September 2025. If we could all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Roll call, please. Member core here. Vice Chair Garshaw here. Member Small here. Chair Chase here. We have a quorum. I did want to share we do have one board member out today. Member Kazy was not
able to attend. So that gives us a four member board. Um which would require a 3-1 vote for cases to pass. Um we're happy to hear all cases today, but you do have the option should you wish to postpone to an um a later date that that you can share with us um at the time of
your case. Um we'll move on to the approval of the agenda. There any changes to the agenda today, Kristen? No, Madam Chair, there's no changes unless you'd like to put um an item under 5B for the announcement
for the Don Cesar, please. You could add that if you'd like. Ex for was this for everyone? Oh, that's just that was your board. Okay, then we will not do that. Um Okay, great. Um, do we have a motion
to approve the agenda? I make a motion to approve the agenda. A second. Roll call, please. Yes. Small. Yes. Member Core. Yes. Chair Chase. Yes. Motion carries. Moving on to audience comments. So, if
you've um submitted a yellow card and have any comments on a case that we'll be hearing today, you'll have time at that at that opportunity. If there's something else that you'd like to address the board about, we're happy to hear that now. hearing none, we will um move on to swear anybody in that is planning to
speak today. Thank you. Anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in, please raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give to the board
is truthful? Thank you. Before moving on to our action items, we'll approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Did everybody have a chance to review any requests for changes, edits, comments? One minor one uh
in terms of case number 25101 where you noted um about my exparte. I just wanted to be clear. It said that uh there have been no board discussions on the matter. I just wanted to say it's really about the
case about this case. I am sure there's been board discussions about the matter just not during this case. Thank you for clarifying that clear. Great. We will move on to action item A
case number 25505 and to approve the minutes with I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with that one amendment. Second. Second. Roll call. Member Small. Yes. Member Core. Yes. Vice Chair Garshaw. Yes. your chase.
Yes. Motion carries. Um, prior to moving on to case number five52, do we have any experte to disclose? Members small. No, just conversations with city staff and community. None for me.
Site visit. Brandon. Good afternoon, Brandon Barry planner. If we could pull up the PowerPoint. So this is a rehering of a case that was brought back to you a number of months ago. It has been reavertised. There have been some modifications
particularly to scale back the number of variances and I'll get into that in a moment. Property address is 100 Pastor Way. Ryan J. Ens Jr. and Klay Gilman of McFarland Ferguson and McMullen PA who are the applicants for barracks by the Sea LLC. The owner requests a three-part
unnecessary and undue hardship variance associated with a courtyard apartment redevelopment of the property in order to develop three-story structures on the subject property containing 1,290 developed square feet for each of the redeveloped eight residential units.
That's comprised of 450 ft of ground floor area non-habitable space 840 ft of living space where units cannot be redeveloped at current density. the eight units that are proposed with greater than the 475 existing developed square feet uh that are contained in the
structures. That's a limitation imposed by land development code section 20.07B. They're also seeking two setback variances. The first is for the encroachment of a redeveloped threetory units five and six building to encroach
to 5' 5 in from the rear property line. That's the alleyway side in the west where 20 ft is required. That's pursuant to land development code section 20.15, the courtyard apartment building type, and to permit the encroachment of open stairs to 8 ft 1 in from the rear
alleyway property line where 17 ft is required as pursuant to land development code section 6.22B. Here's an aerial of the property. It's located on the west side of Passro Way just north of 1 Avenue.
The property has RLM2 pass overlay zoning. RLM2 is the underlying zoning. It does allow for multifamily development projects like the subject project. However, the project does contain more units than would be allowed based on the underlying zoning. So, they
are pursuing the pass overlay permission for the redevelopment option. Just to reiterate, uh the request itself for the development, there are eight units on the property. They are seeking to re redevelop the existing one-story
500 ft floor area. So that's from the outside walls of the building uh with the following. There will be a ground floor also 500 ft in floor area. But the developed square feet that space within the walls of the building is 450. That's to be used for parking for units
five and six. That's a southwest corner of the property and to be used as screen porches for the buildings that front on Pass Way. The northwestern structure is remaining. The stairs, which are the subject of a variance today, are being uh reconstructed, but they are not reconstructing the actual development at
the northwest side of the site. They're also seeking a reconstructed first floor living area of 500 ft floor area containing 418 ft of developed square footage between walls. And then another living level above that, a 500 square feet floor area containing 422 square
feet of developed square footage between walls. So you can see existing on the left side of the screen here, proposed on the right side. Going through the request details. I described these at the beginning of the presentation. Um I just went through the
detail of the developed square footage. They are also seeking two variances to the rear setback, the alleyway side and the west side of the development. Uh they're seeking a 5'5 in setback for the building. And I'll go back to the previous slide. That is the building on
the bottom left hand side of the proposed image. That will be at a 5'5 in setback at its closest point from the alleyway. Also, the stairs at the top left of the proposed image will be installed at 8 foot one inch from the
alleyway property line. Those both require variances. For the building at the bottom left, the required setback is 20 ft. For the stairs, the required setback is 17 ft. This is a scaling back of the request that was brought forward to this board earlier this year.
Previously, there had been porch and stair encroachments as well as a trellis encroachment into the passer way frontage and the first avenue frontage. They have scaled back all of those buildings to meet the required setbacks on the east and south side of the
development. It is only the west side where the stair encroachments and the building encroachment are proposed that requires the variance. You can see here the elevation of the structure. The top is from the east. So that is the uh pass away side. The
bottom is the west. So standing on the alleyway looking at the development. You can see the building well the portion of the building for which a setback variance is required at the bottom right of the bottom image. This is looking to the north and then uh
from the south. And here are elevations again standing on Pastor Way looking west where the development is proposed. And this is standing in the alleyway looking east. Here's some photographs of the site
uh the existing structures. These are the structures along Pass Way. These structures were confirmed by the city's building department to have suffered substantial damage. Looking east from the alleyway toward the water. That is the building that I referenced
previously. It was built in the 1990s. I believe that's at the northwest side of the site. Three stories that is being preserved. They are extending out the deck and the stairs. Um but the building itself is proposed to remain in this this project. the three one-story
buildings would be removed to accommodate the new development. And this is looking on the north side of the development out toward the water. Staff finds that the applicant has supplied adequate justification for the alleyway setback encroachments for the
stairs and the reconstructed units five and six building. Those are variances two and three. an exclusion of the 450 square feet of ground flooror non-habitable parking storage and access space that is partial for the variance number one. The dimensional requests above are minimal in scope and generally
retain the site layout of the existing property in addition to providing reasonable access to the retained northwestern building on the property. They encroach toward an 18t alleyway not toward a neighbor toward the frontage that reduces impact on the neighbors and scale incompatibilities from encroachment toward the property street
frontage. The pastor grill overlay does specifically provide for when contextual to the development site the retention of existing setbacks and development patterns which we find that this request would provide. Um excluding the developed square footage of the ground
floor developed square footage includes any space between walls. So that ground floor square footage despite it not being living space would be counted against the redevelopment potential for this lot without a variance excluding that developed square footage of the ground floor for a building in an AE10
flood zone with ground elevations of 3.5 ft on average is reasonable and allows a project to meet other modern city requirements that were not applicable in the 1940s when these structures were built such as on-site parking requiring the site to remain o this space to
remain open and not count as building area. Would also be inconsistent with the ground floor screening requirements of the Passer Grillil overlay district. It would not be considered building area if it were to be on open piles or columns, but we do not allow for that from a design standpoint in Passeril.
The space does need to be enclosed. It counts as developed square footage, so it would result in an effectively an unbuildable project without that space being excluded. Staff finds that the applicant has provided partial justification for the increase in the living square footage
from 475 square feet to 840 square ft. Again, that is the developed square footage, the space between walls. It's not the floor area development. This interpretation is slightly more um permissive toward the applicant. The applicant is required to comply with modern fair housing act requirements.
Those were of course not applicable when the project was originally developed as barracks and is justified in providing reasonable additional mechanical and electrical space that was not included in the original development. To the extent that the units must be two floors each, exclusion of vertical circulation
elements and the mandatory first floor powder room, the small bathroom on the ground floor of the living space um is also justified. Calculating out these elements, staff has calculated a difference of about 195 square feet per unit, excluding those
aforementioned improvements. That difference between the existing and the requested unit size in terms of living square footage. We have two criteria that relate to preservation of development and neighborhood compatibility. Criteria seven, looking at hardship variances, requires the
applicant to justify that the variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the land structure or building. The owner does have other reasonable options for land development. They could build three homes on this property. They could redevelop with a two uh two-unit development, a multif
family development that would not be limited in square footage as this request is. They are limited in square footage solely because they're seeking to retain those eight units on the property. Additional reasonable testimony should be provided to support that needed additional 195 square ft of living space
per unit from a minimal reasonable use standpoint. The existing units are utilitarian. They were of course originally barracks and additional living square footage should be supported. Looking at criteria A, which relates more to neighborhood compatibility, staff finds that the scale, size, and
massing of the proposed building buildings are not out of character for the area, nor are the proposed unit sizes oversized. There are other multifamily condo projects in the vicinity that have residential units of similar size. They have a similar floor area and coverage for the property as
this project would entail. So, in terms of criteria 8, we do feel that this was generally met. We do also require the justification be made relative to those minimum reasonable use standards. That is the testimony that we're seeking from the applicant.
So, we asked for their testimony um in responding to the staff comments below. We did also bring these items up at the re-review of this project at the August technical review committee. Why redeveloping the units as single floor stacked units would not reduce the overall square footage demands for the
project. There is that vertical circulation space within the units that is required that would not be applicable if the units were individual um single floor units. They do have exterior access at the rear of the structure. They gave us some justification for
that. We would just like them to provide that to the board and also as I stated previously provide general support as to why the additional square footage that approximately 195 square feet per unit is necessary over and above the justification that they have already
adequately provided for the powder room vertical circulation mechanical and electrical space. Should the board find that substantial additional testimony has been provided and that this request meets the criteria for issuance, we do recommend three
conditions. The first is that the interior ground floor developed square footage provided under this request shall not exceed the footprint of the living level above or 450 square ft, whichever is larger, exclusive of the entry porch elements.
Condition two, this would be based on the applicant's testimony. The developed square footage of the two living levels per unit above the ground floor shall not exceed either 840 square ft, which is the applicant's request. 645 ft, that was the justification that was just provided, or another square footage that
the board feels is supported through testimony. We also ask that effectively the design of the building as proposed and as submitted through renderings be um the same when it moves on to site plan permitting and building plan um review.
The facade features, footprint, scale massing, attached accessory features, and general color schemes of the primary structures presented in renderings and floor plans shall be preserved. Minimal alteration may be made as necessary to comply with conditions or approval of these variances should the board assign
additional var uh criteria or requirements of the Florida Building Code or National Fire Prevention Code. Any alteration deemed significant of the city manager shall require this request to return to the board of adjustment for consideration. Because the request is specifically for square footage, they
would not be able to exceed that. But there might be m minor alterations to the facade features and so on that would be made administratively if we consider them to be significant and this condition were to be applied. The case would be brought back before this board.
And that is all we have. Um the applicant is present. And I'm happy to take questions. Can you go back and show us the picture of what you called the north side? It's the alley basically. This being the side where the variances are being requested for. Correct. That's
the west west side. That's what I thought. I just want to clarify it. The Is this the No, I you you had a photograph of the actual alley. Okay. There. So that's on the north side. They would not need any variances to this setback.
They have a 5- foot required setback on this side and they will comply w with that. The variances to the I'm I'm standing in the alley taking this photo. So the variance would be toward the alleyway property line, but not on this side of the building. I see. Okay. That's what I didn't understand.
Can you show those two um images again? The It's right there. It's those stairs. Th those are the stairs on the south side of the building for which a variance is being requested. They would be rebuilding those decks and stairs, but that that's on the south side away from that.
And this is this is one of the original, correct? And did this not get damaged in the storm? The applicant could speak to that. I don't believe it was substantially damaged. Brandon, the the only variance request, just to be clear, is for the access to
have a staircase up to this for this building specifically. Yes. And then there's one on the other side as well. Yes. So looking at a new building to be built, I guess, or correct. Let me see if I can get a good photo of that. Let's see here.
Yeah. So this this building on the left side of the photo is being rebuilt. That is the one where it'll effectively preserve the existing setback, but in redevelopment, they're required to comply with the setback. So the building that will be going in place of that left building will be within the
required setback for a new development. Okay. And I recall though as you you showed up the pictures with the red arrows around it. There was two spots I thought just to be clear on the re I guess this is all about the rear setbacks, right? So correct. It's
um I saw a different picture I thought where you actually showed the red around just the areas. I think it was a little further ahead. Sorry. I'm sorry. Right here. Yes. So, just to clarify that space, that second
space. So I understand you pointed out where the stairs were on the original building, but the other area it doesn't require a setback, but that area there is for So the area in in red um on on this
slide is where the variances are required. So the the building is 5 feet 5 in from the property line along the alleyway side. This isn't necessarily showing the footprint that's within that 15 foot setback. Um it's just showing
the uh the space where where it's being uh proposed. So they they require a variance for the stairs on the northwest side of the property and for the building to be reconstructed within a required rear setback at the southwest side of the property.
