Um, August Board of Justice meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach. If everybody could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small >> here. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> here. >> Member Core >> here. >> Member Cosy >> here. >> Chair Chase >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Perfect. Prior to moving forward with
the agenda, if we could please swear anybody in that will be planning to speak today. >> Anybody who will be speaking to the board today needs to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation
that you are about to give is truthful? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to the agenda. The first item is the approval of today's agenda. Um Kristen, are there any changes? Madam Chair, no changes. All in favor of approving the agenda? >> I
>> I >> I >> um the next item is audience comments. If you're here today to speak on a case that's a part of the agenda, you all have time to talk at that moment. If you'd like to address the board on another matter, now would be the time to um to share that with us.
Right. Hearing none, we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. Did everybody have a chance to review last month's minutes or watch the meeting and review the minutes if you weren't here? >> I did. I don't know if it's appropriate to abstain since I wasn't in attendance, but >> that would any request for edits or
>> do we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second last meeting. >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> I'll abstain. >> I don't think you can abstain, right? >> Okay, then I'll approve. >> Okay. Thank you. Member court.
>> Yes. Uh yes, I approve. >> Member Clausy >> approved. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Moving on to today's action items. Um action item A, case number 255052. I believe this is being postponed to the
September meeting for noticing. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Um at the request of the applicant as well as to have sufficient time to um address a noticing issue, it has been uh carried or continued to September's date. Okay. So
then we'll start with um action item B, one of five cases for today, number 25101, 3,400 G Boulevard. Good afternoon, Brandon Barry, planner with the city. This is a variance for 3,400 G
Boulevard, the Donses Hotel. It is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance. The original applicant was Liam Turnbull. It is currently Jeff Connell who's been authorized to represent this case for Michael E. Lent of Dons's RTRS LLC. This is a variance as well as a
request to modify a development order that was issued in early 2022. This would allow for fences to the west and the east side of El Centro Street on the very northern property boundary to be up to 8 feet in height within a required
front and secondary front setback. And I'll get more detail on that in a moment. That is pursuant to land development code section 6.15. The modification to the development order that I referenced is development order 211073 which authorized a variance for a
ballroom addition. Um condition 8 specified fence height in this location to be 4 feet. This would allow for modification to match this variance. Here's an aerial of the property. Um, of course, the primary frontage is along Gulf Boulevard, but the property also
has frontage along El Centro Street at the terminus of El Centro Street going east toward the bayway. That is an easement through the property, but that is public right of way um between the service lot on the east side and the area where the ballroom will be
installed on the west side. The property um collectively has a zoning of RFM and is a resort zoning category. Uh to summarize the variance request um I'll go on to the next slide which shows the actual detailed offenses. In red on
the screen are fences of 7 feet in height. That is at the service lot on the north side top right of the screen. Um so that is east of El Centro west of Gulf Boulevard. The southern portion of the fence adjacent to the parking lot ties in with a wall that also received a
variance a number of years ago. Uh the northern fence um does terminate a bit before the southern fence. That fence will be 7 feet in height in the 50 ft abuing the Gulf Boulevard property line as well as a 25 ft abuing the El Centro
property line. The fence cannot exceed 4 feet in height. Um obviously the fence is within that distance. So that that portion will require a variance to be installed. They do step down the fence at the western side in the 8 feet leading to the El Centro property line.
That will be 4 feet tall. Um that will meet the setback, but the remaining 17 ft going east from El Centro Street property line will need a variance as as requested. The same on the beachwalk side. So on the west side of El Centro um just to the north of where the
ballroom addition is being constructed. Um there will be an 8 foot tall fence. There is a required 25- foot setback from El Centro Street for any fence that exceeds 4 feet in height. They are proposing a six-foot run of this. This is a slight modification from what went to technical review committee. They have
also modified the south side adjacent the buffer to have that six-foot run where it is 4 feet. After that, it will step up to 8 feet in height. So that remaining 19 ft going west toward the beachwalk is the portion that requires a variance in this case.
As I mentioned, this did go to technical review committee a few weeks ago. Staff had expressed some concerns at the time. The parking lot underneath the ballroom edition can be used only by staff and deliveries. Um, staff had expressed some concerns at the time because the fence
on the south side of the landscaping buffer had been proposed to be eight feet all the way up to the right ofway line. Uh we had concerns about trucks potentially backing out of that onto L centro and that just being a blind corner. Uh so they have agreed to step that down to for the six feet as I
showed in the previous slide. Uh there was also some damage to the fence on the east side facing the service lot. They have agreed to replace that fencing. And they will also be striping a crosswalk if this is approved from the uh walk to the north of the service lot to the walk
north of the or that functions as a beachwalk north of the um ballroom edition. So they have addressed all the comments that we brought up at technical review committee. Here are some photographs of the site. Uh you can see here the uh dilapidated
fence. As I mentioned before, they will be replacing this at the conclusion of construction. Another looking toward the service lot beachwalk uh or sorry, service lot sidewalk. Um this is where the fence is proposed to be located as a replacement.
Also on the north side to the left side of the screen, they are proposing a fence there as well. And then looking out toward the beachwalk, again, you'll have the fence. In this case, it will be on the south side where that uh that screen is currently.
And this is another look down El Centra Street. And another look out toward the Bayway. As I mentioned before, the comments and concerns that were expressed by staff at the technical review committee we feel have been addressed. Um if the board of
adjustment finds that there are other concerns to find compliance with the hardship variance criteria, we we welcome um we welcome those comments. But uh we included the conditions based on the technical review committee review that the fence or adjacent freestanding
signage required under the development order um that was referenced at the start of the presentation shall be affixed with warnings regarding pedestrian crossing and vehicles exiting the ballroom that should face north toward oncoming traffic along El Centro. The applicant shall stripe and maintain a crossing from the service lot sidewalk
to the beachwalk, the direction of the city's public services department. And we also asked for modification of condition 8 of development order 211073. Again, that's the order that approved the ballroom addition at the setback that it is being constructed at. It also
included that condition for the 4ft fence. We just asked that it be modified if this is approved to coincide with this case's outcome, which which staff will handle. So, that being said, um staff does not have any concerns about this left to address. We understand that um and the applicant can speak to this in more
detail. We understand that this was initiated by the property owners uh association and um they are following through with an agreement that they they came um through with them for this ballroom edition. So, with that, we ask for a motion to approve, approve with
conditions, deny or continue if you need additional information in this case. and if you choose to approve this case or approve it with conditions uh that you also modify condition eight of development order 211073 to coincide with this outcome. I know we have the applicant present. I'm happy to
take any questions. >> The first two conditions, Brandon, have those been um brought to the applicant already? >> Yes, we address this with them in the technical review committee. >> Okay. And the the signage as well. I hadn't seen that in the other technical Okay. Thank you. Can you does this fence
go on this side the south side of the building because when you show me what that looked like they understand the central part of it but on the south side of the hotel itself ne where the parking lot is for the suntan and the dances are
it going there it looked like >> not not under this request no >> you go back and show me the where the fence is for the hold there >> so that that is the parcel boundary uh the red and the the top left. That's not the That's not the extent of the fence.
>> That's the what >> the if if you're referring to the image in the in the left side of the screen, that is the parcel boundary. That is not the um that's not the location. >> That's not where the fence is going. >> No, that's just showing the parcel. >> I was going to say the the right side that's showing where the fence under this request is going in the red and
blue. >> Any additional questions for Brandon? >> Yeah, Brandon. Um, so are there other rights away that have 8 foot fences on either side of the sidewalk because it's a long walk it seems like to be
encapsulated in two fences. And the other thing I don't understand is either one of those fences gives the the view blocking that I think was the intent of the fence. It's for the residential area
to not look at the service lot. But >> instead, we've put two eight foot fences, one on either side of the the walkway. >> Sure. And the and the applicant can maybe address that a little bit better than I can. They've they've been involved in the conversations with the
um the association. As for this type of layout, this it's such a unique property and situation. I I don't know of any others that would be in this exact um situation. We do have other properties that have multiple frontages where they have to deal with um you know structure
setbacks and and lowered fences and other things like that that aren't typical. But if you looked at the properties just north of here, they do have a lesser what is their front setback from El Centro, but they do have a requirement for a fence step back of
20 feet before it steps up to 8 feet. So, um, it's standard for the neighborhood, but their setback is a little bit greater, at least along El Centro, than than the abuing residences, and that's just a result of the the zoning differences between the two.
>> Any additional questions for Brandon? >> So, the the fences that we're only talking about the fences that are going to be on El Centro up around where they're building the new ballroom. Is that right? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Is it nothing to do with Gulf Boulevard or any of that? >> No, it doesn't. It I mean the the fence
>> a little bit. I see. >> It ties in with the wall um that currently is on the north side, but it won't extend out further. So, >> thank you, Brandon. If the applicant would like to please come forward, >> if you can just state your name and address for the record.
>> Sure. Good afternoon. Uh Jeff Connell representing the Don Cesar. Um you said address as well, >> please. >> Oh, 3400 uh Golf Boulevard from the hotel. >> So I'm the architect working on the ballroom renovation and other renovations there. And as Brandon
stated, um when we um got the ballroom approved originally, we agreed with the adjacent neighborhood to provide these fences for additional screening. Uh so there's two fences. One is to screen the folks that are in the DCPOC accessing the beach from the parking lots and the
other fence is from the folks accessing the beach on on the right away from the adjacent single family homes. So it is sort of creating two fences but the point is to screen the the folks walking from the adjacent Donsesar hotel and the folks walking from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. No. >> And if there's concern about height, uh this was what they had requested, a 7 foot on the east side and an 8 foot on the west side. Um certainly we could, you know, speak to that if there's concern if that's too high. >> So you're simply complying with the
agreement that was made with the neighboring >> residents. Okay. >> Any questions for the applicant? >> So the purpose of this is just cosmetic. Correct. Correct. I I suppose security too to keep people from coming into the if folks accessing the beach. I know
that they used to kind of cut through the parking lot there. Um, but now that there's a parking garage and and vehicular traffic, I think it's for safety to keep people on the uh the easement rightway sidewalk. >> And I I'm not sure the answer to this really involved the fence per se, but you said
the Brandon said that the um people that park under the new ballroom are only employees. >> Yeah, that's that was one of the agreements is underneath there's staff parking only. Uh majority of folks use valet anyway, but the self-p parking will remain on the uh east side of Gulf
Boulevard. And uh the only area underneath there's two ADA uh ADA spaces that are required by code, but yes, everything else is for uh staff only. >> I see. >> Thank you. If we come up with any other questions, we'll ask you. >> Okay. Thank you for your time.
