all right welcome to the city of Treasure Island planning planning and zoning board for July 18th 2024 if you uh wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda a speaker's card is available on the table over to my left over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson please do not address the board from your seat but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute unscheduled topics may be presented under the public comment section of the agenda okay if everybody would please silence their cell phones and let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America to the repu for it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all all right Stephanie if we could have a roll call Lynn excuse me Lynn fiser here Diana krael here Marvin shavin here Ross Sanchez here Chris Downing here Gary penano here Richard Harris here okay approv of minutes um I wasn't here for the uh meeting back on in May but uh anybody look him over I did I move to accept the minutes as written okay could I have a second second all right all in favor I I hearing none opposed uh they're accepted a status update on the prior Planning and Zoning cases we had a hand out uh that Jesse provided to us uh and if anybody has any questions in regard to it some of these cases are moving along some of them are disappointingly not moving along uh I going to say it again if those people from rally uh don't finish the job they're not going to get their variance again possibly then again you don't let the variance expire if you get it anybody have any questions just a year is that good for years that oh it's it's good for uh because of oh co and hurricanes and everything else it's I'm not sure when the actual aspiration is yeah we don't really have an answer on that one either um so if you did look at the back of this so those variances those were approved what uh May 18th of 2023 so if you look at this timeline uh May 18th of 202 so this would actually fall underneath hurricane Ian and hurricane Nicole so both of those executive orders would have to expire and then the 12-month timeline would start counting down so it just expired last week I guess which one uh Ian and Nicole uh nope the hurricane Ian was renewed and that was extended out to August 27th 2024 and then Nicole will expire August 13th of 2024 I was just looking at the uh July 11th so what's the J July 11th to represent anything I guess not is that date on the 10771 Golf Boulevard for the um par six-story parking garage it says will expire November 20th 24 it says the site plan will expire November 20th but the Ian the executive order for Ian was extended 827 is that so it's like what 91 yes yes so that was just giving you like a rough time frame if that that executive order does expire on August 27th okay they still have those additional couple months left over from the original site plan approv all right so that's I appreciate you putting the dates in it U my just one question is in regards to the Sunshine Lane um that was approved for a parking lot when does what is the commission date that that goes in front of has that been put on the commission's agenda yes the first reading is set for August 6th of 2024 then second reading uh advertising stuff like that we should get in time should be August 20th of 2024 okay thank you m so on the rally when was when did you give them their comments your comments I I'd have to look back through it's been a long time I mean I not trying to think of when that was okay so they submitted January 26 of 2024 so most likely we had up to 30 days to review that so most likely our comments went out probably end of February and you haven't had any any communication nothing back yet that's can should we call I mean should we just touch base no we want this stuff to happen we want it to happen but they got to have some responsibility it's their engineer it's their architect they should know better you let your uh approvals Aspire shame on you you know from experience I mean that's another thing they might they might even be following these executive orders and there like oh we have time so but it's not really the city's uh responsibility to babysit these guys yeah but we want these things to happen so them raising their their gas station and stuff I don't see where that's going to make any real big impact to us as residents I would rather see the city trying to do some negotiating for getting the downtown area straightened up than R's gas station right out of the gate Diane love okay any other questions in regard to Prior cases second dian's comments seeing none um people are in the audience today who were going to speak need to take a oath if we could stand and be sworn in do you s ly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the Planning and Zoning Board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay any experte communication we need to disclose on any of these cases we never do hearing procedures anything you want to tell us about today Jennifer um I'm happy to go over the hearing procedures basically uh the applicant will have an opportunity to present their case approximately 10 minutes minutes um after they've finished completing the presentation of their case sta staff will have an opportunity to present their case um we'll then take public comment and then the applicant will have time for rebuttal during any of those presentations the board can ask questions of the applicant or can ask questions of Staff if the applicant has questions they can direct them to the board and the board will ask staff and same thing with staff if staff has questions to the applicant they can direct them to the board and the board will get answers from the applicant um at this time we've administered the oath so we can proceed with the first case okay let's start out with the first case uh number 10A variance 0000 454-2208 80th 95th Avenue a variance request to section 64- 486 open parentheses G close parentheses open parentheses 3 close parentheses to reduce the required three foot setback for parking area surfaces to 10 ft to 0t for approximately 16 linear feet along the north property line if the applicant would uh approach the podium and make their case good afternoon start out with your name and address please uh well my name is David Kum I'm actually the contractor and I was assigned by the homeowner to attend okay so um this all stems from originally we had a set of plans for new construction on the 18095 uh the house was originally approved with a particular driveway in place which we received notice months months after we started that it was approved in error and that we had to make changes so when we had to make changes we were told we had to have a variance in order to make those changes so um we changed it was originally applied and approved as a shell driveway and shell under parking under the house and then we received a notice that it was approved an error and had to be concrete um and along those same lines we we came to the uh acknowledge and we we realized that the person next door that was building their house was applying for a variance for basically the same thing because 95th is a very very narrow Street and as you come down the street there is not enough Street width to have access to enter either property without a share driveway so if this is denied neither person has access to the property they can't they