Good afternoon, everyone. I am Todd Reed, Chairman of the Development Review Commission. I will 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 plans, approvals, variances, reinstatements, redevelopments, and street vacations. Copies up today's agenda are available at the podium to my right and your left. Certain proceedings on today's agenda are quasi-judicial, meaning that all parties will have a chance to present evidence and testimony to assist the commission in making its decisions. If you have questions regarding the quasi-judicial procedures, there's a guide available at the clerk, the center console here. 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-judicial item must fill out a blue card, and will be sworn in by the clerk prior to speaking. A representative for a group or organization may be designated, but the representative will be allowed only three minutes. The pooling of time is not permitted. For each quasi-judicial case on today's agenda, the presentation will be made by the commission by a representative of the city administration. Staff, the applicant, and any registered opponent will have 10 minutes for their presentations. Following presentations, all persons in attendance who have filled out a blue card located on the podium will be given three minutes to speak. If you have filled out a blue card, you will be called by name and asked to approach the podium. All statements, questions or testimonies must be stated in front of the microphone located at either podium. All statements, questions at the microphone. In front of the microphone located at the podium to ensure all audio is recorded for the record. When addressing the commission, please begin with your name, your address, and state whether you've been sworn in. Once members of the public have had a chance to speak, cross-examinations will begin. During the cross-examination phase of the proceedings, city administration, a registered opposition, if any, and the applicant will have five minutes to ask questions of any witness. Questions should be directed to me as chair. I will in turn direct the questions to the appropriate person for a response. Following cross examination, rebuttal and closing statements will begin. During the phase of the preceding city administration, the registered opposition, if any, and the applicant, will each have five minutes to provide a rebuttal and closing statement. If there is no registered opponent, any person who wishes to be registered as an opponent may register as the registered opponent with the DRC clerk prior to the beginning of the initial presentation of the case and may participate in the limited purposes of cross-examination and rebuttals closing statement phase 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 and closing statements, the public hearing will be closed. And the commission will go into an executive session. The commission may ask questions of the applicant or the public at any time during the proceedings. All motions of the commission are made in an affirmative manner. With a quorum of five or more commissioners, 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 of whether permits. This will allow us to move forward with your fellow St. Petersburg citizens DRC matters. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Finally, I ask that you turn off all cell phones and similar electronic devices during these proceedings. At this time, please rise so that we may begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Thank you. We have the swearing in. Can you stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in? Do you swear or a herb means? I think I'll say that. That's how I say it. I'll say it. Do you swear or a herb means or a herb means? I think I'll say it. I think I'll say it. I think I'll say it. Do you swear or a herb means or a herb means? I think I'll say it. Thank you. Thank you. Here we have the roll call. Bead. Here. Walker. Here. Stowe. Here. Shannon. Here. Cummins. Here. Angleton. Griner. Here. Blint. Here. Reale. Here. Battle of. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. We have the approval of the minutes from. here. Reale. Here. Madeline. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. We have the approval of the minutes from... We actually have two. I have the amendments that were made as well as August, so I believe you had stated we can do one motion and vote if you guys have no issue with last month. I have one. Two. I have an issue on. All right. So we will do the amended July minutes first. Move approval of the amended July minutes. It was second. Second. Read. Yes. Walker. I abstain. I was not there. Oh, yeah, that's right. Stam. Yes. Kieranen. Yes. Clemens. Griner. Stain. Oh,. Griner. Staying. Oh, yep. Flint. Yes. Riali. Yes. Battle out. Yes. Passes. And in the August minutes from last month, we have an amendment. On an item G6, this is the one where we had the front porch was 12 inches above grade. It's currently written as if we left it that way and I'm sorry about my memory. All it keeps popping back that we changed that we made a revision to the 12 inches and said it had to be a minimum of like either 8 or 9 and I think you might have to go back and check unless somebody can remember. You were doing a lot of math there. So you were doing a lot of math. So that's the one that says approval for it to be at least 12 inches above grade. I think you were doing a lot of math there. You were doing a lot of math. So that's the one that says approval for it to be at least 12 inches above grade. Yeah, but I thought we changed it. Yeah, that crunch numbers and came back. I don't. I said Z-thread or not. Just remember we changed it. That's all right. That was my memory. Unless that the last minute we went, I'll leave it the way it is they've got a solution or something like. I'm going to have to go back and listen because the vote sheet says the same so I'll look into that one. So next month we will do what we did this month and hopefully do two months' worth of meeting approval. Yes. Okay so we will defer that to next month and July minutes pass. All right Thank you, and we have an announcement from Corey There's a public announcement Yes, I just wanted to congratulate one of our commissioners mr. Matt Walker As you know, Matt is a director of engineering and senior vice president of Georgia F young He is a licensed Nger engineer with over 20 years of experience in the civil engineering field. He has served on this commission since 2016. I would like to present with Matt with this plaque and thank him for his service on the commission as well as with the City of St. Petersburg. Thank you. We're always hiring. I'm going to be the people I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here. I am going to miss it, but it's been a great ride. So, thank you all. I just want to say that we've spent many hours with you, and actually many extra hours because of you. But it's been a pleasure. You've been very valuable to the board. You're here. Totally agree. We echo those sentiments, and it's just been great. Thanks for the support that you provided me as a new member. So, he's been great working with you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so the public agenda here, the hearing for today we have two legislative cases in, let's see six quasi judicial cases will begin the hearing with the first case. 2433006, address 76, 3034th Avenue. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Commission members. For the records, Scott Bollard with Development Review Services. The request before you is to vacate a portion of the right away on the south side of 34th Avenue North abouting, sorry, let's get this light to work. All right, the request before you is to vacate a portion of the right away on the south side of 34th Avenue North. Thank you. Abundant 7630, 34th Avenue North. The applicant's goal is to vacate the portion of right of way to provide parking for the restaurant located at 7630, 34th Avenue North. The majority of the existing parking spaces for the restaurant are currently located within the public right of way. The area highlighted in yellow is the approximate area of the right of way requested to be vacated. Staff's review of the request found that the vacation will not impair or deny access to any lot of record as the applicant owns the abutting property and that the request does not alter utilized travel patterns nor create a dead end right of way. This is the sketch of the right away proposed to be vacated provided by the applicant. The minimum required right away with for 34th Avenue North at this location is 50 feet. The sketch and description provided by the applicant shows that 25 feet of right away will be retained from the center line of 34th Avenue North measured to the boundary of the proposed vacated right away confirming that this requirement will be met Here's a survey of the property showing parking spaces located on private property as well as within the right-of-way This is the site plan provided by the applicant with the area request to be vacated highlighted in yellow The application was routed to city departments and private utility providers for review and comments. Engineering and water resources identified an existing six inch podable water main running along 34th Avenue North behind the roadway curb near the area requested to be vacated. They are requiring 20 feet from the back of the southern curb along 34th Avenue North to be retained is right away for sufficient space for the maintenance of the potable water main. Transportation review the request and has no objections. Additionally, there were no letters of objection received from private utility providers. Staff did receive one phone call after publication of the staff report about the request. After informing the resident of the request, they had no comments or concerns. The red dash line on this site plan shows the approximate location of the 20-foot measurement from the back of curb. The area between the red dash line and back of curb is the area that engineering and water resources are requiring to be retained as public ride-away. If the request is modified to comply with their conditions, it will result in three to four less parking spaces provided. Based on staff's calculations, the minimum required 16 parking spaces for the existing restaurant will still be able to be provided onsite if the request is modified based on engineering and water resources conditions. Staff is recommending the denial of the request for the partial vacation of right away based on the request as proposed and the objections raised by engineering and water resources. The DRC is inclined to support the vacation. Staff recommends approving the request with conditions that require compliance with the conditions within engineering and water resources memorandums, which includes retaining 20 feet from the back of curb as public right of way. And I did add one slide in here that shows the location of the water main main and you can see how close it runs to the curb there. This concludes staff's presentations. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Raleigh? Can you go back to the sketch, the first sketch? Yeah, here. This could just be a scaling issue. The 50 feet there. And then the 25 foot. It just doesn't look like it's. To scale to the center line. Wouldn't the center line be further away from the property? Am I just reading this sketch wrong? I'd have to defer to the applicant on this one. I'll be honest, I didn't look that closely at that 50 foot measurement. And where it starts from. Maybe it could be that 34th Avenue North in this location is wider than 50 feet. We just needed the sketch from the center line to where they're proposing the vacation to confirm that they would retain 25 feet on their side from the measure from the center line. That way, you know, in the future, we can be sure to maintain that 50 feet of right of way. So there's, I had sort of the same question, but I sort of figured it out. You could probably word it better. Well, there's a 50 foot dimension that's shown to the dash line to the north and then there's a 7.1 something I can't quite read it. Yeah, 1.9. And then a 4.5. So there's a there's close to 12 feet between that dash line. So if you add the 12 foot to the 50 foot. There's like a 62 feet total right away. The city standard is that it'd be 25 feet minimum, so they're going 25 foot off the center line. And by the way, center lines are not necessarily always that center in the right way. But it just seems to me, if I could kind of reword my question here, it seems to me that there's going to be more right away on the other side of the center line. Right. And which is usual? Most roads aren't centered in the right away. And this one, the center line is obviously to the east. Think to me this is going to be like 25 plus 35 or 25 plus 40 or something when you're done. Okay, so I mean regardless of the, we think these measurements are correct. It's a sign in sealed sketch. So then really it's just noting then that there's more right away on the other side of the center line. All right, thank you. I'm confused because I mean typically we see when we get an engineering memo something like this we see the request for an easement. I'm very shocked that they're asking for a right of way and why and I wish somebody were here from engineering because I'd ask them immediately I'd say why can't this be an easement and then then we're fine, we're good to go. I was a little surprised myself through some conversations, staffs understanding as to why engineering is requiring the area to be retained as public right away. And Lou of the easement, is that property owners have been placing structures within the easements, so whether they're, I believe in this case, in the cases they're referring to, they're unpermitted structures, because it does show up as their private property, whether they're aware that they're placing structures on easements or not, I don't know, but that's the reasoning I was provided. Okay, thank you for that. So, I'll go ahead. I just don't understand why they didn't change the request. And so, because that was my first question, is why are we not just able to grant an easement, but even if we approve the conditions of approval, still have the 20 foot easement, which we can't really see on the screen, but that 45 foot dimension there, pull it back an extra 15 feet, you still got 30 feet right away that you're vacating. And I think the city from what it sounds like, zoning and engineering, what had no problem with that. So was it just a timing issue with the memo that came from engineering while they didn't revise it? Or is this a question I just need to ask them? I'll defer to the applicant. I did inform them that we would not be able to support it as is and that they would modify it for us to be able to support it and they chose to proceed forward. When did you notify them about that? Say about two weeks ago. Yeah. Okay. So, yes. Mr. Clemens? Well, actually, Mr. Walker got largely to the meat of my question, and the follow-up was like, when did the applicant know that, because it seems to me, if even if engineering wants to sort of dig in and say, we just don't want it as an easement, when one is a right-of-way, then we can pull it back and still get, but I think we should even be applicant through the process and we can talk about some options. So just one last thing, so Scott, just so I'm clear here. The biggest change then from easement to right away, if we approve this variance or this right away vacation request, is the applicant would then be required to come back and cut out the two landscape islands and maybe the four parking spaces that are now right away, which could be an easement. Is that correct? I mean, there's no way that that could remain because it would be in the public right away. Right, yeah, we'll have to pull that landscaping, those landscaping islands back onto private property, which is why I'm anticipating four spaces being lost because the change in the request definitely cuts over two and then like a small hair of two other spots, but those two other spots would need to be landscaping. That's what he looks at. Well, actually I did have a question. Good finish. You want to go ahead and finish, Commissioner Clinton? Well, if this was approved, I know we're not going to site plan approval, but is the zoning department otherwise satisfied that this parking layout is, you know, conforms or would be approved? The conversations I've had, yes, staff is. It's just, I mean, it's a 60-foot wide lot. So basically, the perpendicular parking, there's not a five foot landscape buffer on the east and west sides, 60-foot, because it's in existing condition. Yeah. Correct. You'd be satisfied, too. Yeah, we, it's not the green spatial requirement at the entry. Correct. That's what we asked them for. Is there any move some of the asphalt entry and landscape that? of some of the asphalt entry and landscape that. But then you would, okay, you answered my question. Thank you. Mr. Follin. Commissioner Stowe asked the main question about why we can't just call them easements unusual. But it seems like several years ago, it was either a code violation or a request before this board on this property related to the front deck. I Can't remember if it was a code violation that they had built that front patio deck area without permits Converted it or if it was a request before this board, but it was absolutely positively this property has been before For code violation or DRC in the past um Is that outdoor patio area code violation or DRC in the past. Is that outdoor patio area permitted? Because they could regain parking there on that if it was done without a permit. It wasn't the current owner of the property that showed up before this board. It was the owner of the property at that time. This is probably 10 years ago, Maybe more I don't know. That might solve some parking issues there if we have to stick with that right of way to push the parking closer to the building. Are you familiar with any past code violation for that patio area? I'm not familiar with the past violations, but I just am understanding that those patios are approved through a building permit. And additionally, we did do the math. And with those patios remaining, there is, and the proposed vacated right away, subtracting out the 20 feet that water resources and engineering are requiring, there is still sufficient space to get all of the required parking spaces on site. I believe the required 16, I believe that we owe to 17 spaces on there on my analysis. My guess on this is that this has been a lot of property that, you know, hey, let's go pave the front area. It's not as shown up in a survey. You know, somebody's playing stupid on it in the past and went and paved it all. Even the pile on sign sits in the right of way right now so As it stands right now that pile on sign without this vacation Would have to come down in the right way right now correct Is again the the pile on sign that's on the survey and that exists now is in that right way. It's 20, 30 feet away from the property line. Blondey east side. I see if I can see it on the survey. I see it in the images. If you look at the landscape or the parking. Yeah, it's just a survey. I see it. It's a little dot there a little blue dot It does show up in the symbol key as a sign It's it's a pile on sign, it's a little. So, I'm comparing. Like right now, that is, I don't know, 60 feet into the right way as it is. Yeah. Caleb, can you please pull up the PowerPoint again? I think I got, it does appear based on the site plan, even with my markup, that it will be on private property. So, let's see here. We're looking at this little dot right here. That's it. All right, so we've got one space here shown on the survey. I believe it's going to be this space here. Bottom right corner of the bushes. Looks like that might be the... Yeah, I see it. Yep, right there. Even if this was vacated, does that meet setback requirements from a sign? Because don't you have a certain distance based upon height from the site property line? Yeah, I mean, we would have, depending on the height of the sign, it would either be, well, if it's less than 6 feet and height zero, if it's 6 to 10 feet, it's a three-foot setback, if it's 15 foot, I believe it's five foot, and if it goes up to 20 to 10 foot setback. Yeah, it's between 15 and 20 foot in height and looking at it, but either way, that red line is the proposed right of