Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Riali. I'm chairman of the development review commission. I'll be presiding over today's hearing. On behalf of the rest of the board, welcome. The Development Review Commission is a voluntary group of citizens appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. The commission is responsible for considering requests including special exceptions, site plan approvals, variances, reinstatements, redevelopments and street vacations. Copy those today's agenda are available at the podium to my right or left over here. 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. In fact, everything on the agenda today is quasi-judicial. 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 an oath prior to speaking. Anyone speaking before the commission on a quasi-adjudicial item must fall out of blue card. It 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. The pooling of time is not permitted. For each quasi-udicial case on the agenda, a presentation will be made to the commission by a representative from the city administration. Staff, the applicant and any registered opponent will each have 10 minutes for their presentation. Following presentations, all persons and attendants who have felt a blue card will be given three minutes to speak. If you have fill out a blue card, you will be called by name and asked to approach the podium. All statements, questions or testimony must be stated in front of a microphone located at either podium. And that's important if you do speak today, make sure you are at the microphone when you speak. All statements, questions or testimony must be stated. Sorry. When addressing the commission, please begin with your name and address and state whether you have been sworn. Once members of the public have had a chance to speak cross examination, we'll be during the cross examination phase of the preceding city administration that registered opposition if any, and the applicant will each have five minutes to ask questions of any witness. Questions should be directed to me as chair. I will redirect the questions for the appropriate response. Following cross-examination, rebuttal and closing statements begin. During this phase of the proceeding city administration, the registered opposition of any and the applicant will each have five minutes to provide rebuttal and closing statements. If there is no registered opponent, any person who wishes to be a registered opponent may register as a registered opponent with the DRC clerk prior to the beginning of the initial presentation of the case and may participate in limited purpose of cross examination and rebuttal closing. 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 and closing statements, the public hearing will be closed and the commission will go into executive session. The commission may ask questions of the applicant or the public at any time during the proceedings. All motions of the commission are made in affirmative manner with a quorum of five or more commission members. It takes four concurring votes of the commission for any motion to pass. Once the commission has voted on your item, we ask that you continue any conversation outside of the weather permits so we can move forward with your fellow St. Petersburg citizen DRC matters Please turn off all cell phones and similar tonight, please stand to be sworn. Congratulations. We swear on the evidence about the case and. We're going to be able to move the evidence today. Roll call, Stowe. Here. Here, Nen. Riali. Here. Clemens. I, here. Here, Clevans. Here. Singleton. Here. What? Here. Reiner. Lynn. Here. Adelaide. Here. We have a quorum. Okay. Does anyone have any corrections for the minutes? And if not, kind of a motion for the April the April minutes, so move Or to approve the opponents There's second I can't Really yes, yes You didn't still Singleton yes, what yes, yes, yes Yes, minutes Yes. Win? Yes. I don't know. Yes. A minute's passing unanimously. Do we have any non-agenda public comments? We do. OK. We will get right to it then. The first item today, item 1, case number 250-0-3. Yeah. Good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Freeman. I am a planner with development services, and I have been sworn. The subject property is located on 11th Avenue, north, west of 28th Street, north. The subject property is located in theth Avenue North, west of 28th Street North. The subject property is located in the NT2 neighborhood traditional single-family district, number two zoning district. It is within the floral villa estates which was plated in 1924. It is block eight and a lot number 17. The subject properties dimensions are 54 feet wide at its mid, 125.75 feet deep at its midpoint containing approximately 6,761 square feet in area. The property has been developed to contain a single family residence which was issued a certificate of occupancy in January of 2007. The application involves a variance request with three separate components. The first pertaining to impervious surface ratio of the total property. This is after the fact and relates predominantly to a pavard deck in the rear yard. The second variance component pertains to the setbacks of a shed with a covered patio. This is after the fact. this is a code enforcement case for lack of permits that is also involving an easement, meaning a separate minor encroachment approval would be required for this structure. The third variance request component involves a fence height with a maximum fence height for the rear perimeter fence, with the maximum being requested is eight feet. Here we see a survey of the site property. And there are the documents pertaining to an easement which has been identified in the rear yard of five foot easement on this property and a five foot easement to the neighbor to the south We're identified. This easement contains both city sewer infrastructure as well as TICO and Duke infrastructure. Again any sort of setback for the shed and covered patio would need to have a separate minor encroachment approval for this easement from the engineering department. The first variance issue pertains to the ISR, pardon me. Here we see highlighted in red the ISR total for the property. It was calculated by the surveyor where 78% is present and the maximum available in pervious surface ratio for an NT2 zone property is 65%. Meaning meaning that the property is exceeding 20.6% and this excess represents 905 square feet. The applicants described the home as being designed to allow for aging in place and use for mobility devices. No formal ADA documentation was provided and ADA does not pertain to future potential disabilities. To clarify this deck is measured at 10 inches tall, and thus no building permit is required as confirmed by staff in the building department. I do want to draw your eye to the red circle in the middle of the deck, which is a drain. This drain is associated with a subterranean stormwater system of the applicant's design and build. They've provided specifications of the materials they purchased and a plan of how it was installed here. The LDR does not provide adjustments to the maximum and pervious surface ratio for this situation. The only adjustment that the LDR does include is that wooden decks have a 50% reduction for their area of impervious surface ratio. There is no means to ensure the stormwater infiltration volumes, discharge rates, or system maintenance of such a structure. The second variance request pertains to setbacks for a shed and an attached covered patio. The interior side setback for the shed to the east, as indicated in orange here, should be 5.4 feet. It is constructed at 2.9 feet, representing a 2.5 foot variance, 46.3%. The rear setback for this shed would should be at 10 feet. It is constructed at 4.4 feet, thus requiring a 5.6 feet variance, 56%. They attached covered patio here indicated in green is would require a 7.5 foot rear, inside interior, pardon me, a rear yard setback and is constructed at a 3.1 foot setback thus needing a 4.4 foot variance 58.7%. Here we see drawings and photographs of the shed. The shed contains 120 square feet and is 11.4 feet tall, thus not qualifying for the reduced setbacks of smaller sheds that are maximum of 10 feet tall and 100 square feet. A shed of this size would be required to meet the standard building setbacks. Previously, the house had Stucco and a hardy-board detail finish, which did not match the horizontal lap siding of the shed. The applicant has updated the upper siding of the house to horizontal lap siding to match the shed. The Department of Satisfy does comply with the architectural requirement for the two structures to match, however, and after the fact building permit is required for this update of the exterior sighting of the house as one was not approved or submitted for. The third component of this variant's application pertains to the maximum height of the fence in the rear yard where six feet is the maximum that is permitted, eight feet is requested, is requested, thus two feet is the variance, 33.3%. The land development regulation would allow for a six foot fence in this area and or a 10 foot hedge. And there is also a provision that allows for additional screenings such as lattice to be attached to a fence to achieve up to eight feet maximum height for the linear distance of 16 feet to fence panels. The applicants requests a variable fence height where they would be meeting six foot at their east-west neighbors were're joining with those fences. Gradually increasing to eight feet in the center of the rear perimeter but that eight foot tall section that they are requesting is 32 linear feet four panels long. This map represents the neighborhood support worksheet that was submitted. It is notable that the neighbor who initiated the code's case for the shed is one of the neighbors who signed, but this support does not offset the large magnitude of requested variances. Staff finds that the variance application is inconsistent with the standards for review and thus recommends denial of the variance request. Should the proposal be denied, the applicant must remove or relocate the shed with attached cover patio to compliance setbacks and must reduce the existing impervious surface area to comply with the maximum impervious surface ratio. A building permit would be still required for the housing siding change. Should the proposal be approved, it will be subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in the published staff report, which include obtaining after the fact building permits and approval of a minor encroachment for the easement. Thank you. Questions for staff? So, I understand about the permit for the siding on the main house on the other improvements. Do we have any idea when those improvements were done? The deck appears to have been done sometime shortly after the initial construction of the home in 2007. It would not require a permit. There's correspondence with the building department that it would apply with code, but doesn't technically require permit. Correct. And so again, in terms of the fence and the shed, we don't really know. The fence is before the fact. The shed, I believe the applicant could maybe provide additional details as to when the shed was constructed. Okay. Thank you. I got a quick question. So they're going to require, if everything stays where it is now, they would require our approval of the variance and a minor encroachment. I'm not familiar with that process at all. Are you, can you speak to that? Is that something that's normally done? Is that something that's difficult are we doing in the right order from my understanding the setback pertains to the location of the structure but its existence in an easement would be a minor encouragement procedure with the engineering department in which it would also involve communication with the entities that have improvements in that easement including including Duke and Tico and our own public works department. Perhaps Corey can provide more information. I mean, this would be the first step, if this is denied, if the minor easement would not be required. If this is approved, the minor easement may not be approved. Right. So this is contingent on that. Engineering will review that solely what is currently in that easement. And it's a case by case. Okay, analysis. And if I recall, it's 4.5 feet, 4.4 feet off the rear yard. So it's seven inches into the easement more or less. Point six feet looks like it crudges point six feet into the five foot easement. The rear covered patio is at 3.1. Oh the patio, the shed. That is the lesser amount in this easement. Okay. And can you confirm that the shed did not, they did not get a permit for the, not the shed. I mean the covered patio. Correct. The two attached structures are both lacking a permit. Okay. You mentioned something about you can't determine the viability of the drainage system, the underground drainage system. I'm just wondering if you can elaborate on, I'm not an engineer. I'm just curious, you know, why they can't be determined at all. Because I feel like that might help understanding if that works. It might help lend a decision on the impervious surface ratio. I know the applicant says that it works great. Attachment H in your staff report pertains to the information that was provided for the onterranean storm water system with the rear couple pages being the site plan that was provided. There are details and the materials which were purchased online. It does not appear that an engineer was consulted in determining these volumes and as a, staff was unable to provide the stormwater engineering procedures. Currently, the city doesn't recognize these systems to offset the impervious ratio that is required for this property. There's not enough data in studies done. Well, I guess, I can say this for later, but just to confirm, there's no permit required for the pavement, so, but something that has some sort of engineering design would probably require some sort of review and approval, right? Even if we had engineering for it, there's not a mechanism to honor the increased ISR that is produced by the coverage. I can ask the question in a different way. I do not know if it would require a permit or not. But we don't permit any type of, we don't allow any type of retention in the city that's not permitted. Anything that needs to meet our drainage ordinance or anything that needs to meet building code or swift mod regulations. Cross permit. Okay. Thank you. I don't need someone. Could it. I mean, sometimes we might put a French drain in their backyard and they realize they have an issue with pounding and they can just do that. It doesn't mean it gives them an credit. It's just for the personal reasons. I think if there is a mechanical failure, there is no fail safe. So it's difficult to regulate. Since this is private property, would the city have the right to go onto that property into their backyard and inspect that system at any time? I think I know the answer to it, but I'm just trying to get it out and open here. Probably a council question, right? I mean, yeah. Yeah. I'm going to say no. I don't know how many households are in the city of St. Petersburg, but if everybody utilizes the same, I'd have concerns, how does the city enforce anything like this? It's hard enough to enforce a drainage system on a commercial property that in most cases is actually open and obvious retention ponds. You do have some vault systems. I don't see a way that you could enforce you know, a inspection to make sure it hasn't been sil- then it's not silted in. Draining systems require maintenance because you have to pump out silt, dig it out because they lose volume over time. So just because it is there now does not mean it will be there two years from now. So, you know, the ISR is kind of our guidance here. Let's keep it below the allowable ISR. I can see some major problems with, you know, private drainage systems on single family homes in an area that's not even accessible, should they deny access to it? I can clarify for a previous question that within attachment I, there's a statement from Gary Strait from the building department on November 22nd of 24. Below confirmation that a deck less than 12 inches in height does not require a building permit. There's a statement installation of an alternative drainage system does not require a permit but will be required to meet all city standards. Okay. Other questions? All right, thank you. Applicant. Is the applicant here? Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record and then confirm that you've been sworn. Mary Lynn, Garena, Addressed 2834, 11th Avenue North in St. Pete. And yes, I've been sworn in. Thank you. Okay. I want to address that our easement on our side of our property line is five feet, not ten feet. I don't know if Chelsea was referring to the total easement, five foot on our side, five foot on the other. We do have the paperwork and spoke with Duke Energy today. All the systems, including electric sewer system, all have signed off that they're not under our easement or under our property line. The only thing that is there is four feet into our neighbors is the sewer line going through. So there's nothing under our easement. And it's five foot, not 10. So that changes the numbers of how far we're off, not by 7.5 feet, but rather that changes the numbers that Chelsea reviewed. I don't know also if all the photos of all homes in our area, some somewhere from satellite and to show the percentage of green space. OK, you have it. Wonderful. OK. OK. I mean off the top, anybody have a question that I can clear up besides OK? Man, actually, it's better for you to speak because you've had limited time. Okay. And we can ask your questions and it won't take into your. Okay, sure, excellent. It's actually better if you go ahead and finish. We've owned the property for over for 41 years. Okay, we had a vacant lot there. My parents were older, having health problems, disability problems. So we built a visitability home next door to us, and that's how we first started. So that entails, you know, no steps, wide doorways, all of those things. And it included the goal for accessibility to all of the property. And that's why we did what we did. I attended junior college, updates and trainings for qualifying to be an extended care facility in ECF. So if we wanted to make our home in ECF in the future, we would qualify. We had a person come out, go through the house, and say, hi, you have to have an outdoor storage because you cannot keep paints and gasoline and lawnmowers and all that. Next to your home, can't do it safety. So that's when we decided to build the shed. And that was in 2013. OK, I don't think you all had that. We started to have problems with the neighbor behind us. He has many psych issues. Him believing he didn't understand what an easement was. And he thought he owned half our yard. So there were a lot of threats coming and a lot of issues coming. And then I, in the beginning of 2024, I contacted code compliance. I think the neighbor behind us has 147 citations. And if you have the pictures, you see what we were looking at. So when I contacted in January of 2024, I got people coming back to me, saying, here's what we're offering. We said, can we build a wall back there? Because we have a wall on the side of our property on the west side. Can we keep the same architecture and build that? We're higher level than the neighbor behind us. So a six foot fence, it's like a four foot fence to us. So we can see all the stuff in his yard and the incomplete, he has a building, a partial room that he's got on the back of his home. That's all block. And he doesn't have the money to finish that. He told me. So we went through months and months, months back and forth calling construction services and what we're allowed to build, all of that. And then when that started, our neighbor behind made a complaint and said, oh, I don't like the shed because their shed is on my property. Okay. It went back and forth. And finally, on March of last year, he actually knocked down the rest of our fence because we moved bamboo so we could build a fence or a wall. And that gave him the opportunity to knock down our fence and move his stuff into our yard and destroy property. And he spent the night in my backyard. That was fun. So we had another surveyor come out, they surveyed and said, hey, your property line is actually four foot back. Okay. And that's when our neighbor became very nice and compliant. That's why he signed off, you know, even though he made the complaint, because police were there to pictures everything. And so we've had this going on. Now we always told him, his name is Errot Smith. We always said, we want to do what's right and correct. We don't want to come back later and have to redo anything. So he finally appreciated that. And so now the hostilities have stopped. So we're very happy with that. And he's like, go ahead, build whatever you want so that he wouldn't fight it. We were very concerned. He would again knock down the fence and come and live in our backyard. Everything else in here, I'm assuming you received all our, for the variance, the explanations for the variance. Why did it happen in the first place? Well, because we had family members helping us build it and Steven's point was constant. They can build sheds much bigger, I guess. And I was not aware of it. My husband was not aware of it. And then later I'm like, what did you hear from the city? And he told me. And we were like, I go, is that 10 by 10? He was told he could put it right on the property line. So they were not paying attention to being five feet from the property line. Because I guess if it's smaller, the correct 10 by 10, it can be on a property line. But because it ended up being bigger, I said, uh-oh, this is not good. And we, that I knew when we got the violation. Notice. Didn't have anybody come to me? Mr. Henderson never responded to any of my emails or phone calls or text. The first time I heard anything was in April when I received the violation notice. Would have been happy for someone to come over and look at everything and give us a good idea and the reason we have pavers is for accessibility. so that whether we have our family, we're aging in place, we plan to be there till the day we die and my parents were coming there, my dad died because it took so long to build the home and so this is what we were looking for. I've worked for hospice and palliative care and helped people in their homes for 30 years. So I've seen the people had to leave their homes because they couldn't access their homes. And I've helped many of them redo their homes as a courtesy to say you need this wider, you need this. So I kept that in mind when we built the home. We definitely wanted it to be a visit ability home, and we definitely wanted to be able to age in place, and we definitely wanted my parents to stay there and be able to have access to all the properties. So that's the reason we did all this in the first place. Okay. I don't know what else? Can I mention everything? Oh, the height of the shed is 10 foot 2 inches. We're two inches off. They didn't know that. That that was wrong. We didn't know about the eight-foot fence. We're going from eight. We want the 32 feet because that's the this at ability that we have of the neighbor's yard. And then it will go to six feet and blend into each side. That's the reason. We didn't even know we could do 16 feet without a variance, but because where we stand, we can see everything we're higher. That's the reason we asked for 32 feet. And everything else, if you, the green space, oh, we had two hurricanes, and we had no runoff, none. And that was good, because we were looking ahead, trying to make sure we're very green. We do have the ability to go right down with the tube and see everything underground. So if anything is stuck and we can see that and we can help and I've already talked to the guy who came out to visit to do the sewers and asked them and he said, yeah, we can come on down in the sewer system and go right up here and see what's going on. Because I said, hey, if we ever have a backup, how do we know? He goes, I'll tell you, because when I come out here, I can go right down the sewer system and look up your system. I said, okay, thank you, because that's all we want to do. and a plumber, a master plumber put that in, we didn't just hoof it, we did it correctly not to have run off, because that was our concern. And... in a plumber, a master plumber put that in, we didn't just hoof it, we did it correctly, not to have run off, because that was our concern. And, you know, five seconds, okay, thank you. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Perfect question for the applicant. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify something. I did not hear Ms. Freeman to say that the easement was 10 feet. The setback is supposed to be 10 foot. The easement was 5 foot. I think that was correctly stated. The setback for a shed over 100 square feet is 10 foot. So there's two different issues here. One is the easement over the utilities and the others. But even if so, because the shed is over 100 square feet, it should have been 10 feet from the rear yard. That's correct, right? Yeah, so. From the rear. Two different, yeah. OK. And then, so the fence, the eight foot fence is not in place now. That's a request. So the shed is in place, obviously. Let me see if I can see. Yes. OK, so that makes sense. So your older fence got torn down, but you're requesting now, before you put in a new fence that it'd be allowed to be 8-foot tall from your side of the property. Yes. You're saying that would be approximately 6 foot. Well, eight foot from his side of the property would be approximately six foot tall on your side of the property you're saying. Yes. Yes. Which is why we chose that height. So we would. Well, eight foot from his side of the property would be approximately six foot tall on your side of the property you're saying. Yes. Yes. Which is why we chose that height, so we wouldn't have to. Is there literally a two foot step or is it kind of just sloped down? It's sloping. It's sloping. It slopes up in the front and slopes down in the back. So the shed was built in 2013. Yes. Yes. The covered patio, the covered yes. Let's build at the same time. Yes. And then how long is the deck been in place? The brick paper deck after that? About eight years ago. It's not 40 years ago. Oh gosh, no. It was an empty lot. Not when you built a house. We built the home. How the hell does the home? 2007 it was completed. Okay. Okay thank you. All right. Other questions please be up in. There's your flint. A couple questions you mentioned. Something about the city crew running a camera up into the drainage system? Yes. One of the people that had to come out was from the city and did the sewer lines and checked where it was. And he told me it's four feet into your neighbor's property. And I said, and then he had to check what was coming off to our home. And I said, OK, so if we have a blockage or something's backing up, how would we know where that was? And he said, oh, we put a tube down there at scope. We can follow right up because the drainage system goes right into the sewer system. So your pump, your storage well underneath the patio is directly piped into the city drainage system. It may be the lateral. No. That goes leach fields. And we have openings near our home. Are there two of them? Yeah. That the gutters come down. In that area, you can use the tubes or whatever he called the visual to go. And from the sewer line, he can go up until the drainage, up until the... I think I've got enough on that one. Okay. As far as the easements, are you aware that there is the possibility... Whenever you have a utility easement, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a utility there now, but there is the possibility whenever you have a utility easement doesn't necessarily mean that there's a utility there now But there is the possibility in the future that Tico Duke energy Spectrum whatever they could run utilities in the future as needed Are you aware of that that just because there's no utilities there now it could be in the future. Well, they've run all their utilities along our streets. They changed all of that last year and put everything in. So everything is up front. And that's why we chose a plan. Right now, the easement is at the back. So we have to work on the fact that they've got an easement there. So they could essentially put it in the future, which triggers this minor easement to another issue. So you're aware of that. Yes. And if that easement's there, there is that possibility of it being an issue. And I talked with people on the development. Another question here is verifying, you had a licensed contractor build that shed? Or did you build that yourself? We built it ourselves. It's yourself. We did. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Other questions, the applicant? Okay. We had the master plumber put in the drainage Thank you, ma'am. Okay Do you have any blue cards? No blue cards any reservoir opponent? Okay Staff do you have any cross examination? I can provide a little bit of additional context regarding the Duke and to go. It would be for closing. It would be for closing. We're crossing here. Oh, and then no, pardon. Yeah. Do you have any cross examination questions, ma'am, for, so that would be for, for the city staff? For whom? Do you have any questions for city staff you want to ask them? Oh. I don't think so. Okay. Staff, do you have closing then? Sure. I do have a little bit of clarification that we can make that was identified that Duke had a permit issued in 2020. TICO had a permit issued for 2018 for that easement area in the rear of the property. I did want to confirm that I intended to communicate the five foot rear easement on this property. I might have indicated there is a five foot on the neighbors to the back as well, producing a total of 10 foot of easement across these two properties. Just to have report reflects that too. Thank you. The applicants were advised in early April with a phone conversation regarding the 16 linear fee of additional screening such as lattice of eight foot height. The discrepancy of shed measurement is presumably from the fact that we are measuring from the ground, not from the surface of the deck. And there is reference in the application to communication with staff previously inquiring about the standards for constructing a hundred square foot shed and then the resulting shed not being that of that size and height. Was that in the year it was built? Or was that more recent? I'm not sure when that communication was, but it's referenced in their narrative information that they inquired of staff of how to build a 100 square foot shed, and then the resulting shed is 120 square feet. And I do want to bring up again that perhaps a way of maximizing the pedestrian space on this area while still staying within an impervious surface ratio is to consider the use of wooden decks, which are recognized as a semi-pervious surface by the definitions of impervious. The engineering department from my understanding also recognized hex block pavers in which there is physically vegetative material planted within the void space of hexagonal concrete blocks. What relief is there with the hexagonal? Is it the same for the percent? It would be proportionate to the vegetative amount and then relief. Oh, so this is the space that you put between them? Correct. It's not usable for a vehicle area because it would compact the soil but it is usable for pedestrian areas and the wooden deck is defined at 50%. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff before we have the applicants closing remarks? I do have a question for staff. On the not the shed itself but the trellis or patio. So is the issue there that any kind of structure like that has to respect the rear yard setback? It's not a square footage or a height thing with that. A covered patio does need a 7.5 foot rear setback. The presumption is that there would be noise associated with recreating under a covered patio. Okay. And then if the shed was 100 square feet or less, and if the shed was 10 feet tall or less, it still could not be within the easement, right? Correct. It still should have been at least five foot off the rear properly. It should be outside of an easement, correct? All right. Okay. Applicant, you have five minutes for closing remarks. Well, the initial phone calls to the city in 2013 when the shed was built. After four days of calling, they, and being transferred, we received information of 10 foot by 10, and that we could build right on the property line if it was 10 foot 10. Well, we didn't do that because we didn't want to do that, but we were not aware that you had to be at least five foot back at all. At that time, we were told it can go right on the property line, but of course we did not want to do that and then with the mistakes that were made after with getting help building it in the wrong length of 2x4s and That was all we were told at that time Later we were told different things never knew about 10 feet off the back property line. Never knew that. So, you know, that's what we were aware of and what we were told verbally in 2013. But our bad that it is too long, but the other things we were told differently. And that's about it. Final questions to the applicant? And I do have a final question. On the shed and the covered deck portion, that's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That's the case. That platforms. It would not be easy to move, not at all. Okay, thank you. Okay. Put on wheels. Okay, thank you. I'm going to a second session. Well, as we know, you can build a 10 by 10 shed on the property line in this particular circumstance. The person who answered your question probably did not know there was an easement. But you can build to the property line provided that, you know, there's an easement or some other issue there that probably the person who was calling you did not know you had an easement. Just a point of clarification. So we've got three different issues in front of us. One is the impervious surface ratio when they built the patio maybe in 2016 or 2017. They just built it larger than the city code allows. They're not required to get a permit, but they're still required to follow city code. On the shed, they were directed that if it was less than a hundred square feet, it could be, you know, there was no setback requirements, but EBS was just stated Mr. Kernan. It has to have at least a five, so I'm sorry. It has to have at least a five foot because of the easement, you still have to respect the easement. And the third is defense, which hasn't been built yet. I don't think anybody here is acting in bad faith, but there is a responsibility of the homeowner when they're making improvements to their project, to their property, to become familiar with the zoning codes and the building codes. And it's complicated, and I know it is. But in this case, we've got a lot of violations that just aren't anybody else's fault other than the homeowner and it's unfortunate situation that we're here. I personally, I don't, I think the fence is pretty easy. It's not built yet and I don't see any justification for it above, you know, that makes this special even though there may be a sloped grade between the two properties. That's a common condition. I'm more concerned about the impervious surface ratio. We've got a 900 square foot overage. The shed, at least it's not egregiously bad. It's 120 square feet instead of 100 square feet. And it's 11 feet tall or foot 3 according to the owners but I think this Freeman's explanation is correct that the homeowners measuring it from the sort of the structure height and the city was measuring it back to the ground and there's another 8 or 9 or 10 inches difference between the two. So the main reason in my mind for the shed requirements are for visibility and noise encroachments to the adjoining property owners and the adjoining property owners, at least in this case, aren't objecting. So I'm still open to thinking about that issue with the shed itself. I'll turn my comments. Mr. Flint. I'm going to go to the standby that when you come before the board, there's going to be something wrong with the property that triggers the need for a variance. There's been no mention, no argument, no discussion of the applicant that there's a physical hardship with the square footage, the dimensions, anything that would normally be something we could hang or hat on for approval of a variance. There's none of that here. It is purely a series of mistakes by the homeowner and its contractors in too much paper, inappropriate size of shed, and again, the fence, you know, there's no real hardship there. It's, you know, some issues with the neighbors. That's not a property issue that would really give us a foundation for our variance. I just not hearing any issues that would meet those criteria for granting of a variance. And I agree with Commissioner Clemens, nothing was done here, nefarious. Trying to do the right thing, but it wasn't done right. Yeah, I think it's also an issue to use aging in places of motivation, because I think many people could claim that, right? And then before you know it, everybody's trying to age in place, and then we have an issue with ISRs all over the city. And it's, you know, ADA accommodations are, you know, making providing reasonable access. And I think when, in looking at the site plan, there are ways to decrease the area of pavement. And I think there are plenty of options out there in suggestions that would provide, you know, more planter area, providing circulation, different materials that allow for permeability. So for that, this is not the minimum that can be done to provide an accessible backyard. Chair, is there what it makes sense to split these into separate questions for each variance? I mean, it sounds like there might be some... We can both both that way that's for sure that's not a problem and we want to discuss one at a time so we don't get exactly while we're on the ISR that's always been a big complaint from a lot of neighbors on any construction project is water issues flooding especially the past year we had the, the no name rainstorm that happened the day of one of our hearings here, you know, streets flooded. So these are important numbers that we need to stick by to make sure that we don't exacerbate flooding issues because it's real. It's happened multiple times within the past year and to essentially pave over everything. And that's essentially what a brick pavre is. It's not permeable. The hex blocks, you have to leave a sizable gap between those in order to have any pervious surface. They're concrete. These are brick pavers. They're not purvious. There might be a little bit there, but they're really going to cause water to have to run off into the streets at some point. So I couldn't support an ISR variant. I understand they might want to have some pavers along the sides for access for wheelchairs, things like that. Doing little ribbons wouldn't be appropriate because as you're aging in place, you're also walking potentially with a walker. So we can't do it like a ribbing drive on a driveway. You have potential wheelchair. You have potential people with walkers. But I agree there's things that could be done to cut back on that ISR to get us to a realistic ISR within code. Regarding ISR just because of the title of it in Pervious Surface Ratio, when we discuss these issues we almost always discuss terms of flooding, but there's other completely good and reasonable reasons that we have a limit on ISR because actually the other parts of the code require that our permeability, you know, vegetative material. So landscaping in other words. And so it's not just about controlling flooding. It's also about the beauty that plants give us. It's about oxygen production. Plants help keep the soil non-compact so that it does absorb rainwater. So there's all sorts of good reasons that we. So even if you have the best drainage system in the country, you know, thermal regulation and trans-evaporation, all of those things. So even if you had the best under-drained system, I still don't want to see 100% of the city just paved over with an incredibly efficient and effective under-drained system. That's not really, you know, there's multiple reasons that we have these ISR limitations. I echo the comments about the ISR you know I I am curious about the shed if you know that one seems a little bit more, I think, tricky, just given the situation. But I also, again, just see with the shed and with the ISR opportunities to work with staff and get creative to try to eliminate so many violations. And, you know, that's what I would encourage the applicant to do is to try to really work with them and And it may not be super convenient, but there's a lot here. I do honestly commend the applicant for really having and in mind the mobility and aging in place. That's very important. And I know that they're trying to do that. But there seems like there's a lot that could be done if folks got creative and were collaboratively with the staff. Well, everything that's existing on site could have been built without any impact to the aging of the place. Right, you know, the shed could be. I put it up in two feet over. That's right. So I mean, my big concern, so the problem we see here and we have more people here than on some of our meetings, but I think that for people that don't understand the process and understand the variance process because on do as regularly as we do is just asking, saying, look, this is what we did, it's not that bad, it works and that's not what a variance is. A variance is looking for some unique hardship and I don't see any here. And the easement isn't just for where those facilities are located, it's also access to maintain and replace those facilities. The point that there's a sewer line, even if the sewer line is favored onto the other person's property. If that has to be dug up, they're gonna have to dig the six-foot deep hole and it's gonna have to be 10-foot wide. Well, and it could be that the replacements who relying goes on the other side and then the old one gets dug up. Right, and so that's why those easements are established where there are. We don't have the ultimate decision on the easement encroachment but you know having encroaching on the on the easement with not with a non-structure is one thing, but leaving a structure in an easement is another in my mind. So, I mean, I agree that there's nothing in the faries here, but these are all the easement and these requirements are all there for a reason. The setback in my mind is much more of an issue related to the easement than to some of the normal considerations just in this case. So it sounds like we as a group have discussed through the impervious. Is there any, should we continue then and talk more about the shadow? I mean my thoughts are that the shed shouldn't be in the easement area. Ediment. Yeah. Any other thoughts on that? I would say that at a minimum it should not be in the easement. Then and then the idea of the setback I think they're going to be looking for areas to turn impervious to purveys and that might be a way to do that as they're green space along your rear property line by moving both of those structures into the property. And then I guess the defense then no comments on the. Well the only thing I think there's a misunderstanding of what's allowed. So what's allowed is a six foot and then two feet of lattice that would not be opaque. I don't know if you understand that, but that's what that would be and that would be the 16 feet. Given the circumstances, I don't think I'd have a problem with making that 32 feet with the lattice and then letting it go back down to six feet, but that's just me. I think we've done that one or two instances that I've been on the board before where we've increased the allowable lattice area. I think so. I mean, I haven't seen any hardship for the fence. Yeah. Other than your name. The only time I think we've really approved an A-foot fence was when you had a residential property that abutted the Old Northeast Tavern up here, what, Seventh Ave, where you had a residential either new or being renovated just to the north side of the tavern there. And when you look out a six foot fence, you're looking at all this mechanical equipment on the side of this building. And it was pretty nasty looking. And it's a pre-existing building that was right on the property line. Yeah, and so we approved an eight foot because it wasn't separating it between neighbors and it was hiding Something you could really say was pretty blighted side of a building from all the mechanical equipment sound mitigation as well sound mitigation all that and I You might have a code violation on a neighboring property in a residential area. Well, that's what code is this for. You can plant bushes on your side of the fence to get the additional height. There are things that are possible that meet code and are fully allowable. Because what I get concerned about is we have regulations for setback height, you name it. And then depending on the person, well, I like their story better than this one. So I'm going to give a variance because their story was a little better. That's kind of a difficult thing to approve variances when there's been no demonstrated hard hardship to justify going beyond what code allows. When you have other ways to mitigate. I was sensing a fair amount of consensus should we start discussing some motions? So do we put canopy and shed together? Yeah. I think that's for who makes the motion. Well, I move approval of the after the fact variance for maximum pervious surface ratio subject to the staff conditions. Second. What? add that and the canopy Subject to the staff conditions. Second. One, okay. What? No. Step. No. Singleton. No. Levance. No. Reality. No. Vatilev. No. That motion fails. I move approval of the after-effect variance for variance to the fence height from six to eight feet along the rear property line subject to the staff conditions. Back in. What? No. Still? No. Singleton? No. Leads? No. Really? No. That'll win. No. Win? No. Lebnts? No. Really? No. That'll win. No. Win? No. We shouldn't feel this. Okay. We are moving on with the agenda. The next item. Number two, case 2551-00001. Staff. Hello, again, my name is Chelsea Freeman. I am member of the staff and I have been sworn. There is additional material to be distributed on this. I will explain it. Do you have the lights back up? I will explain it. I believe the applicant will reference that material as well. It is communication with a neighbor. Thank you. Thank you. Should I wait while we obtain the material? Yeah, just give us 30 seconds, yeah. Thank you. Oh, no. Okay. It's car installed legal. Okay. The subject property is located on 16th Avenue South between 1st and 2nd Street South. The subject property is located within the N-T-2 neighborhood traditional single family district number 2. It is within the Bayboro subdivision, which was plated in 1912, block 28, lots, five, six, and a portion of lot four. The subject property measures 110 feet wide by 140 feet deep, thus containing 15,377 square feet in area. By its land rights, it would qualify for one single family dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit. The historic property card which describes Lot 5 shows three dwelling units. The there is no historic property card for Lot 6. All deeds since 1973 show common ownership and the two lots, lot five and six being conveyed together. The... All deeds since 1973 show common ownership and the two lots, lot five and six being conveyed together. The Penel's County property appraiser describes one structure dating to 1920 and two structures dating to 1940. There was a property card interpretation conducted in 2024 that confirmed a grandfathered status of three legal dwelling units having been built and active on the property. And here we see photos of building number one, which is the front oriented to the north, and then building number three and two and three are towards the rear of the property, which we can see on this survey as I have labels and shown the floor plans. These are the existing units. We notice in the southeast corner that there is a parking area that is excluded with a fence and a vinyl shed. This is the view as present from the alley. The left hand is looking east. Here we see the unit number three and two by the big tree. And then the alley looking west where we can see the parking area, the vinyl shed and unit number two. The redevelopment plan proposes to convert building number two from a dwelling unit to an accessory living space. This would be by modifying that unit to remove its kitchen. They would then build a new structure on the southeast corner. There we go. That where the first floor would contain a garage with accessory living space. And then the second floor would be the third dwelling unit. This would remove the existing shed and parking area. The new structure would be built at compliance setbacks. I understand there's a typo in the staff report that has been distributed. These setbacks are proposed at 6 foot 1 inch rear yard to the south and 6 foot 1 inch interior side yard to the east. That sentence was incomplete on the staff report. And here we see those floor plans with the proposed alteration to unit number 2, which would be converted to accessory living space for use by the residents of the number one dwelling unit to the north. And we see the new buildings with that conversion. Here we see the proposed floor plans. The left representing the first floor containing a two car garage and a pool room with attached bath and mud room. And then the right hand describes the second floor as proposed, a two-bedroom unit. Here we see the interior facing sides of the proposed structure, the north that would be looking over their new pool, and the west that would be looking towards unit number three and that is where the entry and covered open, covered deck for the second floor third dwelling unit would be. And here we see the elevations that would be facing the exterior of the property south towards the alley. It's notable that that one garage door would be leading to what is marked as the pool area, pool room, so it's not counted towards parking spaces, but we'll look at there. And then the East Facing Elevation. I believe the applicant will have some clarification about some changes that have been recently proposed for these elevations and the floor plan, slight changes. Here we see the site data table where we have 3,919 square feet proposed, which is within the permitted amount, a floor area ratio of 0.21, which is within the permitted amount, a building coverage of 3,052 square feet, an impervious surface ratio of, an impervious surface area, a part of 7,846 square feet, three parking spaces meeting the minimum, and a building height that is 7.6 feet at the eaves, 22.3 feet at the peak. All of this is consistent with the permitted amount. Here we see a map showing the location of the signatures that were obtained for the neighborhood worksheet. And there has been recent phone conversation, and this relates to the handout that you just received. The neighborhood to the east has been in opposition and that email in your hands is expressing this opposition, owing to concern about reduced privacy for their rear yard pool area in relationship to the windows specifically than the east and north facing windows of that two story structure. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the redevelopment criteria as review as outlined in the land development regulations with no bonuses being requested. And staff recommends approval of the proposed redevelopment subject to the special conditions of approval as outlined in the published staff report. Thank you. Questions for staff? Two questions related to parking. And it's really just just review of the code. This is NT2, right? Yes. So wouldn't it be two parking spaces for the, I guess, what would be the main residential unit and one each for the two accessory units? So wouldn't it be four would be required? It's multi-family and I predicted this question so I kept my back of the napkin math. Well that's what okay just because it was NT2 I didn't know you could put multi-family in it. It is grandfathered as multi-family in which case the parking is related to the size of the unit not necessarily the number. So that's why I was just trying to figure out how you got there. And that was my guess, but I didn't know that you could do multifamily, but there's a grandfather condition. Okay. Secondly, so even though there is an alley, they are allowed the 12 foot curb cut on the street in addition to alley access. They have an existing. There is an existing parking space in the front. Existing driveway in the front is not alter to be proposed. That's existing. I just focused on the new. It's shown on both. There's the existing. I missed it on the. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff? So I was going to have a related question. Would you answer with the grandfathering? But to take it a step further, what would the owner have to do to split these lots? When we see that a lot to match the plated lot line for the eastern lot? I don't know if that question has been analyzed. It would interrupt the grandfathered condition of the property containing three dwelling units. Typically there are additional hurdles to reducing the area of a property that has grandfathered in increased density. But if it was the west lot would have a primary house in an ADU and isn't that allowed? That's what I was getting at. The problem with IC, it would be parking again because all the parking spaces are on the East Lot. I'm just trying to see how far off the Grandfather in Provision has taken us. But that's exactly, and we'll save it for a discussion, but that's exactly where I was thinking with that. I hypothesizing about future separation of the Eastern Lot. It would be complicated because the dwelling unit would be in the rear, and there is a pool that was recently built in the front, so it is putting an accessory. I'm thinking much more just density unit count than I am site design, yeah. Okay. Other questions for staff? Okay, is the applicant here? My name is John Johnson. I live at 1,26,16th Avenue South and I have been sworn in. So as you see, we tried to comply with all the rules with this redevelopment. We did go around all our neighbors including the one. I didn't know that she made an objection here, but based upon our conversation with her, we reached out to the architect to have them redesign the layout of the interior. So we flipped the living room and the bathroom so that the bathroom will be on the side that's her property. So there will only be a little bathroom window that you won't be able to see out of in order to address their concerns because they like to be nude in their backyard. Um. Um. Be well. Come on. Come on. But yes, so we whoever lives there, we figured they don't want to see that either. So we did in fact redesign everything. Um, we recently got the, we did recently get the thing from our contractors. So we have stuff to do bids once we get approval, so we can share that with the city to show that we have in fact moved the windows to address those concerns. And did you leave the stairwell and the... Yes, we left the stairwell on our side. You flipped everything except the stairwell. Yeah, we literally only flipped the living room in the bathroom. So the living room, you come right in from the stairwell to the living room and the bathrooms at that end, which actually gives us a little more closet space on that side. But yeah, we figured that well. So the first window that they'll see is the one from the kitchen out, which is kind of in the middle. So they should be okay. Or it's a whole lot less looking at their yard. And as far as the first floor, we are planning to use the little parking space as kind of an area for all our pool toys and stuff. But we- less looking at their yard. And as far as the first floor, we are planning to use the little parking space as kind of an area for all our pull toys and stuff, but we do hope to if a hurricane or something happens, we can pull our car in. So we're not going to make it so we can't use that space if we need it. And we do need that garage space because our front building, which looks big to you, is 850 square feet. So it's a tiny space and we are now in the middle of an adoption and we have a 14-year-old that's now living with us. So we need the extra space and that's the pool room and probably become a game room too for the kids to play in the garage and not in our tiny house. You have tenants in two, well in one of the units I would assume now. We actually know my father who is 84 also lives with us, so he is in one unit. And the other one, we just cleared out. We had a tenant for two years there. But we're going to hopefully use that to be my office, because I'm currently in the house. And that'll be our spare bedroom when we have people come visit. Questions for the applicant? Oh, yeah. Sorry. Are you done, sir? Yeah. Yeah, sorry. They're accusing you of jumping the gun. I was trying to read the room. City staff, or sorry, any blue cards. It's important in this case, because we have this letter. Staff, do you have any cross examination? Staff waves. Sir, do you have any questions for staff you want to put on the record? No. Okay. Staff was very helpful. Thank you. Staff, do you have any closing statements? Staff waves. Sir, do you have any closing statements? No. Okay. He's indicating no. How will go into executive session? You know, it's a little bit of unusual configuration and NT property, but it's pre-existing and I think they've worked nicely to comply with all the codes. I appreciate they're reaching out to the neighbors and making the change that that's proposed and consideration. Maybe it's beneficial for everybody. I think this is a nice project and I'm going to support it. Other comments? Yeah, I mean I would support even without the offer of I appreciate you being a good neighbor, but you know we're nowhere near the maximums as a grandfather of use. I don't see anything wrong here. So with that I'll entertain a motion. I move approval of a redevelopment plan to allow the redevelopment of one existing dwelling unit subject to Conditions by the second what yes, yes Really yes Yes, Lynn. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, with that we're on our third item, which is case number 255400009. Staff? It's probably's probably. Have you been sworn? These were very early and zero-bout together. We'll be the truth. I hope you're from the Green Opera. All right. Afternoon, Jordan, no more planter with development review services. This is case. 25-54-00000009 addresses 339696, cocaine and key drive southeast. Here is the property location. It is a waterfront lot. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the front yard setback to allow for an existing single-family residence to add a bedroom and bathroom addition to the front of the house. The zoning district has a 25 foot required front yard setback. They're requesting 19.6 foot setback, which is a variance of 5.4 feet. Barbrae Zone NS1, it is one single platted lot. It has a lot dimensions of 80 feet wide, 125 feet deep, 10,000 square feet. The existing home was constructed in 1960 and the owners have purchased that in 2021. Here's the site plan. The proposed addition is in yellow with the front setback of 19.6 feet. It's approximately 283 square feet, including the bedroom and bathroom. Here we have the existing floor plan for the property. Here is the proposed floor plan. It would be the fourth bedroom. Here's some elevations. On the left we have the existing elevations. On the right we have the proposed. You'll see on the top right corner is where that proposed addition is. We'll have two windows on the front. The exterior material, which is Stucco, will also match the rest of the house. And a shingled roof. Here's some site condition photos. You can see the whole front yard is covered in mix of shell and some landscape rock that is discussed in the staff report and a condition of approval you'll see at the end. There's another one that part of the house to the left of the picture is where that addition is proposed. We have received signatures of support from six nearby property owners. No additional comments on the case. Here is a map showing the support signatures that were received. We did not get a signature from the owner directly across the street, which would be the most impacted property owner in this case. Staff is recommending denial of the variance to the front yard setback to allow for the single family addition to an existing single family residence. And here are the conditions that would be required if approved, pointing out that 55% permible landscape of vegetation in the front yard and bringing the entire site to 60% required by code. The initial aerial photo it looks to be in the back there is quite a bit of pavers and artificial turf which also play into that impervious surface calculation. That is my presentation here for questions if you have any. Questions for staff. Chris Flint. Mr. Aramort, is this in a flood zone? Yes. Okay. Leave so. If it's in a flood zone, we recently approved some new language regarding if it's in a flood hazard area that you could lift the home up as long as your side setbacks are three feet, I believe it is without coming before this board. It hasn't passed yet. It has not. Looks like it'll probably pass though. We'll find out. We'll find out. So could that if it were approved, is that something that could happen here where that could be lifted 12 feet near with that additional bump out at the front? Because that that is an addition to the front of the house. It would still need the variance to the front's setback. If they're just raising an existing footprint, that's where the allowable encroachment comes in. So if a house would build that. But if they were to bump out the front right now and two years later come back, they're flooded and they want to lift it in the air. My understanding is they would be able to do that by right as long as your side setbacks were three feet. Is that correct? I mean then well depending on what the front I would have to go back to the code language too it's to see if we're encroaching the front, and if we even allow an encroachment, so that we may not be able to occur. No further, thank you. Other questions for staff? Did you mention how many other properties in the neighborhood have similar front yard setbacks that are... How does the analysis of setbacks? Yeah, I mean, I did just a aerial analysis. They all seem to be in line with a 25 foot setback that the subject property currently has. I believe there were a couple. To the north end of that street that were newer built at a 25 foot setback. And I did not see any variance requests for. OK, so there's been no recent variance requests in the last, you know, in this area. Not that I was able to fund. Other questions for Seth? OK, is the applicant here? Good afternoon. Mike Van Teflin, homeowner 3396. Good afternoon, Mike Van Tieflen, homeowner 3396, Kaukena Key Drive, Southeast, St. Pete 3305. I've been sworn in. Thank you. Thanks Jordan. And so when Jordan I walked through the application process and he told me a lot like how the whole process worked, but effectively a lot of the staff commentary was about the ability to be able to construct the addition in the rear instead of in the front of the property. So as you can see comments 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, either reference or propose that the addition could be constructed in the rear on the water side versus on the front as I'm here requesting. So with that feedback, ended up going back to the architect and the engineer and seeing if it would be possible to do the addition in the rear instead of the front as we had proposed. So really the first page includes comment three there of highlighted for reference where it talks about that the addition could be constructed in the rear or vertically without requiring the variance. And then here at the top of the page also highlighted, there's a reference being made that there's sufficient room at the rear of the property to construct the addition that meets the setbacks as well as the ability to add the second story. So with that, when I presented that information, the staff report to the architect that engineered they told me and this is the bold section in the middle that construction and it, construction in addition at the rear of the property wouldn't be feasible due to several factors. So the minimum required distance between a structural wall and the edge of the swimming pool is five feet and assessing the area between the potential foundation and the pool would be necessary, which includes evaluating soil bearing capacity, water table conditions, and conducting a structural analysis to assess lateral loads and potential soil movement. Additionally, there's a high potential flooding in the rear of the property, as it's very close to the body of water. So with that feedback, I wanted to show you what potentially an addition would look like in the rear. So this is extremely small and I apologize and hopefully you have it a little bit larger. But there is on the top right there, there is an addition in the rear and you'll see that the new structural wall that would be required would be about 18 inches from the pool. So this is a view from the rear to property and there's a dotted line that you can kind of faintly see there that would be pretty much where the new wall would be if the addition was constructed in the rear. and this picture you can see it a little bit better, how it would get very close to the pool and wouldn't meet that five foot distance or set back from the pool that is required. So here I've got the measuring stick out and it shows the 18 inches there by the pool. The other option would be to go through the rear and I'll just go step one ahead. So this is the view of the main bedroom in the back. And if we were to access the new addition from the rear, you'd have to go through what is now the main bedroom, which is the main bathroom. And that would basically leave my current main bathroom about a 12 by 12 area. So there wouldn't be access to the existing main or master bathroom if I were to construct the addition in the rear instead of the front as we had proposed. So I had a couple of other pictures here just to give you a view here. This is a view from the hallway into the main bedroom that shows where hypothetically the new interior access hallway would have to be if the condition were constructed in the rear. So and then we also wanted to be responsive to the staff for the commentary and the staff report about potentially adding a second floor instead and there is again in bold the commentary that we received from the architect and engineer that regarding the possibility of building a second story, it is not recommended to do to the age of the house. The existing foundation would likely not support the extrovertical loads from a second floor. An extensive structural inspection would be required to determine whether the current foundation framing strengths, so the walls, beams, joists, and lateral load resistance, shear walls and bracing, as well as the footing size and depth would be adequate to support additional loads for the second story. So that's why we're coming in front of you today and asking for approval for the variance so we can do the addition in the front. Because for us, my wife and I built our dream home or a bottom dream home in 21, had recently had a baby, so we just need a little more space. And that's why we wanted to do the addition in the front. So thank you for the time. Glad to take any questions. Questions for the applicant? Well, I have a question. You provided us two options for a footprint for the addition, but those are not necessarily the only options for an addition in the back since you have another 50 feet to the property line. Also noting that perhaps the hallway in the bedroom solution might not be the only solution to access an addition with the same footprint as the bump out of the master bedroom perhaps. There could be a door coming from the living room. You could have a little vestibule rather than a long, so what I'm saying, I'm not trying to redesign this for you even though I'm inclined to, naturally. But I feel like there are creative options and there is a plenty of area to avoid the pool structure, saying that the area between the potential foundation and the pool would need to evaluate soil bearing capacity, water table conditions, and such. I think that would be true of any addition. That's the type of due diligence that you would have to do. So I would say, I think you've presented a couple of options, and there are more options that you could review to make a successful addition in the backyard. So we did talk about the addition in the back being, effectively a lot longer and a lot skinnier, right? The challenge with that is that there's about a four foot drop off between the sea wall so between the sea wall and the pool deck, there's about a four foot drop off. So if I were to take the, it all the way out, furter out, as close to the sea wall, we'd have to fill in a lot of, you know, dirt there and figure out, like, how the sea wall could support all that. So, I mean, if we're looking at doing this in somewhat of like a cost effective manner, like in today's environment with, you know, with the tariffs and inflation, we try to match a design that's kind of, you know, within our budget and that we can still kind of afford to live there. So yes, to your point, yes, there's certainly options, but within the site and within the way the pool is designed and within kind of commercial reasonably solutions that I could pay for, that's what we presented to you is the best option we could come up with after a couple of months of talk into the engineers and the architects. Okay. Thank you. There's your comments. So I'm the other architect on the commission. So looking at it, currently the entry door on the existing plan looks like it's adjacent to bedroom number three. Yeah, I'm getting that. Give me one second. Yeah. And this is on the proposed floor plan? No, the existing floor plan. The existing floor plan. Got it. Yes. Looks like the main entry door on the front of the house is kind of close to bedroom number three in the proposal. Correct. And you're kind of moving it over so it's closer to the middle of the house. That's correct. Okay. So, again, just thinking about options, you've got a living room that, and then a dozen days, a living room near the front, and then a family room directly behind it, but it looks like it's really just one large space that just- That's fair. From front to back. So what I appreciate about what you're in your proposed plan is you've been modest. I mean, you're not trying to build a grand addition to the house and it sounds like part of that's for budgetary reasons and part of that's because you realize you're encroaching into a front yard setbacks you're trying to be as frugal as you can. But um, and I've not seen the internal layout and I've not seen your furniture, but it seems to me that what you're really trying to do is add a second full bathroom and that you're trying to get, I think it's variously been called a bedroom, but it's labeled as an office, and it's really a fairly small room that you're proposing to come to the front. So I guess I'm looking at it thinking, could you not carve within the space that you have at the front of the house, create part of that living room into the office and then do a more modest addition in the back that would be the master bathroom and part of the master bathroom, part of the master bedroom that currently exists could be converted into the new bathroom so that you would be able to get two bathrooms where you currently have like kind of a back-to-back bathroom, two larger bathrooms. That in other again, I come back to, I think there are other options in this case that you might be losing 100 square feet out of your living space, but it really seems quite large for a house this size without having come into the front yard because I am having trouble justifying a variance, understanding the limitations that you have and understanding why you're here before us today, under the way my interpretation of the code I'm having trouble justifying it in this condition when there's almost no precedent in the neighborhood that I can see. So that was a little bit rhetorical I guess and I apologize for that. But again, I'm just wondering if you considered options of using rearranging the space, some of the space within the house itself. Yes, so the, so I work from home. So the additional, the addition would be primarily like my office, but then we're also planning on putting a Murphy bed because we do have family staying a lot of the times with us as well to take care of the kid. So it'd be kind of dual purposes. Right. Right now my office is basically in that living room area by the front door, which is not ideal with an 11 month old. But so that's part of the idea. I'm trying to understand is could you not enclose that? The part that you're currently using is your office. Could you not enclose that to make it more functional for both an office with some privacy when you need it and as a guest suite when you want it? But I think we looked at that and I would just take up basically most of the living space. If we were to do that. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff first then lead to a question here. They have a garage pierce via two car garage. Does code require that they have a two car garage? They just need to meet the required parking which at four bedrooms they would need three spaces. Could they shrink to a one car garage and two in the driveway? Yeah, yeah. That would work. They also are permitted to have a circular driveway if they need one additional space. I'd have to see what the existing driveway measurements are. It's 20 feet maximum. You can have a a 10 foot wide parking pad off to the side so they could potentially fit all three parking spaces in the single driveway without a circular cut. So they could potentially carve out part of the garage, part of the living room, and still meet parking code as long as they have one inside the garage. Right. Okay. Have you looked at shrinking down the garage to a single car garage? Because it looks like you have the ability to handle the parking on site to meet code. Yeah, I think the driveway would be big enough for us. One, we use the garage for storage and for cars a lot. And then when I look at the rest of the neighborhood, pretty much everybody has a two-car garage. So I'd be a little bit hesitant to go down that option just because I think it would be down the line potentially an issue if I were to sell the house whenever. Not that we have any plans, but I think most folks that have a waterfront home, they would want to have the space for the Port de Gourage as well. But you do have three bedrooms in this house. That's a good number of bedrooms existing. It's like it's a one-bedroom, one bath. You've got three bedrooms. So it's one from a wife and I, one for the kid, and then one that's currently family staying in, and then we, if we're lucky enough, we'd hope to have more kids and kind of stay in our dream home, right? So that's what the fourth bedroom is for. Mm-hmm. There's motels, there's storage units, there's a lot of options here that come into play. I think there have been some very good recommendations as to how to handle it. Because again, you're coming here requesting a variance. It's difficult to get and I'm not hearing anything on your side willing to do any of these. I'm happy to re you know consider different you know designs while we are while still being able to one you know afforded and still being able to have use of the rest of the property. Right? Because to a certain degree we like the floor plan to ask. We just want a little bit more space. But if we're going to chart making material changes and getting rid of the garage or getting rid of the pool deck, then you're adding something but taking it away. Right? So it's a certainty, but I certainly understand your point. No further, thank you. And Commissioner Flynn, I found the answer to your other question. So the code change would not affect the front yard of the existing living space. So if the variance was granted to 20 feet for the addition and then down the road they raised it, they would have to request the variance to that. Any more questions for the applicant? Do we have any blue cards? I think this one we do. Nope, next one. No blue cards, okay. Staff, do you have any cross-examination? Staff waves. Sir, do you have any questions for staff for the record? No, thank you. Staff, do you have any closing statements? Staff waves. Third, do you have any closing statements? No, thank you. Okay. We'll go on an executive session. I feel like Commissioner Clemens and Flint have kind of made the point for us and, you know, understand that there's know new addition to the family and congratulations on that but you know I'm not convinced quite frankly that there's not other ways to do this that's not encroaching into the front setback so I don't really see a way that I can support this which is one of the variance criteria right but we have any really touch on hardship you know and I you know, the issues you have with the existing layout in the backyard and the existing layout of the house, but that's not so hard. So hardship is a, it's a term of art. It's not what we would consider hardship and normal conversation. And, you know, I don't see hardship for the term of art here. Other comments from the group? I have a question for council over and this gets to this. I've always kind of struggled with, there's language in the code and I probably should have looked it up to get it clear in my head. But that basically everybody who owns a property has the right to enjoy that property in the way it's intended. But to me then it always brings up this issue when we have cases like this and some of the dark issues. What is a reasonable expectation? Because ultimately that's there is that for us to judge as the commissioners to say I deserve not deserve. I have I should because I live in a neighborhood where there's a lot of four bedroom houses. I should have the right to have a four bedroom house because I have a neighborhood where a lot of people have dogboats. I deserve the right to also is that the standard is. And maybe this will be helpful. I can read you the language from the code. So it says an application shall demonstrate that the existing conditions and circumstances are such that the strict application of the provisions of the land development regulations would deprive the applicant and reasonable use of the land building or structure equivalent to the use made of lands building or structures in the same district and permitted under the same terms of this chapter. And that the peculiar conditions and circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant and then obviously you know to guide your decision there than those standards of review. So it is up to you, you know, to use those standards of review in your, to guide your decision. But if we're, you know, and I can't remember this only for this property, if we're in a NS1, basically where you, you know, it would be reasonable for us to look at what are a lot of the other, how do a lot of other people use their property in a NS1 district? Sure, you Sure. And if that's a common condition within that district, then that could be interpreted as a reasonable use then. Okay. Sure. Okay. Other comments or questions? I'm not going to take your motion. I was going to make, oh go ahead. If you have a comment, please. Oh no, I didn't have a comment. I was going to go ahead of a variance to the front yard set back to allow for an addition of existing single family residents subject to the conditions of approval. Black? No. No. No. Single-timmed? No. Llamas? No. Reale? No. No. No. Singleton? No. Clemens? No. Reale? No. Battle? No. What? No. Motion fails. You need an innocent name. Does the commission need a break? Everyone go to the halfway point before we break. Get one more on. All right, it is a dock You're just gonna say that out loud All right, let's do a short break. It's two five minutes. Let's reconvene at two forty five Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. you you 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 make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to 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 to the next one. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . . . to to . . . you . I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. 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. you you 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 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 get 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. 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 top. I'm going to make a little bit of the top. I'm going to make a little bit of the top. I'm going to make a little bit of the top. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. you Okay, we are back in session. The next item is number four, case number 25390001. Staff. Good afternoon again, Jordan. No more planning with development review services. This property is located on 39th Ave, South, just east of Sixth Street. Here are the plated water lots, one through eight. The subject property is lot four. The applicant is requesting approval of a dock variance to allow the installation of a boat lift. The zoning district is NSE, its neighborhood suburban. It is a platted lot back in 1922. It's been in ownership since September 2023 by the applicant. I did approve a dock permit on April 23rd for the dock itself and it is a 15 foot wide water lot. Here is a photo looking straight out would be the proposed location. Here is one through this opening. It would be between this walkway closest to us and the tap holes that are off in the distance. Here's a better view with a zoomed-in view. So you see the four top holes, there's a black floating lift. That is the neighboring property, which is Lot 5. That walkway is on Lot 3 and half of two, which is combined under one. Here we have the plans for the dock. The dock itself is two foot wide by 60 feet long. It's a walkway, it has a two foot by 10 foot bump out. As you can see, to the end of the dock is proposed the six typos for the lift. It is to be a two foot setback from the left side and it's zero from the right. We mentioned water fronts with 20 feet or less requires a five foot minimum setback for both a dock or a lift wet slip. We have a two foot on the left proposed, zero on the right proposed requiring the variance. Staff received no comment from Kona. We had an objection letter which should be in your packets from the owners of 442-39th Ave, South, which is Waterlot 8, the far end. I spoke with Mr. Matthews who owns five, six, and 7 on the phone. I believe he's in right behind me. I'm going to let him speak on his stance after I'm done. Here we have the aerial yellow is subject property. Green is in support red is an objection Staff is recommending denial of the doc variance to allow the installation of a boat lift and I'm here for any questions Questions for staff There we in our Stanford for we do have a while. I believe it's one letter or email not sure what you put sure Which that mentions that there is no electricity in this area. Is that your understanding as well? No electric service? I'm not sure if there's access to electricity, but I will say that if electric is required, they are required to come in and get the electric permit for the lift. Are there any other lip, well I guess are lips concurrently where there have been combined lots So currently right now It's all wet slips Thank you So so you're coming earlier that there was a lift and that I would that appeared to be more of just a floating dock for like a jet ski In one of the prior photos. Yeah, the black floating dock. Okay. Yeah, it's like a drop up. All right. Thank you. The permit that was approved on in April, that is the same configuration design that we're considering here. They just had to go through that no objection process, but there were objections. So that's why they're here. So they went through the setback waiver process for the doc I met with Dan at the zoning counter one day. I said we need to address these separately You know, he wasn't able to get the signature on the right side neighbor Because the doc didn't encroach on that side. He didn't need it for the doc So I said we we can do the separate doc and then we can do the lift after that. I said we can't support the lift request because we don't have support from the neighbor while we're here now. Went through the setback waiver. We didn't receive a objection to that until two days after the deadline, which is the neighbor who submitted the letter for this second request. but he did go through the proper procedure for the dog. Other questions for staff? Where's your plane? Is there any uplands that are owned by these properties or is it just the submerged lands? You you've got the houses on the south side of the roadway, half across the two lane road, go through a city park, it appears, then you get to the water. So they are only owning these submerged lands or do they own the seawall? So the lot three and half of two is there's a new single family home across the street. They own that one. Lot four is not associated with the house or a property across the street. Lot five, six, and seven is across the street. Lotate is also across the street. So one half of two and then four are not associated with the property. But as far as you've got, if you go to the aerial with the red and blue and green showing who's in the approval and against, you have that on the overhead Okay, so Lot four which is in yellow that's the property that we're talking about right Immediately at the south end of four is that sea wall a privately owned sea wall or any of that land? That's city property it's Grandview Park. Okay so they only own the submerged land the water area. Correct. Okay so So if there was a need for electric, they'd have to actually put it in city park for a meter. I would assume so and it would, I would say require approval from additional city departments. Okay, thank you. Other questions for Saf? Okay, is the applicant here? I may have named Stan Moore and I've been sworn in. I didn't have that. I need your address, too, sir. Are The address. It's going to be 39th Street South. It's technically going to be a boat slip across the street. And the parcel ID number is 06-32-17-57385-000-00-0040. The reason I'm here today is, it wasn't primary boat lift, but what I'm trying to do is put those pilings in on my property line which are the three pilings that I'm not sure how this works but we'll go with our best shot. I just need to show the plot. That's really this is kind of hard. I also get brought in a survey and I also brought a representative from the survey company so he could talk to about the survey. But I actually owned that slip four. Just in owns five, six and seven. And the house across the street, which I'm representing the owner on, is owns half a two and three. Press this button and point it up that screen and I'll show you. I got you. So my current slip is this one right here. The house across the street, which I'm representing because I'm a general contractor as well, I actually tied into the house across the street here. And there's a dock permit with a set up for a boat lift already in the county and was approved by the city of St. Pete. The one that owns this one, half a one and two, she's actually owns that property but it's not tied to anything across the street. Five's not tied to anything across the street. Six seven is tied across the street. Six, seven is tied across the street. So what I'm looking at doing is the dock was approved. The dock or excuse me, it was approved by St. Pete and it's in with the county right now getting reviewed. And that dock, the way it was set up, they got three pilings on against the dock and I was going to set it up on three pilings across the street, or across on the property line, sorry, not across the street, but on the waterway on that one side. If we can get to that picture, I can show you what that looks like. Just the dock, he had it. It was the boat slip going farther down. Not that one. It's the one that shows the dock. That one right there. So what I'm really talking about are these three pilings right here that I want to put on the property line. Oh, sorry. I'll get it one more time. Sorry. These three pilings I want to put in, which would be on my property. And I need that for safety reason, if you're not allowing the dock at this time, because I was thinking about doing a solar lift. But if I wasn't going to do that, I would need those pilings in so I could have tie off for safety. I also own a commercial water business with the city of St. Pete down at the Marina. And with all the storms coming in, how we tire boats down, it's really helpful having the safety to be able to tie across side to side on that. So that's really what I'm participating in is getting, trying to get those three pilings in on that side. This is what we're talking about, right? Those three right there on that side. Right there, this one, this one and this one. That wouldn't encroach the property next to me and it's in my property line. And for safety reasons, I needed to tie off a boat in case a storm or anything that comes up. The other issue that I have with the survey that you're going to see why the neighbor didn't sign off on it is, the neighbor permitted his dock to the, we're going to talk with him since he's going to come up and talk about it. So Doc, at one time, he owns five or six and seven. And six and seven, he permitted or excuse me a little bit that's real quick I think it's five six and seven. He owned five six and seven but when he permitted this he permitted with the city of St. Peter and I have the document the actually permit, where he was actually going to run the dock down six, and then come over to seven, and then run it down seven, which he didn't do. So he's actually built his dock completely crooked. So his dock was surveyed by the same surveyor, but they never pinned the water. So what happens is his dock, that he got approved by the city for one doc, he put two docs in and then he widened his doc that wasn't on the plans that were approved by city of St. Pete and then just kind of just free for all. Then he came out and I had the emails from his doc installer that he dropped two pilings in without permits. And he's got two pilings that he put on my property currently to the west. And then he put two pilings in, which you can see on that picture where that boat is, which was impermitted either. So it's like the neighbor on the side of me is just doing what he wants to do. So I went and spent the time and energy to get it, to get it surveyed and to make sure it was properly surveyed, which I have a copy I can show you guys. It's going to take it to get it surveyed and to make sure it was properly surveyed which I have a copy I can show you guys. It's going to take a look at it. But on this survey that I have it shows my lot how it's free and clear but it also. There's an overhead. There's an overhead over here. You can talk over here too. Oh, this is perfect. Let me go get that pointer. So this is actually a survey event. You just wait till you get the microphone please. Okay, so this is the survey that's actually of the property so you can see what it is. So the neighboring property, he owned five and he owns five and six and seven. When he pulled the permit originally, he only owned six and seven when he bought the property across the street. And on that permit, which I can show that to you in a hot minute, is he was supposed to come up here, take his dock over, which was going all the way over to this property line here, and then come up, and then basically put his slip in, which he was only approved for one slip. The floating dock was never approved. So, and I have pictures I can, I'll show you in two seconds of what he actually did out there. Well then he acquired parcel five here and then immediately he called somebody which was the same guy that installed a dock who's a licensed dock installer and he installed these two pilings right here and just kind of went off of these two pilings and said oh I own those own those 15 feet, I'm just gonna stick it out there no matter what. And never got a permit on that either. So that actually happened on that. So now he's encroaching into my slip, which I know that's more of a civil matter, but that's with the county and with the city right now. There's formal complaints put in there because you can't just put pilings in wherever you want put pilings in without a permit. Also, there's two pilings that are actually over here as well that were installed that are not, we're never permitted as we... where we want to put pilings in without a permit. Also, there's two pilings that are actually over here as well that were installed that are not were never permitted as well. So I do have the email, of course, piling with his installer because I went out and got a bid from him and I said, what are you going to do with these pilings? He goes, oh, if we have to move them, we'll just move them later. And I have that in writing as well. as well. I can show you guys, but I'm just trying to get my safety pylons on my property line. So since the neighboring approved me to build my dog and I have that in writing as well. I can show you guys. But I'm just trying to get my safety pylings on my property line. So since the neighboring approved me to build my doc on that property line, my hardship is to tie off my, to secure my boat. I just want to secure my boat. If it's today, I've got three pylings. And if I have to, if I was going to put a boat lift in later and get a permit for a boat lift, I would do a solar boat lift. If I was going to go that way, but right now I'm really trying to get those pilings in just for security reasons. Let me by the City of St.P. So basically what you're seeing right here at this location, that's your corner of your lot where he'd actually come up turn over and go straight up his other property line. Which as you can see from the survey, if you can get him both in here, but you can see as a survey how