meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach. If everyone could 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 Schmidt >> here. >> Vice Chair Core >> here. >> Member Kunzer >> here. >> Member Small >> here. >> Chair Chase. >> We have a quorum. >> Um, we'll move to approval of today's
agenda. Any changes to the agenda, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair, if we could. Um, action item 4E, which is case number 2611, uh, 3,400 G Boulevard, has asked to be continued to our August 26th meeting. >> Okay.
>> Noted. >> They're not They're not going to be on today at all. >> No, sir. They're going to be >> five cases then. >> Yeah, >> that is correct. >> Um, with that update, can we get a motion to approve the amended agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. Roll call, please.
>> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes. >> Member Kzer? >> Yes. >> Member Small? >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Um, if we can now move to um swear anybody in that will be speaking today.
>> Anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in. Please 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. >> Thank you. If you're here to speak on a case today that's on today's agenda, you'll have time to do that. If there's something else you'd like to share with the board today, we do have time designated for general audience comments, and that would be the time to approach the board with that feedback.
Seeing none, we'll move on to approval of the minutes from um our June meeting. Did everybody have the opportunity to review? Any questions? Request for edits. >> They look good. >> Do we have a motion? >> So move. >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. >> Member Kzer. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Right. Moving on to today's action items. Um the first being case number 26112921st
Avenue. >> Um we need to do exparte disclosures. Do you typically do them before the staff presentation? >> Um we do them we remember. [laughter] >> Let's do them. Let's do them now then to answer them by case. Is that okay?
>> Yeah. We're going to do each case. We're going to ask if you have had any out of hearing uh communications with either the applicant or members of the public. Um sometimes people will disclose if they had a site visit. Um and then that you would be able to um hear the case
objectively and decide the case only on the evidence that's presented to you today. >> Understood. Member Small. >> None. Just a drive by. >> None. >> None for me. I've driven by it and I know the former owner so I've been to his house.
>> None. >> Thank you. >> Name dropper. >> Well, it's just a fact. >> Go ahead, Brandon. >> Good afternoon. Brandon Barry, senior planner. This is variance case 26112. It's a practical difficulty variance for
1992st Avenue. Generator super center of Tampa Bay for Matthew Lombardi. request to install an elevated generator in the western required sideyard setback of a property currently contains a developed single family residence. There's a setback of 4T proposed where 7 ft is
required for elevated equipment that is pursuant to land development code section 6.14b. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located over just over the bridge to Vina Delmare on 21st Avenue. It is adjacent to the west um of a vacant
property that was formerly associated with this dwelling. Uh was formerly a combined property. It was subdivided a few years ago. And then the property to the east is developed with a single family home. These properties are all in the RU1 single family residential zoning
district. That is also the current active use of the properties. The required side dirt setback for equipment elevated more than two feet is equivalent to the setback of the primary structure. In this case, that is 7 ft. Pursuant to land development code
section 6.14b based on the lot width, the applicant is requesting to install this new generator with a setback of 4 feet. That is a variance of 3 feet or just under 50% of the 7 foot standard. You can see a survey here showing the
sketch of the variance request. It will be located adjacent to the yard of the property that is not currently developed. That property to the west is under separate ownership. It is eligible for development with a single family home in the future. Um but it is not actively under development or does not
contain a single family home at this time. Here's some photographs of the site looking at the property and the signposting. This is showing the general location of the generator along that western side.
You can see here the back of the property. With generators, there is generally a 5 to 10 foot opening setback requirement. You can see there's a large number of windows, sliding glass doors, and other openings on the rear of the structure that would likely preclude it from being attached to the residence. It
could always be placed on a stand um on the ground if desired, but it would it would likely have a hard time being cancelled livered off the back of the house. And then you can see the other yard. This is the eastern yard that abuts the developed neighbors, showing the existing equipment that is located
within that yard. Here are the four standards for practical difficulty variances. Staff had asked for a little bit of testimony from the applicant. We did receive the product specifications for the generator. We asked for those
because when assessing generator impacts, typically noise is a concern. This is a standard residential generator. It is not going to produce noise at a level that we believe it's going to be a significant concern for any residential development in the future. It is in line with the 65 del
standard at a receiving property that we set for a noise limitation citywide. We do find that the request is reasonable and it meets a criteria for issues of a practical difficulty variance. The applicant has reasonably justified the need for the generator and the inability to accommodate it in
another yard. Generators are one of the most cost-effective upgrades that can occur to residential property to assist with recovery following storm events. Their impact is modest outside of those periods. We do recognize and we have seen a large number of residential property owners that post storm have attempted to retrofit generators into
their property. Typically condensers as are considered under new development. Generators in a lot of cases were not. So the window offset, the door offsets that are required can make it a little bit of a challenge on these properties to accommodate. The option potentially
would be for installation of the generator in the front or the rear yard on a stand rather than attached to the residence, but that would be out of place and it would affect in the rear of the residence existing amenities. There are also likely pool setbacks that could not be accommodated given the existing
developed conditions. Based on that, staff has justified um why the western sideyard is the most feasible location for the equipment. We do ask for two conditions. The first being that if the generator is an is exchanged in the future, it be limited to 65 dB measured
at the typical setback standard that was provided by the applicant. We have verified they would meet that standard uh based on the generator that's been proposed. and then that they submit and have approved a final survey confirming that the location and setback is where it is shown and and would be authorized
by the board of adjustment. So with that we have your action options on the screen. A motion to approve with or without staff conditions or with additional conditions requested by the board. Motion to deny based on lack of competent substantial evidence. Staff has not found a basis for that but the
board may or a motion to continue the case to a future board of adjustment date pending submitt of additional information. I believe we have an agent for the case. We also have the owner of the property on the on the call. Happy to take questions. >> Any questions for Brandon?
>> Brandon, I think I read that the property is above the flood plane. Is that >> true? >> There there are portions of the property that are above the flood plane. So, technically this equipment could be installed near grade. However, the rest of the equipment is elevated as is most of the living space. So, um I believe
it's the the owner's desire to have it elevated so if there's a future event, it would it would not it would allow for power to the house. >> Anything else for Brandon at this point? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> If the owner or agent would like to come
forward and share their case, >> if you could just please state your name and address. >> Yeah, good afternoon. or Gregory Hos from Generator Super Center at Tampa Bay and we do have the owner Matthew Lombardi on a video or on Zoom. >> Hi Matt.
>> I don't know if you can hear us or not. >> Thanks for letting me um I'm on a work but thank you for letting me join virtually. >> Thank you for accommodating. We can hear you just fine. >> So I can answer any questions you have about the actual generator itself. Um
>> well my question is not about the generator. It's about the fact the house that is to the west of that, that's the empty lot. Now, I know I just found out recently there's a woman's going to build a house there. So, that property, as I mentioned, I know that was Joe
Holland's house. Um, and I've been there, and it's a very big property. I just I don't see why it needs a a variance. I mean, you aren't there other places you could put that? >> No, sir. not not going by the rules of uh the generator being a certain
distance away from windows, doors, vents for carbon monoxide reasons. Um and then it also has to be a certain distance from other appliances like the air conditioner. And if you go all the way around the house, uh there's only two places you can put it. One, the place that we picked and the same exact place
towards the front of the house, same elevation and everything, but that's much more of an eyesore. So, we wanted to move it to the back. So, that's why we picked that location. There was previously a generator there um that was on a two-ft stand from the [clears throat] neighbors.
