Variance Review Board - 07/14/26

attendees and participants welcome to the july 14th meeting of the city tampon variance review board to my left the members of the board are megan cochran brian fry todd fultz rick pfeiffer also in attendance this evening from the eagle taylor bolt and from development coordination steven eiser and lisa middleton um and is there marla marla uh tris garcia there you are thank you welcome uh there are some procedural rules we need you to follow when your case number is called uh and the petitioner's name sorry when the case number and the petitioner's name are called please approach the podium when you approach the podium please state your name address and confirm that you have been sworn in this is very important because we'll ask you if you don't the petitioner or its agent will have 10 minutes to make a presentation all other persons or participants wishing to speak will have three minutes then the petitioner will have an additional five minutes for rebuttal if needed the time periods are state are stated i'm sorry the time periods as stated will be kept by the board and the information such as pictures or plans that have not been previously submitted as part of the petition and uh and that you intend to submit for consideration to support your petition must be individually presented and accepted by the board after acceptance the board by the board you must submit the item to the staff and be entered and made part of the permanent record the board basis decision on competent and substantial evidence which is submitted and which makes it clearly meets the criteria required by the city's code of ordinances please be sure to clearly state your hardship criteria during your presentation a majority of the board is needed for the approval of your variance the variance granted by the board will only be for only what is shown on the site plan it will be compliance with any terms and conditions stated by the board all other city codes need to be met in the case if the case is approved your variance will expire two years from the date of decision if your case is continued you will either be continued to next month's vrb board agenda or to the next available position on an upcoming vrb board agenda if the case is denied you you may wish to have your variance review board's decisions appealed by the city council you may file petition for review of the board's decision within 14 days of the board's written decision you will not be able to pull any permits under the 14-day review period as period has passed your cooperation in ensuing that this meeting runs smoothly and greatly greatly appreciated can i have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from last month's view so moved second second all in favor aye in reviewing tonight's agenda do any did any board members have any ex parte communications regarding the no thank you let the record reflect everybody has answered in the negative and secondly in reviewing tonight's agenda do any of the board members have a conflict of interest no no thank you let the record reflect everybody has answered in the negative thank you all right we're going to start with the first item on the agenda which is vrb-26-24 this is a continuance from a hearing two months ago for batty ventures llc the applicant is crescent homes the property address is 5102 west platte street the zoning is residential single family rs 75 the request is to reduce green space from 25 percent to 15 percent the code section in reference is section 27-284.3.3 table 27 284.3.3 single family detached has a middle landscape area of 25 percent previous actions bld-26-0523604 for a generator bld-25-0517891 for a pool bld-24-0508398-17 for a new single family home and then fdn-25-150 for a lot split and reconfiguration of the property this is a map of the site showing the rs 75 lot located here in the hash line you can see at the time of the satellite photo the property is being is under construction this is the overall view of the property showing that the lot is 11 568.3 square feet there is 1822 square feet of planting beds which would count towards their green space percentage which makes up 15.74 percent the remaining area the lot is covered by driveway home or artificial turf that was installed natural resources has objections the proposed green space is located within planters based on the submitted documents a lot size of 11 658.3 square feet requires 2 892 square feet of green space the site currently has 2065 square feet of artificial turf and 1822 square feet of planter beds the transportation wastewater and water and right-of-way all had no objections stormwater had no objections with conditions addressing the artificial turf and making sure it was installed with the correct underlayments to make sure it stayed permeable antigo had no objections with conditions this is the criteria under 27-80 for the variance review board to review each hardship and i'm available for any comments questions or concerns from the petitioner here please approach and confirm your name address and you've been sworn in lindsay bennett 5102 west plat and i have been sworn in and i also do have packets for each member of the board four of them i'm good okay i didn't know if they were reading um it's good afternoon my name is lindsay bennett i'm the director of operations at crescent homes um so my role involves all of the plans permitting inspections permit closeout um full design um i'm here today as the continuance from the may hearing where the board requested um further information on the code regarding green space as well as further documentation between crescent homes and the city of tampa employees um so the requirement in question today is the 25 green space on the lot at 5102 the definition of green space on the city of tampa ordinance 27-43 defines green space as quote landscaped area landscaped area is then defined as the minimum area on a parcel that is required to be landscaped that definition specifically states landscape area excludes the following the building footprint driveways access ways vehicle use areas hardscapes such as decks swimming pools decorative fountains patios and or other impervious surface areas the turf in question at 5102 is installed impervious which means it drains and it meets the stormwater department requirements nothing in the city definition states that pervious turf is not considered green space thus our position is that the lot currently meets the green space requirements because with the pervious turf we have roughly 30 percent of green space as required and defined by the city ordinance the second item that was requested by the board was the communication with the municipality employees so what i've provided with you is a timeline of events so on june 30th of 2025 our site revision with pervious turf was approved by the city of tampa then in august of 2025 we had an on-site drainage inspection which was approved by the city inspector then on october 2nd there was a phone call between dave jennings at the city of tampa and calvin beaty the owner of crescent homes then after that call there was a follow-up email where dave emailed myself the required turf based material so in order to have your pervious turf approved it has to meet special requirements the next day october 3rd we had an inspection on site again with a different city inspector to discuss the turf install it wasn't until november 4th where we went for building final where everything was installed where we failed and this was the first time we were notified that we could not have the turf so throughout this entire timeline we weren't informed that the turf was going to be an issue we had multiple meetings on site we relied on the definition of green space within the city ordinance and then our reliance is further supported by the city of turf packet which i provided to you which lists exclusions and that's where the red tab is and again none of those exclusions mention pervious turf so again while it's our position that we exceed the 25 green space the building department has required us to come here for the variance approval so today we're requesting the board approve our variance for the following reasons the hardship of reliance on the city ordinances the city definitions and the improved on-site inspections as well as the financial hardship of spending triple of the cost to install the pervious turf versus impervious turf and then now we're up against the additional cost and time to remove all of the existing turf that's installed and install sod and then as a reminder the turf was installed in lieu of sod because the homeowner's wife and daughter are allergic to sod so our request places no public harm especially related to drainage and storm water that was a big concern from neighbors and then the installation of turf has not interfered with or injured the health safety or welfare of others as it's at this point been installed for over seven months and that concludes our request computer presentation yes the application for variance by the owner um so i complete all of the documentation at crescent homes um and so calvin beatty is the owner of crescent homes and beatty ventures and then decided to move into the house so it was originally a spec home which is what triggered the revision when he decided to move into it i just you know from just for a few variants does not want to do something and um because our children have allergies and my wife that is really okay you guys want to do or complete so that to me is a little off-putting okay because we don't want to make sense yes okay perfect i would just like to say what's going to my decision today yeah i'm just saying when i read something like that it's requested brands because we don't want to remove yes then work that way okay right yeah and the reason that we now have to remove it is because i guess the hardship is we went through everything that i believed i failed yeah i'd just like to ask a question here um i know you stated that part of the hardship is the allergies that the owner's child has but that was to turf or sod to sod so there are other options have they been explored yes and so we did also plant sod on the right-of-way as required um i don't know if you've seen the images no specifically what i was asking is if to meet that requirement of the actual ground cover being living um if you explored other plant material other than sod that would accomplish the same end without creating a problem for the owner's child yes so your options for pervious materials leave you with rock mulch um and sod pretty much in planter materials so the whole front yard essentially would have had to be like plant beds so i don't know if you've seen the photos which i can show of the lot um of the greens of the turf versus the sod i i remember them yeah um so in i really appreciate this um so it it seems that everything was moving very smoothly yes until all of a sudden until we went to go for cf yeah um so the document uh this artificial turf verification statement is this part of the package that goes steven to to these folks um it shows a revision of march 4th 2025 um but it doesn't it's it's not filled out it's is it i mean is it in direct conflict with what the city requires i mean requires it seems to be so during the time of this permit is when legislation was also occurring for artificial turf and they were trying to figure out the regulations for that at the same time if i'm correct correct so our permit is a 2024 permit okay and this change happened in 2025. so now these permits moving forwards not with mr baity's situation exactly they now have to fill out this artificial turf verification statement and that kind of shows the difference between the artificial turf and the land which wasn't that way like i think this was published for the first time on 03 04 2025. okay so what is um so landscape area and this is from municode right yes landscape area it it doesn't it doesn't lineate the difference right it does not you would have to look at the you know if you look here there's one two three four five six seven definitions of landscaping yes or landscaped area um traditionally landscape landscape landscape and tree plant let's go up here landscape the plant material native and non-native which is retained and or planted in such a way as to conserve preserve and enhance land uses natural land features natural and aesthetic values wildlife habitat and the environment is how we review landscape okay but when you look at the definition of landscape area on its own it does not draw that same language it does not it just does not draw that same language okay um and i would just like to add that the city of tampa ordinance 2743 defines green space as landscaped area so while there are eight landscape definitions the one that we followed was landscaped area is the artificial turf that is installed is it pervious or non-pervious it is pervious it drains um there's been no drainage issues and i guess this is also for mr eister still um so this had there not been a change that is an accident 2025 for this new verification statement and whatnot then this would have never come that would have been co and this that would have been previously approved i can't speak to the building side the 25 green space requirement or landscaped area requirement has stayed consistent the turf regulations have changed some back and forth um pending state regulation but the 25 percent landscaped or green space area has been consistent through the code so it would have appeared at some point during the inspection so then what is contributing to the 25 percent in your in your i guess this is for both of you but what is constructed it would be the planting beds and the artificial turf would be contributing to the the landscaping area i yes it's so it's any planter beds rock beds um trees flowers um and now what i've learned is not pervious artificial turf i'm not sure how you would get to 25 percent of any artificial insulation without an artificial turf installation without having a mostly green green space or i've seen planters like what they have here they've um i've seen people do that around pools and pool decks to get the other 10 percent i've seen sod we've seen native plantings there's you know people do all kinds of different things because it just has to be planted it doesn't say planted with what you know and so my job prior to crescent i worked for another custom home builder where i've done three properties that are all artificial turf um so prior to that i never had an issue um which is why we went through these steps to permit the artificial turf i think the difficulty here is you know in the code doesn't say live right anything it doesn't say live it says landscape it doesn't say live sod right so i mean it seems to me they thought they were doing the right thing that's what it seems because rocks would not be live but it's pervious and so is that rocks are you can have fake rocks too yeah you can have great fake trees you can have not in this city no um yeah i i understand i i see this whole thing actually thank you thank you more questions for the board is there anyone wishing to speak for or against right seeing none uh you have five minutes for rebuttal if you so choose i'm good thank you okay uh then i'll close the public hearing and open up for board discussion and any motion okay uh i move that the variance request for vrb 26-24 for the property located at 5102 west platte street uh be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce green space from 25 to 15 percent um based upon the applicant presenting competent substantial evidence in the record at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code specifically that the code and the um the the process from which this applicant went through seemed to be in conflict um and only the issue seemed to arise at the end of the process of the final um approval period and that it is a pervious space and i'm just gonna leave it there motion there a second second all right any discussion um i guess the i'm i'm struggling with this okay there are multiple types of materials that you could use that would be living and breathing plant space we can cover everything in plastic and it would look wonderful look like disney world okay but part of the reason for having living plant material is because it helps our environment overall and and what i'm seeing here is that the discrepancy between what is credited in the planters versus the shortfall i'm like i'm looking at this drawing and i'm sitting here saying this one whole strip back there if that was just planted with something in native plants would probably meet that 25 as it's being presented and so to me i i don't know there are a lot of natives there are other ground covers that could be used that's why i was asking my question about turf versus other stuff because i wasn't hearing that anything else was really seriously considered so i'm having a little misgivings about whether or not this is really a hardship based upon the city ordinance and not a hardship but they're making so i i hear what you're saying part of the thing is they were they submitted a plan showing all this it was approved they built it to approve they wanted to get the final ceo and then all of a sudden they said well your plan doesn't work and that's not fair no and i i and i agree that's that like i said i'm struggling with it because at the same time i i am aware that usually when you're doing landscaping you usually don't have to go and get a permit and approval for it so it's very easy to run down the road and then find that oops you ran afoul of something that doesn't normally get looked at so that's why i'm saying i'm just struggling with it okay for that reason sorry sorry fully understand where you're coming from um i think the hardship is a lot based on the fact that they were given approval went down a path and then the rules changed on them that is a hardship that's not something i think if they were