Beach for the February meeting and first was roll call do we want to do the Pledge of Allegiance yes yes pledge ALG to the flag unit States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisible with Li and justice for all R call member Chase here Vice chair bulmer here member mahand here member small here chair Skipper here we have a quorum okay approval of the agenda any changes to the agenda no sir if there's anybody who would like to speak today unless unless this your case is on the docket there anything else you'd like to speak to unrelated this is the portion of the meeting but you would do that so there's anybody if you raise your hand or come forward I think we need to square in everybody also but we'll see anybody interested in speaking other in these cases want to do the swearing in uh yeah we just need a motion to approve the agenda I'll make a motion have a second second discussion not all in favor I I I okay if anyone is going to be speaking to the board today or testifying please stand raise your hand do you swear or affirm that the information or representation you are about to give is truthful thank you okay our next item is the approval of the minutes everybody's had a chance to look at those who need a motion motion to approve the minutes from previous meeting second discussion not roll call Vice chair buar yes member mahand yes member small yes member Chase yes chair Skipper yes motion carries we'll move on into our action items and our first case is 23093 7501 GF Boulevard here if I may just before we get started I'd just like to um welcome our new member that we have Mr uh moha to the board so welcome welcome happy to have you on board appreciate it thank you look forward um Mr chair also at the beginning since these action items are all quasi judicial if if uh each member would do a um an ex party any ex party disclosures that are necessary at the beginning of each item that would be great all right does anybody does everybody understand that I just want to make sure that Matthew explained it have any conversation on this case or okay we going to go down the line or just you want us to only a few I I received one email before I came and I had three emails on my desk when I received here or arrived here uh I also made a site visit to all four sites but I did not uh communicate with anyone at the sites okay yeah I think that's it okay great thank you Brandon yes good afternoon will you get the PowerPoint pulled up please so this is varian's case number 23093 property address of 7501 Gulf Boulevard the applicant who is Grant mcclaflin of PJ Callahan construction for Steven and Michelle boil of boiling point Enterprises LLC is requesting an unnecessary and undue hardship variance to reduce the number of Green Building standards required for the development of a new office building from 2 to 1 this is made pursuant to Land Development code section 39.9 here is a listing of exhibits an aerial of the property it's located at the northeast corner of Gulf Boulevard and 75th Avenue the property has a zoning of tc1 town center core it's the same land use this is a medium to high intensity downtown land use and and Zoning category so before we get into the variance request detail I just wanted to talk a little bit about the project the application was originally made for a site plan for this development in October of 2022 this is a permitted use um it's for an office building the applicant came before this board back in March of 2023 for two other variances that were both approved the first was the requirements provid a corner entrance in 75th Avenue in Gulf Boulevard this is one of the city's downtown design requirements the second was to reduce the 75th Avenue Landscaping buffer from 8 ft to 5T and again both of those were granted with conditions the applicant's proposing a new variance it's not related to any kind of Dimension or any kind of construction standard um outright but it has to do with the development standards of Land Development code division 39 there's a requirement in the Land Development code for any property in the community redevelopment District that two listed standards of Land Development code section 39.9 which I'll get into in a moment are included in the development the applicant is proposing to meet one of those two standards that's the Florida Green Building Coalition standard they're also proposing one alternative standard which is called the Florida water star program that is not listed as one of the eight that's permitted for this development type so they're effectively requesting to substitute one standard um that's issued through the southwest Florida Water Management District for of the eight standards that's listed in the Land Development code I'll explain that more in just a moment so this is the text directly out of the code all development and Redevelopment projects in the community redevelopment District are required to obtain certification for at least two of the eight standards listed in the code it then goes into the eight standards that are listed I did want to state that this project being an office building is only actually eligible for two of these eight standards some of these have to do with Hotel development um residential development they don't apply to this development type they would be eligible to build to the Florida Green Building Coalition development standard and the lead standard uh they are a asking for a waiver on the lead standard in favor of that Florida water star standard and they will be meeting the Florida Green Building Coalition standard A1 here's a site plan again this doesn't have anything to do with the dimensional requirements of the site um we have worked extensively with the applicant on the building and the site plan for this development the site plan is ready to issue the building permit is effectively approved through Zoning for the design requirements it it really is just held up by this Florida Green Building um standard here are some photographs of the site it's currently a vacant site I just wanted to show that the sign was posted we have noticed this case in accordance with our ordinance we have not received any letters of support or opposition to the request so going through just briefly the eight variance criteria uh these are all responded to in your staff report staff finds that the applicant has provided partial support for a hardship demonstrating that six out of the 110 points required for lead certification are unavailable to the project however to meet the minimum standard for lead only 40 out of 110 points need to be um achieved that's for the minimum lead certification required by the code the applicant has directly demonstrated that six of those points are not available this case was taken to the technical Review Committee two weeks ago I've also corresponded with the applicant and with the state Southwest Florida Water Management District since the report was put together they have provided additional testimony and support for the waiver of this request or sorry the waiver of this certification however it wasn't shared in the application so it didn't make it into the staff report staff would like the applicant to share it additional testimony as was shared a technical Review Committee to show that there is a hardship um as as they stated at the TRC as I mentioned before the applicant has commuted with the southwest Florida Water Management District they're the ones who provide for this Florida water star certification they have sent information regarding the water star certification it does seem to be a um fairly high standard for water conservation on the site it seems to generally meet the intent of the ordinance but we did want the applicant to speak to the corresponden they've had with this standard um overall staff finds that granting of the hardship granting of the variance will not result in a project that is incompatible with the neighborhood we don't feel that it would result in any kind of detriment to safety or welfare or impair property values again it has to do with a minimum development standard it is a high quality project they have met all the city's design standards as well as the general zoning standards um it's just about proving that hardship for the inclusion of this certification the design of the project is consistent with the code requirements outside of the Green Building Code requirement so as I mentioned before staff recommends that the applicant provide more testimony at this meeting including describing the Florida water star correspondence and the Fulfillment of that condition as the intent of the city's energy and environmental standards if the board finds that the applicant does Supply adquate testimony we recommend approval with one condition that the applicant shall be required to obtain the bronze certification for the Florida Green Building Coalition and the Florida water star certification for the development certification of both standards shall be required at the time of certificate of occupancy for the development and shall be a condition of the of its issuance should either their certification be normally provided after completion of the development the applicant