Okay. What is in that setback then space on the southwest side is not stairs but a building that is actually building a threetory building. Yes. Thank you. Any additional questions for Brandon?
No. Thank you Brandon. Thank you. The applicant would please come forward. That's okay. I don't want to mess up the switch. Yeah, just down to PowerPoint and you can switch over. Great.
Great. Excellent. Oh, it's got it. Just perfect. middle button. Perfect. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate your indulgence while I made sure I understood how to use the remote. Uh, Brian, 625 Core Street, Clearwater, here on behalf of the applicant, uh,
Barracks by the Sea. Uh, we're joined by our architect, Estavan Pertinich, uh, Behar Pertinich Architects, and also by the owner, Eric Ael. Um, those of you who were here in June, um, heard our presentation, uh, you very much helped us distill it and, uh, hopefully be able
to explain it in a much more concise, uh, common sense way. Um, and I appreciate you all helping us get this application to where it is today through your insight and your feedback and, um, also from the things that we heard from the historic preservation board, uh, and also from the public and also from the
staff at the TRC. Uh so we're hopeful we're here today with uh with a supportable uh application. This is a hurricane relief hardship, but for the hurricanes, we would not be here. Um we have to be here because this property is
now out of commission. And the reason it's out of commission is because it cannot be rebuilt without being elevated under FEMA and without complying with Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and
with the Florida Building Code, none of which existed when these six units were built in the 1940s. Um, and that is the that is the hardship. The hardship is the hurricane damage that has now necessitated compliance with modern
codes that require more livable space for accessibility for mechanical um for a powder room that is ADA required on the bottom floor on the first livable floor. Uh and then also obviously the unoccupiable parking and storage that's required to be on the
ground floor. That is the hard that is the hardship. Uh, as you can see, this is the area. You're very familiar with this area. So, I'll just go ahead and skip that. We are requesting three variances. I'll started I'll start with the fir the two easiest ones which the staff has found full justification for. Uh, and that is the
encroachment uh into the rear property line uh for the stairs and for the building that is consistent with the existing footprint. So, the the building encroachment is essentially existing. Um, and what Brandon, I think, was explaining was that because it's being
redeveloped, we have to get a variance to put it back where it was, but it's not it's not really expanding the existing. It's expanding it just a little bit. But the staff has found that what we've done is designed the property pretty much almost exactly within the
existing footprint which is something that we was very important to us to maintain the character that courtyard historic courtyard character of the Passagril community and to respect that. U the only variance that the staff has requested additional justification for
that they found is partially justified is for the livable square footage. And I'm going to really distill that down as quick as as well as I can visually and numerically for you. So there are 706 square ft of livable space that's between the walls, not counting the
stairs, not counting the walls. U livable square footage uh in each of these units. And again, we're we're redeveloping six units. There are eight units on site, two of which are in that three-story building that's existing that those are not going away. We're only redeveloping the six units that
were substantially damaged by the hurricanes and those are designed to be 706 square feet each. Um right now the the existing is 475 square ft. Uh and so that is that is the the variance that I
think we're we're mostly focusing on. So these are the three structures in red that were substantially damaged as a result of Hurricane Helen unfortunately just about a year ago. Uh that building in the green was elevated. It was built up to FEMA uh in the 1990s. It's three
stories, two units. Um and so it was damaged, but only in the garage. So it wasn't substantially damaged. A client was able to to repair it and maintain it. The only alteration, as Brandon said there, is we're going to add a pool in the middle of the courtyard. And so we're going to move the stairwell out
closer into the parking into the alley, which I hopefully you were able to see pretty well in those architectural renderings that Brandon showed earlier. And you saw the existing conditions again. Um, madame vice chair, this building that was substantially damaged um on First Avenue in the in the
southwest corner um that is where the existing encroachment exists. And so I'll be able to show you here in a little bit how we're matching up with that footprint or attempting to match up with that footprint. So this is just um a civil engineered site plan of the existing conditions. You saw it, you
just saw an a picture of it. This is what the existing conditions are. Um, and you can see again that encroachment that is existing there. So this is in the red is what's existing. So the red is the existing footprint. The gray is the proposed footprint. And so what
we're doing here in the rear, as you can see, is pretty similar to what is existing uh on that alley. Um, and it, you know, certainly it it doesn't encroach any further than it already does. There is a little bit more of an
encroachment as you go north, but it's essentially the same footprint. Uh, and as you can see, we moved the buildings off of Passaway Grill, Pass Grill Way, and and reduced any frontage or secondary setbacks that were requested. So, that significantly reduced the
variances that were requested. The stairs that are being added, you can see to the north uh west uh right in front of the car uh that parked car. So those are the two variances to the rear and then the only other variance relates to the livable square footage. So as we
said um this is existing. So I'm showing you the existing livable square footage is 475 square ft. The existing total gross area is 500 ft which would include the walls. So this is what's proposed. So what the staff has asked us to provide additional
justification for is why this specifically on this living livable square footage why this is the minimal variance required and that's what our architect will be able to explain here in a moment but I wanted to show this to you as the layout. So the bottom floor
you can see on the left is 366 square ft. We have um the uh ADA compliant restroom and we have a kitchen. The top floor we have a restroom and we have a bed.
So you can see the the amount of area that's being taken up by the bed. So the top floor is 340 ft. The bottom floor is 366 ft. These are very modest units. There is no space that's being wasted. There is no excess space. You can see that we can fit a bed. We can fit a
bathroom. There's a seat. And then on the bottom floor there's a bathroom and there's a kitchen. And then you see the stairwell in purple and then the mechanical is in gray on both floors. Uh and then you can see there's also a balcony and a porch.
Uh I wanted to show I know height is always of concern. Uh so I wanted to show this height study. Um so as you know this purple in the bottom on the red square that's the existing three-story building. These buildings will be no taller than that. We are not asking for a height variance. We are
meeting code on height. So there is no request before you to increase the height. We're not asking for a height variance. Um the the reason this project can't be two stories is because we can't have an occupiable first floor. We have to have an unoccupiable first floor which requires the units to be elevated
above uh the developable flood elevation plus freeboard. And that's why the units are stacked. If the units were not stacked, it would result in, you know, a very very stocky like wide project that is extremely out of character with the community in our view and it would
destroy the court courtyard. There would be no room for a courtyard effect. So instead of having this courtyard layout, it would essentially be, you know, total coverage over the back and interior of the property, which just doesn't doesn't work from a architectural perspective. Uh, and again, our architect will
explain that here in a moment. This is what is allowed by code is the alternatives. So you heard you know Mr. Barry say there are there are there are alternatives. I think if you read the staff report the staff would prefer what we're proposing to the alternatives. And
that's because as the staff recognizes in the staff report, the Passa Grillil overlay um recognizes the unique sub pre-suburban development patterns and desire to maintain the historic integrity of the
area. And so because we have additional uh units, they we're allowed to redevelop those. and they the passive grillil overlay wants existing units to be redeveloped because they don't want to lose the character of what those units represented and and that is why I
believe the staff is finding justification for these requests. Um the justification that you've heard um and so if this were to be denied I mean the property has to be redeveloped because of the hurricanes. We've already said that it has to be redeveloped. The only
thing we could do uh is do either these three kind of McMansions um which turn out to be about 4400 square ft each, 4,500 square ft each at three stories. Um or we could do duplexes, but they would be essentially
the point is what we're proposing uh is a building coverage of uh 4,850 ft total for these six units. And what you would get with three single family homes is 6,700. Um, so and again there'd be no
limitation on the square footage. So respectfully, I feel like my client has really really deliberately spent a lot of time with a really highquality architect who is from this area, you know, cares about Passa Grillil and the historic character of Pastor Grill and
has really tried to develop the minimally required living square footage to maintain these historic units. uh provide beautiful architecture that maintains the integrity and character of the area and provides that historic courtyard approach uh while bringing the
property up to code getting it back on the tax roles and contributing back to the community. Uh Istavan, if you could come up and um provide that testimony that Mr. Barry asked regarding um the vertical stacking, the circulation, the minimal required variance um and anything else you'd like to add, please.
All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. Uh, he pretty well said everything I was going to say, but we can just get your name and address for the record. Sure. I'm so sorry. Ishtan Petronets, uh, with Bayhar Petronets Architecture. I'm uh uh 2142 Burlington Avenue North
in St. Petersburg. Um, as as uh Mr. Angs mentioned, where do we start on this project? and and it goes back to the the requirement or the desire for the Pastor Gril District to
maintain the character of the area and and this is a multif family project. It's a courtyard project. That's what it was. Um it is a you know when we looked at it it's like okay we we understand 500 square foot each a unit which is what we had. So that's what we
maintained all our footprints each box is 500 square feet. Um and obviously we we elevated that. Uh we moved around to meet um some of the setback requirements and the such. We also offset them a
little bit so that we don't have you know if you took the box they're cute. They they can be kind of cute as a little singlestory buildings but when you start elevating that mass up they get to be very bulky and all that. So that's why we did some stepping but still each box is 500 square f feet.
What then happens is to enter the unit you could enter on the second floor. Um and the requirement for fair housing is that on that for two well two require one is ADA. So, if I have a handicap person or somebody that that needs to uh
that I choose to enter my home, I have to allow them how to get in a way to get in and then fair housing within it that not just a usable bathroom, but it'd be really uncomfortable if I were to invite someone with, you know, with mobility needs um to kind of scooch around my
house. So, there are requirements, minimal requirements, typically a three-foot alleyway around furniture and and within the kitchen. So, it's usable. That's really what it is. Um and that's what result in the 500 footprint. What you see is essentially
um we tried to keep it minimally. So we have the usable bathroom which is required and then the 3 foot plus or minus um circulation around the furniture and using this the space. Um
trouble is that there's no no bedroom and bathroom left space left for this. So to keep that square footage um and without going through any gymnastics on this structure, you know, we lifted it up one more floor and from that floor we
have to take away the circulation uh excuse me, which is a stair and then we end up with a minimal bathroom, a a bedroom and then the on this one we actually put the circ the mechanical on that floor. The existing units had uh
window units. we brought them in to kind of meet, you know, that had uh electrical panels and everything on the outside. We brought those in. Um, so that's really where with the 500 footprint lifting up two times, it gives us essentially like as as this the
exhibit says, 76 feet of living space. That is a I've been designing apartments and uh units like this for a very long time and 76 square feet for a one-bedroom apartment is I it I mean can we get
smaller but let me ask is it is this the minimum variance that you could design for accessibility and and to meet the code for accessibility to meet the code and given the the footprint. Yes, this is really is there any excessive or unnecessary
space in your opinion? No, we chose not to, you know, take it beyond that because again, keep the main the character. Very good. Um, and Mr. Petronich, you've reviewed all eight of the approval criteria. I'm not going to run through all eight of them, but you believe that we meet or exceed all eight of the approval criteria in your opinion?
Yes, we we that's what we started on. That was our goal to to meet this the city's and the intent of this code. Very good. Um, I'll wrap up real quick and of course we're available for questions. Um, thank you, Istan. I'm don't go too far. Um, so we walk through what the the alternative is. Obviously,
that's not what we want to do. We wouldn't have spent all this time and energy to try to get to a better place on this application um to to hopefully make it supportable and to deliver what you know, unfortunately, mother nature's required us to do um and and make it
make it uh a benefit for the community um a benefit for the city and and to make the property usable. So again, the criteria number one, special conditions that exist and circumstances. It's the hurricane damage plus the new codes. Um you're going to hear me repeat that over
and over again. Um they did not result from the uh actions of the applicant. That's that's obvious. That's condition number two. Um literal interpretation of the codes. It would make it uh undevelopable because we wouldn't meet ADA, we wouldn't meet FEMA, and we wouldn't meet um fair housing. Um so in
order to meet FEMA, ADA and fair housing and keep those six units, we have to ask for these minimal variances. Um again, it was not deliberately or knowingly created. That was again kind of not applicable. Um I think the
applicant could probably achieve greater financial return with the three McMansions to be honest. You know, I think this is not about finances. This is about uh complying with that pass overlays desired to retain the existing units and retain them in a manner that is consistent with their historic use as
a courtyard. Um and again this would be the same variance that you would need to redevelop any units like this. That's criteria number six. Um and then seven and eight. You heard Brandon say that uh he believes that we met. I do want to point out the historic preservation board voted in May to already authorize
us to destroy the um the three the three existing structures that were damaged. We have not done that because they also asked us to work with the city to see if we could relocate one of those historic structures to pass a uh pass a grill park and so we are committed to exploring that with the city. city
hasn't done any studies on how much that would cost or who would contribute what, but we're we're absolutely 100% willing to work with the city to relocate uh one or more of those structures to the park if that's something that they would would like us to do. Um, and the city's design consultant has reviewed the
design uh and found that it is compliant and it is does meet the requirements of the PASSA uh grill uh o overlay architectural requirements. So, respectfully, we feel like we've uh we've met all of the approval criteria. Hopefully, we provided uh more evidence
for you today with a reduced request and I hope it's supportable. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for the applicant. I have a couple of questions. Um I guess you use the word historic integrity.