>> Now would be the opportunity to speak on behalf or against this application if you're here regarding this case. Is there anybody that would like to address the board hearing? None. We'll close public comment and open for board discussion.
>> Exparte. Thank you. Any experte? >> No. >> Um I'm on the DCPOC. The dunes is our property owners corporation. Um I was not a part of the board when an agreement was made and we have had no board discussions about this.
>> Thanks. None for me. I'm a member of the Don Cesar and I'm there at least once a day every day. Okay. >> And I just went and did a site visit. >> Thanks guys. >> Um so I think it's always nice to see developers complying with the requests
from the residents. Um get considering they've um addressed all the issues that were brought up in the technical review committee. I think it's a pretty straightforward >> straightforward. Definitely. >> Does anybody have any additional things to share? If not, do we have a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve case number 25101, 3500 Gulf Boulevard with the conditions as outlined by staff today. >> I'll second that. >> Can we also amend that to modify condition 8 of development order? >> That's why I said as outlined by staff
today. Is that good? >> Perfect. Okay. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Cosy, >> approve. Member Core, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Right. Moving on to our next item. Need to pull up the number. Case number 2550952373 West Vina Delmare. going the wrong way. >> Yeah. >> Apologize.
>> It's okay. >> There we go. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. Gil Martinez, senior planner, community development. Before you today is a request for a practical difficulty variance. Uh the applicant is Danielle McLich.
Um the property in question is 2373 West Vienna Delmare. The request is for the installation of a new 6- foot high fence within the secondary front yard with a proposed setback of 17.6 6 feet or 20 ft feet is required in accordance with um
section of the LDC 6.5 6.15. Here is an image an aerial image of the subject property on the corner of Vina Delmare and Tier Drive. The zoning of the property is RU1
residential. Here's an enlarged survey showing a request the requested improvement. So you can see that they're requesting a 17.6 foot setback um as indicated in the yellow line um for a fence
um as indicated by the green line. The exact request detail is the applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance to allow the installation of a new 6- foot high fence within the secondary front yard with a proposed setback of 17.6 ft where 20 ft
is required. Here's a table indicating um what is required, what is existing, and what is proposed. It's um noteworthy that um the existing setback for this fence has been 17.6 feet at least for over a decade
now. So it's something to take into consideration. We don't have any records of of any approvals prior to it. It just seems to have been there for some time. >> So this is a replacement, >> correct? >> Some general photographs of the property showing our our notice postings.
As you can see, that is the fence in question in the background. Fence is damaged as some image indicates where some where some of the damage is at and um the location of the fence from the interior of the yard.
A summary of staff findings. In general, staff finds the application and analysis adequately supports the request based on the following findings. The existing fence within the secondary front yard has a current setback of 17.6 ft where 20 ft is required, resulting in an
encroachment of 2.6 ft. The applicant is requesting to remove the existing fence and replace it in the same location at the same height and style. staff finds that no adverse change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood by replacing the existing fence with the
same setback. The property is located at the intersection of North Tazier Drive and West Vienna Delmare Boulevard and functions as a corner lot. The configuration of the lot, driveway, and pool area creates a unique layout that is consistent with other nearby properties that also have fencing within
similar setbacks. In general, staff finds the application analysis adequately supports the request based on the following. The fence could be relocated to meet the 20 foot setback. However, moving the fence back would significantly reduce the usable
area of the sideyard and diminish privacy and security for the inground pool. Although the age of the existing fence is unknown and no permits could be located for its installation, the applicant has indicated that it has been functional
has been a functional improvement to the property for over a decade. The current fence is deteriorated and need a replacement to ensure pool safety and property security. Historical historical aerial imagery supports the idea that the fence in this location has
existed for many years and it is a replacement will maintain the established visual character along the street frontage. Motions um motions to approve case number 2550 255095 is proposed or with recommended
staff recommendations or additional conditions proposed by the board. as it is replacement of the fencing with the second within the secondary front yard setback shall be installed at 17.6 feet location and shall not exceed the height
and style of the existing fence as part of the plan submitted. All replacement fencing shall comply with applicable building codes and permitting requirements or motion to deny case number 255095 or motion to continue case five case
number 255095 to date certain. >> Thank you to take any questions you may have. I believe the applicant is here as well. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> Thank you. The applicant would please come forward.
>> I think you have to be sworn in. >> Yes, >> she was here. She was >> earlier. >> I know. >> That's okay. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give is truthful? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Hi, Danielle Miklish, 2373 West Vina Delmare Boulevard. if you would like to just give your explanation of this. >> I've owned the house for over 13 years. The fence that fence was there when I moved in. Um, obviously Hurricane Helen
affected all of us and then came behind at Milton. So, the fence was already a little uh on stumbly legs after Helen. Milton came and did kind of the final one-two punch. We put the fence back together again as best we could, which
is why it looks the way that it does. Uh, we have dogs, so it's important that, you know, they have obviously their fenced in yard. Um, so really all I want to do is go back with the identical thing. I'm not changing height. I'm not changing color. I'm not changing style. It's just to go back
exactly what's been there forever. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for that applic? >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. If there's anybody here that would like to support or contest this application, now would be the time to share that
information with the board. Hearing none, we'll close public comment and open for board discussion. >> Straightforward, >> pretty straightforward. >> Want to repair and not improve. Just >> we did not have any letters for this case for against either, but it's a one
for one replacement. Um, and I think the sooner she can get her fence back before storm season, the better. >> Yeah. Do we have a motion? >> I make a motion that the board approve case number 255095 as proposed >> with conditions
>> with >> there are no >> there were conditions with the permits but she >> well that yeah as proposed that it be the same height and location >> the materials and stuff. >> Yeah. So direct exact replacement. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> I second that.
>> Roll call please. >> Member core >> approve. Yes. Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Cosy, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Easy. >> Moving on to case number 255097
64604 Palm Point. We have the PowerPoint, please. Okay. Good afternoon, chair, member, board members. Kristen Coleman, senior planner. Uh today we have variance case number 255097 located at 64064
Palm Point. Um it is a practical difficulty variance of by Daniel and Janice Bowinger. Um they're requesting construction of an elevated front open entry staircase on a new single family dwelling where the proposed front yard setback of 12 feet where 17 feet is
proposed or is required. My my apologies. And looking for relief from land development code section 6.22B. 22B. Here is an aerial of the site. Uh the property is outlined in red. It is a waterfront parcel. It is located on a culde-sac of fourth Palm Point and
contains a single family residence. Um also single family to the north, southeast, and Bookie Bay to the west. The property is located in the RU1 zoning district. And here is a survey of the existing
dwelling and site improvements. As noted, they're looking to construct a new dwelling on the property, but I wanted to show you what currently exists on the property. Um, the home currently does meet the required setback of the the 20 ft, which is the principal dwelling setback, whereas in our land
development code, we do allow for open entry staircases to go to 17 feet. So, we do offer that consideration right now. So the par the parcel currently contains the single family residence and improvements. Um they recently did apply
for the demolition permit of the existing dwelling as well as the pool and other site improvements. They do have a dock which is to remain. Um and the proposed new dwelling is part of uh the reason why they're here today.
Okay. Here's the site plan showing the layout of the new dwelling. Um, it's kind of hard to see, but the building envelope you can see with the dotted line, it has a 20- foot rear yard setback. Um, the 7 foot on each sideyard setback and the 20 foot required setback for the actual dwelling and the open
front staircase. You'll see the 17 uh yard or 17t property line. And then they're showing the uh the proposed. And this is just an enlargement of that variance request. >> So just Yep.
>> Or we can come back to that when you're done. >> No, that's okay. No, >> you want to take questions away. Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Just to clarify. So the lines that you're showing with that red area is suggesting that >> that it's really about the staircase to I don't know if this is a
north,southeast, west, but it's to the west if if it was due north on this. Is that right? Just the staircase. >> So to to the left side that is actually Yes. Yes. That is the area. So because it's on the culdeac and it has that pie
kind of shaped in the front, we follow that same shape and and determining the setback. >> So for the most part, it's just the second that one down that is correct approaching. >> Correct. And I'll show you the front elevation coming up too. So you can kind of see. >> Yeah.
>> And there is the front elevation. So you see they have the split staircase that is coming down and I wanted to include the proposed first floor plan so that you can see the layout of of that. >> Is this simply just about the staircase?
>> Mhm. >> Correct. >> Nothing else. The house itself is perfectly fine within >> code. >> Yes. That that does meet the setbacks. But as you can see, and I I'll get into it a little bit more in the presentation, it does have a covered
front porch and covered rear porch. >> So, >> and it's one side of the staircase. It's >> correct. >> Yes. >> It's not both. >> Yep. Got it. >> And we of course >> one side of the staircase. >> Yeah. If you go back >> go back one side, see how >> Oh, I see.
>> If it was only coming down the one side, it wouldn't have recurred the variance. Is the is the the reason then for two staircases just because it'll look better that way. I'm sure I think that's what >> but we can have the applicant as sure.
>> So I'm just going to bring you on to the property. Uh the sign was posted on August 20th and noticing was completed as required. Staff did receive two letters of support um on this uh proposal from both adjacent property owners. This is just a picture of the rear yard.
Again, this dwelling will be demolished as well as the pool. It does look like the owners at a later time are looking to install a new pool later down the road once they're in. Um, this is uh on the south sideyard. So, if you're looking at the front of the property and
you're headed to the left and just a a view from the dock, so you can see the adjacent neighbor to the right. Just another view. And that is the um
north sideyard. And I just wanted to give this um this this slide as some comparison of I went and I researched what was happening in the area due to hurricane Selena and Milton. And to give you the aerial
Google image so you could see kind of what was there may not always be what is there now, but I researched all the the parcels around it. So if it is indicated with an R that is they elected to repair. They weren't substantially damaged. They're going to repair. A D is
demolish. So 6460 is going to demolish as well as a neighbor to the west at 6441. Um and then the neighbor directly to the south is FEMA compliant. So just give you an idea. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, as part of the staff findings report, we did request that the applicant should give us some additional testimony um as part of their proposal and explain whether other alternatives were considered uh such as adjusting the depths of the front and rear covered porches or modifying the front entry
area to allow for an inset stair start to the stairs or evaluating the necessity of the front stairs and if so, why those options were not proposed. Again, this is a new dwelling, new construction, um where the design kind of originated from to give that substantial evidence.
Um the applicant should provide background information on the preference for the design in the new dwelling and if any other designs were not were considered that may not have required relief. And the applicant should provide testimony regarding any potential alternatives if the variance should not be approved.
