Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us tonight on May 20th for the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. I'd like to begin by asking everyone to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd like to start off by introducing the staff that's with us this evening from the Planning and Zoning Board. I'd like to introduce Mr. Jim Hensel of Urban Design and Planning Manager. And Jim, if you could let us know who's here with you this evening.

Good evening. Jim Hetzel, Urban Design Planning Manager. I'll introduce the staff. To my immediate right is Deputy City Attorney DeWayne Spence. To my far right is Scott Stone, Assistant City Attorney. To my left is Karlyn Devenish, Yvonne Redding, who is on the other side of the room now. And we have staff from our zoning division. We have Burt Ford, Muhammad Malik, and James Hollingsworth who are sitting here as well.

Fantastic. Thank you for that. Minutes from the last meeting, do we have any corrections or do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second? Second. Okay. Do we need a voice vote on that? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Great. Moving right along, we will go to item number one, which the applicant has requested a deferral to the date certain of June 17th. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. Second.

I move that we defer case number UDP S250-36 to a time certain of June 17th. Next meeting. All right.

Second that.

Do we do a roll call or a voice vote? Roll call. Roll call.

This is motion to defer.

Yes.

Mr. Lawani.

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres.

Yes.

Mr. Spence.

Yes.

Mr. Dutton.

Yep.

Mrs. Scott. Yes. Mr. Gannon?

Yes.

Mr. Donaldson? Yes. Chair Matee?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Excuse me, Chair. Do you want to do swearing in? Okay. I don't know if you missed that or not. No, I'm sorry.

And I also was so quick that I want to make sure that we know that that was case number one, which is UDP S25036. Yes, correct.

And can we announce what board members are present?

Yes, absolutely so OK for the members that are with us tonight. From my left we have Mr Hector Della Torres, Mr Alexander Spence, Miss Jacqueline Scott, Mr Brian Donaldson. On my right we have Mr Malali Lawani, Mr Whitney Dutton, Steve Gannon and I am Patrick McTeague. OK, moving on to item number two. is case number UDP S25.

Excuse me, Chair, we need to do swearing in.

Oh, if you want to speak. Yeah, you want to, okay. If Mr. Spence, do you mind swearing in those who wish to speak? Yes, go ahead, Mr. Scott.

All those wishing to testify on today's items, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

All right. Very good. So this, again, is item number two, UDP, S25044, Disclosures. Mr. De La Torres?

I spoke to the counsel. Mr. Spence?

I spoke with the attorney. Mrs. Scott?

Spoke to Mr. Lockery.

Mr. Donaldson?

Spoke to applicant's attorney in multiple site visits. Mr. Loana?

None. Okay. Mr. Dutton?

No disclosure.

Mr. Gannon? Spoke with the applicant's attorney in a site visit. And I did a site visit. Very good. Good evening.

I also did a site visit.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Board. Robert Lockery on behalf of the applicant. Request before you tonight is for site plan approval for a property located at 1040 Bayview Drive. This is a piece of property that was subject to a site plan application which was approved A few years ago, it's still valid on the property, and tonight we're coming in with a host of new developers with Willow Bridge, and we've got our whole development team here, as well as our consultants. I won't introduce all of them in the nature of time, but just kind of go over the changes that have been made in the new projects of Before You Now. What you see here is the property outlined in yellow. The strip of ribbon to the south or to the bottom of the yellow strip is Sunrise Boulevard, of course. Bayview Drive is on the west side of the property as it curves up the Middle River further to the west. This area's in yellow. If we can go to the next slide, please.

Do I have the remote?

