►
From YouTube: VRB 3/8/22
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).
A
A
A
A
B
B
Murphy
also
in
attendance
this
evening
we
have
from
legal,
simone
savino
from
development
coordination.
We
have
jane
madue
from
natural
resources
we
have
steven
eister
and
from
transportation
we
have
jonathan
scott.
B
There
are
some
procedural
rules
we
need
to
follow,
I'm
not
sure
how
much
we're
doing
these
days,
but
due
to
the
covert
19
pandemic,
please
adhere
to
safe
social
distancing
has
set
forth
within
the
room.
Please
maintain
wearing
a
facial
mask
at
all
times
when
your
case
number
and
petitioner's
name
is
called.
Please
approach
the
podium
when
you
approach
the
podium.
B
Please
state
your
name,
your
address
and
if
you
have
been
sworn
I'll
repeat
that
again
I'll,
probably
repeat
it
11
times
tonight,
please
state
your
name,
your
address,
and
if
you
have
been
sworn
when
you
approach
podium,
the
petitioner
and
or
their
agent
will
have
10
minutes
to
make
a
presentation.
All
other
person's
participants
wishing
to
speak
will
have
three
minutes,
and
then
the
petitioner
will
have
an
additional
three
minutes
for
rebuttal
if
needed.
The
time
period,
as
stated,
will
be
kept
by
the
board.
B
Any
information
such
as
pictures
or
plans
that
have
not
been
previously
submitted
as
part
of
your
petition
and
you
intend
to
present
at
this
hearing
for
consideration
and
in
support
of
your
petition,
must
be
individually
presented
and
accepted
by
the
board.
B
After
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
it
to
be
entered
and
made
part
of
the
permanent
record.
The
board
base
decision
on
competent
and
substantial
evidence
which
is
presented
and
which
meets
the
criteria
required
by
the
city's
code
of
ordinances,
please
be
sure
to
clearly
state
your
hardship
criteria.
B
During
your
presentation,
a
majority
of
the
board
is
needed
to
approve
your
variance.
A
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
be
only
for
what
is
shown
on
the
site
plan
and
will
be
in
compliance
with
any
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
approval
by
the
board.
All
other
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met
if
the
case
is
approved,
the
iranians
will
expire
two
years
from
the
date
of
the
decision.
B
B
B
C
I
move
to
approve
last
month's
meeting
minutes.
B
B
F
E
B
Okay,
that
should
address
that.
Are
there
any
I'll
ask
staff?
Is
there
any?
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda?
That
staff
would
like
to
address
this
evening.
G
Yes,
vrv
case
22-19
has
been
moved
to
the
second
slot
because
they
require
translator,
so
we're
grouping
the
cases
that
require
translation.
B
Okay,
all
right
is
that
all
terrific,
then,
at
this
time
I
would
like
a
staff
member
to
please
conduct
the
swearing-in
for
members
of
the
audience.
If
there's
a
chance
that
you
might
speak
tonight,
please
stand
and
be
sworn
in.
G
G
G
G
Natural
resources
found
them
consistent
with
conditions
that
they
meet
the
landscape
code
at
the
time
of
permitting
transportation,
had
no
objections
to
the
request
as
well,
however,
that
they
would
need
to
apply
for
an
extended
family
residence
if
they
choose
to
have
a
kitchen
in
this
accessory
structure
right
off.
We
had
no
comments
and
we
have
no
letters
of
objection
or
support
for
this
case
in
the
determination
of
the
variance
request
before
you,
the
bot
shall
consider
section
27-80
as
the
criteria
for
approving
or
denying
the
variance
request
staff
will
be
available.
B
Okay,
you
have,
I
understand
that
your
structure
is
already
built
if
you're.
B
H
H
B
B
H
H
H
B
H
H
H
B
B
Is
there
you
still
have
about
three
minutes?
Is
there
anything
else
you
want
to
tell
us
about
the
property
itself
that
easement
in
the
front
how
it's
situated
like
it
is
those
kinds
of
things
that
might
help
us
to
understand.
B
Okay,
if
you
look
at
your
written
materials.
H
H
H
H
B
Okay,
is
there
anything
else
you
want
to
share
with
us.
B
D
B
H
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
will.
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing
and
we
will-
and
I
will
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board
to
address
this
petition.
C
C
B
E
Simone
savino
legal
department
that
is
correct
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
I
will
defer
to
jane
because
that's
going
to
go
alongside
what
the
approvals
necessary
are
needed
for
their
building
permit
to
be
issued
or
officially
issued
right.
At
this
point
I
don't
under,
I
don't
believe
it's
been
issued.
That's
why
we're
here.
B
Correct
so
ultimately,
well,
yes,
we
need
to
think
about
those
kinds
of
things.
B
Think
those
issues
get
dealt
with
at
the
permitting
stage
when
they
say:
okay,
well,
you're
going
to
need
to
modify
the
materials
because
of
the
smaller
eave
to
eave
separation,
you're
going
to
need
to
have
some
additional
con
issues
to
address
the
fire
code
right.
I
don't
know
what
the
separation
between
walls
are
so
well
I
mean
we
do
know
what
the
separation,
the
separation
event,
is
supposed
to
be
five
feet.
B
I
believe,
that's
specifically
because
you
don't
want
to
have
fire
jumping
from
one
structure
to
the
other,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
it
were
attached
you
know
you'd
have
fire
running
right
along
the
structure,
so
I
mean
they're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
that.
It's
really
for
our
concern.
Only
an
issue
of
from
a
space
and
from
a
setback
eve
to
eve
separation
issue.
Can
we
approve
it?
I
the
way
I
see
it.
It's
a
pretty
small
lot
lot.
B
You
know
there
is
some
separation,
which
is,
I
guess,
better
than
none.
They
do
have
the
easement
in
the
front
and,
given
that
there's
no
concerns
or
objections
from
any
neighbors,
I
could
see
fit
to
approve
this.
F
A
I
don't
see
a
25-foot
setback
issue
in
the
front.
That's
just
right-of-way.
The
right-of-way
is
50
feet
wide.
That's
25
feet
the
center
of
the
right-of-way,
the
home
sits
28
feet
off
the
front
property
line.
The
property
is
not
smaller
than
a
standard
lot,
which
would
be
50
by
100.
This
is
67.4
by
100
and
I
just
don't
think
that
the
hardship
requirements
have
been
met.
B
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
deny
say
aye,
all
that's
posed
all
right
motion
to
deny
fails.
Do
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
instead.
D
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
there
is
an
unusually
deep
easement
25
foot
easement
in
the
front
of
the
house,
which
prevents
a
lot
of
building
in
the
back.
B
Second,
okay:
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
button's
heart
attack
seconded
by
mr
pastor.
All
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed.
Okay,
the
motion
passes
3-2
your
petition
is
approved.
Thank
you.
E
F
Neither
is
a
verbal
testimony
either,
but
we're
supposed
to
take
that,
as
fact.
F
B
G
G
The
property
owners
are
eduardo
and
anna
acosta
and
the
code
section
in
reference
here
is
section
27-290
accessory
structure.
Setbacks
are
60
60
feet
from
the
front
three
feet
from
the
sides:
three
feet
from
the
wear
and
seven
feet
from
the
corner,
and
also
the
minimum
separation
between
principles,
structures
and
accessory
structures
are
supposed
to
be
at
five
feet.
Measured
eve
to
eve,
this
is
an
ariel
showing
the
subject
property.
G
It
is
in
the
it's
an
interior
lot
in
the
usf
institutional
planning
district
as
well-
and
this
is
a
site
plan
that
the
applicant
has
provided,
showing
the
existing
principal
structure.
They
have
a
pool
that
is
already
existing
and
then
this
is
the
accessory
structure
for
which
they
are
coming
in
to
find
to
get
the
variance.
G
It
is
a
gazebo
and
I
think
I
have
a
close-up
of
that
structure.
So
here
is
what
the
request
is
to
reduce
this
side:
yard
setback
from
three
feet
to
two
two
feet
and
seven
inches,
and
then
the
eve
to
eave
separation
from
five
feet
to
three
4.5
inches.
G
This
is
a
work
without
permits
as
well,
and
the
applicant
has
provided
pictures
showing
the
existing
condition
on
the
property.
G
So
this
is
the
existing
structure
right
here,
and
that
is
the
portion
where
those
the
eve
kind
of
comes
together
with
the
new
structure,
the
new
accessory
structure,
and
in
this
image
you
see
what
that
separation
kind
of
looks
like,
and
the
next
picture
is
the
side
yard
setback
at
two
feet
and
seven
inches
and
more
pictures
showing
that
gazebo
and
the
associated
pool.
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
transportation
and
right-of-way.
Oh,
no
sorry,
transportation
didn't
review,
but
right
if
we
did,
they
found
them
consistent.
Natural
resources
found
them
inconsistent
because
there
is
an
off-site
camphor
tree
and
they
did
not
provide
information
regarding
that
tree.
G
They
do
have
an
easement
that
was
released,
so
there
used
to
be
an
easement
that
ran
along
the
side
of
this
accessory
structure,
but
that
was
released
to
them.
So
they
were
granted
that
easement.
There
are
no
letters
of
objection
or
support
for
this
variance
request
in
the
determination
of
the
various
requests
before
the
board.
This
evening
you
shall
consider
section
27-80
for
the
criteria
for
approving
or
denying
the
request
before
you
and
staff
is
available
for
any
questions.
G
B
As
before,
if
you
would
please
stick
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
that
you've.
