To the flag of United States of America and to the republic for it stands one indivisible and justice for all. >> Okay. Madame [clears throat] clerk roll call. >> Memberurley >> here. >> Vice chair Hawkinsmith >> here.
>> Chair Lowry >> here. >> We do not have a quorum. Okay. So, I I overprepared, I suppose. I thought we were going to have a quorum, but now I recall that we weren't. So, I guess my question to any of you folks out there, I don't know if you're
notified or not, or is anybody here on an action item? So, oh, Brandon, you're here. Okay. So, they've all been called off, I guess. Is that right? Okay. Excellent. Now, I'm prepared for the next meeting. [laughter] So, okay. So that was the
first thing I wanted to do. All right. So next we have approval of the agenda, excuse me, of the [clears throat] agenda. So we know that action items four A, B, C, and D are not going to be heard today if we do not have a quorum.
Uh and so does anybody have any items they'd like to add for discussion? I just I'd like to add an update from the Gulf Beaches Museum for information items. >> Okay. So for information item, we'll make that 6D.
>> Golf Beaches Museum. >> Anything else? Anything from staff? >> Yes, Chair Lowry. Um with that, we would like to add city-owned resources for anformational item. So I believe that would be 6E. >> Okay.
as well as item 5A or I'm sorry 5C design guide book. Um being that we do not have a quorum today y >> we are requesting either to continue that to our January meeting or to the very end of everything and so we can get through ourformational and uh discussion
items. >> Okay. Well, let's see. I don't have a problem with either one of those. Let's let's see where we are. And then also I would say this though that on on that purpose there's just a couple kind of typo things we might be able to mention today just the next one. Okay.
>> All right. Okay. Does anybody have a motion for approving the agenda? >> So we can't take any action. >> So we can't approve the agenda yet. >> Right. But >> okay >> you can pass that to next month where we can look at the minutes from >> Yes.
>> That's right. We can't approve last month's minutes either. >> Yes. I understand that. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, procedurally, since we aren't approving the agenda, it's just a discussion item, so we can go forward, I'm sure. Okay. >> We can swear in anyone who's making testimony or giving information today. >> Thank you.
>> That's not necessarily necessary just because we don't have any hearings. Um anything, >> right? Because there's no action items. Um >> it it's we don't necessarily need to do that. We we do still need to do um audience comments, though. >> Yeah, that's fine. Okay.
All right, then. Then we will move to audience comments. Is there anybody here that wants to speak to anything that's on the agenda? Uh if you want to speak about something specifically, which I'm sure some of you do do, we can wait until that actual
item comes up and you can speak at that time, but this is the appropriate time if anybody has any general comments that they'd like to make at this point. Does anybody have any general comments? Okay. No. So, we'll move along. So, we've gone through
subsection three because we can't vote on that. We're at subsection five discussion items. 5A is a design review number not excuse me number 25144 the residence is 2604 Pasigrow Way.
Hello, Mr. Barry. Hi there, Brandon Barry planner. If we could get the PowerPoint pulled up. So this is a design review of a new residence at 2604 Pastoral Way. It is case number 25144, Sam Angelites for Kevin and Lois Quinn.
And this is a new house medium structure located on the property. You can see the site plan here. This was moved on to design review because the lot is undersized for the zoning district. The land development code requires that any lot that is undersized
for the underlying zoning district in pass be brought forward for design review. The pending changes to the overlay would require all properties um all new developments to be brought forward for design review but this is applicable um in the subject case. Uh so
you can see the site plan here. This the setbacks for the house medium building type are met. The applicant has also met the frontage landscaping requirements. Uh you can see the elevations of the structure here. Uh that's the front looking from Pasil Way as the as well as
the south elevation. This was not originally designed to the overlay. We have worked with the applicant for a number of revisions and uh we feel that it has generally been brought into compliance with the design requirements for the overlay. They have added added the porch roof to the front. They've
made a few modifications to the exterior uh cladding of the structure. They've continued the lap siding down to the ground floor level. They've added the windows with shutters that you see on the uh opposite sides of the porch as well. And we do believe that the structure is generally been brought in
line with the design requirements. I have a few comments and a few slides uh just just to wrap up the the requirements. And then you can see the west elevation looking from the alleyway. Access will remain only from the alley for this property.