And with that, I have motion options, but the applicant should be here to address any testimony and happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Kristen. Sure. >> Any questions for Kristen before we hearing from the applicant? >> Um, one, did you happen to see if there
was any precedent that this was something that was happening in the neighborhood architecturally or is there >> No, pretty much back with that type of a I guess culde-sac area. Right. Um, in looking at it and again, no, like
surveys could not be obtained for all of them. I did look, as we saw in that prior slide, of what was in the area, most do appear to meet the setback requirement as well as the current dwelling that is on there. >> Um, so that was kind of why staff is asking for that additional testimony.
>> Um, and again, there's going to be a new home constructed at 6441. The plans aren't in at this time with that. It was recently demolished when staff went out to do a site visit and um that is down but most are single family sing one story. >> Okay.
>> In that area. >> Can you pull up the the current home one more time? >> Sure. >> In the front picture I was looking just Okay. So, currently it's just a single entry and then they're introducing a a driveway that has a Did I see that
properly where it's a circle drive or >> I will refer to >> There you go. >> Okay. So, they're introducing two garages and Okay, two garages. They deal still have the single entry at the the base floor or the ground floor and then they have the staircase going up to the
the actual first >> two two driveways then. >> Correct. Correct. >> Mhm. Would you um does the nature of the culde-sac um formation of the lot impact why it's
simply the one side versus the other of the so going back to the site plan showing the layout as you can see the house is not >> it's not current >> it is kind of a skew from where you
where the existing home is and I I apologize I should have probably done a side-by-side comparison of the existing versus proposed survey, but the way that it is angled, they do meet their sideyard setbacks as well as the rear just just to the like for the scoch. So,
that is part of staff's questions as to the testimony of it. It isn't straight on. They did kind of adjust it so that they could fit, if you want to say, the outline or the the footprint in there. >> Okay. >> Anything else for Kristen? is the
applicant would like to please come forward. >> Hi, excuse me. Dan Boffinger, 6464th Palm Point. Um, my wife Janice and I are the owners and uh, you know, we uh, the challenge is the
pieshaped lot. It's uh, our house, let me go back first. Our house was damaged um in Helen and uh you know we uh this is we've lived there for about 14 years and uh we went
through a lot with uh the remediation and everything which many people have as well. So he made the decision that um rather than rebuild and risk another storm uh to u raise the property and
build a new home, an elevated home that meets all the the criteria for compliance. Um we're looking at it. We we designed a home kind of an aging in place home. Uh my wife's had a knee replacement. and
we've both had our back issues and my hips probably coming up soon and so we're uh we've kind of designed uh something that would fit us well u down the road. Um
so I have another drawing here of the stairs. I don't know if this is helpful. Project that >> maybe up the overhead projector, please. >> Zoom in, please. >> Yeah. Turn that around a little bit.
>> Can you just Yes. Spin it. There we go. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> If you could zoom in a little, that would be helpful, too. Just so you can see the setback lines better. Um, so the the highlighted the highlighted
area in yellow is the actual portion that encroaches past the 17 ft line and then the other arc towards the street that's the uh that's the outside part that would be the 12t line. So there's
five feet of the the one side of the steps that encroaches past the setback. Um, as far as the configuration of the lot, you know, when you when you elevate a structure, you obviously need to get to the front front entrance and um the
pieshaped lot, it's it's kind of a a blessing and a curse. I mean, it's wider in the back. We have fantastic views. That's all great, but when you come to the front, it creates a challenge because you have limited access to the front of the building. Um, our next door
neighbors to the south, the McGraths, they uh they have an elevated structure. Um, actually it's kind of similar in design of what we're looking at, more of a coastal look or Key West type look. Um,
and with their house being elevated, the bay views to the Corey Bridge or more towards the right uh to the north northwest. And uh you know in discussions we're concerned we're going to build a structure that's going to block their
view as well. So we do have a letter uh from the McGraths in support of that. And actually I have a letter from my neighbor to the north which I think you have both of those. And I have a third letter from 6471 neighbor Bill who I ran into when I got
here on Monday um which I'd be glad to. >> You can um provide that. Um, so the house we're looking to build is, uh, the footprint's actually much
smaller than our existing house. It's about 25% plus smaller. Uh, the structure is um, square footage wise, it's with the, uh, couple bedrooms in the upper level, it's I think three or 400 square f feet
larger. So, it's not like a significantly larger house. We did not want a big giant uh rectangle like you see a lot of them going up. Uh we wanted something that more suits the community and the beach
vibe and something that appeals to us and will appeal to the neighbors. Um I worked with a great architect Ed. They have a good reputation and uh we tried shifting the house on the lot various
ways uh to get the stairs compliant. Um if I shift the house, you know, to the south towards my neighbor with the twotory, um it still will not fit the way it's configured. Uh the five- foot
encroachment. There's um some discussion in the notes about um making the deck smaller. Well, we're actually going, you know, with our existing house, we'd walk out back at that level and we'd have more outdoor space and that's where we
spend our time outdoors. Um, so with the elevated structure, we wanted, you know, as much outdoor space as we could get and the deck size in the back seemed to be adequate. But if we were to
make that narrower to accommodate the stairs, um, we'd have to take five feet off it, which would leave a seven foot wide deck. And, you know, you put a table out there for dining and some chairs. It's it's really a challenge
that way. So going back and forth on where the house sits on the lot and you know other parts of the structure that could be changed. Uh we were not successful. So, we looked at the stairs specifically next and uh
we came up the only design we came up with that got got us closer was um if you were to reduce the lower landing or the middle landing I guess when you step down from the from the front to the landing. If we were to
reduce the size of that and then have the the remaining stairs go back under the house, it created some other issues. Um, you know, there there's always aesthetic issues, but um
I'm tall, so when I would go down those steps, then there would be the overhang of the front porch, and we're trying to get away from that from our existing home because, you know, our existing home was built in 1972. It's got lentils going out to the Florida
room and um I don't have to duck, but I kind of feels a little tight at times. So, so that that aspect of the stairs going back under was not really appealing and it, you know, and it was very tight with the landing. And then
the other aspect of that was kind of a oh, there's two other aspects. Sorry. Um safety aspect. You know, you can't see who's coming up your steps if they're underneath your porch and they're not visible. You can't see them from the street either.
Or for that matter, if you're exiting the house, you know, somebody's there. And not that we have any problems where we are, our neighborhood's safe, but there is a little security aspect to it. But probably the biggest um issue with the stairs that went back
under, they would have to push it more towards the house, the whole structure of the stairs, and it would require that the first step at the top was recessed into the front deck. And
that was like a deal killer because it's a trip hazard. you know, if somebody's at your front door, you're talking to somebody, they turn around and they make a bad step. It's it's dangerous. So, and my wife uh particularly was was not uh
supportive of that. And and I agree. So, then we tried, well, let's just blop off the right side of the stairs and then there's a small piece of the landing that would still come into play.
So working with the architect, we, you know, tried different configurations, some other designs, something that didn't look too commercial. And, uh, we chose to go the route of, you know, a practical difficulty because
it is in fact the pies-shaped lot and the narrowing at the front of the property that's creating the issue. The neighbors are supportive. the uh I I highly doubt that anybody that would drive by the house or look at the
property would say, "Oh, look at those stairs there. That's pretty close." Because it it just doesn't appear that way um with our neighbors to the north. You know, we have uh we have landscaping there. A lot of it will need to be replaced, which we will do. We're uh
we're very much uh tree plant lovers and uh we'll do a we'll make the place look very nice. So um trying to think of if there's anything else I could add.
There was uh something said about it would the design is not typical of the neighborhood. Well, we do have another twotory. We have two more two-story homes on our property and sounds like we're going to have a third.
Um, but again, our neighbors to the south, the house is similar type uh not design but aesthetic. So, um, anything else I can answer for you?
>> That's very comp compre comprehensive overview. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Yeah, I I have a question. So, I noticed the house to your south that they uh decided to turn their staircase, I guess, in one direction on the front there.
>> So, to stay in the I guess the setback and uh >> well, they don't they don't have the pieshaped lot though, so that's been the challenge. If our lot was rectangular, we we probably wouldn't have an issue. But >> so I guess one um thing that the staff
was asking about is it necessary and supposed to be one of the conditions. So it looks to me like you could turn the uh the steps in a direction that it wouldn't really infringe at all. So it seems like you're just uh trying to have
a balanced look to the front of the house. >> I did scale it and it would not fit by turning it, bringing the steps in. um that the uh the deck portion in the back would cross the 20 foot setback and it
also changes the neighbors vantage point being that it's a twotory and turning more towards their home because it would have to go forward. We did explore that. >> Yeah. So looking at the overhead view, I
see the four post marks there that support the landing, the midway landing where the stairs turn. So if you It looks like only one of those post is over into the uh set in the setback. One of the four.
>> Yeah. Um, so, so I'm not following what you're >> Oh, I'm just saying if if uh when you're looking at this picture, there is a problem coming down. If you turn to the right >> and eliminate the option of going to the left, it eliminates most of the setback
problem. >> It shows you at 29% over right now. >> Yeah. But again, we're trying to be um respective of the neighbor's view as well. >> Well, I don't see how that would affect
the neighbor's view in any way. You wouldn't be adding anything from what you have. >> Are you saying I guess >> remove the one flight? >> No, I'm asking why um not remove. Is that what you said? Yes. Remove. >> You're saying turn the house and remove
no turn this flight of stairs. the there is two um flights of stairs where they meet the ground. And if you were to remove the yellow part in your diagram and keep everything else, it would
cut out almost all of the uh encroachment. >> It would take out part of the landing, too. >> There's a small portion. >> Would the landing require a variance, Christa? >> That's what I wanted to know. >> Where it is now? It would, but it would be a very small encroachment.
