Variance Review Board - 08/11/26

my left members are Megan J. Cochran, Brian Frye, Aaron Murphy, Rick Pfeiffer. Also here in attendance from legal, Taylor Bolt, and from development, Stephen Eister, Lisa Middleton, Maria Trocoche-Garcia, Laura Marley, and Sly Wilburn. Did I get everybody? Okay. There's some procedural rules we need to follow, but when your case is called, the petitioner's name is called, please come to the podium. When you approach the podium, please state your name, address, and confirm that you have been sworn in. 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 of rebuttal if needed. The time periods as stated will be kept by the board. Any information such as pictures or plans that have not previously been submitted as part of the petition that you intend to submit for consideration in support of your petition must be individually presented and accepted by the board. After acceptance by the board, you may submit the item to staff for it to be entered and made part of the permanent record. The board bases its decision on competent and substantial evidence which is submitted and which meets the criteria required by city of Tampa's code of ordinances. Please be sure to clearly state your hardship criteria during your presentation. Majority of the board is needed to approve your variance. The variance granted by the board will only be for what is shown on the site plan and will be in compliance with any terms or conditions as stated by the board. All other city codes will need to be. If the case is approved, your variance will expire two years from the date of the decision. If your case is continued, it will either be continued to next month's VRB or to the next available position on an upcoming. If the case is denied, you may wish to have the variance review board's decision appealed to city council. You must file a 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 until the 14 14 day review period has passed. Your cooperation ensuring that this meeting runs smoothly was greatly appreciated. Can I please have a motion to approve the minutes from the July? So moved. Discussion on favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. I'm chair if I may. Yes. In reviewing tonight's agenda, I'd like to ask any of the board members if they've had any ex parte communication. No. No. No. Thank you. Let the record reflect. Everybody has answered in the negative. And secondly, in reviewing tonight's agenda, do any board members have a conflict of interest? No. No. No. Thank you. Let the record reflect. Everybody answered in the negative. Good evening, board. We had some flash drive issues, so we're going to deviate from our normal PowerPoint presentations and go to the staff packets that you all received to present the cases for tonight. So the first item on the agenda is the continuance of VRB-26-56 for Channel Side Partners, LLC. The applicant is Ricky Pedirica. The property address is 3917 North Nebraska Avenue. The zoning is Commercial General. The variance requests are there's a request to remove two or one non-hazardous grain tree and a reduced tree retention from 50% to 15%. These are the code references for 27284.2.5 and 27284, Table 284.3.1. Natural Resources has objections, and we will go over that memo just briefly, as we've already seen this case once before. Urban design, transportation, wastewater, water had no objections with conditions. Right-of-way had no comment. As of June 4th, Stormwater had no objections and TECO had no comments. This is the criteria for the variance review board. This is the memo from Natural Resources stating both trees are located along the perimeter of the property. One in the northeast corner is a 34-inch C6, and the one to the southwest corner is a 33-inch C6. Both trees are live oaks and are preservation quality. The property seeks to utilize the density increase in height through House Bill 1339. The preserved tree currently has parking and other improvements located within its protective radius. The site is also requesting a decrease in tree retention from 50% to 15%. There were some additional comments made under the House Bill 1339 request showing that they're trying to increase the floor area ratio, which is allowed at 1.5. They're at 3.06. Or 3.06. The required setbacks of the underlying zoning districts aren't being met. The max height of 45 feet. They're currently at 80 feet. And also calling out the variance for tree retention. These little comments here. This is the hardship criteria. The two trees in question. This is the first grain tree in question, which I think the applicant will provide some update on. The 34-inch live oak rated C6. Here's a photo of that tree. Here's the second tree, the 30, tree number 32, the 33-inch southern live oak. Also rated, this one was rated C5. Let's get to the site plan real quick. Here is, sorry, I'm trying not to scroll too fast. I know it looks a little different on the screen up there. This is a overall view of the site. This is the vicinity map. This is the site's current conditions. It is a old CVS Walgreens location that is no longer operating. This is the proposed development, highlighting grain tree here to be preserved. The second grain tree is in this location. And then there's an off-site grain tree as well. These are the elevations of the project. The grain tree retention information provided by the applicant. So this highlights the grain tree 1, grain tree 2, and then the off-site grand tree. That will conclude that. And then let's show then the tree retention requirement applies to all these, the parking lot trees and the perimeter trees around the site. And trees off-site are not factored into that equation. So I will now include my presentation. And thank you, board. Mr. Eister. Ricky Federica, 308 East 7th Avenue. I've been sworn. I came prepared with a PowerPoint. Bad joke. Bad joke. Since, thank you, Mr. Eister. We were originally requesting at the past hearing two grand trees to be removed and a retention reduction. Now we are amending the request very, kind of very recently to remove the, or sorry, not two grand trees, one grand tree. And now we're removing that grand tree from the request. So we're only requesting the retention variance. So this tree here will be preserved. And I will start my presentation. This is, as Mr. Eister said, an existing developed parcel at the intersection of North Nebraska Avenue and East Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard and East 33rd Avenue in East Tampa Overlay District. The site's not vacant or undeveloped greenfield land. It is an existing commercial building with surface parking and perimeter landscape areas and existing trees scattered throughout the existing parking arrangement. The proposed development, in order to meet the criteria required in the code, must work within the parcel already shaped for existing street frontages, existing tree locations, prior pavement, and a planning framework applicable to this corridor. So this project we're proposing is a mixed affordable and market rate multifamily development. And it represents, it represents the residential infill redevelopment of an existing commercial corridor. Let's look at the site plan. We have several protected trees shown in green and two grand trees on site, on site shown in pink. Tree number two is a 34 inch southern live oak. This was previously requested for removal in the past hearing. We're no longer asking to remove it. Tree 32 is a 33 inch southern live oak rated C5. That was preserved and will remain preserved. Tree number eight is off-site and will remain preserved off-site. Under the tree retention, the city's tree retention standards, the retention is 50%. That would essentially count every green tree shown here in every pink tree. Based on the proposed disposition plan, there's 27 on-site trees. 26 of them are green, essentially, that count towards this retention calculation. We are now proposing to preserve seven of those 26, one, two, three, four, along Nebraska Avenue. Those were originally proposed to be preserved. The grand tree on the south, grand tree 32. The grand tree on the north, grand tree number two. And tree number one, the 30 inch specimen live oak. And that brings our new retention request from 15% to 26%. There's a practical difficulty with this property being it's a CVS. And unless it stayed something like a CVS, unless a site, um, site impacts would occur to change the use. And that's what we're confronted with now, uh, with our request. Um, it's not self it's we didn't create the CVS parking arrangement that we're having to deal with. Uh, this request doesn't injure the health safety welfare of others. Um, we are not authorizing a new incompatible use. There's no development standard outside, uh, or development, uh, deviation outside of the retention request. And all the preserved grand trees would be subject to all the standard tree protection requirements. Um, the, the request is in harmony with the code and the comprehensive plan. Uh, we are going to provide tree protection as required. The comprehensive plan supports residential mixed use residential and mixed use redevelopment within urban corridors and activity centers. It also promotes the preservation of mature trees specifically. The revised plan responds to both objectives by preserving the grand trees and a specimen tree while allowing redevelopment of an existing commercial site into a mixed affordable and market rate residential project and substantial justice support supports approval. Strict application of 50% would require substantial redesign, a reduction in residential units, reduction in resident facilities, or a layout that may not be feasible. Uh, the public benefit of strict compliance would be limited because the revised plan already preserves grand trees and we're effectively asking for, uh, requests to remove six additional trees beyond what would typically be allowed. Um, and those trees generally would be, let's say on the south or the north, but they're all already in constrained parking lot islands currently. So I stayed on that slide a lot. This is the calculation of how the tree numbers change. On the right was the existing proposed, um, situation I'm realized there's an error on the left. Um, but now where there's one grand tree, this should say zero grand trees removed where we had 19% now we're at 26% and the mitigation, uh, calculations while not provided would also be reduced with this request. So for all these reasons, um, we respectfully request your approval of now our single variance, uh, retention reduction from 50% to 26%. Does that include your presentation? That does. Then questions from the board. Um, I have a question because I was trying to tell which trees were going. The trees that border 32nd Avenue or 33rd, I'm not sure what the number is there. 33rd. Okay. Um, are those all going? They are all but the grand tree. Yes. Yeah. I, I mean, I remember when this was developed and I'm like, yeah, those trees will never get a chance to be grand. I'm thinking that goes into a residential street. I, I, I'm like, there's no way you can preserve those. They're already in a constrained area. The building footprint moves closer into the canopy because the building moves south now towards East 33rd and landscape requirements would still be required, um, at, at permitting. But if you can see here, the, the kind of cloudy gray is the approximation of the canopy as it stands. Um, and the canopy and the building encroaches halfway into the third, the three to the, uh, Oh, sorry. I can highlight here. These three, this one could be preserved with a parking reduction, but that wouldn't change the nature of our request for a single tree. Um, just for clarity of that, zero grand trees. Correct. It's amendable that you put all that. I'm amendable to that. We appreciate that. Um, is there a question from the board? Is there someone here to speak for or against? Actually, there we go. Caroline Bennett, 4116 West Santiago street, Tampa, Florida, founding member of the Tampa tree advocacy group. I have been sworn Florida variance law is long established and clear. The property must have a unique circumstance and a hardship that is not self-created. There's nothing unique about this property and there is no hardship at their last hearing. They said changing the footprint, shrinking it would quote, reduce the project yield and will cut into the bottom line. Those are financial preferences, not legal hardships, and they are not a basis for granting a variance. You and I are not getting paid to be here. We are here for one reason only. We care about our community. We all know how hard it is for low income people to find housing and we all want to do something about it. That is what the live local act is supposed to do. The developer must build some income based units in order to receive the benefit of the increased density, allowed density under this law. But the law has a fatal flaw. These units can be for people making 120 percent of the median area income. For Tampa, that's $87,600 a year for one person. And the rent that can be charged is actually above the market rate in many new apartment complexes in South Tampa. I know that firsthand. I am telling you this in case you are tempted to approve it based on your desire to create low income housing. You need to know there is no guarantee that approving this will do that. But even if this did create true low income housing, that is not something you are allowed to consider under Florida law. They plan to build 132 units per acre, which is more than twice the density normally allowed. They can do this because of the live local act. It is the only thing that allows that excessive density. But the live local act does not allow them to cut down more trees. That was deliberately left out of the legislation. They must get a variance for that. They must prove a hardship that is not self-created. These trees that they want to remove that are above the 50 percent are at the periphery of the property. If they change the footprint of this project, they can save these trees and still build a high density project over what the current allowed density is. Please remember that even if you deny this variance, they still get to cut down 50 percent of the live oaks. And the removal of 50 percent of those oak trees will harm the community by increasing the urban heat island effect. There is no hardship. There is no legal basis for this variance under Florida law. Please deny this variance. Thank you. Hi, my name is Pamela Jackson Haney. I live at 3014 West Harborview Avenue and I have been sworn in. I'm also here, I'm with Tampa Tree Advocacy Group, also a founding member. And I am here to ask that the requested variance be denied. I was able, as I stated last time I was here, to visit this parcel. And while I'm glad that the petitioner is going to save the grand tree that I discussed, I was struck by several different things. One is, it's a blighted area. And while it's great that this developer is coming in to develop this parcel, even though that's, you know, they're going to obviously make a profit. Blighted areas need trees, mostly. And they are, the areas in our city with the least amount of trees in shade are typically these blighted areas. So we have several beautiful specimen trees on this site. And yeah, they might have grown to their max capacity, but they're still beautiful. And they still provide a lot of shade and they're healthy. The developer or the applicant is going to remove the trees in the center and they're allowed to do that. But there's just no excuse for them to be taking down the trees on the perimeter of the property. It would be nice for these residents to become able to come home to a lovely tree filled green space. The petitioner states that the requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable development of the property. The city has already spelled out that the fact that petitioner is seeking for double the allowable floor area ratio and not complying with the required setback requirements in addition to other concerns. I didn't see a lot of green space. I know that they asked, they weren't going to be able to fulfill the required green space last time. And maybe that has changed since they're only asking about taking out these specimen trees now. They also state that their hardship arises from the existing site configuration and prior development pattern, which were established for a different use. Again, the trees are on the perimeter of the parking lot. This new building would take up almost the entire parcel with limited trees and limited green space. So TTEK feels that as these urban areas expand, these trees provide a lot of benefits. And we need to increase instead of decrease conservation and focusing on managing what exists. Thank you. Thank you. Ricky Padarica, 308 E7 Avenue. I'd like the board to remember the or understand the math that's happening here that we're working with. There's 27 trees, 26 of them currently contribute to the retention quality percentage. So every tree is effectively five percent. If this were a site like you saw last month where there were 700 trees and we were proposing to remove, let's say, a larger percentage than that equivalent percentage, 26 percent, that would be a much higher number of trees removed. Here we're talking about the request that we're making is only six trees beyond what would typically be allowed. Six trees in a constrained parking lot area where they are already less narrow than what a parking space would be required to be in a new construction situation, which is 13 feet and on the trees on East 33rd. So we're already working with constrained trees. The opposition acknowledged, and I agree, that they are meeting their genetic potential in these constrained conditions. So we're requesting relief from that to remove six additional trees than what would be allowed and to mitigate them in accordance with the code and to provide required trees in accordance with the code at the development. Thank you, sir. That concludes your presentation. That concludes my presentation. We're available for questions. Oh, yes. If you'd like questions, do you want to ask him questions? I just, I wanted to ask one question because I am very familiar with that site. I used to go to that Walgreens all the time. The CVS was diagonal across the street. The MLK there is basically a major arterial road. There's not much tree canopy on that, and I understand that there is the one grand tree that is supposed to be no longer on the list. But to me, if you were sacrificing tree canopy along the arterial corridor, I would be easier to persuade on that than to take the trees that are going along 33rd. I mean, that's just my general concern. And if you can pull that tree back up that is on MLK, the grand tree, um, did that, that looked pretty scraggly. That's, that's the one that's the back of the parking lot. Okay. Um, I know that Walgreens used to trim the trees way up high there. Um, to me, if there was a, if, if it meant saving the ones on 33rd, to me, I could see that as a sacrifice, but I have a real problem with just literally stripping it. I understand a lot of the trees are in the parking lot in the islands, but the periphery that to me just seems a bridge too far. I mean, I, I don't know if that's a, a compromise that you might entertain, but that was my thoughts. Um, I think it's possibly too complex to swap that at, at the hearing, like meaning include a grain tree removal that technically we, I guess still could ask for and reduce the retention. I think something that we could accommodate more easily is a reduction in the retention request. So if we're, I'm, I'm kind of reality checking here, what is potentially possible? Um, I think three additional trees would be what I could offer without going back to my team, which would, I don't know. The met the math would be, let's see, we're at seven plus three is 10 divided by 26. Oops. Number lock. That would put us at 38%. Um, uh, we would be amenable to a 35 just to make it a rounder number percent retention. The grand tree would not be removed or sorry, the grand tree would still stay. Great. Yeah. Great. Grand tree would still stay. So, so that would be a, um, we don't have a site plan that reflects either condition, but, um, hearing what, hearing the questions and kind of no, and balancing that with the site constraints, um, I can see how we could make three additional trees work. Thank you for your willingness. Okay. Any other questions? Would your team be okay with that? Or are you, do you hear to speak for them or as agent, I'm here to speak for them? Okay. So, okay. Okay. So as long as, I mean, if they're okay with that, then okay. Any other questions? Do we need to do a revised site plan? Could you mark one up live and submit it? If they're adding, if they're, if they're not adding to their request, they're retracting from the rest station. The, the reduction that is being amended is they are at, they're keeping more trees. So they would not need to re-notice. And for purposes of the, the tree retention requests, we do not necessarily have the authority to pick the individual trees. It is the percentage of trees in the end that get kept. And I, I believe that, um, you know, Mr. Pederico always here can confirm this. And so can Steven as well, that the site plan currently just depicts all of the trees that do count towards the retention. So as long as that tree count is accurate, the site plan would be right. We can't tell them what trees they can and kick down. That, that is correct. Correct. That's what I figured. So, I mean, whether there's a compromise or not, those trees can still disappear. That is, that is correct. The only thing that would change is the number of trees. Correct. Okay. More questions. We can close the public hearing and board discussion. I'm sorry. I'm not used to turning this thing on and off. Um, where it's situated right across the street is Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union, which has a beautiful tree canopy that they've managed to preserve. Um, because this goes down into a residential street to me, that seems much more important to me than necessarily whether you can preserve the trees that are along MLK. But if we're not able to do this, I'm not inclined to sit there and say, you can go down to 15% for trees. 