Oh gosh, that's my fault. >> I'll get us started. Welcome to the City of Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board meeting for March 19th, 2026. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's card will
be available at the table over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented
under the public comments section of the agenda. Okay, if everybody would please um silence their cell phones and let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, Tia, if we could have a roll call. >> Daniel Billingsley
>> here. Chris Downing here. >> Grant Smith here. >> Marvin Shavelin. Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> And we do have a quorum, although it's only five of us. Approval of minutes. We have none. Status update on prior planning and zoning cases. Anything
happening, Brand Braden? >> No. You'll notice there's no uh printout update for you guys today. There were no identified updates for you guys that I could find on any of the cases that you guys have proved. >> Well, few of them will get going someday. The one that I've been keeping an eye on is the rally station and
they're going to lose their approval if they're not careful. Okay. Administration. Okay. Let's get into uh the hearing procedures first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um
so today on your agenda, you have I believe seven variance uh requests. Some of those requests have additional variances, more than one, and one site plan. And these type of land use approvals are quasi judicial in nature.
And this requires that your meeting today be a little bit more formal than you would generally uh conduct your meeting. Um it is quasi judicial so it is not as formal as the proceedings in circuit court but it does require that
you follow certain standards related to noticing of the items. the application of the correct standards that are found in your code of ordinances or excuse me, your land development regulations concerning variances and site plans and
that you base your decisions on competent and substantial evidence that will be presented to to you today either in written form or through oral testimony. Your responsibility as members of the planning board is to evaluate the
testimony and the evidence, the written information that is pre presented to you today and determine whether or not the criteria that is identified has been satisfied. So speculation, something that might happen, um, or just
someone's opinion has not been viewed as competent facts and should not legally be considered by you in evaluating your uh, decision on one of these agenda items. So the testimony by individuals who have been qualified as experts in a
particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by the neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports or testimony that is
based on their personal knowledge. Um, with that said, um, members of the audience, you have quite a group today. Um, if you intend to speak, please keep my my comments in mind. And when you come forward to the podium, if you would
state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in and your qualifications or your interest in the matter. So, for purposes of efficiency, I'd like to go ahead and ask staff um have the agenda items been
properly noticed. >> Yes, they have. >> And does anyone um on the planning board have a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on any of the items? >> Okay. So, we have a quorum present today, although you do have a few
absences. Um, at this time, uh, it would be appropriate for anyone in the audience and staff to be sworn in by the, uh, city clerk. If you intend to give testimony, if you're intending to give testimony,
please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're going to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. So, Mr. Chair, I believe we're ready for the first item.
>> Sounds good. Yeah, we uh those next you took care of the uh administration of oath, so we're good to go. >> And and I didn't do exparte though, but that's for each one. >> Well, any I will ask the question just to make sure it's on the record. Anybody
got any exparte communication on any of these cases? >> No. >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on. First item uh number 10 a variance 0000602-206 an application requesting a variance to
section 68- 561 to permit a reduction in the required alternate setbacks to allow a Duke meter platform at a new construction multifamily development. is the owner, the applicant
in the audience and please approach the podium and uh >> present your case. >> Richard is the one before that on the list. >> Went away. >> It went away. Okay. >> Went away. The uh Tia sent out an email and I guess
>> Right. I just didn't have the updated list here. Okay, I get it. >> You You got the It's updated on the hard copy. So, >> yeah. That was u an appeal of uh staff administration. Go ahead.
>> Hey, um Alex Milman. I'm the owner of 10126 Gulf Boulevard. We're here today for a variance or um alternate setback or setback because uh that after we have paid for and picked up our permit uh we've been notified by
Duke that they require a 5- foot wide uh platform to reach the meters that they're making us mount 9 ft in the air. So that's why we have gone through we actually had the permit approved with a three-foot variance on it already. you
you probably would be better to speak to this than I. >> I'll discuss that in my report. Absolutely. >> So that essentially Do you any questions that you might have for me? >> What is the name of your project again? >> It's called the Pearl. >> That's what I thought. I just >> 810 of a mile south. >> I've seen I've driven by it a 100 times.
Just wanted to confirm that was the right location. >> Okay. Thanks. Have a seat. We'll let the city uh Oh, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? >> Thanks. Go ahead, Braden. Thank you. For the record, Braden Evans,
uh, principal planner of the community development department, presenting case VR-0000602-2026. Uh, this is an application requesting a variance to section 68-541 to permit a reduction to the required alternate setbacks for a Duke meter platform. Um the required alternate
setback in this location is dependent on the structure height which being proposed is 57 ft. 30% of that building height is what's required for that alternate setback which comes to 17.1 ft. The 5ft Duke meter platform uh projecting into that setback will result
in a proposed 12.1 foot um uh setback and that's a 5-ft encroachment which is a magnitude of 29.2%. This is a aerial imagery of the subject property which is located at 10126 Gulf
Boulevard. The property is located in the RFH50 Resort Facilities High Zoning District. Aside from the applicable alternate setbacks which were discussed, this property has applicable setbacks of 25
ft from the street and then 7.5 ft from the interior side property lines. As we discussed, those alternative setbacks are applied to properties on the Gulf and are dependent on the proposed height of the structure.
Um, this uh this request is in addition to a site plan modification, a site plan approval and then a sub a sequential site plan modification that has already been approved by this board uh which did not um include the specified variance.
The property uh is currently vacant and is pending redevelopment uh pursuant to that site plan that this board approved in May 2024. As mentioned, that original site plan included no variance or setback encroachments. Um following that, permitting documents
um were submitted and did include the meter platform, but not consistently throughout the plan set. Uh due to this error um and inconsistency in the plan set, it was not um noticed essentially by staff. It was only located on a few
documents throughout the plan set. Uh primarily though, the Duke meter platform was not added onto the ultimate site plan of the property. Um following that review, a site plan modification was submitted to increase the height of the building, which also came before
this board and was granted approval. The documents submitted for that site plan review did include the Duke meter platform. However, uh standardly staff would have already reviewed those documents through the permitting system
and unless specified by the applicant, a secondary review of those documents wouldn't have been completed. Um and of course they were not. Um that addition of the Duke meter platform wasn't stated by the applicant. So it went unnoticed when it came before you uh for that
revision. Following that uh during after the site plan modification through the permitting process is when we notice that additional um encroachment from the Duke meter platform uh which resulted in the subject application before you today. Uh so the Duke meter platform encroaches
into the vertical setback ratio by 5T which results in a uh 12.1 ft setback from that northern property line. In regards to the variance criteria, uh staff has um determined the special conditions rel relative to uh this
application are um in regards to the circumstances of how the application came before you, not uh specific to the property itself. Uh strict application of the land development regulations would require that the applicant reconfigure their previously approved site plan uh to accommodate the required
electrical meter outside of the required alternate setback area. uh this requirement would not preclude the applicant from reasonable use of their property. Um and then the conditions resulting in the need for this variance are not the fault of the applicant but rather the sequence in
which the variance is being requested following site plan approval um and is attributed to the manner in which the plans were provided by the applicant. Um this is the minimum variance necessary to pursue the previously approved site plan uh allowing the
applicant to proceed with the development without reconfiguration of the proposed improvements. Um, in terms of neighborhood character, the surrounding neighborhood context consists of similar land use typologies with a generally consistent interior
setbacks. And the granting of this variance is considered in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter by promoting and protecting the convenience, moral, and general welfare of the people. Um, there's no evidence that this variance will impact the
neighboring parcels negatively. And with that said, uh, staff is recommending approval of this variance and I'm available if you have any questions. >> Okay. Any, uh, questions for the city staff? >> Seeing none, anyone in the audience, uh,
to speak to this case. Okay, seeing none, any other comments uh, from the applicant? Seeing none, we'll close the uh, public hearing and
we're open for board discussion. You know, generally I am against uh sideyard setbacks. The one thing that I will say that has beneficial for this one, it's in a resort facilities high district, which
is, you know, generally our hotel district. Right off hand, I don't recall the number of units being built here. Uh how many was it? Four. Four. >> Four. Okay. Four. Thank you. I just couldn't recall that. Um
>> any site and the site height ratio isn't being changed. If you were to exclude this particular stairwell, so it's not impacting. There's not really a building variance. It's just the stairwell. >> Yep. It's just for a Duke Energy
platform. Um, so in this zoning district, in a single family home uh zoning district, I might have a higher objection, but uh seeing none, would somebody like to make a motion?
>> Sure. I I'll move that the uh board approve uh variance 0000602-2026 um with the condition one that's listed on the uh document before us. Have a second. Okay. Motion by Chris
Downing, second by uh Grant Smith. Could uh we have a roll call vote, please. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. Okay, moving into the uh
next case 10B mod- 0000615-2026 site plan modification approval to amend the proposed alternate setbacks which is the same site the same situation. Does the applicant have any additional
comments? >> I believe same situation. >> Thank you Brandon. Go ahead. Okay, this is a concurrent site plan modification application for the previous property. Um, for the record,
it is application SM OD- 000-615-2026. Uh, seeking a site plan modification to amend the proposed alternate setbacks at a previously approved development. Again, we have some aerial photographs here of the property. Um the applicable setbacks again are 25 from the street, 7
and a half from the side property lines with those alternate setbacks uh requiring a 17.1 foot vertical setback ratio. This board just approved a variance to that. Uh we see here the site plan showing the Duke meter platform on the top left hand side which is the northwestern corner of the
property. Uh we have here the um uh proposed elevations. Uh as you can see the only changes to the previously approved modification are that um northern setback which the variance was just approved for and the uh marginal
increase to the impervious surface ratio that results from the footprint of the Duke meter platform. Um aside from the variance that was just approved all other me features of the site plan modification are in compliance with the land development regulations. Um, at
your request, I can go through the criteria, but there remain consistent with the previous two approvals that you guys have issued for this property. Um, I'm available for further conversation if needed. Um, the conditions of approval will be subject to that of the prior approvals that you issued to this
property. >> Thank you. Anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Uh any comments or Chris, would you like to make a motion on this case as well since
you made the first one? >> Sure. If there's not, I'll make the motion. Uh I'll move that we approve site modification 615-2026 with the three conditions that are listed on our development order. >> Thank you. The only comment I just want
to make it clear that this is for the Duke Energy platform only and you can't make the building larger in the future. We always have to guard against that. Can I have a second, please? Okay. Motion by Chris Downing, second by
Marvin Shavelam. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. Thank you. >> Okay, moving on. We have uh 10 C a
variance dash 0000604- 2026 an application requesting approval of four variances to section 68- 541 to permit reduced side waterfront and street side setbacks in conjunction
with structural elevation improvements. Is the applicant here? Please come and uh present your case. And before you start, I just have one statement. Is Sharon McClendon in the audience?
>> Is that for the 616 case? >> Yes. >> She she um saw that it wasn't on the agenda anymore and then she left. >> Okay. That's the reason I was asking because I I didn't want her to wait here. She didn't have to. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Uh, just trying
to make life better for one of our citizens. Go ahead with your presentation, please. >> Good afternoon. My name is Tom Butler. This is my wife, Sharon Butler. >> Sharon. >> And we live at 125706 Street East here in Treasure Island. I
actually prepared some uh >> someter packets >> for this. You can hand it up. >> Something I can hand out or not. It just has some photos and some of the setback um issues that we ran into >> in putting this together.
>> Thank you. I um while while Tom hands that out. Okay. I was just going to say um >> I'll be referencing some places in the packet and I I want to make sure everybody understands it's from the le lens of the resident and not pointing
fingers or anything just so you understand our journey where it felt like everything was moving in the right direction. So I'll let you go. >> Thank you. Yeah. I guess I I I spoke with Braden when we had the initial meeting before this. It was brought to our attention like on a Thursday
afternoon and Monday we were in and meeting with both Emily and Braden uh regarding the this problem that we have. Um I can say that we we fell in love with this area 40 years ago. Uh life happened. We only spent a couple years here. We moved back up north upon upon
our kids getting off to school. What's the plan? We want to go back to Treasure Island. So, we came back here to to build our for or to to live in our forever home. Um, in doing so, someone told me, "Hey, you got to be careful of flood mitigations and problems that are going to happen
down the line potentially." So, I started looking into lift treasure island. So, what does this even incorporate? What does this have to do with anything? And I did some research and found that we can actually lift houses up in the air. I thought it was a great idea. I love the look of my home. I love where I live. and I wanted to
maintain that same look and pick the house up. And of course, then we'd have some issues of getting in and out of said house. So, we made these improvements. Um, I can say that uh we did everything in good faith. It it wasn't anything nefarious on our part to try to, you know, create some kind of uh
monstrosity to the to the neighborhood or to the community. We wanted to just make it a better a better home, one that's safe from from floods in the future. Um, and so we did that. There were there were issues that we had in terms of uh uh the the setbacks, you know, in the
front particularly. And if you look at at the at at the page, I guess it would be page. >> Yes. >> Here it is. >> I'm sorry. Page eight. Eight. If you look down upon uh what what the home looks like because it's the end of a
culdeac, a rounded corner uh which kind of restricts how far out you can come. And of course, it's a 15t setback. But if you look where that 15t step back lands, I literally couldn't put a a a ladder up in my front door without having a variance uh necessary. Um, I
think one of the other uh mitigating circumstances there are regarding Darington is to keep a a look uh that that is right with the with the community and out front of the house are two giant royal palms and um they're literally four feet from the from the
front entrance way. So I wanted to come out beyond those trees and then do like a zigzag staircase to get down. But I was told that'll put you 4 feet further than you'll ever than they'll ever give permission for. So they they designed they being the the contractor that I had
do this work. I'll get around around the tree. And if you can see that photo on page 10 where the stairs wrap around these two giant trees. Um and then land. I was not crazy with that look. I don't
care for it, but it's what I was told would would be approved or I thought was approved uh moving forward. So, I said I'm going to have to do something about that to maintain a good clean look. And if you look at the page, I believe 14.
That is the landscape design that I had created. Of course, you can't expand that, but it will it'll block out with a a trellis that uh that section in in the front that's kind of a you know the stairs themselves um just to kind of beautify the area.