And then you can see the north elevation as well. Um they do have a deck that slightly can't levers off the side of the structure. It will meet the eve line. Um and it appears to meet the setbacks. I have asked for them to provide that in a revised plan. You can see the floor plans here as
well. Two and a halfstory home. Staff had the following comments. Uh the rendering shows Stuckco siding at the ground floor. I believe that was a remnant from an earlier version of this. The elevation does show the lap siding. We had preferred the lap siding. I believe that's a change that they've committed to. I just want to get that
confirmed by the applicant. Um, we've asked also asked for the clear height, distance, the width, and depth of the porch on the plans to show that the frontage dimensional requirements are met. The land development code does require a certain height, depth, and width to the porch feature. And then, as
I mentioned before, we just asked for the side setback of the upper deck to ensure that the house medium five foot uh side setback is met. As always, the boards can make the board can make any comments to ensure compatibility of the structure within the district. This is a single family
use. There are no other former mass limitations other than the ones that we just discussed. Happy to take any comments. We also have the applicant present. >> Yes. Um to go back just one slide there. Um you mentioned that you have to get
some confirmation on something. Yes, I I believe the applicant has committed to proiding the lap siding on the ground floor as well. The rendering just showed what appeared to be Stuckco. I believe that was just a leftover from the when it was prepared,
but I just want to confirm that. >> And so, do you need testimony from that today? >> If the applicant can just And do we have to swear in for that purpose? >> That's up to you. Okay. If you if you want it to be testimony versus just being on the record. >> Yes. Okay, that's fine. Um, where is the
applicant? you you understand where we're at right now on that question. Could you just step forward and state your name for the record and answer that question for us? Right. >> Sam Angelus Jr. Okay. >> Um yes, we we intend to use lapsiding on first level >> and then we're working with the
architect on all the dimensions being met. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Um any any board members have any questions for any of these people that are here or for Mr. Barry? >> I don't have a question, but I have a couple of comments. Thank you [clears throat] for the Key West style.
Thank you for the driveways and garages on the back off the alleyway. It looks great. >> Yes. Also along that line, uh I think in the in the drawings there, the ground level in the front, you've added shutters, I guess, on it that make it appear to be an actual living space, and
I think that's a great little touch, too. So, all in all, um it's a nice design. I was trying to think that's an empty lot right now, right? >> Yeah, we demolished the house in July. Yeah, I'm trying to think of when it was there. U and and this is just for my only for curiosity. These owners, they
also own another house, don't they own a didn't they own a house down there between 25th and >> 24th and 25th? >> They haven't brought that to my attention. I don't >> Maybe they didn't. I thought that I and I think you might have been involved with that other group. So, I'm just probably off on that. Okay. Um
anything? >> No. >> Okay. Uh it's a it's a great design. More power to you and thank you for showing up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. 5B, design review number 25145 for the lot with a house at 404 and the
lot at 406 Pass Way. Brandon, we could pull the PowerPoint up, please. So, this is a new request. However, um the board h did see a similar request for this property back in 2021. I
believe uh this is an extension of an existing home. You have a existing three-story structure on the southern lot. Um there is an addition twotory edition proposed to extend onto the northern lot of 406 Passil Way. The applicant owner is Sean Rooney of Ron
Design for Steven and Cynthia Keratton. This is a two property lot. uh they will be combined under these zoning regulations moving forward once this project is undertaken. This is a design review for a two-story edition on the northern side of the existing three-story residence. This would be
subject to the house large building type currently at the lot size of the residence at 404. It is subject to the house medium building type and I'll get into detail on that in just a moment. So, here's a proposed site plan. area in red is the addition. The gray area to
the south of that is the existing structure to remain. There is a porch on the front that is also proposed to remain. Uh you can see the side setback there under the current lot dimensions. The lot would or the sorry the structure would meet the required setback with
this moving over to the house large design. Um the setback increases by about two feet and the uh future setback for any additions made to this residence would need to meet that seven foot setback on both the north and the south sides. It does meet on the north. The
south is an existing grandfathered condition. It doesn't need to be brought into compliance under this project, but any future additions, any future redevelopment would be subject to that 7 foot south setback. You can see the structure here existing.
Uh you can see on the top the rendering the 2025 plan that's what's under review today. 2021 plan was similar. You had the non-habitable storage parking space down at the ground level and a living level recess beyond the pool deck which
will face the front edge of the property along passer way that had come forward to the board for acceptance back in 2021. You can see the proposed front and rear elevations. Um, as I mentioned, there will be an infinity pool uh pool deck
feature at the front of the residence. They are continuing the archway and the column design both at the ground level and at the upper level. They're extending out the shake siding uh cladding and uh as well as the uh the railing features as well on the
residence. And then the rear of the residence aligns as well. I can see here the floor plans. As I mentioned before, the ground floor will be used for storage. Um, in the new addition, it is used currently for storage and and garage space in the
existing residence. Uh, the kitchen, I believe, is being moved on the existing first living level, being relocated to the rear of the new balcony and pool deck space uh with with pool. Um, in the new addition, staff had minimal comments. Um, our one
comment from our design reviewer was that the blank wall facade beneath the infinity pool edge should be better integrated with the upper story through similar siding material, archlike treatment or other visual reference. Not necessarily continuing the shake siding because it isn't a feature that is shown
on the ground level extension, but some kind of architectural treatment that references the upper living level. As was mentioned by the board with the prior case, we do like treatment that makes it appear that the ground floor is a living level despite it being non-habitable space. Um I did speak with
the architect in advance of this discussion and they did agree to provide some kind of treatment to that space. Um as far as the zoning is concerned, it's just the point that I brought up previously in the expansion of this lot. The future setbacks will increase from
5t to 7 feet. They are meeting that for the addition. and they're not seeking any kind of variances or waiverss, but any kind of future development, especially on the south side of the lot, will need to comply with that new 7 foot required side setback. As with the other design, this is an
addition, but it is subject to the overlay, so it's subject to the same design review criteria. Um, it is a single family use currently and will remain. So, there are no form and mass limitations other than those required. We are happy to hear any comments from the board on this design.
