►
From YouTube: Architectural Review Commission 3-3-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
I'd
like
to
call
to
order
the
march
3rd
2021
public
hearing
for
the
city
of
tampa's
architectural
review,
commission
welcome
everyone.
My
name
is
zachary
greco,
chair
of
the
commission.
If
you're
here
to
present
a
project,
you'll
have
limited
time
to
make
your
presence
presentation,
so
we
suggest
being
thorough
but
concise.
B
When
coming
to
the
microphone,
you
will
need
to
identify
yourself
and
your
relationship
to
the
project.
The
commissioners
will
not
ask
any
questions
during
your
presentation.
Your
project
should
be
presented
in
the
following
order:
site
plans,
elevations
architectural
details
and
wall
sections
staff
will
then
present
the
staff
report.
We
will
then
ask
for
public
comment
following
your
presentation.
The
commissioners
will
be
asking
questions
in
the
same
order
as
the
presentation
please
state,
and
spell
your
name
clearly,
if
you're
here
to
speak
for
or
against
a
project,
your
time
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes.
B
So
take
some
time
now.
To
summarize
your
comments,
because
three
minutes
go
by
very
quickly
following
public
comment,
the
app
clint
will
be
allowed
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal.
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed.
The
only
comments
which
will
be
allowed
after
the
public
hearing
is
closed
will
be
in
response
to
any
questions
from
the
commissioners.
B
The
commissioners
will
then
ask
and
discuss
the
case
and
will
make
their
decision
based
upon
the
sydney
ordinance
chapter
27
of
the
city,
zoning
code,
the
design
guidelines,
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards,
the
historic
preservation,
development
review
comments,
hpdrc
and
the
testimony
given
at
this
public
hearing.
The
arc
can
only
act
on
items
that
are
within
our
specific
jurisdictional
responsibility.
B
D
A
D
A
E
E
E
E
There
is
a
two
phase
approach
for
the
request
tonight:
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
new
construction,
for
an
accessory
structure
with
site
improvements
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
then
there's
three
variances
attached.
I
did
speak
with
the
owner
yesterday,
he's
going
to
go
and
address
his
variances
first
get
into
that
see
where
that
lands
him.
If
it
is
approved,
then
we'll
go
into
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
with
the
variances
that
are
requested
this
evening.
E
E
E
E
E
In
this
multi-family
area,
you
have
a
array
of
single-family
homes
with
multi-family
construction
as
well.
Mostly
two
and
three
story.
Excuse
me
one
and
two
story:
structures
on
the
property
in
question.
You
have
a
one-story
base
with
a
little
pop-up
of
a
second
story.
In
1929
there
was
a
one-story
accessory
structure,
that's
indicated
on
the
on
the
sanborn
map
and,
as
you
go
down
the
block
to
the
east,
these
are
the
single-family
homes.
This
is
indicated
by
multi-family
here
and
then,
as
you
go
to
the
north,
you
have
multi-family,
which
is
also
two
stories.
E
E
E
Looking
back
into
the
site,
this
is
looking
back
at
a
pad
where
the
accessory
structure
once
sat
on
this
parcel
a
little
closer
shot
of
that
location
and
just
some
windows
on
the
primary
structure:
series
of
three
windows:
a
ribbon
set
of
windows
with
the
proper
mullions
and
a
one
over
one
pattern
surrounding
property.
This
is
the
abutting
contributing
structure
to
the
east.
E
And
to
the
north,
this
is
the
as
I
stated,
the
zoning
in
this
area's
multi-family.
This
is
a
two-story
volume,
that's
just
to
the
north
of
the
subject
site.
That
concludes
the
photo
presentation
at
this
time.
Mr
blackwood,
you
could
address
the
board
to
discuss
the
variants.
Only
thank.
F
F
Okay,
give
you
some
background:
I'm
jim
blackwood,
I'm
a
retired
military
officer
at
the
air
force,
a
gulf
war
vet
from
1991.
It
was
30
years
ago
this.
This
week
we
had
the
ceasefire.
F
I've
been
a
hyde
park
resident
for
23
years,
I'm
a
member
standing
member
of
the
hhpna
for
about
10
years,
or
so
I'm
I'm
extremely
motivated
and
excited
about
doing
this
project,
starting
with
the
carriage
house
and
then
a
full
restoration
and
renovation
of
the
primary
structure.
F
I
got
to
admit
some
mild
frustration
with
it
as
we've
gone
so
far,
but
I'll
get
into
that.
Give
you
some
background.
I
did
a
full-blown
carriage
house,
ground-up
restoration
10
years
ago
in
the
2105
marjorie
property.
F
I
know
there's
a
lot
more
detail
on
that,
but
I
just
want
to
at
least
brief
the
board
here
that
I'm
familiar
with
the
process.
I
care
a
lot
about
the
history,
I'm
not
a
developer,
I'm
not
in
it
for
profit.
I
love
the
history.
I
love
the
neighborhood
and
I'm
passionate
about
it.
