Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Mr. Brady? Here. Mrs. Salo? Here. Mr. Spurg? Here.

Chair Bolton? Here. And Mike O'Hara. Mr. O'Hara?

He's not present. Okay. Order of business. Any additions, deletions, deferrals?

I was kind of hoping there would be more people. Hi, I'm Cynthia Herps, 1000 Northeast 96th Street. You know, my comment is, as I've been going through this packet and looking at the bubbles off to the side, there's quite a lot to digest here. And, you know, I will say that a couple of things stick out, and there's a lot of things that you know, I'm not the best at this, but I still think that We've got a little bit more to go on this before it gets finalized. One comment that I am wanting to make is about the floor area ratio. There seems to be a thought that we should not count the garage space in the FAR number, yet I think that when you look at Historically, what has been happening with garages in Miami Shores where they get converted to living space, I think it's necessary to maintain that garage calculation in FAR. And then, you know, I began to go down, you know the reclassification of the of the districts and while you're trying to consolidate Those districts it just seems that the square footage that you're lumping into each one of those classifications Is off for instance you know you start off with 7,500 as one district but and you have a variance of about 1,800 square feet the next district is a variance of about 1,800 square feet the third is a variance of 1,400 square feet however when you get to the last which is the largest and There's a variance of 5,700 square feet, and I think that is sort of where we're having the most difficulty with trying to accomplish what we want to accomplish in putting further guidelines together. So do I have... you know, the exact answer? No, I don't. But I do feel that, you know, there have been enough meetings and comments that tell me when I look at this, it doesn't, it's still not working. So those are some of my takeaways as I've been kind of studying this pamphlet. And I would hope that if for some reason we are not able to work through all of this, then we can postpone the vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Edna Doll, 37 Northeast 100th Street. The first thing I'm going to talk about is the height. The perfect example of what's going on with the height is if you drive by on 95th and 4th Avenue, you'll see a two-story house built in the 40s or early 50s. And then right next to it is a house being almost done in probably about another six months. And it looks to me like here's the house from the 40s, and here's the one that's being built. It looks like it's 10 feet taller. So I think you need to address that, come up with. I personally like the older house. I think that height is perfect. That's me.

That's number one.

The second one that bothers me the most is the teardowns. I think most of the people here, there's not that many today, but most of them are not that happy with the teardowns. And the only ones that are profiting from the teardowns is your builder investor and your realtor.

That's it.

I propose, and I'd like to get it addressed, I don't know if it's possible, to have a five-year moratorium on teardowns. And the reason for that is all these builders If they can't get that house built in three years and sell it, it goes into their pocket. And as you bleed them, the more you bleed them, the less they're going to do that. All right? And most of them can do additions, which I have no problem with the additions. I think that's part of what goes on in Miami Shores. And I believe that I think you should look at that. And the setbacks, can somebody tell me what the setbacks are, what's proposed? I heard it's 15 feet. Is that correct? I know it's 10. Is it 15 feet? Can somebody answer that for me?

This is comments only, but we will be discussing setbacks in our discussion.

Okay. Well, if the setback is 10, I'd like to get it at least 15 feet on either side and the two-story at least 16 feet. And another thing is I'm not too happy with the houses you're building, these box rectangulars, and there's no roof. It's just a flat roof. it doesn't unless that's the 21st century mid-century architect that's going on i don't like it and i think a lot of people here don't like it either thank you thank you

Victor Bruce, 370 Northeast 101st Street.

Not sure how this meeting is going to go, but you already know some of the things I think about.

I think the 30 and the 40 percent needs to be looked at again, taking into consideration how other municipalities look at it, because a building can have a 30 and a 40 combined. You can have a single-story and a two-story. As far as the comment that was made over the FAR, the FAR should not include the garage. If a garage conversion occurs, then the FAR is looked at. And if somebody proposing a garage conversion exceeds the FAR, then there's no garage conversion. But we shouldn't be double dipping. If the garage is going to be under lock coverage, it shouldn't be under FAR. There has to be a distinction. And to protect the village from people that are turning illegal conversions, I don't think it's the duty of the village of planning and zoning to prevent those from happening. That's code compliance or that's the building department. So lot coverage should be everything roofed that's enclosed. FAR should be habitable, should be AC area where people are going to be living. And that's what a unit area is all about, slash FAR. And please, let's remove the cubage. Please. We need to remove the cubage from our code. Thanks.

Thank you.

Maria McGinnis, 1250 Northeast 101st Street. What I've just handed you is a chart that was prepared as part of the summary report that was prepared by the Cordino Group, and it is a color-coded chart dealing with the actual existing properties and acreage and coverage and average far, average lot coverage, number of stories and things like that, building height as well. The reason I'm putting it in front of you is I've referenced it a couple of times, but I think it's important. A picture speaks a thousand words, and It gives you what the actual existing ratio is, like looking at the FAR, ranging from, what, 0.18 all the way up to, what, 0.29. You look at the average lot coverage. It's a range from 22% up to 33% in different things. And I know it's broken down in these different R districts that there's so many of. But when you start combining the lots that are in the categories that have been summarized into the four categories, there's a lot of acreage. And there's a huge gap between, as was mentioned by another public commenter, the categories are not broken down properly because the real focus of massing and the disparity in scale is on the larger lots. And there's an actual inverse relationship that I've been mentioning all along, which there was almost 100% consensus of the people who attended the workshop on the July workshop. And there was a straw poll kind of taken of the people in the room by Joe Cordino. The whole thing about scale, and South Miami does it, is as you get on a bigger lot, your percentages should come down or your setbacks need to come in so that you're not having a huge – 30 percent of 27,000 square feet lots is much more dramatic than 30 percent of a 7,500 square foot lot. This is basic geometry. And what's in this proposed regulation is actually the opposite. It's the inverse. It has lower percentages for smaller lots and bigger percentages for bigger lots. It's absurd, based on what the public input was. So that's why I put this in front of you, because I think if you reference this, that's what reveals the disparity in what's being built and what's being approved. So that's one of my main issues. I also notice that in these regulations, for whatever reason, S-1 district of the thing is in there somewhere. Has that not been replaced because we've already land-designated CR district? The S-1 definition is 35 acres. Twenty-five acres are earmarked for CR. So I don't even know if S-1 should be referenced, eliminated, whatever, but it doesn't seem consistent with the comp plan. It doesn't seem consistent with the CR definition. I also wanted to mention I don't see incentivization. We have a comprehensive plan amendment that talks about retrofitting and using incentivizing structures, historical structures. to be used, even if they're not designated. Because if we're dealing with sustainability, if we've got structures that are intact and are proper and are structurally sound, there's no reason why they need to be demolished. We should consider putting something in to incentivize that if that's what we want to accomplish. But I don't see many carrots in this. Is that my time?

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Hi. Good evening. Carol Ennis Respondick, 1162 Northeast 105th Street. I mostly wanted to thank you all for all the hard work that you've put in, all the hours and hours and hours and hours of looking at the ordinance, all the comments, and sitting through all the meetings. I understand a little bit about that, and I just thank you for what you're giving to the village of Miami Shores. The other thing I'd like to say is that I really appreciate the fact that we have gone, you have gone to a point that is better than it was before, much better as far as perviousness and especially how it deals with driveways and coverage, lot coverage, and starting to talk about swales. And I hope you will continue to address those problems since we have such a big flooding problem in Miami Shores. And we will continue to have a big flooding problem in Miami Shores unless everybody starts doing more than they're doing. So I do understand that Public Works is going to be starting a new initiative in the coming year. And I hope that everyone will understand and be amenable to changing the way we do things I think parking on swales I park on our swale and it's a problem it leads to flooding so we all do have to change our habits and find a way of doing something new and something more creative and if we don't do it together it's not going to work so I appreciate everything you're doing I hope you'll continue to go in that direction even further thank you thank you

Any other public comment? That's it? OK. Well, I guess time for discussion and possible action. I guess, how do we propose to do this? Do we want to just turn pages, start at the front?

I have a presentation, if you don't mind. Oh, okay, please.

Presentation on basically how we got, how you drafted this for us. Yes, yes.

