Board of adjustment meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach. Will you all 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 Cosy >> here. >> Member Core >> here. >> Member Small >> here. >> Vice Chair Garshaw >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you.
Okay. Uh let's see. So I think we start with swearing in for anyone who will be giving testimony today on these cases. We can anyone who will be speaking to the board
today needs to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give is truthful? >> Thank you. Great. Okay. So, we'll start with the agenda.
Are there any edits, changes that we need to make at this? >> No, madam vice chair, not at this time. >> Okay. Anything else from this committee. Okay. Uh then all in favor of the agenda >> I I
>> Okay. All right. First uh first item here we do have if you have an comment to make that's not related to one of these items. You can fill out one of the yellow cards. You can also use the
yellow cards in the back. um if you're commenting on the case and uh and at this point we would accept any just general audience comments. Jenny, if there's any. >> Okay, then our first order of business, approval of meeting minutes from
September. >> I move to approve. I second. >> Member core. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member quy. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. Motion carries.
>> Okay. We have two cases today. First one will be case number 25118 6655 Gulf Boulevard. Madame vice chair. Actually, we have on the agenda review and approval of 2026 meeting dates that were distributed. >> Oh, you did. Yes. Yes, you did. Let's do
that. Thanks. any comments that you wanted to share on that or is it just uh reviewing it and any comments from the board? >> The only one thing I did see for um the meeting dates were missing a de a
November date. We have two December dates. They're listed. Yeah. >> Sorry about that. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Um I did look at our current year. I apologize. I think they moved to the November to December 2nd because of
Thanksgiving. So, >> correct. Correct. >> There'll be nothing in November. Is that right? >> No, there will be a meeting in November and I'm sorry. I don't know. >> Oh, there will be one. Okay. >> But I can get that out to you. >> And and I can say uh for this one for
November we have for 2025 is November 19th. I would have suggested for 2026, Wednesday, November 18th as a >> makes sense.
>> I would ask whether a December 30th date makes sense given holidays, but >> that is correct. This year we had moved it to December 17th. So to correspond with 2026 would be
December 16th. So both removed earlier. Okay. >> Want to do that again? >> So November 18th and December 16th instead of having the December 2nd or December 30th dates. >> Correct. And incorporating in the
November date which was not on the draft. >> Well, okay. Let's just clarify. We >> There wasn't one. Sorry. >> Good. Oh, yes. Yes. >> So, we'll have one for every month. The November date would be the 18th and the December date would be the 16th.
>> Does and then nothing on December 2nd and nothing on December 30th. >> Correct. Those would be struck. >> Anyone want to make a motion to approve this calendar of meetings >> as amended?
>> Yes. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the 2026 meeting dates as discussed. >> Have a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Member Small. >> Yes.
>> Member Cosy? >> Yes. >> Member Core? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. Now we'll move on to the uh first case 6655 G Boulevard
and I think I'll invite Brandon. >> Good afternoon Brendan Barry planner. This is variance case number 25118. It is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance for the property address of 6655 G Boulevard. Troy Willingham,
applicant for Ryan Broer of 6655 Golf Boulevard LLC, who is the owner. They are both present. Request an unnecessary and undue hardship variance for relief from the installation of a required 10-ft sidewalk following the change of use of the property. They seek to
maintain the existing sidewalk, which is approximately 5 feet in width or depth, where the sidewalk cannot be reduced to less than six feet in depth administratively. That requirement is pursuant to land development code section 39.10A. Um we did notice for this case we have
not received any letters for or against the request. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located on the east side of G Boulevard. The property has a zoning of CC2. That is commercial corridor Gulf Boulevard.
It shares the same land use. This allows for medium intensity commercial uses such as a grocery store um convenience market. Um we had some difficulty classifying this one. It's it's really a um local neighborhood ger style
development. So just to go into detail, the request is effectively just to maintain the sidewalk depth that is currently in the front of the site. It's approximately 5T. The code requires when any development or redevelopment is undertaken, which includes change of
uses that the sidewalk be expanded to 10 feet. Staff through the technical review committee does have the ability to reduce the depth of the sidewalk but to no less than six feet. The applicant is seeking to maintain the existing sidewalk at approximately 5t in depth.
That necessitates this hard hardship variance. So here is showing the property layout. The applicant is not redeveloping in the sense that they're demolishing the building or adding on to the building. They are changing the use of the building based on the zoning code.
Previously, it was a wedding equip equipment rental, which we would classify as an office/commercial use. It is now being made into a grocery store local local neighborhood market style use. The parking lot is being maintained as well. The applicant is effectively
seeking to maintain the property in its current condition. We did review um the recommended conditions with the applicant at last week's technical review committee meeting. We had published the report prior to that meeting. So, we had not added anything to the report since that
meeting took place. We did receive a supplemental letter um providing additional justification from the owner that has been forwarded to the board of adjustment. Here's some photographs of the site showing the signposting the site and again the the uh the
building itself will remain. There are some interior renovations underway but there are no significant changes to the exterior of the building or any additional floor area that is proposed under this request. I can see the frontage of the site. The applicant has agreed or sorry, the owner
has agreed to um remove the overgrown vegetation or replace it with something that's more appropriate. Uh we did notice some visual issues leaving the site because of the overgrowth and um they are going to be correcting that prior to opening. This is looking south down Gulf
Boulevard from the sidewalk frontage and looking toward the northern property. Another of the front of the building, another of the side buffer. Um, this is well vegetated. It does meet our buffering requirements.
So, based on the strict criteria for an unnecessary and undue hardship variance, the applicant has shown through the issuance of the original permit that the sidewalk could be expanded. They have through the narrative for this case expressed some concerns related to uh
potential curb hopping. the actual impact of this grocery store in terms of the need for an additional wider sidewalk, but the permit was issued showing that the sidewalk could be expanded. So, it doesn't meet the strict criteria of the code for a hardship variance. However, um we do recognize
that the applicant's development is a simple change of use. It is a change in use of the interior of the building. They're not making substantial exterior modifications as we've seen with other changes in use. They're not redeveloping the building or redeveloping the
exterior of the site. It is just a change of use of the interior of the business. We recognize that it will likely generate some additional walk up traffic compared to the use that was in the building previously, but it will likely not be a entirely pedestrian focused use. There will likely be a lot
of vehicular traffic to the site that would not affect or not be impacted by a wider sidewalk. We've spoken to them about another development that they have just east of our jurisdiction. They see that they found that they receive very little walk up traffic at that development.
If the board moves to approve, um we we understand the challenges that the applicant is facing which they can provide more through their testimony and they also provided through the supplemental narrative that was forwarded last week. Um we have conditioned this approval that should
the board look to approve this variance, it is very much a limited in scope um approval. Should there be redevelopment of the property to the north or the south should the applicant further redevelop their property in the future, they would still be responsible for the
sidewalk. This approval would effectively be, if approved as conditioned, a temporary waiver instead of an outright property level approval for for uh permanent variance to this requirement. And those recommended conditions um
they're provided in more detail within the staff report, but effectively they are summarized to that the variance expires upon any future construction or change of use constituting development or redevelopment as defined in the land development code. That could be a future change of use to the building just as
the applicant is undertaking here. It could be an addition to the building. Um other improvements that constitute development or redevelopment. It would also expire upon future development or redevelopment necessitating the same sidewalk improvement on either adjacent
property along Gulf Boulevard. And the third condition is that the applicant shall plan appropriate low growing landscaping in the front buffer. We have reviewed these conditions with the applicant. they seem tenatively um in agreement with the three conditions, but they can also provide that through their testimony.
