City Of Tampa Variance Review Board 2021, 12 Jan 2021

Previous Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Variance Review Board 1-12-21

Description

Variance Review Board 01122021

A

Mr joel souza and brett burks from natural resources, mr owen williamson, and we may or.

A

May not have transportation on the phone we we do do not jonathan scott. Okay. There are.

A

Some procedural rules you'll need to follow due to the covet 19 pandemic. Please adhere to.

A

Safe social distancing is set within the room and please maintain wearing facial mask at all.

A

Times when your case number and petitioner's name is called, please approach the podium.

A

When you approach the podium, please state your name address and if you've been sworn in.

A

The petitioner and or their agent will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Please make.

A

Sure to clearly state your hardship criteria is submitted in your application. All other persons.

A

And participants wishing to speak will have three minutes and then the petition will have additional.

A

Three minutes for rebuttal, if needed, the time periods as stated will be kept by the board.

A

Any information such as pictures plans that have not been previously submitted as part.

A

Of your petition and you intend to present at this hearing for consideration in support of.

A

Your petition must be individually presented and accepted by the board after acceptance by the.

A

Board, you must submit the item to staff for it to be entered made. Part of the permanent record.

A

The board bases its decision on competent and substantial evidence which is presented and.

A

Which meets the criteria required by the city's code of ordinances, the variance granted by the.

A

Board will be for what is shown on the site plan and will be in compliance with any terms.

A

Conditions stated with in the approval of the board, all of the city codes will need to be met.

A

If the case is approved, your variance will expire two years from the date of decision. If the case is.

A

Continued it will be continued to either next month's vrb board agenda. The next available.

A

Position on an upcoming vrb board agenda in this case that will be april if the case is denied you.

A

May wish to have the variance review board's decision appealed by city council, and you must.

A

File: a petition for review of the board's decision within 10 business days of the written decision.

A

You will not be able to pull any permits until after the 10-day review. Appeal period has passed.

A

Your cooperation in ensuring that this meeting is run smoothly is greatly appreciated. May I first.

A

Move to approve the minutes without objection.

B

C

Legal department- I'm sorry, mr chair, so are you asking for a board member to make a motion to.

C

Approve the minutes from the I suppose, probably need to modify this script. um Will somebody make a.

A

Motion to approve the meeting minutes- sam walker, I move to approve the meeting minutes from the.

D

December 12th 2020 variance december 8th december december, 8th 2020 variants, review board meeting.

A

Is there a second len, her attack? Second, all right and a vote? Please, sam walker, aye dustin.

A

Pasteur aye brett feldman, aye lynn, hertac aye. Thank you at this time. I will ask legal staff.

A

To confirm any expertise, communications and conflicts, please good evening, kamaria pedesnako.

C

From the city attorney's office, will the board members please state whether or not they've had.

C

Any ex parte communications regarding any of the items that are listed on the agenda.

C

Hearing or seeing silence um additionally will the board members please state whether or not.

C

They have any conflicts of interest regarding any of the items that are listed on the agenda.

C

Seeing them for the record also thank you. Thank you.

A

With that said, is there any business regarding the agenda that staff would like to address.

E

Cases uh vrb, 2106 and 2108 were misnoticed and have been moved to the march 9th agenda.

F

Okay, also, uh both um february and march agendas are now full.

E

So, if we're going to continue anything, it has to go to the april 13th hearing date.

E

uh Also david farrell emailed, and he will not be in attendance tonight,.

E

And finally, uh just let let you know uh we will be doing a workshop meeting on march.

E

27Th regarding vrb criteria with legal department and we'll be sending you emails regarding that.

A

Okay, thank you, mr susa, and is there any new business in addition to what you just.

A

Said no, sir. Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask staff to please conduct swear in.

G

H

Raise your right hand, do you swear to or affirm that the evidence you.

F

Are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing, but the truth.

A

A

And with that, let's please call our first case case.

A

Brb 2102 located at 5 30 lucerne avenue. Are you present? Yes, okay. Mr sue said.

A

Yeah, yes, sir, I'm going to hand out to some houndouts that the applicant has provided to us.

E

I

I got it, I got it, you know miss pettis. Should we do we need to address the fact.

A

That there's only four members and how the voting works so that people.

A

Can decide whether or not they want to present? We typically do that when we get down to four.

C

If you would like to okay, thank you because I believe it requires a all four to approve.

A

um And three to deny right right and I think our rules um permit automatic.

B

uh Continuances for people who would like them who would like if they would like the.

C

Continuance right, but they'd have to they'd have to state that before their presentation.

A

Okay, so then we've only got four members tonight we typically would have up to seven. um It takes.

A

Four to approve a case and that in this instance, everybody would have to agree to approve a case.

A

You would need to decide before you present, if you're, okay, with those terms.

A

If not, you can automatically continue your case to april.

A

13Th, um so that's your choice. Given the low number of board members tonight, there's a.

A

Chance we'll have one more show up, but we have not heard from her. So we don't know that.

A

Okay, mr seuss is the first case. Please, yes, sir first case of vrb 2102 property address is 530.

E

Cern avenue the zoning district is our 75 residential single family property owner is.

E

Elder solomon at all, and the applicant agent is mark bentley esquire they're requesting is to.

E

Remove a grand oak tree, one grand oak tree for the construction of new single-family residents.

E

This has been reviewed by by the drc. Natural resources has found this consistent, you'll see.

E

On the front of your uh staff report that which was inconsistent, uh we met staff, went and met.

E

With the with natural resources, we revised the uh the review and it's sending your staff report.

E

Showing consistent now, um all the other agencies either found it consistent or did not find.

E

Anything wrong with the application. You have one opposition letter and one support letter, you'll.

E

See the one uh the support letters in your staff report and the opposition, letters on your desk.

E

Let me show you where this property is. This is over on davis, island.

E

This is west davis boulevard. This is the property here on lucerne.

E

This is basically what the front of the house looks like.

E

This is a copy of the survey. This is the front property here existing house here.

E

And I believe the tree is this: 35 inch oak tree right here, that's causing the issue.

E

These are plans that were provided by the applicant.

E

Showing the buildable area with the tree remaining there.

E

He's giving you a couple of viewpoints of that.

E

That should conclude my report on wilson's. One owen is here in case you have any questions.

E

Regarding natural resources um but kamaria pedestal from the city attorney's office, I.

C

Just wanted to say, uh mr souza, that the letter that was obtained in opposition is from kim clark.

C

Just for the record and additionally, the board members have a copy of the letter. Yes, thank you.

A

Okay, petitioner, please step forward state your name address and if you've been sworn in, please.

H

And board members: my name is mark bentley, 401, east jackson, street tampa 33602. I represent the.

H

Applicants um have you been sworn in? Yes, I have thank you. Okay, you've got 10 minutes to present.

H

Can I have about 15, we have two experts uh or just kind of see how it pans out. We've got 10 minutes.

A

That's what everybody gets. Okay, the applicant is seeking permission to remove a 35-inch grand tree.

H

In order to construct a new two-story single-family home that conforms all city of tampa,.

H

Requirements, however, conform to city standards results in an unreasonable configuration as.

H

Defined by the code- and I give you copies of the code, I was going to kind of walk you through the.

H

Analysis because, unfortunately, the staff report left off a very key component out of your code to.