So what I'd like to do is kind of summarize where we are today, outline the items that are before you, and then outline the further next steps. But I think more importantly what we want to clarify is that the documents before you, the draft code, we very intentionally wanted to clarify that it's a draft code. We, in essence, just wanted to put forth a base drawing based on all of the work that has been done, all of the input summary, the meetings that we've undertaken, and in order for the board to really have a base document to work off. So by no means is this to be a final document. It's very much a fluid, flexible document at this point in time. We expect that there's going to be a series of these sorts of meetings. So we don't want anyone to feel that tonight is the only opportunity that you have to look at this. We expect that there'll be a few more of these meetings. And then once the board has had their discussions and they've reached a consensus, then obviously there'll be an opportunity for a vote to take place and then another bite of the apple once it gets up to the council hearing. So we definitely wanted to bring that to the forefront. We just found that for purposes of this discussion, It just kind of sets the tone for having a productive discussion for everyone. If we have a document that's at least readily available, that's drafted, and it's kind of codified, but it's in a draft version, but it's not finalized, it just tends to make things a little bit more seamless and easier to move forward with. So, what I'd like to do is I'll go briefly. I realized as I was putting together the presentation that we've had, wow, a year and a half of having these discussions and we've been doing a lot of listening since we've been here and the board really hasn't had the opportunity to comment and really describe their general thoughts and comments on where they want to see some of this legislation go so what I would really like to do is kind of go into a brief summary and really dedicate the rest of the time for the board discussion to take place and with that we'll we'll continue so as we all know corradino group has been here since april of 2024 and that's really one of the beginning stages of the r code which was initially was going to be done hand in hand with the cr district however we needed to press forward quickly on the zoning and progress in order to really get hard regulations in place in order to kind of steer uh future development and i think everyone can say as of today that that zoning in progress it's basically six zoning regulations that were put in place has really had a dramatic effect on the things that are coming forth so the CR district kind of took on its own movement on its own so that required a dramatic amount of focus and precision with the board and staff. So that was adopted in March of 2025, and we immediately began with our very first workshop for the Art District, which was in the very next month in April. So we thank you for bearing with us. We understand it's a very important thing for everyone community-wide. This is going to shape how the neighborhoods continue to evolve and grow. And like I said, there's going to be many more opportunities for input and discussion so I'll highlight our scope of services we'll get into some of the executive summary and findings and then our draft zoning code with the zoning code I will get into some of the more big-ticket items but within the draft legislation there is comments and other suggestions that are within the margins of the document and those were essentially hey there's many things that we come across on a day-to-day basis either throughout a plan review or maybe objects that come up during a board discussions throughout the year when we have our P&Z meetings. So obviously staff has listened to those things and we thought it would be a perfect opportunity to make those things, highlight them so we can speak about them as we move forward. So our scope of services, the R code, as you know, is found within Appendix A of your land development code. It starts with Section 201 through 299. That's where your definitions are. And then it essentially proceeds upwards numerically with your zoning districts, your regulations, your building heights, your parking requirements, drainage, and things of that nature. So these are, in essence, the code sections that will be serving as the focal point of our exercise here. We want to highlight that this is a great exercise. This is where the community really gets to self-assess where we are and how we want to continue evolving as the community tends to not grow in a development sense, but grow in the sense that we have a lot of movement of people moving in, families are actually growing. and we want to be sure that Miami Shores is set up in a way that's going to be able to handle all the future evolution that tends to occur. So this is a very normal process. Like I said before, this is not set in stone. We're very much in the middle of this procedural exercise, and we thank you for being with us and just caring enough to listen and share your thoughts. We've analyzed other similar communities. Earlier in the year, part of last year and earlier this year, we were creating the CR district. That was unique because we were setting a set of zoning regulations for specific land. This is different where we're looking at regulations that essentially apply for anything that is a residentially single-family zoned property amongst a built-out environment. Referring back to some of our earlier presentations, we want to know is our code the Brad Pitt's of codes, where it essentially answers every single question, there is nothing that's left up to imagination, no need for interpretation, everything is listed and you can follow it to a T, or is it more like a Homer Simpson code where it kind of you know does around and bumps into things and there's obstacles in the way and our hope is that by the end of this process we will have a code where we look at it and we're like wow this is the stud of all codes and the rest of the county is going to be envious of as to all of the tweaks that we make within the Miami Shores Code. So we hope that this is something that everyone is proud of by the end of it and that our board members, our council members can really hold their head up high and be proud of. Zoning, as we all know, it's initiated by the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is the village's, let's say, the Bible, so to speak. It's something that is enacted throughout the state of Florida. Every single private municipality is to have a comprehensive plan. Florida statutes requires a plan to be assessed and analyzed every seven years. Your zoning code, if you leave it be, it doesn't need to be updated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't. I would recommend, I think our group would recommend that communities should analyze their zoning codes frequently. I think a lot of folks tend to see it as a set of rules that just once you adopt it, it is what it is, but it doesn't need to be looked at in that way. I think it's something that's a breathable document. It just needs to go through a public hearing and two council meetings in order to make things amended and changed. It's essentially your local police power is what zoning rules are meant to enact. Last summer, what were the things that we put in place July of 2024? These were critical to where we were. And we've seen the successful nature of the type of development that are coming through the board. your lot coverage, which was not in place before, your maximum impervious, maximum floor area ratio. And this is important to understand because these maximum percentages essentially lay out what is the limit of what one can do within their private lot. Right now, right, we have this cubage which every zoning district is tied to this minimum cubage and it's actually opposite of what the maximum coverages are trying to do here. Your cubage is essentially saying you need to build at a minimum this amount And there is no maximum. So we would be in full agreement that your qubit is something that is severely outdated and should not be within the code any longer. And upon our review, there is no other code that has the qubit measurement within it. So we do feel it's time to make that update. And it feels like, based on all the feedback, everyone agrees. The big ticket items that Miami Shores is known for is its generous swale areas. I would say depending on what neighborhood you're in, it's probably anywhere from 8 feet wide to maybe 15 feet wide. And obviously your lovely tree canopy. I mean, there's many other areas of the county that would kill to have the amount of landscaping and pervious area within your swale area. It's something to be very proud of and I think we need to figure out is what we can do to further highlight this and continue to preserve it. During our time here, I think one of the benefits we have is that we've been serving as your staff for a little bit over a year and a half now. So we've had the benefit of sitting through various meetings, many public hearings and pre-op meetings with developers, homeowners. So we kind of got a better sense of what are the things that are important to Miami Shores. Obviously, it's preserving the character of it, limiting or looking at the overall building height, an organization of the zoning code, simplifying it, and restricting some of the districts. So one of the things that we started off with is that we wanted to put forth a simple set of questions and we did so at the public workshops, the one that started in April and the second one that we did in July. Furthermore, we also created a landing page on the department website for the R code where we created the same questioning in a set of data prompts that you could access from your phone And the whole intent was to make it easy for someone to go in, answer these questions on their phone or from their PC, and submit them for staff review. You'll also find that all of these results are included as part of the summary report that are on the website. They're also as part of this agenda. And it's one of the factors that we use in order to generate our data and come to our suggested edits that are found within this draft text. So as you can see, the community was pretty overwhelming when it came to the parking regulations that's something that we should make a priority administrative reviews trying to make the process less cumbersome a little bit more streamlined active roofs it's not something that many folks want to see and also They're unsatisfied with the cubage is something that we also found within some of these reporting. So how do we drive at this draft code? I kind of already touched upon them through our staff experience, your building permit reviews, our monthly P&Z meetings, public engagement with the two previous workshops. all the surveys that we've collected, the hard copy electronic via the landing webpage, and also we've analyzed similar local communities. And when I say similar local communities, we essentially say communities that are predominantly single family, and have similarly sized lots, similar to Miami Shores. And based on our assessment, these are the cities that kind of have that in similarity with the Shores, El Portal, Biscayne Park, Pinecrest, Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, and Cole Gables. So when you go through the report, you'll see that part of our assessment was seeing, okay, where's the shores, and where's everyone else, and where are the items that we can tweak based on some of the input that we've collected, and where do we fall, more or less, collectively amongst some of our peers. So it's a good barometer. So the key report themes that were generated are neighborhood character, development controls, very high on the list, environmental stormwater concerns, construction safety regulations, height, massing and scale, parking, and regulatory clarity and simplification. So we hope that throughout this process we'll be able to address all of these items. And with that, what I'll do here now is go over some of the big ticket items within the zoning code and kind of give a little bit of background of what is before you tonight for your consideration. So in the very first section of definitions, we're obviously recommending the removal of building cubage. The next item is building height. Now building height is something that we decided to approach with a, I'll say from a three prong perspective. So right now the building height is defined as the median or the average between the roof. So you have your highest point of the roof and you have the lowest point of the roof. So right now your definition says your overall height is taken from the midpoint of the roof. which essentially, in some cases, is depriving you of another three to five feet, more or less, let's say. So if we can clarify that definition and adjust it so the overall height is taken at the highest point of the roof, we feel that that's going to assist in trying to limit any sort of overpowering structure. So we adjusted the definition. We're also proposing later on in the zoning code a limitation on the pitch of the roof so as you know there's varying pitch heights and there's a an image I can show you later on that'll show you the most typical pitch roof height is about a 3 to 12 so it's essentially 12 inches horizontally right it's 12 inch horizontally and 3 inches vertically and that's how you get your pitch roof so in the past throughout the board hearings we've had a few applicants that have proposed a 612 which is quite steep so we thought that was something that we needed to address and then lastly is the numerical value right adjusting the numerical value for the overall height right now the code says it's 30 feet and we're recommending 28 feet so we feel that with the three prong approach with all of these elements that should dramatically help in adjustment of overall heights. And I think our approach to this is sometimes it's better to approach something from a more softer, slow point of view than coming at it with a sledgehammer and dramatically adjusting it. We also have to contend that there are Florida statutes that have recently been put in place So there will be another level of review with these zoning regulations that will need to be kind of internally vetted out to see how it matches up regarding SB 180, essentially, is what I'm referring to. So to further clarify, we're also adding definitions that are not existing right now. Lot frontage, setback for front, side, secondary, and rear, and we're clarifying the definition for projection. And then here's a little bit of a graphic. So what I've done is I've inserted graphics throughout the presentation. But I'm not going to go in depth into all of them because I thought it would be good to have them in case the board discussion merits bringing some of them up. So we'll kind of glance through them. But this one kind of speaks to what I was referring to earlier about the overall building height and the measurements and why the definition of it is so important. The next item is the consolidation of your zoning districts. So right now there are 17 different single-family zoning districts within your code, and each one of them is tied to a cubic feet. For example, the R35 district is tied to a 35,000 cubic feet minimum, which means If you are zoned R35, at minimum, you have to put forth a development that meets 35,000 cubic feet. There's no maximum. It could be much higher. Thankfully, the zoning and progress that was put in place in 2024 with the FAR, the lot coverage, has severely curved that. So this, our recommendation, is more of a cleanup item. It's outdated. There's no need to have it. It's not really doing anything for you at this point in time. And that's why we're recommending removing the cubic feet, the cubic analysis, and also consolidating the zoning districts. So as you can see, we have 17 different zoning districts, single-family zoning, and a lot of our neighbors have much less. They're in the four for Biscayne Park, five for Pinecrest, and the highest one is Palmetto Bay with eight. So in our analysis for... how to best accumulate and gather the zoning districts. We pulled this data. This is from GIS, the county most recent surveying purposes that they have the data. And essentially what this has shown us is per each zoning district, what is the average parcel size? in conjunction with the average parcel size that exists as of today, also looking at where these lots are located in close proximity to one another. And those are the data points that we used in order to find a reasonable and a smart way of trying to collecting these areas and consolidating them into what we're prescribing as the R7500, for example, or the R10000. So the important thing here is that what we're proposing is a minimum lot size, and what we want to try to avoid is proposing any maximum lot sizes because then you run the risk of creating non-conforming situations. The best case is to put forth a minimum so at least we have a base standard. And if there are nonconformities, it's fine because we're kind of redistricting. And it's just a very difficult thing to do, especially with so many of the lots being laid out since 1930. and even before that by PLAT. So we felt that this was the best approach. This was just a first stab at it. If there are some districts that need to be broken out further, I think it's a very easy thing to do. I feel like the hard work has been done. We've at least already identified what the sizes are and what zoning districts they're specifically tied to. Another beneficial thing of this chart is that it kind of points out For example, the R-20 is 157.9 acres. So in essence, the R-20 residential zoning district occupies the most acreage within the Miami Shores Village. Lots that are zoned R20 at present time, they make up of the majority of single family lots within Miami Shores Village. So it's very interesting data. And I think that's how we best utilized it in order to combine them. So this is how we are proposing based on the average lot sizes. And we're allocating them in this fashion. On this slide right now, the zoning code, as adopted today, there are limitations on subdividing a lot. So as of right now, if somebody wanted to come in and subdivide a vacant lot, at minimum, they needed to leave 85 feet in width and a 12,500 square foot parcel. If they didn't have that, they would not be able to split it. So it only made sense that we also create in the inverse. If someone decided to come in and unify a lot, there should also be some sort of measurement or a guide so that they're not land banking and putting together four lots at a time and this is something that came up through one of our previous workshops so that's why we're recommending a unification not to exceed 21,500 gross square feet the average average Miami Shores lot is 9,300 so if you double that it's about 18 21,500 is about half an acre, so it just made sense to go with that number. If the community would like that to be reduced or modified, it's really more a policy decision. But we thought that this would be a good place to start, and that's our idea behind how we arrived at that number.

How many lots would be there, 21,000 square feet?

How many lots? Number of lots, I'd have to get back to you. What I can tell you is that 17 acres are over 21,000 square feet. 17 acres worth of lots. So I'd have to pull the data and see how many lots contribute to that.

Having all the averages. It's four half slots and the forest. 10th Avenue, I think that lot is over 21,000 square feet. But I mean, you know, it would be helpful for me to have both averages and real numbers. So you can look at the real numbers because it's kind of a screwed average, but the numbers are very small. It really doesn't mean anything. But that, you know. But we don't have to do that until it really makes a difference in decision making.

Thank you.

