March 2026. If all could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Roll call, please. >> Member Schmidt, >> present. >> Member core >> here. >> Chair Chase >> here. >> Vice Chair Garshaw >> here. >> Member Small >> here. >> We have a quorum. And I just ask, you'll see a note there on the microphones that
everybody speak into their microphone. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now to the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda today, Kristen? >> Madam Chair, there are no proposed changes. >> Any concerns on the agenda from the board? Nope. >> No, no. >> Motion to approve.
>> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> All in favor? >> I I >> um moving on to audience comments. So, if you're here to speak on a case that's on the agenda today, you'll have time to speak. If there's anything else you'd like to share with the board, now would be the time um to share that with us.
Hearing none. If you are looking to speak today, we will need to swear you in. Um Jenny, if you could please that. Anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in. Please stand.
Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you're about to give to the board is truthful? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Before we get to today's action items, we'll approve the minutes from our January meeting. We did not have a
meeting in February. Did everybody have a chance to review? Any requests for edits? >> I move we approve the minutes. They look >> roll call, please. >> Member core. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small.
>> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. Motion carries. >> Right. We have four cases today. The first case is number 25146 3212 L central. We may have the PowerPoint presentation
please. Good afternoon board. I'm Christine Coleman, planning manager for the city. Today I have before you variance case number 25146, property address of 3212 El Centro Street. They are requesting a practical difficulty variance. Um Walter and
Cassie Griffin request to install a generator on an elevated engineered platform that will encroach approximately 3 feet 11 in into the required 5ft setback within the sideyard where 1.07 feet is proposed and 5T is required. Uh
they're looking for relief from land development code section 6.14 and 12.7A3. So here is uh an aerial of the property. It is located off of El Centro Street. Um it contains a single family residential dwelling. Um El Centro
Street is to the east. The parking lot of the Dawn Vista, which is currently serving as Fire Station 22, um is also to the east. And to the west is the Gulf of Mexico. both to the north and south are single family dwellings surrounding the property.
The zoning map, the subject property is located within the RM zoning district. And just more detail on the variance request, again, they're looking to install an elevated generator where 5T is required. The existing dwelling is
5.07 ft and the proposed uh setback with the generator is 1.07 ft. Here is a survey showing the variance request and just some little more details. Um kind of an enlarged version of the
survey as well as the um specs on the aluminum uh bracket uh wall stand that was provided and a visual representation of where the um proposed generator would be installed within the uh northern sideyard.
So, bringing you on to the site, the public notice hearing was the sign was posted, notice was given as required within the Tampa Bay Times, as well as a notice of hearing supplied to the property owners, adjacent owners within 300 ft.
Here is the front of the dwelling. And then going to the rear looking from beach side. And just another view. This is both from the front of the dwelling and the rear of the dwelling but looking towards the south. So you can see what is adjacent
and to the other side from the northern side of the structure between the adjacent residential and also again just a close-up picture of where they're looking to install the new generator. So we do ask uh for some testimony from the applicant. Um they should address
whether the proposed platform is the minimum required and if it can be reduced in depth to reduce the extent of the variance requested. Um staff does find the request is reasonable. The proposed north sideyard placement appears to represent the least visible and least impactful location
available on the property. While the requested variance represents a substantial reduction in the required sideyard setback, the board may wish to consider whether the depth of the proposed platform could be reduced in order to lessen the degree of encroachment into the required setback area.
>> Thank you. >> Any questions for Kristen before hearing from the applicant? >> The applicant would please come forward and share your case. >> Thank you for your time. Um, it's a very impressive process, somewhat
overwhelming. So, the experience of >> If you could just say your name and add the record. >> I'm sorry. My name is Walt Griffith and I reside at 3212L Central. So, yes, we're requesting uh to install a natural
gas generator on a platform that's manufactured according to the Florida Construction and Structural Codes. Um, and in doing research of the platform, uh, I looked at the Florida con uh, structural codes and also the OSHA
guidelines and as far as I can tell, the platform cannot be any smaller in its width, width or depth because OSHA requires an 18 inch workspace between the structure and the equipment. And
then OSHA also requires a footprint around the the equipment itself. So that's approximately six inches around and then 18 in towards the house. So in talking to the company that does service on such generators
during preventative maintenance, uh the technician will place a ladder close to the home and then climb up and have an 18inch workspace. and that's the safest way to construct these types of platforms. Uh this is a similar uh
platform that's used for AC equipment that's elevated. This happens to be a generator. So that's an answer to the question that was uh raised by Kristen's staff. >> Thank you. Any additional questions from the applicant?
>> Have you had any concerns raised from any of your neighbors? No. The project. Well, have you because my question was the the person that really involves is the property right to the north of you. >> Correct. >> Because that's where you're going to encroach. Have they >> do you talk to them? Have they said this
is swell or they don't want it or >> they're fine with it? >> Do we have any >> Did they submit anything? >> We haven't received any formal letters for or against, but we have his testimony that the neighbors are >> and towards the north side of our home.
Um Eddie Asion is our neighbor and he constructed a three-story contemporary home. And then towards the southside, uh Kevin Hughes is our neighbor and and it's a very open space and the generator would be very visible from the sidewalk,
the street, but towards the other side, the north side where we're proposing installation of the platform in general. Is it impractical to put it on the south side >> uh >> in terms of being able to function? The reason I say that is because I was in front of your house and I looked at it
and the other side, yes, it'll be more visible, but on the other hand, you're not encroaching on somebody's >> Well, yeah. Yes. To answer your question, it's it's there's more practicality putting it on the north side because of the electrical panel
>> that will be tied in and also the the gas line. The gas line is on that side of the >> on the north side. Both both are on the north side. >> I just wondered that because it's going to be only one foot and I noticed that the neighbor to the north has big
sliding doors that are right there about a foot away and I just that's why I'm wondering if they're would not be very happy about if it were me. I wouldn't. Actually, the way Eddie's house is uh designed, he has um an outdoor grill space, and so it the the grill equipment
is on a wall that goes from floor to ceiling. And then he has a garage door below at the ground level. Uh but it's a garage door. It's it's it's a door that's used maybe for utility purposely.
It's a sliding glass door that is almost what faces your property. >> Yeah, maybe. >> May I have the PowerPoint as well, please? I perhaps may have some >> Well, I saw what I looked through here. >> Okay, let's see. >> I understand your questions, but I also
think it's um important to respect his testimony that his neighbor has said he's fine with it. So you can see the circular stairway. Uh right across from the circular stairway is a door. It's it it's actually it it
may look like a sliding glass door. >> I think I think it's it's a glass door. Um and it may have um a side window as well. Um and Eddie just built a storage room there at at at the end of his
garage. Uh it's it's you know where vehicles are parked, where he stores yard equipment, pool equipment. Um it's not part of a living space per se. So it's it's not something that people would be in his home and notice at all
from his family room, living room, kitchen area. You can see Eddie's home to the left of the circular stairs. There's a wall on his second floor level and that's an outdoor kitchen. So that
wall uh offers no direct visibility of where the platform would be. Um and and also Eddie's uh he has an elevated pool. Um so it's it's really hardly visible at
all. To my my understanding about the generators is that they have to run every you can probably tell me every couple of weeks or something. They have to run for a while >> once a month. >> It's as far as I know it's monthly and >> maybe it's monthly. Okay.