won't be able to get to one house or the other so all we're asking is and I think you've already approved basically The Identical variance for the house next door is the North End of 180 95th and the south end I don't know the address of the house immediately to the north I think it's 160 160 would have a shared entrance that would come in would split off to the sides this one the 180 95th would be be able to turn right and get underneath their house into the parking areas and as already approved the house next door would share the same entrance would turn to the left and be able to enter in underneath their driveway into the uh garage underneath the house the elevated house to the to the north so we're basically trying to duplicate the same variance and approval so both homeowners will have ample access to be able to come down the street and turn into their property and be able to get into their parking spaces for the house without the variant neither one will have access to be able to again there's also um to the right and to the left of the street immediately to the north side is the Duke pedestal so there's no way to turn any further wider to the left and to the right we have water meters and uh other utilities to the right so the only way to access the property is come straight down 95th to be able to have that shared connected driveway and then to be able to turn right or left to get in underneath their houses thank you any questions I just wanted to I'll start out I just want to thank you for coming in with this variance it was actually during the meeting a couple months ago where we said hey instead of uh the guy trying to squeeze the driveway on the north side of 95th let's have a join driveway and they said okay the guy who's already under construction uh needs to come in and uh we'll have a nice joint driveway and this is the common sense Smart Way to do it cuz you can both uh use the end of the street to get into your houses so this is just a followup to that previous case so thank you for coming in and uh we'll let anybody else have anything Jesse go ahead please have a seat and we'll have the city presentation all right so this is a case number v- 000045 42024 and the request a variance request to section 68-46 486 subsection G3 to reduce the required 3ot setback for parking area surfaces to Zer feet for approximately 16 linear feet along the north property line here's the aerial image the subject property is located 180 95th Avenue land use the subject property has a land use of residential medium a zoning map the subject property zoned residential medium rm15 and just a little background uh this is pretty much the same background we had for 160 95th Avenue the property to the north so according to pelis County records plat book 16 page 96 this parcel and the parcel to the South were platted as lot six in Heron subdivision number one property property permit cards dating to 1958 indicate that two single family structures historically historically existed on lot 6 in 1965 the parcel at 160 95th Avenue was described as herons number one North 55 ft of lot 6 in 1958 the parcel at 180 95th Avenue was described as herens number one lot 6 less than North 55 ft this is consistent with the way that lot six is divided into two Parcels today a warranty deed recorded on November 25th 1967 granted the north 55 ft of lot 6 to be sold due to lack of Records it is on clear if this division was approved by the city as there were already existing structures on the property this granting created two Parcels with single family structures that were both demolished the structure at 160 95th Avenue was demolished in 2017 and the structured 180 85th Avenue 95th Avenue was demolished in 2021 this lot division created limited with access from the RightWay to the subject property per section 68- 455 this division of the lot is allowed to continue subdivisional requirements were in effect in 1967 however the 3-foot setback requirements for parking surface areas did not apply to single family or two family dwellings before 1995 and that was ordinance number 95-1 0 additionally a 1980 zoning map demonstrates the city acknowledge lot six as being two Parcels on March 21st 2024 the planning zoning board approved a variance request for the adjacent property 160 95th Avenue to section 68- 486 subsection G3 to reduce the required 3- foot setback for parking area surfaces to 1 foot for approximately 16 linear feet along the South property line with the condition that provided an opportunity to work with the adjacent property owner to combine driveways and that was case number v- z435 D20 24 additionally during this meeting it was noted that the driveway location on permit bldr -003 382-2222 section 68- 486 subsection G3 would provide for the opportunity to combine the parking area surfaces SL driveways for approximately 16 linear feet on the subject property and the adjacent property 16 95th Avenue and provide access to both Parcels from the RightWay let's see here's a survey and it's a site plan highlighting where they're requesting the um variance and then this is showing what was approved on March 21st 2024 so we saying approximately 16 ft cuz of course this is going to depend off depend on what exactly these measurements are going to be so whenever they submit a new site plan for 180 and 16095 comes in of course they will be identical in that length for the reduction to the setback okay and oops back okay and this is the variance review criteria section 70-22 staff's analysis is as follows criteria one the variance being requested is set forth within the city's Land Development regulations and under the perview of the Planning and Zoning Board criteria two the lot division has created a circumstance that has limited the width of the access from the RightWay to the subject property additionally an existing stormwater carb Inlet above grade further reduces the access way these circumstances do not generally apply to lands within rm15 zoning District criteria three strict application of the provisions of the Land Development regulations would not permit the applicant a reasonable access to the subject property the Land Development regulations do not specifically address any driveway design standards however section 68- 486 subsection G3 requires the parking surface parking surface to be 3 feet wait 3T from all property lines if section 68- 486 subsection G3 were to be applied any proposed paved access way of a reasonable width to the property will not be feasible and would reduce the access to less than 7 ft even though the Land Development regulations not reference fdot designed standards it is worth noting that fdot design manual table 24.31 requires a minimum of 12T wide driveway connection to flush shoulder roadways additionally a typical res residential parking space is 9 ft by 18 ft as established by the city code criteria four due to lack of Records it is unclear if the lot division was approved by the city at the time however the three-foot setback requirements for parking surface areas did not apply to single family or two family dwellings before 1995 additionally a 1980 zoning map demonstrates the city acknowledge lot six as being two Parcels criteria five the proposed variance appears to be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land by permitting the construction of a paved access way of reasonable width criteria six