K
The
address
is
2318
west
norwood
place
in
tampa
florida
33604
and
yes,
we
were
common.
H
Yes,
I'm
commercial,
yeah,
eduardo
acosta,
2318,
west
knollwood
place
tampa
florida
33604
and
I
did
take
the
oath.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
You
have
10
minutes
to
explain
to
us
your
hardships,
the
issues
about
the
property
that
require
us
to
approve
what
you're
asking
of
us.
Please
remember:
hardships,
do
not
include
it's
going
to
cost
me
money
to
pull
it
down
and
put
it
back
up.
That's
not
what
we
can
consider.
So
we
need
to
hear
about
the
property
itself,
things
about
the
property
that
require
you
to
place
this,
where
it
is
how
it
is.
K
English
is
not
my
our
first
language,
so
I
would
like
to
explain
the
best
that
I
can.
If
I
need
help,
I
will
ask
a
lady
with
first
thought.
I
would
like
to
you
to
know
that
we
bought
a
house
with
an
existing
building
in
the
same
place
that
we
built
the
new
structure.
K
K
K
This
has
lead
us
to
a
series
of
inconvenience,
including
the
variance
that
we
are
presenting
today
for
you
when
it
became
to
legalizing
it.
This
project
is
regarding
an
extension
to
the
entertainment
area
to
one
side
of
the
pool.
It
will
include
a
bar
with
counter
a
sink
and
electricity
to
connect
tv
all
of
these
under
one
roof.
If
you
grant
us
permission
and
approval
of
this
barrier,
our
one
intention
is
to
join
said
area
to
the
pool
cage,
allowing
us
to
extend
our
hours
of
the
entertainment
in
the
backyard
with
friends
and
family.
K
I'm
sure
if
I
should
mention
that
the
variance
that
we
are
asking
kindly
asking
to
you
today
is
reduce
the
size
side
back
to
three
feet
from
2.7
feet
and
the
distance
between
the
main
building,
which
is
our
house
and
the
structure.
If
to
eve
I
know
this
is
hard
from
five
feet
to
four
point:
five
inches.
K
You
saw
the
pictures,
but
I
bring
it
with
me.
If
you
want
to
see
it
again,
we
come
here
to
make
this
this
as
a
hard
working
people.
K
I
know
it
is
no
an
excuse
that
we
don't
have
too
many
resources,
but
it's
important
for
us
that
you
know
that
if
we
have
to
destroy
it,
it
costs
us
if
we
have
to
demolish
the
structure
that
will
result
in
a
great
loss
to
us.
K
K
So
it
would
will
be
we
all
of
we
all
will
enjoy
what
god
first
this
country
and
aware
for
will
allows
us
to
accomplish
in
this
country.
We
didn't
born
here,
obviously,
and
we
are
really
grateful
with
everything
that
we
have
accomplished
in
this
country,
and
this
is
part
of
our
you
know,
projects
as
a
family,
so.
A
B
Okay,
well,
does
that
conclude
your
presentation.
K
Okay,
as
you
can
see,
is
it's
a
nice
area?
K
Well,
we
think
it's
a
nice
area.
We
we
did
ourselves,
but
we
follow
all
the.
K
Requirements,
the
county,
the
building
departments,
it
has
been
reviewed
already
by
a
an
engineering
with
providers
with
the
the
building
plans
and
the
site
plan.
Also,
so
we
follow
all
the
and
we
call
red
we
follow
the
the
building
construction
guidelines
and
also
we
covered
everything
that
he
did,
that
we
have
to
correct.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
don't
see
anyone
in
the
audience,
but
I
will
ask
if
there's
anyone
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak
about
this
petition?
B
Seeing
none
does
any
member
of
the
board
have
any
questions.
K
The
structure
was
pretty
much
the
same
size,
it
was
only
a
close
destruction,
it
was
like
enclosed
garage
detached,
we
used,
it
was
rotten
and
in
really
bad
shape.
So,
yes,
it
was
almost
the
same
size.
The.
J
M
B
All
right
seeing
them,
you
have
three
minutes
for
a
bottle.
Should
you
choose
to
use.
B
Okay.
Well,
then,
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
I
will
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board
or
board.
F
I
think
this
one's
a
little
bit
unique
in
the
sense
that,
first
of
all,
the
lots
look
wedge
shaped,
which
creates
an
angled
edge.
So
we've
got
like
a
five
inch
encroachment
on
the
side,
but
it's
also
a
sloping
side.
But,
more
importantly,
there
is
an
existing
building
there
that
you
know
there
could
be
reasonable
assumption
by
the
homeowners
that
that
was,
you
know,
allowed
to
be
there
and
they
were
just
improving
it.
F
So
I
can
see
the
scenario
that
they're
in
the
building
separation
is
really
the
only
one
that
concerns
me,
but
I
noticed
on
the
plan
that
they
showed
it
was
clouded
to
be
one
hour.
Fire
resistive,
I'm
not
sure
how
they
will
accomplish
that.
F
But
I
saw
that
that
was
a
note
on
the
plan,
which
means
that
it's
already
been
identified
as
something
that
will
have
to
be
corrected
through
the
permitting
department-
and
that
is
you
know
my
greatest
concern,
because
obviously
the
fire
would
spread
very
easily
over
a
five
inch
gap
to
a
wood
frame,
roof
so
I'll
make
a
motion
we'll
see.
If
anybody
agrees.
F
The
grant
is
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
the
public
hearing
for
reduction
in
the
side
yard,
set
back
from
three
feet
to
two
feet:
seven
inches
in
each
separation
from
five
feet
to
four
and
a
half
inches
the
crochet
of
eaves
and
gutters,
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing,
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
is
an
irregular
shaped
lot
that
leads
to
angled
side
yard.
F
G
The
next
case
before
the
board
is
vrb
2214
addressed
at
1806
east
caracas
street.
This
is
zone
rs60,
residential
single
family
60,
and
the
request
is
to
remove
two
grand
oak
trees,
135
inches
and
the
other
43
inches,
and
the
coast
section
in
reference
here
is
section
27-284,
where
the
grand
tree
permits
for
grant
removal
have
to
be
permitted
by
the
vrb.
G
G
G
G
And
more
pictures
showing
those
trees
as
they
are
spread
through
the
lot.
There
were
no
letters
of
support
or
objection
for
this
variance
request
in
the
determination
of
the
variance
of
the
variance
request
before
you,
you
would
consider
section
27-284
the
criteria
for
the
removal
of
a
grand
tree
and
section
27-80
the
criteria
for
approving
or
denying
a
variance
request
before
the
board
staff
will
be
available
for
any
questions,
and
stephen
will
be
here
if
the
need
arises.
B
Okay,
the
applicant
come
on
up
state,
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
for
us
on
the
record
that
you've
been
sworn.
Then
you'll
have
10
minutes
to
make
your
presentation.
O
So
we
filed
for
a
building
permit
on
this
already
and
turned
into
plans
and
everything
in
the
site
plan,
and
it
was
turned
out
we
were.
We
were
under
the
impression
that
this
lot
fell
under
the
tree
removal
zone,
but
I
guess
we
were
missing
a
couple
of
the
rules.
The
we
were
under
the
impression
that
under
6
500
square
feet
qualified
for
that,
but
I
guess
there's
two
other
rules
as
far
as
the
width
and
the
length
so
the
width
it
can't
be
over
65,
it's
only
45..
O
We
weren't
aware
of
the
length
that
it
can't
be
over
135.
This
lots
137..
So
it's
two
feet
too
long,
and
it
is
actually
I
mean
it
fits
the
other
two,
but
not
that
one.
So
when
we
turned
it
in
for
the
building
permit,
they
sent
back
some
comments
and
I
went
in
and
met
with
them.
We
were
kind
of
figuring
out
what
to
do.
O
O
So
that
was
the
reason
for
the
second
one
and
then
again
there's
three
on
the
lot
you
could.
If
you
draw
the
20
foot
circle
around
all
three,
you
can't
even
there's
no
place
to
build
a
house,
so
I
don't
know
whether
or
not
we
were
assuming
that
with
the
front
setback
being
32
to
match
the
other
houses
that
they
would
probably
tell
us
to
push
it
back
to
save
that
one
tree
and
take
the
tree
out
in
the
rear.
O
I
know
you
saw
those
alternate
alternate
drawings,
the
one
trying
to
keep
the
tree
tree
in
the
rear
and
keep
the
one
in
the
right
of
way.
Honestly
really
doesn't
quite
work,
because
that
tree
in
the
back
is
so
large.
It's
it's
canopy
comes
even
if
we
stay
20
feet
away
from
it.
The
canopy
comes
40
feet
forward.
We
would
have
to
really
trim
quite
a
bit
of
the
back
of
that
half
half
of
that
tree
off.
B
Okay,
well,
is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
petition?
B
No,
all
right,
then
I
will
open
it
up
for
board
questions.
Does
anyone
on
the
board
have
any
questions.
F
O
So
the
site
plan
there
shows
that's
just
basically
showing
the
three
trees
with
the
radius
around
them.
If
we
were
to
try
to
keep
all
three
showing
that
there's
really
not
much.
B
O
O
B
The
trees
labeled
one
two
and
three-
I
don't
know
you
there's
they're,
referred
to
in
the
documents
as
trees,
one
two
and
three.
O
The
larger
one,
the
45
or
40,
whatever
would
be
the
one
in
the
back
okay.
So
the
two
on
the
variance
request.
Are
these
two
right
here
right
so
and
the
larger
one
is
the
one
in
the
rear.