So, the motion options effectively boil down to approval. Approval with the recommended staff conditions or additional or fewer conditions as the board sees fit, denial, or if you need additional information, a continuence to a date certain. Happy to answer any questions. As I
mentioned, the agent and the applicant are both present. >> Can we see the front of it again, Brandon? the photos or the plan. >> The photo. >> No, the other one. It looks right at it. Well, that's good enough. Yeah, that's the one I was talking about. So, where
were they going to put these the bushes or whatever it is? You're >> It would be a change out of the landscaping behind the picket fence there. >> In front of the fence. >> I believe it's behind. Let me Well, I guess it would be both sides. It's I believe it's planted on the interior of
the property. Does it seem to lean? >> Sorry. >> The driveway is that because it's a driveway, it looks like it leans. It's not straight like a normal sidewalk. >> The curb cut, you mean? >> Correct. It is. It is a fairly wide curb
cut. So, there's that u the Miami curb toward the center and then it steps up to a >> Good question, though. Can I Can I just pile on that really quick? >> Yeah. Yeah. Is that curb a city curb then responsibility? >> That is that is all state right of way.
>> It's state. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Fine. So that is an example of the foliage. Whatever that bush is that we see right there. >> Mhm. >> That's the foliage they would be
replacing. >> Getting rid of that and putting something else in. >> Correct. Something lower growing. fairly ugly to be honest. >> And it even goes into the sidewalk. >> Okay. Any other questions for Brandon? >> Okay. Thank you. And just I'm sorry,
just before the um the candidate, how do I say applicant? Thank you, comes up, um we did not do exparte, so maybe we should do that real quick. Please. >> Okay. Have you spoken with anyone about the application or visited the site or have any other information outside what's
considered in this hearing you'd like to disclose? No. >> No. >> Site visit. But >> I went there. Yeah, that's all. >> Okay. Thank you. So now if the applicant would like to come forward. >> Oh,
>> if we don't already have it, then you hand it to the clerk. >> Is this a new letter? >> It's the same. It's already been distributed to >> um hi everybody. I'm Ryan. Um, I own the Bayway Country Store and Butcher Shop,
uh, which is, I think, politically referred to as a fresh food grocery store nowadays. Um, just outside of Tier Verde. Um, and I'm looking to do the same thing at this site here, 6655 Golf Boulevard. Um, and we're just at the
point to where a lot of stuff has gone wrong in development and we're kind of run out of money to get open. um mainly regarding the electrical um due diligence was incorrect. There is three-phase available behind the site,
but Duke wouldn't let us tap into it. So that significantly raised the cost of development. Um you know, we got that citizens letter, hey, we don't care that you sent us, you know, an inspection on this roof. You got to get a new roof or we're immediately dropping your insurance. So that added even more to
the development cost. And it's just kind of at the point to where I'm I'm worried about being dead on arrival. You know, like I I have enough money to get the construction done, but that's not really the cost of running a business. You know, you have to hire and
train employees, you have to put food in the building, you have to do opening advertisement, things of that nature. Um, and it's it's really starting to get tight. You know, as we closed on this building November last year, uh, just after the hurricanes, and based on due
diligence, I really thought this would be maybe a six-month project. Um, but now we're going to be past the one-year mark. Um, and it's it's excuse me, it's really looking to be late November, December at the rate we're going. Um,
and it's it's just at that point where we've had to cut a lot of interior services to what I initially expected to do. Um, and I'm worried now if you know I have to do this sidewalk work today, um, that I'm just out of money to get open, you know, and and I know that
doesn't strictly meet the definitions of, you know, the variance stuff, but, you know, I I really, this is something that residents have asked me about for years. Um, you know, I'm pretty close to the city of St. Pete Beach. I'm not technically in the city of St. Pete
Beach. Um, and it it felt like good timing. You know, is it's rare for buildings to pop up that are insurable nowadays that an owner operator can actually afford. Um, you know, so I I really believed in this building, you know, that I could have, you know, that
nice neighborhood grocery store, you know, fresh meat, fresh vegetables, that kind of stuff. Um, and it's just been a very long-winded development process, you know, mainly due to Duke. Um, I know the exterior is pretty overgrown at the moment. Um, that was indirectly related
to I couldn't really get a good answer on the total amount of site work that I had to do once Duke changed it because we had to do underground for the electrical. And there was also a little bit of ambiguity about the waterline service that we might have to go
underneath the existing um to add in an air gap um air break or air gap for the water service. Um so that's why I didn't really bother maintaining it because I thought I was ripping it all out anyways. Um so that's kind of why the
property is in its current state. Um but long-term aesthetically pleasing stuff is good for retail business. You know, I of course intend to, you know, make it very pretty, trim everything, have stuff, you know, good to go because you want a warm, inviting store for people
to shop at. You know, people don't like to shop at dingy stores, you know, not for fresh food anyways, you know, you know, cigarettes, something else, but I don't really sell many of those. Um, so that's that's really about it. >> Could you tell us more about the sidewalk? not so much about the
financial stuff, but we need to know why you uh what the problem is with providing a sidewalk. It looks apparent from the photos, but if you could describe that. >> It's an interior lot, so I don't it's it's one of those slanted I think
it's called a Miami curbed style. Um so it's not really a good sidewalk from a pedestrian standpoint anyways. Uh, but I'm worried that if the state just makes me extend this ramp essentially up another two to four feet, it's
essentially just a giant ramp for cars to hop over. Um, you know, I'd like to maintain it as is because if I maintain it as is, we keep the landscape barrier and we keep that picket fence and I think that kind of forces cars to slow
down as they would enter the property. Whereas, if we expand the sidewalk, we're functionally removing the landscape barrier. So, by not having that landscape barrier, I feel it's kind of inviting for cars to just hop that curb. Um, there's also within that space, the signage would kind of be
enveloped in concrete. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be like a clear free and clear sidewalk. We're just wrapping concrete around an existing light pole and the existing pole signage for the building. Um, so I don't think you'd you'd really get that true pedestrian, you know,
two-lane effect that I think the city's looking for anyways if we did expand it at this time. Um, you know, if the building to the north is developed, I'm not against redeveloping it later because then that's a good accommodation for a grocery store to have a continuous
sidewalk. But as it is today in the foreseeable future, um it's really just expanding a random patch of sidewalk and it's not going to be continuous or in my opinion really good pedestrian accommodation because of that. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Questions? >> Did you put Did you put a new roof on it? >> Oh, yeah. New roofs on. Um we're really just waiting on one
custom electrical panel that we ended up having to buy. Um, but other than that, pretty much all the interiors done, all the equipment's been delivered. Um, it's it's really just at the point to where I need to, you know, get all the final permitting and approval stuff signed
off. >> Your your other store on the Bayway is wonderful. I like it a lot. Is how many retail square feet compared to the property over here? Bayway is 3,300 square ft. This new store should be 2,200 square ft.
>> Much smaller. >> Um, it's smaller, but what I've noticed is that retail has changed a lot since co. Um, dry good sales are down significantly. there's not really as much demand for, you know, that box of
crackers or anything because I think culturally people have shifted to just buying that from delivery services, you know, like I think Kroger I see a lot in Pass Grill nowadays. Uh there's also Walmart delivery. >> Do you have do you have wine and beer permit? >> I'm sorry.
>> Do you have a wine and beer permit to sell? >> I have an existing one. I cannot get final approval for uh beer and wine until the Department of Agriculture signs off on the building. Um which I need to have running hot water for that.
Uh so that's just waiting on that last electrical panel. Um, beer and wine is I already have a beer and wine license from the other store. So, it's very academic to get another one. Um, because I've already gone through the background check and fingerprinting processes
required for a package. I think it's a 2 APS dual license in technicality. >> Any other questions about the fence and the sidewalk >> area in front of the building?