told that they had the plants they had to they would have done it yeah or it would have been all rock right because rocket i mean you know rock is not rock is the same issue to me yeah i i get it but rock is permitted it wouldn't even be here right so right okay understood okay so are you ready for a vote yep all right all those in favor indicate by saying aye aye aye aye aye opposed thank you the next item on the agenda is vrb-26-50 the owner is britney and brent birch the applicant is genzel the property address is 3501 south drexel avenue the zoning is residential single family rs60 the request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to seven feet the code section and reference is section 27 156 table 4-2 schedule of area height bulk and placement regulations rs60 district setbacks are 25 feet front 20 feet in the rear and seven feet on the sides this is the property in question the long drexel west el prado boulevard to the north and then the selman expressway to the rear of the property this is the overall site plan showing the house the area requesting the variance is located here and we're going to zoom in on that on the next slide this is a zoom in showing where the 20 foot setback would be located this is the addition that goes beyond the 20 foot setback and then they have a seven foot five and a half setback and then they have a few large trees located around the site causing them to push the addition here compared to other locations natural resources has no objections with conditions natural resources has no objections at the time of construction additional natural resource changes and requests can be made to ensure all other applicable sections of chapter 27 are made made transportation wastewater water and right-of-way all have no objections stone water has no objections with conditions for the site such building permit the following notes will need to be added and addressed and at the as of july 1st 2026 there was no comment from tico this is the criteria under 2780 and i'm available for any comments questions or concerns thank you is the presenter here name address and have you been sworn in yes a britney birch um 3501 south drexel and yes i've been sworn in just bringing up some slides actually part of it is what i've shown sir is there someone else presenting to you that's my husband name address hi uh brent birch 3501 south drexel i've been sworn in as you should be good we just brought up this about a couple slides to show it's kind of a unique property it's a mid-century house it's historic it was built in 1962 it's all a single story and it's on a almost um i think it's 0.41 acre so it's a very large green space it's kind of unique we bought the home in november and um believed that we could add on another room in the bathroom for um possible our parents our aging parents might be moving in and so um when we went to do an addition we realized that the uh and prior to us purchasing the home the um the front of the house it's actually it's a corner lot so the front of the house was moved to drexel instead of el prado and so it changes our site our setback for the back where we'd like to do this at um to go up to add a room um to add on to the house would be really a changing with the historic you know the historical character of the property and um and it's kind of a unique face and whether that the buildable area the law is very um non-conforming to typical but there are more standard frontage and um and buildable area so let me see um i don't know if it changes kind of showing an aerial view of this the way this is a non-typical lot what we're looking at here is in the um so you guys can see my cursor but in the back towards here we're talking about moving out 12 and a half feet um to add on another this extra bedrooms um and there is a um again like 140 or 100 year old where i understand banyan tree here that we do not want to damage um or infringe upon um and because of the size like i was talking about this non-uniform lot adding on any other space would be um a hardship kind of providing the view of where we're talking about where we get where we're getting closer in the setback we actually only have technically one direct neighbor who have come here today with us to support um and like i said we would not be getting any closer to anybody but the crosstown so i wanted to kind of show that view the site plan and the detail were already brought up um and then we had several other letters of support that people sent um sent in um from the neighbors but it's i don't have any questions conclude your presentation yes all right we'll open up for questions to the board um actually can i ask them to go back to one of their slides yeah um could you go back to the slide where um that one okay thank you um so as i'm looking at what you're proposing to add on that is back where the neighbor's pool is sort of correct yes okay and then that's across town directly behind it that's right okay okay thank you and where is that tree is that the large tree that i see there yeah the banyan it's right in our backyard that's a right to the north of the addition and we would not you know but that's probably 50 of the reason why we bought the home of that tree and when did you say the house was the home was built 1962. um sort of a little bit off topic but uh is it are you in a flood zone do you have to build it this addition up no actually it's 25 feet up yeah 25 feet wow where the selma expresses that back wall is that a concrete back wall it is we're actually pretty far from technically from like where the concrete starts they're actually putting a sound wall there so i don't know how to um there's probably another 10 feet in if that makes sense after our property line possibly more i'm not sure more questions uh is there anyone here to speak for or against this uh advocate yes our neighbors um they're actually right to the our only true direct neighbor are here to support in any way they can but do you want to come out and speak or they don't battle okay yeah if you want if you want to speak if they want excuse me are those the individuals that wrote the letter um no those are uh separate neighbors okay i don't know that i will go ahead and uh you have five minutes for rebuttal if you need it no we'll close the public hearing and open up for board discussion in the motion saving the tree you're saving the tree you're not tearing the house down the brian knows my penchant for historic preservation so we're good um so and the fact that if you want to build closer to across town and you can live with that all right all right okay the banyan blocks the whole thing the trees the irregular shaped lot and the crosstown doesn't do any harm yeah okay but i've never said one of these functions do you want to do it no no no that's what i think i was like i don't get my practice i don't think he won't um i will move that variance request for case brb 26-50 for the property located at 3501 south drexel avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a reduced reduction of the rear yard setback from 20 foot to 7 foot based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence on the record 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 property um sits on an odd shaped lot um it's preserving uh a home that was built in 1962 it is also preserving um a banyan tree on the property uh the property sits very close to the salmon expressway and uh there you have it okay so most of you have a second second all right uh we'll call it a vote call the vote all those in favor but you can get by saying aye aye aye congratulations thank you thank you very much you guys are good to go and um you'll get a letter emailed over to you and find the next day or two good good evening board marla tricote with development coordination and i will be presenting the next case on the agenda it is brb 26-53 the owner is christopher borrow and andrea cabbie the address is 46 13 south lowest avenue the zoning is residential single-family rs60 the request is to reduce the rear yard accessory structure setback from three feet to 2.4 inches the code applicable code section is 27-290 table 4-2 schedule of area height bulk and placement regulations accessory structure setbacks are 60 feet from the front yard three feet from the rear and three feet from the side 15 for the height from picture of roof previous actions is roe-2530 which is a release of easement spr 20 dash 25 dash 000 3126 which is a site review permit for a new single-family home and this is the map outlined in red would be the property uh with the request today the site plan so in the rear bring my cursor over here for the structure would be the area where they're making the request for the reduction in the setback here's a close-up of it you can see it better here this would be the area in question for the request the development review comments so natural resources had no objection the building is existing natural resources has no comments transportation wastewater water and right-of-way had no objections stormwater had no objections with conditions and tico had no objections with conditions these are the standards under 2780 for variance review board i'm available for any comments or questions good evening christopher barrow property owner of 4613 south louis avenue andrea couldn't be here today she's taking care of a kid we are requesting the approval to reduce the three-foot rear setback to approximately just over two inches as you guys saw have you been sworn in yes my apologies um there's an existing attached garage and covered area there that unfortunately encroaches the three-foot uh setback uh this came to light just recently whenever we got flooded and had our whole site plan uh due to the awkward shape of the lot as you can see it does encroach uh just by about two feet four inches uh since the storm we've been working diligently uh with the town and the city uh to rebuild our home uh we are going to try and bring it up to code so that this doesn't happen again our home was built in 1955 uh and the the current building is actually uh housing all of our uh items that actually uh survived the flood uh so maintaining the structure through the rebuild is kind of essential for financial uh as well as practicality reasons um the the rear of the lot there are no residential properties back there it actually abuts an access road for uh stormwater drainage ditch and so therefore we won't be impacting any homeowners in our area all of the utility providers have reviewed the request signed off and the release of easement has been approved uh the alternative would be to demo and and redo the entire structure which unfortunately uh moving at 2.4 feet would create unnecessary financial strain uh cause unnecessary negative impacts to the environment as well as further delay our ability to rebuild our home uh hoping that we can get this variance reviewed and approved so that we can reserve the existing structure so we have no adverse effects to uh the public utilities or our neighboring properties uh and so we would like to get this approved so we can continue building our home does that conclude your presentation yes sir we'll open up for board discussions or board for questions um is sir is the deck currently there or was that destroyed in the flooding uh the deck is currently there it is currently there so it was there prior to this correct so this is um so the variance is for the um garage correct right the uh that's on the left of the site plan yes sir the existing wood deck was outlined by our uh builder uh builder due to the easement needing to be updated and we got that approved okay um the existing garage is detached correct our home is actually just south of the pool in the photo that you see there okay and that the existing garage and the covered porch were existing structures built when uh they were built uh in 2017. did you own the home in 2017? i did so did you build that in 2017? i did there was also in a prior or a previously existing slab that was on that location i have a the survey from i book well whenever we purchase them if you'd like to see that um so the what is because i i what is the size what is the size of the building uh it's uh 22 by 26. did you pull a permit for it to be built we did not sir oh okay okay so this isn't uh we're happy to if that oh that's not in question right uh okay you need the variants first gotcha okay so going back so there's the garage there and i know i asked about the deck because i thought that because on the at least on the drawing it shows like it's literally over the line so did you also build that deck yes sir okay and did you build a permit for that uh no sir the deck is also at ground level though it's not an elevated there is still an elevator there there's still amount of square footage if i understand in the code is there not and how many square feet is the deck i'm unsure i did that's not what was in question for this unfortunately sorry yeah i can clarify on that so if the deck is not extending over 36 inches okay it's not considered a structure from zoning perspective okay okay what he would need to do it with the building department that's separate from what would fall under us for the okay okay thank you so um and looking at this elevation looks like there's a covered area on the north side of the garage correct and that is what is that the area that goes down to 2.4 inches or is it the garage um it technically goes to about 10 inches from because it's 2.4 feet over the three foot area so there's 0.6 i'm sorry uh yeah 0.6 um feet that uh it's from the edge of the property um it's just whenever we submitted at the 2.4 feet the 2.4 inches didn't get adjusted unfortunately so you're asking for a variance to 2.4 feet no uh technically 10 inches or so so it's 2.4 feet over the three foot setback or yeah so does this point six it doesn't do inches in the uh would it be a correction in well if he's asking for 2.4 inches we can always increase it to 10 inches yeah that's true i was going to say so we can't increase we can't decrease yes i say so right now the request and the notice was for the 2.4 inches if they want to be farther back when they would not need to re-notice but if he wants to get closer to the setback we would have to read it do we need to clarify that on a motion that was 10 inches or do we just say 2.4 inches and then i guess we we we did email and we didn't get a response because we were going to adjust it but because 2.4 inches fulfills the request we decided not to like argue so what to be up to the board in this situation you know since it is uh less restrictive you could make the motion based on the 10 inches um what i think you in that situation would be to get you know the applicants consent that they are okay with that would you consent to us adjusting that's making a condition as part of the if we were looking to prove sure to to make it accurate to the actual footage yes sir i believe well it's 2.4 feet so 0.6 2.4 feet or 2.4 inches it it would be 0.6 feet 0.6 feet is how far it is from the the edge of the property it's 2.4 feet over and again you you can see that the inches versus feet okay because your variance request is to take the setback from three feet to 2.4 inches correct you're you keep saying 2.4 feet correct we overlap by 2.4 feet so it would be 0.6 feet from the property line he said he's moving 2.4 feet into the setback gotcha not okay yeah but but it's noticed at 2.4 inches it's confusing i agree um and it's it looks like the garage is 2.3 feet from the setback but the slab the covered area of the slab is what's close to the it was closer that goes down to the 10 inches or the 0.6 correct the existing covered porch is what extends 2.4 feet over the three foot setback gotcha is the existing covered porch is there a screen or is there any kind of wall to it at all yes sir would you be okay if there was a condition as part of the approval that it not being closed yes all right i guess we're still in public any more questions for the applicant or mr eister i want i just want to clarify to make sure we write it down correctly yes so the there's going to be a modification two modifications or two conditions condition one will be the space will never be enclosed yes and then condition two is it's going from three feet to point six feet we're going to say 10 inches okay i think whatever points i mean whatever is easiest for the point i mean if you keep it at 2.4 inches you can't we can't go lower i mean he can do anything within that that realm if you keep it as it's written then if he does want to do 10 inches or six then then that's up to you it's not going to violate it it should say 0.8 feet but sean's yeah the the inches to feet thing because they do decimals instead of inches makes it very confusing 0.8 feet thank you is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this uh we did have someone uh submit an email i believe we have that one more question seeing no one i will go ahead and close the uh public hearing actually i'm sorry you get five minutes for your bottle no thank you okay we'll close the public hearing and open up for more discussion and motion so we're doing a um a motion to two different requests now no we can motion however we want no it's it's not two it's one request with a condition oh with the okay with the condition in order to make it accurate to what's really on a site plan i think we should condition it with don't enclose the porch because oh yeah that's why i said there's there is a condition and then also change it from 2.4 inches to with three feet to point eight i think those two things the garage itself is almost at the same time i just have a problem that's an active fact you know i thought it was there and to know that it was built especially something that big right without a permit without a permit and coming back and asking for it and i understand the situation i do i understand the flood i understand all of that but i mean it's a big that's a but i think he's having to get it