So one thing to keep in mind is if we're consolidating the zoning districts and we're essentially creating new zoning districts, this will require a new zoning map to be produced. So we're kind of showing you here this theoretically is based on what we've come up today is what it could look like compared to what it is now. much more seamless and much more tighter compared to the 17 different districts that are shown right now the next item that we're addressing and we're very happy to put this forth is as you can see we have our schedule regulations and this is a chart within the zoning code and as you can see you know I was brought up typically with charts you want to have numerical values and it's easy to interpret Here, it looks like a lot of text was added to these charts. And as you can see, it's very difficult for a reviewer, for an architect, anyone, even someone who happens to call the office and asks us, hey, how can I find out what the pool measurements are if I want to put in a pool? If I guide them to this chart, it's very cumbersome and difficult. So what we end up finding as staff is that we come in, we extrapolate the information, and then we put it in an email to make it easier. So we're recommending a reorganization of this chart, and I think the simplest way is to just divide it into two. Number one, the permitted uses. and the other would be dimensional standards. So what would that look like? It would be like this. So the permitted uses chart would essentially be your districts, what's required for site plan review, and what are your permitted uses. It's all the same data, just organized in a much cleaner fashion. This can be printed out eight and a half by 11, and easy to interpret and read. The same thing with the dimensional standards. So we're essentially consolidating something that is 12 columns. We're creating one that's three columns, and this one has seven columns. And it's the same idea. You have your zoning districts. What is your minimum plot size? What are your setbacks? And what are the accessory building requirements? With that, we're also, as part of some of the feedback that we've collected, which involved simplification and eliminating some of the red tape that is with the review process. What we're recommending is cleaning up some of these items, where these are the items that require board review. And what we would be recommending here is that these items be treated administratively or be handled within the permit review process. Now, important to note is item number five, conversion of garages. That is, yeah, it occupies a lot of our requests. I would say maybe 35 to 40% of the applications that we review are garage conversions. So with that one, I know that there are There's some hesitation with that and I think that we can treat it in a way where there's going to be some protection for those kind of reviews moving forward. I'll show that later on in the slide. because we've thought about it and we think that we have a way that we can treat it. But if not, obviously these are just recommendations. Like I said, we want to put forth a base draft document where it's easy for the board to work from and any edits that may come from the consensus on the discussion can be modified very easily because we have this document already working for us. So also here, we're adjusting the building height. Right now, in the code, it's 30 feet. We would be recommending to lowering it to 28 feet. One of the items that came up during the public input is that, as of right now, swimming pool standards is the same regardless of whether you have an alley or a property behind you. It's 5 feet for the deck and 7 and 1 half feet to the pool wall. There's been some concerns regarding areas that have alleys and not being sufficient amount of distance between the two. And therefore, we would recommend here, in order to make it easy, an additional two and a half feet for each one of those metrics. So where your deck is supposed to be five feet to the edge to the property line, we'd recommend seven and a half feet when you're located along an alley. and your pool wall 10 feet, whereas before it's 10 feet when you're located along an alley. And therefore, when you wouldn't have an alley or you have a property owner behind you, it would be 7 and 1 half feet. So I think that's a very easy thing to do. And it's going to give you a little bit more space and allow for more pervious area to be located between those types of structures. And then the lot coverage. So with this one, this is part of the code regulations that were adopted in July of 2024 with the zoning in progress. We were asked or it was directed to us by the council that overall the zoning and progress criteria is very well received and we didn't want to tweak it too much. We wanted to work within the allotted percentages that were drafted. And also during the course of the public comments for one of the workshops, it was recommended that why don't we look at essentially assigning percentages based on lot sizes. So that way you don't have a one size fits all. And these are some of the recommendations that we would make. Essentially, as you go up in lot size, you would allow for a slightly more flexible or more generous percentage. But we're trying not to sway too much from what was adopted. And then this is how we compare to some of our neighbors. This is just some examples of what that looks like. I'm getting towards the end. Mechanical equipment, AC equipment, a lot of proposals install these machineries at grade level. However, our code as of right now does allow these mechanisms to be placed on rooftops. Well, I think there's a consensus or there may be some feelings that maybe we get away from placing them on rooftops, which is fine. However, if we are going to leave them on rooftops, we propose tightening up the regulations so they're a little bit more stringent as to how those things are placed and making sure that they're not going to be visible from any surrounding properties. This is also another item. I think it's something that has come up at some of our public hearings for some of the site plan proposals at our P&Z meetings where individuals like to place their balconies or terraces and just make them accessible from common areas. I think one of the issues with that is that it may prove or allow easy access for leisure activities and parties, let's say. So we think that guiding them so they are only accessible from a private habitable space, like a bedroom or an office, would do a much better service to preserving the integrity of the community and curbing any sort of disturbances to your adjacent owners. So that's why we are recommending that here. We're also clarifying adding setbacks within the steps. Right now, step projections are allowed, we wanted to insert the word setback to make it clear that we're okay with a step projection being placed within a setback. And then this is how we compare with some of our neighbors. Temporary fencing is an item that has come up recently and quite frequently, where right now the code, it doesn't... forcefully require that someone who's pulling a demo permit have to install a temporary fence. So we'd like to clarify that and make it a mandatory thing that if you're If you've gone through the process and you've been issued a development order from the P&Z and you're going to go apply for your demolition permit, you're also going to pull a construction fence permit that's going to preserve the property in a way that's going to curb any sort of unsightly debris or construction activities. It's going to secure it and make it safe. And more than anything, it's going to try to curb any sort of you know, unwanted activities to occur. What is a silkscreen fence? That would, for waterfront properties, a silkscreen fence is going to catch any sort of, let's say, dust. Okay, that would go into the bay. From going into the bay and from spilling out.

Erosion control.

Correct.

That's only for waterfront lots, right?

According to this language, it's for all construction projects.

Yeah, that's what I don't.

But we'll discuss that.

Parking standards. Definitely something that needs to be addressed based on the community feedback. However, we wanted to be very careful with making a proposal regarding parking because what happens is if you tie it one parking space for every bedroom, in essence, what you're creating is more impervious area or larger driveway. So we wanted to be very careful. And this is one of those where we decided, well, let's approach it from a softer stance. And therefore, we're proposing. And also, another thing to keep in mind is that we want to also incentivize existing homes that are being built, that are being amended or being enhanced. So if you have an existing 1940 structure that's a two bedroom or three bedroom home, or let's say a two bedroom home and they want to expand and create a three bedroom home, you wouldn't want to necessarily incentivize them to have add another parking lot, which is going to create more pervious area if they don't have a garage, because a lot of the garages in those 1940 homes tend to be a little small. So we wanted to be careful with our recommendation regarding overall parking. We thought it would be better served to start a little slower and kind of see how it went, generate the discussion point for the board. And then if it needs to be adjusted, we can. But that's why we're recommending two spaces for any unit between one to three bedrooms, three spaces for any unit that has a four to five bedroom, and then one additional space for every bedroom after five. And then the next slide is going to show you how that compares to some of our neighbors. And it's kind of somewhere in between. We're on the higher side, but definitely more improved than where we are right now, where it's just two spaces for every dwelling, and there's really no other sort of suggestions regarding parking. So also with that, keeping in mind that we want to guide the parking. We also want to be mindful of our impervious areas. We want to preserve our swale areas. I know Public Works is doing the best that they can to kind of curb what's happening within the swale. We want to limit our driveways. So we thought it would be a great idea to put a little bit more restriction as to what's happening regarding curb cuts. So here we're recommending double frontage lots. That's a lot that has two streets on intersections in front of it. We're recommending a total of three driveway curb cuts. And the alleyway frontage would not be included. And therefore, no more than two curb cuts shall be permitted on any one street frontage. So it doesn't make sense to allow, right? Not that someone could, but three curb cuts on one frontage probably is not a good thing to do. And therefore, we're taking it a little bit further. The max of two curb cuts per street frontage. And right now, the code allows a maximum of 20 feet of driveway width. And what we're saying here is that You're allowed the 20 feet max, but if you're going to have two curb cuts, then each curb cut shall be not more than 10 feet. And that way, you're not going to have someone that's going to propose two 20-foot driveways on the same lot, on the same street frontage. And I think that's something that's really going to add value in preserving the right-of-way and pervious areas along the street.

The portions of the streets in Miami Shores actually have curbs. What percentage of streets in Miami Shores actually have curbs? I don't.

Well, I'm talking – when I say curb, I mean the driveway approach, right? So if you're – Driveway entrance. Or the driveway entrance.

Okay.

Yeah.

But you're right. There's not a lot of curbs. No, there's not a lot of curbs. You have swales. And that's what you tend to see where people park all over their yards is you just, you know, you pull up, we're living in some small city in Tennessee.

And I know that Public Works, they're trying to limit what's done within the soil area. If you have a driveway, you have to have some sort of connection to it, and they're trying to limit it to like no more than 20% within the soil.

Okay.

And then we're also proposing, if you're providing spaces of three or more within a private lot, that we recommend a permeable or semi-permeable surfaces for those driveway areas. And here's where we address the garage conversions. So if we're proposing that perhaps garage conversions may not need to go before a board, that they could be handled administratively, then we felt that we could recommend, hey, there's already an opening in place. So what we're saying here is that you have to deal with your opening in a way that it's going to be architecturally sound, such that any window that's going to be replacing a garage door shall be comprised of not less than 40% of the original opening. And it needs to be designed in a way that's going to maintain the architectural compatibility of the principal structure, including consistency in size, finish, and appearance with all the existing windows of the residence. We thought it should do the trick to help. Perhaps there's additional language that can be added or amended, but we thought that this would be a good way to kind of help curb the amount of applications that are going before the board and try to streamline the review process for some of our requests. With the drainage, we're also adding some additional drainage requirements for single-family residences, one of which is a stormwater pollution plan. That's not something that is required by code. We're also recommending a minimum of five-foot setback curbs along essentially the perimeter of the property. Along three sides of your property, wherever you have neighbors, what we're recommending is five foot swale areas that are depressed. So in essence, when you say depressed swale, It's inverted, so if any water that falls on the lot, it's going to fall within the swale, and it's going to prevent it from going into any neighboring properties. That's something that is closely related to how Miami-Dade County has started putting forth the impervious ordinance, and we thought it would be a good idea here. along with many other metrics to try to deal with rainwater within lots and how they compare to their neighbors And then lastly is the landscape standards. Miami Shores obviously has a very healthy tree canopy. So we thought, well, what's one of the great ways to kind of add to that, right? And one of which is right now the code requires two shade trees within the private lot. We've increased that to three. And then lastly, within the right of way, or to the right you know, from sidewalk to sidewalk, we're recommending one street tree for every 50 linear feet to be planted within the right of way. So right now, it's not a requirement. So it's something that, you know, the majority of the lots are 75 feet wide, so with the 50 With the 50-foot linear feet, it's going to guarantee at least one street tree gets installed if there's not one there already. And anything over 100 would get a second street tree or possibly more. So that concludes our time here within reviewing the code. I know that Joe was very happy about showcasing Billy Joel, but I think Miami Shores has a much more seasoned and historic kind of feel to it. And therefore, Sam Elliott, for me, is the ultimate. And I think that we can look at our code with this kind of allure and happiness once we're done with this process.

What's the difference between just a street tree and a shade tree, or a street shade tree?

A street tree is installed within the swale area.

Is that a shade tree? Or can it be a non-tree that does not give shade?

I think we would probably defer to the Public Works Department. And that's why all tree planting within the right-of-way has to be approved by Public Works. They may have a manual. They're here. I know that the Miami-Dade County has a manual for street plantings within the right-of-way. I don't believe that palm trees would satisfy that. I don't know for sure.

Thank you, Eddie. Nice job. I think you put together a good draft for us to work with. So why don't you come sit up here with us? And I guess I propose to, if you could pull up on that screen your proposed draft ordinance. And let's just go through it page by page. And can you put it on the screen?

I don't believe that they have that.

The PDF?

Yeah, I don't think that they have that.

Oh, I thought Ashley was controlling that.

On your visual team.

Okay. All right, so you can't put that up. Then with that said, I propose we... Oh, there it is right there. Who did that? Did you do that? Well, thank you. So I propose we just go through this page by page and discuss what anybody wants to discuss and then move to the next page. Anybody, any comments on that? Approach? Good. It's kind of the way we did it last time. Well, we can turn them fast. So page one, any discussion, comments on this? No. Page two?

No. Turn page. Maybe we can do areas by some chance, like definitions.

Yeah, I got a question on page two. All right, so on page two, any discussion or comments from anybody on this? My question is this, and I don't know if it's for Eddie or for Sinead. That awning definition you have there starting line 57, that's the same definition that's presently in our code. So why do we have it here? Is it a waste of space? No, no.

So usually when it comes down to code amendments, anything you see underlined is what's been added. Anything stricken through, it's what's taken out. If you ever see us include language, it's usually for complete understanding of everything else that you're reading. But it's not required, right? Like I can't tell you right now if awning is used.

It hasn't changed.

No, it has not. But the reason why it's there is it's used for edification as you're reading other things. If it referenced awning or something somewhere else, now you have something right here on the document you can go and refer to.

Oh, so I guess you made the decision or someone that it was good to just have it.

Readily available in front of you right and so as we work through this we can clean it up And we can remove it and put the asterisks there, so it's not there, but if you see anything in there It's because it's part. It's probably used somewhere.

That's fine. I just thought it was you know Space we could cut out if we ever need absolutely we will we'll streamline it once we get closer to the council level, okay next page Any discussion?

I think that the definition change on building height is a bit problematic. Not every single lot has a base flood elevation assigned to it. Zone X for example will not have a base flood elevation. So I think that we might need to add some additional clarification here. such that in the absence of a defined base flood measurement or these flood figure, not sure how FEMA references that, that it's referenced to the what we used to define as building level, which we could either reinstate building level and give that a definition or else just simply state that the minimum minimum finished floor elevation as referenced elsewhere in the code. That would be one comment. I do have a second.

So you're saying it's referencing established base flood, so the areas where that's not really relevant, then it should be finished floor. Yeah.

Is there any place in the shores that does not have a base flood elevation?

My house. I'm in zone X. Oh, okay. Lucky you.

It's right on you.

Eddie, you have something to say?

until FEMA updates their maps again. So the vertical distance from the finished floor elevation or the established base flood elevation?

I don't know if we want to write this here. Here's what I'm thinking, and I don't want to step on any toes, but I doubt we're voting on something tonight.

I'd like to just get through the whole thing in one run.

Let's put that reference out there for staff and let them propose something for our next meeting, and rather than us trying to write the exact language, because the last time we tried to do that, it didn't work so well.

Yeah, I think if there's consensus on what needs to be corrected, we should try to do that. We don't need to take a vote, but we should at least indicate.

I mean, I think to the extent that we have finished floor defined elsewhere, it's probably okay, but I'm not sure we do.

Okay.

We have building level defined that's already there, and it's line 85. If you were to think that that's sufficient, then we can unstrike building level.

No, I actually don't like that definition at all. The street level or an elevation of five and a half feet above mean sea level, whichever is higher.

