Your response is unsatisfactory. The permit issued does not detail, and in fact omits the sidewalk destruction and subsequent installation of 2" bricks on a public sidewalk that covers 1/2 mile and has been there for over 5 decades. Nevertheless, a mistake has been made either in the city's publication of the Driveway Packet Residential Driveways or the city's Roadway Detail drawing S20-22 which, apparently, should have included the term "Optional" regarding sidewalks. I am requesting that this matter be escalated to the Engineering Dept.

Recent demolition of public sidewalk as part of driveway removal/re-surfacing by owner located at 761 42ND Ave N, zoning district NT1. Existing sidewalk replaced by 9x9x2 inch bricks to match new driveway and driveway apron. It is specified by the City of St. Petersburg’s Division of Development Review Services PDF pamphlet titled driveway_packet – RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS – that:

“…the portion of the sidewalk that crosses the driveway shall have a consistent finish and color as the abutting sidewalk and be visually delineated with expansion joints.”

Furthermore, the PDF document from the City of St. Petersburg Engineering Department titled ROADWAY_DETAILS_S20 detailing CITY STANDARDS, and specifically drawing number S20-22 SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION DETAIL specifies a 4” thick concrete sidewalk.

Nowhere in any document is it suggested or stated that that these standards are “optional”. If permits were issued, it would seem they were obtained either from false detailing or inadequate vetting.

The residential driveway permit #17-07001007 issued by the City's Zoning Division was reviewed by Engineering and it does require that the concrete sidewalk extend through the driveway approach. Follow-up with the City Inspector was conducted and he in turn contacted the contractor to let them know that the work must be corrected to meet the permit conditions. The contractor has agreed to correct the issue.

Regards, Engineering & Capital Improvements Department

From the local community of pedestrians, joggers, couples, families, dog walkers, and school children that use this sidewalk daily, our sincere appreciation to you for being the one to resolve this obvious infraction of the City’s standards and infringement of our ability to safely use the sidewalk. Not everyone was willing to do their job.

Now if we could only get the owners to quit blocking the sidewalk with their vehicles….
(see photo)

We thought this issue had been resolved by the City's Zoning Division's Engineering Dept to wit:

"The residential driveway permit #17-07001007 issued by the City's Zoning Division was reviewed by Engineering and it does require that the concrete sidewalk extend through the driveway approach. Follow-up with the City Inspector was conducted and he in turn contacted the contractor to let them know that the work must be corrected to meet the permit conditions. The contractor has agreed to correct the issue.

Regards, Engineering & Capital Improvements Department"

Nothing has been done and it appears as though the owners are awaiting hell to freeze over. Additionally, they continue to park their Lexus's on what used to be the public sidewalk but is now their private driveway. Because they have a permit? And the Code Enforcement Dept says that's OK?

No criticism or complaint with you or Engineering Department for the effort you have provided in addressing this issue. However, you are being played by the owners who are using their typical stall tactic. The same tactic used in their code violation 17-00005072 begun 5 ½ months ago that involved major construction without a permit. According to those records, a permit has still not been obtained and the violation still exists – with the same excuse.

How demolishing the sidewalk was approved and inspected (?) in the first place is baffling. The citizens of the neighborhood regularly use the sidewalk daily and nightly, although that is often difficult when the owners park their vehicles upon it. For the owners/contractor to suggest that they are ‘negotiating’ amongst themselves is irrelevant. It is a 10’ section of concrete 4” deep as specified by the City’s S20-22 construction detail is it not? It took them 2 days to tear up and replace with blocks, which BTW are unsafe for moms with baby strollers (of which I have firsthand knowledge). Why is this taking so long? Is it asking too much to have our sidewalk back – unencumbered by the vehicles of people that think themselves ‘special’?

There is no issue regarding design. The City specifies the design. It has been suggested by some that the City perform the work and assess the owner for the cost. They can then seek legal proceedings against the contractor should they want. Nevertheless, it is their own self-inflicted problem, not the community’s.

We are not trying to be difficult here, but we do lack the patience to wait months and months and months. We feel it only fair to be given some time frame in resolving the issue.

Thank you for your understanding.

Attention: Engineering Dept.

Patience is wearing thin, with no way to track the issue.
Kindly assure us that our sidewalk will be restored per City Standards.

The City of St Petersburg periodically reviews past reports that are made from citizens within our city limits, and in an effort to clean-up old issues that were resolved some time ago, we are marking as 'closed' those issues that were submitted in the past for which the work has been completed or the issue has otherwise been resolved.

If you think for any reason that the issue you submitted in the past might still be unresolved, please feel free to submit a new report with the SeeClickFix St. Pete website and we will make sure the issue is directed to the appropriate City department to be addressed as soon as possible.

Thank you - MAC