>> Um so I think the one thing we want to point out is that as we go through this journey, Tom spent a lot of time looking for the right lifter. Did all the due diligence on that. found modern movers, did all the background checks, started to engage with them. I do think our
timing was probably really critical to how we got as far as we did without any red flags is was um I think shortly after uh the hurricane um the permit that we had put in for a lift um we were asked if we wanted to per go forward. We
said absolutely yes. So throughout the process um I always say Tom's the mouth. He's out there talking to people and I'm the nerd behind the scenes looking at the technology and I found a lot of comfort in the portal that you have for Treasure Island. And so if you look at
page three, so imagine we're working with this builder, they're we're working with their engineers. They're submitting us plans. Um we're waiting for permits. We're waiting for communication. As I would follow this along in the portal, I
would see that um things were moving. Um, not only were things moving, we would also see where an inspector would come out and inspect the deck, inspect the stairs. Um, there was zero red flags brought to our attention. So, we're like, you know, obviously you had to
have patience no matter what. And we felt like, okay, so everything's going good. We we are we are people that follow the the rules. >> And so, uh, that night we got that email that said, >> we actually put in for a spiral staircase off the back deck. Like, okay,
let's get a spiral that will look good. And it'll be easy for us to eress because if you look at the pictures, anything we have done, we have only done to say how do we get out the doors that already existed. This is nothing like extra. This is like doors, sliders, back
door, front door. How do we address? And so the structure was built on that and we worked closely. In fact, as Tom said, when we got to the front stairs, they submitted us probably four different engineering plans because they said that um we'd have to keep within the uh the
setbacks. >> Also, if you look at page, where's the permit page? >> Okay, it's right here. If you look at page six, um this is the actual permit. Now, in the wording of it, again, I'm just a citizen. I I am not a lawyer. I'm
not any of it, but I'm looking at this going, "Wow, everything's in there." The scope is in there. >> The scope is in there. Actually, the scope was really big. And we said, "That's too big." We actually was shied the deck down quite a bit. >> That back deck was supposed to be uh 40t
long and 12 feet deep. I thought that was crazy. There was going to be columns, which I wasn't even made aware of any, but I said that'll look that'll look like nonsense. So we we trimmed it back to to what it is today with a cantal lever scenario. So we didn't have anything outside of the footprint
original footprint. >> And I can say that all this was all the the research and actually the signing of the contract was done before any storm ever hit. We were like like trailblazers in lifting the in lifting the house for the community. This is something that was I thought was good. It was a good
thing. >> Uh correct. And uh then we got the email that said, "I'm sorry, your spiral staircase variance can you need to seek a variance >> for everything >> and then, oh, by the way, all of the other things that you have need
variances, too." And it was like my job, there's a gut kick. It was like, "Oh my god, what have we done wrong?" >> immediately. Luckily, um Braden and Emily, uh we got that on a Thursday, they met with us on a Monday. We sat in the room and we went through everything and now we're here
today. Um, of course been just trying to go back in history and share with you the journey to where we are today. Um, but I'd also like to talk I know there's some key things here. You know, how does it um I know it's we have denials in the
packet which uh I want to speak to because when you talk about the neighborhood and how the neighbors feel like we we're Tom's very friendly, I'm friendly. They they love what we're doing. I think I don't have the stats, but if you looked at Sixth Street East
or that even right down, I would say that street is reviving much quicker than most because uh I think because we aggressively started doing stuff and I think it inspired people. I think they thought, you know, they see us going through this journey, it's it's not easy, but I feel like we've had inspired
people um to get out there and and make Treasure Island great again. And I um probably not the right quote, but I think that um that's one thing. And I think the other thing is in terms of uh us speaking so highly of why you should
without trying to promote it, I think if Tom had a dollar for every picture or someone that came up and asked us about the process, we' probably pay for the whole project. >> I have done so many tours of the of the house. I've encouraged so many people to to lift their house. Um, I can bet that there's people in the room that have
pictures of my house on their phone because it was something like that. It was people every day taking photos. Uh, we just want to be able to get into our house. I think the problem we have is is finding a way to get into the house that meets the requirements that that that that are set for us.
>> Since this red flag, we've been like looking at every at it and it's like scratching our head on how we could even fix it. Um and uh and this is our home. This is our primary home. We haven't obviously just like everybody else, we haven't been in it for 18 months.
>> Yeah. >> We keep renting houses to stay close. Um we thought we were like towards the finish line and now here we are today. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I'll start out with questions. I'm going to start out if you don't mind, Chris. I
actually I think Melvin had his question or Marvin has hand up first but your chair you get to go first. >> I just don't understand how you got to this point. >> Your house I mean this like you said it's one of the first ones and I drive
around the city just to look and see how people are doing and seeing how many houses are being raised cuz it's a heck of a process. Grant can tell you he raised his house and I'm just amazed you were able to get to this point because
your house is raised and you know I'm going to let city staff get into that. But my main question is just looking on page eight and your site plan. It appears that your four variances are for steps only. You are
not increasing the square footage of your house whatsoever. Is that correct? Correct. >> Okay. I just I just wanted to confirm that with that. Go ahead, Chris. >> That was my question and you've already answered it, so I appreciate that. And I think and we have all watched your house
go up, so I'm guilty of taking pictures. >> Go ahead, Marvin. >> So, when you submitted your plans, all these stairs were on the plans. >> I think there was there were different plans submitted that I think would decline. Uh so
>> what we found in retrospect was I think it was that the planning committee that's what they said uh plans were submitted without apparent we didn't know this by the way without like a deck or or stairs but then few months later in July which was well before a lot of
this uh the the plans to add the stairs and the deck and all that were sent and that was approved from a permitting perspective. So if you look at the the get permission to do stuff, it all has been approved from a permitting, but I guess it missing,
>> but it it was those were permitted with the exception of the spiral staircase that was asked for >> that wasn't on there and I think that's what kicked off >> that's what kicked this into gear. Right. >> Right. That's what flagged the >> Yep. >> So were the stairs that have been constructed, are they in compliance with
the building plans that were submitted and approved? >> They were these ones here. Yes. >> And there >> I believe so Braden I think maybe you can speak better to that that aspect. >> What was the question? >> Well, we'll let that be we're going to
have presentation. >> Let's go ahead and finish up with you guys. I can tell you this because that's a that's a that's a really good question in terms of >> like we said I can tell you that the inspector passed them when they came out >> that like all we have and that's why I
showed these documents is like did the plans meet what was delivered I can only assume yes >> whether that's true or not I don't know because >> she digs around on on the >> so on the drawing on the back of the house that's a back porch now that's okay that the spiral staircase is going
next too. >> Yeah. >> And the spiral staircase is the same depth from the house as the porch that was already approved within that. >> And you said that you've had multiple inspections and everything's passed on the rest of the stairs. >> That's what the >> without seeing the actual inspection
reports. You're saying that it's they've been out there and it's passed. >> Yes. If you Well, I you told me because I I again I I assume I don't know the the the the nuances of how things go in the >> I see what you're saying about the spiral staircases within that. It's it doesn't spiral staircase gets submitted
after the Yeah. So the spiral staircase doesn't doesn't extend any further than the deck that you >> No, no, it's it's >> that's out there. That's within and that deck is within the setback. >> It it it's so the the deck is a can lever deck. So it's comes out, but I put it I proposed putting it to the left of
the uh of the uh of the deck extension. So it contains >> Right. I see that. >> But the deck was approved on the plans when you got permit. >> Yeah. for the bigger deck. >> They go back. >> We have to cut it back cuz they were talking to put put columns. I was like, "Enough of the column." >> Yeah, I saw the canal lever that you
have on that in person. That's >> Here's a question for you. Did you receive any red tags at all during your construction? Any any stop work orders. >> There was one time we came in because I wasn't getting answers and so I I've been into the into the office here a number of times and all a sudden I I
came in one day met with a friend. They said, "Oh, the the uh uh the the zoning department is is not in today." And so then Jackie Gabriel was here. And she says, "Uh uh" she says, "Let me get you some information. You can fill this stuff out when we are open." So I said, "Okay." So I'm grabbing it. And so she
says, "So do you live here in town?" I said, "Yeah, I'm at the end of six feet." She says, "Wait a minute. You're at the end of one, two, you know, you're 125 AC. We're about to shut you down." I said, "What?" And so then I said, "What are you talking about?" She goes, "Yeah, you guys are in violation of this, this, and this." So immediately I called up
Jeremy Patterson, got him on the phone. We went into a private room and Jackie and and they talked they set up an appointment the very next day and to hash hash this out and then that's when we got the the the permitting with all the list of
everything that was okay to go. >> So we thought >> but I don't think it was okay to go now that I'm I'm sitting here in front of you. >> But the the result of that meeting didn't result in a stop order. >> No. No, it didn't. >> Okay. >> Did not. Yeah, that's that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh, any other questions of the
applicant? All right. Why don't you have a seat? And Braden, go ahead with your u presentation. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. Uh, for the record, Braden Evans, uh, presenting case V-004-2026. Uh this application consists of four
variances to section 68-541 to permit reduced side waterfront and street side setbacks uh in conjunction in conjunction with structural elevation improvements. On the street side, the standard setback required is 15 ft. What's being proposed is five. That's a
10-ft variance. On the uh west side setback, the required uh setback is 7 1/2 ft. Uh 4.9 is being requested. on that east side uh where seven and a half feet is required 3.4 feet is being requested and on the waterfront setback
where 25 ft is required a setback of 13.7 ft is being requested. Uh so the subject property was originally constructed in 1961 and contains uh just over 4,000 square ft of living spaces. Uh the proposed variance requests are in response to after
the-act improvements which were completed in conflict with the approved building permits uh for the ongoing elevation. Uh the original permit issued to the applicant in March 2025 for the elevation of the structure showed all applicable land development regulations being met which required no variances
and utilized the single um allowable encroachment for a staircase. uh the work compli uh completed on-site reviewed during a field inspection was not consistent with the approved plans and that um is what prompted this subject application.
>> Which staircase was being um approved at that point? >> I'll in a later slide I'll show that. >> So here on the slide just establishing this is in the RU75 zoning district. The property address is 12570 6th Street East.
>> Uh we've got some uh aerial imagery of the lot. Uh this is before the lift started and this is the current state of the lift from the street side view and the um southwest vantage point showing the interior side of the property. Um
again before and afters here as well up close. Uh so here we see the original site plan that was approved for the property. Um we have the one staircase on that s on that um interior side there which meets
all setbacks and then the front staircase providing access to the home is was using that allowable encroachment. Um so this site plan was approved and required no variances to the board. >> I'm not sure I understand that front
staircase that was approved. >> There's a switch back. >> Yeah, I I don't see it on the drawing. I I'm trying to understand that. Is that that yellow? It's the yellow big square. Yeah. Um this is the way that they were illustrated on the plans, but but but the yellow
>> All right, I'll let you >> does make it hard to see. I >> agree. >> Um so this here is the plan that is being proposed today. Uh we see the 5-ft street side setback for the front staircase which wraps around the existing um palm trees and located in
the front yard. Um on this side we see the 4.9 ft western side setback being proposed. The opposite side an additional staircase uh requesting the three 3.4 ft eastern side setback and then along the
waterfront property for that um deck and the spiral staircase uh resulting in a 3.7 foot waterfront setback. Uh the land developments do allow one staircase to be uh to utilize an allowable encroachment. However, this uh
requires the stair to be no wider than 3 ft in width and none of the four staircases being proposed or which have been developed at the property would comply with that uh requirement, thus not being applicable for the allowable encroachment requiring a variance from
this board. So, the basis of this request is uh the result of these improvements and the preferred resulting configuration of the applicant. Um, an approved permit was previously obtained to conduct the needed elevation without variance approvals, um, indicating there are no
special conditions or circumstances at the subject property. Strict application of the land development regulations would not prohibit reasonable use of the land as the applicant would be required to adhere to their previously approved site plans which uh, permitted reasonable use of the site. Um in terms
of peculiar conditions and circumstances um the improvements were completed at the subject property without permit approval uh which is a result of the actions completed either by the contractor representing the homeowner. Um so again because permits were prior
approved for the property um allowing full reasonable use of the property uh no variances are required to make reasonable use of the land. Um so in terms of redevelopment, the applicant is seeking to come into FEMA compliance. Um and the neighborhood overall consists of
existing single family structures. Uh generally characterized by consistent streetside setbacks of approximately 15 ft. Um the proposed streetside setback of 5T would be uncharacteristic of the existing context uh throughout the neighborhood.
The land development regulations are designed to promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, convenience, moral, and general welfare of the people. Uh approval of these requested variances would be in conflict with the intent and purpose of the chapter overall. Um
and as far as uh injurious to the neighborhood uh context, staff has determined that this the requested variances, specifically the street side variance, um would have an impact to the overall context of the street. With that being said, staff's
recommending denial of all four variances before you today. Uh if you have any questions, I am here for you. >> Okay, I'll start out. Braden, you know, the minimum width, and I just Googled it for a set of steps is 36 in. And you
were saying these steps are how wide? >> I believe they're four feet. >> Four feet. Um, you know, this is a massive house and it was one of the ones that, uh, I think it's the biggest house that's being
raised on the whole island. My question is, how do we get to this point without stop work orders being issued? I just don't understand that at all. If something's going wrong, I mean, let's face it, if
this man had to make corrections to these stairwells right now, it would cost him a heck of a lot of money. And I just don't understand what happened to our building department, why they didn't say, "Hey, you can't do
this. you got to stop and you got to fix it. Where were we? >> So, from my understanding, the original plans, as shown in the slideshow, were approved based on different configuration. Uh, and the work began with the zoning and permitting
department, assuming that that was a configuration being built on site. uh revisions were submitted uh which included those those um additions, but they the scope of work did not indicate a need for a zoning review based on how the contractors indicated the work being
done on the property. >> Can you can you restate because that's the important point here on this one. I'm not sure. >> Yeah. And I definitely don't want to misstate anything. I I think it'd be best if I called uh my my counterpart Emily Ellis. she uh the uh she over she's our planning manager and she
oversees most of the permitting from the zoning side. >> And I guess one thing before you go any further, can you go to that slide, the original submitt? >> Yes, >> Chris and I both had
That's not the original. That's >> going back a bunch of There we go. >> That one I mean like uh Mr. Downing was saying the the one out front there is very vague. It really doesn't reflect a reasonable solution. I mean, the man
did have two gorgeous royal palms out front that he made the effort to uh maintain and I don't even see him on that plan. >> Yeah. Again, this was just the plan that was originally submitted to the permitting department which was approved
uh and the improvements that were expected to be done on the property were based off of this plan. >> And the and the variance of the setback on the front on that plan for that front staircase is how much? >> So there wouldn't have been a variance for this one because the allowable
encroachment was applied to it because the stairs were narrow enough to qualify for that allowable encroachment. And that allowable encroachment was how much? >> I don't know the answer to that question offhand. I >> because in looking at the diagram up
from here, just eyeballing it, it's already it was already encroaching. >> It would have been back as was originally approved. >> Correct. To some degree. I I understand that now because of these two palms and
the way it was actually constructed, it's further than what was on this one. But it was already encroaching. Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody right >> correct. Okay. Go ahead, Emily. >> So,
player for a minute. I'm sorry. The short version was the property. This is their front setback line. The property started out almost already at their setback line. Their rear setback was already the house was already over what the setback was prior to the storm which
obviously we allowed the existing encroachments to remain. So they were already up against finding a solution for stairs when they lifted it because their entrance was already on their front setback. This was approved. Um they had initially
submitted plans prior to this. This was I believe the second or third revision um that finally met the setbacks as was required by the lot. It was approved. it was issued at this point and then they
went out and the revision actually states, I can find it for you real fast that um revisions were made per field review with the project manager
and engineer. So, they had gone out and already built this and then they resubmitted them as um a change in the stair configuration with dimensions and it went through a building review to ensure that they were structurally
sound, but it did not at that point go through a second zoning review. So, when they added onto the deck and the stairs in the back, it's what triggered the initial >> I get itching of
So, it was already with an issued permit. Um, the code enforcement at that point was not looking for them to do it incorrectly. >> So, that's why there was never a stop work order on the property. >> They had an issued permit.
>> A quick question, Emily. >> Yes, sir. >> These were the original site plans that were submitted and approved. >> Yes, sir. There was not another set of site plans that were submitted prior to the spiral staircase. >> There was in July. It was the ones that
um Braden showed you, the second set with all of the those. >> And were these approved? >> No, sir. They never went back through another review because they submitted them as a change of dimension as per field review with the project manager. Okay.
>> So, planning didn't see them? >> No sir, we saw them. But the building didn't see >> the slide before >> the building did see the >> the previous set of plans. You said there was a couple other sets of plans before because they were trying to meet
the setbacks, right? >> Yes, sir. So, >> they were familiar with the That's concerning to me. They're familiar with the setbacks. They knew there were setback issues and then they come back with that. It's just not a good look.