Okay,.
O
So
again,
as
I
was
just
saying,
the
if
we
were
to
try
this
option,
this
green
line
right
here
kind
of
indicates
where
the
canopy
of
that
tree
comes
to
it's
actually,
probably
even
a
little
bit
further.
O
O
B
So
would
you
be
amenable
to
I
mean
if
if
we
were
to
approve
it
push
back,
would
you
be
amenable
to
saving
that
that
one
tree
up
in.
B
O
The
front
two
yeah
exactly
I
just
didn't
again,
nobody
giving
us
a
lot
of
guidance
except
telling
us.
We
have
to
follow
the
block
averaging
rule
and
you
got
to
get
a
variance.
Take
the
back
tree
out.
You
know,
that's
why
we
did
it
this
way,
basically
turning
it
in
saying
all
right.
You
guys
now
tell
me
what
you
want
me
to
do.
Okay,.
O
B
Okay,
any
other
questions
from
the
board.
A
Did
you
have
any
reports
on
the
condition
of
the
trees?
Yes,.
O
F
Steven,
what's
your
take
on
these
trees?
Actually,
my.
P
Recommendation
was
kind
of
similar
to
his
do
the
alternative
two
save
the
tree
in
the
back.
If
you
my
memo
kind
of
mentions,
if
they
took
out
the
tree
in
the
middle
they're,
going
to
impact
both
trees,
the
rear
tree
is
going
to
lose
a
large
percentage
of
its
canopy
and
then
they're
still
going
to
be
closer
to
the
right-of-way
tree.
That's
up
in
the
front,
so
I
think
site
plan
two.
P
It
does
take
out
the
bigger
tree,
it's
in
better
condition
than
the
other
two,
but
if
they
ever
do
decide
to
do
a
pool
or
do
anything
like
that
in
the
future,
they
have
that
space
now
and
we
don't
have
to
see
them
again
for
grant
tree
removal.
P
So
I
feel
like
that's
kind
of
the
better
option
and
we
do
get
40
percent
shifts
in
the
setbacks
front
and
rear
to
allow
for
grand
tree
preservation,
so
that
kind
of
helps
with
the
whole
block
averaging.
O
F
E
Simone's
video
legal
department,
that
is
correct,
it
would
be
based
on
the
site
plan,
and
I
did
want
to
just
provide
the
reminder
to
the
board
that
if
you
are
looking
at
each
tree,
the
hardships
should
be
found
for
each
individual
tree.
Just
a
reminder.
B
Okay,
so
just
just
for
clarity's
sake,
because
I
I
thought
I
heard
something,
but
it
sounded
like
you
were
talking
about
another
you're
saying
psych
plan
two
is
remove
the
tree
in
the
back:
save
the
two
trees
in
the
front,
correct
and
simply
shift
the
house
back
a
little
bit
to
to
do.
That
is
that.
J
B
All
right:
well,
you
have
three
minutes
for
rebuttal.
Should
you
choose
to
use
it?
I'm
good!
Okay!
Thank
you!
So
much
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
Please
don't
make
a
motion.
A
M
F
Make
a
motion
that
move
the
variance
request
for
case
of
erb
2214
for
the
property
located
at
1806
east
caracas
street?
Oh
wait!
No!
I'm
going
to
read
the
one
about
trees.
Sorry
move
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
2214
for
property
located
at
1806,
east
caracas
street
be
granted
as
depicted
on
site
plan.
2
presented.
The
public
hearing
for
removal
site
plan
alternate
to
removal
of
grand
tree
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting
the
burden
of
proof
with
regard
to
the
six
factors
for
determining
treatment.
F
Removal,
as
set
forth
in
section
27,
284.2.5,
f,
4
of
the
city
code
for
granting
tree
removal.
Specific,
specifically,
that
the
evidence
provided
in
the
record
showed
that
reasonably
at
least
one
tree
of
this
property
must
be
removed
in
order
to
construct
a
home.
Given
the
size
and
location
of
these
trees
that
the
tree
to
the
north
is
the
preferred
tree
to
be
removed
because
it
saves
the
trees,
the
two
trees
to
the
south
and
still
allows
construction
of
the
home
with
a
slightly
larger
front
yard
setback.
E
B
E
Simone
cevino
assistant
attorney,
in
this
case,
I
think
because
of
the
motion,
was
specific
to
the
43
it
I
think
you're
covered.
If
it
was
any
other
language,
I
think
you
would.
We
would
need
to
have
a
motion
to
deny
the
other
one
if
that
makes
any
sense
it.
I
agree
that
what
the
board
just
voted
on
is
very
specific
to
just
one
of
the
trees.
A
I
mean
my
point
of
confusion
would
be
since
I'm
not
knowing
the
direction
of
your
emotion
right
now
I
was,
I
would
have
loved
to
see
both
trees
removed.
I
think
the
front,
the
one,
the
other
additional
one
in
the
middle
of
the
driveway
is
very
dangerous.
It's
going
to
cause
destruction
of
vehicles
and
all
kinds
of
issues
for
the
home,
but
we
didn't
have
a
chance
to
discuss
that,
and
then
we
went
to
directly
to
a
motion
to
reprove
one
which
I'm
fine
taking
the
big
one
out.
B
So
all
right,
so
that
it
just
to
address
that
point.
What
we
can
do
is
when
a
motion
is
made.
You
can
request
discussion
on
the
motion.
You
requested
it
before
the
motion,
so
I
the
preferred-
and
this
is
not
my
preferred.
The
preferred
methodology
that
has
been
followed
by
this
board
is
the
the
preference
is
to
have
a
motion
first,
followed
by
discussion.
B
If,
if
needed-
and
so
I
wasn't
sure
where
he
was
going
with
that
either
but
you
what
you
would
want
to
do
is
before
we
vote
say,
can
we
have
discussion
on
it.
G
Right
the
next
case
before
the
board
is
vrb
2233.
This
is
addressed
at
3102,
west
oakland
avenue.
The
property
owners
are
isaac
and
olivia
carros,
and
this
is
on
rs
75
residential
single
family
they're,
requesting
to
remove
one
grand
tree,
and
this
is
to
construct
a
new
garage
structure
and
the
code
section
reference
section,
27-284.
G
G
This
is
the
site
plan
that
the
the
survey
that
the
applicant
provided
showing
the
existing
sheet,
and
this
is
the
existing
conditions
right
now,
there
is
an
existing
garage.
They
are
replacing
the
existing
garage
and
building
the
same
footprint,
however,
because
they
are
increasing.
This
is
going
from
one
story
to
two-story.
G
They
are
required
to
have
footers
that
would
extend
past
where
the
current
footers
are
now,
the
footers
would
be
bigger
and
deeper
than
they
are
currently,
and
that
would
impact
the
existing
tree.
So
this
is
the
proposed.
G
This
is
a
proposed
site
plan
for
the
new
structure,
so
it
sits
exactly
in
the
same
position
as
the
current
garage.
This
is
the
tree
right
here
and
they
have
some
additional
outdoor
space
that
they're
adding
to
their
strut
through
their
property.
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
consistent
and
consistent
with
conditions,
but
saying
that,
due
to
the
changes
in
the
footers
for
the
reconstruction
of
the
garage,
the
roots
of
this
grand
tree
would
be
impacted.
G
Transportation
found
them
consistent
and
right
of
way
as
well.
There
are
no
letters
of
objection
or
support
for
this
variance
request
and
in
the
determination
of
the
request
before
the
board,
you
shall
consider
section
27-284
and
section
27-80
to
grant
the
removal
of
a
grand
tree.
If
there
are
any
questions,
staff
will
be
available
on
the.
B
Ground:
okay:
if
the
applicant
could
approach
you
could
state
your
name,
your
address
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
and
then
you
will
have
10
minutes.
N
N
Minutes
I
live
at
31
or
2
west
oakland
avenue
the
home
is
a
1925
home.
It's
one
of
the
three
original
homes
in
parkland
estates.
What
you
don't
see
in
the
site
plan
is
that
originally,
like
all
of
the
parkland
estates,
lots
they're
actually
deeper
than
they
appear
and
the
original
garage
from
1925,
which
we
can
see
in
some
old
photographs.
N
If
you
go
down
to
the
library
was
behind
our
home,
but
one
of
the
prior
owners
of
our
home
before
we
were
involved,
I
guess
it
rotted
and
whatever
destroyed
it
and
subdivided
the
lot,
and
now
he
lives
in
the
home
that
he
built
in
that
part
of
the
lot.
But
on
the
site
plan
you
can
see
that
the
rear
fence
is
right
up
against
the
back
of
the
home,
so
there's
no
place
to
put
a
garage
was
originally
intended
by
the
builder
in
1925..
N
What
is
currently
in
place
says
it's
a
garage,
it's
not
actually
a
garage,
it's
a
carport.
It
looks
like
a
garage
from
the
front,
but
it's
open
in
the
back
where
the
tree
is
so
it's
essentially
a
cave
of
wonders
with
pollen
pouring
in
and
dirt
and
dust.
So
it's
not
very
useful
and
simply
since
it's
a
carport,
it's
not
constructed
to
be
able
to
sustain
the
weight
of
a
garage,
let
alone
a
two-story
garage,
which
is
what
we
intend
to
do
because
we're
in
the
parkland
states
overlay
district.
N
N
I
responded
with
a
memorandum
and
then
they
changed
the
position
to
consistent
with
conditions,
and
that
was
because
I
I
don't
think
mr
eister
had
contemplated
the
fact
that
this
was
a
two-story
structure
with
new
footers
that
were
being
built
and
now
they
did,
and
so
they
find
that
it's
consistent.