>> That's what I was going to ask. You had a generator there before. He's always had a when Joe was there, he always had a generator. So, >> that generator did not go by the rules and requirements of the generator um setbacks and everything. So, I'm not sure how that was there originally, but
the original place when that generator uh we could not put a generator there again >> because it was too low or >> it was too close to the wall. You're supposed to have 3 ft clearance on both sides of the generator. This one only had one. It was within 5t of the garage door and you have to have a minimum of
5t for carbon monoxide reasons and it didn't go by any of those rules. I see. >> So, we couldn't put it back in that placement. Plus the we definitely want to elevate it because of the storms a few years ago. You know that was a historical storm and if that ever happens again we wanted >> He didn't get water there.
>> Uh I don't know. >> We're not looking at the history of the property. We're looking at the case today. >> All right. So yeah. So for the future to add the the generator that uh Mr. Rahan had is was located on the other property
and so when that property when that lock got sold so did the generator and that's where it was located. >> Oh, I see. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> Oh, >> any other questions for the agent or the applicant? >> No.
>> Thank you very much. >> Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak on behalf of this case? Hearing none, we'll close public hearing and open for board discussion. >> I have no issue with this at all.
>> I think it's great to see residents continuing to make their homes more resilient and they have to accommodate the both regulations of where the generator can be and the existing structure. >> Yeah. I mean, now that we that explanation helped a lot. >> Great. >> Well, and even based there's no other place to put it. >> So, by this >> and you don't want it out in front for
sure. It's a pretty house. [laughter] >> So, we have a motion. [clears throat] >> Yeah. I'd like to move that we approve case number 26112 um >> with the conditions >> with the conditions uh that the staff recommended. >> A second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small. >> Yes.
>> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Core? >> Yes. >> Member Kunzer? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to the second case for today. Case number 26104 2941 East Vina.
and the witnesses have already been sworn at the beginning of the hearing. If we could do the exparte disclosures for this particular case at 2941 East Vina Delmare Boulevard, if you've communicated with the applicant or uh
anyone else, citizens or whether you've done a site visit and affirming that you'll consider the evidence that's presented today at the hearing um in informing the basis for your decision. >> I have nothing to disclose at all on this one. Nothing myself. I drove by it.
>> No. >> Thank you, Brandon. >> This is case 26104 for 2941 East Venina Delmare Boulevard. It is also practical difficulty variance. The request is made pursuant to land development code section 6.14b. Same as the prior
property. And this is for a generator mounted at a height greater than 2 feet. David Iverson of Penel's Generator and Electric for William Arzala requests to install the elevated generator within the sideyard setback. This request is for a three-foot setback where 7T is
required. So, it's an encroachment of 4 feet into the required sideyard. You can see the property here. It will be located on the south side abuing the property uh noted as lot 67 on the aerial. As with the prior case, this is a
property zoning of RU1. It's a residential single family zoning which is also the use of the properties in the vicinity. The required side setback is 10% of the lot width which in this case I'm sorry that is a mistake at the beginning. Uh the table is correct. It's a required
setback of 7 feet. The existing setback is six feet. So the existing setback is currently slightly non-conforming. The applicant is requesting for the equipment to encroach to a three-foot setback. That would be a 4-foot encroachment into the required sideyard.
A three-foot encroachment into the existing setback. You can see here on the survey the location of the generator. It's actually already present. It just has not been connected. There is a permanent to install the generator. Here's some
photographs of the site showing the signposting, showing the front of the structure. Another looking toward the front. You can see there the generator. Again, it has already been installed. It just has not been connected.
Another looking from the front. >> I'm sorry. Did you say it's already been installed, but it's not connected? >> Correct. As with the prior case, the same variance criteria apply. Staff has asked the applicant for the decibel details for the generator that
is mounted on the side of the property. It does appear to be a standard residential generator. We just do not have that detail with the permit submitt application. We also ask why the generator per the applicant um was not proposed to be installed in the northern sideyard uh where the variance request
would be lessened. There would still be a variance required. If it were to be installed in the northern sidey yard, it would be a slightly lesser setback. I believe based on the current mounting proposal, it would likely be be about a 4ft setback on the north side. Staff
does find that the request is reasonable and meets the criteria for issues of a practical difficulty variance. Existing lot conditions and the applicant's narrative have supported why the proposed location is preferable to installation either the front or rear yards. uh it wasn't as visible through the photos, but the photos included with
the packet show that the rear of the property does contain um the rear of the structure rather uh is is largely windows and doors. They face a similar issue to the applicant under the prior case. We do ask for testimony about the northern sideyard, but based on the
mounting location, and it was visible in one of these photos, you can see that it abuts not only a generator on the home to the south, but it's also more directly adjacent to what is currently used solely as a garage on the northern side of the structure. It would have
directly abuted living space on that structure. So, it could have had a a more significant impact on that northern side. Uh, generators again are directly tied to life safety concerns. Can be one of the most cost-effective means of preventing mold growth and delayed reinhabitation of neighborhoods after a
storm. Staff finds the rare noise impacts of the exercising outside of emergency event time frames to be a reasonable trade-off with the potential benefits that they provide. As with the prior case, we would like the applicant to speak to the decibel level and the product specifications for the generator. Again, we assume it's a
standard residential generator, but we would just like that confirmed. And we would like the applicant to submit and have approved a final survey confirming the generator's location and setback prior to close out should this case be approved. The action options are on the screen. I do believe we have the agent
present for this case. Happy to answer questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. Any questions for Brandon from the board? >> Nope. >> Thank you. >> The applicant or agent would like to please share their case? Good afternoon.
>> I'm Dave Iverson, the owner of Penelis Generator and Electric. Mr. Zer is handicapped. He's on a breathing machine 24 hours, 7 days a week. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. >> If we could just get your address as well for the record. >> My address for him? >> No, for you. >> For you? >> For my office is 6272
147th Avenue North, Sweet B, Clearwater, Florida. >> Thank you. Uh 7 uh 33760. >> Any questions for the >> feel like I'm a court. [laughter] >> Any questions from the board for agent? >> Um just what Brandon had mentioned possibly the decibb.
>> Yes, sir. It's a generator. It's uh 63 dB from a distance of 23 feet. >> The reason that the southside was chosen was because the garage on the adjacent property, which by the way, we also put a generator on, which is his daughter. Um, and that permit was approved that
and the house to the north is his son. That generator's in. So, unfortunately, we got the permits like a day apart. For the other two houses, we just assumed the one in the center. So, I had a crane guy just set them all. But, we have not performed any wiring. If we have to remove it because you request that, we
will remove it and seal the house properly. >> Very good. >> Answer the other question, too, because I saw pictures. There's an identical one. >> Yes. >> Right there. The height's the same. >> Yes, sir. >> Clearly, there's been a precedent set. So, >> all three are at the same height. >> Okay. >> And I have all three folders with you as far as generator spec sheets for you.
