WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=zY7d3Jin4GE NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: zY7d3Jin4GE): - 00:04:40: Meeting Called to Order, Roll Call, Quorum Discussion - 00:06:15: Quasi Judicial Announcement and Witness Swearing In - 00:08:16: Case 2619: Variance for Detached Garage with ADU - 00:08:28: City Staff Presentation: Hanks Variance Request - 00:11:47: Board Questions City Staff on Hanks Variance - 00:21:23: Applicant Presentation: Hanks Variance Justification - 00:22:32: Public Comment Closed, Board Discussion Hanks Variance - 00:25:39: Motion to Approve Hanks Variance, Roll Call Vote - 00:26:27: Case 2620: Variance for Enclosing Second Story Deck - 00:26:39: City Staff Presentation: Yovich Variance Request - 00:28:57: Board Questions City Staff on Yovich Variance - 00:30:18: Public Comment Closed, Board Discussion Yovich Variance - 00:32:01: Motion to Approve Yovich Variance, Roll Call Vote - 00:32:33: Case 2621: Variance for New Single Family Home - 00:33:13: City Staff Presentation: Chesapeake Drive Variance - 00:35:16: Board Questions City Staff on Chesapeake Variance - 00:36:46: Applicant Presentation: Retiring by the Water - 00:38:14: Public Comment: Craig Lund - Property Line Dispute - 00:42:03: Public Comment: Carol Makeit - Property Line Clarification - 00:47:19: Applicant Responds to Property Line Concerns - 00:50:07: Public Comment Closed, Board Discussion Chesapeake Variance - 00:53:44: Motion to Approve Chesapeake Variance, Roll Call Vote - 00:54:17: Approval of November, December and March Minutes - 00:55:32: Staff Announcements: Land Development Code Amendments Part: 1 1 00:04:40.213 --> 00:04:53.192 6:30 p.m. and I call this meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call of the board members? Chairperson Grossman here. Miss Turner, present. Mr. 2 00:04:53.192 --> 00:05:06.572 wood here, Mr. Fuchs here. And miss Rich is absent. Okay, so we do not have a full five member board, and I will ask the city attorney to please 3 00:05:06.572 --> 00:05:18.017 advise what happens when we don't have a quorum. So we don't have five member board. So if any of the applicants wants a full board, you certainly can continue your 4 00:05:18.017 --> 00:05:29.529 hearing until we have a full board. That being said, you you need three positive votes out of the four. And if you're turned down, you have to wait a year to reapply. So if anybody 5 00:05:29.529 --> 00:05:39.738 wants to consider a full board, just tell us now. Otherwise we'll move forward with the three cases. I guess we're moving forward, chair. Anybody 6 00:05:39.738 --> 00:05:52.018 want to postpone? Okay. All right. At this time, I would like to remind all people who will be speaking this evening to please speak directly into 7 00:05:52.018 --> 00:06:02.061 the microphone as it assists the staff in getting a clear recording of tonight's proceedings at this time. 8 00:06:02.061 --> 00:06:15.575 Calling up item 2619. Thanks, chair. We have to do the quasi judicial. Oh, sorry. That's all right. Let me let me back up. Yes. Would you please do the 9 00:06:15.575 --> 00:06:25.685 quasi judicial announcement and swearing in of the witnesses? Yes. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Board of Adjustment acts in a quasi judicial rather than a 10 00:06:25.685 --> 00:06:38.030 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 11 00:06:38.030 --> 00:06:48.808 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 12 00:06:48.808 --> 00:07:00.319 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 13 00:07:00.319 --> 00:07:10.630 competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in 14 00:07:10.630 --> 00:07:21.607 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 15 00:07:21.607 --> 00:07:30.182 Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. Is there anybody on the board that needs to disclose any ex parte 16 00:07:30.182 --> 00:07:42.028 communication, any. Not ex parte, but for the application on Chesapeake. I live on Chesapeake, but feel I can make a fair and impartial decision 17 00:07:42.028 --> 00:07:53.606 that that's not a problem. Does anybody have other than what you said, is anybody feel like they have a conflict of interest? Okay. If you're going to speak tonight, please raise 18 00:07:53.606 --> 00:08:05.885 your right hand. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the board of adjustment shall be the truth, 19 00:08:05.885 --> 00:08:16.963 so help you. I do thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Now, at this time, I would like to call up item 2619, 20 00:08:16.963 --> 00:08:28.975 which is Hanks. It's a variance to reduce the rear side yard setback for a new for new detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit. 226 21 00:08:28.975 --> 00:08:41.053 North Rose Avenue with the city staff member. Please present this item now. Sure. Ali Keen, interim planning director. The subject property again is 22 00:08:41.053 --> 00:08:51.530 located at the corner of North Rose Avenue and Cypress Street. It's outlined in red here on the screen. All the surrounding zoning is primarily residential, with the exception of City Hall to the north, which is in the 23 00:08:51.530 --> 00:09:01.974 public Semipublic district. The applicants are here today requesting variance approval to reduce the required rear yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage with an accessory 24 00:09:01.974 --> 00:09:13.753 dwelling unit. This is a look at the proposed site plan. Again, the applicants are looking to construct a new 600 square foot detached garage in the rear of the property. We'll 25 00:09:13.753 --> 00:09:24.664 have a second story accessory dwelling unit, and they are proposing to utilize an existing driveway curb cut that's off of Cypress Street. Utilizing that curb cut does help to preserve the historic 26 00:09:24.664 --> 00:09:35.107 property frontage, and this is a property that's in our historic district, the R 70, a zoning district requires a minimum rear setback of 20ft, which is the pink line here. 27 00:09:35.107 --> 00:09:46.285 And again, the applicants are requesting to reduce that setback to five feet. The property again is in the local historic district. The structure itself is 28 00:09:46.285 --> 00:09:56.528 contributing. Back in September of last year, the applicants went before the Heritage Preservation Board and did receive certificate of appropriateness to partially demolish the historic structure 29 00:09:56.528 --> 00:10:08.140 and then build a new home that utilizes the historic footprint as well as the existing front facade. A part