Redevelopment a single family structure is currently under construction on the subject property substandard Lots the parcel was approximately 50 ft by 107 ft which is about 5,350 ft and exceeds the minimum requirements for lot width depth and total area for a single family dwelling and the rm15 zoning District however the lot Frontage has limited access due to existing storm water curb inlets number six neighborhood CR neighborhood character the neighborhood consists mainly of single family structures with access ways of reasonable width to the right away uh public facilities is not applicable uh architectural and Engineering considerations is not applicable and criteria seven the granting of the variance request appears to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter as it does not appear that the applicant has met has met the hardship criteria of this chapter criteria eight the granting of this variance would not be injurious to the adjacent Properties or be detrimental to the public welfare and staff recommendation staff recommends approval of a variance request to section 68- 486 subsection G3 to reduce the required three-foot setback of parking area Sur es to 0t for approximately 16 linear feet along the north property line based on the analysis of the Criterion section 70- 221 above finding that they have been substantially satisfied and that an unnecessary hardship does exist subject to the following conditions condition one the applicant provides an irrevocable cross access agreement recorded in the pelis county clerk of the court with the adjacent property 160 95th Avenue prior to the physical connection of the parking area surfaces SL driveways uh condition two the applicant submits a advised site plan for permit dldr d-00 3382 d222 and of course staff is available for questions okay anybody have any questions for Jesse I have one good Jesse on in our regulations someplace the building department has like a 10% variance that they can approve without anything going on with this being an approximate approximately 16 linear feet I as a board member and hopefully the rest of the board would agree with me if it would go out of that Realms I would like you guys to be able to have the legal power to go ahead and if it goes further than that in order for this to get taken care of for both of these property rights that we have that as part of this motion okay so yeah yeah as you mentioned we do have one of those in place it's like up to a foot or 10% of what they would be requesting okay I can so so you know let's say that it ends up going 20 feet that wouldn't be 20 linear feet I wouldn't want the either of the applicants have to come back in and reapply fly or anything because we have this approximate 16 ft now because I think it's kind of evident that the board is behind this based on what we ruled back in March for the one and I just don't want us to be a bottleneck any place or a bottleneck to you guys or the applicants okay so if you're thinking like you possibly like adding a condition that the Planning and Zoning Board would authorize staff to create great additional I think she cuz I I think the word approximate is what Diane's more focused on like if they did end up doing more than 16 feet and they have to come back I think I want to eliminate that problem okay Define define approximate for me okay I see what you're saying now um so I'm not trying to be an obstacle we're just trying to make it more seamless for them to get their project understand so if you want you can get more specific with that and just say exactly 16 ft so this so if you look at what the property to the north has up there they actually have like 15.06 feet of what most likely would be connected however they have about like an additional one foot additional two feet of an area that also encroaches as well too the question is how much leeway do we have with the approximate 16 and that maybe that's a question that's what I want to eliminate question I want to eliminate that approximate and I'll give you guys the leadway that if it ends up being 20 feet we're still systems go every place so you would be okay if they would want something yes I you know because once they get in there they might find something else are you okay if they end up doing 20 feet yeah I am I'm just I'm just making sure like how we would want to have that stated on the development order well to cut to the chase then let's just approve it for 20 feet and if they build it 16 feet nobody that's fine it's less up to 20 up to 20 fet okay we we can change that on development order then I mean I'm just trying to make it easier for all of us so that we're not getting into a bottleneck someplace here's the scenario that I know that's running through my colleagues mind is that they build the driveway to 18 feet building finals go out they look at it and go this is 18 feet you're only approved for approximately 16 feet I'm not saying that that happens a lot but and it let's just say it gets rejected or you got to fix it we're trying to eliminate that whole scenario in general I got it let's just change it to up to 20 but I do have one question Jen would we have to read vertise if we would go elting yeah yeah because we don't want it to go all the way all the way through the property line Chris that's why I would think that we why we want to put a we have another so we could could we could increase it to make sure we cover what do City attorneys so yeah what I was going to say is they've asked for six approximately 16 linear feet right now that's what they've requested that's what the applicant is asking for so if what you want to say is that it's approximately 16 linear feet but that as a condition on it that you want to um authorize staff within 2 feet or 3T if it's needed but no greater than that it wouldn't have to come back before this board and it would be limited but right now they're asking for 16 linear feet so I'm assuming approximately 16 so I think could we put a condition in there it says the definition of a of approx call it two feet either plus or minus can say not to exceed 18 well or can we ask the applicant like what they think they their ranges here I mean I mean we're trying to be we're trying I app we're trying to be friendly in the situation the one thing I will say is that because the neighboring property had submitted theirs first we were asked to basically duplicate what what they had what they had done okay so we didn't really measure out the 16 fet to say whether that was exact or not I mean I very much appreciate what you you suggested to say if we had a little bit of leway because if it takes you know the angle for the cars to come in and be able to turn at a safe angle to get underneath one house or another I mean if we said you know one person I think said you know if it was up to 20 you know not to exceed 20 probably would be more than enough um I wasn't the one who originally requested the 16 ft we duplicated the original uh variants that had been requested to the house to the North and the houses aren't set in the exact same uh Dimension or setbacks the house plans and the site plans are not identical for the for the two houses so I don't know if one house is further back or you know from the end of the street or closer to the end of the street so having a little bit of leeway probably would make sense that we don't have to come back and