>> It's it's a matter of minutes, >> but it does make noise, right? >> Yeah. >> The generators are allowed. Like we're not we're just discussing the placement. >> What is the um the height that it will be installed at? It's at
>> it's uh 6.7 ft above flood level. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it's it's it's elevated and and it doesn't imp impede the walkway at all. >> So, would you say Okay. So, it's somewhere right in your you would say it's going to be in alignment with like
your first floor living space. It's going to be on a wall in align with your first floor living space area. >> Do you see those uh poles? Those are >> Sure. the pool net. Okay. It'll be above that. So, there's a breakaway wall.
>> You can see the the line above the poles. And it'll be above that. And it'll be >> You mean it's it's a Oh, I see. It's up that high, >> right? >> How many feet is that total? >> Probably 12. 12 feet. >> Interesting.
>> And do you have other mechanical equipment? >> We do. Elevated. >> This is a pool area. So, we have we have a heat pump. We have a a natural gas heater for the the spa and we have all the pool pump equipment >> and all of that's right there. >> All that's located there. >> Okay. Yeah. I thought I saw in one
picture even maybe your AC. Where's your AC? Is your AC unit on the roof or see that? >> If if you look on the left far left, we have a widow's peak facing the beach >> and we have the AC equipment behind the widow's peak. >> Okay. But that's not a possible area for
a generator. Yeah, >> that was my hope. U but apparently there's requirements because it's a gas powered uh generator >> that it has to be located so many feet away from windows >> prevent Y.
>> There's too many windows on the back of the house. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Is there anybody else here today that would like to speak on behalf for an opposition to this application? Hearing none, we'll close public comment
and open for board discussion. >> I um >> and we didn't do >> in favor of it. >> Oh, any exparte? >> No exparte. >> No, >> no. >> None for me as well. >> Anyway, >> but go ahead. >> I think that with the opposition from
the neighbors, that sounds like he's done his due diligence. I I I find it reasonable to move forward and improve this variance. >> I would agree. I appreciate his explanation of him addressing the concerns in terms of the platform depth um
>> and his testimony that his neighbors have >> because he's got a breakaway wall so you can't put it lower. So I mean it's it makes sense to me. >> We have a motion. >> I move to approve case number 25146 as presented with the >> Madam Chair if I may. There were two
conditions in the staff report. I just wanted to put that out there as well. Um, if you'd like, I can read them off to you >> if you could. Sure. The platform shall staff recommends the following conditions. The platform shall be used solely for the placement of the generator and shall not be expanded or utilized for any other purpose other
than the proposed generator without additional variance approval. In addition to the applicant shall submit a sealed asbuilt survey noting all setbacks and approved by zoning prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection. >> Appreciate prefer my only concerns with
>> my only I'm sorry. any concerns with the city's um proposed conditions? Okay. >> But I just hate to see a precedent where you can build something that close to somebody else because literally a foot away and it is a gas powered generator that got back when Kathy was talking about putting it on the roof. That's
exactly what I thought too. But now I understand you can't do that. But boy, that is really close. >> We do see each case that's um so I wouldn't look at this as setting up a precedent for a future generator. >> Why? because if we had an issue where
there was a neighbor that was expressing concerns, we would be able to address that >> that individual case. So, we have a motion. >> A motion. Can you amend that to include >> I will I move that we approve case number 25146 with staff recommendations.
>> I second that. >> Call please. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Member Core? >> No. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Moving on to our second case of the day. Case number 26016
301 Golfway. >> Brandon. Good afternoon. Brandon Barry, planner. So, this is case number 26016. It's a practical difficulty variance for property of 301 Gulf Way. This is a
residential property. Arjunady for Todd Herman requests to elevate an existing residence to achieve floodplane compliance retaining a 1.5 foot northern sideyard setback and a 2.0 ft eastern rear yard setback where 3T is required
for all residences following elevation. This is a variance from land development code section 3.10 B3A2. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located at the northeastern side of Gulfway and Third Avenue. There is also
an alleyway to the east of the property. It has a zoning of RLM2 within the Passil Overlay district. Uh the house underwent design review earlier this month at the historic preservation board meeting for a house
small development that precedes um this hearing today. uh that permits a setback of three feet on the north side of the residence and a 5-ft secondary front setback on the south side. This case originally been advertised with variance
request for a elevated deck that's being installed on the western face of the structure, the front of the structure facing Gulf Way. Um the design review which was accepted by the board did eliminate the need for that request. So, the only variances before this board
today are for the retention of those setbacks on the north and the east sides. As I described before, um the applicant is not seeking any additional living space. They're simply elevating the structure in place. Uh they will be adding a non-habitable ground level for
parking, storage, and access. They're seeking to retain the north setback as well as the east setback. That is the side and the rear setback respectively. There is no change to the setback of the structure as it exists today uh for the enclosed living level of the building.
But the code does require um in to prevent overcrowding and for some other building code related uh separation requirements that any structure that is elevated in place um be relocated to meet a three-foot setback from all property lines. In this case, as I
mentioned previously, they're seeking to retain that northern setback of 1.5 feet and the eastern setback of two feet. You can see the existing survey of the property on the left. Uh the proposed site plan on the right. Um the existing
residence is being elevated in place. There will be a void on the east alleyway side, so the southeast side of the structure. uh that will be used for an overhang beyond which there are garage doors. Um there is a a garage on
the uh in the center of the residence accessed from the alleyway. There is no access or vehicular access at least being provided from either of the two streets. Uh pedestrian access will remain from Gulfways. As you can see on the screen there,
you can see the front and rear elevations. Um, you can see the deck that was previously subject to variance on the front of the home on the bottom left of the slide. As I mentioned before, that has been eliminated through the historic preservation board's acceptance of the design review. On the
east elevation, so the alleyway side on the bottom right of the screen, you can see those two uh garage doors that I was referencing before. And then looking at it from the south uh from Third Avenue, you can see the um
facade on on the bottom that is proposed. Um they will retain the horizontal uh fiber cement siding and they will be applying stucco at the at the ground level. Here's some photographs of the site as it exists today looking from Gulfway to
the north. um in the top left photo and in the bottom right you can see um the heavily vegetated frontage of the property looking from Gulf Way. This home did undergo a significant renovation in 2009 and 2010. At the time
there had been a variance granted to the secondary front. So the golf or sorry the third avenue frontage of the property. Uh since then the staff has amended the overlay standards relative to the pass overlay district setbacks for a lot of this size. They are not
requesting any or in need of any variance to the uh third avenue uh property setback under this scope. Another photo looking to the north. Uh you can see here the alleyway side.