We
meet
each
of
the
vrb's
established
criteria
for
hardship.
First,
there's
a
complete
inability
to
construct
the
garage
on
our
property
because
of
the
location
of
the
tree.
We
contracted
with
two
architects,
clement
foss
and
joseph
pembo-
to
try
and
find
any
workaround.
N
We
would
like
to
preserve
the
tree
canopy
and
we
live
in
south
tampa.
That's
part
of
the
allure
of
living
on
our
street,
but
it
is
not
possible,
as
demonstrated
in
the
two
alternative
site
plans,
even
with
the
additional
percentage
that's
allowed
to
move
forward
in
the
setback
we
would
not
be.
It
would
not
be
possible
to
move
the
garage
far
enough
forward
to
get
far
enough
away
from
that
oak
tree
to
be
able
to
maintain
the
distance.
That's
required,
and
the
same
thing
is
true.
N
N
The
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
does
not
arise
from
any
action
of
ours.
The
tree
was
planted
prior
to
ownership
of
the
home.
The
necessary
placement
of
the
garage
arose,
as
I
indicated
from
the
earlier
owner,
who
subdivided
the
lot
and
made
it
impossible
to
construct
the
garage
where
it
was
originally
intended
to
be
constructed.
N
The
variance
also
has
no
effect
frankly
on
the
neighbors.
It
does
not
provide
shade
to
any
of
our
neighbor's
lots.
It
also
is
completely
behind
the
existing
carport,
so
it
aesthetically
doesn't
even
add
to
the
aesthetics
of
the
appeal
of
the
street
or
the
house.
All
you
see
is
some
of
the
limbs.
If
you're
on
the
sidewalk,
you
can
see
some
of
the
limbs
up
behind
the
carport,
but
it's
not
one
that
adds
really
to
the
allure
of
the
house.
N
In
addition,
the
construction
of
the
garage,
the
two-story
garage,
adds
about
1
000
square
feet
to
our
home,
so
it
increases
the
ad
valorem
tax
basis
of
our
home
and
that
actually
would
benefit
frankly,
the
city,
the
community
and
the
the
neighbors,
because
we
are
constructing
something
that
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
integrity,
the
historic
integrity
and
charm
of
our
home
in
the
neighborhood.
The
variance
is
in
harmony
with
and
would
serve
the
general
intent
purposes
of
the
chapter
and
tampa's
comprehensive
plan.
N
I
think
that
much
is
found
by
the
fact
that
the
tampa
departments
have
all
found
this
to
be
consistent
and
allowing
the
variance
would
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done.
It
allows
us
to
deal
with
the
practical
difficulty
and
hardship
of
not
being
able
to
have
a
viable
garage
on
our
property.
The
existing
carport
is
rotten
and
falling,
and
we
need
a
garage
on
our
property.
There's
no
public
benefit
to
prohibiting
the
variants
and,
as
we
indicated
what's
more,
this
would
increase
ad
valorem
taxable
property.
B
B
So,
just
just
for
clarity's
sake,
you
went
through
and
did
a
wonderful
job
sure
addressing
the
variance
hardship
criteria,
but
that's
not
the
criteria
we're
in
so
while
you've
still
got
plenty
of
time.
I
wanted
to
point
that
out,
for
you.
N
And
I
also
want
to
point
out:
I
thought
it
was
both
that
covered
that
were
applicable
when
there
was
a
variance
request
for
the
removal
of
a
grand
oak.
I
went
through
the
meeting
minutes
for
all
of
the
ones
that
are
publicly
available
online,
which
the
last
that
you
had
available
with
september
of
2021,
going
back
to
january
of
2021,
there
have
been
nine
requests
for
the
removal
of
13
trees.
N
There
have
been
no
denials
in
that
period
from
january
to
september
2021
and
in
each
instance,
this
board
approved
the
removal
of
grand
oaks,
our
grand
oak,
the
diameter.
We
included
the
arborist
report
from
mr
riley.
It's
a
35
inch
grand
oak,
a
35
inch
grand
oak
would
make
it
the
second
smallest
grand
oak.
That
would
be
that
has
been
approved
by
this
board
it,
and,
as
we
indicated,
I
mean
this,
makes
it
renders
our
property
not
having
a
garage.
It
definitely
devalues.
N
The
property,
makes
it
a
significant
hardship
on
us
as
property
owners
not
being
able,
for
example,
if
there
was
a
storm
and
the
carport
was
destroyed,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
rebuild
because
of
the
existing
issue.
With
that
tree
being
there
and
that's
certainly
a
concern
that
could
occur,
but
here
we
want
to
improve
our
property.
We
want
to
have
a
garage
and
there's
no
way
to
construct
a
garage
because
of
the
limitations
because
of
the
setbacks
created
by
the
parkland
states,
overlay
act
and
the
existing
setbacks
under
the
zoning
regulations.
B
So
we
will
have
time
for
questions
in
a
moment.
Is
there
anything
else
you
wanted
to
present
us
this
evening
in
your
general
presentation?
No
okay!
Thank
you
very
much.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
presentation
on
this
application?
Seeing
none
now?
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
of
the
board
for
the
applicant
or
for
staff.
N
N
Yeah
very
significant
issues,
but
this
was
something
that
mr
reilly
indicated
is
not
within
the
purview
of
the
arborist
report.
That's
submitted
in
this
type
of
variance
request.
N
Maybe
the
builders
didn't
know
about
live
oaks
at
that
time,
because
it
was
essentially
pine
scrub
land,
as
I
understand
that
section
of
the
interbay
peninsula
in
1925,
but
the
live
oaks
dropped
a
significant
amount
of
leaves
in
pollen.
This
is
flat
roof.
So
I'm
constantly
out
there
my
wife's
trying
to
re-up
our
life
insurance,
while
I'm
out
there
pushing
with
a
broom
to
get
all
of
the
leaves
and
stuff
off
of
the
structure,
because
it
has
caused
significant
roof
damage.
We
have
to
continuously
be
repairing
the
roof
or
replacing
portions
of
the
roof.
E
Sorry,
a
comment
from
legal
simone,
savino
assistant
city
attorney.
As
the
chair
reminded
the
board,
any
determinations
or
motions
should
be
used,
utilizing
the
section
27-284.2.5
criteria,
so
you
are
correct.
That's
the
basis
for
any
determinations
tonight.
B
What
I
did
have
one
question
for
I
think
this
would
go
to
staff
miss
madue.
The
applicant
mentioned
that
if
the
carport
came
down
it
could
not
be
rebuilt.
The
issue-
that's
that's
triggering
this.
Well,
maybe
you
can
clarify.
Is
the
issue?
That's
triggering
this.
The
existing
or
torn
down
carporter.
Is
it
the
two-story
component
of
the
carport?
That's
causing
the
issue
here
that
that
seems
to
be
my
confusion.
That's
where
I'm
having
trouble.
B
And
I'm
not
concerned
about
that,
I'm
just
trying
to
sort
through,
as
I
understood
it
when
you
talked
earlier,
you
were
talking
about
the
footings
that
are
needed
for
the
two-story
component
of
this.
Is
that
accurate?
Yes,
okay,
but
it's
purely
the
footings.
It's
not
going
up
into
the
into
the
branches
or
anything
of
that
nature.
G
No,
so
well
with
the
taking
having
a
second
story
on
top
of
this
structure.
That
means
that
you
need
to
have
deeper
footers.
You
need
to
have
wider
footers
in
order
to
carry
the
weight
of
the
second
story,
so
that
is
just
going
to
further
impact.
This
existing
tree.
B
G
B
B
I
think
that
clarifies
it
for
me.
Thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
any
other
questions
before
we
move
into
any
rebuttal
time.
B
No,
all
right,
mr
cruz,
you
have
three
minutes
to
rebut
or
talk
about
any
other
issues
that
you
I
could
just
address.
N
The
confusion
that
there
was
so
the
existing
canopy
is
over
the
top
of
the
existing
carport
garage.
The
structures
I
mean
the
tree
is
only
a
few
feet
away
from
the
back
of
the
carport
and
garage
and
if
we
were
to
build
a
garage
there,
whether
it's
one
tor
one
story
or
two
stories,
you're
disrupting
significantly
the
roots
of
the
tree
because
you're,
you
know
five
six
feet
away
from
the
trunk
of
the
tree
and
then
in
addition
to
that,
whether
it's
one
story
or
two
story
you're
getting
into
the
canopy
of
the
tree.
N
If
it's
two-story,
obviously
you
invade
the
canopy
of
the
tree
in
a
more
significant
way
than
if
it's
a
one-story
structure.
I
think,
with
respect
to
the
footers
the
site
plans
that
we
submitted
contemplate,
that
it's
a
two-story
structure,
that's
being
built
and
therefore
the
necessary
footers
that
are
needed
for
a
two-story
structure.
But
I
think,
even
if
it
was
a
one-story
structure,
my
understanding
of
how
that
would
need
to
be
engineered.
N
The
slab
that's
in
place
would
still
be
insufficient,
so
there
would
still
be
a
need
to
tear
it
up
and
rebuild
which
would
disrupt
the
roots,
because
I
think
any
disruption
of
the
roots
that
near
the
trunk
inside
of
that
radius
is
likely
to
cause
damage
to
the
tree.
From
my
discussions
with
mr
riley,
but
hopefully
that
clarifies
rather
than
causes
more
confusion,
as
I
did
earlier.
