Okay. Good evening everybody. It's 6:30 p.m. I'm going to call the Board of Adjustment for the City of Tarpon Springs to order. Madam Secretary
Siegfried, would you do roll call, please? Chairperson. Rich, present. Vice chair Grossman here, miss Turner. Present, Mr.
wood. Present. Mr. Fuchs is absent. Okay. Thank you. I'm now going to ask our attorney to do a few things. Since we
have one person missing, he'll discuss that as well as swear in and do the quasi judicial announcement. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.
So we normally have a board of five members. There's only four here tonight, obviously. So as applicants, those of you who are applicants tonight have the
right to have your hearing performed in front of a full board. So you can choose to either have it heard tonight, still in front of the board we
have or you can roll it to next month essentially. And and in front of a full board, we would anticipate presumably a full
board in January. So I guess we have the Collins, Johnson and Hoffman cases, I guess starting with Collins. Are you is that
sir? Okay. Are you comfortable going forward tonight? Okay. And then the Johnson case. Okay. And then the Hoffman case. Okay.
Thank you everybody. And if I may, I have a small procedural reading. And then I'll swear in those of you who wish to speak tonight. So this is a quasi judicial proceeding where the
Board of Adjustment acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law,
but rather to apply law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those
findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, in order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at this
hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the
applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant
evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find against
the applicant. And okay, now would anybody wishing to speak please stand and raise your right hand for me. Any
applicants that are that anticipate speaking tonight. Okay. If you do speak again at that point, to those of you standing, do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony, in these proceedings this evening, I do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you sir, the first
application that we're going to hear tonight is application number 25, Dash 87. The 1711 Sunset Drive will first hear
our presentation from staff. So you can remain seated for right now. But stay tuned. Your time will be up. Our staff will give the report and then we'll go
through it from there. Miss Keene. Okay. Ali Keene, principal planner with the planning and Zoning Department. This property again, is located off of Sunset Drive. It's
outlined in red here on the screen. This property, as well as the majority of properties in the area, are in the R 100 single family residential zoning district. There's some R 100 zoning, which is also
single family residential zoning to the northeast of the site, and the property is across the street from Fred Howard Park, which is in the L.C. Land Conservation Land Conservation zoning district.
The applicants are here tonight requesting variants approval to allow an increased total driveway width. And this is for the purpose of widening their existing driveway on the property, as well as adding a
new circular driveway. The land development code does allow residential properties to have a circular driveway, and when doing so, it states that the maximum total driveway width is
measured at the property line along the right of way right of way line, and it says that it shall not exceed 33% of the lot width, or 28ft, whichever is less. This property has a lot
width of 100ft. So when you do that calculation, they're limited to a maximum driveway width or total width of 28ft. The existing driveway on the property, which is shaded in
blue here, has an existing width of 12ft. And then looking at what they're proposing to do, which is all the shaded area here in gray, the existing driveway would be extended or
widened and widened to 16ft, so widening it about four feet in width along here and then adding a circular driveway here, having two additional drive entrances onto Sunset Drive.
And when you add those two entrances and measuring those widths for each 14ft in width, that comes to a total driveway width of 44ft. One thing to
point out is the existing driveway does provide access to their attached garage. Attached garage, which is a side load garage here in the driveway, does extend beyond the house,
so does provide some additional parking that doesn't block the driveway access. The applicant did state that they did try to create a circular driveway on the property that did connect
to their existing driveway, but there are some mature trees which are somewhat in this general area here where the green circles are, and they're attempting to preserve those
trees. If they were to connect circular drive in this location, they would likely have to remove those trees. So this is why they have the proposed configuration in front of you
tonight. This is a look at the Sunset drive context. This is a residential street. It's fairly low traffic volume. It's providing access primarily to the residences on the south
side of the street. Fred Howard Park is accessed east of the site, about 200ft away. The subject property is here on the left side of the street. The
front yard is primarily gravel. The areas where they're proposing to put the new driveway does correspond in the areas where there is gravel, so the two new driveway entrances
would be approximately the same in the same locations here. And these are your criteria for review. And I'm happy to answer
questions. I do have one question. I know you said that the current driveway is gravel, but I mean, the current front
yard is gravel, but per city's definition of driveway, does that always mean paved? No. You can have a gravel driveway, but
right now the the yard is not being used as a driveway as far as I'm aware. So they're looking to put in a paver driveway. So be more substantial driveway. They'd have to go through a permitting process, have actual drive
aprons on to the street. You can have a driveway that's made of gravel. But if I go back to this picture, technically, if this went through the
permitting review, we would count this entire width. Here will say the property line to count. Anything that was along the property line would count towards the width. We would
have to review it just like a typical driveway. So if someone submitted to codes right now, an improper driveway without that current gravel would be
reviewed as a potential driveway. I would say if it's being utilized as a driveway, yes. If they're pulling vehicles in and out on in this area, they're parking there.