of that application also included the approval of the detached garage and accessory unit that we're 30 00:10:08.140 --> 00:10:17.950 talking about this evening, and then also a pool, which was shown on the site plan. A few considerations with this application. First, the Land 31 00:10:17.950 --> 00:10:29.428 Development Code does have reduced setbacks for certain size detached garages and the R 70, A district. Detached garages that are 300ft■!S in sie or less can have a reduced rear 32 00:10:29.428 --> 00:10:40.706 yard of five feet, but any garage that is larger than that 300ft■!S would have to default back to the R 70 zoning district, which is the case for this application. The code also 33 00:10:40.706 --> 00:10:51.149 allows residential properties to have an Adu on the property. The a D. You can be attached to the existing primary structure or can be a separate structure like it's proposed today. The 34 00:10:51.149 --> 00:11:02.762 code does allow those use to be up to 600ft■!S in size, and that is consistent with what is being requested. When looking at the surrounding context, you'll notice that there is a parcel to the rear of the 35 00:11:02.762 --> 00:11:13.405 property that's 30ft in width. This is a city owned parcel that provides access to some of the surrounding residential homes. One consideration is this does provide some additional separation from the 36 00:11:13.405 --> 00:11:25.284 adjacent property to the east. That does exceed the minimum 20ft. That would typically be required from the rear setback. There are also some existing accessory structures on surrounding properties, two of 37 00:11:25.284 --> 00:11:33.959 which do back up to that Parker Place parcel that do have minimal setbacks, similar to what is being requested. Here 38 00:11:33.959 --> 00:11:47.172 are your criteria and I'm happy to answer questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Does the 39 00:11:47.172 --> 00:11:58.350 board have any questions for the city staff? Chairman? I have some questions. So, Miss Keane, can you go back to the slide where you were outlining 40 00:11:58.350 --> 00:12:10.629 the Land Development Code criteria? I think it's there we go. Can you provide some clarification on a couple points? So the code for the 41 00:12:10.629 --> 00:12:22.908 detached garage versus the Adu, would this proposed structure be considered Adu or detached garage or how does that work. 42 00:12:22.908 --> 00:12:33.986 Right. So it's both. So this is kind of pointing out that the code does have some conflicting allowances. So it does allow you to have a detached garage. It's very common to have an accessory dwelling unit as a 43 00:12:33.986 --> 00:12:45.531 part of the detached garage. In this situation in this zoning district, 300ft■!S is what is allotted for detached garage. That's to take advantage of reduced setbacks. You still 44 00:12:45.531 --> 00:12:55.574 have a larger one like they're proposing. It just would have to meet the district setbacks. Accessory dwelling units again could be up to 600ft■!S. So there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two. 45 00:12:55.574 --> 00:13:07.453 So then to follow up on that, the setback for detached garage garages stated at the five feet, which the proposal would meet. 46 00:13:07.453 --> 00:13:21.901 However, it is over the 300ft■!. Correct. So we we have an interesting gray area, right? That's why because it's larger than 300ft■!S and garage 47 00:13:21.901 --> 00:13:30.275 structure. And we call that out specifically in the code. That's why it would have to go back to the default to the R 78 district setbacks. And for the 48 00:13:30.275 --> 00:13:41.320 city owned parcel there and Parker Place, what is the city's intended purpose for that parcel? Is there any 49 00:13:41.320 --> 00:13:52.998 current or future use? So it is currently being used to access some of the surrounding property, specifically this one here. And then also this larger parcel here that fronts Cross Avenue, but they don't have a 50 00:13:52.998 --> 00:14:04.610 driveway from Gross Avenue. I believe it provides access as well to this property. I don't think the city has any intended use besides allowing it to provide access. Typically this 51 00:14:04.610 --> 00:14:16.555 would be a right of way, not an actual designated owned parcel. But in this situation it is a separate parcel, but I believe it will just continue to be used as access, kind of like what our layman would refer to. 52 00:14:16.555 --> 00:14:30.002 Maybe like an alley. Yeah, exactly. Entrance and the the property to the right that you do have highlighted in pink. 53 00:14:30.002 --> 00:14:40.079 That's, I'm assuming the other neighbor. Have we had any communication with any other property owners? We have not received any. Okay. Thank you 54 00:14:40.079 --> 00:14:53.158 ma'am. Any other board members have any questions? I do good evening. Do we know the the age or how long those other structures have? Those ones 55 00:14:53.158 --> 00:15:05.237 that are highlighted in pink have have been there. Do we know what their age is? I do not know how long they've been there. A lot of these properties are historic properties, so some of the 56 00:15:05.237 --> 00:15:12.711 structures may have been constructed predating the code. Some may have not. I just don't know the the full detailed history of all of the surrounding properties. Thank 57 00:15:12.711 --> 00:15:24.790 you. Okay. I do have some questions as well. So on page 58 00:15:24.790 --> 00:15:38.337 two of four of the report, it states that the LDC section 71 allows one Adu up to 600ft■!S. s that in addition to the garage, 59 00:15:38.337 --> 00:15:49.882 like the garage can have the 600ft■!S and the Adu can have 600ft■!S as well. Because it's all one structure, you have to look at it as a whole. So the 60 00:15:49.882 --> 00:16:01.226 Adu is 600ft■!S. They're proposing the structure to be 600ft■!S. So can utilize that full second story. But because it's one structure, you have to look at it as a whole. So you 61 00:16:01.226 --> 00:16:11.437 can't just because they're doing an accessory dwelling unit doesn't get them out of the setback requirements for the detached garage that's larger. And just to provide a little more clarification on that, if they were only doing 62 00:16:11.437 --> 00:16:20.879 accessory dwelling unit, it wasn't a garage. We would look to the R 78 district setbacks. So you wouldn't even have to consider that as a. Okay, so 63 00:16:20.879 --> 00:16:34.259 this is a two story garage and so does, does the does it need to be 600 square foot in total for the two stories? In other