Okay, let me ask can you go back to the uh design itself before that even go no back sorry keep going forward back one all right okay so but first let me ask you this and I think I know the
answer but we don't get a lot of these situations and first let me just say I think it's really great and it looks fabulous and I think it'll be a really good addition to pass a girl um the combination of lots. So, right now it's
not combined. Correct. >> Correct. Correct. >> And that's fine. I mean, and so this is a typical procedure. They would go ahead and do the plans and then later go to to get the lots combined. And as of the moment, what is the procedure for combining lots that that has does that
have to go in front of somebody? It does, doesn't it? But >> so current procedure is to take them forward to city commission after review by the historic preservation board. They had gone through that process back in 2021 and this is a similar project. So, but any any new request to combine
properties or separate properties would be reviewed by this board and then the commission. >> So, in this case, they don't have to come back in front of us because we've already >> correct >> even though they changed the plan slightly, but then that'll have to go in front of the city commission. >> Not not in this specific case because they had gone back in 2021 for the lot combination
>> the commission event. >> We we had gone through that process back then, but any other development of this type would would be required to do that. Okay. >> Mhm. >> And then the other question I have along that same line doesn't apply to this particular case, but in a what's the status of where we are right now if
someone wants to split lots? >> That's the same process. Any lot split and passer grill needs to come to the historic preservation board and then the city commission takes action. >> And is that for the entire historic district? Are there any areas that are not that are that are not subject to that? >> No, they're not.
>> Okay. Well, w within the pastor grillil overlay district specifically. We're adding that into the 8th Avenue zoning that'll be part of the new amendments. But >> I just want my clarification. So the areas that are now zoned whatever
it applies but the ones some of the commercial areas the CRD that we don't have that yet. We're correct adding it. Okay. That's that's more for future use. Okay. >> Um and now about this. So the the addition
which is essentially two stories, right? I mean including the ground there. They aren't adding any bedrooms or anything like that over there on the what I'm going to call the the pool house or whatever. It's just more for kitchen and dining and stuff like that. Is that accurate? >> Correct.
>> Going to nod back there. That's what I thought. Okay. And right now on the ground floor, I guess we do we have garages in the back or not? I can't read that sometimes. >> So, the existing residence is used for garage and storage. That's on the left side of the screen. The the new space
will be um unfinished storage in the front there. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Okay. Um anybody have any questions for Brandon or for Mr. Rooney or Miss Kurin or I think are both here.
>> Good. I I just see [clears throat] where um the main like where the dining area, the main living area is connected to the new section. That's a requirement for the addition, right? They do the living spaces have to be connected by living space and not just a walkway. Okay.
>> Yes. >> It looks really nice. >> I think it's great. And I I love the way you've continued the I may say the wrong word, conades and the railings and everything to make it look that and set that back. And uh it's really great. But I missed your I I
loved your green grass, too. So, you know, I don't know how you did it, but it looked good for a long time, right? So, okay. Any other comments? Anything? >> All right. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you, folks. Good luck.
All right, moving on. 5C. We're going to pass that for the moment. That's on design guide book. So, that takes us toformational items. Six. uh a conditional use permit 25133
for 804 Pass Girl way. And again, this is just forformational purposes. Uh do we know when that is being first off, which board is that going front of? The board of >> Good afternoon. >> Hey, sorry, Mr. Martinez. Go ahead. >> Board members Gil Martinez. Um this item
is going to be going to the city commission on December 9th. >> Okay. Um that would be for a cert um conditional use permit. >> Yes. >> So this is anformational item. It is 804 pass away. A conditional use permit case
25133. The applicant is Michael Keller for John D. Dashel of 804 Passigril Way [snorts] LLC. The request is a conditional use permit for outdoor dining deck and third story of threetory restaurant
development. Here's an image of proposed structure. [snorts] Some details about the structure. The the restaurant itself, it's um the first
floor is actually the second floor which is elevated. It's going to consist of about 521 square ft of kitchen space, 28 28 indoor seats, 24 outdoor seats. The second floor, i.e. The third story would be of 58 indoor seats and 32 outdoor
seats. No live or amplified outdoor music is proposed and operation hours are between 11 and 10 p.m. The next step, the request will go to proceed to the city commission on December 9th. If the request is approved, the applicant will move on to
administrative site plan permitting and building permitting. I do not believe the applicant is here to answer any questions that you may have, but I'll try my best. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Martinez?
>> Not hand. It just seems like a lot of place for a small lot. >> Yeah. [clears throat] You know, I'd looked at this before when they did a technical review on it. So, I'd looked at the plans before. Uh I would just comment that, you know, it's it's how that area is
zoned. And, you know, I'm not anti- building by any means. I think they've done a good job on the uh design that it fits into the architectural aesthetic there in the CRD and uh you know I don't
have any any um criticisms or anything along that line and you know so in that regard I appreciate bringing the information to us and and it obviously can go on to the uh city commission next week. Okay else thank you Mr. Martinez. All
right, we have 6B, board of adjustment case. This is forformational purposes. Board of adjustment case number 25142 for 702 pass a girl way. Mr. Barry and for this item, we do have the applicant and their representation present on uh
Zoom on the screen. So, this is for 702 passway. It's a variance case. This item had previously been shared with the board over the summer. Um, this is a variance case associated with the site plan. It is not the site plan itself. Um, the applicant
is Brandon Techber of 702 Pagway LLC. This is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance. This would be to retain an existing curb cut along Pasco Way following redevelopment of the property that is subject to land development code section 40.11. It was
determined that because this lot does contain alley access, that would be West East Alley that um accesses the site. I'll show that location in a moment. Um they do need post redevelopment a variance to retain their their curb cut.