Yes. If they're purely using this as xeriscape landscaping area, no. But if it is being used in a driveway manner and someone reported as a code violation, yes, we'd have to
process it and they'd have to put a permit in for review and see if it meets the code. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Do any of my wonderful members have any
questions for Mr. Wood? Yeah. So were the trees are. Is your mic on? Oh, okay. Just sorry with the trees are if they actually did take those trees out, how much closer would they
be to the square footage required limit I should say. Well so they did provide a drawing I didn't include in your packet, because I didn't want to confuse you with the two drawings. They would likely
be able to get a circular driveway, but they would have to remove these two trees that was compliant with the 28 foot allowance, but they would have to remove the trees. The
picture here you can see these are the trees that we're talking about. These two I believe this one right here. This one potentially might be okay, but I'm not sure we'd
have to look at the plans. But these two would likely have to be removed. Three right there. Three. Yeah. So they would these would have to come out in
order for them to curve and get the circular driveway. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. I have a
couple questions, mostly regarding the five standards that we have to look at. So the first one requested the arises
out of the physical surrounding shape. Typekit. So there's no way that that is being met right now. It's it's just not
being met from staff's perspective. No, we did not feel that that criteria was met, being that the lot was in conformance with the Lot standards for our 100, and that
there is an existing driveway that does provide adequate access to their their garage, we felt that that criteria was not met. Okay. And the number
two, and this is probably the more important one, the conditions or special circumstances to the property have not been self created or have resulted. But I guess the
self created is the sticking point on this one, because it sounds like it's a want, not a need. And it sounds like there's another way to resolve
it. So if if they remove the trees, they wouldn't need the third the middle driveway. So it would connect from the the
blue to the and and bypass the middle drive the middle entrance. Is that what. So so that's an option. But just for clarification, trees are a consideration. Actually in
criteria one, trees can be a consideration for a variance. But from staff's perspective, the existing driveway does have the ability to be widened to some extent and be compliant
with the code we're looking at. Does the property have adequate access to and from the street? Can they get safely on to the street from their property and also get into their garage? So
that's why we felt that, you know, the addition to have the circular driveway wasn't necessarily a necessity to provide egress to the property. But the trees, yes, that is
typically a consideration for, for variances. So, you know, we don't we don't want people to remove trees if they don't have to. So we do appreciate the accommodation to to try and
preserve the trees. Okay. And then and then the reason for limiting the driveways to two entrance and exits is mostly is
that a traffic related issue or do we do we know why we're why we would want to limit it to two versus having to three. Yeah. So it's one. It's it's better to not have several
access points in a short span of distance. One for vehicular access to make that safer for vehicles, but not only for that, but also pedestrians that are walking on sidewalks,
bicyclists, it just it's less points of conflict. So reducing the number of access points to property is ideal. The code recognizes that circular driveways are common. They can
be on residential property. But with that said, it usually allows two access points, so this would be a situation where it would result in three. All
right. And then that that street is a pretty quiet street. It's not like there's a lot of traffic going up and down that that part of the street. Correct. And I did I did not mention in my presentation, but
in the staff report it does dead end not too far beyond the subject property. If I go up here, it looks like it in this picture. It extends all the way over here. But it actually I believe it kind of dead ends
right around here. This doesn't connect all the way through. So so yes, it doesn't experience a significant amount of traffic. Okay. All right I think that's all I have. Thank you. Miss
Turner. I had some questions. So I do recall a similar application that we had with the three access points when they were requesting a circular driveway in addition to the
existing standard driveway, which gave the three access points. Is that. Rule or requirement? Is that citywide, or is that in certain zones
that's a citywide requirement. So this section of the code here is just driveways. So it talks about driveways. And then this particular section is with
respect to residential properties single family residential properties. And then it also specifies along the frontage if you have a property that's a corner lot,
there are some potential allowances to maybe have access to the other frontage. But this is specifically along a single frontage. And a few other
questions. So the code addressed that with the three access points. I believe this variance also is because the
width of the property, there's what was it, one third? Yeah, 33% or 28ft, whichever is less is basically what determines how wide your driveway can be,
right? Total driveway. Yeah. And and that's the measurement is along kind of your front property line. So it's a little difficult to see. But these orange marks is kind of where we measure it. Right. So we're
you know like you said, the max allowed is 28ft. The proposed is 44. And you know, if it's also a third then, you know, you would be talking even if
you could do that. But you can't. Is 33ft the existing driveway of 12ft. If it were extended to the 16. And the
circular driveway that's in question was off the table. Is the 16ft still in compliance then? Yeah, that would be permissible. Max allowed is 28.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Oh I'm sorry. There was one other question. The sidewalk. How does how is the sidewalk
impacted? I mean, you know, right now it's interrupted by the existing 12 foot sidewalk, but driveway now it would also
potentially be by the other two 14ft of the circular, plus the widened. It would be like any other situation that we would have. The driveway would cross
the sidewalks. They're wanting to, I believe, put in pavers for this. We have it's called paver commitment letter. Essentially if if the sidewalk were pavers, which I believe
actually the Public Works Department is now looking to just do actual concrete and not allow the pavers in the sidewalk area for accessible reasons. But if papers were in that area, it basically states
that if the city for any reason had to do any work in there, they're not committing to put pavers back in. But the sidewalk would still remain essentially for accessibility.