H

Determine what's reasonable versus unreasonable and justification for removal of the tree.

H

The applicant is working with both their architect john mastretta who's here to testify.

H

And two arborists, one being david reilly, former city of tampa official responsible for grand tree.

H

Analysis and permitting mr mark hughes, he's also in attendance, he's an uncertified, arborist um and.

H

His plate and actually is on the city's approved arbors list. They have determined that the tree.

H

Must be removed because of the impacts on both the root system and the excessive canopy removal.

H

What I like to do is go over the relevant code, sections.

H

Which I've given you and because I'll have to paraphrase some of this because up we.

H

Only get 10 minutes, I thought under your rules we had 15, but apparently I'm wrong.

H

This is a unique situation. Not only is the tree an impediment to allowing reasonable use of.

H

The property, so is the lot shape itself. The front of john lew's cern is 87 feet.

H

And the rear lot line is 60 feet and I've. Given you copies of the surveys.

J

Okay, so you can see here it's 87 and 60.

H

The zonings are, a 75 are 7 on sides, 20 in the rear 25 in the front. This is a site plan here of the.

H

Proposed footprint of the house here, two-story home, here's what it would look like, and this.

H

Is assuming we've received design exceptions administratively to encroach into the setbacks.

H

In the front, rear and the sides you can see the impacts of the tree. This is the first floor.

H

With the tree- and this is the second floor- and here again this is assuming we get certain relief.

H

Under the code, what the code does is they allow for encroachment to determine a reasonable use.

H

Of the property um to the extent that would be allowed, as the design exception administratively.

H

And the intent of the code is, if you have to exceed the parameters of a design exception.

H

To build your house and that's unreasonable, you know what they're trying to say is. You know other.

H

Than that they can't force you to redesign your house or go pursue variances or other options.

H

And while I'm up here, this case is substantially similar to a case, the board approved.

H

On september 8 2020., I think it was domain homes in its case number 20-51, and you can.

H

See here, the trees, essentially in the same location as it relates to our clients, property.

H

So, on page two of the handout it sets forth the criteria for the board's consideration. uh That's.

H

Page two, the staff report and it's 27 284.2.25. I think, there's three code sections. I gave you if we.

H

Keep the house keep the tree, it reduces the square footage of the house by 27 and also reduces the.

H

The rear of the house to 16 feet and with without the tree it'd be 48 feet.

H

So the important code section is, if you go to page under this table city code, section 227, 284.2.5,.

H

If you go to the second page, I've highlighted it.

H

And it talks about other construction activity, and this is a grand tree, maybe you're rendered.

H

Hazardous due to impacts of certain construction and may be removed if the building footprint or.

H

Structure addition adheres to the standard setback and height requirements of the zoning district.

H

It would impact the structural stability and condition of the tree root system which, in this.

H

Case it clearly would I've submitted two reports into the record? Okay confirming that and then they.

H

If you look at that section at the end, there's the footnote number five and then the next one.

H

Is the applicant has demonstrated there's no other reasonable reconfiguration of the.

H

Applicable proposed development components, and here again they reference footnote 5.. So.

H

Footnote 5 is used to determine by this board whether or not the removal of the tree would.

H

Be reasonable and what this says it says when feasible, encroaching up to the critical root zone.

H

With root pruning, which is not possible, you can hear mr hughes talk about that and also it says.

H

Altering the proposed placement orientation or height of any building or structure.

H

The size etc, provided that the structure location is not adjusted more than allowed.

H

By a design exception, as provided in section 2760., so 2760 allows the design exception.

H

The front set back to 2.5 feet, the side, yard, setbacks, 2.5 feet and the rear two feet.

H

Okay, so that being said, even with those minor adjustments which would come out to about.

H

300 square feet of additional development. The house would still be reduced in the realm of 25.

H

So that's kind of the threshold. What the code saying is you don't have to exceed.

H

The design exception parameters and if you have to do that, then that's unreasonable. Therefore,.

H

You'd be entitled to a permit another basis for issues the permit on the same code, section.

H

Footnote five says the internal flow or function of the structure is not adversely.

H

Altered by the reconfiguration you're going to see here, I showed you on the site plan.

H

The unconventional.

H

Construction of this home if the tree were to remain. This is the second floor, and this is the.

H

First floor so be substantially altered to be unconventional and be completely abnormal. You.

H

Know- and you really couldn't design that home and mr mastretta can address that. What I'd like to.

H

Do right now is mr chairman: just have mr misreta testify for just a minute or so john okay, because.

H

We only have 10 minutes and then follow that up with mr hughes and then we'll be done. Okay,.

A

Please state your name address and you've been sworn. Please uh john mastretta.

K

936 west cimarron drive tampa. uh Yes, I was sworn in okay.

K

um I'll just speak so, as mark mentioned, um the existing footprint of realistic buildable area.

K

For both levels, if the tree wasn't, there is about a little over 10 000 square feet. That's if.

K

It was a perfect world and we could build a rectilinear home, but that's a straight.

K

Extrusion, it doesn't account for any outdoor space or any porches, or things like that.

K

With the tree both levels, it reduces it around a little under 7000 square feet of buildable area.

K

And you can see, the main impact is to the second floor, which reduces to 16 feet of width from the.

K

Side yard in 16 feet and it runs almost 75 percent of the buildable area of the second floor, so that.

K

Grossly limits our ability to place any bedrooms or private spaces on the second floor.

K

Even if we could figure out a usable scenario for this layout, we still couldn't utilize the.

K

Outdoor spaces on the ground floor for any pools or outdoor living areas that could.

K

Be covered just before, or just because of the impact of the roots themselves,.

H

Okay, now I'll bring up. Mr hughes he's a certified arborist and, while he's coming up here, I'd like.

H

To point out to the board, I think it's the last document in the handout I provide you.

H

It's also in your backup is the neighbors in support and I think they're at 5 30 lucerne.

H

Okay, the giffords they submitted that affidavit in support and it's very important not only.

H

The support, but a large portion of the tree root system in canopy is also on the giffords property.

H

And they're in support of the application go ahead. Mark identify yourself your address.

G

Mark hughes, 8611, vivian bassway, that's odessa: florida, 33556, isa, certified arborist isa track.

G

Qualified and one of the city self-certified arborists and have you been sworn in? Okay,.

A

You got one minute all right, one minute, so we're going to cut through a lot of this.

G

Technical jargon here, which basically is just a cumulative total of stress uh from construction.

G

Impacts due to building a conventional style house, as these two gentlemen have cited here,.

G

So with that cumulative total of stress from the construction impacts of building the conventional.

G

Style house: here's some cider bibliographies here are trees in davis island that were meant.

G

To be retained, you have to look at the reduced crown density that is sort of hard to come by or.

G

Really get an appreciation for, but you can see the die back in here. The reduced crown density here.

G

Some more right in here, hopefully everybody's, seeing that okay.

G

Again, no recent shoot growth very low crown density, and these are all in different stages.

G

Of decline, so some are more recent. Some are more advanced this one right here. You can see.

G

Is been declining quite a bit longer really low crown density there. This tree right here.

G

Is nearly dead in the front of this house? This tree right here, which would be a similar.

G

35 inch type live oak that we're looking to have removed from the same rear corner of.

G

The house this one is declining, you can see the reduced crown density there and will be a costly.