he didn't even follow that, widen this dock, do what he wanted with it, and basically didn't even follow the property lines that were staked out. He didn't pin, he didn't pin across the way because Brendan Lund Associates actually gave him his property pins, the same survey company that I use, he just, his dock I just went out there willingly. So the big thing is what was approved and what was built is wrong. And the second thing is just doing throwing pilings and without permits was wrong. So that's why I'm facing this issue now of trying to get pilings in on my property in order to secure a boat in case of a storm or in case of just weather just from a safety aspect. So that's my hardship on that. You guys have any questions for me? Got a few. Do you have a pin available where you could point at specific points on that overhead projector? First of all, the main survey, the other one, that has much more detail. Where is the seawall currently? Right there. That is the seawall, okay. Where is the southern terminus of your lot? So it does go onto to land. It does. Okay. And on that survey are those pilings within lot-forge boundary or are they within the extended lot lines? Within my boundaries. So So if you were to point them out there, where roughly would they be on that? Actually it would be because I can go out to this location at 60 feet so they would actually be sitting up here. So they are not in your lot line, just clarifying. They are not in your, they're in the extended lot line not in your property. Okay thank you. It's like the doc next to me is going to understand when people are saying it's on there a lot and I'm looking at something that doesn't match. Well the lot of the extended lot lines are actually in my they're right here these two that were stocked in are actually in my. Okay those are in the extended lot line not necessarily your property but it is the extended lot line okay thank you before you go away from that can you zoom in on that a little more so we can So isn't the lot line the black line not the dotted line? That's your line that goes out. This is that this line right here and the surveyor, my surveyor, can talk more in detail. But these are the lot, these are how the slips are located, but we can take them all the way out into the channel. Right, right. I'm not, and so that dotted line is just a dotted line where my, where my continuous line would be going out. So if you slide that, I'm not worried about the water side like Commissioner Flint was. I'm looking more on the Lambert side here. Can you slide the image up the southern, so get, actually can your surveyors come up please Is it easier to test fine? Yes. I think it clarify something. Rotter-way. You're giving him the wrong. That's what I'm going to do. Yeah. It's the one that has the measure observed and looked at. So, yes, this. Well, hang on. I do need you to give your name and address for the record and then confirm you've been sworn and then I have not been sworn in. Yes, I'm David Swargerty. Hang on, just wait. David Swargerty. You swear from the beginning to actually get a little bit of truth in the whole truth in the truth. I do. Thank you. challenge because we're asking you to go to a picture but you got to talk into the microphone so if you can first go to the microphone and confirm your name and address for the record and then, can you identify for me the property boundary? I understand that there's some repairing rights of some sort of a pet. The line here, this is a landward witness line because obviously we can't set corners out in the water okay here the point right here so you we had a Georgia F young survey luckily Georgia F young has been out there years ago and already had been out there and established this we found their original points this right here is you can see me pointing hopefully this is a Georgia F young of the 21 Nellandesco in the seawall here we found we found our iron rod here we found a point originally right here we found some original line points up there so we reestablished that and found some points enough or we established enough evidence to reestablish this soft line over here. Because obviously it's a 19, what is it? 1922, 20 something plat to reestablish this soft line that these water lots over here. So obviously when you go out in the water we can't set our own. So we established a witness line 20 feet the landward of this. So now there are our rods of ours. That'll be 2760. I'm sorry, 5.8 iron rods all the way across all the way these lots all the way out here. So there well established called a witness line. So, Mr. Maurem has calculated points that he thought this was a south line over here. It's actually over here. This word starts and then it goes 30 feet to here because this is where the section line is per plat. Right here is where the section line is. It runs through here, the pl line also. This was a revised plated, the boat slips of WMS Merrill stops right here. That's where we stopped it also. And then obviously the dash line like he was showing you, that's the line that extends all out. Then obviously the pilings are over his line he to show on you. So, Kayla, can you please pull up the aerial image from Mr. Lermor's presentation? I think I know the answer to this, but you can see how the doc student, it looks much messier on the GIS from the property or appraisal here than it does on the survey. So in your opinion we should not be looking at this GIS. The arrow was way off. Yes it was way. You cannot really compare it on the ground to the aerial. Yeah because it's definitely. Yeah, okay. And I'm up in you know, our survey of the record, our survey geometry has not changed. We have not adjusted our boundary or changed it. And we are in line with Georgia Film for day one. So, you know, okay, felt very comfortable, you know, with where our points are on the ground and we have not, you know. Another thing to add, we also, when we surveyed, we surveyed the waterway from the... What else he did is we surveyed the waterway through the canal and I had them actually go to the opposite side so we could see how deep, how far that out was, that would dictate on how long a doc could be built and he has that information as well to just see more information for you guys. So say it, say it, the mic please. So with the sea wall there, how do you access or let me ask a question in different way? The doc that you had approved, where does it end on the south? It ends on the other side of the sea wall currently like the other dock that's over there that's just right here. You don't have to jump 12. It's going to be right here. Well, so our dock probably end over here. So I'll start somewhere over here and come it'll actually start right there. Excuse me right there on the corner and I'll go over that and then go straight out This is very similar to the dock that's currently here and the new dock that's coming in on Choose gonna actually be over here coming from land going out to the water Yeah, that's not our purview right so we'll say that for discussion, but I think it's gonna be important for the commission to looking at the survey, figure out what we're deciding what we're not. So my main thing is I'm looking to get, just moments, sir. I just wanna clarification. When I asked you earlier, where does your southern lot end? You gave me an incorrect location. You would specifically set it went all the way down in the land. It does not that is that is Public parkland correct Okay, just making clarifying that you gave incorrect information a moment ago So I Again, I'm not very up on riparian law. So can someone explain to me the 30 foot or 60 foot extension or extended law line? Is that based on some type of water depth? You just 20 feet more to the land. And what enables that? That's a convenient distance we determined to be on land. No, I understand your witness line. I'm talking about on the north side. I think there's more of a question for staff. Okay. That's fair. We can ask them now. Not the legal question, but just when you're permitting docs, you know, what's staff, what's the, what's the outer limit of where you can permit the end of the doc? This for staffs are just on. The amount of projecting into the waterway. So it's 25% of the navigable waterway. The specific property I did email the proposed plan to Julie Sims. She is my contact at Pinellas County Water Navigation because there's that mangrove island that's out from there and it was not far enough where 60 feet would fall within the 20% you know I looked at the others that were there in the area already I said hey would you all approve this and she did not have an answer she said it would be determined you know they'd have to do additional research and maybe We got in the area already. I said, hey, would you all approve this? And she did not have an answer. She said it would be determined. You know, they'd have to do additional research and maybe go out in the field and check it out. It may not be an issue because that island, you know, it's not a habitable island. It's just mingros. So- But our decision is just the site, like we're not deciding anything on the length today, correct? Correct. minutes in county permitting. Okay. Well, you're there. Under the circumstances of those two polls that are. on the length today, correct? Correct. Yeah, that's already approving and it's in County permitting. Okay. Well, you're there. Under the circumstances of those two polls that are on his extended line, would he have the ability to just remove those? Staff would not get involved with that. Oh, yep. Okay, that'd be a simple matter. Okay, correct. Well, in the county, you might have enforcement rights. I mean that's, I don't think, I don't think. Actually, sorry, speaking to the county, they will let me remove them. Okay, that'd be a simple matter. Okay. Well, in the county, you might have enforcement rights. I mean, that's, I don't think, I don't think. Actually, sorry, speaking to the county, they will let me remove them. I'm sorry, they, when the docs approve, then they come out and inspect the location. If those are in my property line, I can remove them. They would let you in a lot of ways. But even if that's not, I'm not saying it's not correct, but even it's not correct, that's not. I think there are a million things here that could distract us from what we're trying to approve. And I think there are a million things here that could distract us from what we're trying to approve. And I think that's really going to be a challenge. And yes. I don't have any more questions. OK. So just to recap, when I'm looking for approval, you have a close, we get to stick with procedure for this one. This has the potential to create further disagreement. So you'll have a chance to ask questions and close. So just hold on to that, sir. Do we have blue cards? Who do? Are we utilizing this blue card that was filled out for you for three minutes? What was the question? I'm sorry. We asked the survey questions. But he has a blue card as well. Did you want to speak? No? Are you just available for questions? OK. I'll let you know. OK. And we're just confirming the procedure here. So Justin Matthews? Yes, Justin Matthews, 3T9, 21st Avenue South. The property questions same. 539th Avenue South, I have been sworn. Thank you. You have three minutes. I had time to speak with Mr. Elmore and I told Mr. Moore the same thing. I have no objection of putting him building directly on the law line. It doesn't make much sense in certainly 15 feet apart to not do that because it's doesn't leave you much usable space inside that 15 feet if you take some of the setback away. My only concern is the survey and where those proposed docs that he wants to put in now are because when we got a surveyed by the same company, the surveys are showing one slip down and he's just seemingly conveniently move them to the east. I've got a heavy original survey here from Brindler and it's a completely different survey. completely but it's showing the slips in a different location. You got those here if you'd like to see them. Look at the one overall one. Can you put it on the overhead please? Yeah. And actually, before you go to the picture, because I suspect we might have some questions, Do you have anything more to discuss? Because then we can stop your, you can finish your time and then we can ask you questions so we don't get confused on timing. Do you have anything else to discuss? Uh, no, really, I don't. All right, so can you put that up? I think we might have some questions. The overhead? Please, yes. Oh, the crab is... Please This is north down here is that that the road? The north would be straight. It's just... That's a survey of the house lots south of the city. Oh, oh, I got to go. Okay, okay. Yeah, it's all of it. Showing the house lots and then the... Can you shift the image down to the city? Yes. Jordan, is that still zoomed in? I have a exploded version of as well. I could show you right right now. Okay yeah let's shift to that. That's good reference though. Okay. So that's the real question. Sorry. No, that's okay. We're asking you a question. That's why I was trying to clarify you at anything else to say, because I knew the time was coming. Oh, no. So then in theory, slip four is not shown here. It's to the left. Yes. And you own which numbers? 5, 6, and 7. But this survey is done prior to the production of your... Yes, several years prior to. Yeah, it took us... I don't know. I don't want to say that. So far, I don't think this is inconsistent with the current survey. The doc that's happened in half out of slip A, I think the new survey shows it pretty much the same configuration, doesn't it? There's a difference between, there's definitely difference. I have that survey here. But do you have a survey from after your doc was built? Have your doc, haven't it after shows the doc? No, no, not the only one that I've got after the fact is the one that that Dan had created here that's where you knew different. Can you put him side by side so we can see? Contention that the new survey is incorrect. Yes. Yeah. And there were 30 something months in between the survey and the. Okay. So in this survey. Shift it in the building of it. So we can see that you have to overlay it a little bit. Then after the lay. Maybe the other way. Move that one to the far. hard. That wouldn't work. Yeah. I see what you're talking about with. Okay. Move that one to the far. I see what you're talking about with. The only real reference point there is the existing dog. What East end of the property? And the lots look longer and narrower, but that's likely because that back line's not drawn, right? North line is not drawn. Well, there is no north line shown. That's what I mean. That's just a crease in the, that's just that gray line that cuts right through the middle of the, right, right. No. Well, by 12 docket, in the bottom one is not a line that's just a crease in the image. Yeah. Sir, did I hear you right that you said if he built his, forget what the polls are called, right at the zero foot, lot lined you would have no objection to that, assuming you were able to hash out where the property lines are. Correct. Okay. Okay. Sure, of course. It's only fair. That's not for us to. Any other questions for Mr. Raffies? Okay, thank thank you sir. Thank you. Any other blue cards? Staff, do you have any cross examination questions? Okay. Applicant, do you have any cross examination questions? So there's closing and there's cross. I know the procedure. You have a cross, OK, great. Yeah, perfect. The survey that was done in 2022, this survey was actually completed in 2022. And the survey that I just gave to you is the 24 survey in October, because I had a pin across the way, but they didn't pin across the way in 2022. So they just went out there and actually surveyed the land. So this is the one that was done in 2022. Well, hang on, who are you asking a question of right now? The question is when he says that, the survey that he went up. I'm sorry, who are you questioning? Okay, Mr. Matthews, okay, thank you. Yeah. Mr. Matthews showed me that was a survey that was with the city that that's that first survey. I don't believe they could find that, but this is the one that was done in 2022. This was before he put the pilings in, that would actually encroached into my property. You can see they're not there because this is this is this is slip floor right here. So you can see there's only two pilings right here. I'm not trying to be difficult sir, but what what is the question you're trying to ask? Is you're going to have an opportunity to say the survey that he went off of when he built a dog. Okay. Okay. Is a survey that showed us is an old survey they came from the city. So, pin the survey that he went off of when he built a dock. Okay. Is that survey? Okay. Is the survey that he showed us is an old survey that came from the city. So, I'm going to pin the survey something similar like this to get the survey. It's on those areas. So, Mr. Matthews, the question then is, do you have the survey from when you constructed your dock? Yes. Can you please put that on the overhead? Original one that must have had choice. That original one there. So that's the survey you used to build your doc. When you went in for your doc run. Okay. Yeah. Bye. I guess I'll get something real quick. I want to just look at the data. Yeah. It's a 2017. Yeah, so 2017 that was the one that they did on that. Okay, okay. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions? Okay, staff DM the closing statements. Staff waves. And so you have five minutes for your closing and rebuttal. The only thing I have to say is what the hardship that I'm looking for is putting the pilings there so I can secure the boat. That's really what I'm looking for is the three pilings that would be on my property line to secure the boat based on a survey that would be approved and it would be approved by the boat. That's really what I'm looking for is the three pilings that would be on my property line to secure the boat. Based on a survey that would be approved and it would be approved by the county to build the dock. I would like to put the three pilings on my property line. The applicant. Sorry, I let you finish. I'm sorry. If further down the road, if I have to, if I wanted to put a lift on that, I could always do a solar lift. lift. You know, next, that's necessarily power for that, but I did reach out to Duke with that and Duke can actually bring power over through the park I would have to get a very I would have to get an easement from the city because you already have power on the park and that would be just my attorneys going back and forth because I know the neighboring property to the west amaze going to want to there. Water is not a problem. Matthews has water on the property. We can get water there anytime I want. That's pretty simple. But the power part that the question that you're asking is yes, it can be done. At this time, I'm not looking to do it right this way. I'm just looking to get those pilings in. Thank you. So now I just want to clarify. Your intention, if this is approved, your intention right now just to build those three pilings on the east side of your property. But that application is for six pilings and a boat lift. So you'd like approval of that today and you'll do those, you might do those in the future. The three pilings that are on the docks side, the west side property, so that I can put those in. Those are on the drawings. It's the three pilings that are on the property line. So you say six, I'm saying I'm looking only at the three because the other three are fine. I can build those all day long. They're on their drawings and they're in the county right now. But they're not, is that true? Because I thought they were less than five foot in the property line. Right. three are fine, I can build those all day long. They're on their drawings and they're in the county right now. But they're not, is that true? Because I thought they were less than five foot in a property line. Yeah, his original dock plan did include the three abutting the dock. Those are already in the county. So those were with the county. Got it, okay. But you are asking for approval for these three. Plus an approval of a boat lift, which you don't intend to do now, but you might do in the future. I might choose to do it. You were asking, Paul, I might choose to do a solar one. I just want to clarify it. You were asking, right, Paul, right? I might choose to do a solar one. I just want to clarify what the application, though, what we're approving. Okay. Thank you. We're not approving. Well, and so that's a good segue, though. As we go into executive session, and I don't know if this is a better question for staff or for counsel, but But there seems to be a dispute on survey, seems to be dispute on pilings out in the waterway. We are not resolving either of those disputes, correct? Correct. Correct. OK. And so the question that we have is, is the do we support the variance for the zero law line on the east side? Correct. OK. OK. So I want to narrow to that because, and I'll start just because I'm already confirming that, but you know, first of all, I'm glad we had the survey because if you look at the GIS, you don't know what you're looking at. But that's not uncommon, right? The GIS is not a survey. But I have other questions for related access. I have questions about ownership. But those are all out of the purview. So if the city and the county are willing to permit and our question is, are we okay with these slips being close together? And frankly, I look at this and I think that that's exactly what was meant to happen here. And so while I do think, you know, we're just a bump in the road of figuring this out, you know, it's a unique lot because it's meant for this purpose. It's meant to have a zero lot line, it seems. And so I can support the variance, though I don't know that that's going to fix everything for the parties that we're here today. It doesn't appear that abiding by setbacks would leave any usable area or a dock. So it seems like providing avarians for the setbacks makes sense. It almost seems like it would work better without setbacks. Yes. Mr. Flynn, I don't have a problem with the pylings to secure the boats because Yeah, it'd be unusable essentially without. My concern would be, I'd be against a lift out there. This is a very unique situation. There's a few others that are like it where you have the primary property in some of the cases on the south side of the road. You got a public roadway, you got a public park. You don't have any uplands. You have to go through water to get to this lot. I think it's throwing too much into a small sack when you start throwing a lift on it to jack these things up in the air, adjacent to a public park. Float on the water, secure it against some, you know, pilings, my only issue would be I would want to see the lifts. There are lifts there though. Yeah, that's about this thing. Are there lifts already there? I be against lift, at least in this situation. It's too narrow. You get a wall of boats there and it's adjacent to a city park. The issue though is not the ability to have a lift, right? It's just the setbacks, right? So I mean, if it's an issue of an eye sore or sore whatever if for some reason it was within those setbacks it would be allowed right I mean I think that's important I think it's very important the piling themselves I think they make sense it's too narrow you need to cure the boat so they don't bounce around I'm just curious if there's any part of this that would eliminate the lift component. Question if we weren't here for this variance based off his question would he be able to have a lift in this space? If the neighbors sound off, yes. OK, thank you. OK, that solves that. And it sounds like both neighbors are supportive. Probably he didn't. But not. Right, he didn't. He's a criteria because he didn't sign it. He didn't sign it because they have a dispute over the lines and what's what. But that kind of weighs pretty heavily on my judgment because the fact that he, you know, the neighboring doc owner is okay with it. I tend to want to support this. Yeah. So I wonder if we, I mean, maybe this is a legal question, but like, I mean, should we be voting on something like this when there's dispute over lot lines and who has what I mean should we be deferring this until they figure that out Well, I don't think that they would figure it out if they didn't have the ability to build Right, so that's a chicken and egg situation The county is still still through Regardless of what we say still has to go there. I only will issue the permit Okay. I can't go to the next one. Yeah, so actually that's a good clarification for staff. So you actually sign on the permit. Okay We can't go to the next. Yeah, so actually that's a good clarification for staff So you are you actually sign on the county permit, right? You don't issue the permit Yeah, the box to the bottom left is where we stamp and then send it off to pinnale This is this is basically a request for you all to sign off for then the county to process the permit correct Okay Overall, I'd be fine with, you know, the total is six. If they're allowed by right to do lift, it is what it is. But they, yeah, they have to hash out their own civil issues as far as the public. Yeah, and they got to get power out there and not, you know, yeah, that's a whole separate issue. Yeah. I, well well I think I'm sensing we're wondering on the questions is anyone have any more questions on her 10th motion I move for approval of a dog variance to allow the installation of a boat lift subject to subject to staff conditions of approval Yes. So? Yes. Sins? Yes. Clemens? Yes. Riali? Yes. Vatula? Yes. Lynn? Yes. Motion passes units. Yeah. So we have what's six now? One, two. So for everyone in the room, we are losing a commissioner now. So going forward, we have six members for voting. So the way that the rules of procedure work in our city is that you have to have the four yes votes. And so when you lose a person voting, it doesn't mean that you're just going with majority. You still need four yes votes. So when we don't have seven, and sometimes we have as many as ten people here, but it just varies from time to time, when we don't have seven, you do have the option to come forward and defer to a later month when we might have more than we're going to have six right now. Is anyone else leaving early? Or we're going to have six the whole time? Okay. So we will have six the rest of the afternoon. Given that we have four items left, you know, so that people don't have to sit here to make that decision, I just like to go through the four items and confirm that people are still wishing to move forward. Or if they want to defer, we'll address that deferral now and they can come back next month. So for the next item, it's a number five, case 25, 11,000,000, 35, 11, 0, 0, 0, 4, 35, 11, second avenue, south. Do you want to move forward? Okay. The next one is number 6. So, case 25, 54, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0. So, 6, 600 by you, grand boulevard. Do you want to move forward? Okay. case 24 51 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 36 7th half you want to move forward okay and then the last one is 25 32 0 0 0 0 0, 2, 7, 36, 7th half. You want to move forward? Okay. And then the last one is 25, 32, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, which is 2200 and 2230, dark term Martin Luther King Jr. South. You want to move forward? Okay, so everyone's going to move forward. So we'll go to the next item. Case number 25, 11, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 3,500 second Avenue South staff. Oh, staff has to be sworn. Okay, let's do Brian. Oh, all right. Hey, you two. He's wearing one of the elements. You have to give a little trick to help you. I do. Yes. Anybody else? Yeah. Is anyone else in the room need to be sworn? Oh. All right. I should go back first up. Yeah, that's all right. If there's anyone in the room who will be speaking, who has not been sworn, if you could please stand now to be sworn. OK. Okay, staff. All right, good afternoon. My name is Mike Laramore, a planner for development review services, presenting case number 25-1100004.004. Subject property is located at 35-11 Second Avenue South, an interior property with a rear alley located between 35th Street South and 36th Street South. The property is comprised of two fully plated lots in the Central Oak Park neighborhood. The subdivision was plated in 1915 and the property was last made vacant in 2016. The current property owner purchased the property in February of 2017. The property is located in the NT2 zoning district and is an oversized parcel with a width of 90 feet and approximately 11,250 square feet of area. The application today seeks approval of variances to minimum lot width and minimum lot area to allow for the separation of the underlying lots and allow for the construction of new single-family homes with detached grogges and accessory dwelling units above. The minimum lot width and minimum lot area variances for each lot are needed to allow for the lots to be separated and remain separately buildable. Again, the subject property is 90 feet wide and is comprised of two plated lots under one parcel ID. The Western Lot 14 was plated at 40 feet of width while the Eastern Lot 15 was plated at a 50 foot width. This lot line adjustment would allow for the creation of a new property line giving lot 14, 5 feet of lot 15, creating two buildable lots of equal width and area. If the variances are approved, the resulting lots would allow for a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit on each lot. As part of staff review, the development pattern of the original plated lot dimensions were analyzed. Much of the original subdivision is designated under different zoning districts, given proximity to the corridors of First Avenue South, Central Avenue, and 34th Street. And those parcels were eliminated in my review. I accidentally... of First Avenue South, Central Avenue, and 34th Street. And those parcels were eliminated in my review. I asked those out and read here. The remaining NT2 zone lots are similar in dimension to the subject lots. The subject property is highlighted here in yellow and then the nonconforming lots in the subdivision that our zone to NT2 are highlighted here in pink. The application was sent to private and public utility providers, none of which provided any comment or conditions to the request. No comment from the Central Oak Park Neighborhood Association nor the the Citywide Council of Neighborhood Associations or Kona were received. One comment of support to the request was received by a nearby property owner within the 300 foot mailing notice radius, and no other comment from the general public was received since the publishing of the staff report. An analyzing the request for variance review, staff found the request generally meet the guiding criteria of the code. 