>> I I'm going to save you the court proceedings in >> Yes, your honor. >> Good. [laughter] >> Can we see the picture again where the two are they're on the same side? Is that possible? I'm sorry, Brandon. >> Well, I take it we don't need any letters.
>> Okay. So the the one that is not hooked up is the one on the left and the other one is they're the same height. >> Uh the well they're the same they're elevated. They're not at the exact same height. >> I can see >> but they have to they have to remain 5 ft minimal distance from any
fenestration vented set window dry any opening door. And if you do do that in an existing house and it's not more than 10 and it's not more than 10 feet away from window, you must put carbon monoxide center in the window that has occurred that uh to sense if anything
leaks through that window for protection for the client. >> Understood. >> Where would be the other option for that location if you had to >> with clearances of windows, doors, vented sophets? In my opinion, that's the only place we can put it because on the north side of the house, we do not
reach that 23 feet because the other house to the north, that's living space. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> No. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you for your time. >> Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak in support or in opposition of this case?
>> I do have a card from Michael Welch. >> If you could please share your name and address for the record. I'm sorry. >> Your name and address for the record. >> My name is Welch, Michael Welch, and I live at 3410 East to Basin Avenue, St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706.
And I'm really not addressing a a generator or an air conditioner. What I'm addressing and thinking about and have been thinking about is this city has an infrastructure problem. Is that correct? >> The comments that we were looking for today are something that would be specific to this case. So, if there's
general comments that you'd like to provide on the city, that could be done at a commission meeting. But what we're looking for right now would be any comments related to >> Well, I have a question for the variance board because um every time a new bathroom is allowed or a hose faucet or
any other thing that adds to our wastewater, we're increasing a problem. And that it doesn't seem that the city realizes that. Uh >> I I appreciate your comments, sir, but we need to um make sure that all the comments that are addressed to this case
are specific to this generator. Um at the next variance board meeting, if you'd like to come and make general comments at the beginning, we'd welcome that. Or any commission meeting, they have general, excuse me, have the variances for the buildings uh going up, especially smileys. Has that been brought up?
>> That that the case has not yet been heard today. No. >> All right. Well, is that the correct one that I should address? If your comments are specific to to that home, >> your comments are are overloading a system that's already overloaded that's going to another system that's already overloaded.
>> I So our our rulings today are based off variances and setbacks for buildings and they're not specific to um specific um infrastructure concerns. I I understand there are many in the city. Um and that would be a comment my recommendation would be to bring to the next commission meeting.
>> Okay, this is the next city commission meeting. They're talking about wastewater. So you can at the very next city commission meeting they'll be discussing wastewater. >> I'll be up in Michigan unfortunately. Uh >> you can send an email into the clerk and she'll distribute. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much and
thank you for your [clears throat] other comments on this case. [clears throat] None. We'll close public hearing and open for board discussion. I don't see issues. >> Well, the only thing that bothers me is they put it in without getting permission to put it in. >> Well, they but they also specifically
addressed it hasn't been installed. They're happy to move it. It was more from an efficiency perspective and they had three, you know, going in. Um, so I can respect that. >> I agree with you 100%. >> I mean, they they showed that that they were willing to move it if we asked them to. So, I'm I'm okay.
>> Do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. Board approved case 26104 with staff recommendation of final inspection. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes.
>> Member Core. >> Yes. >> Member Kzer. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Moving on to our third case for the afternoon. Case number 2610002511
East Vina. >> Again, the witnesses have already been sworn at the beginning of today's hearing, but if we could do exparte disclosures on any communications you've had regarding this site or variance application uh with any persons and affirming that you will consider the
evidence that's presented in front of you today at the hearing rather than outside of the hearing. >> I have no disclosures. >> None. I did receive emails in support of this case from neighbors that I submitted to the board for the record. >> I did a driveby.
>> No, >> thank you. >> You may begin. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Board members Gil Martinez, senior planner with community development. Before you today is practical difficulty variance case 261000
for the property located at 2511 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. The request is to install an elevated generator into the southern required yard setback of the property containing a single family residence with a setback of 4.56
4.56 in where 7 ft is required. This is an aerial. The zoning area associated with this property is RU1 residential one. Once again, the required setback is for
7 ft. The proposed encroachment is 2 and 1/2 ft. The requested setback would be 4 1/2 ft. This shows us a better view of where the generator would be located on the southern portion of the property
towards the rear. the board um is required to um consider the the four variances requirements under LDC 3.12B. Um staff has asked the applicant to
provide testimony addressing the four criteria that you consider. Um amongst that is why was the proposed location selected over potential locations of the property? Whether the proposed location represents the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the generator
while maintaining applicable building and flood plane requirements. Whether the proposed installation will comply with the applicable building electrical, mechanical, and flood plane and noise regulations. and whether the installation of the standby generator was contemplated during the design and
construction of the residence and if not why the need for the generator arose after the completion of the home. Should um the board approve this staff recommends the following conditions that the generator shall be installed in substantial compliance with the survey
and the plan submitted as part of the application. The approved variance shall apply only to the generator location shown on the approved survey. The variance should not be expanded, nor shall the additional equipment be installed within the approved setback
area without further review and approval by the city. Any relocation of the generator that further reduces the required sideyard setback shall require additional board approval. And finally, prior to final inspection and approval,
the applicant shall submit an asbuilt survey demonstrating that the generator has been installed in substantial compliance with the approved survey plans and conditions of approval. The actions before you today in
association with case number 26100 are to approve or deny with prejudice or without prejudice or to continue And that concludes my presentation. Should you have any questions of me, I'm available. I believe the
>> Can I see where the Is there a photograph again of where the generator would go? >> Sure. >> Oh, okay. That's a general depiction of what you're doing. >> Any other questions for >> No, you said we had letters.
>> I received letters in support from neighboring properties that I passed along to Christine. >> Yeah, I believe we've only had one in support with regards to this application. >> That's correct. This should be on your backup materials. I did receive one phone call of support as well. >> One phone call from support as well and nothing in opposition. >> Okay.
>> No, ma'am. >> Would [clears throat] that happen to be the adjacent house out of curiosity? >> No. Any other questions for staff? >> No. >> No. The applicant would like to please come forward and share their case.
>> U Kevin Murphy. I'm at uh 2511 East Venina Delmare Boulevard, St. Pete Beach. Uh 33706. Um, one of the I think Gil mentioned there was a a verbal a communication that he had over the phone and that
neighbor was adjacent to my property and he did approve it. So the written one was not adjacent but the verbal is exactly where the generator will be. Okay. >> Thank you. That's helpful. >> Yeah. Any other questions I can answer? >> Um, if you can address the other questions that were listed [clears throat]
up in terms of other locations. >> Yeah. Um, you've had a couple of pictures. It I don't think clearly could can't go on the front of the house. That would be too much of an eyesore. On the back, I don't know if there was a rear picture. I had supplied one, but I don't know if there was one here. >> There is. It was.
