meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach. If you could all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Roll call, please. >> Member Small >> here. >> Vice Chair Garshaw here. >> Member Core. >> Me. Member Schmidt >> here. >> Chair Chase here. >> We have a quorum. >> We'll start with um approval of the
agenda. Any changes to the agenda today, Kristen? >> No, Madam Chair. No changes. Motion to approve the agenda for this afternoon's meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for today's meeting. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Schmidt
>> here. >> Member Core. >> Yes, is what you want to say. Or no, but yes. >> Member Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Can we do a swearing in for all that will be speaking today? >> We can.
Um, anyone who will be presenting or speaking to the board today, if you will please rise. And do you swear? Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you're about to give to the board
is truthful? >> Thank you. >> Thanks. At this time, we have the opportunity for audience comments. This would be if there's anything you want to share with the board that's not on today's agenda, we're happy to hear from you. If there is an item on the agenda, you'll have your time to speak during that.
Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to approval of the minutes from our October meeting since our November meeting was um pushed. Did everybody have a chance to review? Any edits, questions? >> No, ma'am. >> No. No. We have a motion to approve.
>> I so move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Member Core? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Great. We have but one case today. Um
before hearing the case, any exparte to disclose? >> No. >> Just drove by site visit myself. >> Any experte from this? >> No. No. No. >> Did you have any um contact with the
>> wonderful um Brandon? >> Good afternoon. Brandon Barry, senior planner. If we could pull up the PowerPoint, please. So the only case for today, this is variance case number 25136. It is a practical difficulty variance
for 3640 Bel Vista Drive East. Jason and Christina Shanold owners request a practical diff two practical difficulty variances to allow for an additional living floor to be constructed beneath an elevated living floor with a 5.7 ft side setback to align with the existing
preserved home setback proposed where 6.5 ft is required and for new rear open stairs proposed to encroach to 14t 5 in from the rear property line where 17 ft is required. Both of these requests are made pursuant to land development code
section 8.7A3 and 6.22B. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located to the southern side of the Bel Vista neighborhood. Zoning of the property is RU1 residential district. The district
allows for single family detached residences which is the use of the property. It's going through the request. Um, this is an existing developed site. It contains a single family home that is proposed to be elevated. The lot area does meet the requirement for the zoning
district. The lot width is also compliant. The sideyard um is forms the portion for the first part of this variance. Uh the requirement is that any addition meet a 10% of the lot width setback that is 6.5
ft for this lot. There is a small portion of the building on the north side that I'll point out in just a moment when we're looking at the site plan that exists at a 5.7 foot setback from the side property line. The building does jog away from that setback. That is the closest measurement
on that side. Um but it it is still within the required setback. what is proposed is a new living level beneath the elevated living level that will be located at seven uh 5.7 feet from the side property line to meet the existing setback. So it is a variance of
approximately 8 ft. The setback for open stairs in the rear yard is 17 ft. Existing setbacks are 24.5 ft to the structure itself, 18.7 feet to the open porch and balcony. Those are both
compliant with the setbacks. They will remain compliant with the setbacks. What is proposed as an encroachment which requires the variance is the open stairs. I'll show those in a moment as well. The proposed setback is 14T 5 in from the rear property line where 17 ft
is required. You can see a photo taken from the dock of the existing rear of the structure as well as the survey on the right showing the existing conditions. Here is a proposed site plan pointing out the two variances that I just spoke about.
Um toward the waterfront side, you do have the open stairs with a 14 foot 5- in rear setback proposed where 17 ft is required. And then on the side, you see that portion of the building that is being elevated that will be proposed at
a 5.7 foot side setback where 6.5 ft is required. And this is just a a zoomed in image uh showing showing those two requests. You can see here an isometric rendering
of the home. The first variance is shown at the jog in the building on the right side of the screen. The land development code as of late 2024 allows for in place elevation of existing structures without regard to the current enforced setbacks.
However, it does limit those living level um elevations to only one level and they must remain the same height of the level that exists today. So, if this home were to be just one level elevated over parking, it would not need the side
setback variance because the owner is elevating two living levels and adding another living level beneath the elevated level. That middle level, that portion there is is what requires this variance. if they were just elevating the living level over parking, they would not need the side setback
variance. And here you can see the front elevation again on the right side of the screen. You can see the um additional living level that requires the the side setback variance. Here's the rear elevation showing that portion of the building. Again, it's
only the front portion that jogs toward that property line. As you uh proceed to the back of the site, the setback does become compliant with the 6.5 ft required. At the rear of the addition, it is 6.8 ft. So, it is compliant at the
rear, just not at the front. At the side there, you can also see the stairs um the open design stairs that do encroach into the required rear yard by a distance of about two 2.7 ft.