So this is a zoom in of the survey. This is showing the 702 Pagway property. Uh there is an existing curb cut at the front of the property. It is 17 ft in width. At the rear of the property is a 10-foot alley per the plat. Um it is
still in existence there. There are some encumbrances within the alley, but it does still exist. It is still a public alleyway. There was formerly a north south alleyway that was vacated um several years ago. You can see here uh this is a zoom in of
the site plan showing the lowest level. Um this is showing the existing drive there in red. It is 17 feet in width. The proposed drive will be 20 feet in width at the property line. And that is the request they are making there to to
retain this drive post post development. So next steps, this request will proceed to the technical review committee on January 7th. It will go on to the board of adjustment on January 28th. The application has been deemed complete for board of adjustment review. The site plan for this development is currently
under review. It was taken over the summer. It is pending currently the outcome of this case to my knowledge. The applicant may proceed with the development after the variance decision is rendered. So if the variance is denied um because of the options that they have with parking, they would be
able to move forward just without the parking present or with access being provided solely from the alleyway. They could also propose a different arrangement. We would need to evaluate that at this time or at that time. Um but as I said the site plan is currently pending under review
and we have the applicant as well as a representation present. Um if you have any questions for them or for myself. Okay. I have some questions and I'm looking at the variance narrative that was provided from the applicants
and I know this goes in front of the this is forformational purposes only and this goes in front of the board of adjustment and tech review. Uh but I want to make sure certain things are presented or that the city is on notice of certain
things so at those meetings the information can be provided and and and that's this uh just in general throughout this variance request they refer to
uh this driveway being present before the 2013 CRD zoning. Okay. And it's important that at 2013, this particular property was specifically left out of the CRD
and it was a ROR parcel. Okay. And so it's a little misleading to suggest that, you know, uh because now they want to build under the CRD,
but they want they they want the ability to build 17 units, which isn't allowed in the RO six unit would be would be. And so I think it's important that we know that this was reszoned at a certain date. I'm not sure when that is. That's
an thing I'd like you to find, Mr. Barry. Um, if you look on the zoning map still today, it's zoned RO. So, I know that's hasn't been updated. And so I believe, and I'd love to get the history on this
if you can, that the only reason that particular lot was reszoned, the CRD, was to include it or join it with the two other lots owned by that owner in the CRD, which face 8th Avenue. And then
for the for the project that we was going to be called, I guess the Holloway Hotel when that project fell through, well, what I want to find out is did they go in front of the commission to get it reszoned to CRD? I think they
would had to have done that. And did they was the reason was so they could join it with other lots in the CRD. And then when the hollowway fell through, did they then then how did this still remain in the CRD
when it was not supposed to be in the CRD? >> So, >> and there's a big, you know, they go through this about how it's it's being deprived the the amenities of the other CRD uh buildings, but they're not. The avenue
is on 8th Avenue, have a small alley behind them. They don't have a two-way alley. They don't get fire rescue down the alleys. Uh they get fire rescue and emergency services off the street just like this would if
it was really if it was in the CRD. And so what I'm concerned about is they have reszoned it to their benefit, but they don't want to follow the code. They want they want half of the RO and half of the CRD. And considering that the real
reason it was changed to CRD is no longer in existence, I think they have to make a decision. It should have been reverted to RO because that lot was left out specifically because it's a residential lot at the
time. It wasn't a CRD lot. And so, you know, a lot of the stuff kind of rings hollow when they say they are uh prevents the property from being accessed in a safe and usable manner.
It's the same as the on the CRD virtually all those lots have the same thing. They can't get alley access from the back. It's not wide enough for a firet truck or an ambulance. And so, you know, the reason when it was Ro, they had a driveway because it was
residents and that made sense. But now that they want to go under the CRD zone, they've changed that zone to their advantage to build extra an extra big building, but they then they claim they have a disadvantage because they have to
use they have to follow the code in the CRD. And so we really need to bring that out because I think, you know, this whole this whole problem that exists with what they want to build there is be is really because they change it to a CRD for a
reason that doesn't exist anymore. And now the city and the area is getting punished because they want to build a structure that should never been been resoneed to that once it was taken away from the idea that was joining two
properties on the CRD. So I think we need to do some research into that. So, you know, when there's a claim that there's a hardship, the only hardship that's created by themselves or the previous owner that had it reszoned.