>> It's all Yeah, it's all windows and you couldn't pass the five foot uh and the other side has got uh air conditioner condensers on it. It would not fit. Okay. >> So, this was the best place for it. And uh it's 70 ft back from from the side of
the house. It's way toward the back there. There you go. That's the one where the back is. It really can't fit there. And it's way down the sideyard and on the back. >> The other question was if um you had contemplated putting in a generator prior, why an after the fact?
>> Yeah. When when we built the house, the house uh finished in November of 22 and I wasn't sure we were going to need a generator. Uh but subsequently with the trouble we've had, >> we all found out. Yes. We found we found out that, you know, the investment is going to be worth it. >> Yeah. >> And that's really why.
>> Understood. Any questions for the applicant? >> No. No. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat and cough] If >> anybody else is here today that would like to speak in favor in opposition of this case, now would be the time. Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board [clears throat] discussion.
>> These are all the same case, aren't they? >> We have a theme today. Let >> me like deja vu. >> Encouraging to see neighbors making, you know, improvements to their home. >> It's the same. Well, it's the same exact thing. It has to do with how far those those buildings were built. And I I
can't see how we can say no to this one and yes to the others. >> I mean, I think if anything, as we see themes come up in these cases, it just gives us more substance to have further conversation with the code is that we need to look at down the road. But >> and these aren't going to be the last we see. >> No, exactly.
>> By any means, so I have no no questions. >> Do we have a motion? I move that we approve K6 261 0. Any recommendations from the staff? >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes.
>> Member Kunzer? >> Yes. >> Member Small? >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? Yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right, moving on to >> Okay, >> case number 260992851 East FINA. Also a theme today. And once
again, we've had the witnesses sworn at the beginning of the public hearing, but if we could do exparte disclosures on any communications you've had regarding this application uh or property uh with any other persons and that you would limit your test your decision to the
testimony and evidence you hear today at the hearing. >> Yes. No. No communication, just a driveby. >> No communications. >> No communications. just reviewed the um letter and videos that were sent prior to today's meeting. >> Yeah. And and a drive that and a driveby
from me. >> Yeah, I just reviewed the videos as well. >> Thanks, >> Randy. >> So, this is undoing an unnecessary hardship variance case 26099 for 2851 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. Micah Thompson of Golf and Bay Dock
Works LLC for Carlson Robert a revocable trust and Hines Denise trustee request to reconstruct and expand an existing dock head to 24 feet width and 15 ft length distance between 17 or sorry 77 and 92 feet from the seaw wall where all
expansions located further than 50% of the waterfront property width from the seaw wall which is 37.5 ft for this property require authorization from both the budding waterfront property owners. This request is made pursuant to land development code section 6.23D3.
I did want to point out and this the board had referenced in your disclosures that we did receive one letter of opposition as well as some accompanying videos that were sent out to the board last week. >> Is that the only communication that was received? >> Correct. Yes. >> Is that is that I'm sorry. Is that the
neighbor? >> That is a neighbor. Yes. So >> I thought both neighbors had to approve for a variance for a dock. They they do and I'll I'll address that in just a moment. So you can see here an aerial of the property. Um quite a bit of accretion at the seaw wall. This area of
East Mina Delmare, most docks are uh between 75 and and greater feet in length away from the seaw wall to account for that. This also has a zoning of RU1 residential district. The upland use of the property is a detached single family
home as is for those in the vicinity. The applicant is seeking pursuant to land development code section 6.23D3 to add a 12 by 15 foot addition to the south side of the dock head. This addition occurs outside the 50% of the waterfront length that is 37.5 ft
authorized for an administrative approval. It requires signatures from both neighbors. When this variance application was originally submitted, either neighbor had signed off. The applicant had stated that the neighbor to the north was willing to support the request and we did last night receive
the authorization from the northern neighbor. However, for any kind of addition further out than in this case 50% of the waterfront width, which is 37 1/2 ft, both neighbors do need to sign off. They have not obtained the signature from the southern neighbor. Um and so the statement about the ability
to obtain a signature, they did receive a signature from the northern neighbor which was sent to us uh yesterday evening. So the length limitations as I said before 37.5 ft from the seaw wall without neighbor approval in this area of Vina Delmare due to that creation the
existence of seaggrass is um a accessible length is is typically more than 37 1/2 ft and most properties in vicinity have a similar buildable length. In this existing properties case the dock is 92.5 ft. It is proposed to
expand south and I'll show that in just a moment. Um, it is not going out any further than the edge of the existing dock head, but it is becoming larger within that 77 to 92 foot distance from the seaw wall. That is what necessitates this variance. It is not a side setback
variance. There is an existing encroachment on the northern side, the northern lator line of 10 ft. Uh, this property would typically require a setback of 18.75 ft, but that is for the existing boat lift. There is no greater
encroachment into that side setback and the northern neighbor has provided a signoff on the southern side. The setback is 27 feet. So that does meet the required side setback. It's the distance from the seaw wall. This work is taking place that requires this
variance that you're you're seeing today. >> Can I just have a um clarification on that? So the dis it's the 92 not the 12 by 15 that is requiring the variance and that is remaining consistent with what how the current dock is structured. >> It is remaining consistent. It it's not
going out any further than the existing dock head. But it's the fact that the work is taking place more than 25% of or sorry 50% of the waterfront width from the seaw wall. That's 37.5 ft because they're expanding the dock at that distance. They need the signature from both neighbors. And you can see that
here in the red box that is the expansion and again it's going toward the southern properties literal line but it is not encroaching into that waterfront quadrant. Um but it is it is the distance from the seaw wall that necessitates this variance. It will
maintain a 27 foot setback from that line and it is between 77 and 92 feet away from the seaw wall. Here's [clears throat] some photographs of the site showing the sign posting,
showing the front of the home. You can see here looking toward the north, the dock to the north. This dock was recently approved for a significant expansion. It does not appear to have been built yet, at least at the time of our site visit. You can see here standing on the dock,
there is currently a step down. Um and again this is the location toward which the dock will be expanded should this variance be approved. Uh it would be toward the southern dock which you are looking at in this photo.