Then the design of it doesn't look like historic passer grill at all. Not I mean that's not a zoning issue I realize but it why wouldn't you make it look like historic Pass girl? Yeah. So um what I was talking about was the layout of the courtyard, the historic integrity of the of the layout
of those units and how they existed as a courtyard as opposed to the three mansions. But in terms of the architecture, I'll obviously have Istan address the architecture. Um, I'm trying to find the the reference in the staff report about the architecture and the
city staff's consultants. Um, uh, yes. Okay. It's under number four. Staff's reviewing consultant found the redevelopment to meet the design criteria. Staff particularly supports the porch elements of the developed buildings which staff finds to effectively mask the elevation of the
habitable levels of the residents. Um, so, uh, Istvan, do you want to address the architecture? And I mean, I guess it's kind of hard to make a a modern, uh, apartment or condominium look like a bungalow, right? I mean, so how how would you address that?
Well, uh, this is true. You can't make it look like bungalow. Um, again, to maintain the 500 footprint, it does requires it's fairly boxy. And again as as I mentioned before to mitigate the boxy look that's why we
did the stepping and then we designed each unit with some with an architectural feature. Um which is actually I I would say I think it looks as good as if not better than many of the other three fourstory buildings uh in town. Um that's an opinion but the
point is it's it's of the era. It's not creating false hysteric city. We're not recreating a bungalow on the side because that's that's actually historically not appropriate. Is the purpose of these buildings um to sell them or to rent them or to do
monthly rentals or something like what is the purpose of them I guess what's the Hi, how are you? Um the purpose uh please um provide your name, address for the record. Uh, Eric Ael. Um, local address, I guess. 102 8th Avenue. Um,
you're the owner of the property. Is that correct? Yes. Um, ultimately probably to for condos and a sale. Um, could also be rentals really sort of. Do you not know yet what you want to do with it? Well, we want to get them approved so that we can I think uh the longer term
plan would be a condominiums for sale. So, it be like a beach house, somebody's beach home. could be a permanent home um for whether it's you know anybody who would you know I think the the uh the intent was really to uh I
think create something that the community would be proud of that we would be proud of that looks good that uh sort of satisfies the requirements of the city and uh would be you know a really nice project. Thank you. Thank you.
Do you have any additional questions? No. I think there are quite a few people here who don't want to testify. I don't have any other questions, but I did just want to bring back I'm sorry, Brandon. I'm just a little bit confused because of the fact that it sounded like
what I heard was there was no there was an existing variance, if you will. I know it wasn't a variance. was when it was built, but on the building side yet what I am just like reading on the documents in the record was suggesting
that the building did need an a variance different than existing. Am I missing something there? No. No, I I I don't think so. So, they are rebuilding with the current west
alleyway setback for the southwestern building. It is a very similar setback to what is currently on the property. Um they weren't subject to zoning back when they originally developed that building, but it because they're redeveloping the building. We don't allow for a building
to be redeveloped in place if it's within a required setback and it's this type of development. So the setback is effectively the same. But even if they were to put a structure that complied with the other criteria that we're reviewing today in that same place, they
would still need a variance because I just reading it, it says it the existing was 12'7 in and now the building is requesting 5'5 in and if it's I was just expecting existing would have indicated
that it was at 5'5 in and I'm not looking at the table but well actually I I Give me one second there. I think it's table uh staff report page five of 14. Yes. I'm I'm sorry that that was an error. That is the current stairs. The
the building is at 5'5. I'm I'm sorry. I Okay, thank you. That was correct. Any additional questions? All right. Do we have any public comment? We do. Bill Lowry. Bill Lowry 2405 pastor away. Uh I
intended to really come here just as a citizen, but I am the chairman of the historic preservation board and I think I need to make some corrections that was kind of said uh that implied that we went along with the design and agreed that we could have these places demolished. We don't have any choice in
that. It's an automatic thing. Okay. We would love to not have them demolished. I'd also point out that uh it's not quite accurate this is because of the hurricane. I mean, they could have those structures historically designated and rebuild them as they are.
And so they don't they don't have to demolish them. They don't have to build something new. They choose to do that, that's their option. Well, then I think they should follow what our code is because this is not a variant. It's a rewriting of the code. Essentially, they
start at three stories and try to justify it. And there's plenty of structures that are two stories high on Pass Grill that are new builds. They didn't even do an architectural plan for that. They just did one for three stories, which essentially gives them a whole variance for a whole second floor.
If the floodgates are open for these kind of variances, you know, money's come to pass a grill. It's been discovered. and you know, uh, we're going to get these on every case. And so they could have planned a different design that made it two stories,
incorporate you, they say it would look squatty. We don't know. They're the ones making the design. Uh, like I said, there has been many recent buildings that could be three stories, but have been only two. So, this is one that should only be two, but they're saying
it has to be three. Well, that's not consistent with what the code says. says it was there for a reason. I also point out people have been living in those apartments for 80 years comfortably. So to suggest that we have to build it this
big because these we we only put a bed and a toilet on these floors. I mean I've been in those in the old days there's couples that live in there. There's single people to live in there. So you know the idea that nowadays you have to have twice as much for the same thing is it's just it's just not
accurate. Um, let's see. Uh, you know, I'm concerned they we didn't talk about this because this for the variance, but the design they have as elevators, I think, and a common area. It's got a whole rooftop entertainment
area for the people that go there. That's a whole another issue. But I think we have to really recognize what's trying to be built here is a three-story structure with an it's basically an urban look. Okay? I mean, you can walk to the beach in in 200 feet. You don't
need a rooftop so you can see the sunset. Just walk to the beach. That's what Pass Girl is about. Not about these urban designs that uh make it so you can, I guess, turn into a condo or an Airbnb or whatever you want to do and and and use it in that fashion. So, uh,
my point I disagree entirely. This is not about making money. Entirely is about making money because they could do the alternative within the code and not even have to ask for variance. Additionally, I would just say they're going to demolish these structures. It's going to be a vacant piece of property. Where's your hardship on a vacant piece
of pop property? Just follow the rules. Most people do. Thank you, Kathy Khan. Hi, good afternoon. I'm Kathy Ken live at 203 Golfway. Um, just speaking to the actual experience of building a home in
Pascrow, which we did three years ago. Um it to my recollection a majority of our conversation regarding codes was about um FEMA and uh flood codes and what happens to how we can build a
structure that will maintain itself during a flood. One of the components of that was breakaway walls. One of the components of that is uninsured space. And neither of those things it seems to me have been discussed with these. Now, I have not been here for previous, you
know, hearings, so it could have been previous discussions, but I just wonder what happens to those units when there's this flood surge of 5T, which is what the breakaway walls are intended to address. So, that was one question. And then the other concern is about the
alleys. Having now lived in a home that is on an alley, you've come to appreciate that space. And the alleys are not just, you know, a strip of dirt. You know, they're functioning living spaces and part of the community. And
there's traffic all the time. There's deliveries, there are, you know, vendors, all kinds of people that occupy that space, you know, from time to time. So, these this home that's I don't I'm not quite sure how that where the exit is for those um units that are right up
on the alley, but I would suggest that they're going to be coming down those stairs and right into the alley. And I'm not sure what happens there. Is there is there like a sidewalk? You know, I don't know that there's actual space um you know, to accommodate all of that
activity. And um anyway, that's what I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jay Anderson Jay Anderson 202 pass goway. Um I do want to thank them for listening that at the last meeting where they pulled the
setbacks on pastor go away and first so that there's no need for variance there. the porches were encroaching the sidewalk and they listened. There is I will point out the southwest corner setback of asking for five feet
normally and what's there now is five feet but it's a one-story uh house that is there on that. Now it's going to be a wall three stories high five feet off the alley which probably is you know in terms of a coachment that's
a a lot of uh wall there on that alley. Um, so that being said, I also would like to ask what do they envision for the rooftop to be and how it will be used? Thank you.
Amy Lowry. Hi, Amy Lowry. 1021 19th Avenue, St. Pete Beach. I'm just always disturbed a little bit by granting variances on empty pieces of property and I think this is going to happen over and over
and pass a grill and um we have to make some hard decisions about these things because if you grant the variance for the first person then there's the precedence of granting that again for the next person that comes before and so
if they were to demolish the entire site or site excluding the um three-story home that's there, two-story home on stilts, um then you have an empty piece of property at that point. And so I don't really see the hardship on an empty piece of property. It's my
opinion. Brandon Techberg. Hello. Brandon Telenburgg 3112 pass a way. Thank you. Good afternoon. I wasn't going to speak but heard some people talk up here and you know people are p
putting their opinions in and giving false statements. Um first what Eric didn't say the owner of 100 PG way is he's my partner at 102 8th Avenue and him and I restored a 9-unit building. Could have been
demolished could have built more units on it. We could have done a lot of things and then we kept it and saved it for the community. We built nine beautiful units inside. Did a complete remodel. Built the pool when everybody thinks we're crazy for putting a pool in where
we could have built eight units. We also got destroyed from the hurricane. Completely rebuilt the lower level. Did everything correct. Went through every city piece of paper we had to do. And I have been watching from my home
the last couple months these hearings at my city. I'm very disappointed in people in power positions stating their personal beliefs when I'm seeing hypocrisy happen when I have the historical board chairman come up here
and tell people how to walk to the beach about a rooftop when he knocked down a historical home to build his own dream home. Is that Passagril how it looks? Maybe to him it does. To me it looks like an
Italian villa. But a pass old school home was knocked down for that. But now for months, I'm watching other people with dreams, ideas, being told no, while other people
already have their dream homes that are done. And now they're coming up here and speaking ill will about their neighbors. We're all neighbors. We're all building back over a year. I've heard now for the last couple people talk that it's not a hardship.
I managed that property for several years. Somebody just said up here that it can be rebuilt. Units five and six, I'll invite you all to walk to the property with me. We can't go inside. The walls are broken. No one's going to go in
there and live. No one is going to repair it. I ask that we start becoming the city of yes instead of the city of no all the time. He's going to build something great. Is it going to look like a 1925
historical home? No. But will it look great? Will it look beautiful? So when you go around First Avenue, it'll look good. And I have no money involved in 100 Pasigil Way. I'm a resident. I own three properties in Pasigril and I want
us to come together and I am for this property. Thank you very much. Thank you. I don't have any other cards. No additional cards. Would the board like to readress the applicant based off any questions
proposed by the community? I I think that hearing about your views on the rooftop Yes, ma'am. would be good. Yes, ma'am. Um, so again, Brian Ox, I I do think we'd get a short rebuttal. I'll
just keep it just very brief. Um, this is now the second time of you all heard this case and I appreciate your time. Also appreciate the concerns of the residents. I understand that nobody nobody is happy with the results of the hurricanes and I get that. Um, when something's substantially damaged, it
does have to come up to code. Whether it's a if it's a multif family, it has to come up to code. It has to be accessible. Um, and those are things that we want to comply with. We want to comply with modern codes so we don't have as many insurance claims in the future, right? It's it's painful when
you have to bring something up to code, but the whole point of it is that in the future it will mitigate damage. That's why you saw the existing building on site doesn't have to be repaired because it already is three stories. So this isn't some desire to put u some monstros
some monstrosity on the site. The staff supports the design. The staff supports the height. The height is not before you. It is not a variance that's being requested. It's as of right. This is by I'm just putting it out there again. The alternative if this doesn't pass is
unfortunately to do something completely different that is going to be more intense and just as high and doesn't require any variances. So the ironic thing here is we're asking for a variance to make it smaller in terms of intensity. That's the irony. Um so the
roof is the one of the conditions of approval is there's no commercial activity on the roof. There's no commercial activity on this site in general. Next time I have a project, I'm not going to put umbrellas on the roof on the evaluations. Uh those umbrellas are purely, you know, skeptical about what a unit owner might do on their
rooftop. Istavan, you want to just describe the roof? I mean, there's no there's no improvements on the roof whatsoever. Um, is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. So, there's no improvements on the roof. Simply showing what a unit owner might do with a chair
and a umbrella to watch the sunset. And that's that's it. There was also an architectural question regarding the stairs and their intersection with the alleyway. I'd like to go to the staff um PowerPoint because I think that one has the elevations a little better. So again, you can kind of see this is
existing and all that's being added here are stairs and they don't come right out into the they don't come out into the alleyway. It's just the setback from the alleyway. So I I'm sure you all understand the difference between the setback from the alleyway and the actual alleyway. Oh, I went on to another
project. I'm sorry. It's okay. Uh, if I may, is this the one? Okay. So, here's the stairs. If you could explain that. If I may, the the main reason I mean, I kind of wish we hadn't had to do that, but the stairs actually did suffer some damage. You know, the the structure and
the the the surfacing and all that. So, that's why we're uh choosing to rebuild that and then to maintain the court. So, instead of sticking that in the court to um to place it outside of the the venue. The other thing there was a question. Are we looking at the north or the south here? What are we looking at?