>> Yes, sir. Um the it was the I'm looking for you. It was the third set of revisions that finally came back with this where they met the setbacks um and passed the zoning review.
So this was the third revision of plans that they submitted for this project. And so the left side that was approved on this site plan >> I'm trying to understand the changes >> on the actual today.
>> So >> why and why there's now an increase. I guess >> what got added was a lift. So an elevator got added here. >> Okay. >> Submitted as a separate permit and it never told anybody where it was. So it
never went through building, >> but the city's building department didn't send it back to zoning. >> And then they added the stairs over here. They just a little bit.
>> But again, they've submitted a permit to do a change to do this with the building department and the building department did not send it to permitting to to planning and zoning for review. They gave us We got the set of stairs
and the deck when they did their revisions on those >> and and the building department approved those. >> Yes. No, sir. >> No. >> No. That's how we got here. >> I thought it was the spiral staircase that got them got it. Okay. But the >> We have four separate five permits open.
>> Yeah. I guess there's a lot of sequence here. But >> Yes, sir. Again, the stairs on the not the sp spiral, but the stairs on the right hand side >> were never were never put on a permit. >> Those were never those were not part of
a approved building permit change. >> No sir, those were the ones that were submitted with that field revision after they built it >> with the spiral staircase. >> No, spiral staircase is a separate. >> Okay. Different contract.
>> Okay. So, so again I'll the there was a requ there was a submitt for that staircase on the right >> along with the staircase changes in the front. >> Yes, sir. >> And those were approved by building. >> Yes. But not zoning.
>> But building did not send it over to planning and zoning for review. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> I'm just trying to get the timeline and and why this fell through the crack. Yes. >> Okay. Is that would should they have sent it to zoning? >> It Yes, sir. It should have gone. Um the
way it was presented was that it was a change of dimension. So, it should have been presented, but it was um it said that it was for steel supports and can lever decks and deck supports and that goes
through building. That the the support system doesn't actually come through zoning. There was no reason for that to have in and of itself. >> If you put something if you put a canal levered whatever on the side of a structure, there's a chance that it's going to
violate the planning and the the zoning. So it would if they're submitting a anything that would be approved by building for that's can it doesn't have to be on the ground. If it's can lead to should the city should still be reviewing it for zoning, >> I believe.
>> Absolutely. I was just going to say I believe the issue there was that the scope of work indicated that the cantal lever already existed. They were changing the dimensions of the support of the existing cantal lever. So the scope of work indicated that the cantal lever was already approved when it
wasn't and that they were just changing the dimensions of the the the structure supporting it. Uh which is I believe how I got mixed up. >> Yeah. without re-reviewing the entire previous submitt, it wouldn't have caught that what they gave us wasn't
actually what was there. >> I I I think I understand the process problems here. Yeah. >> Okay. I got a real quick question and Emily, maybe you can answer it. Um, stop work orders. They have a uh reason. I mean, if something's wrong, if
something is obvious, like I've been out to this house, obviously the front steps cuz I did not go into the yard. I only looked at it from the street and obviously the front steps are in the setback a lot. I mean it's a third it's
twothirds of the way into the setback. Do you know why no stop work orders were issued on this house? >> Um the short version sir is there just the amount of volume if there was an active permit on the property. We weren't checking
for individual like pieces of work. >> And that's, you know, that's part of my problem here is the fact that a timely stop work order would have prevented this house to reach the point that it's darn close
to uh certificate of occupancy time. I mean, this house has been under construction for well, it's been 17 months since the storm. It's been under construction for over a year. Um, any other questions of the city staff?
>> Good. >> Okay. We have one card in regard to this from Mr. Alan Warrington. >> Good afternoon. Um, my name is Alan Warrington. I live at 125563 East right next door to Sharon Butler
and I just want to make a comment. They've worked hard at this home. We if we had a problem with it, we would have spoken up a long time ago. We think the house is beautiful. It's uh it's aesthetically nice. Looking at it from
our sideyard, it's big. Yeah, sure. Any twotory ours is a split level, but we love the home. love the way it's taken place. And if I'm gonna be perfectly honest with you, I don't want to come down a two or threetory house if I'm their guest on a three- foot wide
stairway. So I don't have any objection to the fact that their stairs are a little further over and encroach maybe on our view or something. So >> which side which side of the house are you in? The east side or the west side? >> We're on the east side. >> East side. Okay. >> You're to the right, right?
>> That's correct. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions of city staff or the applicant? >> No. >> Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. I think y'all can tell what my
problem is. You know, this uh family was going forward. This is a big house. There's no doubt about it. You know what I am seeing is a safety situation. You know, it boils down to safety, safety, and safety. This house
feels full of smoke. You don't want to be crawling along on the floor trying to find a set of steps to get out of your house before you die of smoke inhalations. This there are four sets of steps and it appears to me that the encroachments
into the setbacks. Oh, it's steps. It's that elevator in the front. It's ingress egress. I don't like the way it's done. There's been miscommunication big time on this house. I mean,
I drive around this city a lot and you see stop work orders on houses that aren't supposed to be doing what they're doing. I mean, that's what they're for. And it's to prevent what happened here to make corrections.
It's going to be number one expensive. Are there solutions? I don't know. Braden, did uh did anybody come up with solutions for this guy? I mean, he can go out there and cut start cutting steps down from four foot wide
to three foot wide. Uh you know, I would have loved to come up with some solutions beforehand um when they were in the design phase. I I think I could have come up with some some really good options for them to do so with more minimal variances. But I'm exactly as you're saying um at this
point the solutions are there there's really one solution. It's removal of the existing developments and and reconstruction of them. >> Well, you were you weren't even here when this house started construction. >> No, sir. >> And uh >> and you you made a I think you asked the question earlier
the owners of this property in doing this lift have not increased their livable square footage in any way. um all of this is for egress and I you bring up the safety points. I agree with that in a house this size. So I I agree
there could have been a lot of things probably done a little different and maybe a little less encroachment into the setbacks. Um but the um lack of um oversight by planning and and zoning
uh you know responsibilities on the city uh as this was going going forward. There was certainly apparently some miscues of where it we didn't those reviews didn't happen. So my my tie goes to the to the owner in this case. >> You know, the problem I'm having with it
is, you know, you just can't penalize the owner because the city was overwhelmed. There was no doubt. We all know what happened. I mean, you got your permit, you were happy. And did the city
have enough staff to cover every little bit and piece? No, they didn't. But I don't think this owner should be penalized because of that. I mean, this house should never have gotten to this point without I
mean, it's got a big red stop sign on it and it's a piece of paper. I've seen I've seen a dozen of them around my neighborhood and so they do get issued and uh I don't like the fact that uh we're at the point of doing after the
fact variances. It's not supposed to work this way. If we're going to have variances, we should have had them before construction ever started. You know, that first set of plans, I don't even see how you could have approved that because the double
switchback that is currently on the front uh steps, I mean, it's got two 90° turns, which is not the best of situations, but it's what is required otherwise. >> Yeah, you would be in the street. >> Steps would be out in the rightway. I
don't know if it'd be in the street or not, but uh regardless >> of it straight out, >> I don't like the whole process, but >> but one thing, you know, just to add to what you were saying before about the the architectural part of this is that, you know, we've been looking at these
variances and making sure that as a part of what was happening that we weren't penalizing the owner for the architectural view of the home. So I think whatever we do is also trying to make sure that we
give some, you know, allowance for that hardship to ensure that they're allowed to rebuild in in a way that doesn't harm the architecture of the house. Um, so again, I'm I'm in favor of the four variances in this case. Well, the one
thing is we'll make a add a condition if this is approved that the house will never be even if it's torn down in the future that this these variances are for ingress and eress stairways and elevators only. You know, that's how we have qualified every variance that we've
issued for raised houses. Um I'm not sure we have to put that as a condition because I think we discussed legally earlier that that that's the case with all of these that we're doing. Yeah, >> I don't mind putting it on there, but I'm not sure if it's required. That's >> I just want to make sure. >> But if you want to make sure I have no
problem with adding that >> for this way, there was a case. >> No, it doesn't it doesn't hurt. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Where a guy was coming back in for a second various and he said, "No, I got a variance for the whole side of the house." No, you didn't. >> It doesn't this doesn't apply to the lot. If I could
>> applies to the structure >> in response to you you making those requests at previous meetings. I I did do always make sure to say that these variances are specifically for structural elevation improvement. So that would not include new construction
even if elevated. It is strictly for the the circumstance at hand. Well, as much as this man has uh this family has put into this house to raise it so far, they don't need a bigger house. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong, but it's a
big house and it is a heck of an undertaking to raise this. >> So, would we like to at this point consider all four variances at the same time or do we need to separate them individually? Uh the only other question I would have is is as a part of these
variances if we approve and maybe I just haven't read it in detail that if we approve all four it would include allowing to put this spiral staircase in the back next to that that they've put on their plan with that's within the as
far that it goes back as far as that that back deck or back balcony. That's a part of this, right? >> That's correct. They're they're at the same projection from the facade. >> And I guess again I think everything there's nothing here that they've done that is hurting this house from they've
done a good job architecturally on it. So I'm fine. Okay. >> So all four of them together. >> Yep. Okay. >> As far as I'm concerned, I don't >> you know in my mind the the spiral staircase in the back is the last less honorous of the four variances. But if
you if you look at it, uh east side says the steps, west side steps in the elevator. Uh the worst variance of the whole bunch is the one in the front. But there's not, you know, that's the one I could see visually the best. There's no other way to do it
>> right >> without taking out those two uh palm trees. And I'll give them a break for those nice palm trees. >> So with that, Chris, since you had the most to say, do you mind making a motion? >> Sure. be happy to um just make sure I guess
you've asked everybody if we're finished with discussion. >> Yeah. >> Yep. All right. Um and Nancy, can I do this as a single motion for all four? >> Yes. So, what I was going to share with um the board is that working with
Braden, um he and I, we have separated out your variances. If you look on page 51 of your packet, um, because in the past we did have, uh, a variance application that had multiples and then it was like approved in part, denied in
part, but I don't have an issue if you would like to make one motion for all of them. Okay? Because it is all approvals. >> Okay, that's fine. Then I'll I'll handle it that way. Thank you. Uh so I would move that this board approve all four
variances that are part of this application. Variance 0000604-2026 uh with the conditions that are stated in the order. >> Okay. Could I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Chris Downing, second by
Daniel Billingsley. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. And one thing I wanted to point out because I forgot to tell the first case. If you receive an invoice from the city
of Treasure Island on this case or any of you applicants, don't pay it. It's a scam that has been running around. Hopefully, we pretty much nipped this situation in the bud. But, uh, be sure to ask somebody or even me, you know,
should I pay this bill? And the answer is no. Don't pay it. because there were some significant invoices going out and it was an internet scam. So, just be aware of that. Thanks. Go finish your house.
Okay, next case. Um number 10D variance 0000605-2026 variance of var approval of a variance request to section 68541 granting a 3.9 ft variance to the
required side door setbacks for a staircase in conjunction with structural elevation improvements. If the applicant is in the audience, please approach the podium and uh make your case. >> Hi, I'm Bonnie CS. Um,
we have a house as big as the one you just approved, but we're lifting and um, we're asking for uh, a staircase off what will be the balcony raised on the main level for egress
going down to the pool level. Now I'm looking at Oh, there's stairs. I'm wondering >> constructed just >> okay anybody on the board have any questions of the applicant >> I'll just ask the standard question we
ask I mean and this change that you're elevating the house you're not adding any square footage to the home >> gosh I got too much as it is >> afford my house today >> okay thank you >> had it 10 years ago >> okay thank you please have a seat and
Braden go ahead with your presentation kids are going to give me. >> Uh, for the record, Braden Evans presenting case V-005-2026. Uh, this application consists of variance request to section 68-541 granting a 3.9 variance to the required
sideyard setback for a staircase in conjunction with elevation improvements. The side setback required here at this parcel is 10 ft. What's being proposed is a 6.1 ft setback um from a 3.9 ft variance. We have some aerial images of the uh
property here located at 101 38 Yacht Club Drive. Um the applicable setbacks 40 from the street, 10 from the side, 30 from the rear. It's located within the RU75 residential urban zoning district. The property contains a two-story single
family residence uh constructed in 1956 with approximately 4,300 ft of living space. Uh the applicant's proposing a staircase which provides access from the existing footprint of the porch to the rear yard. Um a portion of the proposed staircase is going to project into the
sideyard setback. Um so currently the land development regulations allow one allowable encroachment for staircases. Uh this is being utilized for a proposed juke meter platform circled in green here. Uh and then the requested 2.4 foot variance
reduced um uh sideyard setback is shown here. Um and I'll also note that there were some um alternative designs uh presented to staff and and this was the um conclus conclusive least intensive variance
possible. Um so the applicant did take uh measures to to try and find an alternative that was uh the least magnitude request to you today. Uh the basis of this request is a result of the shape of the parcel and the applicable flood elevation requirements. Uh as you notice the parcel has kind of
sloped property lines resulting in a narrower uh total lot width towards the rear of the property. uh strict application of these regulations would not allow for uh exterior egress to be maintained in the same configuration following elevation. Um and then the requirements to meet the
minimum flood elevation are you know result in these peculiar conditions which result in the need for a variance and of course not at the fault of the property owner. Um so alternative proposals which required uh both side and rear setbacks were considered. um
the additional component of that alternative uh scenario originally presented did include an additional variance to that rear uh waterfront setback. So this was um a little bit better of an option in that sense. Um the surrounding neighborhood context exists of similarly configured single
family structures uh which have gone or most likely will undergo um elevation improvements um with generally consistent uh interior side setbacks. The request is um in harmony with the intent of the chapter and no evidence
was available that this would present any um negative impacts to the neighboring uh properties or the neighborh neighborhood. Uh so with that being said, staff's recommending approval of the subject variance. Um that concludes my presentation.
>> Okay, questions for the city staff. I'll start out with real easy one. page 74 of the packet. Uh that's the site plan which you showed earlier. All we're talking about is uh that corner clip in
the norththeast corner. Do you agree with that? >> That's correct. >> Okay. I mean, once again, these guys spend a lot of money to uh raise their houses. They got to be able to get into it and it's got to be safe. I mean, the
rule is you got to have at least two sets of steps, so we can't object to this one very much. >> Okay. Any other I don't have any cards for this one. Um, >> no, I'm gl I'm glad the city worked with the the owner to see what would be the
least, >> you know, disruptive in in terms and still make it work. So, appreciate that. Absolutely. Been trying to do that as much as we can with all these uh owners. Okay. Any other questions? We'll close the public hearing. Uh any comments of
the board? If not, um I don't see any major problems with this one. Who would like to make a motion? >> I'll do it. >> Okay. Go ahead, Marvin. >> Uh regarding case number V-005-2026. Uh the planning zoning board has determined that the variance request to section 68.541
granting a 3.9 foot variance to the required set side setbacks for a staircase in conjunction with the structural elevation improvements uh does meet all of the requirements and approves the variance
as with the following conditions. Condition number one, the proposed improvement shall substantially be consistent with the plans prepared by contract CAD Services Inc. dated nine 21326. >> Okay, thank you. Could I have a second?
Okay, second. Uh motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Grant Smith. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Dawning, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. All right, we'll move on to the next case
is >> Did you say something? >> No, I was just She was asking a question. I was just saying yes, you're good. >> Go raise your house. >> Go raise your house. >> All right. Uh, we'll move on to 10E. Variance 0000606-206.