Another toward the north and looking back toward the home showing effectively the the 92 feet from the the edge of the seaw wall or from the edge of the dock rather toward the seaw wall. uh you can see here the the accretion
near the seaw wall. It is significant in this area. There are some seaggrasses further out from the seaw wall as well. So there are eight criteria to issue an unnecessary and undue hardship variance. Based on staff review, staff finds that
the applicants have adequately addressed some of the hardship criteria, but have not yet demonstrated that denial of the hardship variance request would result in unnecessary and undue hardship based on some challenge of the land, structure, or building. Nor have they demonstrated that the subject request is
the minimal necessary to make reasonable use of the dock structure. The request itself is reasonable. We understand the reason that they are making the request. It is for maneuverability at the edge of the dock head. Um, but it does require additional support to meet the strict criteria of a hardship variance. We do
want the applicant or agent to address some of the staff concerns with the narrative in terms of support for criteria 1 3 6 and 7, particularly the following. How much of the depth of the submerged land behind the subject property is unable to be used and the vessel the frequency of that deficiency
to meet draft requirements for a standard recreational vessel? whether they expect any navigability issues for any adjacent property owners. Should this request be approved and if there are any submerged land conditions immediately adjacent to the existing dock head that require effectively a
greater expansion than what they may have originally intended. Um there are seagrasses present. This may have been something that they and their professional judgment determined it needs to be expanded a greater distance because of some uh some water based
condition that we are not aware of. So based on that um we have not recommended any conditions for this case. Um there are action options to approve um with conditions proposed by the board. If you find that the applicant has not adequately supported
this case, you could motion to deny this case based on the lack of competent substantial evidence. That would be based on the testimony shared by the applicant at this hearing. or if you feel that you need additional information to make a decision, you can motion to continue this case to a future date pending that additional
information. I believe we do have the applicant present. Do you have any questions for me? >> I have a question for you. I I'm I'm just going to be really stupid here because maybe I'm just too dense to understand this. It says there has to be authorization from both both abuing waterfront
property owners. We have had significant opposition from one of them >> in order for it to be administratively approved. That's why they're here today because they did not get both >> right >> signatures. If they get both signatures, then it's administratively >> course. But they didn't. So I don't understand why it comes to the board. >> Why are we even doing this?
>> Because we have it that now it becomes our decision as to whether or not we decide that this they're meeting the hardship. >> Right. >> Um that's the nature of >> I don't Okay. They're some of the most challenging cases that we see because we're only here because the neighbors didn't agree
and so it a situation where not everybody's going to >> but it says they have to agree. So that's why >> they have to agree only for administrative variance. If if they both agree then staff could approve it. Is that correct Brandon? That that's correct. Yep. >> So then it wouldn't come to you. It's
only when they don't have agreement that you have to make the decision. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Based on the evidence that you'll hear today from not only the applicant but from the neighboring property owners >> applying the criteria of hardship variances. >> Any other questions for Brandon?
>> No. >> Thank you. >> Um if the applicant or their agent would like to please come forward and share their case. >> Hi there. I'm Micah Thompson with Bay Doc Works. My address is 255 Bokea Drive, MadiRaa Beach, Florida 33708.
Um, I'll let I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Shannon Lemus with Golf and Bay Dog Works. My address is 2444 Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Um, and yes, the the main reason we're here is because it would normally if we got both neighbors signatures, if not,
it's not uncommon for us to go to a municipality and ask for other >> back up because you're taller >> and ask for and ask for other considerations. This is the most unique job that we've dealt with in a variance meeting. The most the biggest reason um
is there any way to show this on the screen? The biggest reason we're um applying for this variance is that here is the boat and then this gentleman is in a wheelchair full-time. He is currently not able to board his vessel by parking
his boat on a 12t wide dock much of the time. He would like it wider so he can pull his boat out off of his boat lift, tie up to the end of his dock, and be able to get on his boat. I know that's not a strict environmental variance, but I want to let you know the reason why
he's applying for this is it is subjective under your considerations to a degree. The depth is there. The navigability, we're 60 ft away from the neighbor on the seat to the right. He did sign off on the this gentleman in the wheelchair did sign off on the
neighbor's dock. Um the neighbor to the right, I don't know the whole history. That neighbor will not sign off because he quotes does not like him. Don't know more history there. The neighbor to the left. Um, no problem. Yeah, we would love to sign off on that. Hope he gets
access to his boat. So, that's the that's the story. >> Anything [clears throat] to add to that? >> I was just trying to scroll back here to make sure that we addressed all the um follow-up questions [clears throat] designated from staff. Does anybody have that this
pulled out >> 113 H13 that you're looking for? >> Again, the the main portion of the dock, we're not going out any further. We wouldn't even re we would use the existing pilings to reframe and redack the outer section. We would simply add
12 more feet of width so that he could pull his boat up to the end of his dot. I think the main question I had that was listed um in one of your expert advice was on navigability and so you're do not see any >> it's not going to encroach on any
navigility from the neighbors and then himself it allows him to navigate his boat to the end of his dock but it's not going to >> okay >> nothing outside of that. >> Thank you for that testimony. Any other questions for the applicant's
agent? >> The other question was depth. The depth doesn't change. It's it's steeper than four feet after you get past what we have in red on our drawing. And it's depth isn't an issue there. And um as in any case with docks from a
seaggrass perspective and I can get the staff's confirmation on this but wildlife um the floor Florida wildlife has to come out and review any dock construction to ensure that you're not going to be further in in >> correct the county and Florida wildlife would do that. >> So regardless just for the public's and
the board's knowledge regardless of what our decision would be today if there was any adverse environmental impact that this dock was going to be providing it would not get approved. >> Yeah. County Water and Navigation will come out and look at the seaggrass. >> Plenty of questions for applicant.
>> No. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is the applicant here today themsself? >> If the applicant or the applicant's agent would like or the applicant is not here, I believe for the applicant's not here. He sent you on his path.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, if anybody is here today that would like to speak in support or opposition of this case, now would be the time. >> Russ Benson. >> Yes. Hello. Russ Benson, 2831 East Vienna Delmare uh Boulevard. Um, so I am
adjacent as as the agent just said, I am south right adjacent south to Mr. Carlson's uh property. Um, and when I became aware of the, uh, the public hearing, um, I prepared, uh, a memo and
and a sampling of some videos to send to the board, and I and I gave those to the senior planner so you could look at those. >> We will see them. >> Great. Um, couple of things I'd just like to um to highlight. First, we are on an open waterway, right? So unlike
the canal, we do have waves, right? We do have currents. We do have wind. We do have a lot of boats. Right. I bought my home uh just under two years ago, right before the hurricane. And um for the last year and a half, I have had boats
repeatedly grounded. I sent just a sample of a boat that got grounded right in front of my house. Right. I sent a sample of a boat shining lights in my residence. I've had boats hit my dock. And by and this is under existing
conditions, right? So by expanding this dock southward towards my property line, we're going to exacerbate this situation. It's going to get exacerbated and and and um I have to address what um what the
agent just said. I do not to to come up here and make a statement that I don't like the uh the owner. That's completely inappropriate. Completely inappropriate. My opposition to this has nothing to do with that. Okay. Um, his comment about
approving the dock. I I I did not app, you know, I did not I did not uh uh I was not owner of this house in 2021 when this um you know, but I but I do have information on that if you want to know the history because I did speak to the
owner of 2851 who opposed the dock when the prior owner, right, that I purchased this house from uh uh owned it, right? and then he realized he was just replacing his existing dock and then dropped the matter. But anyways, I you know this has
become a navigation I think a navigation issue for me, for my family, a security issue um and also um you know something that you know is a privacy issue for me as a homeowner and and I've I've met
with Mr. Carlson. He came into my driveway and I told him my concerns about this. So, you know, and and he said that, you know, I think a lot of this is caused by um you know, just just his, you know, he he wants to have fish lights here. That's his prerogative. I'm
not here to dispute that. He can do what he wants. But this increased activity, two, three, four boats a night at the same time do impact navigation. It does absolutely impact navigation. I think the board needs to also look in this
particular area because it is open water. We have to look at will doubling the size because that's in essence what we're doing. Doubling the size of this dock is that going to set a precedent and have broader implications for residents on East and Delmare. And I
think it will and and and that's what I'd like I also like to ask the board um you know to consider as well you know regarding Mr. Carlson's mobility. I have a family member who also has mobility issues. I completely understand and
respect that. But the but this dock head has been the same size for in excess of 10 years. Right. It's the same size. So, um I don't know if anybody has any questions for me. Um and I'll just stop there. >> I appreciate you coming today. I just
want to um inform you for the context that all cases are heard and from a hardship perspective on their own. So, I hear your concern from a president perspective, but know that any future dock would be um looked at independently of other decisions that were made.