I'm fine with that, too. You can change that. Okay, what I'm saying is you can change the definition.

I think we need to change building level. I was going to get to that. Okay. Yeah. We can unpack this, but I think if we get into the weeds on this, we're not going to be flipping these pages fast enough to do a first comprehensive review. My proposal would be we just point out that there's a potential error there. You guys look at it, come back to us, and then we can talk about it. And if we need to get into detail next time, it'll be a shorter sub-list of things we need to talk about. Otherwise, we're going to get halfway through the document, and we're going to fall asleep and have to call it.

Are you guys, the architects on the board here, okay with the definition of the highest point of a roof shall be determined? No. You have comments on that?

Yeah, that was going to be my second. Okay. All right. Go ahead. What we've heard from the community as we've seen a number of proposals come in is that there's a proliferation of flat roof structures. And one of the reasons for that is it's generally cheaper to build a flat roof than it is a pitched roof. That's a generalized statement. There's exceptions to that rule. But the other reason is that you get more usable interior volume out of a flat roof than you do out of a pitched roof as per our current method of measuring building height. This new definition actually makes that worse. And so my proposal would be subject to a maximum roof pitch that building height for flat roofs is measured to the slab as it currently is, but for pitched roofs it's measured to the bearing structure. So we could call that the ring beam. We can call that a tie beam on the top of the wall. I think ring beam is probably the best technical term for it. But in that way, we're no longer penalizing the incorporation of a pitched roof. Because if we were to adopt this, the proliferation of flat roofs, I think, would increase, not decrease. So that would be my concern. Now, the side effect of that, and I think that's what Eddie was trying to solve for, is that that's going to necessarily make a taller structure when it's a pitched roof compared to a flat roof. And maybe if that pitched roof volume is not part of the interior space, but rather an attic. I don't know if that makes any difference or not, but I don't know there's a way around that. We're already lowering the roof, the height of the building from 30 to 28.

So you could conceivably, so basically the wall, the bearing wall that you put the joists on or whatever, could be 28 feet, 28, and then let's say you want to do a nice steep, you know, 6 on 12 pitched roof.

Well, that I would say subject to a minimum of 4 to 12. We'll get to the limitation on pitches. I'm not sure I completely agree with that, but I would say. subject to a maximum pitch of 4 and 12, because otherwise we could make a very steep structure, and now we have a 40-foot tall ridgeline, and I don't think any of us want that either. But I think that the community has been very vocal in saying that they want less big boxes and cubes and more of what had traditionally and historically constituted the majority of structures here in the Shores. And I think if we were to adopt this definition, we would actually get the opposite of that.

In other words, you'd be promoting more of the non-pitched roofs, flat roofs, by doing that.

There's no incentive to do that. That's all I have there. I do have something that tangentially touches that, but I'm going to wait until the end.

Is there any more comment on the roof? No, I think that makes sense. The height, the building height?

So for clarification, which line item specifically should we reassess?

Well, 83, it says the highest ridge point of a gable hip or a gambrel roof. I don't know that we need any of that. I think that I would just change the structure as to how this portion of the code is written from line item 78 through line item 81 to otherwise suggest that flat roofs are measured to the top of the slab and pitched roofs are measured to the top of the ring beam upon which the rafters rest. Top. Or roof joists rest. Something of that nature.

Is a ring beam different from a tie beam?

It's similar to a tie beam.

Just because I've seen that used and I just want to use nomenclature that is commonly referred to.

I think that either are interchangeable, but I would leave that up to whatever research that you come up with. Sitting here right here now, I can't say for certain that that is the right language to use.

Tie beam.

Any further comments on that? I mean, you do have the potential for a lot taller roofs, but you said something as far as limiting the actual roof height, or should we add something about limiting the overall height on a pitched roof without getting this too complicated? Possibly.

I don't want to be overly restrictive. But I also don't want to penalize a pitched roof, given that we've seen in the community a desire to see more of those, not less.

Okay. All right. I think that's good for comment right now. I mean, we can circle back, you know, go through a little more. Anything on building level, building main, floor area ratio? Comments on that? Definition. Open or roof terraces shall not be included when calculating FAR. Okay. Hearing none, we're good. All right. Lot frontage discussion. All right. Turn the page. Projection. So that's a new language that you propose there? Yes, sir. Projection?

But I do have one on the second part.

What line?

Sorry.

The second part of the lot coverage. At the end, 100. Can you tell us the line number? 100. OK. Beginning of the first page. That when you have two frontages, that the narrow dimension shall serve as a front. I mean, is there a way to say that the frontage is going to be, you know, the side that their address is related to?

that make sense we had a section in the code previously that said that the historic frontage shall be maintained unless there's an application to change it and it's approved by the planning and zoning department and it wouldn't be the narrowest then it would be the one that has the larger setback 25 foot which is our current minimum and 15 foot being our secondary street frontage so i think what you're saying is that that's probably inverted i don't believe i've seen that um and i

I mean, it's really a policy decision, how you wish to craft it. But I believe that the building official uses the designation of the street in order to determine the address, right? Like, if we don't give guidance, then I'm not really sure how. I mean, for the most part, addresses are pretty much set in stone, because predominantly everything is built out. But it's... It's not something that I've found in the court during my time here.

What does it matter if it's the narrowest or not the narrowest in this definition? I guess that was my point as far as the narrow dimension. For the foot frontage, does it matter where it's narrow?

If you want to leave it up to the designer to produce the best design possible and you want to give it up to their interpretation, then they can make the front the shortest, the narrow side or the longer side. I think this is something that we've seen that's traditionally used in other codes. It's not something that you have to adopt.

My general guess is most, all the lots I'm familiar with are deeper than they're wide.

Right. But if you have a double lot, you have a double lot, then the smaller, the longer would be the double lot, would be the front. And the narrower would be... What you're saying is the depth now, right?

So that's my house, a double lot where the narrower is the side. I have more depth in the front.

I would recommend striking that entirely because there's a section of the code already, and I don't recall exactly where it is, that says that the frontage is as per the historic designation. And if there isn't a frontage, then it shall be the predominant frontage existing on that street. And it says something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing it, going by memory, but I know that there's a section in our code somewhere.

All right, so what are we concluding on plot with? Is that something that can be stricken or is that something that we're going to leave?

I think from line item 96 onwards to line item 101, it should be stricken because we already have a section of the code that talks about that subject to the verification that that code that I'm remembering does exist. That would be my suggestion.

all right so that's our comment I mean look at it and just make sure there's we're not you know there's something that we're not missing there I just want to leave some room though that when we go back and we review the code section that you're referring to sometimes it's just best practice to have a definition in place and we can align that definition whatever the code says but I just want that flexibility to be able to go back if necessary

All right. Plot width.

Projection. I have something on wing walls. We have seen a number of applications come through with wing walls proposed as part of the design in an attempt to suggest that that is an allowable projection into a setback. But in some of those cases, those proposals have been, let's just say, not very harmonious and compatible with the neighboring structures. With that in mind, I would recommend just striking that as an allowable projection, a wing wall.

So adding, in other words, adding some language at the end of that. Just get rid of wing walls.

Just get rid of strike on line item 112, strike wing walls. Okay. All right.

Roof deck. Comments?

it's there let me ask you this so this language that you have here this is the language that's been in our code for a long time i think this was put in recent i think this was before that right no this was in 2024 we added that that's that's the um zoning in progress definition that was added at that time and again it's used for your edification of the entire document reading the entire document okay

Comments? None? Setbacks starting at line 119?

We had somewhere in our code, and I don't remember exactly where, that said that the minimum setback would be prescriptively 25 feet or the average of the adjacent properties, whichever is greater. We have a number of street fronts that are harmonious in nature, but they do have setbacks that are in some cases larger than 25 feet. And in an instance where we adopt something like this and we remove that, then we could have a new structure that disrupts the otherwise clean procession of facades. So I don't recall exactly where that was or what that language was, but I think it's worth considering keeping that in. Twenty-five feet, if that's what the rest of the structures are, absolutely, but if we have an instance where there's thirty-five.

So we're just talking, I guess, definitions here, right? Yeah, 119 to 122. We're not assigning numbers yet. Yeah, I think that's later in here somewhere. Maybe. I just put my note here. All right. Yeah. So are we good with the definitions?

No, I think he's saying he wants a definition.

allows for variance in the depth of the set I think I think I think chair Bolton is correct here I just happen to put my note here but now reading the only comment I had and I don't know if I was reading this right just let's say for example line 121 the depth of the front setback is the minimum perpendicular distance from the front property line Should we add something like to the closest location on the building or structure as required by the applicable zoning district? From the front property line to what?

Am I reading that right? You're reading it correct, because there's two ways to look at it, right? You could come at it from you want your setback to be the distance from the property line to the nearest exterior wall of the building, right? Or what we're proposing here is you defer it to the zoning district. So if the zoning district says your front setback is 25 feet, then that means that your front setback from the property line in is 25 feet. So if you design your building to be 30 feet and you decide to have a walkway, that only projects four feet, it's not an encroachment because there's considerable distance from your setback.

But we're just defining setback here. But we're just defining setback. So it could be 30 feet. It could be 35 feet. We're deferring it. It could be whatever.

We would defer it to the actual zoning district. So whatever your zoning district says your setback is,

But we're not, I mean, I'm just not understanding. We need to define what it's between. It's between the depth of the fronts. Is the minimum distance from the front property line to what?

It's, if you're zoning districts. Do you guys agree with me? Am I reading this right? To the building.

To the building. So we need to add to the building in this language. For all of these setbacks.

I mean, if you'd like for it to read that way, but.

That's what I think. I mean, that's just the way I read it. Yeah. In other words, it's not defining it. It's not completely defined.

It's not completely defined. To clarify, in no case scenario is it going to be different for each zoning district? It's always going to be from the building, right? this is just a definition right right so I'm trying to clarify your point is that you're saying that we can add from the building here because it's always going to be that regardless of the zoning district that we're talking about and then the only thing that's going to change is going to be the minimum based on the district so we can include in the language from the one from one point to the other point we can put that in the definition and that would be for all of the setbacks all four okay

That's the way I see it. Any other comments on those definitions? Step back. A requirement that the vertical plane of the second story or second and third story, I think we could strike or second and third story since third story is not part of our district. And I don't think.

Can you tell us the line? I'm sorry.

I'm on line 135.

35 and 36.

Okay, so 135?

Yes.

So you want to change this step back language.

Step back, remove or second and third story.

Is there a reason we, Eddie, in our changes to the streamlined version, this was approved in 24?

I think in 20, and I looked up 24, and actually I have it right here. I don't think that's included in 24, so I don't know how that got in here.

Oh, so you're saying it was like a typo and codification?

Somewhere, yes. Something to check. So, yeah, I mean, we can check it later on. I think I brought it with me.

So we'll verify how that got there in the first place then.

But otherwise, I think it's a confusion factor. that we ought to remit, or second and third story. All right, story. Turn page. Districts and district map. Basically, I guess that'll be further down the road when we get agreement on all the how many districts we want Any Comments on the language there on one-family residential districts Guess Eddie scratched differentiated with respect to required minimum cubage of buildings. So we're clearing that out of our codes

set forth all right so he's got four districts identified and I guess in his comments that I've got a question other than where we are differentiating lot coverage based on sizes of Lots I don't think that there is any other usefulness to having multiple our districts unless I've missed something going through the code. I didn't find any other differentiation. So in the chart of permitted uses, dimensional requirements, it's all the same for all these districts. So while I do think we need something that deals with lot coverage on larger lots, I wonder if for the purpose of simplification, which was our original intent, clean this code up, simplify it, if we can go to one residential district, it would make the code more simple, easier to read, but it would also make the mapping of it easier as well. And then, of course, we address lot coverage, assuming that the board agrees that there should be a mechanism in place that deals with that for larger and smaller lots. But we can do that without actually having to have different districts, just do it by the size of the lot. Does that make sense?

Mm-hmm. Yes.

So what you're saying is just our district?

Yeah.

Period. In other words, can anybody come up with the reasons why we should differentiate? Eddie, any reasons why we should that you can think of?

No.

If we're not going to have different requirements.

We all have different requirements.

Unless you want to talk about 168, you want to leave something like 168 in or just address it later? Small lot, there'll be a, you can't be any smaller than this.

Oh, the coverage, the coverage differences?

No, no, just it's no parcel shall be zoned, you know, we'll create a little

I don't know whether or not we retain or strike that or modify that. I don't know that that changes the desire to simplify it and only leave a single district. Yeah, no, it doesn't.