This is a close-up of the property. The property used to contain a 711, as many of you may remember, with an office building. There were curb cuts, which you can still see, two curb cuts from Sunrise Boulevard on and off of the site, as well as numerous curb cuts onto Bayview Drive on the west, and as well as curb cuts on the north to the local street. The project that was before you previously was a 14-story project, actually 150 feet tall, with 180 residential units and a mixed-use project. The proposal that we're bringing before you that I'm gonna show you is a reduction in size of that. It does increase the number of units and reconfigures the building in a way which we think We know the neighborhood and others have been very supportive of it. What I'm going to show you first is the existing approved project as it sits today. Maybe I am. Maybe not. I'll keep moving even if I can't do this. I think you get the idea. All right, well, previously in the project that's currently approved is a 100-foot, there it is. This is a view of the existing approved project that we're, before you deny to modify, this is a view looking to the southwest. So you're basically in George English Park here, looking across the street and looking diagonally. The site plan, which is part of that approval and the previous approval, is the next slide. There we go. In this view, it's kind of turned on its side. I apologize for that. But the north is on the left. So what you see there is the larger building, which we just showed the elevation of, which was flat along the northern side of the property adjacent to the Coral Ridge neighborhood. There was access and a plaza off of Bayview. And then the building closest to Sunrise Boulevard, all connected, was about 10 stories. The next slide is of the new proposal. And one of the things you'll notice right away is the building has taken on a more dramatic shape. First of all, it's been reduced in height, which I'll talk about in a second. But in addition to that, we've opened up the building or the architects have opened up the building with a larger plaza area, both the plaza along Bayview as well as a new opening and when I say an opening in the building, a division of the building mass on the north side of the property, which in this side is on the left side of the screen. So rather than just have a straight 150 foot tall building there, the building's been reduced and we've opened that building up. Along Sunrise Boulevard, in addition to that, the height's been brought down from 10 stories and there have been additional architectural elements there. I think what's important, though, is that the project has maintained some of the key aspects, specifically the landscaping. We've actually increased the landscape area total on the site, our amount of landscaping, by 40%. We've kept the open space to all requirements. We meet all parking requirements. In fact, the parking garage, which you see in the middle there, is completely lined with residential units on the north, to the west, as well as to the south, to the right. The next slide is a view of the building from the southwest looking to the northeast. So here you're kind of in the middle of Sunrise Boulevard looking to the northeast at the site itself. As you can tell, it's got a lot more architectural detailing or different than the design previously. Our next slide is a slide of the building. I think it's in... Oh, of the plaza area along Bayview. So this is as you now enter Coral Ridge, this will be an entry feature that you'll see is that plaza, which provides amenity for the residents. The next slide is, I know I'm going quick here, because of the late hour, so to speak. This is a view of the building, a bird's eye view, looking down on the building. Here you see that the height certainly fits into place with the existing office building, which you see right behind the proposed building, which is in the foreground. You can see Sunrise Harbor off to the distance to the left. as well as Belmont Village and other buildings in the area. So we think it fits very nicely within the area. Next slide is a view. I wanted to show this real quickly because in this process with the city, and it's been a long process as it always is, staff has made some suggestions to us and working with them that have made some really significant differences to the building. Now at this scale, when I show this slide and the next one, it might not quickly be apparent the differences, but some of the elements that you see here is, this was actually not what was originally submitted, this is a version a little bit further along, which still showed the corner at Sunrise and Bayview to be prominent, but not necessarily anything spectacular. The next slide that you go to shows that with the interaction with city staff, they were able to ask us to open that area up, to create a more dramatic appearance as you come to that important corner. Some of the other elements, I won't go back and forth, but there's a lot more glazing, a lot more windows along Sunrise Boulevard itself. The roof line along Sunrise has been enhanced and overall detailing has been is more significant with this approach. And that credit goes to staff working with us, getting it in front of you. I just want the public, and as you Planning and Zoning Board members already know, that these projects go through a lot of steps working with staff before they ever become before the Planning and Zoning Board. I think the next slide is a view of the plaza area and where we'll have an outdoor restaurant at the corner to activate that. Certainly a lot better than a 7-Eleven. The next slide is a letter of support from the Coral Ridge Civic Association. The Coral Ridge Civic Association approved the original plans, but when we came up with this new plan, we went to them, we had meetings with them beginning in September. They took us to their general membership meeting in October where they endorsed the project, and then we followed up with additional meetings, including public participation meetings in February. And they have, through this letter, shown their support for the project. One last thing on the last slide that I didn't mention, it's probably not necessary at this point, but among the other things that will be happening with this project is the removal of all those curb cuts on the Sunrise Boulevard and the numerous curb cuts on the Bayview. Getting rid of all the curb cuts on Sunrise. We now just have one entrance on Bayview. It'll improve traffic circulation from what was there historically. And we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Any questions from the board at this time?

I think it's absolutely a beautiful looking project. Really, really nice architecturally.

Thank you. I just want to commend you guys on being able to wrap the parking garage. We have so many with the residential being so close and George English Park to have that and not see this as a live local, which a lot of us that are on that strip are going to be seen soon. I want to commend you on that.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion and a vote.

Excuse me, Chair. We have one correction to a condition of approval that needs to be read into record. Yes, sir. It is a condition number four. The second sentence would be removed from the condition, so it will read without that sentence. Per Section 47-23.16D2, Affordable Housing Development Agreement and Deed Restriction, the applicant is required to record a deed restriction for no less than 30 years beginning on the date of certificate of occupancy is issued for the affordable housing units. The deed restriction is required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. And the applicant is aware of the change to the condition.

