple can hear. Yes. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Christina Manzaranas. And I'm Nicolas Lillagis.'re married and we're the owners of 35, 60 first south out. And we have been sworn in. And we're here to request approval for a patent breakfast. So a little bit about us. We moved to St.P. as she stated in June of last summer. We actually have been coming to St. Pete for a couple years before that time period to the point that we were here almost every month. And we were like, it just makes sense to buy a house here because we love it so much. And so we really want to do this bed and breakfast because we love St. Pete. We know why we fall in love with it. And we want to share that experience with others so that they love it as much as we do. Personally, we love to travel with B&Bs, just because it allows us to get a local experience, and we find that we find so many cool places to go and it's always fun like conversing with the host. So we really love that idea and also we have done extensive legal research on this. So we want to do this a legal way and that's why we're here presenting it to you all today. And in general, the idea is to provide the more customised experience to the tourists and visitors. So we are on the centrally located highly well-known high traffic area of first Avenue South. If you look out of our front window, we literally see the Burger King. So that leads for some Unneeded food. Runs, we also have a coffee shop that just opened the blend. Like she said, there's a veterinary center, there's a dollar tree down the street, a Walmart, so many things within walkable distance. The YMCA that's actually two blocks from us, my husband actually walks there to the gym, just got recently approved to have a whole development of like commercial and residential. And then two lots down from us, they have approved to do a multi-family eight units. And then across the street is townhouses. So there is a lot of business and multi-family residential going on right where we are. We wanted to note that we personally love the public transportation that St. Pete provides. We use the trolley and sunrunner on a weekly basis. So we are not trying to add to traffic. Like we said, we know first Ave has a lot of traffic on it. So we would definitely encourage our guests to walk to Grand Central Strasian, which is about two blocks from our house. And jump on the sunburner or the trolley that is free for us to use because it has so many great things that Saint Pete provides us with. And we also have bike lanes right on central and then we're really close off the Pinellas Trail as well. So we know the biggest thing of being here is how is this B&B going to impact St. Pete and how is it gonna impact our neighbors? And so we just want to note that we're a corner lot. So where it faces doesn't affect anyone. The lady who does face it, she has been someone who signed an approval of it. And we are the first people off the alley. So we, as soon as you turn in, the parking's right there, so we won't clog up the alley or anything for the other residents, so there's no worry for that. And because it's a single room, we are attracting couples and single travelers, so nothing that's gonna get rowdy or anything like that. And because we're parking in the alley, we're cleaning it up. So going back to the crime comment that was made by a neighbor, I think it's doing exactly the opposite, because it was a little bit sketchy when we moved in. And we have tried a really good job of keeping the alley clean to prevent that. In general, the area is still developing, and we want to contribute in this development. And that's why we're already hired the loan service service that they do by weekly maintenance and are property in this surroundings, including the LA. And we also have 24 seven surveillance, which would actually help for a perennic crime. So here's some personal pictures of just how much we love St.P. So for breakfast, our amenities would be like fruit, pre-packaged muffins, bagels, granola bars, nuts, etc. But the truth is we really want to encourage our guests to get out in downtown and Granite Central Station, all that and utilize all the great businesses that are there. We are self-do-it on the weekends, sometimes too much. There's us at St. Pete Bagel. We go to the local coffee shops very, very often. So we really want them to take advantage of the great local businesses that we have, that we set our walkable, everything else. And so we would provide a guest book with all the best local recommendations so that they can utilize it. And then we have some shared spaces in the corner that are currently set up for two, because we are a family of two. But we would love to enhance them so that the guests can have a place to relax, sense it outside, and things like that. And we also want to note that we would provide bikes for them to use to help encourage them to get on panelist trail. And as you can see, we bike really often, and we want them to be able to experience the same thing. Thank you for listening and we're glad to, we're happy to answer any of your questions. Questions for the applicant? Thank you much. Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition here, Kayla? No. Okay, then we'll go to staff. Staff, do you have any questions for cross examination? Half-waves. You all have any questions for cross examination? No. Then any closing remarks staff? No. Any closing remarks? No, you just love St. P and we want to share it with others, so. All right, so we'll go into executive session and I'll start by applauding the applicant for following the law and coming to us and trying to permit this at a time. Now follow by saying that was one of the best narratives I've ever read. And if somebody who's frequent in bed and breakfast is a thought, I was gonna bring crime. Really, pisses me off. I don't even know what to do. That's ridiculous. That is not going to happen. I hope you agree. I think we do the opposite. Yeah, I understand emotion. We have approval of a special exception and related site plan to convert into existing single family residents into a bed and breakfast pursuant to the conditions of approval. Thank you. So I will sing that in a little bit. Here, then. Yes. Black? Yes. Do? Yes. the conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you. We're still going to have seven. Yes, we still have seven. You bring these now, too. Okay, last item on the agenda number nine, case number 2531-0000002. Hello, good afternoon or evening. Cory Milisca is on the official of the City of St. Petersburg Development Review Services Division. The case before you today is for the subject property at 446 Forest Street South. The property is currently developed with one storey of 4900 more or less square foot office building. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a 21 storey mix use building with 2250 square feet of commercial space, 213 dwelling units, and 230 space parking garage. On the screen is the proposed site plan. The base of the proposed mix use building will occupy a majority of the property. There are two existing curb cuts with one of the curb cuts being located along 4th Street South and the second along 5th Avenue South. The existing curb cut along 4th Street will be removed. The curb cut along 5th Avenue South will remain but we located farther to the east. The ground floor of the Mixy's Building will consist of commercial space, residential lobby, a loading area, trash room, back-to-house facilities, parking and garage access. Floors through 2 through six will be devoted to parking, as well as residential liner units will be on floors three through six. The seventh floor of the building will have an outdoor terrace, amenity area, and residential units. Floors eight through twenty will consist of residential units, and the twenty first floor will have an outdoor terrace, amenity space, and pool. Pedestrian access to the ground floor commercial space will be along four streets south. Pedestrian access to the lobby will be from four streets as well as fifth avenue south. And the Hickler-Aggress and Ingress to the property will be from fifth avenue south and the existing east-west alley north of the property. This is the proposed elevations on the screen. The style of the building is contemporary as described by the applicant's architect. The tower will be multi-family high rise that is a contemporary expression of urban architecture. The building is designed to seamlessly integrate form function and community engagement. It's massing it as a thoughtfully composed with a strong podium base. The podium is articulated with the concept of beams of light directional rays that travel upward, connecting the vibrant urban ground floor activity to the sky above. The