Thank
you.
B
N
B
You
very
much
all
right,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
and
and
or
board
discussion,
if
necessary,
before
motion,
preferably
after
motion.
C
B
B
A
I
move
for
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
22-33
for
property
located
at
3102
west
oakland
avenue
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
removal
of
a
grand
tree
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting
the
burden
of
proof
with
regard
to
the
six
factors
determining
tree
removal
set
forth
in
section
27-284,
0.5,
0.2.5,
f,
4
of
the
city
code
for
granting
tree
removal,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
on
the
record
show.
The
existing
tree
is
very
close
to
the
existing
structure.
A
A
The
alternative
construction
methods
will
not
provide
the
necessary
garage
and
storage
areas
that
are
currently
on
the
site.
Due
to
the
fact
the
existing
garage
is
the
only
place
the
garage
could
be
rebuilt.
B
Okay
motion
by
murphy
seconded
mr
pastor,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
say
aye
all
those
posed.
Okay,
the
motion
passes.
B
G
The
next
case
before
the
board
is
vrb
22-12.
This
address
at
49.39,
west
melrose
avenue
north.
This
is
owned,
rs
100,
presidential,
single
family
and
the
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
set
back
from
25
feet
to
5.5,
and
the
rari
are
set
back
from
20
feet
to
12
feet.
Point
12.5
feet
the,
and
I
would
ask
that
at
this
point
the
applicant
confirmed
that
the
vehicular
entrance
set
setback
variant
is
no
longer
required.
G
You
no
longer
require
the
vehicle
of
variance
correct.
J
B
B
So
but
I
think
what
the
applicant
is
saying
is
that
that
will
depend
upon
confirmation
from
transportation.
G
B
Unnecessary
all
right,
so
since
it's
unnecessary,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
part
of
the
request
correct.
Mr
scott,
can
you
confirm
that
I.
A
B
B
So,
on
the
record,
there
is
no
need
to
to
request
a
vehicular
entrance
setback
from
10
feet
to
5.5
feet:
correct,
correct,
okay,
that's
not
part
of
the
request
anymore,
because
it's
unnecessary
so
we'll
remove
it.
G
G
One
of
the
variance
requests
is
for
the
front
setback
to
reduce
that
to
5.5,
because
there
is
a
cul-de-sac
and
that
kind
of
eats
into
that
front,
set
back
where
the
ball
belt
is
and
that
site
plan
depicts
that
showing
the
two
parking
spots
that
have
been
provided
by
the
applicant.
G
This
shows
the
rear
end
where
we
have
waterfront
properties.
The
rare
setback
is
measured
from
the
principal
structure
to
the
middle
of
the
sea
wall,
and
here
the
seawall
on
this
property
jogs
out
it's
more
evident
here
with
this
is
the
sea
wall
that
kind
of
drugs
out
right
here,
so
they
are
consistent
on
one
end
and
on
the
other
end,
they
require
a
variance
request
from
to
reduce
that
variance
set
to
rear
foot
set
back
from
20
to
12.5
feet.
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
consistent
with
conditions
that
they
comply
with
all
the
landscape,
technical
standards
and
code
at
the
time
of
permitting
right
of
way,
found
them
consistent
as
well,
and
the
conditions
for
transportation
has
been
satisfied.
So
at
this
point
they
are
consistent.
We
have
no
letters
of
support
at
this
point.
Staff
has
no
letter
of
support.
G
However,
there
has
been
one
letter
of
objection
and
that
was
included
in
the
packet
that
you
received
for
the
determination
of
the
variance
review
request
before
the
board.
The
board
shall
consider
section
27-80
for
the
criteria
to
approve
or
deny
the
variance
quest
before
you,
and
if
there
are
any
questions
I'll
be
on
hand.
J
Steve
michellini,
I'm
representing
stress
reconstruction
and
yes,
I
have
been
sworn.
I
do
have
two
letters
of
support
from
the
two
adjacent
property
owners
that
I'll
put
into
the
record,
but
I
want
to
show
you
the
proximity
of
those
locations.
First,
let
me
let
me
go
to
the
original
plot.
J
J
I
also
have
all
the
conditions
that
were
established
and
this
was
planted
in
1956.
It
was
finally
recorded
in
1957..
J
This
is
an
aerial
photograph
of
the
property
and
you
can
see
in
the
rear
the
out
and
I'm
assuming.
This
occurs
all
the
way
down
on
melrose
and
I'm
not
really
sure
what
the
intent
was,
except
perhaps
for
a
boat
dock,
but
because
the
code
requires
you
to
measure
from
the
sea
wall
and
not
from
the
property
line,
then
we're
disadvantaged
by
11
feet.
J
So
that's
why
we're
requesting
the
reduction
in
the
rear
yard
set
back
here,
and
it
only
occurs
in
this
corner
here.
That's
where
we're
applying
the
setback.
The
remainder
of
the
rear
setback
for
the
property
will
meet
the
required
20
feet.
The
same
thing
is
true
here
on
the
front
where
the
cul-de-sac
is.
J
When
you
get
to
this
point
here,
it's
approximately
25
feet
away
from
from
the
corner,
and
then
at
that
point
it
will
meet
the
25
foot
set
back.
So
this
corner
is
where
we
have
the
impact
and
when
we're
asking
for
relief.
J
This
line
here
shows
you
the
impact
that
we're
reducing
it's
11
feet
off
of
the
property
line
we
own
all
the
way
out
to
here,
which
is
water,
but
the
seawall
is
here
and
we
have
to
measure
from
there,
and
our
proposal
is
to
from
this
point
over
we'll
be
meeting
the
20
foot,
rear
yard
setback,
and
the
same
thing
is
true
in
the
front,
as
I
mentioned
to
you,
we've
lost
all
of
this
potentially
lost
this
property
to
accommodate
the
cul-de-sac
and
that
that
extends
from
the
property
line
to
about
25
feet
before
it
becomes
a
regular
25-foot
setback
which
we
will
meet.
J
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
larger
view
to
show
you,
we
have
11
feet
between
the
edge
of
the
property
line
and
the
edge
of
pavement
for
the
cul-de-sac,
so
we
have
an
additional
buffer
area.
It's
not
our
property,
but
it's
traditional
buffer
area,
and
one
thing
that
I
failed
to
point
out
to
you
was
that
the
house,
the
house
here,
is
lined
up
with
that
five
foot
setback
reduction
so
we're
not
creating
it's
not
coming
any
closer
to
any
of
the
other
homes
along
the
entire
street.
J
This
is
just
another
drawing
showing
you
the
same
thing
and
we
we
oriented
the
garages
so
that
you
can
see
in
here
that
we
have.
We
have
a
lot
of
space
in
there
from
the
front
yard,
we're
not
trying
to
bring
this
corner
out
to
the
five
feet.
We're
only
asking
for
the
area.
That's
impacted
here,
which
is
25
feet
from
the
west
property
line.
J
So,
like
I
said,
the
we're
not
trying
to
maximize
the
impact
of
a
reduction
in
the
setback,
we're
simply
trying
to
accommodate
the
fact
that
that
cul-de-sac
is
there.
J
J
Yeah
I
like
going
through
the
the
general
criteria.
The
alleged
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
are
unique
and
singular
to
this
property
with
respect
to
the
structure
and
that
they're
not
suffered
in
common
with
others
this
this
property.
Now
the
owner
did
not
create
this
conflict
with
the
site
plan.
They
didn't
design
the
cul-de-sac
it
was
planted
in
there.
I
showed
you
the
original
plant
that
showed
how
it
was
constructed.
J
J
The
same
thing
occurs
in
the
front.
We're
asking
for
a
five
foot:
five
5.5
feet:
reduction
at
the
nearest
point
only
to
the
first
25
feet
so
that
we
can
accommodate
the
impact
of
the
cul-de-sac
on
the
property
and,
as
I
showed
you
on
the
plat,
the
extension
of
that
cul-de-sac
removes
19
feet
from
what
would
have
been
the
extension
of
the
property
line.
J
And
then
would
it
be
affected
by
the
allowance
of
the
variance
the
variance
is
in
harmony
and
serve
the
general
intent
of
the
code
with
respect
to
providing
relief
when
appropriate.
I
believe
that
this
is
a
clear
case
of
appropriate
relief
being
requested
and
and
what,
if
it
was
supplied
and
granted
that
that
would
serve
the
purposes
of
the
code,
it
would
be
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done
in
this
chapter
and
the
individual
hardships
and
practical
difficulties
suffered
by
a
failure
of
this
board
to
grant
the
variance
it
would
indeed
cause
a
hardship.
J
J
And
for
49.41
melrose,
I
support
that's
the
corner
property
here.
I
support
the
setback,
reductions
for
the
neighboring,
both
homes
for
the
rear,
both
the
front
and
rear
and
we'll
definitely
add
beauty
to
the
neighborhood
and
increase
our
values.
And
I
have
no
objections.
I'll
be
happy.
Will
I
give
this
to
staff
or
who
wants
this?
I'm
done.
B
Done
any
questions
from
members
of
the
board.
B
I
guess
I
have
one
smith
bellini,
you
said
the
footprint
of
the
new
house
is
roughly
the
same
footprint
as
the
prior
was
that.
Did
I
hear
that
the.
J
B
Okay,
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
the
home
that
was
there
before
the
new
construction
that's
being
put
in
had
similar
where
it
was
situated,
was
similar
in
the
setbacks.
Is
that
correct.
B
Did
you
want
to?