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 outlined in the published staff report If you have any questions, I'm happy to help Questions for staff Okay, he's the applicant here Hello, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Tom O'Brien. I am the managing partner of 525 Capital Management. We're based at 2401 First Avenue North here in St. Pete. And the property in question is 3511 Second Avenue North. And as it was stated, I believe this is a pretty simple case. It was a double lot. They're just confirming you've been sworn. Yes, I have been sworn in. Thank you, Chairman. I'm hoping it's a fairly standard case. And a couple of things I just want to highlight on your time's valuable. I'll keep it pretty simple. If the lots had remained separately owned, 15 would be buildable because that is 50 wide. Lot 14, although deficient in N-T2 minimum because it's 40. Deficient in width and size centers, would likely have remained buildable. I think I could have gotten buildable lots, even for the 40 there, in the interest of the neighborhood affordable housing. But it made sense to just build them. I own the lot. I wanted to do it 45 wide, have two single families with an ADU in the back, and that is the plan. And one thing I also wanted to point out is that in that neighborhood in particular, I think if you look at even some of the graphics, it's 90 wide, which, well, I could build on it for sure, I could. That it would, the lot line adjustment would create two deficient lots, because I would have two deficient lots are 45 wide the necessary width is 50 but although they are deficient as the words right here have more usable buildable envelopes if developed separately than their original configuration and I have a construction company entire construction I've built some of the neighborhood at least 20 single family homes in St. Pete were based in St. Pete at the same 2401. And the only thing I ask in this report, and I ask of the commission, is that there are conditions here, and I was just curious what that went in terms of that the plans for the elevation submitted for the permitting should be substantially resemble the plans. And none of these are a problem because I plan on doing this. that the variance approval should be valid, should shall be valid through May 7. So basically three years I would have to have substantial construction and I just ask why those are there Because in the construction there's nothing permitted There's nothing there and as I go through this and I own other lots these are not the only lots that I have in St. Pete and You know, I'll be looking to looking to finance this. I'd be looking to find a buyer in some situations. They would purchase that lot. I'm a custom builder. And I'm just wondering how that works really if it is something that if three years from now I don't have it substantially, or what if I meet a buyer and they would say, you know what, I just don't want to do the ADU right now. if I would run into problems for those those conditions because I think that those lots split evenly would probably be the best thing for that neighborhood in perpetuity and not to say no matter what I do because that is going to happen that as my plans under oath but I just wonder why those conditions would be there and I ask that those conditions actually be removed and I'd be allowed to split those and how that would play. And the last part, forgive me as I look this up. Yeah, and just in you look at the whole area that there's 24 conforming with lots versus 45 conforming. And I think that in one area it actually says. And the policies I'm looking. That it would be more usable. And I think that if you look at that plot and you look at the neighborhood with a 90 foot wide lot right now, it's very difficult for me to rationalize building a single-family home on a 90-foot-wide lot in that neighborhood. I think it would be much more advantageous to the neighborhood itself and for the affordable living crisis right now to build single-family homes on a single-family lot. And everything would be in the NT2. There's no easements in terms of NT2. Everything would be there. I'm not looking to go to the lines or anything. would be via code where it should be in that neighborhood. That's it. Thank you. What? What was the condition that you... It was the two of them that... to the lines or anything, everything would be via code, where it should be in that neighborhood. That's it, thank you. If you have any questions. What was the condition that you? It was the two of them that it has to, let me read them exactly so that I don't misconstrued. For example, the plans. For example, the plans, and I was just asking with, you know, what happens if they don't want to do an ADU? It was really just my question, as I run into some buyers that they say, you know what? It's just a lot of money right now. The ADU can run it itself. Easy six figures, 200 grand. And so what? And then the next part was substantial. to some buyers that they say, you know what, it's just a lot of money right now. The ADU can run in itself, easy six figures, 200 grand, and so what. And then the next part was substantial construction. And as we all know, I deal with the city. It's great. And I love St. Petersburg. And that's all we do is really build in St. Petersburg. And three years and can go pretty quickly sometimes. And because I own many lots in particular, I plan on that, but what if I meet a buyer and they wanna build in a different area in the city and then if I run into needing to seek? And I just ask why? Because I think that it fits the neighborhood best and not that I'm correcting it, but having 50s and 40s everywhere for width wise in that neighborhood, I think 45, 45 across the board is actually more advantageous across the board without any harm to anybody there and actually helping that neighborhood. So you didn't submit plans and elevations in this application? I have preliminary plans that are listed in here. Yeah, they're deep in there and I have a single family and an ADU, the single family, and this is I got it surveyed. I had an architect put these together for this meeting and that was kind of what they showed with lot 14 and 15 on the graphic at one point they were side by side and that has a single family with 1778 square feet and an accessory living over a garage in the back I think it's 626 I'm looking at it for a total of 2474 I believe and those are are preliminary plans, but that is many of the properties that I've built in C.A.S.P. St. Petersburg have a single family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit over a garage in the back unit on lots of basically the size. But you don't have elevations is what I was getting at. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm not applicable, right? But I think it substantially is the key word, right? It should not be something completely different Sure, yo, yes No, no for sure and that's I think no matter what it would have to fall within NT two and I and that's my plan You know as I'm not seeking anything besides what belongs in that neighborhood in any way It's really just putting it 45 with by 45 with instead of the 50 in the 40 just because I have one at 51-48 when I plan on building a single family on each one and I figured it made more sense just to put them equally. Can you address that? In my opinion would be that, I mean, one thing we want to make sure they're not identical, the two elements. Yes. And then again, the word being substantial, staff I believe would work with you. didn't put in an 80 you and one of them I don't think that would kick him out of this situation. Correct so if the if the variances today were approved and the lots were split they would be made buildable with the variances and then because both lots are 4,500 square feet or greater, the ADU would be able to be built. It wouldn't necessarily have to be built with the house. There's no requirement for that. Just the house has to be built before the ADU can be established, but there would be nothing precluding him if he didn't move to build the ADU, he'd still be able to build that in the future. And what if he didn't get it done in three years? Yeah. So typically we just look for a building permit with building plans, a complete application, be submitted before the variance expiration date. That's what we typically look for. And you can request two to your extension, so it's really. Okay. Yeah. And it's in code so we can't wave that. Yeah. That was going to be my question. So, you know, is this a code requirement? And if it's a code requirement, then it can't be waved. But I mean, I think that this is something that I just said. Sorry. Yeah. So no, I don't want to stand on ceremony too much, but because it's a fair question. And I've thought the same question before, not so much for number two, because I think the city has an interest in not letting plans go stale. And then, you know, sometime in the future, you have an approval that doesn't work anymore, but it sits on, but it exists. But as far as, you know, to his point, if he meets the N.C.2 standards and comes back in later, I don't know that we need to have that discussion now, but what drives that condition is it just that the application requires elevations? Is it possible to condition the approval on just meeting all the entity to standards? And I'm not saying for this application, I'm actually talking bigger. Well, some of these cases can be contentious. Yeah. So a lot of times when we look at these, the neighbors want to see what is proposed, especially when there's a variance attached to it. Yeah. Because it's not just a simple, lots of lead, that meets code or a lot of line adjustment. So they want to see like, you building a two-story house next to a one-story? Are they both two-story? Did they like the same? What's the difference? Is it compatible? So did they have some you invested interest? Yeah, okay. It may not be the case here. You know if there's a public, there was no anyone calling, you know, maybe that's something that the commission could just say it has to comply with the anti-standard. So to me this still raises, or I still have two questions related to this. Typically, variances run with the property. We talked about that. So there's a special exception in the code that these are, these types of variances are treated differently and that they can have a time limit. I thought that was under state regulation that variances were just, just let's start. Yeah, they could apply with the conditions. So once you approve of those conditions that's high to it, so if the conditions are not satisfied, it will expire. So once they build it for example, it doesn't expire, right? It then runs with the property. Right. I understand that. a little bit more, I guess, philosophical and theoretical. So when rezoneings are done, we don't see site plans. We don't. It should be on the merits of the rezoning in terms of how that property relates to the properties around it, and it fits. So in some ways, these kind of projects are sort of half of a rezoning and half of a site plan approval. And so we've kind of come down on more of a site plan of DRC approval, but could it, could these kinds of proposals be done through CCPC, that they would be more of a zoning approval? And then we wouldn't be having these discussions about timelines and elevations, but I guess they have timelines too. But I guess we've decided that these kind of cases because sometimes are contentious, then we want to see a side. It's a variance. That's a requirement for a variance application. So it could be a setback variance. It could be a lot with variance. It doesn't distinguish between the variance. I can see the difference. Because we're not really rezoning the properties, the property zoning is already disdain. You saw like a lot line adjustment without a variance, we wouldn't require these plans. Okay. Glass. I know. Yeah, I mean, I don't think he used up his time, did he? Well, I did say I was done if that's a, I did say that's an answer. No, I don't. I can say for CrossFit, I just ask them in my own, so as I go through this as an owner and as a builder with a construction company here to say Pete, how does that, and maybe this is a question? Yes, I do think we're getting off topic. Okay, I just wanted to ask how that staff afterwards, yeah. Yeah, I don't understand how that works if I am working as a construction person and working with people that are going to buy this lot. Is this something that I need to say to you as a buyer? I'm not, you know, as a, as an, I'm looking at these. Because that's what I do. I build single family. I am working as a construction person and working with people that are gonna buy this lot. Is this something that I need to say to you as a buyer? I'm not as, you know, as a, I'm looking at these, because that's what I do, it's build single family, custom homes. Is this an ever-hanging thing? Because sometimes those contracts get structured where I can sell the lot, and then there's a contract to build, They own the lot first, they've taken that, I'm the builder, am I selling them a lot that's conditional? This is, that could be a hardship that I'm facing and I understand those hardships because I love Saint Pete and the way that you and everybody protects it. builder and am I selling them a lot that's conditional? This is that could be a hardship that I'm facing. And I understand those hardships because I love St. Pete and the way that you and everybody protects it. But in this case, I feel like that would be even more of the hardship than the ones. And I'm hoping that we all see the value and I appreciate the city and saying that yes, it works. But the conditions would be a hardship here and going to buyers that would say, well wait, like time value cash crunch that there's a, I just don't know how that works. I think that's something you need to work. but the conditions would be a hardship here and going to buyers that would say, well wait, like time value cash crunch, that there's a, I just don't know how that works here. I think that, that's something you need to work out with staff, but generally speaking, if you had to come back, if staff needed you to come back, you can come back before us with different elevations, but it's an application requirement and we've clarified that with them. And so I don't, unless anyone feels differently, I don't know that we're going to have to remove those. In a way, you're getting a special permission, and these are the conditions that come with that kind of special. and we've clarified that with them. And so I don't, unless anyone feels differently, I don't know that we're going to have to remove those. In a way, you're getting a special permission and these are the conditions that come with that kind of special. I appreciate it. Yeah. Otherwise, you can say with what you have. I appreciate it. No, I just ask him totally. And that's the plan. So it's great. It is. that's the plan so it works and I don't see a problem I just want to know why and that's why so I appreciate it. Do we have any blue guards? Okay, do you have any cross examination? No sir? Any additional cross? Can I ask one time to understand, is that something that the ability to go without those conditions at all? Or it's, I just still my understanding, was that in the code directly that that's necessary that there's no wiggle room at all to move that? Can I ask if I kept them at 50 and 40 if I would have been able to do that without seeking this as in if I just wanted those to separate the lots at 50 and 40. So no matter what, if I turn that 90 wide lot into two buildable lots, I have 36 months that starts ticking to find a buyer, get a permit. get extensions up to seven years I mean that's time. So the total approval from starting tomorrow. Two two years from seven years. Okay. Okay. Does it doesn't start you guys get a re approved? Okay. Also some standard legislation. Can I can I ask what would happen if I did not do that just so it would be pushed back to the same 90 wide lot? Yeah, if you don't move forward today you can always build under a 90 foot. Yes, no, right It would just get pushed back to that. I'd have no over that time Oh essentially if you were to separate the lot into anything basically 50 is the minimum to build so if you were to if you were to try to split at 50 and 40, the 50 would be buildable, but then nothing could be put on the 40. It would just- This thing- You have to come back. Right, without this approval of 2.45s, essentially. You could do 80 and 10, and then you could build on the 80, and then the 10 would be unbuildable. So it's essentially the same thing. Anything split less than 50 in this zoning district is considered unbuildable. If I ask one more, if it's in the best interest in the neighborhood, which I think this is, is there any way to do away with that? It just seems like it would be best for the... Okay, okay, if I push it, that's... No worries, cool. I'll read in the room. Okay, thank you, Chairman. Take it and run. You got it. Do you have any additional questions? I'll call you yourself out. No worries, cool. I'm reading the room. Okay, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Take it and run. You got it. Do you have any additional questions? No, sir. All right. Staff, do you have any closing? No, sir. Do you have any closing? No, thank you, sir. Okay. Any steps or commission discussion? I understand your motion. Yeah, I was going to say I'll move approval of a lot line adjustment with variances to minimum lot width and area subject to conditions of approval. Second. What? Yes. So? Yes. Humans? Yes. Really? Yes. Adelaide? Yes. Good. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Please follow up with staff. We just can't go any further than that. All right, so the next item is number... I lost track number six. 255-4-000-200-6600 by you, Grand Boulevard staff. Good afternoon, Brian Brudell with Development Review Services, presenting case number 25-54000020. Subject property is 6600 Bayou Grande Boulevard, Northeast, located in the Shore Acres area. This property is zoned neighborhood suburban single family one and it is a plated lot and it's slightly narrower at the front at 60 feet wide than it is at the back at 65 feet wide. So it's about 62 and a half feet wide at the midpoint. So which makes it a substandard lot. And NS1, which requires a 75 foot minimum. And it is about 8,800 square feet in area, which exceeds the NS1 minimum. There's currently an existing one-story single-family house on the property built in 1966, and it is located at the front right corner, 6.41 feet from that side property line. And within NS1, the minimum required side yard setback is 7.5 feet which makes it a existing non-conforming structure but it is conforming to the front right side and the rear setbacks. So the property experience flood damage from Hurricane Helene last year it is located within within the FEMA 100-year flood zone, and it was substantially damaged, so in accordance with flood plain regulations, they do have to elevate the living area to the design flood elevation. So the applicants are proposing to utilize the existing walls and foundation of the existing house to and then build living area above the existing walls and foundation So the first floor existing living space would be converted to parking and storage and then two levels of Living space would be added on top of that. So largely the proposal is to build on top of the existing footprint, but they are proposing expansions both vertically and horizontally. So shown in the site plan, you can see an orange to propose expansions in the back of the property. And then in the elevation drawing you can see that second level of living space or the third story is also proposed. And that's on the left side so both a portion of that third story and the back addition would be within that seven and a half foot setback. So the existing encroachment of the existing house is roughly 57 square feet within that seven and a half foot setback and the proposed encroachment would be about 159 square feet when you add the addition in the back and then the additional two levels since they are building on top of the first level. So the variance request is request for a variance to that 7.5 foot side yard setback to keep the proposed or the existing 6.41 foot setback on that left side. The staff analyzed the subdivision and found that the majority 83 percent of the lots are substandard and with similar to this property and that subdiv was plated in 1925. We also looked at the development in the area and found that it's a mix of older, original development of the neighborhood, pre-1980, as well as a good amount of newer construction, post-2000, or under construction currently. There's also a mix of pretty even mix of one story and two or more story development. And then you compare that with the year bill and you see that the original development of the neighborhood was largely one story and the more recent development is two or more stories. Before you leave that slide, the under construction, that's three different structures? Yes. Here's a couple similar developments down the street from the subject property. On the photo above is a new home being developed. Similarly, they have the first floor as garage and storage, and then the second level is living space. And then the bottom photo is they actually did what the applicants are proposing. to keep the existing walls and built living space above that to keep the existing foundation. So we analyzed one of the review criteria for variances is whether this is the minimum variance for reasonable use. Staff finds that it is not the minimum variance due to the proposed expansions of living space within the seven and a half foot setback. As I said, the existing is about 57 square feet. Proposed would be about 159 square feet. Now, yeah, before you move on from that one. But the new, the expansion is the thirty nine thirty eight square feet of those three numbers. So the existing encouragement is because it's just one story is is the 57 square feet, but with the addition in the back and then the two, additional, or two living area stories above. So you're, you have what I'm trying to. Okay, so on that elevation that we're looking at now, the left side elevation. On the second level, the far left window is the double window. That's in the bathroom, the proposed primary bathroom. And the primary bedroom is to the left of that. Right about where that window is, or just a little bit beyond the window, is where the existing house stops. Correct. useful is to sort of imagine a dotted line and everything to the left of that is a horizontal extension closer to the rear of the lot that still has this setback encroachment. Correct. It's not just that you're objecting to. You're also objecting to the second and third floor even in the portion that's over and on top of the existing walls are only the portion that's the last 15, the last 12 or 14 feet. Only the additional in the, in the back yeah, and the third story. And the third story. Right. Why are you objecting to the third story? Isn't that within the height limit? It's within the height limit, but it's additional encroachment into the setback. So if they had 57 square feet existing and they built on top of the existing footprint only, it would be another 57 feet of encroachment, which could be supported, but it's the additional and a half square feet on the second level and then the 38 square feet on the third level. Okay, understand now. The applicants did submit 15 letters or emails or neighborhood works signatures from adjacent or property owners within the area, eight of which are on the block or the block face and that includes the most affected neighbor to the south. Based on the review of the application and the evaluation criteria for for variances, staff is recommending denial of the variance. Should the request be approved, there will be subject to the special conditions of approval. Let me know if you have any questions. I have a question. Can you go back to the slide that shows the two additions, the expansions. So the city is only taking issue with the one to the left, right, the one to the right is permissible. There is no variance associated with that one. No, a variance is required even if they were just elevating above the existing foundation In terms of setback, right? There's no encroachment to setback no issue with the expansion. Oh, yes, yes correct Okay, it's just the one on the left there. Yes. I don't know what I'm looking at but okay And the third story. Yeah. Oh, I guess I do have a question. Are there any other homes in this area that are three stories, technically three stories? I mean, is this within the character of the neighborhood? Yes, so. Two different questions. So all of those in the shaded purple are two or more stories of living area. So they're proposing two stories of living area, technically three stories with the garage. So all of the shaded purple properties would be either two or more stories of living space. Living space? Yes. So three stories total. I'm sorry if I missed it, but the is the story being proposed as living space? No, the first story. So it's blood elevation and then two stories. Right. Okay, so it's not really a three story. Right. Right. Yes. Restore building, but two stories. Yeah, it's a two story building built at base flood elevation. Right. Yeah. OK. Other questions? Thank you. Thank you. App again. I have a PowerPoint. Good afternoon. I'm Ann Pollock with Trinum Law, 200 Central Avenue, and I'm representing the owners, the de-yungs. So I br into a great presentation and I'm not gonna go into too much detail, but basically this home was built in the 60s on a 60 foot wide lot. The home was flooded and has to be elevated and they're proposing to elevate it on top of the existing structure there, rather than tearing it down, moving it over and building it up on pilings or some other sort of material. Really this is to minimize the construction time, the materials and the cost of renovating. That's why the variance is needed. It has several unique characteristics, the lot width as I stated is only about 60 feet, was verge of 62 feet, which is narrower than what the NS1 lot district would require. And then you add in the 15 feet of required setbacks for the NS1 and you really are reducing even more what you can build down to basically 45 feet. The existing flooded home is within that 45 feet, but it is also built into the current left side setback. Because of the existing pool, it really prevents a one-story solution from providing the appropriate living space outside of the setback. And I realize in some ways I'm saying one story, when I really mean one story above flood elevation, it gets a little confusing when you're having three stories but you only have two stories of living space so I apologize if I get confused there. And then with the rear extension that's really due to the limitations on the size of the property where the pool is actually located currently and structural constraints and roof flame requirements and the water proofing issues that would arise from moving that in. So very importantly I think is the issue of structural reuse. We are trying to preserve the 45 foot width which is common in the area. Reuse the foundation and the layout and minimize waste and demolition. It really reduces the environmental impact. It limits the new materials that have to be purchased at a time when obviously construction materials are getting harder to come by and cost for increasingly escalating. And it really reflects a thoughtful approach to the redevelopment, meeting FEMA compliance compliance and modern living needs without overbuilding or disrupting the neighborhood for an extended period of time. And that really is an important factor because construction time is a big issue for the neighbors. And getting homeowners back in their homes after these neighborhoods were completely devastated by Helene. Anything we can do to make that faster is important here. The home is being designed to be more modern. Yes, most of the lots that were designed and built in the 60s are one story. All the more modern homes are building at least two stories above flood and that's what they're looking to do. Have bedrooms for the parents and two children. They both work from home, so they would like office space and they have a guest room for their grandparents who help with child care. The flood damage and the elevation requirement provides this opportunity for them to do this, where they might not otherwise do that, they have to build it anyway. And the one story home can't meet these needs within that 45 foot width. So it does necessitate the second story, third story, being built to fit this in. And it requires this slight extension to the rear to allow the bedroom that wouldn't ordinarily fit. This is not speculative or excessive redevelopment. It's designed to meet practical family needs while maintaining everything else on the code and keeping the setback where it was. The rear extension, I just wanted to address this briefly, but that strict compliance with the side yard setback would complicate significantly the construction of here. There are structural complications. When you move that room back, it would break the alignment of the main bearing wall. It would introduce structural complexity in the support systems and potentially undermining the stability. It would create a roof line that would intersect with the existing fashion in a manner that would complicate waterproofing and flashing. And we determined that you would really have to move that room quite a bit of ways north in order to resolve those issues. And then you're hitting into where the pool area is and you're kind of crushing down the size of that room and wouldn't make it as usable. It also would have an impact on the existing structure because it's providing support for the offset bearing wall. It would require modifications to the existing structure at the rear left corner, which would involve cutting into the current structure to install new support framing, further disrupting the integrity of the existing building. Truly minimal impact to the surrounding owners. The neighbor to the south is set back more than eight feet. So we are still preserving the open space between the structures. And we don't feel there should be any negative impact with light or air or privacy. We've gone throughout the neighborhood and everyone we've talked to has been supportive. A lot of people weren't home and couldn't be accessed because they're not living there now so we probably could have had more support than we did. But certainly the adjacent neighbor to the South has provided support and all the other adjacent owners. Very compatible with the character of the neighborhood. I think Brian's slide made it pretty clear. Excuse me how adding this second or third story is consistent with ongoing redevelopment trends. homes homes are three stories. Four homes on the street are being elevated and setback encroachments are common on these narrow lots. We are maintaining the original footprint. We're meeting the 45 foot width in common with the neighborhood. We're not expanding into the other side, set back on the other side. We're preserving yard grading, avoiding fill that could impact drainage to the other neighbors. Limiting construction impacts by doing this in a manner that would be more expedient and less materials so that the neighborhood in general isn't impacted as much and really it reflects a modern flood resilient architecture and meets the intent of code. We did consider multiple alternatives. the Southern wall was looked at, but really could not be done with heavy machinery would have to be a slow hand demolition, which would probably double construction costs in the timeline. We looked at full demolition and rebuild, but of course you have major construction waste, environmental impact from all of that demo, and the materials that you would have to buy to redo that first story for elevation, requiring full permitting and approvals for that demo, and extending the time frame. In setting only that third story, because Brian had mentioned that maybe they would be okay more