G

Removal for that homeowner right there. This is all on davis, island trees in the area of davis.

G

Island here, with without construction impacts taken just today as well, to show you the crown.

G

Density, the color, the leaf complement the shoot growth that they exhibit that these ones lack.

G

And these trees, I can't be sure of their mitigation trees, but big houses, they're.

G

Void of big trees, you can see these trees right here that you know, instead of having an old tree.

G

Declined for five years due to the construction impacts of building a conventional style house.

G

You can just go ahead and mitigate a tree, and I understand that doesn't replace that large tree.

G

Right off the way, but look at the vitality and the shoot growth here with these trees.

G

Look at these trees right here. This yard was void of mitigation or old, mature trees as well and.

G

These were likely mitigation trees at that time, for you know as part of their permit process and.

G

You can see how viable and healthy they are whoops again trees in the area that were mature trees,.

G

Not mitigation trees could have been at one point but mature trees in the area that show good crown.

G

Density color leaf complement and these trees that were, you, know, likely made to retain that.

G

They just don't survive that well, they just cannot handle the construction impacts and.

G

You know it's costly removal and then you're going to likely get a lesser mitigation complement.

G

For that tree at that time, because it's you know three four: five: six years down the road.

G

So it's going to be in a poorer condition, um likely get netting less mitigation trees when you.

G

Could have just planted mitigation trees at the time of construction and had very viable assets.

G

To the sustainable uh canopy, okay, okay, 20 seconds and I'll tie it up sure no problem. Okay, I know.

H

This is really rushed here and if you look at our application, hopefully you've had the opportunity.

H

Prior to the meeting today to look at the backup and we laid out a lot of the justification.

H

Rationale but uh just kind of in in summary, um we've submitted two professional arborist reports.

H

One david reilly, one of the most highly regarded arborist in the area, along with mr hughes, here.

H

We've met our burden of proof in demonstrating that any reconfiguration, within the bounds of the.

H

Zoning code with or without the design exception relief is unreasonable by definition under.

H

Footnote five number: two: that the structure's internal flow and function would be unreasonable.

H

Unless the tree were removed, it'd be a 16-foot house in the rear. If the tree's not removed number.

H

Three: that the tree cannot be trimmed in a manner that would ensure the future viability of the tree.

F

The root system will be adversely impacted by the new construction causing the ultimate demise of.

H

The tree and here again importantly, the neighbors to the north, the giffords where the tree is.

H

Partially situated are in complete support of its removal. If you have any questions, we'll certainly.

H

Attempt to answer those thanks for your time. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Is there anybody.

A

In the audience who wishes to speak on this case, seeing none, we will open it for board questions.

D

um I have a question, so you provided us with a couple surveys that show- um or I guess, depictions.

D

Of what the house would look like if the tree were removed, um it looks like it's about a ten.

D

Put up to a ten thousand square foot house and then a picture of what it would look like if.

D

The tree were not removed. Do you have like a survey or an outline of what the proposed.

D

House would look like you know where the rooms are located, that sort of thing.

C

Mr bentley, can you put use the microphone? Thank you. We have the development um plan.

H

With the number of bedrooms and things like that kind of a list in their sizes, but we didn't, we.

H

Thought we were putting the cart before the horse, because if we do all this design work.

H

Okay and then can't get a variance, we spent thousands of dollars. We know we knew what the.

H

Footprint would be and we knew what components we'd want in terms of rooms and the sizes and.

H

That's exactly what this footprint is, we haven't broke it down. I looked at other applications. You.

H

Have and some people actually submit a floor plan where you can see all that stuff, but we.

H

Just thought it was premature to do that, because this is a very substantial house and to design it.

H

And then not get the variance just didn't make a lot of sense. To be honest with you, I agree: um do.

D

You know approximately how large the proposed house is going to be um john. Can john come on.

K

um It's rs-75 zoning, so we could do up to 7 500 square feet right now. It's.

K

Somewhere between 6 600 and 7 200., um there's a couple houses in the neighborhood that were.

K

Realistic comps they're about 6 700 on the same size, lot.

A

Any other board questions.

B

Yeah just one, um I understand that you uh are not required to.

B

Work within the setbacks, but let me ask you the current house as it as it stands: the existing home.

B

That is on this lot is actually built. Is it? Is it built into the setback? um Mr feldman, I really.

H

I couldn't tell you that okay and I have a I have because I'm looking at the at the picture.

B

That you have here, um and it looks like it goes, I don't know if it goes into the setback, but.

B

It certainly goes right up to the setback. With that concrete. What I can tell you is.

H

You have a survey, I I I gave you that in your backup yep. If you look at the survey.

H

And here again I wish I had a scale here, but you can kind of see just.

H

By some of the dimensions here um like say to the north, that looks like it's probably.

H

In the range of eight feet, where I'm it says, 9.3 feet, 9.3, okay and eight feet on the south.

H

So that being said, we conform with these city setbacks we be in this house which are seven.

H

And seven right, so they both exceed that and the rear is 20. It substantially exceeds that.

H

And the front is 25. now this property lines at an angle, no one's going to build a house at an angle.

H

And that's what I showed you here is technically, where I'm pointing that's 25, but we're not going.

H

To build a house on an angle- and I looked all over davis island and I didn't see anything.

H

Like that it just didn't, I guess that's just not a common design, you know, but what this does even mr.

H

Feldman, if we built out to this little triangular piece here that got us another 300 square feet so.

H

He just had this weird looking house, you know just for the sake of 300 square feet so that you know.

H

Certainly didn't want to do that as well, so they don't want to remove the tree.

H

Okay, I mean that's believe me, it's just in the wrong location and they can't build a house.

H

With a reasonable configuration, thank you any other questions.

A

No okay, well, you've actually got three minutes for rebuttal.

H

Thank you for the opportunity, but I'll decline. Okay. Well then, without objection.

A

We will close the public hearing and open it up for a motion or board discussion.

A

And I can't make a motion so.

D

I think that this is um a close call for me, the reason being that, based on the.

D

Depiction that we have of the buildable area when the tree remains.

D

Know the house can be constructed in excess of seven thousand square feet, which is pretty.

D

Standard for the area, um one of the criterias we look at is whether the house can be.

D

Reasonably reconfigured now I do appreciate that you know a 16 foot wide bedroom is.

D

Probably small for the area, so so I'm kind of on the fence here, but I am interested in.

D

Maybe some discussion about some of the other factors that the applicant meets here.

A

Well, they said it reduced their buildable area by 27 and I think, that's probably taking into account.

A

The second floor that basically it looks like it's cutting, 40 or so out of the second floor.

A

um I'm I believe, let's see yeah you're right, 7 000 roughly square feet in an odd configuration.

D

Now one of the things we do look at is you know how it affects the flow of the house, and so nice.

D

To see a layout of the proposed design, although I do appreciate the fact that it's expensive to.

D

Get that sort of site plan.

A

Yeah well to me it's a very odd. It would be a very odd house, it's already on an odd shaped lot and.

A

Then you're you're, taking out these big sections that we saw here, especially the second floor.

A

And you're going to put a diagonal l-shape second floor, which is incredibly unusual hard to lay out.

A

So you know to me, it doesn't seem like you, can build a reasonable.

A

House, within the at least within the size and probably style of what's surrounding on the island.