way. It would be outside of that, but is that something that would have to be cleared up if this were approved? We'd have to look at the permit records received. Was there permitted improperly or not or it was no permit? I did find a permit for the deck. That was issued in 2000. That was a violation at one time years ago. Yeah, that was issued in 2008. Okay. That's about it. Yeah, we'd have to look at see if there was a sign permit or. Thank you. Any other questions? I have one here, Mr. Voli. So if we were to revert this or revise this to be an easement versus a right away, there were two concerns on page two that were highlighted. One was inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The second was the water resource criteria was not met. On page two, would changing this to an easement versus a right away affect those two statements or concerns that were expressed. It says, let's see, which is third paragraph. African bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of public right-of-ways. In the case of the material submitted, the applicant attachment C does not provide a background on analysis of the conclusion of vacating the subject rights of way Would be consistent with the criteria of the city code or comprehensive plan. It's all right now I don't have any it doesn't have any conflicts with the comprehensive plan or special area plan, but it does suppose with the I mean really that that Does not provide back on our analysis supporting the conclusion is based on the engineering and water resources memorandums provided. That's why we couldn't support it, so that's why that statement is there. But either way, if it were an easement versus right away, this is still applicable. If the right of way with this increased based on the engineering and water resources memorandums, then this would change to it, you know, it does support the conclusion that we can support it. Okay, so what about the water resource criteria that the only other thing that came out, but I looked at they were, their concern remains, is that correct? Engineering water resource, addition 15 feet back, so if it was to be an easement, then yeah, their concerns would remain. I mean, so let me, let me clear that up. the engineering water resource addition 15 feedback so that it was to be an easement then yeah their concerns would remain I mean so let me let me play that if you change if you increase the decrease the request and increase the right of way then the statement on page two where it says does It would remain as does not. We will not be able to support it if it remained as an easement. Issues would remain. Correct. The issues identified by water resources and engineering would remain. Without getting into discussion, I just will point out that the comprehensive plan item in the report, which is, I think on page four talks about right of way it doesn't talk about easement. We can discuss that later some more. Let's see if we went to easement. Well, but that's the thing about Comprehensive Plan says right away. It says right away, right? So, but I think, you know, part of that would probably say for discussion. Yeah, okay. Thank you. You have any questions? Okay. Is the applicant present? Are we? The applicant can speak for three minutes, just like everyone else. And then this is a legislative item. So afterwards, it would just be the folks who filled out a blue card and then write into executive session, just as a reminder. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Dennis Lang. I live at 2034 Avenue, North here in St. Petersburg. I'm the architect of record that's been working with the owner on this project currently. As Scott was outlining for you, everybody, the request is for a vacation of the right of way that is in front of the joint restaurant. That space has been associated with this business and use since its initial establishment. In some of the graphics that we supplied that might be available in the slides. We were able to find in the city's GIS going back to 1980 that this parking lot was established in front of this use and was in use at that time for this business. It's been that way since then. It's been continuously maintained by that business and for their benefit and exclusive use. When we went to go and permit new areas of use out on that patio that Mr. Flint was referencing, we were talking about adding covered area out there. We came to the city to do a permit at which time we were informed. We didn't control sufficient parking in that lot, which we were under the impression we controlled all of. We've been working with the city staff since the beginning of the year around March to resolve this issue. We filed several requests one for a variance to the landscape requirements that you guys made light of so that we could afford ourselves to continue to operation of the lot the way that it is set up in perpendicular access and still provide for new landscaping on the frontage. We went through several rounds of changes with staff in the form of sitting to do our pre-application meeting. We made changes at that time. Staff came back with additional comments which we revised again to accommodate to afford them the dimension from the center line of road which did not align with the center line of the roadway. So we move that we read differences on this the frontage. When we got everything resubmitted again, the issue didn't come up until later in the process with water management and resources regarding the infrastructure in the right of way. We also had the exact same question that you guys did, which is what was the grievance with affording us access to this pipe in the form of an easement. For us as property developers trying to get that counted parking on site, it's imperative for us to try and maintain as much parking on site as we can. We're using it all right now. And for us, it's really more about maintaining as much on site parking as possible because if we don't, we have patrons coming and servicing this business right now that we are going to either lose their patronage or they're going to lose access to parking on site Which is going to impede access on this roadway that's our neighbors and it's going to put them out on Tyrone Boulevard and be walking back to this site in a way that's more dangerous So we we're trying to work with staff to afford us the greatest opportunity to preserve as much on-site parking for the purposes of our Tabulations while still granting access to staff in a reasonable way. I heard Mr. Boyard say that the grievance that engineering was having was that in other instances throughout the city, people were programming infrastructure in private structures in the right of way, or in these easements that are granted. I could absolutely understand that that to be the case, but as Mr. Flynn also noted, there's a setback on the front. We're not going to be constructing any structures on the front. We are trying to keep the parking. We're not trying to build new structures out front. Thank you. Do you have any questions for the after? Mr. Flint? One of the comments from like you said, staff utilities was people keep building things and the easement that are permanent. So I see their concerns on it because like I look at the survey that was provided by the applicant, it doesn't show that mini split that's applied to that's attached to the east wall of the restaurant and the east wall the building is zero lot line so there's a newer mini split unit that's not even on the property it's overhanging the neighbor property it's a zero lot line so I can kind of understand understand the city's concerns about the right way, making it very, very clear that this is not your property. When the applicant right now is putting things on a zero-lot line wall extending over neighboring property, is that something that was installed by the current applicant? I mean, you're asking about infrastructure shown on the survey. Yeah it shows your sheds, shows your walking cooler but it doesn't show that many split mounted on the side of the building which again is zero lot line meaning that once you hit the surface of that exterior based wall you are now hanging over the adjacent property. Being a maestri Wall zero lot line you can't have penetration at it because it's a firewall essentially and zero lot line yet there's a many split mounted to it. I mean if there's an issue where there's a code violation on the existing structure I would say I'd be happy to address that with the owner in the form of the necessary permitting to resolve that. But in so far as what we're talking about out front in the right of way, for vacating the purposes, for landscaping, I mean, I don't see us putting any air conditioning infrastructure out front in the proposed easement. Now, I have a question leading up to this. I mentioned that pylon sign that's out front. The right of way makes it very clear that you can't put it up to the right of way. If it becomes an easement, you could technically, I think, go up to the easement with a pile on sign. At some point in the future, would you be willing to agree to keep any future signage, pile on signage five to ten feet away from an easement if we were to agree to an easement? Well I think that that really becomes an issue of how long is the sign that's in there been there. I heard Corey make note of has it been permitted correctly in the past? I mean if it's permitted correctly and it's there again it's there it's benefiting this business you know if it's in a placement that's no longer permissible or it was done incorrectly. Again, we'll happily address that with city in the necessary permitting format. Again, I think it's gonna make a decision with me whether or not we stick with the right of where we go with an easement because I have concerns that things are gonna butt up into that also. I mean, the way it's been utilized presently has been existing of 100% paper surface out there being parked on with an uncontrolled curb access. And it's just been access and there hasn't been any problems with it. There's since at least 84 on Google Earth. Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, it's been there since at least 1980 in the city's GIS imagery. I couldn't find any aerial imagery going back further that was clear that clarified it. No further questions. We go here. Yeah, a question. Just on the sign, prior sign codes, the Property Preserve website reflects that this structure was built in 1972 if the sign was contemporaneously constructed with that. Sign code regulations in the city at that time did allow placement of signs in the right of way, which we would not otherwise permit. So it would be a grandfathered sign at this point. Now if they tore it down, it blew down, anything happened to it, they would have to bring it back onto their property. But as long as it is maintained in a co-compliant condition, then it would be legal non-conforming. Additionally, their neighboring property was originally platted right away as well, which was previously vacated. So that might have been affected the placement of the sign at that time as well. So and you may not, we may not find a permit for the sign, but predating sign code of the sign code of 2007, we generally consider all of those to be grandfathered signs as long as they're maintained. All right thank you for that clarification. We have Commissioner Clemens. You know how many parking spaces effectively the restaurant has now? Effectively on site I believe we only have technically 11 on our parts. No, I'm sorry, but including the right of weight spaces. Oh, I think we're at 26 out front. And with this site plan, how many if you got this request has approved under the submitted site plan, you know, many spaces. In the way that we've represented it currently, we have, I believe it's 22 remaining, Mr. Clements. Okay. And as we heard, according Mr. Boyard's calculations, 16 are the minimum, but basically based on your business, the business, not your business, but their business. That's in the format where the patio out front is used in its current configuration. What necessitated all of this effort on our part was trying to add covered area out front, which changed its classification, which changed my parking requirements. So I was trying, and again, we're using all those spaces currently. No, I understand. Sometimes the difference between what the code minimum is and how many. In our calculations, sir, we were thinking that we need a closer to 21 spaces, which was why we were, we were trying to keep at least 22 on site. Okay, thank you. Have any, you. Any other questions? So just for the clarification, just a segue to what Commissioner Clemens asked. So inclusive of your application, you would be at 26 parking spaces is what I understand. The current setup on site is that larger number. The way that we've submitted it with our final, the version that's in front of you for approval today with what I would hope to be the condition of the easement, would represent that we preserve 23 spaces. So there's a dozen that I see here on the site plan. There's 12 that, and there's a portion of the site that's back towards the building yet. So it's like when we're, the portion that we're grabbing out front is those additional 13 spaces. All right. Thank you sir. Thank you. Any additional So if this is denied today, would you anticipate that you would come back with a request, an alternative request that brought the right away back. Even though that would reduce you to probably 17. To answer that, I would say one of the issues that came up that Scott kind of pointed out was that when engineering chimed in that they needed this revised again, I went back to my owner and he said, you know, if we can't get this approved, then I'm just going to probably stop altogether because it's becoming more of a hassle than it is of a benefit. At this point, he's got an open existing business that's permitted correctly and everything's established the way it is with that parking out front. And this was in an attempt to create additional operating space and increase the operations of the business. And at this point, we're gonna lose too much in order to actually achieve that benefit. So he's just going to kind of back off. Commissioner Clem is just to clarify if your action today is just a recommendation to the city council. This is a legislative matter. So yeah. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We do have a blue card. Mr. George A.S., excuse me if I pronounce this improperly, shimmed? Okay, great. Can you come forward, please state your name, your full name, your address, and what, and whether you've been sworn in. My name is George A. Shem, the second. I'm a land surveyor. My office is at 3301, Dec. Boulevard, Palm Harbor, Florida. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have concerning the survey. I can tell you that the road right away to the west of it, 40 feet was given on the north by a newer plant and 30 feet was given by this plant And so there's a total of 70 footer right away to the to the west so I'm sorry your for or against I'm for I'm for yeah, sorry Oh, yes, so your four I'm for So I guess really on I'm here more or less to answer any questions or try to answer any questions you might have on the survey in part of it. I got one. No mind, Steve. Good afternoon, Miss Shem, how you doing? I'm doing well. It has been a while. Yes, so the water made this in question out front. Did you guys locate it when you did your survey? We took the plan from the city and tried to overlay it, scanned it in. And so we have not gone and done, we have not called Georgia if young to dig it up for us yet. Okay. I was just curious if you need a depth. So the 4.5 feet is an estimate then of the look? Is that what that 4.5 foot? I'm assuming it's there. But that's the curve, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's from the back of the curb. That's, I think that you need the easement behind that. Either there has to be a, to cover the water line, you would have to have an easement at minimum. I'll ask you a question. In your experience as a surveyor, is it common or even typical for city water lines to be less than 20 feet from a property line? It is very- The city water department is asking for 20 feet between the water line and a new property line Is is there not conditions that you've seen in St. Petersburg where water lines are closer than 20 feet to a property line? Oh, I've seen the water lines underneath the sidewalk right, you know five feet behind the curb four feet behind the curb So it's not unusual for the water line to be where it is. Actually, it's back further than I might have expected it to be. If the plan's right. In this case, the property line is another 100 feet to the south, because it's an unusual property. But my point in the more normal situation, are you familiar with situations where water lines are less than 20 feet from the property? Yes. Any additional questions for Mr. Schump? In commission? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. No more blue cards do we have? No, no, no. You'll write them. Oh, let's later. Okay, great. Is there.... Oh, let's lay a pick right. Is there. We're going straight to executive. Yeah, do we want to go in executive session? Does anybody recall whether the water line was what what side the water line is on looking at that one that was just up there on the curb? Is it on the roadside or is it on the south side? Yeah, I'm probably sure. Okay, just here. Well, we'll always have the GIS map from the city Alice. Yeah, that's just ahead. So can I start with this if you don't mind? Sure. Well, there's a lot going on here. So the city, arterial designation of the street requires 50 foot right away, which is one of the 50 foot dimension comes from. The city engineering department has tables based on the depth of the pipe and the size of the pipe that tells them what size easement they want, which is where the 20 feet is coming from. The 25 foot dimension from the back from the centerline south is to get you to the 50 foot, towards that 50 foot, even though it it's offset it's 50 feet so knowing that six inch pipe and the only one at 20 foot easement tells me that the pipe is very shallow which is why I asked you if you located it and so at that point then I go back to putting on my well what's best for the city hat and all over the city we have these establishments that are up against the major streets. What we end up seeing is cars that end up parking everywhere. Grass, landscape island, it doesn't matter, they just pile in. And so when you have a six inch water main it's probably providing fire protection services. There's a very shallow main. The last thing you want is cars parking on grass right on top of it. Now the asphalt is probably not a great solution, but it's going to at least provide some load protection from a vehicle parked on top of it, which is why I'm leaning to kind of super seating what engineering wants and saying, let's just give them an easement, because I think it's in the best interest of the city to keep a patch of asphalt on top of this water main so that when cars park on top of it that tear up this water main. And so there's a lot going on. I understand why the city is asking what they're asking for. I also understand that you can't take a blanket approach to, oh well, other people are building permanent structures and easements, but especially when you're on a piece of property that's in this location on Tyron, it's on a busy street. I think it's actually in the city's best interest to change these conditions from 20 feet right away to 20 foot easement and allow some pavement to stay over this pipe just for protection purposes. And that's how I'm leaning on this from an engineering perspective. If it's only a 20 inch 20 inch easement or 20 foot wide easement that pipe is three feet or so below grade which is about standard for water main anyway but as it go deeper the city requires more they get to 30 and you know it's 20 from the pipe itself now it's 20 feet centered so if you read the condition so they want 20 feet from the back occurred so it's 20 feet centered. So if you read the condition, so they want 20 feet from the back of curve. So it's 20 feet centered. And so which is the standard. So there's, there assume in the pipe is in there 20 feet somewhere, which was what tells you that the pipe is shallow. And so... Yeah, no. 20 foot per half of it. So the easement when the pipes get deeper and bigger, the easement gets bigger and bigger 30, 40 