shall provide a statement certifying such from the certifying organization prior to the certificate of occupancy and submit the certification after it's obtained this is effectively just saying that if they're going to purs see these two certifications they're going to show that they've actually demonstrated compliance with them if the board finds that there is not adequate support through testimony we ask that you just give the applicant more time to meet with staff and provide additional written testimony for the justification for their um for their variants that's all I have um the owner is present I know that they do have um multiple professionals who who they would like to speak to this application um if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to answer them this time did we have any letters of objection to it no none one question Brandon the water certification was that something that was available when the code was written because I it's not one of the eight that were included but could it have been or um I I don't know that it was even around when it was written this is back in 2008 when those standards were adopted so it's it's a newer certification versus when the code was correct yes Brandon I have a question also just for clarification to make sure I'm reading it right so this proper property uh will have a retention Pond is that correct that is correct yes okay thank you okay than you from the applicant he here you give us your name and address hi my name is Steven Bole my wife Michelle uh we live in 3672 Bell Vista Drive East St P Beach and uh this is our property over here 7501 GF Boulevard and uh we're hoping to have our contractor and engineer speak kind of to the technical terms of this okay okay thank you thank you good afternoon I'm Grant mclin with PJ Callahan the GC at a 3251 Mo Street North in St Petersburg um again we're just trying to push that we still want to meet two of the green codes uh we're doing the the Florida Green Building but again lead we're trying to since the area where we're in with Florida it's kind of tricky to meet their standards so we thought this Florida star water star program might be a little bit better and more focused on the area I know Swift Mud and Florida water star when we co contacted them we're very excited about it they said the main push with them is to try to get more commercial jobs to do it because it's mostly a residential thing that has been the past few years um they also state that the FWC commercial criteria uh exceed the water efficiency criteria both fgbc and Lead um primarily due with the irrigation water um they say commercial construction usually up uses upwards of 60 in per square foot annually where this makes the commercial property meat 25 Ines per year for irrigation saving a lot of water and they're also pushing with such a population boom down here in Florida that Waters can become a more and more important resource s um that's all I kind of have unless you guys have some questions if not the engineer like to talk good afternoon Daniel Bergen civil on demand uh 3876 bellista Drive East St Beach um happy to be a new Resident since 2020 here so um first time in front of the board of adjustment um here working with the boils um and I had approached them about helping out with this project wanting to see some Redevelopment occur within this area and I kind of got tired of looking at the fence and I said Stephen Michelle what's going on we need to get this thing across the finish line so in review of the code what's interesting and uh Miss Chase had pointed out something um that I I made a note of was that these were written in 2008 and we're in 2024 and when it comes to this project we're talking almost 20 years down the road and when I understand how the code was adopted in 2008 when lead was something of green and sustainable you know construction was was the intent right but we've done some really great things here in the State of Florida and a lot of these energy requirements that lead was pushing for and design requirements have already been adopted by the Florida building code so the the intent of lead which was a wonderful Start program to get people to start paying attention to sustainability and with the city of St Pete Beach also adopting that encouraged municipalities and Florida in the State of Florida to start adopting these codes Statewide so a lot of the things that have already uh the intent was are already incorporated into the design um however there's some unique characteristics to the site that make this site and Lead be somewhat at odds and and I know that we had only pointed out six of the criteria but those were the what I would refer to as the low hanging fruit uh we're dealing with a 2500 foot building that is being constructed as is everything else within a flood plane on a postage stamp lot there's only so many things that you can do um however we are saying that we're going to meet the Florida building Coalition criteria as identified but unfortunately under Section 39.9 there's only eight criteria that we can meet and six of them don't work for us so we're stuck with two so I think that really limits the options for the contractor and the owner to make this project adaptable and meet the code at the same time um you know Grant and his team came up with a great op option which was the water criteria that's offered by Swift Mud um which in essence is saying that we're going to take the initiative of doing something I think has more of a tangible impact to the people in our community we all know how much our resources from water and sewer are strained you know the investment that's been put in by the city and trying to update those um items and and make sure that we're able to sustain our development and and have future water this speaks directly to that so that's going to have a more tangible impact than doing a redundant certification through lead which we're not even sure we're going to be able to meet once we get into the full lead criteria so it's an expensive proposition for the owner to not have the certainty of meeting lead and to be honest there and as um Brandon was saying we're not there's really going to be no tangible difference or benefit even if we do gain the certification so we meet the code criteria for city of St P Beach we're going to qualify for Florida Green Building Coalition which is criteria that is designed for the State of Florida in the unique circumstance as opposed to trying to pursue lead which is a lot of redundancy and something that may be square peg round hole which is these are a national certification it doesn't include things like how raising your finished floor elevation to be above a you know storm surge Redevelopment criteria that we have to encounter um those sorts of criterias aren't able to adapt a small site like this to expand it in order to meet all these lead qualifications so there's a lot of uncertainty that would have to be accepted as risk in order to move forward having that being the criteria but we have vetted the other criterias and I know the boils are committed to U making sure that those criterias are met and there's no objections to the conditions that uh the city has proposed if you all were to approve this I'm here to take any questions okay I think thank you we'll get back with you sure thank you we have anyone else here like to speak on behalf of this app do we have anybody in opposition to this application good hearing now we'll close the public hearing portion we'll open up for board discussion and I think this is a great example of a case that can help us learn how we can do better from a a code perspective I think the fact that only two of the eight apply to office structures um is you know relevant based off the type of development that we expect um but adding an additional thing from a water standpoint could really benefit the city more broadly from a development perspective so I think it's a great solution that they brought to the table and I'm very supportive anybody else so I have a question either for Brandon or for the applicant or one of the representatives of the applicant so the lead and uh I know just about enough of it to be dangerous so uh bear with me so the lead in interior was is that something that was investigated whether you can meet that or not I I understand the the principal lead was a problem but the interior is that doesn't sound as onerous in a small building am I misunderstanding that sure and you got to understand the function of what this building's going to be um it's it's open floor space for showroom boats so there's not much available option with how we can design the interior of the structure in order to meet when we when we brought it to the lead consultant the lead consultant and said really we we focus on that for renovations and things that we can do to improve but this is a very box building and there you know it was it was basically when it was approached by the lead consultant said no and I've I've never seen one done for a 2500 fot Square office development or which essentially is a boat showroom so's just not much available modification and things that we could do if we had a larger