Okay. Thank you. Yes. So when I look at one of the photos, there's no curbs, right. This is just straight out on the road. Correct. And can pavers
be part of like landscaping. Pavers I would say unless they're actually truly pervious pavers I would say that would mean allowing water to
infiltrate through. I would we would it would be impervious. Kind of a hard scape surface. But that would be something separate than we would do for
the driveway measurements. So like when we look at this photo now it's. Could be looked at either way as like a parking
lot or driveway or it could be zero landscaping. Okay. And that doesn't fall under the frontage scheme then. Right?
Right. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you, Miss Keen. We're now ready to hear from the applicant. If you'd
come forward and state your name and address for the record. And anything you'd like to share with us tonight. Thank you for being here. Good
evening. I'm Michael Collins. I live at 1711 Sunset Drive and. Well, history. The gravel used to be all grass. That was back in the day. Xeriscape. But
probably, you know, took out ten sprinklers because of that. And the lots a nice size in the back. I have a full size sand volleyball court, took out another 15 sprinklers. So that
was the trend. Now it's probably 15 years with the gravel and upkeep is getting a little tough. So wife said, let's look at concrete or
pavers and went through the process of looking at contractors. And another contractor said anything about this. This has been quite a learning experience with codes.
Be honest and I understand it all. So we decided on a contractor. He said, you know, I have to submit a permit. And I learned about that and did it.
And then it was sent back and I talked to Pat and going over what I can and couldn't do. And I'm pretty good at
understanding now, the 28ft and the the three entrance points. But she said, you know, because when we looked at alternatives, you know, we wanted it to look
nice and be functional. The circular driveway. And like I say, as far as safety, the point you made, you know, when you're backing out, even on a slow road, it's it's sometimes,
you know, you miss seeing things. So just a point made there. So she said with the new design that would just connect the circular to the existing
driveway, it would meet the standard of the 28ft. It'd be 14, 14 when we're done, but the trees would have to come out. And she said, you can apply for
a variance. So I did that, and I did my sheet and all the justifications, the standards. And then I went to the technical review meeting, learned a bit more, and they
kind of sent back just last week their response to standards. And it looked like I failed the test. You know, I pretty much did my justifications based on that.
Well, I want to do this, improve the property value. It will be nicer, less maintenance, and I won't have to take the trees out. If you approve this
variance. And so, you know, the variance request is to go basically what, 16ft more than
the 28. And I understand you know, the codes. And like I just saw their letter back this week and I went wow. Doesn't look good, at least from their
point of view. My point of view, every standard I could say, well, I don't want to take the trees out. I don't want to take the trees out. I don't want to take the trees out. Which almost is a response to each
standard. But that's where I stand. It just started as a project to try and do. I'm
trying to think what else I could say here to go there. Well, thank you, Mr. Collins, for coming and being a part of this process. I think we all
learned a bunch going through these processes. I do have a clarifying question, though, similar to how I asked Ali, the current front gravel that you
put in, you are utilizing that in some way. Well, I tell you, it's rare anybody pulls up on it when company comes. Maybe.
But the main purpose was to xeriscape when I first did it. You know, in the middle there is you look at the picture, there's vegetation and stuff, and all of a sudden I put all
the gravel down and covered everything. And I said, well, that doesn't look right. So then I redid and took out a bunch of gravel and put the plants in and make it look a little more, not like some,
like just open gravel. I mean, it fits the design. We were very happy with it. It's just, you know, at this point it becomes how much roundup do you want to use or how much picking
of weeds do you want to do. You know, and it seems to be a constant battle. And, you know, the neighbors all have quite a few of them have pavers down the road. And they said pavers
would look great. And I agreed and be functional. And it still wouldn't have to worry about watering and things. And as far as the access, you know, it
just seemed to be a nice alternative to what's there. And. You know, taking out the trees is something I really wouldn't want to do. I mean,
that lot. I have 18 mature oak trees or like this big. I'd love to take a few down the back, but those three right there look awful nice. But I
guess where I'm, I'm struggling is that should one of your neighbors do a code violation? The city right now could come in and make you take out that
gravel and plant other type of vegetation as it is right now when I, you know. Yeah, I didn't I. Yeah. A gentleman and I coached their kids, you know he had his landscaping business
and let me use his little miniature bobcat and he said no, you know again not knowing. Right. He said gravel is considered landscape covering.