>> Yeah. Right. And following what you're saying, it's basically the stairwell would the landing would have one staircase down um versus two. And then what you're saying is you still have say
a corner of your landing that is still encroaching. >> Yes. >> Um modestly into the 17 foot very or u setback requirement is that what we're seeing and since we can't
quite measure that out >> another way to look at it too and I apologize if I took out the big plans um I could scale it off but if you look at it um the can we have the overhead back up just so I can explain so if you see
how on the covered front porch the staircase actually goes down to like a Mhm. >> If it came straight off, I don't know if this has been looked at. Instead of coming down like that and it's such a wide opening and I can't scale it off without opening the plants, but it seems
pretty wide because it then goes down, you know, to probably like maybe four feet. So, there is that greater and it and it kind of constricts down. If it was just a straight shot, maybe that could be if you if you lessen that
opening at the the um covered front porch that might be able to be shifted a little bit or reconfigured. I think it's the the design of it that it's wider at the top and it veers down may have some play on that. So, >> could we see again the design? Um,
>> sure. >> It'll help. I mean, I see this, but then when we see what the house looks like, >> the front elevation might be a good uh >> No, we have that >> proposal that >> I'm getting there. Yeah. >> Okay. To the right, the that's the
original proposal. The single staircase down the center. >> No, that is the proposed front elevation. So, this is what they're proposing. As you see, it has the wide opening at the covered front porch. It then gets narrower as it comes down. So
the stairs may be let's say I I'm not sure I'm just like eight feet opening goes down to maybe like a 4 foot opening >> how it just kind of ves in and veers in and then they have that landing and then it goes down the split staircase to the left or right when you
>> is is that an entrance to the house that's underneath >> that is correct. That is another entrance. Is the single um stairwell straightforward an option that was that's >> looked at? >> Yeah, it'll encroach more coming
straight down. Yes. >> Oh yeah, but or no with your landing still, but just to the one direction rather than both. >> So to the landing and then to the left one. It still would not fit as it's
drawn. No. Was it a Did you What was the setback there then? >> I don't recall. Okay. It's It's the landing portion. I mean, unless we squeeze down the landing, but >> the corner of the landing, correct? Like the corner. Um,
>> it's hard to see on the drawing. >> Yeah, but we're looking at a foot. I don't I don't know. I I don't >> maybe a foot versus a five foot like just >> right just for that post um to hold up the landing. >> And as far as egress if you look on the
front elevation to the left side which is also the the um the southern side there they have another staircase to go up to the back. >> I had >> which does meet compliance just for the record.
>> Right. So, did you I had another question. I wondered if you considered a curve staircase that would come from the center door area and then curve around towards the driveway towards the left direction.
That would avoid all of the setback any encroachment at all. Uh I think we discussed it. Um I don't remember the details of the outcome. I mean, it's not um, you know, architecturally it's not
real fitting to the house, but um, I don't remember the details. Sorry, >> that's all the questions I had. >> Okay, again, if it weren't, it's the pies-shaped lot specifically on the
north side that's creating the issue. >> Thank you. Any other additional questions? you said that that when you I know you went through and I really appreciate what you've shared and um but I just just to clarify you looked at this uh front what you're calling it
front porch decking um at different widths coming off of the house. >> Yes. >> Uh remind remind us or me which what is the width of it now? >> Uh I think it I don't know it might be 8
foot. I have to check the the drawings. >> Okay. And then you assessed it to go back what by a foot or well it would have been much more substantial. >> You'd need to gain five feet to get that section of the stairs there.
>> I'm just curious why do you want to have staircases at all when you have a staircase on the other on the as I'm looking at it the left side and you have an entrance right there in the front and you've got garages. I assume you can get out from the garages as well.
I don't even know what >> eliminate an entrance to the main living floor. >> Well, you Isn't that what you have on the side? >> That goes to the rear deck. >> I see. >> So, for fire, I think you need >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> code. >> But there there is access on the ground floor and you do have an elevator. Correct. >> Correct. So >> yeah, >> I don't know necessarily that it would be >> an occupied space, too. So I mean, if
you don't want to bring people in through your garage, >> got it. Understood. >> Any additional questions? >> Thank you, sir. >> Did we do disclosures? I forgot.
>> We can do them now. Any experte? >> No. >> No. None for me? No, >> I did a site visit. >> Now would be the time if you're here to speak on behalf for in opposition of this case to share that feedback with the board. >> Hearing none, we'll close public comment
and open for board discussion. >> I guess the one thing it would be helpful to understand is what type of um impact just having the landing and not the staircase coming down if if the applicant's even open to that. But
sounds like cuz I thought when you presented you were saying there wasn't going to be a need for a variance if that if the stairs were coming down just one side. But well staff looked at a couple different things. So the front porch is the rear porch is 12 feet in
deep in depth and then the front and the front is 7 foot 10 in. So almost approximately 8 feet. So, we have the square footprint of the house, but then you have the the porches, which are not I mean, they're not >> sure >> the habitable part, but it staff was
just asking if you either took a couple feet from each side, if we could just shrink that, would you be able to make that up? Is there any other feasibility that there could be in order to meet those setback requirements? If you want that kind of staircase, there could be other
alternative staircase designs. And that's what staff is really looking at as far as from a a variance or practical difficulty. Is there any other measures that could be taken in order to meet compliance, especially in connection with the new dwelling? >> Yep. >> I know. >> I think that's the trickiest part of
this is it's new construction, right? And so we're >> um try to get as creat as as we can, but at the end of the day, if there is another way to build a new home, like we want that home to be as compliant as possible. >> Um initially, I was thinking like from a difficulty perspective, having since
there's two garages and then being able to enter from both sides, I can see the um ease in that. But there's also you're most likely going to be entering from inside the house if you're in the garage. And so it's really for people entering the home externally. And in my opinion, if there was one staircase
versus two, that doesn't really impact their nature. >> Yeah. Or the functionality. >> It's aesthetics basically is what it gets down to. And it that's the end of the day. And this is a new construction and it doesn't meet the requirements. So
what do we do? >> And I to that I mean we we are the board of adjustments. Do we adjust for aesthetics? It is. I mean, it is a pie-shaped lot that is, you know, more challenging to build upon. Um, but it's one thing if you're dealing with a structure that's
already on the pi pie-shaped lot, which we see, but when you're building something new to that, it's something that I think you have to kind of work through. >> Yeah. >> So, so what you're saying is because it's new construction, there are other options that could be drawn up.
>> That's where I tend to tend to think that, too. If you came down the staircase and you went just to the right, it seems like we'd be okay. >> Yeah. >> Other than maybe a variance for the post going up to hold the landing. Correct. >> We're visually looking straight up. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> To the south. >> I mean, there's going to be a lot of new construction going on around here. And I think probably for setting a precedent, we want to have people say, "Look, this is your lot. It's new construction. It's not like we're talking about the fence
that has always been there. It's this is brand new, >> right? >> And there will be cases where there really is no other way, right? And that, you know, but I think in an instance where it's a aesthetic feature and there are potential other ways to design it. Um,
>> we just have to be what do you say about the neighbors in support? They've seen these drawings. If I was my neighbor, I'd be like, well, I'd like to have a nicer house looking >> Yeah. >> beside me for my home value. I think it's great. I think I mean I think we want our neighbors to all have
>> great homes. I'm sure this is going to be a beautiful home. Um so, >> but ultimately I think we have to >> I think as much as possible. Yes. And I I mean that's where I would lean towards understanding more if if the applicant's
open to it to the having us look at a variant specific to having that landing um as opposed to having >> correct >> the two the the extension of the stairs >> the one slide with the was shaded yellow. If
>> you took that I mean we're talking how much room >> inches, right? >> Ralph, do you want to or you want? >> It sounds like um There's a couple options. You could ask them to look at other options and bring them back next month. Or you could uh
approve it with conditions. One one of those would be to remove the area shown in yellow on that slide. So they would effectively have stairs going only one way and grant the variance for the landing portion. >> Right. But I think I would want the I I as
staff would want to see that to make sure we're approving what if there is a variance what we're approving. I would want the board to see >> with a new plan. I I think that's probably the best option is redesign it, come back with something that fits the
the rules and it would be easy for us because >> well, if you would only have to come back if there was a variance required and if it was >> if they were just to take out the yellow part as you were talking about without doing anything else, then there would be a small portion of the landing that would need a variance, but it would be a more minimal variance than the variance
and they're requesting today. And and if the applicant is amendable to that rather than if he were leaning towards a denial, at least he would have another opportunity to present something of a lesser variance or tell us more information that it it it isn't going to
be considered. >> Is everybody in agreement of providing that opportunity? >> Any of those options? >> Y >> and to his point, I mean, if you curved it, maybe that aesthetically that would look nicer. Yeah, that's just a opinion of what would what looks good, right?
>> Would the applicant please come forward? >> So, I think what you're hearing is your house is beautiful and we want you to have the house that you know is designed, but we're also really trying to um stay true to the code when we're working with new construction. And so we'd um like to provide the opportunity for you to rethink this with your
architect and come back and provide present any opportunities to decrease the variance request if possible or eliminate it altogether. >> Is that something that you would be open to? >> Um otherwise they could vote today. Yes or
no? >> I'm struggling with it. I guess for a couple reasons. you're saying you'll you may accept a partial variance with the landing but not with the additional steps. Um so it's still an encroachment. Um
>> I can address that one piece if we want to go through your different concerns. So we when we're looking at an a variance we're oftentimes looking at the magnitude of the ask at the magnitude of the ask. It's not necessarily is when needed or not. It's to what extent are we making an exception >> variance needed to use the land
>> there. Um, so that's why we would be open to reviewing. >> And this this house, like I said, it's 25% smaller footprint. The the impervious surface is under 50% less than the existing home. >> So I think we've done everything. When
you elevate a home, we're in a VE flood elevation, which is the worst you can be in. So, we have to go up fairly high and that is what creates the challenge to get to the to the front door and then you put the pieshaped lot in there. Um,
it's everything kind of compounds itself. So, I guess I mean I am I guess I'm disappointed that the way it's being seen. Um I think it's you know the house
really will add to the community like I said you know we we thought about should we build like our five bedroomedroom rectangle like a lot of people are doing and we didn't want to go down that route. Um, so I I I I guess I can't answer if I
mean if I get have to go back to the architect, I'm writing more checks. Uh, if I have another variance, do I have another variance fee? >> This would be a continuation of your current variance. So there would be no additional fees from the application. Um, and I want to reiterate like what
you've done is a ton of work. The fact that the neighbors like it like we see all of that. um we're just in a position to have to make sure that we're approving particularly when it's a brand new construction a true um hardship variance and so >> well it's it's a practical difficulty
it's not a I mean I wouldn't say it's a hardship but it's a practical difficulty and you know we tried configuring the home many ways and couldn't get it to fit on the lot. Um you know the the the narrow front kind
of threw the curve at us. and exploring the different staircase variations. Like I said earlier, we don't want something that looks commercial or I mean there is an aesthetic piece to it and that's kind of the charm of the house. So >> Madam Chair, may I ask a question of the
applicant as far as the design of it? So your existing home, you have the two-car garage that is located if you're looking at at the house on the left, everything is in compliance. This one you opted to do a garage on each end.
>> Did you look at having a design that you had the garage kind of in the same location where everything was in conformance? >> No, we wanted we wanted a a coastal Key West style home.