structure that we could we could manipulate some things and and modify some things and these points become available but we're starting to let Lee dictate the design versus the function and then the the lead certification follows along you know no nothing we could do to try to make really manipulate the building in order to start finding these other certifications to be available and again that for for the utilitarian function of the building what what you're going to be seeing is you know beautiful center console boats with glass showroom that you're going to be able to visit you know view from the street it's not something that's going to have intricate interiors and whatnot you know it's it's it's pretty boxy and um but designed to really try to bring people from the outside in so I would not say that's that's something that we could pursue very easily based on the use anyone else so it's my understanding that um this facility is going to be or would be held to the same lead standard that one of the mega developments I think I read staff had indicated that that uh the cost to them to be leads compliant would be the same as trade wins or that's exactly right and unfortunately you cannot list financial hardship as a criteria for for granting so we're not listing it but we have brought up Val that is a valid point that if you know subconsciously you could take into consideration um you know when you spread the cost and which again to miss Chase's point to find alternatives for smaller developments like this to be able to meet section 39.9 if you were to say yes the the SRA I know no one wants to talk about that but um their cost essentially to hire the consultant the same team would be the same as it would be L like far down the road you can't be the trade wins is a whole another thing or the S we're talking about yours you've got a very limited amount of things you can do in a 2500 foot showroom yeah you're exactly right chairman yes yes thank you any other discussion discussion I'll make a motion to approve um case you remind me guys what number are we on um 23093 based off the testimony heard today with the conditions recommended by staff we have a motion and we have a second second the motion we have a motion and a second any discussion further discussion no if not roll call please Vice chair buar yes member mahand yes member small yes member Chase yes chair Skipper yes motion carries congratulations nicely I have Acker please um our next case is 230 31284 pass away if I could have the present please he the PowerPoint please thank you thank you Brandon okay so variance case number 23091 property address of 20184 passive rollway it's a unnecessary and undue hardship variance Ron Wilson for parag green Construction Group for Matthew Foster request to construct a new single family dwelling that exceeds the permitted height of of 32 ft with 32 ft 11 in proposed for An Elevator Shaft to provide access to proposed rooftop area um relief from Land Development code section 20.7 so here's the property um outlined in red it's in the southern portion of the city within the passive grill with within passer the property is located in the R2 Zone um in the pass overlay it is also are you residential Urban on the future land use [Music] M so again the the applicant is proposing a new single family residence that exceeds the permitted height uh by 11 in due to the proposed elevator access this just um kind of describes to you as it's a new home that it meets compliance with other elements and requirements um for the uh like property lot area lot width that kind of thing uh here is a survey showing existing conditions again currently it is a vacant lot it is a kind of unique on it prints on passag girl way and also has um access to Sunset way to the West here is a copy of the site plan as proposed just kind of shows the layout of the proposed dwelling curb Cuts Landscaping um and setbacks here's a rendering of the proposed front elevation from passive way what's interesting with this one is that because it is in the passl overlay District it did appear in October and November of 2023 uh before the historic preservation board for a design review the historic preservation board requested that the application returned back to the the historic board for recommendation to this board um due to the variance request so they went through they did all their design things that they had to do because again they're held to a higher standard being down there and different requirements have to be met but they wanted to be able to give you guys a recommendation on whether or not um with the variants so here is just the proposed front elevation from the plans again just in the green rectangle showing the location of the Elevator Shaft and going up or actually here is the rear elevation so looking from Sunset way towards uh the East and here is that proposed fourth for plan um that you can see where the elevator access goes to a proposed Moon deck of 535 sare ft and here is the pros elevation on the Northern side uh the balconies on the second and third floor east and west um or front and back that do have additional open uh balconies comprise over about a th000 square fet so going back to that historic preservation board their recommendation um it was expressed that due to the nature of the empty lot it was felt by the his preservation board to be a self-created hardship where modifications could be made to eliminate the need for variance relief and that was 5 to0 you repeat that Kristen so going back to that recommendation from the historic preservation board um they did not um they made the recommendation to deny okay the variance 5 to zero thank you so going to take you on to the property now uh noticing was completed as required the legal ad was published on 214 notice is also mailed same day and signs posted on 221 as required so here's our view from pass girl away we're looking to the west and here are some adjacent properties so going left to right um south of the site is a two family residential going to the right North looking North is a vacant lot of similar size and also 28th Avenue to the bottom left is looking to the east Southeast for single family residents across pass way and on the bottom right hand side we're looking West uh Sunset way and a single family residence and looking South here is sunset way looking to the east so originally we were looking at the property from pass girl way now we're looking from Sunset way and and from the property looking South on Sunset way sorry and just another view um of the property looking East so here are variance uh criteria and comments um that were included in the staff findings report all the eight criteria that have to be met uh in justification for a undue um an unnecessary hardship variance so with that staff does have some comments that would appreciate the applicant um provides some testimony on and that includes the applicant should provide testimony as to the necessity of access via elevator to the Moon deck as there are over a th000 square fet of balcony area of balcon balcony areas that are already proposed with the second and third floor front and rear of dwelling um the applicant is requested to clarify whether the entire residence has been designed with Ada access and consideration as this was highlighted in various sections of the criteria outlined in the variance application so the the applicant references that um quite frequently and the applicant should provide testimony as to if any alternate plans have been developed should the variants not be granted um and so with that staff findings and recommendations staff finds that the proposed variance relief sought does not Advance the purposes of the Land Development code section 1.1 and 3.12 and finds the benefit of granting the variances from the applicable um LDC section 20.7 will be of substantial detriment and impair the intent and purpose of the zoning code denial of The Proposal does not remove the ability to utilize the land parcel as adjustments can be made to ensure compliance with codes moreover the recommendation of the denial from the historic preservation board is also factored into consideration and consequently the staff recommends denial of the request however should the board look favorably on the application on the relief request the board may want to consider the following condition the rooftop mechanical equipment as currently shown required to be relocated from the front of the dwelling to the rear rooftop or alternate location that would meet the requirements of Land Development code section 6.14 with that chair I did receive two emails uh you do have copies of those that were both uh requesting denial thank you CHR is that the only two you had that's the only two I had sir is the applicant here today come forward my name is Ron Wilson I'm with paragan Construction Group 669 1 Avenue North St Petersburg um if she'd go back to the staff testimony I I will go through that may have the PowerPoint please the first one starts out with a th Square ft of balcony there is balconies on the second floor and the third floor the moon roof the roof deck is different and all we're trying to do is provide an