But if you want to still have a lower and upper ceiling, just leave it like it is there. Or just adopt B, so you'd have A and B. Or you just put it someplace else where you do the actual size of the

so I think we like that idea but let's let's get past that the coverage is things there and then we'll loop back to this all right section 402 Eddie cleaned up the cute removed all the cubage language 163, I turn the page, no parcels of land zone shall be subdivided unless the newly created lot has a minimum of 12,500 square feet. and 85 feet of primary front yard frontage. No parcels of land, zoned single family shall be combined or unified to create a buildable lot exceeding 21,500 square feet. So those are the two numbers, minimum 12,500, maximum 21,500. Comments? It's fine. I was kind of thinking, so a lot that's 200 feet by 100 would be a big lot. And that's 20,000 square feet. So 21,500 is even bigger than that. So I wouldn't be opposed to just 200 by 100. The only thing I would say.

There could be an instance where somebody wants to purchase a lot and combine it, and maybe they want to have a larger green space. I don't know that I would want to preclude them from being able to do that. The fear with a larger lot are the larger structures, but we can implement another measure to kind of put a control on that so that we don't have what looks like a park and recreation building on these larger lots, but still allow some flexibility in property rights to be able to exercise, put a larger pool in if they wanted to, put a wonderful garden in. So I think with that in mind, I otherwise would have objected to a 21,500 square foot lot, but I think it's sufficiently large so as to not really worry about it.

So we have a District R22 here on this table. that says the average parcel size is 21,162. Where is that? Where would those homes be? Do we know?

And how many of these homes are there? That was the one where we said quick math translated to roughly 35 parcels. So it could be plus or minus, depending on how that average swing. So where?

Mr. Adams' house would be one, Mr. Malmsteen's house, Mr. Fulmer's, Mr. Allen's.

So along 101st. Along 101st, the other one is on 5th Avenue, Mr. Adams' is on 95th and 12th.

I'm sorry, Ingwes.

No, it's the mayor with the record, please. That's on the top of my head, and there's another one. and then there's the open one where we just watched the boat parade that was i don't know okay all right so there's i can keep going but there's the average lots 100 by 120 on those homes and you put two of them together so it sounds like 21 500 we'll leave it as drafted yeah there's yeah one of them's 49 000 square feet so

Any further discussion on these numbers? But he got feelings on it. Well, I may have changed my position. Since we have enough of them as it is, I didn't want to.

At least I'm not exceeding what we've got. Yeah.

You shouldn't probably really care how big it is, how big the lot is, if what you're worried about is how big the house is. And then you address it by talking about how big the house is. And if Donald Trump decides to buy a 5,000-foot square lot in Miami Shores along with his library downtown, he can do it.

We have some data that was provided by the previous consultant that kind of indicates the lot sizes and how many of the homes are zoned, each one, to give you a little bit more information. So it looks like the R22.5, there's 48 of them. Definitely not a very high number considering some of the other ones are 600, 300, 667. So it's a very small percentage.

All right, I guess turn the page. And so we're good with this. Any further discussion on this? Turn the page. Schedule of regulations. So the existing schedule has all been removed. Turn the page. Turn the page. And this is the proposed. with the four districts that we're discussing possibly reducing that to just one district. Any comments, discussion on the language on this page?

I had a question. Under permitted uses, we're talking about park space. Wouldn't that be its own zoning district? Are we allowing park space and the accoutrements of park space to exist in our district?

I was confused about that, too. As of today, that's presently allowed in the code.

I don't know if there's a reason to change it or not. It was just a question I had. Thanks.

Yes. Now, on the top of page 10, does Guest Houses include airbnbs or is that a different issue altogether no there's a it would not uh as of right now there's an ordinance in place that would not allow airbnbs within a single-family zoning district okay so guest house there's a definition of a guest house somewhere it might be okay or there or there may not be and and yeah on number six and a one uh in the middle column Doesn't the current code allow you to have metal roofs? It does.

And where does it say metal roofs aren't allowed?

Six.

So A1, just to clarify as well, I don't know if this was clear, when we rearranged this chart, includes your other zoning districts as well and so it may appear that this is new language but if we strike out something we have to identify the new language is underlined so Eddie went through and made some notes throughout to kind of share that if something is your current language and it's underlined it was just because we rearranged it and so that a one language

there now in the code yeah I mean just my understanding is that you we currently don't have to approve that that that's a standard feature of the code that you can have a metal roof I mean my understanding of the code where this is saying is something that the Planning and Zoning Board has to allow at least that's how you read rows and columns

Yeah, and that's language that's also found within our district. Even though it's not being done so at this point in time where we're bringing metal roof requests for your review, the code still has that. So we're proposing to clean that up and not have that be a requirement.

Let me just clarify. Are you saying that from the standpoint of the state preemption?

No I'm just saying that I mean my son was I guess got the first got the last metal roof approved by the council because it required it to go to the council and after that the council adopted I thought an amendment to the code that said with certain conditions metal roofs are just like tile roofs and asbestos roofs and any other roof that there's no requirement that planning and zoning I mean that's my understanding actually do anything about metal roofs so I already will we'll double check and if that's the case we just won't add it back in okay and it'll just be listed I think the

The issue is, though, that this was a very streamlined assignment, which was you all wanted to focus solely on our district. So any changes to any other district, staff did not make. So it was just literally copy and paste from what was already existent. But if you want to go ahead and clean it up, because we're actually at. I'll see if I can because our title was very specific to the our district, you know, so I don't want to run afoul of what the title was saying that we're doing and now we're making a change but this might be a change that could be slid through but just that caveat. If I can, I'll change it now, and if not, we'll wait until you get to the comprehensive changes.

The B1, B2, all these other ones we can just ignore?

Yeah. You can ignore it because it's not within the scope of what you're doing. This is just us rearranging the code.

Okay.

Let me ask a question on permitted uses here. Back to what Brandon mentioned, number two. Parks, playgrounds, and other lands... reservations owned and operated by the village including all uses customarily incidental to should we we have that here I mean if if the village owns it and they want to run a park shouldn't they change the zoning to you know to park zoning to operate a park there even if it's in the residential district I mean, isn't it kind of a conflict there?

Honestly, a park use is probably one of the most low-impact uses.

So in other words, the village could buy three parcels of land and make a dog park out of it in the middle of an R district somewhere, according to this language, right?

A park use is always going to be less impactful, and it's going to be operated by a village entity. Like, we wouldn't allow a private park.

So if the village bot does four parcels, and they want to make a dog park, then with this language, they don't need to get a zoning change. But if we take this language out, then they would have to do that. Yes.

It sounds like we ought to just leave it in.

All right. Now, item three, home occupation and professional offices. So what does that mean?

I think they're saying that we should just, they just put that in here.

This is a carry-on, exactly. This is just a copy-paste.

That's why I'm discussing it. So should we take it out?

Well, no, because home-based businesses are for individuals who live in their home and they decide to open up an LLC.

So I can run a professional office out of my home.

There's guidelines in place. You can't have visitors come over. You're only dedicated to use 20% of the home. It's meant for clerical means.

So it's covering that as long as you comply with the other requirements.

And whether or not we have it, the state requires it. So it's not much we can do about it. As long as it aligns with our zoning. There's some zoning things we can implement, but it's a preempted area.

Is this one under those preemptions? Any use consisting of the tilling of the soil but not any use including the commercial greenhouse or keeping of any livestock other than domestic pets? So is that old or can we clean that up or is that something we've got to keep in there?

You can clean that up.

I mean, does it make sense to keep that in there? Use of tilling of the soil? You don't till your soil? Actually, I do. I do it in my backyard, though, you know. Well, if we took it out, they can't see me. Technically, you'd be running afoul of the zoning code. And he's consisting of the tilling of the soil. So, in other words, that's not for a gardener. That's for a farmer, right? Right. I mean, I don't know. I mean, if I didn't have that in there and I was out there planting my tomato garden, could they come say you can't do that because it's not in the code? You know?

No, I think you're fine either. And what you just described, you think having a garden would?

No. Any use consisting of the tilling of the soil.

I think gardening and things of that nature is associated with the use of the residential use itself. So then what would this be? What this seems like, it's a nowing for that tilling, normal gardening, but then if you do something beyond that, like a greenhouse that's more commercial and like, that's what I think it's trying to get at more than anything. So I think...

I know we had that big problem with front yard gardens in this. Right. You know, so... It doesn't sound like there's much appetite to do something there, I guess. Any other comments on permitted uses? Guest houses. So what's a guest house?

It's defined somewhere. Is it defined? Eddie said it was defined somewhere. No, no.

He said we're going to check.

I didn't see it defined.

If it's not, then we'll add a definition. I have a note here that says add definition.

So a guest house wouldn't be like an in-laws quarters?

I think I need to look at the language statutory wise if there's anything that prevents us from putting a time frame on how long someone could stay or not guess how seems like it's more temporary in nature in-laws quarters seems like that's gone a little bit more permanent in nature right so yeah so I guess if we're gonna have that in there then we need a definition yeah yeah

site plan review required. I noticed, Eddie, I guess you took out docks, davits, and boat lifts under the R district?

No, it's still in there.

Where is it?

It's in the first... It's right underneath the metal roofs. What number? Just above 2A.

A2 is multifamily. It needs to be in the R district. A1 is multifamily.

Right, so the note indicates that it was removed. So if you look at Eddie's note on page 9, the red indicates that what was removed.

So you took out Doc Stavitz, boat lifts, garages. Metal roofs, garage conversion. Took out garage conversion because we want to do that administratively. What about accessory structures visible from the public right of way? So Eddie's got some questions here. Should changes to facades of single family dwellings also be removed?

No.

I think we should see all of that. What number is that in here? It's not. Oh, it's number three, changes to the facade of single-family dwellings.

I think we should see that.

Yeah, it's there. Any permitted accessory structure located within 15 feet of the shoreline setback. So that would be waterfront homes. So I guess the question, so Eddie took out docks, davits, and boat lifts. Are we on? Good with that?

Meaning they don't need to come to us.

Correct.

I don't have an issue with that.

Garages, storage buildings, accessory structures visible from the public right of way. That's my note there. I guess that was in there. I'm not seeing that. Existing?

Yeah, I don't see it either. But you're right.

Number four. All right.

It says within the shorelines of that.

all right no no further comments on it then i guess turn the page turn the page i guess we were going to look up find that make sure we had the definition of guest houses and then as far as the a1 and the a2 and the cr and the in the professional so those um there's no no changes here this is just What was there? Just for reference.

Just for reorganization.

Just reorganization. And that's not really the scope of what we're trying to do here.

Not the substantive scope, no.

So I guess turn the page to 21, please. Schedule of regulations. comments discussion what do you want to oh look do we want to discuss our I guess the our district do we want to consolidate it to one our district or do we want to have the subcategories

What you said was we would get to the lot coverage. There's a section in there in lot coverage and then see if that can solve that problem. And if it does, then yes. And if it doesn't, then no.

Most of these are applicable to all of them, at least from me looking through it. So it really doesn't matter.

I have a couple of comments on this page. This is where that 25-foot... prescriptive minimum versus the average setback of the street or the adjacent structure setback comes into play where we did have some language or do have some language elsewhere in the code that speaks to the existing setback of the adjacent structures being the minimum or else 25 foot being the minimum I think that that needs to be written into this required front yard depth column And as to what that specific language would be, I would leave that up to you. But I do think we have that somewhere else in the code already.

Actually, I don't think that's written correctly anyway. It probably should say, the way my notes here, I said for dwellings. Not less than. Not less than 25 feet, yeah.

Yeah.

And then the same thing over here on the backyard, not less than 15 feet. Yeah.

If you've got not exceed, it should.

And I have a couple of questions, and Eddie, you touched on this when you were giving your presentation. I didn't want to interrupt you with a question. It seems like we've increased the setbacks for the pools, specifically along an alley.

Yeah.

How? Why?

That came up during the July workshop. There was an issue with something regarding the alleyways and not being enough or sufficient space between the edge of the built structure and...

For me it feels like it and this this could come across being self-serving because my house app happens to have an alley behind it but That Hallie adds a buffer to the neighbor on the other side and so I understand the pervious concern for me putting myself in the position of one of some of my other neighbors that live on the other side of the street that don't have the alley, when they have pools that are too close to their property, then they get nuisance and noise issues. So actually having more of a setback there, in my mind, makes sense than the alley does. But I do think that the way that we had it before, with respect to alleys at least, is probably okay. Because it still left enough room for you to incorporate a green space there for pervious reasons.