I
want
to
do
it
the
right
way.
F
This
is
the
summary,
the
variances
that
I'm
asking
for
three
feet:
side
and
rear
variance
from
seven
feet
on
the
side,
variance
of
20
feet
from
the
rear
and
a
height
from
15
to
35.
That
is
proposed.
F
I've
read
the
staff
report
and,
and
I've
read
some
of
the
letters
here
as
well.
F
I
think
it's
important
to
address
a
little
bit
of
the
historic
context.
I've
got
two
slides
on
this,
but
one
of
them
is
a
backup,
so
I
want
to
be
brief
on
it,
but
the
entire
swath
of
rm24
property
that
my
property
sits
on
extending
from
burns
park.
All
the
way
to
the
village
is
rm24
zoned.
It's
a
motley
compilation
of
various
structures.
F
We've
got
condos
in
there:
apartments,
townhouses,
single-family
homes,
commercial
establishments,
even
an
old
church,
so
we've
got
development
from
the
turn
of
the
last
century
through
the
mid-century
to
the
modern,
both
old
and
new,
all
mixed
together
in
a
general
sense,
the
abnormal
is
the
normal,
and
thus
I'm
looking
for
a
tailored,
unique
solution
to
the
problem
that
I'm
outlining
here.
That
is
in
full
accordance,
though
with
the
historic
guidelines,
as
well
as
the
historic
precedents
that
have
been
said.
F
F
Here's
the
reference
property
again
outlined
here,
ryan
addressed
that
as
well.
Many
of
the
trees
have
been
removed,
all
those
legally
all
under
permit.
This
is
a
historic
photo
that
many
people
probably
have
not
seen
this
photo.
Although
the
city
says
is
dated,
1916
is
incorrect.
It
is
in
fact
a
1923
photo
and
in
the
question
answer,
I
can
describe
exactly
why
that
is
1923
and
not
1916.
F
outlined
in
the
red
is
my
property,
probably
within
six
or
so
months
of
when
it
was
finished
construction.
What
is
notable
for
the
purposes
of
this
presentation
is
the
area
that
pierces
the
red
area.
That
is
an
accessory
structure.
That
is
a
multi-story
accessory
structure
and
I
ask
you
to
take
note
of
the
visual
appearance
of
it,
because
that
is
what
is
going
to
form
the
basis
of
the
application
that
I
have
before
you
and
the
drawings
coming
up
the
rc
staff
report.
F
I've
got
a
following
slide
here
that
walks
through
those
points
point
by
point.
However,
I
want
to
note
two
omissions
that
to
bring
your
attention.
If
you
just
read
the
staff
report,
you
would
not
know
that
by
reading
that
that
there
was
a
carriage
house,
a
multi-story
carriage
house,
located
on
the
same
footprint,
there
are
a
number
of
property
pictures
in
there
of
the
main
house,
but
the
main
house
is
not
the
subject
of
the
hearing.
F
The
carriage
house
is
so
one
of
the
photos
should
have
been
of
the
concrete
pad
that
showed
the
historic
precedent
of
the
carriage
house.
The
next
thing
that
was
omitted
was
the
hyde
park.
Standard
setback
of
three
feet
side
and
three
feet:
rear
is
the
historic
standard
and
that's
what
can
be
built
today
without
any
variances
at
all.
It
just
so
happens
that
I
have
sit
on
an
rm24
lot,
so
I
have
to
comply
to
the
multi,
which
is
a
20
foot,
rear,
set
back
and
a
7
foot
setback.
F
The
report
also
says
that
it's
1500
square
feet
that
I'm
applying
for
that's
incorrect.
It
is
1225
total
square
feet
and
of
a
significant
note
that
is
much
smaller
in
volume
than
many
of
the
structures
that
have
already
set
historic
precedent
and
that
have
actually
been
approved
recently,
as
well,
so
we'll
get
into
the
next
slide,
which
is
the
analysis
of
the
application
of
standards.
But,
what's
notable
is
that
the
arc
report
judged
it
non-consistent,
but
never
exactly
said
what
it
made
it
non-consistent.
F
It
didn't
break
out
any
of
the
three
variances
of
the
setbacks.
It
seems
to
imply
that
the
major
grievances
with
the
height
and
the
volume,
but
is
not
specific
in
doing
so
so
we'll
talk
the
standards
point
by
point,
then
the
10
plus
precedent
examples.
F
The
first
point
here
is:
it
says,
pages
69
and
70
that
was
used
as
the
basis
in
the
report
that
the
scale
and
the
height
and
the
width
and
I've
got
the
operative
terms
underlined
here
for
emphasis
new
buildings
compared
with
other
buildings
in
a
block
on
the
very
same
block.
The
historic
church
is
in
fact
six
stories
tall
and
it
has
parking
underneath
it
behind
now.