sleek facade defined by a rhythmic interplay of glass window walls and frame vertical elements accentuates the buildings at verticality while maintaining modern geometric clarity. Additional elevations of the proposed building. This is a rendering of the building if you're traveling towards East Northeast along Fifth Avenue or leaving the interstate. The applicant is asking for a flurry of ratio bonuses. The subject property is located in DC2. The base flurry ratio is at 3.0. The applicant is requesting a bonus of 4 for total FAR of 7. The first bonus will be purchase of historic transfer of development rights. This equates to approximately 15,100 square feet of TDRs that will be purchased by the applicant. The second is a contribution to the housing trust fund for workforce housing. The applicant will be required to provide based on the construction cost of 1% and the construction is $67 million. They'll be required to provide roughly $670,000 to the trust fund. The remaining FAR will be a combination of providing an additional money to the housing Trust Fund, Purchase ofDRs or historic TDRs, excuse me, the LED or LEED certification or equivalent, and financial support to the streetscape fund. Just another view if you're looking from the hospital campus, looking towards the northeast. So the standards are reviews for site plan approvals. A multi-family and a hotel development within the DC-2 district are both permitted uses. The relevant review criteria is established in section 16.70.040.1.4.D. These have also outlined in your staff report. An image looking at the lobby if you're standing on the west side of Fort Street. The subject the property is z with the downtown activity center. Multi-family commercial uses are permitted in DC-2. If you are standing at St. Mary's Church looking back at the building, which is across the street of 4th and 5th Avenue, the existing downtown development pattern can be used in the city of St. Mary's Church. The property is located with the downtown activity center. Multi-family commercial uses are permitted in DC-2. which is across the street of 4th and 5th Avenue. The existing downtown development pattern contains a variety of building types, styles, heights, masses, sub-acts, and orientations. The building form and the relationship of the building are consistent with other developments within the DC-2. Other high-rise multifamily buildings included in the IRP district and within the DC-2 districts include this age which is located directly to the northwest. It's a 13-story building and it's located 404th streets of New South Baylor Capital is an approved site plan has not been built was approved by the commission It was a 25-story building and that would be located at 344th streets south Camden of here is an 18 story building that is located at 333rd Street South. And directly to the south of the subject property is the innovation district, which is located outside of the DC2 district. It's actually a zoning district of the EC2. The innovation district consists of John Hopkins, all children's hospital, Orlando Health Bayfront, and USF St. Pete. And the Innovation District is located outside the Coast of the High Hazardary, just like this property is, and it'll permit building heights of 200 feet, as well as the floor area ratio of 5.0. This is a view of the lobby entrance into the building from Fifth Avenue South if you're looking at basically from the USF campus As well there are no archaeological resources in the general vicinity There are no local landmarks within 200 feet of the subject property. There is a potentially eligible structure for local historic designation Locate south west west of the subject property at 5154 Street South, which is the St. Mary's Catholic Church. Staff has received some emails more recently in the past couple days and objection of the proposed development. Some of those do include traffic, height, as well as we did receive a memo for and preserve the burglary, which was also attached to your memo about the loss of the historic resource that's on this property. Our historic manager responded to that. We did not take into consideration this resource because it's not listed in a national district. It's not a local district and it's not listed on the city's potential list for historic designation. I'm here to answer any additional questions. Thank you. Questions for staff? Yeah, I had seen a couple things in the staff report that I got a little confused on. So, was there a traffic study conducted for this? No. Typically, we do not conduct studies unless our traffic department deems it necessary. They did review this site plan, of course, and they do respond to three of the review criteria. And they also attach the memo. They do not see a significant impact to traffic. Okay, but there was a comment about transportation recommending an ingress only on Domoartera's south. Okay. Okay. So that is correct. So they're looking at directing traffic. So there wasn't maybe a potential bottleneck along Fifth Avenue of people leaving and then people coming into the tower because they're both entrances or two way. But they also want to leave this instance as DOT is going to have to review this because those are DOT right away. So right at this point it's recommendation, and that transportation will work with the applicant and DOT through permitting. OK, so DOT hasn't already signed off and given the recommendations. Yes, that's the next step for them, as well as FAA approval. Other questions for staff? Mr. Plane. En the Preserve the Berg paperwork, it looks like the property owner maybe appears to have applied for historic designation. Is that correct? Back in 1993, there's quite a bit of paperwork that was submitted by Preserve the Berg Architectural Study. So, that is the Florida file. It's not the correct title to it. Florida Master File, site file. So the manager of our planning and historic division told me that a lot of times it's a requirement. So someone is doing well work on FDOT right away they have to go and evaluate any historic structures that do exist someone that right away see if they're evaluate them for potential historic designation. So as far as I know the managers here if you want specific details he might know about that but I'm not aware of anything from the 90s that the owner was looking to designate the structure. Because it appeared that items were signed by the property owner. And I didn't know if that was an attempt by them to have the building determined as historic. Or if that was a third party attempting to have it determined as historic historic. Can you swear at him, man? Yes. Do you swear at Bernie M. if he's about to get me to the whole truth? Do yes. Good evening, dear Kilvorn manager for City's Urban Planning, Historic Preservation Division. I'm not sure about the specific documents that you're referring to, but I can't confirm that this particular property is not listed in the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places. So, whatever conversation may have been happening then, was never brought through to the final steps of designation. And so, it is not in the register today. Okay, are you familiar with the paperwork that was submitted to everybody from Preserve the Berg? Yes. So that paperwork that is in there, again, in 1993, almost looked like they were looking for potentially some funds to renovate to be historic, or return it to its original 1920s construction. Sure, maybe as your discussion is ongoing, I'll take a look again on the sidebar. But oftentimes we get inquiries in our office related to historic buildings, meaning there are simply 50 years in age or more. Some of them may qualify for different incentives that are available related to the National Register or the local St. Petersburg Register and when somebody is pursuing incentives sometimes the requirement is that a building be designated. So we do have examples where somebody is required about an incentive. They've started to go through a potential designation process to access incentives that might be available at that time. And then for whatever reason, they never follow through to the end and execute the designation. And that may be the case here where they started down some path for a particular reason But never executed the final Application and vote from city council to adopt Okay I think I have no further at this point just just initial questions on that. Thank you Other questions for staff Okay, applicant. Good evening. My name is Don Maestray. My address is 200 Central Lavendale. I've been sworn in and I represent the applicant in this matter that is seeking to obtain site plan approval for a 21 story mixed use building containing 213 dwelling units 2250 square feet of commercial space and 230 space parking