So, they resoneed the CRD. They have to live by the rules of the CRD. So, you shouldn't get a variance for something that you've created yourself. Now, as you know, I'm just going to say this, when it's zoned RO, they can still have
they can build a structure there, but it would have to be an air uh bed and breakfast and it'll be limited to six units because it's CRD. They have 17 units supposedly and all the other problems we talked about that building that they want to build. So, you know,
uh I think, you know, we really need to look at this closely as to why they need this variance. And I hope the staff would be able to provide some of that information because uh the board of adjustment seems to know, you know, how
it was that this lot came to be, you know, went from being specifically excluded from the CRD for obvious reasons. That's not like the other properties in the CRD and then still it still remained CRD
when it was uh you know their their build they wanted to build before it was taken away. it should have been reverted back to RO. >> Chair Larry, that's uh something that we can look into further. But um like you said, one of the criteria that the board
of adjustment will consider when this comes before them is whether um the conditions result from the actions of the applicant or prior owner of the property. And so at that time that determination will be made. >> I understand that. I want to make sure because I want to make sure the city has
is prepared for that information about how the zoning came about. So when the board of adjustment might be asked questions, we already know the history of how that came about because the way this the application is written, it ignores the reasonzoning.
>> It's written as if the city did this all themselves. And so that's obviously a very important part. So, I just want to make sure that when that comes around that the city is prepared for that information, >> right? Um, we hear you. I just I also want to note that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate by a substantial
competent evidence that all the criteria are met, including that. And so, that's something that the board will consider. >> No, and I understand all that. I and I'm just saying this is for information purposes. I'm throwing it back to some degree that uh you know instead of some speculation as to what happened, we
ought to try to find out exactly what was happened. I I do think that the fact that the applicant submitted the video, I don't know if you had a chance to watch that, but I do my drivebys on the items on the agenda, but I I wouldn't have driven by
with the tape measure or checked out, you know, what hardship was in the way of the utilization of the rear alleyway, which it's nice having the rear alley. I don't think the applicant was responsible for um placing those utility posts and boxes. Um that's certainly not
something that was within their control or that they that they initiated in any way creating that additional navigation hardship. Not the emergency trucks can access from past the growway. They don't need to come down the alley. So that wasn't really a concern for me as far as
emergency access. But if if we just kind of put this in the little box that's presented to us as to can we keep this driveway because the back driveway is really difficult to get through. I would certainly agree on that point. um they didn't create the hardship of navigation
from the rear driveway with all of those obstacles in the way there. And this regardless of when or where it was done, it was approved at one time to put this driveway in the front and now it's become essential for access to the property. The fact of the later use of this property or redevelopment of the
property, I think this doesn't have anything to do with that. it will at some point. But if this is just in isolation a request to keep that driveway because the rear access is difficult, then I would certainly be agreement with that. >> Right. Well, on that point, I'm going to
say this. All those houses, all those along that alley on the CRD side of that alley, which is there's three structures there, they don't have access. They just have that narrow alley. Okay? So, they get
treated from the front. The neighbor on seventh in the north side of 7th Avenue that lives behind them behind this lot is has parking in the back of their house. So they have to turn around in that alley to exit. Okay.
702 could use that alley if they had an area to turn around, which they have plenty of to do that. But they've created a plan. This is like, you know, a plan that says we can't turn around because we want to
build this building. So, they've created that hardship in the plan that they want to do. Once they knock down that garage at the end of the alley, they could have the biggest turn. They could use the whole lot to turn around in if they wanted to. And so, you know, we get a we
get a project and then we try to [snorts] jam the square peg in a round hole because that's what they want. And it's not my fault that when they looked at the CRD zoning, they didn't recognize or they ignored the mandatory language that
that they have alley access. The reality is it should never been in the CRD because it was specifically left out because of those problems. And if you recall in the Holloway Hotel, I believe they didn't use Pass Girl way. They used
the entrance that exists in the parking lot next to uh the Tortug the Tortuga apartments. So, they were even getting rid of that curb cut back then for that plan. And so, you know, I think we have
to keep our eye on the ball on what we're supposed to be doing down there. Uh so if you grant the variance then you go to now we get to build this building that arguably was intentionally left out and the whole purpose for reszoning doesn't
exist anymore. So anyway uh I know that's all something for the board of adjustment to to figure out but um you know we need to we need to get the history of that for them. That's all the comments I have. Brandon, do you recall
when we were doing the um the guide book, >> we set a a minimum width for alleyways? Was that 10 or 15? >> It's it's 10. So, automatically any platted alleyway would be subject to that, but the board can wave any
alleyway less than 15 feet. Wave the requirement for access from that alley. when it's 15 feet or greater, the board would make a recommendation to the board of adjustment, but 15 to 10 or 10 to 15, the board could approve. So, >> and this is in some places less than 10.