elevator from the garage floor to any accessible floor that there is and we're asking for 11 in that's in the center of the building and if you went back to the proposed front elevation you can't even see it and that's looking as though you're floating 30 ft off of passag Grill way you can't even see that top about 11 in um I'm looking for that testimony but and then one of the other questions on there to provide testimony for Ada the question is are we providing it throughout the house yes we are code requires that you have an entry door that can fit an elevator and one bathroom every single door to every every single room in that house is the minimum requirement um and is there testimony to any alternate plans yes if we don't get this variance we're going to eliminate the Elevator Shaft off the moon deex simple as that and it's not it's the question keeps coming up about um financial gain there's no real financial gain on this we're talking about A3 million plus dollar house we already have elevator that's going to go from the garage to the third floor no matter what removing the shaft off the top is not going to affect us and it's probably going to affect very little the sales price of the house at the end of the day and again we have stairs to get up to the Moon deck we just feel strongly in our heart if we're putting in an elevator to the garage so that somebody with disabilities can get into the house they ought to be able to go everywhere in the house and again i' just like to point out we're asking for 11 inches about the size of this piece of paper 41 feet in air nobody could see it nobody be able to tell it if the house next door gets built to the 32 foot height Max nobody'd be able to stand on that house and go hey they built their's 11 in taller it's that's how minimal we're asking for um and then I don't any questions I don't know what else you you have access to the moon roof up the stairs yes you could if you don't get the shaft yes you can go ahead and still use it yes just wouldn't be correct somebody in the wheelchair couldn't get up there correct is there any way you can lower the tower at any we already have we lowered it to 7t tall that is the max you can get for an elevator you can't it's 7 foot tall right now and the only reason why it's eight the 11 in is because you got to put a little bit of a pitch on that roof to get water off of it and and the other steps we took two we're 9 in above grade ideally we should be at least 12 in above grade but between the first and the second floor we used 8 in um Hollow core concrete slabs instead of 20in floor dresses to make it easier to get air flow through the house and then we have a 10-ft ceiling on the second floor and a 9 foot4 ceiling on the third floor and a 312 roof pitch and we're at the max height if you eliminated the roof the moon deck and the Elevator Shaft we would still be at Max height with a Squatty building to me personally I believe that the the height requirements too strict by at least two feet to be able to build a reasonable product I don't I don't disagree with that what's that I don't disagree with that I think the height limit and then I'd also like to point this out too I know that every jurisdiction can make their own R rules I have searched mun munic code every single jur I've searched hundreds of them I can't find one that doesn't allow a waiver for a Elevator Shaft a antenna or a chimney on this house right here we wouldn't be allowed to put a w wood burning fireplace in it anywhere not even on in the garage level because we still have to have a chimney to get it out and the chimney would exceed the height if you were in another District you would be able to do that if we were in clearw historical overlay if we were in St Petersburg his I can I can recite those two in St Petersburg our height would be allowed to be 2 ft higher plus an additional 10 ft for elevator shop the city of clear water their height is actually 2 feet lower than yours is but we could go up to 15 ft higher with the Elevator Shaft in their historical districts on the water we're we're not here to change the PIP of the zoning act what what's for that overlay district and that's the when they wrote it maybe maybe it wasn't they weren't thinking about this as much as they should have but um but we're dealing with what the code calls for and you're starting off from new so essentially you're creating your hardship by wanting to do it I don't blame you wan to do it but I I don't know um you have anything else I'm not we'll see if there's any other opposition or anybody in favor do you say that again you have we we'll get back to you we'll see if anybody else has any other comments on this okay okay thank you anyone else here like to speak on behalf of the applicant okay hearing none is anyone hear an opposition to the applicant come forward please good afternoon my name is Scott shammy and I live directly across the street uh from these two lots and I I can see on that one photograph that both of these were side by side and so that I'm sorry to be opposing and if you could address the chair not okay I just want to just want to tell them I just hate don't like people in opposition but it directly affects um my house and looking into the uh looking off to the sunset so it's actually 42 feet and um almost 43 and it's not 11 in from the from the grade and excuse me if I'm if I'm wrong with how that code is written but it's 43t high and I think the code is saying 32 feet so pass gr is pass gr because it's Charming area and that's why those R that's why the code was written that way and I know that um uh as much as the it sounds like there's so many changes there I'm not so sure if that does make economic sense sense with all the flooring and everything just change to get there but uh so my point is those pictures too were not indicative of what it looks like directly across the street so and it literally is the width of the street and and the my front set back and then and then there is and it's and you can't even see my house from there like so the pictures that were taken were taken from different shots and it doesn't look like it affects anything but it does so um you know I'm I oppose it just because it's uh uh creating the own hardship and it does affect uh others around so thank you okay thank you anyone else would like to speak good afternoon I'm Tina Douglas I live at 2811 pass gr away my husband Bob and I have lived there for almost 50 years and um we both love pasor Grill as you all do and we want it to remain as historically intact as possible even with new construction we feel that it should keep in mind that there are people that value the beauty of the neighborhood and the PIR overlay was designed very very carefully thought through by a number of people over a number of years in order to accommodate new development but looking to the past and not coming into a neighborhood and without consideration for the existing homes and doing whatever you feel like just because you want to build it um that particular corner is a real Jewel in our city um within walking distance ey distance uh the shamming home on the corner and the other two houses on the corner as well as the one on the beach are all from the Thomas row time they were built during the time of the Donar they were they are historic Spanish mansions and um all the houses in our neighborhood in that Colonial District um are different unusual some are more contemporary as the house across toward the gulf but they all have been built within the codes and restrictions that were put in place to maintain the neighborhood as it is um I'm a former member of the historic preservation board and I applaud their efforts to uphold this uh pigil overlay um they voted 5 to one in their December November meeting um to uphold this denial and say that this this should not we should not cave in to anyone that comes along especially in my humble opinion because my husband has done developing and I know Mr Skipper has too um if you want to develop something you follow the rules and uh paragan purchased a lot has purchased it not with a buyer for whom they're developing a house but to sell a speck house and so I believe and my husband does as well that they should follow the rules and the design was created by the applicant it does not justify the requested relief thank you thank you thank you anyone else like to speak hearing none we'll close the public hearing portion we'll open up for board discussion me I think the nature of this request is it's a hardship variance and if we were talking about an existing structure it would be a different conversation but but I think to your point chair they've created this hardship and the house could be designed within the current code um so I would not be in favor of approving I'd agree only because it's creating your own hardship and he said if if it wasn't granted he would just do it without the elevation alternative so it's like do I think we should have a a different code maybe but it's not different that's not what we're here for exactly okay anybody else so we have to rule on it this way anybody like to make a motion I'll make a motion that we deny case 23091 uh based on there's not a hardship unless they're creating one a second you have a motion a second any other discussion no not roll call member mahand I just want to make sure that I have this correct I want to vote against this and the motion that was made I would say no is that correct the motion was to deny right and so the answer would be yes to deny it yes yes deny it if this if this passes it's denied right yes correct member small yes member Chase yes me uh Vice chair balar yes chair Skipper yes motion carries okay thank you on to our next case which is 23076 4999 GF way or G Boulevard yes CH I if I may have a PowerPoint please is this the smiley Shack I have the PowerPoint please thank you okay variance case number 23076 property address of 4999 Golf Boulevard the request is for an unnecessary and undue hardship variance Anthony ferino extreme signage for renate a drus if I said that right um living trust requests installation of a 8' 9 in by 4T um 35t Monument sign with overall height of 8 ft that does not meet the 10-ft required front yard setbacks with 4T from golf buard and 3 ft from 50th a proposed and requesting uh relief from Land Development code 26. 