Very good. Thank you for that.

Okay.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case number UDP. I'm sorry.

I did want to say one more thing. Oh, sorry. I'm slow there. I did want to commend the developer, again, as Brian said, for doing the affordable housing for the county, I believe, versus the live local. Also, the architects for so creatively articulating that building to make it so much more interesting and And when I look at the plan, I see how the units have to flex and curve around instead of a box of units on top of each other stacked and whatnot. All you had to do, I see some of the models that were maybe the same, but they were rotated, flipped, mirrored, all that stuff, and they were very creative. Nice job. Anyway, just kudos to that.

And I think that was anything else I had.

That's all. Anyway, thank you for that. Nice job. And staff, for your input, too. This is a nice building, really nice building.

A lot of love here. Motion?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve case number UDP-S25004. I move to adopt the resolution. Oh, 044, sorry. Moved to adopt the resolution approving a site plan level three based upon the following findings of fact and that the board hereby finds that the applicant meets the standards and requirements in the ULDR and criteria for the proposed use as cited in the resolution and the conditions which staff had just mentioned, which was number four, on the conditions along with any other staff reports are part of this application.

I second. Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Lawani.

Well, I'm going to read the resolution into the record. A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving an amendment to a previously approved site plan level three conditional use permit, decreasing the building height, increasing multifamily units, and decreasing commercial use for a mixed use development with affordable housing bonus units and previously approved residential flex units for the property located at 1040 bayview drive for lauderdale florida in the boulevard business b1 district case number udp dash s25044 providing for severability and providing for an effective date thank you mr lawani yes

Mr. De La Torres?

Yes.

Mr. Spence?

Yes.

Mr. Denton?

Yes.

Mr. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Mr. Donaldson? Yes. Chair Mateague?

Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all.

Congratulations and beautiful voting.

Very good. Moving right along to number three, case UDP A25070. Disclosures, Mr. De La Torres?

Spoke to counsel. Mr.. Spence Spoke with the attorney.

Thank you miss Scott site visit and spoke to Mr.. Lockery Mr.. Donaldson site visit and previous information that was shared on our last vote on this and recent conversation with the attorney Very good, Mr.. Lalewani None, Mr.. Dunn site visit Mr.. Gannon site visit and spoke to the applicant's attorney I

And I also did a site visit. Thank you.

Good evening again, Robert Locker on behalf of the applicant. This is kind of a do-over of an application that was previously before the Planning and Zoning Board related to a parking reduction for, yep, if we can pull that up, the property at, got it on the screen there. Yep. There we go. 3020 North Federal Highway. Everyone knows the 3000 Plaza property. Within that plaza is a one bay that used to be a retail bay. It was then converted into a takeout only Greek restaurant. That doesn't require additional parking. But then when it was converted to a full sit down restaurant, an application was filed to come for the Planning and Zoning Board and it was granted for a parking reduction. The language in that parking reduction was for just the additional spaces that were required from going from a sit-down restaurant to a full restaurant. It didn't kind of go back and look at the full amount of parking that would otherwise be required for a restaurant. I know I'm just gonna make this more confusing than it is, but that's why we're for you tonight with a request for parking reduction of 11 parking spaces. And it's important to remember, the parking reduction is based on the public parking spaces, which are available, publicly owned parking spaces in the area, of which there's, even during the high peak hour, which is in the morning, about 11 to 11, or 11.30 to 12, There's over 50 or about 48% of those spaces are available. That doesn't even take into consideration the shopping center's own parking spaces, which are shared between the different users. So again, we believe the staff report adequately points out that we do meet those requirements. We agree with all staff conditions and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions at this time for the app? Okay.

Chair, no question. I just wanted to make a correction. I did do a site visit on this. I just wanted to make that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any questions.

If I don't see any questions, I'd like to make a motion.

We just double checked that there's nobody here from the public wishing to speak. Okay. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Go ahead.

Is this a site level three? Okay. I can open and my little thing isn't working. I'd like to adopt a resolution approving site plan level 3 case number UDP-A25070 based upon the following findings of fact and that the board hereby finds that the applicant meets the standards and requirements of the ULDR and criteria for the proposed use as cited in the resolution and approval of the application is subject to all conditions that are included in the staff report.

We have a second?

Second.

A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving a site plan level three development permit for a parking reduction to reduce the required parking spaces from 11 to zero for the property located at 3020 North Federal Highway Unit number 13, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the Boulevard Business B1 District. Case number UDP A25070, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. We're ready.

Mr. LeWanning?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres?

Yes.

Mr. Spence? Yes. Mr. Dutton?