Is that correct? >> It it's platted at 10, but with the with the incumbrances, it's less than 10 >> because of a power pole, I think. >> Right. Which could be moved, but also just from the fairness point of view of how they compare this to other pieces of
property. If you look at the properties on the north side of 8th Avenue which are in the CRD. They have a very tiny alley in the back and that wasn't a a necessity. They didn't get a curved cut in the front. And the reason they didn't get a curb
cut in the front is because in the CRD you don't get a curb cut in the front because you're supposed to use the alleys. And so now they're in the CRD and they don't want to use the alley because it doesn't benefit the building they want to build. So, you know, talk
about creating your own problems and we're supposed to solve it for them. I mean, it's it's just it's it's a it's just it was I'm going to just say one more time. It was intentionally left out of the CRD for a reason
>> and it's so the maps still show it's on it. So when the other proposal on the previous development that included the lot around the corner where Tortuga's pool is now >> included all Tortuga, the pool and this
lot 702, >> but that would have required the combination of more than two lots to create that and we limited that to you can't combine three lots. >> That was never done together yet. >> It never went through. It never >> No, but I mean that would have required that. Is that right? And now we don't
allow the combination of three lots or more. >> Well, I would point out that at that time, I believe they were either three separately platted lots or it was the two lots on 8th Avenue that were together and this lot was not part of
that. And so it was arguably added in for that project that they never went through with and never had to go through you to make decisions on combining lots or anything like that >> which was after the presentation earlier
today where they're adjoining the two they're going to be adjoining the two lots together but they haven't taken it in front of the board yet because the plans never got really approved or that not until it's approved. I don't recall that type of vote back at
the time that uh this went from RO to CRD >> at the time of the hollowway. My understanding was there was from the city's point of view there was no reason for any variances. Therefore, it was going in front of no board. >> Right. That's what they had said
>> and it never did because it fell apart before that that went that far. Mhm. >> But I'm just curious that they had already started accumulating that land. That was single family residence on that land. That's why it wasn't considered part of the CRD. That's why they divided it right down the line when they did the CRD.
>> Yeah. In 2013 when they did the CRD, there was a house there. >> So anyway, I'm just, you know, this is going to be obviously contentious scenario. So I just want to make sure everyone's aware. I just want to make sure before we dig our heels in
that it's not a hardship that we created. That's that's a possibility too. We just said alleys have to be this size and now it's not. So we just defined their hardship for them >> except for when we except for the alley wasn't an issue when we created the CRD
because they didn't need that alley access and ro only. CRD requires alley access. that RO does not require ali access as that property was. So, it was fine for them to have a cut a curb cut like they
always had because it was a house and then they reszoned it to take advant I'm going to argue to take advantage of building a bigger structure with more units. So, they had to be CRD but they don't want to abide by the alley aspect
of the CRD because it makes it that they can't build their building. But they they asked for the CRD and so you know if it was if this was still RO they could build something and they could have their curb cut.
But what you know they're creating their own problems and asking us to resolve it so they can build something that really wasn't supposed wasn't in the plans. It wasn't the intent of the CRD to put this single lot as a CRD lot because it doesn't fit the rest of the things on
8th Avenue. It's all frontal on the street. You don't have curb cuts on Gulf Boulevard, Gulf Way between 8th and 9th. There's no curb cuts because those are all commercial buildings. So, this would be the only place in the CRD, uh, I
think that has a curb cut except for the Seahorse, which you know, always had that parking lot right there. So, that's why one of the reasons it wasn't put in the CRD in the beginning because it was a residential lot. So, and I'm quite confident that when they got it reszoned, they didn't say so
we could use this individually as a lot to be in the CRD. At least I don't think they did. I wasn't there. So, that's why I think we need to find that stuff out. All right. Anything else? >> Sorry to rag on that, but >> should we ask if the applicant would like to >> Sure.
>> make any statement. for representatives. >> Brandon, would you like to ask any questions or make any comments? >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Just one second. We're turning it up.
Sorry. >> We can hear you. >> Yes. Thank you for everyone being here today. Appreciate it. Listen to what the board had to say. I'm glad these uh meetings are recorded so
listen to them later. Uh I've heard the language themselves created this mess. For the record, I bought the property with my partner in June of 2022.
Did not create this problem. I was told by the seller's agent, the seller, and my multiple meetings with the city before I purchased this property that it is commercial
was not brought up to me about R or any of those different that we just so I didn't create this problem. I'm not they I'm not themselves. I'm the owner of the property with my two partners.
This is what we were told. This is what we were promised. We purchased this property, I believe, for $3.9 million. If I knew that I would be here two and a half years ago,
I probably wouldn't have bought the property. I should not be going through all of this right now, but here we are. So, let's be proactive and positive. The property with the alley and multiple spots in the back is 9 ft wide. I've
just heard where my next door neighbor on the alley has a driveway and she can go in and out. She has to have very small vehicles. For example, fact, after Hurricane Helen, there was a vehicle in my garage
on the north side. It had water probably 4 feet up. We had to get a tow truck to go back in the alley to get the car out. There was a problem. The tow truck could not go back in the alley. It could
only go to pretty much behind Shadracks. I'm here today so we can approve over the next several meetings the driveway that has been in place on
Pastor Gilway for many decades. The driveway itself was cement. It was paved in 2010, permitted and approved by the city. Uh when I was going through a lot of
paperwork, a lot of meetings to purchase the property, at no time did anybody ever tell me that if I purchased this property and wanted to build on the property that the alley would become the primary
drive, I guess you could say, of going to and from. And there's no way cars can go to and from this property. the width. It's not wide enough. And I've spoken to the residents on both
the residents on one side on Seventh. I've talked to the owners on 8th Avenue of these buildings and they don't want vehicles going up and down that little alleyway. So, I just want us to be all on the same
page and be factual. I was uh very upset with the July meeting because I and we can all go back to it if you'd like. Um multiple false statements by the board
about the build. I've been very quiet. I am trying to be positive, professional, and I just want what was promised to us when we purchased it.
