kind of screens it but not entirely. >> But given that it's not the height that is the concern, that's less of a um real factor in the case. Right. Anything else for Kristen? If the applicant would please come forward and share your case.
>> Sure. >> Yep. and just um if you can state your name and address for the record and then um answer the posed questions as well as just give us the general story for what's going on here. >> Okay. My name is Paul Huggin. Um I my
address, my home address, 2058 Red Cedar Lane, Clearwater, Florida, uh 33763. Um the reason for uh putting it there um was as we said the the GenerRack there was everything was designed to go in
that little al cove and the Generrack's requirements were so that there wasn't room for the for the condenser and I did not have the foresight to apply for the variance uh before building it. I just built it and didn't know that I had to
get a variant. So here we are. the um what are the de dimensions of the generac versus the condenser? If like if you swap them, would that be an option to have less of a setback encrment?
>> Uh the gener has to be off the wall. What was it? >> 3 ft. So it would actually be wider than the generator or than the condenser is. So if uh the the first option was let's
not do a generrack but the daughter is has special medical needs um she's um she has several but not having a backup generator uh was not an option. She has respiratory issues so not having the air conditioning working and was not an
option. So we moved it over there. The other option was to put it up on the roof so that it was within the setback, but the neighbor was very against that because it put it right up by their window. So, >> are you the builder of the property? >> Have um have you done buildings before
that have included the planned? I'm just I'm trying to understand why the plans were submitted and the permits were given for this dimensions um and that there wasn't foresight to know that they wouldn't fit. >> Well, that's a great question. And I asked the um I asked the architect while we were in the meeting if you know I
said this this doesn't go here. Uh it doesn't fit. We put it uh on the outside. Um and he said yes, we'll just put it over somewhere else. Uh so that was the end of that conversation. I I should have asked more questions. Um what happens if we're in the variance
with this condenser? Uh you know would have been a good question. I know that the um there are a lot of requirements for the generator and it can't be too close to the wall and so forth, >> but there's a lot of space above the generator. Was that a consideration? >> Just going to ask that. Yeah,
>> it it was. So, with the the the space above it, if you've got a a roof over it, you interrupt the air flow because the air flow is coming up and going around. And if you're in that dome of air and interrupt it, it's the same reason we can't raise it up. they have to be a certain height away from a set.
It interrupts that air flow. It can overheat the machine becomes a hazard. So, they have a certain requirement of how far away from the sophets or away from the ceilings that it can be. That was that was one of my first thoughts was, hey, let's double stack them and it's not enough. There's not enough height there to give you the air flow
you need. >> If if you were um if you were denied, what option would you have to be able to remedy this? >> I only thing I I could think of is it have to go on the roof. there's glass all along the back wall. >> Already said that the neighbor would object to that.
>> He would. Uh but if it's within the setbacks, uh you know, and it's within the rules, then an objection wouldn't really matter, unfortunately. I mean, I hate to do that to him, but that would be that'd be the outcome. And it would vibrate the
ceiling and make noise in the house and all that fun stuff. But >> any other questions for the applicant? >> No. >> Thank you so much. If we have further questions, we'll bring you back up. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak on behalf or an
opposition of this case? >> Right. Hearing none, we'll close open comment and open for board discussion. >> I'm just looking at this. I I'm wondering why we couldn't move that gener further down. I guess there's so
much space on each side that has to be there. >> I mean, >> and then he could build the platform more over to the right in that picture. >> If if you'd like to approach or you please come to the >> Yeah. Got to come up >> and you can just share your name and
address for the record too, please. >> Uh Sheena Cody and my address 440 Melon Bacher Road, Bair, Florida 33756. >> Are you part of the building team? >> Yes, I am part of the building team. Um, the Generrack actually requires three feet all around it. So on both sides,
the back, front, and above has to have three feet be breathing space to make it to code. So that's why. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And we did not hear from uh the neighbor that will be most affected by this.
There were no letters for against there's testimony that the neighbor is in opposition of it going on the roof. >> Um, >> no, not on the roof. The >> Oh, yeah. >> If that roof Yeah. >> Did you talk to the neighbor? >> We did. >> And
they say >> he's okay with it staying where it is. He said if we raise it to the roof, he would object because then >> where it is, but lifting it higher, he would >> board now. Okay. If we want to bring them back up, we can bring up. Right now we're at board right discussion.