>> Great. Thank you. >> I've looked at your videos and and and my gut feel was that um I mean, you're in an area a lot of boat traffic. I can see you're frustrated by that, but I
don't see like during the daytime when boats are near your dock. That has nothing to do with your neighbor's dock. If your neighbor's dock has lights on it at night and fishing boats are coming by and fishing there and that's bothering you, then I would say that's something
that you should discuss with your neighbor and see if he can set his timer so it goes off at a certain time. But I'm having a hard time understanding how this expansion is affecting you in terms of all these boats and fishing boats and so on. Just a heavily
>> uh traveled area with boats. Um that was my gut feel. I didn't hear you say it presents an issue for you navigating getting into your dock. >> Um those are the kind of complaints I was looking for. What I really saw was just existing boat traffic that would be
there whether he expanded his dock or not. So, so ju just for background. So, I like I said, I bought the house just under two years ago. Um, uh, I did have an existing, you know, lift there, uh, after the hurricane, right? I did not replace it right away, so I haven't had
a boat there. Um, specifically because of my lift issue when I got into the budget. I I actually got contractors and got permitted and my new lift was approved and installed last week. All right. So, I will be putting, you know,
my boat there so I can enjoy it. But, you know, my whole purpose was just giving you a sampling of the videos to show the navigation because there are waves, there are currents, you know, docks, you know, boats that ground
themselves right in front of my residents, right? That's a safety issue. And you, when you expand this southward, it's going to exacerbate that, right? It's it like again I could provide you with 50 more videos if you'd like to see
that. And so when I get my boat there, is it fair right when I'm going to have these other boats always floating around? And I'm not saying if, you know, this area is highly trafficked >> and so if he would like to expand it, >> you know, like further, you know,
further into the into the waterway, right, as opposed to going southward, that's that's the that's the challenge I have because I've >> I hear what you're saying, but I my point is that that making a dock wider isn't making isn't attracting more boats. And that's that's the issue that
I'm having with your point. I don't I don't really understand the issue. The width is within his rights. >> It's not attracting more boats. He just wants to position his boat in a different area. So, I'm just having a hard time understanding what your complaint is.
>> Be because he's doubling the size of the dock and I've seen I've seen the bow traffic. And again, to your to your point, I've addressed the light issue directly with him and and Mr. Carlson has said, "Well, I want to keep my lights there." That's his prerogative. I'm just saying when you expand the footprint and double it, it's going to
bring this right over in front of my residence, which it which which under existing conditions happens all the time. And and should I should I should my privacy and my enjoyment of my property get impacted negatively by this
coming over um and and making it even worse than it currently is. And that's and that's what I'd like the board to consider. And also once you know um [clears throat] you know I I I think that you know I've tried to I've tried
as a good neighbor to discuss this and and it's gone and and it's not changed. So when [clears throat] you know that and that's really what I'd like the board and everyone to consider. >> We appreciate your time and sharing your point of view. Were there any other
questions? >> Thank you. [clears throat] Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this case? Would the agent like to say something else? You're welcome to. >> Hi there. I'm Micah Thompson again with Gen Bay Doc Works. Um, just a couple of
things. >> Get the overhead, please. >> So, the neighbor on the other side is already taking their dock to the same size as this. and the what we're allowing or requesting is already within the allowable square footage uh and
wouldn't even come before you if the neighbors had both signed off. Um even with the new extension um we are still 60 and 1/2 ft away from the new section of his dock from his boat lift. The gentleman that was just up here as a
Madiraa Beach resident 60t away that's it's like three of us right in a row. We're pretty close together. Um, again, he's not trying to add another boat lift. He's not trying to bring more boats. He's just trying to get on his boat from this. Um, and I do try to be Switzerland. I'm I'm not
trying to offend anybody. I just that wanted to state a fact that I thought was was part of the case. >> Thank you for your additional testimony. Any other comments on this case? >> Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing open for board discussion.
I can share I sh I shared your sentiment when you know preparing for today's hearing um and have similar feelings. I think when there's a setback issue this becomes a lot more complicated but the fact that the construction is within the bounds of what's allowed from a um [clears throat] footprint standpoint
>> right well okay I >> I'm just looking at what it says what the rule is got to have authorization from both. It does not have that. >> So which is why they're here. >> That's why they're here. >> No, I I know that's why they're here,
but it makes it easy to to get to your point, >> it really doesn't matter what you're talking about about how far out and all the this is what the rule says. So, for us to just ignore the rule, it seems to me the rule says that >> we hear these cases frequently um and
the rule says that if they are not able to get joint neighbors, then they come to for this for us to make a decision independently. it. I got that. But it makes it easy for me to feel the way I feel about it, which is not to approve it because >> that's fine. That's
>> I mean, I can't understand how we can just decide here. We're going to just ignore >> because we're reviewing. >> Um, let me um call Brandon up. Brandon, are they requesting a variance from the requirement that both neighbors sign off
>> essentially? Yeah, I guess. >> No, >> they're not. They're requesting. >> Let me have Brandon speak for the record. As the expert planner, >> they are requesting a variance from the dimensional standard. The a way to think of it is the this allows an administrative waiver or variance option
that is not available for most structures with a new home. They either meet the setbacks or they come to this board even with neighbor support. But in this particular case, the city does allow a an administrative option for the neighbors to sign off on the request. that makes it legal based on the
setbacks and all the other requirements of the doc code in this case because both neighbors did not sign off there before the board. But it's because the dimensional variance it it is a dimensional variance as proposed. >> And could you explain again the dimensional variances related to the de
deck area that's at a certain length from the seaw wall? It is an expansion of the footprint further than 37 and a half ft from the seaw wall which is 50% of the waterfront width for this property. So that requires both neighbors signatures for the administrative method. If not, it
requires the board approval >> and the standard. >> It's important that you apply the actual criteria that's in the code. I think one of the constitutional problems with requiring neighbors to sign off is a neighbor could sign off for any reason
or or not sign off for any reason, including things that have nothing to do with the criteria for variances. That's why this comes to you. you are supposed to apply the criteria for variances that are listed there in in the staff report that >> [clears throat]
>> um Brandon has gone through, whether special conditions and circumstances exist, um whether these result from the actions of the applicant or a prior property owner, whether the literal interpretation of the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties. um and is unnecessary and undue hardship on this applicant. Uh whether the hardship has been deliberately or knowingly created. Um
whether this application is to achieve greater financial return, that would not be a hardship. U simply wanting to make more money or making her property more valuable is not the basis for a hardship. That's the B Burger King case. um
whether this variance application conveys the same treatment to the applicant as other owners, whether the requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the dock. So that's one thing you can look at. Is this the minimum square footage?
um is the requested variance in harmony with the general intent of the land development code and is it detrimental to the adjacent properties or in this case navigation. So those are the kinds of things that you want to look at. I think the stated basis was for mobility
access because this particular applicant is in a wheelchair and can't n can't um navigate is not the right word then confused can't access their uh their boat and they need this because they're they're confined to a wheelchair or some
other mobility problem. >> So they're seeking the ability to use their dog for that. >> Thank you for the further clarification. Does that help >> address your question? >> So, >> any other board decision? >> Change my mind.