words, 303 hundred. We look at 64 00:16:34.259 --> 00:16:45.570 the footprint to determine the size. So the structure itself would have to be no larger than 600ft■!S. Or if, say, the structure was larger, the accessory dwelling unit itself, 65 00:16:45.570 --> 00:16:56.849 the living area could not exceed 600ft■!S. Okay. Because.I guess, can you go back to the 66 00:16:56.849 --> 00:17:08.493 to the slide where it showed the pool and everything. So the cut out area, there's you have the blue area, which is showing the garage and Adu, and then 67 00:17:08.493 --> 00:17:19.905 there's a cut out area in it. We do we know the size of that cut out area because the Adu. It's 2025ft across the top. And 68 00:17:19.905 --> 00:17:32.818 then coming down it's 18 and 12 which is 30. But we can't calculate the square footage of the of the building because there's, I don't know where 69 00:17:32.818 --> 00:17:44.028 maybe you could show me where it is. The, the size, the width of that cut out. I don't see it labeled here. It might be underneath my cover that I have here, but I can have the 70 00:17:44.028 --> 00:17:54.139 applicant talk to that specific detail. All right. Because the the 25 by 30 is 750ft■!S. So if 71 00:17:54.139 --> 00:18:05.784 that cut out were, let's say nine feet wide, that'd be 162ft. Then it would fit in, it'd be fine. But you have two floors 72 00:18:05.784 --> 00:18:17.829 here. Now as a second story, does that go over the cut out or is the cut out two stories up? So regardless of how it's situated, the accessory dwelling unit could not exceed 73 00:18:17.829 --> 00:18:28.307 that maximum size. They would have to ask for another variance to allow a larger accessory. So. So you're only using the footprint, correct. 74 00:18:28.307 --> 00:18:39.451 Not so if it was three stories or four stories it wouldn't matter. You're only using the 600ft■!S as the footprint. Doesn't matter how many stories it is. So the yeah, the 600ft■!S is pertaining to the accessory 75 00:18:39.451 --> 00:18:51.096 dwelling unit living area. The applicant indicated that it was a 600 square foot structure. So that's why we have it labeled that way. But they couldn't exceed the the size allotment that the code allows. And all 76 00:18:51.096 --> 00:19:01.006 of those fine details are verified during the permitting stage. So we would verify that it meets all the size requirements and it's consistent with whatever. If the variance were to be 77 00:19:01.006 --> 00:19:11.550 approved. Okay. All right. Thank you. So to follow up on Chairman Grossman's questions there. So we're going off of 78 00:19:11.550 --> 00:19:21.193 the footprint, which is under 600ft■!S. So we're going to confirm with the applicant that that that footprint itself is 79 00:19:21.193 --> 00:19:33.405 in that 600 range, 600 mark. The garages floor one Adu is floor two. Because you're saying talking living area. 80 00:19:33.405 --> 00:19:44.783 We're not living in our garage. Yes. Theoretically correct. Yeah. If they wanted the entire structure to be used for living area, then we'd calculate all of that square footage. That would be a different story. 81 00:19:44.783 --> 00:19:54.726 Yeah, but that is not what the applicant has presented. Not. No. The application indicates it's the second story. Thank you, Miss Keane. Yes. The other buildings that you had highlighted in pink. Can you go 82 00:19:54.726 --> 00:20:05.670 back to that for a second? Sure. So when we're looking at those buildings, are those garages also or other properties that are also or are those garages 83 00:20:05.670 --> 00:20:17.316 on the other properties? Some of them, I believe are garages. I don't know if all of them are utilizes garages. They're just outbuildings that we highlighted based off the aerial. And they all seem like they're, they got a variance 84 00:20:17.316 --> 00:20:27.092 based on the size of those. They look a little bit bigger than 300ft■!S. It really depends on when they were actually constructed, if a variance was required at that time. So some may have required a variance. 85 00:20:27.092 --> 00:20:39.604 Some may predate the actual code requirements. Okay. Thank you. I have one follow up. The. 86 00:20:39.604 --> 00:20:50.782 Additional information in the packet shows a lot of different properties with ADUs in it. Is that was that the purpose of 87 00:20:50.782 --> 00:21:02.427 these. So I think you're referring to an what the applicant submitted as supplemental material. I don't know if they're all ADUs. I think he was trying to point out just the surrounding 88 00:21:02.427 --> 00:21:12.904 accessory structures, but they can clarify that for you. But that that neighborhood has a lot of garages and accessory structures and pretty common in that area. It's, it's common in 89 00:21:12.904 --> 00:21:23.648 most residential areas. Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and answering those questions. At 90 00:21:23.648 --> 00:21:34.059 this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do so. When you get to the podium, please state your name and 91 00:21:34.059 --> 00:21:43.402 address for the record. Also, when you are finished making your presentation, please stay at the podium in case any of the board members have any questions for you. Okay. My 92 00:21:43.402 --> 00:21:55.614 name is Daniel Edgel. I'm at 123 East Tarpon Avenue. I'm the architect for the client here. I generated the packet that you have in front of you there. I 93 00:21:55.614 --> 00:22:08.560 have no additional content to provide today. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Anybody have any 94 00:22:08.560 --> 00:22:19.771 questions? Yes, sir. I'm good. Okay. All right. Nobody has any questions for you. All right. 95 00:22:19.771 --> 00:22:32.250 Thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to call. Excuse me. All right. You'll be seated. 