F
One
could
argue
that
that
is
not
a
carriage
house
and
I'm
talking
about
a
carriage
house,
but
if
we're
going
to
be
strict
to
the
verbiage,
as
is
it
says,
clearly
new
buildings
and
other
buildings,
it
does
not
distinguish
between
what
is
and
what
is
not
a
carriage
house
next
massing,
building
and
form
relationship
of
building
under
underlined
again
massing
in
form
to
other
buildings.
In
the
district.
F
We
could
look
no
clo
no
further
than
right
next
door
to
see
a
two-car
carriage
house
that
occupies
the
same
footprint
that
I'm
applying
for
now.
The
only
difference
is
a
third
story
edition
that
I
have
that
I've
asked
for
that
is
well
within
the
60
foot
building
limit,
and
notably
that's
only
half
of
the
volume
of
the
floor
below.
So
that's
only
about
200
square
feet,
we're
talking
about
in
total
size,
the
setback
again,
the
three
foot
side
and
the
three
foot
rear
set
back
is
the
high
park
standard.
No
variance
is
required.
F
F
The
orientation
and
the
site
coverage
underlined
here
in
relation
with
other
buildings
along
the
block
and
percentage
of
the
site
of
the
building
that
covers
a
percentage
of
the
site.
The
building
covers
compared
to
nearby
buildings,
looking
again
directly
next
door
that
occupies
a
footprint
on
that
property.
F
Far
bigger
than
my
property
does
or
is
even
envisioned
in
any
of
the
plans
that
I've
got
conceived,
alignment
rhythm
and
spacing
the
effect
of
a
new
building
that
we'll
have
the
effect
that's
going
to
be
on
the
neighborhood
in
that
area
is
identical
to
what
was
already
there
in
the
past.
So
there
is
no
difference
there.
I
am
simply
rebuilding
a
carriage
house
multi-story
that
was
already
in
the
precedent,
and
I
guess
I
have
to
call
out
the
sanborn
map
of
1929
being
accurate,
really
inaccurate
in
relation
to
a
prior
1923
photograph.
F
Concrete
is
the
material
maintaining
the
materials
concrete
is
the
material
of
the
main
house
and
the
concrete,
concrete
is
also
the
material.
The
proposed
carriage
house
and
concrete
is
a
common
material
in
other
carriage
houses
to
include
the
one
next
door
at
the
blue
apartment
building
trim
in
detail.
New
construction
will
be
compatible
with
historic
buildings.
The
apartment
building
next
door
is
spanish
in
nature.
The
proposed
carriage
house
is
also
going
to
be
a
simplified
spanish
structure.
F
F
Yep,
the
next
few,
I
guess
I
get
a
warning
on
time
or
address
by
elevations
and
maybe
have
to
save
for
the
question
and
answer
existing
site
plan
here.
What
makes
my
variants
unique
is
a
corner
property
with
an
odd
notch
in
the
rear.
That's
what
it
affects
it.
Here's
a
blow
up
of
the
survey
here
and
to
put
it
in
context
where
the
previous
carriage
house
stood,
it
stood
only
three
feet.
E
B
B
F
I've
got
kind
of
a
summary
on
the
slides
that
I
was
going
to
address.
Do
you
want
me
to
read
a
verbatim
what
I
said
what
I
supplied.
F
Okay
verbatim
here,
I
started
off
with
an
introduction
here.
My
primary
hardship
is
an
ill-applied
nonsensical
code
as
applied
to
the
historic.
What
do
I
mean?
First,
like
the
identically
rm
24,
zoned,
immediate
adjacent
property,
1308,
south
desoto,
avenue,
figure,
1
and
all
repeat
all
other
properties.
In
rm24
zoning
figure,
2
section,
not
a
single
accessory
structure
is
set
back
20
feet
from
the
rear.
Repeat,
not
one
accessory
structure,
historic
or
new
is
set
back
20
feet
for
the
rear.
As
per
supposed
code
requirement,
then
I'm
seeking
variance
from
here.
F
Second
most
of
the
city
allowed
accessory
structure
are
well
in
excess
of
the
supposed
code,
maximum
total
square
footage,
as,
in
example,
3.
The
figure
3,
which
is
a
whopping
total
square
feet
built
in
2002
and
set
back
even
less
than
three
feet
from
the
rear
figure.
Four,
as
per
city
tax
record
and
photo
figure.
Four
is
just
one
example.
F
Third,
my
1314
desoto
property
was
originally
designed
and
built
as
a
single
family
home,
complete
with
a
multi-store
carriage
house
in
the
rear
figure,
six,
as
per
1923
historical
photo,
most
notably
the
original
carriage
house,
with
the
three
foot
rear
and
three
foot
side,
setbacks,
parentheses,
identical
to
what
I'm
seeking
here,
close
parentheses
is
precisely
where
I
intend
to
build
the
new
carriage
house.
That
means
I'm
actually
having
to
apply
for
a
variance
to
rebuild
the
original
carriage
house
that
was
built
on
the
very
same
location
with
the
same
setbacks
I'm
requesting
now.