I understand there were some utilities that were located in that area that would be affected if you were to redo the sidewalk. >> Um lights. >> I don't So, oh yes, there's um there we we had to put a new pad mount
transformer. Um, but I think that's I don't know if that would directly connect, but there's currently a parking lot light um right up against the current sidewalk as well as the pole signage for the building uh right up against the current sidewalk. And that
would be I guess kind of have to be wrapped around in concrete um to finish the sidewalk. I I don't think that I I haven't talked to Duke if they would move the light pole or not. Um, you know, that's that's kind of a
long-winded process. Um, and I would be worried if I lose the poll signage, is the business viable? Um, just because the building is set back. So, if I lose the poll signage or if that signage is
significantly altered, I would be very much worried about does the business have enough exposure to get consistent foot traffic. you know, my other store has, you know, a digital um what's what's the term? A digital marketing
center sign center a digital sign. Um and that was a big boost to sales. Um, so knowing that, I I think if I had any negative alterations to the current signage, um, that I would have difficulty driving
enough for traffic to remain open year round just because of the tourist dichotomy, you know, like we'd all we'd all like to pretend that locals keep me in business and they do most of the year, but I would break even without that, you know, tourist traffic that helps boost things for three months of
the year. Okay. That I I did go and look at the site and I know what you're referring to. I don't even think we saw a picture. I don't know if you if you had anything else to share, but >> where there looks like a new uh utility
green box that literally looks like inches off of the sidewalk. >> Yeah. Did us install that. >> Okay. Um, you know, and that's why that's kind of why the whole site's a mess is we had to do a lot of um a lot
of digging and a lot of cutting and you know that that underground utility work was um a lot. >> Okay. >> So, >> okay. Any other questions for candidate applicant? Say no. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, thank you very much.
>> Okay. So, are there any audience comments? on this case. >> Yes, I do. Um, William Lawson. >> Good afternoon, William Lawson, 5407 Leilani Drive. I just wanted to show up here and support a great local business.
I think we've been shopping since we've been in exile down Ontario Verde, working on our rebuilding at the Bayway reliably, and we come in every week or more and ask Ryan, "Hey, how's it going? heard about that store in St. Pete Beach and it's been one story, one story, one story after another and it's just
exciting to see him persevering through this. But when you look at the way that this particular case unfolds, it just seems like we would all as a city benefit from a more coordinated approach to our pedestrian pathways. And it just makes a lot of sense what staff has recommended to say, "Hey, let's not
worry about this little sidewalk to nowhere right now. let's wait until we have a critical mass of improvements that will make this actually look good and not have, you know, concrete wrapping around poles and whatnot and let's, you know, deal with the FOD issue and figure out how to make it a pedestrian friendly um sidewalk that
doesn't just turn into a big ramp into the property. So, you know, thank you for your time today. Thank you for doing everything that you can, anything you can to make it easier for this great business to serve our community while we don't well while we don't have a grocery store and beyond. Thanks. >> Thank you.
Jolyn Lawson. >> Hi there. Uh Jolyn Lawson, 5407 Leilani Drive. Um I don't have much more uh to say um that my husband, but I am here in support of you granting um Ryan the
variance request with the staff proposed conditions. Um, I do think there are lots of residents um ready for a small grocery store and um can't wait for this to open and we would like to support him
in this business. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's all I have. >> Okay. And at this time, we'll close for comments and have board discussion. >> We need a grocery store. >> I think it's
we if it's anything like his other store, it would be beneficial to our community. No doubt about it. >> I agree. But I did have a question for Kristen and I think um so is there any interest in either of the properties on either side? Do we know of anything
that's going to happen with that? because it seems like we might would um want to defer the sidewalk to more like a year time frame instead of 6 months or 3 months or two months from now. >> So when staff was out there with regards
to the adjacent properties um the property that is more towards the north um I believe is a real estate agent. kind of vacant at this time. Maybe possibly the one that may trigger it to the south is the veterary office, which
I know recently went under new ownership with a new vet vet there. Okay. >> Um, so I don't see that really changing too much. Um, but I think it might be helpful to kind of understand with these conditions >> and if it's triggered on redevelopment
how that would be enacted like how we would notice the adjacent or the the current property owner an applicant today that he needs to now put in the new sidewalk.
>> Yeah, I I understand. And I'm wondering if there we could and just in case the property to the north side were to change >> two months from now, could we make it where maybe it's triggered by either or
both properties changing or else put like a deferred for a year or >> Okay, >> you see what I mean? >> Whichever >> occurs >> later. Okay. >> In order to give him a little bit more time to Is that a possibility? Um Brandon, you want to address how you've
written um conditions that we have the number one? >> Yeah. >> Two and three. I think number one, >> just one >> or number two may be the most relevant there. >> So the the time trigger is not in there. So are you looking for a provide by or
provide not sooner than you >> want to explain how it works right now, Brandon? >> Sure. So currently it's based on redevelopment of either property which could be simply a restoration and change of use of the property to the north. That's the direction they go down. Um it
could of course be a full-sight redevelopment new building if if they chose to do that as well, but there's no timeline for that. If that happens in 5 years, they would be respon the subject applicant would be responsible in five years. If it's three months from now, it would be three months as currently
drafted. and that says the owner shall provide an aligned sidewalk of at least the depth required for the adjacent property with the timing of the improvement to be managed relative to the timing of the sidewalk improvement on the adjacent property. So in other words, when other sidewalk goes in,
>> this side would be expanded to meet the size of the adjacent sidewalk. >> Yeah. And I'm wondering if maybe we should make the condition that e both properties north and south instead of only just either or. I think that would
address my concern that the north property might change in just a couple of months from now and then we'd be changing the sidewalk right away because we kind of everyone wants to
have a grocery store that doesn't go out of business. I I don't I may again I just want to clarify to your point like what we're reading here because um my understanding is we're if if we are to grant this variance it's it's specific for this
property and it is independent of if an independent person comes in and does something next door on either side. This they have this variance uh specific to their property. However, if they are the ones that are involved
in the property to the north or south or the south or any redevelopment um on the property again, then they would be uh looking at either requesting an a different variance or maybe just clarify
because I'm getting confused. >> So, condition one would be specific to redevelopment of the subject property. So if someone else came in and changed the use to a restaurant or something in the future, they would be el have to go through this process again based on condition one. Condition two would be
triggered by either adjacent property redeveloping. So that could be a change of use. It could be a full site redevelopment, tear down, rebuild. Um it could be a significant addition. So, it would be either of those would necessitate the need for a sidewalk on
on the frontage of this property as currently drafted. >> And it also says when they develop the adjacent properties, if they if they have a different size sidewalk, this property would then match that size sidewalk. >> Right. I think >> with
>> staff we have the authorization to reduce depth to 6 feet but we didn't want to ask the applicant to provide a 6ft and depth sidewalk when we want 10 ft down the line and make them go through that whole process and then come back in the future and do it again.
>> Um we did we thought it was acceptable to tie it to adjacent development if if need be. The idea here was not to have just one property with a wider sidewalk than everybody else because it makes it less sense than having a contiguous section or segment
of roadway that has the 10 foot >> Yeah. Okay. >> or six foot sidewalk. >> Okay. So, it is it is as you're describing which it's related to independent of this property owner and what they're doing. They're they're saying they remain subject to
what happens on either side. correct that condition. >> When they expand on either side, then this one would have to expand to match it. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Um I guess I'm with you on this. I don't I walked the propert
and looked around and I mean there's significant >> uh there would be significant >> impact to having a wider sidewalk there. Signs are out that far. are I mean this I think this is the nature of being a
city that was built up probably in the 50s and 60s that there's signposts the electric the utilities are out there I mean just it h it does feel like it demands a more comprehensive
citywide effort to sort this one out then it's going to be a property owner by property owner >> yeah that's exactly what I was thinking Um, >> and will they have to apply for variances on their side? >> And I do I I think it's something to tee
up as a topic, you know, for the maybe the commission again to look at as we're looking at other things that this board explores and how could we if that's a if I mean we all want our streets and our pedestrians and our bikers and lanes to
be, you know, have spaces that create safety. I mean, I think you we all know you as a business owner. You want your pedestrian traffic and you want them to be safe. >> Um, yeah, but you >> if you want to talk. Yeah, come you can come back up.