I know you're our mayor, but I'm told if you have to talk, you've got to come to the podium and announce yourself. Yeah.

Is this on? Yeah. Jerome Charles, 935 Northeast 95th Street. It came up in discussion, and it's, again, in my neighborhood, but our alleys aren't even for width. And then there's, for a fence line on an alley, you can put a fence right on the line, and there's houses that are being redone in some of the neighborhoods where it's 7 1⁄2 feet to the pool line, not the deck. So if you see how they're doing at build, that's what our code is. So I think the discussion was not where the deck is or what the setback is. Actually, they measure from that alley, and we don't have a standard for alley width. So I hear what you're saying. It's a buffer between the two, but I don't think we have a consistent thing. And it's also in the future, even for our alleys, the width of a truck for picking up garbage, we don't know what that's going to be. And I think people with our code, if we just had a little buffer between the alley and when somebody's doing a pull, There's one – it's ninth place. If somebody misses that turn, they're going to be right in that person's pool also. But that's just a one-off. But, I mean, for our garbage trucks and stuff, I think it's more construction. I mean, our front-end loaders, our – where they go through the alleys, I just think these – the rule that we have right now, if you measure that seven and a half feet to where the pool is, that's pretty close to our alley.

So why wouldn't we just make it the same everywhere? from the property line, regardless of whether you have an alley or not. Make it 10 feet.

Well, to his point, he's right that the distance between two pools on an alley are much greater then. So I don't think the same logic is, I don't know. I mean, it's a good point.

I mean, just simplify and say from the property line you have to be 10 feet to your property.

That's a discussion we could have later on for which the proper distance is for that. What is it right now, today? Ten. Ten feet.

I think so. Seven and a half. Seven and a half from the property line to the inside face of the pool. That's right. To the wall of the pool. To the pool wall.

It's to the pool wall. And then it's just what type of deck do you want. If any.

Because it could be that instance where we limit the deck from going too close. But if you have a property line there, then that's your property and you could put a fence there. And so that's no relationship to the usable width of the alley.

Right.

Unless you're going to take an easement out of people's properties, which we've been having – No problem operating the village and operating trash collection up until this point in time. I don't see that there would be a demonstrable need for that.

Okay.

I mean, it was just, if you see, but if you can see in practicality, and you don't want to make a law for just one off either, but I mean, moving forward, it's just, to me, some of the zoning stuff is playing whack-a-mole. I mean, you make a rule and then they... It always is. That's why it's always changing. I mean, don't make it too restrictive, but it is a safety issue also if you saw this one in particular, but I don't know how many houses have a pool on an alley where you can make a turn and go into the pool. So, again, don't make a rule for just one. But this one's egregious.

So there's another line here. Under maximum building height, you have for other buildings 40 feet, accepting for all buildings the features specified in Article 5. Can you elaborate on that, Eddie? Was that just... regurgitated from the existing yes yes that's a carryover item and what's it what's it mean can you help me interpret that says maximum height 40 feet when we have other places in the code that it was a 28 feet it would have to speak to any other permitted uses within that district so

If we're allowing parks, and let's say there needs to be a building built on the park, perhaps that structure may need to be up to the 40-foot requirement, right? For other buildings. Can we just eliminate that?

You've got to define other buildings. Let's just eliminate that. Or just eliminate. It's a confusion factor. Yeah. I think so. Because you have accessory buildings after that, not to exceed the height of the dwelling located in the same plot. OK, that makes sense.

And by the way, the definition of building height here seems to be the one that we can impart into the first portion, because it does talk about the difference between FEMA base flood elevation and or otherwise the minimum finished floor elevation.

All right, so we're good with this page, 25-foot front yard setbacks, 15-foot backyard.

Other than the comment that I mentioned about... Side yards, 10 feet. The comment that I mentioned about the adjacent minimum shall be the setback of the adjacent structures or else 25 feet. I need to find that section. I don't know. I can't remember where it is.

For dwellings, two stories shall not exceed 28 feet. So we're good with that? As our new building height? 28 feet.

Well, I thought that... I'm sorry.

Yeah. I think that's right. Yeah. I'm good with it.

Yeah. Yeah. I thought how we're going to measure it, you want different... We're... Yeah.

We don't have that nailed down yet.

Okay.

Um... The pool setbacks?

Are we good with that, Brandon? I felt like I wanted to go back to the way it was before. I don't see a need. Just seven and a half feet straight? Yeah, it's been working well on many, many properties. There might be a handful that isn't ideal, but I don't see a need to overly restrict there. And if there were any concern, to me it would only be where you have a common lot line with your rear neighbor and you're worried about sound attenuation. But there could be another solution there. It doesn't require us to increase the setback. Maybe we talk about sound attenuation features like solid retaining walls or something of that nature that helps to mitigate some of the sound from spilling over the line without increasing the restrictiveness of those setbacks.

So you're saying you would like to strike the one sentence that says for swimming pools when adjacent to rear alley 10 feet I would just like to revert back to what we had before which was I think seven and a half feet what yeah so if we take that out then it I think I think it does I think it does but yeah so now my question I guess to Eddie is where'd that 10 feet come from for that oh uh essentially what we did was

We use the metric, so right now it's five feet to the deck, seven and a half feet to the pool line. There's a difference of two and a half, so in order to make it easy for an administrator, we just added two and a half feet.

I mean, where did the idea of changing it when you're next to an alley to ten feet come from?

It came up during the workshop. Oh, that's where it came out of the workshop. As you were speaking, it made sense, but yes, it was at the July workshop.

All right. I'm with Brandon. I mean, if it's been working for a while, then... Everybody on board with that? Mm-hmm. Michael?

Just leave it like it currently is.

All right. I guess any more on this page before I turn it?

Mm-hmm.

All right. So let's go to page... The rest is the other districts. We'll go to page 25. Um...

Just one comment. Page 22. It feels like we might have a duplication there under our 7500 district where it says for swimming pools when adjacent to rear alley seven and a half feet. I think that was already repeated somewhere else. Just check it. If it's not a duplicate, leave it. If it is, strike it.

Oh, so that's a conflict there, right? For swimming pools when Jason, the rear alley, 10 feet, and then the same thing. Yeah. OK. All right. Sheet 25. Thank you. Discussion? Accessory buildings? The floor area of all roofed accessory structures shall not exceed the floor area of the dwelling on the same plot and may be further restricted by plot coverage regulation. So what does that mean? You'll have a huge accessory structure in the back that's as big as the house?

It can't be any bigger than the house.

It can be as big as the house, but it's not any bigger. Practically speaking, though, as long as we leave FAR, as long as we leave lot coverage, as long as we leave pervious and impervious.

It doesn't make any difference.

Yeah.

There's also a restriction that limits any detached structure in the rear yard to 20%. So that's also baked into your code.

So no issues leaving this in? Yeah. Location. In rear yard only as defined in Section 102. So what is that doing for us there?

You can't put it in the front yard. Accessory buildings are allowed in the rear, not in the front. Okay.

And not in the side, right?

I guess whatever 102. So 102 says, I mean, excuse me, 201 says in the... Well, it says rear yard only.

Yeah. Is that correct? So not in the side either, right?

within the rear yard only in the rear yard setbacks all the same all right this is all for accessory buildings so it's all the same I mean it's it strikes me is the same as which we have for every other building

Front setbacks, it's all the same language, nothing different. Right, Eddie? Yes.

Front cuff on the neck. But you couldn't have a front setback if it's in the rear, could you?

You are correct.

I mean, if you have an accessory building in the rear, you don't have a front setback.

But I guess just for consistency of reading it, we'll leave it there and then it's done. Unless you think that's a confusion factor.

Yeah.

You think it's a confusion factor?

I think it implies that you could have it.

Yeah, I think we need to revisit it.

Okay.

Turn the page. You know, actually, the title of that is Front Setbacks for Other Buildings. So it is distinguishing, I believe, the intent of this language was to distinguish between accessory buildings and then other buildings. I don't know what other... Then you have to define that. Right?

Other buildings may be sheds. Those are accessory structures. Yeah, but if we pulled out other buildings, because accessory buildings are already defined elsewhere, and we pulled out other buildings from the height section... Unless, upon subsequent review, you feel that there's a reason to leave it, I would think we would just take it out.

But it's all three of them, then. Side setback for other buildings and rear setback. So all the other buildings. Right. We reduce.

That's preference. So strike those front, side, and rear. Do you strike rear, since rear, it can be built in the rear?

Not for other buildings. There are no other buildings. Just accessories to others which are already defined.

Okay. And rear.

Coverage. Oh, the next page.

All right. Let me see here. No door. Okay. All right. The next page. We're on page 26. Coverage. Yes, Dan.

And what is, I mean... I can't imagine what this is. Roof structures with roofs that are more than 50% open to the sky, except that fabric or metal roofs emitted under or attached to the dwelling are not including. I mean, what exactly is that?

Well, you have pergolas. Pergolas are not completely roof structures. So I think it's speaking to that. If you were to have a pergola, it's giving you a little bit more flexibility because a pergola allows, right? It's not a roof structure as opposed to like a terrace.

Okay.

Coverage, not more than 20% of the area of the rear yard shall be covered with roof structures. and more than 50% open to the sky, except that fabric or metal roofed structures permitted under Section 523 are attached to the dwelling. Where did this language come from, Eddie? That was a carryover. Oh, that's a carryover? It's codified in the code as we speak, yes. Any comments on it?

It's very confusing. Yeah, you got to concentrate, huh?

Do you understand what it's trying to direct?

Yeah, I mean, they're saying that, yeah, to an extent, but that's... Is there an easier way to say it?

No, I think if it comes off the house, and I thought about that, you know, if it's something that... that are attached to the dwelling need to be included in computing such coverage? I mean, I can see the purglar. I guess you could build kind of an awning coming off your house.

Well, I mean, to the extent that it projects into the rear yard, because it's talking about the rear yard, and the intent, as I understood it, having read this a few times, was – it took me a few times – but the intent was to say that Under the current code, you could have a gigantic pergola that covers almost the entirety of your rear yard. But is that harmonious in our village? Probably not. And so this was a mechanism that was there previously to prevent that from happening. I think this has been in there for years and years. It must have come from something. Somebody tried to put a gigantic pergola in their backyard, I'm sure.

Covered their backyard.

Yeah.

So it's kind of like to control a pergola. It looks like it's written for a pergola, doesn't it? With the 50% open to the sky. It feels that way, yeah. All right, so no reason to take it out, I guess. It must be there for a reason.

Having looked, it's never really become a limitation in any of the applications we've seen come before us. I wouldn't take it out just simply because there must have been a reason that somebody put it in and it hasn't caused problems. Okay, nobody's complained.

And we haven't experienced it in the building permit side. No one's trying to build a large pergola.

No. Development standards. So this is... and let me open that for for comment on the percentages for lot coverage so Eddie's proposing a different percent depending on the different well our district before we get into that if we could just discuss line item 258 we're striking the differences between one and two stories

Now, I've heard a lot of commentary from architects and some owners of houses that don't understand the rationale for 30% and 40%. In other words, the difference of lot coverage for those two single-story and double-story, two-story homes. The thing is we've seen and heard lots of public comment that, wants to try to incentivize a single story structure over a two story structure and this was added in response to those comments from the community. And indeed we've seen a number of applicants come before us very recently where they've elected to do a single story structure instead of a two story structure and I think it's because of this code. Can't say for certain. I would advocate leaving a difference of percentages for single and two story structures just because it does have that incentivization to build one story. But I think it then becomes a little sloppy when we start looking at different coverages for different sizes of lots. So there may be a cleanup that we can do there instead of saying 30% and 40% that we list the lot coverage for single stories under each of these sizes of lots, and then say for a two-story structure, subtract 10%.

Well, first of all, we still have four different R districts here. It wouldn't be the R districts, but it would be sizes of lots, right?

It would be lots. So the intent here is, okay, we have a 21,000-square-foot lot, and if you looked at that from an FAR perspective, you would have an 11,500-square-foot house on that lot. That's a gigantic, massive, massive structure that – Although it fits on that lot and meets all of our current codes and classifications, the juxtaposition of that structure and the size and massiveness of it immediately adjacent to a lot that may only be 7,500 square feet is exceptional. It's not harmonious, not in the slightest. So I think that was the reason to maybe even have a sliding scale and we can make it as complicated or as simple as we want. The sliding scale could be a mathematical formula or it could just be as it's written here, lots of this size to this size shall have this percentage. But right now I think it's backwards because what it's doing is it's allowing a larger structure on a larger lot and a smaller structure on a smaller lot where the majority of lots in our village are actually on the smaller side. And we would be penalizing those smaller lots by implementing this, where it seems as though what the community has put forward in their concerns is that the larger lots, the double lots and indeed the triple lots, are able to build gigantic structures on them. I think the relationship here is inverted.