A

So I think it to me it makes sense. I mean this is a it's a huge canopy, the canopy reaches over the.

A

Midpoint of the site towards the south, so that's a that's a massive chunk of the buildable area.

H

Mr chairman, no, that was my question. We can't speak now. No, that's that's fine. I was just.

B

Well and and I'll jump in and address that point to some degree I mean the the.

B

Point that miss walker um made was one that was troubling me as well about the flow of the home.

B

And so I understand what what your point is is that.

B

From certainly from an architect's standpoint, the design of that.

B

Modified plan would be challenging. um You know in the old days we would talk about.

B

um Shifting this home right under the old code. And in fact, if you look at the one of the.

B

Documents that's in our packet. If you look just at the map, it looks very much like the house. The.

B

To the neighboring property and to the south goes well closer to the setback.

B

Than uh even the existing home that's here I was concerned that maybe we'd be if we.

B

Were to shift things, we would be messing with the flow of the neighborhood, but that.

B

If you just look at this dot, this house right there it's closer, um but that's under the old.

B

Code and we're under a new code um and if we are forced to work within the confines of what's there.

B

I agree it's a close call, but I'm leaning towards saying.

B

You know that, especially with the arborist description of what would happen to this tree.

B

Where it mitigated to even allow the truncated construction yeah, you know, I was thinking the.

A

Same thing, we don't, I don't, think I've ever seen a report that shows surrounding trees.

A

That have been built close to and what they look like, and at least the ones we saw, and we don't.

A

Know if those are impacted by construction or not, but they were really close to new houses.

A

And they were noticeably thinner than the other trees, so that was an interesting take. That was, I.

A

Appreciated seeing um len hertak I'll just weigh in I, I agree with um with other members that it.

I

I wish we could see a site plan of what. What what could be, because, generally, that allows us to.

I

Visualize a bit better and I did think about the movement. How can it be moved um in the arborist.

I

Report it it says it is a moderate risk tree, which we normally that's. I had to search for that, but.

I

What concerns me is that they're going to have to remove.

I

They're still going to have to remove a large branch of trying to find the photo.

I

That goes toward the south, and that concerns me again in in terms of how the tree will survive.

I

I agree it could probably I mean the square footage seems possible, but I.

I

I am concerned about the health of the tree after the um the building around it.

D

Okay, I'll make a motion, then okay, um I move that the variants for case of erb.

D

21-02 for the property located at 530, lucerne avenue.

D

Be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for removal of a grand tree.

D

Based upon the petitioner meeting the burden of proof with regard to the six factors for.

D

Determining tree removal, I set forth in section 27-284 0.2.5 f-4 of the city code for granting.

D

For granting tree removal, specifically that the evidence provided in the record.

D

Showed that alternative construction methods, even if they were utilized, would, if not.

D

Irreparably damage the tree would certainly hurt it and result in it not thriving like it would.

D

In its natural circumstances that the proposed building could not be reasonably reconfigured.

D

Such that this second floor would flow.

D

In accordance with a typical current residential house in the neighborhood, and that the impact.

D

As shown on the survey that the site cannot be reasonably reconfigured to save the tree,.

A

Thank you. That was an excellent motion I'll second, it thank you and a vote. Please.

D

Sam walker, aye dustin, pasteur, aye, brett, feldman, aye, lynn, hertek aye,.

A

All right motion's been approved. Thank you very much have a good evening appreciate it.

A

Okay, the next case is vrb 2110 located at 416 south orleans avenue. Are you present? Yes, okay,.

A

Mr sousa please yes, sir case of vrb2110 416 south orleans property zone, rm12.

E

Residential multifamily property owner is decis lava collects off. I tried.

E

Proposed work is to do a residential addition and add a two-story accessory structure.

E

They're proposing the following reductions for the main structure: the reduction of the north.

E

Side side yard from seven feet to two feet: ten inches to match existing house and to reduce.

E

The front yard setback from 25 to 10 feet four inches, that is to vest the existing house also.

E

He's also requesting setbacks for the accessory structure to reduce the rear.

E

Yard from three feet to zero feet and decrease increase the height from 15 feet to 27 feet.

E

Drc reviewed the case, transportation had as an issue because they did not clearly show.

E

Two parking spaces for the single family residents and access to the parking. So they had an issue.

E

With that other than that, the drc found it consistent, let me show you photographs and then.

E

Okay, this is the subject: property.

E

It's in south tampa and kind of in the high park area. This is the crosstown.

E

Going towards downtown from the south, this is the subject: property right off close to willow avenue.

E

This is in your packet. This is the front existing front house, as it sits right now.

E

Closer picture I'll show you the existing survey.

E

This is also in your packet.

E

This is the street right here. This is the existing.

E

Small lot right here, the existing house is already at 10 feet, 4 inches and right now.

E

This is the configuration of the backyard that has a parking pad, a small house.

E

Excuse me, it was right here.

E

Okay, this is the proposed site plan in your packets. This is the street front in here. This.

E

Existing house, as it sits right now, they're going to do a two-story addition in the back.

E

Here they're proposed they're, going for the side yard, set back from seven feet to two.

E

Feet ten inches to match up with the existing house they're attempting to vest this house.

E

With the front yard set back and now they're at proposing an accessory structure back here,.

E

This one we're going three to zero with an alley in the back and they're, going up to two stories.

E

Concludes my presentation, I'm here if you have further questions, uh kamaria perez macro from the.

C

City attorney's office- I just want to put on the record um commissioners that there was a letter.

C

um That you should have received in your packet and it's from um enza.

C

Ar the last name is spelled a-I-e-l-l-o just for the record. There is a letter.

C

I just want to want the commissioners to be reminded of that.

A

That concludes your report. Joel. Yes, sir, okay,.

A

uh Please step forward state your name address and whether or not you've been sworn.

L

Chairman and members uh constantine collaxes of address, 414, south origins, avenue.

L

um And have you been sworn in? Yes, okay, you've got 10 minutes to present.

L

In cell tampa, especially where the house is located.

L

The locks are very narrow. This particular one is 35 feet and the way to construct an addition.

L

That we don't have any weird looking building the only way we can do it is if we.

L

If we had to grant it on the side and rear setbacks from the.

L

From seven feet to 210 on the side actually on outside and and from 25 to 10 4 on the front.

L

And for the accessory structure is from three to zero.

L

L

Without these setbacks, we won't be able to construct any structure that.

L

Would would fit what we need? We have family of five and I have in-laws my father. My.

L

Mother-In-Law, they live with us, so we're seven members of the family and the only way to move.

L

In a house will need extra room, so we can all live in a house that conclude your presentation.

A

Did you um did you see the five hardship criteria that would have been submitted.

A

With your application, and would you like to run through those with us because that's.

A

Solely what we base our decision on, so you might want to go over those.

L

On our blog, there is already three or four actually four houses that they have the same.

L

uh Layout plain floor plan with the same front, side and rear set setback.

L

And we basically we're going to mimic the same same properties, we're not asking for anything.

L

Different than what their existing properties are on the lot I mean on the on the block.

F

Okay, all right. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, it is okay. um Is there anybody.

A

In the audience that wishes to speak on this case, please come forward. You can go to the other podium.

A

State your name address and if you've been sworn, my name is batista mourdini and my address is 418.