Yes.

Mrs. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon?

Yes.

Mr. Donaldson?

Yes.

Chairman Teague?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Very good. Thank you. Moving on to number four, case UDP-T26006.

Hello, good evening Chair, members of the board, Carly Ann Devenish with Development Services Department. This is for case number UDP-T26006, which is an amendment to the City of Fort Lauderdale's Unified Land Development Code, section 47-6.10, entitled List of Permitted and Conditional Uses, Community Business, or CB District. and section 47-6.11 entitled List of Permitted and Conditional Uses Boulevard Business or B1 District to Permit Fortune Tellers, Psychic Readers as an Accessory Use to Retail Use. The proposed amendment is to add fortune tellers and psychic readers as a permitted use when accessory to a retail use within the CB and B1 zoning districts. This amendment follows a series of legal challenges that involves the city of Fort Lauderdale dating back to 2005 when the city was sued for denying a business tax receipt for a fortune telling business. in the B1 zoning district. Similar challenges were settled in 2006 by allowing the use as an accessory use or ancillary component to a bookstore. And then last year in 2025, a related lawsuit arose after a relocation request to a B1 property was denied, resulting in another settlement. And so as a result, the City Commission directed staff to amend the Unified Land Development Regulations to add fortune telling and psychic reading to the CB and B1 zoning districts, and they will be added as an accessory to a retail use. And that concludes my presentation for this item. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? Yes, sir. Mr. Gannon?

Actually, my question may be for legal. Why did the city have to let these folks do that sort of thing? Can any business come along and sue us and say, I want to be here, a massage parlor, a vape place, a platinum club or something like that? How did this happen and how does this happen? Can it continue?

Sure. Dwayne Spence, Deputy City Attorney. So back in 2024 when the original group of fortune tellers came in, they're Their suit, the basis of the suit was that the city implemented or made their use a prohibited use without providing justification that differentiated their use from other similarly situated uses within our code. And so at that time, our council evaluated what the basis of that prohibition in our code was. And when we settled, the agreement was that the city would take a closer look at the use and determine if there are some circumstances that warrant prohibiting that use. We didn't address it for 20 years and then the same group relocated to another district in which the use was prohibited.

Am I right? That is correct.

So what we do have in terms of an issue, although the city didn't evaluate that use for those 20-year periods, we do have the history of non-complaints with regards to the use where they were previously operating. So we don't have anything documented that would suggest that this use has an effect in the CB and the B1 district that it doesn't have in the more intense commercial zoning districts that it's now permitted in. But the difference here is that this change would not allow it as an outright use. It has to be an accessory to a retail use. Like the bookstore or whatever. Correct. I see how they're getting it. Okay.

Okay. Thanks for the background on that. I appreciate it.

I have a question for you, D. Wayne. Originally in the UDLR code, what's the reason for the prohibition?

You've kind of hit on the issue. We don't, the city didn't have a reason for the prohibition and the courts were saying you need to have a reason for why you're prohibiting. So, Mr. Gannon, there is, in terms of our prohibited uses generally, there are, you know, we look at the intensity of the use as impacts on the community and we have justification for those uses that we prohibit and we have that backup for it. It just so happens that this particular use is a carryover FROM THE 1950s IN TERMS OF THE PROHIBITION AND EITHER THAT DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTED THE PROHIBITION OF THIS USE WASN'T WELL KEPT IN THE CITY RECORDS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE AS YOU LOOK AT THE AREA WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO THIS, WOULD A The fact that it doesn't fit into the neighborhood that it would bring. Different people to the neighborhood that is not conducive to the compatibility of what's happening. Would that be a reason to prohibit it?

So this isn't a, this isn't a site specific. issue this is a zoning district specific issue and so what you're looking at is our commercial zoning districts and these are the zoning districts that are usually associated or located closer to residential if you look at as a tiered situation so you have your cbs which are the less intense commercial districts then you get up to your b2 B-1, B-2, B-3, which has been more intense. The layout of our zoning in the city ensures that the more intense districts impact residential less. In this case, We're suggesting not that this use stand on its own as it would in the B3, but in this particular case, it's just an accessory use to retail. So that consideration has been made.

Thank you for that. Anybody else? Yes, Ms. Scott.

If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion if you guys are ready. Okay. I move motion to recommend approval. I move to recommend approval of case number UDP-T26006, and the board hereby finds that the text amendments to the ULDR are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I second that.

Yeah, Mr. Stone, do you have to read anything in on that? Nope, we're good. Okay.

Mr. Lawani?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres?

Yes.

Mr. Spence?