Approval of a variance request to section 68-541 granting a 4.9 ft variance to the required sideyard setback for a staircase in conjunction with the structural
elevation improvements. Okay. Is the applicant in the audience? >> I don't believe he is. >> What address is that? I'm representing >> Oh, yes. I believe it's it's a the 11160.
>> My name is Sh Romano with Down Under Construction. I'm representing the owners that are from the address, uh, Ed and Michelle Stove. Uh, they're going to be elevating their their house as well as all the other ones that you've that that you've heard. Um, from what I know
on the side, we have an existing door in a garage that due to the elevation, they would like to keep the door for egress from the garage area itself. So, we would need about four to five about five feet for that. And the garage is
actually going to the garage egress door will act is going to actually uh piggyback with the Duke Energy meter reader platform. So, it's all on the one side of the house right there. And then Braden, you probably know the rest. Okay, >> sir.
>> Okay, thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Sounds pretty standard. Go ahead, Braden. Please have a seat and we'll uh >> Thank you. >> get back with you. >> Uh Braden Evans presenting V-006-2026. This is an application requesting a
variance um to section 68-h 541 requesting a 4.9 foot variance of the required sideyard uh for a staircase in conjunction with structural improvements. Uh the side setback required at this property is 10 ft. What's being proposed is 5.1 ft
resulting in a 4.9 ft variance. We have a aerial image of the property here located at 11160 Fth Street East. Uh the property is located in the RU75 zoning district. As mentioned, there are 10-ft interior side setbacks here.
Uh the subject property was constructed in 1963 and is seeking a variance for structural improvements. Um so currently the land development regulations allow one set of stairs to encroach into the setbacks. Um, and this is being applied
to the front staircase as a result of this being the least intrusive uh encroachment and the requested 4.9 ft in reduced front yard setback is located on the side of the home here. Uh the special conditions of this
property uh resulting in this request is um the structure being built to the extent of the applicable setbacks uh prior to the flood elevation requirements. Strict application of the land development regulations would inhibit the ability to pursue those uh elevation improvements and to come into
compliance with flood elevation standards. And these conditions are of course not the uh fault of the applicant. The proposed variance is determined to be the minimum variance necessary both uh to provide access to the home but also to meet the minimum dimension
requirements for the Duke uh energy meter um located on that side of the house. Uh the applicant is seeking to uh meet our compliance requirements for chapter 66 of the code for flood elevation and the existing neighborhood
character is generally consistent with the proposed setbacks. Um, this request is in harmony with the chapter of the code and uh won't present any injurious impacts to the neighboring property. With that being said, staff is recommending approval uh for the subject
application. >> Okay. Any questions? >> Yeah, city staff. >> I I have a question. I'm trying to understand the front stairwell on this one. Um, it appears that the steps go right up to the door. That's probably
maybe Is that drawing incorrect? Um, I'm wonder because you you can't really have a front door and the have steps right at that door. There's no landing. >> Yeah. I think that's the the way that this site plan is illustrated, the whole
footprint of the house is shaded gray, but there there's actually like a exterior foyer that you would land in. It's just the entire footprint of the building is is shaded gray. Um, so I think >> So you're saying there's a covered there's a covered um >> I I do believe
>> area that's going to be a deck there or a landing between that staircase and the front door. >> I do believe so. Yes. Because that's definitely something that would >> Okay. >> I for sure would have would have considered and spoken about if it wasn't that way. >> Well, I guess in the interest of things
not getting past us, you know, for I think it would be a good idea just for building to review that. >> He's got an elevation here. And I >> if you look at page >> Yeah, maybe there's something else that I didn't see. >> There's an elevation that shows it. >> What? Oh, that >> there's a separate
>> Where is that? >> It's the last >> doesn't give a good page number. There you go. >> I don't I don't see that. >> A 103 drawing A103. >> Maybe I'm looking at the wrong >> I think I'm looking at the wrong drawing. I'm sorry. Yeah,
>> there's architectural plans, but then there's a >> elevation drawing. I think I'm I must be looking at the wrong >> Look at page 101 in that vicinity. >> Okay. Oh, I see a landing on here now. Okay.
>> Got it. Okay. >> Sure. >> So, so originally they were going to leave the stairs there, but it was too much in the setback from what I understand from the owners. So, they're actually moving. This is all part it will be part of plan review. This is uh
they're moving cutting the front door back three or four feet so that they're moving their staircase into their house not to impact the front uh not to impact the front set back you know so severely. >> Okay. >> So so they actually moved the whole
front door into the house about >> I see >> I think 3 to 5t by the same width. So actually making the footprint of their home a little smaller by the 15 square feet, >> but it does give them that that area of, you know. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that makes sense.
>> One question before for you before you leave >> and my iPad screwed up. The uh elevation shown on what's about page 101 of the packet, is that a correct representation of what's going to end up out there?
Uh 101 for me is is a floor plan right there. >> But this is actually an elevation. >> Uh I don't have I'm not seeing that. Let's see. >> One street, right? >> Braden, can you put that up on the
>> I can Oh, I see the elevation drawings. >> I don't know. I'm >> I'm seeing A201. I'm seeing that one. If you if you go >> that's showing the front. So that would be the correct >> elevation. You know where it is.
>> That would be the front with sort of a angled elevation and it does show the uh electrical meter on the side and it is page 101 in our packet too. >> Okay.
Again, I don't represent modern movers. Those are the guys lifting the home. These are the engineers that are doing it. I'm the interior contractor that's going to be on the project with them doing the inside. So these plans that that I have now I don't think I'm not
sure >> you get these these I think you did right most recent one. >> Was this the elevation you were looking for the drawing? >> That is it. >> Yeah. The one that I'm seeing these are >> on the right hand side. >> Mhm. >> That gives a good representation of what we're looking at. It is something. It's
pretty creative. I mean, you go up and have a landing for your doorway and then you go up more to the uh electrical meter, >> right? >> That was kind of what I was talking about when we would have a two- stage
uh stairway for an AC unit too back when we were talking about those. So, I do like the solution there. And once again, and I'm just stating the obvious that that would that this variance would be for stairway only, nothing more.
Okay. Any other questions or anybody in the audience to speak to this one? I do not have a card for this one. Okay. Based on that, we will close the public hearing. Once again, this is just a uh yeah, it's good to see all these
houses being raised in Treasure Island. Um if Elaine ever comes back, maybe we uh won't have as much problems. But with that, any further comments from the board or can I have a recommendation? A motion for some sort of
recommendation. Chris, >> go for it. I don't have the right page, so I'm gonna pass, but I'm in favor. >> Move that we approve variance uh 605-2026 with the conditions stated.
>> Second. >> All right. Motion by Grant Smith, second by Chris Downing. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Yes. >> Chris Downing. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin. >> Yes. >> Richard Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And your name was Joe Romano,
right? >> Romano. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Did have your card. All right. We'll move on to the next one. I'm getting better at this. 10F variance 0000607-2026.
An application requesting approval of four variances to section 68541 to permit reduced side, rear, and street side setbacks in conjunction with the structural elevation improvements at an
existing multifamily development and obviously the applicant is at the podium. Go for it. Um, good afternoon board. My name is Joe. Um, I'm a resident. I give you a little background. I've been here a little under seven. originally came down here a little under seven years with my now
wife. Uh we got married on the beach here. We had a daughter here. She was 10 months at the time of the storm. She's now two. Uh prior to the storm, we had uh sought out a quote to to do the elevation um because of the concerns about flooding with having a young child
here. Um unfortunately, which wasn't wasn't the right time and we didn't do it soon enough. But uh you know we we have been living in Gulfport um in a rental and we've been renting out our house here since it got fixed. We applied for the Elevate Florida program
initially and unfortunately spent wasted a lot of time uh waiting for that to to uh to deny us. And so we decided in September after we were denied for that to to go out go at it on our own um and renewed our lease for another year in Gulport to try and try and make this
happen. Um, we simply want to move back. We love it here. We're part of the community. Um, I was previously a public defender for Penelis County and I left that job for the sole purpose of being able to get a better job to afford to be able to do this. Um, you know, we're
trying to do this as minimally as possible. Um, we I do have a neighbor here. I spoke to the neighbors on on either side of me. Neither had any complaints about um, you know, any of the setbacks. And uh I understand that my neighbor to the rear me is here today
uh a little bit concerned about the setback encroachment um due to a uh utility room that is in the back that contains the laundry. Um and additionally it contain it it has the electric meter on there. Um so we do
have a little bump out there that would um make the encroachment somewhere between 3.6 to 4.4t four feet, but uh because the the property line is is diagonal there, it's you know, the far end would be 3.6, the the far end to the
other side would be 4.4. So, you know, we we're we're asking for three foot of decking there just to be able to open the door and and then on the other side there's there's five feet, but that know the maximum jut out there would be a little bit of three-foot decking just to be able to open door to the laundry
room. Um beyond that, I think We're trying to do this as expeditiously as possible without any waste. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? >> Do you have Just out of curiosity, did you have all elevations or just the
front? >> What do you mean >> the front? You have the front elevation on your pack in your packet? >> It's one structure. >> Yeah, right. But I mean, do you have the side elevations, the back elevation, or just the front?
>> I'm not. I think it's it's the same elevation all all >> it would have been different. Okay. >> He's referencing. >> Yeah. >> Elevation. >> I don't have elevation drawing. >> Yeah. You have you have the front elevation drawing. >> Okay. Yes.
>> You don't you don't have the sides. I'm just curious. >> Um I have something >> um not with me. >> Right. I just want to make Braden. Can we when we take these requests in, can we require that they or ask them, hey,
do you have all the elevations? Cuz some of these we don't have any elevations or limited elevations. I like to see the whole picture. >> Are you requesting that we only accept applications with >> saying only accept it, but let's push them and say, hey, we, you know, you have a much better chance if you give us
all the elevations. And it's just, it's helpful. >> Absolutely agree. I like to look at them as well. Um, I typically do that, but I can I can, you know, say that it's in the 14 writing is preferred or something. I mean, I don't want to say you have to, I guess, but
>> it's definitely more helpful. >> I apologize. >> It's No, it's not your fault. You know, >> more information the better, obviously. >> Right. Right. >> So, basically, you're looking to have a almost a walkound
house. I mean, you're going to have an open deck all the way around your house. >> Well, the the issue is is there's three units and we need access to all the units. Um, and in a we we debated and we spoke to staff about whether or not we should have three stairways or we should
have two stairways and have the wraparound deck instead. And, you know, we decided that the two stairways would be the most efficient way to go about it. It's going to be the same setback or roughly the same setback. So you could go design it with each unit having its
own stairway. I kind of like the idea of u I think this is a lot better architectural design. I've always liked walk around >> decks around a house. It's more of a southern type architectural style. >> I agree. >> But your three
uh tenants are going to use these two sets of steps. >> Well well ultimately so we have been using only the front unit. My brother al also was a part owner in the property with me. His intention was to move down and you know eventually um you know
obviously got delayed so he would be living in one of the units and at some point we may we're considering taking over one of the units and as well for ourselves but not not not at this point. Um that's kind of a a question for later down the road but ultimately we'd probably you know looking at have one
non-family member tenant in the immediate future. >> Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Please have a seat. Braden, go ahead with your presentation. Did anybody have any other questions for the applicant before he walks away? And go ahead, Braden.
>> All right. I'm presenting case VR-0000607-206. This application consists of four variances to section 68-4 541 to permit reduced side, rear, and street side setbacks. Uh, the street side setback standard is 15 ft. What's being proposed
here is 12.2. Uh the rear setback is 10 feet. What's being proposed is 3.6 feet. The interior side setbacks required are 7 1/2 ft. Uh what's being proposed is 2.6 and 2.9 ft.
The properties zoned within the RF RM15 zoning district and we have a a front angle view of the parcel here. Um as mentioned the setbacks required are 15 from the street, seven and a half from the side and 10 from the rear. Uh
the property is also a substandard lot um with a 77 ft lot depth where 90 ft is required and also a substandard lot area with 3,581 square ft where a minimum of 4500 is
required. Uh the subject property contains a one-story slab ongrade multif family residence. It contains three dwelling units and was constructed in 1959. Um uh following damages in the 2024 hurricane season. They are seeking
structural elevation improvements to come into compliance with FEMA regulations. Uh the property was not deemed substantially damaged. Uh they're just seeking pro uh proactive improvements for the structural elevation.
uh the existing configuration of the structure. It provides individual unit access along both sides and the front elevation. Uh the electrical meter is also located in that um utility room referenced at the rear of the property. So access needs to be um retained in
some capacity on all four elevations of the structure. Um so as a result of requiring that access on all four elevations uh the proposed improvements result in the setbacks. So we've got an the a proposed
site plan here uh with the red line indicating the property boundaries. Um the inside of the floor plan uh I had to kind of amend this to make it fit on a slide, but those are indications of how the layout of the floor plan is for each of the three units.
So here we see the 12.2 foot streetside setback, the 2.6 foot side setback on the east side, the west side setback of 2.9 ft, and that rear uh setback of 3.6 ft from the rear property line, uh
projecting out for access to that Duke meter located inside of the utility room there. All right. So uh the strict application of the required setbacks would prohibit the applicant from completing the structural elevation improvements uh which allows him to comply with the
requirement minimum requirements um without reducing the number of units or um you know creating challenges maintaining access and egress from all three units. Strict application of the required setbacks would uh prohibit the applicant from completing the structural
elevation improvements uh complying with the minimum requirements without reducing the number of units or um you know fully reconfiguring the interior of the uh structures layout. Um so seeking the minimum flood
elevation requirements is not the result of the applicant and staff determined the proposed variance was uh considered and was was a reasonable means of maintaining the existing use of the property. As referenced prior the subject property is
substandard in both law and depth. Uh the application seeks to ensure compliance with chapter 66 of uh the code of ordinances and the surrounding neighborhood context consists of um existing multi-family and single family structures uh primarily on similarly
sized non-conforming lots um generally characterized by minimal interior setbacks in the existing configuration. Overall, uh staff's determined this variance request to be in harmony, uh with the purpose of this chapter. And um there's
no direct evidence that this will create adverse impacts on the adjacent parcels specifically because it's not the footprint of the building that's being expanded. It's the elevated portion. Uh the building itself is going to remain in the exact same footprint. Um and the encroaching structures are going to be
you know on the second level having a reduced impact on um overall site coverage, pedestrian impacts, etc. Uh with that being said, staff is recommending approval of all four variances and I am available for
questions if you need me. >> Okay, anybody got any questions? >> I have just one quick question. The utility room on the back deck, where how do you get into that? The entrance is it from inside the house from the side >> from exterior. So you'd enter it on the
like catwalk of the Yeah, right there. So >> you'd walk around the corner. So >> it's the rear. It's on the rear of that is what what Grant's asking. Or is it on the side? >> It's there. >> Uh the way that I understand it's here and that's the three foot was needed to
maintain the five foot distance from >> Okay. >> Duke for Duke's clearance requirements. Yeah. And yeah. >> Yeah. So, the door is right where you see that number eight there. That's the the door. It swings out to the exterior. And we had talked about potentially
trying to get interior access, but if you see that that dividing wall, >> right, >> makes that impossible, unfortunately. >> That's good. Thanks. >> And you have in there just washer and dryer. >> Washer and dryer and storage. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And the meters on that the meter's on the exterior of that. It's not on the
inside. It's on the exterior. all the electrical uh features. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? Anybody in the audience to speak to this one?
