[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6223706,"mediaKeyId","3565940-c33017d9d5f35adeb0c6f95cf17a9cab","parentId",3565940,"title","Board continues Barracks-by-the-Sea redevelopment case for more review","audioSeconds",4780,"startMs",3720000,"endMs",8500000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3565940-c33017d9d5f35adeb0c6f95cf17a9cab&start=3720&end=8500","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3565940-c33017d9d5f35adeb0c6f95cf17a9cab/thumbnail_3720000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6223706/St-Pete-Beach/Pinellas-County/Florida/Board-continues-Barracks-by-the-Sea-redevelopment-case-for-more-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6223706-8749071f3d2f36f6f50b5ce6bc5b9053/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185451&Signature=NBs5Vh30SeWNRfGTp2uB0wYm4pjSycHRcfZJREKi4dc4qUlndh3R3uL2cVCSke9H9P0aphkhk~zXyxEx~dwLF07qiRxRzwAfF1euEDdHPkjtUjbWVhdA3aWj-WcUL-XlREras31R3N6M-H0-cmJtLF846BX-6Odak-42EYftH3HZmZgyYKojKVNXy9WEJkadXCpBbSd5DNKSv4jc3cTIoY2-YbBN4Oqja-ZSviu9-1AW6q6BzYz7xlC0ic8fym2dqC-6JLVgwGngYiF-dcszl1GQZlVlvAQovxapbaexo4Sc8TSCPo8jPJLSaJJpK40MM3cHjmgqKS5bwXAr8oPyFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of St. Pete Beach, FL","date","2025-05-28T17:58:27Z","article","The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment continued a multi-variance application from Barracks by the Sea LLC (case 25052) to its July 30 meeting so staff and the applicant can address outstanding materials and return to the Technical Review Committee (TRC).

Planning staff described the request as a redevelopment of a four-building courtyard apartment site at the northwest corner of Passer Girl Way and First Avenue. The applicant seeks seven variances: five setbacks and two items excluding certain below‑elevation square footage from the developed-square-footage calculation so the property can be rebuilt as an eight‑unit courtyard apartment instead of being redeveloped as single‑family homes or duplexes.

Attorney Bridal Onks, representing the applicant, said the application responds to storm damage that substantially affected three of the historic buildings and seeks to preserve the site’s courtyard‑apartment character rather than replace it with larger single‑family structures. Onks asked the board to allow ground‑floor parking and storage to be excluded from the developed-square-footage calculation and to permit limited additional living area—staff recommended support for excluding ground-floor nonoccupiable area and for a small allowance of living-area square footage necessary for required accessible features.

Planner Brandon summarized staff findings and asked for additional applicant testimony specific to two items: (1) the southern porch encroachment on First Avenue (staff said Unit 2 could be pushed back 2½ feet) and (2) why the requested additional living square footage (223 square feet if rebuilt as two living levels; 343 square feet if rebuilt as one level) is necessary for reasonable use given other code-compliant options such as subdividing the parcel or rebuilding duplexes.

Architect representatives and counsel showed plans and 3‑D models and emphasized the site’s existing footprint, the need to elevate living space to comply with flood requirements, and federal Fair Housing and ADA requirements that increase minimum wall thicknesses and create minimum accessible clearances. The applicant said the existing units measured roughly 475 square feet on the current floor plan and that the proposed design yields about 606–676 square feet of living area after accounting for structure, vertical circulation, and mechanical spaces.

Public comment was split. The board received nine written letters (four in support, five in opposition). Speakers at the meeting included nearby resident Julian Sanchez, who said the neighborhood is busy and raised safety and precedent concerns, and Steve Stern, who urged preserving the area’s courtyard character rather than enabling larger houses to replace multifamily buildings.

Board members expressed concern about the number and scope of variances and asked staff and the applicant to return with clearer documentation of necessity and alternatives, and to allow TRC another review before the board acts. The applicant provided revised materials during the meeting—removing the southern-porch variance from the request—but staff had not completed a formal review of the revised packet. The board voted to continue the case to July 30 to allow TRC review and additional materials to be submitted. The motion to continue carried on roll call with Member Small, Member Causey, Member Kaur and Vice Chair Garshaw voting yes.