>> I think that again there's a medical hardship here and the neighbor's not opposed to it. Um I don't see it as an issue. >> I agree with you. >> Yeah. I mean I think in um in general after the fact new construction like we
shouldn't be here. Um so hope I'm not sure how much building you've done around St. beach. But please take note of this in the future that we have setback requirements and um it's really hard for us to provide those variances when it's a new build. But I agree with you. I understand the medical situation. I think they've um done their due
diligence and talking with neighbors and trying to figure out the most neighborly solution. >> Um so I'm would be in support. Well, in that case, I propose I make a motion to pass case number 26039
with staff recommendations that that platform be used for nothing else but the air handler. >> I second that. >> Member core. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes.
>> The motion carries. Moving on to our second action item of today. Case number 26043. >> Brandon, do you want the click? All right. Good afternoon, Brandon Barry, staff planner. This is variance case number 26043. is an unnecessary and undue hardship
barriian. This is for the property addresses of zero and 2004 Pastor Gril Way. They're adjacent one another just south of 21st Avenue. John Sapira and Kyle Bass agents for Helen Colum of Colum Properties LLC and CC Bull LLC
owners request an unnecessary and undue hardship variance to land development code section 20.19 which prohibits vacation of alleyways within the Pass Grillil Overlay District. You can see here an aerial of the subject alleyway. Again, the request is
being made by the property owners who abut the alleyway to the north and the south. That's those are lots 28 and 29 on the aerial map. The properties have a zoning of rop a
per the zoning code. When there is a dedicated right of way, the zoning of the adjacent property runs to the center line. Therefore, the zoning of the alleyway is considered RO P A. That's residential office retail within the
Passilla Overlay district. It is a low to moderate intensity mixeduse zoning district within the Passril Overlay. So just to explain this request, the applicant is seeking relief from a land development code prohibition that uh
requires or sorry that prohibits request to vacate or reduce alleyways in width or length that applies specifically in Passil. This is not a citywide prohibition. It's specific to those alleyways that are within the Passeril overlay district. The alleyway that abuts the subject properties were
dedicated by Platt to the city in 1913. You can see that on the Phillips division plat on the bottom of the screen. Just to explain the board of adjustment's role in this case, the board of adjustment is not deciding on whether to vacate the alleyway. That is the purview of the city commission. It's
established in the city charter section 1.03. The board is only deciding whether the applicants face a hardship that would authorize this request to go forward to the city commission. They would be making a legislative action. Your action is quasi judicial. You have different
criteria that you would review than the review that would go on to the city commission for the vacation should you approve this request on the basis of a hardship. If a hardship is demonstrated, the applicant will need to apply for vacation to the city commission.
Here's a survey of the largely of the northern property showing the alleyway in question is 15 feet in width and 100 ft in depth. Here's some photographs of the site. You can see here a signposting at both
properties. The property to the south is used for a parking lot for the Red, White, and Booze Restaurant. To the northeast, the property to the north is a recently renovated uh small shopping center. You can see another uh to the top left a
view down the alleyway toward the west and another photo looking toward the property to the west of the parking lot to the south of the alleyway in question. Another view toward the structure on the
northern lot. That lot does contain a structure that is set approximately 1 ft off the property line shared with the alleyway and then a view toward the west. And again, the extent of this request ends at the rear of the property. It's effectively where a curb
is shown and I believe I have a photo of that coming up. Um just just directly west of that curb is the property line. So it would only be to that location. There is a north south alleyway that runs from 20th up to 21st Avenue that
would not be vacated under this request. It would only be the extent that ends at the western property line of these two properties. And then you have a photo looking toward the northeast from the alleyway directly west of where this request is being made. Here's another one looking north from
the alleyway. The bottom right photo is a stormwater grade in the alleyway directly to the west. Staff has met with the public services department. We have confirmed that the city has no utilities that run through this alleyway. There are
existing utilities from other entities. I'll cover those in a moment. So this is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance. There are eight criteria and I'll go through them briefly as a summary of the staff report. For criteria one, there need to be special
conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the land structure or building that are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning district. This is a relatively unique block in. There is only one other block in that shares the same zoning and that has historically shared the same zoning,
which is the block directly south of here between 19th and 20th Avenue on the west side. It's currently occupied by what will become the fire station 22 rebuild as well as a parking lot for the Pass Grillil Marina. There are other west alleyways in the same configuration
and zoning throughout this plat that were vacated in the mid 20th century. The block I was just talking about directly south of here that shares the same zoning that was vacated in the 1960s. And the fire station 22 property as well as the uh parking lot for the
Pastorirl Marina. They each own a half of the alleyway that was vacated back in the 1960s. This is the only remaining west east alleyway in a s similar configuration that still exists in the pastor overlay district. This is also a
fairly unique piece of land abuting the alleyways compared with other blocks in Passil. The exception being 8th Avenue, but 8th Avenue does not have a similarly configured alleyway that bisects the two properties. Condition two, uh, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant or a prior owner of the property. Staff also finds this criteria to be met. The applicant did not create the platted conditions of the land. This configuration existed prior to modern zoning standards. It was platted in 1913. Modern zoning standards were applied at citywide in the late 1950s.