request a separate variant for 2.2 feet of additional space of uh you know because it doesn't work or because it does the turning radius isn't adequate for it so I I mean I appreciate you know the the thought and I I would agree that I don't know what approximately means does that mean within 10% within 15% you know what do approximately me it's a very it's a vague number do we know what the outside number is if it's if it's not 16 feet do we know what the outside number is because we had a we we had a board member just throw out 20 ft I don't think that they were I mean they were intending just to get the point across I don't think they were saying okay it's 20 feet I mean is that is it 18 is you have the picture that has the site plan with the the one you brought up that has the house on it do we have a dimension on there I just don't want them to have to come back in yeah that's about the best I just really don't want to have who are you today this is amazing I love it what is the typical would they have to come back in if it was two feet off yes it's a problem yes it is that's why I wanted to do something about it but then what if the other people it would be better for them they're going have to come back in because it's not on theirs well but I think what you heard the them say was that the other people he just said that the houses are in different positions so I don't know whether or not it affects the other one yeah I mean let's at least protect this one if we can for I was not here for the March meeting changed I did not up to part of that discussion well4 28 28.4 possible that the 16 ft you know as they come in in turn um having a little extra leeway I mean if it was an extra if we said 18t I'm sure probably enough there you go 18t enough why don't we just put a condition in there that gives the city an administrative waiver for two two feet plus or minus off of 16 this Ross what I like is we don't so we were leaving what they asked for okay and then because it says approximately just um putting as a condition that if it ends up being greater than the 16 ft that staff has is authorized up to 20 okay two feet two additional feet or whatever okay and one additional question and I don't know what point in the permit this is but have you already submitted your application that tells your amount of permittable Grant is about the house is about 75 80% completed already at least our house does they could have patios or something grining this impact their impervious surus ratio calculation that's what I'm asking yes it would impact I understand that it does are they still under the a lot I have to go back through the permit application and see where they're at on that okay you know they've already got one permit that we said it was in an error I don't I agree with the philosophy of let's not make them come back but we don't want to approve and another two or four feet and because of the width of the driveway then that alters something else that was already approved the the error that was approved in error was not necessarily the size or the depth it was the material of it because originally we applied to have it be a crush shell Drive the driveway was going to be Crush was going to be Crush shell and underneath the house was under shell and and then you came back and said that was approved in air CU it we could not have a parking surface that was not solid it had to be either uh concrete concrete or asphalt or something yeah it had to be gravel and plus the plans that were submitted showed the gravel driveway itself going out beyond the property lines access to to the property because we didn't have the homeowner didn't have access to enter their property without having the wider access to it okay yeah and I realized that was a different reason for an error but I don't want to create a similar type of situation I'll ask I'll ask a question for Jesse when the applicant submits a revised site plan for bmit for the permit they include an updated imper surface ratio correct yes yeah that would be requ would be fine it's covered it's covered okay the impur surface ratio would be because they haven't submitted a revised site plan with this variant but part of the conditions is concludes that they submit a revised site plan so we would be good from the Imp haven't asked the architect to do a revised site plan until it was approved because we didn't want to have to do it more than that's understandable that's understandable but you're good with these being that I got you up here you're good with these conditions yes yes okay just I'm sorry I have a question real quick so because we're changing so they had the driveway originally approved that had shell in the driveway um and now we're just changing the surface of it so we know the length of the driveway based on when it was approved as a shell driveway that's the same I would have to dig up the permit originally approved without having the house next door so the it was really an oversight not only on the department that reviewed the plan but also probably on The Architects because realizing that with the width of the street being what it is it would have been impossible to have access the property regardless of the surface without driving on the neighboring property this the the center of the street would not give an SUV the ability to get between the curb and the street without driving on to the neighbor's property and turning so if the driveways had a 3-foot required setback from the property line they'd be driving off the edge of the pavement to get on back excuse me to get back onto the property so it was probably an oversight on more than one issue just because of the the narrowness of the street at the end absolutely I understood I was just wondering if that would give the dimension that you needed because would you've already have a a driveway that's I'm guess the original the original driveway design submitted with the original building permit extended into the neighbor's property because it would have had to in order to uh have access to the property because it wasn't wide enough to split the street and half and come in okay I think we've uh sufficiently addressed say one thing just to make sure that I understand what the condition is so it's it's going to be something along the lines of the Planning and Zoning Board is going to authorize staff to provide plus or minus 2 feet for the variance is kind of what it's going to be okay just check him all right anybody in the public wish to speak to this case seeing none I think we've uh no that's not it I looked uh anyway well we'll close the public hearing uh I just want to take the time to thank uh the applicant for coming in and doing this the right way Cu uh you know having a split driveway at the end of 95th made no sense so the joint driveway is a fantastic solution and things worked out so let's have a motion to approve it changed it it's not my fault I'm trying to be more critical thinking about it excuse me I make a motion to approve with conditions case number variance 0454 d224 a variance section 2 Section 68- 486 subsection G3 to reduce the required 3 foot setback for a parking area surface to 0 feet to a approximately 16 linear feet on the North property line with the following conditions the applicant submits a revocable cross access agreement recorded in the pelis county clerk of courts with adjacent property 