>> That's okay. >> No, I and Denise. Yeah, I mean I I'm I'm with you on I I kind of agree. They're >> I mean they're not in They're They're still within >> We're good. >> I'm with you. >> No, I'm within the setback on on the side.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And to the point of being fair or treating them fairly as their neighbors be because of the depth, all the docks are out >> right >> between 70 and and >> Well, they can't be 34. They It's impossible for them to be 34. Yeah. So,
it's it's clear. I mean, I' I've all the time. I'm familiar with the area. So, >> so whether it was was wide or not, it's going to stay at 90 ft. >> Yeah. >> And um he's in a wheelchair. So then it deprivives him of his use of his boat if
he can't have a wider dock to access it and um that's not presenting a navigation issue. >> So >> nor any other land condition which were the three areas that we needed to
>> discuss in order to um cover off on the conditions that the staff is questioning. So is to your point, he's lowering his boat and then he's going to pull it parallel to the dock so he has access is what what they're >> after. Okay.
>> All right. How do we make >> I can make a motion. >> Yeah. Would you mind? Um, I'll move to approve [laughter] case 2851 or no case 26099 for the address of 2851 East Venol Delmare based off the testimony heard today and confirming the
criteria has been met for this hardship. [snorts] >> I'll second it. >> Member core, excuse me, [clears throat] member core. >> No. >> Member Kunzer, >> yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Schmidt, >> yes. Chair Chase. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Right. We are postponing case number 26111. Is it to a date certain or is it >> Yes, please. Uh Jenny, when is the next board of adjustment? >> End of August. >> August. >> August 26th.
>> August 26th at 2 p.m. this case will be heard. >> No further action needed. >> Not today. >> We'll move to the final piece. U might as well take a roll call and and and vote to continue it.
>> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Member Kzer. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Our final case for this afternoon, case number 24003.
This is an amendment to a prior um variance approval for 3700 Gulf Boulevard. Again, the witnesses have been sworn at the beginning of today's public hearing. Um, but we would ask for exparte disclosures if you have communicated with anyone regarding this
application or um visited the property. Um, and also affirm that you are able to consider the evidence and testimony today at the hearing as the basis for your decision making.
>> No experte driveby. I did speak to members of the um neighborhood association to get their feedback on the development. >> We heard this case once before. So >> this is an amendment. >> No, I understand that. But yes, I'm familiar with it and driven by it.
>> No, >> just a quick presentation on this one. This is again an amendment to variance case 24003. It had been authorized back in early 2024. There was also a previous amendment of the design that came before
this board in October of 2024. We would like board of adjustment review of the eight unnecessary and undue hardship variance criteria in the context of the presented design changes to the facade of the proposed multifamily building for amendment of the active variance authorization.
I'll get into a little bit more detail. This is the property on the northwest corner of G Boulevard and 37th Avenue. It was formerly the Smiley Snack Shack. It's now vacant. The applicant has come forward. They have been approved for a site plan. There had been a comment
earlier about uh utility authorizations and so on. Those have already been provided for this site. They have gone through the site plan approval. They are currently nearing the end of the building permit review. They've received most authorizations except for zoning.
So, here is the original facade proposal looking from G Boulevard that came before this board back in February of 2024. You can see the amended facade proposal in October of 2024. It's a little difficult to see on this uh slide, but
there was an additional story added on to the building at the time. It did comply and it continues to comply with the height limitations for the district which was made apparent at the hearing for this request. Uh this is a um elevation drawing
looking from G Boulevard. You can see from the isometrics here and it's the one at the bottom or sorry on the right hand side that is looking at the property from the corner of G Boulevard and 37th Avenue. That is how the structure would appear if built as
proposed. And then you can see on the left side that is looking at the structure from the west side of the property there is an easement on the west side that's used for access to single family homes directly west of this development. This is how it would
look from that side. A little bit difficult to make out in this isometric rendering, but there is a elevated pool area and other features at the west side of the of the residence that are shown uh toward toward grade on on that side.
So this is actually being brought back to the board of adjustment not because of an amendment to the original dimensional request that was made. They are meeting the setbacks that the board of adjustment had authorized back in February of 2024. The board had approved two authorizing conditions and there
were modifications to both of them. The first was that the design features color height and setback shall be as generally shown in the attachment. height only uh may be administratively v varied within the district permitted height. They are still meeting that standard. They are complying with the height limitation for
the district. However, any of the other alterations from submitted plans shall be noted should they be deemed significant by the city manager or designate. This approvals shall be considered void and return to the board of adjustment for reconsideration.