The recent renovation did also not create an intensification of the land compared with former uses. This space was formerly used in in the space closest to the alleyway and the building on the south side was a pizza place. Um the renovation was authorized for a
similar restaurant use. So we do not expect that there would be an intensification of the land compared with former uses not resulting from the applicant as a justification for this variance. Criteria three is that literal interpretation of the provisions in the land development code would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and that would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Staff does find this criteria to be partially met. We do find that literal interpretation does cause deprivation to the applicant compared to
the other properties in the vicinity. As I mentioned before, the alleyway to the south of the same current zoning. Historically, they have shared the same zoning that was vacated in the 1960s when it possessed a commercial zoning. However, staff does not find that this creates an unnecessary and undue hardship based on the submitted
narrative. I do understand that the agents for this case are prepared to respond to this and provide more detail and justification. However, based on what was submitted in the narrative, maintenance of the alleyway can occur through a right-of-way use permit rather than vacating the public interest in that alleyway. Zero foot setbacks are
common in historic commercial areas and passer. Generally, the building despite being one foot off the property line does comply with the current zoning requirement. It is the building is allowed to be set on the property line as we see along 8th Avenue and in other historic areas in the community. We do
acknowledge that the alleyway width of 15t is fairly narrow, especially for more recently platted neighborhoods, areas of St. Petersburg. um you tend to have 20 foot alleyways through commercial areas, but 15 feet is not unusual for St. Pete Beach in general or
for the Pasal area and we do not find that that runs as a hardship based on the current scope of proposed work that we are aware of. We also find that maintenance can be handled through agreement or a city undertaking to maintain that alleyway. We do recognize that the the surface of that alleyway is
broken up and and could use maintenance, but it could be handled through a means that does not require a vacation. For criteria four, um this has to do that with the applicant not using a establishment of a use or a structure that's not consistent with the comprehensive plan or the land
development code as the sole basis for making this request. We do find that this criteria has been met. The applicant has put substantial amounts of money into renovating the northern building. they have completed that renovation. The uses that the building has been approved to house um are
consistent with the zoning of the RO and PH zoning. Criteria five is that the applicant's desire or ability to achieve greater financial hardship or to maximize their financial return from the property does not constitute a hardship. We also find this criteria to be met. The vacation
will afford property to the abuing property owners, the applicant in this case that is not currently afforded to their properties. This would allow them to have slightly greater development rights than they currently have. For the northern property, they are they are already maxed out on their floor area.
