All right, good afternoon. Call the meeting to order today. My name is Kevin Riali, Chairman of the Development Review Commission. I'll be presiding over the hearing today. 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. Copies of today's agenda are available at the podium to my right and your left. So over here. Certain proceedings today on today's agenda are acquired by judicial, meaning that all parties will have a chance to present evidence and testimony to assist the commission in making its decision. If you have questions regarding the quasi-judicial procedures, there is a guide available from the clerk at the center console. All persons who plan to provide testimony today will be required to take a note prior to speaking. Anyone speaking before the commission on a quasi-judicial item must fill out a blue card and will be sworn in by the clerk prior to speaking. Anyone speaking before the commission on a quasi-digital item must fill out a blue card and will be sworn in by the clerk prior to speaking. A representative for a group organization may be designated, but the representative will be allowed only three minutes. The pooling of time is not permitted. Each quasi-digital case on today's agenda, for each quasi-digital case on today's agenda, a presentation will be made to the commission by representative of the city administration. Staff, the applicant, and any registered opponent will each have 10 minutes for their presentation. Following presentations, all persons and attendance who have filled out a blue car located on the podium will be given three minutes to speak. If you have filled out a car, 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 on each side of the room to ensure all audio is recorded for the record. When addressing the commission, please begin with your name and address and state whether you have been sworn. Once members of the public have had a chance to speak, cross examination will begin. During the cross examination phase of the preceding city administration, the registered opposition and the applicant will each have five minutes to ask questions of any witnesses. Questions should be directed to me as chair. I will in turn redirect the questions to the appropriate person for response. Following cross examination, rebuttal and closing statements will begin. During this phase, the preceding city administration registered upon opposition and the applicant will each have five minutes to provide a 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 beginning of the initial presentation of the case and may present evidence in the limited purposes of cross examination and rebuttal closing statement phases of the hearing. If more than one person wishes to utilize the time for the opponent, the opposition must select one representative to present their case. After rebuttal closing statements, the public hearing will be closed and the commission will go into executive session. The commission may ask questions of the applicant or the public at any time during the proceedings. All motions of the commission are made in an affirmative manner with the quorum of five or more commission members. It takes four concurring votes of the commission for any motion to pass. Once the commission has voted on your item, we ask that you continue any conversations outside if whether permits. This will allow us to move forward with your fellow St. Petersburg citizens DRC matters. Thank you for your cooperation. Finally, please turn off all cell phones for the proceedings and rise for the P States of America. Do you swear I heard the emergency not to be able to get the truth the whole truth and everything about the truth? I do. Thank you. All right, can you please do a roll call? Read. Here. So. Here. Kieranen. Clements. Here. Singleton. Griner. Lenn. Riali. Here. Not allowed. Here. We have a quorum. And minutes. Could I have a motion for approval of the minutes, unless anyone has an amendment? Should I say revised or? Yes, and they are revised. I don't know if that needs to be on the record. There was a revision prior to this meeting. But the ones that we reviewed are not the same as the current ones. However, they have been updated and posted on the website as revised. Yeah. What you have in front of you is the final revision. So that's on the one. Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. All right. So, so move. I want to make a motion to approve the minutes.. Okay, okay. Okay. All right, so so move. That one on the mic. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Here's a second. All right, motion a second. Read. Yes. So. Yes. Clements. Yes. Reallee. Yes. That'll allow. Yes. Minutes pass. Do we have any public comments? We do not. Okay, so the next set of items, I'm going to read into the record the deferred cases. And the reason most of these deferrals happened is because we only have five commissioners here today. So if you have an item today and you wish for it to be deferred so that there can be a full panel of seven, you have that option. Understanding that you need four votes. It's not just a simple majority with the five. So it will take four votes for your items to pass. So if you do decide you want to wait when you come up, just let us know. And we will address it at that time. So we have five deferred cases today. Case 2439-000004. At-79th Street South is deferred until December 4th, 2024. Case 245-400-0088, that's at 58-48 in Canton Street South is deferred until November 6th, 2024. 