garage. Cory was detailed and I agree with his description of the further description of the building. The base FAR within the DC-2 district is three. The applicant is requesting a bonus of a four FAR for a total of seven. And the code requires that the first point five FAR to be for historic preservation to satisfy this requirement. The applicant will be required to purchase 15,100 square feet of TDRs. And the code requires the next one FAR to be a payment to the city housing chapter improvement project trust fund equal to one half a 1% or more of the total construction costs for for each .5 FAR. The payment is estimated to be $670,000. The additional 2.5 FAR will be from a combination of the FAR bonuses that exist in the LDRs. The project qualifies for FDR bonuses for three weeks. It meets the three requirements. One, the uses are permitted. Two, there are no variances for the envelope requirements of the building. And three, the parking requirement is met. The height of the proposed building is 245 feet. There's no maximum building height for this property and this district. Instead of reviewed the proposed building height and found that it complies with all site plan review criteria in the code. The height will need to be approved by the FAA. In addition, code requires a decorative crown for this building, which it does in fact have. The staff report on pages 9, 4 through 9 indicates that each standard of reviews that you are to cover is met. I will similarly go through the applicant standards of review to show that they are met. And the use and start with the use is consistent with the comp plan. It is designated central business district and in town activity center. These designations permit the highest intensity development within the city along with a range of various uses including the proposal for this project. The properties land use and zoning designations permit this project. Access to the project has been designed in accordance with code. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the ground floor commercial space will be provided on four street south. Pedestrian access to the residential lobby will be from both four street and fifth avenue south. And vehicular ingress and ingress to the parking garage will be from fifth avenue south in the existing east west alley. Soficient loading, utility, sanitation, and emergency access are provided from these access points. Parking and loading have been designed in accordance with code and off street parking and loading will be provided within the parking garage. I think the staff report says we have five parking spaces that are required. Parking garage will be screened and the project will be landscaped in accordance with code. The project is being seen. All code requirements in the properties drainage system will be upgraded as required by code. There are no known environmental historic or archaeological sites on the property. And the project is either 184 to 190 feet away from St. Mary's Church, which is on the potentially eligible list. But that proposed development is separated from the proposed development is separated from the church by the busy intersection of four street and fifth avenue south. It's Cady Corner from this site. And we don't believe the billy will have any adverse effect on the church. The project is consistent with the appearance, harmony and character of other buildings in the downtown and the surrounding high intensity mixed use neighborhood which is approved for and contains similar mid to high-rise type buildings. The project is compatible with the buildings in the surrounding high intensity mixed use neighborhood Which is approved for and contain similar mid to high-rise type buildings such as the sage at 13 stories Camden pure district at 18 salt there at 35 stories evil apartments at four stories the building under construction at third Street and Third Avenue and Fourth Street South, at 33 stories in the Valar capital building that this commission approved recently at 25 stories, which is one block north of this site. Also in the surrounding area is the innovation district that Cory described to consisting of Johns Hopkins Children's Hospital, Orlando Health, Bayfront Hospital, USF. In addition, in the areas Albert Wooded the Mahaffee Theater and the off ramp of the Interstate I-175. The project is not expected because any detrimental effects to property values in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood consists of similar high-intensity mixed uses and the project will lightly enhance property values in this area. The project meets or exceeds all required setbacks and the project will be screened from the surrounding properties. The land area of the property is of sufficient size for the development and is appropriate and adequate for the use. And it will be landscaped in accordance with the code and it's not located in the hurricane vulnerability zone. The project will meet all adopted levels of service for water sewer, sanitation, parks, and recreation in engineering. The application is also consistent with and furthers the purposes of the code and other ordinances and actions designed to implement the comp plans specifically, this regard to the promotion of redevelopment and the expansion of the downtown and the removal of surface parking lots and most of the site presently consists of a surface parking lot. Now you've received a letter from the executive director of preserve the bird which states that the city's comp plan includes provisions which say it is the goal of the city to preserve historical buildings. I don't disagree with that statement in that letter at all. What is not said in the letter is the comp plan sets for the goals and policies of the city and the city council in acts ordinances to implement those goals and policies. In this situation, the city enacted section 1630.070.2.5CND, which provides the procedure to preserve and designate buildings as local historic landmarks to prevent demolition. The process can be initiated by a third party non-owner, the city, or the property owner. This part of the code has very specific requirements requirements dealing with notice meeting with the city member of the district in which the property is located and providing the owner with a copy of the complete application to designate. None of this process has been followed in this case. If this process is followed, the matter will really not take place before this commission. It will go before the CPPC, which the historic preservation overlay says that's where these decisions will be made. This building has not been designated as a local historic landmark. It is not on the a potentially oddsable list and it is not located in a national or local historic landmark. It is not on the potentially eligible list and it is not located in a national or local historic district and there's nothing to prevent demolition of the building. To prevent the demolition of the building is in effect a backdoor designation without going through the designation process set forth in the code and in the preservation overlay. Now, traffic study is not required for the proposed billing based on the size of the development and the acceptable level of service of adjacent major streets. The Transportation Department is determined in this project. We'll generate 51 AM peak hour trips in 43 PM peak hour trips in the evening. And concluded and I quote, the proposed development is anticipated to have a minor impact on the downtown road network. And I agree with Mr. with Corey's response to your question, there will be a traffic impact report done when we deal with FDOT. The staff is recommended approval subject to 16 conditions. The applicant has reviewed all the special conditions and a place to comply with each. I'd answer any questions you have and urge your approval. Thank you. Question? The Yeah. Mr. Baster, I would just note, I'm not curious as your team's reaction to the ECD memo that was talking about the inability to use the right away on both fourth and fifth and for construction purposes. Oh. Yeah, And the impression I got when I finished reading was that this is going to be tricky. In the engineering memo. Yes. Yes. Yes. That they actually construction is. Oh, no, it is. You're not going to have balconies over hanging out over the city right away. Right. I'm just the physical ability to build a 21-foot story building on this property, not being able to use the adjacent right away, which we see downtown all the time. There'll be some parking lots, parking spaces that'll be blocked, that kind of thing. And this won't be an option here. I read that. I agree with you. But then they attach to it how you go about getting permission to do what you described as being done at the other buildings. Even