>> They have they have something called complete streets that uh is a transportation planning concept. Um, again remember that this particular Gulf boulevard is owned by FDOT. said we would have to work in conjunction with that DOT >> for complete streets, bike share,
>> bike paths, pedestrian crossings, all those involve collaboration interlocal agreements perhaps with FDOT >> a joint planning effort. >> Yeah. Um, for for the sake of comparison, when the state put in I
think it's called the the Bayway Trail or the Penllis Trail extension, um, that was a really significant improvement to bikeability. Like I do get on the weekends a lot more bike traffic before that. Um, it's it's
strictly a logistical issue. I think what you guys said is am I as a random guy that wants to own a business appropriate to do that because it it probably won't be continuous for a while you know as I know certain
municipalities have done like raised biking and pedestrian pathways in addition to the road which those I think work well um but as it is today you know the next year or whatever you know I do really feel that It's academically a
very poor pedestrian accommodation in the near term, you know, just being a oneoff. I think it's 200 ft of frontage, you know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, any other comments or maybe we
talk about making a motion? >> Sounds like you might want to make them. >> I could give it a try and then you could think about if you like it or not. All right. So I would um move that we uh provide the variance in this case with
the staff recommended conditions for case number 25118 uh 6655 Gulf Boulevard and uh with the only change of the three conditions being item number two which uh was going
to expire the variance uh on the date of authorization for any permit. or site plan that constitutes a development or on either adjacent property. And I would change that to um
it would expire when either both sides are um approved. >> Instead of the word either, use the word both. >> I believe that would do it. >> Okay. >> Both uh adjacent properties. So it's the
latter of the latter of the two joint properties. The second one when the second one comes in then this one would come in. >> Can can we ask the applicant is that too ownorous to ask of you >> just at any given point in time the
north and south? >> I I think that's that's more than fair know When you see the second one comes in, then you have to match their sidewalk. >> It's really I'll know if this is gonna work by the end of
>> that will be a different owner. >> Well, I don't think anything else is going to happen before then anyway based on >> Okay. >> So, I I think we made a motion. >> Yeah. Do we have a second? >> Only one more thing. Um Brandon, do we
typically record the variances once they're granted? Typically not, but we we could record it against the property. You mean >> I think in this particular case, in case this subject property the grocery store sells, that way anyone that purchases it
when they're doing their due diligence would know that this was a requirement. So, I'd recommend that the variance, if approved, be recorded and a copy be provided to the city. >> So, can I ask a question about that then? Um, so I think in this case it's
uh driven by the fact that this is a grocery store. So you're talking about if it were a change from a grocery store. No, I'm saying that if this gentleman here and his company is going to sell the property, obviously know
that there's a condition there. a future prospective buyer would know then that there's this condition that they have to widen their sidewalk when the next door neighbors wide >> right so it's just simply I mean if he was to sell it to someone else it stays exactly the same
>> okay same use >> flipped as as who owns it then it it would be visible in the >> not changing any of the change of use rules or anything like that we're saying you have a variance and the variance runs with the land until the adjoining properties uh change their sidewalk
walk, then this property will have to match their sidewalk. >> That makes sense. >> Okay. >> It's just for good visibility, I think, for whoever owns the property, what they're responsible to. >> So there's no surprises.
>> Correct. Yeah, that's what we want. No surprises and successful healthy businesses, >> especially grocery stores and St. Pete Beach. Um, so do we want to amend uh the motion or make it
>> restate restate the motion. >> Yeah. You want to restate? >> It'll either to >> Good luck again. >> All right. I would move that we um grant the variance for case number 25118 for 6655 G Boulevard uh with the staff
recommended conditions except for item number two. And in that item in the first sentence, we would change the word um from either adjacent property to um both adjacent properties.
And then um do we need to add a a comment about this being a recorded >> variance? Condition number four would be that shall be recorded in the official property records of Penel County. >> Okay. Golf and Bay Dock Works LLC is
appearing for Scott Brown, owner, requesting an unnecessary requesting an unnecessary undue hardship variance to construct a two 2.5 ft x 20 foot extension of the lower landing on a non-conforming existing dock with relocation of the existing east existing
eastern boat lift to the end of the proposed lower landing, creating a length overall of 106 feet where 39 37.9 ft is permitted and where 91.5 ft currently exists. office looking for relief from land development code section 6.23D3.
The subject waterfront parcel is outlined in red. It has single family uses to the east, west, and south in Boca Bay to the north. It is located within the RU2 zoning district. Again, the variance detail request. Um
they are again looking for where a 37.9 ft uh length deck or dock is permitted existing is 91.5 ft and proposed will be 106 ft. So the survey of the property with its
current existing conditions you can see the main part of the the um application today is dealing with the existing dock. You can see the existing um dock at the top of the survey. It does contain to the
west a lift that contains um two jet skis and then also the existing lift to the eastern side or the right um is part of the application in question.
And here's just a better view with dimensions and a diagram of the request as well as you get to see the overall length um of the adjacent docks as well. Um I have provided some staff photos just standing on the rear patio
um of the the subject dock so you can kind of see it from all different angles as well as an overhead aerial of the adjacent properties as well. I'll give you a moment because that is a lot to take in at once if that's okay. >> Yeah. And just to I mean that picture's
so tiny but and I I didn't go well we we also need to do experte here as well but I'll just say I did not >> go walking around your property or looking in your backyard but um just seeing this picture. Could you just clarify? So this is what we're looking
at on this tiny picture of it's looks like jet skis and then is >> the jet skis are on the left and the existing dock or the the lift to the right of the head of the dock that is going to be relocated to the front as well as an extension of the lower
landing. And I do have a lot of additional pictures because I know you didn't get out there and I think I have another bigger one of that exact one. >> Okay, thank you. Mhm. So now I'm just going to bring you on to the property. Noticing was completed as required. Um at this point staff has not
received any letters at the time of the agenda posting or to date in support or um objection. And this just gives you the view of the house from the street in case you ever happen to drive down Boasel Gile Drive. This is the property.
And here is another view from the patio, uh, the rear patio by the pool. And here's a better close-up view >> with the jet skis to the left and the the dock, the boat lift to the right.
>> Here is a picture of the existing lower landing that is to be extended an additional 2.5 ft. And this is a view looking east. another just kind of as I'm turning. And this is a view to the west. And there is
a dock on the uh adjacent property as well. And here's just turning looking back towards the dwelling. So staff did find that the applicant has addressed the criteria but does request additional testimony be provided as
noted um that substantial and competent evidence has been provided. Uh the applicant should provide testimony regarding the depth required to provide adequate boat access and further explanation for the need for the additional extension of the lower landing and an update on the status of
building permit 25504930 for the proposed maintenance dredging including next steps if the permit is still being pursued or if is going to be withdrawn. I really didn't get into that being that that was part of my staff report. Um but the applicant is part of
saying that they can't utilize that existing lift. So, I'd like some additional testimony. They did have some dredging reports, but in doing a comprehensive review of the property, it was noted that they had a building permit application in there for dredging. It's just kind of been in
limbo, so I'd just like some additional information on that to be provided. >> Okay. >> Happy to answer any questions you may have. I know the applicant is here as well. >> You want to do the exparte before the applicant goes? >> Of course. And just uh just before we do
that, any questions for Kristen? >> Well, I'm trying to I guess we'll talk to the applicant. I'm still trying to understand what the hardship is. >> Okay. Uh do you want to clarify that Kristen then or or the hardship but have to address that? >> Okay.