F
I
said
that
before
I
had
the
the
blow
up
of
the
survey,
so
I'll
make
a
minor
correction
that
these
setbacks
are
not
exactly
the
same
they're
a
little
over
two
feet
more
in
the
rear
and
four
inches
on
on
the
side.
Thus,
this
indistinguishable
indisputable
evidence
clearly
and
demonstrably
shows
that
the
kill
code
is
ill-applied.
F
So
why
is
the
variance
required
for
the
desoto
lot
carriage
house
exactly
where
one
was
built,
but
not
for
the
marjory
carriage
house,
when
both
properties
were
originally
designed
and
built
as
single-family
homes
and
restored
preserved
as
single-family
homes
in
the
historic
district?
That's
simply
nonsensical.
There's
no
other
way
to
describe
that
reality.
F
Number
one
here,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulties
are
unique
and
singular
with
respect
to
the
property
or
with
respect
to
a
structure
or
building
they're
on
and
and
are
not
those
suffered
in
common
with
other
properties
and
structures
or
other
buildings.
Similarly,
located
response,
it
appears
that
this
case
is
unique
and
singular.
It
does
not
appear
any
other
historic
hydemark
property
with
the
conditional
challenges
this
property
has
now,
the
property
is
currently
zoned
rm24,
but
the
home
is
is
a
historic,
contributing,
single-family
home,
built
before
the
zoning.
F
For
quote
residential
multi-quote
change
from
the
original
quote,
single
residential
single
quote,
the
single
family
home
will
be
restored
and
rebuilt
as
a
single
family
home
as
it
was
originally
designed,
along
with
an
accompanying
carriage
house,
which
used
to
be
located
on
the
same
exact
same
footprint.
The
applicant
is
proposing
here.
The
challenge
is
unique
because
starting
circa
1953-
and
I
I'm
going
to
reference
a
tampa
tribune
article
that
I
researched
from
newspapers.com
with
an
ad
advertising,
an
apartment
for
rent
there
at
that
address.
F
The
single-family
home
was
carved
up
into
three
apartments,
thus
for
a
proper
historic
restoration
of
the
property
to
return
the
home
to
a
single-family
home
with
a
carriage
house.
Both
should
occupy
the
same
footprint
as
historically
depicted
as
starting
circa
1912,
as
originally
designed
and
built
1912
ad
here
is
the
tax
record
for
the
year
my
house
was
built,
but
more
than
likely
that
was
the
year.
The
property
was
acquired,
not
when
the
property
was
built.
F
The
current
code
requirement
if
applied,
would
be
unique
to
this
property.
The
applicant
cannot
find
a
single
example
where
such
large
setbacks
have
been
applied
in
the
historic
district
for
carriage
houses
in
rm,
24
zoned
areas,
since
the
property
will
be
restored
and
rebuilt
as
a
single
family
home
home
on
an
rm24
zoned
lot,
the
carriage
house
should
be
allowed
to
be
placed
where
it
was
originally
built.
Conditions
then,
and
conditions
now
are
identical
three
feet
side
and
rear.
F
Current
residential
multi-zoning
allows
for
both
the
proposed
height
below
35
feet
and
the
proposed
square
footage
hundred
square
feet
more
or
less,
but
just
not
a
hyde
park
standard.
Three
foot
rear
and
side
setbacks
for
carriage
houses
in
excess
of
750
square
feet,
parentheses,
which
are
granted
approval
for
residential
single
hyde
park
properties
as
standard
procedure.
F
One
additional
reason
that
the
carriage
house
needs
to
be
within
the
current
setback
is
because
the
fence
line
and
the
boundary
cuts
into
the
applicants
lots
several
feet
halfway
between
the
road
and
the
rear
of
the
property
line,
a
characteristic
that
also
appears
unique
to
this
property.
That
means
the
actual
rear
setback
for
most
of
the
carriage
house
will
be
well
in
excess
will
be
in
excess
of
three
feet
anyway.
F
Number
two,
the
hardship
of
practical
difficulty,
does
not
result
from
the
ac
actions
of
the
applicant.
A
self-created,
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
shall
not
justify
a
variance
response.
The
applicant
has
not
done
anything
to
cause
this
hardship,
practical,
slash,
practical
difficulty,
three,
the
variance
if
granted
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
others
whose
property
would
be
affected
by
allowance
of
the
variance
response.
There
would
be
no
interference
or
injury
to
others
at
all,
substantial
or
unsubstantial.
F
Four,
the
variance
is
in
harmony
with
and
serves
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
chapter
in
the
adopted
tampa
comprehensive
plan
response.
The
requested
variance
is
in
complete
harmony
with
the
chapter
and
the
tampa
comprehensive
plan,
specifically
level
three
high,
suburban
areas
of
opportunity
and
multiple
land
use
objectives,
such
as
lu
policy,
1.2.14,
etc.
F
There
are
many
examples
of
carriage
houses
in
the
hyde
park
area
that
are
within
the
guideline
setbacks,
and
this
variance
would
be
in
keeping
with
this
precedent
the
hyde
park.