160 95th Avenue prior to the physical connection of the parking area and surface driveways the applicants will submit a revised site plan for permit BL bldr 00 3382 d222 condition number three pnz authorized staff up to or staff a two foot plus or minus linear fate um maximum okay could I have a second pleas I'm sorry one other thing um and in that did you make the finding that an um unnecessary hardship does exist no but there due to an unnecessary hard hardship on the part of the applicant because of this the 95th Street access to the two proper properties second all right we had a motion by Diana Crill who was it who second Chris oh Gary all right just to make sure Gary's the alternate can he second yes okay just making sure you're fine Gary thank you all right let's have a roll call vote Diana crille yes Gary penano yes Lynn fiser yes Marvin shavin yes Ross Sanchez yes Richard Harris yes okay go finish your house it's nearly built I went by it the other day um all right moving on to the next case thank you all very much yep uh 10B variance 00004 56 d224 135th uh 93rd Avenue a variance request to section 68-46 open parentheses 2 close parentheses to permit pole equipment to be located in the southwest corner of the lot instead of adjacent to the principal structure could have the applicant uh come to the podium and present their case good afternoon Amy Huber 2200 Gulf Boulevard Indian Rocks Beach I'm here today on behalf of the homeowner um 135 93rd Avenue the uh the home sits on an existing non-conforming lot it is narrow but long um the applicant met with staff prior to submitting for building permit to construct a pool and a location was determined for the pool equipment at that time the home owner then had plans um drawn up submitted permit was issued pool was constructed inspections were completed along the way and during final inspection the city advised the homeowner that the permit was issued in error and that a variance would be required for the location of the pool equipment the code currently requires um the pool equipment to be adjacent to the existing structure to the home in this instance as you can see from from the home it sits right on the property line and then there is a means of egress from the kitchen that runs along the back of the house in order to place the pool equipment there it would then obstruct the um access path from the back of the house nor is it wide enough to comply with the setback off a off the rear property line to place it in that location either which is why staff and the homeowner initially determined to place the pool equipment in the in the rear not um the applicant has a hardship for the following reason it's a non-conforming lot based on the existing structure that was not created by the existing homeowner there is no location along that back rear property line adjacent to the home to place the pool equipment moreover the property owner um received and there in your package all of the abing property owners um have signed off they have no objection to the location of the pool equipment I know that Jesse's going to go through every criteria um they're also outlined in correspondence from me to you in page 54 to 56 of your package so I don't want to be duplicative and stand up and go through why we meet all of the variance criteria and why we have a hardship because I know he's going to he's going to do that but we are more than available for any questions you have okay any uh question for the applicants representative seeing none please have a seat and we'll have Jesse give his presentation all right uh so this is case number v-004 456 d202 4 uh the request a variance request to section 68-46 subsection two to permit pole equipment to be located in the southwest corner of the lot and not adjacent to the principal structured uh the subject property is located at 135 93rd Avenue the subject property has a land use of residential medium the subject property is Zone residential medium rm15 and a little background so according to the pellis County Property Appraiser's office the subject property is developed with a single family dwelling that was constructed in 1946 on June 29th 201 23 an inground pool permit was issued with a pool equipment location not meeting the minimum yard regulations in section 68-46 during an inspection the incorrect location of the pool equipment was brought to the city's attention and the property owner was informed a variance would be required for the pool equipment to remain at the current location the applicant is requesting a variance to move the move the equipment to its current position from adjacent to the structure as required and place it at the southwest corner of the property if located adjacent to the structure the pool equipment would be required to have at least a 3ft setback per section 68-46 the P equipment as proposed is located away from the principal structure in the corner of the property and is 3 ft from both the side and rear property lines if not using the exception to location in section 68-46 the required setbacks would be 7 1/2 ft from from the side property line and 10 ft from the rear property line and so here's the survey of the subject property the site plan so as you can see this is pointing out where the actual pole equipment is located now so that's in the southwest corner of the lot and there's a little I thought I had this closer up but of the PO equipment that's in the southwest you can see in the top left top left of this you can see it does meet to three-foot setback uh so variance review criteria section 70-22 staff's analysis is as follows one the variance being requested is set forth within the city's Land Development regulations and under the perview of the Planning and Zoning Board criteria two the substandard lot depth existing non-conforming structure and the required means of outlined in section R3 111.1 of the Florida building code have created unique circumstances the lot depth is below the 90ft minimum requirement and is therefore considered a non-conforming lot the existing structure is non-conforming to both the front and rear setbacks section r311 point1 of the Florida building code requires a means of erress criteria three the strict application of the provisions of the land regulations would not permit the applicant reasonable use or construction of a pool if section 68-46 subsection two were enforced the pool equipment could not be placed adjacent to the principal structure due to an existing deck on the west side of the structure and the required means of egress on the south side of the structure criteria four the substandard lot depth non-conforming structure and required means of egress outlin in section r31 1.1 of the Florida building code are not the result of the applicant the applicant's agent or the applicant's predecessors criteria five the proposed variance appears to be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the pool structure by permitting the pool equipment to be located in southwest corner of the lot this location permits the pool equipment to meet the required 3-foot setback and will not block the required means of erress from the dwelling criteria six Redevelopment the requested variance is in connection with the cont struction of a pool on the existing developed site substandard lot the lot is considered to be substandard due to not meeting the minimum lot depth of 90 