>> No exparte. >> All right. No, >> nothing. >> Okay. Okay. Then we invite the applicant to come up and please state your name and address for the record.
>> Hi there, Micah Thompson, owner of Golf and Bay Doc Works, 1510 51st Street South, Gulfport, Florida. I'm the owner of Golf and Bay Marine. I would also like my counterpart Shannon to share. She's never shared before Board of Adjustment, but she's been the primary due diligence and client contact. So I
wouldn't mind if she got the opportunity to share a little more detail. We were first contacted by our dredging division. The couple bought this house in the spring. Love the house. Particularly like the ability with the view and to use this existing lift. They quickly realized after closing they
could not get their boat on the lift. We applied for dredging. The FD turned us down for dredging. So there's too much seaggrass there right now. They know they don't want to do something that's too much of a hardship. They like the dock. They like the house. They simply want to be able
to use their boat. and dredging is now not an option. Uh so the most minimal thing we can do and we've checked it out with their boat and we've had their boat right alongside the front would just be add 2 and 1/2 ft to what they have and take the existing lift and put it here.
That's that's what we're trying to do. That would give them sufficient depth without having to dredge. Um it would also allow the seagrass that's currently there to continue to grow and that's basically what we're asking for. The neighbor to the right is certainly okay with it. The neighbor to the left is
quite the character. Um and is he's quite the character. He's pretty well known at St. Pet. >> What does that mean? >> He's uh he lit his yard on fire um last fall. He's um >> on purpose. >> Yeah. He's basically squatting in the
house. It's not supposed to be livable from there's lots of things that are going on with this this gentleman to the left. Um the wife of the new owners of this house are scared to approach him. So Shannon has a little bit more info she can provide but we were not able to
get a signature from him. Um she can give a little more detail to that as well. That's something I normally mentioned but in this case I felt the need to do so. >> So >> so signatures are not required for a variance. >> Okay. >> If you had signatures from both neighbors then they would not be here. That's why that's important.
>> That is correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> Right. And the neighbor to the right uh is certainly fine with it and has signed off. >> Has signed off. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Could you clarify? You said the D denied the dredging permit because of the presence of seaggrasses. >> The seaggrass under the lift as it is
now. >> So for environmental, >> we can show you a picture. One of the things Shannon's going to show you is a picture of the depths under the lift and >> Okay, let's show the pictures. Yeah. >> And I may have missed it, but did you provide uh the city with a copy of the denial or the dredging?
>> Have we? And if not, then I'll when you come up, you can testify on that. But since you mentioned it happened, then um we I'd just like to have that entered into the record. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> You want to come on up? >> She can be an expert. Yeah. She's not an applicant, but she's an expert.
>> You can state your name and just for the record. And I assume you were sworn in as well. >> Yes, I was. >> Okay, great. Um I'm Shannon Lemus and I live at 244 York Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Um, as far as um,
yes, the FD FD um, did they are email chains and they didn't technically deny it. Um, but there are email chains with them saying like this is not a possible issue and we can we can get a hold of those for you. They're between our engineer who filed a permit on our
behalf and the FDA. Um we also there was multiple um let's see there was other uh reports and documentation and they spent a couple thousand dollars and pulled in specialists from all different groups
different engineerings and all of them came to the same conclusion that um judging was just not possible at this property. Uh it was probably about six months of of work and time into that and then they came back to us and asked what else can we do? Um, so this was the
option that we came up with uh at that point. Now, as far as the depth goes, um, >> yeah, we'll get the overhead going. >> Can we have the overhead? >> So, these lines right here are showing our depth here. So, we can see where the
dock currently sits right now. um that's going to be at about 2 and 1/2 ft deep uh where the lift is over here. So then these lines come across here. So where we are asking to move it out to um is
where we meet our depth at about 4T. Uh which is the reason for adding the 2 and 1/2 ft lower landing extension is to get us to that actual 4T of depth. And the reason that we need that amount of depth uh is the lowers of the lift itself are
about 9 1/2 in and then you add the bunks on top of the lowers and that's about an additional 6 in between the lowers and the bunks and then the boat itself is going to draw 36 in. >> Is this a high tide or low tide or mean? >> This is a low tide. >> This is a low tide.
>> Mean low tide. Yes. So um that basic that adds up to 51.5 in and we are actually requesting you know to put it roughly at 48 in. Um so again the very very minimal that we can and they still probably won't be able to use it at an
extreme low tide at that point. >> Okay. Anything else? Um as that basically covers the the dredging the two um you know questions up there the depth and the dredging as well. Um other than that um I don't think so at this time. Do you
have anything to add? Okay. Um then just one other question about the actual uh lift itself. Is this the most I guess is is this lift uh what you would consider the only lift option given this kind of
depth or is there other approaches that they could take with the existing configuration? >> Um the existing lift I I think it was good at one time when it was installed. I think you've had some infill and then I think you've had a lot of marine life grow there the last couple years.
Um, I don't know of a lift system that would hold their boat that would be any shallower. >> For very small boats where we know like up near Wheaton, we can put slings on a small 19 20 foot boat. Um, they they bought this boat for that lift thinking they're going to be able to use that
lift. >> Um, it's a good lift. It's not a brand we install. It's a Neptune, but it's a it's a strong brand made on the East Coast. It's got as minimal depth as any any lift on the market for this size boat. >> Okay. Thank you for that testimony. And then um
>> the neighbor you said did on the right. I don't know if that's north or south or east or west right now, but um >> west uh you do have their they did sign off. >> Yes. So as far as uh they did and I do have a copy of that right here. I do
believe he flip-fpped the um the neighbors as far as which one was which. So, we are unable to obtain the right neighbor, but the left neighbor has signed off. Yes. >> Okay. >> Can you say the east or west? So, right and left. >> Uh the right would be the west
>> and the left would be the east. >> Okay. >> East. >> Wait. Staff is saying no. >> Backwards. You say you're looking north. >> Yes, we're looking north. So it to the east would be Shamblin, correct? >> It would be the left. >> The neighbors are when you're facing the
water. >> Okay. Yeah. From the back of the house. >> From the back of the house. >> Yes. >> So to the east would not sign. The west did sign. >> Yes, it has to be. >> If that's north, that's illy.
>> That's why east and west works. It looks like one neighbor has a pool and the other neighbor does not have a pool. >> So left is east. >> Okay. >> The east neighbor has sign off. The west
neighbor has not. >> Okay. So it's just the opposite. Okay. >> So just to to jive with the picture, can you see the one that has the pool? Can we go back to the presentation please real quick?
Let's just go back to the picture. Sorry, I'm just going to get you back to that Ariel. >> Yeah, that's helpful. So, the property I guess they're saying with the pool, which is to the left,
which would be west, >> did not. >> Yes. Did sign. >> Did the one with the pool did sign. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, the east did not. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> And I can give you >> Is there something that shows the
channel location? We have not a great picture on our book here. >> Maybe we'll go to the overhead again. >> Yeah, I think that overhead showed the
depth pretty well of the water. You're just pointing out the channel there is where we can kind of see the browner area outside of the green. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, I think we'd I'd like to have
the dredging uh pursuit information included for the record and but based on your testimony, understand it sounds like a six-month pursuit. Um, I'm not sure why there isn't an ability for a final quote denial or how
that works. I have never pursued that myself but >> TE does not like to say no but they will discourage you from continuing >> by just dragging it on forever and ever. Okay. >> Telling you this is not advisable. Please withdraw your application. >> Yeah, that's basically what they told us.
>> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. That's >> okay. Thank you for your >> said very well >> your expert history and experience there. Um any other questions for the applicant? Could you draw on that diagram and turn it into the clerk where the channel is located just so we have
it as part of the record? >> Yeah, I mean that would be the concern is if the new lift is in uh extending into the navigable channel width and how far is that? How wide is
the the deep water there >> in feet? >> I guess the question is does it block the channel? Right. >> It is not. And there's a channel here is a very loose turn. >> Okay. There's no channel markers there, right? >> No channel right >> here at all. It's just slightly deeper
5t this way. Um and the vegetation seems to drop off at that pl that mark because of the depth. >> So the boats travel from their dock straight out or do the boats go along the edge of the docks? >> Um they they tend to go out before they they tend to just go out before they
leave. And again, this isn't a great >> So, they'll travel out perpendicular to the shoreline and then go parallel when they >> they will they'll go out to this wider it's not really a channel. It's just more depth between the shoreline seaggrass and then the seagrass that's
probably 200 feet out. >> May we have the overhead, please? >> There we go. >> The question I guess is does this extension um prevent boats from accessing where they >> It does not. If you can see it, it's very shallow here and it's very shallow
here and where the sun is in those shallow depths is where we've had which is good for the environment much more seagrass in the last couple years. Um, but the boats basically travel out to this area here which is not an official navigable channel and then they they run
out to deeper water. >> Can you draw some lines where you use your finger so if we go to court I can show the judge where you're pointing? Thanks. >> Also, by chance, do we know when this picture was taken? Just as a time frame, any estimate
just >> uh I was taken off of property appraiser. Um so I believe it was the 2024 version of property razor. Tend to be able to see the seaggrass and the depth better in that version.
I mean, with the way that this is designed, is there will there will will this be lit at the end? I mean, I'm sure they don't want their boat getting hit either. And if they're sticking out furthest from everyone else, is there some way that this is going to be
visible to avoid any voter issues in the evenings? I'm sure they would be open to it, but the they're actually if you actually boat by it, these down here tend to stick out much more. Sorry. These tend to stick out much more. This
will still be in line. And this is so shallow that you can't you can't run at speed in here. >> Well, it happens. >> It does happen. >> Accidents happen. >> Um, >> as we know, >> moving the lift out. I'm sure they would be happy to put a light on the end if you'd like. I don't think they would
have a problem with that. >> I mean, it might be safer for >> you can make it a condition of approval for light or reflectors or both. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They'd be okay with that. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> No.
>> Okay. And I think we don't have any comments. So there's no one here unless so I think we'll then close the discussion until then and we can we can
discuss as a board. >> Well actually I did have one more question when you said that picture was taken in what year? 24 >> 24 appraiser sites. >> So prehurricane >> was it 24 appraiser sites? So we don't really know exact. I think that's the
testimony that she gave. >> If anything, it may have filled in even a little more. So, yeah, >> I think we should grant it. I think it's fine. I think putting the light on is a good idea. >> Great idea. >> But, I mean, if they can't use it,
they're it's it's kind of a they're they're stuck. >> Can't use it and they can't dredge it. So, there's only one other option. And I don't it's not >> and I appreciate the minimum depth now better with hearing the testimony about
you're not just adding they're not just looking to expand a lower landing but actually giving just that extra distance helps them to get to the uh the depth that they have to have in >> honestly nobody would prefer a longer
dock because it's just more trouble to go all the way back. >> Right. Right. Right. That's true. So, okay. Um, would anyone want to make a motion? >> Sure. I'll move to approve
case number 25125 at 2050 Bokea Sier Drive uh with the condition that uh a light be added to the end of the the the new dock. >> Further planning. Yeah, I'll second.
>> Member Cosy. >> Yes. Member Corb. >> Yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, that closes the cases for today. Thank you.
>> Uh item for discussion board duties and variance procedures. >> You have the presentation, please. Get you there. So I did put together a couple couple slides um just regards to just give a basic foundation and then we
can expand upon that. But just um our board duties and variance procedures um where we get our powers from as a board um and then also the land development code um the specific types of variances and the criteria. you see the applications, you may not have seen our
land development code. Um, you know, you can always access it online or in print, but just to kind of give you a basic framework. Um, so article two of the code of ordinances, um, under section 2237 gives the board of adjustment their
powers and duties generally. Um, they are to review all subdivision plots submitted to the city, report its findings, comments, and recommendations to the city commission. you don't really see a lot of them. You do see a lot of variances from the terms of the land development code in accordance with
those limitations specified within the LDC and also to hear and decide other matters as specifically assigned by the ordinance to the board for determination. But for the main purposes, you generally stick to number two. Um so what is a variance? Uh basically a
variance is a grant of relief by the board of adjustment, the city commission or the city manager from the requirements of the land development code or LDC and it's a set of ordinances enacted by the city of the St. Peach St. Pete Beach for the regulation of any aspect of subdivision and the development of land. So that's why it's
always pulled back to you your land development code LDC, but the code of ordinance is what gives you your powers. Feel free to jump in anytime. I didn't I didn't I didn't look at these with you. Only thing I was going to tell everyone, and you may already know this, but when
you go to u municode.com, then you can click uh Florida Library, and it'll give you every city and county's uh land development code and code of ordinances, and you click St. Pete Beach, and it'll give you two choices. One is the code of ordinances, and the other one is the land
development code. So, your powers and duties are in the code of ordinances, that first button. And then when you go to the variance criteria, those are in the land development code, that second red hot link button. And then you can search and see what's what's in there.
>> And generally, as part of an application, we as staff and even part of our noticing, we'll sp pull out the specific sections within the LDC that they're looking or requesting relief from. So we have that factual basis of the nitty-gritty. What is it that you're
requesting that relief from? >> And that'll be in the staff report for you to read. >> Correct. And as far as the noticing goes that we send out um you know the uh public notice of hearing and as well as the Tampa Bay Times. So those are posted. We staff does handle. We can't
put it on those big bird yellow signs, but we also post the parcel telling everybody that's an interested party that there is a case um that is coming up. Uh so the types of variances, there are three types of variances available. You've heard unnecessary undue hardship
variances. We had two of those today as well as practical difficulty. And then there's another one that's administrative or deminimous variances. You guys don't see those. Those go actually before the uh the city manager for approval, but there's certain nuances that will trigger it to be
limited to go to the city manager. So I'll get to that. So for an unnecessary undue hardship um is a relaxation of the terms of the provisions of the land development code where such action will not be contrary to the public interest and where owning to conditions peculiar
to the property and not the result of actions of the applicant. A literal enforcement of the land development code would result in an unnecessary and undue hardship on the property. So this type of variance is appropriate for all properties and uses. It requires a full
hearing before the board of adjustment. It has eight criteria in which a positive finding must be found by the board where the applicant must provide the burden of proof and demonstrate by substantial competent evidence that all the criteria have been met and satisfied. So we as staff we do go
through you'll see in the application when we post it what the applicant has given us and they have to answer those questions and that criteria. We as staff also do kind of a rebuttal. Now, we can support what we see in the application or we can ask additional questions or
provide additional information. Like today, when I was looking at our previous case, when I went back through the property and I found the open building permit or the submittal, it wasn't opened, but I found submitt. So, I'm giving you more history than you may
not know or may not have been provided >> beyond what the applicant has. Mhm. >> So here are the criteria. There are eight. So you'll notice when you get a staff finders report for an unnecessary undo hard, it's a little longer because
we have additional criteria rather than a practical difficulty. So again, it's the special conditions and circumstances exist that are, you know, specific to that land structure or building involved um that are within the same zoning district. So, we looked at the property
as an individual, but also as a whole within others around the district. So, that's why why you'll see a lot of times the aerials. I want to show you what's around. And of course, it's dependent on what the ask is, right? >> Um, they do not result in the actions of the applicant or a prior owner of the
property. Um, >> they can't be a self-created hardship. Correct. In other words, >> very yep, good point. Literal interpretation of the pres provisions of the LDC deprivives the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district
under the terms of the land development code and results in an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. So if we're looking at that code black and white are we depriving them of
something? um the hardship has not been deliberately or knowingly created or suffered to establish a use or structure which is not otherwise consistent with the comp plan or the LDC or will it permit an increase in development density.