38a listing of exhibits okay the subject property is outlined l in red it currently contains Sea Palms Motel uh to the east of the parcel with inground pool and dock where we have Polynesian putter which is an 18-hole mini golf course and a smaller detach building kind of sandwiched in the middle uh for the golf course and motel office the property is located in the AC or activity um zoning district and AC on the future land use map just a little bit more detail on the variant uh request uh due to the setbacks now with the prior sign location I'll get into that a little bit more um with the pictures um and and reasoning behind it so I did estimate kind of just for you where the prior sign was located and I had to have pictures of the prior sign uh here is a enlargement of the survey with the proposed sign location so here the visibility triangle is noted um it also shows the proposed setback 4T and property line from Gulf Boulevard 3T from 50th ab and the applicant also did show us where the proposed sign would be if they did meet the setback so you can kind of note it would be kind of in the middle of one of the putting greens for one of the the um the holes on the golf course so I thought that was important just to show you from the applicant standpoint and here is a rendering of the proposed sign um the schematic um again it is ft in height uh 8 ft in width um or overall height yes um and 4T um tall okay so again uh noticing was completed as required the legal L and notices were mailed uh to those Property Owners within 300 ft on February 14th and signs posted on the property on the 21st of February so here's a view from 50th Avenue looking South uh to the location um just kind of taking in uh the the golf course location to the right of that you'll see Golf Boulevard um which ironically there's no traffic today on that um here is the motel office and Golf Course building and just going a little further east H the motel area from 50th Avenue so adjacent properties and we're going to go left to right uh to to the top left is looking East on 50th a uh to the right hand side on the top is looking South and that's a restaurant as well as there's an unnamed road kind of in between that bottom left hand side is looking west across Golf Boulevard to Beach Haven um motel and looking to the north and also across 50th is the IHOP restaurant going a little zo been a a little closer on on that corner you can kind of see just the um the current situation there and going inside on the golf course you can see where that electrical box is that's where the prior sign was just another view uh going east and that's what happened to the prior sign so this sign that was there and the appin can provide additional testimony onto that that when we had hurricane an come through in October 2022 that was the demise of the sign so at that point as you can see it was lost Beyond repair um and they removed the sign from the site since then they have had no free standing sign and this is just looking from Golf Boulevard looking North where in the location you could kind of see where the prior sign would have been and that was a previous sign I did take this one from Google uh street view and this was taken in May of 2022 what was the height of that sign I don't have any information on that but hopefully the applicant can provide some testimony on that but it would have been a non-complying sign with our Sign Co today right and just another view again you can kind of see where the prior electrical box was and again if can kind of remember back to that uh site plan what if we met the proposed setbacks of the 10 ft it would be in that area of the putting green and the the layout of the golf course and here's how I got the dimensions of um where the prior sign was located just that I put in that Matrix for you measurements from both Golf and the Avenue and here's just a comparison of the Google street image view from May of 2022 and the proposed uh schematic so you can see it is smaller nature there is less um area of signage that they are proposing outside of the setback Kristen would this sign be conforming yes versus it's totally conforming as as as far as uh sign area the height everything it just doesn't meet the the setback requirements setback requirements yes sir M so here are the variance criteria and comments again these were answered from staff in your staff Bings report and one thing to note that in my research I did find that from the information from the Florida Department of State Division of historical resources the Florida historic golf trail that the miniature golf course was actually built in 1967 by the prior own owner so that was kind of neat it's listed that way so for staff comments we are asking the applicant to provide some testimony regarding the prior signage in comparison with the proposed sign including but not limited to height the setbacks and the square footage uh no information was provided if any of the current Landscaping would need to be removed for the installation of the sign or any installation of plannings are proposed um an applicant should of course discuss any changes with that the S schematic submit contains the street number of 4999 but its location on the panel doesn't clearly stand out for motorist or pedestrians from a greater distance and it is suggested to amend for greater visibility so with that the staff finds the request is reasonable given the features unique to the specific property and the installation of a new monument sign will provide identification to the property which is always a benefit staff recommends approval with the following condition the sign layout to be modified so the street address numbers are clearly legible enhancing visibility and site identification to be reviewed and approved by staff at the time of Permitting with this sir we did not receive any letters for or against okay good and the applicant as well as I believe the owner is here as well if app could come forward please I'm Anthony sparacino Ral estrus we need your address also for the record for 49 my home address yes 6243 7th Avenue South and my shop is uh 5050 seminal Boulevard St Pete like to tell us what you want to do um basically uh R would like to have a new sign there he wanted to have a freestanding poll sign but uh the city doesn't require I mean doesn't allow that anymore say they want Monument style the only way we could do a monument style is to put it 3 feet from the property line on the 50th side right and we had the Boulevard and then we had the 10- foot set back from Gul Boulevard but um we can't meet the setback on the 50th put it puts it in his golf course is it visible to you the 10t setback visible from where oh well you the setback is 10 ft from G Boulevard correct is it visible if you put it back 10 ft it is it would be more ideal if we put it where it was um all this time the original sign was actually on the property line so there was Zero setback so this w't be this one will be set back to the 10 feet because what we're trying to do is um not pull the old Foundation up because once you disturb the ground there then you have to re uh resoil it and everything else it's very costly so if we can move it back just past the the old Foundation it's a better scenario for the customer what about the street number on the sign so more invisible we can so um the edge of the sign we can put the numbers that going down the the edge of the sign here okay down the side that that'll be facing Gulf Boulevard so as you see you go by go for while just see it there anything else that we wanted to ask him no Mr chair I'd like to ask your owner a couple questions if that's possible just to get some background sir you're the owner is that correct well my mom is yeah but we're it's family okay uh I just would like to get a little background uh so how how long have you owned the property 52 years since 7 1972 um have you had any previous variances no okay we' did construction but never had to get a variance okay do you speaking of construction do you