And here are the proposed floor plans showing the internal circulation of the home uh post elevation as well as the stairs and the addition. Here's some photographs of the site doing the signposting. uh the existing side that is subject to
the variance that is being proposed to be elevated to living levels, the rear of the property. Uh just an outline of the area that is being proposed for elevation where the stairs are proposed to be installed.
Area looking toward the northeast um from the side of the pool. No encroachments are um proposed on this side of the property. Staff comments. Staff responded to the four criteria in the staff report which
is made part of the record. The applicant should be prepared to provide their own testimony and respond to the following two staff comments. They should address whether the stairs can be reduced in depth by one foot to reduce the extent of the variance requested. Scaling the plans. They appear to be four feet wide. The minimum Florida
building code requirement is three feet. So there might be a potential to reduce the encroachment of the stairs into the required rear yard. We also asked them to describe generally if they've considered alternative designs to access the rear of the property from the new um
first living level uh which would potentially reduce or eliminate the need for the staircase encroachment. We also asked that for the staircase design, the applicant should commit to the open basin railing design that was shown on the plans if that is the confirmed architecture for the project.
We propose a condition related to that should the board find basis to approve the these requests. Staff finds generally that the requests are reasonable. The stairs provide reasonable circulation for the residents and their design is open which lessens visual impact of the neighboring
property. The scale of the side encroachment is ne negligible. Staff agrees with the applicant narrative that the modification is likely to be imperceptible. It is only that small portion. It does jog quickly away from the required rear setback. It's about an 8.8 foot encroachment but only for a
small portion of the structure there. Structure will be elevated in place with this existing setback and compliance would require a first living level tapering which will look out of place. We don't feel that it meets the um standards in the land development code the purpose and intent to prevent
the overcrowding of lot. it is of lots and and sideyards. Um, and that it would not meaningfully impact the overall massing of the structure given its design. That top living level could exist at its existing setback. The bottom ground floor parking storage access level could remain at its
setback. It would only be that middle level that needs to be tapered in by8 ft. Stair finds staff finds a stair encroachment into the rear yard could be accommodated at a three-foot width while still complying with the Florida building code. that could potentially reduce the scope of this variance request if there is no other location on
the property that they could be accommodated. Staff recommends one condition should the board find uh basis to approve both of these variances that the stairs constructed as a result of this variance within the required rear yard of the property shall provide
an open base open style railing with similar transparency as detailed in the plan set dated May 13, 2025. revised September 15, 2025 and shall not be independently roofed or enclosed that would run with the property. So any future replacement of these stairs would
need to comply with this condition as well. Uh the board could also motion to approve this case as proposed with or without conditions, move to deny this case, or continue the case to a future board of adjustment date should we need to uh should you need additional information from the applicant or staff.
With that, that concludes my presentation. We do have the applicant present. Happy to take any questions. >> Do we've received any letters? >> We did not. >> Any questions for Brandon? >> What is the width of the stairway itself?
>> It is. The stairway with both rungs is 9 ft 4 in I believe. Let me confirm that. I will verify that, but I believe it's 9 feet 4 in for the for the stairs. >> My question is if if you had to reduce
that a foot and a half um how wide that would end up making the stairway. >> I believe it would be a reduction of of 1 foot. So that would be a 8 foot 4 inch uh stairway. That is the both the connection down to the landing as well
as down to the pool deck area. It's the uh it's the two wrong stair shown on the screen in the center. >> So the stair itself would be less than 4 ft wide then because they're side by side. >> So each each flight of stairs would be that would make at least one of the
flights of stairs um the one leading down to the pool deck from the landing that would be three feet wide. the um portion leading down from the deck itself to the landing could remain at 4 feet. That portion is not within the required setback. It's only the portion
that encroaches toward the pool deck that is within the required setback. Um the Florida building code minimum is a three-foot width and it appears to be at at four feet. So it appears they could reduce that one foot and still meet the building code requirement.