You know, you don't need a permit. And, you know, the amount of times that I think I personally have driven on it over, I lived there so, so at
least 15 years out of the 21 years I lived there, it's probably five times it's not looked or perceived to be that it was a way to cut back on water and, you know, make it
look nice to hopefully, you know. Right. But that that looks like you did a nice job. Thank you. Let me see if any of my colleagues have any
questions for you. Mr. wood, are you before or after the dead end on before? Okay. The dead end. So I'm there's one
house after me, then an empty lot, and then two more houses, and then it's. I know that it's funny that it shows it goes through, but it's a bunch of
trees and stuff and it stops, which is great for not having traffic all around. So would you say you have a very unique situation where you don't get any through traffic? It's only
the neighbors, not the most traffic we get is how do you get in the park? And I see there's no parking. So it's not like you have people that are off street parking there, right?
No they don't. And actually I had a sign put in there by the city because sometimes after hours people might park. Or when I had four young kids, my wife was very concerned if
people parked there. And so I asked the park people if you could put one sign there. And they did. And it's rare when anybody does that. And it's not merely a nuisance, but the
traffic is very, very light except for the residents. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Miss Turner.
So. Well, glad that your project has given you a glimpse into city government working. I mean, the builders didn't say anything. I had 4 or 5 and no
one said they. Three of the builders wanted me to pave everything, you know. And I said, well, I don't know if I want to do that anyway, but, you know, no regard to I would think they would know unless
they don't ask you to get a permit. But I wouldn't think so. Well, in your conversations with Pat McNeese, was there can
you flip to your really great drawing there? So it's kind of like you've got three access points, but the two, you know, talking about the existing
driveway being expanded and then touching into your proposed circular, it's considered two was more to tie
in the pavers. You know, it's 12 foot concrete. And then I said, you know, all that. And this was a pass. And then fill
in a little bit. It was more gotcha necessity. If it made a difference, I wouldn't do it. But it was almost like just to tie everything in with the pavers. But we still would have
that concrete, because to redo that drive, in fact, the house was originally designed to have the garage face the street and the plans are made. And then my
wife suggested make it side. If I had kept the original design, we probably would be have this discussion because the drive would be right there and it would tie in perfectly. The trees would have been taken out
because of construction. Want to throw your wife under the bus here? I'm sorry. You're trying to throw your wife under the bus here? No, I'm happy I was. We're very happy. She made a good call. That was a great
idea. You know, open the garage and it doesn't open to the street, and I approved. The builder said, no, no problem. We'll just switch it. So. Yeah,
but. Yeah. And I get it that that the trees, you know, you live right across the street from one of our most beautiful parks. That is beautiful
because of the trees. Oh right. Great park I never I grew up in the county. I've taught 42 years, lived in Clearwater and then moved to. I never knew
about that park until I luckily found that lot for sale and unbelievable. We're lucky to have it. Okay, thank you for letting me pick on you too.
Yeah, sure. Okay, okay. Any other questions for anybody? Do we have any public comment here tonight either for or against
this variance request? I don't believe so. Anyone any no letters or anything? I'm sorry.
No, no, we didn't receive any letters. Neighbor comments. No. Cool. I got a little torn on this one. I want to look at it at the variances. It's like you
take out trees, but we don't want to take out trees. I think this is a very unique circumstance where this is a dead end street. It's not affecting flow of traffic. If
somebody else wanted to come up and do it, then we have this is a dead end. I don't think anybody's going to kind of like bat an eye that we're giving a 16 foot variance for an extra
driveway, but at the same time, it doesn't meet the requirements unless we kind of look at it a different way. So it's kind of like where I'm
kind of torn. Agree. It is. I agree it is a unique circumstance, primarily with the three access points. But
like I said, the design kind of ties in two of them. Yeah. You know, I guess I'm like in some ways, granting the variance
brings them more into code compliance because they've had an existing issue for 16 years not knowing about their existing issue out of code
parking area through no fault of, you know, no intentional. And I'm not saying that's a good reason to give a variance. I'm just saying that would be
an effect of. And it sounds like paver driveways are a kind of a standard thing on this street with the neighbors. I
just want to say, I understand if you please, for for record, I just want to say I understand about setting a precedent. And if you know, you got to do what you have to do, it's fine. But
I understand what you decide. I don't want to. I'd love to have a little bit of special privilege, but I understand it. I don't want to put the pressure on. It would cause other things to happen and be
approved when maybe they shouldn't be. Yeah. No, I mean, we're we have a set of criteria that we have to abide by and review by. And so it just it's
sometimes more difficult than others. You have anything, Mr. Grossman? This is this is really a tough one for me. You know, we try to accommodate
people to use their properties the way they want to use them. But we have to look at the the rules. You know, as the attorney said, we can't make law. We have to, you know,
enforce what's there. But we, you know, we have to use our judgment and, and the, the evidence that's presented to us. And I came in here thinking one
way. But, you know, Mr. Woods made a really good comment about the landscaping. You know, the pavers could be considered
landscaping and then. We had another comment about the the three access points. When you look at them, it looks like two access points really, because
they're almost connected with the with those. I should have asked you this question. You're already up there. But those two either city or that there.