So that would not cause any initial or immediate benefits to their property. for the south property if they were to develop in the future. It would allow for a slightly smaller square footage of floor area. In speaking with the applicants in our review, a technical review committee. They do not have any
immediate plans to build into the alleyway if this vacation were to be achieved. There are some other considerations we'll cover in a moment um that would prevent any immediate development within that alleyway. For criteria six, granting the variance application conveys the same treatment of the applicant as to the owner of
other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. We did find this to be met. As I mentioned before, there was only one other block in in the same exact arrangement of the same zoning to the immediate south. The city has vacated that alleyway in the past and other west east alleyways in a
similar configuration have been vacated along both Gulf Way and Pasil Way over time. Criteria seven is where we're primarily requesting additional testimony from the applicant. This is that the requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible a reasonable use of the
land, building or structure. We did not find this to be met based on the narrative that was submitted. We find that the hardship can be resolved through other less significant means that do not require abandoning public interest in the alleyway. As mentioned before, through rightway use permits, through maintenance agreements, and so
on, the side setback relationship of the building to the alleyway is permitted under the current zoning codes. We do recognize that it's fairly unique citywide and even within Passil to have a side setback of effectively one foot. Um, that could pose challenges. We do feel that those could be resolved through maintenance agreements and
rightway use permits, but should in the future it pose a challenge to the applicant, it could be addressed relative to the setback issue at that time. For criteria eight, um the requested variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan and land development
code. It would not cause injury to the neighborhood or be otherwise detrimental to the public safety and welfare. It would be compatible with the neighborhood and it will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Staff found this criteria to be generally met. The city has no identified need for maintenance of the
alleyway at this time from a utility perspective. While the city's pending code amendments that would require access to western residential property from the alleyway under a new development proposal may place a greater burden on those residents, staff did not find that that burden at this time would
substantially diminish property values. There are public purpose considerations that would fall more under the legislative per um per portion of this in um this request if this should move on. Um but as far as the hardship variance is involved, uh we do not find
that that would cause a significant um detriment to the neighborhood. So to summarize, the board of adjustment must make positive findings on all eight variance criteria to justify granting of a variance. Staff has requested additional testimony from the agents or
the applicant on criteria three and seven to support their case. The applicant or agent should demonstrate to the board that existing mechanisms to maintain the building and alleyway are insufficient to resolve their claimed hardship. The board may also find that the applicant has not supported criteria that staff has found them to be supported. Those would be the remaining
criteria not called out on this slide. We did take this item to technical review committee back at the beginning of April. We primarily discussed items with the applicant that have been addressed. We had concerns about the utility requirements. Whenever there is an alleyway or an easement that is
vacated, the utilities that are active within our jurisdiction do need to consent to that vacation. Again, this falls more onto the city commission's review of the request, but we did receive letter from all of the active utilities in St. Pete Beach. There were
conditional requirements from I believe it was Frontier Communications and Duke Energy that the applicant would need to maintain their utilities within this alleyway. Based on the discussion we had at the technical review committee, my understanding is they plan to effectively keep it as it looks today.
They would plan to if this alleyway were to be vacated, they would repave the surface and they would maintain it as is at least for the foreseeable future. So it should not be difficult to maintain those utilities based on the correspondence we had with them at this meeting. We did ask for additional basis
for the hardship. They did provide a revised narrative. I felt that that helped with the justification for some of the other criteria. We are as I stated before still requesting additional testimony on criteria three and seven. We had asked them, as I mentioned before, for the intent of use
of the land if vacated. Their response was effectively they have no immediate intent for that land with the exception of repaving the surface. Following TRC, the applicant did submit supplemental information in a revised application. Those were provided with
your packet. Those were the letters that I referenced from the public utilities and a revised application. So, I did speak with the agent before the meeting. They are prepared to provide applicant testimony. Um, speaking to criteria three and seven,
addressing why issuance of a temporary right-of-way agreement in conjunction with a permit for maintenance of the building from the alleyway and either a maintenance agreement for or city rehabilitation of the alleyway surface would not resolve the advanced hardships from the narrative. speaking more um again toward the
legislative items for this, but whether off- streetet deliveries will be made from the vacated alleyway and or from the north south alleyway to the western rear of the structure. The applicant had advanced through their narrative that the north and south alleyway are superior routes for the residents to the
immediate west to leave the alleyway, especially those that have parking primarily from the alleyway. Um if there were to be delivery trucks maintained in the north south alleyway, that would eliminate one of those exits. So that might just be a consideration for the board in terms of criteria eight and any
future improvements planned for the rear of the property due to limited out outer radius maneuverability that future development conditions could create. I did show you that curb that has been recently poured. It does provide some maneuverability at the rear of the site to avoid overlaps um and turning onto
the applicant's property. But if they have any future improvements that are planned that would cause any kind of a greater encumbrance within that alleyway or adjacent to it um that would be valuable information to have in the review of this request. So staff had asked for the applicant or