>> Any additional questions for Brandon? >> No. on the um the area I I looks like the lot has a a little bit of a pie shape right as it gets wider into to the back. So what the were you saying the area that
is encroaching on the side the 5.7 is that the how um deep is that into the yard? I guess I'm not sure if that's about a couple feet of the building
that's actually at 5.7 and other than that they're all hitting the 6.5. >> So it's it's a 15 foot portion of building and with the jog it's it's approximately 10 or 11 feet that is within the required sideyard but it's it's not all at 5.7. It does jog away
from the property line >> and and that is not an open structure underneath it. It is a solid >> correct and this this shows the rendering that is a solid wall. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Brandon. If the applicant would like to please
come forward, >> you can just share your name and address um and your case. Um Jason Shangle, 3640 Belle Vista Drive East. And um is it just to talk about some of the questions
from the Okay. Um so first, thank you to Brandon and Kristen and thanks to all of you for for reviewing the application and taking the time. Um we appreciate it. >> Um Christine and I moved to the area about five years ago uh to St. P beach
and you know we had the initial thought of making it a forever home and then you know projects build on projects and it's officially the forever home. Um and so that is the nature of sort of the the application is we want to we want to make it um the right size for our family
like at this moment when we have to elevate it because of the storms and and what happened. um uh when we were speaking with that company um they're like, "Hey, you can add another level if that's what you guys want to do for the longer term during this process." And so
that's kind of what led to this adding the the additional living area. Um as far as the specifics, we were equally surprised to learn about the 5.7 6.5 thing. Um uh but yeah, it seems like that's um um pretty difficult and would
look a little uh a little wonky um to try to fix on the rear setback stairs. I think um you know the the only thing that that we talked about with the designers is um you know we we have two little kids. Um I have some medical
issues. Um family also does as well. So, I think they were sort of leaning towards the conservative side of sort of larger stairs, I guess, versus the the building code minimum, but um we we also totally want to do the right thing. And so, whatever, you know, the board deems
is is reasonable, um for the neighborhood and the community, I think we're >> is the second floor now. So, I I saw the the garage, that's the new part you're building underneath it to raise it. Is the second floor >> the same house that you've been living in? Exactly.
Will the new second floor basically be that? Yes. >> Is that what you're asking? Sorry. >> Oh, you're not. You're okay. Well, I thought you were lifting your house. >> Yeah. So, it'll lift to basic the existing house will basically become the third level. >> Then there.
>> Yes. Um >> Oh, that's why I didn't quite understand how well it's going to fit together. Okay. >> Um it's a lot. I'm still processing. Uh >> you haven't paid for it yet. >> And then uh Yeah. And then the second level, I think, is the new living level. And then there's a garage.
>> Yeah. >> So, >> so you'd be open to exploring um alternative stair sizes to help reduce the variance request? >> Yeah, totally. Um >> did you guys look at any other um locations for the stairs in the design
process? >> Yeah, there there's nothing that really uh that that worked. I mean, you we could I think maybe add something on like the the the side of the house, but you basically I think you get even pretty close to the setbacks there and
then you lose the whole side of the house um for kids and etc. Um and then interior it just doesn't work with the layout. It it gets super clunky. >> Can we see the picture again of what it's going to look like?