It's right here. This can you see my mouse? It's right there. That's north hand side of the building itself. Are we looking at the front? Is that this is the west facing side. This is the west the ways the behind. This is the alley. This is the alley elevation. Got it. Right. And the the
one of the reasons that we did keep the this building where it is is that we're uh there was a question previously on parking. All the parking spots for this project are within the setback, the five foot. You're allowed five foot to parking.
So that's what we maintain. So you know, the existing building has two spaces. We have four spaces out here and then two spaces underneath. So that gives you the full eight parking spaces off the alley, the required distance off the alley totally within the project.
Does every unit have its own parking? Every unit has its own parking spot. Correct. Okay. Any additional questions? Is the roof uh being occupied a requirement? In other words, would you be willing to make that inaccessible?
Right now, we have our mechanical equipment up there, too. Right. But I mean, but but having a 20 foot building set back is required, too. So, you're asking for a five foot 5 inch
setback for a three-story building. I'm just asking is the rooftop a requirement because of the the intensity and density that the entire neighborhood is kind of talking about as far as a concern. So, um
I just spoke to Mr. Ael. Um so, as Brandon confirmed, um having access to the roof is u is allowed by the code. We designed it that way. It, you know, might also be a fire safety issue to
close that roof off for residents if they were on the second floor. Um, so as of as of now, you know, the rooftop's not part of the variance. I understand that you might want to put a condition of approval that we're not allowed to use the roof. I'm not in a position to be able to agree to that right now
because I I don't know from a life safety perspective if that would if the fire department would support that or not. Um and the and to be frank, the the owner would like to allow the residents to go on the roof if they'd so choose. It would not be for commercial activity. A condition of approval is no commercial activity. If commercial activity was
happening on that roof or noise violations are happening on that roof, you could pull RFCO. I mean, you could come back to code enforcement. You could put a lean on the property. I mean, there there and obviously this is designed in such a way that we're hopeful that the residents there would be respectful of their community and,
you know, wouldn't cause problems. So, thank you. Thank you. And if uh one other question, so if you did go with a single floor dwelling, you wouldn't have the stairs anymore inside. So, would that then enable you to have
the same the similar footprint as the existing? Uh, hold on just a moment. I want to see can Brandon, we provided that as an example. Is that possible to pull that up? It's in the agenda packet. Sorry. So the the twotory the the one story of occupiable space over uh
parking is that we did provide a concept of what that would look like. Um it's in the agenda packet. So I wanted to I'm sorry making Brandon work here but it's important to point this out since we did we did provide it. Is that what's called option three?
Yes sir. You have to scroll through but you can this is your presentation. You can do it. If you go if you go to option three in the column on the left hand side, I think you'll be able to pull it up. Yeah. The second column
column one there. There you go. Right there up below. I'm trying to There you go. Yeah. So, look at the setbacks are significantly more encouraged. And this is I mean this is speculative the but you see the the footprints get
much larger. The reality is by code with the current version, the second floor, the bathroom and all that do not have to meet fair housing because technically you're only required to meet fair housing for the the the accessible
floor, which is the first floor. If we did that, the entire unit would have to be. So then you'd have to have spaces around the bathroom. That's why you have 750, you know, 760 foot onebedrooms. Typically, that's usually what happens. they they they it does cause extra square footage. So the
square footage that we gave away for the stair or that we were able to deduct for the stair you'd have to have back in. Okay. Okay. So, your testimony is that if you went to the single floor that is now elevated from a FEMA perspective
that you would then have variances on every single side of the property maybe except for what the front the I guess which is the east side. we could pull it back and you we right we'd square off the buildings just to make it
and then the the courtyard again that really diminishes so it loses that character that it has today and there's no guarantee that the city's design consultant would agree that this meets the overlay criteria which we know that it that what's being proposed does
meet the criteria we worked hard not to make this look like basically I hate to you know an elevated block building on stilts that's really what we're trying not to do that to really comply with uh the character of the area. Thank you.
Thank you. We'll now close the open comment and open to board discussion. Well, I think what Bill Lowry said I agree with is that you're basically starting over with the exception of one building
and you know what the zoning is, design something that fits in the zoning and so you don't need variances. Um, I mean, we we voted against a guy who wanted to make his build his house by the yach
club 4 in higher if you recall and we said no, he couldn't make even even 4 in higher because we were starting setting up precedent toward future development. Um the term hurricane relief that's all you guys wouldn't know that but every
meeting we've had this year has been some form of hurricane relief where people have had to rebuild and there's a lot of it being done all over the city especially in Pasigril and um I think that we have to stick with the I I'm I'm very uncomfortable with this number of
variances we um we we deny denied someone 4 in. You're exactly right. Well, I mean, we we've denied people for you remember this that last time we had the guy with the stairway looking I give him that and everything else, but at the same token, it's just
it's going to be condos eventually. I think that the let's just step back at it. Do we and I say we as a community, do we want to retain a courtyard like um complex there? if you want this
courtyard complex, how do you design one? If we want to maintain the courtyard uh complex that's there for the community, um I can see the three homes, that's an option. And I can see that if it go the the I guess I'm going
to look back at my notes from everyone's comments, but it seems to me that the idea of This being three homes wasn't ever
brought up, but it's more concerns about whether or not this is the way to rebuild it. And I can appreciate seeing threestory buildings. Maybe not exciting
um relative to the historic look, but then we look at what the alternative is to meet Florida Building Code ADA compliance at a second floor above a garage that gives you the elevation,
which we're all doing to our homes. uh that doesn't look that is doesn't look feasible at all. If that testimony is correct of option three, then that doesn't fit um I guess without reduction of number of units.
So then you don't encroach. Um so this is I think a hard one because I do appreciate that uh a lot of work has gone into this to minimize all of the variance requests and to try to fit it into a space that is existing. We'll
call it existing. It doesn't make it meeting variances, but you're trying to make it fit within existing footprints um and give a community back an inhabitable beautiful space to
according to what you're looking for. Um and but we're hearing a lot from the community of concern. So I think that's that's the challenge. That's a big challenge. It's it's our decision to
deviate from some of the codes, but um at what point do we say, okay, this one's all right, this one's not. We have to try to be consistent and the fact that we wouldn't allow that guy extra 4 in was
So, I think we need to be consistent, but we also need to look at each case on its own, right? and this is a multif family complex as opposed to an individual new home build and there's a lot more challenges that come with that um in addition to wanting to look at the historical use of the building and
maintain you know that character. Um I really commend the applicant for the work that they've done and I appreciate the um community that recognize that they've been trying really hard to decrease the ask that they've come to this board with. Um but it doesn't make it you know an easy
decision. Um I think the var if we look specifically at what is the variance that they're they're asking for the setback variance um as the city pro um explained is very minimal at this point and um has justification. It's the side
it's the square footage of the 70 plus per unit that they're looking for relief on. I agree. Um it is minimal. It is very minimal and we we're going to have our own meeting later to decide. I mean, do we stick
right to the code to the tea or are we the board of adjustments because we can adjust once in a while. Is there any alternative listening to all this testimony? I think that uh they they've done a great job. I mean, from what they came in with the first the first time to where we're at
now. Can you clarify one other thing? Sorry. About the stairs. Like I know there's a lot of discussion around stairs and accessibility. Um I just want to understand this variance for stairs as far as relative to existing um replacing
what's there or having to add something due to some new codes or requirements. Is there an alternative to this staircase request and issue? And I guess along those lines, city attorney, is there any relevance to this stair request that might be impacted by
current discussions with the commission on altering stair? He's also leading. Yeah. Yeah. I think these aren't front stairways. They're I'll let Brian address it. Correct. I think the main focus has been on front staircase encroachment for elevated and substantially improved
homes when they elevated above the flood plane, allowing for that encroachment. At least the direction we've received so far has not been to look at side and rear. We do allow a minimal encroachment, but it's just like building a new building. If they're putting a staircase within what is in
this case a 17 ft rear setback, they would need a variance even if it was only a foot. Um, at some point it's necessary to have that encroachment just to maintain access to the building. So there would be those situations which in this case I felt it was the encroachment
was reasonable given the existing building and the and the access necessity on the on the south side of that um 1990s home. So there is an accessibility requirement for stairs there. Correct. They would they would need accessibility to the upper levels of the
unit. I I didn't look specifically if this is if this is the absolute minimum encroachment they would be permitted. But clarifying because is is there are there no stairs there today? They they do have stairs and I I'll go back to the photos. We could pull that PowerPoint. Are currently they were impacted and they're having to
I mean that's what is because this is an existing building. So I just want to be clear. Are we just reapproving the replacement of existing stairs? Correct. It's it's just a it's a different layout. It's a different um a mass but you can see on the rendering
here what is proposed and then you can see what's being replaced. It's a different orientation of stairs, but what's on the left side of the screen is the existing stairs with landing that they have at the property. This is more oriented toward the uh the alleyway side
toward where the photo was taken. But they they have access on this side of the building and they would just be reestablishing those stairs to maintain I might have to ask the applicant, but is there there I guess from your perspective, was there another location for those stairs to give them the right accessibility without having an alleyway
encroachment? part of the challenge and and the applicant can give more detail on this, but they do have they have entry doors right fairly close to the alley. So, I'll let them speak to that. I mean, the question is, you know, yes, we could right uh where is it? You know,
the current stairs are right here and just to open up the courtyard more and to rebuild, that's why we put them on this side. Those are the only stairs for those units. So I guess but my question being is there a way to locate them so that they're that
they are not encroaching on Absolutely. Okay. So you this is not a hard requirement for the stairs to have a variance. It's no if we don't put those stairs there the project fails. Now we can move those stairs. You can move them. Okay.
Okay. Okay. So, we're talking about a variance to the existing setback on the southwest side for the building and
a variance for living space. That's where we're down to then if if we are looking at this now. There's two. And if Brandon, one question for you. Um on the variance to the living space,
if they were to decrease the number of total units, um would that then offset that or does it automat does it come down to just the average per unit based off the multi-family? It's the developed square footage. So if they were to
cut the units down to five, they could potentially make it work. It's just the it's the existing developed square footage of the project for this particular project based on how the code's written. They they would need a variance just because they the ground floor is treated the same as the living
square footage and just rebuilding them in the same footprint that would all be consumed by the ground floor parking. So, they wouldn't be able to reestablish any living square footage. But if you if the board were to grant that, they could potentially make the units
work just at a lower unit count. But they currently had the the the income for the existing property was that of eight units. Correct. They have they have a vested eight units. Yes. Thank you.
I appreciate the fact that we just minimize the need for, you know, the third variance um impacting the alleyway on that from that front existing building. I hear I hear the concern. It goes from a single story to a threetory
at that same setback. doesn't change it, but it does feel like it changes it when you think about three stories versus one. Um, so would but if they were to move forward building three homes,
yeah, that would be allowed without any variance. Well, no, then the setback I mean the you'd have a 20 foot setback for a building. You still have the log zone. Setbacks are smaller for single family homes right there.
What are the setbacks right single family hall? Sorry, just for the building off the rear alleyway. The building would be 15 ft. Um what what the applicant showing here is the same that would apply to single family.
There's a 5ft difference. A garage only is allowed to be five feet from the alley, but it can't have living space above it within that that 15 feet for standalone residential. So, okay, that's helpful. Okay.
I think what I'm sensitive to is there's going to be a challenge um with any development in this space for the community and you know but it needs to be rebuilt and I think there's going to be um unfortunately you know community
concern and unless it's looks very similar to the way it used to. Um and we all want you know the community to look how it used to but that's just not feasible anymore. It can't happen. Um not possible. And I find myself vacasillating on this. I mean,
originally I was going to stay fast and go, well, you know what? We denied the guy because of 4 in. But that was that was a height restriction, which Yeah, that was a height restriction. But that we had the guy last time that had the two stairways is a project that I think they
they've done so much since the first time we sat here and listened to this presentation. So yeah, we can discuss this more. Is there further discussion or are we at the point for a motion? I don't have anything else.