The
carriage
house
is
a
replacement
of
a
structure
originally
on
the
parcel
which
could
have
been
considered
contributing
itself
and
therefore,
specifically
complies
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
comprehensive
plan
in
historic
preservation.
F
Five,
allowing
the
variance
will
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done,
considering
both
the
public
benefits
intended
to
be
secured
by
this
chapter
and
the
individual
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
that
will
be
suffered
due
to
a
failure
of
the
board
to
grant
a
variance
response.
Yes,
it
will
allowing
the
variants
will
a
provide
public
benefits
via
greater
property
tax
values,
improved
housing
and
architectural
aesthetics
and
b
justly
aligned
with
established
precedence
and
permissions
granted
within
the
historic
district.
F
The
presumed
removal
or
degradation
of
the
original
carriage
house
was
a
was
a
substantial
injustice,
altering
the
historical
character
of
hyde
park,
which
the
board
is
tasked
with
preserving
six.
The
variants
if
granted,
will
allow
development
that
is
consistent
with
the
design
standards
and
compatible
with
the
historic
pattern
of
development
within
the
historic
district,
historic
conservation,
overlay,
district,
multiple
property,
designation
or
the
locally
designated
landmark
or
landmark
site
in
which
the
pro
subject
property
is
located
response.
Yes,
it
will
standard
setbacks
for
carriage
houses.
F
E
B
Before
we
open
to
any
public
comment,
could
I
get
a
commissioner
to
put
the
two
letters
that
we
have
into
public
record.
B
B
A
Evening,
good
evening,
my
name
is
george
deakin.
It's
diaz
and
david
e-a-e-a-k-I-n.
I
live
three
houses
down
from
the
subject
property
at
1408,
south
desoto.
First
I'd
like
to
commend
mr
blackwood.
I
think
he's
really.
A
A
I
guess
just
have
two
issues
with
the
the
the
what's
being
presented:
one
is
the
height
of
the
carriage
house.
It
just
seems
to
be
out
of
scale
with.
What's
in
the
block,
the
rest
of
the
block
is
the
same
zoning
except
for
the
church,
all
the
other
arm.
A
With
the
24,
is
there
one
or
two
stories
and
jim
knows
that
the
church
is
is
higher,
but
it's
a
different
zoning
class.
It's
a
higher
zoning
class,
so
everything
within
several
blocks
is
just
one
or
two
stories
of
the
carriage
house.
That
seems
to
be
out
of
scale
with
quote
other
things
of
the
same
class
within
the
block.
A
A
A
It's
normally
on
any
project.
If
you've
got
one
site,
you
submit
overall
plan.
Here's
the
plan
view
here's
where
the
structures
go.
I
looked
at
his
sketches,
I
guess
in
his
in
his
emails,
but
they're
not
really.
There
are
a
couple
elevations,
but
it's
hard
to
tell
where
the
driveways
are,
where
the
entrances
are.
I'm
I'm
an
engineer,
and
all
I
could
do
was
count
with
two
driveways
for
four
units
that
he's
proposing.
B
D
I
have
a
couple
questions
I
would
like.
A
A
B
B
D
Yes,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
your
proposed
accessory
building
on
this
site
for
just
one
moment,
and
it's
and
its
relationship
to
the
past.
Am
I
correct
in
understanding
from
your
good
neighbor
notice,
as
we
have
in
our
packet
that
you
intend
to
have
a
one
bedroom
apartment
in
as
part
of
this
accessory
structure?.
F
Yes,
I
do
I
it's
a
zoned.
It
was
apparently
the
property
rented
out
used
as
a
separate
dwelling
structure.
So
yes,
that
would
be
a
separate
dwelling
structure.
D
I
assume
you,
sir,
have
control
of
this
property
at
this
time.
I'm
sorry,
I
assume
you
have
control
of
this
property
at
this
time,
control
as
in
ownership.
Yes,
sir.
Yes,
question
on
the
carriage
the
exis,
the
historic
carriage
house
that
you
that
is
being
replaced.
D
F
No,
I
do
not.
I
just
have
the
photo
record
that
that
shows
that
do.
D
Thank
you
for
the
moment,
sir
question
for
staff
regarding
the
existing,
the
formerly
existing
carriage
house,
the
staff
have
an
indication
as
to
when
that
structure
may
have
been
demolished
in
the
past
and
in
the
same
vein,
whether
or
not
that
structure
was
in
fact
the
same
structure.
We
see
in
the
aerial
photograph.
E
Mr
blackwood
had
referenced
that
the
the
picture
that
he
illustrated
earlier
on
was
from
23
that
shows
a
multi-level
story
accessory
structure
with
no
date
on
it.
The
sanborn
map
that
I
showed
on
the
beginning
of
my
photo
essay
we
know,
is
from
1923
and
chose
a
one-story
accessory
structure
at
that
time.