agents to address the prior request provide additional support for their development request. Should the applicant or agents provide additional information to satisfy the board that substantial incompetent evidence has been provided? Should the board look favorably on the application for relief request? The board may want to consider any conditions that it finds are
necessary to protect the public interest. Staff has not proposed any conditions should this board approve this request to allow it to move on for uh forward. We certainly do have considerations that we would recommend to the city commission in that case to protect the public interest which again
falls more under the legislative review for the vacation itself. Um and those would carry additional conditions and potentially considerations and restrictions on the use of the alleyway as it exists today that would be required by the public utilities that I mentioned before and other entities with
interest in the alleyway. So we have a few action options for you. The first would be a motion to approve the case with or without conditions. Again, not no conditions are recommended by staff. These would be boards that the condition finds are necessary to justify the hardship. Under that, the applicant
is supported the eight criteria necessary to demonstrate an unnecessary and undue hardship. We would ask that you justify the basis for support of criteria three and seven as based on either the narrative that's already been provided by the applicant or the testimony that they provide at the
meeting today. And if you would provide um agreement with staff assessment of the remaining criteria or if you find that there was additional justification supported you can justify that as well. You can motion to deny this case finding the applicant has not supported the criteria that could be three as seven as
proposed by staff. If you find that there are other criteria that were not met you would include those in this motion as well. Those would be the criteria that are necessary to demonstrate necessary and undo hardship variance. And then you would list those that are not supported based on this decision. If you feel that you need more
information either from staff or from the applicant or agents and you feel that you cannot make a decision based on the information that is presented today, we would ask for a motion to continue this case to a specified date pending the additional information that you feel is necessary to support this case. Based
on that, we do have the applicant present. They are the manager for the two LLC's that own the properties abuing this alleyway. They also do have a two agents present who have been involved with this case. I'm happy to take any questions for staff or if you'd like to hear from them first, we can come back
up. >> Any initial questions for Brandon? >> Thank you as always for the thorough report. Good afternoon. Kyle Bass, agent on behalf of the owner, Miss Column. Um,
I would like to address a few things. First, the property to the south, um, just to, uh, familiarize you guys with the with the area. Um, the property to the south of this alleyway is a parking lot. It is uh what I would consider legally tied to
the uh property across the street, Red, White, and Boos, the restaurant. It is the parking lot. Um it houses the necessary parking for that restaurant. So, it could not be developed without some sort of a significant change to Red, White, and Boo. So, that's what I
would consider pretty locked in. Um the other thing I wanted to point out is that this would be the only um Mr. uh Barry said in his prop or his presentation that this is a 1-oot
setback um which is a common setback amount in this zoning district. Um, however, this would be the only uh building with a one foot setback that abuts a public uh uh right away, a public um alleyway since the other ones
have all been vacated. Okay. Um the other thing that I would do is is something that we attached to our proposal or our application is um exhibit F. We attached um a resolution number the city's resolution number 46 which
is just kind of a clear picture of all the alleyways that have been uh vacated in the city. Um, and then we also attach a an above view of the surrounding area that you can see all of the alleyways that have been um that have been
vacated, leaving only uh this one that we're talking about today. Okay. Um, so I want to address now I want to jump to the end where Mr. Barry left off with the additional testimony. The questions
were or the the presentation was um why issue why issuance of a temporary right-of-way agreement or maintenance of the building um uh for maintenance of the building from the alleyway and either a maintenance agreement uh for or a city rehabilitation of the
alleyway surface why that would not resolve the primary hardships advanced in this narrative. So, I'm going to address each one in turn, starting with the temporary right ofway um closures and and that is an u I think that's the most absurd one to do. That would be
every every piece of maintenance, every work that would be required on the southern southern side of the northern property. So, the the wall that abuts the the alleyway would require that right-of-way permit. Um it require closure of the public right of way.
everything from uh non non-permitted work like cleaning the windows, painting the walls to everything else that would require permits, ladders go up, scaffoldings go up, it's going to block part of the the um alleyway. And as the
permit is is drafted, it it looks like sounds like anything that that interrupts or blocks the or interrupts the use of the uh public right of way would need this permit. And so then to require the owners of the property um
every single time something needs to be done um to apply for this permit which I would I would call your attention to has over 26 conditions that it has to conditions of approval that they have to to um adhere
to and I say over 26 because the last one is other conditions of approval and then whatever whatever those are. So to require that every single time, I would say that would be part of the hardship. Um especially since all of the
other um alleys, alleyways have been vacated. Um so temporary closure is is a short-term um maybe short-term solutions, but it doesn't it doesn't address the the overall hardship for the owners. Um the
next one is the maintenance agreement. This one to me doesn't work um for multiple reasons. Mostly from a legal standpoint, this would be the owner taking on um maintenance obligations and responsibilities of a public of of a of
a space that's held out for public uh use. Um to me, that's a liability problem um as an attorney. Um so I would never recommend that. Um, it would be taking on the responsibility of paying for improvements and updates and
upgrades of public property without the the ownership benefit of having control or responsibility of the land. Um, so that to me is is doesn't work um from a legal standpoint.