though they're DOT right away. I don't think they're going to, I know you cannot permit the foundation to extend into the right away on. I understand. But I think there are certainly that handout that they attach to it shows you how you go about getting permission to close all sidewalks or lanes during construction. So your team has looked into that. I have it. I didn't know if there was anybody. But they are certainly aware that they've read the engineering report, their engineers and architects have read them and they say they can comply with them and the engineers here. I would like to hear from the Andy. The architect gave out. He's like, I believe. Thanks, John. Good afternoon, Matt Walker, Georgia F. Young, I have been sworn to 99, Dr. MLK Street North. We have read the memo provided by Kyle Harren from ECID. And we understand that that restriction comes from the fact that the city does not own the right way at four street and fifth avenue south. Luckily, we were the engineers for 400 Central, which dealt with us as well. And so we had the same restrictions because 4th Street is DOT. What the process involves is getting a memorandum of agreement with a DOT that allows you to take portions of the right way during construction for safety purposes. And so that process will be followed with the DOT if needed to alleviate some of the concerns about moving into the right away. I don't believe at this time there's any anticipation of closing lanes on four street or fifth Avenue South. The sidewalks are plenty wide enough that that shouldn't be an issue on this property. But our understanding, at least when we read it, was because the city is on that right away. That's why they couldn't allow us to go into that right away. It's a DOT concern. All right. I appreciate the clarification. For, oh, I'm sorry, I have a for for for for for for for they get the permit. donation to the IDFCFP. No, I know what it will be one of. I can give you the list of the group, but they have to provide it before they get the permit. Right, I was just curious if you had a sense of what they might be. OK. Other questions for the applicant? Is there a registered planner or just blue cards? No just blue cards. Blue cards here. First one is Patricia Preston and mastery. Please state your name and address for the record and indicate that you've been sworn. The Trisha Preston Mastery, 1912, Anita Waysouth, St. Petersburg, and I have been sworn. If you go down there and take that sign off of the building, you will see underneath its Preston's corner, which was my grandfather, and that building was built in 1924, which is about when he moved here, and started buying up property. And at that time, you had St. Mary's, you had the Manhattan Hotel, you had several other hotels, it was a thriving area, full of snowbirds. One of our biggest incomes then. And smallest restaurant, the tavern bar, the little grocery store, and Oscars Barbershop, who was reported to be the areas bookie. That's what kept people fed. That's where they bought their groceries. And if we missed having that building declared historic, if someone's grew up and just let that slide, when we look around at how many buildings we've lost and what few we have left, I think we have to stop and take a look and see when it's not as important to fill the coffers with cash from 21 story buildings that you know, we have a lot of right now and what we don't have a lot of and I can count them on 10 fingers, historic buildings downtown. My dad was a photographer here for the past 10 years. I've gone around and taken pictures of the buildings that he took pictures of as the photo editor for the times and then the managing editor for the evening independent, and about a year ago, I went around and tried to reshoot them. I came up with 12 shots, and that was it, that I could get that we have left. And people come down here and they tell us how much they love it. But the first thing they want to do when they come down here is to buy a chunk. Tear what's that is down to make their footprint. And I just think we need to think about it. You know, everyone loves what we're like, the personality, but we're losing that. You would drop someone downtown and unless you saw the beach, you wouldn't know that you weren't in one of the big towns up north. We have lost that identity. Thank you. Next is Ann Kevlin. Good evening. I'm Ann Kevlin. I have been sworn in and my address is 325 Fifth Avenue South. I am one of 15 owners of the units just east of this proposed development. 15 three level townhouses that were built in 2006. I believe all 15 of us are objecting into this build. My own townhouse is I believe to be about probably 20 feet from the walls of this proposed build. At three levels, my entire back view, which has been of this beautiful historic building that Ms. Mastery talked about, will be of a parking garage. I will smell the fumes of the cars. I will hear the traffic from the cars. My property value is not going to sustain or go up. I'm very, very worried about my ability to sell my property when needed or rent it or whatever the case may be with this building behind it. I have specific concerns. The traffic study is essential. Just about two weeks ago, a car coriended into the gate on this property and broke the gate. You can please go by and look at it. 175 comes down right into Fifth Avenue South. People go through that intersection at a high rate of speed. We need a traffic study. I don't agree. I don't know how this building is going to be constructed without closing down lanes on both fourth streets south and fifth avenue south. I don't see how that's possible. Traffic is going to be adversely affected during the building afterwards. We need a geotechnical survey done. As I said, our properties are right behind, right to the east of this land. They're going to build a foundation to support a 21-story building. We are terrified. Terrified of what that's going to do to our homes, our safety, and again, our property values. So that is essential. Please, please request that. I know that the City Council cannot enforce crane regulations or regulate cranes. We're also terrified about cranes. We know what happened after Hurricane Milton. Thankfully no one was injured there, but we're sitting ducks with the crane going up with the construction of this size building, probably taking three years give or take maybe more. So those are the concerns and I think we all share I think there are other people here to discuss those same concerns we don't want to be repetitive but we are very very concerned. Thank you. Next is Peter Ross Mucin. Hello, I've been sworn in. Peter Ross Mucin, 325 Fifth Avenue South, you know, 15 St. Pete Florida and I have a business at 200 Central in St. Pete Florida. The restoration revival of St. Pete, that team of council members right here has shaped over the years. You know, there's a lot of incredible things to celebrate that makes downtown St. Pete special, right? You have the Venoa, you have Central Avenue, the arcade, the Florida craft art, at 501 Central. Those are things that makes downtown special. 4464th Street South, nearly 100-year-old building, it's something that we don't want to lose, right? It's charm that we don't want to be gone and tells a special story of our city. In addition, I echo concerns as it relates to the traffic study. You know, in 2017, a car crashed into the dialysis center. Accidents continued over the years, and then just recently the other night, I look at my window and I saw the car that crashed through the fence that Ann mentioned. Traffic's already a problem and to add a structure that big without a traffic study is a big concern. I would not cross the intersection currently with my one-year-old daughter and my five-year-old son because I'm a dad and I care about them, right? It's not safe. The geotechnical survey is essential for the protection of our property. If you look currently in the street in front of our property, there's been a sinkhole there for over a week, and it's getting bigger. So to think that a structure that large could go in and not potentially affect the foundation of our property is a concern. And if it does move forward, we'd ask that the B funds held in S grow to protect us if our properties are damaged. From a residential safety standpoint, living next to a construction zone is certainly a concern as the crane is all relative in our minds from recently. And the final piece I'd like to share is I have some concerns on just the fairness and equity for those that use the dialysis center today. So, you know, will they have a location that they can go to that's a reasonable distance. So something that should be on all of our minds. So to recap, preservation of the historic downtown St. Pete