This is looking to the northwest of the property. The home, as I mentioned before, is set about 2 feet off the property line, the eaves extend more or less to the property line. Um, on the closer side of the rear of the home, so where the fence is located, that is where the garage doors will be located,
recessed under the structure, the side closer to the the north side further from the camera, uh, that will be retained as a storage area that that is not directly accessible by vehicle. Another view toward the north showing
the side of the home to be elevated and another of the alleyway that is looking to the southwest from the alley. And another photo staff request a few pieces of applicant testimony. Whether the elevation of the
home on piles surrounded by a frangible slab provides an opportunity to shift the home further west that would allow for compliance with the three-foot setback requirement from the east side property line. Um there is a possibility that doing so would cause adverse impacts. The applicant can speak to
whether or not that would would be the case. The challenge with the north side setback is that the home is already located within the required setback on the southern side. So elevating it and shifting it to the south, it would move the home further away from that property to the north, but it would would require
an additional variance to the southern side setback. Uh the applicant should acknowledge that retention of the existing side setback for the residents may limit or increase the cost of future development on the neighboring property that is owned under an LLC. However, the owner of the subject property is the
manager for that LLC. Uh that is due to the fire separation requirements set by the Florida Building Code. I did print those out. Um as far as the setbacks are concerned, I don't expect it to be under a future development scenario an issue with any kind of firewall separation.
However, there is a possibility that projections as well as eaves would be limited or they may need to be firetreated um should that northern property develop to the setbacks that it's eligible for in the future. The applicant may want to consider the
use of a convex mirror or other aid to assist with visibility for vehicles backing out from the new driveways into the alleyway. I'll go back to the photo to show you what I mean. The the side of the home closest to the camera um will be opaque. It will be enclosed on that
side. The garage doors will be recessed closer to the Third Avenue side. It could just cause some visibility issues, especially if you're backing out um into the alleyway. It does not um it it does adhere with the visibility standards that are present in the city's code.
It's just something that the applicant may want to consider for for uh vehicles leaving the garage at the back of the building. And the applicant if they're considering any future ancillary mechanical equipment um such as generators, they are installing the condenser on the
roof. Um they should address how it will be installed without additional encroachment into the required sideyard setbacks. It would be difficult to cancel lever any equipment off the side of the home as it would likely encroach into uh the neighboring property.
So staff does overall find the request to be reasonable. It preserves an existing home without significant additional impact to neighboring property. The applicant adequately defends why the home cannot be shifted west upon elevation and accepts the potential fire and visibility issues. Staff finds the request meets the
criteria for issuance. We have only one recommended condition that the applicant prepare a final asbuilt survey and that it be submitted and approved prior to permit close out. The typical motion options motion to approve this case with or without the
staff condition um and potentially additional conditions that are proposed by the board. Motion to deny or motion to continue the case to a future board of adjustment meeting should you need additional information. Happy to answer any questions. >> Brandon, questions for Brandon. >> Not for Brandon.
>> Could you just go over for me the part about the fire? You were saying it was a fire risk. Um, so not based on the current structure located to the property to the direct north of this one, but in the future that property would be eligible for a
three-foot sideyard setback with standard twoft eaves that would likely put the eaves within 2 feet of one another, which under the Florida building code just requires certain fire separation treatment for those eaves. If we were to approve this though, wouldn't the onus then be on the owner to the
north to um make sure that there's enough space >> that that would be under a future development scenario? That would be something that they would be responsible for when they develop in the future. Now, currently that is owned by an LLC that is managed by the owner of this property. So,
>> so it's fire suppression treatment of eaves. That would be what our Florida code would d would direct for any redevelopment of the property to the north. >> Is it north?
>> That's correct. So the the fire uh the fire separation requirements in the Florida building code cap out at a three-foot separation between structures. The requirement in the future for redevelopment of the property to the north would be a three-foot setback. So the only aspect of the home
without a variance that would be located within a fire separation requirement from the subject home would potentially be the eaves and they would need to address that at that time. >> Okay. But what about this current home? Wouldn't it eaves also be at risk of
creating the same problem for the other >> no >> in the other direction? I don't know why it would just be the future build, not this one. >> Not at the present time. And it's because it's based on the the eve and the wall separation under the current conditions. And I'll see if the aerial
shows it. It's a little hard to make out, but the current home to the direct north is is further than 3 ft away. So, it would not be an issue at this time. >> And you were saying that if if the home was elevated and moved to maintain that 3T foot barrier setback on the north
side, they would require a variance on the south side, but that's not so much of an issue. because now you're meeting that requirement on the north side. >> Um if if it were shifted to the south, um it would be possible that they would shift it enough distance that that would not be an issue in the future when the
neighbor or when they develop the north property. And I don't know that there are any plans to do that. That may not even be a consideration, but it's it's just something to bring up. We just wanted to note it that the applicant be aware of. >> Okay. And if they were if both homes were being elevated right now in place,
>> would they both be required to do fire suppression treated eaves? >> No, because the unless there were an addition to the property to the north, um they would not need they would not meet any of it separation distances to need any additional fire treatment for relative to one another.