Um, this the city rehabilitation which is the last option here of of addressing the hardships or or why this this maybe doesn't qualify. Again, um the alleyway as it sits right now is is is in pretty bad shape to put it nicely. So, we
haven't had this the city rehabilitation. These are uh re city rehabilitation costs money. It costs time. Um and and none of that has been dedicated to this particular alleyway. Um and so to say that it will now I
think um I think that's I think that's a tough position. Um, and there's there's a lot of uncertainty there. Uh, so I don't think that's an adequate answer. Um, the the whether or not this is a minimum setback. Um, I disagree with the city on
that or with the staff report actually on that. This is we're not asking to interrupt the rest of the alleyways in that block. Um, any of the north uh south alleyways. We're not asking to interrupt any of that. This is literally only talking about the alleyway that abuts uh the owner's property that that
splits the owner's property right now. Um so to to say that this far exceeds or isn't the minimum, I would disagree with that. This is this is the minimum it could be um to to vacate the property. And then I would just I would just end with reminding the city or the board
rather that this is a two-step process. This is step one of a two-step process. And the second step is is what I would consider a hefty step. we've got to go in front of the commission and we have to get uh not three votes but four votes from the commission uh to vacate a
public right of way. So um with that um unless I have any questions I'll I can sit down. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> The hardship as you see it is that if you need to do excuse me maintenance in that alley that that's going to cause a problem because you have to get permits
and that's what you're saying. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And yet after the horrible storms, there was an awful lot of work that was done there was able to be done without that being vacated. And as they're currently working on the building to the
um north of the alley that used to be Jaro's restaurant, um they've been doing a lot of work on that and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Can you explain why this is? I'm trying to understand the hardship. I don't I really don't see the hardship. So, so reading it by the
literal uh the black and white of the law, we would it would require a right-of-way permit and to require that for every single time we have to go out and clean the windows or put a ladder up. >> Yeah. But did you do that as you've been working on the building that is
currently still being worked on? We don't even know what it's going to be yet. >> I can't I can't speak to that. Uh >> but but I drive by there multiple times a day. I live near there and I I've seen people working on it. It doesn't seem I don't know that they got permission or not, but it doesn't seem
to be difficult for them to get work done. Right. And and to your point, maybe it's not as as difficult, but it would require uh scheduling efforts, uh timing efforts, um redundancy in the paperwork
of continuously applying for the same permit to get to get the work done. um whereas vacating it for the last remaining alleyway um would allow them to properly maintain uh get the get the work done on a timely fashion.
>> But I drove down that alley just as part of this to be able to understand this and as I I wanted to go toward the west. So I got to the end of the alley and they're doing construction on another house on the in the alley further down.
So I couldn't get out. So, I had to leave and it was a little bit difficult to make the turn to leave to go down the north south alley. So, I would not have if if this were vacated, I wouldn't have access to it. >> Can we pull the map back up?
either just an aerial view just so I can get a better understanding of the question. That probably works right there. So, so I can probably address that in part by addressing some of these other bullet points. The next one was whether off streetet deliveries will be made from
the vacated alleyway. The answer is no. They're going to be made from the north south um alleyway just there behind the buildings on the west side of blocks 30 29 28 27 and to I think that might address your point as well. If
that alleyway was vacated it wouldn't have been there to turn off on and so to get back to where you were would have been on the north south if I understand where you were. >> Well, I still don't really see it as a hardship. I I just I don't I maybe it's
just me, but I I don't see why you need to This is public land. This is owned by the city of St. Petersburg by the taxpayers of St. Petersburg. And to to give it away and just say, "Yeah, okay, you can have it." is I find that very difficult.