>> Yes, it is. You are Kim Stewart. >> Hello everybody. My name is Kimberly Stewart. My address is 11090 Second Street East. I am the owner of the property immediately behind them. Um, I uh want to start with the five-foot
deck. Um, and I understand how pretty it must be to have a wraparound deck, but I don't think it's necessary by any means. Egress, ingress, like all all that kind of thing makes sense, but this deck is not required for that. The complete deck
all the way around in this massive amount of a variance. I mean, these variances over 65% I mean way more than a lot of the ones you're looking at. And this isn't because they were substantially damaged and they're being required to do this. They're taking a non-conforming home trying to bring it
into conformance but with all the non-conforming benefits when in reality a reasonable use of this land would be to demolish it and build a compliant home that actually conforms to all the setback requirements as well as the FEMA flood requirements. I think that that would be a reasonable use of the land.
Um, the electric meter is on the outside and I don't see why it can't be moved. Um, it's it's the whole back area, even the laundry room. As much as that's nice, it's not necessary. It's not part of the base foot plan, fuller plan, you
know. Um, I worry because I also applied for the elevate Florida grant. I did not get it and unfortunately I'm not an investor and I don't have the resources to elevate my home now. But I'd like to, you know, I'm young and I do hope to be here my whole life and I hope I can eventually elevate it. So, what's that
going to do? My back utility closet, it is actually water heaters. It's not It's something that's necessary. And if I also elevate it, you're going to wind up with two homes where we can shake hands next to each other. I'm not sure if that kind of forward thinking is appropriate,
but I do think we should be considering what's going to happen. I mean, at one point we were pushing to elevate this entire city. If all the homes on the street get elevated, how are we going to allow these huge variances? Homes are just too close together because they're all non-conforming to the current setbacks anyways. Um,
I think that that's the majority of what I want to say. you know, for a variance to be valid in Florida, it has to be truly necessary for reasonable, not identical use. Um, having an elevated open deck in the backyard in particular, you know, I'm not going to fight over the side ones because quite frankly,
that doesn't encroach on my area. Um, and apparently he talked to those owners. He never came and talked to me about any of this ahead of time. Um, but um, it's not necessary. The laundry room technically isn't necessary. I mean, he's got tenants in there. I know they
say they're going to move back in, but there's nothing that you guys can do to require him to move back in. It again, it is not a homesteaded property. It's it's an investment property owned by him and his brother apparently. Um, so even though best intentions, you have no idea what's going to ultimately happen with
this. Um, again, I don't know that 5 foot wide is required. But I understand there's some Duke Energy things and I admit I don't understand that. But if there could be a separate set of stairs that just goes up to wherever they wind up locating the electric meters or something. I feel I just feel like there are other ways they
can make this work. And even the deck, they could have the front stairs and the side stairs. Um I don't know. I almost feel like it'd be cheaper do two sets of stairs to that each person has their own individual entry. But um again, I just think that we need to
think about the future. Um, we need to think about potential fire hazards when we allow people to start encroaching in a place where there's already not enough space between the homes. Um, things like that. Um, so those are my two cents. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I just want to make one
comment in regard to that. You know, if this house was new construction, it has been the history of this board that we would not approve something of this nature. I just wanted to point that. >> Oh, yeah. which is why I do feel like the most reasonable use for this land
because it's about the land, not the existing home if I'm correct. We're talking about uh reasonable use of the land and that's why money doesn't have anything to do with it. My emotions have nothing to do with it. that the most reasonable use for somebody who wants a FEMA compliant home is to demolish it
and build a new one that complies to all things instead of taking one that's got all these grandfathered in you could say variances already whether or not it's an actual variance but all these grandfathered in things and bringing that into compliance by encroaching on other people's space. So
>> you own the property lot 13. >> Yes. ju just to the northeast I guess. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else in the audience to speak to this case? >> Sure.
>> Um just just for clarification on on a couple things. So that back room was a part of the additional it is part of the additional the original structure. It was not added on um at a later date. Um, so it is part of the main thing and and as as I read um 68542
the allowable encroachments. It's you're allowed to access your building if you elevate it. It's not not a variance. the variance we're we're asking for. Um essentially, you know, I I don't know that we actually even need a variance on
the we're doing it abundance of caution, but um I believe you're allowed to access your building as part of this allowable encroachment statute was and it's part of the structure. So, I just want to say that and and as far as
the investor thing, I I gave my spiel about my background. You know, I I the only way I was able to buy onto this this island is partnering with my brother to buy this and renting out part of part of my place. So, the fact that I'm some wealthy investor, you know, I'm registered to vote here. My driver's
license is here. I've been here. So, you know, I'm I'm doing everything uh making all the sacrifices in my life to be able to make this happen. I'm not uh not some wealthy investor that's coming outside. You know, all these other people here, God bless them, have these wonderful, beautiful homes that are that are huge and doing doing great things with them.
That's that's not me. I you know I aspire someday potentially, but uh I just want to be a part of the community at this point. >> So just as a point of fact, the utility you were saying is part of the original structure. So it's it's concrete block. >> That's correct. >> Around that it's not a wood structure or something that was added on.
>> That's correct. >> Yeah, it's on this it's on the same slab. >> It's on the same slab. >> Okay. Thanks. You know that before you leave, let me hit you with a couple of uh suggestions, possibly a redesign
suggestion. You know, I really struggle with sideyard setbacks. I don't mind rear yard setbacks too much. Front yard setbacks, I don't mind too much as long as you don't get too close to the street. But sideyard setbacks,
especially when you're getting too close to the house next door. I mean, you've got oh, on the let's call it the west side 2.5 ft, on the east side 2.6 ft.
Um reduction of the open deck. Would you consider in order to get this project approved and moving forward to reduce the width of those? So your setbacks would not be too much. I mean, I was just looking at wheelchairs. You're not going to have an
elevator in this house. So, you're not even going to need a a wheelchair width, but uh the width of a uh wheelchair in an accessible bathroom. You basically got to have a I believe it's 42 inch. And um I was just using
that as a rule of thumb. What would you feel if you reduce the width of those decks? >> You know, I I mean, I'm going to tell you right now that I'm going to do whatever I have to do to be able to get this done for for my family. Um, but my
position on the decks is that the space is needed because these are front doors for people. This isn't a side door. These are people's front doors where they're going to need to be able to >> bring a couch in and turn it sideways through the door. And it's just not going to be possible with a 36 inch pad
there, you know, to to turn around sideways to be able to move a big piece of a piece of furniture in. And >> I agree with that. But that's a one one time deal. Believe me, I live in a stealth house. I know what it's like to get a refrigerator up on the second
floor. >> I grew up in row houses in Philadelphia, so I understand, too. But, you know, it's it's uh I think uh you know, a small concession that would make things a lot, >> you know, >> palatable for for for the use of people coming in.
>> And the problem I'm having is is back from a safety standpoint. Uh I live on Sunset Beach. Our houses are some of them are too close together. And you this house start to burn. It will impact
all three houses on the north, east, and west. And I mean, even if you met current setbacks, it would still impact uh cuz I saw it in person as as I watched the houses on either side of a
house on 95th Avenue burn. Um >> obviously houses can still burn and we still have wood, but it is block. Well, I know, but your your deck, let's put this way. >> Block houses burn, too. >> They do. They absolutely do. >> You know, just ask your neighbor right
down the street. Her house burned. Um, you know, it's something that I would like to think about. I don't really want to get into a negotiation here, but um I would think rather than possibly getting a denial today, you might want
to consider a reduction in width of these decks in order to increase your sideyard setback. I don't have a huge amount of problem with >> since we're having a discussion on this now. I guess the the the only
>> thing I would say about the five foot is just as Duke Power >> recommends or requires a 5-ft platform for safety reasons >> if that's the egress you know coming out of a front door I think 5 foot is the reasonable amount on those two sides to
accomplish that notwithstanding any other issues it there's a lot the preference would be to have at least that much >> well >> for safety >> creative design will get you to a 5-ft platform for Duke Energy. You know, the
situation is I'm looking at the impact on the neighbors. This gets pretty tight. I mean, >> yep. >> 2.5 ft. We're looking at this. >> That's a question. >> Go ahead, Dan. >> Could you show us on the diagram where each door is since they're not drawn?
>> Sure. Yeah. I have >> I mean, you could walk up there. I think I know. to the screen and point at them. >> Yes, >> that would help us all out. >> I have a not to scale diagrams to scale, but just roughly >> the front doors for those side units,
right? And then where exactly is the door on the laundry room? What? It's on the rear. >> And then where exactly are the meters? >> Okay. >> On the outside of that. >> That's correct.
>> On the left side. >> Yeah. I'm very familiar with this neighborhood because I have a friend who's your neighbor and you know it's a very tight neighborhood now and we're actually you know by approving this we're exasperating the situation. What I
was wondering is if you would like to consider I mean your stairwell stairwell is only 4 foot wide. Um, you know, if we're talking sofas, you're going to have problem going around getting up a 4ft stairwell with a sofa and then it widens
to 5 foot. While I appreciate that, >> you might want to consider making all the decks 4 foot wide. >> On this on this on the rear portion of this, there's no egress requirement around that utility
>> closet. Is that correct or not? Um the the access needs to be for there needs to be access for the um electric and >> right >> and that and I believe there needs to be access for the for the laundry room as well, but nobody's you're not going to
there's no stairs there obviously. Um, we're limiting the amount of stairs that we were we're putting on. And so for all units to have access to the laundry room, that would be the >> So that's the reason for having it wrap around.
>> Yeah, that's the only way that we can make all four have access to the uh >> Okay. >> You know, you could go forward today with a approval real easily if you agreed to a 4ft wide deck. Are you willing to do that?
>> Is the board saying that we're going to have a denial of a >> There's that possibility. I can't speak for my other four board members. Hey, they can overrule me in a second. I'm only one vote. I'm just giving you my opinion and you know, situation is we have no motion on the floor. I am just
throwing out a solution because I'm looking at it from a safety standpoint, >> right? and a you know just encroachment on your neighbor like um Miss U
Stewart said is with a three well 2.6 six foot set back in the rear. >> It wouldn't be a >> It is getting close. And there's other examples in this city of houses that close, believe me.
>> And the the the the short the smallest setback wouldn't be the rear. I mean, the rear would be 3.6 foot. And it's only for that small small period. It's actually going to be like somewhere between 3.6 and 4.4t. >> And right now, the way you have it drawn, there's only three foot in the
back of that utility. You didn't go five foot past the utility. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Just as a point, >> I think I think five feet is is reasonable. I mean, >> I don't 5 ft is not very wide. >> Could you relocate your laundry room
door to the east side? >> Remove it from where it currently is and relocate the door to the east side of your utility room. >> You mean leave the utility room and just move the door? >> Move the door. >> I I don't know. You know, I'm not an
engineer or a builder. You know, I don't know, you know, what that would entail. Obviously, it would limit the access to the the entirety of the room. I don't know. You know, we could probably would probably have to get smaller. >> The unit on the left would have to go down the stairs and up the stairs to get
into, >> but then you could take that that bubble off that encroach on her, >> which can't get her. The left tent can't really have to go up and down to get >> walk in front of the other. >> Yeah, >> we understand the dilemma.
>> I I definitely spoke at length about, you know, different options with this and this was the one that seemed the least problematic. >> I know you would like to have a 5 foot wide deck. I'm just You're getting mighty close to your neighbors.
>> I understand. getting into what is my key hot point, which is safety. And uh you know, unfortunately, let's see, there was two houses on Sunset Beach burned before the storm and
a couple more that burned during the storm. I know there was one on First Street East, uh on Al Palms that burned. and uh provided if it was hot enough it would impact your neighbors. But I'm just uh looking
for a uh >> I don't think a foot deck it's going to change the burn rate. >> No, it's not going to change anything, but it uh it would allow the access of the fire firemen to get in there a little easier. I mean, when you're
talking, let's just say well, you can look at the aerial photograph. These houses are tight. And uh you know the house on 95th, it was actually in the Mader Beach Fire Department that came in with their ladder truck and put the fire out from
up above. I mean, it can be done, but uh I'm just trying to come up with a solution that does not exacerbate the problem. You know, it's compromise in my mind. I I think there's no doubt all of these are maybe maybe I'll I'll save my
comments for our discussion because we haven't closed it out yet. >> No, I have not closed the >> on the front. It is 4 feet. >> The deck is four feet wide. >> No, there's a there's a ele there's already a deck there. So that's why >> um
>> Okay. >> So the actual door Sorry if I may walk over. >> Oh, I see. Okay, gotcha. >> Right. Right. Gotcha. >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? >> Nope.
>> Seeing that, any other anybody else want to speak? I'm giving everybody a chance today could have a seat. We're going to close the public hearing. We'll have a uh discussion about this. We got five votes, five board members. My comment is, hey, we can approve this right off
the bat if you agree to reduce the size of the decks around it. Like I said before, I like open decks around a house, but those back corners, you're getting real close to the property lines. I mean, 2 and 1/2 ft, we're looking at this. I
mean, that's about how far you are from your property line. Let's just say your next door neighbor came in and said, "Hey, you gave it to him. I know we are supposed to uh look at each application individually, but I've run into this
before. You know, it would be tough to turn that guy down and that way you're 5t apart. >> So, the only thing I would um clarify on that is I I would from a safety point of view keep the five foot on the two side
decks. the rear deck. I would reduce if it's possible to do the the the main part of that deck to four feet and then have the wraparound go at 3 foot as it's shown just to give the access that's needed.
>> Would have no problem with that concern with that. >> You follow what I'm saying there that just pulls that back deck a little bit. I realize it doesn't it it's still violating the main part of it, but that goes to the necessary access to that
utility room. Um, and if we could move the utility room downstairs, I would do that, but obviously you can't do that to be FEMA. And the only other thing I wanted to mention is that whether or not it was substantially damaged or not is not an issue. We've we've approached all of these and the way it's written that
the variances that we're giving are if you're trying if you're getting it to compliance with FEMA, that's that's the reason to do it. Whether it was initially substantially damaged or not is not material to this. >> So I quickly >> I you that's you'll have to ask the
chair. Well, we closed the public hearing, but hey, I'm willing to hear any argument you got. >> No, it's not argument. I just clarify. >> You know what I'm saying? >> Should be foot from the meter that way. >> So you can It's okay.
>> Yeah. I mean, yeah. The only reason we did that was make sure that we met the regulations with the and >> if it was just a walkway I would have agreed to the I would be in with you on this Richard at 4T but it's really if it's because these are front door
accesses and not to make it too much of a gymnastic thing of opening it where the front door is and not um >> well I'm not even thinking about the the front >> well I mean when I say front doors I mean front doors to the two side units the side entrance the front the front entrances to those side units.
>> Okay, let's do let's do one side at a time. >> Just to clarify my opinion. It's my opinion. I could be wrong. >> Front I don't care about. >> The back reduce that down to four. >> Yep. >> And I like the idea of only four on the sides cuz your stairwells are four,
>> but >> you know the stairwells are four. So >> again, I think it's just a pre I think to me it's kind of a practical part of this. Uh it's going to be elevated. You're still going to have the access below. Um, so I I I see your argument, but I'd be still on the side of five.