96 00:22:32.250 --> 00:22:40.958 All right. So at this time, we will call for public comment. Is there any public comment to 97 00:22:40.958 --> 00:22:56.041 be made on this issue? Okay. As there are no public comments, I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time. I would like to bring the item back to the board for 98 00:22:56.041 --> 00:23:06.785 discussion. Does the board have any comments? No comments, but I can make a motion. I have I have comments, anybody else 99 00:23:06.785 --> 00:23:16.561 have comments? No comments. Okay, I do, I do have some comments. I just I don't have any issue with the building, 100 00:23:16.561 --> 00:23:27.439 the building and the two stories and all that. The only thing I want to know is I just want to make sure what we're voting on. So the it, I just 101 00:23:27.439 --> 00:23:38.884 would like to, to firm up because I did some measurements on this. I just want to. If we make a motion, I think we should include that this 102 00:23:38.884 --> 00:23:50.395 footprint is not over 600ft■!S, because it appears that it has a chance of being over 600ft■!S. And I would just like to include that in the motion that 103 00:23:50.395 --> 00:24:00.238 because we can't measure it out from the information that we have here, my understanding is that that was already approved through their permitting process. So that's already been 104 00:24:00.238 --> 00:24:12.050 lined out. Is that accurate? Ali, you you can put a condition on there to to lock in that the footprint doesn't exceed that, that size. The Heritage Preservation Preservation Board doesn't 105 00:24:12.050 --> 00:24:23.327 necessarily have detailed plans. They get something similar to this. They're more so looking at the historic aspect of the structure being their general location. So they didn't have the specific details either. So 106 00:24:23.327 --> 00:24:34.071 if you want to place a condition on the approval, you can do so. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not saying yes to this piece of paper. And this piece of paper is over 600 107 00:24:34.071 --> 00:24:43.949 square foot, and we just did something we shouldn't do. But and on that, so if the city staff and maybe the attorney provide that point of clarification, say, if we did approve this because we're 108 00:24:43.949 --> 00:24:55.827 being asked to approve for the rear setback, if it did go to, you know, through the permitting process and sandbar architecture, which we know is 109 00:24:55.827 --> 00:25:06.671 a fine firm, couldn't imagine them doing it. But if they came and submitted plans to us, to the city for 900 square foot, that's kicked out. Correct. It 110 00:25:06.671 --> 00:25:17.482 would be inconsistent with what was presented to the board for approval. Okay. I mean, your variance is based on a 600 square foot. So you can either 111 00:25:17.482 --> 00:25:27.959 add it as a condition or I mean, frankly, the variance is based on that. So if they wanted to do something more, they would have to come back for for another variance. For another 112 00:25:27.959 --> 00:25:39.437 variance. Thank you. Thank you sir. Okay. All right. So. All right. So all board comments no other comments from the board. 113 00:25:39.437 --> 00:25:48.847 All right. So board comments are now closed. I would like to ask the board for a motion on this item. I would like to make a motion to approve for the 114 00:25:48.847 --> 00:26:02.427 five yard, five foot rear yard setback and for the footprint not to exceed 600ft■!S, as statd in code. Do I have a second? 115 00:26:02.427 --> 00:26:13.638 I'll second. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call? Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. Would approve. Mr. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman, 116 00:26:13.638 --> 00:26:27.652 approve. Well, congratulations. Your application request has been approved. Okay. All right. 117 00:26:27.652 --> 00:26:39.197 At this time, I'm calling up the next item on the agenda. This would be item 2620 Yovich. 118 00:26:39.197 --> 00:26:49.607 And that is a variance to reduce the side yard setback for the purpose of enclosing a second story deck at 1514 119 00:26:49.607 --> 00:27:02.954 Riverside Drive. And I would call on the city staff member to make a presentation. Okay. Again, this property is located off of Riverside Drive. It's outlined in red. The 120 00:27:02.954 --> 00:27:14.132 surrounding properties are all within the 100 single family residential district. There is some multi-family residential zoning further to the west. Again, the applicants are here 121 00:27:14.132 --> 00:27:25.243 to request a variance to reduce the required side yard setback. And this is for the purpose of enclosing existing second story deck. The R 100 zoning district 122 00:27:25.243 --> 00:27:34.652 requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet, with a total of 25ft for both sides. Again, the applicants are looking to enclose an existing second story deck, which is in 123 00:27:34.652 --> 00:27:45.630 the area shaded here in orange, and that has a setback of 7.2ft. This would result in a not meeting the ten foot minimum, but it would exceed the total side yard setback requirement 124 00:27:45.630 --> 00:27:58.376 of 25ft. The property was platted in 1925. It is a nonconforming lot of record. It does not meet the minimum lot width, which is 75ft in the R 100 district. This property is 125 00:27:58.376 --> 00:28:09.587 about 12 12.5ft narrower than what would be required if it were platted today. The home was constructed in 1971 that also predates the current Land development code. At the time 126 00:28:09.587 --> 00:28:18.897 the home was constructed, there was a provision in the Land Development Code that did allow balconies to encroach up to 3.5ft into a side yard, which is likely how the original deck 127 00:28:18.897 --> 00:28:32.243 was allowed when it was built. These are some proposed elevations of the project. The applicants recently enclosed a identical deck on the opposite side of the home, which is what 128 00:28:32.243 --> 00:28:40.819 you see here in the image. They're looking to mimic that on the north side or the west side of the property. And here are your criteria, and I'm 129 00:28:40.819 --> 00:28:57.368 happy to answer questions. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. Does the board have any questions for the city staff, miss Keane? Did they need a 130 00:28:57.368 --> 00:29:08.513 variance for their side? Looks like they had plenty of room. So the other side did not require variance because it met the minimum ten foot. And it also exceeded the 25 total. So 131 00:29:08.513 --> 00:29:19.757 because they're enclosing this now that's what's triggering the the setback variance. Okay. Thank you. So essentially if we went back 55 years and they 132 00:29:19.757 --> 00:29:29.133 built it skoch there to the left, we wouldn't be sitting here today. Correct? Right. Yes. 133 00:29:29.133 --> 00:29:42.080 That's how you look at it. And it still does meet the combined 25 foot. It's just the 7.2 134 00:29:42.080 --> 00:29:53.925 versus the ten, correct? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? I have one question. I'm sorry. 135 00:29:53.925 --> 00:30:03.067 Okay. Can you tell me what what is the minimum width of the lot supposed to be? It's non-conforming. If it were plotted today would be 75ft 75. 