So um so I will make a motion to approve case number 255052 100 pass girl way with staff conditions as outlined to the 840 square foot um
developed square footage in the two living levels and for the rear setback alleyway condition for the building only to stay at existing 5'5 in.
Does that include denial of the stair one and denial of the stair at 8 foot1? So they have to live within the variance on that. It was I mean live within the code requirements for that. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
I'll second it. Roll call, please. Member core. No. Member Garshaw. Yes. Member Small. Yes. By uh Chair Chase. Yes. Motion fails. Three to one.
Motion passes. Three to one. I thought it had to be four. Um Brandon, I'll take a look at the code right now. If if that's the case, I misspoke at the beginning of this meeting because I clearly gave the applicants all the
direction that it was a 3-1 vote. No, I I I believe it's a simple majority. The historic word has the correct. We If it's a simple majority, the motion carried. Yes. I'm I'm just pulling up our code. I just
want to be 100% sure. Pulling it up, too. Who's faster? It's it's the majority of board members. What code section are you at? 2239 of code of ordinances. 22
39 39 You're supposed to be in code of ordinances. Code of ordinances. Oh, sorry. Here. There you go. Um, article two, board of adjustment 2239.
Conduct of meetings. The quorum for the conduct of business shall be not less than three members. So you have four members today. A majority of board membership shall be required to make any determination required by the board. Is that what you're reading, Brandon?
Yes. So we can confirm the motion passes. So it's written kind of strange. It's saying a simple majority vote of the quorum. It says a majority of board membership which is three
to five and we were three to one. So it passes. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to action item B case number 255096. Brandon, can I have the clicker? Thank you. It's okay. May I have the overhead, please? Or not
the overhead, the presentation. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. Christine Kman, planning manager. Today we're looking at variance case number 255096 located at 10324th Avenue. The applicant Excuse me. If you could please bring any
comments into the lobby. Thank you. Sorry, Kristen. It's a screw. Just wait for the doors to shut. So, we have All right. Sorry. I'll restart over. Um, good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members Chrisen Cohen, planning manager.
Today we have before you variance case number 255096 located at 10324th Avenue. The owners Michael and Gina Peza are requesting a practical difficulty variance to allow for the retention of a 12.2 ft x 20 foot
residential storage building which was formally developed as a garage that is non-conforming to the required setbacks with a side setback of 3 ft proposed where 25 ft is required following the redevelopment of the primary dwelling. So they're looking for relief from land
development code section 3.10E1 and 20.15 house large accessory structure envelope. Here is an aerial of the property. Um it is outlined in red. It is an interior
parcel within the pasil with a single family residential to the north and south as well as the east and a two-unit residential structure to the west. It is located within the RU2 pasil
overlay zone zoning district. And here is just the request detail again. Um they're looking to retain the existing structure um within the pastoral standard is 25 ft existing is 3 feet as well as 3T is proposed. So it's
an existing non-conformity. Here is an enlarged survey of the property. Now there is a lot going on with this survey. the owner um did uh supply this with regards to they had originally looked for um prehurricane I
guess I should say for a detached structure another detached garage structure as well as they recently did do a fence. Um, so this was kind of all combined into one, but I just wanted to show you up in the upper left hand
corner, it does show the garage area as well as I did want to provide a photo of the existing structure formally as a garage currently utilized as an office and proposed to be converted into just a storage structure by its own.
So there is some background to this uh to this property. I think the owners at the end of this will have gone to every board from historic preservation board. They originally had applied for a local historic designation but decided to withdraw the application as they have
decided to demolish the existing primary constru structure construct a new dwelling which is shown in the pictures. um they have gone through historic preservation board design re review as case number 255039 and the board's consultant did give some
feedback on the proposed design which the applicant is taking into consideration uh for their new home. Also uh due to the main structure and outbuildings being deemed contributing to the Pasil Historic District they have been required to get a certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition which is outstanding. they haven't applied but they have acknowledged that that that will be a requirement as part of the zoning review for the new dwelling. Um according to land development code section 3.10E
any existing non-conforming structure may not remain once the principal structure is terminated by abandonment damage or destruction. So a review of the boundary survey indicated that the accessory structure does not meet the 25- foot um sideyard setback requirement. So the options they had
were bringing the structure into conformity with the regulations by relocating it to meet the setback or simply removing it or obtaining variance approval. Um initially the applicant informed staff that the request was going to retain the structure for the use as a home office. However, uh it
appears that the structure had been converted into a habitable space prior to the current owner purchasing the property and without the appropriate permits. So, a review of the 2015 Pasal Historic SER site survey in the Florida master site file confirmed that the
existing contributing detach structure was consistent with the garage. And this picture is showing what the status was in 2015. Again, prior to the current owners purchasing the property where you can see it had an overhead door consistent with a storage structure.
These were pictures um supplied by the applicant showing the conversion of the interior structure again without the benefit of permits or um by the prior owner. So consulting with the city's building official uh we could not issue
any permits to be authorized um for the prior conversion being that it included habitable space. Um so again we went back to what can we do with this structure and the applicant has decided to remove the um any of the improvements
that could not be permitted and just simply go back to a storage type structure which would include um the removal of the bathroom, HVAC equipment and electrical. So, I just wanted to give you a proposed
site plan um of the new home. Uh I kind of relocated as a best estimate of where that structure highlighted in red would be um as part of the uh owner's overall plan, which would locate it if it met
the the sideyard setback structure of 25 ft within the proposed new pool that the owners are going to probably look to do. But I just wanted to give you a spatial awareness if we relocated it where it would where it would fall. Where is it now on that? So where it is now, they didn't show it
on the existing or the proposed site plan, but it would be in the upper leftand corner. Just simply leaving the same location and relocating it more to the east to meet that sideyard setback. So I'm going to bring you on to the property now. uh
notice was um the completed as required and site sign posted on the property on September 17th. To date, staff has not received any letters in opposition or support at this time.
So, this would be the southwest corner by the sidewalk looking to the north. You can see not really even see the roof line of the existing structure. Again, that black fence was just newly installed.
Here's just another picture close up. And then here's a picture of the structure as it currently exists with the fencing. And here you can see the depth of the structure. This would be the rear of the structure.
There is a small little alleyway, I guess you could say, or corridor behind. It's not a functioning alleyway, but an easement that exists behind the um between the two dwellings and this HVAC
equipment would also have to be removed. So with that, as part of the staff findings report, the applicant should be prepared to provide their own testimony um regarding the potential alternatives if the variance is not approved. We would ask that the applicant should explain the current and proposed use of the structure and what it is to be
removed as per the her discussions with the building official and um elaborate on the necessity of retaining the structure and clarify the materials to be stored within the building as they are building new construction. They will have storage underneath the new home um
and what they intend to use it for. And I do believe the applicant is here, Miss Peza. Um, okay. Question, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. One second. Uh, Kristen, yes. in terms of just this overall development um with
these different structures being put on them. I'm I'd like to just hear also that this does not have any impact over their pous if if this was to be granted that based on pools and home new home structure
that we are still giving adequate pvious surface because I think absolutely. So in looking at that, I did take a look at what their proposed ISR impervious surface ratio would be and they are would be well under um with the
proposed pool and the the dwelling and driveway if they retain this structure they would meet the requirement. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Um, in addition to the front stairwell ways, there's also been some discussion from the commission on the approval of letting existing shed storage structures
remain with rebuilds from the hurricane. Would this structure fall within lines of what they're considering? Are you aware? Well, this would be a non-conforming um structure that would be uh allowed to remain as far as
we had some information and and with the planning board as well as the city commission to get their feedback on even increasing the sizes. So, this would be a non-conforming size. It's not just where its setback is. So, we are looking
at the setback side. Um we have had some difference of opinion on actually increasing the size from the existing 80 to 120 for this garage here. It would meet the size requirement for an accessory structure within the pastoral
overlay which this dwelling is being constructed too. So this would be okay on that respect. Okay. The applicant would like to please come forward. So Gina has a 103 24th Avenue. So when
we purchased the home, the structure was already there. It's the same age as the home. I believe it's 100 years old, if not 98, something like that. Um, and prior to the storm, we were putting in a fence, a pool, a new deck, and a garage,
a a detached garage on the driveway. Um, when we went to have the fence installed, which would took like six months to get because it was it's custommade metal fencing where they were where we were granted the permit was right on where the
existing fence was. And we tore out the existing fence and all the shrubbery and they came to install the fence. We found that it was right on top of the sanitary line, the city sanitary line. So, they couldn't get the posts in the ground. So, they had to move the fence in three
feet and connect it to the back. We had to reapply for, you know, um, resubmit for the permit because there was a change. We had to connect it to the back of the shed or garage, what I think it's called a garage on the survey. And then
where it comes down the sidewalk on the beach side, it connects to the front corner of the shed. So, our original intention, as Kristen said, you know, my husband uses this as an office. We found out it was not permitted. We knew it was
not permitted when we purchased the home. It was listed as a three-bedroom home. It's only two that was set up as a bedroom when we purchased it. Unbeknownst to us that, you know, we didn't know that that was an issue. Um, but Mike, we don't use it as a bedroom.
Mike uses it as a home office. So, originally we were going to just leave our home and this shed structure, put the pool in. We've had a permit to put the fence attached to it, a permit to put on a new roof on that structure and the home, as well as a new hurricane
sliding door because when we purchased it, it did not have the overhead door. It had French doors, which, as you know, French doors are beautiful, but they don't work. So, we put in a hurricane slider. So, um, we would like
to keep it. I understand we understand that we can't keep it use it as we are currently using it, but we would like to keep it because the storage that Kristen mentions under the new home, which is only like 2100 square ft, singlestory. We think it fits into Pass Girl
perfectly. Um, but that storage is accessible from the front of the house. So, if we put a pool and we're expecting a storm or, you know, se severe weather, we'd like to be able to move the pool furniture then
into that shed structure since it's already there. If we try to move it, I don't know that that's even a possibility. It's very old, so I don't know that we could move it at this point. And if we have to take it down,
then we have to alter fencing again. The fence on the side is 8t tall. The fence in the back is seven. We'll have to step it down. We'll have to purchase more panels. It was very expensive fencing. So, we'd rather not do that if we don't have to.
Just makes me I love your house. We do, too. It's very bittersweet. It makes me so sad to see these historic houses and pastor go away. I understand why, but I I've I know that house very well. I like it a lot. Um and at least never had an intention to tear it down.
Yeah. Well, all of us had that issue, didn't we? So, um, your design for the new house is nice. So, you've done a good job of making it look like it belongs to Pasro. So, the only issue for us is about the shed that was there and it's in the setback, but if you were
to walk past back there in that um easement, other neighbors have it landscaped. There's a home that's um in that easement, I believe. And there's also a wall to another person's fence. So if we took down our shed, we understand that
it's encroaching on the easement. It's not going to make any changes. Those other homes are not they're not moving. They're actually, you know, rebuilding one of them right now. So it's that it's not going to really make a
difference for that easement. Appreciate any additional questions for the applicant. No, I don't. Thank you. Good. Do we have any public comment for I do not. Oh, I am so sorry. Yes, he did too. Bill
Lowry. Hi, Billy. 245 pass away. I'm actually within 300 ft. So, I'm a neighbor and got a notice of of this. And I would just say uh they're great people. They're new design. I agree with Mr. Corset's exactly right. I mean, they
could have built something a lot bigger. sure they could have built something with a different architectural nonpass grill aesthetic. Um they did an excellent job of that and of course what triggers the removal of this and the need for the variances that they're demolishing the house in the front. Now,
with that being said, the pez has been very, very generous about agreeing to move that house for other things, and there's been discussions with other folks on Pascal if that's going to happen or not, but there's definitely uh the belief or the hope or the possibility that house could be saved
and not demolished. Uh, as I said before, you know, they have they have a they haven't been historically designated, but they could be, and if they wanted to move the house, they would do that so it could be moved. So, I think they've done everything they possibly can to do it. That little shed
is a beautiful little feature that fe looks like old passer grill. Um, I'm actually kind of sorry they have to take remove it and change it back to storage because it's really been that way and it's not really harming anybody the way it is, but those are the rules, I guess. Uh, so I would just say that I would
hope you would grant this little variance that uh again if they're I think it'll fit into the architecture of their new design. Um and just to clarify something, you know, in the historic board, we can't say no to anybody, okay? We don't have the power to do that
really. Okay? Uh maybe on some variances, but that rarely rarely happens. And so, you know, if they want to demolish it, they certainly can. Uh we sometimes get involved in like in their case, we looked at the design. It's beautiful, but it's really for information purposes. It's not for us to
tell them no or maybe make suggestions. So, with that being said, uh I would urge you to grant this very mild variance and I think that would make the whole neighborhood happy. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? We'll close public comment and open for board discussion.