Yes.

Mr. Dutton?

Yes.

Mrs. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Mr. Donaldson? Yes. Chairman Teague? Yes. Motion passes.

Very good. Thank you for that. And case number, well, number five, case UDPT26007.

Good evening again, Carly Ann Devenish with Development Services Department. This is an amendment for UDP case T26007, which is an amendment to the City of Fort Lauderdale's Unified Land Development regulations section 47-7.2 entitled measurements and section 47-19.5 entitled fences walls and hedges to revise the method for the measurement of the height of fences walls And from grade and joining me tonight for this particular item, our zoning folks has mentioned we have Mr Mohammed Malik zoning administrator, Mr Burt Ford chief zoning examiner and Mr James Hollingsworth structural plans examiner. So this evening's presentation will focus on the issues that we've been experiencing with the measurement of grade for fences and walls as described currently in the ULDR and also going over the proposed amendments based on the direction from the city commission.

Can I ask a quick question before you start? We had this presentation to us and then did you get feedback then from the commission?

That's why we're back to this again, or is this a continuation of what we had seen before this is different from so same Issue that we're trying to resolve, but we're going about it differently This particular proposal was not brought in front of you in this way and we did We did actually present this to the City Commission back in November, this specific presentation where we received direction to move forward with what we're proposing.

Did I read that this was because of FEMA? What we had earlier didn't take that into account. FEMA made a change about flood levels or something. Now you're adjusting for that? Correct. So it is. It's an amendment because of FEMA or something.

Correct. all right okay so in so this may sound very similar because i am going to sort of still have the same history and background as to how we got here and then how we're moving forward so in 2021 prior to the fema finished flood compliance adding fill and right um raising the finish floor to comply with base with base flood elevation was not required And so fences and wall were measured at the lowest adjacent grade, which was typically the adjacent neighbor's grade, which resulted in minimal negative impact to both property owners. So as you can see on the diagram, before the FEMA base flood elevation compliance, everything was pretty much at natural grade. You got the lowest adjacent grade. Typically it was from the adjacent property owner, which in this diagram is property B. Yep. Property B. And so you'll see that on property B you have about a seven foot fence there, but on the actual subject site you'll see that it was six foot six inches. So it wasn't a dramatic as what we'll be seeing in a bit. So in 2021, the FEMA finished for regulations changed the base flood elevation plus fleet board, which now allow the city to allow Phil for the entire lot to be raised to that grade. With the entire site being raised once the fence was proposed using the lowest adjacent grade, the height of the fence of the property installing the fence only provided a few feet with no privacy while the neighboring property exhibited the maximum height of six and a half feet. This resulted in property owners requesting a variance to increase the height of their fence to six feet on their property. And because there was such a high number of applications going to the Board of Adjustment requesting this variance. The Board of Adjustment at the time sent a communication to the City Commission for us to change the definition of grade to fix that problem. So again, looking at the diagram, you'll see that property B on the right is the adjacent neighbor. When you took the grade based on the lowest adjacent grade, you'll see that with the fill there, you only received a few inch, a few feet. And that red, as you see is where I, everyone would have to go to board of adjustment to ask for that additional height on their side, because to try to account for the height. All right. So in 2021, The definition of grade was changed based on the City Commission providing us direction. And so it was changed to the finished floor elevation of the principal structure. And while the fill was still being allowed, it actually created another problem where now we were seeing fences coming in and being installed and they were about an average 10 to 15 feet. Because now, as you can see on the diagram, you have the entire site filled when you do it based on the finished floor elevation of your site. Now you're having a taller fence. And on the neighbor, it actually provided a negative impact because it was just like this big, giant wall covering on their side. And a lot of times, the height of the fence was pretty much about the same height of the eave of the neighboring property. And so that created an issue not only on the side yards, but you'll see that it did the same effect for the front yards. And so what we're proposing. is based on the changes that happened in 2023 when the code was updated to just allow for the non-structural fill to be based on the foundation of the home. And so the rest of the property had to be sloped down. And so what you're seeing here with this slide, you'll see that even with the principal structure, uh, I'm sorry if we'll go back to doing it based on the lowest adjacent grade. Now that it's sort of sloped down, you'll be able to get back that pre 2021 where there wasn't any, uh, there was minimal impact on both properties. And so that's what we're proposing.