M

South orleans avenue tampa florida 33606 and yes, I have been sworn in. Okay, you've got three minutes.

M

Okay, um I am the neighbor to constantine here and um I have exactly the same house in the same.

M

In the respect that they were both built in 1908 exactly the same, and he was referring to their.

M

Affordable exactly the same, I happened to have a master's degree in architecture with the specialty.

M

And historic preservation, so I had to go through the same process and so part of his hardship that.

M

I happen to know from my own house is that it's an existing non-conforming situation, so it's built.

M

It's built as it sits right now, it's because that you know over since 1908, it's been all rezoned.

M

It's sitting over the property lines and just to be able to extend the house is what he's looking.

M

To do and then the detached structure I know um he's just trying to because of the configuration.

M

On the lot is just trying to maximize what he can, so I'm in full support of this and the one thing I.

M

Would like to say is that I commend him for trying to preserve the history of what's there on my.

M

Street they've been going one by one and it's nice to see that somebody's taking the effort. Because.

M

It's a lot of effort to maintain a uh original wood from from 1908. So I fully support this and.

M

That's it. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. So anybody else that was to speak on this case.

A

No, then we will open it up for board questions.

B

um Mr feldman, all right, so a couple of things that I understand.

B

And then we'll talk about uh one of the things that I do not.

B

I understand um matching the proposed addition to the side yard that makes sense on both sides.

B

I understand adding, I understand the the front yard because you've got an existing structure.

B

And it's existing non-conforming built in 1908 and you're, going to preserve that structure that all.

B

Makes sense um the part that I'm having difficulty with is the proposed accessory structure.

B

Going to zero uh and what I see it's hard to see. But what I see from some of the neighbors to the.

B

North is that they do have similar setups to what you have or what you're requesting.

B

But it doesn't look like they all go to zero. It looks like some of them are actually set back a.

B

Little bit more and I'm wondering why you need it to go to zero as opposed to setting it back.

B

To uh three feet off the property line, as I mentioned earlier, I have three little kids and.

L

uh If I move everything further in, I will not have any backyard well. You'll have three.

B

Feet less backyard, but you would still have a backyard between them just a little bit less.

L

Yes, okay, so what can you explain to me what the hardship is? I understand it's a small property.

B

I understand that it's uh thin and an unusual shape and so we're to work with that and.

B

Certainly you could, if you wanted to maximize the space in your backyard, you could build.

B

Less of the addition right, I mean you have the opportunity to do that. You can design it now.

B

So what again the issue I'm having is just on that backyard lot line? Can you explain.

B

To me, the hardship as to why it needs to go from three to zero, as opposed to some lesser.

L

As I said, the yards are very, very small, and if we go with that structure,.

L

On the edition- and we go with the minimum room size.

L

Basically, not going to have any backyard at all three feet to three feet. You know if you.

L

Have a 10 foot yard and we have decreased with three feet: we have a seven foot yard backyard.

L

So, on uh on a 20-foot yard, three feet is absolutely nothing, but on a 10-foot yard, 350 is.

L

Pretty good size, I don't see dimensions on what the yard is as proposed. I see a.

B

20-Foot proposed structure that structure looks like it would fit easily into the backyard.

B

As it's currently, if it's, if this is to scale that 20-foot long extension.

B

uh Accessory structure looks like it would fit in the backyard, so we're talking about 20 plus feet.

B

In in distance between the proposed accessory structure and the proposed construction.

B

And is: is this accessory structure? Is this going to be two-story.

L

Correct, okay, that not not the addition, but the um the one that we're talking about now. That's that.

B

You're asking to go to zero, that's going to be a two-story structure, correct! That's correct! Okay!.

D

Will there be a garage underneath it is that the plan that the bottom half.

D

Of the accessory structure will be a garage and the top will be living.

L

The way that the back alley is, I don't know if we can do a turning radius for the garage, but.

L

If we have an open, if you have an opening, we can probably fit a vehicle there. Okay, because one of.

D

The concerns that was raised by transportation is that two additional parking spots need to be added.

D

So, even if we were to approve.

D

Everything, as shown on the site plan, if you have to adjust the site plan, to account for the parking.

D

There's a chance that you would even have to come back here, so I just want to make sure that you've.

D

Considered where the parking the two additional parking spots will go, it is an option for us.

A

Point is: we do not have the ability to alleviate the parking requirement, so even if we approve what.

A

You're asking for you still have to provide those spaces for transportation, and that may actually.

B

Require you moving the structure closer anyway, just to give you room, if that's not, I was assuming.

B

That that was a garage underneath um the on the ground floor of the accessory structure. So if we.

L

Moved back three feet from the I. I can't tell you that I understand what your question is going to.

B

Be if we moved it back three feet is that going to alleviate the parking? I I can't tell you that.

B

I don't know I think transportation would be able to answer that question.

L

A lot is 35 feet, so the requirements from the transportation it's at 36 feet so.

L

The actual lot size doesn't allow that yeah and again, we can't do anything about the requirement.

B

That there be two parking spaces on the um on the site. My only concern was: is there a hardship for.

B

Allowing the proposed accessory structure to go to zero um from three- and I just haven't heard.

B

That, particularly when we have this issue of the parking, um because in theory, I was assuming that.

D

It was going to be a garage as well, because I would be more comfortable approving an increase.

D

In the height of the accessory structure, in order to accommodate some living quarters, on top of.

D

um A you know: parking that's required by the city. I think that that could potentially meet the.

D

Hardship criteria for us, um you know to approve the the increase in the height, which is something.

D

Else that we, you know, are also being requested to review here if the minimum requirements for.

L

The garage will fit that structure. Then we're going to have to convert it into.

L

In that garage for the first four.

A

How many of your immediate neighbors have two story? Accessories structures back on that alley,.

L

Four: it's on the same street: okay,.

I

How many of those four have garages with living spaces above they're all garages,.

A

That's typically, what we see yeah, I wanted to clarify.

F

D

Because I mean one concern I have is that.

A

Did you guys care to weigh in either transportation or in regards to the.

C

um Parking requirement: yes, yeah jonathan scott seated, tampa transportation, planning.

F

You're going to have to have two parking spaces for this project somewhere on the site, like even.

F

If all the variances are approved, he'll never get through, permitting because they'll they'll say.

F

Where's, your two parking spaces. You know for this big addition and major renovation, so.

F

That's why I was kind of making those comments. I wasn't sure what the petitioner was saying.

F

He's only going to do one parking space well, he needs to make that a two-car garage. First of all,.

F

If not, you might want to continue because you're gonna have to get a different game plan.

F

That's all I wanted to mention all right. I have a question for legal, so in in theory, if we were to.

D

um Approve the two setbacks: not the not the rear yard setback, but the the front and the.

D

Side yard and then we were to approve the increase in height of the accessory structure.

D

But the applicant subsequently needed to move the structure back for some reason.

D

Would he have to come back before us, since the site plan is has changed even though he's.

D

Noticed this is site plan specific, so if he were to change what the orientation of the project is.

C

That that does change. What the request is, what the project is.

I

I have a question for transportation: yes, um so how many parking spaces are necessary for this entire.

I

Lot he'll need two parking spaces. Just because he's going to do the renovation and expansion.

F

So that'll that'll trigger a requirement to parking spaces right now,.