D
Understood
to
the
applicant
one
more
question
at
this
time,
I
noticed
from
your
site
plan
there.
There
is,
if
you
will,
a
notch
in
the
northeast
corner
of
your
plot.
Is
there
a
particular
reason
for
that?
Is
there
an
encumbered
easement
there.
F
D
F
It's
a
notch
from
my
my
property's
perspective,
but,
though,
are
you,
commissioner,.
F
C
F
A
A
E
A
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
D
D
E
I
don't
this
evening,
but
the
variance
hardship
goes
what's
unique
and
singular
to
the
particular
parcel,
so
whatever
their
hardship
was,
and
if
that
was
granted,
I'm
sure
they
provided
substantial
incompetent
evidence
this
evening.
You're.
Looking
at
the
parcel
in
question,
I
just
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
as
well
that
the
side
yard
setbacks
are
correct.
They
could
be
a
three
foot
from
the
side
and
three
foot
from
the
rear.
E
If
the
structure
for
the
arms
24
zoning
classification
is
750
square
foot
or
less,
because
the
total
square
footage
with
the
numbers
that
he
provided
us
just
a
little
while
ago,
I
have
1460
so
anything
above
750
square
foot
would
lead
you
down
to
meet
the
primary
structure,
setbacks
which
are
seven
on
the
side
and
20
on
the
rear
and
then
for
the
height
within
the
city
of
temple.
All
accessory
structures
are
held
to
15
foot
in
height
within
the
historic
districts.
E
If
you
ask
for
a
design
exception,
you
can
increase
that
to
22
and
a
half
with
discussion
from
land
development
and
the
preservation
manager
to
stay
consistent
with
the
fabric
within
the
hyde
park,
historic
district.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clear
up
some
of
the
numbers
and
what
was
required
and
what
this
classification
calls
for.
F
A
F
F
F
If,
if
the
gentleman
you
know
finds
it
acceptable,
I
can
answer
your
question
that
you
posed
to
the
staff
of
other
structures
in
the
area
and
that
swath
of
rm24
zoning
that
don't
comply
to
the
20-foot
setback
and
I'd
like
to
walk
through
those
dozen
examples
quickly.
If
you
like,
I
have
the
years
built
in
the
square
footages.
F
F
In
fact,
now
that
I
think
of
it,
I
can
I
can
look
at
the
the
rm24
zoning
map
that
I
put
out
and
yes
correlate
those
to
contributing,
because
they're
solid
in
color.
C
I
just
wanted
to
ask
kind
of
along
the
same
lines
as
commissioner
taylor.
Did
you
consider
any
sort
of
a
site
plan
with
that
750
square
feet,
or
did
you
go
after
a
design
exception
to
get
you
to
at
least
that
22
and
a
half.
F
F
If
I,
if
I
went
that
route
and
put
a
standard
two-car
garage
in
there,
that's
roughly
450
square
feet
that
leaves
just
almost
a
closet
space
of
living
space
that
that
is
also
without
precedent
in
the
in
the
area
there.
F
The
unfortunate
reality
we
have
is
is
that
the
the
property
requirements
are
just
larger
than
than
they
were
in
yesteryear.
We
had,
for
example,
ribbon
driveways
that
were
two
feet
of
concrete,
almost
three
feet
of
center
and
two
feet
of
concrete.
The
ribbon
driveway
today
is
three
feet:
three
feet
three
feet
and
that
just
kind
of
no
metaphor
unintended
intended
here,
but
that
leads
to
the
path
of
larger
vehicles
and
larger
garages
to
contain
those
larger
vehicles.
F
I
built
an
accessory
structure
450
over
450
without
any
variances
just
10
years
ago.
I
thought
I
could
do
the
exact
same
thing,
especially
when
a
historic
structure
existed
on
that
same
footprint
and
do
so
without
any
controversy
at
all.
But
so
I'm
really
just
shocked
frankly
that
that
I'm
kind
of
going
through
the
procedure
that
to
build
the
very
carriage
house
I
built
10
years
ago,
450
over
450
with
no
variances.
F
I
shift
two
blocks
south
and
I
get
a
file
for
the
same
three
variances
that
I'm
applying
for
now:
two
setbacks
and
height,
so
I'm
24
feet
in
height.
What
I
built
on
marjory
avenue
on
a
contributing
structure
lot
would
be
prohibited
by
the
same
criteria.
We're
discussing
here
right
now
for
desoto
well,.
B
To
note
that,
even
though
that
something
that
was
built
in
the
district,
regardless
of
if
it
was
historic
or
not,
the
zoning
guidelines
were
probably
different
for
that
structure
which
requires
different.
You
know
things
to
be
met,
so
I
completely
understand
the
idea
that,
because
a
different
structure
and
a
different
address
within
the
district
allowed
it
every
single
location
and
every
single
property
in
this
district
is
different
because
of
that
because
of
the
zoning
because
of
where
it's
located
the
lot
sizes.