>> Most of them were designed. >> Okay. >> So, that's kind of where we started. I just wanted to get that testimony on the record as well as how how you came up, you know, with the design that you and your wife love, >> but when you just looking at what is currently there,
>> it is in conformance. >> I mean, we're we're making a big investment in the community, too. It's we could have gone the easy route and patch patch up our existing house, but you know, we chose to to do something that we feel is going to, you know, meet
keep keep the neighbors happy, our family happy. And um >> could you access the porch through the side like you are for the back porch, access the front porch? They're on the same side. Is there looks like there would be enough room? I don't know.
Um, I don't know the answer to that without looking at it deeper. >> So that's the dwelling >> double that something similar. >> Well, if you wrap that around I don't know >> stairs up to here.
>> Yeah, I don't that's not looking for her. So I think um does the board want to have further discussion based off of the testimony you heard or is >> No, I think it is a question still a question of whether you want continuence to look at it or you want us to vote on
it the way it is. >> We need to answer that now. >> Yes. >> I'm not going to continue it. >> Pardon? >> I don't want to continue it. >> Do not want to continue. You would like for us to proceed to vote. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any initial discuss or continue
discussion outside making a motion? >> I don't I don't have any. >> I don't need that. >> Do we have a motion? >> No, I don't. >> I make a motion to n variance case number 2597. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> I would second. >> Roll call, please. >> Well, can you repeat exactly what you said? to >> to deny is what you said. Correct. >> Based on the fact that we're not seeing that there's a minimum variance needed
requested. I I would just add that color. >> Yeah. >> The fact that um >> there would be some alternative solutions that would get to a much less substantial variance needed on a new build. >> Ready. >> Thank you. Roll call.
>> Vice Chair Garaw. >> Yes. Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Quasy, >> yes. >> Member Core, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Right. Next case for today's meeting
is Brandon. Do you have the case number? >> Yes, it is. >> My is slow to load. to 2580. >> Sorry, I would have tried to. >> This is a multiple part variance for 3108 Passil Way. It is a practical difficulty variance. All the requests
fall under that classification. Joshua Trosclair for Celeste and Jacob Clitanic. The third request a three-part request for three separate variances, five different um dimensional variances. The first is relief to the side setback requirement on the north side to allow
for a chimney to remain following elevation of the residence with a setback of 1.4 ft where three feet is required. I did want to say that is how it was advertised. That is actually the encroachment. It's less than what was advertised. It's 2.2 two feet, but I just kept that for completeness. Um, so
they're requesting less, but it does still need a variance. Uh, relief to the rear, which is the alleyway set back on the west side to allow for the detached accessory, garage, and cottage to remain at their current respective setbacks of 2.3 feet and 0.8 ft respectively
following substantial improvement of the primary dwelling where 20 feet is required. and the existing one-story garage rema to remain with a southern side setback of 3.6 feet where 10 feet is required. This is pursuant to land development code section 3.10E1.
Uh the first request was 3.10b3C. The third item uh this is the only new addition under the scope is a variance for the front setback requirement on the east side to allow for construction of an open deck at stairs at 9.4t
where 17 ft is required. This is pursuant to land development code section 6.22B and 12.7A1. You can see here an aerial of the property. It is a double lot at the northern side of the Pass Grillil Overlay District. Pass Grillil uh from a
zoning perspective starts at 32nd Avenue. So it's just at the very northern end of the district. It has the residential medium pass overlay zoning. Um, residential medium does allow for multi-unit properties, not in the arrangement that the applicant currently
has, but because of that Pascal overlay, they are able to retain what they currently have on the lot. Um, even with a substantial improvement to the structure, they have a single family home on the east side that's a primary structure that's being elevated. And then on the west side, they do have a
detached cottage that contains a residential unit. So, as I mentioned before, um this is partially a request for retention of existing buildings and setbacks following a substantial improvement to
the primary structure on the property. Um both the cottage and the garage are remaining where they are. Those are not being substantially improved. They're not being there's no additions to those structures. They're not getting a new level or being elevated. However, the
land development code does require when a structure is non-conforming that it be relocated from the required um property lines when the primary structure is substantially improved. They're looking to retain the cottage on the west side as well as the garage at the back of the
property. Um again, not relocating them, not elevating them, adding on to them. They're just looking to keep them at their current setbacks following substantial improvement of the main dwelling. On the east side of the residence, um they are proposing stairs and a deck that will encroach to 9.4t
or 17 ft is required. They currently have entry steps that encroach to 14 feet from that primary um uh front property line. They're proposing 9.4t for the deck. And then on the north side, there's a requirement that when a home be elevated,
it can be elevated in place, but the home does need to be offset at least 3 ft from any property line. The wall of the structure itself does meet that setback on the north side. Um, but they do have a chimney on the north side that they're looking to extend and keep in
place. That will extend to 2.2 feet, again, where three feet is required. And I'll show that here. Um, starting at the north, which is the top of the screen, you can see that chimney bump out in the center of the structure. That is just being extended up with the structure
when it is elevated. On the east side, you can see the stairs that radiate out from a deck. And I'll show on the next uh next slide the uh proposal. And then on the west side, you can see the existing one-story building at the center of the lot. And then at the south side on the bottom of the screen, this
is showing the improvements. So again starting at the north side um you can see the chimney where 3 feet is required that has been modified to be a 2.2 foot encroachment and that is retaining the existing setback on the east side. On the right side you can see the deck that
extends out to 9.4t where 17 ft is required. There is no living area being added in this elevation. They're only adding on decks to the east and to the west side facing the alley. You can see with the hatching on the west side of the structure um within the interior of
the courtyard um they are also adding a deck. However, this does comply with the setback. They don't need a variance for that deck on the west side only for the east side. And then you can see the setbacks that were mentioned before uh going over to the west side which is the alleyway side. They are looking to
retain that existing cottage in the center of the structure or center of the lot at 08t where 20t is required. And then at the southwest corner, they're proposing a uh to keep a structure with a 2.3 foot rear setback on the west
side, a 3.6 ft side setback on the south side where 20 and 10 ft are required respectively under the current code. Here's some photos of the site looking from Passway to the west showing that existing structure that will be
elevated. Uh you can see the stairs there that will be removed and converted to a deck and and stairs to access the now elevated living level. Uh you can see here the north side where that chimney will be extended. The air conditioning unit will also be raised um
in in this current location. Uh you can see here the cottage uh that's toward the center of the lot that is proposed to remain again not elevated, not being added on to. They're just seek see seeking to keep the structure following substantial improvement of the primary home.
And then you can see the garage here um to the right side of the screen, the existing uh non-conforming side setback and the rear setback from the alley. Again, not looking to improve, just looking to retain the structure where it's currently located. >> So, you're saying that's the what we're looking at on the right here is the
garage. >> Uh correct. >> Where's How do you get your car in? >> It's not It's not currently used as a garage. it was developed as a garage. They do have parking on the site currently. Um I believe it's it's used as storage, but the applicant can can address that.
And then looking on the lot toward the south again toward uh toward that converted garage. Sorry, I think I got some other photos in mind. Um so we did ask uh the applicant for a few um for comments pertaining to this
variance. They have decided to elevate. Um the city had assessed a 34% damage to the primary structure. Based on that estimate, the structure um was determined by the city at least to have been not substantially damaged. We have
not um re-evaluated that assessment. The applicant has moved forward with a voluntary elevation of their structure which would meet the flood plane management ordinance as well as the Florida building code. I just asked the applicant to speak if there was additional damage that they determined necessitated the elevation of the
primary residence. Um they have not presented I know under the building code scope or under the building permit scope they have not proposed any plans to improve the cottage or garage. I'm just questioning whether they have any forthcoming plans to add on to or improve either of those structures um
and whether they've assessed whether either has sustained substantial damage. And this item did go to the historic preservation board. Currently, the structure is consider the primary structure is considered a contributing historic resource due to the degree of
elevation of the building. I do believe that the elevation is architecturally compatible. It does meet the design requirements for the pasil overlay district, but because of the degree to which the home is being elevated, it's more than 10 feet, they are likely to lose that contributing status. The main
residence would no longer be considered a historic residence should it be elevated. One of the main um benefits of having that historic designation is to remove the need to elevate the structure. They're obviously bringing the structure into compliance, but um in
doing so, they were granted a 10-foot setback encroachment from the historic preservation board. They're only asking for an additional 6 foot encroachment beyond that. But I would just like the applicant to justify if that additional uh about half a foot is is necessary
under the board of adjustments approval or if they could go forward with the v the u waiver that was granted by the historic preservation board. >> Real quick, Brandon. So is the variance really 9.4 ft where 10 has been approved? >> They have >> at this point like
>> correct the the the land development code standard is 20 ft but they they could if the board were to not approve that request they could still move forward with the 10-ft waiver that was provided by the historic board. Okay. >> And just to add to that, the also just
to be clear, all the other variances that are listed are existing on the home and have been for decades. >> 100 years. That's >> Thank you. Okay. >> Home I believe is 100 years old.
>> Want to make that very clear and on record, too. >> Is there anything? So, if the house is going to be elevated 10 feet, you said >> uh slightly over 10 feet. Yes. So, is anything going to go under the house? Then >> it's going to be used for parking and storage, I believe. Um, the applicant
can speak to that >> if you want these for the overhead. They weren't part of that, but there's a picture in that. >> Yes. So, you can you can see here looking at the uh top left, that is the structure viewed from Pastor Way. Uh,
you can see the screening. It is enclosed under the um north side of the structure and then you can see a screened area. And then if you go over to the rear elevation, that's the bottom left looking from the alley, uh there is that um garage door there. So it parking
and and storage and access, which is what the flood plane management regulations allow. >> Okay. >> And Brandon, where's the 10 feet and the 9.4 on that diagram? >> See if I can make those out. >> Just generally point to the area we're
talking about. So existing grade is at 4 feet and the finished floor post elevation will be at 17 ft. So it will actually be elevated. It'll be 13 feet to the finished floor
of the residence as it's being elevated, but I believe they currently have about a twoft elevation. So it's about about 11 foot difference. >> Thank you, Brandon. >> Thank you. I got one one question. So, if it's um currently
approved by the historic board and you're saying raising it is going to kick it out of the historic uh preservation qualification. Would that I I don't understand how that
meshes together. I mean, how can you if you're currently approved for a certain configuration, >> then you're going to do something to the house that wouldn't be allowed, it seems like. >> So, they they have the the powers at this point in time because it is
associated with a contributing structure, but likely moving forward, the historic preservation board is allowed limited variance powers. is there actually waiverss to setbacks for historic homes when the home is a contributing structure. So, what I
mentioned with the um I'm asking for applicant testimony on the cottage and garage if they're looking for future additions. The setbacks that were stated at the beginning of the presentation. Those would be the setbacks moving forward for this structure because it is
no longer considered a contributing resource and they would need to come forward to the board of adjustment for any future improvement based on the zoning code, not based on the waiver powers the historic board can provide. That's that's an incentive the historic
board uh can provide homeowners to keep their structures contributing. In this case, they're they're welcome to elevate the home, but they would lose that benefit by virtue of the the structure not being a historic resource. >> Any additional questions for Brandon?