>> Well, and I understand that. The difficulty that I'm having is that every single other alleyway similarly situated um the one highlighted by the by the staff report south of this one has been vacated. Um and to treat this
>> you're talking about the fire station. >> Well, yeah. >> Yeah. The fire station got a variances because of the nature of what it they had to come before us for the variances and it's like we have to have a fire station there. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. No, >> I hear you saying though that often about other areas being vacated and you
want to be the same, but that doesn't create a hardship. That's a desire that you would like to have this, but >> um to me then that's that means that you just go directly to city council and make that request. But I don't see as far as the criteria that needs to be met for hardship. I I don't see it at all. >> I don't either.
>> Okay. Um Yeah. And I didn't I didn't mean to suggest that it was it was giving us a hardship. what I was suggesting was part of one of the other criterias where it would be treating this alleyway different. >> I understand that. It's just that >> but you're asking for a hardship period. >> That's what you've explained now and then also in the report it's stated
several times that this historically has been done and we'd like to be part of it. I understand that. But that still doesn't create a hardship. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't I don't mean to suggest that it does, but one of the one of the elements that we do have to meet is whether or not it is something that is customarily done in this in this
area um in these blocks. And the answer to that question is yes, it is. >> And that's fair. That's and that's one of the eight criteria, right? So I think that that point has been very validly made. >> Yeah, that's just one of the eight points. Um and then the last point that I would address here is any future improvements planned for the rear of the
property. I think that was established by or addressed by the staff. Uh no. Um and that's where I go back to the point of um there's no no future developments uh beyond uh cleaning up the alleyway. um make it more visually appealing but
still maintaining it as as an alleyway basically. Um just not a a public right of way. Um so the answer to bullet point number three is well the third bullet point would be no. >> There's any other questions.
>> Is there rear entry to the to the two stores that this pertains to? >> Uh yes. all the access areas. Um that alleyway actually doesn't give any additional access to >> any of that area. Um and if it's vacated, the entryways, which is what's
being utilized now by my understanding by utilities and things are um is the north south alleyway that runs behind the buildings. >> Any other questions for applicants? No, but I did as far as exparte. I did
drive by there. Um >> Well, let's dismiss the applicant if we're >> Okay. >> Anyway, the >> Thank you. >> the in the one picture that the gentleman with the red Corvette in the in the driveway. What will that do to his access?
>> Is this a question for the applicant or is this board discussion? Members, >> uh it's a question for I guess it would be Brandon. I have some follow-up questions for Brandon, so we can bring Brandon back up. Thank you so much. >> And before Brandon, can we um Brandon through exparte?
>> I I drove by and the other thing was I received an email from someone directly to my email, Bob Sheros, I believe it is, >> um asking me to deny this case >> and that was shared with the city and um circulated
rather long lettering. >> Um, so I received those emails and I did a drive by >> and I had a couple of conversations with Bill Lowry because this came before the historic board first and so he has some background on it. So I did talk to him.
>> Okay. To answer your question about the turning radi, we we recognize that it, you know, it it might make it a little bit more difficult to get out of that alleyway in certain locations, especially because the city has a pending code amendment that would require access under new development to
be from the alleyway. However, what this board evaluates under the hardship criteria is whether it would substantially reduce property values. That's a consideration under criteria 8. On the basis of that, I I didn't find that this vacation would cause that.
There are other public interest considerations that would be considered by the city commission were this board to approve this request to move forward. Those type of things may come up at that time, but I didn't find that there were any criteria that that would be averse to under this case.
>> What is the um the city's policy on maintaining alleyways? Like the comments were made that this alleyway was in poor condition. I don't know for this specific alleyway. We did have our public services director president technical review committee. We talked about the surface of the
alleyway. If this were to be taken over by the by the abuing property owners, they would be responsible for that surface as anyone's responsible for their own parking lot or other paved surfaces. I I don't know the schedule for repaving of this alleyway though.
>> Eventually it would be taken on by the city and >> it it would eventually be paved. I just don't have a date. >> Um, understanding, you know, our role here today is to determine is this hardship um, does it meet all E criteria or not? Um, I agree based off the
testimony that three and seven I'm having a hard time understanding how um, those are being validated. One of the things the applicant shared was the um, hardship of having to go through a 20 plus page permit every time they wanted to do something as simple as clean the windows. I understanding that this has
been a restaurant historically and well-maintained. I can't imagine that is the requirement from the city, but could you please just confirm what they would and wouldn't need to do a permit for as well as if we've had any other successful maintenance agreements with similar properties of the past that didn't cause any legal concerns.