So that's where we look at are they increasing the intensity is it going to create an additional use that isn't permitted or a structure that is not may be a non-conforming structure. So that's what we look at there.
An applicant's desire ability to achieve greater financial return or maximum financial return from the property does not constitute hardship. And that board attorney kind of touched on a little earlier today. It's always part of the story, but it
not necessarily is what you would base it off of. Granting the variance application conveys the same treatment to the applicant as to the owner of other lands, buildings or structures within the same district. So while we have to look at everything on a case-byase basis, there may be some
considerations that staff may mention within our staff findings report. The requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. So that's where we look at options, other alternatives. Um, staff
does like to meet with applicants before they actually submit. And that's one of my hard questions, and I'll tell them, I'm going to ask you a hard question. Could you redesign this a different way? Could you do other things that would not make you have to go before this board? So, >> or could you get by with 8 feet instead
of 10? >> Correct. Correct. So, can we massage it to make it a better project? um that would either lessen the degree of variance that they're requesting, possibly eliminate it, and sometimes you get the I'll go back and look at it, and
sometimes people like this is it I'd like to proceed. But staff, I just, you know, we we will mention that in our staff report, and we also have those hard conversations uh if we can prior to coming before you. Well, then just
before you move on to me, I I think our sidewalk conversation today is a perfect like pointer to number seven and eight with which I would look at and say as a city um and it sounds like with FOT like
we need to have a hard conversation and it it it doesn't feel to me like right now demanding 10 ft feet when everything else is whatever that distance is. And maybe
it's five. I don't even know if it was a full five feet when I walked there probably because of the grasses. But I mean that idea >> is lovely, right, for safety and that there's so much value in that. But yet I would say probably a bit ridiculous to
have one property do that and then not. So, how do we sort of I think work through that part as as I look at these two and think, wow, if we have a lot of redevelopment, which in a in a in a good way up and down Gulf Boulevard, how do we partner in a way with FDOT to look at
this? >> That's a really good that's a really good just putting that in a pin in that one. But >> some of the larger projects um like the windward project >> we've done prominads apartment for apart from the sidewalk on golf to do another
sidewalk that's called a prominade that's fancier wider >> and it might work when they own like you know hundreds of feet >> bigger parcels it's easier than coordinating all the small ones to maybe provide an alternative where space permits. >> Yeah. Yeah. And certainly to collaborate
on the curbing >> if you're walking on a sidewalk that has no curb. >> Well, it's difficult to for people in wheelchairs, you know, handicaps >> and there so there should be some of that accommodation at appropriate places, right? Uh and I don't I don't I don't have that
>> like at a red light complete streets type projects. Yeah. >> Okay. So, I will say with the application that we had previously where we would desire a 10-ft sidewalk, we can at TRC do administratively a six-foot, >> right? >> But unfortunately, he didn't even have
that. So, there is I just want to say there is kind of that provision where we do have a little leeway. >> Yeah. >> Um that is already baked in. But maybe it's a question of why six versus five and maybe looking in different areas of Gulf Boulevard as a perfect test case to
say >> do we establish I I don't know how six came to be versus five, you know, versus 10, but um >> pedestrian sidewalks for ADA sometimes they're 8 feet, but again, like you said, we were built out in many decades
ago before some of the rules. So the idea of a comprehensive strategy to to move that forward makes a lot of sense. However, doing it, you know, as we my look at the discussions on seaw walls and that's the same thing where like you do it but you don't and it doesn't
actually add any value. In fact, it could be detrimental to the properties on either side um that don't do it. So anyhow, it's it we we need comprehensiveness with this and I I love it for the safety purposes and it would
look beautiful too, but you know, for just being a more pedestrian friendly place. Um so, okay, >> one more point on that. Yes, >> if you see a lot of applications uh coming before a city for a variance for the same thing, >> then sometimes it means the code itself
might want to be tweaked or might need to be tweaked >> because it seems like no one can deal with it. So maybe it should be changed slightly. >> And if we have vacancies up and down Gulf Boulevard, you you all would know better than me to say that yeah, we're probably going to get a queued upset of
these. and uh what would be the >> or stairs when you're elevating houses. >> Well, yes. And that conversation already most recent example. Yeah. >> But this is for businesses. So on the business side, um how do we want to navigate this? >> Um because it I mean it's for businesses
and for residents because we need our healthy businesses and we need safe pedestrian traffic for all of us, but I'll say tourists and residents alike. So how do we want to solve this? Um, and I don't know about the oneoff business
burden, >> but we already discussed that case. I'm just teeing it up as more of an opportunity to look at, you know, what how we might work with the community on this. Thank you, Chris. >> So, how would we address this issue with the sidewalks just administratively
speaking? Well, Senate Bill 180 doesn't prevent the city from addressing complete streets or planning for streets or transportation planning as long as it doesn't interfere with development, making it more burdensome or restrictive. So, we could uh work with
FDOT. It's a little bit easier on our own streets if we want to do something on Bay Street or sidewalks there or on Corey Avenue >> streets that we actually control. Um, I think we own the streets over by the
pool and the parks and wreck building. So, we could look at those >> low speed streets, but then the highest speed street and the biggest thorough >> I know it's the biggest thorough >> is the most important probably for us to try to solve and it is our I mean I I would just say
>> I think we'll be meeting with FDOT about the mangrove and causeway interchange there. Um but yeah, this would require um legislative or planning type work through the city commission directing
staff to pursue complete streets um programs with FDOT for Gul boulevard then getting that on their priorities and >> getting it on the priority of FDOT which is run by the FDOT secretary who's appointed by the governor. So you know
working more through the governor's office and FDOT district um and their engineers and our engineers trying to come up with a complete street program for pedestrian safety and >> for bicycle paths. >> Uh we're going to do it.
>> Yeah, we're going to fix that this next year. That's our big goal. >> What's that? >> I can fix Golf Boulevard sidewalks. >> Okay. >> There are a lot of tourists that walk those sidewalks. Every time I leave absolutely city commission meeting, even there were more before the hurricane.
They're starting to come back again, but it used to be there were >> lots of people on that sidewalk in the evening. >> Absolutely. And we want that. >> I think we also need the lighting back because there's a lot of dark dark spots as you travel south. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And they control where they have the crosswalks.
>> Well, that's the problem. Yes. The the tourists come they do walk in the sidewalks and they cross wherever the hell they want to. >> Yeah. >> See it every day. >> And tourists come down and drive their cars and they don't realize they have to stop at crosswalks. So I never trust them stopping.