Can I ask you a question? Sure. Because the previous slide, you have five-foot setbacks. On this one, you're showing a scale there that's a good 10, 15-feet setback. So I know that we have changed the... we're now currently requiring people to slope am i correct in that in that statement that's what we're going to be proposing okay so my my question is that has been coming up because you know all of us have neighborhoods that have been having the little ranch torn down and putting up One of the positives of the prior fill was that they had then a sort of retaining wall along the lot and it didn't then flood the little house that was the point B, the adjacent. In my neighborhood, with the five-foot setbacks, unlike Las Salas Isles, I have 10-foot, a lot of people are concerned about the slope being so dramatic that basically we're flooding the existing home now because we have a 45-degree angle, basically, with only five foot. So all the runoff from this three-story house is coming down and then boop. and going in because the fact that there's not a little wall or retaining wall because now you have just a little six-foot fence. So it makes sense when I see it here with a big setback, but my concern is or what neighbors are expressing is their concern is these dramatic slopes when you're in a neighborhood with only five foot. So are we going to, is this the rule currently or is this what we're voting on? Can you help me understand that?

This is what we'll be voting on. So it should not be where you're having a 45 degree angle.

Well, if you're at six feet and you only have five foot setback, it's going to be a 45 or a 60 degree angle coming down because depending on how much fill you have at your slab. So if I can have somebody help explain that to me. But if my new fill is at five foot and I only have a five foot setback, to get from point A to point B, that's a full 45.

Brian, you not only have absolutely correct, because that was my observation, but it really doesn't matter if it's 45 or 30. The key is all of that runoff is going to flood the property next door. So we're solving one problem, but we're creating another. I had the same observation you did, even if it's a 10-degree angle. The bottom line is that we're creating another problem. Is there a way that we can condition this with some kind of – French drain or trough that that could that could lead us to drain the property and that caused another issue Well, that's what I'm asking Yes to Ford would you like to hyper Ford zoning chief?

So the diagram isn't really reflective of what would happen in a five-foot setback. It would be more like the stem wall would be coming down and then there would be a Swale in between the foundation of the house and the property line. So it wouldn't be quite like that. That's more of 10 foot or maybe the 15 foot in the back and toward the front.

Yes, this I understand because this is a big setback so you have a a more adequate grade. But at five foot setback, the big thing that was helping the old, you know, my old neighbor that has been there since the 50s and has a slab low, when I now have a three-story monster next to it, was the fact that the monster was putting in basically a seawall between the lots and then filling in. And on their side of that situation, wall was drainage etc so it wasn't protruding or causing a runoff situation to the existing neighbor so so i've been you know as a neighborhood president i've been getting slammed with those questions about if the next door because i have seven homes now under construction and they haven't They bit you know they have their foundation and they haven't put in their sidewalls and they haven't graded and everything But when somebody's sitting here on her terrace and the next-door neighbors You know where their slider is is up a good four and a half feet And it's only going to be five foot from her little fence if that grade goes She's underwater

And again, understand that if you read the code section that's above there, the code in the Code of Ordinances has limited the amount of fill that can be placed in non-structural areas of the lot to one foot. So you're not able to per code bring it up three feet on the whole lot. Now if the designer of record and the property owner want to bring that up, then that's their choice, but it's not per the code section that you're seeing there. So the whole purpose of that code section was to reduce the amount of fill that we allowed Filling an entire lot.

We just want them to fill mainly where the slab is but if the neighbor and if the new house as a side slider and So we're saying to that owner, you just jump down to your new grade because we're only bringing it afoot.

No, you walk down three or four steps.

And then that is already approved by commission. So that's what, when I go around and look at these sites, that's what I can tell people that that's what that builder is being required to do.

If the site is lower than what the finished floor is, then there'll have to be a step that goes down to wherever that is. And again, if the designer and the property owner want to raise the entire site up and the engineering department approves it, then they'd be subject to going to get a variance because they're not following this section of the code.

Didn't FEMA also require that the ground couldn't be brought up anymore?

At one point. They don't really stop municipalities from doing that. You don't get credit. when you do that through the CRS program, which gives points to the cities and they rate each city based on how well they do for the entire city. And we're currently at a seven, which is not very good. It's kind of high, but we're working to get that down. And so some of those points that we could get for that were not given. Did you want to say something?