Um I don't have any real conversation about this. I think um seems pretty simple to there's a a shed that exists now that's not causing any any harm and investing in the community and removing all the non-compliant aspects of it to
uh this I think it's I think it's as easy um yes I would um I move to approve case 255096 as they ask for with the applicant
with the applicant agreeing to the removal of the Yeah. All the I guess I'm just going to make sure we say the staff conditions of applicant shall obtain the permit for removal of the previous completed non-permitted improvements to the
satisfaction of the building official and the structure shall be exclusively for storage in accordance with land development code section 6.13. Can I make that amendment to the motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. We have an amended motion. Do we have a second? I second. Roll call, please.
Member Small, yes. Member Core, yes. Vice Chair Garshaw, yes. Chair Chase, yes. Motion carries. Moving on to case number 25107. You can do it there. Okay. Okay, this is case number 25107.
This is a practical difficulty variance for the address of 10620th Avenue. Cassandra E. Gas, trustee for Iliana Gas, owner. request a practical difficulty variance to install exterior access stairs. The winder stairs shown in the rendering associated with new residence to be constructed to the house
medium standards of the pass overlay district with a front setback of 5'1 in proposed where 7 ft is required. This is pursuant to land development code section 6.22B. Here is an aerial of the property. It is located on the south side of 20th
Avenue. It has a zoning of RLM2 P A overlay. Here's a survey of the existing dwelling. It is an existing one-story two family dwelling. It is being redeveloped as a single family home. Um
it does have separate living spaces which the applicant can cover. U but you can see this is the existing layout of the property. So, for any new single family home, um, stairs are allowed to encroach up to three feet into the required front setback. The applicant is utilizing the
house medium setback of the Pastor Overlay District, which allows for a 10-ft front setback. Uh, that would allow for stairs at a 7 foot required front yard setback. And, um, they already do have steps at the front of the home at approximately 6' 3 in. Those
are nonstructural steps up to the front door. Uh this would be an actual of course wider staircase as was shown on the renderings. The requirement is 10 ft um to the house which is met. The setback of the front of the home is 10' 7 in. Requirement is 7 ft to the stairs.
They are proposing 5' 1 in to the stairs and you can see here the site plan. I'm sorry. Can you just I know it's not question time, but just clarify. If it's required to be 10 ft to the house, why is 10t 7 in to the house a variance?
That is not No, that that's not a variance. I'm sorry. It's that the house does meet the required front setback. The stairs um is the only request that they're making and that that's a that's the only variance. Yes. Uh you can see here the site plan showing the lot layout of the new dwelling. Um, it is slightly larger in
square footage, but it does retain the backyard features, the existing pool. Um, it does have a similar layout to the home that existed previously with some additional square footage on the sides. You can see at the front of the home there, they are now establishing driveway access from 20th Avenue to two
access points and then these stairs in the center of the development with the 5'1 in setback. This is showing five but it was in the application as 5'1 inch which is what will be met. You can see here the front elevation.
This one did go for historic preservation board design review. Both staff and the board um felt that it it met the compatibility standards. Um they are going with just one living level over parking and storage. And you can see the floor plan on the right side of
the screen. And again, the only setback uh the only variance requested is for those stairs. Here's some isometric renderings of the development. Some photos of the existing site looking from the frontage.
Currently, uh the lot coverage because it was brought up with the previous case, um is well over the 70% limitation that we currently have. I have spoken with the applicant as well as their architect. They do plan to comply with the lot coverage standard when they redevelop.
Uh you can see here the back of the property currently access is provided from the alleyway. There is a parking area behind that gate on the right side of the photo. Um that um that that is currently the only parking access to the
property. And you can see here the pool. Uh this was approved through a variance I believe about six years ago. That pool will remain. Uh some of the other impervious coverage on the site will be taken up to meet the new home construction standard.
Another photo of the back of the property. Again, another photo. Um there have been a number of demolitions on this street. Um we are aware of other development proposals. the property to the immediate west will also be redeveloped with a
twostory structure. That one will be retaining the duplex use that it currently has. The subject property is uh converting to a single family. So the only comment that staff had um to the applicant was to address the depth
of the front porch. So under the Florida building code, a depth of at least three feet must be established for a front porch. The depth of this porch is approximately 5 1/2 ft. Um, and whether the depth of the front living entry porch could be shortened to reduce or
eliminate the need for this variance. Again, it's a less than twoft encroachment to the current standard. Staff finds that the applicant has otherwise addressed the criteria and has designed a structure that is in keeping with the overall rhythm and compatibility standards of the P passil overlay district. The winder stairs are
in keeping with the design of the home. They also provide a significantly lesser overall volume encroachment than other standard stereotypes would provide and the applicant can can address the reason for choosing those, but we did feel that they worked very well with the the
design of the structure. No recommended conditions for this case. We just asked for that one piece of information from the applicant. Um, your motion options are on the screen. Did you have any questions for staff? I know the owner is present. If you go back to that prior picture just to make sure I'm understanding. So
if the two feet difference in the variance request potentially could be addressed by decreasing the size of the porch landing. Well, I'd like the I'd like the applicant to address that, but based on the minimum Florida building code, it's three foot depth. I know the the board
for the last two cases have brought up some of the items that we're looking into in the code. Um speaking with the commission on Monday, they were looking at for these type of encroachments a depth of a little bit more than three feet. The bare minimum requirement. They had
brought up four to five feet for landing, which this is about 5 1/2 ft. I believe the actual distance between the top step and the um front door is is around five feet, but the applicant can confirm that and their reason for going with this design. Okay.
Can we see I'd like to see two pictures. One is the old building that's there now. From the front. Yeah. From the front. Okay. And then I'm just looking at and now let's look at the new building as proposed from the front. Yeah.
the the old building. So, where where do people park for the old building? That was at the back of the property. It's this is a photo of the alley and there there was parking. I'm familiar with that alley. I'm just wondering, are we allowing now allowing people to
put driveways up from the street if it was over the sidewalk? I thought we weren't doing that. So, under the current code, there is going to have to be expansion joints and they're going to have to maintain the the material of the the sidewalk. But um so we we'll work with them at permitting on that. But the current code does allow
for that. That's something the historic board is looking to change, but they they have submitted prior to that change. So any additional questions for Brandon? No. The applicant would like to please come forward. Hi, I have someone helping me to um
change the slides because I was not able to get my presentation onto uh the Google slides, y'all's slide format there. So, let me log in. Bring your microphone down because we can't hear you very well. Sure.
Sorry about that. And then if you can just share your name and address for the record. Thank you. Okay. All right. Hi everyone. I am Casey Guest, daughter of Ilana Guest and trustee for the property at 106 20th
Avenue and our family has owned it for over 20 years. We are requesting relief from LDC section 6.22B to allow a 1 ft 11 in two feet encroachment for our front porch stairs.
But before we get too much further, I just wanted to thank you for your time today and for giving me this opportunity to tell you about my family's requested variance. Our family genuinely appreciates your consideration. So, here you see our beloved duplex.
Um, our special circumstances are that our beloved duplex was catastrophically damaged by Hurricane Helen and Milton fall of 2024. Let me just state for the record. We did not want to tear it down. We cried and
cried and cried. It was a monthsl long process. In fact, we received our substantially damaged letter from Panelis County in January verifying that our damage did
exceed 50% of the home's value. We now must build to code a new hurricane compliant single family residence elevated 12 feet as substantially damaged means as you know now we have to come up to code. We are here today
because strict adherence to the current setback creates a practical difficulty and hardship for accessibility needs. We began our process by looking for inspiration on home for looking for
inspiration homes on Passagirl Island as our architect suggested which this is our inspiration home and it does exist on Pasigril. We wanted our design to fit in with the community of St. P beach and found this home.
We feel that this design gave a nod to our beloved duplex. We did consider the three levels like the inspiration home, but wanted to keep it similar in stature and feel to our duplex. We did we do like the compact front steps, but we've
needed to make sure that the house was accessible for mobility aids. The design for the new house was carefully chosen and presented to the historical committee for design review September 4th. The main living area is
elevated per requested base flood elevation levels and hurricane compliance. Our design is undized from a living square footage standpoint compared with other structures on the block. Had we chosen to have a third story, we could
have significantly increased our square footage. That brings us to today. Our requested variance for the stairway is shown in the yellow box. Our request is the same as two rulers. The proposed front design features a
continuous curved guard rail without a 90deree turn at landing or steep stairway, offering a more gentle and accessible rise and run. If the variance is granted, it means the bode portion of
our stairs will stop 5 feet 1 in from our property line. This top-down view gives another perspective of the request. It shows the property line at the yellow arrow to the front of the house at the blue arrow.
The 1 foot 11in encroachment request for the curvature of the stairs is shown between the orange and green arrows. It is worth noting that the entirety of the stairs remain within our property lines, preserving state preserving safe
distance from sidewalks and streets. These close-up views demonstrate that our variance request will have a very minimal visual impact. The encroachment simply allows for a safer, gentler sloping staircase that
improves accessibility. It provides function and code compliant access without affecting adjacent properties or obstructing sidewalks and streets. And there are no visibility issues and it has no adverse impact on the
neighborhood's character. Other stair designs were definitely considered. However, they either encroached further into the setback or did not address our accessibility needs because the house must be raised 12 ft to meet hurricane compliance. This
created challenges for compact yet accessible stair design. Stairs rising 12 feet perpendicular to the front of the house created a very steep staircase that did require encroaching several feet. Stairs step
stairs stretching horizontally across the front resulted in steep stairs and adding a landing only created an even more imposing set of stairs spanning the front of the house. Our curved design is not only visually compact, it is a great
balance that requires minimal space and still maintains visual appeal. Moving the house back into the lot was not feasible because of an existing pool 5 ft behind the house and incorporating
the stairs within the house footprint reduced limited essential wheelchair accessibility. This slide is the reason I gave you the handout at the beginning of the meeting. The design of the new home must prioritize accessibility for my
83year-old mother, for my brother who has a lifetime disability that hinders movement and brain function, and for myself because I have limited leg strength following a lifetime of
major multiple hip surgeries beginning at age two and hip replacement with more surgeries still to Living in a home not designed for wheelchairs has made it clear how vital
even small amounts of space can be to ensure easy access for all of us as the years progress. This small adjustment will make it easier to maneuver mobility aids within the home's footprint as
well. Since I understand the challenges of using mobility aids in tight spaces, we designed our 5 and 1/2 ft deep front porch to accommodate wheelchair maneuverability. According to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, ADA, standards for accessible design state that wheelchair a wheelchair turning radius requires a clear space of 60 in or 5 ft in in diameter for a full 180 360 turn. The 5
1/2 deep front porch will allow for accessible wheelchair turning radius. Sorry, we're gonna go back one. I think that's it. Okay. No, we're good. Sorry. Our next door neighbors, Walter and Tea
SOA, who own 108 20th Avenue, must also build a hurricane compliant home raised 12 feet in the air. They have given us their support for our variance. They are dear neighbors who we have had the privilege of getting to know over the
past 20 years and I will support them in their endeavors as well. Um I did reach out to my other neighbors a couple of weeks ago via texts and pictures to explain our variance request to them. This past Saturday on September 20th, I
conducted an hour-ong video presentation call presenting this slide deck explaining the variance as well as 25 more slides to visually address additional build topics that they were concerned about. At that
time, they only expressed minimal concerns about the 1 foot 11in variance request. This slide was included in my slide presentation on Saturday to my neighbors. It is most of
the rule the regulatory codes and pro professional oversight rules and advisors I have consulted and researched over the last year in order to rebuild our home. I am committed to building a wonderful home for my
mother who is a dedicated teacher of over 40 years. For us, two feet makes a difference by ensuring independence, comfortable access and maneuverability. It accommodates our mobility needs. It
is within our defined property and it does not affect adjacent properties or public rightway. Given the circumstances, the proposed variance offers a reasonable and necessary solution that's simply
practical. I want to thank you again for your time and consideration. Also to let you know I can answer any further questions. I come prepared with more slides to talk about many other topics. but also a
special thank you to Brandon Barry and Kristen Comman for their help in the design review and variance process. Our family could not have done it without them. Thank you all so much. Thank you very much. That was very very impressive presentation. Um I'm curious about how
you're talking about the wheelchair when it turns on the second floor up there. How's it going to get up those stairs? Okay. I knew you were going to ask that. I didn't know I was going to ask that. I did. I did. And I do have pictures. I'm just curious. But so
in the back of the house where we have to have mand mandated by code rear egress and entry, we have a set of stairs in the back. We are also installing right on the back southeast side of the stairs
a lift. And I am so excited by it. It's not an elevator, it's a lift. So it's open air in case somebody the power goes out. We're not stuck back there. Hey. But it's great because it's I think it's 3 by3 and we can put groceries and a
wheelchair and suitcases and everything else that we need to get up and down the stairs. Um, and is there is there I see the garage here in the front. Is there a door on the back for the garage? Is that Yes. Well,
there is parking in the back of the house currently, and I would like to address that real quick. All right. So, let me go to parking real quick. Um because that does make a difference. All right.