F

Whatever parking he has is kind of grandfathered in, but when he goes and makes all these additions.

F

And major renovation that'll trigger the staff two parking spaces. So even though there's an.

I

Accessory structure, it's only two parking spaces and that's correct. Okay. Thank you.

F

A

All right do we have other questions for the petitioner.

A

Well, you get three minutes for rebuttal if you'd like to say anything else. If I have to have the.

L

Two parking spaces that accessory structure can be converted into a russian across the world.

C

I can use sir camario pet is not before the legal department. I know you're soft-spoken.

C

I couldn't understand what you just said: can you speak a little bit louder into the microphone.

L

The accessory structure would be a two-car garage if it's requirements for.

L

Two parking places for that for the lot.

F

A

Does that generate any more questions from the board? I guess I mean. Maybe we can cover it in.

B

Discussion but I mean I have concerns about where the access to the second story, then, would would be.

B

um If that would require an external staircase or whether that would be covered internally.

B

Within the garage itself um yeah, I agree, and I don't know if we should be talking about this.

I

Now, with the petitioner, actually that is a good question. uh If this is going to be a second story.

I

Living where would the stairway structure go on the south side of the of the building, so external.

B

Outside external, correct on the site, well, that would have to be shown on the plan.

B

Which isn't shown on the plan currently and.

B

That would potentially require another setback, yeah additional setback. So that's not noticed.

B

You'd have to essentially shrink your structure to be able to fit it in and then you're changing.

B

The uh the layout of the project, which would create problems for you, I'm not an architect but.

L

The other option to be external staircase would be between the two structures yeah. That would.

L

Be feasible joel. Is there any allowance for external stairs in the side, setbacks.

E

Joel zeus, land development: they do need to meet the accessory structure, setbacks, okay,.

F

D

All right, I have one more question for legal. um So last month we did a bifurcated uh motion.

D

Is it possible to do a bifurcated motion with an approval and a continuation or a denial and.

D

A continuation like: can you combine a continuation in an emotion, you can bifurcate your your emotions.

C

But you can only entertain a motion to continue. If that's what the applicant is asking, so you can't.

C

Do a motion respectfully to continue something if the applicant is not asking for a continuance.

C

So you could do a motion to approve a motion to deny you could bifurcate your motion for the.

C

One two three four requests here, but you can only do a motion to continue. If that's what the.

C

Applicant is asking for okay and, if that's, what he's asking for regards to the accessory structure.

C

um Or the entire project, all together before we go down that road.

A

You said if it was a garage, it might change your opinion on the height and location.

A

And he said that, if that's required for parking that that's what he would do so.

A

Does that change the way you're thinking about it or we need to discuss continuing.

D

um Well, I guess I was thinking if he needs to figure out the turn radius.

D

Perhaps he can push it back two feet. He would still want a one foot variance.

D

And if you guys could just speak louder, just to make sure that the response, the applicant.

C

Hears what your communication- okay, I think you know I guess where I'm coming from is.

A

If we feel like we're um okay with that concept, he would still have to work out the details of it.

A

Through permitting and if he wanted to take less than what we granted, he could with permitting.

A

So it's really whether or not we're okay with that concept and then the details.

A

Of stairs and cars and turn radiuses he'll have to work out with permitting to build it.

A

And it would, we would give him, you know the ability to go up to this request or he could.

A

Dial it back if, if he physically needed to okay, that may not affect us our decision.

B

So I I I don't know why you chose to look at me, but it was a smart.

B

Decision to look at me because I did have a question for you.

B

Is the um with the addition of stairs in between these two structures? If you were to add them.

B

uh They would be obviously permitted, but with the addition of stairs access to the second.

B

Story would that change the um site plan and create a problem for the petitioner, so camario.

C

Pedestal for the record I've with the discussion- that's happened today that he's saying that the.

C

Increased height of the accessory starts from 15 to 27. There has to be access to that. Second.

C

To that second level- and he could work through that- could be a condition of your motion that.

C

He worked with staff on location of the stairs to ensure compliance with the setback requirements. If.

C

If you want to, you know make your motion in regards to that, but he has to work within.

C

The setback requirements for the accessory structure and he can certainly work with the.

C

Staff or the department regarding that requirement: okay, but if you again are not, if that changes.

C

It doesn't change the scope because he has he's asking to increase that height. You have to have.

C

Access to that right, so hypothetically, if he, uh if the applicant decided to uh put the stairs on.

B

The south side of the structure uh and essentially shrink the structure to get that access that that.

B

Could be something that could be worked out with staff afterwards, as long as we created a condition.

B

That access um be worked out with staff, okay, because that would be a less than request. Yeah.

B

Okay, I just was concerned that by modifying the site, that would throw things out, but it sounds.

C

Like it's and I apologize he's work, he has to work within the confines of what you deny. I mean.

C

If you deny it, then that's not a discussion, but if you grant the variance you are tying.

C

What the scope of his project can be, he could work less than that, but he'll be tied to.

C

The scope of what your approval is, if that makes sense, so here's a concern that I have um so the.

D

Accessory structure encroaches into these. Oh, it does not encroach into the accessory.

D

Structure side set back so actually never mind: okay, just the rear. It's just the rear. Okay, okay,.

A

Any more questions: no okay! um You didn't get a full rebuttal. So if there's anything else.

A

You'd like to say, you still have three minutes, nothing to say: okay, all right.

A

Then we will close the public hearing and open it up for emotion or board discussion.

I

um Lynn, hertac, I I I think, there's nothing wrong with the main structure. I don't. I didn't.

I

He didn't have any any real reasoning for wanting the uh back set back, so I'm not inclined to.

I

Approve the back setback, but I would the rest of the property yeah. I was feeling that way at first.

A

But I think that the fact that the there's a back alley, first of all, which is very important but.

A

That there's four houses on the immediate street with the same similar, we don't know if it's.

A

Zero or three but a two-story garage, livable structure but, most importantly, the back alley.

A

Into miss walker decker's point: the turn radius to get into a garage is going to have to be worked.

A

Out with transportation or just practically so, if zero doesn't work, then I'll have to.

A

Move it back just to make a turning radius, so I I feel, like that'll work itself out practically.

A

And uh if there's room in that alley to make the turn at zero, then that means ali's probably plenty.

A

Wide enough that you're not really encroaching on anybody, so that's just my perspective, but um I.

A

Was where you were to start- and I have come around solely because of the garage factor right and that.

B

Would that was where I was coming from too? Was, I didn't understand? I didn't know what that was.

B

But I did see the alley afterwards um after our discussion on that. So I I don't know it's tough.

B

And there are plenty of things to work out.

B

But and I and and I will also point out that I can't tell um looking at these properties.

B

Where those garages situate, I can't tell whether they're at zero at one at two at three.

B

It's hard to know where that alley ends and the properties begin. So.

I

Oh I'm I'm still stuck because to me: there's no hardship, then I think I think the hardships the.

A

Ridiculously small lot and ability to expand or tear down the house and you know, choosing.

A

To try to not tear down the house and create a certain amount of livable space for the family.

A

um And it's not unique to the street because everybody else that's seen or at least four others.

A

Have done the same, probably for the same reason small lot, so he tried to elaborate that and when.

A

Brett pushed him on the setback, he said, you know the size of the backyard, which is a reasonable.

A

You know practical use for a property, so I think it comes back to the small lot practically.