>> Okay. It'd be only if that if if the neighboring property were to capitalize on getting tighter in terms of the zoning. >> Correct. Yes. >> To their property line. >> Yes. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> Any additional questions? >> Prior to hearing from the applicant, we
run through expert day. >> None from Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If the applicant would like to share their case, >> good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> I'm Mark Gennady with Gennady
Architecture 211021 US Highway 19 North in Clearwater. >> I am the original architect on this building many years ago. >> Um, building's a cute little thing. nice details, quirky colors. Uh it's
basically done. Lifting it will take very little interior modification. Just uh we're going to add an um elevator. So that's really the only only interior modification. So the um the setback variances
uh Mr. Barry mentioned that we're we basically want to lift this in place. Um he said that we are already comply with three of the four conditions. So I'd like to address those comments uh that he had. The
um the three-foot setback on on the north side properties line moving the building south again would make the south third avenue public thorough affair non-compliant. So that's a no-go. Um,
if we moved it south and west, you know, that makes things worse. Um, could we move the building west? Possibly. Um, you know, we could also cut a foot off the building. You know, that's another option. Um, you know, to be
fair, these are things that we could do to comply with these setbacks requirements. Um, there is a difference, however, between raising a building and raising it and moving a building. If you've ever seen any of those agreements, there's some voodoo involved in that where picking it up is one
price, picking it up and moving it is another price. In this case, and I know cost is not supposed to be an issue. Um, you know, we're looking at about a 25 to 30% increase in the lifting building. But what is important is that these
contracts require the owner to take risks and the risks are involved in any damage to the building upon raising it. So, what my clients faced with is lifting the building at one cost, paying an additional fee, which is $75,000 to
to move the building, you know, one foot or actually one foot west, but also to assume that risk and that risk gets magnified. And I think that um uh the the fact that we're already complying
with the setbacks along Gulfway with the new stair and small deck that we're adding and the fact that we're leaving that south prop the building line exactly where it is. I think the public interest is served in leaving it and uh
giving us those two variances. the um the fire comment. I think you folks correctly queried Mr. Barry on that. If we leave everything the way it is, it's
not an issue. Um Mr. Herman does own the property of the north, he has no plans for development. Uh if um some condition or some language wants to be added to the approval of this variance, you know, we're willing to accept that. Uh but we don't have any he has no plans to
develop it at this time. It's going to remain as is. And if he ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra raises it up in the exact in the future in the exact same location there's no issue uh anyway. Um Mr. Barry mentioned the convex mirror um to the driveway. Now that alley is 18t
wide. We're set back two feet. So that's 20 foot width. And then our garage doors are recessed another five feet. So that's 25 ft. So we have 25 ft to back out of that um garage. A typical driveway with is 24 ft. I
think we can all agree that that alley is no US19. And it's not like it's it would be very similar to backing out of a parking space with a van or a truck right next to you. So, we think that although we'd be more than happy to supply convex
mirror, you know, modern cars with backup cameras and cross traffic alerts, I think maybe makes that a little moot. Um the the other point is that corner of the building, the southeast corner of the building, when we pull it back,
there's actually going to be a space in there between the column and the new corner of the building. So, we're actually increasing the visibility at the al where the alley intersects with Third Avenue. So, I think we are addressing that condition and and really improving that uh that
that intersection. Um we acknowledge that any future ancillary mechanical equipment uh will not encroach. All the equipment that we we have is shown on the plan. Our air conditioning unit is up on the roof
also. Um, I assume that no uh letters of objection have been submitted. I do have three letters that I'd like to submit for the record of of um
bear with me. >> Support. Those letters are from neighbors at uh 1044th Street, 105 Golfway, and 1024th Street. All of them recommending approval. These are people that are affected by our request.
>> And the staff has confirmed there's no letters um in opposition. >> Okay. All right. Um Yep. And I'd be more than willing to uh answer any questions. Appreciate your time today. >> Thank you. >> We'll be able to see the pictures of what it's going to look like when it's
done. I've seen them here, but >> So, I have some renderings. I hesitate to show you this because the contractor did them, not the architect, but I I can show you. Um, you want me to >> Can I put these up there? Can I hold them here? >> You put them right um flat on that black
mat. They'll go to the overhead. >> There you go. >> We We're keeping The clients love that landscaping, the sea grapes. In fact, um uh we're actually adding some landscape material per code, a hedge, I believe, and some another tree. But, uh we're
trying to retain another reason for us not moving the building is why we want to keep as much of that as possible. This is um this is the view from Gway and uh kind of an aerial view from the same location. >> While you have that up, I know I think in the current home the mechanicals are
on the roof. Is that the expectation for this? >> It's going to stay on the roof. Yeah. Everything's staying on the roof. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Here are a couple other views. >> You can see here that opening it kind of opens up the visibility at the corner here
>> with the with the deck on the front. Is there enough permeable? >> Yes. >> Exposure. There's 30%. >> Actually, we're 32%. >> Okay. It's hard to see it here. I don't know. Let's see. I think that's all the
>> We're looking at the back. We're looking at the >> I think that's all the >> east side of the house. >> I'm sorry. >> No, I was looking at the garage in the back. Yeah, I wanted to see that where we were talking about the driveway. >> So, it's a small driveway and then it's
an 18 foot wide. >> It's a 5ft recess. >> Yeah. >> For the building. Then we're two foot to the property line. That's 7 ft. Then 18 ft alley. >> 18. Okay. So, the backup distance is 25 ft. >> That's pretty big. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for the applicant?
Representative. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you folks. >> Are the owners of the property here? >> Is there anybody else that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of this application? I think you need
>> Jay Anderson 202. >> You think need think you need to be sworn in? I don't think you >> my card. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. We um Go ahead. Thank you, Jenny. >> Good. >> That the information or factual representation that you're about to give to the board is truthful. >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Now we're official. >> Okay. Jay Anderson 202. Pass it. Go away. I'm here to really speak about the next three cases you have. Not just this one, but the following two neighbors of mine in Pastor Grillil. Three people who've lived in this neighborhood for a
long time who were impacted by Helen and Milton. As you know, they have chosen a path to that's going to cost them money to raise their historically significant homes and put
them up in the air for safety in the future. That they have homes that are they're not changing the footprint. they're just raising them is important and to be able to have them stay as residents and and because they love where they're living, they love the
neighborhood and the neighborhood loves them back as well. Um, I think I would I'm in support of the ordinances or the variances that are going to be requested by all these houses because they're not asking for a lot. They're just asking to have their own back and if they need a
little help, I hope you look favorably on that. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Is is the owner of the property, Mr. Herman, here? Or I would have one question for you if you don't mind
coming up. >> You just state your name and address. >> It's Todd Herman, 301 Gulf Way, St. Pete Beach. >> Thank you for coming up. I just wanted to I I understand you own the adjacent property, >> correct? >> Okay, great. So, I just wanted to at least ask you to just be on record that
you're clear that um because I know it was written up in the report and if further development were to occur on your property that you understand the the fire suppression, the fire requirements that would would be would
be demanded of your other property. >> Pardon me. I understand it would be restrictive on the my property that I own next door. >> Right. Thank you. So really I'm just more asking you as the uh owner of that property that you're comfortable moving ahead with this variance based on that. >> Oh yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> What? Anybody else? >> No. >> No. >> We'll close public comment and open for board discussion. >> It's one of my very favorite houses in Pass Grove. I always said if it's ever
for sale, we we might buy that. Um I'm really glad it's going to be saved and that's why I wanted to see the picture of it how it's going to look when it's done because I will say as awkward as it is to lift these sometimes you've done a beautiful job of making that look terrific.
>> So congratulations. >> I think when we started down this path with elevations and um after the storm we had different issues with stairwells and different things that were auxiliary. when we're talking about simply elevating a home as is. >> And this is going to come up again and
again and again and we got to let people get into their homes. >> Yeah, >> I agree. >> Yeah, I think it's great that they're doing that. >> Motion. I'll make a motion that we approve case number 26016301 Gulf Way with um there was one staff
condition that the applicant shall have a final asbuilt survey prepared submitted and approved prior to permit close out. >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Schmidt, >> yes. >> Member Core, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> yes.