There's my mailbox, sir. If it does, it's recorded and there's. Normally I was a PE teacher. Normally I really speak loud, but no, the design there kind
of doesn't really with a driveway is and the four foot path and then the other entrance point of 14ft, there's
a gap there of more like six, 6 to 8ft of gravel. You're not helping here. Yeah, I know I'm too honest at times. I just wanted to clear it up. Okay.
Can I retract what I said? Because looking at that, it's almost looks like there's two access points instead of three access points. Yeah, I'm kind
of stuck on this one. I don't really know which way to go. I also feel with the zero and the other picture, it looks like that there's way more square footage being taken up now than
if they actually just had three access points. Yeah. How would
my colleagues like to proceed? Do I have a motion for either approval or denial of this variance? No. I feel like we
have enough here to approve this, even though we're missing a lot of things. I just think there's too many ways we can look at this, and we're here to try and find a way or see if
there's a way to give a variance. And I even though all this is missing, I just feel that if you take the trees out and you look what he has now, and if you give those openings
up of what is it, a 14 foot variance that I think is possible, we can make this happen. But once again, how does this come up for the next time? That's where once again,
I'm getting stuck. Well, the variance stays with the property forever, and it doesn't impact whether or not a neighbor can get a variance the
same. Each one is looked at separately. So do I hear you making a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve it. Do
I hear a second? I'll second with a comment. You made a motion to approve, right? Yes. Okay. And I'll second but with
a comment. All right. So looking at the review standard one, you know from the city comments that the trees are
consideration. They're a real consideration for variance. And I'm looking at review standard one saying that the trees are,
you know, a serious consideration and that the pavers could possibly be looked at as landscaping as well. And
then the second item where it's been self-created, you didn't plant the trees there, you didn't put the trees there to make this happen. So the trees are already there. So I think
we can work with that one. And then the reasonable use, if you want a circular driveway that's reasonable use and then special
privilege there, I would assume that there's circular driveways in town other than this one. So I think that if we, you know,
take a hard look at it, I think we can meet those, those requirements. So I will I will second it based upon that. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Roll call please. Mr. wood approved. Miss Turner. Approve.
Vice chair Grossman approve. Chairman. Risch. No. Thank you. Your variance has been approved,
and you can work with the city to go the next steps. Thank you.
And print out the draft. Okay. Our next case tonight is 25 Dash 88 Johnson family on 1120
Boyer Street. A variance to reduce the required side yard setback for purpose of constructing a carport. We'll hear from Miss Keene on that.
Okay. This property again is on the south side of East Boyer Street. The area is primarily in the R 70, a single family residential zoning district. There is some highway business
zoning further to the west of the property, closer to US 19 applicants are requesting a variance to reduce the required side yard setback, and this is for the purpose of constructing
a carport on the east side of the home. This is a look at the proposed site plan. Again, the carport is on the east side of the home here in blue. They're requesting a side setback of
four feet where the R 70. A zoning district would require a minimum 7.5ft. They are looking to put the carport in line with the front of their home. And that would require that would
meet the front setback, which is 25ft, which is required. So that would be compliant. The home was built in I believe was 1960, and according to the
survey, it was has a side setback on the west side of about 13.5ft. So regardless of which side the carport was on, it would require some sort of variance because it would not
be able to meet that seven and a half side setback. The location where they're proposing the carport is accessible by the existing driveway. It's also on existing
concrete slab. There is a fairly large rear yard on the property, but the area where if you put the carport in the rear yard where it was accessible by the driveway, there is a
significant grade change. Once you get behind the fence behind the carport. It is common, as we know, to have covered
parking for your residents, and it is common also in the immediate area of the subject property. The house or the property itself has a existing
one car attached garage and looking at the immediate area, most homes have an attached garage. Some have a two car garage. Attached garage which I've highlighted here on the
screen. There's a couple homes that had at one point had a attached garage, but they've been converted to living space. But for the most part, every house does have some sort of
covered parking space in the area. The last thing I would point out is the applicant did provide, as part of their application, a letter of no objection that was signed by three adjacent property owners.