24, case 24, 540, 0, 0, 0, 5, 2. With an address at 225, 222 Avenue, Northeast, is deferred until November 6, 2024. Case number 24, 540, 0, 0, 0, 8, 1. Address at 414, 222 Avenue, Southeast, is deferred until November 6, 2024. And finally, case number 24, 540, 0, 0, 0red until November 6, 2024. And finally, case number 24540077, address of 2351, Leslie Lake Drive North is deferred until November 2, 2024. Our first item, this is not a quasi-judicial item, but our first item is a request for a rehearing. Case number 24540049, with an address of 1-2-0132 Street North. Seth. Good afternoon. I'm Matt Nia John, 935 Main Street, sweet C4 safety harbor floor to 34695. And I am appearing on behalf of applicant, Miss Escondari for case 24-30, 390-004004. We are requesting rehearing, but we would respectfully request a furl to the November 6th DRC. Just make sure I'm following correctly. You read the first case under the deferred section. I think your case number is 24540049. Is that? My apologies. That's fine, I just want the record to be clear. I am 24540049. Okay. Do we need a motion for that? Or do they have just the right to defer given that we have five members? I'd like a motion for that given that it's kind of an in between or type of item. So we're deferring whether we're going to consider the rehearing. That's right. To the next scheduled meeting. Well, not whether. We have to consider it. It's just whether we consider today or next week. Right. Yeah. Does any well before we move into our comments, is there anyone in the public that has any comments on deferring this case? No. OK. Do any public that has any comments on deferring this case? No, okay. Do any commissioners have any comments on deferring this case? All right. No, I mean, I have some questions, but that'll be in conjunction with who we hear then. Okay. Consider the rehearing. All right, then I'll entertain a motion. I think the only question I would have is is that, do I have to bring a sleeping bag in October, in November? I mean, honestly, that's my only concern is that how many cases are we looking at right now with the deferrals? 14. 14. 14. Oh, hmm. Are we considering what we did? What was the score? This would be the 14. This would be the 14. This would be the 14. Right now we have 13. We did, we heard back and forth, we will yesterday referring at this one we had to bring today to request the deferral and the other three in the audience that may change their mind, but they wanted to proceed as of yesterday. So are we considering potentially, as we've done in the past, a couple of times, have a 10 to the name start date or... I mean, we can contemplate doing that because November is hard because of the holidays and consultates have changed. And even December, we are asking some of our November applicants that they want to go to December, waiting to hear back from them. Well, we can investigate a earlier start day or maybe a long night, but with dinner between. But also, I would also point out that if we defer, if we don't defer the press for rehearing, we're potential to have a rehearing that day anyway. Because there's not. Oh, I see what you're saying. It has to go to the next hearing. Right. This will probably be faster than the hearing, if that's the granted. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and make the motion. I move that case number 24-54-004049 be deferred to the November DRC meeting. Second that. Motion a second, please. please do a roll. Oh I'm sorry no. Clemens. Yes. Really? Yes. Read. Yes. Adelaide. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you for your time today. The next three cases are quasi-digitial. The first among them is case number 24-11-000013 address of 125 10th Avenue Northeast. And we'll first hear from staff. Thank you. Good afternoon. Katrina Lutin-Gordon, planner two, with development review services for the record. The application before you is located on the north side of 10th Avenue Northeast between 1st Street North and Bay Street North East of the historic Old North East neighborhood. The property is under one parcel ID and consists of two lots, lot 10 and the West 58.5 feet of lot 11. I'm moving. Here we go. Zoned NT3, neighborhood traditional, the property measures approximately 118.5 feet wide, and 127 feet deep contained in 15,000 and 50 square feet. As a lot exists, it meets the minimum lot requirements for NT3 zone properties. Additionally, the site is in the National Register, historic district, and listed as non-contributing resources within the North Shore District. The property currently contains a parking lot and accessory structure previously associated with the church or school sites to the north. Is there pictures? the church or school site to the north. Where the West Minster, Presbyterian Church, a local historic landmark is located, the site was recently approved by the Community Planet and Preservation Commission for an adaptive reuse of the church school to three multifamily dwelling units. Following the timeline, flat recorded in 1910, each lot was plated at 60 feet width, 60 feet wide, and 127 feet. Compliant with the minimum lot width in area of NT3. In 1948, property card indicates the construction of a residence on the west 48 feet of lot 10. Then in 1962, the church purchased the east 20 of lot 10 and West 20 feet of Latt 11, where the property card indicates the demolition of a residence. That's that part. And then in 1962 the church purchased the East 40 feet of Latt 11, less the East 1.5 feet, where the property card also indicates the demolition of a residence for the next 38.5 feet. So historically the subject property consisted of three legal lots of record. Upon purchasing the lots and demolishing the homes the church constructed an accessory surface parking lot in 1973 and an accessory structure thereafter. It is the applicant's intent to revert to two lots and adjust the lot line 0.75 feet westbound into lot 10. This will make each lot equal in size but will create two substandard lots with a width of 59.25 feet and area of 7,524.75 square feet. The lots will be 1.25% less than the required minimum lot width and area. The applicant hereby seeks approval, a lot line adjustment to create two buildable lots from the two platter lots in common ownership with variances to the minimum required lot area and width. The applicant plans to construct two new single family residents on each law with permitted access restructures with the garage on the first floor and an ADU access redwell unit on the second floor. And here are the proposed plans. This is for lot 10. The elevations. This is the proposed plan for lot 11. And the elevations. Staff analyzed the development pattern of the subject block and lots on the adjacent blocks zoned NT3. Staff's analysis included review of lot width and area for conformance with the minimum requirements for NT3 properties. And whether the properties typically contain one house per platted lot or less than one platted lot. Condor the total of 124 lots and show that 58% of the properties are substandard in terms of lot width. And 67% are substandard in lot area. Staff found that 34% of the properties in the study area consists of one house per plated lot. 49% of the properties consist of one house less than a platter