So, all right. Sorry. trying to I should have just sent Brandon my PDF, but I was in Atlanta and trying to pull it together and I did. You're fine. I'll know for next time. Okay. So, parking. Yep. That's perfect. All right. So, the
first picture is an aerial view or the first pictures are an aerial view of a parking lot off 21st and 22nd. And the second picture is a beach parking off of Gulf Way. And this was more to address to be honest with you our two driveways.
Um, but I was just wanting to present that there is parking nearby. All right. The next one is directly parking related to my house. Is this the one after this one? Yeah, this one. Yes, that one.
Okay. Wait a minute. That's the wrong one. Sorry. I'm sorry. You're fine. It's slide number 22. It's as well organized as I tried to Here it is. Okay.
All right. We don't need anymore. No, it's just Okay. All right. Okay. So, this is really what I wanted to talk about. So, this aerial picture is of my backyard. This slide answers the
question of why we are not keeping our back alleyway concrete driveway for parking. We did carefully consider retaining this setup, but here are multiple reasons we will not. Alleyway access is very difficult to maneuver.
There is a very long storage shed or garage perpendicular to our drive that sits very close to the alleyway street that can be seen right here. Um, there is a telephone pole with trash cans next to that house. And to compound
matters, our neighbor that owned that house had a boat also sitting parallel to that garage in the alleyway that even though we requested it be moved, it was glued to the ground. So, this is the reason that our family would normally
park in the front of the house on 20th and we always have two cars. However, there are more reasons than that. to bring our house up to green space codes which we are absolutely committed to. We must significantly increase our required
green space. This is something that I don't know if you all remember me from 20 20 no 2019 right before the hurricane. I was before y'all getting a variance for my pool and you requested that I increase our green space. I'm
keeping my promise to you. Little bit by little bit, we have been ripping our concrete out. This is the final harrah. We want to get rid of all concrete on the property with the exception of the footprint of the house and put landscaping.
Um, finally, code states as I said earlier that we must have back of the house entry and egress. And this slide Oh, yep. This is the greenscape. This is the um our greenscape landscaping plan
where it shows the driveway that we are going to turn into landscaping. And then the back of the house. No, this one. And then this plan, this picture, excuse
me, shows the right here is the lift and right here is the rear entry and egress. And right here, what you can't see is that back driveway. So that back driveway, for
multiple reasons, has to go. We couldn't put the stairs over here because of the pool. just doesn't make sense. So, but that's how we're going to do it. We're going to have a lift back there. So, you'll have a a lift in the back,
you stairs in the back, and then to code, right? Correct. Okay, understood. And then on the front stairs, it's more for just your more of a stylistic
approach to add those um stairs that come down because that won't be something you'll use from a your for your family because they'll need to use the rear stairs. Not not necessarily. I'll get her to go back
um to the very beginning and let me explain that to you. Pardon? Do you have other stairs inside the garage to get into the house? We don't. Okay. We don't. Go back to just the very front. Yeah. Let me require the two exits for
safety purposes. That's all right. Yeah. So that's not just the one the reason the 1 foot one in makes a difference is because without
without that extra space the stairs get tighter and they get steeper. And it's not just about when we're in wheelchairs because of my lifetime of hip surgeries. Steeper stairs, they're just harder to get up. whether you've got limited leg
strength, whether you're older, and I think as we're all finding out from having our houses all destroyed by the hurricanes, now everybody's trying to figure out how do we go up and put these monstrosity of stairs that go 12 feet up, make them look compact, not
encroach, and make them also look visually appealing. Um, and it is a challenge. And so a 2T allows us a breathing room so that those stairs are less steep and
that's going to help everybody. Did you explore a uh more a less rounded approach? I mean to minimize the encroachment. Are there other stair options I guess where you have a
We did. We sure did. It's right here. Okay. So, we did explore several other options of stairs. All four of these that you see in this picture. So, the this one
required encroaching more than what we are asking for. I guess I'm thinking more you've got it angled off to the side in the front of your house. So, I saw this picture before. I'm asking did you come up with a just a squared off approach so that you don't have that because of what you were saying is you're fundamentally
looking to arch that right there. That's probably the primary source of your challenge where it's bowing out as opposed to just squaring it off and hugging to the home. And so you could have gone more squared up to your home
to come down probably with some minor landing space or something there. That's right. It would have required a landing which is where it starts getting bigger. So every time at least the way it was explained to me is when you add landings it because of the codes and how
big a landing needs to be suddenly. Yeah, I can appreciate these options straight staircases down that doesn't work unless you want to recess your whole home into your but I'm asking about just what you're doing which is hugging it to the house and bringing it down. We've had a lot of
these cases come for cases and um for complete brand new rebuilds. So, Right. Right. So, we're all kind of in the same boat. Um we we did we did, but again, it led to a steep rise and run.
We had a very long consultation with our architect who we genuinely love and went through all the variations of ways that we could present our stairs. I will tell you, and I think that y'all can appreciate this
based on listening to everything that's gone on here today, part of it is wanting to present your home in a way befitting of Pasigril. It is why we designed our home to mimic the duplex.
We want it reflective of the history. We did not want to tear it down. And so having a compact set of middle stairs did that and and it makes it beautiful. So it just seemed the best of all possible
worlds for two rulers worth. It allowed us a little bit more mobility. It was visually compact and it was beautiful. Are the front stairs a requirement? Are front stairs a requirement?
I I don't know. I would think so. I would hate to not be able to get in the front of my house. Yeah. I I I didn't know what the the I can tell you the other people on my street, well, I can talk about two of them that that have houses that are
raised, they have stairs on the front of their house. Um I I think having a foyer and having a way to greet guests without having them come through your garage would be a little odd. True. Plus, I would like those garage doors closed. So some random person wouldn't
show open my kitchen door like Okay, I may be misunderstood. I thought I saw a front door underneath the stairs. Oh, you know what? You did. Except let me explain that door. It's a fun door. That is a door that just goes into the
garage. And why is that there? So that when we go to the beach, nobody has to carry a garage door opener with them. We've got a way as a human being to walk into that garage without opening a garage door. Okay. But that doesn't that just goes in the garage. That doesn't
And just a last thought as far as did you explore the possibility of a slight recess in your front door further into your house to minimize the encroachment that would have to come out. We did. We absolutely did. But here's where I go back to in my own home in
Atlanta, Georgia when I had my hip replaced. And you you just don't think about these things. You really don't. There I am in my bathroom trying to get my walker into
the bathroom and I couldn't. And I told the architect, I want to be able to get a wheelchair for me. and for my mom and for my brother in every bathroom. And that means pushing out and making the
bathrooms bigger and making the hallways wide enough. I mean, think about a three-foot hallway. A wheelchair needs 5T to turn 360. So it
just it just it just needing build designing a home where you know you are going to have a a wheelchair just requires more space. It it just simply does. And in my lifetime I've been in wheelchairs. I've been in walkers. I've been in crutches. I've
been in in body casts. And all that stuff comes with the need for room. Sadly that's not over for me. I can tell you in the duplex, I did spend one summer in a wheelchair in the duplex and it was very very difficult. I I still am
glad we went, but it was difficult, right? Nothing fit. And in 1945 when the house was built, I guess they didn't think about things like that. But now that we have an option, my family has a saying, something good always comes out of something bad. And
the something good is that we are going to design a place. And I am determined to design a place for my beloved mom that we can grow old in. And I have children and I know someday the house will be passed down to them. So we're kind of creating a legacy here and we're
doing it in a way that we feel is befitting of our old duplex but also gives us room to move. The duplex was 600 square ft on each side. It was tight. It was real tight. So, thank you so much for sharing your story and
explaining and from what I hear, you've worked with the architect to design a home that um is compliant for what your family needs and this is the minimal requested variance that you feel is required in order to build the home to code. We we do two two rulers worth so much.
Thank you. All right. Thank y'all. Thank you again for your time. Comment. I did not get any cards. We will close public discussion and open for board conversation. Um I don't think this one either uh aligns
with the commission discussion because this is a re complete rebuild. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yes. Um one thing I have no bearing then on this case. Yeah. Um one other thing to consider is that they had a pool or they're looking to retain an existing pool that they did
get a prior variance on. So if they're not able to shift back the house towards the alley which they have a lesser setback um and then they had the access as well back there. So keeping that accessory
structure and then relocating the access from now their front rather than the alley also you know counts towards the other ISR and and making a bigger home. So there
there are other considerations to take as far as um that front staircase. That's that's another reason why is because they can't put the house further back because of the pool. Right. Understood. That was going to be one of the um
comments that I've made that I think pure new construction when it's a flat lot like is a slightly different situation than when they're have wanting to work within the constraints of where things currently are. Um and we're looking at less than two feet versus other situations where it's
been, you know, significant asks. I think the applicant absolutely went above and beyond in trying to explain their personal um you know difficulties in needing to design a home that looks slightly different than your average construction. Um so I would be
supportive of um approving this request. Yeah, I agree. I I have to say that's one of the best presentations we've ever seen here, isn't it? This is great. I'm with it. We have a motion.
Do we have any considerations on the Were there any conditions? No, I don't believe so. No. Okay. Then I'll propose that the board uh approve case number 25107 as presented. I'll second that. Roll call, please.
Vice Chair Garshaw, yes. Member Small, yes. Member Core, yes. Chair Chase, yes. Motion carries. Moving on to our final case for today. Case number 25109, 41959th Avenue.
We get the PowerPoint pulled up. This is variance case number 25109 for 41959th Avenue. This is a practical difficulty variance. Francis Stites owner request a practical difficulty variance to elevate an existing 12x 31.9 ft sl concrete slab to create a rear
elevated seating deck balcony and ground floor deck cover with a proposed rear setback of 10.9 ft where 17 ft is required for the balcony and 15 ft is required for the deck cover following elevation of the primary dwelling. These this request is made pursuant to land
development code sections 3.10E1 10 E1 6.13C3A and 6.22B. Here is an aerial of the property located on the north side of 59th Avenue. Has a zoning of RU1 residential
district. So the uh request is undertaken in tandem with the elevation of the primary residence uh to make a flight compliant home. Uh the applicant has been approved as of a few weeks ago to undertake that work without the requested deck slab
elevation. I'll show the comparison between the two in the moment. Uh the only variance requested is for the deck slab to be elevated in place to make a balcony seating area above with the deck cover seating area at the ground level
as was pre previously provided. Uh the home itself does comply with the required rear setback. It's only the slab that is being elevated. So you can see here an existing survey of the lot. Um, formerly there was a deck cover at the rear of the lot where
the concrete pad is shown. I'll show that in just a moment that shows the concrete pad that is proposed to be elevated. Uh, the residence is being elevated in place. So you can see here the variance request the top drawing is the elevation that is
requested that is only for the slab at the rear of the structure which is shown. the the seaw wall is to the right side of the image. Uh they're proposing to elevate the slab in place. They would create a walk out balcony seating deck. Um and then they would retain the ground
floor uh seating area at the ground level. What is allowed by right is shown at the bottom of the screen. That is what was approved for with the building permit with an understanding that the applicant would be moving forward with the request to reestablish the deck cover. Here's a site plan showing the
variance. The box in red is the slab that is proposed to be elevated. Has a setback of 10.9 ft from the seaw wall. Here's some photographs of the site. You can see the pre-torm condition on the left side of the screen. That is a
screened patio deck cover that formerly existed at the back of the property. You can see the slab that is proposed to be elevated um beneath it. The deck cover or the patio cover was torn away in the storm and you can see the existing condition on the right side of the
screen. Here's the public hearing sign in the front of the structure. The backyard again slow showing that slab that is proposed to be elevated. Another looking to the west
and another looking to the east. Stefan, the applicant has adequately addressed the practical difficulty variance criteria. If adequately conditioned, the slab elevation will present a similar or lesser visual impact as the prior porch cover. I don't have an exact installation date for that
porch cover. The owner may have that information, but it was in place at least in the early 2000s. So, it was in place for for a number of decades. Should the board find adequate testimony has been presented to approve this case, we do request one condition pertaining
to not the subject request, but any kind of future modification to the deck cover or the balcony to ensure that it preserves an open um view for the adjacent properties. The living floor balcony walkout shall be enclosed by an open railing or palace trade and shall
not be independently roofed. roofed via extension of the primary roof line in a manner that supports are necessary to support said roof line or wall. There is an incidental extension of the primary roof line. It provides a little bit of coverage for the what would be the balcony deck but there is no independent
roof line associated with this um request and we would ask that that stay in place uh through the future. Ground cover deck cover may be inset with insect screening or screen panels but shall not be walled. Neither space shall be enclosed in such a manner to
constitute floor area as defined in the land development code and that would include any kind of very tall ballastra or railing that would would um require or cause this space to be considered floor area. With that being said, I believe the owner is present. The owners are present
and um can answer any questions. I'm happy to take any questions as well. Thanks. Thank you, Brandon. Yes, bring Francis states 41959th Avenue and Ryan States 41959th Avenue.