And that's pretty much it. So, I will leave it at that. I appreciate you all for being here and um feel free to ask any questions that you may have. >> Okay, Mr. Techberg. And and first off, I
appreciate where you're at in your your position and wanting to move forward and being cooperative and stuff. I I really do. And so I want you to understand when I use the terms they or them, I'm not referring to you specifically. What I'm
referring to is if you look at the paperwork that has to be filled out. Question two says the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, which would be you or a prior owner of the property.
So I know you didn't get it reszoned. I know it was reszoned before you bought it, but that still is a relevant part is what were the actions of the prior owner. So, I'm not trying to talk about you individually. I'm talking about the
property itself and and the necessary uh the prerequisites that need to be set to get a variance. So, that's where that comes from. Um, you know, as as far as talking about the
width of the alley and things of that nature, yes, the alley is a problem. Okay. And that's why this property was never in the CRD. That's why it was ROR
and that's why you had a curb cut on that property because it was RO. So, that's my whole point on this stuff. The other places, your neighbors along that alley, they don't have a curb cut because the
CRD doesn't provide for curb cuts. That's because it's for the buildings that were along 8th Avenue. Your piece of property was not. Now, you might have gotten bad information from people. I and and it sounds like you probably did.
And I I just want you to know that, you know, the the point I'm making has nothing to personally to do. It has to do with the zoning and the changing of the zoning and the requirements of the zoning.
So that's my comment on that. So, you know, as we go forward, I'm not anti or I don't think the board, let me speak for myself, this board is is anti-development, but it has to be done in a responsible fashion that fits into
the area. So, as we move forward, you know, I I I hope we can talk about this stuff. I don't want to have hard feelings about it by any means, but I also have a obligation to follow what the ordinances are.
So, you know, I just say that to you so you maybe get a better feel for the position that I'm taking on some of this stuff. You don't I understand how you don't want to accept it or understand it. That's fine. But just letting you know. So, you if you have any questions for me
or the board, let's we have those, too. But, you know, I I have Yeah, I can't say anything else. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I am um wanting to work with the city uh
to get the pass growway driveway as the primary access to the property and that's why we're here today. So for whatever we have to do to forward this conversation to the next meeting or
right now that's the intent of today's meeting is that we want to have the driveway on passway as a primary driveway >> and I just want to note again procedurally for any public that may be
watching this is just anformational item and so the main decision will be made main decisions will be made the technical review committee meeting on January 7th, 2026 and the board of adjustment meeting on January 28th, 2026. Uh this meeting though is just forformational purposes.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, Mr. Techberg? >> I am good. Thank you very much. >> All right. All right. All right. Thank you. All right. Let's move on then to information item 6C, which is the building permit for new
residential construction at 2707 Pasigrow Way. So, the board sees most designs uh most new homes through the design review process, but this is one that has been significantly modified um since it originally came to this board back in
2023. This is the property of 2707 Passil Way, the former Bush Estate. Uh same building permit they have come in for a significant revision. It is a new single family residence of what is now approximately 4,000 square feet was
previously 23,000 square ft. This is built to the RU2 zoning district. So this is the underlying zoning district not to the overlay. So it will not come back to this board for design review. Uh you can see the layout of the
property here. Um it has extensive accessory features on the lot as the previous development had. Uh you can see that the pools and the other um accessory improvements toward the center of the lot. What is in red there and you'll be able to see this better from the elevations. That is the actual deck
with residence inset. Uh there is a storage and a parking area on the west side or sorry on the north side, 28th Avenue. Um and then there are some features underneath the deck in the residence. Uh but the majority of the ground level will be storage and they
will be putting up a screening feature on the west side to meet the screening requirements of the overlay which applies even to those properties that are in the underlying zoning district. Uh this is a view of the living level. There's only uh one living level in this
case. In the previous design, there had been two. Uh you can see in red that is inclusive of a deck that runs around the perimeter of the enclosed space. The interior contains the actual uh single residential level. Uh they have a great room offset by a single family
residence. And then you can see the elevations looking from the east. So the the backside looking from the dock area and then from the west uh looking from the street that's on the bottom of the screen. Uh just a reminder this was the 2023
plans. it was a much more much larger much more extensive design. Uh the current residence is about the size of the guest uh wing of the residence which would have been on the 27th Avenue side of the property. Um at the time that was a three-level structure. It was
connected by an enclosed breezeway from the primary part of the residence over to the guest residence on the south side. Uh this is now just a single residence. No, no breezeway between any other uh portions of the building. So the revision has been conditionally
approved pending a revised elevation. As I mentioned before, um they have resubmitted plans showing that the passer wayside is um adequately screened providing that 80% plus opacity. Um but we have not received a revised
elevation. So we have asked for that. Uh the subject development does meet the RE2 setback standards and it meets the lot size for the RE2 of course. So it is not otherwise subject to design review. I'd pointed this out in the staff report. I just wanted to mention that um