lot. Overall, 83% of the properties are residentally developed parcels on a platter lot or they're in. Furthermore, results show that 81% of the substandard lots have been developed with one dwelling unit per platter lot. And based on the analysis, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the prevailing development pattern in the area. And here are some surrounding area. So this is just across the street from the parking lot. This is across the street from the church. The applicant intends to construct the two single family residents while maintaining the community character. Furthermore, the city intends to provide for desirable redevelopment and infill housing that will adhere to the minimum desired unit size and development standards. And is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan and the code to promote revitalization and infill development. Staff receive no comments from the neighborhood associations, no comments from residents within 300 feet of the subject property, and based on the review and analysis staff recommends approval of the requested variants. Staff has placed special conditions of approval in the report to address requirements, such as meeting development standards, building and site design requirements of the NT3 zone and district all existing structures and improvements include in the drive ways and the apron shall be demolished prior to the division of the property and plan shall be revised as necessary to comply with the comments provided by the city departments. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions for staff? I have a one question. So, another commission allowed the church to be converted into three multifamily units? PPC, yes. And now we're talking about single family. Does that have to go back through that process or is that fine? For this, for the subject property? Right. No, it will not need to come back before the board, just as long as you're, if you approve the lots, they will move forward with building and permitting. Based on your evaluation, there are some grand oaks that are on the property. I didn't see where a permit was applied for and or if the grand oaks were going to be impact by the build. Did you have an assessment of that? There are three oaks on the site and they will be impacted and the applicant will need to pull a tree removal permit application in order to remove those trees. And just to note that upon development of each of the lots they will have to provide shade trees meeting the standards of record on site. So permit will be required and I'll have to go back and replace. Yes, so upon development, yes, there should be a required of shatries on the site. Okay thank you thank you. Other questions? I have a question. The sub-center lots in the area was any analysis done of the size of those lots and I'll give background. It looks like historically these were 40 foot lots and a lot of those substandard lots were 40 foot lots and we're requesting yours pretty close to 60. But you're lumping 40 foot, 58 foot, whatever. You're all just calling all substandard. Yes, anything substandard is less than a 60 feet that is required in NT3. Okay, so it's not an analysis of the size of the laws, it's just so extended or not. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, the applicant here. Good afternoon. Carlos, do you have a 665-478th Avenue up in Elspark? I'm sorry, for one, please confirm you've been sworn and then also confirm that you're controlling moving forward with just five members today. Yes, I am. And I have been sworn in. Yes. Concert with the staff. The situation in this neighborhood is most of the lots in this neighborhood are 55 feet or less. Within analysis of how many lots were there that were 55 it was a lot so we chose to because one of them is conforming 60 by 127 which is the minimum area that you have in NT3 so we could take and apply for variance for one lot without it would be better to take Both of them split in half that way you only literally 0.75 feet missing on each lot. As you know, most of them are 55 feet or under, so we're actually 59.25 in width, but we have the required depth. And to clarify one item as far as a church that approval for the church is separate parcel altogether, and that is approved by the redevelopment, the Preservation Committee, and we're moving forward with that development alone. So in this particular case, we're trying to build two single families. We have had numbers of meetings with the neighbors. They all want to do what we wanna do, two single family homes here. Any questions? Let me help again. I just have one question. Just, you know, if you know it for the record, do you have the institutional knowledge to know why only that one and half feet were taken out of a lot of 11? It was way, way back and she pointed out in the deeds. When the church acquired the property, 1.5 feet out already being taken out when the neighbor sold the property to the other neighbor the sold it. Sometimes it goes. You don't know. There is no reason that we can see why there's a wall there. The wall actually belongs to us. But there's no reason. So much of sold less property at the time. They were building 40 food lots. So in her presentation, there was 40, then 40, then the next was acquired. So that's the reason. Okay. Any questions? Just one. So similar to the question that I asked staff, they're, you're aligned with the requirements for the trees, the grand oaks, preservation and... Absolutely. Yeah, we've got to meet the codes, whatever the code is. We have to comply with all the codes for setbacks, height, FAR, all the code is we have to comply with all the codes For setbacks height if they are all those codes we have to comply with so there is no issue There's no issue we already present a side plans that meet the requirement or they see the requirement Thank you Anything else me blue cards Staff do you have any cross? Staff waves you have any cross sir waves Staff closing Waves. Staff closing? Staff waves. Closing. Okay. All right. We'll go into the second session. Any additional comments from the commission? I think this is very straightforward. The request is so minimal that you'd be hard pressed to notice that nine inches in 1.25% in both area and not with. Yeah, I mean, I think I tend to agree. The adaptive reuse while we're not hearing that today, right, this property comes