permitted now right well he said he would do it he said he would he there's no permit in in process right now you're not uh he's rebuilding his flood of that house yep yep well i guess i'll do it well the i i also have the the question if because maybe maybe because i'm new to this i'm looking at it really gritty but if we're granting a variance because it's not going to impose anything else and the requirement that stormwater be contained on your own property we reduce the setback even though that drainage ditch in the back is public property there is no way that were that runoff from that covered porch and garage are going to stay on that property so are we creating additional issues for something that wasn't permitted to begin with but that's up to build that's up to permitting correct if they allow it i mean because they still even though we grant the variance they still have to approve the permit correct so yeah the building department would ultimately have to approve the permit what the question is before the board tonight you know is based on the 2780 hardship criteria is there a hardship to the property that is unique that the board feels is necessary to create this variance the approval tonight does the approval tonight does not give them a right to build they would still have to go to the permitting process yes i understand that clears a hurdle it allows them to pull a permit to renovate correct the damage correct sure um and if you're ready not unless we reopen internally or to the staff okay you can ask others no i was trying to ascertain the condition of the current garage how bad the damage was it and i don't know that we asked that when it was open he did say he had over a belief he said all those things are stored in there right now over the storm in the garage yeah in the garage all this yeah if i may they're using it as if there are additional questions for the applicant we can reopen yeah absolutely yeah we need a motion to open the second thank you i can't make the motion oh motion to reopen second okay all in favor aye aye okay sorry sorry um now we can talk yeah so i need to ask you so what kind of condition is the garage currently in oh i can show you i mean is it i have photos if you would like is it functional as a garage is it sealed to the elements yes and then i also do have a uh an image of the drainage ditch the access road that it is elevated right so whenever they built it uh so technically no water from the uh our yard would make it into that drainage ditch unfortunately well until the hurricane comes and then it's coming over this way trust me okay so sir i have i have another question after looking at this image which is at least mitigating some of my concerns um when i'm looking at the covered porch which is where you have your boat parked correct um is that concrete or is that stone that's still it's gravel okay so that is where you were going to be at the closest point the 2.4 yes sir okay i'm i'm satisfied with after that additional information thank you okay uh you you mentioned that the slab that that is built on was existing it was existing yes sir that was existing when you bought the house correct yes uh here's the uh here's the platform they purchased the home in that concrete slab um okay okay um any more questions no all right i have to i guess no hold on um do we uh do you have uh five minutes for rebuttal no sir thank you and is there anyone that wishes to speak for against that okay seeing none we'll go ahead and close public hearing and open up for more discussion okay i move that the variant request for case vrb 26-53 located at 4613 south lowest avenue as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce the rear yard accessory structure setback from three feet to 0.08 feet um with the following conditions that point what i'm sorry request to reduce rear yard accessory structure setback from three feet to three feet to point eight the following condition that the porch side area not be enclosed that said variance as condition be granted upon the applicant presenting confident and substantial evidence in the record of this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code specifically that the property was impacted by the recent storms and flooding the home was built in 1955 the building does exist currently but it is on an odd shaped lot and uh they are going to be rebuilding and fixing the home and it's currently the building is being used to store their belongings we have a motion is there a second second all right all those in favor indicate by saying aye aye aye opposed thank you everyone good evening board marla tricote development coordination i will presenting the next case on the agenda which is brb 56-58 the owner is 26-58 i'm sorry the owner is kelly wilson the applicant is gary troop the property address is 46 22 woodmere road the zoning is residential single family rs 75 the request is to reduce the rear setback from 12 feet to 7 to accommodate a pre-existing condition and the second request is to reduce the corner yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to accommodate a two car carport the applicable code section is 27 section 27-156 table 4-2 schedule of area height walk and placement regulations rs 75 district setbacks are 25 feet from the front 12 feet from the rear 7 feet from the side and 15 feet for a corner setback the previous action is bld-26-0520692 which is the a proposed addition the property outlined in red is the property we're referring to this is the site plan looking at the site plan so this is woodmere here up top and this is west shore so the two requests the corner setback which would be the one facing woodmere so 15 feet here and this would be the area that would be encroaching five feet which they're requesting the 10 foot reduction and then here in the rear for the seven feet reduction and a close-up of it so corner setback right here this is for the 10 feet reduction and then seven feet reduction here in the rear the development review comments natural resources no objections with conditions zoning natural resources has no objections with conditions at the time of construction additional natural resources changes and requests can be made to ensure all other applicable sections of chapter 27 of the city of tampa code and the city of tampa tree and landscape technical manual are met transportation wastewater and water had no objections right-of-way no objections with condition no permit structures or overhand can be built within the existing easement stormwater no objections with conditions they added notes no runoff shall be directed to the adjacent properties development shall comply with the city of tampa stormwater technical standards in the city of tampa code current flood zone information including fema firm date and follow stormwater best management practices protect the stormwater system in the right-of-way from sediments during construction and as of july 2nd tico had no so this is the criteria 2780 under for the barriers review board and i'm available for any comments or questions thank you name address and if you've been sworn in i'm gary troop my address is 1315 west cast street uh i have been sworn in and michael sparrow 4102 west barcelona street and i have been sworn the home um was built in 1923 it's a very old home and so that's why our rear setback is so close uh it was before any zoning uh regulations were in the city of tampa and um so what we're trying to do is the home there in milton two rooms got flooded the living room and one of the bedrooms that were on grade the rest of the house is raised so what we're looking to do is to raise those two rooms up and reconfigure the house so it's more livable and so they can move back into the house so i have do have building plans and everything else for now the if you look at the the the thing woodmere is kind of strange there is a drainage ditch that separates woodmere so you've got you've got on one side i'll go to the uh the survey which shows a little bit no no going down there to there there okay you've got woodmere here this area above woodmere is um what do you call a drainage ditch that drains out underneath west shore and goes out into the bay and so woodmere in a sense the road that's there goes only east and then on the other side of the drainage ditches woodmere also but it goes west and so uh and at the same time it gets wider as you go across the property the property is sort of irregular you see that blue line i've got drawn there that sort of eats up five feet and that's why we're asking for the request for five feet now there is a go ahead go ahead okay this is the structure right now as it sits and then if you go to the next picture is the next picture uh you see that car right there um the suv go to the next that's the neighbors the neighbors garage is right here they're pretty much 10 feet from the from the property line because the road as i don't know if you can tell but the road sort of curves off to the right as it gets closer to west shore so uh and then again this is it with you you can see both sides you got woodmere coming in in front of the house where we got the red dot and then woodmere is also on the other side of all those plants in the drainage ditch and so that's why we're requesting to reduce it to from uh 15 to 10 feet so that we can put a car a carport there in the right spot this is our site and this is where our 15 foot is and this is where uh we're requesting to go to 10 feet there is a thing in the ordinance that states that as long as you meet the visible standards that it can be anything that's two or more vehicle storage area can be in 10 feet setback versus 15. uh again on the on the north side of woodmere uh is across house directly across its carport it stops right at the sidewalk so it's kind of a spotty neighborhood because of that and that's also an old spanish architecture house as well as this one is does that conclude your presentation yes okay we'll open up for more questions um sir can you go back to your slide that is of this current structure did you not have a carport or a garage that's already there there is a carport already there okay okay that that's but there is a carport what we're trying to do is straighten the house out because of the fact right behind it is one of the rooms that flooded during the storm and when we do it we really need to move it forward okay so that's that's the reason for this yes and it's it's it's a it's a single parent with three children and it took out one of their bedrooms they had so we're trying to get back in a bedroom adequate and also add a bathroom to it because it's right now it's only got two bathrooms the house that's basically it and are you you're keeping it basically where the wall is currently right now you're in the front of the house yes no we're actually uh if you go to our go to my site plan this one okay we're actually moving our um our front wall of the living room that's one of the rooms that flooded moving it out five feet and creating a front porch there but that's within the setback so you're okay but it's still going to be in the setback because i'm talking about what would be the the only thing that's going to be property what now where you're reducing to the seventh the setback on the east side of the property that's the east side that's currently existing that's that but you need to get the reduction because reduction because we can't get a permit without there's that you're not you're not putting it closer to your neighbor no sir no sir we're just staying exactly the maintaining the the actual structure weight loss okay so the the difference if i'm understanding it is just the fact that the structure currently doesn't conform to what the requirements correct because it was built in 1923 okay so but where you're looking at bringing it forward that is behind that current carport or correct we're trying to straighten that out okay yes sir okay questions from the board is there anyone wish to speak for or against seeing none we will go ahead and open up your five minutes for rebuttal no i don't need to do a rebuttal fair enough we'll close public hearing and open up for more discussion and emotion this looks pretty easy to me existing old house clearly um yeah there's your hardship it's an existing location tough lot on west shore right thank you for not tearing it down uh we don't want to tear that she loves the house but it's got to get better shape inside okay move forbearance request for brb 25-58 26 i'm sorry move that this best request for case brb 26-58 for property located on 4622 woodmore road to be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce the rear setback from 12 feet to seven feet to accommodate pre-existing conditions and reduce the set the side yard setback from 10 15 feet excuse me to 10 feet to accommodate a two car um two car carport based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the case in the in the recorded and at this public hearing of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city codes specifically that this home was built in 1923 in an irregular um shaped lot and that um this is a flooded area and they are trying to uh raise the the level of their rooms to prevent future flooding second all those in favor by saying aye aye aye aye thank you thank you mario electric coche development coordination uh item brb 2661 is not here because of a missed notice so we're moving on to the next item in the agenda so next item on the agenda is brb 2666 address is 1917 west kennedy boulevard the owner is pylori commercial properties the zoning is commercial general the request is to increase the allowable allowable sign square footage from 19 square feet to 27 square feet the applicable code section is 27-243 e7 kennedy boulevard corridor district development design standards wall signs shall not exceed more than one half square foot per one linear foot of building frontage facing kennedy boulevard for structures understanding two stories or less the previous actions is bld-26-0524428 and bld-26-0523943 for renovations and de dash d1-26-0000153 for parking reduction the this is a map the property outlined in red is the property in question the site plan um so this is the building kennedy boulevard right here and the signage is uh highlighted in yellow where they want to place it uh this is the so in yellow is the actual allowable of sign square footage and then above it what they want to add development review comments natural resources transportation wastewater water and right away no objections uh stormwater no objections with conditions variance request is for an exterior building wall wall only no stormwater design has been submitted or approved urban design objections they have a memo and tico no comment as of july 2nd 2026 here's the criteria under 2780 for variance review board and i'm available for any comments or questions thank you good evening i'm sarah ballard at 200 south orange avenue in orlando and i have been sworn in um i am with corgan associates who was hired by doll tile to develop their new signage um for their showroom space that they are leasing at 19 at 1917 west kennedy boulevard um here are some photos of the existing space with the previous tenant as you can see the the building is you know pretty narrow and the previous signage um wasn't overlay compliant photo the current code allows for um just under you turn that sideways and zoom out a little button on the top so sorry um as the the current code limits a wall sign at this specific property to just under um 20 square feet um 19.78 to be exact and it's based on the building's frontage along kennedy boulevard this creates a unique hardship due to the you know the narrow size and layout and frontage of the lot it makes the allowed sign area pretty small in relation to the building facade and also when compared to some surrounding commercial properties which i have some photos of here is the proposed new signage mounted to the east side of the building they are dimensional non-illuminated flush mounted letters so a pretty simple clean minimal design the tenant is respectfully requesting a variance to allow these signs totaling 20 square square feet not facing the right of way we feel this is a reasonable adjustment because it remains consistent with the city sign code and ensuring everything is properly scaled to the building facade while also achieving the tenants desired design as i mentioned there's some neighboring commercial properties that also have a slight enlarged signage footprint granting this variance will not give a special privilege as the signage is comparable with these properties and they are within the same zoning district impacts on the health and safety of the neighboring properties rather than attempting to maintain or replicate a non-conforming condition the tenant is proactively working with the city to follow the proper process and channels allowing a slightly larger sign footprint enables the tenant to achieve their visual design and present their brand in a comparable manner to neighboring properties while supporting the corridor's ongoing uh efforts of a clean and elevated look uh thank you for your time and consideration does that conclude your presentation yes sir open up the board questions um can i ask a question i don't see it in the signage here but when i was looking at the property and site when i was reviewing this um a week or so ago um do you not have a poll sign that is mounted on that property or is that the adjoining property there is a pole sign um right here right i don't have an image of what we're proposing but um i believe the intent is just replacing the sign panels there and repainting the whole sign structure okay no i was just asking because that is additional signage and and i appreciate the other properties that you pointed out but they don't have a poll sign like you would have to work with on that property am i correct um i am not sure about that okay these are also illuminated signs and ours is not