F
I
understand,
but
to
build
that
same
carriage
house
and
marjorie.
Are
you
implying
that
I
couldn't
build
that
same
property
this?
That
structure
today
with
three
foot
setbacks
and
the
height.
B
C
My
last
question
was:
you
mentioned
24
feet,
my
as
far
as
height
ours
here
says,
from
15
to
35.
F
That's
for
this
right.
That's
for
the
zoning
of
rm24
accessory
structure
is
capped,
as
I
understand
the
code
at
35
feet.
Yes,.
B
F
F
B
Okay,
to
restate
the
question:
typically,
a
hardship
is
not
based
off
purely
a
re-zoning,
so
based
off
of
what
we've
seen
you
could
theoretically
build
in
an
accessory
structure
that
meets
zoning
on
this
piece
of
property
and
work.
Unfortunate
part
is
you're
asking
for
an
accessory
structure
that
is
above
those
which
requires
the
zoning
for
the
new
residential
multifamily
to
kick
in,
and
the
hard
part
is
seeing
that
you
are
in
this
case
kind
of
picking
from
residential
single-family
and
residential
multi-family
in
order
to
say
I'm
residential
multi-family.
B
I
personally
don't
need
to
walk
through
the
setbacks,
unless
the
other
commissioner
does
other
questions
that
I
have
so
the
1500
square
feet.
I
think
the
confusion
on
that
is,
if
you
take
based
off
a
residential
multi-family,
it
includes
both
the
parking
and
the
living.
So
when
you
do
count,
go
through
the
plans
and
take
the
garage
and
both
floors
of
the
residential,
it
does
get
you
about
the
1500
square
feet.
B
If
you
take
out
the
parking,
then
that
probably
gets
you
closer
to
that
1200
square
feet.
Unfortunately,
because
of
the
zoning
it
counts
all
three,
so
you
did
mention
a
couple
times
that
the
the
historical
precedent
was
a
multi-story
carriage
house.
Do
you
know
what
that?
How
many
stories
that
accessory
structure
had,
or
was
it
just
a
multi-story.
B
B
F
F
A
F
F
Okay,
we
talked
about
the
hardships
these.
These
are
the
historic
district
president.
This
gets
to
the
heart
of
the
matter
as
to
the
judgment
that
was
rendered
against
my
application,
that
it
doesn't
comply
with
the
hyde
park,
design
guidelines
I'll
show
that
it
does
with
these.
Through
these
examples
here
we
talked
about
my
marjorie
hyde
park
carriage
house
that
I
built
two
blocks
over.
That's
that
this
is
the
carriage
house
that
is
right
next
door.
This
is
an
original
contributing
structure
is
930
square
feet.
F
It
is
set
back
three
feet
from
the
from
the
rear
and
less
than
three
feet
from
the
side.
There's
no
problem
with
that.
So
that's
consistent
with
what
I'm
looking
to
build.
With
the
exception
of
the
third
story,
this
is
the
property
that
is
in
stone's
throw
from
that
carriage
house
that
I
just
showed
you
and
we're
walking
just
to
give
you
a
visual
direction
again
that
alley
of
that
entire
rm24
zoned
swath
of
property.
This
also
is
a
contributing
structure.
This
was
built
in
1923.
F
F
F
The
alley
is
the
side,
so
that's
less
than
a
seven
foot
side
setback,
that's
contributing
built
in
1925,
total
structure,
size,
eight,
eight
thousand
square
feet,
1902
deco,
a
modern
structure
that
looks
old,
built
in
2008
three
and
three
setbacks:
side
and
rear
996
total
square
feet
to
include
garage
access
with
less
than
the
required
clearance
that
that
I
would
have
filed
on
the
marjory
house,
and
then
we
got
two
townhouse
there's
one
on
watrus
and
one
on
rome.
F
The
the
one
on
rome
is
the
structures
with
the
walk-ups
clearly
visible
in
the
center
lower
part.
The
garages
in
the
rear
are
less
than
20-foot
rear
setback
with
dwelling
spaces
above
and
parking
below,
and
the
round
town
houses
with
the
photo
to
the
right.
There
have
less
than
a
six
foot
rear
setback
both
of
those
are
obviously
greater
than
15
feet.
F
F
So
I
purposely
put
the
upper
right
drawing
to
correlate
to
the
upper
right,
inset
red
circle,
drawing
of
the
historic
structure-
and
this
is
the
whole
reason
why
I'm
asking
for
three
feet,
because
I
want
to
mimic
what
was
built
there
before
and
meet
the
designer
and
tent.
That's
why
you
see
two
garage
doors.
B
C
C
As
much
as
I'd
like
to
agree
that
you
know
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
the
urban
context
and
continuing
it
as
much
as
possible
with
maintaining
our
rallies,
I
do
agree
that
the
setbacks
for
the
immediate
context
does
show
consistency
with
within
that
three
foot
rear
setback
and
that
that's
one.
I
could
support.
However,
based
on
the
fact
that
the
property
is
zoned
rm24.