from that project. And, you know, if the community wants single family homes, I think it makes sense. And it's compliant with all of the requirements, the character of the neighborhood, the comprehensive plans, preservation of the trees. I don't, yeah, the only two non-contributing lots in the vicinity, yeah. Right, yeah. Yeah, I like the fact that you're adding the ADUs. And the design is complementing the pattern of the neighborhood, so. I mean, there's, I was just going to say there's value to increasing the housing stock And the design is complementing the pattern of the neighborhood. So. I know there's. I was just going to say there's value to increasing the housing stock in the city, especially now. So I move approval of a lot line adjustment to create two bill of lots from two plated lots and common ownership of the variance is the minimum required lot area and lot with subject to the staff condition. Second. Second. Still. Yes. Climates. Yes. Reality. Yes. Read. Yes. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next item we have case number 245400059. Address at 3848th Street North. The applicants indicating that they would like to defer at this time. We approach the, yeah, and identify yourself and just let us know your thoughts. Yes, Councilor Allen, my name is Craton Schaeffer, a homeowner at 3848th Street North, and upon hearing that we need four to move forward, not a majority, yes, I would like to defer till November. Okay. All right, so with that, I'll first ask because we're here and we haven't done ahead of time. There's anyone in the public that would like to speak on the deferral? Nope, and then to the commission, are there any comments on the deferral? Is there an option to consider a move to December or would you like to? We would like it sooner, just because we're in the middle of construction. Understood. You're aware that we got additional information today from Scott from the Arborist? Yes, I am. We are aware of that. It's just the numbers would indicate to me that we have a better shot if we defer. Not necessary. You're going to get more discussion. But it's your decision. Yeah. So there's no other discussion. I'll entertain a motion. Move approval of it deferral. I don't think this actually needs a motion. This one doesn't? Yeah, they're entitled to this for the code. Then just put on the record case,5-4-000559, that the request of the applicant is deferred to November, I already forgot the date, November 6th, 2024. Thank you. That brings us to our last item actually. Case number 245-4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 2. Address at 356, 19th Avenue, North East. Start with staff, please. Good afternoon, my name is Chelsea Freeman. I am a member of staff and I have been sworn. The subject property is located on the Southwest corner of 19th Avenue, Northeast and Locust Street, Northeast. It is within the NT3 neighborhood traditional three zoning district and is located within the historic old Northeast neighborhood. The subject property is a lot one of block 19 within the Snell and Hamlet North Shore Edition subdivision, which was plotted in 1911. Within the NT3 zoning in the fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. The fall of the year. feet in depth and containing 7,150 square feet in area, meaning that it is 470 square feet or 6% substandard in area. The existing home was constructed in 1973, and a second story was added in 2021. The applicant purchased the subject property in April of 2024. The property is a non-contributing resource in the National Register of Historic Districts, the North Shore Historic Districts section. Within the NT3 zoning district, a 30-foot front yard setback is required. The existing structure exists at a 24.9-foot set-front setback. Within the NT3 zoning district, a 15 foot street side yard setback is required for the house and a five foot street side yard setback would be required for a pool and the deck. The existing house is located at 14.4 feet from the street side, property line. Keeping those notes on the top, the 30 foot is required for the front and a five foot is required for the street side. The first one is the one-way. Keeping those notes on the top, the 30-foot is required for the front and the five-foot is required for the street side. The original request as published for the location of a pool as proposed on the property was that the front of the pool would be at 25.5 feet for the front setback and 1.9 feet for the street side yard setback. There was miscommunication about the site plan that has recently been clarified by the applicant's agent. The amended request is now displayed where the pool deck is proposed at a 25.5 front yard setback. This deck does not require a variance. The pool edge, which will require the variance, is proposed to be now at 29.5 feet front yard setback, the deck being four feet wide. This is a six inch variance off of the 30 foot requirement, representing 1.67% variance. The street side yard portion of the request remained unchanged, remaining at 1.9 feet for the street side yard which is 3.1 feet off of the required five representing a 62 percent variance request. To clarify no screen enclosure is proposed with this pool construction the total property impervious surface ratio, and the front side plus street side yard ISRs remain compliant. The pool and deck will both terminate on the eastern side of the property at 1.9 feet. The deck would not go any farther east than the pool would. And there is an existing nonconforming fence installed in this area of the property that was constructed by a previous owner and the Current owner is amenable to the modifications that would produce a conforming fence Those details about the fence are as follows we have one the the survey indicates that the property line is 2.4 feet in from the sidewalk The fence is installed beyond this eastern property line is 2.4 feet in from the sidewalk. The fence is installed beyond this eastern property line into the right of way as outlined in the red box. The applicant will remove and reinstall this eastern side of the fence at the property line. The six foot tall portion of the fence extends too far forward on the property, highlighted in green here. It is about 5.1 feet forward into the 30 foot yard area, front yard area. The applicant will remove this approximately 5.1 feet of over height fence and