Did
you
want
to
address
the
letter
of
objection?
I
think
you
mentioned
that
you
wanted
to
show
us
where
that
was.
J
I
don't
I
don't
know
exactly
where
this
is
because
they
didn't
they've
been
449.01,
which
is
all
the
way
at
the
other
end
of
the
of
the
street.
They
would
not
be
adversely
impacted
in
any
respect
whatsoever.
That's
why
I
went
to
the
two
adjacent
property
owners
who
potentially
could
be
impacted
and
and
their
their
comments
are.
J
Reducing
the
acquired
setback
by
80
would
ruin
the
look
and
feel
of
the
neighborhood,
and
I
think
I've
demonstrated
to
you
that
it's
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
homes,
with
respect
to
the
way
that
they
are
oriented
it
only
that
front
yard
setback
only
applies
to
the
corner
where
the
cul-de-sac
impacts
it
and
then,
and
it
gradually
increases.
As
you
go
down
further
down
the
property
line.
B
All
right,
so
do
you
have
anything
else
to
add
in
your
rebuttal
anything
along
those
lines.
B
Okay,
well
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
or
we're
going
to
try
board
discussion
I'll,
give
an
opportunity
for
it.
After,
let's
try
and
remember
to
do
that
after
each
motion
that
we
make
to
have
an
opportunity
for
board
discussion.
D
I'll
make
a
motion
for
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb,
22-1
222-12
for
property,
located
at
49.39,
west
melrose
avenue
north
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard,
setback
from
25
feet
to
5.5
feet
and
a
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
12.5
feet,
with
an
encroachment
for
eaves
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
site
is
constrained
by
an
irregular
lot
shape,
both
in
the
front
and
the
rear,
and
that
this
home
will
be
replacing
a
home
that
had
similar
setbacks.
B
B
Okay,
well
then,
motion
in
a
second
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
you.
B
Okay,
vrb
22-22.
H
G
G
G
And
this
is
an
ariel
showing
the
subject
property.
It
is
an
int,
a
corner
lot
in
in
the
south
tamper
planning
district.
It
is
an
irregularly
shaped
kind
of
triangle,
a
lot.
G
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources,
transportation
and
right
of
way.
Natural
resources
found
them
consistent
with
conditions
that
mitigation
would
be
required
for
any
trees
removed
on
the
site,
and
they
would
need
to
comply
with
a
landscape
code.
G
At
the
time
of
permitting
transportation
had
comments
with
no
objection,
however,
they
would
need
to
put
in
the
five
foot
side
work
along
the
right
of
way
at
the
time
of
building
permits
and
had
comments
about
the
auto
turn
and
the
correct
software
to
use
for
that
right
of
way
had
the
comment
they
found
them
inconsistent
and
they
show
structure
over
existing
stormwater
culverts.
G
B
O
Good
evening
keith,
stanton,
3139,
west
waverly
avenue,
I'm
architect
and
owner
of
domain
development,
and
yes,
I
have
been
sworn
perfect
10
minutes
great.
So
thank
you
for
hearing
me
tonight.
O
You
said
the
sight
plan
we've
developed
is
primarily
due
or
driven
by
the
presence
of
two
submerged
storm
water
lines.
The
city
of
tampa
has
storm
water
lines.
Two
four
foot
by
five
foot
box
culverts
that
run
approximately
four
feet
below
grade
that
bisect
the
site.
So
as
far
as
hardship
goes
that
pre-existed
any
involvement,
any
ownership
by
the
of
the
site
and
would
represent
a
significant
cost
of
construction,
should
we
have
to
locate
the
entire
home
over
the
top
of
it?
It
can
be
done,
but
it
does
bear
significant
cost.
O
O
It
still
provides
in
the
front
yard
should
that
reduction
be
granted
still
provides
32
feet
from
the
structure
to
the
curb
and
in
the
rear
25
feet
from
the
structure
to
the
curb.
So
it's
consistent
with
the
neighborhood,
the
adjacent
property
to
the
south,
a
similar
petition,
I
believe
it
was
vrb
1365,
was
approved
and
with
a
significant
reduction
in
front
yard
setback
to
also
avoid
the
stormwater
lines
that
run
behind
that
property
through
that
property
as
well.
B
Okay,
does
that
complete
your
presentation?
Yes,
it
does.
Thank
you
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
petition?
Seeing
none
is
there
any
questions
from
the
board?
B
See
me
not
all
right.
You
have
three
minutes
for
a
bottle.
B
Only
if
you
have
questions.
Thank
you.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
motion
from
the
board.
H
F
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
there
are
some
box
culverts
running
through
the
property,
pretty
much
through
the
middle
of
the
property.
That's
an
incredibly
oddly
shaped
curved
triangular
corner
lot
that
has
enormous
right-of-ways
from
the
property
to
the
road
that
keep
the
position
of
the
proposed
home
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
and
that
there
are
very
limited
options
available
on
a
site.
This
shape
and
size,
especially
considering
the
culvert.
B
Motion
passed
door.
Second,
is
there
any
need
for
discussion
on
this
on
this
petition,
all
right,
seeing
none,
let's
vote,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
you
oppose
motion.
Your
petition
passes
have
a
great
evening.
Thank
you
board.
B
H
G
This
is
addressed
at
5119
west
in
graham
street,
this
is
zoned
ig
industrial
general,
the
property
owner
is
schmickman
incorporated,
and
the
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard,
set
back
from
10
feet
to
2.2
feet,
and
this
is
to
maintain
the
existing
setbacks
for
the
structure
on
the
site
and
enclose
the
existing
porch.
The
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-156,
where
the
setbacks
for
the
ig
zoning
district
are
10
feet
for
the
front
zero
for
the
rear
and
zero
for
the
sides.
G
G
G
The
applicant
provided
plans
showing
what
that
would
look
like
once
it's
completed.
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources,
transportation
and
right-of-way
and
found
consistent.
There
are
no
letters
of
support
or
a
position
for
this
variance
request.
Staff
has
received
no
correspondence.
There
are
there's
also
no
staff
reports
as
well.
G
This
shows
the
existing
storage
building
and
potentially,
what
could
be
that
property
line
where
the
sidewalk
termin
starts,
and
also
the
front
porch
that
they
are
looking
to
enclose
more
pictures
showing
that
asia
sent
to
this
structure
is
a
retention
pawn
on
one
side
and
on
the
other
end
again.
Zoned
ig
is
some
kind
of
parking
facility.
G
L
L
Historically,
I
have
a
1995
google
arrow
that
shows
that
this
building
was
well
within
conformity
prior
to
the
installation
of
the
sidewalk
and
apparently
some
sort
of
taking,
and
that
created
the
setback
issue
at
that
time.
But
when
this
was
originally
constructed,
it
was
well
within
the
10
foot
setback
on
I
in
industrial
general
setbacks,
so
it
was
conforming
and
so
the
hardship
which
just
came
is
when
the
sidewalk
was
put
in
and
so
yeah.
L
The
hardship
I
have
is
that
the
structure
itself
is
aging
and
it's
a
aged
wood
structure
which
structures
the
main
clothes
that
I
do
feel.
That
could
be
a
hazard
to
my
existing
building
and
possible
neighbors
if
there's
any
sort
of
major
storm
hurricane,
and
so
I'm
looking
just
to
make
something
a
little
more
substantial,
endearing
and
it'll
be
aesthetic
also
and
at
the
time
of
completion,
the
whole
building
will
be
painted
and
I
think
it'd
be
a
nice
addition.
L
You
know
to
the
neighborhood,
but
also
I
I
don't
see
any
impediment
at
all
to
the
use
of
the
sidewalk.
Nothing's
really
changed,
but
you
know
I
appreciate
your
consideration
on
this
variance.
I
do
have
photos
if
you'd
like
to
see
from
1995
google
earth
that
shows
that
this
building
was
well
in
compliance
when
it
was
built
and
then
around
towards
the
end
of
1990
is
when
they
installed
the
sidewalk,
which
then
created
this
setback
issue.
L
L
So,
basically,
just
to
sum
it
up,
the
hardship
is
that
I
have
an
aging
structure
that
I
don't
believe
that
would
survive
any
sort
of
major
storm
event.
Do
you
think
it
could
be
a
hazard
to
others?
I
think
it
could
be
a
hazard
to
my
building,
and
so
I'm
just
asking,
if
you
guys
definitely
please
consider
allowing
the
reconstruction
not
a
new
structure,
but
just
a
reconstruction
of
the
existing
structure
to
a
more
substantial
enduring
aesthetic
building
and
that
pretty
much
concludes
it.
B
C
I
think
I
have
a
question
relating
to
this
two
foot
back,
I'm
looking
at
the
site
plan
that
looks
I'm
having
trouble
like.
Where
is
the
property?
Is
it
lock,
nine,
ten,
eleven
and
twelve?
That
will
gain
this
two
new
variants
of
two
feet
from
the
front
or
is
it
just
lot?
Nine
ten
and
eleven.
L
C
Variant,
it
goes
for
your
entire.
L
M
A
C
L
E
C
I
board
do
it
great,
so
I
have
23.
C
that
the
variance
request
quest
for
case
vrb
2223,
located
at
5119
west
ingram
street,
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard
setback
from
10
feet
to
2.2
feet
with
encroachment
for
the
eaves
and
gutters
with
the
following
conditions
that
the
front
yard
setback
is
only
allowed
for
lot.
9
and
10.
C
That
said,
variants
as
conditioned
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
building
is
already
existing
and
the
enclosure
area
is
already
existing
or,
I
should
say,
the
covered
area,
but
wanting
to
be
enclosed.