>> Are there are there windows on the um I got to get this right. South side of that building? >> Yes, sir. I'll I'll pull up the photos. You can you can see some there on the that that is the alleyway looking north from the parking lot
for the maintenance agreement. Um we we do have a right-of-way utilization permit. It's it's only one page that the applicant fills out. That is typically and what I had provided the the statements in the staff report pertaining to that has to do with larger permits. So that would be an
authorization through the permit. They did receive permits to renovate the building and that is something we would typically authorize through the permit scope for daily maintenance or weekly maintenance. We hadn't discussed any kind of a more
informal maintenance agreement for window cleaning and you know potentially painting touch-ups and things like that. I I do feel that's something we could probably work out but I just I don't have a direct answer for that right now. I was looking more at the the longer term, more substantial permit
>> applications. So, >> did you have any additional questions for Brandon? >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of today's case?
Please come forward. I'm here. >> Thank you. If you can just state your name and address for the record. >> I'm Marilyn Remar. I own the property at 10320th where that red Corvette was parked. That alleyway to me should never be
relinquished. I've owned that property since 1968. It's been there since I bought the property. The city can't give away land. I just don't feel that it should be given away.
And that's my personal And then on top of that, my neighbors use that alleyway to come in because they can't make the turn into the other alley. There's too many uh poles there. So, they use that
as their main entrance. they come through there to get to their parking because they park in the back of their house. So, I'm here just to say I don't think this should go through. That's all. >> Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> Hearing none, we'll close public discussion and open for board. Alls we are doing >> into microphone please. >> Alls we are doing is just recommending whether we should move this to the city commission. >> We have to decide if it's a hardship.
>> Our our role today is to determine not about vacant vacating the alley not about um public you know impact but is does the case meet the eight criteria for hardship? >> Hardship. >> Madam chair if I may. Member Small can you just talk into your mic a little
bit? >> Sure. Would anyone like to reiterate um their stance or have any additional questions? >> I just I I don't see the hardship. >> I don't see the hardship. >> I don't I don't feel that it's been
demonstrated. >> In um agreement with the criteria that was outlined by city staff or are there other criteria that you feel have not been met? Um just just based on the city staff, you know, mainly I don't if the
reason that you want the alleyway because the hardship is such that you have to get a permit to do maintenance that that doesn't make sense to me at all. >> That's following city process and the city has already proposed opportunities to come to make agreements to make that
more feasible. >> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion if it's appropriate. Um, I move that in case number 26043 that we deny the um, petitioner based on not really showing a hardship.
>> So, if we can pull back up, if you want to go to the recommended um, language, we need to be very specific in explaining which criteria have not >> correct. And I think that staff had testified that they had concerns about number three and number seven. Number
seven, wrote those down. There you go. So if you look on Thank you, Brandon. >> Yeah. Number motion to deny variance case fun uh finding the applicant is not support of the criteria necessary to demonstrate. >> So which and you just need to include
which criteria numbers? >> Where do I see that? >> Specific criteria numbers? >> The first paragraph. Oh, >> three and seven. >> I'm sorry. I don't know which >> I can um I'll take the lead. I'll make a
motion to deny variance case 26043 finding the applicant has not supported criteria 3 and seven necessary to demonstrate an necessary and undue hardship. um particularly in this case um >> not not seeing that the hardship for
being able to maintain the building is justified. >> Are you making that motion? >> Yes. >> Then I'll second it. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Member Core? >> Yes. >> And Chair Chase? >> Yes.
>> The motion carries. >> That concludes the agenda items for today's meeting. Were there any other items for discussion, city attorney? >> No, thank you. >> Just some housekeeping issues. Um, our next board of adjustment meeting, take note, is Monday, June 29th. Um, we will
have a new member coming on board with us from district three once they're sworn in through the clerk's office. Um, just a reminder, if should you receive emails directly to your personal email, please ensure that you um supply them to staff so that we can make sure we add them to the record. Okay. um for the
case number and you just can forward them to me and I'll I'll ensure that happens. For next month, currently on the agenda, we'll have three um applications. Two are practical difficulty, one hardship, but always subject to change without notice, but we
do have them. >> Anything else from the board? >> No. Meeting adjourned.