replace it with a 4 foot tall fence and or with 5 foot tall hedges in compliance with the code. The last piece of a non-conformity of this fence which require revision is that the fence is installed in the visibility triangle at the back of the property at the intersection of the sidewalk and the alley. From this intersection five feet in either direction is to be excluded from the the over height fence. It would be limited to 36 inch objects only. So the applicant would be removing this portion of the fence and installing a diagonal fence line to avoid the visibility triangle. Another component of this project is that there is an oak in the right of way, which appears that the root ball would be impacted by the proposed location of the pool. The land development regulations restrict construction impact from within six feet of the trunk or two thirds of the drip line whichever is greater Where our records indicate that the average drip line of a medium-sized tree is approximately 15 feet There's concern that the pool would impact this drip line So there is a stipulation a approval condition included in the staff report that the applicant would apply for a tree removal permit and that the city arborist would determine if the tree rukes would be impacted such severely that would require removal of this tree in the right of way. This is the neighborhood of comparison. I have changed the triangles to squares to make it a little bit more visible in this presentation and was provided in the staff report. Here we see that the neighbourhood, the properties with pools are marked with red dot and the neighbourhoods with the properties with pools where a variance has been approved are marked with a star. And that there is one property in the area to the southeast where a pool is located in the front yard in front of the home. Other properties have been awarded a street side yard variance, interior side yard variances, and a rear yard variance. Staff received two emails requesting additional information from nearby residents. This information was provided and the residents presented no additional concerns. Staff received one additional email this morning, which has been distributed to you all, in opposition of this proposal. The variance request is originally described was not consistent with the variance criteria. Staff agreed that the 1.9-foot street side yard setback variance request was the minimum necessary in order to achieve the proposed pool and supported this aspect of the request. Staff was unable to support the originally conceived 25.5-foot front yard setback for the pool as among other aspects. This was not the minimum request necessary for the proposed project and the explanation and the application did not justify this front yard setback variance request. However, with revisions to the request, given that the new front yard setback of only six inches to a diminished degree, staff does support the amended front yard setback of only six inches as to a diminished degree. Staff does support the amended front yard setback request and found the new request to be compliant with the variance review criteria. In summary, staff recommends denial of the variance request for the front yard setback of 25.5 feet for the proposed pool and a street side setback of 1.9 feet for the proposed pool and deck and instead proposes approval or recommends approval of the amended variance request for a front yard setback of 29.5 feet for the proposed pool and a street side setback of 1.9 feet for the proposed pool and deck. Should the proposal be approved, it will be subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Questions for staff? I have a question for Mr. Dima. Now this is a lesser variance, so it doesn't have to. That's correct. Yep. It's correct. Yep. It's going on. On the fence with the side yard fence that's 2.4 feet from the property line, do the sidewalk. If the fence is located back, is the 2.4 feet meet the city standard for landscaping between fences and sidewalks. The subdivision section of the code requires that a fence is two feet from the sidewalk. The property line here is 2.4. So the property line would accommodate that requirement. I wasn't sure if it was two or three feet. Thank you. So I'm not clear how you jumped to support of the 1.9 foot side-setback variance. You stated in your summation that you did, based on your analysis, that you did note that the 1.9 feet was the minimum. So explain that part again, that was the minimum, that they could, in other words, there's no way they could get any greater than 1.9 feet. Yes, a five foot is required for the street side for both the deck and the pool. The existing house is at 14.4 I believe. And the pool as proposed was not deemed to be overly sized for the available area and there is a variance to the south for a spa not a pool that was somewhat comparable to the street side here. So what is the distance between the house and the pool proposed to be and what is the width of the pool? That's proposed. So 14.4 minus 1.9 is 12.5. So that 12.5 feet, how much is the pool and how much is, I guess, a walkway adjacent to the house? The applicant might be able to provide additional details on the dimensions there. Yeah, just, okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff? there. Yeah just okay thank you. Other questions for staff. Okay thank you. I'm sorry you said there were when I looked at your chart the the package here has eight pulls were approved with variances of the 31 and I thought there were seven on the chart that you should. Did I miss one? There's seven. This should be in the neighborhood comparison map analysis? Yes. As just for clarity, I thought I counted. You said seven, but I thought I read somewhere there were eight. And that's. It might be that multiple variances were applied to a given property. Okay. Thank you. multiple variances were applied to a given property. Okay. Thank you. The applicant has identified, I failed to identify one of the eight stars. Okay, just try. The triangle on the bottom right-hand side of the screen, pardon me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So the alternate, you gave an alternate plan in your summary as well. And then in your final summary, you're now making an adjustment for the one point because of the 1.9 feet or whatever's... The 1.9 remained consistent throughout this process. It was the front yard setback that was under change and clarification. Staff felt uncomfortable with the pool six inches behind the front facade of the home. But if it's four and a half feet behind the front facade of the home and only requesting the front yard setback for six inch variance, it's more reasonable compared to the other variances that have been approved in the neighborhood and with preserving privacy for the pool and not shoving it towards the front of the property. Okay, so we basically, you're getting a, we have in your opinion, we have a compromise on both the fence and the setback request. Yes. The city can support. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Dima again, will we eventually be that slide that you just had up, Caleb? Yes. So there was a recommendation from staff for denial of the original variance request and then a recommendation for approval of the amended. Will we be kind of mimicking that if we were to you know going forward? I think it's based on the motion that is ultimately made here so if you move for approval of an amended variance request it'll moot out the former one. It'll have the functional effect of doing both those things at once. I don't think you need to move to deny the first one and then and then approve the second one. Okay. Thank you. And you checked your conditions of approval that it nothing if I go through there I'm not going to find a number that shouldn't be there. Anything like that. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff? I have a question. I guess it's the six inches seems a little odd. I think we just like not have the six inches and then we don't have a variance. It just we would see like an easy fix street side yard. Yeah, the street side yard, sure. The six interference appears to be related to the location of the exterior exit on the eastern side of the building. The applicant can probably provide more contacts for this. Thanks. Any last questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Any last questions? Okay, is the applicant here? Thank you. Darrell Kurtz with Cody Pools. I've been sworn in. I'm an agreement with five to four. Six eight four46 North Del Meary Highway, Tampa, Florida. Very simply with this pool, they'd say non-conforming lot stated the only place for that pool is on that side yard. Right across the street. You're seeing basically the same things, variances for pools that were approved in this neighborhood. So pools are part of the neighborhood structure, part of the community. They increase property values and that sort of thing. And it's in line with that community. It's not an overly big pool. We've made it as small as we can. Obviously the homeowner wanted as big as he could get it at the same time too. So that's 1.9. Weasen that pool in. Obviously they've got to conform with the moving the Thince in a little bit as well too so to be away from those fence posts and to give the homeowner The decent size pool that with us got to be there Other than that the 29.5 to 25.5 was a mistake on my part. I thought we were asking for the deck edge and not the pool edge. So that was my fault on that. So it's actually 29.5. And it is just what Chelsea was saying. It's the exit of that side of the house is where it was proposed that to give it some structure and how it was done if you decide it's to conform it to 30. We obviously can cut off six inches and what I would just ask for the 1.9 to be approved. If at all possible, I don't know if that is possible to prove one part of it, not not the other part. And that is I think pretty much the extent of my. Did you want to utilize any other documents that were mostly it was mostly going over the exact same things that were in. I didn't know the department was a little dip up, but yeah, I mean, that's the pool as it stands right now. Little sun shelf right there on the side. So you can see how the steps are kind of aligned with coming out that east side. And again, to put that sun shelf in there and to put lounge chairs and that sort of thing is why the width of that is there. The spawn the backside. All the backside that you're seeing there that looks like decking is actually coping. So there is no deck on that far east side of it. And that's just the same pictures again. Kind of wanted to give everybody a visual of where that pool is going and it's going basically inside that fence there and kind of how we're aligned with the front of the house. We're not going to be in any means in front of the house even though it was built not to the through the 30 feet. It's 24.9 I believe. We're still going to be back in that. The deck will be six inches back and then obviously the pool will be 29.5 as proposed from there. And the same thing does visual representations from where it's going to be in the backside. And obviously we're going to make all the recommendations to the fence that needs to be done so that corner will be cut off. And then the front, the homeowners already agreed to all of this. So he's good with all of that. And that's the picture you can see exactly where the pool's going in and probably see just about how small it's actually going to be because it's going to fit in between the fence and the home. And that's again just the proposed site that we did. That should be it. Yes. Questions for the applicant? I have a couple. Okay. So, couple of the same questions. I'm going to a couple of additional ones. So, there's a, there will be approximately 12 and a half feet between the far edge of the pool to the edge of the house. So how wide is the pool itself eight feet? The pool itself, not counting the deck is seven feet, I'm sorry looking at the spot, is 30 feet by six inches by eight feet. So it's only eight feet wide. So, and then the coping on the side away from the house is that 12 inches? Is that it? It would be about 12 inches, but it overhangs the pool. So it will be that 1.9. So you have about a four foot walkway then between? You won't have any well on the- Between the house and the pool. Between the house and the pool will be your pretty close. Three feet, seven inches. Okay. So I don't do resident, I'm an architect, but I don't really do resident. For your family, I do. I know all the codes for all the commercial pools, but you're not required to four foot walk around on a residential pool. No. Most of the building apartments, and I can't say for sure