>> The from the front will be fine. Yeah, it did look like on the and let's see where north is um west. I I I'm going to say it maybe the south side of the house. I don't know if I have my northsoutheast, but you had a 12
uh foot 9 in setback on the back side of the house. >> Oh, on the south side. Yeah, that sideyard. >> Yeah. And that seemed like where I was like, well, maybe there would be opportunity with the stairs that would not impact and also give you what you
want, which is wider stairs. But was that looked at >> or was there a reason that side didn't make sense for you all? >> I did look at it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You just say you could just say your name and >> I'm Christina Shingold his wife and also
live >> live at 30 3640 Belle Vista Drive East. So I am kind of the driver behind it being a 4 foot wide stair and where it is and so I I feel like I can speak to that. We have two little kids and I think about how one we have loved the
house and how it is and like having that ground flooror living was so easy with little kids and the pool and I know safety is a big thing for us but we live on the water and we have a pool. Um and now we're in a position where we're like okay we want to be able to elevate the house so that we're not worried about
hurricanes going forward. We both work from home and probably have parents live with us in the future. And so the design of the home is kind of geared towards that to try to like opt to make it better if we're in this situation where we have to go through all this. I really wanted the stairs in the back and I wanted them four feet wide because I
pictured myself carrying my son having holding my daughter like trying to make it down the stairs. Everybody's a little wet and slippery. His father is a survivor of polio and has a severe limp and we often have to help him down the stairs. And so I kept thinking if the stairs are on the side, I don't know how
I'm going to have one kid in the pool and be able if another kid has to go to the bathroom like how do I do that as a parent and I worried about it. And so I looked at the data and the research and they all said the four foot wide stairs are safer. I put that in the application too and there's less um safety issues
that happen with it. And then I also thought the visibility of having it in the back. So we talked about it. We like care deeply about our neighborhood and all of our neighbors. We that's why we proposed it to be kind of the open look even though it wasn't something I would have originally thought of but we were
trying to explore all the different ways to do it and that was sort of like our thought process as we went through if that's helpful at all. Very helpful. Thank you for sharing. >> She officially will speak for us from now. There's there's also a um a pillar like
a column and so it's really hard to do the stairs there and make it fit within that because then you have the stair like running into the column when it's coming down. So we looked at some different ways but that's kind of how we landed with the current design. >> Very helpful. The whole point of this is
for you to be able to explain to us the the process and why you're asking for this variance. >> Okay, perfect. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Have you spoke with your neighbors about this project at all? Uh we have like our neighbor Leslie and we've mentioned to other neighbors on the street. A lot of
people we speak to when they're out walking their dogs and honestly they've followed our family as we're probably the only people with little kids on our street and the storm was pretty disruptive to everybody. It was especially disruptive for us and we've had a lot of people as we got back in a couple months ago say how excited they
were that we were back in and um ask us a little bit about what our plans are. So that's how we've kept neighbors updated. in um terms of the maybe we could pull the design back up. I don't know if that's
Yeah. with the back area that has the side encroachment I guess and all the solid structure underneath that backside. Is that that is your intent is just that's a enclosed space underneath that section of your home as opposed to
uh more of a open air patio underneath your lifted house. >> Yeah, I think it's a good it's it's a fair point. I honestly worried that these elevated homes will look like a Frankenstein home. And I didn't want this house to look like a weird Frankenstein house that's kind of like
melded together. >> And from an architectural like design perspective, it seemed odd to have a permanent structure underneath like if we left that area open, but then the existing corner up there is our bathroom, our master bathroom. So, it's not something we can like repurpose.
That makes sense. >> Oh, yeah. No, I was looking at the on the ground area to from a massing standpoint where the floor, you know, the the base of the home, I can't really point to it and make anyense >> like the sand part. >> Correct. Okay. where it's more of the
pillar structures that are going to be underneath the home. And since that's all your backyard space, just from a massing standpoint, knowing you're encroaching closer to the neighbors, which is why we ask if you have any letters of support from neighbors, but
just to create a less heavy feel from this mass of a structure going up >> being at that 5.7. I didn't know if that would be considered or if you ever considered that with your design that that would be an open >> honestly
>> pillar based area back there >> when we did the design because that master bathroom that is now the on that corner it was done by permit before we bought the house so it never occurred to us that it was like even approaching a side setback and then through this process we realized so when we were designing it no we hadn't thought about
it I will say though the fence pretty much covers that and so from like a neighbor standpoint I don't think it would make a difference whether or not that was open. You wouldn't be able to see it because there's a fence there. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> No. >> Thanks so much. >> Is there anybody else here today that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition to today's case? Please come for board. Uh my name is Sean Hamilton. I'm an attorney. I was hired by uh the
neighbor uh Gan Wright who lives directly to the north of the applicant's property. This would be the one that would be most affected by the the setbacks and the variances that they're requesting today. Particularly the uh the stairwell placement uh would would
pretty much block my client's uh view of the the Donses and the waterway there. I would imagine that that would be the reasoning that the applicants didn't want to put it on the other side of their house. Um, you know, this doesn't really meet the
practical difficulty variance standard. Um, you know, it must arise from a unique physical condition of the property, must not be self-created, uh, must require only the minimum relief necessary, and must not be contrary to public interest or detrimental to
neighboring property. In this case, it it really is detrimental to my my client's property. It it creates a a shorter distance for fire to travel from from their roof to our roof. Uh it it's
uh it just doesn't meet the the requirements of a practical difficulty variance. Um this is all self-created. This is a huge undertaking. They're taking a one-story house and making it into a three-story Frankenstein house. And um or or
hopefully not, but um it it is going to be impactful to the neighborhood. It's going to be impactful to my my client's uh property, and it's it's just not in fitting with a practical variance uh
application. I I think that the the amount of of work that's being put into this could definitely definitely accommodate uh a change in in the buildout whereby the stairs do not impact the neighbors and do not require
variance. And um I I just think it's kind of a shame that that they're doing this to the detriment of of their neighbors uh I guess for their own benefit. I it's it's a good good place to bring up your family and and maybe teach the family uh to to love thy
neighbor. So, uh that that's that's it in in in my my view. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, board. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else? >> Hearing none, we'll close the open comment and open for board discussion.