>> Chair Chase Trace, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Moving on to case uh number 26019 1024th Avenue. So this is another practical difficulty variance case. This one is for 1024th
Avenue. Lisa Wilson for Gilbert and Denine Deola. Request to construct access decks and stairs that encroach to 4.2 feet from the front property line where 10 feet is required and a deck to align with the existing rear of the home that encroaches to 5.25 ft from the rear
property line where 10 ft is required in association with a project to elevate an existing residence to achieve flood plane compliance. This is made pursuant to land development code section 20.10. I did also want to point out staff did notice this case. We did not receive any
letters for or against the request. Here's an aerial of the property. It's located on the south side of 4th Avenue directly west of a north south alleyway. Property is zoning of RLM2 pass overlay.
Uh the residents proposed to be elevated in place with access decks added along the side of the home extending to the existing rear. No new living space is proposed. There will be ground floor non-habitable parking storage and access space. Access stairs are being added to
the front of the home in place of an existing porch um within a jog at the front of the building and an open deck is proposed to be installed adjacent to it along the front of the residence facing the front property line. Uh it is the rear deck edition that aligns with the rear of the structure. Uh that
requires the rear setback variance. Uh the um proposed front uh balcony deck area uh that requires the front setback variance. You can see on the left uh the existing survey the right the proposed site plan
looking to the north that is the frontage with 4th Avenue that is where the um frontage seating deck elevated seating deck as well as the stairs and access platform are located. uh that requires the front setback variance. On
the west on the left side of Bose site plan is an access stair to the residence that does comply with the required setback. It's approximately 4T from the property line. And then on the east side, the alleyway at the rear uh that
is an access deck as well as um I believe there are stairs there as well. Um it is the rear setback. So from the bottom the 10 ft alley uh despite the fact that that deck is aligned with the rear of the structure it is within the
required 10-ft rear setback. So that portion there does require a variance as well. So you can see existing on the top of the screen proposed on the bottom um on the left side of the screen is the front elevation. So that's looking at it from
4th Avenue. On the right side of the screen is the rear elevation looking at it from the southern alleyway and you can see existing looking from the east side. So looking toward the west um that is the proposed view from
the alleyway on the east side of the structure. Uh you can see here it's a little bit difficult to make out the uh proposed floor plans. Again the residence is being elevated in place. The area beneath the residence is being um enclosed into
uh non-conditioned storage and parking space. There will be a spiral stair at the back of the structure on the south side within the footprint. And then at the front there will be the frontage access stairs in place of what is currently a enclosed screen porch area.
This item did go to the historic preservation board for input at the beginning of this month. It was reviewed for a certificate of appropriateness as well as a design review. There were minimal concerns that were expressed about the proposed encroachments. Most of the discussion pertain to the design elements. One of the items that staff
had shared at the time was a preference for vertical picket elements to that frontage deck railing. That is something that the applicant has included in their design. I'll show you a rendering of that in just a moment. Um, this is the case for both this case as well as the next case. It doesn't have anything to
do with the scope um that the board of adjustment is undertaking today. Um but the extent of the elevation likely precludes the home from contributing historic status moving forward. The home is being elevated to a greater extent than the living level. That is usually something that um causes it to lose its
historic status when when the neighborhood is reserveyed in the future. We did discuss this uh with the owners. They are understanding with that they have submitted a letter to dd designate that home uh which will take effect when the permit is issued.
Here are some photographs of the site showing the sign the frontage of the residence where the um again that screen porch will be removed. That will become the access deck as well as the stairs. And then projecting out from the front of the
residence as you see it in the photo will be that six foot uh deep uh seating deck. Uh this is looking at it from the alleyway toward the front of the structure. Again, where that screen porch is is where the stairs and access
landing will be located. Looking toward the back of the structure where the garage doors are located currently. Another uh this is the rendering that I mentioned just a few moments ago. This is showing how the front of the
structure is proposed to look. I'm not sure how this rendering was generated. It does show a more extensive extensive or extension of the um roof line than what is proposed on the plans. It looked like there was either a trellis or a uh
a flat or low sloped um extension to cover the the front porch. So, the applicant or or owner could potentially speak to what they're proposing for that that extension at the front there. Um but that is showing the rendering and that is the the vertical railing that staff had requested and it looks like it
is being accommodated in the design. So in terms of applicant testimony, um we request that they address if the rear deck extension provides any direct benefit such as egress from the residence or another function. They should also address whether the front deck is the minimum depth for
comfortable use or serves any function other than for seating. Staff finds that the subject request is not substantially out of scale with the neighborhood. that is the historic setback of the front and rear um structure with the neighborhood itself
and it would not produce any adverse effect. Uh we also find it's not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the structure following elevation um the porch being removed it appears that the stairs and the landing being installed in that location which does meet the required
front setback um is the minimum necessary to act access the structure. Yes, >> the rear deck extension meets and does not visually overpower the existing enclosed rear of the residence, but it is not necessary to provide building access to our knowledge. The front deck provides a reasonably sized seating area
to replace the covered porch that is being removed and utilized in footprint for stair access to the front door of the living level, but it is not essential for access as you could see from the photos. Effectively, because the porch is being turned into stairs and landing, the porch is now being
moved to the front of the residence. that that appears to be the the proposal. So, staff recommended conditions. The first one's already been addressed, but just to make sure because there is a inconsistency with the building permit plans what's being shown, and I understand that is something that's
being designed by a different entity, but just to ensure that that's captured, uh, the deck railing below the ballastrade shall be of a material in design in keeping with the architecture of the building such as a vertical metal picket as is shown in that rendering. modern cabling and other similar
non-cont contemporaneous elements shall not be used. And as with all of these variance cases, we recommend that a final asbuilt survey be prepared, submitted, and approved prior to permit close out. So motion options are to approve this case with or without staff and/or added
board conditions. Motion to deny the case or to continue the case to a future board of adjustment date pending submitt of additional information. The owners are present. I'm happy to answer any questions. Can you can you go back a few to see the sketch of it from the front?
Not the P. No, not that one. Before that, there's a sketch. >> Yeah. Stop. What is that off to the right? >> That uh is an access stair to the side. There's a door on the side of the home.
>> Is that the second exit? >> There is a spiral stair within the footprint of the house itself. And then there is an access stair on the west side of the structure. That that's what's directly. >> But you said there was a stair behind
it. Didn't you say that? >> I'm I'm sorry. I might have misspoken there. There is an elevator within the concrete deck on the east side of the structure. You can see that there. It's within that gray area on the bottom of the screen. That is an elevator. There is a spiral stair toward the rear of the
structure, but it's not it's not projecting off the structure. It's not outside. It's within the footprint of the building. There's also a a stair on the west side, which is to the top of the bottom floor plan. And then there is the front access stair that is exterior
on the front. That's on the right. >> I guess I'm wondering what would you need the other stairway for in the front? You already have the one that goes back and forth rather than the really that would be pretty steep stairway, wouldn't it? >> Uh there is an extended uh wood deck landing on the on the west side of the
structure. The the applicant can speak to why they designed it that way, but I believe there is an existing opening there >> because it doesn't look like the picture that you show what you said was not really was AI generated or something, right? No, the photograph. Well, >> oh, the the >> Yeah, we'll get there.