going back to the site plan and the I believe the landscaping plan was in the agenda as well. They are using quite a bit of Florida native landscaping. A lot of you know beach dune friendly landscaping in their design. We don't always see that with new residences. It's not required but I feel that they've done a very good job at
designing for um for native um Florida friendly landscaping. So, I just wanted to point that out. Happy to take any comments from the board. As I mentioned, this has been conditionally approved. It's just pending that revised elevation. >> My comments would be I think it's
fabulous that they're, you know, the change is great. I know that they must have a different a change in how they want to use this, which is which is great. So, um, no, thanks for the information. I I knew that it's been a couple years I since since they actually
did the other uh house proposal and so you know this is great. >> Thanks. >> Nice mid-century design and scale. Very pretty. >> I think it'll be a nice addition >> to the area. >> And I really like the the landscape
aspect. That's good because there's going to be plenty of land escape on that. >> There will. So, okay. Appreciate that. >> Okay. So, next I guess we would go to
6D, the report on the Gulf Beaches Museum. >> Very quick update from the museum. Um, again, ongoing work in the garden every Monday morning at 9:00 if anyone wants to join. And, um, this coming Sunday at
sunset, we'll be having the light the museum. Rain or shine, we'll figure it out. So, um, love for everybody to come out and support the museum. Refreshments will be served undercover perhaps. So, thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, 6E cityowned resources, Miss Common. Yes, just to provide an update. Um the city staff is headed to um the city commission or commission next Monday or Tuesday, I'm sorry, for a
direction on Mary Pier and also Pascal Park with the house relocation. So we'll have another update for you in February or not February, January. Getting my months mixed up. Um, with regards to the next steps on that, I'm sure you'll hear before then, but
officially from us as staff. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Uh, I guess I would say because we've been here for 55 minutes, we have a few moments here that we at least can talk briefly about discussion item
5C if that's okay. Um, and this let's see what I have on that. I was just kind of proofreading some of this and I would just point out especially in the beginning which some
of the stuff that I authored we have the P A and that was done just for brevity you know in a rough draft so it asked that all the capital P A just be changed to actual the passal word
there's probably I think did you say you counted 11 of them in the introduction. 18 pegs. They feel like a lot of pronouns. >> When we finally do it, we should yeah, just call that pass. That was my intent. I was just trying to be be quicker on that.
Also, in the third paragraph, uh there's a quotation mark at the beginning of recreational beach, but there's no quotation mark after recreational beach. That's where I think it should be. I think introduction too before we get
too far back. The introduction says potential residents. I think we need to strike that because there are current residents with with historic homes. There are residents who are making alterations or new residents doing alterations or rebuilds.
So I think potential residents and maybe not even residents because some of them are are business owners but don't reside here. >> Yeah, I think we agree. Let's take out potential residents and just say welcome to the Pascal Historic District. Yeah. Very good.
>> Anything else? I mean, and I know that this isn't the final final, but obviously we're in the meantime, we can do something here. >> I loved having a draft to look at. Thanks for working on that. >> Thank you. Um, and then I know since last time we
talked, the yellowed portions obviously have been added, which is fine. I probably need to look at a little bit closer, but I would also point out that on, let's see, where are we here? Uh,
page five, we added the Mediterranean Revival, which we talked about before, right? Which is fine. But then on page six near the bottom, we have other styles. We have Mediterranean Revival. I
mean, no big deal. I'm just saying that we need to take that out. Uh, and that's really the only thing that that was obvious I just wanted to point out. Um, and this this last page that's that's all added, that's pretty much or last
two pages really under the heading of additions to and elevation of historic buildings. That's pretty much just taken right out of the uh secretary secretary of interior's guidelines, right? >> With with some other we have a few local best practices in our code. It's all all
drawn out of that. Yes. And there's a few um items just over time that I believe the board has shown preference for just how additions are constructed. They are generally in line with the secretary of the interior, but they give a little bit more detail specific to our our jurisdiction.
>> Okay. And so so this anything else from other members? So again this is basically our uh what are we calling this here? Our um >> introduction.
>> Yes. Introduction. Right. And so I know we've been busy doing a lot of other stuff. So maybe someone can tell me when when we actually starts getting put together as I'm going to use this word booklet or whatever you know I know it's going to be added on to the potentially
added on to the uh ordinances in the LDC but when we add photographs and things of that nature that are they are we planning on putting those within these like the heritage architectural styles and existing promoted construction that
will be where we'll add those kind of photographs and stuff. Correct. Just add the photos and then have comments on what the board prefers in those. >> And so also when we when we talk about uh photographs of of current new builds that are good or additions or uh
elevations, things that we'll put those in those particular sections. I guess I'm asking how how as a matter of practicality, how who's laying that out and how are we doing that, you know, to prepare this kind of adding the
photographs and the descriptions to it. >> Well, I've received >> if you haven't planned for that yet. >> I've received quite a few photos. We're hoping to bring it back in January. I just wanted to >> present the content, but we will have a draft. >> So, photo stuff, we're gonna get a draft of that later, J. Perfect. Mhm.
>> Very good. >> All right. Anything else? Anything, buddy? I think that wraps us up until our next meeting. All right. >> Thank you. Thank you. January 8th.