>> That's a very good point. You're gonna have access below. >> You're gonna have access below. I'm just saying, >> you know, it's a step in the right direction. It's a compromise. >> Y and quite frankly, I think it achieves what you need. >> Just to just to clarify, I have no
problem in the rear. Whatever size deck we want to have. The only issue is is we have access to the laundry room. You know, I don't mind the rear bumping it down at all. It's just And the only reason for the five feet on the sides, like I said, is this is people's front door where they're going to have to come
up the steps is one thing, but then having to turn and then enter into the into the door is a is a is going to be an issue. >> Well, I agree. A 4 foot wide balcony is a little bit tight. Hey, I was uh over in a hotel and their their balconies
were three feet wide and I said, "This is hardly worthwhile." But forefoot is tight, but you're not going to be sitting out there in a chair. That's mostly access. That's just my opinion. You know, at this point, I'm willing to
to move this along, close the public hearing, and let's bring it to a vote. I >> I you know, I think you made a good point that we have access below. And, you know, it's just front door for these other two units. I mean, you're going to
have it put it down to 4 feet. I mean, I just don't think it's going to make that much of a difference number one for for the safety issue, but it makes a big difference for how it's going to work for people living there. >> Well, the the one situation that I'll
bring up, it's down there once again on Sunset Beach. There are three brand new houses built just south of Katiki. Turns out that the zoning, they have zero setback between houses. you can actually jump from one set of steps >> and and and we'll probably end up with a
few situations like that long term, you know, because of this and it's just that's part of this compromise. It's why you see it in some of the cities. I >> I I'm still in favor of the five except then making the change on the rear. >> Yeah. And I don't think the change on the rear is necessarily necessary
because still having the B I mean I don't think >> we're asking we're still asking for the same setback is because the setback is the furthest distance out which would be where that laundry room is as long have access but I'm totally fine. >> I'm I'm happy to make a motion if if anybody anybody else >> anybody else
>> I think we should just leave it as is. >> Um >> okay go ahead Chris. >> All right. I'll make a motion that um for case variance uh 607-2026 uh that this board approve variance
1, three, and four as is and approve variance two with the condition that the dimension of the
>> depth of that rear deck be reduced from 5 to 4 feet in the areas that are shown on both sides of that deck and that the wrap around the utility remain at 3 ft. Uh
and also all four variances to have the condition one that's included in the order. >> Okay. Motion by Chris Downing. Could I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Second by Grant Smith. Can we
have a roll call vote? >> Can we do separate votes on these? >> Yeah, we can. >> I'm sorry. >> Can we do separate votes on the various variants? >> I I I issued it as just one vote with the changes with that one change to the one variance.
>> Okay. All right. >> That was pretty clear to me. I mean, >> that's fine. Basically, the front and the two sides stay as is and the rear goes >> down >> down to 4.0. >> Okay, >> I can understand that.
>> Okay. >> Okay, you're on a vote. >> Second by Grant Smith. Tia, how about a recall? Roll call. >> Roll call. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Grant Smith, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, >> yes. Richard Harris,
>> I get to vote last, so I'll vote yes just to keep it unanimous since my vote really doesn't matter. That's the thing. There's five votes. We all are equal. Thank you very much. Go vote. Go raise your house. >> Appreciate it, gentlemen. Thank you very much. >> I'll send my friend over to complain at
you. Okay, last case. >> Two more, >> I believe. No, we got two more. Two more. 10 G V A R-0000609-2026 approval of a variance request to
section 68-541 granting a 1.1 ft variance to the required sideyard setback for a staircase in conjunction with structural elevation improvements. If the applicant can present his case,
>> uh my name is Gary Morrison. I live at 113808 Street and uh after listening to that, I'd like to increase my variance. >> You're welcome to reapply. >> You don't have to move forward. >> Uh basically, we're we're lifting or uh
we're not including the footprint of our house. No increased uh square footage. We're just lifting the house. That'll put a deck off our back. And to be able to get out the back, we need stairs. The typical switchback stairs would put you in our pool. So I want kind of wraparound which
takes us uh um 1.1 ft into the setback. >> That's for a three-ft wide stair. Um actually I'm thinking a 4ft wide stair after watching all these would be better. So I guess I'm asking for a 2.1
ft uh variance if that's possible. >> Okay. Anybody got any questions of the applicant? Just let me preface that and just so that you're aware, Mr. Morrison, we would not be able to approve a 2.1 foot variance today. That would require an additional noticing since the uh magnitude of that request request would
increase. >> Okay. Then we'll just leave it back. >> Yeah, you could come back. We would just need to renotice again. So, we couldn't do that approval today. >> Okay. Well, I'll uh I'll stick with what we got right now. And then uh if I'll come back later if it looks like it's not going to work
out. I It's just off the back deck. It's not like uh there's a lot going on there. >> Okay. Any questions of the applicant? >> I'm just trying to see the the diagram here so that >> I think uh Braden will get into that.
>> Yeah, I I I can wait and if I have a question for you later. >> Basically, you just go off the end of the dock, you make a left, and then you come out underneath >> underneath your deck. It'll be underneath your deck, your covered bonus. The way my back uh house is, it's actually two foot thinner on each side
>> than the rest of the house. >> So for three foot stairs, I really only need a one foot >> uh encroachment. >> Okay, I get that. >> Look at page >> and my Duke Energy will of course be >> 3 ft into it. But that >> right, I see that. >> Page 140. >> Yep. I'm looking at I just want to make
sure I understood. Okay, >> but there's no elevations, right? >> What's that? >> No elevations. Do you have elevations were in the packet that I saw? I just saw that the one of the drawings um still had the uh switchback stairs, but the other
three of the elevation drawings um showed that >> but they're not in this packet, right? >> They were when I looked the one that was sent to me online. >> Oh, maybe I just didn't see it. >> They're on page >> house plan factors maybe PDF.
>> Uh they're on page. They're on in here. And let me find the page number. >> I That doesn't help me. I'm just trying to see what the name of the >> Let me see. Site plan. >> It gets a little to >> Oh, there it is. >> A plan set. Got it. >> 95.
>> Yeah, that's >> Anyway, go ahead, Braden, and you can have a seat. >> Okay, >> all right. For the record, Braden Evans presenting VR-0000609-206 is an application requesting a 1.1 ft variance to the required sideyard setback for a staircase in conjunction
with structural elevation improvements. The required uh or standard setback here is 10 ft. Uh the applicant is proposing 8.9 ft. That is a 1.1 ft variance. The property is located at 11 1380 8th Street East. uh and it's located in the
RU75 zoning district. We've got some aerial photographs of the property here. Um again, the setback in question is that side setback of 10 ft. Uh the subject property was constructed in
1963. It's a one-story slab on grade. Um the applicant is seeking that variance to maintain rear access for a staircase. So here in the yellow circle on the proposed site plan is the 1.1 foot
variance being requested. Um an administrative waiver is able to be granted for um in encroachments of up to 10% or one foot. So the requested variance is one inch too much for us to have done administratively.
>> You could push it a little bit. not >> technically not. >> Have you seen construction here? >> You're you're here for an inch variance. >> Yes, sir. Uh again, as discussed before, staff's been working with applicants. Uh so this was the initial concept that was
proposed. It would have required um a greater magnitude and a rear uh setback variance. So the the applicant uh chose this design to request the the least intensive variance possible. Um so uh the special conditions are resulting
from the need to elevate to meet uh flood elevation requirements. Uh strict application of these regulations would restrict exterior egress. The stairs being proposed are already at a 3ft uh width. So they're they're not excess in width.
uh as discussed uh in terms of granting the minimum variance to make use of the property. The applicant did uh make those adjustments to find that least intrusive variance request. Um overall the um request is in harmony with the general intent of the code and there's
no evidence that there will be adverse impacts to the neighboring properties or um environment. We're recommending approval of the variance request and I'm available if you have questions. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions of the city staff?
You know, the obvious situation is is uh Shucks, we wish you could have uh bent the rules a hair for an inch, but we know you can't. And uh situation is he's new to the job, so he's not going to be bending. He's not going to be bending any rules. And I
agree with him 100%. So, u based on that, anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to this case and I was going to say something else. If the police officer doesn't want to be bored with the rest of this meeting, you
can take off if you want to. I mean, these meetings, the planning and zoning board meetings are always pretty calm. So, I'm just giving you the option if you want to. So, there you are. >> Happy to have you here. >> Yes, indeed. Okay. Any other discussion
or we will close the public hearing. Um, this one's a no-brainer. Who would like to make a motion? >> Take it away. >> Go ahead. >> I move to approve variance number V-00-2026. Approve the uh variance as request as
requested. No. Approve the variant with conditions. Number one, the proposed improvements shall sub be substantially consistent with the plans prepared by Clar and Clar engineering dated January 7th, 2026. >> Second.
>> Okay. Second motion by Marvin Shavelin, second by Chris Downing. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Daniel Billingsley. >> Yes. >> Chris Donning. >> Yes. >> Grant Smith. >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin? >> Yes. Richard Harris. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And one thing I would would like to
point out and to all the people that are raising their houses and since you had kind of wanted to change things today, if you change during the construction, make sure you go through the proper uh okays with the city because I don't want to have another sixth street
u and alapri situation. And that was and you know it's just if you make a change make sure it's okay you know cuz uh construction changes can get expensive. So we'll move on to our last case
10HV- 000610-2026 approval of two variances to section 68- 541 granting a 2.4 4 foot variance to the east and west side property lines
for the construction of a new single family residence on a s substandard parcel. >> Okay, the applicant is here. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon board. My name is Jane Graham, attorney and agent for the property owner. We also have the
contractor here as well. Um, I would like to just say that this has been a discussion that preceded me as an attorney getting involved and my client has lived at this property since 1997.
It's a very unusual piece of property. We can go. It's and I'll I'll get into that why it's so peculiar. It's an extremely small piece of property. The address is 50 and a half 81st Street. So, that should give you a little bit of
a painting of a picture of why this is so unusual. Um, they have been working with staff to figure out the best way to do this. Originally, it was going to be a request for a variance on the west for
5T. After the DRC, we decided that it could be done with two variances of 2.4 four on the east and on the west and subsequent to that
we have actually been able to work with the architect and after the staff's recommendation have been able to figure out that we can withdraw the request for the variance on the e on >> the west and still just have one
variance on the east. So, I'll get into this a little bit more, but if you want an example of a good working conversation with staff trying to figure out what are viable and feasible alternatives, this is where we have come
to. And so, what we would actually request today is just the variance on the east and we would be withdrawing the request for the variance on the west. And um what we would have is the
reconfigured stairs to have a point 4 encroachment into the setback which allows for an administrative approval. So this is the updated site plan. I don't know if Braden has copies. I have several copies. I'm not sure if you have
copies of this. >> Um >> most recent update. >> Yeah. >> Yes. That's in their that's in the published report. >> Okay. Excellent. So yeah. So this shows what we would be requesting. So the variance criteria is under 70-2214
of the LDC. The staff report goes through this in detail. I'd like to highlight and I know Braden will as well, but I'd like to highlight a couple of the points. The first is the special conditions and circumstances that exist
that are peculiar to the building structure or land. This is under B. Um, this, as I mentioned, is an unusual piece of property. The size, layout, and history of nonconformity. The dimensions are 41.5
ft by 38.5 ft. This is an exercise in creativity um to be able to make something work with both the zoning code and the building code and the requirements. I'd also like to add that
my client has a family member who has um a disability and this disability requires special attention and um you'll see in the plans that they have an an elevator that's actually going to be
built into it as well as the steps which have a a certain type of double switch back to accommodate for this disability. So, it's it's very unusual piece of property. I would also say that it was built in 1937.
Um, the owner has been there as a homeowner and lived there since 1997 until the hurricanes from just a couple years ago. Their sole access is through a easement from the neighboring property. And also
there are existing electrical lines that require minimum clearance from the structures which is a further confinement as to how this can be designed. So this is the aerial view so you can get a sense for what this actually looks like. This is a picture
of the property um which has been there. Now I would say this was prior to the storm. If you visit the property today, you will see the flood line that goes all the way up. What is it? Six feet.
>> Five feet in some places. Um, my client has looked at the option of lifting the house as you have heard of many others today. She would love to do that except this property has been so seriously damaged by the storms and
fi not just financially but feasibilitywise it's absolutely required that she would need to rebuild it. Um a literal enforcement would result in the unnecessary hardship. This is a non-conforming lot. By
complying with FEMA and flood plane regulations, they're increasing the resilience. they're raising the the property in this new design. Um, it's not going to have impact on the neighborhood's character because
it the footprint is is very similar and they're not asking for more than what is actually there. The literal enforcement of the rule would make this property unbuildable and effectively render it unusable which of course would have
private property rights implications as well. Now to talk about the square footage, the existing house is 768 square ft of enclosed finish space. However, part uh part of this was actually done
without a permit. So the permitted square foot and this is prior to my client. The permitted square footage is 624 square ft. The city requires a minimum of 1,000 square ft. So what they're doing is to have two stories
within the 624 square footprint of this replacement. Um they've also looked at making sure that the stairs are the minimum four feet wide for the fire code and um
ensuring that the decks are placed to allow for the switch back as needed. Um, again speaking about the minimum variance to make possible the reasonable reasonable use of this building. This has been a request. My client has been
in close contact with city staff to figure out how to find an alternative that works. This is the one. This is as tight as it can get to to get them what they need to comply with the building code. And our contractor can speak in
greater detail if you have any questions about this. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the chapter. Um looking taking a step back and looking at the intent of 68544
542 which en encourages the elevation and rebuilding of floodprone structures. Um this is replacing a 1937 home within the almost identical footprint to achieve FEMA compliant elevation and
allow the current wind load standards. It's fulfilling the life safety purposes. This is why you want to have homes complying with these new FEMA regulations. It also complies with the character of the multif family medium
density character district. The comprehensive plan this is consistent with as well. Um, I'm not going to go into great detail, but I would just say that the comprehensive plan does encourage a balanced land use mix for a variety of housing styles and
densities. And for my client, um, this is, you know, the type of very unusual, peculiar piece of property that's very small and allows someone to be able to she has been there since 1997. She has
the intent to rebuild and stay there. Um and this is the type of allowance that the city can do to allow this to continue. Um she also has private property rights. So for these reasons, we request approval. To the extent there
are any objections, I I uh would like to reserve any time to respond to any of objections as well. Thank you very much. >> You will have a chance at rebuttal. Well, please have a seat. Well, well, first off, any questions of the applicant? Not right now. I might may have a later episode.