>> That's we just flip back to the slide. So, um, as always, we ask for a motion to approve this case either with or without staff conditions or they're approved by the board. Um, I only have one proposed condition should you um
look to prove this case today and it's effectively that the existing setbacks for the detached garage and cottage are approved only in their current footprint at their current height and their elevations. So, this is not any kind of future variance for them to elevate these structures. add on um future
additions to or extension or elevation of the structures shall require compliance with the relevant relevant setbacks afforded to the structures based on their zoning district standards and or the non-conforming structure improvement standards as amended or they would always be eligible to apply for a
subsequent variance. Uh you could motion to approve this case as proposed. Um, if you feel that the applicant hasn't met the burden of proof, you can motion to deny. Or if you need additional information, motion to approve or continue this case to a future board of adjustment date pending submitt of
additional requested information. So, I know the applicant is present. Um, I'm happy to take any other questions. >> We're ready to hear from the applicant. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The applicant can please come forward. >> I didn't know if he needed them, but
Hi. >> Um, my name is Celeste Clay Tennic. I'm at 3108 Pasig Railway. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. >> Um, we I guess to answer questions, um, we decided to lift the house basically
because we don't want to incur future flooding damage. you know, we don't want to have to do repairs again and we want to save the house. And so, we're watching all these beautiful historic homes in Pastor Grillil get demolished and we're fortunate that we were not in that situation, but we know that this
year, next year, or 10 years from now, we could be and we just don't want to be. We want to save the house. Um, so the we didn't make that determination based on the substantial damage. We didn't know what our damage was when we made that decision. And I had actually
reached out to Patrick, I think around November, first week of November, and said, "Hey, we want to look at lifting." So, um, we have no plans for the garage or the, um, cottage. We're using them
for storage right now. And, um, we don't plan on lifting them. We don't plan on adding on to them, you know, none of that. They're older structures. We don't believe that they had substantial damage, but we're not even worried about that. We're just we want to get back in our beach house.
Um, so the front deck and stairs. So, we looked at a bunch of different designs. Um, and the only one that came close to meeting that 10-foot historic district setback is the design that we put
forward. Um, we looked at having them go straight down one side because of the height. We have to have a landing by code. And if we went down to the right side, you'd pretty much I don't even know that you could step down. You'd crash right into the fence on the
property line. On the other side, it would um go into the middle of the driveway. And so, you know what Pastor Grillil is like with parking? So, um the way that the the current, um
driveway lip is at the street, you can drive straight in and you can drive straight out and the stairs would actually come they would probably land somewhere toward the left side of the driveway. Um and really close to our bumpout. So, we weren't even sure that that would work because you'd be walking down the stairs and you'd be right into
the side of the building. Um, and the deck we lined up with the existing bumpout and we added that because when we first their first design just had the stairs and it looked like a fire escape on the front of our house. And while that's really what it is, it's
for safety reasons so that we have a way to get out of the house from the front. Um, we didn't want we wanted to kind of keep with the character of the neighborhood and the structure and we felt that was the best way to do it. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Any questions for the applicant? >> Uh well, I'll just ask. So, what you're looking at is >> we're talking about a half a foot. >> Half a foot. >> Yeah. >> So, um when you looked at what your I I don't know if you're calling it a
bumpout, but the the front >> decking um what's the width of that? I don't remember the width of it, but it the the front deck itself um doesn't go out further than we have like a little bumpout at the front and that bumpout is
I think 10.7 ft from the setback >> and the deck lines up with that bumpout, >> the current bumpout of the house. So, >> um I don't know. I have I did bring a picture that I printed. >> You have to turn it.
>> Turn it this There you go. >> Nope. Nope. >> The back there. Perfect. Yep. >> Yeah. So, this bump out here in front of that is 10.7 ft from the property line and we lined up the deck. So, the deck won't extend past that. We just lined it
up with that just really for aesthetics. >> And then the way the driveway lip is, you pull in and you can park right there. >> And I'm assuming the width of these stairs are just to whatever the code is. And they're as tight as hugging hugging the house as you could.
>> Yeah, that's what the the engineer >> in order to bring it back with the landing. Then you're saying this is absolutely the minimum encroachment necessary. >> It is my understanding. Yes. >> And and you you're not going to park your cars under the house then?
>> Well, so well this side of the house we we will have a garage door from the alley and we'll be able to park under >> the back. >> Yeah. >> And then um over this part will just be, you know, it'll be open, but we're going to conceal it from the street and
>> landscape. We did a landscape plan. I'm in the process of getting in touch with professional landscapers to help me with it because >> your house is beautiful. >> I'm not going to be able to do it. >> I love your house. >> We we love our house. We love it. We we love the inside of it. The previous
owner was an artist and it's just it's really cool and we like it and we just we want to be able to use it and use it for generations. >> Yeah. >> So that's our plan. >> Thank you for presenting your plan. >> Okay. Thank you. If there's anybody here that would like
to speak on behalf for an opposition to this case, now would be the time to share. >> I do have two cards. Joe Kish, >> can you by chance put this back? >> If you said it right >> there.
>> Well, you got to turn it half a turn again. Yeah, just like that. >> Okay, cool. All right, Joe Klush, Celeste, we love your house, too. Jim and I live in the cottage. >> Well, thank you. Anyway, I really don't have any
>> Get your address for the record. >> 3109 First Street West. >> Thank you. >> So, we don't have any concerns about the setbacks and the variance and all that, but if you look at this where she has a I guess it's a cottage now. There's a
shelf. Can you point to it on the map that you put in? >> Okay. Right there. >> Okay. That's a shell driveway and this drawing says it'll be new concrete. The only concern or question really because I don't know is like is that going to
cause potential more water to because that alley gets pretty wet? I'm sure she >> We're hoping that we can keep it seashell so that it matches the alley. So, it's just depending on what >> um planning and zoning gets us to, but we
would like to keep it seashell. >> Cool. >> Yeah. So, I don't know. That was the only thing that got my attention was Okay. >> Is that going to cause more water to drain? >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> We good. >> We're good. >> Is there any additional comments?
>> If you'd like to come back, you're welcome to readress the board. I just want to say >> just wait till you're at the podium if you don't mind. >> It's okay. >> We did send in two letters um that we received from the adjacent neighbors. So on both sides in support of our
>> We did receive those in advance of the meeting. Thank you. Great. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll close public discussion and open for board conversation. >> Well, if this is different than the last one, which is a new house. This is a historic house. people are going to have
to elevate their houses. We got to do any everything we can to let them do that. I hope >> Well, I also think this is a very good example of a minimally request um in order and and a very um explicit explanation for how they've um exhausted
all, you know, alternative options and the staircases needed for safety purposes. >> Correct. >> So, agreed. >> Yeah. I love that they're elevating a historic home and not tearing it down. >> Me, too. And um as far as all of the variances, I think in so support of just
maintaining the historic nature of of all of the property makes sense. >> Yep. >> And yes, appreciate that the effort was made to make this a minimal variance required to approve and support a I
don't know maybe 13 foot or so elevation home. It's going to be interesting to get in and out of those and you've got to have some stairs. So do we have a motion? I move to approve case 2580 as they have asked
>> with the >> with the yes >> exist with with I'm going to >> staff recommendations staff recommendation and conditions >> actually they had conditions yes they have to preserve the existing setback and height on the cottage and the garage
>> and do we want to put in that we should put shell in there make sure the shell doesn't >> I don't think that I'm that Yes. >> Well, we're assuming that the it didn't change the is it the is the impervious ratio >> that'll be >> already figured into this.
>> So, they're fine with the concrete. >> Yeah. >> All right. And then the other condition that I thought was important was if they decide to do another uh modification to the house in the future that and they're
not under that uh historic thing, then they're going to be required to meet the setbacks on those um auxiliary things that are right on the property line essentially, right? >> Yeah. Um but that isn't a condition that we're just informing them that that's the
>> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Do we have the conditions again that then? >> Yeah. Where are those? >> I just want to make sure we get crisp on and for the motion. >> I don't know if you have it handy. Just put it on the overhead or you could put it Okay,
>> there we go. Thank you. >> This was a lot more eloquent than what we just tried to be. >> But we can just um we can restate the motion and simply say with conditions as >> Yeah, as requested. Can we just restate the motion for the record?
>> I'll pass on that. Go ahead. Somebody else get right to >> I'll make a motion to approve case number 255080 with conditions as presented by staff. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Cosy, >> yes. >> Member Core,
>> yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. >> All right. Moving on to the last case for the afternoon. Case number 255090 5358th Avenue. >> Yes. This is the property with address
of 5358th Avenue. This is a practical difficulty variance a Choliver Payne for Joseph and Diana Skamea. Request relief for construction of front entry stairs for an elevated non-conforming single family dwelling with proposed front yard
setback of 8 feet 4 in where 17 ft is required. This is made pursuant to land development code section 6 22B. This is not in the historic district. So this is a pretty straightforward request. Um here is an aerial of the property. It's
along 80th Avenue on the north side. A waterfront property. It has a zoning of RU1 residential single family zoning. You can see here the existing front elevation. You can see from the first slide, it's obviously along um
undergoing construction. They have received approval to elevate this home. Um they currently have interior access to the living level through both an elevator and stairs. By by currently, I mean it will be um they'll be put in place once the home is elevated. Um they
are proposing an additional front stair to connect in with the landing. Um you can see there already already is an existing defined landing space. They would be putting a landing there bringing stairs off into the front setback. As I mentioned before they are elevating
the home in place. They are not adding any additional um living level or living space. Um so they are preserving the existing front setback. They are seeking to have a stair with switchback extend off the existing front of the home with a landing created um at that at that
front setback line. The existing setback is 15 ft more or less. Um one side is 14.8 ft, the other is 15.1. So it is existing non-conforming setback. They are permitted by the land development code to elevate in place. They are proposing a staircase encroachment of 8
feet 4 in. The land development code was modified last year to allow for stairs to encroach into a required setback greater than what is typically allowed which is 17 ft uh for the setback. However, it is only permitted when the stairs can't be accommodated within the
interior of the structure or in a means that complies with that setback. In this case, they are accommodating an interior staircase as well as an elevator. They are seeking an additional staircase off the front of the structure. Uh you can see on the left side of the
screen that is the site plan showing the existing approved conditions. They are elevating in place. Um they have complied with the lot coverage and the other standards related to that. They are also submitting to be able to amend that request to have the stairs encroach
um into the front yard to a distance of 8t 4 in. Here's some photos of the site showing signposting of the existing home. obviously elevated more of the lot conditions. Uh showing
the adjacent home to the east side. Uh most of the homes on the street do have uh similar front setbacks. Uh staff has minor comments on this. Uh we do ask that the applicant provide their own testimony. Um they have described in the application that the
reason for this uh staircase at the front um is for an additional means of fire escape um should should an event occur in the future. They should describe if other alternatives were considered such as modification of the front entry area to provide an inset start to the stairs potentially reducing
um the required setback uh that is being requested and if so um why that was not pursued. The applicant should also address whether the owners provide additional reasons for needing a front staircase in addition to the interior access already provided. As I mentioned before, um their statement in the application was
that they they prefer this for uh for fire purposes um should an event occur in the future. I'll go back to the front elevation. I do want to make one comment on the design. Um it appears that the with the switchback style and and the
applicant can confirm this. Um, I'm not an engineer or an architect, but it appears that the width of the stairs is the minimum that could be requested. I would like the applicant to address whether the stairs could be offset to the east side and potentially only have one row of stairs. That would result in
a lesser encroachment. I believe they would be about 11 ft uh 6 in into the front setback if they just had the one row with an offset landing to the east side. Uh they do have a staircase or sorry they do have a garage on the west
side of the structure. Um I'm not sure if it would interact or uh run into that that garage door, but it appears it could clear if they were to offset the landing to the east side and just have the one um row of stairs without the switchback design.