Good afternoon, Chair. This is Mohammed Malik, Zoning Administrator. Basically, as you said, there are many different variables about the fill which is coming in. So right now, what we used to do was we used to allow the fence to be measured from the permitted property, wherever the fill is, to have 6 foot 6. Now we want to change it because of that. There is a 12 foot wall, 10 foot wall. We are getting so many complaints. So this specific change will make the fence measure from the neighboring property to be a maximum of seven foot six, basically six foot six plus one more foot of like a lattice fence or something with a 50% opening. If, as you said, Vice Chair, that if let's say for whatever engineering reason or something, there is a three foot of fill instead of one foot of fill, which is shown out here, technically they can still have only from the neighbors side it would be seven foot six is max or if they want to have a higher like if they want to have a still six foot six they have to go to board of adjustment for a variance so that would be a public hearing to have 11 foot high wall or a 10 foot high wall so currently

This proposal for us tonight is seven foot six max on the side of the older home. Yes, that's correct. Which is probably not putting up the fence. It's probably the new homeowner that's putting up the fence. That's correct. So we're measuring from that. And then whatever happens on that new homeowners with grade, et cetera, is if they feel as if Because of the fact that engineering required them to do more fill or whatever. And they feel as if they can't live with the three or four foot fence on their side because of pets or dogs or kids or whatever. They then do have the option to go to the board of adjustment. Yes.

When they come to zoning, we will only say from the neighbors, you are at seven, six. This is the max you can get. or or one more thing let me clarify sometimes you know let's say they can have 36 inches the pool requirement maximum they can have a 36 foot 36 inch high pool requirement fence from that that side so Fall protection you know they can have that from their side But they can't have a six foot six high fence from their side because the neighbor is Maximum seven six so that's why we are trying to put because we were getting as you said so many complaints That they have twelve foot high fence ten foot high fence So we are going back basically to the original what we had plus. We are just adding a foot to it Okay

And some that were approved in the interim here at the higher level, those stay and everything? Those stay.

We're just trying to go back and correct what we can going forward. Forward. Once this is approved by the city commission, that's when the permit would start in effect. Whatever has been approved with the older permit, they still have the option of looking at higher fences. We can't do anything because they were under the code which is existing today. And we came back, like this is the third time, PNC, this got rejected. We are coming back for the same reason, and PNC is rejecting it. So we made specifically sure this time it is just for fences. We added this in the fence table, just to make sure everybody's on the same page.

Sure. And so just to be clear, there's one that I think people are aware of there. On Cordova, going forward, they would have to only build that to the street level or to the land on that side.

Street level to six, sidewalk, from the sidewalk, it could be seven foot six max. Or, as I said, fall protection is 36 inches. We have to allow, as per Florida building code, which is, you know, so nobody can fall down from their side, is maximum 36 inches of fall protection. That needs to be allowed no matter whatever the height is. Right. If they're going more than that, definitely they have to go to Board of Adjustment as a variance to get the approval. Okay.

Very good. Any other questions? No. No, I have one.

Yes, for Bill, I think. You mentioned about French drain, and forgive my ignorance on homes, but I know that when we're looking at buildings and whatnot, they have to keep so much of the water on site, and they make these elaborate wells and things that go into the ground. I have an older home myself, and I have a huge three-story next door, and they put a lot of French drains and everything draining it down. Is there a requirement for homes to do that, to have French drain and try to keep the water on their property?

Every single family home, it goes to engineering. Unfortunately, we are not here from engineering, but we know that they make Calculation wise they have to make sure the water has to be retained on site a certain amount So the certain amount of water has to be retained So they whatever is required for there to add French drains or any kind of other drains sometimes is just as well Whatever the calculation permits then they allow that Other questions no, okay.

I believe we have one person in the audience that would like to speak and Mr. Scott Baruta, is that right?

Good afternoon or good evening, I guess. Speaking of developer here in town, single family homes, I know some of you already, but I think there's a larger issue here with regard, I think flood and storm water should have been here and been involved in this conversation. We've I've sat with them, and I know a lot of these requirements that we're dealing with here are because of FEMA and the FEMA points that he's speaking about, and we are not in a good position with FEMA with regard to certain things. What's happening with the three-story homes that the Vice Chair is talking about, or two-story homes, or one-story homes that are the height of the two-story homes next door, is we can't bring additional fill into the site, and it leads to the situation that somebody else brought up about having five steps come down from a sliding glass door. But the bigger issue here is you're in your kitchen at that single story home. Let's say it's even a one story home at the new development at the eight and a half foot height or FEMA required new residential development. And you're still looking down into the neighbor's property. And the same is true in the neighboring property. You're looking up on the pull deck to the neighboring property. So I don't know what can exactly be done with that. And I don't know if the fencing, I think there's a small part of the issue. And I think there's a much larger issue here. And it's going to, at some point, be development prohibitive at some point to do some of these with regard to driveways and appearances and architecturally pleasing and While this helps, I think the opacity requirement of the additional six inches or 12 inches, the additional foot, I honestly think that should still be solid because then it gives some level of privacy, even though you're bringing fill in, you still have steps that have to come down from the sliding glass doors or we have cabana back doors that are eight and a half feet up and we're in Idlewild, the crown of the roads at two feet. So you're coming down six feet almost. That's a lot of steps. I mean, you're talking eight to 10 steps there at, you know, six to 12 inches to come down from a house. And I don't know how you do that in a five or seven and a half yard setback. It's impossible.