should they're not asking about that they're just asking about if it's allowed no no i was i was taking that into well we might close this up we can see we talk oh we can't yeah well no i was i was asking that because i felt like the the request to have a figure on the building might not necessarily be nearly as critical considering that they also had that pulse on when i was looking ahead of time and reviewing this i was like okay that gives them more visible signage than a lot of businesses along kennedy can currently have with the idea of trying to clean up the image there and so i was thinking that it's not that much of a hardship to shrink what's on the building because they also have that that they can they can change out its grandfather yeah so that was my question um question for the applicant it appears that if you only counted the area that the actual sign was in and the rest of it's just building that you would be under the square footage um or if you put all three of them closer together you could be within the allowable area but if you just took out the gaps in between our understanding was that it was the entire that entire area but if the space is in between the the individual signs don't count towards the square footage does it have to be you have to kick the gray yes so with how does with how the sign code is written you make a box around the sign itself like how they're shown here so see how the yellow is all one box so that yellow would encompass all three signs to count as one sign with the three names but had they chose to put these in three different places in the building and that would count they would have to do a different process to split that up because they're only entitled to one sign on the building itself steve can i ask a question sorry the the signage that i see reflected on the glass facing towards kennedy that does not count against their signage that is that is correct so with how the signage code is broken up you have your freestanding signage which would be the pole sign that was mentioned earlier that's going to be just a face change which actually the city won't see that because we don't need to see it for a face change and then the window signage has a different percentage of like 25 that they can cover the windows with and then you have the building signage which has the 0.5 per linear frontage of right away which is what they're asking for the variance today so they have all three options and they all have their own bank that can be pulled from and the windows are not kennedy frontage the the windows are the bank of windows are facing kennedy okay okay they are they don't count towards the buildings the windows are located right here oh okay sorry my fault so here's the signage location okay so it's on the side of the building okay kennedy's weird it's yes it is they try to push everything up on them they sure do so i walk it so each of if i'm understanding um the applicant here each of the particular brands okay are going to be advertised on each of the windows okay um so is what what is the hardship in reducing what's on the the actual wall of the building compared to the fact that you've already got much larger signage literally in the window facing towards kennedy where where i would assume your potential customers are going to be noticing that much more i believe the the tenants desire was for the signage to be on this on the east side of the facade to help bring visibility for people turning in to the parking lot and just you know with the overall size of the facade felt that it would that this size fit better and created more visibility we've seen this on previous applications where the stuff on the face you're you're going you're on a highway right here in kennedy boulevard you're going 40 miles an hour past it you're not going to see anything on that face until you're past the drive parking lot no i understand that but i'm also taking into consideration there's a whole sign that's going to be visible as you're approaching to and from so i'm not feeling like there's a hardship that's my thought okay is there anyone wishes before or against the proposal seeing none you have five minutes for your bottle i'm good thank you we'll close the public hearing and open up for a board discussion and emotion my only comment is they could fit all three in the space but it would be a confusing small space and we still do it yeah and if that was the only place i could advertise then i would say you know i could understand how that screen the hardship but the fact that it is on the glass in the front and there's the pole sign that's there which would make it easily visible for those going east and west to me on this this is how this is a hardship that may that impacts their viability as a business because i don't want to do something that's going to impact the viability of a business it's got advertising facing kennedy and it's got a pulse on it's elevated unlike the other one that was digital it was right down at sidewalk level so i don't see where there's a real hardship okay yeah but it's not on the side of the highway but then to the clause or just any other that that that sign does not face kennedy no it's the oncoming traffic right right right yeah i see what you're saying but where's the pole sign the pole sign is on the other side of the parking lot the submittal they sell us is their submittal packet they have the pulse on here right side of the pie right and then they've got the other side right there right and the windows are there so you see the pulse sign so it's pull sign side sign window sign right i mean literally the pole sign the it's it's the whole sign then then it's like boom boom right like i i i don't see the need for it i can try to make a motion good okay folks i'm going to try to make a motion but it's i'm going to don't worry i'll be i'll be here to help thank you tyler he's everything i move for the variance request for case vrb 26-66 for the property located at 1917 west kennedy boulevard for a and where am i looking at it for a request for the increase allowable sign is that where i'm supposed to read it okay i'm reading this one okay so request down here where you would say the the variance that they what the variance that they requested so the request to increase the allowable sign square footage from 19 square feet to 27 square feet um that the petitioner be denied due to the failure of the petitioner to meet its burden of proof to provide competent 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 section 27-80 of the city code specifically that where am i supposed to read this from no this is this is the reason this part the reasoning is that there is an available pole sign that faces east and west you have window signage that faces directly forward onto kennedy both of which are substantial visibility issues for your business the extra seems superfluous and unnecessary and just a preference not a hardship second all right uh motion is second all those in favor please indicate by saying aye aye aye aye opposed i believe that motion carries three one need a majority vote it does get confusing because when there's four if it's if it's split it is considered a denial a tie is which can happen when we have four people the next item on the agenda is vrb-26-67 the owner is saint joseph's hospital inc the applicant is ricky pederica the property address is 300 3001 west dr martin luther king jr boulevard the zoning is office professional op1 the request is to remove three grand trees to construct a new wing of the hospital the code section and reference is section 27 284.2.5 permit for grand tree removal application required documentation standards and criteria for decision inspections petition for review previous actions bld 20 2605 23685 bld-26-0524789 renovations and new construction this is the overall view of the site for the the hospital's campus these are the grand trees and that are being requested for removal this evening the first tree is grand tree number one which is a 35 inch southern live oak which was rated a b5 grand tree number two also a southern live oak rated a b6 and then grand tree number three which is a 35 inch live oak as well rated c6 this is a survey of the site showing the location of the three trees in question following the outline of the report tree one to the north tree two in the middle and then tree three to the south this is the proposed addition for the hospital that connects to the existing wing here so this portion is new that is shown with a dark line and then the gray shading which doesn't appear as clearly on the screen and then this part is the existing portion of the hospital this is reconfiguration option number one which shows a adjustment in the road creating this more winding pathway for the drop-off and parking the applicant can go into more detail these alternative options and why they do not function for their purposes this is option number two which removes a portion of the hospital addition to accommodate the tree as well as still having to adjust the road and pathway for the drop-off and the road layout natural resources has no objections with conditions due to the existing location of the hospital natural resources has no objections to the request given the proposed hospital wing addition along with the associated drop-off and access locations roadway improvements and locations are limited no other natural resources requirements are being waived at this time the vua buffer must be maintained at a minimum width of eight feet and include the required plantings transportation has no objections with conditions and they provided a memo and marked up site plan wastewater water and right-of-way all had no objections stonewater had no objections with conditions stating that this variance is for tree removal only no stormwater design has been submitted or approved with this variance request tico had no comment of july 2nd 2026 this is the criteria for the grand tree removal which requires a reasonable reconfiguration of two alternative site plans compared to the proposed to show how grand trees can be preserved or that the site cannot reasonably accommodate them this is your standard criteria under 2780 for hardship and i'm available for any comments questions or concerns we'll load up powerpoint thank you mr eister ricky pederica dark moss 308 east 7th avenue i've been sworn we'll get these get this loaded up my team created completed a tree inventory of all the trees on the saint joe's hospital campus and adjacent properties these uh it's kind of zoom in on what area we're looking at the three trees in question are shown there in the yellow dots we'll zoom in further again this is tree number one i'll just speak to it a little bit more we rated it b5 good health fair structure due to the architecture of the primary limbs splitting but that's typical for live oak in good form resulting in a total mitigation value of 18 and a half or so trees it's located in just north of the existing entry drive off of havana tree 2 located just south of that existing entry drive as you approach the parking garage we rated it b6 also a live oak this one due to the canopy size results in 21.3 grand trees or not grand trees mitigation trees apologies and tree three out of the corner of mlk in the habana we rated c6 11.9 or 12 trees so frankly all trees are great candidates for preservation so our request today is not related to its condition or risk but merely to the proposed site plan with me today is ivy clinton of vhb she's a landscape architect of record for the project and i'd like her to speak to um some of the existing uh invisible challenges that uh will inform the reasonable reconfiguration ivy clinton 501 east kennedy suite 1010 i've been sworn on our site we've overlaid um the three grand trees on top of the proposed site with all of the existing utilities so with this being a hospital expansion um this is a children's hospital expansion the existing children's hospital is located here the existing er is located here so the expansion necessitates kind of going in this area so it can be have a children's er entrance which this drive would be the er loop a patient and visitor drop-off and ballet entrance which is this drop-off here into the main lobby and then a ambulet drop-off for residential transfers from other facilities into the children's hospital um so creating a an access loop around allows for patients and visitors to circulate also emergency egress to circulate around and reach the other drop-offs for other various components of this large hospital campus in red crisscrossing all over all the existing utilities um in order to accomplish an expansion utilities have to come on offline in a really sequenced um order of events and these grand trees also reside on top of and in conjunction with these utilities um making the utility configuration very challenging as well so the next slide here shows that new expansion with all of the proposed utilities so again there's invisible challenges it's not just the building location and the building envelope it's also all of the spaghetti junction of of utilities that have to go in to support the hospital that have to be rerouted with the stormwater requirements that need to be met we also have underground chambers which are these large boxes here new new telecom everything and the the finished floor we have to match with the expansion also necessitates that the loop road the drop-offs everything are about four feet higher than our corner um tree so we've got about a four foot grade change with that that loop road as well which extends and a pre-existing kind of retaining wall extends that same facade around that corner to achieve everything being at the proper elevation for access and to the building thank you so that sets the stage for the challenges this is reasonable reconfiguration option one where we are preserving uh tree one technically tree 529 in the inventory on the north side this uh impacts a portion of the proposed building footprint on multiple floors uh and in this option we're removing the two other trees just to focus on one issue what that results in the building can't shift north um without extending corridor lengths and impacting the drive axis of the er drop-off to the north south of the radiation building in this area it can't move south due to the interaction of the building to remain um on the west side of the property uh where this existing wall kind of caps it here it can't move east to the tree itself it would impact the tree we just preserved with this notch out and it can't move west again because there's an existing hospital building here what this tree impacts by carving this notch out is uh a nuclear medicine room radiology fluoroscopy rooms and on and on i can't i don't even know the function of some of these but they look like that um and reduces the building footprint by 15 000 square feet and not only that it impacts the adjacency of internal program how patients and doctors move between different portions of the building in a way that i can't measure option two focus on the other trees preserving the two trees on habana tree number 713 also tree number two and tree 944 tree number three these options excuse me impact the drop-off area and the ambulatory circulation on the of this driveway um geometrically reducing it by 61 percent impacting uh drop-off operations and the same or a similar sort of impact to this other ambulatory drop-off reducing it the health safety welfare impacts of either option or unknown but non-zero uh so with that we we've provided um additional documentation as the form of narrative speaking to the remainder of the criteria um it's multiple pages so i won't go through it now but happy to speak to that if there are any questions um and we request your uh approval of this request due to the um health safety welfare implications of this kind of facility and the unfortunate loss of or potential loss of these otherwise preservation quality trees completes my presentation okay uh open up for board questions um and i'm sorry i'm i'm i was trying to follow your your drawing very thoroughly so my question between option one and two that you predict the alternatives that was okay the first one meant you lose about 15 000 square feet correct okay the second one was you keep the other two trees correct and you get rid of that one is there a third option there's not a third okay because on the one hand as i was looking at what you're rating i saw the one tree that was kind of rated like c quality fair quality and in the picture the canopy didn't look so great okay whereas the one in the middle that's on habana seems to be healthier and that just seems like it might provide an alternative to at least preserve one of the three when preparing these design these alternatives i wasn't aware of the extent of the utility impacts with the documentation i was providing so the reasonable reconfiguration arguments don't consider what preservation of that middle habana tree would do to the utilities being re-routed re-routed to that side of the property as well as the stormwater vaults that are proposed there so ricky um as we i mean we ask quite often with the situations of the reconfigurations um if if the reconfiguration was to save those two trees there's no guarantee that with the work that needs to be done with the changing of the um of the utilities the actual construction of the bill all of that there's no guarantee that that's not going to impact those trees those trees will be standing at that point but all of the work that needs to be done around those trees could eventually impact their health correct yes so the the minimum tree protection zone of the city tampa's 20 feet right which is less than what would let's say be recommended by industry standards otherwise live oaks especially healthy ones likely can endure uh impacts like that if they were kept out of the 20 feet but with the orientation that this is at without reducing the form and function of the children