have any open permits on the property no okay thank you you're welcome thank you one other question um staff brought up the Landscaping um I my kids are frequent flyers of your pet putut so I'm there often um and the Landscaping could certainly be improved from a visual perspective in the street is that something that would go along with this project and putting a new sign we will eventually yes can we make that a provision we can make it a provision it could be yeah you'd be okay if we made that provision of giving you the uh variance that you would Rel landscape that area niely where the sign yes I can do that yeah okay well in that case well do we have some discussion okay thank you we'll get back to you here is anyone else here like to speak on behalf of this application or anybody opposed to the application hearing them we we'll close the public hearing we'll open it up for a board discussion like the idea of uh the approval with uh the provisions requirement of improving the landscape I mean it's a nice compromise we're getting the monument signed which we want along Golf Boulevard um and I mean the setback just is a beastful based off the nature of how the property is developed we'll have to work with staff to some sort of yeah I was going to say staff didn't put that in the provisions yep we could add that condition that the up will work on the plantings the schedule uh the layout um with staff as well as if you also agree to um the the four the numbers the street address numbers I would say um just for the record I don't necessarily agree to put them on the side okay uh of the the sign cabinet you wouldn't necessarily be able to see them going north or south um so uh I would also confer with the fire marshall just to confirm if there's any other uh areas that she would request it just kind of well your eye welds to it so you don't really see it it's got a lot of text um and to bring that just so it's clear the sign's been was there for years we're we're getting a new one but it's going to be moved back more than than it was putting back further than 10 ft I don't think it'd be very effective no so so the if the if the address 4999 was on the street Edge on the plastic side but not on the cabinet is that what you're saying no I mean I think we could work with the current layout as it is we just may need to with the the current square footage on the side itself just so it's just not thrown in there it's just more visible not not adding to the sign or anything like that but if you would be amendable to that we can work with the applicant the design okay we could have a motion that requires landscaping and ass sign yeah um sign number address yeah I'll make a motion to approve case [Music] number 2376 23 076 um with the conditions of working with staff both to improve the visibility of the um address numbers as well as to provide a landscaping plan I second second have a motion on a second any further discussion not roll call member small yes member Chase yes Vice chair buar yes member mahand yes chair Skipper yes motion carries okay you know while we're in this little discussion on the address I thought it was a uh legality that buildings and properties had to put their address visible and as I've noticed most of them aren't anymore so that's I just to me it's very irritating when you're looking for an address you find it well this one's going to be this one we'll fa to see yeah we're going to make sure of that thank you guys that'll also be done prior to the issuance of like the final inspection and everything I think most more people will be looking for the site as opposed to the address our final Trace is 243 7300 Boulevard yes we get the PowerPoint pulled back up please please thank you this is the last case for today uh case 24003 property address of 3700 Gulf Boulevard this is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance the applicant is Casey Sanders for Albert Paul Nicholas Jr of smiley Snack Shack St Pete Beach Incorporated the applicant requests variances to reduce the required front yard setback facing 37th Avenue to 43 ft where 50 ft is required and reduce the required Northern rear yard setback to 16.8 ft where 20 ft is required these are variances from Land Development code section 14.7 b 1 and 4 here is a listing of exhibits an aerial map of the property it is located at the northwest corner of 37th Avenue in Gulf Boulevard the property has a zoning of rfm which is Resort facilities medium it's one of only two properties um north of 37th Avenue that retains this zoning at least in the vicinity there are properties further north up by upam Beach that keep the rfm that was the original 2003 Zoning for the resort District when the city went through its community redevelopment District stand um adoption in 2008 um all properties north of this were adopted into different zoning districts this property and its immediate neighbor to the north um which is a 3unit Condo building they retain the rfm zoning so the applicant is proposing a new four-story structure I'll show um renderings of that in a moment but they're requesting variances to setbacks as I mentioned before uh this is a rear yard setback so the one that abuts the northern property line next to the condos they're requesting a 16.8 ft setback where 20 ft is required on the southern side AB budding 37th Avenue's property line they're requesting a 43t setback wor 50 ft is required they are not requesting any other alternative variances whether to height setbacks um other standards that are listed in the code it's only to those two setback standards so here's a survey showing the existing conditions all photos in just a moment this currently contains the smiley Snack Shack as well as accessory parking area and again just showing the request that was described earlier on the Northern side they're asking for a 16.8 ft setback on the southern side a 43t setback uh this is the proposed development uh that was sent out with your packet uh this is a project rendering from Gulf Boulevard I did want to mention that this was the one that was sent out with your staff packet and this will affect uh the one condition of approval if the board chooses to approve that condition that comes in later on but if we could switch over to the overhead just briefly the applicant has supplied a updated rendering they are asking for a rooftop deck area for the uh development um so it is slightly different it is still compliant with the city's height requirements so they aren't asking for variance but there is a condition that staff's recommending that the applicant effectively build what they're applying for um that it not result in a larger development even if it were to be one that's administratively approvable so I just wanted to mention this it is different from what went out with your packet due to the rooftop deck um there's no changes to the number of floors or anything like that it's just the rooftop deck and the applicant can speak more to that we could switch back to the PowerPoint thank you so here are some photographs of the site uh looking at the Tucson postings uh this is looking North uh this would be where the front setback is measured from uh this is looking to the Northeast uh looking to the Northwest uh this is looking this is standing on the northwest side of the property looking East and uh it's showing the rear setback area where the new development is proposed to take place um this is the the rear setback um where there would be the 3.2 foot encroachment uh this is looking down the alleyway um I I say Alleyway but it's actually an easen across the front of the properties to the immediate West there are a number of single family homes immediately west of this property uh they have easements at the front of their property to form a an access for the properties that line north of the 37th Avenue straight end and this is looking to the Northwest from Gulf Boulevard that the smiley Snack Shack a number of years ago received a variance for the uh canopy the thatched roof um tiki hut that you're looking at here and um that was for setback encroachment toward the Eastern secondary front yard the applicant with the new development is proposing to meet the required um Eastern secondary front setback variance staff uh conditions are sorry staff respond to the variance conditions in your staff report so I will go um just through these uh staff finds that the request is reasonable and will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood the request as modified and contemplated under this proposal does result from an attempt to mitigate the hardships faced by the properties unique orientation and the conditions imposed by the Land Development code setbacks it is also minimal in scale I wanted to mention that when the stat sorry when the applicant first made application they were asking for a greater setback a greater encroachment into the the rear uh Northern yard um they did reduce that to 16.8 ft that had been a number that we had come up with based on what the setback would be if the property were oriented toward Gul Boulevard as all of its neighbors to the north are um the applicant also has a very significant side set back to the