>> Well, that was a curveball. >> Well, yeah. I don't know if >> valid point. Very valid point. >> I guess I I might ask you guys to come back up and and clarify. So were you aware of neighbors concerns about the
impact on the visibility that that would create for them and kind of the views that they had? >> No. So Jean's never mentioned anything to us. Um we haven't unless you've spoken with her. >> Uh the only
I uh when the hearing was pushed back from November, um Brandon and Kristen had given a heads up that um that a neighbor was concerned okay about the property. >> Okay. >> But that's all we had heard. >> Now that you've heard that, I guess would there be any consideration then
that I mean you would want to offer given the site impact? And I mean, I understand if you're buying property, especially, you know, on the water like this, that you want to have >> um your your views, those add a lot of
value to your home. >> I will say that we took all of that into account. Like, we never set out to make anything difficult for >> Of course. Of course. And we specifically stood on the property line from Jean and Perry's house and tried to think about how it would and there was
no impact of the view. Like I don't um I'm happy if like there's pictures that Jean has to see, but I don't see how we're talking a few feet and I don't think from the angle of their home they can even see the stairs. Yeah, I was a little confused when he said it because
I'm not sure I just the angles and I don't know if it's if we can I don't know even play with Google Maps to see but I don't think that blocks um it definitely doesn't block the dawn. I can't even imagine or or the vast
majority of the water. >> And I don't understand a roof line thing either because the roof doesn't taint at all. So, and love thing comment wasn't very nice. Thank you. >> Could Could we ask the attorney can
would you step again, please? >> Can you can you read again what the definition of uh practical difficulty is? >> Uh well, I I was just going over the basises of the uh the points you have to make, meaning that you it has to be a
unique physical condition. Uh it must not be self-created, which this obviously is. um must require only a minimum relief necessary, must not be contrary to the public interest or detrimental to neighboring property.
>> Do you have any um evidence about what the what you're stating about the impact of the view? >> Uh I can testify that I've seen the view from my neighbor's property that it does impact the the view of the dawn. And I
mean if can I the aerial Yeah. Well, that's not a very good one. But essentially, uh I guess lot two above it uh is where my
client's house is and um the Dons Cesar is >> I'm sorry. Your client's house is >> north of that. Just the the subject property is three. The house immediately north of that. >> Is it a singlestory house?
>> It is a singlestory house. >> Oh, that's >> so their view wouldn't be affected whether this house went up or not. >> No, this is just >> you're just talking about the stairway, right? >> So, if the stairway was brought in where it wasn't >> u one foot out as it is now, then your
client wouldn't have a complaint. >> Uh they it would be within the building envelope. Uh >> right. So we wouldn't have a variance hearing. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead and do >> Madam Chair, if I may. Um just to um
reiterate to reiterate um what Mr. or Attorney Hamilton was um saying that those are not the criteria for practical difficulty. Um those are addressed in the staff findings report. And uh criteria one is how substantial the variance is in relation to the
requirement sought to be varied. Number two, whether an adverse change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Three, whether the difficulty can be obiated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by a variance. As well as number four, whether in the view of the
manner which the difficulty arose, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. >> Thank you for clarification. And can I just add um also your decision today is to be based on competent and substantial evidence that's presented to you in the
form of oral testimony based on personal knowledge and understanding of of the property as well as expert testimony from um the city planner. >> Thank you. >> We'll reconvene on board discussion.