The second is that the ground floor of each unit shall contain a twocar garage door of at least 16 feet in width to generally match the aesthetic look of the structure proposed in submitted plans. They have instead gone with a design that is two individual garage doors for each of the four units. They
are developed in a attached single family townhouse style development but they are being developed as as two buildings of of two units each. um that had been a condition that had been included with the original authorization. So that would need to be
modified to um provide for the plans as as submitted. And speaking with the applicant in advance of this hearing, they did that for structural integrity purposes, but they can speak more to that. They are present at this meeting. There are eight criteria found in the land development code for hardship
variance. of the eight staff found that the modifications to the design would likely only significantly affect criteria 8. That is that the requested variances in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan and land development code is not injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public safety and welfare is compatible with the neighborhood and will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. specifically that last portion would potentially be the most applicable to the design changes that were made. With
that being said, despite modifications, staff finds that the design changes do not substantially affect the original basis for approval. Staff found that those were tied specifically to the uniqueness of the lot and its orientation relative to G Boulevard. This is the only property in this zoning
district or even along this stretch of Gulf Boulevard within the resort districts that has that secondary front orientation that actually shifts the front of the property to 37th Avenue. That does put significant constraints on this property compared to others that have a direct neighbor relationship
rather rather than a relationship with roads on on two corners of the property. The creation of the two garage doors out of the original one per unit proposed does appear to place greater emphasis on the upper cantal lever. Just a design comment, but not to the extent that staff finds that it would be
substantially out of character with other Mediterranean inspired developments in the vicinity. You can see of course the hotel Zamora on the bottom right there. They have the opening arches at the ground level. Um they have the other arch elements throughout the building as well as the rectangular windows. um those are not as
in line with the uh classical Mediterranean style, but there are are other structures in the vicinity. Looking at the home at the corner to the west, um clearly there's some classical um inspiration with the Mediterranean style in this home. So, the home the
neighborhood rather is not um purely Mediterranean in in design. Um, and we do believe that this building does retain some of that Mediterranean character that it was originally proposed with and that fits the neighborhood in general. So, the board of adjustment may find
that the design modifications do or do not change the original basis for approval and assign or modify conditions. As I mentioned before, the second condition explicitly required a 16oot garage door that would need to be modified uh based on the design that the applicant has proposed should the board
see fit. As I mentioned, they they appear to have done that based on a structural requirement, but they can speak more to that. So, these motion options are a little bit different. Um, you can motion to accept the design changes to amended case 24003 and retain conditions. Um, that would require
likely modifications to the garage door. You could accept the design changes to amended case 24003 and either add or modify conditions as specified. The second condition would need to be modified to allow for the design to proceed as proposed. Um, if
you need additional information, um, you would continue this to a future board of adjustment date. That authorization does remain in effect. It's the design changes that really necessitated this item being brought back to this board. I'm happy to take any questions. I believe the applicant does have a presentation where they go into more
detail why they made the changes that they did, but if you have any questions for me, I can answer them. >> Any questions for Brandon prior to hearing from the applicant? Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. Katie Cole with the law firm of
Hillward Henderson, 600 Cleveland Street, Sweet 800 Clearwater, Florida, representing the applicant. Um, as Mr. Barry spoke, we're here today to request two changes um, an amendment to the two conditions of approval. Um just as a
very high level, this project was approved as a town home project uh during the evolution of design and construction and marketing of the project over the past two years. Um this is now a condominium project which has necessitated some of the design changes
but the aesthetic design changes were uh were initiated by the ownership group looking to make a better product that they felt was more marketable in this community and aligned with the community. Uh so with that, I'd like to introduce Adam Wolf, who is a registered
architect and an AIA on the project, who I would also uh ask that you all accept as an expert for his testimony. >> Good afternoon. Uh Adam Wolf with Wolf Partners. Our office is at 5620 West Lime Avenue, Sweet 101 in Tampa. And how
am I able to use this? Is this all right? like to just briefly describe what the previous elevations um were accomplishing and then how we've modified it since. Um I would characterize this as maybe more of a mission or a Spanish style. And we see
here that it's um five stories, four stories fronting uh Gulf Boulevard with a series of uh very symmetrical punched openings along the third and fourth level. The additive balcony above the garage uh faces Golf Boulevard.
and we've since modified it to more of a Mediterranean revival style. Uh we drew inspiration from the Donsesar and wanted to create some uh a little bit more movement across the facade with uh slight more variation. The garage door openings with this being a masonry and
light gauge structure uh were required to have a 32-in lintil above each opening as it stands at an 8ft opening. Um and it would be prohibitive to go to a 16T opening. and we feel that it does not um take away from the design aesthetic itself. And uh I'll go through
a couple of the changes here in more detail. Um so previously it was basically the building outline was extruded five stories with not a lot of massing variation or articulation along the facade. So, we took some care to try to bring more intrigue spec specifically
to this 3700 frontage um where we have the arcade along the along the second floor to break up the mass from the ground floor to the three floors above. And then we also have a can lever portion that highlights those uh twotory window expressions.
Instead of having those additive um can lever balconies that you see on the previous design, we took the opportunity to reference some of the Don Cesar's aesthetic that has the continuous arcade along the ground floor. We're kind of considering that we have, you know, a tuck under garage and then the second
level was kind of the updated ground floor. And so to create the illusion and bring some levity to the structure itself, that continuous arcade kind of acts as a vis visual separation between the mass above and what's below.
And then as well as the roof structure, we had those uh mission style parapits and we have since gone to a more hip and barrel tile roof that is more consistent with the Mediterranean Revival style. And then as you can see, we've got quite
a bit of variety of fenestration across the project as opposed to the little bit more staccato look that the previous design was possessing. So I think we've we've tried to reduce the overall perceived bulk of the project and especially from the the
street frontage um and bring that street presence to be a little bit more elevated with the Mediterranean revival style. um and then have some variety of massing and then some uh more intricate fenestration and that would be that would kind of conclude what we've we've tried to
endeavor to do here. Thank you. >> And just just to recap, the original um uh variance was not with respect to any design standards. It was with respect to the setbacks. That's not changing. The site plan is staying the exact same. The
orientation of the buildings are the same and the other uh considerations with respect to the hardship standards is all what was done previously in the original approval. The only thing that is the request is for the facade changes as it relates to those two conditions.
Many of you were on the board at the time of the first meeting and on the time of the second meeting. Uh, I was trying to recall the garage door question and I seem to recall that it had more with confirming there would be two parking spaces per unit and less to
do with the design, but that's my recollection. So, I don't want you to hold me to it. >> I rewatched it this morning. Very much a concern that that there would be enclosed parking. Yes. For the residents as opposed to having park cars stacked. >> Correct. And so I think the existence of
the double garage door was reflective of mandating that that existed. And so as you can see that still exists today. It just is in a different manner. Um with respect to the design generally obviously there was already one change. Um but the ownership group and dealing
with the um potential purchasers and the architects felt that this design was reflective of the community and reflective of a project that they would want to be proud of. in the community to be proud of. So with that, we would respectfully request your approval of these changes and happy to answer any
questions. >> Questions for the patient? >> No, I think they accomplished their mission. >> Yeah, I think it's well done, Mr. Wolf. >> Yes. Very well. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of this amended request?
[clears throat] Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. >> Looks good. >> I love it. I think it's a lot more a lot more character. >> Looks better. Much better presentation. >> I mean, I'd say personally I loved it when it looked like the dawn, but that's >> Yeah, I like the pink, too. Yeah, me
too. I had the same thought. >> I was going to ask for painting it pink. >> I think you know the >> I [laughter] like the pink. I agree with you. >> But to the applicant's point, you know, the variance um is staying intact. Those are design preferences. that parking was the main issue and that's still being
addressed. I know that, you know, both for my me personally living in the community and the neighbors, we just want this to be developed and to have a much more beautiful structure that more residents can permanently live in um whether they're condos or or town homes. So, >> yeah. >> So, I'll I'd like to move to accept the
design changes and to amend case number 24003. >> I'll second. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes. >> Member Kzer. >> Yes. Member Small. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. Yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Um before adjourning, is
there anything else to address? Kristen, how does next month look? >> Well, we won't be taking you to Vina next month. [laughter] I feel like we we traveled there a lot today. Um we don't have as many applications. We do have another doc probably in the hopper at
some point to come visit you. Um >> we have the continued Dawn case >> and the continuence of the Dawn. Correct. >> Said there was one other you said >> the the Don Cesar case that was completed from today. >> That's the only one. >> No, that isn't but >> it maybe not as extensive of a >> saying I wore this one for nothing.
[laughter] >> While I've got you here too, I just want to introduce Pam Shaone from our office. She's going to be the attorney that's sitting with you on meetings occasionally. Great. >> And so today was her hi get acquainted. She was former uh city attorney with the city of St. Petersburg and also Temple
Terrace. >> Nice. >> Nice to have somebody. >> Welcome aboard. Right. Meeting adjourned. >> 26 August.