southern side that most properties that about it to the North do not um the Land Development code favors lots that are narrow and deep which is the general condition along Gulf Boulevard this is the exact opposite it's shallow and it's wide um so it results in a a much smaller buildable envelope than would be available to properties north of ID it is a different zoning district there is only one neighbor that is in this rfm zoning but it does pose a challenge due to the orientation of the lot relative to 30 7th Avenue uh this lot is one evently a handful of properties remaining within the rfm zoning in the city which affects the build of proportion of the subject property to a greater extent than others with similar zoning designation in the vicinity Additionally the applicant has substantially revised this submitt to reduce impact on abing properties staff recommends approval with one condition uh the condition being that the design features color height and setbacks of the development shall be as shown as an attachments a Time of site plan perming any alterations from submitted plans shall be noted should the alteration be deemed significant by the city manager or their Design This approval shall be considered void and required to return to the board of adjustment for reconsideration so this is put in place um effectively to ensure that the development is as it's shown in the photos um that it meets the design Integrity or S the rendering and that it meets the integrity that's proposed um I did want to mention that this is isn't directly related to the hardship but it is related to the general mitigation the applicant is meeting a western side setback from the single family homes as if they were oriented toward Gulf Boulevard so they are moving the structure significantly further away from the Western Property Line than they would be required based on their normal orientation they would typically have a 10-ft setback on this side um they're going to over 20 so in doing so it does reduce some of the impact on those properties to the immediate West which is something that I feel is positive but I just wanted to make sure that it it meets that at site plan if this is approved that's all I have I know the applicants present other attorneys also present but if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to answer them there any letters of objection no I received one letter um asking for more information about the use but nothing to do with the actual setbacks variance and you said Mr chair I have one question Brandon uh Brandon just to clarify so you state design features colors height that uh and setbacks so basically they can't make major changes to what they've shown does that include fourcc car garages uh or could for some reason they turn the downstairs into something besides a garage and then only have um um torac type parking driveway type parking right so oh sorry it to me that doesn't clarify that right so be and that's that's a good point um you're might want to add that in as a condition if the board feels it's it's something necessary now I did want to say that based on the parking standards for this lot um they would be required to have parking spaces where cars are not stacked So currently as it's proposed there's one lane to access the um you know the northern garages along the Eastern side of the property um they would not be able to just line cars up there because of our parking requirements they would need to be able to pull under the structure just they're they're not blocking that lane um but if you wanted to make something explicit if you're open to approving those that might be a good idea two car gares meet the parking requirement they do yes B requirement yes so they probably wouldn't want to Cho that I don't believe I mean what they're showing currently would meet the minimum and they've already made some um variations to the original design they did um that they did um get the the buildings closer together looking at the rendering they increase the rear setback from I believe it was 10 ft to 16.8 ft they are encroaching two more feet into the front yard than what was originally sent to staff so it's gone from 45 to 43 facing 37th Avenue but I believe it's gone from 10 ft to 16.8 ft facing the property to the north MH it's a difficult lot to do something with it it is it's it's I don't know of any other properties that face the same challenges the Don cazar is the same zoning but they have a much different orientation due to their multiple frontages so it's it's just a kind of unique lot for this vicinity Denise did you have a question no I'm good thank you Brandon thank you okay thanks Brandon anyone else here would like to speak like to hear from the applicant good afternoon uh chairman members Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill Ward Henderson representing the applicant we do have a PowerPoint to go through I don't want to belabor this um but have a few points that I wanted to supplement the record with uh we appreciate the staff recommendation of approval and the evidence that was provided in both the application that you received and reviewed as well as in the staff report I did just want to highlight some of some of the reasons why this is such a difficult lot and the hardship exists thank you um also with me today is Eli uh paying the PE who with Bas site engineering who is the site designer who could speak to the spefic specifics of the dimensions Casey standers with uh Clover Investments who is the uh contract purchaser and developer so uh this is the elevation that was provided and revised from your original elevation that shows the additional um use of the height it is still within the height parameters uh so at the end of my presentation I do have a revised condition that we would like to profer just to clarify in event there are some slight adjustments made within the um within the confines of the code AS Brandon said this is the site plan you can see uh it has two frontages together with the private Drive in the rear which is a continuation of El Centro Avenue the two frontages based on that uh require the staff and your code to identify which will be the primary Frontage and which the secondary Frontage in this situation the primary Frontage is identifi ified as 37th which is the exact opposite of all of the other properties that are to the south of it on Gul Boulevard um the two requests for variances just to orient you um the north is considered the rear of this parcel and the south is considered the front of this parcel and so I just wanted to make those clarifications that's truly where this hardship uh arises is identifying each of those sides and where it would be otherwise this is the north set back adjacent to the only other rfm zoning District um the rfm zoning District on a side setback would normally have um a much less uh let's see um it would be 10% so as as Brandon said it would be 16.8 feet would be the required If This Were the side setback and so that is what's proposed even though it's identified as the rear setback trying not to get confusing I apologize but as you can see there is clearly a hardship at ditto to the front um there's a 50 foot front setback required in the rfm zoning District here it's 43 ft um if this were to have been considered the side of course it would only be a 16.8 ft setback um just to put it in perspective kind of what it is is relative to the neighbors to the rear along Gulf Boulevard you can see that because they do have a residential designation their setback is required to be 10% of the lot width and so um this is a picture on the right of how the setback encroaches into the set required setback line and then what it actually looks like on the ground and you can see there's very little impact to the neighbors to the rear same on the South Side you can see the South um the Western most parcel they're about 10t setb there compared to the uh proposed 40ft setback this is the zoning map that Brandon spoke to showing the very odd rfm that is located right here with the residential surrounding the side setbacks in Ru and RM um ru2 and RM are 10% of the lot width so it's much uh less than what is required in the rfm zoning District um this allows for the structures to be oriented toward Gul Boulevard in line with the properties to the North and the South that provides the appropriate circulation away from the residential single family homes on the south and the West it's greater the setbacks proposed are greater than the neighboring single family home setbacks um the usable footprint is less than other rfm sites because of the Dual Frontage and the lot orientation I would not that there's proposed four units here based on your code there could be up to 11 units located with Resort Condominiums um the applicant desired to provide a product that uh you know Pro looked similar to sorry I was I messed up sorry I was going to the front so they could see the very first page um that looked similar to the other single family homes along Gulf Boulevard and and did not just create a condominium looking building um along Gulf Boulevard so with that we did speak to staff about the height and um because this is a