ft the lot depth varies from 53 ft to 48 ft neighborhood character is not applicable public facilities not applicable architectural and slor Engineering considerations uh the requested variance is not related to the design or construction of a structure that would render it more disaster resistant however the pool equipment is elevated to make it more resistant to flooding criteria 7 the granting of the variance request appears to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter as it does not appear that the applicant has has does appear yeah my bad does appear that the applicant has met the hardship criteria of this chapter criteria eight the granting of this variance were not be injurious to the adjacent Properties or be detrimental to the public welfare additionally the applicant has submitted three letters from adjacent Neighbors in support of the variance request and staff recommendation staff recommends approval of variance request to section 68-46 subsection two to permit po equipment to be located in the southwest corner of the lot and not adjacent to the principal structure based on the analysis of the Criterion section 70-22 above finding that they have been substantially satisfied and that an unnecessary hardship does exist and of course staff is available for questions thank you okay any questions of the the board for the staff yeah just want to understand um so if this were coming for permitting today with without it already been constructed how would they have handled the location of this pool equipment would they have been required to get a variance ahead of this then in a case like this was there there that's the I'm not suggesting we make any change now I'm just really trying to understand one how this happened because I think it's just a mistake that it was approved initially by the city but had it been approved properly where would that equipment likely have been placed or would they have had to get a variance that's what I'm trying to understand yeah they they would have had to applied for a variance as well even before they could have submitted for the permit okay all right is there is there any other place on that lot that it could have gone so they wouldn't had to apply for a variance pool equipment can't be located in the front yard um and basically so that would eliminate the whole front of the structure and as you can see on the South Side ity I don't know how they would run the lines between that South section of the structure to get that equipment to the other side of that entrance to the house because it looks like that is pretty much right up against the property line itself so I think probably would have uh even if it hadn't already been built the hardship exist the uh I guess that's what I was getting at yeah the thing we're going to get into next is uh in the OPA is going to be we're going to start uh revising the land velopment regulations and we need to think about stuff like this cuz air conditioning units can get into setbacks we just want to make sure that while we're thinking about it and while it's cogent in our uh memories is yeah we can do stuff for pool uh pool equipment this a very tight area this is one of the tightest areas of uh Treasure Island right here there's no room to even drive up and down that street sometimes the only other thing I days the other issue we had is um the electrical lines run behind and so that has its own set of distance and setback requirements so that push should even so there was there's there's only about I think it's like eight feet back there um and the width of the sidewalk has to be six feet in order for EMS to get in and out so there's just no way we we were here no matter what it just um at the time that they met with staff it wasn't initially said you need a variant so they for permit we moved on and then I got a frantic phone call so here we are right anyway any other questions for the city staff Marvin is there any sound buffering requirements for the pool equipment since it's so close to the property lines it's a good question I honestly don't know if we do have one anything in our code that talks about I mean there's like a noise ordinance I think that would apply to mechanical equipment as well but I have to check on that one was thinking along that same line first two Mar but when I read that the three adjacent Property Owners letters are in there and they wanted this to go forward in the Improvement of the variances I figured they're the ones that really have the biggest beef that anybody could probably have is on if it got noisy or anything and with them endorsing it I'm not I think maybe that's something we should consider when we do ldrs and different things on if there's a sound beffer but right now I residential pool equipment is extremely quiet these days when it comes to the technology we really have gotten a lot quieter and they run during the day it's about the same uh situation as a air conditioning uh way way quieter quieter um as soon as this gets approved um it will be fenced in and enclosed that permit was already issued we just didn't construct it because we didn't want to be onerous and say there you go Marvin but we do it I don't know if that's going to you're not enclosing it on the top right no but the height um that's how sound travels so as long as the height of the fence is above the height of the equipment it it very much mitigates but you're correct mechanical equipment is under your noise ordinance so we have to comply with that at the at the property line anyway thank you where this sits there is no house immediately jent it's like a driveway on this side and it's a backyard like it's it's actually a better location than had we put it next to the house there's a house that sits okay 5T off the property line behind us yeah so they would have been thoroughly agitated had it sat right there so this it kind of sits in a corner where there's already a big light pole yeah and other things so it doesn't bother anym only way you're going to hear have the bearings going out so it's going to be quiet okay uh no more questions for uh the uh City staff if we could have uh anybody in the public who wants to speak to this Larry do you have anything yes is uh Larry Jenkins the building official here uh I pulled up one more code uh 45123 that allows uh accessibility and clearance for pool equipments uh to be installed to provide access to service that equipment being that close to the house you could violate that depending on the size of the equipment I have inspected the area uh there the pool is pretty much finished at this point we're just waiting on the variant so we can go in it afterwards we can all go pool party thank you Larry thank you anyone else in the uh audience that wishes to speak to this case seeing none we will close the public hearing I think this is pretty uh cut and dried uh thanks for coming in and making application after the fact can we have a motion to approve no this is your day no it's not you want me do it sure Mr chairman I will make a motion in regards to case number V make sure the right one uh have the right one yeah I got it okay v- z0000 456-2233 93rd Avenue Treasure Island Florida 33706 uh as a Planning and Zoning Board member uh as U make a determination that the unnecessary hardship does exist pursuant to section 70221 of the treasur island code of ordinances and and I move to