B

Why don't we do this if you're, okay, uh I'll go ahead and make a motion and I'll.

B

Just for practical discussion purposes, I will separate the um issue of the.

B

um Rear yard setback from the motion from the initial motion and then we'll handle that one.

B

Separately, so that we can have a full discussion: okay, okay, all right! I move that the brett feldman.

B

By the way, I moved that variance request for vrv case uh for case vrb 21-10 located.

B

At 416, south orleans avenue, as depicted on the site plan, presented the public hearing.

B

For a reduction of the north side yard setback of principal structure from seven feet to two.

B

Feet: ten inches um reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet four inches. um Is there no.

B

Reduction on south yard setback yeah, it's just the increase of height of the accessory structure.

B

From 15 all right and the increase in the height of accessory structure from 15 feet to 27 feet.

B

um With an encroachment of leaves and gutters for the following, can.

B

With the following condition um that uh any actually we don't need a condition uh if we're.

B

Talk we're only talking about main structure, um but in your motion, can you say it? I'm sorry.

C

um Mr, mr uh sorry, publicly is, can you state whether or not you are approving it.

B

Apologies, um I move uh for approval, I was gonna say with conditions, but it doesn't sound like.

B

We need conditions if we're only talking about the main structure, so we're talking about the.

A

Accessory height, yes, but but there's no conditions necessary right exactly okay um upon the applicant.

B

Presenting competent and substantial evidence do you want me to start over on.

B

Okay, I'll try that again move the variance request for case vrb 21-10 for property located at 416.

B

South orleans avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing.

B

For the reduction of the north yard side yard setback of principal structure from seven feet to.

B

Two feet: ten inches to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, 4 inches and.

B

To increase the height of the accessory structure from 15 feet to 27 feet based upon the applicant.

B

Presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record and if that's at this public.

B

Hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty, when considering the five hard hardship.

B

Criteria set forth in section 27-80, the city code, specifically that this is an unusually uh slim.

B

Lot the lot size is particularly small that there are other houses that are built either. Similarly,.

B

Or in near identical situations that the existing non-conforming structure was built in 1908.

B

That the applicant is preserving this structure, both in the side, yard, setbacks and the front yard.

B

Setbacks and simply adding on and conforming to the existing setbacks for this structure.

D

Sam walker. Second, thank you, miss walker and a vote. Sam walker, aye dustin, pasteur, aye,.

A

Brett feldman aye lynn, hertek. I all right so the north side yard front yard and accessory.

A

Height have been approved four to zero. Okay. Now I move that the variance request for vrb.

B

21-10 for property located at 416, south orleans avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan.

B

Based upon at the public hearing for the reduction of the accessory structure, rear setback from three.

B

Feet uh to zero feet um based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence.

B

In the record and at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty, when.

B

Considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code, specifically.

B

That again, the applicant is dealing with an unusually slim lot and that the applicant's.

B

Property, um it backs up to an alleyway, and so it is not encroaching upon any rear. Neighbor.

B

Did we need conditions for this one? No, no, because the code is the condition. Okay, all right.

B

All right, then, I'm done.

A

C

Is there a second? No, I can second right, you can't make a motion, but you could you could you could.

C

Do this? Second, second, also I'd like to remind the board, takes four to approve and three to deny vote.

D

Sam walker, I dustin pastor, I brett feldman aye.

I

Len hertek, I thank you.

A

Your emotions have been approved four to zero. Okay, chairman members, thank you very much.

A

Our next case is vrb 2111 at 581, quick question. First, I I'm sorry to interrupt, but- uh and this.

I

Is something we've never had to deal with before, but my parking runs out? I know what do we do about.

I

It I paid 12 months well, do you have it on your? Can we ask for a reason to do a recess. Please.

A

Let's take a recess for parking issues, I just parked.

B

B

F

H

F

M

We had good times.

F

Nothing's gonna bring me down.

A

Are you present in the room all right, mr souza, let's hear it please. Yes, sir brb 211.

E

Property address 581, memora avenue on davis island zoning is rs-75 residential single family.

E

The owners are andrew and katie miller agents.

E

Amy amy joyner and garrett gilkey they're, coming in to request a rear yard setback.

E

And this should be a prime. This would be section 27, 156.

E

Not 2290 uh reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.

E

One inch and what they're attempting to do is to remove a primary structure on the site and remodel.

E

And do an addition to the existing accessory structure and make that the primary structure? Okay,.

E

I'll get into that drc had no issues with it. uh Historically, they've they've gotten for that. For.

E

The back unit that they're coming back in for to remodel they did get a variance back in 2001.

E

To reduce the rear yard, set back from 20 feet to 12 feet six inches, so there is a historic.

E

uh Variances for the rear for the existing accessory structure, so wait joel. Are you.

A

Saying that that the active rear setback is 12 foot six or that was a variance that was.

E

For the accessory structure at the time, okay for the accessory, but now it's going to be primary.

E

Got it this accessory structure? Let me get into this, for you.

E

This is what the house looks like I'll get into the location. That's the house.

E

That's the primary house: this is going to be demolished. This is the front.

E

This is on davis, island. This is one of the canals. This is my mora.

E

The subject property is here: it backs up to the water.

E

Which is here is the this is the existing survey of the property. This is the existing.

E

House that you saw the picture of this is the accessory structure in the back near the water.

E

They're proposing to knock down the existing primary structure and remodel and do an addition.

E

To this structure and make it the primary structure so that they'll just be parking here.

E

So they have a large front yard and the house is kind of pushed to the back and expanded.

E

And enlarged and this will become the primary structure, so this structural- if you give this.

E

The setback this will have the ability to go 35 feet. Staff staff had no issues with regard to this.

E

Request: okay, please state your name addressing if you've been sworn, please garrett, gilkey, 5,.

N

519 north newport tampa florida and I have been sworn in. Okay, we've got 10 minutes to present.

N

To communicate what joel had communicated earlier, um we're looking for a reduction in the rear.

N

Setback for the for the proposed structure currently right now the what we're calling.

N

Accessory structure this attached adjoining piece of this, the primary structure is at ten.

N

Foot two inches for uh it's set back to the rear. So I'm sorry, it's set back at ten foot, two inches.

N

To the rear setback, we're basically asking for a continuation of that same setback, dimension from.

N

A standpoint of looking at an illini edition on the side of the structure, so we're going to be.

N

Remodeling, the the structure and adding an addition here, adjacent to it.

N

And would like a continuation of the the setback of the current location of that exterior wall.

N

Like joel had said we had, you know there are two vrb dash 01-05 had to reduce in the rear.

N

Setback from 20 feet to 12 feet six inches, as you can see, that structure is already within that.

N

um 6 26 78 there's a rear, rear yard setback from 30 feet to 12 feet.

N

Similar to the request here, vrb 20-30 on august 3rd on august 11th 2020 was a request for a.

N

Continuation of a plane, a plane of a structure for a storage space above an existing portica share.

N

To compare to the grandfathered in nature of this.

N

Here's a depiction of the structure.

N

And the lanai addition to it from another angle as well.

N

A

Did you want to run through the hardship criteria yeah? We believe that the hardship.

N

Is that we have an um a pre-existing structure um and within the primary structure, setback.

N

We don't want to move the pre-existing structure. We also want to maximize the amount of green space.