And those adjacent properties, I believe, are the two across the street and the one immediately to the east. Here. Your criteria? I'm happy to
answer questions. Thank you. Anyone have any questions for Miss Keen, Mr. Grossman? So
this is a carport right now. I was just looking to see where I found it, but there was. Is it is the side a solid wall or is it completely open? I'd have to
go back and look at the, the image. I, I'd prefer the applicant if it's open wall or not. So is that find the spot
where they're looking at that they provided a sketch with the application of the structure itself. I just can't recall if it's open and they probably provide that information. It
was on this one. Yes. Yeah okay. And it says the solid line is a solid wall. So it looks like three sides of this are solid
wall. And the side that's open is the is towards the home side. The well side is open. Would have to be towards the front right to let the vehicles get
in and out. I would say I would defer those questions to applicant. They can clarify exactly how it's constructed. Okay. Yes. That was my that was my only question really. So it
is the existing pad is already four foot from the property line. Correct. And the carports being proposed to be constructed over the existing
pad. Correct. Got it. Thanks. Anyone else have any questions for Mister? Thank you miss. Okay. Is the applicant here
tonight? Whoever would like to share? If you just state your name and address and that you've been sworn in. For the record, I have been sworn in for the record. And my name is
Robert Johnson, 1120 East Boyer Street. Thank you. Sir. Anything you'd like to share with us other than what's been submitted? I really didn't have anything to add. Mr. Grossman,
unless you have a question. I'm sorry. Yeah, I had a question. So thanks for coming up. So, in the packet of information, it looks like there's three sides
of this are closed wall. Looks like the back is closed wall. The side facing out is closed wall. And the front almost looks like kind of a garage door kind of thing. And then
the side towards the home is open. Would that be correct? Correct. Okay. Any other that answer my question. Thank you.
Any other questions for the applicant that clarified for me and the neighbor to that is actually right there on your the side of that property line
is one of the three that gave the letter of no objection. Yes. Okay. Thank you for doing that. That's an extra step for people. So thank you okay. Thank you
sir. You may sit down. Anybody have any motion. Oh sorry. First public comment. Is there anyone here from the public who would wish to speak in favor?
Objection to this variance request application? No. Okay, Mr. Grossman, I have a follow up for the city. Then, based upon the homeowners
conversation. So the being that this has three solid sides, I just want to make sure that this is not going to be considered a garage. This is this is still considered a
carport for for technical purposes. Yeah. And even if it were garage it'd be the same situation. It's really the the solid roof is when we start coming into the setbacks start
coming into play. So if it was a garage filled in completely on all four sides, or if it was open and just had a roof, it would be the same variance
request. So you're you're standard review comments would stay the same whether it was fully enclosed or correct. Okay.
Yeah. Correct. Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Okay. Thank you, Miss Siegfried.
Roll call please. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner. Approve. Vice chair. Grossman. Approve. Chairperson rich approved. Thank you. Your variance been
approved. Then you can work with city from here to get paperwork needed. Thank you for coming tonight. Our next
application is number 25, Dash 89. A variance to reduce the required yard setback for the purpose of constructing a four unit apartment building. We
will hear from Miss Keen on that. All right. Okay. We're just moving a little bit to the west now. This property is on East Lemon Street, and it is
just east of US 19. This area between US 19 and japonica is all within the HB highway business zoning district. And again further to the east is where you'll find the R 70, a
residential zoning. They here are here tonight as well, asking for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback. And this is for the purpose of constructing a four unit
apartment building. This is a look at the proposed site plan. They're looking to construct a two story, four unit building approximately 6400ft■!S in size.
They're looking to orient the building parallel to East Lemon Street, with the parking in front of the building. By orienting the building in this fashion, it allows them to have
a larger green space in the rear of the building for future tenants to utilize. The building being oriented this way then results in having the smaller side setback. The
highway business setbacks require a minimum size of four feet where I'm sorry, setback of 20ft. They're requesting four feet. Just for
clarification, the highway business zoning district does refer to the CRM conditional Residential Mixed District for setbacks for multifamily zoning. So just to have that
clarification in there, say that one more time. Sure. This zoning district, when you go to that in our code, it refers to a different zoning district for multifamily use, for setbacks.
And in this case, it's the CRM conditional residential mixed district. So it just uses those setbacks for multifamily. So that's so you would just refer
to that particular zoning district to apply. The side. Setbacks are requested to be reduced. However, they are able to meet both the front and rear setbacks in this case. One
thing to note about this property is it is only 100ft wide. So when applying the required 20 foot setback, it would reduce that buildable area to only about 60ft in width. And when taking into
consideration both the front and rear setback, it does significantly reduce that potential buildable area. Looking at the context of the immediate area, this property
is the only undeveloped property within that block. To the east, there are some existing multifamily apartments. There is an existing privacy fence on that property that provides some separation
between the proposed development and those apartments. To the west is Queen's Pizza, a restaurant with a rear parking lot providing separation between
that development and the proposed apartments. The building itself is approximately 70ft away from that shared west west property line. To the south, there's
some professional offices, and then to the north, on East Lemon Street is the car wash, and there's a preschool child daycare. One consideration with
this application is the highway business zoning district itself. This particular zoning district permits higher intensity uses. That includes hotels, shopping centers, theaters, vehicle
sales. A lot of our higher intensity commercial uses. These types of uses can typically require a larger part, larger parcel to accommodate the uses as well as, you know,
required parking, landscaping, stormwater amenities for the particular use, as well as any other development standards in the code, let alone the setbacks that are required for the highway business zone. So
when you're taking into consideration the subject property, that's about a third of an acre in size and only 100ft wide. There are some significant limitations when developing the property in that
type of zoning district. Under those permissible uses. Another item to point out are multi-family dwellings are a conditional use in the highway business district. So if the
variance is approved this evening, the applicant's next step is to seek conditional use approval with their site plan. And just one consideration is this site is not directly
accessible to U.S. highway 19, so it's potentially more conducive to multifamily development as opposed to some of the permitted nonresidential uses. And it can kind of serve as that transitional use
between the highway uses and the lower intensity residential uses to the east. And here are your criteria once again. And
we can go to questions. Just clarify one thing. The that view right there. I believe you
have a section that talks about parking for multifamily homes. Does that does the parking
that's been proposed currently handle the apartments that are proposed for city? Yes. Yeah. What they have shown here does meet the parking requirement.
Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Grossman? Couple questions. So you mentioned that if it's approved, that they have to
seek conditional use approval from Who that goes through, ultimately it goes to the board of commissioners for final approval. But the first step would be the technical review committee, which is the staff
level review. And then it goes to the Planning and Zoning Board. They recommend make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for final. Okay. And then the next question in
the context screen, where was the satellite view. Yes. Thank you. The forefoot is I have another I have another follow
up question about the forefoot. But that's concerning me. The on the west side. It doesn't appear this could be a problem at all because I have a big parking lot there. But on the
east side with the multifamily apartment here, do we know how how much room is between would be between the two buildings
itself? So I tried to do a measurement just utilizing the aerial measurements. So obviously those are not survey specific. And I was getting
somewhere between anywhere between 18 and 20ft on this side. This is I believe, the rear of the building as well.
But I got about I would say closer to 18ft, but it's hard to tell from the aerial exactly how far it is. So the 18 so 18. That's that property line. I'm sorry to clarify. Right. So 18
plus four plus the four on on that side. Yes. Okay. The four foot on either side is concerning me. Are we would we be setting precedent by if we
approved for other other properties in the city that have four foot side yards or side? So, I mean, there's there's definitely other
properties that have a four foot side setback and the exact same situation may not be the first property that had a four foot side. I would say it's not
the for if you're just talking in generality, it's not the first property that has a four foot side setback. But with respect to the variance approval, with any variance, it's always as you just kind of talked in the first application,
it's always specific to the particular site and application. So it's not necessarily precedent setting situation okay. So we have 75ft on the
west side and probably 18 plus four. So maybe 22ft on the between the buildings themselves. So it's not like the buildings are going to be abutting each other. Right. And if I can just kind of jump back
in, maybe to show you to an example like these professional offices to the south, this is obviously their rear yard. But typically in highway business, the rear yard I believe was 20
I'm sorry. Yeah, 20ft for the rear yard. This isn't exactly survey specific, but these are clearly not probably 20ft back. So there's situations around the city that are in conformance with our current
code. Thank you. Appreciate that. And you said there is a privacy fence currently between the multifamily and the property in question. Yeah they have it's on there. This property here there's an
existing. It's about six foot tall. Thank you. Clarifying question. Go ahead, Mr. Wood. No go ahead. Mr. So with the
four foot. You did say that this will, you know, whether we grant the variance or not, this is going to be gone through like TRC and other things because I'm thinking of
concerns of access for like emergency response vehicles and utilities and those kinds of things of the forefoot. Right. So this would this is kind of
the this is the first step because the next step is to go through full site plan review. So they're going to have to do this is, you know, the initial site plan. But they will then have to do an actual full site
plan drawing their construction drawings, civil plans where all those, you know, specific details are worked out and that's handled at the next step. But to get to that step, they
need to be able to figure out if this layout is something they can move forward with. So that's why this is the first step in the process and then to move forward from there. Thank you for that is look at the, you know, emergency access,
whether utilities can be adequately provided to the property. And all those items are looked at during the TRC and site plan review process. Thank you. So did you did I
hear that this is a two story project? Yes. And the property adjacent is also living. Is that also two story? I believe it is. I'd have to. I need to
go. I believe it is. He might be able to answer this when he gets back up. Okay. Yeah, I'll wait for you on that then. Thanks. Any other questions for
Mr. Keen? Okay. Thank you. I will now hear from the applicant if you would state your name and address and that you've been sworn in. For the record. Hello, my name is
Jordan Jones. My address is 6541 River Road in New Port Richey on. There it is. Hoffman. He's the civil engineer for the project. I'm the general
contractor. The request for the four feet. Originally we were going for seven, but after I reviewed the architect's drawings, his bedroom sizes were only just over eight foot
by eight foot and with a queen foot, a queen size bed being about six foot eight, it only leaves like a foot and a half around the bed. So by going to
that four feet, we're able to increase the bedroom sizes. Just one second, please. To instead of being eight foot by
eight foot, closer to ten foot by 12 foot. So that's the request for the additional space. We've tried different variations rotating it, but then it leaves all of the windows either facing over top
of the neighbor's property, which is a single single floor story unit. And I believe it's Airbnb hotels. So it's not like a always occupied residence. We