So
there
is
no.
B
B
Seeing
none,
let's
vote,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
you
posed.
Alright,
the
motion
passes.
The
petition
is
granted
5.
Nothing
have
a
good
evening.
G
G
The
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-9
290.6,
where
in
the
corner
yards
the
air
conditioning
setback
equip
air
conditioning
equipment.
Setback
are
11
feet
for
the
corner,
3
for
the
side
and
3
for
the
rear,
and
this
property
is.
G
G
G
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
right
of
way
and
found
consistent.
We
have
no
letters
of
support
or
of
opposition
for
this
variance
request.
Staff
has
provided
no
memos
regarding
their
reviews
as
well
in
the
determination
of
this
variance
request,
the
board
shall
consider
section
27-80
as
the
criteria
for
approving
or
denying
the
variance
before
you
and
staff
will
be
available.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
need
further
clarification,.
B
G
G
G
B
M
B
H
I'm
the
the
builder
of
record.
Thank
you.
I've
been
swimming.
Sorry,
thank
you.
I'm
the
builder
record
on
this
particular
property.
This
project
was
started
and
I
had
hired
an
air
conditioning
company
to
relocate
the
existing
because
the
parties
were
living
in
the
house.
I
had
to
relocate
the
air
conditioning
unit
in
order
to
build
the
addition
and
because
we
had,
we
have
actually
36
feet
to
the
roadway.
H
It
was
kind
of
just
obscured
that
oh
it'll
fit
here
so
when
we
went
to
go
for
the
final
co
as
when,
and
the
final
survey
is
when
it
was
identified
that
this
was
not
placed
exactly
where
it
needed
to
be,
and
obviously
there
was
no
way
of
moving
the
building
or
doing
anything
else
to
it.
So
the
practical
difficulties
would
have
been
addressed
in
the
beginning
anyway,
because
there
was
no
way
of
acting.
You
know,
keeping
the
house
cool
and
so
and
so
forth.
H
So
what
our
request
is
here
because
of
the
premise
that
we're
30
something
feet
away
from
the
street:
there's
no
neighbors
being
affected,
we're
behind
a
fence
and
it
really
has
no
impact.
I
really
thought
this
was
going
to
be
an
administrative
review.
H
B
B
Okay
check
the
box
requirement
all
right,
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
F
F
M
F
Setback
for
air
conditioning
equipment
from
11
feet
to
8
feet
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
confident,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
of
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
was
the
only
location
after
an
expansion
of
the
home
and
that
the
air
conditioning
unit
is
on
a
corner
yard
facing
a
street
and
not
a
neighboring
property,
and
that
it
is
behind
a
fence
and
not
visible
from
the
road.
B
By
mr
pasteur,
ms
johnson,
is
there
a
need
for
discussion
on
this
petition,
seeing
none,
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Any
opposed.
All
right
question
passes
5-0
my.
B
Far
away
folks,
if
you're
gonna
speak,
if
there's
a
chance,
you
might
speak
tonight.
Please
stand
we're.
Gonna
swear
you
in.
G
G
The
property
owners
are
christopher
and
stephanie
kern,
and
this
is
zoned
rs
60,
residential
single
family
and
the
variance
request
before
the
board
is
to
reduce
the
side
yard
set
back
to
the
west
from
five
feet
to
two
feet,
and
this
is
for
a
full
screen.
Enclosure
and
the
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-290.5.
G
Regarding
screen
enclosures
for
single-family,
the
setbacks
would
be
five
feet
on
the
sides
and
the
rear
and
the
requirement
that
for
the
enclosure
height
above
15
feet,
the
height,
the
yard
shall
be
increased
by
one
foot.
G
And
this
is
a
site
plan
that
the
applicant
has
provided,
showing
the
existing
home
and
the
pool
in
the
rear
part
of
the
property
towards
the
south,
and
then
they
have
provided
what
that
pool,
enclosure
parameter
would
look
like
and
that's
what
is
highlighted
in
orange
and
also
the
structural
plans
for
this
proposed
pool
enclosure.
G
G
Three
conflicts
should
be
minimal
if
any
pruning
needs
to
be
conducted,
it
shall
be
in
accordance
with
section
27-285
and
all
three
can
kind
of
be
pruning
must
meet
nsi
a
300
pruning
per
the
american
national
standard
for
tree
care
operations
and
the
general
standard
for
tree
pruning.
G
G
B
H
Stephanie
kern,
3224,
west
harbor
view
avenue
and
that's
tamba
33611
and
I
have
in
sworn.
Thank
you.
H
Great,
so
we
bought
the
home
that
we're
in
now
and
june
of
2021,
and
it
had
a
pre-existing
pool,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
it
so
the
pool
area
is
back
here
in
the
back
and
it
already
had
the
cement
pavers
around
it
and
on
the
one
side,
this
is
where
we're
asking
for
the
variance
it
goes
within.
It's
two
feet
from
the
fence
to
the
one
to
the
end
of
the
patio
is,
and
we
are
requesting
a
hardship
based
on
a
few
things.
One.
H
We
want
the
pool
enclosure
because,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
a
tough
time
using
the
back
area.
This
is
after
being
cleaned
like
five
hours
previously.
So
that's
why
we
want
to
construct
the
pool
enclosure.
The
area
that
we're
putting
in
as
you
can
see
is
this
is
where
the
the
fence
line.
This
is
two
feet
to
here,
and
this
is
three
feet
to
here.
H
So
the
other
hardship
we're
asking
for
is
because
if
we
did
have
to
do
the
five
foot
variants,
the
pool
enclosure
would
go
right
along
this
edge
right
here,
so
you
would
not
be
physically
be
able
to
get
out
of
the
pool
on
that
end.
H
B
Okay,
is
there
anything
else
you'd
like
to
share,
or
does
that
complete
your
presentation
scene.
B
H
I
think
that's
everything
I
think
just
the
main
hardship
is.
We
want
the
pool
to
be
safe
and
it
could
be
usable
for
our
whole
family,
okay,
without
worrying
about
it.
B
B
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
was
not
a
hardship
created
by
the
homeowners,
they
bought
the
house
with
the
pool
already
built,
and
it
would
be
a
safety
issue
if
they
put
this
screen
in
and
were
not
able
to.
There
would
be
no
egress
from
the
pool
on
that
side.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
pasteur.
B
Is
there
a
need
for
discussion
on
this
motion?
Seeing
none,
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
you
posed
all
right
emotion.
The
motion
passes
your
petition
is
granted
have
a
nice
evening.
Thank.
B
That's
two
in
a
row
penultimate.
G
G
The
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-156,
where
the
setbacks
for
the
rs
50
zoning
districts
are
20
feet
for
the
front
20
feet
for
the
rear.
Seven
for
the
sides.
G
G
And
this
is
the
site
plan
that
the
applicant
has
provided,
showing
what
is
currently
existing
on
the
property,
and
this
section
towards
the
south
end
per
this
diagram
is
where
there's
a
bulb
out,
and
you
see
that
four
point,
one
foot
setback
that
is
currently
existing.
G
G
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
found
consistent.
This
was
reviewed
by
nat
right
of
way
and
found
consistent
as
well.
G
Transportation
review
is
not
required.
We
do
not
have
any
letters
of
support
or
opposition
for
this
variance
request
and
there
are
no
staff
memos.
As
to
the
reviews
that
were
conducted
in
the
determination
of
this
variance
request,
the
board
shall
consider
section
27-80
as
the
criteria
for
the
approval
or
denial
of
a
variance
request,
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I
will
be
available.
F
B
All
right,
this
is
the
applicant
here,
come
on
up
state
your
name.
Your
address
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
10
minutes
to
make
the
presentation.
P
P
B
Basically,
I'm
sorry,
your
name
is
shalom,
khalfon
h-a-l-f-o-n,
thank
you
and
your
life
and
you've
been
sworn
ibis
work
thanks.
P
P
So
our
goal
is
basically
just
to
extend
we're
talking
about
like
12
foot
by
two
just
for
a
closed
space
and
egress
window
and
a
space
for
they
can
do
on
work.
You
know
like
a
so
basically
all
of
that.
It's
it's
very
small.
Now
also,
we
thought
because
it's
already
4.1
existing.
P
So
it's
not
going
to
be
a
problem,
and
we
already
have
an
engineer.
We
already
apply
for
the
permit
and
everything
we
we
didn't
thought
it's
going
to
be
any
problem,
but
then
we
found
out
that
that
in
time,
whenever
the
house
was
built,
it
was
it
was
granted
back
then,
but
but
this
day
the
city
for
some
reason
changed
the
setback
from
of
four
to
seven
at
this
specific
area.
P
So
so,
after
after
being
thinking
together
with
david
inside
of
his
house
about
the
solution,
we
come
only
to
this
this
solution,
even
though
the
solution
is
very
expensive
and
very
hard
to
do.
But
but
this
is,
this
is
the
only
solution
you
have
for
providing
providing
a
better
room
space
for
for
children,
and
you
know
it's
yeah,
basically
and
yeah.
Basically,
that's
it.
Q
Q
My
wife
wanted
to
tell
you
that,
prior
to
buying
this
house,
I'm
a
retired
army
officer,
we
moved
five
times
in
four
years,
and
it's
we're
just
getting
to
that
point
where
we've
just
completely
outgrown
this
house,
it's
it's
not
a
bedroom
per
se
on
the
wall
that
we're
looking
to
expand.