With that being said, um this is a fairly minimal variance. Um regardless of the switchback design, it does appear to be the minimal width and um the number of treads that are necessary for a stair of this design. Staff does not have any recommended conditions. Motion
options would be to approve as proposed or should the board have any conditions. Um if you find that the applicant is not support of this case, um you could entertain a motion to deny or if you need additional information, a motion to continue. Happy to answer any questions.
>> Can I see the picture again? the photograph. Yeah, >> this one. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, what am I looking at there? >> That is the home um having been elevated. >> That is that is the current condition. That is the front of the structure looking at it from 80th Avenue. >> It's been elevated.
>> Yes. >> Already? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And the Okay. So, this was So, thank you because I wanted to go there too. I'm looking at this thinking it it's not what I've been seeing as an elevated home only from the standpoint that it looked like it's a new build. That's why I was asking.
>> Is it a new build or does did they just re is that all I just see all the or is that um upper level just did they strip all stuckco off and put new >> windows >> green boards on and
new windows. It looks >> like a new roof. >> It looks windows are new versus like what we were just looking at. The previous case was a lift in place. Brandon, if you go back, there is a front elevation of Google image
street. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I was expecting to see that but on cinder blocks or something or whatever the if it was being elevated in place. >> It looks so different as well. >> Yeah. We can get testimony from the applicant on the the specifics of the
>> Yes. So, what we're looking at there, >> Google view 2022, that's the h the original house, >> correct? Now, can we see the the green? I'm just trying to see how they can possibly be the same. No, the photograph. Yeah,
>> there it looks really different to me. >> There's no gables on the top. >> Yeah, >> we'll we'll get testimony from the applicant. >> Any additional questions for Brandon at this time? If the applicant complete
>> uh experte I'm off my game. >> I keep forgetting. >> No, >> no, nothing. >> No, don't not for me. >> I did a site visit. >> Thank you, Brandon. If the applicant would please come forward. >> Hi there.
>> My name is Talver Payne. I am the the builder here and the designer. >> Um little address for the record. Your address for the record, please. >> Uh >> like your p your personal address? 314 Loots, Florida. >> Thank you. >> Um, Midcourt, Loots, Florida. Um, little
background. Um, been building houses here in Florida since ' 85. And I had a friend of mine who wanted me to build a house in St. Pete Beach, the set of Dicadoo. I don't know if you know those folks, but we built her house during u COVID. And uh she sent me during Helen,
she sent me some live video of all her neighbors in 4 foot of water with the dog on this side and the child on this side and their their house did very well in the storm. And then she bugged me for about a month to help her friends put their houses back. Now, I wouldn't put
them back the way they were, but I would raise them up. So, what we're trying to do is give alternatives. And so what we did for Joe and Diane was we took their existing lower level and we built on top of it so that the lower level was no structure to that we put peers in. So
what we were trying to do was they had a beautiful pool in the back. They had beautiful lai area and we wanted to keep that stuff and we wanted to try particularly on the back where they had some windows on the back. We copied that on the top. But we were able to do this
for for less money for them and we're going to we're doing two or three more uh because we saved that lower level. We saved the slab. We saved the block. We saved the windows. We saved the doors that we could save. So we use all of that. So in the redesign, so now we are
limited as designers to it's not just the new lot that we demoed. It is we already have the pool. We already have the foundation that's there that we're all trying to save. So by doing that, what we did lose was almost 150 square
foot of the original area because we had to put an elevator and that switchback stair that's in the house. So that when they come in, they didn't have any garages before. So now they have two big garages on either side. You know, with your groceries, you want to go directly up the stairs. You don't want to go back
outside to go up the stairs. On the outside, we were able to expand the size a little bit on one side of the house, but on the back you had the pool. On the right, you had the setback that we were were in. In the front, as as Brandon
said, we were already at 15 ft. Uh because the house was built so long ago, so we were able to use that. Um, so trying to put the exterior stairs inside that original envelope would have
taken another 100 150 square feet out of that envelope, if that makes sense. So, um, they want to be able to have people come visit them and come in like they did with the original house to come in on the living area which is now 8 foot
up higher than it was before. Um, so that that's the crux of where this came from. Um, so yes, in looking at trying to do that within the original envelope, it was it was a huge sacrifice by
putting it outside. Um, and they they wanted to do the switch back stairs. They're older people. They have older people come visit them. So, they thought it was a little easier to get up a half a stair at a time as opposed to the big long run that that Brandon and I have
talked about also as a as another possibility. So, we don't get into that setback quite so far. Again, their preference would be to do the switch back as opposed to one long run of stairs. Um, there's going to be some nice landscaping in front of that with some big palms.
Uh, and the part that gets further into the setback, remember, that's lower than the the the upper part of the stairs. So, I hope I explained it well. If there's any any questions, uh, far away. >> Oh, interesting. Um, questions for the
board. So this you you designed this to be built on top of their original home, but this is an after the fact plan to add the front stairs or >> correct. This was a >> this is an add-on. >> They would like to do that so that again
people come to visit they can come up and bring the door. It just wasn't part of the original design and now we've looked at the middle of it doing it but it it just it the sacrifices you're going to make on the inside to try to do that are are are just too much. >> Okay. And can we look at the picture one
more time too? I don't know if we can bring up the unless there's something. Yeah. So with this picture I'm just looking at I think right now what you're proposing is putting the stairs all the way on the exterior wall. Correct. as
opposed to having it >> the lower porch and the upper porch. >> Yep. >> They'd like that upper porch to be the entry detail. >> Right. >> Matter of fact, we haven't ordered those doors yet because we don't know if those are going to be the entry doors yet or not. Um and and then we would come up with a switchback stairs and then enter
that upper area. >> Could any portion though of the stairs begin recessed in so that you wouldn't need this much of a area? And you ultimately take that out of the interior square footage of the house, the living square footage. >> Oh, I thought this was all open area right there.
>> Uh, they want the balcony in the front so they can sit on the front porch. >> I think she's talking about down below the balcony. Could >> that was the original one? >> That was the original porch. The original >> Yeah, I know. question is I think what you're asking is that could the stairs
be put so you can enter in from under there and the >> you could but you would lose the balcony upstairs. >> Right. Right. That that's that's what you're it's really about now. They want the stairs and the balcony and we're saying you could have the stairs without
the balcony or the balcony without the stairs. >> Exactly. If you if you were to put And yes, to answer your question, I didn't do a very good job. >> No, that's fine. >> You could remove the balcony. You could put the stairs in there in place of it >> stay perfectly free area to get into the door either.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's Yep. >> And you could do the stairs but have them straight >> and have a less of a like in you could not have the switch >> right off the I don't know off the side of the house. I'm not sure where you put that exactly, but
>> Madam Chair, if I may ask a question of the applicant. With your current plan that was approved that did not have the stairs at the grade level, is there a foyer like a like a foyer with the elevator and the stairs going up? >> If you were to enter those lower, you
see where the lower doors are. >> If you enter there, there is an interior stair. There is a foyer area down there. >> Okay. >> Okay. We also have the elevator in that. >> Okay. So, the visitor or the homeowner, anyone can
enter at that grade level and have direct access to a staircase to go upstairs as well as the elevator. >> Correct. >> Okay. And it it is finished unlike the garages on each side. >> Like it's a finished area like >> right the two garages on on is a
separate area from >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, but how do you get in the elevator? So, if you um if you enter now under underneath where the balcony is in between the two garages, you can enter the home >> and there's a stairwell in inside and
there's an elevator inside to go up. >> Correct. >> From from the underneath the porch or the balcony, whatever you call it. >> Yeah. Correct. So, they have a current permit that >> that did not include the staircase as proposed
>> in order to get the permit. Yeah. >> Issued and now they're coming back for an after the fact. But there in the original permit that was issued at that ground level, you would open say the entry doors and have direct access to an
elevator as well as a staircase to go up. So they're providing that interior. >> Okay. Kristen, is there any rules that are different between raising the house and doing a second story addition >> as far as setbacks
>> that would Yeah. Um setbacks or otherwise? Anything that would apply here? Because I feel like we're doing a second story addition instead of a >> like elevating that structure. >> We're not elevating that structure. >> Correct.