136 00:30:03.067 --> 00:30:18.750 Thank you. Okay. All right. Anyone else have any other questions? I do not have questions. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. 137 00:30:18.750 --> 00:30:32.196 We appreciate that. At this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do so. We don't need to know. You 138 00:30:32.196 --> 00:30:42.874 don't have to. You do not have to make a presentation if you don't want to. Okay. All right. At this time, I'll call on the board. We don't have any 139 00:30:42.874 --> 00:30:52.583 questions. We don't have a presentation. All right. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to call for public comment. Is there any public comment on 140 00:30:52.583 --> 00:31:06.264 this issue? All right. There's no public comments. I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time. I'd like to bring the item back to the board for discussion. Does the 141 00:31:06.264 --> 00:31:17.108 board have any comments? I just a point of clarification for Miss Keane. Was there any communication from any neighbors regarding this 142 00:31:17.108 --> 00:31:29.687 application? No, we did not receive any. Thank you. And any other board member commentary. I guess I'd just like to point out that, you know, if it was a conforming size lot, we'd have 143 00:31:29.687 --> 00:31:40.732 whatever, 12.5 extra feet to play with here. Right. And so when we're taking that into consideration, this again, wouldn't be an issue based on the conformity of the lot. And 144 00:31:40.732 --> 00:31:48.006 so they're a bit constrained with space anyway. And I think that that's a germane point to bring up for for this 145 00:31:48.006 --> 00:32:01.719 discussion. I agree. Everybody good. All right. As board comments at this time I'd like to excuse me as a board 146 00:32:01.719 --> 00:32:12.597 comments are now and I'll close board comment section. And I would like to ask the board for a motion on this item. I'll make a motion for approval. 147 00:32:12.597 --> 00:32:25.109 I'll second Madam Secretary, you please do a roll call. Mr. Fuchs Mr. Would approve. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman, approve. Well, 148 00:32:25.109 --> 00:32:33.051 congratulations. Your application request has been approved. Okay, now I'll be 149 00:32:33.051 --> 00:32:48.166 bringing up the last item on the agenda for this evening. 150 00:32:48.166 --> 00:33:00.845 Okay. We have item number 26-21, and this is a variance to reduce side yard setbacks for the purpose of constructing a 151 00:33:00.845 --> 00:33:13.724 new single family home. 739 Chesapeake Drive. I'd like to ask the city staff to do their presentation at this time. Okay. 152 00:33:13.724 --> 00:33:25.203 Property again is off of Chesapeake Drive. All the properties in this area in the are 100 single family residential zoning district. The applicants are requesting variance approval to reduce the 153 00:33:25.203 --> 00:33:37.148 side yard setback for both sides of the property. This is for the purpose of demolishing the existing home and constructing a new single family residence on the property. Again, the R 100 154 00:33:37.148 --> 00:33:47.959 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet, with a total of 25ft for both sides. The applicants are requesting to reduce that side setback for the new home that would be constructed to 155 00:33:47.959 --> 00:34:00.337 eight feet, which results in a total side yard of 16ft. There are a few non-conforming situations on this property for your consideration. First are the R 100 lot standards. Again, 156 00:34:00.337 --> 00:34:10.148 this is a property that was platted prior to having zoning in the city. It was platted in 1925. The R 100 district today would require a lot to be a 157 00:34:10.148 --> 00:34:21.759 minimum of 10,000ft■!S in size. This property is just about 6700ft■!S in area. It would also require the lot width to be a minimum of 75ft, and this site has an average lot width of 158 00:34:21.759 --> 00:34:32.203 52ft. It's also somewhat of an irregularly shaped lot, being that it's wider along Chesapeake and narrows down as it gets closer to the bayou. The existing home that's on the 159 00:34:32.203 --> 00:34:43.414 property also has non-conforming setbacks. The front setback is currently just over seven feet. The minimum required today would be 25ft in the R 100 district, and the 160 00:34:43.414 --> 00:34:54.158 current side setback to the south is six feet and the north is just over nine feet, which results in a total of just over 15ft for both sides. So although the applicant is requesting to reduce the side 161 00:34:54.158 --> 00:35:03.967 yards for the construction of the new home, the new home will meet the minimum front yard setback of 25ft. It would also lessen the nonconformity that you see on the south side, and 162 00:35:03.967 --> 00:35:16.213 it also lessens the total combined side yard non-conforming setback. Again, here's your criteria and I'll turn it back to you for questions. Okay. Thank you for 163 00:35:16.213 --> 00:35:27.425 your presentation. Does the board have any questions for city staff? I do, is there anything in the code that limits the size of the structure on a lot by like a 164 00:35:27.425 --> 00:35:37.001 percentage of square footage of the lot or anything of that nature? We don't have anything in these districts that limit lot coverage. Okay. Thank you. 165 00:35:37.001 --> 00:35:50.381 Any other board members? Okay, I have one clarification item on the justification from the applicant. I think the applicant states that the home 166 00:35:50.381 --> 00:36:00.424 sits on lot currently has eight foot wide setbacks. When it's confirmed that they do not have eight foot wide setbacks. Right. Currently the current setbacks. 167 00:36:00.424 --> 00:36:13.404 Yes. So if you the current the survey has because it's angled, there's varying setbacks along the side. So I took the closest one on the north is nine, a little over nine feet. And then 168 00:36:13.404 --> 00:36:24.381 six feet to the south is the closest points according to the survey that was provided. So so the side setbacks are was a six foot and a nine foot. Okay. So 169 00:36:24.381 --> 00:36:36.127 I just want to clarify that this is not the justification. Wording is not correct. Right. Yeah. I think it's just worded a little bit different. Okay. 170 00:36:36.127 --> 00:36:46.336 Thank you. All right. Appreciate your presentation and answering the questions. At this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do 171 00:36:46.336 --> 00:36:58.382 so. When you get to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. Also, when you are finished making your presentation, please stay at the podium in case any of the board members have any 172 00:36:58.382 --> 00:37:10.594 questions for you. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Francis Leppla, the applicant of the property. I just want to state that my husband and I have dreamed of retiring on the 173 00:37:10.594 --> 00:37:22.005 water. And over the past year, we've looked at probably 60 or 70 different properties throughout the Tampa Bay area and have contemplated offers 174 00:37:22.005 --> 00:37:33.150 and have dreamed of what our future might look like after retirement. When we originally came to look at this particular property, we fell in love with it. Not because the community is so lovely, but because when 175 00:37:33.150 --> 00:37:43.160 we were looking at it, the neighbors came out. They introduced themselves. It felt very homey. It felt great. It felt like the place we wanted to be at the time. We were looking at the existing 176 00:37:43.160 --> 00:37:53.270 structure, trying to determine whether or not we could remodel it. The current structures in severe disrepair. It was remodeled. I'm not sure if it was even done to code. It's 177 00:37:53.270 --> 00:38:03.581 built basically as a multi-family house in the interior. I don't know if that's public. It's just weird. So our goal was to raise 178 00:38:03.581 --> 00:38:14.492 everybody's property value to build something that's brand new, that stays as close within the existing footprint as possible, knowing that it is a non-conforming lot. And we 179 00:38:14.492 --> 00:38:25.002 still dream and hope that we can do that. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. At this time, I would like to call on the board to see if they have 180 00:38:25.002 --> 00:38:32.376 any questions for the applicant. Nope, I have none. Okay. I don't have any either. Thank you very much. You may now be 181 00:38:32.376 --> 00:38:47.324 seated. At this time, I would like to call for any public comment on this item. Okay. Hi, 182 00:38:47.324 --> 00:38:59.837 my name is Craig Lund. Seven 3 or 7 four three Chesapeake. I am the owner of the property directly to the north of this property. Although I can 183 00:38:59.837 --> 00:39:10.247 appreciate the idea of their their variance, I needed to let you know that the property line that was currently submitted with their survey is under 184 00:39:10.247 --> 00:39:23.627 dispute. My home has had surveys ranging from when it was built in 1953, all the way to today, which put occupancy 185 00:39:23.627 --> 00:39:33.838 along that line that you can see towards the bottom of that yellow line. I have surveys done for you today. I'm sorry I couldn't get them into the 186 00:39:33.838 --> 00:39:46.283 record previously because they were just done like about 4:00 this afternoon. So I can show you this is the as occupied 187 00:39:46.283 --> 00:39:57.761 city attorney, we cannot take any additional evidence at this time. Can we go to. Are we able 188 00:39:57.761 --> 00:40:07.171 to distribute them for the reconsideration just for. It's not part of the competent, substantial evidence, but it's 189 00:40:07.171 --> 00:40:28.392 demonstrative. Okay. My apologies. Grab the wrong tab. 190 00:40:33.030 --> 00:40:44.674 These blocks are outside. Are. Okay. I'm sorry. These are the 191 00:40:44.674 --> 00:40:58.556 rights. So this actually does is show the occupancy line that's been there. I've owned the property since 2005. So for 192 00:40:58.556 --> 00:41:10.701 20 some odd years now, the property that the house was built in 1953. So it's been there for 73 years, obviously platted in 1925, which wasn't 193 00:41:10.701 --> 00:41:20.878 the best plat in the world so far. I don't think anybody's been able to find the PRM, the the permanent marker at the end of the block to measure from. 194 00:41:20.878 --> 00:41:33.190 We've had several surveys done. All of them have have jibed with the survey that I've just given, which shows occupation, which is that slash line 195 00:41:33.190 --> 00:41:41.899 underneath the yellow line on the top there, which would be the north side. So what this is going to mean from my 196 00:41:41.899 --> 00:41:53.611 perspective from, for the the variances is that if they're running off the property line that was in their survey that they presented to you, that variance is going to mean that 197 00:41:53.611 --> 00:42:03.721 they're going to be it's going to be from a different line because we're going to move for occupation. So I don't know how that works. My, my legal 198 00:42:03.721 --> 00:42:16.300 counsel sort of handling that part, but as it turns out, with their property line is it is like directly touching the corner of my building. So I one 199 00:42:16.300 --> 00:42:25.975 side. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. It's going to be a matter anyway. Thank you, thank you. Thank you for your comments. You can be 200 00:42:25.975 --> 00:42:37.955 seated. Are there any other public comments to be made? Good evening Carol. Make it 735 Chesapeake Drive. I'm the 201 00:42:37.955 --> 00:42:48.032 neighbor with my husband directly to the south of this property. We have no problem with the eight foot variance, 202 00:42:48.032 --> 00:43:00.678 but I do want to state that on the the diagram up there. I just want to make sure that the eight foot variance is from the property line and not from our 203 00:43:00.678 --> 00:43:11.055 fence, which we inherited when we bought our property. And there is a space between our fence and the property line. As 204 00:43:11.055 --> 00:43:22.966 you can see on the diagram. So I just want to make sure that when the permit is done, that the eight foot is from their property line and not our fence. 