It's
three
large
windows.
There
is
no
closet.
There
is
there's
nothing
that
we
can
place
there.
This
bump
out
here
would
allow
us
to
maximize
the
full
potential
of
of
that
space.
Q
The
property's
already
been
extended.
The
setback
is
already
there
from
from
the
original
build
in
1925.
Q
G
Q
Covet
happening,
my
job
ended
up
being
remote,
which
took
additional
space
and
resources
from
the
home
to
accommodate
that
looking
into
other
areas
to
where
we
could
potentially
utilize
the
space.
For
for
my
daughter
to
have
a
room,
it
was,
it
just
would
have
been
extra
resources
to
tear
down
walls
and
reconfigure
the
home,
which
wasn't
a
viable
solution
or
a
cost-effective
solution.
Q
B
Thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
on
this
petition
this
evening,
seeing
none
are
there
any
questions
from
board
members
for
the
petitioner
on
this
petition
this
evening?
B
Seeing
none,
you
have
three
minutes
for
rebuttal
if
needed.
No,
all
right.
Let's
close
public
hearing
open
it
up
for
emotion
from
a
member
of
the
board,
who
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
B
A
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
22-39
for
property
located.
Oh
sorry,
that's
2228
for
the
property
located
at
1611
south
marijuana
avenue.
The
grant
is
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
of
west
side
setback
from
seven
feet
to
4.1
feet
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
A
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
codes,
specifically
that
the
homeowner
did
not
create
this
hardship
that
the
existing
home
that
has
been
there
for
an
extremely
long
time
is
already
sitting
within
this
setback
area.
He
is
just
trying
to
enclose
a
small
portion
to
extend
the
living
area
of
the
home
and
make
the
home
more
usable
for
today's
family
standards.
B
Thank
you.
Okay.
We
have
a
motion,
and
second,
is
there
you
need
for
discussion
on
this
on
this
motion,
nope
all
right.
Let's
go
ahead
and
vote
all
those
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
all
right
petition
passes.
P
E
E
G
G
G
G
This
location
was
approved
for
a
design
exception
for
off-site
parking
in
2018.
That
was
for
the
458
parking
spaces
that
was
in
that
was
approved
through
de1-18
161.
The
lease
agreement
was
for
five
years.
That
leaves
would
be
terminating
next
year
and
I
believe
that
they
are
here
seeking
that
variance
request.
G
G
This
is
the
site
plan
that
has
been
provided
and
in
the
determination
of
this
variance
request,
the
board
shall
consider
section
27-80
as
the
criteria
for
the
approval
or
denial
of
this
variance
request
and
staff
is
available.
If
you
have
any
questions
and
ask
pertains
to
the
technical
aspect
of
it,
jonathan
scott
will
be
here
to
address
that.
M
Evening,
mr
chairman
board,
members,
mr
cohen,
is
handing
out
two
things:
a
statement
before.
B
You
get
in
anything
further
guys
take
your
name.
M
Yes,
sir,
yes,
sir
david
mechanic,
305
south
boulevard,
tampa
florida,
mr
cohen,
just
handed
out
a
statement
of
our
hardship
variants
that
was
included
in
the
application,
also
some
excerpts
from
the
parking
study
that
he
performed,
which
he
will
describe
in
just
a
few
moments.
M
Jane
did
a
pretty
good
job
of
explaining
what
the
situation
is.
We,
because
code
requires
382
parking
spaces.
The
site
currently
only
provides
325
spaces,
so
we
were
required
to
obtain
an
off-site
lease
well
over
the
years
since
this
project,
this
property
has
been
occupied
by
several
medical
tenants.
M
I
I
There
are
currently,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
plan,
325
parking
spaces
on
the
property.
If
you
were
wondering
the
actual
lease
spaces
were
over
in
this
area
for
quite
some
time,
which
is
a
contractor's
building.
I
The
current
parking
ratio
on
the
site,
which
isn't
very
important
here,
is
5.1
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet
code
at
this
point
is
6.0
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
So
I
met
with
jonathan
and
melanie
city
transportation
staff
and
we
performed
a
parking
accumulation
study,
120
hours
worth
of
counts
over
two
weeks.
I
I
118
spaces
approximately
half
of
the
spaces
that
currently
exist
on
the
property,
so
I
think
we're
well
parked
for
the
building
as
it
operates.
Today
there
are
three
medical
tenants
in
the
building.
The
question
became.
What
would
we
do
or
what
would
happen
if
that
tenant's
mix
changed?
We
have
a
very
low
parking
demand
for
the
building.
I
I
If
you
do
the
calculations
under
their
criteria
for
this
particular
building,
which
is
a
very
large
medical
office,
building
their
suggested
parking
ratio
is
actually
3.26
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
As
buildings
go
up
in
size,
the
parking
rate
per
thousand
square
feet
go
down
same
in
large
office,
buildings
same
in
large
shopping,
centers
themselves,
and
that
was
based
on
117
studies
done
throughout
the
united
states.
Regarding
medical
office
parking,
we
didn't
stop
there.
I
We
looked
at
the
ite
journal
as
well,
which
makes
a
general
recommendation
at
this
point
of
4.5
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet,
and
that
includes
a
10,
fluff
factor
or
safety
factor.
Their
actual
ratio
is
about
four,
they
suggest
4.5.
Well,
how
did
we
get
from
six
per
thousand
to
four
point?
Five
per
thousand
fact
of
the
matter
is
going
through
various
medical
journals.
I
We
have
found
that
through
medical
planning
journals,
which
these
are
folks
that
recommend
to
doctors,
the
size
of
their
office,
the
amount
of
parking
they
need,
the
amount
of
meeting
space
etcetera
that
the
trend
has
gone
from
five
per
thousand
to
four
per
thousand
over
the
last
ten
years.
Looking
at
the
older
documentations,
you
see
five.
I
Looking
at
the
more
current
you
see,
four,
you
may
have
all
experienced
what
we
do
now:
a
lot
of
telemedicine,
a
lot
of
clinics
that
provide
a
lot
of
services
where
doctors
offices
used
to
be
there
office
waiting
rooms
are
getting
smaller
and
smaller
because
they
don't
have
that
demand,
but
we
didn't
stop
there.
In
talking
with
city
staff,
we
had
based
methodology
on
the
criteria
the
city
typically
uses,
but
with
city
staff.
We
were
very
fortunate.
I
Well,
they
found
in
the
original
sturdy
5.6
per
thousand,
so
they
suggested
rounding
to
six
per
thousand
that
today,
using
those
same
cities
and
their
same
criteria,
the
parking
ratio
would
be
4.6
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
Rounding
up.
That
would
be
five
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet
if
we
threw
out
peoria
because
they
went
from
six
per
thousand
to
zero,
just
to
make
sure
we
still
end
up
with
a
parking
ratio
based
upon
an
updated
city
of
tampa
cohort
study
of
five
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
I
5.1
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet,
so
we
believe
we
have
completed
a
study
that
is
very
consistent.
City
of
tampa
criteria
for
a
parking
accumulation
study
showed
a
very
low
demand
for
parking
for
the
medical
uses
that
are.
There
then
performed
a
technical
search
and
a
literature
search
to
determine.
I
What's
going
on
in
the
medical
industry
for
office
and
the
parking
required
and
then
finally
updated
the
city
study
to
today
rather
than
almost
20
years
ago,
and
found
that
the
parking
code
that
the
city
of
tampa
had
for
medical
office
20
years
ago
before
they
increased
it
was
5
per
thousand,
and
that
now
is
again
the
most
appropriate
appropriate
parking
ratio
for
medical
office.
Happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have.
I've
got
about
a
50
page
report,
but
I
didn't
want
to
bore
you
with
it.
M
I
I
just
wanted
I
neglected
to
qualify
mr
cohen,
as
an
expert.
Have
you
testified
as
an
expert
before
the
city
of
tampa
and
in
courts
in
the
state
of
florida,
and
you
are
a
certified
planner?
Yes,
okay,
just
to
wrap
up
very
quickly.
I
I
know
we're
close
on
time.
Mr
cohen's
study
involved
him
reviewing
videotape
for
this
two
weeks
worth
of
workday
experiences
and
he
never
once
observed
a
patient
of
the
building
needing
to
park
off
site.
M
The
point
being
is
that
there
is
no
possibility
of
an
adverse
impact
as
a
result
of
the
reduction
of
parking
to
the
325
spaces.
I
would
also
point
out
there
are
no
residents
in
this
area
whatsoever,
so
there
would
be
no
impact
whatsoever
to
hope
or
residents
of
the
area.
Thank
you
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
on
this
petition
this
evening?
Seeing
none?
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
of
the
board
on
this
petition
this
evening
I
have
one,
mr
scott,
do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
study
that
was
performed
any
anything
that
you
observe
that
you
would
like
to
comment
on.
N
B
Request?
Okay,
thank
you.
That's
what
I
needed
any
other
questions
from
any
of
the
board.
You
have
three
minutes
for
rebuttal.
Should
you
choose
to
use
it.
B
You
well
with
that.
Then
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
they
did
a
detailed
parking
study
that
shows
that,
even
at
the
highest
time
of
day,
there
aren't
even
half
of
the
spaces
filled
and
the
current
code
requirements
for
cities
similar
to
ours
have
reduced
their
number
of
parking
per
thousand
square
feet.
In
the
last
20
years.
B
Is
there
a
need
for
discussion
on
this
petition,
seeing
none,
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye,
the
post
petition
passes
have
a
great
evening.
Thank
you
very
much.