hospital itself which has an unknown amount of potential impacts to healthy welfare not being constructed in the city it would preservation of that tree would result in um vehicle circulation impacts stormwater impacts another utility impact i'm not quite sure and i think it could endure it but all i don't know what the consequence of these utility impacts would be currently but there would be some there there would be consequences because there's as i think the term she used was invisible right yes us because we really don't there it seems i mean the all of these if you could go back to which slide it is okay so all of those red lines that's all those are all those utilities within the building oh no these are these the red lines in this exhibit are uh a floor plan overlay okay there was on this on this one are proposed utilities yeah and this is existing okay that's okay that's what i'm talking about this is what needs to be reconfigured right there's a lot going on yes okay so and yeah and that's it there's a lot going on right and a lot of benefit being proposed with the program but uh it's just with the constraints of the existing building with these utilities and the request stormwater requirements and new utilities just putting all that all that back together there's not much room left and this is is this the only this is the only land mass on the property that's available to do this uh that i'm aware of uh but i'm sure there's um adjacency with the hospital that is designed into right yes right exactly emergency all that there's reasons i get i get it i totally get it thank you so if i'm understanding this is where this is taking out where that current three level garages okay so that corner will be gone okay it will be gone in terms of the garage will be gone this will rise in its place yes okay can i ask one more question about trees yes i do love trees okay but i also am a realist okay so the question is with this level of intensity what are you going to be able to do to soften anything green space wise i mean obviously these are sizable trees you can't pick them up and move them but i mean is there going to be any surface left that's pervious that you could actually put something that would live and grow so let me change to this and can i zoom in there we go okay here we can zoom in nope just undid it um so yes we are squeezing in green space anywhere we can i mean this is a children's hospital we want families we want patients to be able to experience respite from the hospital be able to come out so we we've carved out as many little pockets in between these areas of underground utilities to put in uh palms to put in um you know understory plantings um as well as as providing landscaping around the perimeter um you know the the vines that are required along the wall all of those requirements you know we intend to meet for the project um so there will be continue to be trees along mlk you know boulevard along habana um to soften and kind of support that that that new i wish i had a rendering of the the hospital itself it's a very beautiful well you're not you're not you're also not asking for the removal of mitigation either you still have to mitigate based on the requirements those individual three trees so i'm guessing that's almost 40 some trees over 40 trees correct if i was doing them on property okay um and one other point that i wanted to make is not just the underground but it is the three-dimensional when we were talking about the potentially curving the access road again that road is about four feet higher than the base of the trees themselves so once you have the road elevated to the finished floor elevation of the building and then have a clearance for emergency access for fire trucks and things like that you have you start impacting the canopy of the tree as well not just the root zone um so they they definitely would be impacted in urban condition like this trying to develop conclude your presentation yes board discussion there's some kind of already we're doing that there's nowhere else we just want to say we have to do public comments still also what public comment that usually goes after the board question did i reverse those did i reverse presentation questions public comment then the board discussion yes there's no other way i can love a tree but you know at the same time i'm a realist right so am i and i feel like i'm not a tree expert but these trees are beautiful so i don't see but i understand the need for well i think this is a apropos picture to leave here because look at all the trees that exist on the campus and if you've driven it they have done a very good job of landscaping where they can yeah but it's you know this the original little bitty building there was the original hospital and that was yeah yeah 1960. yeah i was born there yeah thank you for putting that picture in front can i ask that was intentional okay can i ask one more question of them we didn't close the hearing okay oh did we actually close it yes okay well now that i'm looking at the screen i do want to make a motion to open it just so i can get clarified so so so as i'm looking at the screen right now that has the um kind of the topography okay so are all those yellow dots those are basically all the grand trees okay and then all the others are the underscores a large number of grand trees that are going to be left okay yes okay that's my only question any more questions do i need to move to close the public no no and so i will give you uh any any comments for or against no five minutes for rebuttal no thank you all right we'll close the public hearing and back i can make a motion if we're all ready okay i move that variance request for case vrb 26-67 for the property located at 3001 west dr martin luther king jr boulevard 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 for determining crew removal is set forth in section 27-284.2.5 t4 of the city code for granting crew removal board my apologies for the interruption i believe it's three trees three trees oh sorry um proof with the uh i'll just restate it move that the variance request for vrb for case vrb 26-67 for the property located at 3001 west dr martin luther king jr boulevard be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for the removal of three grand trees based upon the petitioner meeting the burden of proof with regard to the six factors for determining true removal is set forth in section 27-284.2.5 t4 of the city code for granting tree removal specifically that the evidence provided in the record shows that um the trees remaining in place will inhibit invisible utility configuration access to the building would be impacted the impact of keeping the trees could cause future issues with the trees and there is really no other place reasonably to construct this building on the property of st joe's do you have a second second all right all those in favor indicate by saying aye aye aye aye porto thank you moving to the next item on the agenda is vrb-26-69 the owner is confidential the applicant is asc aluminum the property address is also confidential the zoning is residential single family rs60 the request is to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to six feet the code section and reference is 27156 table 4-2 schedule of area height bulk and placement regulations r60 district setbacks are 25 feet in the front 20 feet in the rear and seven feet on the sides this is the proposed carport addition the carport is going to be 19 feet leaving a six foot space between the property line and the front of the carport and then the house sits here it's kind of hard to see on the tv the house is right here after this dark black line here so the house currently six sits 26 feet back from the front property to help kind of break that down natural resources had no objections with conditions the proposed carport is located over an existing driveway one palm tree is located within the work area palms require a three foot protective radius transportation wastewater water and right-of-way all had no objections stormwater had no objections with conditions and they brought up the the property is within the city of tampa stormwater advisory list tico had no comment as of july 2nd 2026 and this is the criteria under 2780 for the variance review board now available for any comments questions or concerns hello my name is james chitwood i've been sworn in i'm with asc aluminum we're looking to get a variance on the property from 25 feet to six feet we'd like to build a carport on the client's existing driveway and here is a little bit better picture that you can see there's a 25 foot setback from the road to his property line or 25 feet from the road to his property line and then there's a 25 foot setback from the property line to the home essentially making it impossible to put anything on the client's driveway we're looking to get this setback uh he is a new parent so we're hoping to protect his vehicle from the elements uh in florida with the hot sun uh all it'll be is a parking structure i'm sorry um sorry name address and have you been torn on confidential and confidential oh mine um my name is james chitwood yes with asc and um address and have you been torn in the location what your address and have you been torn it 7420 park boulevard pinellas park florida yes i have oh okay okay so yes the the current structure will be a 20 by 20 carport there will be four isolated footings it will be attached on one side to his existing front porch and extend out over an existing driveway um so we're looking for the variance from 25 feet to six feet that'll complete it okay um open up for more questions um do you have any photos of the proposed um carport uh we've already got the engineered drawings for it here turn it side turn it the other way yep i'm gonna get his address this is the proposed carport you can see the host structure there which is the house and the carport would extend out over the driveway oh um all right i was doing my homework so can i ask you a question how similar is what you're proposing that exists on the adjoining property next door it's like the identical structure almost the the neighbor has one exactly like we're proposing um so you said there's a double setback do you have an easement of 25 feet and then a setback between correct okay here's a photo of the property so for clarification can you point exactly where this is going to sit please yeah so roughly i'll have to have an isolated footing over here here here and here and you can actually see the neighbor's structure over on the corner here be closed in no ma'am no ma'am it'll be an open parking structure okay here's another photo of the property just for reference addresses here um that's the front porch it will be attached to the fascia and extend from there that's the front door of the property yes questions all right so you know open it up is there anyone we should speak for or against this petition being none you have five minutes for rebuttal no thank you okay we'll close the public hearing and open up for more discussion makes sense i think when i was looking over this i was just really focusing on the fact of what else was around there because i looked at that i thought that was a deep setback so when i pulled up the maps and then looked at the street and aerials and the fact that the next door neighbor literally has what appeared to be about the same dimensions um and it was also open i didn't think you know it's kind of hard to sit there and say you know one next door but i can't have one can you just clarify for me something totally unrelated is um because this is the first time i've seen this in i think almost the three years i've said about the property owner and property address are confidential yep absolutely happy happy to touch on that so um florida statutes typically create an exemption mostly for public records purposes but it also applies to the property appraiser's office as well where if you have a certain certain types of jobs or certain positions in government so it's kind of the the same thing applies there are limited exceptions to people who are you know not working in the government that can bring that in um so that is why it's labeled confidential in this case and if you go on the property appraiser's website it will it'll be gone too yeah absolutely that's i i didn't know if that those two things were related but thank you of course and then just one other comment that um i wanted to make as well um you know i'm hearing discussions of possibly adding a condition i know um the gentleman presenting says that they do not implant they do not intend to build an enclosure but you know it would always be my suggestion that you know to get their consent of the condition on the record oh we will thank you thank you um so we need to reopen the yeah just reopen the public hearing yes please uh motion to reopen the public hearing second all is a quote or a favor yep hi okay we're reopened um would you uh object to uh us placing a condition on this that it never be enclosed and never be converted to a garage i don't have an objection to that at all okay thank you um i think i need to ask tyler a question on this okay he is the contractor that is building this how can he affirm that that will never be enclosed he is not the actual owner of the property how can we work with that assurance as we put it into the variance so what what happens is is that in order for somebody else to appear on behalf of the property owner they would have to file what's called an agent affidavit which is typically filled out by the property owner giving the applicant in this instance the gentleman uh rights to speak on uh behalf of them you know if the property owners are here he can certainly consult with them but you know i know that uh steven typically collects his agent affidavits from his individual so we will have that thank you i'm just trying to figure out what hardship can't be precedent what would you state that the hardship is on this well they are a new family uh with new children it needs to be related to the property um okay because this will continue on they could move out tomorrow and someone else would have it um are you able to come up and speak you are with them but you have to be name address and confirm your address is she i don't have to say it right i can't if i absolutely have to have you been sworn in i'm sorry i have been sworn in we deferred to our attorney okay that's okay would it be better if she told him what she wants to say because she's on television right now yep so what what i would uh suggest in in this instance because it is unique is that you know the applicant representing the company maybe give them a few minutes to speak with the property owner and then you know come back and let us know if you guys are out you know after that discussion okay five minutes recess for five minutes yep okay motion to recess for five minutes second all those in favor aye aye thank you from this 25-foot easement on the property set by an electrical line that's causing a 25-foot setback to the actual home preventing us from even building this carport anywhere on the front of his home um so is there another location you could put a carport in or a garage on the site there is nowhere that we would be able to place this structure um he's got the existing driveway the the way the easement is due to that electrical line we won't be anywhere near that uh with our new structure uh i'm assuming that's why that was there in the first place and no there would be nowhere else the existing driveway is at the front of the home right there and do you know did they buy the house existing or do they build the house i'd have to consult with them that house has been there since yes yes the house has been there soon but i don't want to make assumptions as long as well as the driveway yes all right that's new construction no that'd be really classic i'm good anyone else okay uh is there anyone wishing to speak for or against see none you have five minutes for rebuttal no thank you okay we'll close the public hearing you don't put up for board discussion and emotion i'm good with this i moved this variancy request for vrb 26 26-69 located at confidential as depicted on the site presented at the public hearing for a a request to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to six feet with the following conditions that this carport never be enclosed or converted into a garage that said varency as condition be granted as upon granted based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence and the record at and at this public hearing of unnecessary hardship or practically practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-8 of the city code specifically that this property um is caused by a setback due to the easement of this property and uh for the utility electrically electrical the electrical utility second all those with favor by saying aye aye aye all right thank you next item on the agenda is drb-26-73 the owner is amelie oil r-e-l-l-p the applicant is ricky pederica the property address is 4001 causeway called сказал lake boulevard the zoning is industrial heavy the request is to reduce tree retention from 50 to zero percent the section of references 27 284.3.1 table 284.3.1 tree preservation retention requirements wooded lots require a 50 percent minimum retention the previous action on site is bld-26-0524781 which is a the new building this is the site as it currently exists along causeway and the railroad tracks are behind it this is the proposed site that is part of the proposed construction showing the three new industrial warehouses along with parking a drop-off and semi circulation natural resources has no objections with the conditions the site is comp comprised of native trees and invasive species brazilian pepper is a class one invasive species and will be required to remove be removed during the removal of invasive vegetation and the significant grade changes proposed on site long-term tree