>> Well, Brandon's his recommendation if we approve to open up this >> the design as is is open. Um I think it's more of a question of three foot versus 4 foot and um the impact of not having to have variance for the stairs
>> is in question. >> I was going to say the same. I think that you know I commend anybody who's gone through this and they're staying at Staf Beach and they're rebuilding and I'm all for supporting that and I think correct if we just bring that back one foot
then that eliminates the issue of the variance. >> I think a variance is still required. It's just a a lesser request. Is that correct, Brandon? >> If if we were to propose a 3-ft stairwell, >> correct? It would still require a
variance. We do have a variance type that is administratively administered >> 8 ft. That was still >> correct. If that moved forward independently, we allow for up to a one foot administrative variance, but the stairs, even with a one foot reduction, would still be subject to board action.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> What would be the variance then that we would be approving should it go to 3 ft. >> So they would be looking at a 15 foot 5 in if they reduced it the 1 foot on the outside stairwell where 17t is required.
>> Okay. But if both of them are reduced by a foot, they're >> if both of them then it would be >> it's three feet the whole way down, not four feet and three feet. That >> right. And I originally Brandon had mentioned just doing the one, right? And then but if if both of them were reduced
to three feet and then we'd have to look at the platform size as well. >> If we could pull up the Thank you. I did want to point out that currently that the reason for the recommendation of the one foot reduction in the outside um run
of stairs is because the stairs right uh just meet at the support for the patio above. So there would would likely need to be a reduction in the patio depth by 1 foot as well to accommodate a 1ft reduction in the stairs that are um
closer to the building just because they they do run right into that that support there for the elevated patio >> and the elevated patio is in a direct alignment with the original home though. Correct. >> Correct. That is the that is the screen patio footprint.
>> Okay. So to stay in alignment with the current footprint, what would be the minimum variance then that would be needed? Or would you would that be what the stairs are doing currently? They're directly in alignment with the current footprint.
The the stairs um well the stairs don't exist. The the patio is does exist. The screen patio does exist. So, if the patio were to be kept at its same location and this design were to be proposed, this stair design were to be approved, a 1-T reduction in the stairs
closest to the seaw wall, um that would be a 15t 5 in setback where 17 ft is required. If there was to be a reduction of three feet in the stairs closest to the building, the patio would need to shift back to accommodate for that one
foot because currently the outer run of stairs are right up against the support for that patio or the support might need to be moved back closer to the building. 15t 5 in is in alignment with the current footprint with an elevated with their
elevated um deck. >> No, I I'm sorry. Um I I misunderstood. The the screen porch is set at 18t 7 in. So that is that is compliant with the setback for that type of structure. The stairs only are encroaching into the rear setback. the the the home itself as
well as the screen porch do comply both now and post elevation. >> It's just the the stairs. >> Okay. Um but this you were trying to make a connection for I thought for us with the why the stair width would need
to be at a certain point given the structure above it. The reason I pointed that out is because the reduction in the stairs closest to the home to three feet in width would not actually affect the encroachment of the stairs toward the rear property line. And the reason for
that is because they are within the required setback. And in order to move the stairs two feet away from the rear property line, the porch might need to be scaled back as well because there's a support that the stairs
closest to the seaw wall just now barely miss. As as you walk down, you can see the stairs as you exit onto the pool deck. There is a support right there at the corner of that patio. So reducing the stairs closest to the home to three feet won't actually affect the setback
of the of the stairs if that makes sense without a reduction in the the patio. >> Okay, which is already established given the current home footprint. So that wouldn't make sense but 15 foot 5 in with one however they would achieve that
through the width of those stairs. >> Correct. They they might be able to move the support for the screen porch in a foot. it would that porch would can of lever out one foot but I I just I haven't discussed that. >> I I understand. Yeah, that's beyond the scope of today. Okay.
>> I think we're in agreement that the side setback is not um of a concern. Is that >> that's my position? I think it seems like a difficulty in getting a house elevated and it wouldn't even be here
had it not been for the third floor. >> So, I understand and appreciate that. >> Okay. So, then focusing on the the rear stairs, um I think there's, you know, we could make the ask to do that bottom porch in
three instead of four. That's only a foot difference and it's a rear setback and they're open stairs. So, I think that it's not really benefiting >> the neighbor feels like it is. >> The ne the neighbor feels like they are, but we haven't really gotten I'd say visual testimony that that
actually uh will be blocking their view. Um, and the applicant has given testimony of, you know, medical family hardships that are requesting the four feet >> and and the width. I I don't understand how if if it's blocking the view, if it
was wider or narrower, how is that a difference from blocking the view? Still coming down. It's not going out this way. >> If it was closed versus open, I could understand. >> It's protruding out into the backyard. >> And they come in the other way one foot.