>> I was weighed to make sure. >> Okay. >> Bring it back to the presentation. >> Yeah. So the last and the the other eighth criteria is to that the requested variance is in harmony with the general intent and the purpose of the comp plan and the land development code. It's not
injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. is compatible with the neighborhood and not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. >> So that's where you look at >> you kind of weigh the criteria does it
um the positives outweigh the negatives in a way >> simply put. So then we move on to practical difficulty. So you see a lot of those too. Um, this is pretty much just going to pertain to single family
residential. Um, if you have an ISR, impervious surface ratio, a setback, or possibly landscaping, and it's generally just for single family homes that are located on single lots, um, within our established big residential districts,
which are RU1, RU2, RLM1, RLM2, and RM. So, there are caveats to that. So if a practical difficulty variance is granted, the maximum reduction in the pvious area of a property shall be 50%. Um a practical difficulty variance for
reduction in the required pvious area of a property can only be granted once by the city. So there's some research that has to be done with that one. Um if it is triggered >> to add Ralph's note and should be
recorded with >> right. So if it doesn't meet that like say it would trigger it all the automatically to a unnecessary undo. >> So >> can't you cheap keep you can't just keep chipping away 50% and then 50% of that
and 50% of that correct you get one time 50% maximum >> that that is your you know go pass go. Um but if they utilize that then it would go for an unnecessary undo. It would it would go up a tier. Um it is a
standard variance where little enforcement of a zoning rag will create a practical difficulty in the use of the parcel of the land for the purpose or in the manner for which it's zoned. Um it does require a full hearing as you have seen them and there's only four criteria
um involved with the practical difficulty where a hardship has eight. But again, they must provide the burden of proof and demonstrate without a doubt that all the criteria are met and they are satisfied. >> This would be example if you have a triangle-shaped lot
>> and because of the setbacks you could only build a triangle-shaped house that's very small or you couldn't build a house at all, >> then they would be entitled to the variance. >> So with that, we look at how st substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement sought to be varied.
A lot of times you'll see that with setbacks where you know 20 ft is required and they're requesting 10 ft. So that is 50%. So you look at the the percentage as well as the number um whether an adverse change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood. Is it just way out of whack or you don't >> does does it does it go ahead? Um whether the difficulty can be obiated by some method feasible to the applicant to pursue other than by the variance.
Again, that goes back to the hard questions. Um and just seeing if we can reduce the degree of nonconformity, eliminate it, any of the other possibilities and whether in the view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interest of justice will be served by allowing.
So, you know, was this a selfdone? Did they inherit it? Like what happened to get to that point? >> Anybody have any questions on these? >> Okay. >> No, the last one though that we I was just thinking about how like maybe the
silt right of a hurricane rolls in and your docks are >> docks generally >> so I didn't you know how where did that one kind of fall under the two options? So docs are always going to be unnecessary.
>> Not unnecessary themselves. >> No, it's just it it's not a setback issue. It's not a percentage and it's more of the more general ones that you would see. So not everybody has waterfront property. So it kind of automatically falls into that next step,
that higher category. So, the administrative variance, this is the one you don't see, but I wanted to give you just so you have knowledge if you're ever, you know, talking to somebody. Um, this is done with the city manager. Um, and it's just really for setback and accessory structure height
requirements that are found in the LDC. This has something to do with, you know, it could be a fence height or a setback issue, but the thing of it is it's limited to 12 in total. So, it could be a height where you want five feet
instead of four or your setback, you built a new house and whoops, they, you know, are off a little bit and you don't meet a seven foot setback. You are 6 and a half. You're under that 12 inch. So, you could go for administrative
variance. Now, I will tell you it does take about the same amount of time. It's not expedited. It's not anything. It's just you're not seeing the process. We still have to notice. We still do all the same work. staff findings report, site visits, everything is still the same except for the city manager is
making that determination. >> Okay. And it's just setbacks and accessory structure. >> Um there is five criteria with that one where we have eight, the four and then now we have the five. Um and they are special conditions and
circumstances exist. So some of them are similar to what you see as part of the other criteria. the basis for seeking it, the literal interpretation, how it would deprive the rights. Um, it's not going to confer on the applicant any special privilege that is otherwise
denied or similarly situated lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. And they need to explain how the request meets the requirements for the approval. So, it's a little different, little the same, but I did want you to be aware that that
does exist. And that's really all I had. So, >> so I think we with the staircases as we're elevating houses. Um the who the code for the setback who who can change
those within our city commission. >> City commission has to have a >> two readings to amend the code of the land development code. >> What was last night's one or two? Was that the first one? >> Brandon, was last night the first reading or second? I can't remember
>> last night's the second reading for the uh stairs situation variances. We did think that was that was first I think the other ordinance uh that >> Mary we need you to >> yeah we're bringing back some additional >> that was that was the first we have some
other yeah so it's being >> yeah it was just >> and a lot of times when we we have the code changes it actually goes before the planning board so they massage it they look at they provide I guess the 10 extra set of eyes which is always great >> um and input on that as well. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. one, you have so many cases that are so similar. I mean, and you should >> and I have to say I do create spreadsheets. >> I categorize every single one of them. I have whether you're approved, denied with conditions. I even administrative. I do keep track of that.
>> Okay. By every calendar year. So, I can see >> Yeah. >> You know, I think this one arose I think because of the hurricane, people were elevating, right? And then all of a sudden became, well, how you get to the front door? That's We've had a couple issues of that week. >> Correct.
>> So people Yeah. didn't really anticipate it happening until there's always something new that happens in land use, >> whether it's paintball >> that no one contemplated. Where should we zone paintball? >> Um I've had it come up. So things that
happen all the time. Um >> yeah, >> new things that happen, drones for example, these new scooters that that people can rent and leave on sidewalks in some cities. Mhm. >> So there's always unexpected, unforeseen
land uses that come up. >> But I have to say, even with code changes, it's not going to be a onesizefits-all, right? That's why you guys exist because there could be whether it's a regular shaped property or something else, not everything can
always conform. So that's why you as a board are here and you have that important, you know, decision-m process. >> Would you agree? And I I don't want to belabor this, but would you agree that the sidewalk conversation can be something we move forward with
with FDOT in particular on Gulf Boulevard? Is that on our or can we have that >> teetup between you and the powers that be to figure out how we might have that dialogue? >> I think we do have our director of community development here. I think it's something, you know, she can have a
conversation with the city manager, possibly bring it to commission and figure out a priority. I mean, we have, >> you know, understand. Yeah. But >> there's a planning planning board hears a lot of that. >> Okay. >> Also, there's a >> um priority um I forget if they call
priority retreat or prioritization meeting coming up where the city commission looks at their top priorities, >> right? >> And there's public comment in front of the city commission at every every meeting. So certainly because just because you're on this board doesn't mean you can't get up as a citizen and
make public comment at those >> and I'm not claiming to have an answer other than I don't think the answer is probably to have every individual property owner that does any type of change to have to come in here to talk about changing their sidewalks if it's
not more thoughtfully >> being looked at comprehensively. That's my opinion. There are um there are grants available too sometimes from the state and federal government for planning transportation planning of complete streets. >> Okay. >> And I also have you you have to have the mindset that it has to start somewhere
unfortunately. You know like everybody >> has whether it's one person starting as a catalyst but if we do nothing nothing will get done. So I think that's just the other side that we have to think of but as we explained before
we had some concessions baked in where 10 we want it six we could administratively unfortunately he was below that. >> Yeah. >> So if he had that little extra and he did kind of demonstrate that he could do it. It's just he's asking for the relief for it. >> Um so
>> there there's a few more elements in there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, longer conversation, but um okay, so our next meeting will be held November 19th. >> Do we have cases next? >> We do have one application that will be heard and that there is only one. I know
this was a jumping off point for, you know, just discussion, but if you have other things that you'd like staff to kind of just explain a little bit more um as we can have continue the conversation, we'd be happy to. Um but I just wanted to give us somewhere to start.
>> You think you have a hard job. Thank you for doing it. >> Yeah. And it is because of the job you do that we we can have these discussions and get people to take action with the state. Otherwise, nothing would get done. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> I so move. >> Okay. A second. All in favor? I meeting. Let the g fall.