>> Go ahead, Braden. Do your presentation. You can have a seat if you like. >> Okay. Um, I'll preface this by adding that um, uh, maybe like 10 minutes before I came into the chambers, I got an email, um, with a, um, um, a letter of objection in
regards to this case, and that was printed out and put on the dice for you guys to review. Um, unable to be published due to the timing of that, of course. >> Perfect. Um, for the record, my name is Braden Evans. Uh this presenting case
VR- 000000 610-2026. Uh this application consists of now it is one variance to section 68-541 granting a 2.4 foot variance to the west side of the property. Um since the
>> I apologize to the east side of the property. Um the secondary variance uh as discussed by Jane was withdrawn based on a um redesign of the parcel. The subject property is located at 50 and a half
81st Avenue. Uh so we see some aerial images here. On the right side we have the subject property outlined in red. Um so the existing structure was developed in 1937 and sustained hurricane damage is now seeking redevelopment. Uh the
substandard parcel has no um dedicated street frontage and is accessible only through a private 5-ft easement um to the through the southern parcel. Uh the total lot area of the parcel we're looking at today is 1,599
square ft. Um because of the lack of street frontage, all property lines are considered uh side setbacks, which leaves 5 foot setbacks um for each of the the four property lines. Again, here's a closer look at that parcel. Uh
this is a slightly older aerial image, so you can get a sense of how the configuration looks when the uh neighboring lot is not vacant. Uh this was of course before that structure was uh removed. So that's standardly what it looks like. And then this is you know
roughly approximates the uh location of that private access easement that is uh provides you know a 5 foot wide access to the lot. Um so as we've discussed a few times multiple iterations of the proposed improvements were um provided by the applicant um to identify the
least intrusive variance request. Uh the initial uh variance request included a five- foot encroachment which would have been a zero lot line. Uh discussions with staff uh resulted in a change of this which was uh moving the property
kind of center or moving the structure centered on the lot uh resulting in rather than a 100% variance on one side 50% variances on both sides. Um uh upon further investigation, I guess,
uh it was determined that the 10 the deck being proposed, which is what you were able to review in your staff or in the agenda packet, um the 12T deck, if that was reduced by a couple of feet, we would be able to, you know, encompass that within our ability to grant an
administrative waiver. Um and that was recommended to the applicant and they went that way. So this is the first concept that was presented to us here. That red outline you can see going all the way to the property line. Uh that was the stair deck uh the stair leading up to the
deck. Uh this is the secondary proposal that was presented. That inner inner line is the footprint uh or the setback footprint rather. And then those two yellow areas were projecting into the side setback. And then as Jane uh
mentioned, something that came up in our own discussions of, you know, identifying the best layout for this property, um my eye was drawn to this uh empty space here on the lot. Um and I was really hoping that it would be able to be utilized, but uh it's kind of pre-planned for an elevator to be
located there so that uh the applicant can promote their own aging in place without having to come back before this board. It's not included in the plans at this point, but it's just a a proactive planning uh for them. So, here is the final uh site plan which
you guys are approving today just to show an iterative process of you know improving the site design. This yellow portion here is the projecting 2.4 foot portion of the structure on that east side. And then that green sliver uh if
you can see it's kind of small. That's the 6 in that will project into the opposite side which staff has the ability to approve through an administrative waiver. So in reviewing the variance criteria uh
the dimensions of the subject property quite clearly create the unique circumstances which limit the overall buildable area. Um, additionally, as Jane also mentioned, the proximity to the proximity to the electrical lines along the rear property line, uh,
further inhibit the ability to build up to the buildable area, um, without being required to bury those existing property lines because the way that they're lined up, they actually encroach onto the private property currently. Um so again peculiar conditions are
resulting from the substandard uh configuration of the parcel and in terms of minimum variance we've talked about that uh plenty. Um staff has determined this is uh through the cooperation of the applicant definitively the the minimum variance that we feel can make reasonable use of
the property. Um so we're seeking redevelopment of a substandard lot. Um obviously we're all aware of down there in the general area of this property. Um the overarching context of the surrounding area is characterized by very minimal setbacks. Um there are
you're all very familiar with the uh examples throughout the neighborhood there. Um so we do feel as though there will be an impact of course to the neighboring properties but considering the overall context we don't believe that this impact will be um visually uh
negative or impactful overall. So, with that being said, uh staff is recommending approval of a variance to the eastern sideyard setback for 2.4 ft. Um and as discussed, the applicant has withdrawn the request for the western
sideyard setback. >> Okay, quick question for you, Braden. In the current code, in the current atmosphere, this house would not be allowed to be constructed without any street frontage. Is that a correct statement? Yeah, in more sense less of the house
being constructed, but the lot being divided that way would have never No, no, sir. >> We actually have several examples of this. One guy actually established his
nonfrontage house as a condominium so he could do it. But anyway, regardless of that, I drove by this area the other day and not that it matters, but that house still exists, right? >> Okay. >> We have a demo permit. We didn't tear it
down yet because of >> Okay. Thanks for your answer, but in the future, need you to be on record, but uh it's it's all right. It's all good. Um just wanted to make sure I wasn't horribly mistaken on where I was. Um,
okay. Any other questions from the uh >> I just have a question. I know we haven't we don't have a copy of the in front of us at least the building plans and all the elevations to the point made earlier today, but I did want to understand it's just Okay, thank
you for that. Um, my one question, well, I may have a couple actually, but the first one is the open deck is just on that first level. There's not two levels of deck going on. That's correct. That's
so the and that this deck is facing west. It's kind of on the it's going where the easement comes in. Um and the variance part where we're on the right hand side that's still being asked for. There's no decking or anything on that
side that's c from a privacy point of view that would be at issue. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> So I I need to correct one thing. That decking is on the first level and second level because we've got the switchback stairs going up between the levels. Uh
we also have the internal stairs there, but we have decks on on both levels. >> Both levels. Okay. >> Are you referencing the first and second? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just checking. >> Are you referencing the first and second floor or the second and third floor? >> However we want to call it. Going from
the ground, the first floor up >> as a deck. And then one more to the front. >> And then there's another deck on top of that. >> Just wanted to make sure. I I apologize then. Then I >> they are mirrors of each other >> and both. So the first deck on the first
living level is actually a covered deck, not an open deck. >> That would be correct. >> And but the second one on the second living level is an open deck. >> Correct. And
I'm really and the reason I'm asking these questions Richard since we don't have the plans in front of us is just to be sure how if ter we're not grant we're not looking at now at a variance on that side um so it might actually be moot
well I was worried more about fact of whether or not that we were you know granting long-term this variance to a larger structure going up not just to that open deck back and that it was actually a part of the structure of the
home going out over it. So in this case it's a bit of a combination now that I understand that there's two deck two living decks. One's covered, one's not. Um so it depends on how we how you consider all this but they're not now
asking for variance on the left side. So, I think my question is this is probably moot, but I want to make sure it doesn't have any impact on all of this. I guess it really doesn't. I I just want to make sure of we all know that there's more than this
was a little larger than I thought going up. >> Yeah, the um the packet is kind of if you scroll down a little bit for all of a sudden you're seeing elevations, but it turns out those elevations are not for this house. It's for a different house.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And uh Oh, >> so anyway, >> so I guess >> are you um are you the builder? >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> And I was going to say we I've got the elevations if they need to be seen. Um they should have been in the the packet. I assume they were. >> It would be nice to see them.
>> Let me see if I can get them for you. >> Um >> I have a question in the meantime I could ask. Well, >> go ahead. Are you asking staff? >> Yeah, for staff. >> We do have a card on this one. >> Okay. And so for staff, the variance on the right hand side,
which is the east variance, is that correct? And that is the one we're asking that is still in place. >> Correct. >> Can you explain the the why the utility lines that are an issue for for distance from these
utility lines impact the this request for that part of the variance? and why that why the utility lines cause a bit of a hardship here in the design of the overall. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um >> that's what I'm getting. >> So Jane and Shashana, the property
owner, can both attest to the me in our preliminary DRC meeting. I was adamant about trying to use all of the available footprint on the property. Um, and I drew the attention to, if you can see the laser there, there's a strip of
buildable footprint right there that the building is not in. And it, you know, it seems small, but those square footage add up if you reconfigure the the footprint of the building. >> Okay. So, that north side then you had to pull that back by a foot,
>> it looks like, in order to meet the requirements of this utility line >> unless utility line clearance, right? And so that impacted available square footage on the lot in addition to the fact that it's a non-conforming lot to start with. Okay. Just want to get full picture. Got it.
>> Thanks. >> Those are helpful. >> Do we know what the original square footage is >> of the permitted space? It's 624 square foot. >> No, no. The I'm talking about the the original home. Is that who you're talking about?
>> Okay. And so the way which the the the first level of the house both levels have less than that 600 but total between the two levels now is over a over a thousand
>> correct >> what is the total square foot livable square footage is in the >> it's a thousand something50 >> but so they're the footprint is smaller but shifted and has this impact and now it's going
upward obviously but more height but it's being shifted a little bit >> you have more height >> yeah exactly that's what I always wanted more >> well and that's also to try to meet the thousand square foot minimum >> oh that good yeah a good point on that
>> um but but also if I may the the challenge became that the and I'll speak louder so hopefully we'll catch on record the electrical lines service lines actually from the power lines.
So that is one of the reasons why we couldn't get the house further back and square it up north. We've got a conflict with power lines. >> And if I'm read that drawing approximately you lost about a foot of available >> yes >> distance on that northern side
>> correct >> due to that requirement. >> Otherwise we could try to square it up a bit more and potentially use more of the space within the setback area. But with the power line restrictions and required setback by Duke on that we cannot.
Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant or the city staff? With that, we have a card. Tim and Karen Kelly. I have a letter from them, but if they're here, I'll let you read your own letter.
>> Thank you. I will. I'm glad you got a copy of it. I'm not crying. My allergies are just killing me today. So uh I wanted to say um pre as as an introduction it was only through happen stance that we found out about this variance. We were not informed and the
other adjoining neighbor we called today was not informed. I don't know what the policy is in the town of letting people know but we happen to see a sign stuck on the street. So, we haven't had the opportunity to to really um evaluate the
legal aspects of this or, you know, have an attorney review or anything like that. Um, but I I did want to point out that the property is in Sunset Beach and we are very susceptible to flooding even when there's not something of the
magnitude of Helen. Um, and we're very concerned that we're going to be drowned by surrounding properties because we are kind of an island. Um and and you all know apparently you know the the issues around um Sunset Beach. I wanted to
point out that this is new construction. This is not the raising of a house with a and within an ex existing footprint. Um it it's a substandard lot. It's it's got un um authorized um
square footage added to already and the square footage of the property is going to more than double and and and given that I'm I'm wondering why the encroachment needs to be on the east side, >> which is where we live. >> I'm sorry for not saying that versus the
west side where there's these huge humongous lots that are empty right now. Full-sized lots. Our lot is also substandard. Well, I I presume it is. It's very small. I think point one of of my concern alone
should address this issue and our concern and and our strong um opposition to this variance request. There does not appear to be a demonstrated unique hardship related to the property. The desire to increase building size or maximize lot utiliz us usage does not
constitute a valid hardship especially in in this I don't know how we came up with the giving up the west side to to put it all on on us on the east side where we we're current residents as opposed to new lots where new new owners could make a decision as
to whether or not they want to live there or not. This is a major inconvenience to us in many many ways. The current setback requirement is established to promote safety. Very concerned about that. Proper drainage. Extremely concerned about that. And consistent neighborhood development. A
reduction of this magnitude, 50% of the required distance is not a minor adjustment, but a substantial deviation that undermines the intent of the zoning code. We're talking about two and a half feet here. This is the handshake between windows that you're talking that you
were talking about earlier. Given our coastal environment, this various var and also raises serious concerns regarding storm water management and drainage. We already get soaked. And adding into that, when there's no sunlight hitting your your property any
longer, the water just sits there and mold grows. Okay? And as it is, we don't get a lot of sunlight on our very small property. Reducing the setback limits the available space for proper water runoff, permeable space, and increases the likelihood of water being diverted
onto adjacent properties, including ours, contributing to flooding and property damage. Allowing this variance could set a precedent for similar request as these new houses come in, gradually eroding the integrity of our neighborhood and the zoning regulations
thereof and the established character of the neighborhood. The reduced setback may create long-term issues related to maintenance issues. And I'm concerned to get mold growing on the house and so forth. No sun is going to hit my house. Um, as as it is, there's not a lot. All
right. Um, tree damage, animals, what what have you. Uh, and overall safety. There's a fire. It's not much of a leap for a fire to jump two and a half or in this case 7 and 1/2 ft from roof to roof. wooden
roofs. We have grave privacy concerns as the proximity of the proposed structure will affect our privacy. God forbid my and and it's not to impugn the character of any person in the room, but you just want a little bit of privacy when you're you're in your backyard or my
granddaughter is out sunbathing or something. And very importantly, the proposed change will have significant detrimental impact on neighbor neighboring property values, including ours. Sunset Beach is a very unique place.
Okay. And and my heart goes out to my neighbor whom I whom I haven't met about the uniqueness of her property. But she's doubling her her square footage. For the life of me, I can't understand the idea that we shift it over onto us
as the burden as opposed to the empty lots. It's a brand new property. Figure it out. Thank you. Anything you want to add? >> Maybe just how large is the open deck in the front?
>> Is that 10 feet? >> Uh, yes. The deck was reduced from 12 to 10 ft. >> 10 ft. >> Does it have to be that big? >> No, it does not. But that's not included in the request that we're speaking of today. >> Deck was smaller.
>> They could move the house up. >> Could the house come west? Uh potentially it would I mean the the contractor builder is here as well. I know there's some limitations with the configuration of the stairs. Um but I I would be most comfortable if he spoke on
behalf of that. >> We're very concerned very very concerned >> and it sounds like there's been a lot of negotiation and and we weren't you know nothing was discussed to us and it's just >> I would like to luck that we found out about this. I I would like to state on
the record that uh mailings and public notices of the hearing were distributed to the neighboring property owners by the applicant. Um and I do have those certified uh receipt of mailing available if anybody would like to review them. >> Uh do you know when they were sent? >> Uh the deadline to mail those out is one
week before the public hearing. >> So our neighbor across the street just got it two days ago. >> Yeah. So, those were sent um they were the confirmation of mailing was delivered to me on the 12th um which the deadline is the 12th at 2:00. I don't
know when they were physically mailed out, but that's when I receive the confirmation. >> One week the law, but you know, our the other neighbor lives in Pennsylvania, you know, makes it hard for people to get here or to even respond within that short window of time. Anything else?
>> Thank you all. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Okay. Anybody else? Uh, obviously you have time for a rebuttal. Anyone else in the public who wants to speak to this case? Okay, now you can go. >> Thank you. First of all, I'd like to
confirm, as Braden had said, we mailed out the notice pursuant to the city's requirements. I personally took it to the mail to the post office to get it done. Got it stamped, gave it to them. So, to the extent anything happened with
you, I don't know. I would mention that um the gentleman and lady who just spoke in looking on the property appraisers website the property that they're talking about is non-h homesteaded. They don't so you know whether or not they actually are living there. I mean that's one thing but it's listed as
non-homesteaded property. Um to go through their objections I'll just say first of all that there is a drainage plan and m uh Mr. Nickel is here if you have any questions about the drainage
plan to the extent of why it's on the east side instead of the west side. The original request was on the west side. We worked with the city staff and they suggested that the east would make more sense. Um you know and to the extent
that wants to be amended or looked at I think we would be open to having a conversation. Um, as far as the lack of unique hardship, I think that this has a lot of unique hardship. Um, as far as cases that I've had for
variances on both side, I do a lot of objection work and this one is a unique hardship. when I've seen a unique hardship based on the size of the property, based on the unique configuration, based on the history, based on the unusual requirements for
the flood conditions, this is as unique as it gets. As far as the safety concerns and drainage, um I would have Mr. Nickel speak to that. I would say that everything will be done in compliance. This is uh going to be a
rebuild. So it will be conforming with FEMA regulations which are more protective than the property as now. Issues relating to setting precedent for similar requests. As I'm sure you all
know this as a quasi judicial hearing, each individual request is individual. It does not set precedent for different properties. And I would just say again as far as the uniqueness of this property, it truly stands out. So it
certainly should not set a precedent for other properties. Issues relating to maintenance access and emergency response. There's a fence between the property of my client and um the individuals who spoke. And so as far
as individual uh emergency response, that's not something that would play into it. That's something Mr. can speak to the grave privacy concerns. Well, either she's does the rebuilding or she raises the house. Either way, the house
is coming up. And so, you know, the privacy concerns is something that is going to have to be dealt with. And um you know, the deck is on the west side and she you know, it's not like their windows or things where they're looking
out on them. So, the deck is on the west side. Um, and as far as detrimental impact on neighboring property values, we would argue we don't have an appraiser, but we would say based on the quality of the work and and comparing it to a 1937 home that is flooded out, um,
you're raising the property values. So, for this, I would just defer quickly to Mr. Nickel to respond to the issue relating to drainage, and then we're open for other questions. We do have a certified engineering
drainage plan that's required, but and you don't have this. My apologies. I took this from the the site plan. And I'm happy to pass this around. But if you look at the green area there, that is the required drainage for the
engineered drainage site plan uh to comply with the new regulations there. Obviously, it's a raised home. So from that safety perspective um it's actually improving the safety. It's also going to improve the percolation. We meet all the ISR ratios.