approve the variance request because there's no condition so I I approve a variance request to section 68 there's no there's no conditions right there's no conditions there's no conditions approve I so I'll restate it I approve um the variance a variance request to section 68-46 u 2 to permit pool equipment to be located in the southwest corner of the lot and not adjacent to the principal structure okay motion by Ross Sanchez could I have a second second second by Marvin shavin could we have a roll call vote Ross Sanchez yes Marvin shavin yes Diana Kel yes Lynn fiser yes Gary penano yes Richard Harris yes we go let's go have a pool party one of the nicest uh maintained houses in Sunset Beach too by the way okay public comments on non-agenda items anybody got anything they want to bring up I have something no good um pirate Square the parking lot did did they ever apply for a special exception variant or a special exception to have a last uh they did apply um last we said I think was like November December uh we reviewed their initial application we sent comments out one of the big things came up was a drainage plan that needed to be done as part of that application and they said that they needed some time to get that done and that's the last that I I have heard about it it seems to be operating I see people over there putting money in or putting their credit card in on the weekends it's full now during the week you don't hardly see anybody on the weekends though a lot of times it's full and people are using it I I didn't want to put my credit card in but I went the other day and I push the button and it says do this to park I do know code enforcement is working on something I believe her director Katherine might have a little bit more detail on that one the I mean would that be would that be any different than the McDonald's parking lot but theed parking I mean they're not using additional parking it was the parking that was always there well but have parking and they had to apply yeah but there's people parking on the McDonald's footprint yeah no McDonald's Had parking to begin with and then they but they were also going for additional parking where the building used to be that's what I'm saying there's nobody parking where the buildings used to be to be at pirate square but everybody else applies for a special exception when they put in a paid parking lot so there shouldn't be anything unique about this property I wouldn't think so they do need site plan approval we are moving this forward under codes enforcement action um the McDonald's parking lot that they are using has approval for a temporary parking lot but not on the but not on the not on the building where the building footprint is no they do covered the entire site yeah and um that is still legal as a temporary parking lot because of the states of emergency so it just keeps getting extended even though it's temporary um automatically without any action possible from the city and they ensure they check with us every you know six months is our permit still valid is there anything we need to do um and also as Jesse noted in his his uh report uh they are also very much in touch with us about the expiration of the parking garage that was approved for that site as well so they are tracking that very carefully make sure their approvals do not expire for the parking garage but the one downtown they're applying but they haven't the one downtown they're applying but they haven't their application hasn't been approved it's not complete yet we are waiting for the last piece which is the drainage plan which they said they were sending in January so then does Code Enforcement do anything to stop them from making money off of it in the meantime so they have um been given a notice and another notice is going out um taking this to the code board okay and then the code board can enforce penalties per day that they are in violation correct you are correct okay thank you very much okay any other com be a dirt lot for a long time any other comments on Richard discussing anything right at this point we can bring up anything at this point on what well this is Treasure Bay do we want to get into that during the LPA meeting well I just think we got to throw it on the table with the temperature being so darn high with this thing and we get further further down the track what are we going to do do we get involved with do we don't get involved with it what's our POS position are we to stay out of it I mean the temperature level is just boiling to the point is we got to get our arms around this thing okay yep so I mean individually you know you're citizen of this of the city you can Advocate or oppose anything um within the city but at this point there's no application um that has come forth from the city with regard to Treasure Bay for consideration by this board there's nothing for this board to do does the city have to apply if they're doing work the city has to follow its code and so the question is as to whether or not that um what they're seeking to do at Treasure Bay would trigger a site plan or whether or not it's exempt under the code and if it's an exemption it doesn't come before this board go ahead so at this point Catherine again to clarify the point the um living Shoreline project and the boardwalk project those activities are specifically Exempted under the code so that's why that had Treasure Bay has not come to the to the pnz um if in the golf course program or there's other things where the impervious surface increases new buildings any of that that would come to the pnz why is that on the first grou why is the shoreline not um it specifically ex uh exempts landscape improvements docks uh seaw walls uh falls under that yeah it falls under kind of a big landscape I see type exclusion uh and I guess they probably don't even know that or have any Communications along those lines that that's the way it's running right now because apparently they think we should be involved in everything over there and that's not the case yes we've been asked why it didn't come to the pnz and that was our response is that we specifically showed them the exemptions in our code so that I have a related question so you just I guess stay up here you if you don't mind please please so and Richard this is kind of for you more if this is the appropriate time this the the is it Citizens Voice group is that the group that has been writing the letters and just trying to I was read a couple of those emails trying to understand their position with respect to this board and what they're ask saying is being done or not being done or being considered by this board or not being considered I guess some of this really it's a procedural thing in terms of the city once they have a project they want to do they have to bring it before this board like any other entity would have to and they did address the letters to May Katherine was copied she responded and just what she described that because it's uh seaw wall Landscaping that type of situation that really doesn't have to come before this board but we start building new buildings out there new parking out there right uh new sidewalks out there you know it's going to be a walking trail and I assume that it's going to be perious that was the that and that was the latest letter the letter before that was that was addressed to you I guess Richard that was in regard to