Whether city of St. Pete does this it's usually a minimum of three feet and then and you're not required a complete perimeter You can obstruct. Oh, there's only there are some jurisdictions that do that but St. Pete's not one of them and then you've looked at the house There's not equipment then on that side of the house. Yeah the equipment is on the south side of the spot so it'll be on the side. No no not the pool equipment. There's no existing dryer vents, electrical connections that are going to encroach upon that three foot seven inches. No, there is right in front of the, where we're going to put the pool equipment, the electrical so that we can plug in the pool equipment. It's just a electrical. Nothing we're going to have to move. Okay. And then on the front, the first four or five feet of the fence is going to have to be reduced four feet. You said your client understands that. Yeah. Because I mean, a lot of times people want to maintain their privacy with the pools so we understand he's going to have a four foot set the front of his foot. Yeah, for about five feet or so, yeah, he's going to. All right, and then if the pool is set back 1.9 feet from the property line and then there's 2.4 feet from the property line to the sidewalk, that means there's four foot, four inches between the edge of the pool and the edge of the sidewalk. You can construct the pool, you can dig the hole without undermining the sidewalk and four foot. Yeah, there should be no problem with the sidewalk. They usually don't have footers or anything like that. No, it's your fault. It's your fault. But you're going to have to put up a construction fence for safety so you can put up a construction fence and you can dig a and this pulls what 12 foot deep I mean the bulls three it's a maximum of four foot deep in the middle okay so you can construct that yeah without subsiding exactly okay thank you is there a reason that it needs to encroach the six inches is there a technical infeasibility to reducing it? There is. I mean, other than aesthetics for the homeowner and ease of use from the homeowner, there's no technical real reason that we can't cut that that six inches off. It may push the sun shelf back a little bit so that he has room to put the the lounge chairs. So instead of being 30 feet six inches for the for the length of the pool it'd be 30 and 30 feet Okay, so that we could accommodate things in there, but no Okay, and do you have any, you're going to take precautions to protect the foundations of the house. It just seems awfully close. Yes. I didn't put it as part of my presentation, but we do what's called an angle of repose. Anything that isn't one for one, the code requires for one foot drop to one foot out type thing. Just try to explain it easily. Requires what's called anger repose and we have that as part of our engineering because we are only three feet seven inches from the house at that four foot depth, which is the in the middle of the pool. So we do have to construct that. And it's almost the entire length of the west side of the pool as it is now. Is that like a steel sheeting? It's a rebar in extra stuff that goes into it. Just a little extra engineering to make sure that we don't affect the foundation. So it's a pretty common thing actually. I'm familiar. Thank you. Other questions? Are there any audience comments? No. Staff. I mean, I guess I have assumed all day today, but no registered opponents. No. And then staff, do you have any cross-examination? Staff waves. Sir, do you have any cross-examination of staff? No. He's waving. And then staff, do you have any closing statements? Staff waves. And then sir, do you have a closing statements? Staff waves. And then sir do you have a closing statement? Staff, staff. Staff, the applicant waves that as well. OK, we'll go into executive session. What are the thoughts of the commission? All looks like we have a comp. We have a willingness to meet the requirements of the fence, the privacy fence. So that's good. And now we've heard a willingness to adjust the dimensions and lay out of the pool. Along with, I think Commissioner Clemens asked some questions around making sure that we have barriers for the construction as not to disrupt the neighborhood pattern as little as possible which was a concern of one of the neighbors so I think that's been addressed as well. I think I understand they're gonna put fencing up and make sure that proper protocols are taken for this. They're both safety and maintaining neighborhood pattern. Seems to me this is about as tight as you can get. And I'm not of the opinion that just because you bought a property you're inherently have the right to a pool or the right to a dock or the right to all the things that people sometimes want to have. But in this case, there's precedents in the neighborhood and staff has recommended support, so I think I'll support it. I don't have a problem with the half-foot setback from the front yard. I'm okay with that. I think they've done a good job of designing this pool and putting it at one photo definitely showed you how small it's going to be and where they're going to put that. So I don't have a problem with either one of the two requests. I mean I just feel like it's not a necessary variance. There's no hardship. There, it's a 30-foot-six-pool instead of a 30-foot-pool. I think I would prefer not to get a variance because it seems like it's possible not to. Or for the front. For the front. I mean, I'm not enamored by the one-foot-nine on the side because the other variances in the neighborhood have much less of a magnitude to them. It's three feet, four and a half feet. This one is 1.9 feet. I think it's a higher ask than the other ones and using, you know, the other properties as a precedent. I don't think it's a like for like necessarily. But so I think if we can actually, if we could separate it into two votes, one vote for the front setback and one for the side setback, or do we have to consider both together? No, we can break that up. And I mean, I think I agree with your concerns with that, you know, this is almost a 3,800 square foot house. And there's only so much space in the property you buy. The other pools, I don't, you know, not really able to do a drive-by for the other properties. So, you know, based on what staff showed us, I was trying to look in the property or appraiser and compare to