C
I
find
that
difficult
to
support
at
this
time,
and
I
do
I
do
think
that
there
are
certain
components
of
what
has
been
discussed
and
presented
here
for
the
record.
That
does
seem
to
be
picking
from
a
single-family
residential
zoning
overlay
and
then
picking
from
the
rm24
in
order
to
support
certain
elements
that
that
the
owner
would
like
to
bring
to
the
site.
C
I
would
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioner:
I
think
it
would
be
overreaching
of
us
in
our
capacity
as
the
board,
to
support
these
setbacks.
The
way
it's
zoned
now
I
don't
really
find
that
there's
a
hardship
you
know
just
because
it's
zoned
this
way
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
hardship.
C
D
A
D
Accessory
dwelling,
and
once
you
throw
in
a
full-blown
dwelling
into
this,
not
accessory
storage,
not
a
garage,
although
we
do
have
a
garage
component,
not
an
incidental
use.
You
really
kick
into
a
more
stringent
zoning
requirement
for
setbacks
and
the
desire
to
put
this
back
into
a
location
where
there
used
to
be
a
garage
and
before
that,
a
full-blown
carriage
house,
neither
of
which
we
have
documentation
for
really
stretches
the
ability
for
us
to
judge
whether
or
not
this
is
an
adequate
replacement
in
place
for
the
for
the
proposed
use.
D
D
This
is
notwithstanding,
of
course,
the
fact
that
there
are
a
number
of
existing
and
some
of
them
even
contributing
accessory
buildings
and
accessory
dwellings
in
the
hyde
park
district
which
don't
meet
the
current
zoning
ordinances
they
may
have
at
their
time
or
may
have
been
unregulated
at
their
time.
We
have
no
control
over
how
these
buildings
may
have
been
repurposed
or
altered
over
the
very
many
years.
A
I
concur
with
mr
sutton
and
I
think
the
two
previous
commissioners
as
well.
It
is
unfortunate
that.
A
There's
there's
been
a
great
deal
of
effort
put
into
this,
it's
it
and
it's
a
good
effort,
but
the
result
is
a
structure
which
is
out
of
character
due
to
its
height
and
and
which
has
zoning
difficulties,
and
so
there
are.
There
is
perhaps
a
way
to
get
this
structure
located
in
the
same
area
it
may,
and
but
I
I
am
new
to
this
board
and
I
do
not
know
exactly
what
that
may
be.
A
It
seems
as
though
it
might
be
a
zoning
change,
but
it
I
do
not
believe
it
meets
the
requirements
for
a
variant.
D
D
From
looking
at
the
site
plan,
I
feel,
like
this
structure
could
probably
be
moved
to
meet
the
requirements
for
the
setbacks
in
this
particular
zoning
and,
unfortunately,
I
feel
like
it's.
You
know
we're
governed
by
the
zoning.
That's
currently
on
the
piece
of
property,
regardless
of
what
it
may
or
may
not
have
been
in
the
past
on
any
of
these
other
properties
that
were
mentioned.
B
I
would
agree
as
well
I'm
also
having
a
bit
of
concern
looking
at
your
photo
that
you
represented
as
figure
6,
so
the
aerial
image
of
1923.
B
If
you
look
at
some
of
the
perspectives
and
kind
of
you
know,
zoom
in
a
little
bit
and
take
some
of
the
lines
and
stuff
the
building
that
I
think
you're
trying
to
replicate,
I
don't
actually
believe
was
on
your
property
in
that
corner.
It
looks
like
it's
actually
behind
the
house
next
to
you,
and
it
makes
me
wonder:
are
we
trying
to
replicate
something
that
doesn't
meet
on
top
of
the
variances
and
some
of
the
the
discussions
that
we
have
that
the
other
commissioners
stated
I
would
tend
to
agree.
B
I
think,
there's
been
some
a
really
good
thought
process
and
kind
of
an
idea
of
replicating.
What's
there
historically,
but
there's
just
been
some
inconsistencies
of
you
know
square
footage
of
the
house
where
it
actually
sits
replicating
something
that
was
historic
and
unfortunately
I
don't
see
a
hardship
that
would
entitle
to
the
the
three
variances.
B
Are
there
any
other
discussions
or
any
other
things?
The
commissioners
would
like
to
talk
about
before
making
a
motion.
B
A
C
I
move
that
the
variants
requested
for
arc
20-463
for
the
property
located
at
1314,
south
desoto
avenue,
for
a
variance,
let's
see
here,
of
a
rear
yard
setback
from
20
to
3
feet,
with
an
encroachment
of
9
inches
for
ease
and
gutters,
for
a
variance
of
the
corner
yard.
Setback
from
7
feet
to
3
feet,
with
an
encroachment
of
nine
inches
for
eaves
and
gutters,
as
well
as
a
variance
for
a
height
increase
from
15
feet
to
35.
Feet
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
the
burden
of
proof.
B
E
His
noticing
integrity
so.