How does the Board feel now that we've had our interim code for the last year and we've seen new houses coming forward meeting the code? with 40% coverage for one story, 30% for two story. How do we feel? Do we like what we're seeing come forward? And I noticed it was quite obvious if you looked at any of the homes that are on the agenda for the next meeting, you can You can see it on those homes.

I think the Blue Nest example, the before and after was remarkable. I think the number of applicants that came before us last time with single story proposals whereas we would have definitely seen them with two stories. It was produce something that was advantageous. And we didn't push it so far so as to rule out a speculative builder's interests. And I don't think we wanted to do that. We didn't want to create a code where you couldn't come in and speculate and make a decent profit and flip the property. Why? Because a developer who comes in and builds a home is far more skilled and able to realize the execution of that home than a An average single family home owner who's never done even an addition and wants to build a new home from scratch. They have no idea what they're getting into. So I think we caught that balance by luck right on the edge.

My opinion on it anyway. I don't know how you all feel. Do we like the numbers? 40% for one story. I mean, we saw that one story, I guess, last meeting or the one before that was a one story home. 40%, it still seemed like a large, fairly massive home on that lot. But I also understand if we, because my first blush was, okay, maybe tighten up that one story to 35% and then 30% for two story. But then I'm afraid we're going to incentivize two stories a lot more if we do that. What do you guys think?

Is that fair?

I think that if we want to incentivize single story RESIDENCES, AND WE CHANGED THAT TO 35%. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK PEOPLE ARE PUSHING IT OVER. YEAH. AND I ALSO THINK THAT ALTHOUGH WE CAN TRY TO WORK TO GET AS CLOSE TO PERFECTION AS POSSIBLE, I'M NOT SURE THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS. And while that last application was a little heavy on the lot, part of the reason why is because they didn't calculate their pervious correctly. They didn't have any deck around the pool. And so all of that went into the structure itself. And I think if that is the concern, I don't think the number is wrong. I think the enforcement and being realistic with the proposal is what's wrong. And we held the line here. We said, look, you're going to need to put a deck around this pool. The idea that you're going to have a roof draining right into three foot of green space with nowhere for that water to go and that a future homeowner is not actually going to put a deck around it is preposterous.

Yeah, the deck's going to come six months later.

So I think as long as we continue holding that line here as to what's reasonable and Eddie and staff already understand, we're going to push in that direction so they can start telling applicants, the board's not going to accept this. I think probably we'll wind up seeing that attenuation happen a little bit more. I would keep the numbers where they were. I think they were working. 40 and 30. Yeah, I think so. Would we like that? I think numbers still pencil for people looking to do the project.

So if we do that, then we can strike all of this A, B, C, and D here. Because we're looking at striking that and going with just one R district.

Well, not really, because what we're looking to do here is to say on a larger lot, you can't build that full 40%. You have to build a little less than that. Otherwise, the structure you're going to get on a 21,000 square foot lot is almost 11,000 square foot structure next to a house that might only be 4,500 square feet. That's the...

So then we do want to maintain the four R districts that... No, well, I... We could do it by lot size.

Yeah, I'll do it by lot size, because then it simplifies the rest of the code, and we just, instead of doing our 7,500, we just say lots that are 7,500 square foot or less, lots that are 10,000 square foot or less, lots that are 12,000 square foot or less, lots that are 15,000 square foot or less, and then I'd add one more, lots that are 21,500 square feet and less.

Well, I mean, you're on the right track. But the 7,500, I mean, lots, 7,500 or more, because that's like the minimum right there, right? Yeah. So maybe it's more. Yeah, 7,500 or more, 10,000, 12,000, 15,000. And then what numbers do you want to throw on that? Well, you've just got to have – What numbers are you –

I wouldn't go more than 40. I would start at 40 for the 7500.

So the language here says our 7500 district, 38% for all structures. So we're going to take that because we want to... I mean, you want to take a stab at it?

Yeah. 7,500. I don't think we need the words for all structures. I think it's implied. I think we would just say for 7,500, it would be 40. So it's for 7,500 to 10,000.

So you could do a 40% coverage and build a two-story building? No.

No, still leave the 40 and 30.

So then it's not for all structures then?

No, that's right. Get rid of the words for all structures.

Okay.

And then we'll put an asterisk at the bottom, subtract 10% lot coverage for a two-story structure. That covers everything. So we put the numbers there for all these various lot sizes, and we have a subtractor there for a two-story structure, which maintains the incentive to do a single-story versus a two-story. In other words, keeps the balance that we struck that we see that it's working. Would you like that?

I like it.

I just don't know what the numbers will be. I guess we could start at 40. You mentioned going more than 40 is probably not great.

So the smaller ones you want at 40, and then as you get bigger, notch it down a little bit?

I don't know exactly what that would be right here, right now, and I think it's dangerous for us to – Yeah, I would say we probably need a little study to understand that.

Yeah, and I think, again, the problem is that we want to do this apparently some kind of relationship and say, well, yeah, this is a 15,000 square lot, but because the lot next door to it is an older house and the people live there and they're very happy with it, we want to penalize the big lot really because of the preference of the people who live on the smaller lot. And I understand the issue in terms of saying, well, we don't want all this disproportionate size, But, I mean, we need to, I think, be somewhat careful.

So what I'm thinking is, like, don't go too drastic on the numbers. Keep it within a percentage point or two, but not like another 10%.

So just for discussion, we're looking at, like, our 75, or the 7,500, 40%. The 10,000, 38, the 12,000, 36, and then the 15,000, 34%.

But before we commit that as gospel, let's do a quick study. We need to get some numbers.

We can draft it, but let's do a study before we finalize it.

Yeah, let's make sure we're not being overly restrictive on that. But I don't think we are.

I think we're probably okay there, but I don't want to just throw numbers out willy-nilly.

I mean, because they're...

34% so that would be let's say the big the big Lots 34% for a single single story and then so 24% for a double for two-story home because I took saying because the 10% off 34 minus 10 is 20 the second floor Yeah, that might actually be too restrictive. That sounds tight, yeah.

I think we need a little study. Why don't we agree in principle that we want to put some degree of control on a larger lot, but that we don't want to be overly restrictive, and maybe we can ask Eddie to do a little study to understand on some of these lots that have larger homes that we've heard the community complain about what that would result in with the intent to not overly restrict.

Right. I mean, I think the other thing we need to understand is larger lots are also significantly more expensive, and you need to build more house simply to justify the expense you're taking on the property.

I think that's fair.

I don't know if I would break it down as, you know, 7,500, 10,000. I think let's just pick, like, I'm just throwing out a number, so don't keep me on it, but, like, less than 15,000, 40% and 30%, and then start to make the moves after that. Because we saw 40% and 30% work. I'm not comfortable dropping it down like 2%.

It did sound drastic when you said 34 and 24.

It's not going to move the needle. 2% isn't really going to change. It'll change it. But not on these smaller lots.

You don't want to introduce a linear equation?

Calculate the alphas and the betas. Maybe we should just kind of I think we get a consensus that we want to have some relationship between lot coverage and size of the lot, declining as the lot gets bigger. But exactly what those numbers are, we need to, I think we need to get, yeah, some calculations. I mean, we need to sit and play with that.

But we, all right, so let's, and what about the format as presented here? I mean, it sounded like Michael had some comments on that.

Well, I think Michael is simply saying that, you know, you can pick whatever percentage you want and whatever range you want. You've got to agree kind of on the range or the size and then kind of agree on the range of the percentages. And where those split points are is probably much more preference than I'd like to admit.

Do we want to give Eddie more direction on this or are we going to move on? Eddie, are you kind of sensing what we're discussing? Yeah, yeah.

I think I understand. So, you know.

Want to chew on it then?

Less lot coverage as lot increases is one of the things I wrote down. The relationship between the lot coverage and the lot size and studying that a little bit further.

Could we get you to take, I mean, I don't know, maybe the last. two or three months of just what we approved and just do the calculation, here is the total lot, here is the lot coverage, just to give us some sense of at least what's being produced in the community. I mean, because I think for the big lots, you're talking about, at his number there, you're still talking about a 7,000 square foot building, and I don't think we've had any buildings any near that big in the last

year maybe instead of two percent of seven thousand difference maybe one percent difference you know and then because i know remember when blue nest was talking he says he really had to squeeze hard to get to that 30 to our far you know um to make it work i i think we need some more data to make a better decision okay but i think i think we're sounds like we're almost all on the same page i mean that was in the detail we have we have minor disagreements on on on the nuance Floor area ratio, 0.45. Comments? You like it? Mm-hmm. Michael? 0.45? Works. You like it? All right. So it looks like we like that. The language for the backyard, 80% of the front facade, I guess this is part of the... Articulation requirement. We like it. Question.

I thought that the last meeting we said a few were greater than the 25%. You did have to do.

I mean, that's not reflected in this, is it? No, and I think that's the thing. You move it back five feet, so you're 30. But you still have all that mass there. The purpose of the step back. was to break up the mass at the front. But you're just kicking it, you're kicking the whole building back five feet, but you didn't put the mass back. I mean, you did and you didn't. It's like a mirage. It's still there.

This was Council Member Walensky's suggestion when we were going through it. He perked up. Yeah, I know he's sitting over there, Council Member. He's sitting there.

Do I have to stop him anymore?

Yeah, if you would, because I think you had some public comments that justified that.

Jesse Valinski, 9780 Northeast Fifth Avenue Road. I believe the discussion you're talking about was about us not wanting to mandate pyramid-shaped structures. So in other words, if you wanted... If you wanted to use the step back as your setback, we weren't going to penalize the second story by making you have a pyramid shape and go an additional five feet. So if you wanted to start at the 30 feet, you could have the vertical wall rather than us mandating a pyramid shape. That was the idea.

There was more to it, too. The step backs are more expensive to build, structurally speaking. And so it would give a property owner the ability to decide and have some flexibility in their tool chest. But I do agree. You lose the articulation. You do lose the articulation. But you get more setback. But out of all the proposals we've seen come through, there's only been one or two that have used that. Everyone else is articulating.

And we've had a problem with every single one of them. We've had questions on how does that even... Yeah, that's true. We all chimed in. We didn't really... I think we approved them, but it was some trepidation on our part on whether or not we wanted to go along with that. But we did.

Well, I think the second part was, was it harmonious with its neighbors? And that's where, yeah, I mean, depending on where they were and how it related to the overall elevation.

I think we still have the ability to utilize that section of the code. And I think we've used it effectively. I'd be hesitant to pull that out only because we're appointed by council, not elected. And if that's what council agreed to specifically and with that discussion in place, I would feel a little uneasy to go against it.

disagree with you to a point. What we do up here is separate from what they do at the council meeting. So I would say, if we're going to give a recommendation, we give a recommendation. They're the elected officials. If they feel that they need to differ from our recommendation, so be it. I'll accept it every single time because I'm not elected. But we don't necessarily... I don't like taking cues from the people that appoint us. That flies in the face of...

I could sum this up. And I'm just speaking for myself, not the whole council, Jesse Zielinski, 9780 Northeast Fifth Avenue Road. The last thing I want is to be told what you think I want to hear. So I want your genuine opinion.

So this is the Zielinski corollary here. front or side facade of any one family dwelling that is at least six feet back from the applicable yard depth is then that that step backs not not applicable okay and then those reasons why he proposed that sure so no changes here we're good with section 412 development standards

I don't like that, the step back, but I'm only one, so I'll move on.

It's there now. I mean, no need rehashing it.

No, no, I know.

I'll just say I don't disagree with you. Except I do like the fact that we do give people some flexibility in decisions as to how they want to approach their design. When we were contemplating these step backs originally, one of my internal fears was that we would mandate a certain design and then every structure that comes before us starts looking the same. and this does give a designer the ability to do something without that articulation that I think in the hands of a competent, skilled designer could produce something that is interesting. We haven't seen it yet, but we have that other code, and because we do have the other code, I would feel more comfortable allowing that flexibility to remain just by own, just to give the back and forth that it deserves.