>> I don't see it there. That's why that's what had me confused. >> We can get clarification. >> We can get >> Can you Can you go back to the front? Um, and that's the front. >> Mhm.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So the front, the original front then with the door is um where the so the door is not changing, but what they're doing is not only getting that stairs and the the landing in front of the front door that
is in the original picture, but adding an extended deck off of the like let's call it that front living room window. Is that correct? >> Correct. And I'll >> a living room. I'll go back to the and you can see that in the bottom proposed on the right side of the image the
portion that projects off the enclosed front of the residence that that is not changing. >> That's all new. >> Okay. And that how wide is that? >> That is six feet deep. >> Six feet deep. Okay.
And what is the and so and then the variance is well the whole house being elevated is going to encroach in I guess so even if it was a reduced
um deck off the front to half of that width it would still require a variance >> correct it's it's a 10 >> it's with nothing off of the front other than the staircase and the landing, then this would not require a variance. >> So the stairs and the landing are set
within that jog in the front of the building and those do appear to just meet the 10-ft required setback. So those would not meet a variance >> based on the new ordinance. >> Correct. >> Elevating homes. Okay. So it's the desire to add an extended front deck. >> That's correct.
>> That is the challenge. >> Okay. >> Any additional questions for Brandon? >> No. the applicant would like to share their case. >> I I should state exparte. >> Exparte. Sure. >> I I did speak with the owner because I pulled up in front of his house to look
at it and he was probably thinking, "What the hell is this guy doing?" So, I told him, so we spoke. >> Okay. >> Any additional expert? >> No, just drove by. >> Um, thank you for meeting with us. Uh, Gild Dehola, Denine Dehola, 102 4th
Avenue, St. Pete Beach. Um, as far as the the front of the deck, we we we decided to put it there because we were losing the bottom deck and we figured it was modest and consistent with the neighborhood to keep it in line
with all the other properties. Um, as far as this the side deck >> that's on the alley side for usability, it we liked how it looked and we put it there. As far as the staircase
on the other side, we have a back entrance door that you cannot access from the front of the house, right? And the electric panel is back there. So, we put a a landing, >> right?
>> So, the bedroom door that's going to be up now. The stairs are going to be coming down from there, >> right? >> It's not actually in the front. It's more toward the back. It just kind of looks like it's in the front in that picture, right? >> Yeah. It's probably 20 to 30 feet off
off the front of the house. >> I'm not sure what else. >> So, in total, how many sets of stairs are there? >> Two. Not three. >> No, no, the the spiral one's inside. >> That's inside. >> And and actually the spiral one was supposed to be removed.
>> I see. >> Because I was told it was too high >> coming out >> a 12ft staircase on the inside. >> So on the the this the landing on the front of the house and then that one drawing that showed the
roof extension. Is that the plan to make it that way or >> That is the plan. And as you can see, there's a flat roof on there right now. >> Yeah. >> Um, I would need a separate permit with a roofer because I would like to put a
roof over the front deck. And if you if you see on the back of the house is a flat roof. I would like a hip roof to match the entire house. >> So, >> but I would I would think that would be
a separate permit. Does that change this? I guess as far as it being a covered deck that changes this conversation. So I wonder if >> I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Can you speak to that Brandon if because what I'm hearing is the plans in front
of us are not exactly the plans that you're you desire to move forward with. >> Well, that would be my desire. If not, I could always put a a sunset or >> sunshade >> or I could leave it open. >> But these were the plans that were
advertised and this is what we move forward but a more you know significant extension of the roof line would fall under a different cover. Um they would still be author they could still be authorized today for the extension of the deck and the trellis or you know low roof element that they have there and
then potentially come back in the future >> and that would require different an additional variance for the roof line or >> well it would it would be a change of scope. So if they would like to do that and you're not seeing the plans that are
represented, I would think >> could continue this for case till you >> if they would like to revise the plans. I would >> I mean that that was really just I mean obviously I didn't have an architect and I brought what I thought to the engineer and then I threw it on chat GPT to make
a sketch of it. But it's all it's all within the engineering is what we're going with right now. We're just honestly trying to prevent you from having to come back. >> No, no, I understand. >> In front of this board and in the variance process all over again. So >> I understand,
>> but for the future, yes, that's what I would like to do >> or not. But in my head, I would like to >> or not, >> but I'm trying to keep I'm trying to keep the house saved the way it is in
Pasigril. And I feel it was modest and and consistent with the neighborhood >> that's there. You know, I'm I'm not looking for overdevelopment or >> nothing. >> We just got to live there and we wanted
it usable. >> No, understood. And I think the design is beautiful, but we um if you were to if we were to approve this hypothetically to give the extension deck today and then your plans change, that would would require you to >> No, I I got it. I I understand that.
Would it be a hardship for us to continue this until you get a firm plan of what it's going to look like? So, because if we would be a hardship >> or would on on my contract with with the lifting >> meaningful moving forward?
>> I mean, as far as that is that what you mean as far as >> No, I meant if you we continue this until the next meeting when you brought in the plans exactly how they're going to be to get to N's point. Um because what she says is right is that if that turns out you change stuff then
you got to start all over again. >> I understand I probably shouldn't have put the roof on it. Um >> yes >> in the picture itself >> in in the picture itself and >> right >> I just wanted to show somebody what it kind of is going to look like. >> I guess what I'm asking would it be a
big deal for you to wait a month? >> Yes. >> Yes >> it would. >> Okay. >> Okay. So your preference is to move forward with the plans as is today. If things change, you understand that that might require you to have >> this. The steel is ordered and they're ready. >> So while you're up here, can you talk
about so the function of the rear uh elevated deck? Could you tell what what is what does that serve? Yes. >> Well, we have an elevator going on there and just just >> Which side is the elevator? >> Just for a deck. I mean,
>> do the re the rear deck just for looks purposely. It's it's for visual. Yeah. Effective. >> It's not visual. >> We kept it in line with the house. >> Okay. So, it's a design. It's just for design. Okay. And then tell me um the
necessity of the uh extended front uh open deck. >> Well, so we have a so pretty much so we have a place to sit um because we are losing the the bottom porch. Oh, you don't have any. You won't have anything um >> on the bottom. No,
>> the staircase will be there, >> right? >> Okay. >> Where our little porch is now. >> Yes. >> Will be the staircase going up to the house, >> right? So, that'll be gone. >> That left side is our porch. Now, the
left the bottom left. Okay. I guess I was looking at it and seeing that it appeared you might have open space down in front of you have a big No, you don't have >> So where you would sit outside would be upstairs, >> correct? >> Okay.