this board having some view or oversight when the city is working on larger site plan they me maybe that what maybe it what maybe that one didn't go to you yeah it did okay so there was a broad there was a broader question that this group was bringing up and I'm just bringing it up in this form just so we all understand again I think it was matter it's a procedural matter that these are things that developers or property owners are bringing to the city to do planning to get an approved site plan and this board does not see that site plan until it's ready to be approved and not we're not involved in the day-to-day process of do of of looking at that and and if that's appropriate that's great but I think it's this that this group's position that this board has had no no oversight of this and that perhaps um perhaps we should and I guess I'm trying to understand maybe this is Jennifer it's a question for you what is typically done on these boards or not and that's the confusion certainly so actually in Your Land Development regulations um governs what comes to this board and what doesn't so for instance a great example is variances so there are certain variances that come to this board there are other variances that this board never sees and they go straight to commission um site plans there are certain uh temporary approvals that go to the board that don't come here so the city commission determines which items come to this board which items go straight to commission or which are handled by staff and we follow the codee as far as what processes followed so I I think so we're comfortable with the way in which we've been doing this we have not been seeing these site plans until they're essentially worked out and they're brought before this board to be approved is that and that's they certain they have to be deemed complete we don't have to approve them well correct right right and there are certain site plans that I would say that and I don't it's actually well that you don't see like for in single family homes when they're right I think we're talking about the larger site plans yeah so it's I'm just want was really trying to understand to make sure that we are all doing the right thing in terms of the way in which the regulation is set up and that's fine yeah yeah sounds like what thank you for explaining that bringing that all the light it's a big big help because it's a big help being pinged all over the place with this thing isn't being fun I do want to ask a question I understand erecting new buildings would be something that the city has to go through where it comes to us what about demolishing like a city building so let's just take like the fire station The Old City Hall things like that if there's a change there does that come in front of the Planning and Zoning Board or does that yes it would if they were building new buildings not the demo if they were building new buildings yes but just a demo permit they get a demo permit what about if they were putting in a park yes I'm not saying that's happening just for the record I'm not saying that's happening I'm just curious so it depends like if you're talking about the Old City Hall site that is zon for government and there are certain things in our code under that zoning that are allowed um whether they're a special exception whether they go through site plan that's all like spelled out in the code so once again it kind of depends on what's there and what's in it okay all right um the only thing that I had for General comment um I've talked to code Code Enforcement before and I understand I'm all about the um single family residence homes and the condos and stuff like that but what I'm seeing in regards to my district and all around the city in regards to some of these projects that are being built um trash being left around there's you know I see some projects where there's no Rock by the drive driveway so like mud and dirt's just falling in I mean there's neighboring houses that take care of their places and they're dealing with you know trash or those uh uh screens the uh the construction Sil screens um especially in the lots that are demoed so if I could just ask you guys to you know just check with the builders or check with code enforcement I would really appreciate it I think a lot of my fellow residents would appreciate it as well because it in my opinion it's definitely getting out of hand and as we're updating the storm water regulations under elevati we've been talking a lot about making that more enforcable on our side because our our powers are a little bit limited and we are trying to make sure that we have more power to to enforce those construction site problems dump trucks coming in dragging them on our brand new pavement or leak in hydraulic oil I mean I understand that those things happen but I mean it's it's Prett pretty bad in some in some of these projects and I'm sure our building inspector has seen some of the the chaos that's out there yeah actually he's actually shut down a couple sites before because of not doing stuff like that so thank you okay we are going to have a LPA meeting I'd like to discuss Elevate TI a little bit during that meeting uh any other reports or comments from City attorney staff or board members uh I have one actually Chris this might help you out too and anybody else if you'd be interested I could actually copy like all the duties that apply to the Planning and Zoning Board and then also show you things that are exempt as well to and I just email it out to everybody Jesse please yes include me yeah okay me too yeah I'll just send it to everybody then everybody oh one of my questions was has anyone applied for my chair that's coming out open am I allowed to ask that question you can ask that question I just don't I don't know the answer to it because it's something that comes into the clerk's office and okay yeah we that ad is out there or the invitation is out there yes for district four hurts my feelings a little bit but I get it it's the rules I they were looking it just says district for an alternate I thought um okay because I had the the city the clerk emailed me about am I interested in doing again of course I applied yes so so you would I I don't want to speak for you he would go to the commission as an interested party right for I do plan on showing up at the AUST how does it work you you can speak to that better so um so it depends normally when you're in a position and then you want to continue you know you acknowledge that you want to continue and often times the commission will allow you to continue but we do have term limits for committee members and so when you reach that term limit unless there is no one that has applied for that seat um you can't be reappointed okay so okay no I understand the rules I was just curious if you turn limited out or no yeah yeah yes he is he and I both are anyway okay um our next pnz board member uh meeting will be um August 15th 2 p p.m. do we have any cases possibly one not a guarantee yet okay we'll see everybody on the 15th unless things change and then we'll figure out the LPA next LPA from that because it's always good to have them both on the same day we always like that we that's our goal we'll talk about that at the LPA but um could we take a couple minute break in between so we can get the presentation Mo to adjourn this meeting and we'll uh reconvene here at 2:25