26. That's actually 35. It went from, it went from 26. Well, we can't really make them do that. That's what, that was the discussion, right? You can't make them, you can't tell them which trees, but you can change the percentage. So it went from 15 to 26 to 35. Yes. Yes. Percent. Okay. To, uh... I do want to point out, this is, you know, these are two main thoroughfares between Nebraska and Martin Luther King. They have a commercial piece of property, not the property that people put on, something on there are going to, they're going to face this same issue. Um, I like the fact they're trying to bring affordable housing, and to do that they have to hit specific metrics and qualify for, so even qualify for the affordable housing act. So, um, I appreciate the work they've done on this one, saving the additional grand tree and reducing the, the request from 15 to 35. I think that's a very good thing for the city. Yeah, I agree. This is a highly, you know, you got two main thoroughfares intersection. You've got an underused building. That's an old drugstore that is housing for a while. And someone's going to redevelop that. Um, I like the fact that we're having closed about two years. Right, but somebody could also come before us and request even more. And this is where I understand where you're coming from, Rick. I totally understand where you're coming from. The situation could get worse than what they're asking for. Um, and they've come back to us now with a better plan than it came to us before, which was much worse. And I think they've made some good compromises. I think they did too. I don't see a hardship. I think that we can get better than 35%. I don't think there's a hardship here. And that's, that's my sticking point. Okay. I think we could get better than that. I mean, everybody asks for the max they can get and gives us a little bit. But I think that, um, to me, I understand, I understand the street. I lived there. I've lived there for 30 years. Yeah, true. So I understand the area. I've watched everything. Yeah. I've been an advocate for business going in. Right. But at the same time, I like to make sure that we keep our trees. I respectfully disagree, but I can't make a motion. So if someone wants to try, depending upon this, I would like to move that the variance request for a case VRB 26, 26 dash 56 for property located at 3917 North Nebraska Avenue, be granted as depicted on the site plan, presented the public hearing for a reduction in tree retention from 50% to 35% based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record. And at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty of considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27 dash 80 of the city code specifically that this was an existing drug store that had a very specific parking lot layout that is not conducive to the affordable housing act and the building that needs to go there to fit and provide additional affordable housing for the city. I have a motion. No second? Second. Okay. No further discussion. We'll call a question. All those in favor of the motion as stated signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. So it's four to two. Okay. It passes. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is VRB dash 26 dash 72. This is another continuance. The owners are a burned steakhouse. The applicant is Ricky Pedirica. The property address is 2208 West Morrison Avenue. This property has a split zoning of commercial general and commercial intensive. The request was to remove two grand trees which has been reduced to one grand tree and a request to reduce parking from 90 spaces to 61 spaces. And then a request to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to eight feet for the bay windows that are on the building. These are the code sections that are in reference 27 156 schedule and area bolt placement regulations for CG setbacks are 10 feet from the front 10 feet from the rear and 10 feet from the sides. 27 284.2.5 permit for grand tree removal and then section 27 dash 283.7 number of off-street parking spaces 0.25 parking spaces required based on the maximum capacity as determined by city of Tampa building codes. Previous actions they're commercial currently in for a BLD-26-0525103 for commercial building construction and then an AB2-26-22 which is a special use to be able to serve alcohol at the restaurant. This is the site as it currently exists. This is grand tree 14 39 inch southern live oak C6. This is the second grand tree grand it was a 35 inch southern live oak which is a C8. This is a current conditions of the site and survey. This is the proposed plan showing the the building here the parking. One grand tree is located here and then the second grand tree is located in this area which we'll see in a alternate plan. It's not showing up on our screen. There we go. Thanks. We didn't say you know that. Oh well I'll start at this. This is the proposed plan showing both grand trees being removed. The building is located here. This is a drop-off like valet parking and then grand tree here and grand tree here which we'll see highlighted in the proposed plans on the next page. This is alternative site plan one shows a reconfiguration of the driveways to preserve the grand trees this is alternative site plan 1a which is the one that preserves the grand tree of best quality in the front of the property. This is alternative site plan 2 that shifts the building and moves the parking around impacting the second grand tree still preserving the first grand tree. Natural resources has no objections with conditions. The site plan has been updated to reflect they are only removing one grand tree on site. Grand tree 14 will be preserved. The site is reducing parking and modifying VUA landscape due to the unique shape of the lot and to preserve the higher quality grand tree. Transportation has no objections. Wastewater has no objections. Water had no comment as of June 4th. Right away no objections. Stormwater no objections. TECO no objections with conditions. And urban design had objections and to see the attached memo. And then this is the criteria under 2780 for the variance review power. This is the criteria under 27-284.2.5 for reasonable reconfiguration for grand tree removal. I'm available for any comments, questions, or concerns. Thank you. Steven, could you go back just real quick. The parking spaces on our paper it says from 7858. I believe you mentioned a different number. That is correct. So the agenda you have in front of you was a carryover. They had to re-notice this application because the occupancy numbers changed showing the increased parking. If you look on your agenda, I believe it says 78. With the increased capacity load, they now require 90 spaces. And they are reducing it to 61 based off of those new numbers. And they're noticing for this hearing reflects. That was properly noticed? Correct. As they reduced in parking. Yeah, that came in like the 10th hour in the last hearing. And they didn't have time. So that's what started the continuance process. Ricky Board, Ricky Padarica, 308 East Summit Avenue. I have been sworn. I'm here on behalf of Burns Steakhouse, Inc. This request concerns the redevelopment of an existing restaurant site at 2208 West Morrison. This is an aerial photograph of the previous condition. The site has recently been raised in preparation for this building permit that's standing by for this case. The site was previously developed, historically operated as a restaurant haven, and will now hopefully be a new restaurant called Peddler and Potter, a seafood restaurant. The proposed redevelopment maintains the same restaurant use, the slightly reduced building footprint, improved organization of the site, and within a small increase in the on-site parking, and it modernizes the frontage conditions. The site is located in the South Howard Commercial Overlay District. That's what triggered urban design comments, and some of our requests relate a little to that, and some of them we'll be addressing through a design exception separately. There are three primary components of this request, a reduction in the required parking, a minor front setback reduction for two bay windows projections, and the removal of one one non-hazardous tree, Grand Live Oak, based on the reasonable reconfiguration options we reviewed. Starting with the overall context, this is not a standard rectangular site. It's less than an acre and triangular. It has three frontages, Morrison, I'm drawing a blank, Howard, sorry, and the Crosstown, which limits how the parking works, how the drive aisles work, and how the building placement works, relative to pedestrian frontage and landscape areas, subject to the South Howard Commercial Overlay District. This is a summary of the parking requirements. The existing site has 47 spaces. The proposed redevelopment site will be providing 61 with a new site plan. This plan reflects the maximum yield, including using several tandem spaces, compact spaces, and valet operations, and some modified parking island geometry near the portico share here, due to the truck turning radii that kind of, that interact in that turn, that tight turn. Additional spaces cannot be added without affecting building function, circulation, compliant parking dimensions. Other required site elements are additional tree removal. There's an existing parking garage that has historically been available at the Epicurean. The code recognizes off-site shared parking existing within 1,000 feet. Accessing that is a little bit of a procedural exercise, and transportation staff recommended that we make this request instead. It's a little cleaner to make the variance request when we have this available, so we are doing, we're following that guidance. This garage already provides operational support for valet and off-site parking, or did for Haven. The second request is for a front setback reduction. This is Howard here with a little enlargement of the proposed site plan. These are some elevations. The elevation in question where we're making this request is here on the bottom. This is the extent of the encroachment, shown in yellow, about eight square feet. It is, they are these two bay windows, and this request is only for the projection of the bay window. There is a code allowance for projections of architectural features. You may be familiar with, sometimes comes across. That doesn't apply here because the bay window goes to the ground. If it were kind of elevated and just sort of a bench seat, then that provision would apply. But basically that's the extent of our request, and it is subject to, it is contributing to the South Howard commercial overlay district intent of promoting pedestrian scale active visual interesting frontage. So we're providing facade articulation to help break down this plane and address some of the SOHO overlay compliance. A strict compliance with the full setback requirements would amount to either a flattening of the architectural articulation, building adjustment with a shift, which if you saw on the prior site plan, it is already tight as a drum, as it is. So hence this request, this very minor request. Finally, the tree request. We were originally requesting removal of both grand trees here, tree number 14, again rated C6. It's already in a constrained parking lot area. Our new request now preserves this tree in place and expands the tree protection area or the preservation area to almost its entire normal required tree protection area. The second tree, tree number 22, is a 35-inch southern live oak in an even more constrained area. This one is located in the dry vial, the proposed dry vial, and is also in conflict with several proposed utilities. I have an image for that. And so we are still requesting removal of this tree due to how it impacts our very, very tight and constrained set. This is a zoom in on one of the reasonable reconfiguration options. This requires a bump around for the tree. It's hard to depict in this type of plan, but there would be a vertical adjustment in order to provide pervious paving here that would cascade throughout the site and be introduced with practical difficulty. And it would impact the portico share and increase the parking reduction required and just generally make this a more challenging intersection to work in. The second option does a better job at preserving both trees, but it violates the South Howard overlay intent much more and provides a much less efficient parking layout. So this is a simplification of the third option that we are now basically requesting. It's a removal of some parking spaces here to expand the tree preservation area for tree number 14 and then provide a more continuous parking bay. And this is a comparison of the latest site plan reflecting the intent of those conditions. So this is the basically updated inventory metrics, one grand tree removed. We have 33% retention, but there's no retention required because the site is under an acre. We're just doing that. That's just how it's shaking out with this number. So we're preserving one tree and removing two trees that are on the site, which speaks to how few trees there are that contribute currently on this site. The bulk of them are on the just offsite along the perimeter of the Crosstown Expressway. This is a little zoom in on the interaction of proposed utilities, all with tie-ins on Morrison. So we have sanitary sewer in green, the stormwater in the center of the road in gray, and then six-inch fire and water lines also in conflict. So if there were a horizontal site plan that could be considered, the option one, the challenge of the utility connections makes that more difficult to accomplish, hence our request. So in short, we are trying to balance redevelopment on an existing commercial site with a constraint and uniquely shaped parcel. Strict application of all these standards together would prevent a reasonable functional site layout without producing corresponding public benefit. Approval would allow a functional lower intensity than the existing restaurant redevelopment that remains consistent with the commercial character of South Howard and the intent of the code. And that concludes my presentation. So thank you for agreeing to keep one of the trees as part of the proposal. When you did that change, though, did that increase the amount of parking reduction you needed? Not beyond what we're asking for, but it did increase it from what we would have asked for originally. Okay, so the 78 spaces to 58 is correct. Are you collecting that? No, so I guess it would have been 70, I don't know, it would have been 78 to 62 originally. But I'd say that I wouldn't necessarily worry about the 78 or 58 anymore because... It's already reflected in here, the additional, it sounds like... Yes, right, yes, it's already accounted for. We've already lost those spaces in our 61 request. So a question for our attorney. Reducing, was it noticed from 78 to 58? And now they're asking for 90 to 61? So what had previously happened was this application was supposed to be heard at last month's meeting. When they had noticed for the 78-58, upon redoing, I believe, their occupancy calculations, the parking numbers changed. So they re-noticed at the 90 and 61, along with their other request, for tonight's meeting. Okay, all right. And, Ricky, so how many parking spaces did it have when it was Haven? 47. 47? And was that a reduction from the requirement? I don't know that. Okay. Is the building that much bigger than Haven? It's smaller. The footprint's smaller. Yeah, because you... No, I was just curious why the parking requirement went up so much. By the occupancy calculation, however... So I guess they're just packing them in there. Madam Chair, Steve Michelini. I'm also with the development team. The calculations and the process... Wait, wait, wait, wait. I've been sworn. Your name, address, and haven't you been sworn? Steve Michelini, 2407 Sunset Drive, and I'm part of the development team. The calculations under the old building were done because it was a renovation and retrofit of an existing structure. So when you're building new, they had a whole different scale, and the codes changed regarding how you calculated occupancy and parking. It used to be 0.3 per seat, and it changed to the life safety code calculations, which in many cases doubled or tripled the requirements. And we got sort of caught up in that process. I wanted to mention a couple of things. This was not a self-created hardship. We have an irregular lot shape. It does not impact any off-site, any other persons. We back up to the crosstown on one side, commercial gas station on the other, and a garage on the other side. Also, Soho has the park and walk policy where you're parking in one area and walking two other areas, and then we have access to the Epicurean garages, as Ricky pointed out. So in the reconfiguration, all of the buildings have to be pushed up to Howard Avenue, which forces us back into the irregular portion of the lot. It's not rectangular. And then saving the one tree, we also are going to be faced with underground stormwater vaulting, which would interfere with that one tree that we have to remove. What else I can tell you, we're going to be enhanced the sidewalks, which are now required to be six feet, which, you know, they don't have the six-foot sidewalks now. So that park and walk portion will be enhanced, and the building has been reduced in size over what was previously there. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions for? Just to clarify. Just to clarify. So on the option that you're saying you're going with is on our packet showing as 1A? 1A. Okay. So that's what you're asking for today. Okay. Cool. Okay. I understand that. It's been engineered a little bit more, but the intent of it is 1A, yes. No, I like the whole streetscape idea, you know, as opposed to having it back behind to see it parking. Yes. Which is very supportive. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. So with that 1A, it's only one grand tree removal? Okay. Not only is it just one, but the other tree, the landscape area around it will be enhanced. So it will be a much greener area, and it will be a protected area for that tree. To speak for or against? No, add anything in rebuttal, but... Unless you have other questions about the original development and how we got to this point, but it's been very tricky because obviously the site is very irregular, and trying to comply with the SOHO overlay and get a building that was smaller than the original has been an exercise. But we appreciate your consideration and respectfully request your approval. Okay. So we close the public hearing. I'm here for them. Yeah, I don't have any issues with it. Madam Chair, if I may? Yes, sir. Just would like to point out one thing. And given the unique nature of this request, given that it deals with multiple variances, one of them being a tree removal, and then the one being parking reduction, the other one being the setback reduction for the windows as well, I would suggest doing this in two separate motions because the tree removal is based on a different code. So I would do one motion for the tree removal, and then I would follow that up with a second motion for the parking and setback request as well. Okay. I would like to move that the variance request for a case VRB 26-72 for property located at 2208 West Morrison Avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for removal of the grand tree based on the petitioner being the burden of proof with regard to the six factors for determining tree removal as set forth in 27-284.2.5T4 of the city code for granting tree removal specifically that the evidence provided and the record showed that there was no reasonable reconfiguration to save the other grand tree due to all of the underground and parking needs. Second. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion as stated signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. The motion passes. Six-nothing. Very good. I would also like to move that the variance request for a case VRB 26-72 for property located at 2208 West Morrison Avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a reduction in parking from 90 spaces to 61 spaces and a reduction in front setback from 10 feet to 8 feet for bay windows based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record and at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code. Specifically that this is a very regular-shaped lot being triangular and fitting square buildings and square parking lots makes it very difficult. They're actually increasing the existing parking from 47 to 61, and this also does not provide any adverse effect to the neighbors as they are backing up to the crosstown and other commercial uses. Second. Second. Second. Second. Question. Clarification. It says for bay windows. We don't give them a number or how big they are. It's based upon the site plan. We're just going to base it on the site plan. Okay. All right. Motion and second. All those in favor of the motion stated, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Likewise. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Board. Moving to the next item on the agenda, which is VRB-26-48. The property owner is Marwan Asadi. The applicant is James Bennett. The property address is 11107 North 51st Street. The zoning is residential single family, RS60. The request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 4.9 feet, and a request to reduce the side yard setback from 7 feet to 4 feet. The reference code section is Section 27156, Table 4-2, schedule area height bulk placement regulations, RS60 district setbacks, are 25 feet in the front, 20 feet in the rear, and 7 feet on the sides. There is an after-the-fact permit, BLD-24-051267, which corresponds with an expired variance, which we'll talk about a little later on in the presentation. Zoning natural resources has no objections with conditions. These buildings are both existing currently. Transportation, wastewater, water, right-of-way all had no objections. Stormwater had no objections with conditions. No runoff shall be sent to adjacent properties. For the site permit, please be aware that if the impervious area exceeds 50%, a stormwater retention slash detention will be required. And then added note to the site plan stating development shall comply with City of Tampa Stormwater Technical Standards, Chapter 21. This is the criteria under 2780. And then let's get to the site plan. So the area of focus is here in blue. This is triggering primary setbacks due to the property going beyond what's allowed in accessory structures. Accessory structure square footage is determined by the minimum zoning lot size, not by what the lot size actually is. So this is zoned RS60, so it would be 15% of 6,000 square feet, which is approximately 950 square feet, if my math is going correctly. This accessory structure is already existing. It meets primary structure setbacks, so it's not being addressed. These two structures here were previously approved under a separate variance. The building permit was never closed out, and then it expired and stayed closed for two years, therefore expiring the variance and losing those rights. There's, we have some photos. So this is a highlight showing the building placement here. This building here on the variance request was originally had an open porch area that was closed in, so it did slightly change the footprint, but would not have changed the overall variance if it was complied with. And then this shows the reduced setback here. So the two-story structure is 4.9 from the rear and four feet from the side. Here's the applicant information. Here's the original survey and the original approval from VRB 1853, showing the location of this structure here that's still in existing condition. And then this is the structure that was added on to, violating the variance. And that concludes the staff's presentation. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Marwan Asadi. Address 11107, North 51st Street, 3617. Is there a problem with the mic? I'm sorry? We can't hear you. You can hear me? Do I need to press anything here? Oh, speak up? Okay. Good evening. My name is Marwan Asadi. My home address is 11107, North 51st Street, Tampa. I've been sworn in. I'm James Bennett. I did the paperwork for my friend here. He had some issues trying to get some people to help him out. They've kind of taken advantage of him. Sir, you need to state your address and if you've been sworn in, please. And my address is in Seffner, but I'll use his as 1107. No, sir, you have to use your address, please. Okay, 3102, Elderwood Place, Seffner, Florida. And I've been sworn in. Thank you. And we've come today to try to get the variants reissued again because of the time expiration on it. He wasn't aware at the time, thinking he's not aware of the process of trying to get the variants or permits corrected. And that's why we're here today is to get all of this that has been an issue with it cleared up. We've got a lot of them done. I've taken care of everything with the water, electricity, and that sort of thing to get it all straightened out. We've taken care of some of the other comments that were on the actual permit itself. And we would like to get approval for reissue of the variants so we could take care of maybe getting it inspected and following the rules of the code. Your presentation? Yeah, it concludes the presentation. Okay, questions from the board. Yes, sir. Why the delay? It was approved back in 18, and he can tell you himself, but when I got the paperwork and he asked me to help him out with it, it was he's asked friends and an attorney which have failed to straighten the paperwork out and his permits. They've kind of taken advantage of him financially and saying that they will do this and that, and they haven't done it, and he's messed things up. And he's thinking that by getting the variants the first time that it was okay for everything to set like it was and wasn't aware that he had to close the permits out. Some of these permits, and that's the reason why we're here now, is to close them out, straighten them up, straighten the paperwork out, which we've got it going in the right direction, I believe, or we wouldn't be here. And so that's the reason why we're asking for the re-variance so everything would be to code. I have a question, and, Stephen, you may need to have to answer this, where it's just a matter of the permit was never finaled, but the other inspections along the way weren't all completed. So when due to the building, so there was issues that came up during the building review process. The contractor at the time who was helping, quote, unquote, never responded to those comments. So the building permit never finalized its review. But they did do the other inspections along the way. So it never was issued. So the structures have been there, technically, with no permits as of since. No permits whatsoever. Correct, since 2018. Okay. When the contractor applied, due to him never finishing the building review process, the inspections were never completed. So when they expired, it started his two-year variance timeline to act on the application. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. They will still have to go through the full building review and all the inspections, and they will have to pass those inspections to maintain on the property. We just need to re-variance, or whatever that term is, we just need to re-up the variance that was approved way back when in order for this process to continue moving forward. Correct. Okay. Okay, that's why we're here. We want to clean the mess up. Yep, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Anyone here to speak for or against? You have rebuttal time, but I think we've got the general idea. Madam Chair, if I may, one quick comment while we still have the public hearing open. Yes, the applicants did previously have a variance that has since expired, and they are back before us today. However, the board's decision still should be based on the criteria in 2780 about hardship. So just because they were approved for a hardship once does not automatically guarantee them the next time they come before us. They still need to create that record today. Okay. Closing the public hearing and four discussions. Can we have them state what the hardship was for the original variance? For kids that haven't been working. Speak up, please. Louder, please. I'm sorry? We can't hear you. We can't hear you. I say, yeah, I have four children. I'm a single dad. I haven't been working. Economy and my type of work has been, haven't been getting any work. It's been very difficult. That's right. So, sir, I understand the hardship would be something to do with the building. Why did you need the variance in the first place? Was there an existing building there? Did you try to grandfather it in? Why did you apply originally for the variance? Let me start with this. I'm very slow. I comprehend very slow. When I came here the first time, I didn't want to, I want to make sure I make everything correct. And I applied for the approval to bring it. And they gave me the approval, but being who I am, the way I am, I thought, like, I can bring it, and I'm good. And at the time, I knew where the measurements, where the setback were to put it accordingly, and that's where we placed it. But to find out after a year that I wasn't supposed to bring it, I got approved, but I was supposed to do more things, like the permit and everything else. And I haven't, and then I've been in a mess since then. I go to the city, and in the city they're confused from one department to the other. So you can just imagine what I'm going through. Does that answer your question? All right. Any other questions from the board? Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Discussion? I think that there's now a new hardship, regardless of what existed before, because now to bring him into compliance, compliance, he either has to tear it down, which is a real hardship, or we make a path for him to be in compliance. And so I think we need to make a path to make him into compliance. I mean, he's trying to right what went sideways somehow. And, you know, I will say this, though. I, you know, with all due respect to, we had a lot of people that come in front of us that say they don't know, or they don't know, they don't know, they don't know, right? Well, but there is the part of people need to learn how to find this information, right? You just can't put something where it's not supposed to be, and you have to follow through with permits, and you have to follow through with variances. It's, you know, it happens so many times that people come before us, and they're like, well, I didn't know, I didn't know, I didn't know, you know? We're all adults, and you hire contractors, and some of them are great, and some of them aren't. So, and I, but I understand what you're saying, and I respect that he's here trying to get this done right. It's strange to me, but I understand. Whatever it is that we have. Sorry, is the public comments closed? I'm sorry. Sorry about that. It's okay. I appreciate that. So, yeah, I understand. I can include. Sure. I'll venture into it. Excuse me, Madam Chair, if I made my apologies. Before a motion is made, did we do public comment? I'm sorry. I know there's been a lot of discussion. Yeah, I asked if it was an answer. Okay, just making sure, sorry, there's been a lot of discussion. It's okay. I usually have a checklist here, so I'm going to mark them on, but I didn't. Hopefully I won't butcher this. This is the only second time to try to do this. You've got it. It's one of the nice things about being chairman. I don't have to make a motion. I would make a motion for approval without condition. Move to the variance request for case VRB 26-48 for the property located at 11107 North 51st Street. The site plan presented in the public hearing for an encroachment for the reduction of the setback for the rear yard from 20 feet to 4.9 feet and reduce the rear, reduce side yard setback from 7 feet to 4 feet. The hardship in this case is that the gentleman did not understand, apparently, two years ago, the structure's been built. The only remedy for it now would create an even bigger hardship because he would probably have to tear it down. He is not going to be exempted from doing the permitting, and he's going to have to have that retroactive. So for that reason, I think he has met the criteria of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. When considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the City of Tampa code specific. Second. Further discussion? If not, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion is stated. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Saying? Okay, your motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you so much. Next. Good evening, board. Marla Tricota with development coordination. Let me zoom in on those. So the next case on the agenda is BRB-2661. The property owners are Cameron and Brittany Brown. The property address is 4224 West Barcelona Street. The zoning is RS100, Residential Single Family 100. The request is to change the rear setback for the pool from 5 feet to 3 feet. The applicable code section for that request is 27-290.3. Swimming pools and 1A in-ground pool deck and water level designed to be at or within 12 inches of the finish grade. Swimming pools shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from any side or rear lot line and no closer to the corner line than the corner yard setback. Established in section 27-156 table dash 4-2 for the underlying zoning district as measured from the water's edge. Previous actions on this address are BDE 26-044-5518 was the demolition of a home. SPR 26-00017 was a site review permit for the new home. And BLD 26-0519-591, the permit for the construction of the new home. So for development and review comments, natural resources had 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 code sections of Chapter 27 of the City of Tampa Code and City of Tampa Tree and Landscape Technical Manual are met. Transportation had no objections. Wastewater, water, and right-of-way all had no objections. Stormwater had no objections. There's not much room on the property sides to allow surface to drain out of the site. Add note to site plans stating all roof runoff will be routed to the right-of-way via gutters and downspouts. Proposed bubblers are required to be kept on site. Add construction notes. No runoff shall be directed to the adjacent properties. Add construction note to site plans stating development shall comply with the City of Tampa Stormwater Technical Standards, Chapter 21 of the City of Tampa Code, and add current flood zone information, including FEMA for mandate. Antigo had no objections with conditions. Here's the criteria. 2780 for variance review board. Scroll down. Okay, so site plan. Zoom in here so you can see the request. So around here it shows the three feet foot setback request from the pool to the property line. So this is the same site plan showing the request. And then here we have the whole lot so that you can have an idea of the property as a whole. Can you leave that on there for a second? This one? Our plan is so tiny. Do you want me to zoom in on this one? I think we're good right now. Okay. So this was a memo from TECO. Before work commences, the general call 8-1-1. Before pulling electrical firm, please contact one source. So nothing special. And that resumes our presentation. We're available for any questions or concerns. Cameron Brown, 4224 West Barcelona Street. And I have been sworn in. I'm here requesting a variance to reduce the rear setback for an accessory pool. The hardship is this is an RS100 zone lot. It's only 5,000 square feet. This mismatch creates a significantly constrained rear yard that does not conform to other RS100, 10,000 square foot lots. And it leaves insufficient space to build that accessory pool. The hardship is not self-created. The lot and zoning existed before I moved in 10 years ago. And the variance will not interfere with neighboring properties. The pool will remain fully enclosed. The pavers, the drainage, everything will be permeable. So, you know, we're going to satisfy that through the building process. And the request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. It is a minor site-specific adjustment for an accessory residential use already permitted in rear yards and does not change density, intensity, or neighborhood character. And, fifth, granting the variance will result in substantial justice. Denying a two-foot reduction on this undersized lot would prevent reasonable use of rear yard, while approval imposes no public burden and allows the property to function comparable to similar residential lots. I have included this survey. The site plan got renderings recently from the pool company of what it would actually look like. So I respectfully ask that the board approves the variance setback. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, it does. Okay. Questions from the board? Yes, sir. So you've lived at the property for 10 years? Yeah, 10 years. In this particular house? No. So the house that was there was a 1950s build, like 1,300 square feet. As my family has grown, we probably took two years looking to potentially move and then decided over the last year to draw a plan so it looks like. And then we went through the process of getting the approval to build on site. Okay. So this will be a new property. So I just want to be clear. When you talk about hardships that you've lived on the property in the house, this house has not existed for 10 years. So the property was reconfigured for your house, correct? It's going to be reconfigured for the new house, yes. Okay. So what stage is the house? Is it finished? It is not finished, no. It is in foundation right now. Okay. And why wasn't the pool included originally in your design? It was included in the designs. So this went for a permit and was flagged? I don't believe the pool permit has been filed yet. No, the pool permit has not been filed. Like, you know, maybe out of order, out of sync of going through things, but went through all the building permitting, and we got that approved. And now to not hold up the project because it's already been over a year and a half of planning and permitting, that, you know, I made the decision to move forward and then seeking to get the approval now for the pool. An option that we could have gone with was to try and change the variance for the front setback to move the house forward, but that would have been out of alignment with, you know, the existing homes in the neighborhood that all fall the same setback. Okay. So you had a personal plan for the pool, but that was not part of? Yeah, we could probably say it that way. Okay, but that was not part of the original permitting? Not the permitting for the house construction? Right. That was not inclusive of the entire project. You have not filed for a permit for the pool yet, right? We have not filed a permit for the pool, no. Okay. No, no, no. So I will say this. The pool has not been, it's not under construction. It is the house is under construction. So as far as the house construction, it's been demoed. We have a foundation. The space behind the house is just there right now. So if you get this variance, are you also planning to do an enclosure? No. No, I will. If we granted this variance, would you be adverse to us putting a condition that there is no enclosure? Absolutely. I do not want one. I had an existing pool on the property that I had to take out due to the layout of this house, and I had no cage. I do not want a cage. Okay. Okay. So why didn't you plan this pool so you don't need the setback variance? That's what made it difficult. We explored several plans to try and maximize the space that we need for the growing family, and it is very difficult on a 5,000-square-foot lot. You know, we ended up with plans and reconfigured things inside, but as far as the front setback and even side setbacks and rear setback, it made it very challenging to try and capture everything. So, you know, if we were to have moved the back of the house forward and had a smaller footprint, it probably would have put us in a position where it's not going to work and we have to eventually move somewhere else. And it's hard to see the plan. I mean, this is what it looks like on my drawing right here, this little stamp. So what is the front yard setback now? I don't know if I can. All right, you got it. Yeah, I mean, how do I just put it down here? Okay. So you're asking what the setback is from front to back. It's, I think, 25 feet is what it's saying here. That's the front of property. That's your front, right? Yeah, this could be the front. So this is Barcelona. This is the side street Hubert. So the front setback is 25 and then the back we have, you know, around 15 feet. Okay. Can you scoop that up just a little bit further so I can see the back part of it? Like this way or this way? Other way. You are going the right way. I'm going the right way. Keep going. Keep going. There you go. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. So even now the setback doesn't meet the requirements on that backside? For an accessory pool, I think it's a five-foot setback. No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 14.77 for the rear yard setback. Yeah. So there was a modification, not on his doing, to the corner. So realistically, the corner should actually be increased to what it is today. This is what was approved under the BLD. I can't, I'm not going to comment on that. But with a corner lot on an RS-100, you have a 25-foot front, a 15 or a 12-foot rear, and then a 15-foot corner. This was constructed with a seven-foot side or seven-foot corner, probably due to the limited size of the lot. But the increased setback of the 25 pushed the house down to the 14.77. Can I ask you one more question, Stephen? Of course. Okay. So regardless of its zoning, the lot is what it is. Of course. It's basically RS-50 in size. So would that setback conform to an RS-50 setback? So an RS-50 setback would be 20-foot in the front, 20 in the rear, seven on the sides. So it would be, if we were splitting, we're at 25.10. So if we reduce that by 5-foot, 5.1 feet, he would be at 19.97. So he would be at 0.03 off. So in other words, if he was allowed to build on the property as not, regarding the underlying zoning, but the actual parcel, he could actually do this in conformity by moving the house up a little bit and not having the variance. That is correct. If he was in an RS-50 district, but he's not. But if he was, then yes. He would shift this up. He would have 20 feet in the rear, accommodate the two feet, I guess is the question. So the code is different for a pool at five feet where you could do an accessory structure at three feet and no problem. That is correct. Yeah. Because pools are measured by water's edge for safety. They like that extra separation. Make sure your neighbor doesn't fall in your pool. This looks like one of those lots where they split it in half and sold off the other side of it. Oh, yeah. So this one, though, historically was this size, like per the original plat. It's like this house that's had on it. And then it was overlaid with the RS-100 during the major zoning changes. There's a leftover. There's a leftover. I sit on two lots that are actually RS-60, but they're only 50-foot wide lots. Yeah. That's how they were originally laid out. It doesn't conform. Never did. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Is there anyone here to speak for or against? No one? Do you want to add anything to your presentation? Not at this time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Close public hearing and hear from the board. Guys, I'm having a hard time seeing how to build this house. Could have done a little bit of thinking ahead. Hey, we want a pool. Exactly. To me, the hardship is a corner lot. It's mis-zoned. For whatever reason, it's not zoned correctly for the size of the lot. So the hardship is pretty apparent when it's trying to put a reasonable-sized house. His house is not oversized. I'm not saying that. But even on a corner lot, seven feet is not enough on a side. The size of his lot. He could house up five feet, but he could have plenty of space for a pool. I don't know. Definitely. I think the setbacks due to his zoning. Yeah. I mean, things have been kind of been done a little bit reverse. Yes. I mean, it would have been great if he was all, but I understand. I think he didn't need a variance to build where he did. He would. So he built without a variance, which is good that he'd have to get a variance for that, but now it puts him in an apartment to put a pool in. He's got a variance. Right. I don't think he's asking for very much. It's two feet. It's going to where an accessory structure would be. I think he's also going to have to be issued when he goes to getting his permit for permeability. I do, too. Yep. Just due to the size of the lot. Yeah, we're just saying. We're just dealing with a setback. Yeah, we're not giving him a permit. He still has to go through. He still has to. Yeah, he still has to go through permitting. And he doesn't mind not putting it. Yeah. Making it a. He doesn't. He has no desire for an enclosure. My kind of guy, because I don't like him either. Okay. Yeah, but if he ever sold the house and the next guy wanted a screen to it. That's their problem. You need a variance. Then they're going to need a variance. That's their problem. A variance on a variance. Okay. I'll put someone ready to make them. All right, I move the variance request for case VRB 26-61, located at 4224 West Barcelona Street, as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing, for a reduction in rear yard setback for an accessory pool from 5 feet to 3 feet, the following conditions, that the pool never be enclosed with a screened structure. So that variance as condition be granted based upon the applicant presenting competence, potential evidence for the record, for the public hearing of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code, specifically that it's an irregular sized lot in a zoning that it is in. It is, the house was built within the zoning, leaving him, unfortunately, with not enough room in the back. And it's a corner lot as well, which also increases the hardship. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Pass is 4-2. Thank you for your time. We'll take a quick recess while our attorney is out. Okay. I'm sorry? Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Five-minute recess. Make the motion. A motion for recess? Yes. Okay. Motion for five-minute recess. Five-minute session. Anyone opposed? No. Five minutes. Thank you. The last motion, was it within the condition or not? Yes. It was within the condition. It was. Good evening board, Marla Tricoche, Development Coordination. The next item on the agenda is BRB 2677. The owners are Brian and Kelly Brelia. The property address is 4337 South Coolidge Avenue. The zoning is residential single-family RS60. The request for the variance is to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. The applicable code section is Section 27290 for accessory structures. For RS-150, RS-100, and RS-75 districts, there shall be a minimum separation of 10 feet between principle one accessory structures on the same zoning lot. For all other districts, the minimum separation between the principle one accessory structure shall be 5 feet. For all districts, a covered walkway open, at least two sides, may be attached to the principle structure, and the required separation shall be the distance measured between the vertical plans established from eaves to the ground. See Diagram 6-1. Principle and accessory structures shall not be connected by any type of enclosed passageway or room addition, and meet principle structure setbacks. The previous action, there was a permit for a BTR 250615095, which was for replacement of windows and doors. For the comments, natural resources had 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 had no objections with conditions. Transportation has no objections to the requested variants. At permitting, please revise the site plan to clearly show two paved parking spaces and the proposed concrete driveway apron within the right-of-way providing access to the new garage. Please also address the existing driveway apron configuration. The property currently appears to have two driveway aprons, which does not comply with Section 22315. Based on an Ariel Street imagery, the original front driveway appears to have served a garage that that was enclosed sometime around 2011-2014. Wastewater, water, right-of-way, and stormwater had no objections. Here, this is a criteria under 2780 for variants to review. Here we have a site plan. So, the request is here for the 10-feet reduction in this area. Let me leave it here so you guys can look at that. Let me see if we have another site plan here. Survey. So, this is the survey of the whole property. Here's another close-up of that area where the request is being made for the proposed garage. That concludes our presentation. We're available for any questions or concerns. Real quick, Stephen Eister with Development and Growth. The code section in reference for this variance is 27156. I believe the staff report referenced 27290. The setbacks for an RS-60 lot are 25 feet in the front, 7 feet on the side and corner, and 20 feet in the rear, just to refresh everybody's memory on the RS-60 standards. Hello. I'm Kelly Brelia, 4337 South Coolidge Avenue, Tampa, and I've been sworn in. So, we are requesting a variance for a proposed garage that is part of the addition, but that's the only part that's encroaching on the rear setback, which is 20 feet setback. The current home does not have a garage, and the home sits diagonal. So, it's one of the, the property is a, you know, it's a square property, 100 by 110, but it's one of the properties in South Tampa where the property sits catty corner on the corner. So, that kind of is unique, and so this encroaches on the side that is the setback that is on the left-hand setback. I don't know how, actually, I'll just use this. Sorry, let me use that. Can you see that? So, just this right here is about what encroaches, this corner right here. Everything else is in compliance with it, but that because, and the other thing is, this is 29 feet. You know, our setback's 25, so the property sits back far on the property. If it was set back, you know, up to the 25, we would not have the problem. We actually also, this was, initially, this was finished, and then we were trying to do it without having to get a variance, and then we, we kind of cut off this corner and then made it just a smaller garage there with the architect. We went back and forth, and in the end, this is what we came up with as far as the 10-foot setback. So, it's a 1956 house, it's caddy-core on the lot, which is unique due to the unique orientation, the house which sits far back on the lot, which causes the setbacks to decrease quickly as the house goes back to the rear of the property. In addition, so this is Fair Oaks right here. This is, this is, this is Huber, or Coolidge, sorry. And this is, so at the, right now, at this time, the driveway comes out to Fair Oaks, which is a heavily trafficked road. There's no parking on the street there. On Coolidge, there is, but there's a street sign, so then you've got 15 feet from there, so stop sign. And then, so any, it's, it is a big problem backing out of our driveway. So, that is an addition why we need the garage, hence the, the driveway, to turn around. I think that's, we're trying to keep, you know, the house in the architectural design with the neighborhood and also improve it. We've, we've bought it a year ago, and we've been, between the architect and the variance process, it's been a year, so we're trying to, like, have, request the, the variance. Does that include your presentation? That does. Okay. The only question I have is where they reference the existing driveway apron, and with what you asked about in regards to, or what you were referencing in terms of how difficult it is to back out. Are you talking about expanding the driveway larger than what is shown here on the plan, or moving it? So, maybe later moving it, but not now. I don't, we don't know. So, I don't even want to say that what we're going to do, because this, this apron that was on the side, you're just telling me that I didn't even know that there was a garage that was there, you know, 10, 15 years ago, that there was a demolished garage there. We figured there had to be, because there was an apron there. So, that, that, we want that to go away, that, and it does say that we have to address it. So, we will address it however they tell us we have to address it. Are you here to speak for or against? We have rebuttal time if you'd like. I don't. I just have pictures of what it would look like. That's it. I move that variance request for case BRB-26-000077 for the property located at 4337 South Coolidge Avenue be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a reduced rear yard setback, reduced rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record at this public hearing for an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the hardship criteria set forth in Section 27-80 of the City Code specifically that this is another unique-shaped lot that inhibits the ability to add to the home without a variance. The home sits oddly on the lot, and it is a 1956 home that they are maintaining instead of tearing the property down. Can I motion a second? Can I ask, Brian, can I offer a friendly amendment to that? How do I do that? Oh, okay, okay, never mind. Okay, then I'll second it. Now I'm going to ask to make a motion. Okay, discussion, question? Well, actually, what I wanted to make a friendly amendment to the motion was to address the driveway apron because I didn't hear you address that. And it said in here that it needed to be addressed, didn't it? That's not part of the variance. Oh, it's not part of our variance? Oh, okay, never mind then. Good, because I don't want a decision yet. Oh, that's what I wasn't understanding. Okay, never mind. Okay, let's see. Motion, we have a second. Second. All those in favor of the motion is stated. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. You got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yeah, that's done. Okay, that's when I was looking at that. I was going to let the latest go to ask. Okay, thank you. All right, at least it's on Robert's phone. I'll second. Yeah. Have a meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Marla Tricoche, Development Coordination. The next item on the agenda is BRB 2681. The owner is Lisa Morgan. The property address is 4005 West Cleveland Street. The zoning district is residential single-family RS60. The variance requested is to reduce the required West side yard setback from 7 feet to 3 feet. The applicable code section is Section 27156, Table 4-2, Schedule of Area, Height, Bulk, and Placement Regulations. For RS60, the front yard setback is 25. Side yard is 7. And rear yard is 20. Corner yard is 7. The comments, natural resources had 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 that 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 had no objections. Wastewater had no objections. Water had objections. Water had objections. Per the GIS, there is an existing 2-inch water main running northwest Cleveland all the way north to West Kennedy Boulevard. The run is on the east side of the property. It's unrelated to the proposed variance since it's opposite of the west. However, survey should show an existing utility easement and no construction in the easement. Right-of-way had no objections. Stormwater had objections with conditions. There is existing stormwater facilities within the project area. Existing stormwater structures must be feel located and protected during construction. The existing stormwater system information is available online. They need to show the current flood zone information and the properties within the City Stormwater Advisory List. So, the design must be reviewed by the City Stormwater Engineering Section during the building permit review. No stormwater design is being approved. With this permit, the variance review board is approved upon the BLD permit approval. So, roadway drainage shall comply with the City of Tampa Stormwater Technical Standards, Chapter 21 of the City of Tampa Code. This is the criteria under 2780 for the variance review. So, here we have the site plan. In this bright green, like neon green, you can see the proposal of where the 7 and then the proposed 3-foot setback line would be for that side. Setback request. The survey of the property. So, the request would be for this side here of the reduction. We have some pictures. Zoom out. Different elevations of the property. This would be the side. Picture. So, here, let me zoom in so you can see that a little better. If I'm not mistaken, I think they had shown, like, another property, too. Let me go back up here. I want to see. I'm sorry, what is this one? Because that's what I think they had shown, like, a picture of another property that they had done something somewhere that they had included here. You have it here. Okay. Yeah. This will conclude and then she can address that picture because I wasn't sure if that was another property. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Lisa Morgan, 4005 West Cleveland Street, and I am the applicant. And I did want to make some clarification. Mr. Mesa from the Water Department actually withdrew his objections. Yeah. I'm sorry, were you sworn in? What? Oh, yes. Have you sworn in? Yes, I have been sworn in. Apologies. So, yeah, this is an approximate 2,000-square-foot, two-story residence with a, built probably about 40 years ago, and trying to maintain the existing architecture. Unfortunately, it only has a single car garage that has an 8-foot opening and 9-feet interior, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to get out of the car on one of the sides. And the photos show that. And this was a preexisting structure, site configuration, nothing created by the proposed applicant. There's also no other place to position a proper garage. And if you go down to the neighborhood for where I am at, all the way to lowest, which is approximately three, I believe that's three or so blocks, it is all two-story, I mean, two-car garages with two, you know, with the, you know, the driveways two cars thick. So this is the only one that has this configuration. So that is, and currently the Cleveland Street is very busy, and there's even, as you can see, there is a, they put a speed bump up, and they also did some road work on Kennedy, which has caused an increase in traffic. So if you don't have proper, an actual parking space to park in interior, there's parking on the street and other things that are causing, causing difficulty. And so, yeah, so I'm just, you know, seeking a variance to allow me to convert this obsolete carport into a functional garage, giving it, you know, a couple more feet will enable an eight-foot, you know, go from an eight-foot to a ten-foot garage door, as well as provide at least 12 feet interior so you can actually fully open the doors. And then if you'd like me to explain any of the... There were some pictures that... Yeah, yeah, yeah, Stephen, if you could... Thank you. Okay, you can either do that or do these, whatever way you... Oh, we can, we could go there, I could, so the... Yeah, that's somebody else's house. Yeah, this is, this is a variance two, two blocks down that was approved by this body. And that one, they had a two-car garage, yet it was on the, the prior garage was on the side entrance. So even though it was a two-car garage and everything, this was granted in their setback. I think they were provided 20 feet to 3 feet, and that is their, what resulted from their garage. And that was there, so, and then above, that's my, that's my little, that's my little garage. That makes more sense to you. Yeah, yeah, you're like, why is she trying? Why was it no way in the house? Yeah, and then this is the speed bump right in front of it, and that's with people, there's no place to park except right there. So if you have two cars there with a single car, with a single driveway, people are parking in the, in the lawn, on the street, which is not, not safe. So at least adding more width to the driveway there and making the garage bigger will allow us to get one car back into the, back into a garage. What is that behind the garage? Oh, that is a storage area that's pre, pre-existing. So it's storage and, but it doesn't go through, it doesn't go through. There's a, it's a wall, I should say, and enclosed. But it's the same width. Do you know when the home was built? I believe it's 1986. Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Is there anyone here to speak for or against? Would you like to add anything before we close it? Close the public hearing and hear from the board. Fires. I agree. I'd like to move that variance request for case VRB 26-81 for property located at 4005 West Cleveland Street be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at the public hearing for a reduction in the side yard setback from 7 feet to 3. It's based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence of the record in the app is building during unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty concerning the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code. Specifically that this road is a heavily trafficked road, especially with the medians that have been installed in Kennedy. There is minimal street parking due to the installed speed bumps in front of the home. The home was built in 86 and was not originally designed with the garage. The one that is there is not large enough to fit a car and open the doors. Second. Further discussion? Call a question. All those in favor of the motion to stay at the same time, say aye. Aye. Opposed, likewise? Okay, motion passes. Six. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good evening, board. The next item on the agenda is VRB-26-86. The applicant is Sean Daniels. The applicant is not available. The property address is 3924 West Palmera Ave. The zoning is residential single-family RS100. The request is to reduce the rear yard corner setback from 15 feet to 4 feet for a swimming pool. Swimming pools in ground are within 12 inches of finished grade. Swimming pools shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from any side or rear yacht lot line and no closer to the corner lot line than the corner yard setback, established in Section 27156. Table 4-2, for the underlining zoning district as measured from water's edge. And then Section 27156, Table 4-2, schedule of area bulk placement regulations, RS100. District setbacks are 25 feet from the front, 12 feet from the rear, 7 feet from the sides, and 15 feet from the corner. Natural resources had no objections with conditions. Transportation, wastewater, water right-of-way had no objections. Stormwater had no objections with conditions. The lot is very narrow, and the pool area is blocking the runoff from draining out of the site. The proposed grading of the pool deck and surrounding areas must collect runoff on-site and convey it to the right-of-way via on-site downspouts. No runoff shall be directed to adjacent properties. Add a construction note to the site plan. Development shall comply with City of Tampa Stormwater Technical Standards, Chapter 21 of the City of Tampa Code. Add current flood information, including FEMA firm and data code. No objections with conditions, and you can see the attached TECO memo. So this is the submitted site plan for the site, showing the existing house, setback 32 feet, with a 36-inch tree in the front, has a detached garage, then has a 28-inch tree in the rear. The pool is located on the side yard here, 4 feet from the corner setback, and then 15 feet. This is the hardship criteria that the applicant will go over. Make sure there's additional information. This is the current survey of the site, showing the two-story residence, with the tree in the rear, or in the front and the rear. This shows the pool, located between the house and the garage. And then this is a photo of the house, and the garage, showing the location of the pool to fall between those two structures. This is just a different angle, and as you can see, the property is totally fenced in. This is what the rear yard is, and the location of where the pool would be located. The highlight, showing that area once more. And then an aerial photo, showing how the two trees and where their canopies are located. This site is actually one I'm familiar with. I worked with the homeowner about three years ago, or just one year ago, about adjusting the house back, because of the grand tree in the front. And this was the result of that action, showing the house a little bit further setback compared to its neighbors. Hi, I'm Sean Daniel. I reside at 3924 West Palmyra Avenue, and I've been sworn in. With that being said, I actually have a very similar condition to the gentleman that spoke earlier. I think he was fourth in line. I live on a zoned district. So my house is currently zoned for an RS-100, but it's a 5,000-square-foot lot. It was a lot that was split. And as you can see, I have a detached garage here in the back, as well as a specimen oak tree. I believe it's 24 inches in diameter. And I have from that oak tree to the back of my porch, I have a covered porch here, is roughly 20 feet. And then from that porch to my lot line is roughly 10 feet. So I have no location. I would have five foot of room, unless I took out the oak tree, to build a pool in the backyard. We've been remodeling the house. We've completely redone the exterior. We've replaced all the siding, the windows, painted. We've redone the landscaping in the front, and we put a pause on the landscaping on the backyard until we determine whether or not we can install the pool. I have three kids, and our wish is to install a pool so they're not watching TV all summer. With that being said, as you can see, this is the only logical spot that I can place a pool. And you can see my constraints with the garage, as well as my setbacks for an RS-100 lot versus a RS-50 lot, which this should be zone 4, as well as the setback of my house from the front edge of the property. That is my presentation. And may I add? Sorry. I purchased the house in August of 24, so I haven't owned it very long at all. And it was built in 87. Porch or something back here I'm not seeing on the line with the red around it? Yep, you can see if I can zoom in. Ah, okay. You can see it right here where my cursor is. It's a covered back porch. I would have to demolish it. Like here's the column that you can see on the right-hand side where it extends out from the house. And that's the garage. That's me standing on the porch. With the column here, you can barely see it standing out. So I'm very pinched in my backyard due to those conditions. If that concludes your presentation, have any questions from the board? No, just to reiterate, I think we went past it pretty quickly, but there is a large oak tree in the backyard. Correct. It's a 24 or 26-inch specimen live oak. So the southeast corner is basically covered with tree roots. Correct. Exactly. Without moving tree, which we don't want to. I had an arborist come out, and he actually inspected it and measured it, told me you have 15 feet from the base of the tree or the trunk. You have to stay out of 15 feet. That's my canopy area. And I have 20 feet to my porch, so that will leave me five feet. Yeah. Is there anyone here to speak for or against? Seeing none, do you'd like to add anything to your presentation? No, ma'am. All right. Then we'll close the public hearing and hear from the board. All right. Then I would like to move that the variance request for case VRB 26-86, relocated at 3924 West Palmyra Ave, to be granted, as depicted on the site plan, presented at the public hearing for reduction in corner yard set, rear corner yard setback? Yes. From 15 feet to 4 feet, based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record and at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in Section 27-80 of the City Code, specifically that this is a house that is 50 feet wide and still resides in an RS-100 zoning district. The original house had to be pushed back due to the large oak in the front, due to the large oak in the rear that we want to preserve. It removes being able to put the pool over in that area, so it leaves only the specific area that's been proposed. The house was built in 87 without a pool, so it's very limiting for where the pool could reside. Second. Yes, sir. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion as stated, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed likewise? Nay. Nay. So it's 5 to 1. Thank you. Have a good night. 7. Moving on to the final two requests here. These are both signed requests. So the first application is VRB-26-87 on 4130 Gandy Boulevard, LLC. The applicant is Addie Mintry, and the property address is 4132 West Gandy Boulevard. The request is to increase building signage from 0 square feet to 4,118.36 square feet. And the applicant will go more detail into that through her presentation. So the code section of reference is 27-289, 6 building signs. Multi-occupancy parcels. One building sign shall be permitted for each establishment with a main door, entrance which faces a public street, or multi-occupancy parcel. Establishment located at a corner shall be allowed one building sign for each establishment which faces a public street. And then size. Maximum allow sign surface for area of each building shall be 1 1⁄4, 1.25 square feet per linear foot of building frontage abutting a public street, excluding parking garages that abut public streets unless otherwise specified. Previous action is BLD-26-0526255, which were for freestanding, wayfinding signs. This site is an industrial park, and I'll show some site plans of that. Natural resources, transportation, wastewater, water right-of-way. I'll have no objections. Stonewater has no objections with conditions. The submitted VRB refers to variants to permit additional wall signage. No stonewater design is being approved. This is the criteria under 2780 for the application of ARN's power. So this is the site plan as it currently sits today. The three buildings that are requesting for the additional signage are the three buildings outlined in red that have no public street frontage. So due to them having no public street frontage, they are not permitted any signage. In addition, because these buildings, the scale of these buildings compared to the surrounding buildings are larger, their signage can be seen from other off-site, like, addresses. So these signs can be seen from this, these parcels, these signs can be seen from this parcel, et cetera, making them non-internal signage because they are viewed from public or from other addresses compared to your malls or other large establishments like that that are totally internal. This is the applicant's breakdown of the square footages, which I have on a larger sheet here below. So this is the breakdown showing the total linear footage of each building times 1.25 and how that, how that math equates out to the 4,118.36 square feet. And the applicant can speak to that more. This is a close-up of the site showing how the signage measurements were getting, was obtained. 721 square feet along this side, 194 along this side, and then again, three more times. So 194 by 721, 192 by 645. And you can see how these larger buildings can be seen from the surrounding smaller scaled buildings. And then here's the applicant's hardship narrative. And that will conclude my presentation. And I will bring up the applicant's presentation. And I'll be available for any comments, questions, or concerns. Hattie Mentri, 13266 Bird Drive, Odessa, Florida. I do need to be sworn in. Do you guys need to be sworn in? Just in case, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. Do you swear to yourself the truth, the hope of the truth, nothing about the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay, again, Hattie Mentri, 13266 Bird Drive, Odessa, Florida. I am here for LBA Logistics and Creative Sign Designs on the Tampa, South Tampa Trade Center, which was a significant redevelopment from the 39.2 acres that was the Macy's Distribution Center. This is now a modern rear load industrial warehouse building with approximately 400,000 square feet. The development also has commercial out parcels that front direct on West Gandy. The three industrial buildings, as Stephen said, is the reason that we are here tonight. Because they are serviced by a network of private interior roads instead of them being public, the buildings aren't allowed building signage by right, though I don't necessarily think that negates them from needing visibility and signage for their warehouse facilities, guests, first responders. So I'll briefly walk you through the overall development, the request, and how we feel that we address the, how the request satisfies the criteria. So this is just the vicinity map to orient us. So it's along Gandy. And here is the parcel map. So we are really looking at this back lot, which is called Parcel 5, how the parcels are laid out. It's Parcel 5 for the redevelopment. Those commercial out parcels front Gandy. And then these, this parcel is the parcels that the industrial portion stands on. So the proposed request, oh, that's a wrong number. So I'm not going to say that. So the proposed request seeks approval to allow wall signage for primary tenant-facing elevations and end cap elevations for buildings A, B, and C, which are the industrial warehouse portions. To the, they are the amount equivalent to what is congruent by right in the city of Tampa building sign code. That totals 4,118.36 square feet. So this is that signage breakdown. So we'll go through what the buildings look like and what frontages are technically counted as the front of those buildings. But building A on the east elevation, the north and south, those are the tenant-facing signs. So this is the math breakdown. So the elevations are calculated based on what their frontage is times 1.25 square feet, which is allowed by the city of Tampa's code by right. So this is how we broke that down. We are also asking for address numbers and logos for each of the buildings, which is an additional 48.36 square feet, which I will show you. That totals just over 4,100 square feet of signage. So as Stephen showed you, these are the site plans. So the frontages that are outlined in red, those are the tenant-facing frontages or the ones that have primary entrances for the tenants. And those are the elevations that we would put signage on. The backs of those are their rear loading manufacturing and, like, warehouse. So we would not put any signage that is, like, permanent signage there other than loading. And then their address number, which is not necessarily permitted. So building A, this is the closest southern industrial building to West Pearl Avenue. So these are the front-facing. And this is about 125,000 square feet, this entire building. Building B is 139, approximately 139. And these red portions are where we would put those. This is just a closer look, again, and then building C, which directly faces Gandy, but it doesn't front Gandy, which is why we're not allowed that signage by right. The red is where we would put that signage. So here's a little bit. It's a splice of the elevations. This is to show you, number one, the logo and address configuration that we're asking for. That's the additional approximately 48 square feet. And then this is also to show you there is a mixture of building signage configuration we would allow. So there's canopies that are over primary elevations. Those end caps would get canopy signs, and then the rest of the buildings have the option to do either building mounted signage above the canopies or the canopy signage, but only kind of those two configurations to ensure that we're maintaining consistency. But the signage would be allowed based on what the tenant frontage would be times that 1.25 that's allowed by code. So the variance criteria, the materials are the written responses are in the request, but just want to quickly kind of go through the criteria with you. First is the hardship is unique to the configuration of the property. These are three substantial industrial buildings within a campus-style development that rely on, you know, these roadways