>> Plus, you want to be off the living space anyway. >> Nice view there, too. >> And if you look down, my entire block, all the other houses are six feet out more than ours is. So, I figured if we keep it all in line, I would love an eight foot deck.
>> What in line would work? >> Six. Six foot would keep it in line. >> Okay. >> With the entire neighborhood. >> Okay. Any additional questions for that? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else that would like to
speak on behalf? Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> And I also have uh neighbor support. >> Oh, wonderful. >> These are neighbors. Can you >> I have a bunch of them. Okay. >> Okay. Are they your adjacent neighbors across the street neighbor? Could you maybe just let us know since we aren't
seeing that? >> Is it just one the neighbor to the west of you or >> Looks like he has a whole stack. >> Well, I have uh I'm sorry. 400 Passway, which is directly across the street.
>> I have my next door neighbors which are here right now. 104. I have uh across the street right next to 401 which is 109 4th Avenue. I have 1043rd Avenue. I have uh uh Lisa Maron
on 107th Avenue. And I have Todd Herman on 301 Gulf Way. And I also have 106 um >> 4th Avenue also. >> Those are all in support. >> Those are all in support. >> And the staff confirmed no letters in opposition.
Thank you. >> Is there anybody here today that would like to speak on behalf of or in opposition to this >> hearing? None. We'll close public comment and open for board discussion. >> I mean, I understand they can't change
this design. I think we're good. >> I appreciate the fact that while there is the extension, it's in line with the the home. And so I think visually it makes a lot of sense. >> And again, like we talked to when you lift, people have to get in their houses and they don't have a way to get in
their house. Could have a hook and ladder there, but it probably not practical. >> The deck makes sense because it's at the living space level and you really need that. >> I need a view. >> Yeah. But I'm too Yeah. >> Is there a motion?
Well, I move to approve case 26019 >> uh as requested with the understanding that if they change anything, they're going to have to come back and they say they're okay with it >> and with the staff condition. >> Yeah, with the staff condition, of course. >> I second
call, please. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Member Core. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. Motion carries. Best of luck. All right, our last case for today. Case number 26022, 1044th
Avenue. >> Brandon's been busy. >> That was this is another practical difficulty variance request associated with an elevation of a residence. Lisa Wilson for Ronald and Margaret Schiff request to construct an enclosed elevator that
encroaches to 4.67 67 feet from the front property line where 10 feet is required and concrete deck with stairs and encroach to 3.4t from the eastern side property line where 4.2 feet are is required in association with a project to elevate an existing residence to
achieve flood plane compliance. This request is made pursuant to land development code sections 11.73 and 20.10. Uh we did notice this case in accordance with our ordinance. We did not receive any letters for or against the request.
Here's an aerial of the property. It's directly west of the property that um was just reviewed by this board. Also a uh residential structure property has a zoning of RLM2 pass overlay district.
Uh the residence is proposed to be elevated in place. There is proposed to be an enclosed elevator installed at the front of the residence. The required setback is 10 feet. As with the prior property, they are proposing at 4 and 2/3 feet from the front property line.
They al are also proposing an eastern deck at 3.4t from the side property line where 4.15 ft is required. Uh you can see on the left the existing survey of the property on the right, the proposed site plan. There is no enclosed
living space proposed uh facing 4th Avenue. There is the elevator again that's set within the jog in the front of the building. On the west side of the structure are stairs that are proposed as with the prior case. Those do meet the required setback approximately 4
feet. And then on the east side are the stairs and access deck. I'll show you in a moment. This is actually a primary residence that's located facing 4th Avenue. In the rear of the building is an accessory uh dwelling that is a separate space from the primary
residence. So the stairs on the east side on the right side of the proposed site plan those access the rear dwelling the elevator and the stairs on the west side those access the front dwelling.
So you can see existing um on the top of the screen proposed on the bottom showing on the left side of the proposed looking at it from the front which is the bottom left those uh stairs that access the deck to the rear unit of the building. Uh you can see the proposed
the flat roof element of that structure. That is the elevator that is proposed. And then on the right side the stairs that access the dwelling uh on the on the west side. And then you can see on the bottom right the uh the wraparound for that rear uh
rear deck. And then this is looking at it from the east side. So from um the property to the direct east uh you can see those stairs that access the rear dwelling of the residence.
And here you can see the layout. Um the there will be uh driveway access provided from 4th Avenue for this structure. You can see that at the top right of the top drawing. Um and then you can see the enclosed um storage
space around the uh the western and southern sides of the building. And then you can see on the proposed second floor plan um about midway down the structure looking at it um you know from from right to left. The right side is the the
front existing dwelling. The west side or the left side um is the existing rear dwelling. No living space being proposed. These are um the only scope is for that front elevator as well as for the decks and stairs uh to access the structure at the um the back of the
building. This item was also taken to the historic preservation board for input at the beginning of this month. Um it is a contributing resource as well as a locally designated resource, although the owner has submitted a letter as with the prior case to ddesate the residence
from the historic registry. Uh the front garage access was um considered by the board as well as by staff to be a substantial change to the frontage of the residence. That is not part of the scope today, but those were the comments that the historic preservation board had made. Uh the owner did speak to the
reasoning behind that and that was accepted by the board. As with the prior case, the extent of this elevation will likely preclude the home from contributing status consideration under future historic surveys. We also discuss this with the owners and they they do understand this uh potential preclusion
in the future. Here's some photographs of the site looking at it from the front. Another um showing the front of the structure as it exists today. Uh this is looking at um from the alleyway.