205 00:43:22.966 --> 00:43:34.511 Okay. All right. Thank you, city Attorney. If there's a issue that is brought up in this meeting regarding maybe an 206 00:43:34.511 --> 00:43:45.989 error in that, how do we address that, that that I mean, that's for documentation. Ultimately, that's a matter that might be decided in the 207 00:43:45.989 --> 00:43:57.834 courts or certainly when we do our final reviews. I mean, everything that we have submitted, we look at. But if the court rules about the property line changes, well, 208 00:43:57.834 --> 00:44:07.845 that could change the effect of any kind of variance, because the variance has to be based on the facts that came through to you. Your approval of the variance is based on the competent, substantial evidence 209 00:44:07.845 --> 00:44:18.956 that's given to you. And if you were to approve it, then it's based on those diagrams. It turns out to be different and they may end up having to come back before you. Thank you 210 00:44:18.956 --> 00:44:30.901 ma'am, may I ask Chairman Grossman for the attorney the question regarding that for clarification? So, as Mr. Lunt said, you know, there seems to be some discrepancy between Mr. 211 00:44:30.901 --> 00:44:41.311 Lunt survey and the applicant's survey. And of course, I don't think anyone, the applicant and certainly Mr. Lunt, don't want, you know, a new home 212 00:44:41.311 --> 00:44:51.388 constructed touching his home. That's not appropriate. If we were to have a motion to 213 00:44:51.388 --> 00:45:04.034 approve a variance of an eight foot setback from the, you know, the property line north, the north and the south property line north property line 214 00:45:04.034 --> 00:45:17.447 pending final resolution in any future court proceedings prior to final permitting. The answer, 215 00:45:17.447 --> 00:45:28.091 I would say the answer to that is no. You could make it based on the documentation that's presented to you. So if this documentation turns out to be 216 00:45:28.091 --> 00:45:41.038 incorrect, then the variance would not be approved. I mean, I can't come and ask for a variance and then say, oh yeah, by the way, it was, it's much 217 00:45:41.038 --> 00:45:51.448 smaller, right? So that you're giving me something that I'm not entitled to. So you're basing it on this. If it turns out that it's incorrect, then they would have to come back 218 00:45:51.448 --> 00:46:04.094 for if if they could come back for variance, depending on what the side survey show. So the, the building official wouldn't 219 00:46:04.094 --> 00:46:14.571 go forward with approvals. If there's an issue like that. So and if I help me make sure I'm understanding Mr. Lunt's, the 220 00:46:14.571 --> 00:46:24.314 information that he presented, that he is stating that he has surveys that are showing the property line is actually, in 221 00:46:24.314 --> 00:46:35.759 fact. Further to the north or further to the south. What are we what were we saying? Is that something that we can ask for clarification from Mr. Lunt or 222 00:46:35.759 --> 00:46:46.904 the documentation that he's provided to Miss Keane? So I I'm assuming that he's saying that the property line is further to the to the south because it's there's less room 223 00:46:46.904 --> 00:46:56.980 essentially than eight feet. But based on the survey, it's I, I can't tell the difference between the survey that were provided by the applicant and this survey, because it doesn't 224 00:46:56.980 --> 00:47:08.525 show the structures on the adjacent property. So I don't know how far it states the structure is from that property line that's on here, that's on the applicant's property to determine whether or not 225 00:47:08.525 --> 00:47:19.336 they're they're accurate. I would have to I'd have to look closer to see if we can determine that. But typically when we have these things come up, it is a civil matter between the property owners to determine the variance, like 226 00:47:19.336 --> 00:47:29.445 Mr. Solomon said, is for eight feet from the presented information. And just for clarity, the the setbacks are always measured from the property line. I just wanted to 227 00:47:29.445 --> 00:47:39.089 provide clarification for Miss Pickett. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other public 228 00:47:39.089 --> 00:47:51.935 comments? No. Come on. The applicant has the ability to come forward and refute anything that was presented in public comments. This chair, just so you know. Okay. Thank 229 00:47:51.935 --> 00:48:02.512 you. Okay. Sorry. From the applicant again. So we have actually had the survey done three times. When we first learned that our neighbor thought that there may have 230 00:48:02.512 --> 00:48:14.391 been some conflict, we actually had our survey company come back out because we wanted, in very good faith to work together to come to an amicable solution. The survey that we 231 00:48:14.391 --> 00:48:24.835 hired actually brought out three senior surveyors are very renowned survey company, and they just said, this, this is it. I mean, we're all in agreement. This is the line to 232 00:48:24.835 --> 00:48:37.080 us. It is our ideal to keep the home as close to the existing structure footprint as possible. I mean, if that means we make it smaller, what, you know, 233 00:48:37.080 --> 00:48:48.291 whatever we need to do to make it work. Because remodeling is not an option. And unfortunately, anything to do with the current code would make the lot essentially 234 00:48:48.291 --> 00:48:59.769 completely non buildable. So I don't know if that helps, but I learned of all of this tonight when we walked in here. Otherwise I would have had the architect and everybody else. We just didn't think it was 235 00:48:59.769 --> 00:49:10.647 going to be an issue because of the existing property. Okay. Thank you for that. Additional information. Do I stay for questions? Yeah, I had a clarifying question for the applicant. Oh hang on. I'm 236 00:49:10.647 --> 00:49:23.260 sorry. Go ahead. She can. She can because it's the applicant. Okay. Sorry. So you had you had mentioned that your intention, which is presented in your 237 00:49:23.260 --> 00:49:33.703 application here, is to keep this, this footprint does seem very much in line with the existing homes footprint, with the exception of. Now you do 238 00:49:33.703 --> 00:49:46.316 have a larger setback at the front because as we know, the current home setback is not in compliance. So you're not 239 00:49:46.316 --> 00:49:55.859 looking to have something dramatically larger on the width. Not at all. No. Yeah. Thank you. Doing as little with the width as we possibly can. 240 00:49:55.859 --> 00:50:07.203 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any any other board members have questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you, thank you. Are 241 00:50:07.203 --> 00:50:20.116 there any other public comments? Okay. I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time, I would like to bring the item back to the board for discussion. Does the board have 242 00:50:20.116 --> 00:50:32.128 any comments? I do, if I may. So just for a point of clarification, Ali, on there's a dark line there that goes around the outside. Yeah, that darker line there. Can you tell 243 00:50:32.128 --> 00:50:43.173 me what that represents that's showing their setback, the proposed setback line. So this is showing eight feet along here. Yeah, 25 and then 30 from the back. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. And the 244 00:50:43.173 --> 00:50:53.984 point that I wanted to make was when looking at the existing structure and the proposed structure, is that where those, you know, where those those setbacks are at their, their 245 00:50:53.984 --> 00:51:04.027 smallest amount are not in the same place. So I think it's important to distinguish that, you know, the 9.2ft on the current structure is quite a 246 00:51:04.027 --> 00:51:14.838 bit farther up the property than the eight foot on the other. And so I don't know what the distance is at that exact point, but it looks to be quite similar to to nine feet at that 247 00:51:14.838 --> 00:51:28.084 same spot as well. And so from the point of, you know, stated, you know, where there would be more, for lack of a better term, 248 00:51:28.084 --> 00:51:38.461 intrusion, inclusion onto the property next door. I don't know that that necessarily exists because those points aren't the same. I understand what I'm saying. Like the eight 249 00:51:38.461 --> 00:51:50.173 feet is much further back on the proposed closer to the water than where the 9.2ft is on the current structure. And so not knowing what that is. 250 00:51:50.173 --> 00:51:59.649 But I think if you look at that particular bit there, you can see just north of whatever that that carve out that that box on the top of the, on the top of 251 00:51:59.649 --> 00:52:12.162 that property line is, is where that 9.2 is in the current structure. And if you look at that, you can see that there's a bit of distance between that setback line and where the proposed structure is. Into my 252 00:52:12.162 --> 00:52:23.240 estimation, it's probably very close to what currently exists. And so I just as I noticed that, I felt compelled to share with you all as well. And, and feel 253 00:52:23.240 --> 00:52:33.650 free to make your own observations on it, but I, I did feel that that was again, a relevant point. Miss Keane, can you go to. I believe there is a different. This is the existing 254 00:52:33.650 --> 00:52:43.326 one. Yes. So, you know, as stated, where the existing home footprint is closer to the street as opposed to the 255 00:52:43.326 --> 00:52:55.238 proposed. That's going over closer to the bayou. And we know it's a pie shaped lot living on the street. I can say, 256 00:52:55.238 --> 00:53:01.177 you know, every lot on the street is unique and presents 257 00:53:01.177 --> 00:53:20.529 its own opportunity. When I look at this, I just see that we're looking at if they made all the medal standards and it 258 00:53:20.529 --> 00:53:30.006 seems like they did. And also we're going by this evidence, regardless of what's being presented right now. So I'm kind of like taking all that 259 00:53:30.006 --> 00:53:44.787 into consideration. Okay. Any other comments from the board? All right. As all board comments are now closed, I would like to ask the board for 260 00:53:44.787 --> 00:53:55.298 a motion on this item. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call? 261 00:53:55.298 --> 00:54:05.742 Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman, approve. Well, congratulations. Your 262 00:54:05.742 --> 00:54:17.220 application request has been approved. Okay, that closes the 263 00:54:17.220 --> 00:54:30.866 applicant section. Are there any minutes to approve from previous meetings? Yes, we do have three sets of minutes for 264 00:54:30.866 --> 00:54:42.178 you to approve. We have November, December, and I believe it was also March. Okay. Does anyone have any corrections on the previous 265 00:54:42.178 --> 00:54:55.892 minutes? All right. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meetings? I guess we can do it as a group 266 00:54:55.892 --> 00:55:07.771 approval if you want to or separately. But do I have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. November 25th. December 25th. March 20th 267 00:55:07.771 --> 00:55:18.648 six minutes. Do I have a second? I'll second. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner, approve. 268 00:55:18.648 --> 00:55:32.662 Chairperson Grossman, approve. Okay. Staff. Any comments or announcements? Sure, I have two. First, we do have one case on 269 00:55:32.662 --> 00:55:42.805 June's meeting, so everyone mark your calendars. June 24th. There's one application, and I just want to make you aware that last night the commission approved a series of amendments 270 00:55:42.805 --> 00:55:53.383 to our Land Development Code. And a lot of those kind of address several variances that you guys see every day. So some of the standards standards have changed to help remedy those. 271 00:55:53.383 --> 00:56:03.392 Some I was going to point out is for pools, we removed some restrictions as far as separation between the screen enclosure and the water's edge. That's a very common variance that's come before you. Some of 272 00:56:03.392 --> 00:56:13.970 the setbacks have been adjusted, allowing, you know, a screening closure to have a hard roof, certain encroachment that we've added those to kind of justify some of the variances. Another 273 00:56:13.970 --> 00:56:25.548 one is regarding our 100 setbacks. As you probably notice, a lot of variances are for the R 100 district. And there are a lot of non-conforming properties in the city. So we've combined 274 00:56:25.548 --> 00:56:35.291 essentially the R 100 and R 100 A zones and are utilizing the R 100 A setbacks are just slightly smaller, a little more consistent. And then the other 275 00:56:35.291 --> 00:56:48.171 one that is my favorite, we are able to now basically recognize nonconforming lots of record without coming to you all for a variance approval for someone to build on one. They still have to, you know, we still 276 00:56:48.171 --> 00:56:59.716 have to verify that it's, you know, a legal lot of record is not in violation, but they don't have to come here if they own the lot next door. So there's a lot of other updates that we did in there that we're 277 00:56:59.716 --> 00:57:10.527 excited about. But I just want to make you aware that you may not see some of the most common ones anymore. That's all I have. Okay, okay. Thank you very much. Does the board have any 278 00:57:10.527 --> 00:57:23.039 comments or announcements? Loving the nonconforming lot of record one. It's like it's platted in 1924. Come on, let's go. Very cool. Yeah. Any other 279 00:57:23.039 --> 00:57:31.714 comments or announcements from the board? All right. At this time I am adjourning the May 27th, 2026, City of Tarpon 280 00:57:31.714 --> 00:57:51.701 Springs Board of Adjustment meeting at 7:23 p.m.