to get to them. And if those were the same as functional roadways being public streets, the buildings would be able to have the signage allocation that we are asking for here today. We're not asking over what if this was, you know, a public road that they would be allowed to have. Second, we don't believe that this is a self-created hardship for the purposes of obtaining additional signage. The private roadway network wasn't designed to manipulate the sign code. It was just designed as part of the site plan approval and functional circulation system for the industrial complex and the redevelopment of the site. The practical difficulty arises because the code subsequently doesn't allow even signage for commercial if it doesn't face or doesn't front a public road. Third, granting the variance will not negatively impact the health and safety. We believe that it will enhance the health and safety because they're proportional to these very large structures. They will be visible for, you know, truck drivers coming to the sites, emergency responders, guests, ride share, that sort of thing. And there's no additional development intensity that we're adding with these not adding traffic, noise, any of that. It's just the signage. We do believe that this is the request is in harmony in the consistency of the overall intent. The sign regulations are intended to balance effective identification and wayfinding with public safety and aesthetics, and we are just asking for what we would be allowed if this fronted a public road. Lastly, we believe that granting the variance would result in substantial justice. These substantial industrial buildings are designed to serve multiple tenants, employees, visitors, delivery vehicles, emergency responders, and clear identification is necessary for the efficient operation of the campus. Without the variance, we effectively wouldn't be able to have any signage opportunity on the building for this. And the economic development, I mean, if you don't have a sign, people don't know you're there. So we believe that granting that corrects the inequity while preserving the city's character and objectives of safety. For those reasons, we feel that it satisfies the requested variance criteria. We respectfully request approval, but I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Yes, ma'am. Questions from the board? Questions because I'm thinking of last month when we dealt with a sign issue in a different area. And what I'm seeing here is 4,100 square feet is an awful lot of space. Now, I understand, if I'm understanding what you presented, that each of these three buildings has multiple tenants. They do. Okay. It just seems like it's going and swinging for the outfield as opposed to something that might be more measured by what you see on other buildings. I'm not sure. I can't say that I've done the math on those. Gotcha. That seems like an awful lot, but I also understand your point about directions, and obviously, if you've got multiple tenants in there, I hate going into a complex and I can't figure out who's where, but this seems excessive. Okay. That's my thought. Okay. So I can answer when you present 4,100 square feet, that for sure sounds excessive. I, even as a sign professional, would gasp at that. And when I did the math, I didn't expect to get that large number. So just for education, I don't know how much you know about the City Tampa sign code. Do you know any? I don't know. Okay. So when a commercial building fronts a street, they are allowed the building frontage, so whatever the length of their building frontage is, times 1.25 square feet. So that is what we are asking here. So while I understand 4,100 square feet is a lot, when you break those down into the individual parcel or individual tenants, which I don't have right now because they're just leasing now. They just finished construction, that that proportionately, I'm not necessarily saying we're going to have a 4,100 square foot sign. It's going to be individual signs that are, you know, maybe 150 or 200 square feet, which I believe and maybe staff can attest is fairly proportionate to a commercial tenant. It's just based on the frontage that they take up and the formula that is allowed by the city. I also think these are significantly set back from Gandy. So I might argue that, you know, so like building C, which is this top building on the site plan, that set back over 200 feet, if not more, probably more. I would actually argue if these, if we weren't here for a variance because we were in this situation with the private roadway, that there is a visibility, there's a visibility hindrance there anyways, because anybody coming onto the property based on, say, if a tenant takes up 100 square feet, that's 125 square feet of signage that they could have. If you design a sign, if you design a sign, it's based on the, you know, the width times the height of the sign. There's a portion of the sign based on what the message is that possibly the letters aren't big enough based on the visibility and the location of the sign to even see that sign, you know, two, three, 400 feet from Gandy. That's not the variance that we're here for, but so I know that it seems excessive, but this is an overall number that will be broken down and it's not in excess of what would be regularly allowed if we were just able to go into permitting when a tenant goes into permitting. They will say, we have a frontage and we take up 100 square feet and we're allowed 125 square feet of signage. So I have a question about your calculations. Yes. You're proposing that the long side of one side and both end caps. Yes. I don't understand if you had that building that was up on. So, so because this, because it would be visible from like lowest and there is visibility on the end caps from the internal circulation, we're counting that if you were an end cap in a commercial setting and these were on public roads, an end cap is allowed to have that signage. So that's what we're saying. It can have signage, but it shouldn't go places. Well, that would be counted as, so that would be circling these buildings. So that's what the frontage is. So am I moving? Can I intervene for just a second? Sure. Because I personally think we're getting in the weeds here. Basically what you are asking for is the signage that the city would, you would not even be here if these buildings fronted public access. But that's what she's saying. If these buildings are fronting right now, private roads, correct? Not public roads. If they were public roads, the calculation, none of this would matter. She wouldn't even be here. So what she's saying is, please give us this variance, right? Because we are not facing public roads. We're facing a private road, and we're not asking for anything in excess if they were facing a public road. That's what they're asking for. I just disagree with the fact that she's asserting that the sides would be on a public road. But they would be. But they would be. They would be if, if this was, if it faces this internal road, if that internal road was calculated as a front, that would be considered a frontage we would be allowed signage on. If you took this building, two sides would not be. If we put it, if we took it to the corner at lowest, it would. Then you'd have one sign. No, we would have two signs. If it was at a corner and it fronted lowest and the parking was fronting lowest, we'd be allowed to have a second sign. Sure. Yeah. So, so here's my question. Part, part of this. If you were, so if you're, it doesn't depict where on the one side facing that. Well, it's broken down, but the variance doesn't break. Yeah. So, so essentially, I mean, as it stands right now, I don't have the leasing structure, but these are going to be individual tenants. These aren't. So if we look at the breakdown here, so we look at the breakdown, say of building C, which is the one that faces Gandhi, the front side of that tenant space, we're not saying that they're going to have 900 square, like one sign is going to be 900 square feet. That's actually not physically possible. Even if one tenant took up the building, it's not physically possible based on how the building is laid out anyways. Like if we go to this elevation, because of how, like these elevation splices, because of how the elevation is built, there's only like these certain sections that you're allowed, you can put signage on anyways. So it would be physically impossible for us to put a 900 square foot sign on anyways. But the fact of the matter is these are going to be tenant spaces. So all of these are? There are directional signs throughout the site, and we did a master sign plan for those. But so those are to, you know, put direct people. Those are wayfinding. They're wayfinding. They're to direct people around. But they don't necessarily tell you this exact location on the building, this is where we are. And does that count towards the square footage? It does not. It's a separate code. Yeah. Well, I can speak to that too, because I did the master sign plan for the wayfinding signs because of how they're situated. We wanted to make sure we addressed those. Because this parcel does have like four entrances with how it's laid out. So each section got its own wayfinding option to show the address numbers or tenants, whatever, on a smaller restricted size. Like they're restricted to a certain height and size. Five feet and height, 32 square feet, 12 inches of copy. So that was done through a separate master sign plan, which, pending the variance, we could do an additional one for the site as a whole if that would be something the board would like to do. Do a master sign plan, distribute all the square footage, and then as the tenant spaces came in for permitting, they'd be restricted to that sign plan since the tenant spaces are not shown yet. So, I'm still stuck on the three sides of the building. To me, it should be on face. You would say that would be fun. Still a lot of signage. There are three buildings. I realize that they're not small buildings, but they're not that big. And I understand what he's coming from if you look at the entire building as one tenant, right? But if you look at, and I know where you're coming. I totally, I mean, like I'm visualizing these very large industrial buildings that are out in Sonota Sasa. Yeah, I mean, if you go by this site, these buildings are huge. That have, you know, Shecky's car service and, you know, a coffee shop. And it's just a giant building that houses tenants. And each one of these tenants is being allotted space for a sign. We're not putting three million square feet of a sign that says go bucks on the side of the building. Each one of these tenants are being allotted signage. I totally get where you're coming from. And I have no problem with this at all. Because there are so many buildings throughout the entire city of Tampa that do the very same thing. The only difference is so many of them front public roadways. These do not, and that's what you're asking for. They don't front a public roadway. So when people do come down there, they need to know, you know, if Unit 101 is Starbucks, that there's a sign that says Starbucks. And they correlate with the wayfinding and what's on the side of the building. I completely understand where you're coming from. Thank you, Mr. You're welcome. This may be for Stephen also, but I have a question about the type of signs. Are these going to be lit signs, electronic signs? So they would not, yeah, so they would not be EMC, like activated signs. But they would be, like, regular channel letters, and they could be illuminated or non-illuminated. Normally in a commercial setting, we see illuminated signs. But it would be up to the tenant to dictate that. And it's a commercial use, which I think commercial allows for illumination. I'm just looking at that maybe side all of a sudden with a 200 square foot sign times nine on the side of the building to get lit up overnight. So I actually, yeah. So based on how, like, lumens are calculated for signage, when you do, like, a lighting or a photometric plan, the lighting is only, it's the brightest at the sign. And the LEDs that are in there are not LEDs that are programmed to project light. They're only encapsulated within the light. So they don't, they're not, like, designed like floodlights. And so if you are not, or if you are more than 25 feet away, that doesn't direct light. So it just, I wasn't prepared with a photometric plan today, and I apologize for that. But that's how a photometric plan from a manufacturer would measure these. And they're not designed to flood light. They're not designed to direct light. So it should not disrupt the neighboring parcels or? It would not. No, actually, like, the parking lot lights, those are brighter than what these signs would be. Yeah. And real quick to adjust the EMC question, they don't have frontage, so they don't get EMC kind of tied to that same thing. So they would. This isn't just all signs. This is a very specific type of sign. Building, standard building signs. No EMC, no special, nothing special. Yep, yep. No, no. Well, you know, people with leverage and their views. Hats off. Hats off to them. No kidding. Of course. What can't be a signage? What I'm thinking is a big, long-sized time gives you 2,600, 2,600, 2,600, 2,600, plus 4,400. If the board is very adamant, I think I would ask for a continuance. I don't, I understand where you're coming from. I don't necessarily think that my client would be amenable to me making that decision for them tonight. But I really feel that that is, so when we're talking, if I can clarify, when we're talking about the end cap signage, those are elevations that have, so this, it's the elevation that is on the left of your screen. So that is glass that's X'd. I'm sure that you know that, working in construction. So the, the signage that is placed on those end caps are soldier-mounted canopy signs. So they're only that large based on what the canopy can be. I think that you're picturing, like, these two very giant signs on the corner. And I can assure you, because of the way that this building is built, and I apologize for not having photos of the actual building here, that, that is just, it's, it's not the case. It can't be because of how the building is built. So are these signs that you are proposing, these are individual? Correct. There's not a sign on the side of the building. This is a building. These are individual. No. So let's take one. Yes. Okay. In building, so how many can go into building? I want to say there is a total of eight tenants that can go in here. Within that building square footage, there are eight tenants. Yeah, I can do this math for you. That's fine. That means that each of the tenants, if they split them up eight, they had equal, they would be allowed 111 square feet. Each one? Yeah. Which would be proportionate. Which is proportionate to the size of the building. Correct. And the size of the location. Correct. Which makes, again, total tenants. Of course. You are so prepared. Thank you. From the audience, if you have any objections, and thank you for your very good representation. Close the public hearing, and hear from the board. I'm concerned about the size, but the more I do visualize the buildings, and the breakdowns, and the units, and the way that they're designed, I just don't see it being a huge issue. I don't think it's going to be these massive, obtrusive, intrusive signs. Like, you know, I'm just trying to think of a retail strip plaza. Those signs are smaller than the front end of the building. Well, those are all different sizes, too. I'm totally on board with granting signage for this, and I think that that's just, I just think, taking it from 900 to 1,400 square feet per building is excessive. But it's not 1,400 square foot. These are in your stands, right? So we, we. But divide that by eight. So, you know, that's going to be almost 200 square foot per. But you also have to look at scale, right? When you are 5 million feet away, how big does that sign look? There's no place on this property you'll be 5 million feet away. You're end up against the building of all these, except for the very front. There is, if you're on. Again, so one of these sides. You wouldn't even be able to see that from you, Andy. No. I mean, 100 square feet, you know, 8 by 12. 10 by 10. 10 by 10, exactly. I'm talking a big. But we also have people that come before us. For a parking lot sign, that's a very big sign. But we also have people that come before us because the sign ordinance in the city is so antiquated that, you know, these buildings that are allowed to have signs are allowed to have a sign that's like 5 by 5. And we're like, no, you can have a sign that's 200 by 200 because that's ridiculous, right? I disagree with the idea of zero. I tend to agree with you that I can see the long linear front having that calculation, which brings it to somewhere between 2,600 and 2,700 square feet, as opposed to almost 4,200 square feet. To me, that's a reasonable compromise. That's not zero. It's giving adequate space. But, yeah, I think it's an overreach to calculate the signs in. I'm not inclined to go there. If you were to board back and said you'd have 150 square feet per user if you had six users of 125 square feet per user if you had eight. Now, granted, you're going to squash eight people in there. I see six bays on here, but you could probably squash them to eight. Fine. But you're doing long, skinny, hollow ends. And that's a big sign for a parking lot sign. And there's only one side that's not a parking lot sign. I understand that. But I also look at the fact, too, that they are not asking for anything the code does not allow, right? I disagree with her interpretation of the code. She is thinking that there would be a street around every single one of these sides. The two sides are not streets. There's not even a sidewalk there. It's a road that you – on this side, it's a dry pond with a roadway on the outside. On that side, you have a sidewalk, but that's an emergency address. And a road – those are going to be the access roads you drive. Right, but you have people that are driving inside this complex, right? Yeah. These very large buildings. I don't have a problem with her putting signs on the signs. If they elect to use some of the frontage of the signs that they're allotted for frontage on the road, you put some of that on the side, they're going to have the freedom to do that with whatever we grant them for square footage. I just personally don't feel that the amount of square – I mean, we're looking – I think the focus is on 4,000-some square feet. I think we're not looking at this as the division of that three very, very large buildings, and that number gets very small. And that number gets even smaller when you divide it up between all in that building. They're taking the – she's taking the sum of the parts and dividing it. If there are eight tenants in this building, and there's eight in the other and eight in the other, that's 20 – eight times there's 24 tenants. So each tenant gets a little chunk of that pie that she's asking for, and I don't think that – I personally do not find that to be excessive. I think it's – she's a professional, and they know what they're doing in regards to – I would assume that they are basing this on other projects that have been done that are very similar, right? They're not asking for anything in excess. And so I don't have a – I understand what you're saying, but I'm visualizing in my head and the size of these buildings. I just don't have a – they're not asking for 10,000 square foot of signage. They're asking for 4,000 divided among three buildings. They're going from 115 square feet, which is the one long side per user, that eight users, to 170 square feet. So a 17 by 10 side, big side, 10 foot tall