preservation would not be practical or likely to ensure trees continued success the transportation and wastewater water right-of-way all have no objections uh storm water has no objections with conditions the no objection applies to tree removal only and tico had no comment as of seven to 2026 this is the criteria under 2780 application for variance review power i'll be open for any comments questions or concerns sorry board i added one additional slide to help add some history and we upload that thank you again board ricky pederica uh dark moss 308 east 7th avenue i have been sworn i have with me today also to speak nick beligo with otero engineering and civil engineer on the project this is the subject site with the tree shown in red we are at the south end of mckay bay on this is causeway kind of coming coming down from the northwest directly north of the property is the recently constructed feeding tampa bay warehouse facility and to the west of that property are some currently in construction additional warehouses that functionally look similar to the feeding tampa bay uh property uh below or to the south of the property i kind of get this wrong sometimes a csx or cemex the south and the west it's heavy industrial that continues south through port facilities this is an oblique bird's eye view of the existing parcel from or not the of the parcel highlighted in 2006 um around that time uh the site in question and the adjacent property was functionally cleared if you can kind of see that um so it was mowed down except for this south portion and sort of the perimeter buffers at the time i suspect that these were all pepper then this is a ditch that's probably why they left it it was potentially a wetland but all that was left on the site in 2006 were a couple spotted cabbage palms in these fringe areas if they had continued to mow this site over time we likely wouldn't be making this request the slide i just added kind of came to me this is um sometime between 1948 and 1958 you can see the trees in their aerial signature with the shadow off to the east there are functionally no trees on the property at this time so that the site was originally prior to a bunch of fill i don't exactly know when i think i think it was maybe in the 60s when it was filled there was a disturbance with that fill and then in 2006 there was disturbance again and so in the past 20 years what has grown up is what is before us or what was preserved from a palm perspective what's before us today so this uh this is a more recent aerial uh the surveyor did a partial tree survey uh using both ground level um traditional survey methods and drone lidar or photogrammetry and they functionally gave up because of how difficult it was to bushwhack through this site i'll characterize that further um we're currently in permitting staff requested that we characterize this site with a somewhat of a tree inventory we're kind of working out how to not make that a exercise in hellish futility on behalf of my guys in this heat but in the me but we're still before you today asking for requests to remove um a large number of trees honestly the distribution of the trees before you to be verified is roughly 770 trees that have been picked up by the surveyor 118 of those would not qualify under the city of tampa protection because they're too small and the actual distribution of the trees we don't yet know they've just identified as oak some very likely are based on my reconnaissance so far uh in in site visitation but we'll verify that at permitting regardless we're still requesting to impact the site for one the the level of disturbance that occurred the historic disturbance of the on the site historically and wells the flood the fill requirements that mr believe will speak to uh this is my first attempt at providing a video at one of these and we'll see if it's still up because powerpoint wouldn't let it work um pardon me oh actually maybe it'll work on this computer let's try this again okay i just tried this in the first place this is the middle of the site um we are i am holding a very big selfie stick with a 3d camera on top and walking down this trail these trees here it's not typical that i'm unless with a drone that we're looking over canopy but that speaks to how short all this stuff is uh the drone's about 15 feet in the air and so we're eye to eye with uh not the drone sorry my stick is about 15 feet in the air we're eye to eye with the largest trees on the site currently a lot of this are invasive species the reason it's so densely um forested like this with this kind of with uh invasive species because during the clearing that probably likely happened in 2006 when it was just mowed down uh these type of species colonize first they're pioneers and they displace native species so this has never been a high quality forest that the tree code generally tries to protect it's it's been displaced for um for many years or sorry disturbed for many years and arguably we're disturbing it again but this time with a functional development so i want to i'd like nick to speak to or mr beliga to speak to the site plan and the fill requirements nicholas beliga 13 902 north dale marybury highway tampa florida and i have been sworn in thank you um the fema zone out there is at elevation 12 which requires the finish floor of the buildings to be up at 13. the existing ground out there is somewhere between seven and nine so it's about four to six feet of fill being put on across the site which would impact the viability of keeping a lot of the existing trees we're not requesting any relief from mitigation that will still all be required as as is required landscaping the character of this area of town is generally developed as in warehouse and industrial so it is a gray it will be and is uh uh developing into a grayish area similar to the port facility that that these um these areas you typically serve which is off to the right or off to the west so with that we uh we submitted um uh documentation of the record to speak to the criteria uh i can go through that if there are any questions um uh if um if there are none then i will uh reclaim my time and uh thank you for the opportunity that's all i have um is that complete your presentation yes open up for board discussion or board questions um i have i have a couple questions as i was looking at this um when i was looking at something that i was looking at online the area that is the retention pond how large is that area um i believe i thought it was over an acre oh yeah yeah the retention pond is three acres and almost three acres in total and we need more than normal retention due to the new stormwater regulations um the other question is obviously most of these are junk trees okay i understand that part what are you required to do in terms of any tree canopy since none of these are salvageable the mitigation mitigation will be determined after we complete our tree inventory uh mitigation requirements are set by tree size and quality generally and species and sorry i probably need to ask the question of staff at that point then steve so ricky is correct we assign mitigation value based off of each size of the tree so say the smaller five inch trees the yeah and then the larger trees will all be assigned a value when once those are removed say these trees that are structurally probably not the best in return mitigation trees are required to be structurally better they need to be what we consider a type one tree which has been kind of in the nursery been set up for long-term success you know they have one central trunk which you see in a textbook these trees now kind of like ricky mentioned now that they've been cleared so many times that's why they look like those bushes more so than trees but all that will have to be captured with a tree survey at the time of construction along with the mitigation table that will be required that is not being waived okay so we don't have to put conditions on what they have to mitigate that is correct so okay only thing they are requesting is from 50 retention to zero everything else in the code will still be in full effect so if they come across a grand tree on this site that will still have to be addressed separately from the retention i don't think there are any grand trees out here based off of what was there but that is not being waived either it's just purely retention percentage okay and just to just speak to that slightly this this chart well wasn't intended for this um the code it we can approximate how the mitigation would be calculated the first let's say six through eight would be one tree each mitigation total so that'd be about 260 trees 65 10 through 12 would be two three two trees each roughly um and then three trees each potentially for these so all of that would be calculated and would be uh addressed at permitting whatever we couldn't plant on site in addition to what would be required by code otherwise would be paid into the tree fund again no no relief requested for the mitigation associated with this removal yeah my the gears are still spinning i'm sorry i mean part part of what's going through my head and and i'll say that's only because that's where i'm thinking at the moment is i've seen many a retention pond that is nothing more than a big open ditch no trees around it and i'm looking at something that's over an acre in this proposal and that's why i was asking what the city is going to require you to plant there because i would think that it would be better for the city in an area where there's not a lot of permeable space for trees that they would be there rather than the contribution made to the tree bank so that's why i was trying to get at those questions will you put them in or will you just pay into the tree so to speak to that and steve uh mr eister can can can can uh i think attest to this we are required to plant the site to its limit let's say before we're allowed to pay into the fund okay any other questions okay seeing none we will um ask for any anyone here to speak for or against the petition seeing none you have five minutes to rebuttal no thank you okay we'll close public hearing open up our board discussion and a motion so this this would fall under this doesn't fall under grand tree remove and casting a motion this is just a visit variance yep this is this is just a variance yeah i'm i'm going to make a motion if you guys are ready okay i moved that variance request for case vrb 26-73 for the property located at 4001 causeway boulevard be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce the tree retention from 50 percent to zero percent based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record and at this public hearing for of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code specifically that this area is in uh is owned industrial heavy the location has been uh disturbed for many many years it is currently overgrown with invasive species that will be required to be removed um the and basically historically the site has been uh cleared with no true semblance of tree density um prior and what is existing now has just grown up pretty much over the last 20 years second one second all those in favor by saying aye aye as opposed pass four zero thank you i'm like don't leave me hanging kids don't leave me hanging i can't help you the next item on the agenda is vrb-26-74 the owner is yvette lacosta the property address is 2504 west marquette ave the zoning is residential single family rs60 the request is to reduce the green space from 25 to 13 percent the code section and reference is 27-284 table 284.3.3 single family properties require 25 percent of the parcel to be landscaped area previous action cmp-24-000648 installed a gate and concrete driveway without permits this is a aerial of the site showing the property we're going to go to this here's the survey of the site the speckled gray area is concrete the herringbone style pattern here are pavers and then the green space is represented here with the green dash they did correct the code violation there was a second driveway here that has been removed so now this is kind of the last portion that needs to be corrected which is the green space percentage or restoration back to the 25 percent and that's why they are here today for a second natural resources had objections to request the site measure is 50 feet by 99.77 feet making it slightly undersized for an rs50 lot the property is paved within the front and side yards the site currently provides 13 percent green space and appears that the required 25 green space could be achieved by removing the concrete located in the front yard outside of the the driveway spaces transportation wastewater water right-of-way all had no objections stonewater had no objections with conditions the site plan shows more than 90 impervious areas artificial turf and painted sealed pavers are also considered impervious areas pervious areas green allow the biological treatment of pollutants from the paved surface areas the sunlight along with ground percolation breakdown of the oils coming from vehicles and paved areas the rough surface of an unpaved area slows down the velocity of the runoff to be discharged into the right-of-way not meeting the minimum open screen space affects the public safety this neighborhood does not have a public stormwater system with pipes and inlets so the drainage relies on the type of on the types of surfaces and slopes the roof runoff must be contained on site use through gutters downspouts and bubblers to discharge towards the right-of-way do not discharge runoff into adjacent properties it is up to the city ward to evaluate and it will also be evaluated at the time of any permitting or code violations and then tico had no comment as of july 2nd 26. here's that criteria under 2780 for the variance review board and i'm available available for any comments questions or concerns hi good afternoon my name is lisa nunez and my address is 7901 north havana avenue and next to me is the property owner located at 2504 market avenue her name is yvette la costa uh we are here today to request um the have you been sworn in and i need her to tell her her name and so have you been sworn in first have you been sworn in sorry what have you been sworn in yes we are we were so it's have her had her name her name and address and has she been sworn and have you been sworn in yes when we were here with the whole group she needs to say she needs to affirm that she's been sworn in have you been sworn in yeah so uh we are here to request the green area space to be reduced from 25 percent to 13 percent uh as you can see in the site plan that we brought today the house was built in 1988 and never um square footage has added to the house uh the owner uh purchased the house in 2014 and it was like it is now the only thing she uh added was a little bit of uh papers that she is willing to remove uh the right portion of the of the concrete in the right side is um she needed for a third uh parking space because uh they have three cars in their house and it is not possible to park outside uh like in the street there is no space and the the house is really uh close by armenia avenue that has a lot of traffic it's very dangerous to be to park the car outside and this is why she requested to reduce and she abuse if you can see there is not much area that she can demolish and there is also um she is very allergic and she has a granddaughter who is uh has asthma and a lot of allergies and she wants to provide a place outside where she can go out and play and this is why we are requesting uh to reduce the green space from 25 to 13 that that's what we have right now uh that completes our presentation precision um um yes ma'am so just to be clear you're saying that so it says in the um the previous action that installed gate and concrete driveway were installed without a permit um so are you saying that the only place that she added was the pavered area did she add any of the concrete to the front of the property when she bought the house the concrete was there all of it yes except where the um pavers are she added the papers yes she added the papers she already submitted plans uh the plans uh the plans have not been approved yet because we are waiting for this to be resolved okay um but the papers if it's necessary she will remove but she really needs the third space to park a car steven um can i ask you a question please so um what triggered this like it says concrete driveway without a permit do they consider the pavers concrete or is go ahead so what happened was when the the cop the driveway originally extended through the right-of-way and connected to the road okay creating almost like a circular driveway okay when when you install a driveway with an apron a permit's required so when that was corrected and the gate was removed the concrete remained with the green space issue so until the green space issue is resolved they can't resolve the third parking space which is what they're trying to do today with the additional parking so it's considered like a miscellaneous residential permit okay kind of similar to like if you were going to install a shed okay so they extended the driveway correct which was non-permitted correct so they've removed that the portion of the right away however because of that infraction it's now triggered the fact that there's not enough green space per city code correct so if she bought the property in 2014 and that concrete existed it's retroactive that she's got to take that out in order to adhere to the requirements of the city that is correct i don't want to speak um when i when i reviewed the application i believe this driveway was existing the one the left side the left side we can't see you oh i can't see it okay that okay is that what you're talking about so this portion was existing then there was a walkway to the house itself this was green okay and then i believe this this area here was green oh so she added that there was a small sidewalk to get down the side of the house