feet, right? So point of all of this is, is I understand what Kyle and the engineering department were trying to do, but I also understand that you can't dictate what happens in another lot on this property owner, especially when we have a condition where we've seen over and over that people are just going to park wherever they want to park. And I think it's not the ideal solution to change it to an easement, but it's a lot more ideal than having to bust it up water main every time people park on the middle of the rainy season. So that's where I'm at. I'm leaning towards changing the conditions of the easement. And if any of y'all can tell me otherwise, I'll be willing to listen. But that's why I'm supporting changing this. I'm, I know, those are the two points as a question that I asked you and why because in that memorandum when I read that, and I thought, you know, it's good to be proactive and preventive. And I think that's the point Commissioner Walker is making then to be reacting to a problem that we could have prevented. I don't know. Those two points that were in the report caught my attention. Commissioner Grane. This is just kind of a procedural question. The request is for approval of vacation. Are you suggesting that we change the request to an easement? No, I'm saying because the vacation request, what they want is fine. I'm just saying change the condition to say that instead of including retaining a 20 foot back of curb public right away, including retaining 20 feet back of curb as a public utility easement. Doing so would address the issue in the memorandum. And so the other thing that kind of came up when I was reviewing when I was reading this is like the conditions in the request are kind of a circular argument, right? If we approved the request then the conditions were still going to go back to what the water and water resources wanted anyway You know, and so it didn't really matter if we approved it and I did you know because the way the conditions were written and so You know, I'm just given engineering perspective of why I think it makes sense to keep this as a public utility Eastman and it's primarily for protection of that pipe. Mm-hmm Oh, I agree you a bill out. I agree with Commissioner Walker. I think what we're seeing here is an improvement of what the property currently looks like. If it were to stay as is, I think it remains more of an eye sore and using, you know, as using failed as a precedent other people failing to obey the easement rules is not very relevant. I think if we have an easement then the rules have to be followed for that easement and if they're not then the property owner will be in violation. And I think that's just the same with an easement as it would be with a right of way and it just needs to be enforced. So the fact that no permanent structures are going to be built within the easement area, I think is with the front setback. So no buildings, no legal buildings could even be permitted. And just looking at this site plan, I don't see why any building is just not practical. I like kind of legalizing what has really been sort of in illegal condition for 40 years or more, and getting us more compliance and Mr. Valos had something that is actually more attractive to food. Anyway, I'm gonna, I'd like to, East Virginia as well. We should show. Yeah, this question might be for staff or for legal. So currently, conditions one and two, read prior to recording the vacation ordinance, the applicants should comply with the conditions of the engineering memorandum dated August 2nd, November for which include retaining 20 feet of from backup curb as public right of way. If what I'm hearing we end up doing, I think this is gonna end up reading prior to recording the vacation ordinance, the applicant shall retain 20 feet from backup curb as an easement. And you should also consider whether or not you want it to be subject to any other conditions in the memos. So if you would like to make a video. Yeah, that was my question was how do we, because I'm losing the memo part. Yeah, so you could do something, for example, if you wanted to modify condition number one, prior to recording the vacation ordinance, the applicant shall comply with the conditions in the engineering memorandum dated August 2nd, 2014 Except that instead of retaining a 20-foot from back of curb except that instead of retaining a public right of way 20 feet from back of curb You know that they should retain ease. I didn't provide anything like that Yeah, I think that would be fine if you wanted to preserve the other conditions in the memo. That was my yeah, thank you And then Corey Commissioner Clemens made a comment earlier about the Parking lot entry landscaping We don't need to memorialize that as it can do I mean I know the site plant shows it But that's just gonna be when they come in to do it. That's just a requirement, right? Okay. It'll be part of the permitting process, right? Okay. Just for a moment. No. I sort of a question for Matt Walker. Overall statement, I believe when it's a right of way, your landscaping does not go in the right of way, but in the easement, you can put landscape in the easement you can put landscape in the easement. So Matt Walker's comments about the shellness of that water line. Is it a requirement that the applicant go and feel verify where that water line is? Because I would assume part of a city concern would be, let's not put these trees right on top of it that could create an issue. Is that something that would be naturally covered in city code to locate that water lie before planting that tree? Because it might be shallow. It should be yes. Yeah. It's just real quick for clarification. In the city code, it does say that trees shall not be planted in easements. So even if you require them to dedicate that as an easement, they cannot plant trees in that easement. They can do lower plants. Yeah, correct. Mr. Reilly? So I think that, well I know that I have a different view on this. I mean the impetus of this is to try and expand business that's already built to a zero lot line and a non-conforming, legal non-conforming status. And we have what we see most of the time are we have a porch and then someone wants a pool and they say, well, I can't fit both. And you're not supposed to be able to fit both. Staff has said this owner can have enough parking spaces if the right away is only vacated to the extent that engineering is requesting. And so it just seems like most of the time, vacations come through pretty easily. This time we have staff objecting and saying, no, don't give it all away. The other thing is, and this may be a question, I don't know if it's for legal or for staff, but if you have improvements in an easement, and it probably depends on the easement, actually, I'm thinking about it. If you have improvements in the easement and city has to come in and tear it up to build a repair of the water line, does the city have to pay for those improvements to reinstall those improvements? Per city code, all costs involving repair, repair and repair services, removal and replacement offenses, walls, trees, shrubbery, and hedges, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. So that gives me, you know, I can sort of see the likely path of the commission here and that gives me some comfort. But I just, we're talking about a property that's non-conforming and just about every way that I can see and we're trying to squeeze more parking spaces so that more can be done on it. So I probably don't know that. I just don't see a compelling argument that this can't be an easement instead of a priority way. That's where I'm stuck is that I just don't see a compelling argument. And I would typically agree with you, but the staff has said code requires 16 spaces and the applicant says that they're already full of the brim at 26. Right, because their property is full of the brim. No, I understand. We would allow them to build that. I'd rather people park on an asphalt parking spot in an easement than park on grass over a public right away and that's just personal thing. We have a business here in a lot that's barely, that's not big for a single family home. But what happens when you add that additional outdoor patio, you're adding more patrons. So now you're guaranteeing people are parking in the neighborhood. And I believe this is a full liquor establishment. And I believe they're open late at night. It's kind of without the easement or right of wave vacation, you can't get the outdoor patio. And if you allow that patio, now everybody's parking in the neighborhood, because I already maxed out on parking and spilling out. I mean, that can be speculated to some extent, but, you know, this is legislative. So there's more, there's more grounds to consider other things. But the other part of this too is you mentioned the expansion here and how it can have an effect. But the applicant wanting more spaces to expand the business when it doesn't fit as what troubles me. It's not the details of the engineering that bothers me. It's the goal of what's trying to be done. I think they're actually compromising and having less than what's currently shown. Right, what are reducing it to make it a little more attractive? I mean, if you buy this property and don't look at your survey, shame on you, period. I mean, more than half your parking is not on your property. Yeah. I have a question about the adjacent vacation. Is there a similar issue with the water line running through that area. Based on the GIS map, I would say it appears that the water line is running within five feet of the property line. It does not appear to be on the property, but it is similarly situated. And I do not see an easement dedicated on that butting property, that portion of right away that was previously vacated. Did you go further west, I assume, which is continues on all those locks? Water line is pretty much right on the property line. Mm-hmm. I'm gonna last. I'll just go ahead and hit the, yep. I'll try to be back with you. You know, what's, you know, I go back to what Commissioner Walker, as you look at this, we have the opportunity to be preventive and proactive because I do have concerns if you were to have a busted border mainline. So you have an opportunity to address that, though it's, you know, early, not an easement or vacation. But then I read and hear tooth transportation and parking. In the report, they said the requested vacation right away will foster redevelopment, which is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan. That's a standard response we put out. So I just look when I read the whole thing, I'm going boy. So really, I looked at those two points that I made earlier and I think we, there is an opportunity, you know, we're just thinking about being preventive and proactive, is rather than having cars are going to park, they're doing it now likely. And I understand, like I said, I understand completely where ECID is coming from. I just, we've seen it all over the city, these establishments, people park on the grass. So, do we, I would like to make a motion. I just wanna make some statements real quick. So I did go through the engineering memorandum. They have two conditions. One is about, you know, retaining 20 feet from back of curves. Pull it right away. The second one is just about more of a clarification for the applicant. Should this go forward? It's portions of the area of right away requested to be indicated. We're previously dedicated to be in the adjacent plat Not the plat that the subject parcels within so they were asking them to review the underlying ownership of the portions of right away upon vacating Just to make sure when they do go through the vacation Some of that right away isn't you know, somewhat somehow dedicated to the budding property owner So by removing the condition referring to the engineering memorandum You wouldn't be you know you wouldn't be losing any conditions that they're requiring other than... That'd be the same for the water resources? Yes, they only had the one condition. Oh, that. All right. So is that okay with... Okay, let me see if this works. If I propose it. I've wanted to recommend for that as well. We're proposing to change the Your recommended. Yeah, I propose the amending condition number one to read prior to recording the vacation ordinance The applicant shall retain 20 feet from back of curb as an easement Thank you copy me. That's exactly what I had written here That was a motion. Second. I want to just make sure legal is okay with that. Can you say that one more time? This is modifying condition number one. Yes. Number two will be exactly the same. But prior to recording the vacation ordinance, the applicant's shell retained 20 feet from backup curb as an easement. And did you want to include any language in your motion regarding any other conditions in the engineering memo? Not according what Mr. Bollier just said. Okay. Okay. Did you identify the type of easement? Public utility. Okay. Public utility easement. Get that, Taylor? Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'd like to propose a motion to condition number two to revise it to read prior to recording the vacation ordinance the applicant shall retain 20 feet from backup curb as a public utility easement. Second. What's the difference between one was the ECID memo and the one. Oh, yeah. Okay. The engineering and the water resource. How about that language? Oh, fair enough. Yeah, it's two different groups. Well, actually, you could now just make a motion to speak. I could have done that. But they're there. We're going to have more. What? 100 years and now people are going to be so confused. We do have a motion. Oh, we won't be here. These and these will just travel again Depending on what happens with this vote this recommendation to modify these conditions will just travel to the city council as recommendations Okay Kiernan yes walker yes step yes singleton comments Really no read yes, no motion passes Step. Yes. Singleton. Clements. Yes. Really? No. Read. Yes. Not motion passes. In addition to three, you say it's a injury. Yeah, we wouldn't have to change in addition to three. Now, how in the world do we do the? What's the overall condition that he? It was the same one. No, he just said he had one he wanted to add but no that would stay three stays it's about the lapsing of the bus I just move approval the vacation right but it's not a vacation now we're still vacating a portion yeah they still okay and we're just putting in a T's of my gotcha so I moved to approve the vacation of the portion of right away in the south side of 34th Avenue North Generally located at 76 30 34th Avenue North subject to the amended conditions second Karen and yes walker yes Stowe yes singleton Clamans Reality no Read yes motion passes Singleton. Yes. Clamonds. Reality. No. Read. Yes. Emotion passes. Good. All right. Thank you. It's off of the bang. Ah, a little while, all right? Yeah. It's okay. Yeah, it took a little while. Okay, thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Yeah. Next case, legislative case. Case number 2433008. Address 1412, 7th Avenue South, and 721, 14th Street South. And we have staff. Again for the records, Scott Bord with Development Review Services. This work was before you, is to vacate a 10 foot wide Alley segment that is 132 feet in length located between 1412 7th Ave South and 7211 14th Street South. Here's a closer aerial with the Alley segment request to be vacated, highlighted in yellow. The green line going through the All alley denotes an existing sewer line. This is a view of the alley segment requested to be vacated from 14th Street South looking west. This photo was taken while standing within the alley segment to be vacated and looking west. There's a power pole within the intersection of the alleys with guidewires located within the alley segment requested to be vacated. This is looking north up the alleys. You can see the large live oak centered in the intersection of the platted alleys, along with that's power pole. Here's a photo of the alleys looking east. This is a sketch of the alleys segment proposed to be vacated provided by the applicant. Staff's review of the alley segment proposed to be vacated provided by the applicant. Staff's review of the request found the vacation will not impair or deny access to any lot of record as the applicant owns the properties to the north and south of the alley segment. The request does not affect any utilized travel patterns as it is currently not navigable and does not create any dead ends. This application was routed to city departmentsartments and Private Utility Providers for review and comments. Engineering and water resources identified an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main, running through the alley to be vacated, which will require a dedicated 20-foot wide easement centered over the main. Transportation reviewed the request and had no objections. Additionally, there were no letters of objection received from any private utility providers, and staff did not receive any comments for or against their requests from property owners. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring plated lots 10 and 11 to remain combined as one buildable lot. Staff's reason for this condition is that the property is on NT2 which requires vehicular access to be provided off of alleys when present. If the request is approved it will result in lot 10 no longer having frontage on an alley. Additional conditions of approval include compliance with the conditions provided within engineering and water resources and memorandums attached to the report where they are requiring the easement. Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions within the report and if you have any questions I'll be more happy to answer them. Thank you. Fish and realley. So there's a 10 foot alley right away, and a 20 foot easement is requested. That's correct. OK. How does the five foot? Where is it going to go? Where is the other five foot go when the property to the south? Could you put your back on the side? They own both sides. But he owns both sides. You know, let me give that a lot. Yeah, he owns lots 10 and 10 and 11. Yeah. Yep. So can you leave that up? So that actually was going to be my question. I understand he owns all three lots. But are we splitting this? Typically, we're, you know, the northern five feet goes to 10 and 11. The bottom five feet goes to a lot of nine. Typically that's how I display it. That's not by this operation, that's by law. So I don't think that. Well, but typically you don't have unified ownership on, so I'm just wondering, because there could be a day in the future where this gentleman doesn't own these three, he may be on the 10, 11, self-loat, 9. And so I'm just wondering is, it would be very advantageous if you were looking to sell off Lot 9 to take all that land and put it to Lot 10 and then put an easement also be centered and half and half. The vacations can't decide who gets the wall. We can check with the vacations. That's right. The city, so that's not actually an action that the city can take and it's kind of a disclaimer that we include in our vacation applications to let the applicant know that what the operation of this is just divesting the city's interest essentially and what happens to the property is by operation of law it happens it's not it's not something that the city has a say in. Okay. Who's that? He can figure it out with his own bans after the fact. If they remain in common ownership after the vacation is completed and they wanted to re-plat and change the line of the law for you, the law line adjustment that would be separate application. Okay. And the reason I was asking is because typically we have that language but they're not common ownership and I just didn't know if common ownership May they all screwy which okay All right, thank you Maybe any commissioner Flint Maybe I'm not understanding here, but we've got a 10 foot alley with sewer line under it If there's a problem with that sewer line the city would only have 10 feet to work with. But now we're wanting 20 foot. It's 50 feet. We used to hand it these things. Now we're used to machines. What preserves the property owner is getting property, right, that they don't have the right to now. So they can decide if it's worth it to give a bigger easement than, you know, and hopefully they can design whatever they're gonna build within setbacks. I mean, I think this is the decision for the applicant. Well, is it preserving setback? It preserves it. That's what I was gonna say. That the way? It doesn't extend past. It says here it's worth serving the alleys used public utility corridor, right? Is it? Did I hit that wrong? That's what I read in the report. Yeah, but you're set back with them. He's in the middle of the alley, not to the property line five foot over. Because I just want to play some more property. Yeah. I'm fine with it. If the home, if the property owners find with it but that's just a doubt in the question. Yeah, this is what he's okay. Do we have any additional questions? Oh, okay. All right, Mr. Ballet, you're done. Is the applicant here? I'll please come forward. State your full name address. Whether you've been sworn in, we've had. Sure. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. I'm going to be back. seems a little weird. The goal here, the only thing that happens in that alleyway right now is some pedestrian traffic with hand-blown trash thrown all over both properties. We want to redevelop 721-14 Street South, and we'd like to do an ADU in the back. And we're not comfortable doing an ADU with the alleyway still there just because of the privacy concerns. And so even with a 20-foot, based on my math of the interior lot line setbacks, five feet from the alley already, it wouldn't impact us, depending on exactly what that line is, to be able to do the aid of use that we want to do. So that's the reason for it is to privatize that, be able to fence it off, secure that property, and make it more habitable for the residents. The check's out. Yes. But if you want to do a 10-foot easement instead of a 20-foot, I'm good with that. Any additional information? No, sir. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Taylor, are there any blue cards on this one? They're not for this one. Okay. We'll go into executive session. Are you in our tenant motion? Yep. I move approval of a vacation of a 10-foot wide alley located between 141-1-2-7000 New South and 721-14th Street South. It's not good. Here, Nick. Yes. Walker. Yes. Stoke. Yes. Singleton. Yes. Clements. Yes. Reale. Yes. Read. Yes. Motion passes. Congratulations. OK. The next case, quasi judicial. Aest number two four. Yes, five four zero zero zero zero two seven address three thousand and one six avenue south. Staff, thank you. Good afternoon. Katrina Loon and Gordon, Planet Two, with Development Review Services for the Record. The case before you is located at the Northwest corner of 30th Street South and 6th Avenue South within the Paul Meadow Park Neighborhood and Warehouse Arts District Association. The subject property consists of one fully plated lot, lot eight, and is located in the neighborhood traditional one, NT1 Zoning District. The property has a width of 43 feet, and a total area of 3,870 square feet, substandard in lot width and area for NT1, and has access of a 14 foot wide alleyway in the rear. A permit forcing a new single-family residence was obtained and approved in October 2018. Approved permit plans include a two-story structure with three bedrooms, front-covered porch elevated 12-inches, rear-covered porch, rear-loading one-car garage, concrete standard driveway off alleyway, landscaping, irrigation, and slur equipment sidewalk and walkway to curb. So here you can see. And these are the plans. This is a floor plan that shows the step up and the front porch. Upon attempting to receive a certificate of occupancy, a CO, for the structure, the As-built survey was submitted for review to the city in January of 2024. It was found that the principal structure did not meet the minimum street side yard set back, and a zoning inspection had to be completed. On March 7, 2024, the inspection was disapproved, citing the front porch was built less than 12 inches above grade. As a result, the applicant is seeking an after-the-fact variance to retain the existing home within the required street side yard setback and a porch at grade. These are the requests. Staff reviewed this application in the context of the following criteria from the city code and found that the request variance is inconsistent with these standards. There are no special conditions per cular to the property. The request is considered self-imposed. Literal enforcement of this chapter would require the applicant to meet the appro- the applicable setback, porch-hide requirement and comply with the approved permit. Struct application of the code will allow for reasonable use of the land without the granting of a variance and will not deprive the applicant of rights that other properties of similar lot size and orientation possesses. And to mitigate the very interquest, applicant may increase the height of the porch to a possible six inches matches matching the finished floor elevation of the home. This may decrease the magnitude of the request and note the newly installed six foot tall fence existing and the existing, excuse me, and the existing trees along the street side yard provides visual screener for the home and as a corner lot the roadway provides effective separation between the adjacent property. So here are some neighboring homes on the block in analyzing the properties along the subject block. Many of the properties are substandard in lot with an area. The block face displays an inconsistent pattern of single-family homes with a principal entry including a porch, a portico or a stoop. Majority of the homes with a covered entry demonstrates less than 12 inches above the above-the-budding finished grade. So this is the one to your left. We'll be the new house that is across the street. You can kind of see it's elevated and then this is a next door neighbor and then walking along. These are other homes within the block. Based on the analysis provided, the reasons outline industry report do not justify the granting of this variance. Should the proposal be approved, there will be subject to the special conditions of approval outlined in the published staff report. Staff receive no comments or correspondence from public, from the public, neighborhood associations, including Conan O'Hara. The staff will be approved by the public. The staff will be approved by the public. The staff will be approved by the public. The staff will be approved by the public. conditions of approval outlined in the published staff report. Staff received no comments or correspondence from public, from the public, neighborhood associations, including Kona. And according to the public participation report provided, the applicant did send 35 letters to the owners within the 300 foot radius and received one response just asking for further information. This time this concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is in the audience. We have any questions for staff? You have one question for staff. Mr. Flint? I have one question for staff. Here's your flint. Can you take a look at page A4 of the approved plans? And I'm specifically on the front patio right now. You have essentially roughly a 4 by 4, 5 by 5 posts. When you look at the actual plans 4x4, 5x5 posts. When you look at the actual plans on A4, they have a stone on the bottom, and then it tapers narrower at the top. Are those items that are required? You said it should be in place. Age A, up to four. Age A is an atom four. Age A is an atom, four? Four? Yes, okay, got it. To the bottom left corner, you'll see some detail on the support columns on that front porch. Yes, got it. I'm not concerned about the back porch. I don't know if it has any detail like that, but it's a back porch, nobody sees it. On the front porch, what you have completed is just a bear skinny column with essentially no decorative element to it, but you look at page A4 and it actually has decorative columns that tie in a little bit better with what all of the other homes in the neighborhood that are new have, are they required to have the columns built as per plans there? Oh, I see. The match, the detail shown on page A4, because that is part of the front patio, the visual element that everybody sees. Understood. So based on the review for the new single family home, what we review is the elevations. So the elevations is what shows and provides those details for staff to approve. So that's what is for zoning that work. That detail of the tapered column on the stone base is on the back of the elevations. That's on the back porch, not the front porch. Well, elevation. That is correct, because if you look at the elevation on A, two. That is true. Yes. So the front is the lower left and then when you turn so the street side so those details on the column are the rear. Are we? Are we together? I mean that is only on the back they have the nice. All right. There's a little of news a bit more. Tell them about the sports. That's pretty much. That's pretty much. It seems kind of hard. No, for that's interesting. Okay. Good question. Same going back to the plans. The first one in the package is page C1. That's the one? C1. C1, yes yes Charlie one and on the right side There's a it's in blue ink was that done at the time of permitting says need 12 inch at You know it talks about the steps in at the entry Was that done it yes, so that is a stamp from staff. And there it says, needs 12 inch at 4. But I mean, that was as part of the permitting thing. You got it. It was a part of the approval package for the permit. OK. Thank you. What do you need? Any questions? I do have one here. So you offered, I see an option that you offered regarding the 12-inch height requirement in, so that we would, the applicant would request the minimum, you said that the applicant may increase the height to six inches matching the finished door elevation of the home. Yes, and that a picture. That would be possible. So when staff went out there, we measured the step up for where you enter into the home, and it's approximately. So that's a possibility that that could be done which would minimize the request. It's impossible. You measure that, right? Excuse me. Okay, thank you. Okay. That's it. Thank you. We have no further questions for staff. Do we have the applicant present? Please state your full name address and if you've been sworn in. Good afternoon. My name is Ron DeSorano. I have been sworn in. I live at 2436 49th Street South here in St. Petersburg. I just want to add a couple of notes to what the city is already presented. I gave a... I'm pulling it up currently. I submitted a bit of a presentation. I don't think it needs to be brought up. Oh, there it is. All right. Okay It's a bit of background. You need to stay at the mic though so we can hear you. All right a bit of background the property Was originally permitted in 2018 the builder went out of business the property was foreclosed on, changed hands multiple times. Inspections were done for the property and final inspections were approved in 2023 and the permit for construction was closed. I bought the property last year. I'm a former owner and I'm currently representing the current owner. I know that it's buyer beware. When I purchased the property, I went through a title company that went to the city looking for code violations and also to make sure that although there were no active code violations. This shows the construction permit for the property was closed at the time of sale, both when I purchased it and when I sold it. I'm sorry, can you be a little bit more specific, close, close, close, close. Yes, stay in front of the mic. I'm sorry. Are all four of those permits related to this property? That's one permit number there. It's one permit. Thank you. But the permit for construction was closed and final inspections were completed. The current owner requested a certificate of occupancy and the city informed us that his own inspection had not been done. The inspection was done, disapproved, and the permit was reopened. This is showing the permit status now. So a lot of issues came out of that. His own request, we have done everything we can to satisfy the city, paid for multiple surveys to verify that correct drainages in place paid for blower tests after the fact of variances for trees that were removed years ago, relocated fencing, removed half the sod off the property, planted trees, shrubs, and done other things to satisfy everything that the city has requested. The two things that we couldn't address were the minimum side setback. Obviously, we can't move the house and that the porch was built or was not constructed at 12 inches above grade. I took a walk over the weekend up and down the property, your property's nearby, heading east and west several lots. I didn't see any properties except the brand new property across the street that has any kind of a 12 inch elevation on the front porches. The current document that we're looking at now says that the property is zero inches above grade. That may be true today. The front porch was built above grade originally. It's hard to tell what that may have been. The property, like I said, was constructed six years ago. There's been sod, there's been wood chips, there's been leaves blown in, so we don't know exactly what that height may have been. For the setback, there is a fence that hides the house from the street side. The setback that what the encroachment is facing street side so it's not impacting any of the residences nearby. That's all I have just thank you for your consideration. We have any questions for the applicant, Commissioner Clemens. Just to clarify, so Mr. Serrana, when you bought the house, when you purchased the property, was the permit already closed at that time? Yes it was. And when did you purchase it? I purchased it in November of last year. I sold it to the current owner and I'm trying to ensure that he gets clear title, which is why I'm being his agent and looking after all of the recommendations and changes that the city has requested. What's your opinion of the city's, I guess, statement that it would be possible to raise the front two six inches up to six inches to... I think that could be done. We've already spent thousands of dollars trying to satisfy the city's requirements in other one or two thousand. If we will get this closed, we would be happy to do that. And then the question for the city, the vinyl fence looked like it was a six foot fence. Does that have any excess of the high requirement? Yes, it's perfect. It's the correct height. Yes, because the height based on the property behind, it's also the same angle. Is it a front yard where you have to the same angle. You cut it. And it's angled at the right away as well. The alley. Thank you sir. Okay, we have any more questions for the applicant? Oh, excuse me. Here's your flight. Did you buy this for closure? Excuse me. Here's your flint. Did you buy this for closure? No, I bought it from the previous owner who was a company. So when you purchased it, it did not have a certificate of occupancy. There was, I never went looking for a certificate of occupancy. I relied on the title company to do due diligence and they went to the city, said that there was no code violations and all permits were closed. No further. So just for my own clarification, you were not involved with the construction as structure at all. No sir. Okay, so you came along years later, it sounds like. Yes. And the four however many permits that you had boxed off, those were the permits just getting transferred to the new builders every time it went from one builder to the other. That was the original construction permit on the property from 2018, which was closed with all inspections final and complete. OK. OK. Thank you. Any further questions? Question from the legal. OK. I can wait till it takes you. Yeah, wait. Do we have any registered opponent on this? No. OK. Thank you. No blue cards. No? OK. Thank you. No blue cards or anything? OK. Great. OK. Let me cross examination. Staff. Staff waves. OK. Sir, cross examination from the applicant. We have a cross closing statement from staff. That's waves. Is there a closing statement that the applicant wants to make at this time? We will go into the executive session. So I have a question for other staff or legal. I don't. Just is a close apartment permit do you have to typically obtain the CO before the permits closed? Well yes. Okay. Normally in sitting the zoning inspection normally be done before permit is closed? Yes. This has a storied history. I mean, I don't know if you guys read this. That's one way to describe it. Yeah, I mean, I just was, yeah. Another one. I mean, the commission knows that from my votes that I'm not very much in favor of Variances, but this looks like like I know another presentation identifies the efforts that have been taken and the fact that there is diligence in the front and You know, I really do think that there there's more of a hardship here than maybe staff found and staff following the The you know the confines of the code when I looked for those type of hardships. Yeah. So I think there's some more hardship here than one might meet the eye without all the facts. Yeah. I guess where we are now, I mean, just a few minutes ago, I'm thinking, all right, the 11 and 12 feet, I don't see how you fix that at all without tearing down the house maybe the porch could be fixed but then you're just going to rain into the front door right you know well and I would even suggest if we were going to raise it that we would rate that it would be still two to three inches lower than the front door but it just seems that this is not the cause of anyone involved whatsoever. I don't like that porch condition in the fact that there's a lot of existing houses there in that neighborhood. At the, normally I would say that that's a material because there's only code has been changed for 15 years, 16 years now. And there's a reason we change it, but at least that makes it somewhat more compatible with a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. There's two things that I segue with Mr. Reale, the fact that the history we have, but then it's, you know, to have the honor who's now sold the property, so I'll take responsibility for trying to correct or rectify a condition here. You know, that's favorable in my mind that you're walking through a problem that you inherit it would appear, but then you're trying to help remedy it. So that's a good thing. And the question that I'd asked, secondly, staff asked for a six inch porch, I agree with Mr. Clemens that we don't want to create a water condition but I think there's something that could be done there maybe or just so that the you know we're minimizing what's being asked there for that grade and it sounds like the applicant said he was open to that. I would change the characterization that he didn't inherit the problem, he actually literally paid for the problem. It's one thing to be given problems to pay money to be given problems. Yeah. Well, I'm personally depending on that, he's done all he probably shouldn't be forced to do. And I'm gonna look, I'm not gonna try that he's done all he probably should be forced to do. And I'm going to look. I'm not going to try to add onto it. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Green. I can understand, you know, and he tried it seems like he gave a good effort. hardship. It looks like to me in November of 2023, it was sold for 380 and 3 months later was sold for 479, so almost $100,000 more. So hardship probably is not what I would call buying a house and selling it 3 months later for $100,000 more. But I do think that where it is in the side, there's not much you can do about that. I would hate to see water intrusion right there at the front door from now on, and there was something we could do, something about that. That seems like that would be a reasonable compromise, because I do think he tried and made a reasonable effort to see it was okay. We're inclined to do something you basically put pavers on it. Without pouring. The easiest thing to do, I think from a design point of view, our touch point of view is I'd buy some two-inch thick pavers and just, you know, mortar them in place, and you bring it up to a half way to the front door, so maintain a step up and it's not like you're bringing out a concrete crew or something like that. All right. Mr. Billock. It appears from when it was constructed there was a sort of step right about four inches or so, substandard, but there is a type of step that exists there that has been covered up, I think, by in an attempt to embellish the property and in adding mulch, which is not a permanent thing. Right, so there is step that exists. It's all just grading up, being, you know, the yard is grading up to the porch. So I mean, adding perhaps another two inches on top of that over time that mulch is going to move. It's already all over the place. Right? Another 20 years, it's going to be three inch away. Yeah. Exactly. So I mean, I think there's already some depth to work with that exists there. And I don't know how much control there is over time with personal use of the property in terms of what somebody adds next to their porch and their front yard. I think that that's, so inherently the structure is there. There is a deck that's been built. And so I think adding two inches of finishes on top accentuates it a little bit and he gets us a little closer to the desired look but I think that feature exists. I don't think the two inches would be unreasonable. Recognize there's some cost that's been incurred but that's not unreasonable. I agree. Going back to the columns that I was wrong about. They didn't do it on the back porch, you know, from the pictures. I think the big thing here is when you look at the new porch, you know, from the pictures. I think the big thing here is when you look at the new homes there in that area, the 12 inch step up is a great cosmetic feature that you can look at those homes and it really is a nice feature. How can we do something with this home to make that patio a much nicer feature and not just stop with just two inch overlay of pavers which I think gets us a little bit towards it. I personally if we were to take that column detail that was not done on the back and require it as part of this front detail so you take a very plain front patio column and try to dress that up to take away from the lack of elevation. The two inch pavers relatively inexpensive to do, wrapping those columns relatively inexpensive to do to try and offset the lack of that 12-inch and height. The applicant before us today was the original owner or the original builder. I'd be 100% behind you. I understand the intent and actually I guess I did a different circumstance. I agree. I would like to see those pavers added to that. I think that's a reasonable option that the city has given that in you you know revise it to the two inches or whatever. I don't think that's unreasonable. You get a motion for that? No. Oh, I just state that we do this like I'm separated. So we'll have to add that. Yeah, so I'll make a motion to approve after-fact variance to the minimum required street yard setback for an existing single family resident subject to the staff conditions and approval. Second, that's that's the easy one. Karen, did you second that? Okay. Karen, yes. Walker. Yes. Stowe. Yes. Singleton. Clements. Yes. Raleigh. Yes. Reed. Yes. Motion passes. Clements yes Rayleigh yes read yes motion passes and then I move approval for the after the fact variance to the minimum required front porch elevation at three inches that we're going with three inches I'm be good you okay for our existing single-family residents, subject to the staff conditions of approval. Yes, sir. Certain areas and few edges. Well, there's all sorts of different thicknesses. And there's grout and mortar. You could also cut out an inch of mulch. And did we say two the whole time? No, you could have some variance with the three. I'll modify my motion to two inches. I don't really care. To be completely honest with you. I mean, between two and three inches, it's not gonna go that high. It's gonna be, yeah, it's variation. You're gonna have to be variation. So let's remind you. Okay. So I'm modified my motion to two inches I got you for a second. Keirnan. Yes. Walker. Yes. Stoke. Singleton. Yes. Clements. Really? Yes. Read. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. We're going to take a five minute break. We're going to break. We will reach out. We're going to take a five minute break. We will return in five minutes. Take a recess here. Five minute break. Thank you. Let's just get over here. Yeah. Let me do it. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I'm gonna go back to the first place. I I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. 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 back to the hotel. I baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby 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 bathroom. and and and music and and Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm 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. to 5 I'm going to go to the beach. you . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm you you you you you you you you you All right. 5, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 9, address 1201 30-second Street North. Staff. Shurvan Chamblis of Development Review Services. The subject property is located on 30-second North between 12th and 13th Avenue's North in the North and the North can, excuse me, neighborhood. There's a bit of background, the subject property is owned in T2, neighborhood traditional single family and was developed in the early 1950s with the existing single family residence. Earlier this year, a permit for an addition, a rear addition to the residence, was approved for bedroom, bathroom, laundry room, private deck, and storage room with an attached two-gar garage. A subsequent driveway permit was later approved to relocate an existing driveway connection from 32nd Street as shown in the top photo to the 12th Avenue North Street side, consistent with the site plan approved for the addition. In compliance with the land development regulations, section 16.20.010.111 and section 16.40.090.0.3.3, allow for no more than one driveway for empty zone properties while orienting parking towards the rear third for empty corner lots. This application proposes or requests, excuse me, it requests a proof of advantage to maintain the driveway off of 32nd Street. To the left we have a survey of the property that was provided by the applicant from 1983 showing the front loading driveway off of 32nd Street. The diagram shows the driveway that is approximately 28 feet in width. And to the left we have an approved site plan for the rear addition. The site plan shows the removal and relocation of the driveway connection from the front 32nd Street side to the street side yard off of 12th Avenue towards the rear third of the lot. And then here are existing conditions in the site. Here we have a floor plan from the approved set of plans I was provided with the staff report along with it the elevations that were also approved with the building permit An evaluation of the subject property and immediate surrounding blocks was performed to identify properties with more than one driveway connection. Six of the 89 properties that were found in the study have more than one curb cut of the six properties that were identified three of which share the same block as a subject property. And in the image above we have four of the six properties that were identified. The subject block is to the right block 14. Excuse me, it's to the left. Here's one of the properties located at 31, 34, 14th Avenue North, which has a circular driveway. Here we have 12, 30, 31st Street North, which also has one circular driveway off of 13th Avenue North and a single lane driveway off of 31st Street North. And we also have 1,231st Street North which has two curb cuts off of 31st Street North. Again, these are three of six examples that were found and these three examples are share the same block as the subject property. Persuading to the review criteria for variances, this application is considered self-imposed as there appear to be no hardships related to the site or existing structures that preclude compliance with the driveway being relocated. In terms of the neighborhood character, although the property is traditionally zoned with no alleys, corner lots and into two zoned districts, prior to the LDR updates are required to orient the parking towards the rear third of the site. And secondary driveways do not appear to be a predominant trait of at least half of the surrounding blocks that were evaluated. In terms of code compliance strict application of the provisions of this chapter, we're not deprived of the applicant of the ability to utilize, require, on-site parking, as two permits were conditionally approved, and compliance with the parking regulations, and both have been acted upon without variances. And this grant, excuse me, in terms of the granting, the request is not considered consistent with the general purpose of the NTVHICUAL connections and parking regulations for this chapter. This request does not appear injurious to neighboring properties or detrimental to public welfare, but it could set a precedent for allowing more than one driveway on Corner lots with in T zoning In terms of public comments again, this property is located in the North Kenwood neighborhood The applicant has sent notices as required to the neighborhood association and all neighbors within 300 feet And there had been no public comments received with regards to the request. The applicant was able to obtain signatures from the five surrounding or abutting property owners. And pursuant to the information provided by the staff reports, staff recommends denial of the request, finding that there is an existing pattern in the neighborhood that supports one driveway per property, predominantly, and permitting has already been previously approved and compliance with the land development regulations. With that, I conclude my presentation and remain available for questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Walker? Good afternoon. Sharan, just real quickly, in the very back of our packet, there's this driveway permit application with a sketch. Is this, and it shows a single driveway off of the front where the current driveway is, with the extension of a driveway may be going down the side of the house, which is completely opposite of everything that I saw from the drawings and everything else. And I just want to try to understand, is this something that the applicant offered subsequent to making their plans to try to get the driveway back to the front? I don't understand, because there's a second set of plans in here at the very end as well There's like the last maybe two pages of our Of our packet. There's a there's a revised site plan that has the driveway coming out front again with the showing on the side of the house Yeah, see see one on the back here. It's really because This is dated February 12 This one's dated February 12th, this one's dated February 13th, both 2024. So this is like the day later. Yeah, and so I'm just trying to understand, is this, was this done trying to find a solution and that's not really what they're requesting at all? Or is there a reason why it's in our packet? Is this something that could be supported by staff? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what this is at the back. So the attachments were provided to show the commission some of the documentation that had been exchanged between staff and the permit or the permitting at the time of permitting. The approval condition only relate to the driveway off of the 12th Avenue Street sign. Because of the conditions associated with the permit and the driveway permit, they both reflect the removal of the driveway, the existing driveway off of 30 second. Okay. Although they are shown there, the approvals for the driveway permit are for the driveway off of the Tuth Avenue Street side because it most complies with what co requires Had it not then of this application should have been processed before permits were approved Okay, so this is just maybe an iteration. Try to yeah But that doesn't look the house at all. No, the sketches. Yeah. Okay. Look, the sketch may be a bit disorienting because it has been shifted to the side. So it does have a label with the 12th Avenue north side. So if you go to page three, I think, Matt, three of five. Paragraph two, I think it sort of. Now I understand what the request is and why they're here. I just, we have drawings in the back that don't line up with it. And that's really what I was trying to figure out. Okay, so. Can you go back to the photograph that shows the garage with the garage? Not the garage, too. I'll let you drive, Shervon. Where they've got the placement that they're about to put in the driveway. Either an endurance form, I guess. Yeah. That's important. So, yeah, which, again, this doesn't comply with either one of the drawings because actually the drawing show the driveway off to the side and running back behind the, you know, an extension back behind the house. But it also the permit drawing shows it to be 12 foot wide. Good job, Sam. And then it flares out once it gets to the front yard setback, but I'm seeing this and I'm looking to me like this is a 16 or 18 foot driveway, but that's not what we're here today to talk about. Correct. That will have to be addressed with the engineering department in terms of the inspection. Unfortunately, the zoning department, we don't handle the inspections for the driveways. Okay. Yeah. Just to clarify, I think it appears that it's just a new revision of the same drawing. There have been just design changes. So the latest one, right, is the one with the parking garage, the one at the very back of the packet was revision three, whereas the current one is revision four. But what's been poured doesn't comply with either one. It's neither of those. But that's not really what we're here today to discuss. That's where the second curb cut on 30 second streets should remain. All right. So just trying to get away with it. There's a lot here. Go on the clip. the current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current So on the upper right hand corner of the page, it's got the DRC case number. Doesn't align with the first page, so we may wanna. I apologize for the oversight. It should be 54 and 49. Yeah, just wanna make sure we correct that going forward. Okay, thank you. Is that for sure? Okay, thank you very much. Do is the applicant present? Please come forward. State your full name, your address. If you've been sworn in. Yes, I'm speaking from my mother, see me in a Scandadi. If that's okay. She's here. My name is Sipida Scandadi, 12032. North St. Petersburg. Flo floor the 33713. The contractors, they started out initially with stating there would be only one car garage, but they were remasuring, they said the doors of the car, if it opens, the person is not able to get out. So that's how those revisions came about. The whole thing has been very overwhelming as the letter from her doctor. She has tabat services. She's 87 years old and has cancer, severe hearing loss. The whole intention was to maintain the drive port, the existing drive port. They purchased my dad, who passed away in 2017. My mom and dad, when they moved to St. Petersburg, they purchased that house. And since 1978, that drive, they has always been there. It became old in, I think, 35 years ago, we called it company and they went ahead and did what is it done, concrete it the whole area again, but I think they expanded somewhat. Because if you look back in history of the property, you'll see that there was always an existing driveway in the front. The necessity of it from my mother is because of her hearing loss, because of this extension now from the front of their house, which is the entrance to the back where the garage is, where the driveway would be. There is no way for her to be able to see who is in the front or what service company's car or van it may be. I wish I was there all the time. My both sisters and myself, they're not there all the time with her. So she's going to need that assistance to have those windows that are next to the front of the house to look out. There was a burglary in 2013, which was very massive before my father passed away. And after that, we were forced to have alarm inside the house. Cameras now around the house. They were traumatized. They came home. The whole house was ransacked. And literally everything that they had was taken, including her bedding ring, of 64 years of marriage. So this is why this is so personal, this is why we're here. Had we known, we're gonna lose the existing driveway that faces the house, we would have never had the extensions done at the Go-Watch put in place. So this has been a nightmare. And if you're here addressing this because of the issue that they're faced with now. And the neighbors, they all love her. Many of them have been there for that length of time. Some of them, Laura Reda Williams, which is the next door neighbor, her mom, Eileen Williams, who passed away. They've been there as long as my mother or even longer. So this has been very, very hard-bentching. All the neighbors are 100% behind us. Some of them couldn't be here because of work reasons. Otherwise, they would be here supporting, but they did give their signatures. And the city and the aunt said, we told them. And my mom went in with me and told them of all these inconveniences to her. Again, had we known, we found out that we couldn't keep the existing driveway after all the approvals were done, after the work was initiated, all the contracts were signed, all the money was paid for the most part. And it was just, it's very difficult to be told last minute here, you know, you can't have that front existing drive port for her to peek out to see who it is, because she has to rely on her eyes. The hearing is gone. And with her age, it's very, very difficult. So this is why we're here. And even in the beginning, we talked to Mrs. Chelsea Freeman, Mr. Scott, I forget his last name. They said if you go with the size that we're becoming, then we might be able to approve this. So that's even on file. We had the arc design and the contractor, we designed the drive port in the front. This size doesn't matter as long as she's able to peek out from the window and see who the person is, whose vehicle is parked in front. Even if it's a family member, she needs to look out and see before she opens the door. It's changed. St. Petersburg has changed from 1978 till now. It's sad. I grew up here. But you didn't have any security devices. Your, what is it? House key could be on the door. The house could be left open. Nobody would even break in or even think of breaking in but it has changed drastically for the worst. And now you have to take all kinds of measures for security purposes. It's sad. I have nothing further. Thank you for your time. Please let's see do we have any questions for the applicant commissioner Clemens Do you know if on either 30 second street or 12th Avenue North parallel parking is allowed on either one of those streets in front of the house? Are you mean in front of the house? They usually we do have a vacant lot because of their owners, not, you know. I mean, on the street itself. On this. A lot of neighborhoods you can parallel park in front of your house on the street. Unfortunately, with our neighborhood, because it's so close to US 19, they call the police immediately. But it's not, in other words, there's not legal on street parallel parking. I don't believe so because you've got cars coming from both ways and then there is an accident. It becomes a really, I've seen cars parking, but I'm not sure if it's allowed or not. But you have a stop signs now at the turnabouts on the, which we never have. So they do cut the trees to make sure that the stop signs are visible. So we do get a lot of traffic then there's accident and it's becoming more frequent. Unfortunately, that's sad to US-19. I didn't see that growing up, but now it's happening. Are any additional questions for the applicant? I have a question. Mr. Miller. Did you retain the services, the design professionals, that designed the home? Did they not present you kind of with the plan? They didn't talk to you through the plan or did they talk you through the plans? They talked about it, but they never said that the existing drive port will be gone. There was no discussions of it whatsoever. Thank you. Thank you. Had we known, we would have said no. Our plans would have been very different. We wouldn't be here. I have a question, Mr. Clemens? So just clarification. Two permits, one for the 1,650 square foot addition. And then you had an additional permit for the driveway. And the contractor that was hired didn't go over the plans with you for those. The driver for the garage we didn't know we just said we wanted a garage. They didn't necessarily go into the details. It was supposed to be one car garage now it multiplied to two car garage. We're astounded by all the developments of this project. We're overwhelmed. Had we known this ahead of time, we would have never done this. It's been a nightmare to say the least. Can we sure, Clint? So crack me if I'm wrong, but you're just looking for people to be able to park outside the front door for deliveries and be able to see. For her to be able to see through the windows because if you see the house, you got all these windows right facing the drive the door. Would let's say if it's Amazon or maybe an oxygen delivery company. Would they be able to utilize a sidewalk from the city curb up to your front door? The problem is her seeing and also the way Would they be able to utilize a sidewalk from the city curb up to your front door? The problem is her seeing and also they've made a posture and they stand in front of the door. So if they're driving inside the drive port, it's easy for her to look out, oh, it's this car or that car. And believe it or not, people do come with unmarked cars as well. So she gets very overwhelmed. Sometimes she calls me, I'm in court, as a lawyer, I can't answer the phone. But she's all agitated. You know, I don't know who this car was, that pulled up, or this truck that was pulled up, it's really sad. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Do we have a registered opponent? We do not. Do we have cross-examination staff? Staff waves. Do we have a cross-examination applicant for the staff? Do we have a closing statement? Staff. Do we have a closing statement you like to present to council. Okay. All right, we'll go into a executive session. Oh, wait, I'm just I'm a little bit confused that if the it seems to be the applicant state of the goal of the art, they're able to visually see who comes with the front of the house in the vehicle, right? That was, which he brought. I'm looking at they could, they can, there's parking on the street wherever comes and park on the street and you can see it. I think it's unlikely that most of the trees pull into the driveway. I would think so too, yeah. So, park at the curb, right? Yeah. Convert the, convert the driveway to a walkway, a sidewalk. I think it was. Probably wasn't. It wasn't one time. Oh, I see. The left walk, I think. I think it was. I think at one time you had a driveway apron, and then you had a sidewalk next to it. And the applicant stated that it got wind at some point in the past. Right. Right. Yeah. But, um, it in the past. Right, but, um, this is not a lot. Yeah, I mean, I have empathy for the situation, but as far as the code is concerned, it's not a lot to support the AWS. I think there's, there are alternative technologies that can be utilized to achieve that goal that would be even safer, you know, I think there are intercom systems and video and those things are widely available now that would allow for a person inside the house to see who's in front of their front door without asking for a variance of this magnitude. I think there are other options to consider. I understand the frustration with, as you said, they had known that they couldn't have had this second driveway or two driveways, but not have even pursued within the garage. Once the variance is granted and it's a forever. Right, it lives with the property. This is a lot of work. This is a lot of work. This can't get over the magnitude of the work and not the contractor not explaining. We see it all the time. This is amazing. But one of the comments is it was supposed to be a single car garage, but next thing you know, they end up with a two car garage. It's like at some point what point do you start paying attention to the plans to see what's proposed before permitting. That was their own comment that it was a single car garage. They wanted, next thing you know, the architects handed them a two car garage and you continue forward with the project. I think it's important to point out that it's a builder that's introducing scope creep and possibly change orders and perhaps taking advantage of a client that doesn't know the industry well. Now I can't, the whole magnitude of that when I went through this report is just fun, I found it to be phenomenal, that something, and then confirmed by the applicant that it just kind of continued to grow and morph. Is it a possibility that they could have the sidewalk from, you know, remain that's there now that got joined, just keep that, the parallel park in front, add some technology? Yeah, that's a code compliant. Yeah, walkways are fine. Engineering department would generally require a separate permit, but they could retain a walkway. Is that walkway still there? Yeah, it's still here. Yeah, so. It's just been the driveway's been poured right up into it. It's poured over into it. Yeah, so essentially no permit needed for that. It's there. So essentially no permit needed for that. There are a lot of right one. Yeah, Commissioner Villette, point, there are options. Technology, the walk away, retaining that walk away. Motion upon, is there a requirement for a sidewalk to be placed along the road since they're doing the improvements to the house? No, because it's not a single family construction Okay, I just that when they come to the RC we always have that sidewalk. When I said that so You're gonna make a motion. Yes, approvalval of a variance to maintain a second driveway subject to the conditions of approval. Second. Curenoon. No. Walker. No. Stoke. No. Singleton. No. Clemens. Reale. No. Reed. No. Emotion fails. All right. No motion fails All right Next case Case number two four dash five four 000064 address 1501 46th Street North. Staff. Good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Freeman. I am a planner with development services, and I have been sworn. The subject property is located in the northeast corner of 15th Avenue North and 46th Street North. It is within the NS1 Zoning District and the Distant Heights neighborhood. It is comprised of a lot one and a portion of a lot two within the El Dorado Hills Annex subdivision, which was plotted in 1928. The subject property measures 60 feet and width by 127 feet depth, producing a lot area of approximately 7,630 square feet. The subject property contains a single-family residence, which was constructed in 1961. Here we see a timeline of the events of the project. A citizen complaint was received by the Codes Enforcement Department late in January of 2024. An inspection by that department was performed shortly thereafter. The inspection identified that a new driveway had been constructed without a permit. The homeowner submitted a building permit application in March, which remains in progress, having been returned for corrections. The homeowner conducted a pre-application meeting to discuss a variance application on June 11th and submitted this variance application on June 25th. The property previously featured a driveway that was approximately 16.5 feet wide at the property line. A four foot wide brick pad abutted the driveway and was used as a place to store the property's solid waste receptacles. This brick pad slightly crossed over the property line into the right of way. At the curb, this previous driveway had measured 24.5 feet wide. As this driveway was established before the current code requirements, it was in a grandfathered condition. The maximum dimensions of a, the current code allows in a driveway are 20 feet within the property line and at the, and within the property. Within a property limits, a 10 foot wide accessory parking pad may also be constructed adjacent to a driveway. A three foot by seven foot flare, apron flare is required on either side of a curb cut, resulting in a maximum curb cut of 26 feet. The applicant constructed a 27.4 foot wide pver. driveway without permits for which this after the fact variance is being requested. This new driveway lacks apron flares. Here we see a survey showing the previous driveway as original to the house highlighted in yellow and the brick pad as noted is highlighted in green. Here is a Google Street image from November of 2022, showing and dimensioning the previous configuration of the driveway. And here we see the current maximums allowable for a suburban zoning district, single-family residents driveway, showing the maximum of a 20-foot wide within the property and at the property line, 26 at the curb, and of a 20-foot wide within the property and at the property line 26 at the curb and and showing the 10-foot wide accessory parking pad which does not contact the property line. Here we see a survey showing the current conditions of the property with the new pay for driveway measuring 27.4 feet at all three points of measurement and a photo as taken by the Coase Enforcement Officer in February, the lack of alteration to the curb cut and the lack of driveway apron are also apparent. Here we see a comparison to nearby properties. The application for this variance does compare the property to neighboring properties. Most driveways in the vicinity have been grandfathered and having been existing to the adoption of the current land development regulations. Some of these driveways in their grandfathered dimensions have been resurfaced showing the appropriate building permits pulled in respect of years. One neighbor has an established new conforming driveway to the southeast. The application was submitted with three signatures of support from property owners and additional signatures of support from additional residents at these three same properties. Know the public comments were received. In conclusion, the request is not feature any special conditions in relation to the property. The hardship is considered self-imposed. There is no significant hardship for the property. There is a mobility device user that is the origin of this request, but the mobility device user is a frequent guest at the property, not a resident at the property. And there is analysis in the staff report that an accessory parking pad and widening of the previously existing walkway which connected the driveway to the front door could have alleviated some of the mobility user's navigational issues within the limits of the property. Strict application of this code would not inhibit the reasonable use of this driveway. The request as stated is not the minimum request. The request is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the code. While the request is not directly injurious to the public welfare, it is setting a precedent for excessive dimensions of driveways. The application does not justify the request, the application compares properties to grandfathered conditions. Staff recommends denial of the variance request. Should the proposal be denied, the applicant must obtain permits to either return the driveway to its previous configuration or to construct a driveway which confirms with the current regulations of the code. The applicant may also construct an accessory parking pad and widen the driveway. No permit would be required for this accessory parking pad or the walkway as long as we are staying under the 25% front yard and street side ISR limit. Alternatively, should the proposal be approved, it would be subject to the special conditions of approval outlined in the published staff report. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Oh, Mr. Clemens. Is there a requirement for some sort of minimum separation between a driveway and a walkway from the front door to, you know, extending up to the front door of the house to the street. I am aware that they cannot touch but I'm not aware of a minimum separation perhaps. Where are you? Is there a maximum width of a walkway that extends from the... If you put back up the site plan really a portion of this driveway looks like it extends far enough to the right of I can't remember what to mention that is direction that is but pardon me it's really capturing the walkway up to the front porch and in the photograph they didn't alter the curb cut so there's a portion of that walkway right that really arguably isn't a driveway because there's some curb cut there and I'm wondering if the intent was to sort of say that okay seven point four feet of that driveway is a walkway, not a driveway. But anyway, just curious is the other requirement for separation between driveway and that I don't think that's our intent either, but I'm not sure that our code mandate that a walkway be separated from the driveway. Yeah, if they went in five feet and then put a two and a half foot wide grass strip, so you had five foot sidewalk two and a a half and a 20 foot right wing. Is that me code? You get close except for the flares. That's them saying. Yeah. But anyway, if you go to the B4 diagram, is that it? Yes. Yes. So you can see the separations between the walkways and the driveway. The tractor greener and the next one. Yeah. It's captured that flutter. Right. Went out to the other walkway and brought that down. Okay. We don't need to wait. Of course, looking it up, we can proceed with all that. I do have just one quick question. When you said they could take it back to the grandfather configuration, is there anything in the code that requires materials to be the same, because I know they take it from concrete to pavers. The code requires that the material used in the right of way is concrete asphalt pavers, something smooth and dustless. The material could change as soon as it crosses into the private property to include those same materials or non-smooth dustless materials such as crushed rock gravel. So this is the grandfather? Yes, this is the grant father condition before the alteration. Yes. Thank you. We have any further questions for staff. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Is the applicant available? Yeah, please come forward to the podium. State your full name, your address, and if you've been sworn in. Your name is Nancy Lee Pitney. I'm at 150146 Street North, and I've been sworn in. Thank you. Please present. All right, I really didn't prepare a statement other than this driveway was very ugly and dysfunctional. And I have fallen off this driveway. My mother has fallen off this driveway. And I had an opportunity to change it. So I hired a contractor who was supposed to get a permit. And I've learned, I didn't learn until I got the code enforcement notice that he did not get a permit. So I applied for an after the fact and they denied it, which is why I'm here. I spent a lot of time putting two vehicles in my driveway and maneuvering my mother out of the car and up to the door. And the measurement was made to accommodate me not me not falling and my mother not falling because we've both fallen off the previous driveway. So I was just trying, I did not know I was breaking any code violations or going oversized. I just was trying to get my mom to the front door safely and it's not just my mother. I have brothers and sisters, all in real chairs and walkers. So we have a parage of people coming in out of my house that I want to give safe passage so I don't have a liability suit. So I'd like to just rectify whatever it is I need to do to stay in compliance. I wasn't thinking about that when it was constructed. Do we have a commissioner Clemens? Yes ma'am. Have you discussed this since you got notified? Have you discussed this with the contractor who did the work? I have. He started yelling. He's a very emotional man. I decided to leave him out of the equation and try to do this without him. I understand. Okay. But you do understand what, I mean, your discussion with the city staff, you do understand kind of what the violations are now. Just and I'm oversize. But who's certainly next to that, yeah. And I could construct a 10 foot addition. So I'm real confused about that to tell you the truth. It doesn't make sense to make a zip. I can have 16 feet and then have another 10. That I'm only off a foot. So maybe my variance should be for one. It's the at the right. You can't bring it that wide all the way up to the curb. It has to. It could be that wide on your property, not on the city's property. It's got a tape. I see. So I can. It could be 16 foot wide. Actually, 22. I'm up to your prop. You understand your property line is not right at the curb, right? The property line is not right at the curb, right? The property line. There's a right of way 25 from this center. So once you get up to you, so it can be 20 foot wide. Once it gets to your property, it can flare out to be 30 feet wide. Your 30 foot wide all the way. I am. Because I didn't understand. Yeah, yeah, I understand. Yeah. Yeah, but I think this is a really simple fix. I think, I mean, if you just come off five feet and cut a two and a half foot wide section out from the curb to the right away and make it grass, you're completely compliant. You'll have a 20 foot wide or driveway in the right away. And only from the property line. Oh, she's got to do it because once she gives the property line, she can go to 30 feet. She's only at 27. The problem is there's not enough this house isn't set back far enough to park a third car between the property line. I understand but I'm just trying to come up with a size. I don't think you'll be able to fit three cars, man. Yeah it's just a change that doesn't require a, because your property line is too close to your garage to part three. Right. Part of the car, obviously. And if I cut a hole, then I could hit that with the wheelchair and have an accident. So. Well, what you can do is leave it 30 foot wide on your property. You just need to take out two and a half feet. And there I go. I love width between the property line to the street curb, I think. And then the five feet that's closest to your front door is basically effectively a walkway. It becomes a side walk instead of a driveway. Yeah, it is a walkway. And then the 20 feet can remain. Now there's still the issue of the flares that need to be corrected. And what really ultimately I think what you need to do is get a contractor easier said than done. Who knows what they're doing, who's honest and who's familiar with getting a permit in the city of St. Petersburg and get the permits. So yeah, you're giving some good suggestions. I think what I heard you say is you know you're not per code. And I also heard you say you're willing to lean forward to try to correct the condition. If I cannot get the variance to leave it as is, and I am willing to do whatever it takes to do something. Yes. And Commissioner Clemens and Commissioner Walker who tried to add some suggestions. And we'll probably talk a little bit more about those suggestions as we go into executive session. But do we have any further questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. You did pretty good to not prepare. You're good. Do we have a registered opponent? Do we have any blue cards? Nope. Blue cards. Okay. Saf, do you have any cross examination for the applicant? any blue cards. Nope. No blue cards. Okay. Staff. Do you have any cross examination for the applicant? Staff waves. Does the applicant have any cross examination for staff? Can I just say, not the, or you know, no, not at tonight. No, you're, in a second, in a second? No, no. Well, he's not, I don't think there's no blue cards. There's no, no. No, no. No, no. Well, he's not. I don't think there's no blue cards. There's no. No, he's the listed agent on the agent. Well, he's an agent on the agent. He's an agent on the agent. Yeah. Oh, a closing statement. OK. If you want to go up to the point, you can go up to the point. OK. staff staff has do you have any closing statements? Okay, so now you have a close. Mr. Erf 115 99th Street Charger Island. I've been sworn in. I've been a city manager most of my life. And I used to work for the city of St. Petersburg many years ago with Luis Stewart and purchasing. And I found out about this when she got the violation notice. And so I just want to make sure with staff, do you understand what Mr. Walker was saying about that middle road of grass so that we can work with you on that? Yes, I in the tail end of my presentation, Kayla, if you would bring it back up, I did have an additional slide showing what, yes, please. The accessory parking pad as it could be installed. I did run this. I, this is slightly different than the conversation that was brought up of carving out a small separation just within the right of way. That would separate the driveway to the walkway. We would have to be careful to maintain the three foot flare, but otherwise that is an alternative solution. That would have to be also where. You wouldn't have to remove as much material because you could keep water. Correct. And if this is denied, how long would they have to correct the crop issue? That's really that stuff to the Coats Department. So I mean if they know they're working with us, they usually wait. I didn't see a specific dimension separation between a sidewalk and driveway. Outside of you, we have the three-foot flare requirement. And the 20-foot maximum. And the, yeah. Right. So if you work your way across. Yeah. Right. OK. Thank you. I was going to say, I'm sorry. I was going to say, if you look at that, I don't know if you have the current. Your vibe is good. The current picture of what that looks like of that property. It's really nice and landscape, she's done a lot of improvements with it, but there's that four foot concrete curb out there and when they do the wheelchair that is a walkway. And I think it would be easier for a few feet out and create a walkway and I think it would be easier for take a few feet out and create a walkway to have the newer one and you have it in your packet. Do I have a green? We have the diagram. Okay. So that would look much easier for her to do and then it wouldn't create more stuff on the side. More and yeah, I'm pervious of this. More in pervious. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll go into a executive session. I think Mr. Walker and Clemens you've provided some good insight on corrective actions, getting us back to the compliance. It's an unfortunate situation. And there's too many people working and we have a lot of contractors on driveways. A lot of this. It's true. Looks like the neighbor understood the code. Because this is how this originated. The neighbor complained about it. And we have a lot of contractors on driveways. A lot of this. It's true. Looks like the neighbor understood the code because this is how this originated, right? The neighbor complained about it and here we are. So we will have to work with the codes so she can do that and get back to standard. Okay? Do we have any further comments? I'll make a motion. Thank you. Okay, do we have a we have no further comments? Thank you Second Cure no no Walker no no no singleton Clements No. Walker? No. No. No. Singleton? Clements. No. Really? No. Read? No. Motion fails. Thank you. Case number 245400008, address 760, 19th Avenue North. Good afternoon. For the record record Cheryl Brigallo filling in for Jordan Elmore. So this case is located at 760-19th Ave North. There's the location map in the Crescent Lake neighborhood Lot 10 The request is for approval of a variance to the minimum required interior side yard set back to allow and Existing attach garage to be converted to living space So the background on the site, it's in the NT2 zoning district. The lot is 47 feet wide by 115.9 feet deep and 5,447.3 square feet in area. The existing house on the property was constructed in 1957 on the originally platted 50 foot wide lot. So the image of the platt is on the slide and you can see that the lot was 50 feet wide at its inception and the house was constructed with a six foot setback at the time to the original lot lines. And then sometime after the house was built, the owners of Lot 11 acquired three feet from the side of Lot 10, reducing the width of Lot 10 to 47 feet wide. So this is the site plan of the approved house from 1957 and you can see that it had a six foot setback at its construction. And now here is the current survey and the current setback is 2.9 feet, which is effectively 3 feet, which reflects the purchase of the 3 feet from the western side of the lot. The attached garage fronts on an alley. And here's the proposed site plan that shows the location of the garage conversion into living area and the proposed parking area off of the alley. They're also doing some other interior work and refurbishing a front porch and those items do not require variances. And here's the floor plan showing the highlighted area is where the garage is currently located and the proposed bedroom suite bathroom walking closet and bedroom. Here are the photos from the staff report. This is the front of the house. This is looking up from the front of the house to the, along the western side of the house. This is a view from the alley along the rear of the house and you can see that retaining wall and the western side of the house And this is another view along the western side of the public, the applicant submitted signatures of support from three nearby property owners, including the property owner immediately to the west. Staff did receive two emails requesting a summary of the application and those people did not object to the application and those people did not object to the application and no comments from the Crescent Lake Neighborhood Association or Kona were received. So staff recommends approval of the variants. Subject to these conditions which are essentially standard conditions, one that the that the drawing submitted will be the ones that go to permitting and that the variance will expire if it is not acted upon. And that's all we have. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? I have a question. Commissioner Bella. When was the when were the three feet purchased from the lot? Sometime before 1980. So there was no, I guess, the setbacks were different then, right? The requirements were different. Well, a six-foot setback was required in 1957, which they met with the full 50-foot wide lot. And then they sold three feet off of the western side of the lot, which brought their effective setback down to three feet, the survey or surveyed at 2.9 feet, which is effectively three feet. So at the time there was an awareness of that non-compliant condition being created. Oh, by them buying the lot? Yeah. By the city, right? You don't know. I mean, I don't think they knew. Right. This is just a situation that was created a long time ago. Yes. And I would have to think that the the two property owners did not know that they were creating a variance. Okay. Thank you. You know what the separation is between the two houses. I do not. I the owners are here, I believe, and they can maybe guesstimate what the separation is. Looks to be less than three feet. It's pretty tight. What she showed there. OK. Any further questions for Seth? Thank you. Thank you. The applicant at present, please state your full name, your address, and if you've been sworn in. Marian Mitchell, 52-56, 6-, and if you've been sworn in. Marian Mitchell, 5256, 6th Way North. I've been sworn in. Thank you. My husband and I purchased this property back in December and intending to remodel it and make it our forever home. We're long time residents. At the time of turning in the application for permitting for the remodel because it totally had to be gutted, new plumbing, new electrical everything. We found out about the being like a inch and six or what is it? An inch and a half into the setback. The garage is on that side. So, but I mean, we're not changing the footprint, all we're doing is changing the usage. We feel like it'll benefit, not only benefit us, but it'll benefit the property value and years to come just based on all the reconstruction that we are doing. We have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Clemens? Looking at the site plan that was submitted, the 20 foot by 20 foot sort of square that's drawn immediately east of the existing garage. Is that the parking pad? The parking spaces? It's going to be revised. There's going to it has to change the elevation. Right, but you'll still be parking in the right yes. Yes, yes. And do you know how close the neighbors houses of the fence roughly? I don't. I really don't. I think their house is not close to the garage. It's really their backyard. So it's not really right on top of that garage. But the whole house sits in that setback. But the distance between the house and the fence is 2.9 feet or so, right? Walkway. So they had three yeah Little reason I asked is because we've got some other cases come before so the houses were being Similar condition three feet off and our two resident architects started talking about fire protection and life safety a lot And I just wanted to make sure that that was there's already living already living space 2.90. It's 2.9. We're creating a new living space. I'm just, yeah. Over top of it already is living space. It's been addressed in the application, but I think the neighbor actually requested that there not be a window added. And so I think that would take care of that hazard. Yeah. OK. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. You have a registered opponent, Kayla? Do you know? No blue cards? For the record we had one but it was the property owner so. Oh. Okay. Thank you. Do you have a closing statement? I mean, any cross-examination for staff? Staff waves. Is there a cross examination from the applicant? Staff has a closing statement. I just wanted to mention that the required setback is 5 feet. So they are deficient to 0.1 feet. And I believe Jordan had said that the building department did look at the separation and did not have an issue with it and the window is not required in that area which the neighbor does not want. And they agree to that. Yes. Okay. Is there a is that all you have, Miss? It is. They're closing statement from the applicant. Okay. Great. All right. We'll go into executive session. No, can you hear since we have the existing house here, your footprint, your everything staying the same. I don't see any real issue to be concerned with here of the potential fire issues in the future with any openings, but they're not putting the bedroom window opening on that side. So I think they didn't create this hardship. They're not expanding the hardship, the encroachment. So I don't see issues on this one. Yeah, if the sale was more recent, you know, you probably put some pressure on the property owner and try and fix the situation and you know, often we're worried about variances running with the land but I mean that this variance should run with the land. So with that I'll move approval. Yep, a variant. Emotion. The minimum required interior side yard setback to allow for existing attached garage to be converted to living space subject to the staff conditions of approval. Second. I'm going to go for a story. I'm going to tie. Oh. We have a second. We have a second. That's what I did typically good. Fair none. Yes. Walker. Yes. Stone. Yes. Women's. Yes. Reality. Yes. Read. Yes. Grinon. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations. You're out of here. Chair, I have a vote. Can we do a short break? All right. Let's take a five minute break. Five minute? Five minute break. Five minute break. We'll adjourn the meeting for five minutes. I'll be talking. and and and and and I love you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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. and 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 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. the I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. . you . you . you you you We're just doing our thing. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. That's okay. Yeah, that's fine. It takes your life. When sent me a picture of they were. Oh, you got to see the news. 30th Avenue North on MLK. We are back in session. Last Monday. Guess who? All right. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. We have a full. Case number 2-4-5-4-007-6 address 250 mirror leak drive north. Staff. Thank you. Court of Milisca, City of St. Petersburg Development Review Services Division. I'm the zoning official with the city. The applicant seeks approval of a variance to the distance between buildings to construct a multi-family residential development consisting of 2D-touch single-family residences and a seven-story building with 18 dwelling units. The subject property consists of four parcels located at 250 marylite drive north. The subject property is currently developed with an existing two-story building constructed in 1937. The building was originally constructed as a single-family residence, what is converted and is being used as an office. The subject property is located in the downtown St. Petersburg National Register District. The district was established in 2004. The subject property consists of one contributing resource to the district. This is the subject property, the proposed site plan. This is the existing residence that will remain. This is proposed residence, the new proposed garage attachment, and then this is the proposed footprint of the new seven story building. The existing garage that was attached to the 1937 home will be removed. It's two-story with living space above. The first floor of the seven-story building will include a lobby, ground level parking, and back-to-house facilities. The two residential units and amenity space will be located in the second floor, and four residential units will be on floors three through five, and two residential units will be on floor six and seven. Pedestrian entry into the building will be from Burlington Avenue. Access to the ground level parking will be from the existing alley. The new two story building that is located and oriented towards Mayor Lake. Drive will have 2D test single family grudges, which will provide access off of the alley for parking. The new house will also have access to Mayor Lake for the pedestrian. And there will be a total of 29 parking spaces on site. This is a view from Mayor Lake. As described by the project, the architect designed with a proposed two-story residential building is inspired by the existing Kate Allen house. Kate Allen is one of the same Petersburg's most prominent house builders, best known for his stone and clad houses in the Allen Dell neighborhood. He also built homes of the minimal, menitering, revival style utilizing stone vernier only on the porches to save money. The existing stone veneer and clay barrel tile that's used on the garage that will be demolished will be reused on the new two story residents. The new seven story building will be a contemporary architectural style that will incorporate several meta-training revival style materials and elements, including having painted stucco, aluminum windows and railings. This is a side view from the alley. You can see the proposed new residents on your left-hand side and the tower on the right-hand side. This is a view from Burlington, again the existing Katie Allen House, is located on your right and the proposed tower on the left side. And this is just if you're looking towards the east from the west looking at the side view of the tower and just some close-ups of the house and this is just a rendering at Merrill Lake if you're looking to the northwest. So the applicant is requesting a variance to the distance between buildings. The code does require buildings above 50 feet in the height in the DC2 zoning district to be separated by 60 feet. The applicant is required to provide half of this from the share property line. This includes along the north and west property lines. The applicant would require to provide 30 feet. Per section 16.60.020.3, a development in a non-residential mix use zoning district that devotes a minimum of 50% of the first floor parking does get a high bonus of an additional 12 feet. Therefore, the setbacks for the distance between buildings will occur at 62 feet in lieu of at 50 feet. The applicant is proposing a distance between buildings of 8.6 feet along the western northern sides of the property. The proposed building be 95 feet tall at the top of the parapet for the stair towers and 92 feet to the decorative architectural features. The higher the main building, excluding elevator and stair towers to the decorative architectural features. The height of the main building, excluding elevator and stair towers and the architectural features, will be about 88 feet, and that is to the top of the parapet. Grantee of the variance will permit the redevelopment of the property while retaining the existing 87 year old Kate Ellen home. The properties to the northwest are both owned by a Penales County School Board. The property to north is separated from the subject property by 16 foot wide alley and is developed with the three story 38,000 more or less square foot building and the property to North is improved with the surface parking lot. So another view looking at Burlington, looking towards the North East. Staff finds that the requested variances consistent with the varying standards for review. The project involves the redevelopment of partially redeveloped site. the request of the . The project involves a redevelopment of partially redeveloped site. The existing two-story KDL and home built in 37, built and retained and a new two-story detache residential building be constructed at the corner of the property. The seven-story building be built to the west side of the subject property. The site contains historic significance. The downtown St. Petersburg National Register District was established again in 2004. Includes a diverse collection of buildings constructed between 1888 and 1954. Suburb property is located within the existing National Register District and comprises a combination of contributing and not contributing resources. The urban planning historic preservation division does not object to the request in order to preserve the existing historic KDL and built house. A memo is attached from the division in the staff report. The proposed project will also reinforce a lower profile character of buildings along the lake and Mayor Lake Drive. A letter of support was received from Preserve the Burke, a not-for-profit organization promoting historic preservation in the city. The proposed project also reinforces the neighborhood character. The proposed seven-story building will be located as far back from the lake drive as possible. This will permit the preservation again of the historic KDL and home. The existing and new two-story buildings will also help maintain the existing character along the lake drive. The existing Lake new two-story buildings will also help maintain the existing character along the Merrillite Drive. The existing Lake Palm Cooperative located south along Burlington Avenue is also a six-story building. Just another view. And again, the existing building that the Ket Allen Home was built in 37. The applicant will be preserving that, which is a contributing resource, and we reusing materials that are taken from the garage. Allowing the preservation of the existing two-story building will allow the taller building being located farther back, which will also contribute to the smaller scale on the street. A literal enforcement and strict application of the code will allow the applicant to demolish the existing building and redevelop the property of no variances. However, the demolition will cause a loss of a contraption resource to the district, while granting the variance will permit the preservation of a contraption resource. Again, the variance requested is a minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building and structure. The granting of variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter, which is the land development regulations. And the granting of variance will not be injurious to the neighboring properties, the reduction to the distance between buildings will impact an existing government building, and service parking lot while receive one letter of support from Preserve the Berg. We also did receive another email that was provided to us last week that should have been provided to the commission also providing support. Based on the review of the applicable criteria in the code, staff does recommend approval of the variants. Staff did have some clarification. One of the conditions in the staff report had the Ron date listed on it. So condition number three, should have said the expiration date would have been September 4th, 2027 and not basically today. Was listed at 2024 instead. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have any questions for staff? We have questions for staff. He said he was going to reuse the tile. Correct. So the garage that's there now, the two-story structure that's attached to the main house will read demolished to accommodate the new house and the new garages. And so the tile that's on there and the stone on the garage will be reused on the new house. They'll be able to extract that, reuse it, and they're good. I thought that was good approach. Good to see they're trying to preserve some of that. Do we have any additional questions for staff? Are there any applicant? Presentation from the applicant. Will Conroy 248 Mirror Lake Drive, St. Petersburg. I just, oh yeah. You've been sworn. I have been sworn, yes, thanks. Yeah. I wanted to give you just a little bit of background on the site. So my office is actually located just south of here at 248. And I've spent a good portion of the last four years sort of staring at this building and trying to figure out what we could do with it. And this is our first time preserving a structure. We've not done this before. The rest of our developments are typically ground up. This would be our third condo building in the city. We've done the nolan and the Salvador and what we're calling the Cade would be our third. But this site and this project is really like a Rubik's Cube and it's fascinating and every square foot of the site matters. But we're really proud about it. We're happy about it. We're especially happy to have preserved the Berg in support and also the neighbors. We hosted over a series of months. We sat with many of the neighbors. There's a site point. We sat with many of the neighbors. We had coffee meetings. We had coffee cake. We looked at the site. We walked around. We sat with many of them, neighbors. We had coffee meetings. We had coffee cake. We looked at the site. We walked around. We shared stories. And I'm really, as a citizen of the city, I'm happy about where this shook out. So I thank you guys in advance for your consideration and here to answer any questions. I'll turn it over to Jenny Myers. Hi. Hi. I'm Jenny Mears. I am an architect with place architecture working on this project. My residents is 751 613th Avenue North and yeah if you want to pull up just the site plan real quick so yeah we're just happy to be proposing this plan with the saved residents and the new residents to create a stepping up from the mirror like drive to the new building. And as you can see, I'm just a point out, I don't know if I can do the pointer thing. But there you're looking at the South elevation, this is the corner of the North facade that is above the 62 feet and looking at the West facade, this is the corner of the North facade that is above the 62 feet. So with the residences being saved, they take about 43% of the property. So then the remainder is left for the development of the condo. So it's a pretty modest use of the site for a nice addition for multifamily housing. So I'm here for questions you We have any questions yeah sure. I've got one question just had a curiosity the existing building is currently uses an office correct Yeah, well that's stay that way or does that be converted into a resident? It will be converted into a resident. What does that do for a garage? If I miss that, if I buy that house, where do I put my car? Yeah, so then if we go back to the... Oh, yeah. That's not planning it by the way, like Robin. Yeah, you wouldn't believe actually. We had a little press last week. Yeah, so if you... That garage there is... The new garage. All right. So if you see where it says new to our garage, that will be the garage for the preserved hall. I see it there. I'm going to yeah. And then the other house that I miss that I apologize. OK. And so the only thing that either of those homes will share with one another is the driveway. Right. Yep. There'll be a shared driveway. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thanks for working with the neighborhood and preserve the British. I found them to be incredibly honest partners, and there was a lot of transparency and shared discussion. So I give Drexie and Mani who are both here, a lot of credit for that. So thank you. Yeah, when I see mirror lake drive on the edge, I'm, this is full. Yeah, we're expecting it to be full. Yeah, pleasant. So I give you guys high marks for getting out in front of it. And your several hours of work saved us several hours of work today. That's really why we're having it. Do we have a registered opponent. We do not. Yep. Okay, thank you. Already the name of the first registered opponent is Drexy. Mrs. Drexy Smith. No, these are just comments. Oh, just blue cards. Oh, just blue cards. Oh, just blue cards. Oh, okay, great. So, we do have a, they don't wish to speak. Is that what you're saying? Correct. No. I would just be just Drexie. Yeah, it's a blue card. Yeah, Manny has a blue card. Drexie is the one who's not speaking. Oh, okay. I see it. Thank you. I see your note there not speaking Sorry about that many okay, so many mr. Manny let all and I think you know the drill your name your address And if you've been my name is Manny Lato and the executive director of preserve the bird my address is 33 O2 North Ridge Avenue you have my or preserve the bird's letter of support in your packet, but I appreciate your indulging a few additional comments here today as well indicated over several months and many conversations and meetings with his company. We are happy to stand in support of this proposal on Mirror Lake. As you know, the neighborhood has a distinct feel and character, and as it was intentionally designed to be a respite from downtown. It's also home to a collection of historic structures, the Lyceum, the UU Church, of course the Shelf-Aboard Club and many others. But the area has seen a tremendous amount of growth over the last several years. And the approval of several multi-story projects and the demolition of several historic multi-family structures across from the Mirror Lake Library, just next door to where we are today, eliminating not just the historic character, but also a certain level of affordable downtown living options for residents. You may also be aware that 250 Mirror Lake has an active demolition permit. And together with the adjacent lots, the application that is before you currently could look very different. Instead, Backstreet Capital met with city staff. They met with neighbors. They met with preservation architects. And they have crafted a project that fits not just the parcel, but fits the neighborhood. We do want to stress that we are supporting this variance as it relates to this project specifically before you and Backstreet has assured us that that is what will ultimately be built and we're very pleased to hear that assurance. We want to thank Mr. Conroy and his team for their patience and thoughtfulness. Importantly, what this project does show is that it is possible to develop new and exciting projects in historic neighborhoods. It's possible to bring a team of professionals together with intentionality, and it's possible to create something new while not just honoring the past with a mural or a marker, but incorporating the past to create a compelling new development. So we're pleased to support this project and we encourage you to support it as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any cross-examination of city staff? Staff waves. We have a cross-examination from the African waves. Do we have a summary closing statement? I just wanted to add to Mr. Manning's comment about making sure that what is proposed today is built. We do have conditions in the staff report that basically bring that that the site plan of building has to be consistent to what is approved today and the existing K-doll and home outside of the garage has to be preserved or this variance will be void. That's to ensure the preservation. Thank you. Thank you. We have a closing statement from the applicant. Wave. We'll go into executive session. Do we need to make a motion to amend condition three for the date or is Corey's notification on the record enough? You'd have them, Andy, it's an error. So I will make a motion to amend condition three to say that this variance approval shall be valid through September 4, 2020. Seven. Second. Curenid. Yes. Walker. Yes. So? Yes. Rihalee. Yes. Reed. Yes. Yes. Walker. Yes. No. Yes. Really? Yes. Reade. Yes. Griner. Yes. Flynn. Yes. Emotion passes. So just for the record, I do want to echo some of the sentiments that's already expressed to Mr. Conroy and his team. Saving 643% of the property is commendable. That's a significant amount, along with the fact that you're working to reuse in many ways, environmentally and everything. It's to keep some of the historical value for using material. That's commendable as well. I mean, that really shows that you're leaning forward. And finally, the proactive approach in engaging the Miro Lake community, the historic district, and that team who works so hard and diligently to keep the flavor of that neighborhood and like to just be on record thanking you for those efforts. Okay. I would move approval of a variance to the distance between buildings for portions of the building above 50 feet, subject to staff conditions. Second. Subject to the staff conditions as amended. Ended conditions, thank you. Thank you. Second. We have a, thank you. Thank you. Second. We have a second. Yes. Walker. Second, yes. So. He's down to his last case. So. Yes. Reale. Reed. Yes. Griner. Yes. What? Yes. Motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Congratulations. Congratulations. Beautiful property. I think he just speaks volumes in a, it sets a precedent for others to follow. OK. Case numbers. 245400080087 5 4 0 0 0 0 8 7 address 0 10th Avenue South. F. Your Von Chambliss of Development Review Services. The subject property is located at the northward corner of 10th Avenue South and 28th Street South and the Wawa Heights neighborhood. It's a bit of background, the subject property is zoned into one. This property consists of two vacant platt at lots, lots 48 and 49, according to the 1924 Prathers 4th Royal subdivision plaque. In 1998, a demolition permit was approved for the removal of a triplex, and the sites have remained vacant since. This application requested approval of variances to within area to create, to buildable lots from two platted lots consistent with the platted pattern. Lot 48 was established with the width of, excuse me, 39 feet in width and a lot 49 was 44.9 feet in width. The approximate areas of Lot 48 are 33,220, excuse me, 37 square feet and Lot 49 would have an area of 3657 square feet approximately. And then here are images of the site's existing conditions from 10th Avenue. And here we have images of existing vegetation on site. The applicant will be required to maintain, preserve, the existing live oak tree present in the street side yard. To remove apartments will be required for the removals of other existing forms of vegetation. An analysis of the subject blocking surrounding blocks was completed to determine the degree of compatibility given the development pattern is exhibited by the neighboring properties that are also zoned into one this analysis concluded that approximately 64% of properties are substandard in terms of lot width and 67% are substandard in lot area moreover Approximately 66% of the area still follows the plant pattern is one house per plant a lot And then here are images taken of some of the surrounding properties and it's one house per plate a lot. And then here are images taken of some of the surrounding properties. So the study area in this particular neighborhood has a light mix of vacant properties, light grandfathered multi-family uses, single-family uses, and there are a few houses of worship within the area. One in two story scale development are present within the area. However, the predominating development pattern consists of one story single family homes throughout the neighborhood. The applicants provided a site plan to conceptualize future development of the site. Development of the site will remain subject to the applicable LDR regulations as well as the NT1 regulations more specifically. Here we have a lot 48 the interior lot. This plan involves the construction of a three bedroom two bathroom residents. And here are elevations. And then here we have a proposed development for lap 49. This plan to involves a construction of a three bedroom two bathroom single family residents on the corner lot. And it's corresponding elevations. Here we have an example of development different forms of development along one of the streets observed in the study area. The applicant is proposing to develop two single family homes on the two plated lots consistent with the lots located in the center and to the right of the image. The image to the far left is what one larger single family home spanning both plated lots would be like. The applicant currently can construct a larger single family home across the two plated lots but it's seeking the variance, of course, to develop each lot individually. First of all, to the review criteria, approval of the variance, again, would allow the developer to single family homes on two-platet lots of record. The provisions of the code still permit one larger single family home and one accessory dwelling unit consistent with the NT regulations. The request is not the result of applicant action as a proceeding plant established the lots that became substandard after the 2007 LDR update and the substandard lots have remained combined since their adoption since the adoption of the non-conforming ordinance. In terms of granting the request is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations to promote revitalization and infill development. The approval of this request does not appear injuries to neighboring properties or detrimental to public welfare. With respect to public comments, there have been no public comments in response to the public notice that was sent out by the applicant to the neighborhood association and all surrounding property owners within 300 feet. Staff recommends approval of the request pursuant to the conditions contained in the staff report Finding that the degrees of consistency between the request and the existing pattern are high enough to support With this I conclude my presentation and remain available for questions Do we have any questions for staff? Commissioner Clemens? I do have one questions. Are the alleys in this neighborhood usable? Yes, for this particular property, the alleys navigable. Okay, because the cyclan showed parking at the front of a lot. But we're not approving the cyclan, we're just approving the allow for two locks. Correct. The interior regulations allow front loading driveways as well as use of the allow for two locks. Correct. The NT regulations allow front loading driveways as well as use of the alleys for parking as well, which is why you see what you see. We have any additional questions? Your staff Great. Thank you It's the applicant present It's a port the police state your full name your address if you've been sworn in. Thank you Hello, my name's Carlos Granados 2401 10th Avenue South same P and yes, I have been sworn in Thank you. Yeah, just I would like to split a lot. It's a big lot. That block of islands is just a bunch of little houses on one block. So I think putting one big mass of house on that neighborhood would be kind of a mistake. More materials, it'd be very, very expensive for somebody to afford that. Instead of just having one house for one family, I'm trying to have two houses for two families, so more people could live in St.P. and also have more affordable housing. It would match the neighborhood better. If you look down the street, it's, you know, the single houses is what's there. And then also the neighborhood across from there, it's all affordable housing. That Jordan Park area, that's all part of St. Pete's affordable housing program that you guys offer for people that can make ends meet and that need that can afford a $400, $400,000 home. So I just don't think that it would be a good idea to put a big, low mass of house air and, you know, no one's going to be able to afford that. Doesn't make sense. OK. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Very well. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you. Based staff, do we have a heavy across examination the applicant staff waste all i'm sorry we don't have a registered point no blue cards no blue cards sorry about that yeah just reading the room but but i want to put the record i want to get those looks over there so i'm trying to make sure we were on task all my friends are here that's my last one so she i'm just want to make sure I didn't get that look. I'm not the gentleman in the room. We'll try to be a little consistent here. Okay, thank you. No cross examination from staff. Afflaves. Do we have a cross examination from the applicant? Do we have a closing statement from staff? Staff waves. Do we have a closing statement from staff. Staff waves. The closing statement. Wait, okay. Thank you. We'll go into executive session. I will make a motion to prove a variance to lot with and lot area to create two buildable lots from two plighted lots under a common ownership. I agree with everything in the applicant said. I think Commissioner Walker wants to debate this one personally. No, I was going to make the motions since it was my last case. I mean we're all my most years, Reale. He was waiting on that. I second. Wow. Waiter read the room, Commissioner Reale. I'm saying that one because I think I'm here for it. Sorry that you were at the end of the agenda. I have a motion from Reale. Second by Walker. I'm gonna throw me a bone. Appreciate it. After eight years. Are you guys ready? You're ready. You're in it? Yes. Walker? Yes. Still? Yes. Clemens. Yes. Reality? Yes. Reader? Yes. motion passes unanimously So we do have another we found The correct information that case from last week so we can I'm gonna show you up here Okay actual notes where I did know eight inches not the 12 up there So we're gonna amend the approval letter the minutes as well as the vote record so we can vote on this correct? So you can now, if you wish, move approval of last month's minutes with the corrections addressed by the clerk. What a better way to go out. He's passing me. I don't think I can get away. I stay within yourself. He got this. I'm moved. Well done. Thank you, Miss John. Who's that? I should. Who was the motion? Walker. He's never been so quiet with the ball. Unbelievable. Read. Oh, I wasn't. He's never been so quiet with the unbelievable read Well, I wasn't I'm sorry I've stink yes Yes, here, then yes Clemens Griner I was in here. That's right. Lynn. Yes Reality yes Madeline. Yes. A minute's passed from the August meeting. No, to be state. I just heard from the mayor. Meeting? No. No. I'm still going to let you share. Oh. Oh. So generally, just a refresher on the process, chair, you would open the floor for nominations for the next chair. I'm going to open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll open the floor. I'll pull it. No, we're good. I open the floor for nominations of the device chair in the chair at this time. We're going to do chair first. We'll do. OK, I'll open the nominations for the chair. We just want to make sure we're going to let him vote. I'm sorry, but. Hmm? OK, so you can nominate anyone. You can nominate yourself. You can't nominate Mr. Walker because he would not be with us. And if you nominate someone for a chair, it needs to be a regular member. When we get the vice chair, I will give you a little bit different advice. I would nominate Mr.i to be the chair. Second. Second. You got three seconds. I was told last year this was a foregone. I will need one name for the second. That would be great. Who nominated? I nominated. And you can just pick any of us. Yeah, he's a pick of name. Sorry, Walker, it is. Walker, you're it. Reed? Yes. Walker? Sure. Sue? Yes. Keenan? No. Wrong. Wrong, yes. My ones? Rider? Yes. Blint? Yes. My friends. Yes. Rider. Yes. Blink. Yes. That's really. Yeah. Well that's seven. So anyway, you're it. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. All right. I open the floor for nominations for the vice chair. So we are going to, Mr. Walker is leaving us, we may have some alternates move into regular spots. So you can nominate someone who is currently an alternate contingent on them becoming a regular member. And if for any reason that doesn't happen, then we'll go back and pick a different vice chair at a later date. But that is an option. I nominate Commissioner Valo. Second. Are there any other nominations? Who? Read. Yes. Walker. Yes. No? Yes. Vernon? Yes. Clemens? Yes. Reiner? Yes. Win. Yes. Your name? Yes. Clemens. Yes. Reiner? Yes. Win. Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Good to see you. Wonderful. You're right of pass. Yeah. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Meeting adjourned. 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. Thank you.