traffic study, geotechnical survey, the safety of our residents, and making sure that we take care of our underserved patients. Thank you. Thank you. Courtney Simmons. Hello, my name is Courtney Simmons. I live at 325 Fifth Avenue South as well. I also have been sworn in. And I come before you wearing three hats. My first hat, of course, is as a resident of 325 Fifth Avenue South and having a personal experience looking at the everyday ongoing of the area. And I do echo and agree with what has been said prior to. But I guess my second and most impactful statement and hat that I wear is as a physician an anesthesiologist. Previously I worked at Boston Medical Center as a trauma-based anesthesiologist and imagine my shock and surprise when I was interviewing at Bayfront. Now Orlando Health and I learned that pedestrian accidents in downtown St. Pete is the number one cause of trauma to individuals there. And it is an active trauma facility. Now, walking around downtown St. Pete, I found that to be surprising, but living in the area that we do, I can see how it happens at that intersection between four streets south as well as fifth avenue south. So I find it very important that for safety purposes, we do have that traffic study to see what exactly is going on there because the evidence in the healthcare system is there. My third hat that I'm wearing is probably as a resident who's been very interested in the whole idea and concept of reimagining the I-175 quarter. To my understanding and to my knowledge, we've got funding, this is great, there's gonna be the connection between downtown St. Pete and South St. Pete, but I'm not sure exactly what is going to happen there and it seems that those development and those plans are still information. We all know that the idea is to bring a connection to bring more traffic and people and pedestrian foot traffic into the area and that's going to be right around that area with that 21 story building with 213, you know, dwellings and new residents and traffic is being built. So I definitely think there needs to be some interaction there and some sort of planning before we go forth with this dwelling. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica Garvin? Okay, and for the record, she noted that she was against. And then Peter Belmont. Good evening, Peter Belmont 103 Wildwood Lane, South East. I'm proud to say it's a designated local landmark and I have been sworn. Mr. Lido, who was here earlier, had to leave, so I am speaking on his behalf for Preserve the Berg. And I'm, I have some agreement with both Don and Corey in some disagreement. I totally agree that we have policies in our comprehensive plan that say we're going to protect historic resources and that we basically implement those policies through our LDRs. Where I disagree is it seems to me that they just want you to ignore that you can look at historic buildings that are not designated landmarks and in fact you have a duty to do so. And I say you have a duty to do so because criteria 14, in terms of your site plan review criteria, is a criteria keyed on historic resources. And so then the obvious question is, well, what is an historic resource? What does that mean? What are you supposed to be looking at and considering when you evaluate a project? We don't have to guess it's right in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan defines a historic resource in addition to designated landmarks as buildings on the Florida master site file. And so you saw this building is documented on the site file. Mr. Lido provided you that documentation. That documentation indicated that the building is eligible for national register listing, and Mr. Kilborn's memo indicated it is eligible for local listing. That's not what is necessary for you to consider it. It's an historic resource. So I would encourage you this evening to look at that and talk about what that means. I'm disappointed there hasn't been consideration and some ways I'm shocked but maybe not surprised that Cory indicated they didn't consider it at all because they didn't think they were supposed to because they look at local designated buildings and national registered buildings, but you have a duty to look at historic resources including this building. If nothing helps, I hope you will require as a condition that those outstanding bonuses that two and a half plus optional bonus is also historic TDRs. That would be a small mitigation effort for the potential loss of this historic resource. It's retail for retail. They're required to every tail, and we're gonna tear down retail. I think there are options. Look at the bank on the corner of MLK and Central Avenue and that apartment complex, they were able to corporate approximately a third of that historic bank building into their plans. This building is on the corner of this parcel and I would suggest there could be some options that could incorporate it into the redevelopment plan. Thank you. Are those all the bookards? Thank you. Are those all the book arts? Staff, do you have any cross examination? Staff waves. Applicant, do you have any cross examination? Hey, wave. Staff, you have any closing remarks? We wave. Applicant, any closing remarks? I couldn't wave that. Quickly let me say I'm going to deal with Peter's issues after I deal quickly with one the lady that's upset about the buildings next door being tall. Well when their building was built you could build tall buildings. They elected not to build tall buildings, but that didn't limit the buildings next door to them to the height that they built. If that was the case, our downtown St. Pete would not have been redeveloped as it has been. So that, and the next point is, I don't think 51 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour trips is going to tax the I-275 ramp or 4th Street or 5th Avenue. That is just a drop in the bucket. And your staff has said it will be a minor impact on the downtown road network. Now, what Peter has said is if there's one of these master site plan forms, that means it's historic. I disagree with that. This says right here, Chip, appears to meet the criteria for in our listing. That doesn't say it meets the criteria. It appears to. And on the other form in Mr. Lato's letter, there's a number of boxes here. Contributes to the significance of the above name district. Contributes to other districts. It goes on and on. Not a single one of the boxes is checked. Not a one. You can look in the letter you have. There has been nothing to determine that this, that there is a historic building for which you are to look to and protect under item 14 of the standards to review. And for to designate a new building. I have mentioned earlier section section 1630-070.2.3 says, it is hereby establish the CPPC shall serve as the commission responsible for matters pertaining to historic and archaeological preservation as provided in this overlay section. The section of LDR is dealing with historic preservation consists of 32 pages on the website right now of how to deal with preservation of historic properties and these provisions should be following with all due respect to your commission. The CPPC is the one that designates historic buildings, not this commission. Otherwise, as I said earlier, it would be a total back door designation without going through the processes. We have a housing shortage in St. Pete. We have a building here that's empty, all but three days a week and over half of the site is a parking lot. We're going to exchange that building for 213 dwelling units that we need to burn some of the housing shortage. I think we need the housing. And as I said, it's a stretch. I don't disagree with some of what Peter said and some of what Mr. Lato said that what I disagree with is it doesn't come to this commission in designated building that has not gone through the designation process. It just can't be that way. If it is, we can get, we ought to rewrite the code. And I appreciate your time and would answer any questions. If you have any other, and thank you. Thank you. We will go into executive session before we kick start discussion. Does anyone have questions for staff, applicant audience members I have a question for Mr. Belmont please Mr. Belmont Everybody seems to be in agreement that it's not a Registered property, but understand it's got a historic element, character, et cetera. Is it the view of preserve the bird yourself and others that the building in its entirety is to be saved as a historic resource, or potentially a facade of the facility. Where... be saved as a historic resource or potentially a facade of the facility. Where does Preserve the Berg stand on, you know, preserve the whole building, preserve the facade? Right, I'll do my best to answer the question. You know, I'm obviously not going to design the project and I noted in my, you know, three minutes as an example of where we have reused a building as part of a redevelopment to bank and the apartments at MLK and Central. And I mentioned they used the Preserve, Preserve approximately a third of that historic bank building. And so I would suggest here one would look at, okay, how do we incorporate some portion of this historic building within the redevelopment? Again, as I noted, you're tearing down retail only to put up retail. So I would hope with some creative minds that just as you did, it occurred at 19th and central, the same thing could happen here. Some of the historic resource could be retained, reused, and incorporated within the development project. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Other questions before we get into discussions? Well, I guess I mean, piggybacking off of that, has your client considered trying to retain some of that facade or structure? No, but let me respond this way. I and my client actually did the project icon at Nithin Central. The difference was that project and that bank building was already designated and they agreed to save in the corner building if about 167 feet that was already designated would be designated. It's different than this. We're not dealing with a designated building. That building when we went to get site plan approval already had been designated as a historic structure. That's a big difference. Once it's a historic structure then you get into the code. People could have designated this building at Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue South and filed an application anytime they wanted. The City Council could have done it as well as the owner. Nobody has done it and it has not snuck up on anybody. It's been there a hundred years. I kind of like the building but I have to recognize the rights of a property owner that I'm representing so far there has been nothing to prevent demolition of that building and It's not without opportunity that it just existed nobody took advantage of it Oh, I did have one other question for I don't know if it's staffer I Know we kind of earlier the staff said that we didn't there was no traffic study that had to be done at the city level, but I believe there was a traffic impact study is required for F dots review. I'm going to let the applicant. Okay, yeah. Because a lot of the comments were that you know there's no traffic study that's being done. Yep, so Can I can I try to answer two questions with one? So we also have a geotechnical investigation. So that has standard for every project. It drilled all the way down to bedrock so we know what the 120 feet of soils are below this building. But secondarily, yes. We've had a pre-application meeting with the FDOT and they've required a traffic impact statement or study. We have not engaged or started that study yet because we're waiting to get through today. But that will absolutely be part of the process with both the DOT and eventually ECID as accesses vetted on Delmar Terrace in Fifth Avenue South. We do want to just remind everyone that a driveway access to Fourth Street South has been removed and the driveway access at the Avenue South has actually been shifted farther from the intersections, has been shifted farther east by about 50 feet. DOT has seen those preliminarily and it's part of our conversations but what those ultimate access points look like will be based off the results of the traffic impact statement or traffic impact study but that has not been engaged and will not be engaged until hopefully we have approval later tonight. Mr. Walker? Yes sir. Since you've done the geotechnical concern has always been with neighboring properties, vibration, has it been determined yet whether or not the supporting columns of this would be a auger and poor or a- Condition of approval that doesn't allow for that anyway. And so that's pretty standard in the DC that it has to be case on pilings to help a vibratory control as is. What you say I don't know if that was clear you're saying true then you can't drive the piles. That's correct. I think we all remember that what was eight ten years ago the incest at banging in downtown. But there was always that loophole that you could do it. And I can't speak to that. I don't know where to that level of detail on the design plans. So I know that we can't drive them. They'll have to be drilled in a cast in place. OK. Much less disruptive than. Absolutely. Thank you. Yep. Can I ask a question to Mr. Belmont? So, and I commissioned a flint to ask you early on, you know, what we see this evaluation and we see this preliminary application. And it's not important, I think maybe, to the request today. But clearly in 1994, and maybe that was before you were around to help preserve the bird. But why do you think that this property, this hundred-year-old building, like Mrs. Mastery said, something slipped, something went by, this, you know, we're not going to resolve it being a historic building today, because that's not our purview, but why do you think it is that this was never followed up on or has never been designated? All right. Well, I mean, I'm sorry. There's first of all confusion over, I'm going to call it your criterion responsibilities. It's an historic resource you can look at it. As to why it has not been designated, first of all, Mr. Kilbourne and his memo gave a little bit of a hint. He made some reference at least to about the city recommending at one point it going on the potentially eligible list. I would just note again, the comp plan happens to say that the city is supposed to update that list annually. They have never updated it since it was adopted. So that's part of the slippage problem. The city should be updating the Pell List and they have not been doing so. I mean, I think you're probably as well as I am the rest of I'm going to say the issues regarding designation. Complan also says the city shall endeavor to designate at least a minimum of three buildings per year, most years they have not complied with that minimal requirement. I think we have clearly gotten the message that regarding downtown properties that there's owner objection to that city council has not been happily accepting a debate about designation. And so there clearly is slippage. We need a discussion about what is important downtown as well as in the rest of the community and strive to identify it and protect it. But you have the tools before you. It's not the CPPC that puts conditions on a development approval. That's you. I would disagree with you respectfully that I think that based on the rights and also what is designated and what is not designated, saying that is historically significant. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think that that's a criteria for this decision and certainly not our criteria. Okay. Well, you can balance and consider any of those criteria in the site plan review criteria and you as an individual commissioner would then determine what weight to give to to any of those criteria in the site plan review criteria, and you as an individual commissioner would then determine what weight to give to any of those criteria. You give more weight to traffic, you give more weight to drainage, you can give more weight to historic resources. That's your job, but it is an option for you. And I would encourage, so to maybe wrap things up, I would encourage you preserve the bird and not you personally because you've done a great job over many years for the City of St. Pete, but I would encourage preserve the bird to pursue those PEL type designations and get them registered as historic landmarks. I appreciate that. We certainly have that discussion and I would hope that Council would likewise take that to heart. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dima. Point of information. So your criteria on 14, under site plan review, says you may look at the sensitivity of the development to onsite and adjacent within 200 feet. Historic are archaeological resources related to scale mass building materials and other impacts. So, again, historic resource is defined as all areas, districts, or sites containing properties listed on the Florida master file. The National Register of Historic Places, or designated by the city as historically, architecturally or archaeologically significant. This is a historic resource. There's no doubt about that. It is your job to consider how much you care about that in your determination as you weigh the criteria, the 17 criteria for site plan review. Thank you. Other comments as we discuss? And I, back in the, was it 70s when they built 175. Kind of wonder why did they stop at fourth street? Why didn't they stop 175 at ninth street? Why didn't they stop 175 at 16th street? When you drive along 175 and it finally dumps off and this is the first building you see. It's almost as though at what point did they get something worth saving, you know? Back in the 70s, you know, it's, how do you carve up neighborhoods? Neighborhoods would get carved up by interstates and create low income on one side, high income on the other. There were a lot of criteria that were not in place back when roadways were designed. Now those are items that the DOT takes into effect. What economic impact on the neighborhoods? Multitut of items here. So when you're going down the road, it's like, what about this roadway here? All of a sudden became important enough that we're not gonna continue through. Yes, the building's not historic building, but it has elements there that we've been approving a lot of high rises and most of them not a problem. Not a problem at all. We don't get, don't give a second thought through a 35, 40 story building at this point. I do have concerns with at least the facade on this building. Being something... 40 story building at this point. But I do have concerns with at least the facade on this building, being something worth salvaging for that historic character of the area. You have other historic buildings there, or was it USGS is located in the old... Was it Baker Building?. Baker building. The church nearby, which is, I don't believe, is a historic designated, but potential. It's like, at what point do we need to start looking at 100 years down the road and say, I wish we had saved an element there? Not necessarily the whole thing, but I wish we had saved that element of that structure, incorporate it somehow as a part of the history. Because for the past 50 years when people are getting off that interstate, this is the first thing in St. Pete that people would see. You ended a traffic light right there. Was George Washington born in that building? No. I don't think we could track back anything of any major historic impact. But there's a value to the historic exterior of that building that I would like to see somehow incorporated or taken into account in this impact, historic impact of this building. I had a response that I got several thoughts. If you want to go down there. I was just going to add a similar thought, some kind of homage to it. I was hoping the architect would have taken that brick exterior and it may be for at least the very small commercial portion, kind of reproduce that in some manner on that first floor. I mean, this is a truly modern building and it's that whole that's gone. I would like to see something that would reflect at least a part of that building. I agree with you and not the not the whole thing just what it looks like from the front really just as part of the first floor of the building facing the same street. I think, you know, I was I was around I 75 was put in 175 there's a standing committee to chamber a commerce on that whole development. I think pure speculation to say why they stopped there or did not. I would argue the counter that was to say they took it that far because they wanted a funnel traffic and a downtown St. Pete which was dead. There was nothing there. That's why they did it. I suspect. I don't know that. I like that building too. a St. Mary's a lot. I like the building a lot and I really appreciate Mr. Dima. Clara. That's why they did it. I suspect I don't know that I Like that billion to I get a St. Mary's a lot I like the building a lot and I really appreciate mr. Deema clarifying for us I can't you know, I've been on this committee. I'm not sure how I'm on the commission But case after case comes in front of us and preserve the birch shows up in boy I respect the work you all do and I I appreciate it. I I frankly I've gained a new appreciation for that in the city where I was born and raised and lived my entire life. But. I appreciate it. I frankly, I've gained a new appreciation for that and the city where I was born and raised. It lived my entire life. But kind of going to what Joe Griner asked is like, no one ever had this designated. And there's that few buildings that are not designated, but perhaps should be why aren't they being pursued and done? I ask that question every time this comes up. And they're not. Mr. Dean has made it very clear. That's one of numerous considerations in looking at this application. I'd love to see some of that building saved. I agree with you. I like the building. And I appreciate Ms. Mastery's comments. I remember the Manhattan hotel, but you know, you can argue should have been saved. I would have argued that would be ridiculous. The lap of the data shape it was at the end. Those were all their cherished memories, but I just I cannot. The totality of the circumstances in my mind dictates on this commission that we have to pass us. It would be nice if there's some way to incorporate that. That'd be great. I don't think we can dictate that, but, but it would be nice if there's some way to incorporate that. That'd be great. I don't think we can dictate that, but I think it'd be great if they could. But that's kind of where I come down. And I'm sensitive to both sides of this when I really am. And I appreciate Mr. Griner's comments. Mr. Belman, I've never met you, but I've watched your work from afar. you and Mr. Leido and your whole group by applauding what you do. So thank you, let's job. And it's time nice mission impossible. I agree, but I do wanna, we have some neighbors here, and I do wanna at least address some of their concerns just because they're not here every month for nine applications. But some of the things that were brought up, and I try to make a list if I've missed some things for give me, but views and values were listed, and I don't know if it's necessary for Mr. Dima to explain, but that's not something that we can consider. Views aren't protected, and property values aren't a consideration for development applications like this. There's actually case law, and it is a rule of law that that's not a factor for us. And then I also appreciate the traffic concerns and I'll lump them in. Lane closure, traffic, the pedestrian impact, what will go on with I-75. I'll tell you that FDOT controls all of those things. Even if we, you know, even if there were other conditions that we put on, FDOT would be the one that controls those things. I don't want you to think we're dismissive of those that we don't give them a lot of air time, but those aren't things that we typically go into a lot of detail on. But on the totality, I agree with Mr. Kiernan. There's a lot of new development happening in downtown St. Pete Sometimes the the historic resources is more of a close call and I I don't see it as close of a call in this case Can we I mean could we make a motion that the retail component has to maintain the facade of the current building? I mean, it would be redesigning their site. You can make the motion, of course. But I'm going to give Mr. Deema that would even be enforceable. But they brought us a design, in my opinion, and I'll ask Mr. Deema to decide. They've brought forward a design and they've asked us to make a decision on that. So we could deny it and then they could listen to discussion and come back something different. But I don't know. It would be without precedent as a condition through emotion. There have been buildings that have been denied obviously that have come back with design elements that are responsive to the commission's discussion. But to, you know, the tolerance of any board and based on its composition to redesign site plans, you know, that changes with the composition of the board. But I would say that I would tread carefully. And, you know, in a situation like that, you would want to have some buy-in from the applicant. You know, this is an open, transparent discussion and negotiation in the sunshine. That's what these are. That's what a condition does, right? When you guys come up with a condition, it's usually as some outcome of a negotiation that occurred at the hearing, right? So, but to just do that on your own without any discussion with the applicant, again, would be unusual at best. Yeah, I would say to Commissioner Blatt too, it seems like we have a lot of items today without consensus. That's, that's okay, right? That's why it's a board. And I know there can be a fear of throwing the baby out with the bath water. You think like, oh, I kind of like the project, but this is an issue for you way. And if it causes a no vote for you, then it's the applicant's burden. We don't have to do their job for them, so to speak, with that respect. And remember you can ask questions of anybody that's here. I'm not yeah, I'm not trying to stop you doing anything. I'm just, you know, sharing. Oh, no, no, I appreciate