N

For that property.

A

Okay, does that conclude your presentation.

A

Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak on this case.

A

No we'll open it for board questions.

B

Mr gilkey, um you speak about a lanai um and maybe it's just me, but I interpret that.

B

As an unenclosed structure, is that what you're talking about or is the addition.

B

Actually going to be, I saw the pictures, and I couldn't quite tell- is that actually going to be.

B

It's a covered. It's a two-story covered, porch, okay, yeah. So here's a depiction of.

N

That for you right so we have a. We do, have the roof line of the structure.

N

We do have so we're remodeling the structure we have the roof line. Continuing over that opened.

N

Aired space, okay, so what you're, adding you're, keeping essentially the exact structure? That's.

B

There you're adding a two-story wrap-around porch. um This is another way of putting it right. Yeah.

B

And you're demolishing the other structure. That's in front! That's correct! Okay! Interesting! Are you.

B

Purely out of curiosity, not uh not necessarily for approval purposes, you're going to put like a fence.

B

In around I mean, is there? Is there vegetation yeah we plan on putting some vegetation in the front.

N

Cool all right, no other questions. Thank you. Okay,.

F

Are there any other questions.

A

I think this is the most unusual request. I've ever seen some contacts here, so the adjacent property.

N

Is owned by the client and so we're trying to maximize green space and in light of the.

N

The structure from a fair market value standpoint being worth just the dirt yeah, so so we're doing.

N

A small remodel to from a long-term standpoint, knowing that it's eventually a tear down for.

N

Somebody well well well giving it an opportunity to be used functionally for the family. Okay,.

N

Very cool, any other questions. No okay, well. You've got three minutes for rebuttal. Thank.

A

You, okay, um then we will close the public hearing and open it up for a motion or board discussion.

A

I'll just say that um now that I know that it's an open, porch you're, really only extending the the.

A

Rear encroachment a few feet and it's open, so it doesn't seem nearly as.

A

Impactful, as I thought initially, and we also know that um it's not impacting the neighbors.

B

Tremendously because they are the neighbors yeah and we've got zero opposition, which is unusual.

A

For a waterfront encroachment, so um I don't see any issues with it um also. You know.

A

It's still tied to the site plan. So if, in the future a future property owner wants to build.

A

They'd only be able to encroach in that one length of building they couldn't take over the whole back.

B

Logically, if somebody else wants to build there, given.

B

The location of this property, this building is not going to be there.

B

No, I know but but they could still rebuild in that footprint yeah the setback, even if they toured it.

A

Right, okay, so would somebody like to make a motion? I can make a mission. Okay, all right! I move that.

D

Variance request for case brb 21 21-11 for property located at.

D

581 marmora avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing.

D

For a reduction in the rear yard, setback from 20 feet to 10 feet 10.1 feet.

D

With encroachments for eaves and gutters, based upon the applicants,.

D

Presenting confident and substantial evidence in the record and at this public hearing of an.

D

Unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth.

D

In section 27-80 of the city code, specifically that the variants will not substantially interfere.

D

Or injure the health, safety or welfare of the others, the property backs up to a canal which.

D

The rear property owner would be the most affected by this setback reduction and one of the other two.

D

Neighbors that would both that would most be affected, is the property owner itself.

D

And the variances in harmony with and serves the general purpose of the tampa comprehensive code.

D

And specifically, to encourage green space and future development, which this is preserving.

I

Lender attack second, okay and to vote. Please, sam walker, aye, dustin, pasteur, aye,.

B

Brett feldman aye land, her attack, aye, all right. Your motion's been approved 4-0. Thank you.

A

Okay, the final case of the evening is vrb 2113, located at 2910, los angeles street. I assume.

A

You're present good mr stussa. Yes, sir property, zoned, rs50, residential single family.

E

Property owners, catherine meyer and jason and turk uh they're, requesting a reduction in the.

E

Rear yard, from 20 feet to 13 feet for main structure, residential edition drc reviewed.

E

The case and natural resources found it consistent with conditions and that the applicant will work.

E

With natural resources at time of permitting, let me show you where this property is.

E

This appears to be in south tampa off mcdill avenue.

E

This is angela's, this is the subject: property.

E

That's a look from the front door. Sorry- and this is the site plan.

E

That is in your packet.

E

This is the existing house. This is the addition. This is the 13 feet, that's being requested.

E

Staff is here: if you have any further questions: okay,.

A

Please state your name address and influence foreign. Yes, sir, good evening, uh chairman.

J

And honorable board members jason trurok uh applicant, along with my wife who's, not here.

J

2910 west angeles street tampa florida 33629. The house is on the palmacio area.

J

And have you been sworn yes? Okay, we've got 10 minutes. Thank you. um The house uh is.

J

Old, I'm sure you guys do a lot of old houses. 1925. it's a beautiful area. We have a huge oak tree in.

J

The backyard and the some sight plant- I don't know if this is reflecting the materials you have, but.

J

There's an oak tree on this side and I apologize for not using orientations. I'm not um savvy.

J

In in that regard, but it's a 48 inch oak tree. I don't know what kind of oak tree does it's a huge.

J

Canopy and so we're asking for a modest setback to accommodate additional space that we need as a.

J

Family, the house is relatively small for the area. I guess in general it's 1500 roughly square feet.

J

We're asking for an additional, roughly 647, so let's say 650 square feet. Addition.

J

um It'll require it looks like a setback reduction from 20 feet to 13 feet as depicted here.

J

And in terms of the criteria, we believe the tree poses that unique practical hardship.

J

I guess practical difficulty that will prevent us from moving vertically.

J

And um we believe, because of the tree, uh the modest request is within the.

J

Guidelines and that we believe we can demonstrate all the necessary criteria.

J

The layout of the inside of the house- I don't know if that's any material.

J

Is this well, this is the proposed layout but the the existing well. I guess this is the.

J

Proposed layout, the existing is right here with the proposed edition on this.

J

J

um I have a survey also, which may have been included. The survey was back in 2017, it looks.

J

Like when we purchased the property and that tree is depicted here, we want to keep the tree.

J

We want to be very careful with the tree, which is why we want to move horizontally instead of.

J

Up we there's no way we can go up in our opinion because of the canopy of the tree.

J

And for these reasons we would ask respectfully to have the.

J

Rear setback reduced from 20 feet to 13 feet: okay, does that include your presentation? Yes,.

A

Is there anybody out in the lobby that wishes to speak on this, seeing none board questions.

A

I have none either all right, um I suppose, no need for rebuttal. Then.

A

A wave rebuttal and uh we'll close the public hearing and open up for a motion I'll do a motion.

I

All right, I move that the variance request for case vrb 21-13 for property located at.

I

2910 west angeles street be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing.

I

For a reduction in rear setback from 20 feet to 13 feet with an encroachment for eaves and gutters.

I

Based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in.

I

The record and at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.

I

When considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code,.

I

Specifically that they are trying they cannot go up because they're trying to protect a tree.

D

Sam walker, I second second, I second that all right- sam walker, aye dustin, pasteur, aye.

A

Brett feldman aye lynn, hertek aye. All right promotion has been approved four to zero.

A

Thank you all right and we've avoided the four board member deadlock tonight.

A

Yeah, that was pretty good congrats to everybody and we are adjourned.