We've been good up here pushing back when we need to push back some.

All right. Section 501, prohibited uses. Eddie, you left item 13 in there, but I guess nothing changed on that. I guess that was left in for clarity? Or did something change there?

It's possible that the enumeration I'll have to check, but yeah, that text is part of the prohibited uses. Nothing changed then.

Correct. It might not be necessary. I just have a question on that roof deck, and it was one of the applications that we had at the last board meeting that had come up a few months prior, same agent, about access to the roof, where... There were grand access points to the roof, which made it seem like that roof, even though it wasn't a roof deck, was going to eventually be used as a roof deck or could be used as a roof deck. Like, you know, the elevator opening to the roof. You know, fancy stairways.

I mean, if they're putting a railing around the roof, then it's obviously a roof deck at that point. If it's just a barefoot wall...

But it could be a parapet wall that was up high enough.

We get into our next page, Section 505, Line 294, that specifically.

Well, let's close on this Line 290 there. So that's added. We like that. Roof decks within all residential districts are prohibited.

We're all good?

All right. So turn the page. 27. Section 505, comments?

I would move to strike that entirely for our districts. No towers, no gables, no water tanks.

I was kind of like thinking that first line needed to go, and then you would start at water tanks and necessary air conditioning could be required. And then I had another comment to discuss solar panels. Is that something that we need to?

I mean, yeah, solar panels should be encouraged.

So water tanks and necessary air conditioning, other mechanical appurtenances, windscreened, may be erected, and then cover at a level, you know, at any level, let's say less than whatever, 10% of the roof. then you could eliminate a few of them and then just limit them to six feet in height, something like that.

There's a portion where we're allowing a cupola or a penthouse to be there, and it extends past the allowable building height. But I'd like to take that out. Yeah, so you would take out towers, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, and similar structures. All of 295, yeah.

All align 295 and start at water tanks.

Take all of A out.

All of A? All of A out. Well, not all of A. Oh, that's B. So, yeah, all of A comes out. And then you start at B.

Water tanks, necessary air conditioning, other mechanical opportunities, when appropriate, the screen, maybe electronic.

And then you would take out B2, B3, B4, and then B5, B6, and B7.

We've had lots of applications come forward with air conditioning units on roofs. And there's been a few where there's a demonstrated need to have it up there. There have been many where they just put it there because I guess it's easier. But then that requires an access that requires screening. There's been applications that haven't shown it in the renderings or they show it in an elevation but they don't actually show it in the elevation but they show it in the floor plan. I would feel much more comfortable stating that our preference is to not have air conditioning units installed on a roof unless there's no other way to do it.

Unless it's under the total allowable height. Is it more considerate to the neighbors? Because we're allowing it to exceed the height. If it's underneath the height, I'd be okay.

It might be more considerate to the neighbors in certain circumstances as long as the house that, you know, you don't do a single-story house and then put your air conditioning up there and you have a two-story house next to you that then gets all of that noise being reflected off the roof. So, I mean, I think that there's probably issues where yes and no are both true. But... It's just that at one point you're always going to see these things. They're always going to be an eyesore. And a screening element, to me, feels like more of a commercial building. I've got a 94-unit building. that I have all of my mechanicals up. I have a big screen that covers it, and that's appropriate for a building of that size and scale in that area where multifamily buildings are being built. But it doesn't really work in a single-family business.

It starts feeling like a commercial structure.

What about solar panels? Solar panels are great. We can't preclude solar panels. We need to allow people to build. Promote that. We should encourage it. Encourage it. So you want to just? I don't know exactly how I want to word this. It's just subject of conversation at the moment.

So right now we've got water tanks and necessary air conditioning and other mechanical appurtenances windscreened may be erected on a building to a height. Great. I don't like the language of that because nobody understands it. To a height, I was just going to go down to line item seven, which says shall not exceed six feet.

Equipment equipment and all screening elements shall not exceed six feet above the roof For a flat roof or six feet above the top of the tie beam for a pitched roof Six feet six feet is about what it's gonna be when you put the roof stand there on a flat roof You have a re-roofing requirement underneath the roof stand which puts it up at about three and a half four feet and then if you got a high efficiency unit those things are tall and

Yes, it's the problem of seeing it from the sidewalk.

That is the problem. That's why I'm saying put it at the ground level. Yeah.

So I think the only real problem you run into is some of these houses that are the real glass design. There's really no place on the ground level you can put it. In the back where we can't see it.

What? In the back where we can't see it. That's where they all go. That's where they go in everything.

house for the sun back in the side yard where you can landscape but there are there are concerns in coastal flood zones where your FEMA base flood elevations 11 feet and your chasing grade is at 4 and in that instance because you're required to put all of your equipment at base flood elevation plus 1 That stand is huge, so there could be certain instances where it is necessary, and I think that's where we probably need to refine this. Or you could build a cantilever on the side of the house. Yes, you could. It needs to be demonstrated that it's necessary, subject to Board approval, or else put it on the ground.

Screen it on the ground.

Yeah.

I think that's... So what about solar panels? Do we add a section for solar panels to allow them...

We review them all the time, and even though we just can't restrict someone from installing panels, but no.

I think it's illegal to restrict somebody.

But I'm wondering, do we need to address solar panels in what we're doing here? Because it's not. So I guess when they come, I guess, to the building department, and they're taking care of it themselves. Yes. So it's an administrative review. Correct. Yeah. All right. So what's the consensus?

Sounds like Brandon wants it on the ground. I think on a two-story building or a two-story house, the screening and the units should not exceed... total allowable height. I think we start there.

I know one of the problems just on that note. I've seen some of these screened and one in my mind They did a horrible job screening it, and everybody can see it. It's on this big stand on the roof, and it looks like a commercial building.

I know one in Miami Beach I drive past every day, and it's this, like, most gorgeous house, and all you can see is... Well, shame on them, man, you know? But it was over at... But they've gotten used to it. They don't even see it anymore.

That mechanical contractor took great pride in his work.

You should put a sign on it. Do not hire me.

Unless you're into mechanical equipment.

All right, so I guess for this draft, then we'll take it out.

What exactly?

The language we're proposing is out. I guess all equipment. All 509. All of this towers, gables, and water tanks. So do we write that no mechanical equipment? No. is allowed on the rooftop?

I wouldn't want to be so restrictive because there could be a need to demonstrate it. So I would just say that we need to come up with some language that for properties where there is a demonstrated need that special consideration can be taken subject to board approval.

Do we put language that it's discouraged or it's not allowed unless board approval? Not allowed unless.

So we'll just, we'll craft some language that just makes an exception for certain properties. Hardship. Yeah, certain type of, yeah, for lack of better words. I probably won't use that word, but. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. I think we've discussed that enough. Section 508, established grade of plot. Do we have a definition for street grade?

I'll have to check. I didn't. Isn't there some language about the crown of the road? The crown of the road?

Yeah, I saw that. And that's why I was saying maybe we define that as crown and absence of crown as the average highest elevation.

And then I thought there was some language about absence of crown when I was reading through this. Yeah, there was. There was something like that, yeah.

How can you have an absence of the crown of road?

Maybe it's just pitched in one direction or something, like super elevated.

there is one first degree you want me to read it yes good yes so it reads street grade the level of the surface of the pavement top of curb or surface of cement sidewalk as established by the village whichever is the highest I think that works my comment is no I

There was something in our code, and we may have already edited it out, which said that our minimum finish floor elevation in a flood zone was base flood elevation plus two feet, not the one foot. I looked back. I couldn't find it.

I think that's within the Ismael's building code chapter. I think chapter 8.5 or chapter 6.

Could we take that out? I know we're not editing that particular check, but the reason why I'm suggesting that we take that out is because FEMA only requires the one foot in order for us to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. And that has had the net effect of pushing buildings up higher than they need to be.

If you're asking to change that language in particular, we wouldn't be able to at

this board level you can make a recommendation in general as a I mean in your own capacity not from the board to the council to amend chapter six that would be council we have no purview over that what's no got it okay so and I'm sorry trying to keep up here so on let's say line 327 the establishment of finished floor of a plot shall be at or above the minimum FEMA so it doesn't say plus one foot

Yeah, and that's actually my next comment. That's incorrect as written. That would not – we would essentially be incorporating a code that violates our ability to participate in the national flood.

Does somewhere else in our code say plus one foot above? It says plus two. in our code in our code no it doesn't say that doesn't say plus one anywhere that I'm aware of but I know that there was a plus two and that's where it comes from it comes from a code that a section that we don't have purview over so then this is not correct it needs to now we need to add some I would say plus one plus one feet yeah the established finished floor of a plot shall be

Minimum one foot above FEMA base flood elevation Yeah Alternatively if we didn't want to hard code that in case FEMA changes their mind in the future we could say we could say We could say in accordance with FEMA regulations including freeboard That's the terminology that they use because then we're at that whatever right now.

It's one foot, but they may change it Okay, so that that way it wouldn't require an ordinance change, you know I for residential dwellings the maximum permitted height in all districts shall be 28 feet from the finished grade or minimum finished floor established by FEMA so that that would have to in the interest or just or minimum finished floor because finished floor is defined in the line before that in the interest of simplifying the code this section is dealing with the established grade of a plot not the height and we are defining height elsewhere does it make sense just to strike this Subsection if if if it makes sense then I propose striking it just prevents conflicts and confusion Less is more All right next page page 28 comments So we're good with the new language added that says second-story balconies and terraces located within residential zoning districts shall not be permitted to have direct access from interior common areas. Access shall be limited to private rooms. I'm okay with that. Yeah?

Yeah. I think it's a little restrictive, but I understand the issue.

Yeah. Yeah.

No, I think 95th Street and 12th Avenue and 6th Avenue, the house they're renovating, I'm fairly certain that the plans call for a terrace coming out on the second floor that all the space on the...

They proffered the removal of the doors that went to that terrace from the common space. You're talking about this is the one that had the historic issue? The yellow house?

No, the one that... It's the one that's right there on the corner of 95th Street and Northeast 6th Avenue. It's right across Caddy Corner from the Presbyterian Church.

Oh, that one. Yeah.

I'm not sure what that one is. I mean, I remember that distinctly because it changes the outside appearance of it.

Any other questions on this page? Comments? Page 28. All right, page 29. Structures constituting accessory buildings. So are we in sync with the other stuff that we've discussed on that?

I think so.

AC units and mechanical equipment are not permitted in the first 25 feet from the front of the property.

And they have a side setback.

So we're in sync? Mm-hmm. Okay. Next page, 30. Temporary construction site fencing. Michael, you want to lead us on this one?

No, it looks good. You like it?

Six-foot chain-link fence with a windscreen.

Um. The only comment, one of the comments I had, item B, temporary construction site fencing shall be allowed on those. Change allowed to required. And then. You could, I mean, just for language, simplicity, whatever, you got item D there. You could almost just continue that on your item B instead of making it a separate bullet. Temporary construction site fencing shall be required on the sites in which approved building permit has been issued by the building department. while the building permit remains active. Construction sites shall be enclosed with a six-foot chain link fence with wind screen. A silt screen shall be installed at the base of the chain link fence for waterfront lots, blah, blah, blah. That's just my comment, you know. Any discussion on silt screen fence? That's for erosion control, right? That's the solid...

It's on line 440. Why does it go to three feet along the water? Shouldn't it be... The same? So I guess when you... More protective along the water?

We'll let Eddie, but I guess they're thinking for people bringing their boats, driving by, but I guess...

I think it's kind of like to protect people that are... coming approaching from the water, not the other way around.

It's the visibility from the boats, right? So instead of a six-foot fence, it's a three-foot fence. So I guess they can see the construction more. You think you should block that construction?

No, I'm thinking you put a three-foot fence, if it is approaching the site from the sidewalk and gets into the property, they only have a three-foot fence to go from the property to the water.

So you're you're thinking of it as a safety water.

Yeah, that it should be as opposed to a visual, right?

Yeah Well, it's six still needs to be a six-foot fence it's just three fence For waterfront lots the fence along the water side may be reduced may be reduced to three feet in height provided that a windscreen and silt screen fence are also installed at the base and I don't know if that's necessary. In May, they're going to probably just try to be consistent with six feet all around it.

Yeah, I don't think it should be three feet because you're looking at protecting from the water side or you're protecting from the inside to the water. I think you should just leave it as a five.

So, yeah. Just take it all together? From 439 to the end, from waterfront lots, the fence along. Yeah. Um, any other discussion on fencing? Uh, you got to, you got to stand. Yeah.