In terms of applicant testimony, um we just ask that the applicant address whether accommodation of the elevator within the foyer footprint was considered and if so why it was decided against. Um with the layout of the structure with the retention of that layout, the front
and the rear unit. Staff finds that both requests to be reasonable and directly related to minimum safe and continued access to the living level of the home rather than a desire to expand the living structure footprint and relegate access concerns to the required yard areas. The existing division of the unit
within the structure, which again that's not changing. There is an existing front and existing rear accessory unit. Um it is well served by the deck and the elevator improvements. Accommodation of access by another means would likely result in either a greater impact to a neighbor or would require significant
interior or exterior modification of the home. We find that to be reasonably outside the project scope as well as the considerations for a practical difficulty variance. Uh staff does recommend that the elevator shaft roof line shall be as shown on plans and constructed with shaft not to exceed the primary home
gables eve line. Um although this home is being dd designated um it is still within the design district and that's still a consideration. We we felt that it was well designed and well considered based on what was shown. And then the applicant as with the other cases shall prepare a final asbuilt survey, submit
and have it approved prior to permit close out. Uh same motions as with motion options as with the prior cases. Motion to approve this case with or without staff or board conditions. Motion to deny the case or motion to continue the case pending submitt of
additional information. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. Any questions? >> The applicant would like to please share your case. >> My name is Andrew Schiff. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents, Ronald and Margaret Schiff. We're both in
attendance today. uh they're the primary homeowners. However, me and my wife do also live in the residence. So, I live at 104 F 4th Avenue as well. Okay. Um so, in terms of the elevator and its positioning, we did absolutely consider
putting it inside the uh the solarium, that existing foyer. In fact, that was our first plan was just put it right where the front door is. Uh unfortunately that kind of interfered with the plans for where the garage would be directly below it. The elevator shaft would significantly impact that
space and we'd also be giving away a lot of that front porch. Um it's the only really front porch area we have, you know, seating area. Right now it's all glass which we'll maintain and that's where we can actually, you know, see the water and see the golf and uh see the channel and with the elevator at least on the side then we get to maintain
those views and it will be um a glass elevator. The shaft will be concrete, but the side on the porch level will be glass, so you would be able to see all the way through on both sides to uh to keep those water views. So, we absolutely did consider it. Um, we considered putting it inside the house.
We considered putting in the back of the house, but after all things in consideration, the engineering, the cost associated, uh, putting it in that spot attached to the carium was really the only prudent method. And, um, there are some options to make it more shallow. wouldn't stick out that eight inches,
but we want to futurero proof the house. My parents are getting older. Uh, luckily everyone is healthy and fine moving around right now, but you never know if a wheelchair or, you know, handicapped access is required in the future. So, we just want to keep that option open essentially.
>> Thank you. >> Questions for the applicant? >> No, >> no questions. Thank you. Thank you. >> I did have one thing to add on to the uh the staff considerations that were mentioned. >> We at the time of the plans were constructed, we had not actually spoken
with an elevator company to confirm the you know the shaft dimensions. Everything has since been confirmed. It matches the plans. However, the shaft does have to extend 2 feet above the existing roof line. Uh so it would not be possible to keep the the eaves for
the elevator shaft and the exact line with the existing roof line. >> Can we see that? Is there a de? >> Yeah, it's it's kind of marked up on the plans and then I have a 3D mockup that would >> that be very >> demonstrate a little bit better. We have letters
as well. >> Here is 3D mockup. >> Thank you for proactively bringing this up so we can address this. >> Yeah, absolutely. So this is like a chat GPT version. So it's not engineered perfectly, but it does kind of show how the shaft would
extend. >> And where is the elevator shaft? Is that Am I looking at it? >> Yeah, the elevator shaft has those two kind of faux window frames on it. There wouldn't actually be windows there. >> Very clever. >> Make it look nice. >> Understood. So then I guess Brandon um I would ask what
based on that condition I guess does that change something why was staff recommending that as a condition and that's obviously not going to be able to be met. >> So we just we hadn't seen the the the new renderings or the new proposal. We
were just going based on what was shown on the plans. I thought that it was appropriate. I I don't think this is inappropriate. Um, you know, of course shafts can sometimes go eight, 10 feet above the roof line and they can look out of place, but I don't think that this would. So that would just be a striking of condition one
>> or we could alter it to the two feet that is that >> I was curious about how high it is. Now if the elevator shaft is going above what's the total height to the top of the elevator shaft from the ground? >> Do you that's question for the applicant.
>> Um, that should be shown on the on the survey. I do believe they have the height there, just not necessarily the correct roof design. I don't believe it would extend higher though than the actual peak of the of the main hip roof. It would just be positioned forward.
>> I mean, would it be 32 feet total or something? >> Yeah, I I do know for a fact whatever whatever height it is is going to be within the within the city limits. I just don't have exactly what that number is going to be. >> That's okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And you said you had letters as
well. >> Yes, we have letters from uh 102 and 106 which are the ones bordering on both sides um tools who are here in attendance. Um we also have one from Tammy and Damon Bowers at 1094th. We have one from uh Joe and Sandy
Rhodess who are on the corner of fourth and pass away. And then we have one from Todd Herman as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That helps to see all the neighbors supporting it. It really does neighborhoods here.
>> Yeah, >> I said it's a block. >> Yeah, you all have yellow signs up, I think, throughout all of Passag. >> Is there anyone else >> who wants to Yeah. >> Yeah, this is already Is there anyone else that would like to
speak on behalf or in opposition of this final case? Hearing none, we'll close public comment and open for discussion. >> I don't see how we tell one of them they can and the other one they can't. >> Well, we we review them all in independently, but there are similar
stories today. It's very um it's >> and neighbors are good friends. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And it's encouraging to see >> more folks getting to the stage where they're able to make decisions and move forward >> home get back in their homes. >> So if I understand correctly, we don't
want to approve what the conditions of staff because >> but not one of the two. >> Yeah. So we can make that motion. >> Yeah. I I will do that. I'm just going to look at this again. Um unless there's any further conversation we need to have. >> No.
>> Okay. Okay. Then I'm going to move to approve case number 26022. Um as and uh with the staff staff recommendation condition that the applicant shall have a final asbuilt survey prepared, submitted, and approved prior to permit closeout.
>> I'll second that. >> Member Core. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. Motion carries. >> Thank you all. Best of luck. >> Um, our next meeting is on April 29th.
Do we have any cases in Q? >> Actually, we do have two uh scheduled for next month. And if I may just make a quick announcement, >> please. Before exiting, we have one final announcement, guys. >> So, being that all the cases today were rendered a decision, you are free to
dispose of the big bird yellow signs that you have. Um, I apologize for having to zip tie some of them, but there wasn't anywhere else to put a steak in the ground, but you are welcome to dispose of them properly. So, thank you. >> So, yes, we do have we have two
applications that are going to be scheduled for next month. Um, we do have a few in the hopper that are just in various stages of completeness, but we have not slowed down on applications, just to let you know. Um, and if I just could for the record, as part of the >> if if we're still in session, guys, if
you could just take conversation outside, that's fine. >> As part of the um agenda package that was published, there was some pages in that were published in error that were not relevant to any board of adjustment um application or pending application. And they are page 81 through 102 in the
agenda packet. I just wanted to put that on the record and apologize for any confusion. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I saw a sign, I think, or something. I think I just picked this up off the printer incorrectly. >> No, we just probably it was assigned. >> No worries. So, yes, that was not part
of their application. My apologies. >> So, you said it's the 22nd, correct? Is that next or do I have >> 29th? Okay, good. I'm glad I I think I have this wrong. Thank you. I'll edit it in my calendar. >> Any other comments or requests? No. >> Nope. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.