>> It's protruding out into the yard by a foot. Right. So that's where because of the we see they're all on this curve, right? So you can appreciate why a house would have a blocked view to the south
>> based on how far your home protruded towards the water. That's all I'm saying. I I can appreciate the dynamics of that >> because it's not a straight shot, >> right? Okay. Gotcha. I understand where you're coming from. They're all on a curve. That's why we have a pie-shaped
lot. And that's why this is here probably in some ways, too. >> Could we see the drawing of the rear of the house, please? The proposed Well, don't you have it looking at it or not? >> What do you >> just from the side? >> That is the rear elevation. That's the
rear of the house. >> Looking at the house from the water. if you were out in the water >> or standing at their pool. >> Is that what you were looking for? >> Well, my question was going to be to solve the whole thing. What if the stairs would go downstairs were internal
and went down to the garage? No. >> Yeah. But or at least the applicant's testimony was that wouldn't work with the flow of the Yeah. >> the internal structure. >> But that had been, you know, looked at. I'm a little stuck on the what attorney
Hamilton said the self-created >> but Kristen has um verified that that's not >> actually yeah right >> right >> so that would not be the criteria in which this application would be considered
>> what are you pointing at >> the landing >> the landing yeah Oh, >> I don't know that that would change anything. He's just actually just that the landing alteration would impact anything from other
>> Brandon where the stairs come down. Then there seems to be a landing. >> Mhm. The crossc. >> Would that resolve our problem at all if they narrowed the landing area? >> It it potentially could. And I'll I'll show the
get back to this drawing here. Um, currently the issue is that both the landing and the stair run that is closest to the house. >> Okay. >> Any change to that portion that is adjacent the screen porch within the
side to the side of the home there. Um, reducing that in depth would not actually affect the encroachment of the stairs. It's only that outer rung as well as the um the landing portion that is beyond the screen porch. So, anything
that occurs in line with the screen porch or closer to the home would not make a change unless there were to be a change to the support for the screen porch. If it were to be moved closer to the home, that could potentially reduce the stair encroachment to two feet,
which would reduce this down to a 7 in encroachment, but that would require a modification to the support for the screen porch. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I think back to the question, I I guess
appreciate elevating the home. there's a footprint and how do you manage and try to maintain within that footprint to the to I think to accommodate the needs. Um I I would be apt to support the variance
for the side setback and I think in the rear um lean towards the 15T 5 in setback and let that discussion about how to get the right width whether it's three or three and a half on each side
but I I think to minimize that to impact the fact that this is about creating lines of sight for and that's why we have the 17 ft requirements in our backyards, especially when you're on the water. I guess I just think that that's important
to do for our neighbors. So, that's where I'd be leaning towards. >> Any other thoughts? >> I think that's reasonable to do the 15 and a half and however you want to work out with the stairs. Um, that's a
compromise. I I'm with you. I think if we just go to three feet, it should be all right >> for just the bottom portion. They would have the larger stairs up top, they'd still have their landing. They just >> and they can construct them how they want. Like if it's three and a half and three and a half the whole way down and
it fits 15 in the 15 foot 5 in setback, then you can do it. >> Flexibility. It's still >> it's still a variance. It's still And we'll keep the condition that they remain open to make sure that that you know >> it's over a foot and a half more than
>> to the back. Yes. >> Do we have a motion? >> Okay. I can make a motion. Um, I got to get the case number case number 25136 to approve uh the variance for the
sideyard at 5.7 and in the rear setback of 15t 5 in with the condition as outlined by staff. >> Hear a second. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call, please.
>> Member core. >> Yes. >> Me vice chair Garshaw. Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Good luck with your build. >> Thank you. Any other items for
discussion? Board Kristen? >> No. Do we have cases already for January? >> We are tracking about four um variances for January. Three um unnecessary undue hardship and one practical difficulty at this time. >> Okay. And meeting ajourned.
Happy holidays everyone.