preliminary design but because of Contra some contractual requirements we needed to come forward to ensure that our setback variances were appropriate the applicant is still working through some design we would request um to modify the condition of approval just slightly to say that the design features color height and setback shall be as generally shown in the attachments and the height may be varied within the district's permitted height so you know certainly calling out that there is no request for um height variance um but that the height may be increased depending on the floor height um whether there's the rooftop uh use and whether that rooftop use is enclosed which is what is shown on this picture so um the and then the rest of the condition be the same so I'm happy to read that back to the record if but we're we're good with any variation of that but we just wanted to ensure that when we come in for permits um there would be some flexibility to account for the actual architectural design so long as it fits within both the approved setbacks and the district's permitted height so with that we do have the engineer and the applicant here happy to answer questions and provide additional testimony as needed but with the testimony the evidence that was provided in the application together with the staff report we would request your approval thank you we can hear from the others if they'd like to speak add something you don't have you can yeah you don't it's okay if you don't have anything additional to add no well just to say at least thank you for considering this project we're looking add name and address sure Casey Sanders 520 Bay Laurel Court uh St Petersburg thank you for considering this we look forward to bringing a uh luxury development that's in line with the character of the city of St Pete Beach that uh adds value to the neighborhood and U look forward to hearing all response thank you thank you anyone else here like to speak on behalf does anyone did we have any letters of opposition no sir no opposition okay so we'll close the public hearing portion we'll open up for board discussion me selfishly I miss Smileys because was really fun on the weekends but this looks beautiful and I I really respect the fact that they took into into consideration wanting to um stick within the character of the city knowing they could have done you know designed something much different oh looks great but what's the what's the difference in the one condition that you staff recommended versus what she is talking generally versus like exactly I think they could they can do the height as long as they say within the height it's not a question for us I think they come in with something different if you look at the two renderings that were actually just provided one that was originally part of the um submittal you'll notice changes from one to just the other one that was submitted recently so I mean is that a significant change being the balconies have looked to change the roof line has changed I think that's what the applicant is looking that they can still design have the same general look but things may change it it's not going to be exact what you see as long as they're still meeting their setback require requirements that they're requesting and the height and they're not going beyond that than that I don't have any problem with it exactly that's in the design phas I think that's wanted to hear I don't either but I would like the condition on the garages that for some reason they don't decide that they don't want to do the garages anymore personally I'd like to see I think they have a parking space problem if they didn't do the garages I just not leave that chance if we don't have to does the applicant want to address the garage I I if I if I may Mr shers I know the hearing's closed but could you clarify your concern about the gr you just want enclosed off street parking you want to ensure off street parking what can you identify what the concern is to us and the the uh drawings show four four car garages um and that's know that's what I'm anticipating we're going to see as the final product I know the facade and decking and some of that and the height already is going to change within the parameters but um you know parking is becoming a bigger issue in this town and uh you know you've presented it that way and I'd like to see the final product have the garages similar to how they were presented I I would ask Miss CER Mr Barry I don't know that these have been measured that they are code compliant forc car garages despite the fact that we say they're fourar garages there would be the distinction on what your code I'm looking at my engineering and I've just run into this problem before a homeowner can definitely fit four cars but that doesn't mean the city would say that it is a fourcc car garage frankly from my perspective as long as two full-size automobiles can fit in those garages is I'm comfortable with that I think that's what we can I'm not comfortable with is there not being any language indicating that there will be a minimum of that would would it would it be sufficient to have a code compliant two-car garage because very likelihood or a minimum of minimum of two car yes personally I'm comfortable with that okay fine yeah that absolutely I'm I'm thinking through bikes and golf carts and everything else that go in a garage and did appear to be a two car garage door so other two car garages okay clarify that right any other discussion just along those lines Mr Skipper F poot from a design standpoint are you concerned about it being a large garage door or could it be a single garage door if it still parked two cars that's I just want to be clear for the staff so when we are moving forward with designs there's not confusion from my perspective you've demon you have presented a two-car garage door okay and um otherwise it would look entirely different um there's some Town Homes across the street from there that have one call garages and we're fine with that I just wanted I just would like you know just for the record requesting a two-car garage door so like 16 ft as a minimum for that aesthetic look that there representing as far as the um both the original uh submission and the revision correct do you have a problem with a 16t doors it's fine okay it isn't the problem you're just trying to solve is to make sure that there isn't any on street parking right you want to have it all captured in within each un unit that's that's the problem they're trying totically it looks I mean it's a very nice product that they're demonstrated to us what we're really here for though is the variance for the side yard the yard variances if they want my approval for that I got to be comfortable they're not going to come back for the high R yeah we appreciate that that's why I wanted to clarify the condition so we you have a good point okay all right any other discussion do we have a motion I'll make a a motion to approve case 24003 um with the adjustment to the condition as requested by the applicant and um an agreement to maintain a two-car garage per unit in the design I second that okay we have a motion and a second any further discussion roll call please member Chase yes member bulmer yes member mahalan yes member small yes chair Skipper yes motion carries that concludes our regular agenda do we have anything else to bring up no sir our next Board of adjustment meeting will be March 27 did we ever establish the May date since how many cases do we have in line chist yeah because we had a couple no we never had so there are still some possibly pending review just because staff has kind of been in the midst of other things but I can tell you they are rolling in um and they are getting uh riew for completeness a lot of times as you know they aren't necessarily complete and ready for you so we're just charging through um getting the resubmittal um so it's unclear at this point but there there most likely will be at least a few for you I have a question for answer um I made that motion earlier to deny is that on the one case instead of making it to approve and then vote no so is that cuz we've had this discussion a little bit before yeah what's your preference or is there is there a preference okay I mean if it's a if it's unanimously denial I think it's understood that there's not going to be you know I mean the opposite I think I I think I'm fine with the way you handled it so whatever whatever the motion is make a motion of but because it was a denial by the city request I felt like that's yeah that's what they were requesting for the motion so I think it's it worked out fine yeah you just confused the new guy a little bit but that's okay well what what the question usually was was if I make a motion to deny and then she does roll and you say yes yeah it is tricky oh am I saying yes to the they go ahead and not deny that and Mike and I had it ahead of time and that got me thinking and I just confus all right anything else if not for the May meeting you had a question on that was uh moved to May 15th that's what I thought okay and June 20th was also a move as well okay F that includes our meeting second all in favor I I I you thank you