>> And building up. >> Well, yeah. We're building on top of it. >> Yeah. >> Not structurally. >> Not structurally. You're adding pilings. I understand that. >> No, I know. I understand. Yeah, I understand. >> But I We're definitely not raising the
structure. >> We're not No, we're not raising these at all. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Go ahead, Brendon. >> I can answer that just real quick. >> And I'm sorry. We've gone from seeing one of these maybe every other year to 10 in a month. So, you know, which is, you know, that's that's progress. And
obviously response to the storm, but the city treats conversion of the ground level to parking, storage, and access and construction above the same as elevating in place. They're afforded the same permissions under the code. The only
limitation and and the applicant is aware of this because we worked through this on the initial submitt of the building permit is that if the living level is being reconstructed, it's limited to the same floor to ceiling height as what was um converted at the ground level. So, they couldn't take an
8ft ceiling structure and build back one with 12. It would need to comply with the level that was was um converted. But he's he's gone through all that and he has gotten approval. So for a zone from a zoning standpoint, this is treated the same as in place elevation. Certain
homes can't be elevated in place for various reasons. So >> option. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that's part of the reason why he's before you today because he does provide the interior access already in order to get that prior permit and without the
exterior stairs and now they're coming back to ask for that amendment. >> Understood. Any other questions for the applicant? >> I'm sorry. >> No, no other questions right now. We'll Okay. >> bring you back for. Thank you so much. >> Um there's nobody else here at the
moment and so we'll close public comment and open for board discussion. >> And I did place for the board members a letter that we've received an objection >> which had nothing to do with that. >> It had nothing to do with the height of the or the stairs or anything else. it had to do with the back of the house
which is irrelevant. >> Um these are all you know their own story right like three different staircases but in all very different situations. Um and I think the point that Kristen brought up towards the end is really important and that there is like an
enclosed way to enter the home from the front right now. Um >> did we staircase bonus? >> We did. Yeah. I'm kidding. There's enough cases. Okay, thanks. So, yes, uh that there is a way to enter the home as
is. Um that was approved in the initial permits. Um and this is would be a bonus kind of entry. Um and it's an 8 foot, you know, request. Yeah, it's a substantial request. The design was originally a balcony with a front door
lower. I think if it were reverse the front door upper and then the staircase could take up some of the space below it. I I don't I think there's I don't know. There's other ways to get in and out of this home. >> Yeah. And I've got to say driving around
the all of the blocks there. >> Yeah. >> The houses are pretty much all the same set back from the street and this would be glaring uhly closer to the street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And the existing is already at 15 where it's permitted to be 17 and to go
another down to 8'4 in would be substantial. >> And I mean I appreciate the way you simplified it too and that you could have the balcony or you know the stairs and it's a cho you know sometimes you just have to make choices in order to but I think it's a really creative way
to get the house elevated and um they've obviously been able to move very quickly so that great. >> I'm jealous. Any additional discussion? >> Yeah, I mean this I think this this will apply to a lot of any other houses that
are going to be uh raised or added on to in that same area because the yards are so close to the street. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean hopefully for the community watching today, they we've all learned a lot >> and this is the confusing part of it.
We'll call this um meeting today the three staircases. But if you were to just lift that house, you would have to have a staircase to get up to. >> True. >> Yeah. Cuz it wouldn't be interior. >> That's that's the other I mean if you lifted your house and you filled that
bottom with dirt, >> then where you at? You need a staircase. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> So I think that we're going to see that come into play. >> Great. Because my know my neighbors, they lifted their they did their their house and it was just the same thing. It was
all dirt on the bottom. They did one little area of a garage, like a drive-in garage to preserve, but >> well, yeah, with a minimum lift, >> you have to add stairs and but they met the encroachment. They moved their house further back to the water. >> Although, I will say if you do that
inset, which may not be there, though, but um yeah, that's a good point. If you did a minimum lift and you did fill with dirt, then you would have a problem. But if you do um like a 10 or 12 foot lift where you're going to use it as parking space underneath, then you can have
stairs underneath that go into the house. >> Interesting. So for this case, >> and you have your the codes for stairs as far as >> Yeah. the risers and everything else. So I mean that that's we're going to have a lot of this going on.
be prepared >> and we'll look at each one individually. So for this case, do we have any further discussion or if not a motion? >> I can make a motion um to deny case number 255090 based on um the testimony practical
difficulty variance. um does not denote that there is a necess necessity of adding an additional staircase um to that would require this level of variance.
>> I'd second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Cosy, >> yes. >> Member Core, >> no. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> yes. >> Member Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries 4 to one.
All right, that concludes our action items for today. Were there any other items for discussion from any of the board members or >> um just uh madam chair and members of the board? We had talked about earlier kind of providing some additional
education on the de different types of variances. Um staff has kind of discussed that internally. Um we do have some suggestions if you wanted to add that for an item of discussion next. um meeting just the differences in the
criteria between the practical diffic diff difficulty and the unnecessary undue hardship. We can provide that just some further clarification um of what those individual variances are the kind of history of them just to start that foundation and then we can
branch off from there. >> What does next month look like? uh next month we do have uh hopefully 100 pass away will be coming back and it looks that we may have three practical difficulty variances on board. I could add to I think um given we're seeing
some consistent themes or you all are seeing even maybe more than we are if there are some also just examples that help us connect I think up some of the concepts that >> okay >> would allow us to all just and the
community to maybe get a better sense of of what we want them to be thinking about and hopefully not even needing to come here but if they do What does minimal look like and and why? >> Okay. Yeah. And and we did have some,
you know, um emergency things that were enacted like this one. It was like you could elevate your home and maintain the setbacks, but again, a minimal staircase like those are those are kind of new that we haven't had before. And since we're seeing a lot of uh reconstruction,
construction. >> Yeah. >> Um >> entry points are critical. So yeah, we want to appreciate that and get people elevated and >> right >> and and look at alternatives if they're able to >> was my point entirely if when you just if you was just totally lifted how do
you get into your country? >> Correct. >> And there's you know different ways and different designs >> sit down with you and go over some of those questions and uh >> I don't know if everybody wants to show up an hour earlier be for our next meeting or >> um I don't know. We'd have to discuss
about having a workshop if we have the ability to do that. Um I think getting some information and a the jumping off point and then if we need to go into a workshop we can schedule that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, I would like to say what I would like to understand more about is the
reason that some of the codes exist like the setbacks in the alleys and pass for example. And so what I'm thinking about is I think we had mentioned garbage pickup. So I would like to understand was the reason for the setbacks so that the garbage could be put in the alleys.
Is that an issue in pass at all? I don't know. So I would like to understand that. Is there a way to accomplish that kind of thing? >> If you would like to send staff like specific things that we can research because it's kind of very
kind of specific >> on on how it came about. Um >> is it specific to each alley then? what the issues are all different. They're all different. >> Well, I know they're different, but the issues and specifically relative to the flood damage, for example, and all the things we're seeing now,
>> and that may be something we can incorporate public services in on as far as, you know, take they had looked at taking back alleys and doing different management um of them and reconstruction of the alleys. Um,
>> for example, today with the case where the the auxiliary structures were right on the property line, if there were a complaint from the fire department or a complaint from the garbage people about how close that is to the alleyway and trying to pick up garbage, then that
would affect the whole thing. I feel like >> the the board's decision possibly. >> Maybe if there are any I would just piling on. I'm not saying what you're, you know, but if you've got specifics, I think that's great. Otherwise, I feel
like broad brush strokes around um line of sight like what we talked about even with the Don Cesar and Gulf Boulevard. There's broad brush strokes about accessibility for emergency vehicles. Um, you know, neighbor kind of noise,
fire, um, you know, retardant like distances, things like that are known >> that are reasons that there's certain minimal things in established that might be some broad brush things that apply as just general good housekeeping
discipline things that we should be thinking about. And then if there's something super unique like we have alleys in Pasigril that there's some generic statements about that that would be great. Otherwise I I appreciate that you need us to be very specific. Just
even going back to the alleys when we've had prior application, I think staff is very cognizant of that of line of sight and visibility and the narrowness and and bringing that out in our staff reports as well as we try to bring you on site if you've had the opportunity to go and do a site visit and to show you
those different angles. But if there's things that you would like to see additionally that we include in our our staff presentations, we'd be happy to do that. But I do think we try our best in knowing the areas and each you know there are different neighborhoods and
different feelings um uh as as you look throughout the beach. So we try to to put that in our staff report as well. >> And we do recommend highly for any applications that they meet with staff so we understand where they're coming from and we ask a lot of the hard
questions beforehand to try to massage it to be the best application it can be. We're open to that. We welcome that. Um so if you ask us off-the cuff questions or when they're here, we can ask them those pointed questions. Um
>> Okay. Yeah. So we'll move forward with having that as an initial item for discussion and if we have specific questions, we can always address those, you know, to you individually. >> But just to give a a foundation of, you know, as board members what we're looking for with the criteria, the two different types. There's actually three.
Hey, but you guys only see two. Um, uh, the city manager gets to see those administrative variances. Um, so there's >> in the historic board I think example that >> Exactly. >> That was a little I think that's a newer one that we're seeing. So appreciating
that too. That might be another one just >> and I did write that down as like the historic aspect of things. You know, sometimes when they come up here like that one case in pass girl, they have been to the historic board. they they have gone through multiple boards and there are some applications you'll see
they have gone to every board by the time that they get here for different things. So um we as planning staff deal with them a lot of um hand in hand. >> Sure. >> As you brought up earlier does a just raising the home with and putting what
what looked like an addition on top. So in your broad strokes is there different setbacks for new So >> the lifted >> if they're doing elevating in place or they're doing as they were doing there,
they are allowed to maintain those non-conforming setbacks. They're just limited to the height of the ceiling height of what they had before. So you can't say I want to abandon my lower level and as Brandon said, put 12 foot high ceilings. We're we're allowing you
that non-conformity to maintained and be maintained, but you were limited to that same ceiling height and same footprint. Yeah. >> And if you did want to do an addition, it would have to be in conformance with the setbacks, anything new.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, it kind of gives that a little allowance. >> The determination of what is new and what is just being an add-on. I mean, did he get um because he was using his material from down below and moving it up the windows? I don't know if he put
his cabinets from the original up top. What? What? >> Well, no. I I think the interior is all new. It's >> okay. >> It's the determination is whether it's within the same footprint or not. If they're elevating or if they're abandoning and converting and building above, that's that's fine. And that was
passed by the commission last year is an additional option for those who don't want to completely scrape the lot and build new. In those cases, as the case of the first uh stair variance today, they have to meet all the setbacks that the lot is completely redeveloped. But you know using what's there and just
building above in the same footprint is is allowed in most cases. >> Okay. >> So there's a lot of moving parts and pieces for sure and each individual right. So you know they are electing to see and to come forward to you um to see
whether or not that that would be permissible and >> well and that's why I I constantly say this is the board of adjustments because sometimes Our decisions can be based on compassion and hardship for for the the
people of our community. >> I mean, they've been here for years and years and years and this storm wipes them out and we're, you know, >> it it's a difficult it's a difficult thing. And I understand wanting things in brush strokes to >> Yeah. >> have us in place so that we're all on
the same page, but >> Great. Well, we'll have a lot more to discuss next month. Um for now meeting adjourned.