it. Mr. Master, I believe earlier, somebody said that the architect had left, I believe, is that correct? Oh, they're here. That the architect is no longer here. Yeah, that's, I would love to have that. Can you be the microphone? Sorry. I said they had already worked with the architect to try to put the side in and it just won't fit in the building. It won't fit the, can you clarify that a little bit? You said that just, you want to clarify it, John? Well, I'm thinking you're thinking about the building as it exists today, and that you were trying to actually save part of the wall. And I think maybe what we're saying is that could there be a design that looks like it? I mean, I don't think you can save the structure. My name is John Stadler. I live at 1, 2, 4 Estato, way northease, St. Pete. I'm the developer of this project if it gets approved. You can confirm that you've been sworn, please. Big pride. You can confirm you've been sworn? I've been sworn, yes I have. When we first looked at this site, we had talked to Tim Clements as a matter of fact. And we knew that there was some potential because the building was nearly a hundred years old and we thought a historic preservation might be and the cards going through the approval process. When we first started working with Tim, Tim said he thought that we should look at trying to preserve the facade of the building. And we spent quite a bit of time like several weeks exploring different ways to try to protect the facade and save it. And we just couldn't do it. The site is too small. When you get into, excuse me, when we get into parking ramps and the parking, everything we tried to do preserving the facade, particularly along fourth, obviously, just impacted adversely the parking. And over 51% of the ground floor has to be parking in order to get the extra height and the podium. So we did, we spent weeks on it, and we just couldn't make it work So we've been down that road a bit Sure It was actually a swimming out of the brakes and the first two or three rows around the sidewalk with the brakes. I love it. Sure. Sure. Anything we can do along that one, if you find. Are we going to hear from you again, Mr. Mastery? Okay. Listen, I'm over here because first I can't hear hardly any way. My hearing is in the left ear if there's any left. Cory had mentioned and we had a situation where in a project we took the bricks and made a band on the sidewalk like down on the bottom about three rows high all around bricks from the existing historic building. This settler says he has no problem doing that. Something like that. I think that's a my mind that's an excellent compromise and I appreciate you letting us know about the effort that you took. Listen I would have loved to preserve the building. The first block I bought in St. Pete was the 800 block of central where icon is. And we went through the historic designation. Actually, the entire bank building was historically designated. And we fought long and hard to save that bank building and I am Incredibly proud that it's standing today and we'll stand for a long time. It's a great building Thank you, thank you, and so mr. Mastery you'll you would be Okay with the board making a motion memorializing that offer from your client. Okay. Okay. Got any suggestion language? Trying to get an idea of what is this banding that they're talking about? Yeah, I mean, we did it when we were looking at the old, the sonic lodge. You know, they have the old marble on the building. So looking at incorporating some of that into the base of the building under the storefront glazing. In this case, it might be a little different depending on the design. Kaleigh, could you bring up the elevations really quick, please? So I can actually visually discuss this with you. I'll just go to the whole thing. And again the team architect is not here, but you're going to want that. it just to the power points fine. the the so the site there majority of the facade down but there's potentially opportunity to on the columns to incorporate some of the brick going up on the building. So I don't't know if we have a closer up. Here it's a little harder again, but we don't have an actual image really of the retail piece because it's the lobby that would be glass. But you'd probably have better images in your staff reports, close and out. But if you look at it, you can kind of see the columns that bring the storefronts as ways potentially appropriate for it to act. The color of the home is less than that with Dow and to gray, or they make dual bullnose without the storefront. And then they bring some of that brick up onto the columns. I can't 100% speak for the applicant, but that's something that's potentially doable without ruining the commercial storefront look. But potentially blocking it out with brick to kind of do a little bit of a homage to the what was there. You were a Reese, but Miss Mastery mentioned to me about behind the current sign. There's a, I get the idea there's a relief or some type of sign back there about Perry's corner or something. I, whatever, you thank you. I'm reminded of the Duke Energy Building on the corner. They're the old. a relief or some type of sign back there about Perry's corner or something. I, whatever, you thank you. I'm reminded of the Duke Energy Building on the corner. They're the old Moss Brothers. You know, I saw them there on the corner. I'm just thinking of ideas out loud. I'm not a designer, obviously, but I'm glad to hear the applicants open to some ideas like that. And I'd encourage them to get real creative, not just a band, something really. Yeah, I think it was better if it was concentrated, right? If you spread it out, it's what's my thought. I don't know. Accent that may not fit, but if you put it, if you concentrated on the commercial area, if you win, win. Yeah. I don't like this style of it. I really follow recognize the party that created the building and recognized it in addition to this spring. But some kind of acknowledgement of the name of the building and who did it. Sure. My problem is that this is a master. I get it up. This master is going to be your order. We did something similar on the Hyatt, which is located across Janice so we did a little plaque that's applied to the Hyatt. So that's something that has been done historically and I think Mr. Mastery was the representative on that one so he's familiar with what we're talking about. I don't know if I think they're referring that there might be some applied to the building in the Hezame. I don't know if that could be salvageable or not. That's something that's there existing. I think we can find some point of writing that. Is there a bush there and a bulb of some mystery about it? That's not a frost. So how do we memorialize that, though? Would that be a motion to add a condition to integrate some of the existing brick into the facade of the commercial area. Is that clear enough direction for staff? Yeah, that and we cannot, like I said, if... Or for staff. Yeah, and do some kind of historic plaque or if that existing sign is salvageable, I don't know. Yeah, they probably won't know until they investigate the facade. But we've done the plaques before. I mean, if you took the entryway and basically took the doors and some of the brick to create an arch entryway, something along that line would be significant enough to notice it. You know, a plaque itself doesn't, to me, doesn't do anything. A plaque to say in one condition. In combination. Both. Both? Yeah, we're not saying one or the other. Okay, yeah, we're good. All right. All right, now what? Making a motion to add. Some kind of best effort to repurpose the sign as well. I'd make a motion to add to the conditions of approval that the applicant will make every effort, exercise best efforts to incorporate existing components of the building, including but not limited to the existing sign that we're told is there, as well as some type of commemorative plaque or narrative as to the history of that building into their final product. There's something down on that. I've been close. Second. Second. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in a minute. Right in my second. Yeah. Here in it. My own motion. Yes. Black. Yes. Stoke. Yes. Singleton. Lialli. Yes. Griner. Yes. Win. Yes. That motion passes. Unertain another motion. Oh. I move approval of a site plan to construct a 21 story building with 213 dwelling units, 2,250 square feet of commercial space and 230 space parking garage with floor ratio bonuses. Subject to the revised staff conditions. Special conditions. Keenan. Yes. Vlad. Yes. Sto. Yes. Angleton. Yes. Rihale. Yes. Griner. Yes. Flynn. Yes. Motion passes. All right, thank you. We are adjourned. Meeting. Mm. Power out. No. All right, thank you. We are adjourned. Yes.