Not when you're trying to requirement. That's correct.

So what I'm trying to say is, well, I agree with the amendment. I think that's a great step. I think it needs to go further. And I think there needs to be additional discussion with regard to fill FEMA requirements, things like that, to where we can essentially build houses that are architecturally pleasing and not have people stepping out of a door falling five and a half feet down. I don't know that there's much we can do about that, but maybe the retaining walls, going back to be able to build retaining walls, waterproofing those retaining walls, pouring them solid, retaining more water on the property. My understanding from the calculation, it's very minimal for the water that has to be retained on the property, quite frankly. I mean, it's not very much. If we require more retaining water on the property with regard to swales, maybe we put the concrete retaining walls back in, do things like that, and be able to do... something a little bit different. That's all. That's my comment.

Thank you for that comment. Any questions?

I just need clarification because he brought up some of the points that some of my neighbors and some of the builders in my neighborhood has. What's in front of us tonight doesn't have anything to do with the fill or in that requirement, correct? It is, from what I was reading, we are just basically voting on the fence part of the regulation and that we are saying that the maximum size fence on the adjacent property from that grade level is seven and a half feet and that the new builder has the option of going to the board of adjustment That's the only thing in front of us, correct? Because we're bringing up a lot of things, and I brought up a lot of things that may not be part of what we're looking at tonight. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

It sounds like we have a lot more to do on this from what I'm hearing from Brian and from Scott. Not a criticism, just saying that this whole thing about the fill and the water retention, I mean, I think we need to deal with that.

I think we tried and we were denied, denied, denied. I think we've in the previous iterations, I think we tried to attack it in another way and we weren't able to move forward. But yes, we do understand that we are going to have to come back with other amendments.

Do you think that's because the lack of understanding? On the commission's part, why would they, if this is a practical issue, why would they deny it?

It was denied here.

It was denied here? We have a big problem.

I'm trying to clear something in my mind. I might have got lost in all the information. What are we trying to solve for here? If I remember correctly, there was a problem. So what are we solving?

So this is basically a real-life scenario of what we're trying to solve.

Okay.

So as you can see there, this is in the front yard of someone's property, corner yard actually of someone's property.

I know it. That's Anthony Fajardo. He's very tall. Yes.

So Anthony actually stands at six feet. And as you can see, there's about four or five more cinder blocks above him. and the cinder block is about eight inches. So we're looking at an additional 32 to 40 inches or about two and a half to extra three feet. So this is just one example of where the fence or a wall is measured from the finished floor elevation of the principal structure. And it has it going at that height and you can see on the side yard there the fence itself is Like like I mentioned just about the same height of the eve of that neighboring house Right so wouldn't it be reasonable To have that fence equal the height of the fence next to it and just keep everybody equal I

The new house is up high, so you look right over it.

The other side of that wall has only been a few feet. You're going to have a 30-inch wall. Because it's backfill. But we're not addressing the fill.

Okay. This is right. Okay.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant staff? Okay.

So I'd like to, not to complicate things, and I apologize. You were waiting, weren't you?

Look at that.

I'd like you to entertain, if you choose to move forward, an amendment to 47.2 . We just added a little phrase to the end of that. sentence that says unless otherwise specified. Me and Mr. Stone were talking and we want to do a little bit more specificity and ask that you make that sentence unless otherwise specified in the ULDR. So right now it says unless otherwise specified and we're asking that you tack on unless otherwise specified in the ULDR.

Literally, just give me ULDR. Yes. That's correct.

It's already ended. Give me.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval. I move to recommend approval of case number UDP T26007. And the board hereby finds that the text amendments to the ULDR are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is where I'd make a note to add, right, in the ULDR to the end after specific. Specified. Specified. So it would end as specified in the ULDR. Unless otherwise specified in the ULDR.

I'll second that.

Mr. Lewany?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torre.

Yes.

Mr. Spence. Yes. Mr. Denton. Yes. Mrs. Scott. Yes. Mr. Gannon. Yes. Mr. Donaldson. Yes. Chairman Teague. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Heard an exhale. Okay. Do we have anything, a communication to the city commission? Anything to communicate? Okay. Anything for the good of the city? Motion to adjourn. Oh, I think we'll give him a break. Okay, so motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor? Aye.