with the second story, but that third story up there was really the problem. And while that was technically possible, it was structurally problematic, aesthetically problematic. It would require offset supports and structural changes to the load bearing walls, introducing waterproofing vulnerabilities, and would be of course visually awkward and disrupt the design as well. And then as I mentioned we looked at in setting the rear expansion but we had issues with that as well. We do have considerable neighborhood support. Many of these neighbors they spoke to but did not get a letter but they were not in opposition and many of them aren't home so we can't even reach them. But definitely support from the adjacent neighbors including the one to the south. We went around the owners one around and looked and found several homes in the general neighborhood that were built into the setbacks that are taller, similar to what we're doing. Nulee elevated homes on the subject block, which Brian pointed out, the left one is being built over the existing house. Clearly the trend is to build up and to do what the neighbors are, what we're proposing. And then of course there are a lot of three story homes. I think Brian's map showed you how many of them there are on this actual block, but really putting what they're proposing into the neighborhood would not be inconsistent with the character of the area. and then just some three story homes in the wider neighborhood throughout this area. So with 27 seconds left, in summary, we have unique characteristics, including the narrow width, the existing position of the home, and the existing pool as it lays. The variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property having considered several different options that would not work. Literal enforcement of the code would result in a necessary hardship and granting the variances in harmony with the code and not detrimental to the public and supported by all adjacent neighbors. So thank you. And the contractor is here with me today to kind of go over details on the more technical things if you have questions. Questions for applicant? There's your comments. When you put it at the that shows the yellow, green, and blue outlines? Right, that's it. So the yellow is the existing, is the outline of the existing house. the green is the outline of the house with the two additions and the blues that cool in debt. Is that correct? That's correct. OK. There is no way I'm going to be able to tell the difference. I'm colorblind. Well, essentially, it just like we could show the one that Brian had, that might be more clear. Yeah, one with the two additions. It shows the, yeah. Mm-hmm. Oh, okay. Thank you. I'm still in colors, but I know I can see it. Okay. And so then, if... I think we can leave it there. So the... Okay, so this tells me, I absolutely agree with you that setting back the third floor, one foot further to the right for the southeast is not practical. From a construction point of view, from a waterproofing point of view, and it would look like poop. I'm not as convinced that, and I see now the plan that helps actually when I see the overlay, because as I said earlier, it looked to me like the shift between the extent of the existing house and then the extension with the proposed addition is that that line was right where the dividing line between the primary bathroom and the bedroom is. I see now that the break between the purple and the yellow is about two feet into the primary bedroom. Can you see where I'm talking? Right. Because the property is skewed, even though you're at 6.41 feet at the bottom left hand corner, you're actually at 6.72 feet at the upper corner. That's correct. It's 10 inches. Correct. You're at that location, not 13 inches. I think it may be even less. Like six inches, maybe. Yeah. Correct. I think it's even less. Like six inches maybe. Yeah. And looking at the massing of the building, it would be possible to shave one foot off that master bedroom, that primary bedroom, and you could even go to your elevations. And so maybe I'm being, like I said, petty here, but I don't see it as the same standard of a hardship to just narrow the master bedroom actually because that such a long wall architecture, I could argue that it might actually be kind of nice to have a break in that wall. And it gets rid of one of the two encroachments that the city has object to, city staff is objective to. I do agree that the third floor is just create so much complication that I think that would just not work, but I think that one, and if you go through, look at the rear elevation, the proposed rail elevation. By the way, the design is really nicely done. The plans are nice. The elevations are really, it's an attractive house. And just to sort of minimize the amount of encroachment into the neighbor's property. And maybe that's OK because the neighbors signed off on it. But if I could, Kayla, can you go to the slide that shows the exterior elevations and shows the rear? That's the front. Maybe that wasn't the staff in this presentation, but it was in the staff report. Yeah, the rear elevation is not a thing. Okay. All right. Well, anyway, the point is, do you disagree that it would be not that difficult to, yeah. So the primary bedroom is on the lower right hand. It's got the gable roof with the shed roof and the triple window. And if that right wall of that bedroom just came in one foot, then basically you would get rid of one of the two places where the city is objecting into the accrogements. There's a structural reason that's not really a practical. I can understand that you like the extra foot in the primary bedroom probably, but I guess I'm just asking, is that a major, are there structural problems which is moving that one wall in? Well, I can answer that question. Let me introduce myself first. I'm Jim Sanders. I'm a Arthur Ruttenberg home, franchisee in Charlotte County. My daughter is Jenna. John is my son-of-law. So I'm helping them out with this process. So you're, I'm sorry? Yes, yes, I was sworn. So you are actually correct. We have looked at doing that. However, part of the problem is that just moving into the minimum setback, it complicates the roof line. The, I can show you on a rear elevation, I think I have here. The facial line would be the problem. The, the, the rate of the fascia's would intersect with each other on that back elevation. I've got one here. I can if you could. So you because we we did draw that okay but it would create a a flashing detail. Yeah okay I've got a yeah I actually highlighted one in color might be not going to seem about. But in order to get enough differentiation, we had to pull that even even. Even the roof behind the yellow roof in front. Correct. I mean, that's exactly what I could. Yeah. So, but we had to pull it in further than the set. So that that new yellow facial line is further... It needed to be at least two foot so that the roots would slide past each other. Correct, exactly. Exactly. So we could do that. However, it starts to really pinch that bedroom. And you can't go... We can't go to the pool because we're constructed that way. that way. So, you know, I understand the objection, but we were trying to keep a building line, it was in line and not have to change that. And certainly, you know, it could be a more attractive thing, but it's also more complicated, it's complicated structure. And then below, we would have to offset if you went into the foundation, we would have to put new bearing inside of the existing walls of the house, the existing lower level, to carry that load. Because- Oh, we'd have to cut into the house, put new foundation inside of the house to carry that new bearing point of that interior wall of the house, of that new bearing line, I guess you'd say. Yeah, okay. I have a question. Do you not believe that the existing foundations will require reinforcing based on the fact that it's carrying twice the amount of house? Absolutely. We know that we're going to have to reinforce the foundation, probably structurally add some concrete, pile aster's and whatnot. I had an engineer up here this week looking at that. So we're working on that. We don't have all the answers to that yet, but yeah, we're going to definitely have to do that. But I've done this before, you know, in Charlotte County, we got hit with two KET 5 hurricanes. And so I've done this kind of thing down there before So yes, I'm familiar with what we'll have to do to the structure To the existing it doesn't seem to be too far off to Adjust the foundations of that location since they're being adjusted already to support the additional load You could you could say that right you could but we're going to have to go inside of the existing structure cut the wall you know prepare some new foundation to support that load rather than keeping that line just straight back was our thought process. Okay thank you. Other questions? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to cut the slab and build a new load bearing wall on that south end of the property which would be the left side as you face the front? By the time you put in pie lasers on an existing non-load bearing wall that's not designed to carry two additional living floors above, I'm a contractor myself. I'd say go and cut the slab, pour a new footer that's appropriate, build a wall that's load bearing and be done with it. So I don't quite get, you know, there's a setback for a reason you're putting a lot of load on that. And by the time you start cutting open that wall and doing all this, get it gone. Just because you're looking at a substantially larger livable space at this point. Your three stories tall, you're looking at substantially more livable space. Plus, you have all the storage down below. It's relatively minimal cost to go and cut that slab, do a new footer that's load bearing for three floors, and build it the pilasters, with a 16 by 16 block for a pilaster. And you meet set back and you've built your load bearing wall that way. Would you agree that's an option? Well, it's an option. But then at that point, you don't have this jog in your fascia at the rear left. You're just are you suggesting just from that that bedroom back do that rather than the entire South wall? Yeah, I know we could you're right. We're when we're looking at a single story building at a second floor, that's one thing. Now you're going a third floor. You're talking major changes to that wall to make it load bearing. There was a comment earlier about getting heavy equipment in there. Well you're not going to hand do that work anyway. They're going to have a bobcat in there. It's not hand work. To get that footer done, it's easier just to scrape it and be done with it. Get rid of that South wall. Now you meet setback. I mean, it's a little concerning that the one foot offset at the rear is creating a huge ordeal on the thing. I could see there could be some issues here, but you're getting substantially more square footage without meeting setback. Have you done a cost for both? Not totally, but I will tell you this. I came, we got the survey done early on, and I came here and I met with with Brian and I asked the question about, I knew that there was a variant setback issue there and I asked the question, you know, to him was this possible and he told me that this case would probably be streamlined so we proceeded that direction. So could we do what you're saying? Yes but we started in a direction based on our early conversation here at the city that this would be something that would be very doable. So that's where we started. We started with that direction. But I still think that there's some cost savings by not having to destroy that South wall, in my opinion. But when you look at the overall expense of doing a massively different home, it's minimal amount. It's minimal. You're talking extremely expensive build as presented here, and all you have to do is essentially narrow off the south side of the building by one foot, and you'd have good load bearing wall all the way up. And you'd meet code, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this, we're like, yep, no problem. A lot of the neighbors around there, what they're doing is they're taking their at grade, ranch style home, they're lifting it it and we're letting them, you know, that's getting streamlined because they're taking that existing structure just lifting it in air, they're not increasing setbacks. So just point out that the cost here is negligible for meeting that South setback based upon everything that you're looking at in presentation And I have no further. We'll keep this moving on Other questions for the applicant Okay, are there any blue cards? Staff do you have any cross examination? That believes and we have any cross examination? Staff waves. And you have any cross examination? No, no. Staff do you have any closing statements? Staff waves. Okay. Closing statement. Just going to say one thing and then Jenna D'Young is going to speak by just that, you know, we're trying to minimize the impact. We recognize that there are, you know, potential structural things that will have to be done for this. But ultimately, we're trying to keep the frame as is and minimize the cost, minimize the materials, and all together, you know, come up with something that gets us back as quick as possible. I'm going to let Jenna just say a few words about what she's been doing. Hi, I'm Jenna Virginia D. Young is my legal name. My address is 6600, biogramble of our northeast. Her husband John, I have been sworn in, sorry. We've lived in Tango Woods since 2016. Have two young daughters, their age is six and four. This is where we built our life, where we want to stay and raise our family. In September, 2024, our home flooded with over 30 inches of water. We lost everything. While many chose to leave, we decided to stay and rebuild. Because we love this community, and we believe in its future. With the help of my father, the General Condractor of the 40 years, We've created a plan that elevates our home to meet FEMA standards while preserving the character of the new broad. To make the plan work, we're requesting a left side set back variance. We're not trying to overbuild. We've designed a modest home with a small bump out in the back just enough to make it livable long term for our family. We've done everything we can to follow the rules, meet code, and respect the surrounding homes. I focused on reaching out to all of my neighbors closest to our property and on our street, mainly by phone, since we're all displaced. Everyone I spoke to was supportive. Several even offered to call others on my behalf. Many were relieved to hear we're not tearing down, not raising fill, and not selling to investors. They like us want to see the neighborhood rebuilt by families who care. We're simply trying to get home. We respectfully ask for your support in approving this variance so we can move forward to continue investing in the place we love. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll go into executive session. Okay, thank you. We'll go into executive session. I'll start. So you know I raised a question about the encroachment for the new bedroom at the west of of the property. And Commissioner Flint raised a question about construction methods. And I think they're fair questions, but I also think they had fair responses. We're trying to figure out how to rebuild after these storms. There's going to be a lot of different opinions and a lot of different ways to do it. And I think it's going to be good to see some experimentation on different approaches and different methods. And I think they've made a strong argument in this case as to that, but in their opinion, preserving the existing walls and building on top of them, yes, it's going to require adjustments to the foundation, yes, there's going to have to be additional reinforcement to those walls. But especially in this case that the overall encroachment is very narrow, it's a little bit over a foot at the south end, it's less than a foot, or at the east end, less than a foot at the west end, and they've got strong support of the neighbors. And I do think the argument that this has the potential for expediting construction. Again, I'm not sure that that'll be the case, but I think it's, like I said, I think having different approaches and trying different approaches and how to solve these problems is a good, is good to see. So I'm going to support it. I don't have a problem with the third story, the second story and the third story. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, we have a nonconforming use now. It was built in a setback. I have a problem with that left side extension, expansion, increasing the nonconformity. If we were in the same footprint and we had the expansion on that just the right-hand side, I'd have no problem with this, but I do. I don't like the idea that we're going to be increasing the nonconformity with that expansion. Commissioner Flint, you said this is an enormous undertaking where they're adding a lot of square footage. Now you want to get just a little bit more to increase your nonconformity. I have a problem with that. I think they have some options where they could put the third story to the right side, which would be the north side of the home, where they meet the setbacks. They had seeded the setbacks. What we've always ended up with out here on cases, and again, that we deal with quite a few cases out there. And we always get neighbors that show up and say, we've got this three-story monstrosity coming in on these suburban ranch-style homes. And what is always mitigated is always having meeting setbacks. Personally, I could live with the existing first floor being where it's at on the south side. I would even be fine with it going up a second floor because that's what we would generally allow in these flood situations to lift the ramp-style home. What I really have the problem is, yes, that back extension that stays in the setback and the third floor that's not meeting the setback. I just think if they had started with the thought process of let's move some of this to the north side because as I mentioned before, this is substantially more livable space than what they've started with, and then they're going to gain a lot of storage. What we're tasked with is everybody out there starts pointing at these things and saying, I want exactly what they got. Well, we need to have a reasonable method for making sure we're fair with everybody on shore acres, that's in the same situation. And it was in the new zoning change that Cory had mentioned earlier hasn't passed yet. All right, if you are just lifting that home straight up and putting garage below, not a problem. We want to help people redevelop. But this case, I think there's room to change the plan and not have a three-story vertical wall that doesn't meet setback. I agree. I agree. I mean, I think that there are creative options to explore in terms of, you know, relocating that addition that falls within the setback, the required setbacks, that portion, if the square footage is desired, could occur in an area that is within the build a bowl area. So I'm curious, I don't know, chair of this question for you. I am agreeing with my colleagues that I have a problem with the further encroachment on that south west side, yeah west, but I'm okay with the three stories. I'm okay with the expansion on the other side. I mean, is there a way that we can sort of approve? I have a similar question but so if you'll hear me I'll kind of cut you online and I'll say. Yeah please. Can you Kayla please pull I know you can't see it but can you pull back up the green yellow and blue? My favorite part is if we could use the. From staff presentation. Oh no. the laser printer and I can't see that either. I really, you can't see the dot. No, I when he was doing those pilings, it doesn't show up as gray or even. Nothing. Oh, yeah, I'm assuming and that's really helpful. So is the yellow and I don't know if it's the question. Purple yellow one is actually much better. But this shows green in a different location than the yellow. I think there are offset enough just so that you can see. Can you explain? Actually, I'm being told this isn't the- That's what we should grind in the first case of town. That's what we were thinking of through it. That's not- That's not what I'm going to this isn't the that's what we should Brian first came to town That's not okay, okay, so the purple yellow one is the one that actually is the most okay Well, okay, cuz I was just confused on that so never mind then that if that's not we're using then no, okay, that makes sense so The addition on the addition on the north side isn't on before us because that's co-compliant. We don't, we're not reviewing that. What we're reviewing is the encroachment just on the south side and there's two components of that. And what the city staff has identified as an objection is the encroachment where it goes further west to create that primary bedroom, the owner suite as it's called out of the plan. And then the third floor portion, that's along the south wall. The city staff is not objected to the second floor for, I think, logical reasons. Right. So, and with that in mind though, my second question, this one is for staff. The request says approval of a variance to the side, yard set back to allow redevelopment of a single family home in the existing footprint. But that doesn't seem like what we've been discussing. Is that not the variance we're requesting? What's both for the existing and the addition? I think there's a big difference. We should separate that, and I think perhaps also the third story. I like the way this house looks. I am not the contractor or the architect. I am the one that has to, you know, we all have different expertise on this commission. And so I find myself wanting to find a way to support this, but I mean, we denied something earlier today unanimously that said, we can't go into where the pool is. And that was one of the arguments here. And so the third floor doesn't bother me. The idea of going up, the idea of moving fast, all of that I agree with, but it's not an approval of variance to the side yard setback on the existing footprint. And so that's the part that I'm hung up on. So maybe we have not tried to, you were asking a question about the roof line, so I won't call you off redesigning, Ray. We're in, we can't redesign this. This is way too complicated. And so maybe the best, but there's stuff here I want to support. So maybe the best move is to break this up into three votes. And I'd like to remind and point out here everybody everybody the hundreds of homes that flooded out there. So what we agree to do here is going to be referenced on everything. Because again, the initial thought process is how do we help people redevelop, lift that single story ranch home. Now it's a two story building. Now we're talking, keeping the building and going vertical. So what impact is it going to have across potentially hundreds of properties out, shore acres and others? So I think just keeping that in mind that everybody's going to be looking at this and saying, we're going to do the same thing so we can stay within that. So when you say three parts, I interpret that to be the second floor addition that's directly on top of the exist on the south all of this is related to the encroachment on the south side. So the three components are the second story addition that's directly on top of the existing one story wall. The third floor component that is on top of the second floor. Yeah, it's the same boundary. Well, and it's a little bit smaller, but it's still right there on that. Well, the way it's smaller. It's the same. I don't know we have to spend that way. And then on the second floor, first and second floor, There's a further extension to the west of about 12 or 14 feet. That's also then now getting, it would be enjoying an encroachment into the setback. So those are the three components that we're talking about. And you say, if we were to break into three parts. Just make sure all on the on the same page. That's though, I was thinking. The silence could be to me. So I think we can make motions on those three. And I'll be happy to give it a shot. Okay. I think, Commissioner Clements, I think, because I actually think this is written wrong. Yeah. But it works for us, for at least the first two. So I think when you, you know, redeveloped the single family home for the second story in the existing footprint, then the third story in the existing footprint, then somehow you got to come up with the language of third one. And, and, and, and, Corey, just to make sure I'm clear, we do need that variance for the, even the second floor, even, right? Yeah. Well, let's be clear on what the second floor is R2. First half rule floor, second half rule. Yeah, right, in our nomenclature. So an approval of A variance to the side yard setback to allow redevelopment of a single family home to allow redevelopment of a single family home to allow redevelopment of a single family home that allows the first, the lower habitable level, the second floor, which is the lower habitable level, to be built on top of the existing footprint of the house. Second subject to conditions of approval. Staff condition. Black. Yes. So. Yes. Clemens. Yes. Really? Yes. Adelaide. Yes. Good. Yes. That motion passes. Approval of a variance to the side yard setback to allow redevelopment of a single family home that allows a third floor in parentheses, second habitable level above the existing footprint of the house. Subjects. Subject to conditions to approval. Second. Do we want to discuss this a little bit? Everybody ready to vote? We're not sure. I'm ready. Okay. And just so I am clear. Because I'm, you know, none of this matters for that addition on the on the other side of the house. It's a code compliant. All right great. So they could do that still no matter what we say. Yes. But you were my second. Yes. What? Yes. Yes. Yes. lemons. Yes. Really? Yes. Madelope? Yes. Yes. Mission passes. I move approval of a variance to the side yard setback to allow redevelopment of a single family home that allows for a side yard setback variance. For a proposed expansion. Or the previous. Just refer to the site plan on this one. Yeah. That allows an encroachment in the side yard setback for an X a two expansion at the Southwest corner at the Southwest corner of the property as shown on the site plan. Subject this condition to approve. Second. What? No. No. No. I'm in. Yes. Really? No. No. No. No. Limmons. Yes. Really? No. Not love. No. Wood. No. All right. Thank you. You need a break. You need a break? I need a break. Okay. That was a lot. All right, so we'll take a... An eight-minute break. We'll start at five. Taking an eight. That was very impressive. you music music Yeah. 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 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. you you I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of 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 gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. you I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do to the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I you All right. We're back in session. Next item is 7 case 24-51-000002-736-7th Avenue North. Seth. Shervon Chamble-South Development Review Services. Avenue S1. The subject property consists of one platic corner lock located on 7th Avenue North between Grove Street North and 8th Street North in the historic uptown neighborhood. This property is owned in T2. As a bit of background, the property consists of approximately 7,238 square feet. The property currently has five existing units situated between two buildings. The first building is a two-story frame structure that has four units, and then the second story is a building that is masonry. It has the last remaining unit. Business tax certificates have been maintained for the five rental units, so rent statement is not required. As you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, as you can see, the last remaining unit. Business tax certificates have been maintained for the five rental units, so a range statement is not required. As a correction to the staff report, the total growth square footage existing between the two buildings is 4,200 and four square feet. This results in a existing floor area ratio of 0.52. This application requests the approval of redevelopment plan with advances to the for-area ratio, the impervious surface ratio, and setbacks to allow for the redevelopment of the five existing dwelling units into five townhome units. And here are some photos of existing site conditions from 7th Avenue North on the left hand side and then from Grove Street and the alley on the right. Since the publication of the, excuse me, since providing public notice, the applicant has revised the initial submission to address the request the request advantages. This application's initial submittal proposed a building with a front porch and building encroachments along 7th Avenue North into the required building setbacks. The properties current NT2 zoning requires porches to maintain 18 foot front yard setbacks and four buildings to maintain 25 foot front yard setbacks. As proposed initial request the building was approximately 19 feet from the front yard line and the porch was about 13 and a half feet from the front yard line. As shown in this plan the applicant designed this site plan so that the parking spaces would be out of alley loading and compliance with the district regulations. This plan for the five units incorporates a parking space for each unit. Under the multifamily standards, only four parking spaces would currently be required, but five are being provided one for each unit. along with walkways to Grove Street to Seventh Avenue and walkways from the parking spaces to the rear up to the sidewalks on Seventh Avenue along the back of the building. In doing so, this plan incorporates enlarged parking stall depths. The depths of the stall are approximately 25 feet, which they're required to stall depth for parking spaces only about 18 feet. This resulted in the increase of the impervious surface to exceed the 65% ratio. In consideration of the setback and impervious surface variance is the applicant has revised the site plan to reduce the impervious surface ratio from 66% to 64% by reducing the oversized stall depths from 25 feet to approximately 21.5 feet. This in turn allows the building and the front porch to be recessed and to reduce the magnitude of the vans has requested leaving the the relocated front porch to comply with building setbacks, the building itself, its setback will be revised from approximately 20 feet to or 19 feet to 23 feet, which was separately approved through a reduced setback request provided by the applicant in addition to the redevelopment plan. So that approval for the building to have a 23 foot front yard setback has been handled separately. And here we have the original floor plan. In this submission an FAR of 0.73 or 5,829 approximate square feet was proposed for each unit having two bedrooms, two bathrooms, porches, and a street facing balconies. In efforts to reduce the floor area ratio, increased sizes for each of the porches or each of the open porches on the first floor or added and the applicant converted the second story, the second bedrooms, excuse me, on the second floors for units two and four, they were converted into patios with solid knee walls. The former second bedroom closets were retained as additional external storage closets. The