either overlook their property with the windows if we rotate, or all of our windows face us 19. And I figured if someone's in their room at night, they'd
rather not be staring at us 19 and having us 19 stare back at them. So this was the best option we could find. That gives them the space they need inside the building, the
parking space meet the requirements there, as well as allow them the space in the backyard. Because even if we rotate it, we only end up with a yard space of less than ten
feet. So this was the best solution we could find to appease both neighbors as well as give the tenants, you know, usable space. Currently, there
is a privacy fence along the side with the Airbnb and a chain link fence across the back with the businesses. I want to say that business last time I checked was just under
eight feet, give or take, from the fence line, and then currently there is no fence between Queen's Pizza in the property, but we do intend to
fence along there as well if approved by the city. But if anyone has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. I think you sort of answered mine. The reason for the reason for the property's
location is for privacy. So you're not looking into the other properties? Yeah, trying to keep it as allow them windows but not staring into the neighbor's property and
facing the street was the most made the most sense. Okay. Thank you, Miss Turner. Do you have any? I don't thank you for all the details. That was helpful. Mr. Grossman, do you
have any? Okay. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you guys. Okay. Would does anyone from the public like to speak in favor or against this
proposal? No. Yes. No. No. Okay, okay. Seeing no one, I would like to ask Mr. Grossman to speak. I have a follow up with
the city. Okay. So Miss Turner made a comment about the safety issues. So we're. But we're not voting on any of the safety issues. Somebody else is going
to take a look at. If there if for safety reasons, they can have access to the to the back of the property if something. So we're not somebody else going to look at that. Right. Yeah. And just for just general knowledge, the fire marshal
sits on our technical review committee and he reviews every application for that particular situation. Thank you. Okay.
Okay. Would anyone like to entertain a motion in favor against this variance request? I'll make a motion on application 25 Dash 89 A
Hoffman East Lemon Street apartments to approve as applied for. I'll second. Okay, madam Secretary, roll call. Mr.
Would approve. Miss Turner approve. Vice chair. Grossman approve. Chairperson. Rich approved. Thank you. And you can proceed working with the city for your next steps. Thank
you all I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for coming to Tarpon Springs and doing business. Absolutely. Okay. Tonight we have a few things
board and staff comments. I know we had asked our attorney to do a little research on a few things, so I'll let him go first if that's okay. Ali
actually, if I can, I'll jump in. So after the meeting, Pat kind of relayed your questions to me as well. And we got together with attorney Saltzman because he was, I believe, at the Or. I don't remember who
was at the meeting, but attorney Saltzman and got together with Pat and I, and he will talk with you guys about that at the next meeting that we have. But just in general,
you guys are operating correctly under your procedures, but he will go over those with you guys at the next hearing that we have. Okay. Thank you.
Anything else from our attorney, Mr. Evans? No, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you for being here. As always, miss Keene, do you want
to discuss the meeting thing that you passed out with Miss Siegfried? I just gave you some. Save the dates for 2026. So we
already know conflicts. Do you want that presented to you via electronically or. Tonight? Yeah. If you if you want to send us an email with any sort of conflicts that you're aware of, that would be great. It
always is good to be, you know, in the know of potential future quorum issues. And we know Mr. Fuchs is absent tonight. As far as you know, he's still a
member because he's missed several. Yes he is. We'll follow up with him just to make sure that he's receiving our correspondence. But yes, he is still a member. Okay. And that
would be good to get him this too. Yes. Okay. Anything on the docket for January? There is not. But as we've learned, I will say they're not for sure.
But no, we don't have any applications right now for January. Okay. Because I'll be emailing you. Okay? Okay. Mr. wood is out for January. You just say you'll be in Hawaii.
Italy? Italy? Wow. Better. Well, they're both great. They're both great. Well, I'll be at the meeting. You'll be at the meeting? Yeah, I'll be at the meeting. Well, I think we'll be lucky. I don't think we have
anything for the meeting. So we'll all be off. And is January, though, since he'll be away. Is that where we renew our officers? So if we don't
have a meeting in January, we'll do officers in February. Yes. Okay. Yes. And and if for any chance we don't have it in February, we'll do it in March.
We'll do it at the next meeting that we have. Okay. And you learned your lesson not to miss that meeting. Right. Everybody needs to be present for the officers meeting. Yes. Well, then don't do it in January.
Yeah. Okay. All right, well, hearing anything else for the good of the group, everyone have a safe holiday. Everyone safe holiday. And I'll adjourn
the meeting at 732. Thank you. All good.