by 17 foot wide. I mean, the building's only 100 – it's only 700. I don't even think the facial would support that size. I wouldn't support that size. So cut it in half and do – okay, so it's going to be 20 foot, well, 5 foot tall. But they have – they're asking for the latitude within what they could give if – like, again, if these were on public roads. They're asking for that latitude because they don't know right now, right? They don't know because they're giving these tenants the opportunity. But there's also a structural issue, too, that they can't put a sign that's too big that's going to pull the glass off the front of the building. Correct. If they were on a public building and on a public road, they would have a certain amount of signage, okay? They would be allowed this. But it's not allowed now, and we're sitting there saying and having a debate over do we give them zero, which is what they're currently allowed, or do we give them more? I think on the one hand it's an overreach. I tend to agree with him using the long that we would reduce that, and that's not being unreasonable, and that's not depriving them of the ability to advertise their tenants. What they're asking for right now is approximately 1,400 square feet of signage per building. If you just put that on the long side of the building, it would be a two-foot-tall sign the entire side of the building. But they're not doing that. I know, but that's what they – if they could, they're saying they're not doing that, and I agree that they're probably not going to do it with the facade, but that's not what a variance request is. If we could give them that freedom to do that and override our law to do that, then they could do whatever they want with it. And I don't want to get into details of what they're doing, but by giving a two-foot-by-700-foot-long sign, that's too much. They're over-asking for what they need. Can we reopen the public area? Thank you. Perfect. I'd make a motion to reopen the public area. Second. Addie? Yes. If we continue this, would you kindly bring back a – would you be able to bring back a graphic showing what the structural sign – what would be capable for each one of these frontages to hold, showing that it couldn't technically hold something 700 feet wide without pulling the building? Yes. Okay. I also wanted to clarify that – and I just – I don't want to over-explain this, but I just want to clarify – that we are asking for – we are asking this to be treated as if the internal circulation roadway is public signs. Therefore, if we're taking the interpretation that the front of these roads, the front of the tenants – because if we're getting into the minutiae, so Building B, which is the middle building, has this roadway through it. It doesn't technically face Gandy. C does. But if we're taking the interpretation that the internal circulation, we're going to be calculating that as they were public roads, then the sides would be calculated. If these were public roads, they would be allowed signage. They would be calculated as not the front frontage, but they would be counted as a side frontage. And through the building code, the signage code, they would be allowed signs. I 100%, I will come back with structural – I mean, so to Todd's point, if we designed a 700-foot sign, we could have an engineer put in specialized anchors at any point, and we could engineer it out. That is not the intent of this. And I wonder if you are amenable to a condition on the approval that a master sign plan has to be done with the tenant configuration so that it shows that we're not just doing one large sign for a building. Because I truly don't know. I'm not going to have the direct configuration next month for you. I don't know when that's going to be because these are leasing. So I don't know when the point is I'm going to be able to show what that looks like. But that is – in general, that's not the intent of this. The intent is not to dupe you and to get a 500-square-foot sign. Well, yeah, that's a discussion I had with Stephen. It's like we need to know – based on the right, we have to know what the signage is because you have to go into the variance having an ask. Like you have to do that. And it's just whatever is allowed by right. And I agree with you on the side of the building. I don't know if you sign a door across it, which means where if you decide to have a corner unit, they could split it between the corner and the side. Totally fine. Well, they're not – under the city of Tampa code, they wouldn't have to split it. Those elevations are calculated on their own. If they were – Correct. But that's how – but that's the interpretation we're taking here is if we're talking about the internal roads counting as public roads, then that's what we're looking at. So if you took the Walmart that's shown on the left side of that, you use the same logic, which actually has a road going down that's actually a real road down one side of it. Lois. That's Lois, right? So they could – they also have a road on the other side with parking on it, just like your property. And then there's a road in the back, which is a truck road, but that's also a road in the back. You could say that if you calculated that, you take all four sides of that Walmart, multiply by 1.25, and you could get that much square footage of signage. Well, no, because that would be – well, I think with that ask, you would be asking in access to by right. We are coming here asking you – we're not allowed anything by right, and I don't think that that is to the advantage of the economic development when somebody is trying to bring this many jobs to Tampa. You need the advantage and you need a lot of it, but I think 4,000 is too much. I think 2,600 or 2,700 is – that's my point. Because I think you shouldn't take the sides as part of that calculation. I don't think there's any situation that I've seen where all three sides of that building would be a public roadway, unless it was a full city block, which is a very large building, much larger than these buildings. There are big buildings, but they're not that big. All right. Yeah. Go ahead, Rick. I'm sorry. You're good. I think – I love this. This is my favorite part of it. I think I would have an easier – okay, if – okay, I understand you're going to have multiple tenants, and right now you don't know how – okay. But if you – some tangibly show us in this, like, here is our – what we're allowing for each business. Here's the approximate sign that's going to be put on each tenant business. I would have a much easier time than this huge number, okay? Okay. In other words, if you came in and said, you know what, each tenant, we're going to allow them to put on the building, you know, a 10-by-20-foot sign, okay, in front of their business. You know, then that gives me something that's tangible as opposed to this huge number, which I think is excessive, okay? And that's what I'm having a hard time getting my head around. But if you had something that was tangible, I think I would probably have an easier time understanding this. So maybe a visual picture or rendering of the whole faces of the building sides or whatever and what it might look like to cover the 4,000 square feet. It doesn't have to be something you want to guarantee what it is, but put blocks in. This would be the signage that would be – I don't know that you guys have done that study yet about what – I think you're just asking for everything you can get. Yeah, I mean, by right, we are. I mean, that's what – because we're not allowed anything by right, we're asking what would be allowed by right. I mean, I really am not trying to dupe you here. I don't believe you are. I mean, you know, just doing basic math, 24 tenants dividing into that, right, that's a 13-by-13 sign, give or take, right? 13-by-13 is 169 square feet, right? Times 24, you're at 4,056 square feet. That's a 13-by-13 sign. 50 feet. But that's to say that they use 13-by-13. Right. I mean, that's the other real-life – like, that's the other real-life expression of this here. Go ahead. So it sounds like there is a discussion about this signage and down, and a few ideas address that. One is the condition that Ms. Mentri had mentioned, and so did Mr. Eister, about conditioning the approval on a master sign plan as well. The other is, as it sounds like, you know, the app here today is willing to do a continuance as well to come back to bring some visuals as well. And per our rules of procedure, if it is continued tonight, it would not be a 30-day continue, but a 60-day continue. And so it would give them about two months to come back with some more visuals. You know, that sounds like some of the options that have been presented before you today, if you do not feel like you have enough information to take. You'd like to do it. I mean, I would not like to be continued for 60 days because, I mean, this has been going on for like a year and a half. But, also, I'm not sure. I mean, I'm sure of some temperature, but not, and I don't want to be denied. Are you, I mean, are you amenable to the condition of the master sign plan so that we show that there's not going to be a 700-square-foot sign on the building, and it shows the configurations of the tenants, and that's a condition, and we don't get a building permit if we don't meet that master sign plan? Stephen, is that even logistically feasible? So how the master sign plan would work. So when these elevations originally came in, it would, the signage square footage would account for everything they're posing on the building. So, say, if the address numbers are larger than what's permitted by code, it gets converted to signage square footage. Each building could be laid out like you're asking for now. Say they have the 16 tenants or 21 tenants, however many tenants are in there. That number would then be divided up by that number with a square, and say that square would be the envelope they would have to work within as they go through permitting. The master sign plan goes through review, then gets recorded with the clerk, and then that will apply to each building permit that comes in, each build-out that comes in after this request. Typically with these, we don't have to do a master sign plan following the variance because we have the exact number of signs, the leasing numbers, all of that information already. Because this project is kind of still going through that phase, I feel like we could do that. And then if we see that there's not an equal distribution based off of the conditions you place here, if you say, yes, we'll grant you this sign, and it'd be distributed across the tenants, then we could then document all the future signage for the tenants. Would the master sign plan take into account fronts of the buildings versus the sides of the buildings? It would not. That would be up to them to distribute. Is that something that would you be interested in as part of the condition, the master sign plan, only take into account the frontage of the buildings for the frontage signs and the sides of the buildings for the side sign? I don't really... Because that would reduce your... I'm not concerned with where they place the signage on the building. I'm concerned with the amount of square footage of signage. I think it is too much. Well, that would reduce the amount that they're allowed on the front versus the amount that they're allowed on the side, which would have to be approved by the master sign plan. This is Laura Marley, zoning supervisor. You would actually have to, for this master plan, you would have to agree on that number, because if you're going to approve the 4100, that would be what the master sign plan would be based off of. So you have to agree on that number for that condition for a master sign, and you would have to direct us to do a master sign plan, because this is not typically how a master sign plan is done. But you have to agree on that number. So if that number is appropriate for you, and you feel like it is, which there's different opinions on that, that's what you have to agree on is that number. And then if you direct us to do a master sign plan, then we can. But again, it's the number that you guys will have to say is appropriate. And if we condition that number as two numbers, total side versus total front, that would be sufficient? I mean, yes, you could say it's just the front, or you could do the front and side. But remember that per code, they're allowed zero currently. So they are asking for the 4100. So it's based on what you are asking for with that master sign plan, the number, what dimensions you want to do, and then direct us to do a master sign plan. I'm just thinking, in lieu of a continuance, if we break this down into a frontage number and a side number, and include the master side plan, would that alleviate some of your stress about the size of the signs? That's not my concern. Unfortunately, it's not my concern. I'm not concerned where they put it on the building. I'm more concerned with the amount of square footage assigned. It's just too much. I realize there are big buildings, but they're not. That's also my concern. I could care less where they put them on their building. It's the amount of square footage strikes me as being excessive. To me, I would rather give them a lower square footage and tell them, you have carte blanche. Put it wherever you want on those three buildings, as opposed to— I guess my question to you then is, so if you're going to come up with a number, how are you basing that number, right? Are you basing it on as a board member or as a sign professional? I mean, that's my only problem is they've done their homework, right? They know exactly what they're asking for, and Addie comes with me all the time, very prepared, very everything. She does great. And she knows, and I trust that she knows what she's asking for. I don't feel that I'm qualified to tell them what square footage— How big are these buildings, my dear, each one of these buildings? I have the, like, well, I mean, are you looking like floor plan? Square footage. So the B and C, that mirror, are $139,000, and the A that's closest to Pearl is $125,000. Okay, and how tall are they? Do you know? Forty, fifty? They're huge. Fifty, yeah. They're huge. They're huge, yeah. But they're smaller than a Super Bowl scheme. I think they're bigger than—I mean, respectfully, I think they're bigger than that. These are huge buildings, and so, like, I'm a scale kind of guy, right? Like, I can see—I'm a scale kind of guy. I can see scale, and I can see that these buildings are massive, and I can see that from a scale perspective, a 13 by 13 sign, a 12 by 12, it's not that big. I also think, like, just a point for the sides, like I said, they are really limited to this canopy. So while we are asking for that X amount of signs, there is some limitation there. And also, say you're turning onto Pearl, or you're coming from Gandy, and you're coming around the internal circulation to Building B, that—the sides of the buildings are the first signage that—signs that you're going to see. Not all of the—the tenants are going to fit on the wayfinding signs just based on how the square footage and the limitation on the copy that they're allowed. And so I think it just provides wayfinding and provides visibility to the proportion of what the building and the tenant spaces are. I think that, you know, that's the reason that I said—to me, that's what I'm looking at. My issue is just the amount of square footage that's being devoted to it, and we have differences, obviously, of opinion, but I would not want to give you a straitjacket that says you can only put this much on this side of the building and this much on the long side. Not true. That's delicious. I totally— You're a new chef. Yeah, I understand. No, yeah, I understand. You can kind of get in half. Right. Yeah, so I totally understand. You can divide by however you want. I would echo Brian's sentiments that, like, how do we calculate? Like, how do we base that? I mean, what's the basis? Because I know we're not here for this variance tonight, but these signs are—they're at least on Gandy. Let's take Building C, for example. These are 200, 300, 400 feet from Gandy where the entrance is, and they have commercial outparcels in front of them. So if we're talking about—and I'm not prepared with this tonight because I didn't think I'd have to talk to it, but I often bring the U.S. Sign Council letter height chart to you based on—so that's based on a design of this, you know, a letter that's 5 inches, 6 inches, 7 inches, based on the speed of the road or when you're entering and how far you are, what the distance that you're able to have those signs. So I just—I echo Brian's sentiments about if you—I understand where you're coming from. I respect where you're coming from. I just—where—how do we pull that number, and how can we ensure that the tenants that move in here, they're going to have that adequate visibility if we just pull a number not based on the proportion or the frontages that the tenants have? Yes, because we have to give them something to work with. I mean, I feel—I don't want to—I just don't— 2,700 square feet is a lot to work with. Yeah, so, I mean— I just said 2,700 square feet. So we were building that big. So I will put it this way. I'm good with 2,700 square feet. I'm not good with the 4,100 square feet. And I'm not saying that I couldn't—I might be changed by some more graphics and some understanding of what that is, but I feel like I'm pretty—my profession, I'm pretty good at spatialization, and that's a lot of square footage for a sign for each one of the units, especially if you're dividing by 8. You get 90 linear feet per unit across the front of it, and you're getting 176 square feet for each unit. I mean, that's a 17 by 10 for each unit. That's a lot, where we would be talking about 120 or 115 per unit, which is still a lot. It's a fairly big sign, depending on how you want to configure it. Yeah, I mean, everybody has a different brand standards and things. So, like, they maybe could—if we divided it, say, the 700 by 8, and they get 112, some people might not be able to get 112 based on what their font and the length of their sign is. But you get to make and borrow from that pool, depending on how you want to—that's part of the leasing agreement with the leasing. If you want to say—you can make it a rule that they'll get 115. That's an equity, right? That's an equity. But that's up to you. You can say the people in the front get more, and you give less to the people in the back because they don't need it because they're not facing get. I'd be careful. But that's up to you. I'd be very careful to go down that route. Yeah, I mean, that's, like, why I gave—I mean, that's why I gave this breakdown because I don't—I don't just want, like, a—I mean, respectively, I don't just want a pool and have to pick and choose. That's why I did the breakdown to show, like, this is what we would be allowed by right, and I don't want to ask for anything excessive. It sounds like we should probably have a continuance. I mean, I don't necessarily love that option. You may have a four to two vote. I'm only one vote. I mean, yeah, but I don't want to— I will 100% vote yes. Yeah, but I don't want to—like, I don't want to be denied and then have to, like— I understand that, too. —you know, deal with— I do. Deal with—that's, like, a poll thing, you know? I do. Um, so I think probably a continuance is the best bet. I mean, no, it's okay, but I am—I mean, we'll come back and we will show you. I can guarantee you that our request is not going to change. The square footage isn't going to change, but what we will do is I'll ensure— Yeah, can we pull—can we pull the board? Okay. I mean, if I can tell you, right, right, do you have any questions or discussion? And everyone's like, let's just do this, let's just do this, let's just—and everybody says that. What's the difference? Tyler, what's the difference? I think our attorney is looking— Yeah. He's the professional. If I may have a moment, please. Can we do a—just kidding, just kidding. This is a first. I've never asked this question, so I'm interested. I really didn't—I didn't mean to keep you here until 9 o'clock. When Addie came along, the lady of the sign, next time, Addie, just roll a sign in here. You know what I'm saying? Come in on a sign. I will bring, yeah. With somebody pushing you in on the sign you guys proposed for Busch Gardens. That would be lovely. Perfect. I just want to make sure I understand the question correctly. What you're asking for is not a motion for a roll call vote, but rather just polling. Yes, the board. Yes. While we typically can do motions for roll call votes, which would individually require each of you to say your vote. We're putting you in a— That would be fine. Yeah, I don't want to— That's why you make the big one. It's a very intricate question regarding Robert's rules. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's not like polling the jury. Yeah. There is nothing directly saying you cannot state your opinions as a board member in discussion. I would caution the board in making any motions to compel individuals to share their opinion because that can also be demonstrated by calling for a vote as well. True. But we could go back in— Yes, in discussion, which typically, as board members will at times share their opinion. Yes. That is a lot. I think that— But we can't compel. No. I'm not forcing anybody. Nothing. Nothing. I just put that on the record. Okay. So, are we even close up all of it here? Oh, yeah. So, okay. Well, do we need to— So, if we do a— Here's the thing. We can bring so that it's part of the question. Did I answer for more? Well, we go into discussion. And again, we don't— No one has to give their opinion. We don't want to. No. No one has to give an opinion. That's okay. There are three of us, I think, that have put out our opinions, and that's okay. And three of us that are either on the fence or just— That's right. That's right. And that's what she's questioning. Which— But she also has the right— But the problem is, Just so we remember, 3-3, unfortunately, doesn't pass. I know. So, you're already on the board. I'm leaning towards thinking that we need to do this. Yeah. Let's— For Ms. Metri, I know that's not ideal, but I think— Is that what you would like? I think it's slightly— It's not necessarily what I would like, but if it helps the case, and if— When I present these, it helps Ruck and Todd become more comfortable, then I would rather that. But I would rather ensure that I present you and you feel comfortable voting. You do a great job presenting things. I'm sure you could probably convince me. Right now, what I see, I just—I can't—do you understand my position? I do. Well, if I may, I don't mean to interrupt the passionate discourse about signing. You know, I try and have manners. You're the one that doesn't have to have manners. That's what they say. So there's a lot of discussion surrounding this application. It seems like there are certain questions that board members would like to have answered a bit more thoroughly, although, you know, as thoroughly stated, you know, Ms. Metri, you've done a great job presenting and answering the questions today. I think a continuance would be the best course of action at this time, and that would be my recommendation rather than taking this to a fair. Okay, so close the public hearing, hear a motion from the board. I would move that we continue case—is there an official, like, reading for the continuance? Oh, that's another issue we need to discuss, isn't it? It would be continued for at least 60 days per our rules of procedure. October 13th, I believe, is that hearing. And if the board needs any sample motion language for a continuance, I believe— That's right. Perfect. I move that the variance request for case VRB 26-88? No, 87. 87, excuse me. 26-87, located at 4130 Gandy Boulevard. 32. 4132 Gandy Boulevard. I'm messing this up all over the place. All right, let's start over. I move that the variance request for case VRB 26-87, located at 4132 West Gandy Boulevard, for—I'm sorry, with a variance for signage, allowable signage, be continued to the October 13th, 2026, at 5.30 p.m. Second. Any further discussion? Call the question all in favor of the motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, likewise. I guess we'll see you back in October. I always love coming here. You're so funny. Have a good one. Thank you, Addie. We have one more. On to the last item of the agenda, VRB-26-88. The property owner is Slapshot Management Group, LLC. The applicant is Thomas Signs and Awnings, LLC. The property address is 4075 Henderson Boulevard. The zoning is Planned Development. The request is to reduce the freestanding sign setback from 5 feet to 0 feet. The section in reference is 27289.3, Allowable Signs Height Setback. The minimum height of a freestanding sign is at 5 foot setback shall be 10 foot in height, measured from the established grade at the property line. The right-of-way from the closest edge of the freestanding sign. Previous action is BLD-26-0525539 for the illuminated building signs. Natural resources had no objections. Transportation, no objections. Wastewater, water, right-of-way, no objections. Stormwater, no objections with conditions. Projects between 3,000 and 10,000 square feet require retention of half-inch treatment for the entire project area. Please design an on-site area for the required retention system and mark it on the plans. The on-site runoff may be contained on-site. Use roof gutters, downspouts, bubblers to discharge towards the right-of-way. Do not discharge runoff into the adjacent properties. For the site plan of the BLD permit, provided a grading plan with existing and proposed grades directing the runoff into the on-site retention system drainage calculations. Obtain a right-of-way permit for the off-site improvements and submit a copy of the recorded drainage easement to the City of Tampa Stormwater's Engineering Mobility Department. The proposed development shall comply with the City of Tampa Stormwater Technical Standards Chapter 21 of the City of Tampa Code. Tego had no comment as of 7-28-2026. This is the criteria under 2780 for the applications of variance review power. This is the site plan showing the proposed location of the sign. The screen is not picking up, but this red easement line carries forward along the whole mouse cursor all the way out the property. I don't know if it's displayed that way on your screens. Our screens show it correctly. Okay, perfect. Not up there, but down here. Yeah, there it goes. On the left screen, you can see the full easement line, the elevations of the sign. Okay, here's a close-up showing the location of the freestanding sign and the almost zero-foot setback right here along the property. Here's the dimension of the sign showing at nine feet overall height by seven foot in width and a two-foot depth showing Hattrick South Tampa and the address number. The location of the sign will be approximately right here where the mouse cursor is shown. Here's the building currently under construction. And that concludes staff's presentation. And I'll be available for any comments, questions, or concerns. Come forward. Don't be afraid. We're usually not going to bite you. Hello, my name is Alvin Ramos. I'm here representing Thomas Sine and Awning on behalf of Hattrick's for this location. What's my address and have you been sworn in? My address is 11046 91st Terrace, Seminole, Florida. And you've been sworn in? I have been sworn in. Yeah, just to cap it off. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing us to close out the night tonight. Hopefully we can keep this short and sweet. We, just to reiterate some of the things that we kind of already talked about, the variance being requested is to reduce the required setback as described in the Tampa Code of Ordinance. Currently, our sign at its current height would be, according to code, would be at a five-foot setback. And we are requesting a zero-foot setback right up against the property line. I don't know if you guys can see this. Yes, we can. All right. So here's our property. Just a little cover. Again, our address is 4075 Henderson Boulevard in Tampa. This is a site plan showing our current site. So the alleged hardship or practical difficulty are singularly unique with respect to this property due to its location and orientation on the hard corner in between Henderson Boulevard and Clark Avenue. If you can see from the site map here, we are at a major intersection of six roadways. As the two roads intersect, we are left with little to no viable location for the signage to be adequately placed in order to conform with the LDC. As you can see here, just again, reiterating the fact that we have a 10-foot utility easement that rides along the west portion of this property. And we also towards the east on Henderson, we have an assortment of city utilities, water, gas, sewage, and the main building setback, which currently is at one foot from the property line. Our request is minimal in order to clear any and all difficulties to provide the general public with adequate visibility in order to properly navigate this location safely. As you can see here, we've also provided a – oh, boy. Let's see. In the second site plan, we can also see the required vegetation. These trees have already been planted on the location. Our sign location right now, we are trying to get out of the way in order to promote the most visible ground signage that we possibly can. We are well under the city-mandated, I believe, 50 square feet that we are allowed for a ground sign. Currently, the sign is sitting at 26 square feet of total copy area. Again, our request is for a zero setback in order to provide clear visibility. We do have a few things. Obviously, the easement to the west, utilities to the east, and we're also attempting to – in order to encroach and be able to get to that zero setback, allow for more visibility along the route of the building line, which is currently at a one-foot setback. As you can see here, we're proposing to work for this installation would include a monument sign at nine feet in overall height, seven feet in overall width at a zero setback in order to accommodate for existing city-mandated infrastructure at the site. Provided an additional plan here to show our sign to scale and how it would ride along the property line here, clear of any vegetation, utilities to the east and to the west. I've also provided some photos here to the right that show the existing location as it is now. We do have landscaping is in. We also have permitted and installed two wall signs at this location on each elevation, which also comes to a total of just over 26 square feet of signage. As you can see on this lower right-hand photo, this is the rear of the site, and as you can see, we have an existing TECO box there. Also, it looks like telecommunications and a more power that services the residents to the west as well. So, you know, in our evaluation, the location that we're requesting is crucial for visibility for this signage. In these further photos, there's another photo here to the left looking north on Henderson. There are two markers right here which have been staked out, which would show the sign at a one-foot setback. As you can see here, it is right up along the building line here. The building setback, which also reduces our visibility from the southbound traffic on Henderson. The middle there, you can see all the locates that have been marked by utilities, and we are striving to stay clear of all of that while also providing maximum visibility. And to our final picture in that, you can see just along the sidewalk here how we are in desperate need of trying to get at a zero setback in order to clear the existing building line. Again, just some additional photos to kind of show you what we're working with here. This is the proposed redesign monument. As you can see, we have 26 square feet of total copy area signage. Also includes the address numbers and a brick veneer that also matches the architectural intent of the building and this development. The next slide here shows you the photo and the renderings of the already permitted wall signs and how they would look up against the elevation of the building. All in all, if the variance is granted, we feel that the determination will in no way substantially interfere or injure the health, safety, or welfare of others as our intent is to promote maximum visibility for safe and viable solutions to properly navigate this unique area for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. We believe that the variance at its core will be in harmony with and serve the general intent and purpose of this chapter as this site is zoned as a planned development and any and all signage is designed with a cohesive architectural approach that will be both aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for its location. We feel this is a cohesive sign package in order to promote a well-known restaurant group here in the city of Tampa. This is their new location in the South Tampa area, and we would like to provide them with the best opportunity to succeed at this location with clear and visible signage for the overall safety of the general public. Thank you very much. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, ma'am. Okay, we have questions from the board. Okay, I have one. Do we have a site plan that shows what's across the street on Clark and what's across the street on Henderson? This would be the current plan, at least overall site plan that I have that shows... Okay, and can you point out on that sign where that signage is going to go? This sign would sit right in here in this corner. Okay. Okay, so someone is coming down that Clark Avenue, okay, and they're trying to pull out onto Estrella. How far out are they going to have to drive out there to see it? I'm a little concerned because I know that's a preschool right there. I'm pretty sure across the street from you. Okay. No, not that's across Estrella. Here. Nope. On Clark. On Clark. There you go. Okay. All right. So there's lots of people dropping kids off, and they're trying to turn onto Henderson. How is your sign going to affect that? We are currently, our signage, we believe, is outside of what would be the standard regulation for a visibility triangle for that area. Right now, with the 10-foot easement, the general public traveling south on Clark would have clear visibility to be able to make any turn to the left, forward, to the right, or continue on. Yeah, I see that. I just couldn't see it. It appears it's probably 20 foot back from the side of the road. Is that right? I get a six-foot sidewalk plus a 14-and-a-half-foot from the sidewalk to the front of the sign. That's 20 feet plus whatever between the sidewalk and the road, which on Henderson's not much. Yeah. So you're over 20 feet back. Yeah. Yeah, we will exceed the minimum requirement for visibility. This looks like one of those. Okay. I'm Stephen Mace. I'm 4020 West Palmeyer. I live right there. My kids went to Seaborn. They dropped the kids off on the other side of that, and that's all parking right there. And that sign is set back closer to the building, and so there's a big area around that corner of that triangle that when you come out of Clark, which I live on Clark on the other side, you come down that road from Clark, there's a huge area between the sign and the area there. Okay. Point of clarification. Parents do drop their kids off on that side. On the other side. Because the little baby school is the back building. Yeah. So they do drive down that street. That's way down the street on the second building. It's not that far. Okay. But I appreciate you. That's another building down. No, there's two buildings. They're kind of almost side by side. Okay. But, yeah. Thank you. Okay. That's a good question. Good question. That was a concern that I was having for line of sight because what the posted speed limit is on Henderson isn't what people drive. No. And, therefore, that was my, like, how much time. I would be really curious. Steven, is there a way that we can get traffic data from that intersection? Well, one of the things I know is that people are making turns there, and some are turning from Henderson to Clark, and some are turning from Henderson to Estrella. So there's three roads that intersect there, and it's not good right now. And there's no light. And there's no light. And if you're coming down Henderson and someone is pulling off out of Clark, I guess, you don't see them until the last second as it is now. So there's a lot more traffic than people think. And I know because I have. To answer Rick's question, I don't have the traffic data on this intersection, but we do send this to transportation to evaluate for sight triangles and things like that. And they had no objections. And they had no objections. Okay. That's why the application. All right. All right. Is there any more questions from the board? Anyone here to speak for or against? Seeing none, you're willing to. Do you have time to read about anything that you've heard? No. I agree with the concerns and comments from the council. Again, we've gone through the review. As stated, transportation sees that this is clear of any visibility issues. To add to that, our sign at the moment is only currently nine feet tall, only seven feet wide, in order to accommodate for the infrastructure. We've already gone through a revision in order to kind of make accommodations for this area and its location. Click hearing. I'm here. I would like to move that the variance request for case VRB 26-88 for property located at 4075 Henderson Boulevard be granted as depicted on the site plan presented at a public hearing for reduction in freestanding sign setback from five feet to zero feet. Based upon the applicant presenting competent and substantial evidence in the record and at this public hearing of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty when considering the five hardship criteria set forth in section 27-80 of the city code, specifically that this is an irregular shaped lot that's sitting on an intersection with six roads coming through it. And due to the drainage easement along the west side, it is really the only place that the sign can go and meet all of the site triangles and still have visibility along Henderson and I think we have some discussing to do about our next meeting. Unless you really want to step into that. While I get all these moved into my flash drive here, next, this is just a reminder, next week due to council having the chambers on the second Tuesday of the month due to a budget meeting, our meeting got moved to the third Tuesday, so September 15th. I won't be here. Yes. September 15th, which is the third Tuesday. What's the location of the meeting? The location of the meeting will be at, the location of the meeting will be at Old City Hall, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, City Council Chambers, third floor, Tampa, Florida. 3-3-6-0-2-5-30. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Okay. And we haven't heard Simone's baby? I have not heard. We'll address that after the hearing has been closed. Oh. Close the public. Close it. We're done. I have not heard anything, so that is the tea. Yeah, I was going to ask, I was going to ask SJB. Oh. She has my, like, she has my number, but I don't want to open up all those issues for Taylor. Hey, get home for the Rays game. I have to start burning because all the answers are not in there. What, honey? I don't have it. I mean, my brain is not that good to remember.