If the applicant cannot meet the board’s conditions, alternatives remain: subdivide the underlying lots and build single‑family homes or duplexes (options that would not be subject to the same developed‑square‑footage limit), or revise the project to comply with the developed‑square‑footage standard that applies when retaining the existing density.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Adjustment - May 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board continued a complex redevelopment request for the former barracks site at Passer Girl Way and First Avenue after staff and board members said they needed more time to review revised plans and the range of requested variances.","taxTitle","St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County, Florida","taxId",48406,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6223711,"Board denies Passer Hill elevator-shaft height variance",3310,386000,3696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3565940-c33017d9d5f35adeb0c6f95cf17a9cab&start=386&end=3696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3565940-c33017d9d5f35adeb0c6f95cf17a9cab/thumbnail_386000.jpg","/articles/6223711/St-Pete-Beach/Pinellas-County/Florida/Board-denies-Passer-Hill-elevator-shaft-height-variance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6223711-d6a5e9700ba11ddb33990b011f51da73/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185451&Signature=KycLBocDxNcdJ6LtgmqrntVwHIaOBCscSnehALsr856ac6msAcMq4ON4jrsSr8rr1is~n490wLDIhXtF84eN5t-BrAv0h0W0VkAogfUWscwHDBu1Hrgd82eug8IMOigxmdFd~qp9asw99EgVjy-Ao~gWSc1-PWNjB-0mT5Pkwo4GNJp3PYie5KUmQ2qfxsTpo7oLxnVykoK1izzhbkqApLgpHQem0BHrCQ6ND6hizr-v-BD~5aIMfI97kCdR8lzl3sJjpECgR3TFutIo1LU0yskMHZbc5hq80HIAbICAzSiw4VN2hV04inH1UF~j1J5tkb4AN2gEHsoXbkaHTJkmBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment on a 4-0 vote denied a variance request for 2311 Passer Hill Way that would have allowed an elevator-shaft enclosure to exceed the locally measured maximum height by 1 foot 2 inches.

City planner Bridal Berry told the board the applicant sought relief only for an elevator-shaft overrun after grading the lot to meet the new code-compliant seawall elevation. \"They're not seeking a variance to the height of the primary roof line of the residence,\" Berry said, adding the main roof would comply with the height limit when measured from the proposed prefill grade.

The variance arose because the property owner proposed to reestablish the lot grade at 6.0 feet NAVD 88 to match a newly required seawall elevation (the new seawall standard is 5.0 feet NAVD 88). Staff explained that grading up the lot produced a 1.33-foot difference from a previously measured prefill grade of about 4.67 feet; that grade change, not the home’s design, created the need for the narrow variance for the elevator shaft. Planner Brandon (staff) told the board the elevator overrun was the only noncompliant element and noted options for compliance: reduce floor heights, alter the elevator or rooftop access, or redesign the interior circulation.

A neighbor, Danny Creamer, who identified himself as the property owner to the north, described why the applicant needed to raise the lot. \"The seawall went up, so the house went up. So the top of the house went up with it, and it pushed it a foot 2 inches higher than the old,\" he said, and added he had no objection. The applicant, who identified himself on the record using the name Hansen, said the elevator would serve all floors including a rooftop deck and that the elevator shaft is at the minimum height the architect found practical.

Board members probed alternatives, including making the two primary living-floor ceiling heights equal or eliminating rooftop access, and emphasized precedent concerns if variances tied to seawall-driven grading become common across Passegrille. Member comments repeatedly raised the point that the city’s rules allow property owners to measure height relative to prefill grade, which can vary from lot to lot, and that wider code changes could be considered by the city commission in the future.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance; the motion carried on a roll call vote with Member Small, Member Causey, Member Kaur and Vice Chair Garshaw all voting yes. Notes in the record show staff had received one letter of opposition and that the building had undergone design-review comments with the Historic Preservation Board during the design process.

The denial means the applicant may return with revised plans that either reduce the elevator enclosure height or alter floor heights and rooftop access, or seek further guidance from the city commission on measurement standards. The applicant and staff were not asked to set a specific follow-up date at the hearing.

","The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a requested variance that would have allowed an elevator shaft to exceed the maximum permitted height by 1 foot 2 inches at a single-family house proposed for 2311 Passer Hill Way.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board continues Barracks-by-the-Sea redevelopment case for more review

Board denies Passer Hill elevator-shaft height variance