So all of that's there. If you like to see any of this, it's available just for the examination. >> I did have a question on what on the permeable space that what's being planned underneath the covered deck. >> Um the covered deck right now will be
completely open. Well, when you say open, what I'm asking for is what is the ground cover underneath >> at the at the ground level of the covered deck? >> We we have a landscaping plan that has been submitted. Um, personally, I'm not
the landscaper, so I haven't looked at that, but it will be landscaped underneath the deck. >> But the current drainage plan didn't address that area that's under that deck. The current drainage plan addressed the entire lot and the
requirements for the lot based on the current ISR ratios. >> Okay, moving on. >> Moving on. Yep, that's all. >> Uh, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? >> I'd like to object. >> You got to go up here.
>> I'd like to object to this conversation. He's a doing a public comment but this is not a back and forth. So I just for the record I you can come up. >> You are you are in the phase of rebutting the prior comments that were made.
>> So I you are in the process of rebuttal at this point. So sit tight and we'll make a decision on if you can rebut the rebuttal. and uh you know I'm not sure is that even proper
>> if you want to allow it as long as you do give her the opportunity then to comment I think would be fair as far as any due process concerns but technically I think you had closed the public hearing component of it >> uh if you want
>> not as of yet >> okay >> we're still in the rebuttal phase regardless of that >> if you want to hear it hear it >> I am a civil engineer and I work with the city on the drainage manual and I know that they have to come up with a drainage plan. Chris, whatever is
underneath that deck, if it's dirt, hey, great. You know, if it's concrete, then they have to prove they meet the ISR. So, you know, regardless, that's part of their building permit. >> I guess if they get one, >> because it's a covered deck, it it's
effectively increasing the footprint of the dwelling on that lot. Yeah, but >> so it and it's a new build, so it just needs to comply with whatever the new >> whatever the current regulations are for
a drainage plan for that lot. So, I was just asking as a point of reference or point of fact of what they were planning to do there, but it I don't I I agree with the fact that the drainage plan itself needs to address the entire lot.
Yep. Anyway, go ahead with and finish your rebuttal and uh we'll go from there. >> Well, I was actually done with the rebuttal. I was just objecting to the process of if someone rebutts the rebuttal that I would have >> Okay, I understand. Quite frankly, we
heard you. You know, I understand and believe me, I live right down the street and around the corner. >> Comments open >> if you want to entertain. Go ahead. As long as you allow her to rebut to to make anything because you're allowed you're allowed to do >> we're we're pretty uh flexible in this
uh hearing. So go ahead. I want to hear your comments. Let's see. You'll have to come up here. >> You have another Can I go up? >> Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Um in terms of you again, I'm not an attorney, but my reading of the code about the unique reasons for these variances is is not like unique lot size
and unique this, unique that. It's unique hardships. And I I just don't see the unique hardship with a brand new building that can be reconfigured very easily. You get back to the architect and you say, "Reconfigure it." I would withdraw any objection if they moved it
the other way. And I still for the life of me can't figure out why on the little tiny lot I am half lots you've got full-size lots to the west size side you could move it to that direction and they still have huge properties and you know
it it's all good. We have no objection to the height. We understand the height. We may want to raise someday. Absolutely. And when we do we'll you know we'll we'll stay within with our within our footprint. But um that the major issue is this 2 and 1/2 ft and we
had we heard comments from the board earlier about the inappropriateness of that and and given that you've got room on the other side. I don't understand I don't understand. In fact, I'm sort of shocked by staff's position that just move it over to his side. I don't get
that at all. And if there's a good reason for it, I'm open-minded. But I again I'm going to strongly object to the 2 and 1/2 ft encroachment on my property line. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you, sir. >> Would you like to have a additional rebuttal?
>> Like I said, we run a uh >> fair process. >> Fair process. I was say I was going to say a uh a loose uh situation where we let anybody speak. >> Go ahead. I I would just add that um as
far as the legal definition for unique circumstances, there is case law that speaks very specifically to things like unusually configured lot sizes, non-conforming lots, um historic issues, sensitivities with the
environment, sensitivities with flooding, access, power lines, any other kind of issues relating to facilities. ities and utilities and so like I said this is a unique
circumstance and it's also a hardship because the design in which is needed to comply with the city code with FEMA code with building code with fire code with Duke Energy's requirements
all of these must be taken into account and balanced and so because of that this clearly meets the variance criteria and we respectfully request approval. >> Thank you for your comments. With that, we will close the public hearing and
I'll start out with the comments. This board knows my history on new construction. Hardship does not exist in this lot. The reason is we once had a judge many years ago say the owner knew what they bought. There is no reason why
this house cannot be moved to the west 2 and 1/2 ft. and that open deck reduced by two and a half feet. Don't want to do it, but the fact that you can't quite build as big a house as you want is not a hardship. We've run into this in the
past. Oh, I'd like to build a th00and square foot house. Well, it doesn't fit. Only a 900 square foot house fits. And I'm just rounding off numbers. Situation is I'm sorry, just because you want
something doesn't mean you get it. and this board. I've been real strong on new construction. We've made a lot of allowances over the last 17 months, however, since we got back in business for houses that are being
jacked up. I understand that completely. I mean, you know, you got to be able to jack up your existing footprint and get into your house. But, as I said earlier, this lot would not even be allowed. I mean, this is something unfortunately is
unique to uh Sunset Beach and probably Sunshine Beach, but you would never see two lots and a lot with no frontage on Palms Paradise or Capri. >> You know, the the unfortunately the hardship just doesn't exist and we have
to maintain our standards here. I mean, we've been over a lot for uh raising houses to the point that once in a while I'm like, "Boy, you're giving away the world." I'm like, "No, we're not giving away the world. We're we're trying to accommodate
hardship from a storm." I agree. This is hardship from a storm, but this is new construction. And a few years ago, we made a mistake. This board made a mistake of the three houses south of Katiki. and they were able to
get reduced setbacks in a negotiation that I totally objected to. And you know, it's once again, it's a situation where the lot is 41 12 by 38
12. Okay, you can build a house 31 12 by 28 1/2. Is it more difficult? Yeah, but that's life. So, I can't support this one. Any other comments? >> Totally agree.
>> You addressed my first comment which was the deck. >> You I said you addressed my first comment which was the deck. But I did not hear why we can't build this way with all that between the red dashes. Only the only the opposite side. >> Why you can't come this way?
>> Well, that's up to that's >> Yeah, there's open space there that could be built too. >> That's up to the architect to do. saying like there's empty space there that's not in the setbacks that could be built to >> the open deck is >> you're right >> two foot too big. >> I mean you could max it out at 31 12 by
28 and 1/2 and you know >> and do and I didn't see a comments or anywhere in here where the existing building the setbacks fall >> it it's not relevant because it's a new building. >> That's fine. Just curious.
Any other comment? >> He would be happy to address that question if you'd like because that >> Well, we now we have closed the public hearing. You know, we really have. So, >> unfortunately, you're posing questions that weren't posed during the open session.
>> I don't think it matters at this point. I made my statement and the public hearing is closed. >> We're just having discussion. We're having discussion and we'll ultimately come up with a uh you know the thing is I've sat on this board now for coming up on 12 years and
although nothing sets precedent there are examples in the past and the worst one was this board and the city of Treasure Island was sued by a neighbor when we granted a variance and the comment was by the judge the owner of
the property knew what he had and knew what they bought. And it's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I mean, there's some uh houses on Sunset Beach that I'll tell you, they are maxed out to the property line. One of them happens to be next door to me. And uh
you build to the setback line for a reason. And I'll bring it up what I brought it up before. It's safety. I mean, let's face it, these houses down there at Sunset Beach are too close together anyway. Right. So,
>> how many how many burn how many burned up houses do we have to have? It does impact the surrounding neighbors. >> So, Richard, I agree with all of the comments that you you made. The only u additional thing that I wanted to bring out in this discussion was that
the power line is certainly an issue was not that was not an issue before the storm because the home wasn't being it's only an issue because the home is going up and it's going up two stories which is probably the reason that it's now an
issue and you know so but it is it really causing a hardship because it you know you're you're having to come back 12 in because approximately a foot because of that. But as was mentioned earlier, there's still room on that southern or I think
it's the southern border um that there's room to move the property, the new building a couple looks like a couple of feet that direction and provide, you know, additional square foot if the if we're just looking at overall square footage
availability. I realize there's challenges with the architectural part of this and the deck itself could be reduced um and the house shifted over and so that that two 2 and 1/2 ft setback that's being asked for could be either eliminated or or reduced
significantly. So I'm I'm in concurrence with you as far as um not in favor of the of approving the variance. >> You know, I uh I agree with uh I love open decks. I mean, you know, but
situation is drop that open deck 2 and 1/2 ft. No setbacks required. You know, adjustments can be made >> and you could gain some additional square footage going out to the lot line coming forward. >> So, the north and south, >> right? >> I mean, the >> Well, you can't go north because of the
because of the uh power line, but you can go south. >> It's my understanding. Yeah, the the property line I mean the um power line is on the north property line, but uh you know adjustments can be made. Now is the time you know this is what you do
when you do a set of plans. It's easy to change paper. It's not easy to change construction and we saw that today already and uh you know you know we closed the public hearing already. What
was your comment on that Nancy? I'm going to let the city out process of of deliberating. >> Yeah. I would just like to say that my I spoke with my client and she's quite shocked the way this is going and she would like to continue to work with the
city. So for that reason she'd like to withdraw this request. >> Could I offer that you also the board does have the opportunity to grant continuance but that if you're going to change it yes withdrawal would be the appropriate way. Okay,
>> that would be the wise thing to do, I think, at this point because like I said previously, now's the time to make your changes. Not not after you uh break ground. >> I have a question. >> If they agreed to reduce the deck to
pull within setbacks, could we approve it with that condition? >> Well, then there's nothing to approve. That's not a that's that's not what they're asking for. >> Yeah. I mean, >> yeah, that that is not the very >> that's not before us. Yeah, I mean they could bring that that's what they could bring forward later if they needed to.
>> There's no >> then we don't see it again if they bring it back to the west by two and a half feet >> or even two feet right they get an administrative >> varian that's up to that's up to the city. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh can I have a motion to to
continue this uh >> variance or table it >> or withdraw? >> I think we would like to continue it. >> Okay. Continue. um to next meeting certain >> to a date certain.
>> Yeah. Yeah. See the date would be >> April 16th >> and that would allow the them to modify their request during that time or would have to just >> less than what they've asked for now. >> But if they're going to completely change it >> or they may not even need a variance
>> law would be a better approach. If you are going to uh get rid of the need for a variance, there's no reason to come back obviously. But if you still want one, >> I think you may have more options if you were to withdraw it. >> There's Yeah,
>> more options. We need to talk to >> Yeah, we're okay. We'll withdraw. I mean, I would just say that my clients have looked at every option as far as alternatives. Um so we would like to talk to we we'll withdraw and continue
conversations um which have been ongoing for the last what 18 months >> and so yeah 12 months and we'll be happy to speak with the neighbors as well. >> Okay. Thank you for your time and we'll consider this issue this uh case
withdrawn. Okay. Public comments for non-aging agenda items. Anybody in the public who wants to speak today? Seeing none reports and comments of city attorney staff or board members. >> No comment. >> Staff,
>> I'll just um inform you all I will not be present at next month's meeting. Uh in my place will be Emily Ellis, uh planning manager. >> How many cases we're going to have? Another eight. >> Um hope not. >> Well, now that we have a continuence, we will have eight.
>> Oh, they withdraw. Withdraw. So, seven. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll make sure that we get these um elevations from now and really push hard to get that for us. >> Yeah, I think it's not required, but >> encouraged. Are you requesting that I require it? >> I I think they should be required. I mean, they usually have them.
>> You should >> they usually have them, but it would be, let's put this way, strongly suggested. >> It's strongly suggested, but at some point it becomes a financial limitation. So, I mean it if we require it, I just would say to consider that in the aspect of of like this last applicant that was
up because they were changing their plans so often they even worked with staff to provide a change up to the you know after the staff report was published. Um >> but they had >> Yeah, that's they're already doing the drawings. >> I mean if they have to redo their
drawings 10 times, that's on them. as long as we have draw and I do because I see those elevations as well because it prevents me from not realizing that what was an open deck actually is an open and open deck and I don't like to make those mistakes in front of this uh board either. So, I do I do uh encourage it as
much as I can, but short of having the board tell me to >> I think we should tell it. >> I think we should require it because you typically you're a builder, right? No, you're a plumber builder. >> I do it all. >> Okay. So, don't people usually have >> to see the full set of plans, right? I mean, that is very helpful in this case.
>> They didn't get that without drawings, >> right? >> Right. >> That was not available at the time the application. Chris, you would not even have asked your question if you had had that drawing in the beginning, >> right? I was guessing. >> You know, >> I think we should require elevations and
and encourage 3D renderings. >> So, I have to look into it just because of SB80. >> Yeah. Making it more burdensome and costly, >> right? Okay. >> Yeah. >> We can just say, you know, it's strongly
encouraged because it's going to help your case. >> Well, strongly encouraged. And the facts with AutoCAD these days, >> yeah, it's not a big >> I think the rest of my counterparts in CDD could could attest. I we all recommend we tell them more details the better. If you can answer their questions before they ask you them, they
won't ask you them. So I >> um you know, I'll continue that sentiment and marching forward with that. >> Great. >> Do you all have the rest of those uh elevation plans down there? >> I guess I was >> we need to >> hogging them. Sorry. pass them down because they get Tia gets to stick them
in a box somewhere. >> Okay. Board member, any comments? >> Nope. >> I'm tired. Let's Let's call it a day. >> The next date, uh, LPA, if we have an LPA on that date is, uh, April 9th, I'd
love to just sit down and have another conversation. Our next P&Z is April 16th, uh, right after tax day. So, we'll all be broke and um >> I can't make the LPA on the 9th. >> Okay. >> Going to be on What I was going to say
is I'm going to be on a sailboat. >> Have them have them on the 16th if I can. You know, if we can if we can. >> That' be better for me. I'll get back by then. Are we ideally trying to keep having two meetings or go back to one >> if there's something to talk about if one >> just I'm just my schedule.
>> Yeah. The LPA after the PNZ like you know if we were going to have a short right now is two days or next month is two days. You said the 9th and the 16th. No, but we're we'll only do the ninth if there's something on the agenda that is expens >> or if we want to. What we've done in a
lot in the past, Daniel, it's just said, "Hey, we'll have a LPA if it's some minor stuff right after the PNZ." >> Okay. As long as what's on the agenda. I got it. >> Okay. >> So, we are definitely doing it after PNZ. >> That would be great. That's what that's
what we >> I think it should be standing that way unless we're making a change. You know that we need a longer meeting >> unless it's going to be a really long meeting. >> Every once in a while we're going to need a separate LPA but not every time. >> Right. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. With that motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> Move. >> Thank you. >> Here you go. Nancy pass them.