resulting modifications decreased the floor area ratio by approximately 669 square feet taking the FAR request from its prior 0.73 down to the redevelopment plans allowable 0.65. And here we have elevations of the front and rear facades. The front and rear facades have largely remained the same and the building complies with the height limits permitted by the zoning. The front door of unit on the north elevation was originally non-functioning and has been revised to be functioning as the front entrance of the building and the unit. Here we have comparison elevations provided by the applicant. To the left and the original submission, each of the five units entry doors face Grove Street North, which is the property street side yard, and revising the plans, the applicant internally oriented two of the entry doors in the middle units, units 2N4 and relocated the front door of Unit 1 from Grove Street to 7th Avenue, leaving only two doors to face Grove Street instead of 5. In the elevations, the revised elevations, excuse me, on the right hand side, the cover patios for units 2N4 were added with the solid knee wall instead of full length screen panels to provide increased privacy for the tenants and to provide outdoor space buffering for the neighboring property next door. pursuant to the review criteria in terms of scale and mass, the proposed building has been designed as a two-store structure in the colonial revival architectural style. This form of architecture is recognized by the city's design guidelines for historic properties and is consistent with similar two-store rectangular hip roof building types along this surrounding area. The applicant has chosen to maximize the redevelopment plans allowable 0.5 FAR by seeking an additional 0.15 FAR using the redevelopment plans allowed bonuses. The proposal does meet the criteria for the FAR bonuses sought in terms of building height setbacksbacks, and building tight, the building scale of the street and across the street, very between one and two story, single and multi-family buildings, the revised elevations and plans reflect the projects, building height, setbacks, and roof design, given the surrounding development in the NT2 zoning. In terms of site orientation and development, access to the site will again will be provided via walkways to each of the abutting sidewalks from all front doors and along the rear of the building, off street parking spaces. Once again, we'll be ally loading and compliance with the district regulations and each parking space has been allocated to a unit. The development does not propose an alteration to the existing grid pattern of the neighborhood. It does not involve the development of multiple lots and it does provide its required pedestrian entry off of 7th Avenue North. In consideration to public comments, the application was noticed to all property owners within 300 feet in the association. No comments were received from the historic uptown neighborhood association. Comments from the general public, from the general public, consisted of two calls and an email. One of the calls was in support of the request, citing a reduction in the turnover of transient renters and increased and home ownership to deal with perceived property maintenance and management issues. It also noted the welcoming of alley loading on-site. The second express concerns for off-street parking accommodations and the need for better sanitation services for trash along the alley. Based on the review of the redevelopment application, according to the evaluation contained in the criteria the city code, development services recommends approval of the the requested redevelopment plan subject to the evaluation contained in the criteria the city code development services recommends approval of the requested redevelopment plan subject to the conditions found in the staff report and I remain available for questions. I have a question. Are we no longer than approving floor area ratio setback and ISR variances those have been taken taken care of. Right, through the revision, correct. Okay. Are there any variances now? No. Just a redevelopment approval. Correct. Okay. And does the redevelopment approval incorporate the FAR bonus request? Yes. That's what I thought. Regarding the front entries, So on the corner unit, the unit that faces seventh, there are two functioning front doors, there's one facing grove and one facing seventh. In the floor plan? Yes. So it has been clarified by the applicant, that's done to show that on unit, instead of making a singular floor plan for that floor on unit one, because it's intended to represent the entrances for the unit face group growth. Right. And then the one that you see that faces seven, that's going to be the floor plan for the first unit. And then the other two, the two are around the corner. They are side loading, correct. Off of the patio. I should play. Mr. Shamless, on some of these other properties where you've had two dwelling units allowed, it's a single family area. It's always been a requirement that the property was made to look like a single family home. And the existing property, buildings that are on that property, look like they're originally single family homes, they've got that look field of single family. Is there any requirement in this one that they be made to look more like a single family home? Because town homes are not really predominant in that area. There's a lot of, as our local historian, Mr. Clemens has said over time, you know, you have these large homes that were subdivided into smaller apartments. So there's several of those in the area. So they look like these oversized homes that are subdivided in apartments. My only concern on this is just it looks like town homes in an area that's not really town homes. And I know on others again we've required doors around the side to make it look like it's just got one entryway. Any input on that? Whether that was a factor in staff approval. So it was because of the intended development type that was originally proposed with all of the doors. The applicants based off of feedback from the department did incorporate a lot of the changes that the commission would ordinarily see staff make in redevelopments that don't necessarily deal with this number of units. It was expressed to staff that it was the desire of the applicant to retain all of the units as best they could utilizing the plan that they had. So of course we provided all of the standards within the redevelopment plan and they took e and addressing the variances. It's just this was the particular model the applicant chose. Could they have potentially split it into two buildings with a gap between? Because what you have is you have a main predominant building at the north end and then looks like more of a single family home that's been added on to at the south end, much lower roof line. So you have, you know, easily two very separate buildings there. Any thoughts given to that potential layout to break it up some? It was an option. Again, this was the desired expression of the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Last question. Just to the east side of was at Grove Street. You have a lot of public parking there along the roadway. You only have parking on the east side of it. of it, which gets heavy use because you have several commercial businesses there, flatbread and butter, the beer boutique, and several other businesses. So a lot of those spaces tend to stay full. Do you know if those parking spaces are limited to two-hour parking or are they all day parking? This particular section of Grove Street, I honestly do not know. Okay, thank you. Enough questions. Thank you. So we're two of the doors that were facing direction on the Grove where they moved around to the side because of comments from staff then? Correct. Because of that very issue that Commissioner Flint brought up. Correct. So in meetings with the applicants, there was a project or two that was shared where a side loading door was essentially required for the town home development. Granted, it was of a smaller size, there were only two units, but the applicant essentially re-oriented the front door to phase seventh, and then instead of making all of the doors internally oriented, to have, since they all have porches, to at least minimize the number of doors if they couldn't completely eliminate them. Are these going to be sold fee-simple, do you know? That will be a question for the applicant. OK. And some of the neighborhood to when we looked at that. That is a zoning issue. You may not be within zoning. Can you? Yeah, I can. I can. OK. So also to looking at the neighborhood and it's kind of eclectic there, where you have multi-family and you have some that maybe have two doors facing history you have some that have one and then maybe a side just because how they were subdivided at some point or how they're built that's why we went away from five doors to like two doors you know facing two internally you can't see and then one facing seventh to kind of be consistent with that and there's some large buildings in that area too, and there's some small buildings in that area. It's extremely, it's one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. So it's just very nice. And to the core is point, if I could have the presentation, I can actually show you a photo of the building directly across the street. Although it has three doors and the doors are internally oriented, given the pedestrian experience, you can still see and feel the presence of the three doors where on other developments, when you traverse seventh, you may see only one or you may see a primary door and then a door with a porch on the side of it. So like these are other examples of property, oramily developments along 7th. So where the truck is on the top right, you have a multifamily building that has no entrances that face 7th at all versus having single family products or the neighboring property, which is directly underneath it to your point only has one door with multiple units in it In terms of what I was showing you is here So the building towards the middle top it has three internally oriented doors in this two-store structure that has multiple units in it And that's one of the ones I was looking at. I'm like, this might have been one of those large homes. It was subdivided years ago. Notice that one. It works. Other questions for Okay, up again. My name is Alexandria Olic. I currently reside at 460 and 93rd Avenue North. And I have been sworn in. So first of all, I just want to say hello and good afternoon, everyone. I would like to thank all of you for being here today and of course extend a very special thank you to both Shervan and Mr. Cory with the city for all of their help in bringing this project before you today. I will be presenting this redevelopment plan on behalf of the property owners, Mona and Mamdu O'Couley, as well as on behalf of Coley International Incorporated who are the structural engineering consultants for this project. As I'm sure you all know, any redevelopment project is a very involved undertaking, so every effort has been made to both meet the architectural guidelines of the district and maintain the historical aspects of the nearby structures while utilizing this opportunity to simultaneously revive and revitalize our historic downtown district. We hope to achieve this by replacing the existing five grandfathered in units with the cohesive look of five new town homes, which feature a very inviting facade, large porches, lush, tropical landscaping, and five off-street covered parking spaces. As you can see here, the structure on the left is comprised of four dwelling units, and on the right hand side is the existing single stand-alone dwelling. Here you can see how the two compare to one another with our proposed redevelopment plan meeting all of the city guidelines set forth with our bonuses for the FAR, and it will help alleviate the strain of on-street parking with the addition of those five private spaces. Shown here is the future view from Grove Street with the notable changes from our initial plan. So units two and four. So this would be unit two and unit four here are the only units that will have doors that will face Grove Street whereas units three and five are to be entered along this face here as Shervon mentioned during his presentation. And as you can see from the view from seventh Avenue North unit number one will be entered from this street face. And this is all of course as per the city's request. Shown here is a look of our landscaping plan just to better exemplify all of those aspects that I've been yapping at you about so far, such as the wide array of plants that we would like to add, as well as the expansive porch spaces and the attached carport on the south side. So in order to help bring this project to life, we had to make several very significant changes to our initial redevelopment plan and application. such change was an 8% decrease to our proposed floor area ratio. All five of the units in question had this wall shifted inwards by three feet. And then the second floor of both units, two and four, we saw the removal of one bedroom and one bath to be replaced with this balcony and outdoor storage area shown here. By making those changes, we were able to reduce our initial FAR from 0.73 to 0.65 with a loss of approximately 670 square feet. One of the other major changes that we had to make, as you can see, involved the building setbacks. So here is a table that was provided by Shurvan, showing all of the data that he compiled for the average existing setbacks in the block, which include the stoop, the porch, and the building setbacks. I went ahead and summarized that previous slide here, just so we can all more easily compare the code requirements, the average existing setbacks in the block, and those of the edge town homes, which will be the name of our proposed redevelopment plan. By shifting the entirety of the development approximately four feet south, we were able to meet both the stoop and the porch setbacks. And then this also greatly improved the building's front setback request, which was approved by the city on Monday. In addition to improving the front setback, this shift also brought our impervious surface area ratio down to 0.64, which now falls under the maximum allowed of 0.65. Before I conclude our presentation today, these are just the few points that I would like to touch on once again. Since our initial submission, every possible effort has been made to meet. And we have since achieved the required floor area ratio, building setback and impervious surface area requirements necessary for the redevelopment of the edge. And we firmly believe that once approved the edge, including its five private parking spaces, will be an inviting and positive addition to our highly desired historical neighborhood. Thank you all for your time today. We appreciate it. It's for the applicant. Nope, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. No blue cards. No blue cards. Staff, do you have any cross? Staff waves. Do you have any cross examination questions for staff? Staff and including statements? Staff waves. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Go on a second session. Well, I mean, we had a lot of work to do on this one. But now, let's go. Yeah, staff did it for us. Yeah. So, um, and the applicant. Does anyone have any concerns they want to discuss? I'm really concerned. The concern was with the original submission to us that it just looked too much like a town home all those doors facing grove This is a substantially better Elevation with the breakup of those doors. You know, there's always issues anything, but overall that change really has some dramatic impact on this project. The only concern I would have here, which I don't think we have any control over, it's going to happen. When you go from the existing tenant mix there, you probably have fewer people that own vehicles. I do see the potential for some parking issues because now I would be surprised if the homeowners, town homeowners, are two vehicles each and quickly spill over from the five. But again, it goes from zero spaces to five. I think it's a wonderful development and it's great that they worked so closely with staff to achieve those those code requirements so I think it's great I would love to make a motion unless there's other okay I make a motion to approval of the redevelopment plan to allow the redevelopment of five dwelling units into five town homes with variances to the very oh and that's it. That's it. Subject to the conditions in approval. Second. Yes. Yes. So? Yes. Lovens. Yes. Yes. Reale. Yes. Madalo. Yes. Lenny. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, last item number eight, case 25-3200001, 22220230, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South. Thank you, Corey Milischka, as unofficial city of St. Petersburg. All right, Before we eat today is a commercial property located at 222 30 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets South. In the building located at 22 30 Martin Luther King Jr. Streets South that was constructed in 1952 and is a multi tenant building as proposed to currently occupy as a retail grocery store and take out restaurant, as well as there's an existing building on the north side of the property that was built in 1998 and was recently housing a retail furniture store. The St.P. Free Clinic, which currently operates at 863 Third Avenue North is seeking to relocate to the subject property. The clinic proposes to renovate the existing building at 2200 ML King streets south and to both the medical and organizational office space as well as the supply pantry. The building at 2230 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street's proposed to be demolished. The medical office uses are both permitted in the uses in the CCT-1 zoning district. The supply pantry uses a social service use that requires approval by the commission. And that is why we're here today. This is just showing you the existing survey on the left hand side and the proposed site plan. The applicant proposes to construct a new parking lot in the location of the building that will be demolished. The existing vehicular and pedestrian access to the site will remain unchanged. The existing parking lot on the north side of the sub-duper property and loading dock on the east side of the building will also not be altered. The existing number of onsite spaces currently are significantly less than what is required by code. The code currently requires 73 parking spaces and there are 37 located on the site. The change of the use requires one additional parking space for a total of 74. The applicant proposes to construct an additional 12 parking spaces on site. The city code states that parking requirements be met the time of building a new structure And large or increasing the density or density or changing the use it requires additional parking The code also says the requirement shall only apply to the increase in that requirement for the new construction or expansion or that intensity of use So therefore the applicant is providing the additional one parking space plus 11 additional parking spaces above that decreasing the existing non conformity. Just the existing picture looking at the building at 2200 MLK again, I can find the former furniture store. There are in addition to the special exception criteria, the development review commission should also consider the following requirements and turning weather to approve, approve conditions or deny the request for the social service agencies. So listed within the code, the first requirement is if the facility shall be served and accessed to MEST Transit. PSTA, Route 20 runs along Dr. Martin Luther, Virginia Street, South. The adjacent to the property has a bus stop located 22nd Avenue South. Secondly, the facility shall be adequate size and designed to reasonably accommodate the projected capacity. The existing facility is approximately 18,000 square feet, which is proposed to be again, demised into professional medical offices, as well as the supply, panthering, and warehouse space. The facility shall have internal and external waiting areas sufficient for the proposed maximum number of persons waiting. There will be no external waiting areas proposed. There will be internal areas for those visiting the center. Exterior waiting and exterior activity areas shall be adequately buffered from residential properties and again there's no exterior waiting areas. This is another view if you're looking east from ML King. Again parking so the city code requires long and short term housing uses shall provide at least two spaces plus one for each staff person. There's no housing located on the property. Other users shall provide one space for every 200 square feet, parking for the supply pantry does require the one per 200. The general office use here requires one per 400 square feet and the medical office would require one per 300 square feet. Also, social service agencies with the same special exception of use shall prohib prohibit it within 12 hundred square feet of another such use. While there is another small supply pantry that is nearly located 2,000 feet away from this subject property, that is Operation Attack and that is located at 1310, 22nd Avenue Self. Again, the last criteria is office and long and short termterm housing uses to show me the maximum density, lot, FAR height and ISR requirements and the minimum lot yard requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. Other uses to show me the maximum lot FAR height and ISR requirements and minimum lot and yard requirements are the most similar use in the zoning district in which they are located. Again, there are no longer short-term housing options here at the property. The proposed office spaces apply pantry meets the requirements of the code. It does not exceed the maximum lock coverage, FAR high and ISR that's already in the code. Again, this is just a view of the actual grocery store building. It's located at 2230 ML King. The commission is also required to review the special exception criteria that is contained in the code and that's going to be listed under section 16.70.040.1.5.D. That's also included in your staff report. The subject property is located at the intersection to minor arterial streets. The existing building at 2200 ML King streets south, the service parking area and the loading dock will remain in its current configuration. The new service parking let's self the existing building will comply with the district standard. The development meets all required setbacks, ISR, FAR, lot area requirements. Staff has added special conditions of approval to the report to help mitigate for any potential impacts. This is a include fencing as well as landscaping. General medical offices again are permitted within the zoning district. The proposed supply pantry is the social service use that does require approval by the commission since it is a special exception use in this district. And again, one of the review criteria for approving a social service does prohibit another social service of the same use within 100 square feet. And again, the second, what criteria is that no other social service be within 1200 square feet with a different operating use. And neither of those case here, the closest social service again is within within more than 2000 feet away. This is another close up view of the grocery store. Staff does recommend approval of the special exception and related site plan for the social service use at this location. Staff did receive two phone calls, one from a resident and a second from a commercial property owner, both Collar's Express Support of Proposed Project. We did hear some information this afternoon from the tenant of the existing bill that's proposed to be demolished where the existing grocery store is located so they may be here in the audience as well. Okay, I'm going to include my report, thank you. Questions for staff? I've got a quick one. So in reading the staff report, it was by understanding that they are still be non-conforming in terms of non-bearing parking spaces, but it's less of a non-conformity. Did you compute how many parking spaces have been required for the retail center and the furniture store? 73. Oh, it was 73. And then had 37. And then they had to go to 74 because of the. And also to the parking is probably going to be a little less than what they had because they don't know exactly how much general office is going to be in there. So they did their numbers based on the max. So it's probably going to be less than actually what was required today with the perfect more. Thank you. When you mean the demand, the code minimum will be less than actually what is required today with the perfect. Thank you. You mean the demand, the code minimum will be less? Yeah. Is this going to be a setup for the food pantry component where they drive up and their handed food and supplies through a vehicle window or do they have to park and come in? This one they'll go in. Now during COVID it was a little different. Where they actually did go up to the car. You know the applicant can speak to that. But yeah, this is where they go into the center and the facility. Okay. I believe aren't they located up in the Joe's Creek area now doing their food pantry? They have one right on third avenue north between eighth and ML King north. No town. Okay. And they do have a couple different locations on fourth, which is their medical facilities. And reason I ask is I know I believe they've got one up in Joe's Creek industrial between 49th excuse me 34th and 28th street that on the days that they are doing the food, it's a drive up. And I think it's 45th Avenue. The road will be bumper to bumper for five blocks, roughly, three to five blocks. So if it's a different where they actually have to come in, that might not be an issue here. There's always certain days that they have the food giveaway and it creates a traffic issue in that area. It might be something to ask the applicant. What was the nature of the comment you said you received this afternoon about the grocery store? So the existing tenant of the grocery store just found out about being displaced out the building that we didn't demolished so they may be here in the audience to express them. Okay. But otherwise no letters of objection or no phone calls of objection. We actually received a phone call from someone who received support from the free clinic and maybe in the audience as well. And again, another business owner down the block who supported the. Yep. Other questions? Is the applicant here? Afternoon. I'm Jennifer Yegley, CEO for St. Petersburg Free Clinic, 863, Third Avenue, North and I'm sworn. The St. Pete Free Clinic is our community's home for healthcare, for our uninsured neighbors, providing no-cost primary care, a range of specialty care options including cardiology and gastroenterology, no- cost medications, diabetes intervention services, and medical systems navigation. We also operate the community's largest food bank, distributing 17 million meals throughout the county. Our We Help Fresh Pantry, which is our no cost grocery option, serves more than 30,000 visitors monthly across two sites. The location in Joe's Creek, which used to be a drive-through where we would hand groceries out to people driving through. We've actually discontinued that because of the traffic considerations and are looking for alternatives in that area. But we do operate at Third Avenue North now, which is an indoor pantry, and also we have a drive-through on the dooses. And again, we're serving 30,000 visitors monthly across those two sites because demand for the services that we provide is so high. Through our acquisition of the proposed site we aim to expand on our provision of food and health care for our neighbors. Today the highest concentration or high utilization zip code of our downtown fresh pantry is the 3 3 7 0 5 zip code. Locating our critical services in a location that is more convenient for our neighbors is our goal. The proposed use of the building is query stated as a provision of health services and a food pantry. In a survey of our patrons today who live in the 3 3 3 7 0 5 and 3 3 7 1 2 zip codes, 91% so they would appreciate a St. Pete free clinic food pantry and healthcare services in their zip of code. The number of those whom we service staggering, demonstrating the enormous need for our services, but our impact is really felt to the stories of those whose lives have been improved through our work, neighbors like Michael, who came across us, it had community outreach event, uninsured, connected with one of our RNs. Got his A1C and his blood pressure checked. He hadn't been feeling well. His A1C was sky high. He was waiting it out because he knew he was sick, but he wasn't old enough for Medicare and again had no insurance. So through connecting with us, he became a patient of our health center, was able to avail himself of the array of our services, including healthy food. Today his A1C is down, he is feeling much better, and he has expressed his gratitude to SPFC for his ability to continue to be around for his grandchildren to see them grow up. Throughout due diligence process and pursuing the acquisition of the Badcock Building and the adjacent site to expand our parking options, we've reached out and presented in neighborhood, community partners, and community members through which there has been an indication of support for our expansion at this location. I do want to note and reiterate what Corey said that the site plan involves the demolition of a building adjacent to the Badcock building where there are tenants. We are committed to working with those tenants throughout the process, honoring the existing lease agreements that are in place, which do have clauses for termination of leases that include timelines as well as financial considerations. But beyond just honoring the legal obligations, more an organization that thrives through collaboration and has demonstrated our commitment to partnership through our 55 years of operation, and we would continue that commitment through this process. I'd also like to note to Cory's point that I got to call this morning just a few hours before this meeting that the owners of Mayor's Grocery and members of the surrounding community had concerns, which I not heard up to that point. Mayor's Grocery is one of the tenants in the building that would be slated for demolition. I was under the impression that there'd been some communication and some more understanding up to this point as to the plan, but I'm told that's not the case. So I did reach out to the owners this morning. They were gracious enough to meet with me. We did meet briefly now have a direct line of communication in our meeting. We broadly discussed where we are and our commitment to partnership, but we just really haven't had time to flush out what that's going to look like. That said, SPFC is still in our due diligence process, so we're still in process to figuring out the exact specifics ourselves. I would like to reiterate the magnitude of the need for the services that we provide and the scope of our impact and that that need is only increasing and so appreciate the consideration of the commission and just want to further note again our track record of community collaboration and our continued commitment to that thank you very much questions for the applicant Okay, we have some blue cards. First card I have here is Mary Lucius. My name is Mary Lucius. I live at 839, 22nd Avenue South, 3705. This building is directly across the street