okay um i don't know about this area here to the rear okay so that where it says 27 three right there that was added by her when she bought the house this whole section was here when she bought the house yes and we can see all pictures online you can see all the pictures prior here that was and then this was green here do you have any pictures of the current property uh pictures we um submit those pictures uh she has on her phone stephen are there any of the pictures in the record or no yes okay so that gate is gone no the gate is still there oh the gate is still there we are waiting for the permit to do um do all we need to do okay can you go back to the front of the house for me please okay that one yeah those two those two photos would be great can you scroll down just a little bit more scroll down or do you want yeah yeah just like that yep okay so it's clear in the picture so the pavered area right is clear that that's so the concrete that's at the driveway is different than the pavered area is different than the other there's three separate actually there's four separate hard spaces correct there's the walkway to the front of the door yes there's the driveway there's the pavered area and then there's the area all the way to the right yes there's three distinctly different pieces so you're saying that the pavers are the only thing she added yes the driveway to the right and to the left was existing and she's gonna fix uh the right of way she has a picture of how it was when she bought it oh i don't know if you can see this this is how it was when she bought the house okay so there was green space in the middle and two driveways okay not only she's gonna remove the right away on the right part she's gonna remove the uh papers as well okay can you go back to the other photo of the current property oh how do we get that it was in the computer okay can you point to and show us what you plan to remove uh i don't know can you see we can see it okay all this uh right away part and the you have to use the mouse can you use the mouse or can you use the pencil or whatever you need to okay yeah up there we are going to remove all this right-of-way part okay and part and the pavers that are here okay this portion this is and we have to fix that that this part okay and what about the page what about the other area over to the right other side yep that's going to happen with that well that that stays there we need that space to park the car i see that if you can see there is no space in the street to park i understand so the center area just to be clear the center area with the pavers all the way up to where that little white fence is will be removed to be green green space yes and all this front part and how much of that steven how much what percentage of that is being is considered being added back to the property the right of way doesn't get out it doesn't count right it's beyond because the right of way is not in the property right right i'm just curious i'm just curious i need i'm just trying to figure out in my head how much green space is going to be added that is required on this property yeah so everything behind the fence that's removed is what is counted is what is counted okay and that's it that little space is what they're planning to restore as far as the property is concerned that is correct okay well they have the right-of-way to restore but right but that's not going toward that's not counting towards their percentage of requirement correct okay so i noticed that there is a garage behind the two cars why could you not put a car in the garage yes we have two car garage but there is three car in the house you understand that's not a hardship correct ma'am how many cars you have is not a hardship but you could park four cars outside well i didn't know but yeah so if you look at the criteria because you're representing this lady correct if you look at the criteria the hardship criteria nowhere in the hardship criteria does it say how many cars you have is a hardship understand you understand okay correct okay could i ask um would you mind putting the picture of what the property looked like when she originally moved it in back up on the screen for us yes because i'd like to look at that a little bit more closely so we're only looking at what's beyond those pillars everything everything else is the right-of-way um so no i don't know i don't i don't and and we have two letters there is no there's no we're still we're still we're still asking questions we're going to open for no i don't have any more questions is there no is there anyone here to speak for or against this petition all right seeing none you have five minutes for rebuttal if you choose we're good okay uh we'll close the public hearing open up for board discussion and a motion i i don't i fail to see the hardship like any in any capacity i mean having a vehicle having three vehicles ten vehicles it doesn't create a hardship and the only thing that's kind of keeping is that there was the driveway is existing i totally get that um but the other there's a lot of concrete on this property and i mean they put a pool in they limited what they can do they sure did yeah so i i feel i i i don't see a hardship there's no place for the water to go except the neighbors well there's in the street and there's no street there's no stormwater drains they said that air drains in that street yeah i think we all agree yeah because they can put the cars in the garage if they want to the clear extra parking yep i'll go ahead and do it uh i moved that the case for the the variance request for case vrb 26-74 for the property located at 2504 west marquette avenue for a request to reduce green space from 25 to 13 be denied due to the failure failure of the petitioner to meet its burden of proof to provide competent substantial evidence in the record of the public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria is set forth in 27-80 of the city code specifically that the um the volume of cars owned by uh the resident does not count as a hardship um there are uh there's concrete that we really can't discern whether when it was added and it was added without a permit um yep that's it second the motion in a second all those in favor indicate by saying aye aye aye the next item on the agenda is vrb-26-75 the owner is peter and laurie lackman the applicant is scott kiersey the property address is 2804 west fountain boulevard the zoning is planned development the request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet 1 and 1 16th inch feet due to a pool deck height the code section in reference is 27 156 table 4-2 schedule of area height bulk and placement regulations on rs 75 district setbacks are 25 feet from the front 20 feet from the rear and seven feet on the sides the previous action is bld-24-050 set five seven six one for a pool permit this is the site as it currently sits along west fountain boulevard this is the site plan showing the red area the small triangle there off the rear of the house as the area of encroachment into the rear yard setback we're going to zoom into that this is the area that is 14 feet 1 and 1 16th inch from the rear setback line ending right over here on this corner natural resources had no objections with conditions natural resources has no objections with conditions at the time of construction additional natural resource changes and requests can be made to ensure all of the applicable sections of chapter 27 of the city of tampa code is met the variance request is for a rear setback only and does not waive nor permit any existing conditions that bring the property outside of compliance the property is still required to maintain its 25 green space entries as outlined in 27 284. transportation wastewater water and right-of-way have no objections urban design did have an objection due to the setback reduction in the rear not complying with current standards stormwater had no objections with conditions the development shall comply with city of tampa stormwater technical standards chapter 21 in the city of tampa code and then i've provided references and construction notes to be added to the plan upon permitting tico had no comment as of july 2nd 2026 this is the criteria under 2780 application of variance review power and i'm available for any comments questions or concerns we can just do that there you go ready to rock and roll i'm scott garcy i'm the architect on the project i have been sworn in and i live at 16 820 anchor root street in waimama the owners laurie and pete are seated behind me they're not sworn in but they both like to speak and present some signed documents so i want to start with this image and it's the same need to be sworn in if they're going to speak oh now yeah okay is any i do i want to start with this aerial and this is taken from the property appraisers website and i call this the rear yard alignment and without trying to embellish anyone's footprint i want to focus on the red line that i i just just drew a line parallel to the front property line across what significant forms there are of all the immediate neighbors this is our property this is the neighbor to the east and the little white rectangle represents our addition our proposed addition and i'll show you what we feel are our hardships there's a large oak tree at the front of the property and the this is one of the few parcels in this neighborhood that's got the acute angle in the rear yard which when you offset the 20-foot rear yard setback that's what creates that triangle and this is the same image that steve had shown i'll try and zoom in a little bit so i'm trying to highlight the oak tree that's called that was a 20 inch oak and that is the surveyor's location of that tree our setback there were two that we were asking for one is to the face of the column the other the closest one is the face of the second story deck that's in this area and this is the proposed 14 one and the 16 setback now we're zooming in a little more this is the first floor plan here's the 14 foot setback here's the 20 and all of this highlighted yellow area on the ground floor really doesn't exist other than the round column second floor that encroachment includes the second story deck and the guardrail this is the existing front of the house and this is the corner of the parcel this is the northeast corner of the parcel and the addition is set back behind this is the large oak tree the addition starts in the front facade there of the chimney and heads backwards so this is a two-story really grand front uh four large four columns and the addition is two-story that travels towards the back and matches the back of the house this is a little vignette of the side of the front porch and all of this is the addition the two-story addition here all with brick on most of the facades of the project this is the back of the existing house and the addition is to occur over here and basically we're trying to do kind of a symmetrical mirror image of this two-story form here with the same setback from this facade and repeat that over here there is that image of the addition moving a little bit more to the east on the corner this is what exists now we're infilling this area here so you can see that they're trying to use as an outdoor covered area and we're trying to make that a little bit better so looking back towards the front you're now seeing that large oak tree at the front corner the northeast corner which in our opinion is our second hardship and forces the addition towards the back a bit more of a side image of what's existing so the two-story addition covers up this siding some of this these two doors are where we maintain the path out to the covered port so the the exterior walls start back here and this is how that addition is the highlighted perimeter against the existing so i go back to this one and we just feel that with this red line kind of representing i mean it's pretty obvious and i've highlighted with a bold black marker the the main parts of the bodies of the homes that that is a is no impact no encroachment and nothing farther than what's already there and if that addition is here or if it's pushed back about seven more feet that's the reason we're here so laurie and pete would like to present some signed notices and i'll answer any questions at this time yes conclude your presentation yeah well if you want to say something that would be the time oh okay uh pete lackman uh owner of the house my wife laurie owner of the house um a couple things that i address and if you've been sworn in what's that address and if you've been sworn oh yeah 2804 west uh fountain boulevard and have you been sworn in and i've been sworn in thank you first time sorry guys so on the house here i wanted to make a point that we have this is a back porch we're adding on it's not a completely enclosed structure that all exists right back here and um what exists down here are a set of french doors and so part of the reason that we have to have a covered porch is to cover that french door area so it does have a port on cover of you all see that the next thing i wanted to show is um you know uh it's great to have nice big diagonal streets in parkland except that someone always gets the wacky lot and um and so i'm going to say everyone else gets a nice pretty good pretty square lot except we get this nice little cut around the back and if we look at the actual size of what that cut is my depth over here is 137 feet and in this corner it's 90 feet so i lose 47 feet of uh of depth of my lot and so these are part of you know the practical difficulties of building this space want to keep that door keep it covered we have a strange uh weird lot in the back unusual lot and um uh my wife and i uh bought the house in 2010 we've upgraded it grown our family and we plan on staying in it so part of the accommodations we're doing on this new addition in the front we're leaving the space there would be an elevator so we could kind of continue on in our elder years there so uh these are part of the unusual circumstances on this piece of property thank you very much thank you good evening laurie lackman homeowner 2804 west fountain boulevard and i have been sworn in so we had an open house um on may 31st and we invited all of our surrounding neighbors to come in to view the plans and see the actual footprint of what we were doing we're friends with all of our neighbors it's very close-knit neighborhood and so we did that and then i personally met with 14 of our closest neighbors all around us and took them the plans explained to them what the variance was for and then asked if they had any objections and then all 14 signed no objection um letters that they did not object to our variance request um i also those in the record i yes i'm prepared to present those i don't know how to do that oh okay and then we also have a very active civic board uh the parkland state civic board club and the board i presented to uh the president okay am i going to be ejected or something another minute um i presented to the president ivan forelli what our plans were and the reasons for it and gave her the plans she presented it to the board because they don't meet i couldn't present to the board they don't meet in the summer so she presented to the board via email and text and then they met and they all voted in favor of not opposing our variants and there's a letter in that stack from the parkland state civic board stating that fact um and that concludes my comments for board questions um in one of the pictures that you showed and this is just for my own reference there's a magnolia in the back there there's a there's a magnolia in the back yes sir okay can you address that for me steven about the requirements for that magnolia and for the other oak that's uh tree that's beside the 20 the the other oak that's in the photos yeah so the magnolias in the rear are well without are well outside the construction zone okay the 20 inch oak in the front has a 15 foot protective radius that surrounds it so you know the icon is a little misleading it's probably i know this is seven and a half so they're probably at 10 to 15 feet on that corner um icons kind of throw it off compared to the survey point but i think that's a pretty good estimate of 15 foot of what would be around that so um no this isn't for you steven so outside of the tree being the hardship for the renovations what is the hardship for the property itself is that we we feel we feel that the acute angle in the back is also what's compromising our opportunities okay i just think for for reference just so that everybody understands um when you make additions to properties you know what the property is right i mr uh mr lagman you had said you know well we this is what we were dealt well no that's what you bought absolutely so just i just want to be very clear that a lot of folks get up here and say wow this is what we have no that's what you bought so you knew there was angles this is something you want to do which i completely understand i just want to make sure that people that folks do understand that it's that you know it's you bought the lot like that you're wanting to do this and i completely i i do understand that but just want to be very clear the unusual thing about this is it's a pd it's not rs i understand that um i just had one question because i know you've caught up that tree and it's being protected and and all that stuff and i love the trees obviously you all have heard that tonight but that tree looked pretty bad has an arborist evaluated it the the 20-inch tree that is supposedly the hardship it just the what little bit of us on the tree pictures that didn't look so great and i was kind of like is that tree really healthy if that's the hardship you're an arborist you're already a presenter ricky pederica mr pederica i was just asking i'm curious more more out of con so it's with this this tree also looks to be shared per the survey and it would need both parties okay to agree upon it so how the city approaches