the numbers that Commissioner Valos was, yeah, those numbers, but looking to see what they look like. And, you know, we have a house here that the footprint, I mean, it really fills the lot. And there's other ones that the homes don't do that. And it's a portion of the pool of a shape like that. So, you know, I do have a consternation that maybe, you know, maybe, maybe there's only some what you can fit on this lot. Are there other comments? But it appeared to me, you're not going to fit this is probably the end of the road because there's not a whole lot more. You can. Yeah, I don't think you can give up too much. Give up too much, right? I mean, it's. When I. Yeah, they're. You have reached the limits of what this lot will bear. Actually, I do have a question for staff that I just reminded myself of. That I thought of during the second presentation, the home. Does it encroach us on the setback or was the front but not the side? They aren't to both. Okay, so I thought I was confused. So the front I understand, but for the side, I would like correct and see it's about a foot. The house would need 15 feet to the street side, and it is existing at 14.4. So and I appreciate that. Sorry I didn't ask that earlier because you know that that's like a compounding in my mind that's a compounding concern there. So you know I will have a hard time supporting this. So here, just, here's what's a little different about this, right? There's a statement here on page three of six at the final last paragraph. The request doesn't promote any established historical or traditional development within the block face of the subject property key point here. No other properties in the block face of the subject property have swimming pools in the front yard setback. So that is a differing, it's a little different from the other pools I imagine that were approved. This is specifically for the subject block. Well, your statement says no other properties in the block face of the subject properties have swimming pools within the front yard setback. Yes. Of a adjacent block there was one pool in the front yard and then on another adjacent the block to the south adjacent block the spa is built at 2.5 foot street side setback. In the last since the four years that I've been on the DRC, we've approved several cases. I can think of two that I think are in the Northeast. For front yard pools on corner lots, when the house's main entry was originally built facing the side street. Okay. But that's not the condition here. The front door of the house does face the front of the lot. So in that situation, we've treated effectively, we've granted a variance that effectively treated the front yard like a side yard. Like a side. But that's not what we're facing here. This is a side yard pool in this. I understand what you're saying, Mr. Mielle, regarding the compounding of the variant of the nonconformance. I do want to point out that in this case the pool would not be in front of the structure. And that's part of my thinking is that it is behind the structure. The structure's there. It's in the front yard setback. But again, this doesn't create a crater variance and then line of taking up more the front yard. No, I think that the issue, I was saying, is that it goes into the side yard. Side yard? Oh, yeah. The house is seven inches over the side yard setback. Right. And I thought it was 12 foot. That's why I misunderstood. I thought the code was 12 foot. But in T3, it's 15 feet. I understand now. So I didn't think there was. In fact, I thought we had a couple of extra feet then was required. But as well. It's just a lot of house on, you know, on not lot. And so, you know, for example, there's another house in the block that is two lots. And it has a nice size pool and also a large house, you know, but they have two lots. But I think I'll entertain motions. Well, yeah, I do think we should do it as two motions. I'd move approval to the front yard setback at 29 feet, 29.5 feet to allow for the insulation of a pool in the street side yard subject to conditions of approval. 29.5 feet is that, shouldn't that be the front yard? Did I say side yard? Yeah. No, okay. No, I said approval. Well, here's what I meant to say. Approval to the variance to the front yard set back at 29.5 feet to allow for installation of a pool in the street side yard. Got it. Subject to staff conditions of approval. Okay. Okay. Stow. Yes. Climates. No. Reale. No. Read. No. I don't know. No. Emotion fails. I move approval to a variance to the street side yard. Set back to 1.9 feet. To allow for installation of a pool in the street side yard, set back to 1.9 feet, to allow for installation of a pool in the street side yard, subject to staff conditions of approval. I can. Stone? Yes. Clement? Is that Clement? Yes. Yes. Yes. Really? No. Read. Yes. Excuse me. Battle of. No. Read. Yes. Battle of. No. Get everybody out there. Phil. Yeah, I thought I missed somebody. I got four checks on here. I really have five votes. You got three. Not motion fails. Okay, that is the end of our agenda items today. Are we going to close the feed for these other items? This is for the workshop and after the workshop. Okay, so we're not going to elect the vice chair. We're going to. No, we are. If you can do it today or if you wanted to defer until I would I would request we did for a while. So we didn't like the vice chair. So there. That was not appointed. Yeah. Oh, oh, there was. So some the reason we don't have more members here today is because not everyone was confirmed And then there was also apparently some confusion on how the appointment was gonna go and one of them So Commissioner Vidal is gonna remain alternate and because of that she can't be the vice-chair So we're gonna have to figure that out last month's meeting was voted contendent on yeah, yeah On her becoming a regular member, right so on her becoming a regular member. Right. So, I mean, I'm in favor of deferring that. We don't need a motion for that, do we, council? I don't think so. You can move it to the next agenda. No members are going to be a fun month. Jeez, we might have like 14 or 15 cases. You said dinner, but do we also do sleeping bags? Yeah. OK, so we will wait on electing the vice chair. So bring this to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going 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 back to the hotel.