from where I live. I'm here to see what really is going to happen to the building, which I'm sitting here listening, and that's why I'm here, to get the full understanding of what are you trying to do with the building. Now, my thing is, that's intersection there. It's, there's a lot of accidents at that intersection. As a fact, three days ago, there was a very bad accident right there. The food pantry, you say food pantry and the office space. Now, the food I'm concerned about, because of the rotons in the area, I own that building on 22nd Avenue South. I am the owner, 839. And I'm concerned about the rotons coming through with about the food. I don't know how secure it's going to be up in that building, but I do have eight rotin boxes around my house for this problem. And I have to pay for this, and I don't want it to get any worse while I still live on this earth. So that is my concern. Thank you so much I'm Karen I can't see if it's Louick or Lewin I Have been so I didn't if anyone else has a min soarn can that's gonna speak can you Stand to me sworn. This is My name is Karen Lohan. Here to speak about the building on 22 30 32 34 36 38. I'm one of the tenants there own two spaces the event center the event center, and Miris Grosser, I'm also an employee there. And this restaurant been in this community for 25 years. And this is the only restaurant in the community around the Harbourdale area that you could provide get a hot meal. And it's also a cultural landmark, okay, historic cultural landmark. People from all over come to Taser cuisine and this is a place where everybody get together and you know fellowship, social. And also I spoke to some of the businesses in the area today and they're kind of worried about having a pantry there. You start giving out free food. What happens to the other business in the neighborhood? Okay, people not gonna spend money. And no one reached out to us regarding what was going on. Today, I spoke with Jennifer today and to get a clear understanding of what was going on. And nobody, I've reached out to us. And I think people are maybe she reached out because there was something post on Facebook yesterday and the entire community was upset about what was going on. And online petition, we gathered 1,900 petitions online and over 500 that came in the restaurant yesterday. So it's harder when you have your business and you've been there for so long and for you to just, you know, uproot and relocate and, you know, I just think it's just wrong. So I'm just asking you today not to, you just, you know, I'm not to approve this today you know let's see if we could find other avenues or you know other places that you know that cool houses pantry there's a pantry down the street less than a minute away from where this proposed site is being for the new pantry and I just think that it's unfair to Mr. Miller's been there. Mayor's gross have been there for so long and furniture store that sells furniture for prices that other people cannot afford. Events sender that I run to sometimes back to school event for the kids to, you know, books and uniforms, haircuts, and even for spaces that people cannot afford, you know, a spot to have parties or repass. And I do that at a special rate for them. So I'm just asking you guys to reconsider this. Okay, thank y'all. Jake Geffen. Hi everybody, my name is Jake. I'm representing the Progressive Jewish Coalition of Central Florida. Mayors has been a staple, a community staple for the last 24 years and serves as a bastion of St. Pete history and heritage during a time of rapid growth and development. The importance of preserving and protecting our residents and their businesses is imperative if we are to keep our city the charming and place, we have all worked hard to make it become. As many people here may already know, large areas of our city are known as food deserts. This is a massive and there is a massive historical and community aspect to this that cannot be understated as well. The Jewish Coalition often works with local street medical orgs, food distribution programs, and more, so we absolutely recognize the importance and blessing that is the St. Pete Free Clinic. But we believe a new site should not come via the forced demolition of a historic business. At the Jewish Coalition, we believe that the immense care and extreme respect must be given to the opinions and requests of the mayor's family and staff. The P.J.C. urges this commission to leave mayor's unbothered and kept alive and to make sure that at every step of this process, however it may proceed, that mayor's is a part of the conversation. Thank you. Thank you. I don't want to say this name wrong. Jaha, please correct me, Mrs. Miller. Adisha. Thank you. Good afternoon. Sorry. My name is Kadeja Miller. I'm daughter of Royal Barre Miller, the owner at Mayor's Groceries. As many of you know, Mayor's Groceries has been located at 22nd Avenue in Nice Street for the last 24 years. At the early age of seven, I've had the chance to work on all of my dad for many years serving our community. I'll fight my dad Lee for a cast seven in the morning, coming home as late as 12 a.m. Most days without complaining, sorry. My dad is a rare respect that member of our community, role model to most, but to me in the rest of his family, he's our hero. Labeling my dad as a hard worker would be an honor statement. Author Mary's groceries is mostly known for its good food and groceries. Over the years, we've also been on and considered a safe space for you. A space for mentoring, good music and vibes and a space that has been recognized for good business for my city and community members. We've had the chance to serve not only our community but many celebrities and public figures as well. I am unaware of how I'm sorry. I'm aware of exactly how long the approval for the site point has been but second home to me. This is our history. A history that should not be demolished, moved, or pushed out of the same neighborhood that we've been a pivotal staple for many years. And in less than 24 hours, we have gained over 2000 signatures from those in our community that could save the same. Thank you. Thank you. Last car to have is Angel Torrance. Hello, my name is Angel Torrance. I am residing at 24th, 25th Street South. 33705, this is the same community that mayors has their business. I am also representing the neighborhood association of Harbordale as the president. I would like to mention that Mayors has been around for 24 years. It serves as a keystone to our community, a very friendly pedestrian friendly community. They're the only restaurant within our borders and they also are the only place that you could find a hot meal cooked and served for you fresh in this community, other than Chadowais, which is not a part of our community. I didn't write anything today that I found out about this news just as soon as these guys found out here. And I just could not leave this alone. We spoke with the people from St.P. Free Clinic. I agree with the things that they do. I think they do beautiful work. Our neighborhood also believes that. But it shouldn't come at the cost of kicking out a staple to our community. I would like to see something where they can come to an agreement where maybe mayors can still continue to do their work there and serve our community. Not only is just the restaurant, but it's also sort of a beacon for black excellence and legacy. These guys are still hanging on throughout all the rough stuff that we've been through in this neighborhood. So I'd like to see them stay. And this is why I'm here. Thank you guys for listening to me. Thank you. Is anyone else in the audience wish to speak? OK. Thank you. At this point. I asked a question of one of the speakers. Yeah. Ma'am, do you know how large the business is? How many square feet it occupies? Okay, thank you. I have a question for some of those members that we're speaking here also. Is that water has been closed for a while there hasn't it? I'm sorry. I was going to come up and answer that's fine's fine. Come on. If you come up to the microphone please. At Waters has been closed for a while. I believe Eric still owns the property or he still has something to do with the property, but that is also not. It's the Bartlett Park community that's across the street from Harbidoff. That's where you're going at. This is the only restaurant in Harbidoff. Yeah, because there's the meat market across the West I've been looking at Street View to see what other restaurants and it does appear that this is pretty much the only restaurant in Harbado. Yeah, because there's the meat market across the West I-Straight. I've been looking at Street View to see what other restaurants. And it does appear that this is pretty much the only active restaurant in the immediate vicinity. Thank you. Any other questions? Staff, do you have any cross- sorry, I'm looking over you. Do you have any cross examination? Staff waves? Applicant have any cross examination? I'm not sure if it's cross examination or just closing. So you'll have a chance to close. Cross examination would be if you wanted to ask on the record of some of the public or staff. No, thank you. Okay. Staff, do you have any closing statements? We do not. And then, ma'am, you have now five minutes to rebutton close. Thank you. I just want to speak to you. Thank you for raising the concern about rodents. That is an understandable concern. We have very aggressive pest control measures that we take in any location where we provide food. Again, we operate the county's largest food bank and as you can imagine pest mitigation is a critical part of that service So we're very familiar with that we do it and we don't have road problems So I just want to speak to that specifically More broadly, you know, I want to thank the members of the community for being here for their openness in having communication with the St. Pete Free Clinic. We did do public and individual outreach through this process. The plan was public. Again, want to note that I was under the impression that some communication had occurred with the owners of mayors that didn't. And that is why when I learned of the concern, first thing this morning, which I know popped up for them yesterday, this is all a bit fresh for all of us. So we are in direct communication. The free clinic is committed to working with them and trying to find workable solutions. As mentioned, we take collaboration seriously, we take community seriously. That's what we're here to do as serve the community. So I would like to just reiterate our commitment to that process. And also note that the special exception, because I want to be sure the community really understands the nature of the special exception request, which is specifically for the supply pantry component of the use of this building. And specifically to be able to build out that pantry in a footprint that is larger than 25% of the building. Because if the pantry portion is smaller than 25% of the building, it actually is allowable by current zoning and code. And so that is the only piece of this for which a special exception is required. So I don't want Thurdy-Meaney confusion that if the commission excuse me does not approve this, that does not necessarily mean this whole project is done and shut down, and so there would still need to have to be ongoing discussion on how we would work together if the free clinic decided to continue to pursue the transaction. Thank you. Well, I guess we'll go to the second session. Well, no, actually that does. That does raise a, well, we're still commuting executive session. Well, yeah, that's right. Go ahead. So the building, the old furniture source, approximately 18,000 square feet. So in other words, if the food pantry was 4,500 square feet or less, then you wouldn't need a special exception for these with the other uses. Correct. Do you have an approximate size that you're looking at for the flute pantry then? We are looking at between 4,500 and 6,000 square feet. We, our intent in pursuing the special exception was to give us some flexibility in what we ultimately landed on because we're working on the exact configuration of the interior of the site now. Again, we know it'll be medical, pantry, navigation, but we just we really wanted to give ourselves flexibility in the size. But the range is between 4,500 to 6,000 for a feed is what you're looking at. Cory, if this is approved today, thank you. If this is approved today, I mean, would there be ultimately be potentially a site plan approval that might come in this or only if there would be variances then that they would need? Well, this is the site plan before he's tied to this approval. The site plan? Yes. It just removes the building and adds parking pretty much, right? Maintains access. Right. Right. Special exception relates I plan approval. I have a question for the other. Oh, sorry. Well, I appreciate and respect the commitments that you've made. But if one of the, in having discussions, further discussions with the tenants of that building, if one of the ideas was, for example, for that building to be stay, then that would take, that would require that they come back for a new site plan approval then because the parking ratios would be all different. Well well, because right now, I mean, like I said, the existing facility, the two buildings now require 73. Right. They tore it down. It says 74. But again, they don't have their build out of how much general office is going to be. So for some reason, they don't keep the both buildings, you know, they have the layouts of all their spaces and the parking calculations. As long as they were not increasing. But right now, the building should have two buildings should have 73 parking spaces. They have 37. So there's a deficiency of 36. Is what it is? So as long as they maintain a deficiency of 36 or less, then they can change the uses within the zoning code. And if the special exception is approved, they could exceed 4,500 square feet for the pantry use. But they would have flexibility then in terms of saving all or a portion of that building. Or even incorporating the tenant into a portion of the existing building. I mean, those are, I'm just throwing out weird ideas. Well, I mean, my question was going to be related to that. Is, and this more for the applicant. And you're trying to understand what site plan flexibility they have. Is, is the whole purpose of removing the building for parking? Yes. So look, we get in a trouble here a lot of times when we start to pick apart site plans. But usually it's my phone. Well no, no, no. But this is one where I don't... I'm not sure the parking is a big issue in this area, right? Well, as opposed to maybe some other parts in the city. I'm very familiar with Daystar, which is about a mile away. And I was the architect for Daystar and I've been a volunteer there since it's been built. So it's about a mile away. It's an 11,000 square foot building and it's got about a 4,000 or 5,000. I can't remember the exact size pantry element. And as I recall, we've got 40 something parking spaces. But the large majority of the people who come there come by foot, come by bike, come by transit. But there are, you know, on food days, I mean, the parking lots full, but it's not overflowing and it's not people parking industry or people parking across the street. The parking lots well used and there's a lot of turnover. But so yeah, for exactly the reasons that were made during the initial presentation by the applicant, this type of facility would be because of its location, would be very different and Joe's Creek in terms of I think how the customers The clients use the facilities Is the is the facility so yeah, I'm just reinforcing what you where you started to go from experience that I have very close by It's there will be people driving here, but it's not anything like you might expect another other locations. Yeah. If I can respond to the parking piece, am I able to? So exactly to your point, we're aware of the walkability of this location, public transit accessibility, and the fact that many people may arrive on bikes, which currently happens at our downtown location. We would expect that that would be more so in this location. We are also aware of the amount of volume of individuals who we serve at times that were open. And the consideration of the plan for parking was actually in consideration of that and the surrounding neighbors and wanting to be sure that we were maximizing our capability to allow for that. That was part of the process of our community outreach was to talk about our plan for the building through some of that, some questions about traffic came up. We were able to address that. So the site plan does reflect what we had prior heard about wanting to be sure there's always adequate parking for the type of operation That we run that said this is walkable on public transit and a bikeable location and so That's also noted and and we're aware of that as well. Yeah, I mean, so my mother Berkins for you know many many years and very near that and's near this area. And I don't want to get my geography wrong, right? But that, that's all multiple grocers go in and struggle, and city council has discussed that many times, that there's not a lot of great options for food in this area. And so, you know, in my mind, and I don't want to create a problem, I try and solve a problem, but in my mind, you know, we have a good steward of the community that's offering something to the community. You know, if they don't feel like they need to get rid of the building, then not only are we gonna save something that we have some, you know, some people here discussing, but also then you're gonna have a tenant that pays rent, which I'm assuming for a nonprofit would be beneficial, right? Now, Corey, what would happen if, what if another user comes into this in the future, the use changes, this plan is not, they have to come back, either comply with the code or come back, right? Yeah, it depends on the use. So I mean, if the free clinic decided to move somewhere else and another permitted East one in there and they met and required parking, they could go right in there. But if we approve something that's more extreme, like a bigger variance here than what's proposed, and another tenant comes in, we're not pushing that problem down, creating a problem down the road with another tenant, they would have to either comply or come back. Correct. And if they're having further discussions, and depending on what that outcome is, is it something that could just be done, or is it a minor modification that, you know, we do public notice? You have three different thresholds, you know, in the approval where one is drastic enough as come back, you know, one is minimal enough that it just goes sort of permitting, you know, we usually do a letter to the file for record keeping, or there's one where there's public notice. And again, it just comes down to you, you know, the caveat of, you know, what's that percentage of change there if they keep the building that was, you know, proposed to be a parking lot? You know, is that going to be less than 20 percent, you know, alteration? That's something that could be easily done. Let's see, I'm gonna open really quick here. Well, and I don't, yeah, and I don't know if, even if it did trigger something more, if the applicant would want to delay for something that would work that way, and then also legal, if we are to allow a greater variance, we can't do that with the notice we did, is that correct? That's what I was going to, yep. So it would need to be re-noticed if there was a, if you were approving something greater. I'm not sure that a greater variance is needed until you really run the numbers on the numbers of the park. Until whatever arrangements may or may, you know. You could, like you suggested, I mean you could certainly, if you felt like you wanted additional information from the applicant, you could certainly defer it to request that additional information from the applicant, you could certainly defer it to request that additional information if you felt that you needed it to make your decision. I feel like we're on the edge of a win-win here, but I don't want to, you know, for non-profit to be in a contract, I understand. I don't know what your time constraints are, but those can be very precarious. And so, for saying there may be enough flexibility here that we can approve and hint with our guidance to the applicant here and they can work with the neighbors and maybe have a win-win. But if it's not going to meet that threshold, then we'd add an inquiry checking. You know how much office space you'll have? General office in the building? Office in medical. You know that divide? Approximately 11,500, 10,5, 11 with the remaining use pantry. is a back storage area that leads out to a loading dock that is part of that would obviously be considered part of the pantry because it's, you know, offers some storage. So in consideration of that, it's not just the floor space of the pantry, but- I have how much is that? Probably just general back-of- house office. Not medical? Yeah, the different criteria I think. Is the parking is different. The lowers your parking count, leave the general office. I would hate to just gotta turn on that without being more, I mean. Yeah, and can the storage be counted separately from the pantry use? Or is that considered part of the pantry use? Again, it depends on what the storage is for. Is it back out of the office? It's food storage. it would be part of the pantry. But yeah. So what I would like to just please work again be very clear about I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the the commitment. The information on the opposition or just like lack of clarity on the plan is new to me as of this morning. I am not solely at liberty to make changes to a plan that it's been in discussion with my board of directors that we've been pursuing and you know, has been in progress. That said, we collaborate with the community and so I have not yet had the chance to fully, I've, of folks who need to know, but I've not fully had the chance to discuss the community concerns, the conversations that I had with the owners of Mayor's Grocery and potential solutions with the people on my team, who I would need to have those discussions with for us to consider alternative paths forward that allow for us to move forward with our plan to provide the services that we aim to provide. And also consider the feedback that we just now gotten. I have a question. So basically I think there's really two options before. So would you be willing to defer for 30 days so you can maybe have some more of those conversations both with the tenants in the building and then with your board and staff or do you want us to based on, you know, and I mean this seriously, the good work and the good faith that St. Pete Freeklinic has in our community to trust that you'll do that. And, you know, I so are due diligence period ends inside of 30 days. Okay, well that's important. It's a constraint for us. I would be afraid to get something. Yeah, I just I wanted to get a little more information about the due diligence that you did in reaching out to the community and the type of public forum and outreach that you did. Did you speak to the neighborhood association? Did you present kind of the plan to, I mean, how were the neighbors not notified? I feel like that's a big miss. We presented to the neighborhood association. We did talk about our acquisition of the site south of the Badcock Building. the site plan was available. I am not sure if I said at that presentation these buildings are gonna be demolished. We did talk about the acquisition. It's full, in full candor. That was a part of the information that was made public. In my presentations, I focused on the services of the Free Clinic. I also candidly was not clear on the communications that were happening with the existing owner and the tenants and did not want to overstep with specific communications related to agreements that were not yet the Freeclinics Agreements to discuss or negotiate. So I did try to bit carefully in reaching out specifically to the owners. That said, when I heard about the concern, I did reach out to them this morning because I thought, well, we need to have a conversation now because communication has not occurred adequately to make sure that there was real clarity about what the plan was. But we also held a community forum at one of our locations. There was outreach for that, but we discussed the plan and have had one-on-one behind the scenes conversations with community members and partners as to our prospective plan. Thank you. I'm sorry, yeah, the way the procedure works. We never know. I would hate to interfere with something during their due diligence because what'll happen here is if this deal falls through it could fall through forever. Obviously the property that includes the restaurant is for sale. Somebody else could come in there, buy up everything, level everything and not bat an eye. I think in the case of the restaurant here having the St. Pete Free Free Clinic there, which is a social-minded group, and having a restaurant potentially as part of the site would be a benefit to the health community. When you look at what's around there, you're looking at convenience stores. What a convenience store sell, they essentially become the neighborhood grocery store of junk food. They don't have fresh food, it's junk, but it's fine, it serves a purpose. It doesn't meet the needs of a grocery. When you look at the website, you know, photos of mayors, you're looking at a old legitimate grocery, you know, and hot meals that could be, you know, healthy meals. I would be afraid that if we do not approve this, the deal falls through, somebody comes in, doesn't badnight, just kicking everybody out and redevelop. So we can always revisit this in the future. Should they need additional variances once they solidify? I mean, how do you solidify a plan and lay out without having control and ownership of the property? You can't really invest that kind of fun zen to it. Right. We can't design the site. We can't get involved in the transaction. But I don't want to do in the reason that I'm dragging this conversation on is on both sides, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't want your contract to fall apart because we're trying to pick apart some, you know, you and an owner who didn't communicate with their tenant, right? And that's a challenge. And I, you know, and if this commission is willing to to consider something that would potentially create a paying tenant for you and basically give you a bigger variance, and I don't know that you don't have to come back to us with that. But I don't want to get rid of the building if we can help it. That's what I mean. In many cases when these deals happen on a commercial property, there's requirements that you cannot talk to tenants. So there's kind of a secrecy to it in confidentiality that you can't reach out to people and let them know what's going on. Obviously, everybody knows. We have the option for variances in the future. But I agree that denial or deferral might be the same as a denial, right? Is not the better option here. But I think that it's pretty clear what our, I don't know if we have a consensus, but our general thoughts are here. there may be an opportunity for you here to do something even more than what you're trying to do and so please consider that. I'd like to say something. Yeah, please. I'd like to just point out, I guess, the difficulty that we face here with a lot of community opposition, the community that's directly affected by it, we're worsening the issue that the free clinic is trying to solve. We're creating, we're removing generational wealth that's been passed down in a community from those shop owners. We're also worsening a food desert and making people more reliant on the free food that is going to be offered. I think there is inherently kind of an irony here. That's a little hard to overlook. And I would be much more willing to consider, you know, parking variances over the harm that this is going to inflict upon the immediate community. And it's going to be significant. It's going to be a significant loss. I'm quite familiar with the area and I have, you know, myself been to mayors and so I'm, you know, sensitive to this. I just want to make that statement. I agree with that 100%. So you said that you're in your due diligence period right now. How long does that last till? You said less than 30 days. How long are due diligence? You have less than 30 days? May 23rd. May 23rd. I think less than 30 days. Is it one of the ones I didn't know? It's not a start. Yeah, it's not uncommon, right? Because during the due diligence they're taking all the way through the site planning process. And it has actually been extended for us once by the owners to accommodate this process. So we were- I mean, the application would have been submitted almost two months ago. Right. Well, the other thing I want to point out too is that Apple poll of your current commissioner Flint that anybody could come in here and if they met all the code, there's 11 conditions, special specific conditions to this, where you're getting more landscaping, you're getting more fencing, et cetera, et cetera. So, I agree. I would hate to pass this opportunity up and I'm counting on the applicant to work this out as best I can. And I agree fully that I would support a parking variance in a herpe. We would be open to a parking variance. I'm going to. If Sheriff, you're, thank you, ready. I, I'm, I'm lasting. I'll do it just to say, because we, we've asked questions indirectly, but you don't, you do not want to defer. I do not want to defer. Okay. Yeah. Please. I have a question actually. Are we only approving the special exception for use? Where are we also approving the site plan? Well, there. Okay. Well, there's modifications allowed in the code. Like I said, depending on what that is, it might just be a streamlined approval. Public notice only. You know, if they kept the building, but we'd have to analyze the numbers. Can we, I mean, can we add a condition that applicant will make good faith efforts to retain the restaurant? Is that not legal? No. It's unenforceable. Kind of a feel good thing, but not enforceable. I think we've seen this. I think by the conversation that we've had, is this what we can do? I'm clear on the, in support of the commission, the community, and our mission as an organization. And again, I just wanna note that we don't bulldoze over partners and businesses. We thought we followed the right process and right steps and also preserve the confidentiality required in parts of the process. And when I realized, as soon as I realized, maybe that wasn't the case, I took immediate steps to communicate. So that said, I'm clear on where everybody stands in this. And certainly, we've been a good faith partner in the community for decades, and would do nothing less than continue our commitment to being a good faith community partner. I move approval of a special exception related site plan to convert an existing commercial building into a supply pantry, which is a social service use subject to the conditions of a second. What? Yes. No? Yes. Elements? Yes. Really? Yes. Adelaide? Yes. Yes. Lent. Lent. Motion passes. All right. Thank you all. Thank you all for coming. Without you coming here, the discussion that just happened, which I am very hopeful will benefit you all wouldn't have occurred. So we really appreciate your attendance. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.