shared trees are they're being preserved unless both parties agree and they consent but at the time they are planning to preserve the tree so if they're preserving it it's the 15 foot the only time we require removal of a tree is if it enters that hazardous category as outlined by code until it enters that category people can preserve as many qualities of trees yes so we like ugly trees too um mr mrs uh lackman if we if we are able to approve this uh would you be amenable to a condition that is never being closed the rear porch and never being closed absolutely absolutely and and the tree up front is nice and healthy we groomed it back a few years ago and got the grief off of it and um and actually it's super healthy oak tree so uh and definitely worth saving well so i mean where you're putting it where it is to save the to to yes yeah totally get that thank you so much other questions here to speak for our guests just the 15 people and the uh civic association so i'll close the public hearing open up for a board discussion and a motion i mean i don't see a hardship don't see a hardship no i think there's two i think there's two i mean the regular shape lot is a hardship i know they bought that but it is a hardship it is a hardship and they're they're they're putting it they're keeping the trees okay the only other thing that i i didn't see in this packet and maybe that would have been a question for steve was i just did not see the urban design memo can we talk to staff without design can we talk to staff do we need to reopen to talk to staff oh yes motion to reopen the public hearing second they receive all right all right we're reopened you might have sent it to me originally steve it's just that it's not up here and i didn't bring anything else with me no it's here what do you just what their concerns were is this in tampa heights no this is no this is this is in parkland why does it say tampa heights i cannot speak the urban the urban doesn't so i mean this kind of gets thrown out because this is referencing the tampa heights overlay district is it within the tampa heights overlay district it is not i didn't think so it's in parkland estates that is correct so this is no relevance to us now right all the other it's up to the board well it's irrelevant they're not in the tampa heights overlay district okay so that memo was kind of a problem okay so that's a memo from yeah for the the in order for the memo to be relevant to the case before us right now it would need to be citing the correct overlay district and the regulations associated with it oops okay okay whoops well something just went in your favor okay okay there you have it okay thank you thank you for the questions oh no thank you all right so are there anyone to speak more against do you have no questions no i'm good okay um you have five minutes for rebuttal if you so choose okay we'll close public hearing and open up for board discussion i'm ready to make a motion if you're ready we've got one ready ready okay i moved that the variance request for case vrb 26-75 uh located at 2804 west fountain boulevard is depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14 foot one and one sixteenth inches 14 foot one and one sixteenth inches that's it right that okay gotcha because it's not right on here due to the pool deck height um why does it say what i'm totally just just reduce it and go back to it okay we're gonna get rid of the pool deck height what is that the pool deck wasn't even mentioned in this thing no it wasn't it was the back so what does that have to do with anything what's going on we're in tampa heights with a pool deck what's happening stephen china like we didn't talk about a pool pool's already there that might just be part of the can we amend this yes so what i would can i just get rid of it yes so just state state there yep i'll just get rid of it all right we're going to start again because everybody loves hearing my voice tonight move that the variance request for a case vrb 26-75 located at 2804 west fountain boulevard is depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14 foot 1 and 1 16 inches from the proposed edition that said variance as conditioned be uh granted based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record at the public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria specifically that uh they are uh it's an odd shaped lot um and uh they are preserving the oak tree that is on the property with the condition that they do not uh enclose the rear patio area of the uh ground floor and second floor addition second all right we have a motion in a second all those in favor and keep by sitting aye aye aye aye aye opposed opposed motion carries three one good evening we are on to the last item of the agenda for tonight which is vrb-26-79 the owner is david and anita india india as one white the property address is 61 album album or all moral av and the zoning is residential single family rs50 the request is to reduce the eve to e separation from five feet to three feet ten inches the code section of reference is 27-290 accessory structures for rs50 175 districts shall be a minimum separation of 10 feet between principal and accessory structures on the same zoning lot for all other districts a minimum separation between accessory and principal structures shall be five feet for all districts a covered walkway open at least two sides to be attached from the principal structure which does not apply for this the previous action for this address is bld-25-0518752 which is for a house lift and addition this is the property as it currently exists this is the proposed site plan showing the addition to the rear showing the addition to the rear and we're going to zoom in on that showing the stair and elevator addition to get to the upper floors the the wall to wall separation is that five foot ten inches but due to the eve the eve to eve separation is only three foot ten inches all other setbacks are being met and the garage is existing and so is the home they're just doing the addition to the natural resources has no objections with conditions transportation has no objections wastewater has no objections to conditions that this probably does not appear to further impact the sewer main and the alley water and right away have no objections stormwater has no objections with conditions and mentions a bunch of notes and clearance requirements for stormwater lines and pipes larger than 36 inches in diameter this is all internal to the site it's not exceeding beyond the current program bear of the house and then tico had no comment as of seven two this is the criteria under 2780 for the variance review board for hardship evaluation i'm available for any comments questions or concerns thank you i may need your help hello india witty uh i reside well i will reside again at 61 albemarle avenue on davis islands and i've been sworn in david witty 61 albemarle avenue been sworn in um and uh we aren't able to host a community gathering because we haven't lived in our homes since september um the 27th of 2024 but we do have and many of our neighbors there is placed too but we have seven letters of support so i'm going to handle the words part and he's going to handle the technical aspects if you have questions um as i said earlier my name is india witty i'm here with my husband david um and we are here to respectfully request our uh for for a variance uh associated with the restoration and elevation of our home uh built in 1927 our residence is a nearly century old home that contributes to the distinctive historic character and architectural heritage of davis islands for 23 years our family has had the privilege of serving as stewards of this property and contributing to the davis islands community we brought our children home from st joseph's children's hospital in 2004 and 2006 to this home we celebrated many life events with our family in this home our son successfully uh battled leukemia in uh 2023 and 2024 in this home and at st joseph's children so thank you for doing that um and we uh celebrated him ringing the bell on may 25th 2024 and four months later we celebrated his 18th birthday on september 27th 2024 uh since then we have not lived in our home hurricane lane caused catastrophic flooding throughout the island and our home sustained substantial damage as qualified by the city making it uninhabitable under current fema regulations and requirements our home must be elevated above base flood elevation to mitigate future flood risk and comply with applicable codes elevating a historic structure presents unique engineering and design challenges particularly when attempting to preserve the original architectural integrity while integrating modern safety and accessibility features these constraints are specific to this property and its historic configuration and are not conditions commonly shared by newer homes or vacant lots like many owners of historically significant homes affected by the storm we faced a difficult decision we could demolish the damaged structure as many of our neighbors did and construct a new residence or we could undertake a far more challenging time consuming and very expensive effort of restoring preserving and restoring our existing home we chose preservation that decision has required a substantial personal financial investment extensive planning and compliance with numerous engineering flood mitigation and building requirements our project includes elevating the home out of the flood zone restoring the historically significant structure repairing storm related damage and incorporating incorporating modest accessibility improvements that will allow us to safely remain in our home as we age the proposed rear addition is designed to accommodate a covered stairway and plan for future elevator access while remaining respectful to the home's historic character the hardship associated with this request is both practical and unique to this property the combination of severe hurricane damage mandatory elevation requirements the constraints of preserving a historic structure and the need to incorporate aging in places accessibility features requires a set of conditions that cannot be reasonable reasonably addressed without minor dimensional relief the requested variance is limited to approximately one foot of eve to eve separation between a small rear addition and an existing detached garage this minimal variance is necessary to allow for safe and co-compliant access to the elevated structure including stairs and a future elevator installation without this relief the project would require significant redesign that could compromise the historic structure eliminate accessibility features or make preservation financially and physically infeasible the hardship is not self-created this is not our choice it arises directly from the unforeseen catastrophic impacts of hurricane helene combined with current floodplain regulations and the inherent limitations of working within an existing historic footprint the configuration of the existing existing structures on the property including the detached garage further constrains design options in a manner unique to this site the requested variance is the minimum necessary to address these conditions it does not expand the building footprint in a meaningful way does not alter the character of the neighborhood and does not create any adverse impacts on adjacent properties we respectfully submit that this request satisfies the criteria required for approval for five different reasons one the hardship is unique and singular to this property due to the combination of historic preservation constraints hurricane damage elevation requirements and existing site configurations these conditions are not commonly shared by similarly situated properties particularly newer homes on redeveloped lots the hardship is not the result of any action by us it is the direct result of hurricane helene and subsequent regulatory requirements for elevation and reconstruction granting the variance will not interfere with or injure the health safety or welfare of others the addition is located at the rear of the property is modest in scale and maintains appropriate separation and safety considerations the variance is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the city's land development regulations and the tampa comprehensive plan by promoting resiliency preservation of his historically significant structures and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods allowing the variance will result in substantial justice by balancing the public benefits of preservation resiliency and neighborhood stability with the significant individual hardship that would result from denial following the hurricane numerous neighboring properties have been sold and many have been demolished and replaced by substantially larger modern zero lot line new construction including three structures that are directly adjacent to our property this trend reflects the economic and practical pressures facing homeowners of damaged historically significant homes in contrast our family has chosen to preserve and restore our home approval of this variance will help ensure that one more historic davis islands home survives hurricane helene and remains part of the community's architectural legacy for the next century we have received seven letters of support as you see from neighboring property owners and they recognize both the reasonableness of the request and the broader community benefit of preserving existing historic homes rather than replacing them with new construction in our view approval of this variance advances the spirit and intent of the city's land development regulations by encouraging historic preservation resiliency accessibility and reinvestment we respectfully request uh approval of this variance um which will allow us to to go home um and this completes my portion of the presentation possibility to pull up the pictures that we had on file just to kind of give a um idea of the significance and we found out something during the actual process that we found out the house was has a um historical significant file on file with the um state of florida but it is not historic but this but it's not history it's not historically it's historically significant but not historic so that is our um south facing um elevation there there's our neighbor front facing elevation obviously not storm damage in these pictures um forward front facing elevation there is the the back of the um detached garage there is the area where we'd be putting after the storm yeah right after so this is the area where we'd be putting the addition right here and that would go in between the primary and the accessory structure the idea is keeping the same roof line keeping the same details keeping the same flow of the architectural and also being able to provide for some of those accommodations that we've had to do with lifting the house and with that completes our presentation thank you we'll open it up for board questions the only question i actually have steve you might have to answer this because i don't think they could um is literally they're asking a variance to go from five feet to three feet but if i understood what i at least think i still remember of city code that if they literally bridged that five feet and connected to two buildings it would be irrelevant wouldn't it so we tried that first okay um they've been working with me now for about five months i believe we tried to go the breezeway route to connect the structures together that way to avoid this whole process um i received a determination that we cannot do it that way okay because of the structure but we were on the same page with that as well and that's how they ended up in this process because they actually did a whole new design showing a pergola almost connection point to try to get around that e to e separation but um after determination from my manager it would well i have my biases and preferences towards historic stuff i i i i have seen so many things getting bulldozed and and very utilitarian looking boxes and unfortunately i think that means that we lose our character in the city um preserving things of all different periods so the fact that you're willing to go through these steps when it would be so much easier to take a bulldozer and build a utilitarian box um i want to commend you for it um and and i think you did a very good presentation personally i have no question none you did a great job all right seeing no more questions we'll close that is there anyone here to speak for or against see no one we will go ahead and close the public hearing and open up for more discussion and emotion thank you for still asking procedure i have no discussion i'm nothing i'll just make the motion okay good all right i move that the variance request for case vrb 26-79 for the property located at 61 albemarle avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a request to reduce e to e separation from five feet to three foot ten inches upon the applicant based upon the applicant presenting confidence or evidence of the record 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 this is a home built in 1927 that suffered severe hurricane damage in uh helene the family is currently displaced until they raise this historic structure based on fema requirements um and that they are keeping the current structure uh and not building you know something brand new when they easily could second all right a motion and a second all in favor of the kid by saying aye aye aye thank you congratulations congratulations good luck with everything and by the way we did look at the breezeway option before we even came to stephen too so you clearly have done your homework yep and we appreciate that i wish more people i wish more people would do that much thank you guys all right all right oh adjourn them oh uh you have a motion to adjournment yes second second all yes all right all all favor say aye aye aye aye aye we're adjourned now no