And we can hardly hear you. Got to turn Bring the Sorry. Bring the microphone up. Tip it up. There we go. He's got to raise it back up because I know. How's that? Better. Okay. And how do I go forward? Right here. I'll do that. Okay. You do that.
That's um the first slide. Yeah. So, that's the two of us on the beach. Um, number one, we're not going to have as good a presentation as the last one. Uh, but we'll do the best we can. Uh, no, just a tiny backstory. Uh, Francis moved
here when she was about 27. So, we've been here 30ome years and, um, bought her forever home in 2011, which is the home that, uh, is ours now. And um let me just kind of tell you our little story. Go ahead.
It's not going Is it this? Ah it again. So that's our little home. Um it's like 1350 square foot, two bedroomedroom, two bath, and it's plenty for the two of us.
And that was before we put the metal roof on and hurricane windows. Yeah. So it's 1955 and we don't want to tear it down. We wanna we want to raise it. It's perfect for us. And I make the joke when we're going to Shady Acres. Somebody else 20, 80, 30 years from now,
it's going to be a great size home for them. Uh here's one of the little emblems that the local there's homes here in St. Pete Beach. I may be familiar that all have these emblems. So, one of the things I loved about the house Yeah. maintaining that. Uh so, we
we got hit by uh two storms. So the first storm 3 ft in the wall in the house. The second storm which is part of the real reason we're here. Here you can see uh the the brand new metal roof that we put on the house from Aries about 6
months before the storm uh with the thought of uh doing the screened in patio as well. I will point out here you can see that work was done. Um, and the trusses in the home are the obviously the original trusses. Um, which are now
75 years 70ome years old. So, every GC we ever bring brought into the house said, "Man, we can't find wood like this." Um, so we didn't want to demolish the home. We didn't want to um, you know, build on top of the existing structure because now we're throwing away a brand new roof. Um but when the
second storm came, as you can see on this slide, that cont that whole structure was flipped on top of our brand new metal roof. So um ironically, we spent almost much money um repairing the roof, uh the brand new metal roof on
the home because it tore a twoft by 32 foot section of the brand new uh roof off and so we had water coming into the house. So, long story short, Ari was awesome. Came back quickly. Here you can
see part of the repair and um the original some of the original woodwork. So, here we have this slab which um Brandon, I'm sorry I had to take photographs of our house. It looks terrible, but because it's going to be a construction zone soon. Um but so I
guess you know all we're what we feel like what we're asking is you know if the storm had not hit and we decided to lift we could have lifted the whole thing. Um but we don't want to do that. Um we'd like to just have this as a patio because as Brandon showed you and
I think you'll see it in some of the other slides from Modern Movers. If we can't have the slab lifted as a patio, it will be uh basically 2 feet 8 in of a like a I don't know like a balcony you'd
get in a hotel. And so you can't even put a chair in there really. And I would also point out that that would go the entire length of the house. Um and so it's just not a really functional space. So here here you can see the front of the house, side of the house.
Same as Brandon's pictures. Yeah, same as Brandon's pictures and the uh but this we did want to share. Um we're both in the interiors business, so the house will have a very mid-century modern vibe, but the outside this will be the the railing that we'll be putting
will be see-through railing. It'll be a see-through railing, so should not impede on anybody's view. And um and underneath Oh, and underneath um her name is Francis, but her real name is Plancis. She's totally into this. So, girl from Mississippi.
Yeah. So, the permeability will be well within. We're putting in grass and we're putting in trees. Yeah. So, all the little rocks that you saw have been driving us crazy for 14 years. That'll all go away and grass and plants and all those beautiful things will be that'll be her side of the
house. Um and so, yeah. So, that's what you can see. That's what we would have as as that's uh to code. Yeah. To code. That's for that back porch, the the far left balcony. Yeah. So that's what we The one on the right is the back look at
the one that Minor Movers did with this um basically balcony. And then the one on the left is the slab raised. And we would never do we would never enclose it. That was not the whole that would not be the purpose of that at all. No, because when we walk out that's it.
So when we walk out our back door, you know, we would want to be able to we have patio table. We have all the furniture. We're in commercial furniture business. So, we have all of this furniture pieces for outdoor that are
beautiful. And um you know we just hope that you'll approve it because the other the other if we do um have just the little balcony that's to code um then we'll have to walk out the go
down the elevator or go out the front stairs to go around the back or Yeah. and through the back garage door. Yeah. So thank you for sharing your story. Any questions for the applicant? So, just to clarify, the slab is there
are two separate slabs. So, your home is being elevated and then this is a separate slab that's for your patio area. Yeah, the slab is existing. It's Yeah, it's sitting there, but yeah, it is a separate It's a separate piece of concrete that was poured for a specific purpose for your patio area. Yes. Okay.
Yeah. As as as Brandon said, you know, we bought it in 11. I think it's been there a long time. It was there. It was in it was enclosed screen porched and um yeah that but it was tied into the roof and so when the second storm
she sounded it like a sail. Right. Yeah. And so that's why we had the hole in the roof. Yeah. Because if it wasn't tied into the trusses I don't think it would just have Yeah. Yeah. Wouldn't without the variance then you could maintain that space as a patio area. Simply a patio.
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And you just wouldn't elevate the slab up. So, you're really looking at this elevated home to add a a large balcony off off of it. Yeah. Which is the what was the what was the screened in porch. Well, now that
slab that existing slab will be lifted up and the the modern movers will put in the columns and u and that will and this may be a question for Brandon, but you might know. Um, so if you were to leave, was the existing patio on the
back of your home that was compliant with code that Brandon? I don't know. Just to clarify, I mean, if you were to put it back as an extension off the new home just the way it was. I'm just curious if that was compliant the way it was.
No, it it it's subject to the same setbacks that would be looked at here. the the the setbacks for a walking service balcony second floor walk out are slightly more restrictive than a ground floor deck cover, but they would have had to meet a 15t rear setback for
the deck cover having a living level extension because they now they'll now have their living space on the uh floor up. Um they would have to extend it back 2 feet to 17. Um to just to clarify, if they hadn't had the damage in the second storm and that wasn't and they were
wanting to elevate the home, what I heard was they would have been able to elevate it as is. No. So the um the the portions of the primary home can be elevated in place even if they're within a required setback, but any kind of accessory structure needs to be brought into
compliance. So that that's what triggers this. If they were able to elevate the home in a way that it was not a substantial improvement, they would be able to do that. That's not very common. We've seen other cases over the last few months. Just the the cost of elevation or conversion and reconstruction
typically goes over that 50%. So in that case, they would need to bring the structure into compliance. We're talking through other potential situations with the city commission, but that is the current requirement. Okay. Thank you. And so I'm just still trying to clarify because I'm looking
at, you know, again, my favorite chart that you always give us here, but just to clarify because I'm like, this is a deck or this is a balcony. Um, but you know, the former porch was had a setback of 10.9.
Yes. But that is even in its existence is not allowed. Which one is that? What would it have had to have been given the current code is that balcony says 17 and
deck cover says 15. So I I'm not sure which one to compare it with that that is so in its existing condition um if the home were to not be elevated the required setback for that deck cover would be 15 feet. So if it were voluntarily taken down because they're elevating the home and they have
that walking surface on top of the deck cover if if they get this variance the requirement is 17 for that that walking surface. So the balcony set back is 17 ft. So if they were to voluntarily elevate the structure
the storm's never happened. They've elevated in place. They would still be required to comply based on what is currently in the code. So this would be a variance in either case. Okay. So if they leave it in place, they'd need a variance just to leave the existing slab where it's at with this
elevation. The slab itself is fine. Um you're allowed to have an atgrade deck that extends up to 3 ft from the seaw wall. So that where it's currently located is fine. It's the elevation of this and the establishment of the walking surface on top that's what triggers the need for
the variance. What prevents it from being reestablished even as it exists today is the fact that they're substantially improving the home. Okay. So, let me just make sure I'm picky. I I need to dig into that one just another minute. Maybe we're all
learning something here from Brandon. So, okay. The slab could stay homes elevated, but if they wanted to roof it, say even at a ground level, is that allowed? not at the current setback of 10.9 ft.
They would not be able to do that variance requirement to get because of the 15 feet that they would be allowed or to what? Correct. So if they if they tore down and decided to rebuild exactly what they had previously, they would still need a variance to do that because it doesn't
meet the 15t setback. But the act of elevating the slab, turning it into a deck cover and a balcony walk out triggers the need for a variance as well. certainly understood the elevated version. I was just trying to understand if they are even if they elevate and they're going to have a wall to a garage
behind this. If the slab stayed there, right, which is current plan A, right, with your permit that you have in place for your elevation of your home, you've got the slab sitting there. It could sit there, rebuild, and then it could be again
you could roof that with a variance of what about four feet because they're at 10.9. So four feet. Correct. They they would have Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant?
No, but you you did state um that if we would approve this with the condition that not be independently roofed. Correct. Correct. So that effectively you would be uh pro approving exactly what was shown. I know this is exactly what the owners look to build as part of their
plan package, but in the future, someone could not come in and then roof the upper balcony walk out and and further impact the visual encroachment. Okay. Or enclose it or enclose it, right? So, it would remain open and unroofed on
that second, let's say, or the first living level. It would remain open and unroofed. Yeah. because we did our our substantial letter was 89.7%. And um and that did get it reappraised
and we did get re but anyway Tom Hawkins and it did it raise the value of Yeah. But like a lot of people were trying to figure out you know we could move it. Do we tear it down? And we really didn't want to tear it down but by going up um you know one of the
things you want to be able to take advantage of candidly is the view. So you know so we're going up. U it'll go up 15 and 1/2 ft. Any additional questions? Yeah. And to have a small outdoor living space. I think we understand the case. So if we have any other questions, we'll bring it
back up. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Kristen, I do want to clarify though. I think what you stated. You said unroofed. I that's not what the staff summary said. it was that it the roof via extension of the primary roof line
in a manner that supports are necessary to support said roof line or walled. So it just making sure I'm reading this right. My imp my read on this was that the staff was saying not independent but can
be roofed with an extension of the roof line of the home. That's my interpretation. the walkout balcon balcony could be enclosed by um let's see the living floor this was um well I don't know it's maybe this page is out I don't know which page
it is now but it was in summary that was written as um a staff recommendation okay there was only one that sound right Brandon that it was a roof was acceptable as an
extension of the primary roof line of the I'll pull the staff report back up, but I believe it it should have been at least as I presented it in the slide as shall not be independently roofed, right? Oh, you know what? Okay. Thank you. And um
there is a knot in there. Just making sure. I also want keeping us honest. I also wanted to say that neither space shall be enclosed in such a manner to constitute floor area. This wasn't presented at this meeting, but if the ballastrator railing were to be more than 42 in tall or were to be roofed, it
would be considered floor area under our code. So even if that first part didn't apply, they would still be limited. Okay. Below that. So thanks. Thanks. Being as there's no additional public care, we'll close the public comment open for board discussion.
I mean, the way I view this case is it's a home that's wanting to maintain its character and elevate, which is fantastic. And outdoor space is part of our living space and, you know, living on St. Pete Beach. And so I um would hate for them to be almost penalized by
elevating and then lose the ability to walk out their door and enjoy being out. And a lot of this about the rear setback. Well, the rear setback is water, so it's not like it's going to impede with anybody. I I don't I why not
are there any um alternative views or No, I'll just say I I mean I hear what I think that what we're talking about is existing for existing elevation in its entirety. So I think that's very specific here. I I don't want I I would
not agree though with the statement that well it's only encroaching on the water. I I think actually the water is the most valuable part probably for people who live on the water. So the more you encroach out into the water, the less I mean the more you're impacting your
neighbors from side to side. And so I I think that is a really important thing for us to always like I guess keep in our minds. I would agree with you from a view perspective for sure. So, so the the the idea of the openness and the fact that you're elevating existing for existing
is more to me a reason to consider this as um kind of an inclusive overall elevation plan. Are we at the point for a motion? So, I'll make a motion to approve case number 25109
with staff condition as outlined. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Thank you. Roll call. Member Core. Yes. Vice Chair Garshaw. Yes. Member Small, yes. Chair Chase, yes.
Motion carries. Good luck on your rebuild. Um I know we had an item for discussion today, but given the length of today's meeting, could we Let's wait on that one. Yeah, absolutely. Um we also have uh the community development staff does have um
a forum that they have at a certain time at 5:30. So in the in chambers so it would give them a chance to set up as well if you don't mind. Any other items that are pertinent for today? All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.