Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Miss saddle. Mister Brady Mister Spirk Mister O'Hara we have for him.

OK order of business any additions deletions and deferrals.

I'm wondering if we could potentially postpone the approval of the minutes. I just didn't get, I was out of town. That's fine.

We'll postpone the minutes. Okay. If you'd like to make a public comment generally, not on a specific item, please come forward and we will give you the three minutes. But this is if you have a comment about a specific thing on the agenda, we'll do that when the agenda item comes up. Oh, do you not swear everybody in?

Well, all the applicants, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. Hello.

Can you hear me now? All right. Yeah.

So I'll just go. My name is Nadine Davy Rogers. I live at 121 Northeast 100th Street, just about half a block from this building. I bought my home on September 21st, 1999, and people asked me, why did you buy a Miami Shores? And my house had been on the market for about a year. And I said, establish trees and community. because Anwar Mejia, who lives across the street, came out and shook my hand when I was touring the house, and he said, I'd love for you to be my neighbor. We live in the village beautiful. The tree canopy is what keeps us cool. And the decisions we've made on zoning, and I understand we went a little roughshod over a few years, and we've reined that back in. I will candidly say I thought we were doing our jobs on that, because it took me 17 years to put my garage back in the spot where it was built in 1926 to get approval. But we did it. So what I'm getting at is it took 17 years for somebody to say yes to that, and I couldn't believe what we were willing to do to trees, to lot lines to flood plains, you name it, in the community. And so here is what I ask. I ask that we evaluate our tree remediation plans vis-a-vis the development work that's going on. And I'll use the house next door to me as the example, because that's what I'm living day to day. That house is meeting the letter of the law. We've removed I don't even know how many trees. There are over 40 trees on that property. When one buys a property, one has absolute right to do what they need to do within the letter of the law. It's up to all of us to think about the impact more broadly. The drain field for that house is between the two houses now. And so it is impossible to replace a tree or put a tree over the living spaces of the two adjoining houses. And so both houses are now exposed to significant heat, need for more air conditioning, you name it. So what I'm getting at is some of these things address the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. the intention around the village beautiful and you will note that there is a lobby group called the miami trend canopy tree watch operating across miami-dade county right now organizing very strongly there are several mahogany trees that were preserved in edgewater and the list goes on and so i ask us to be thinking about this when we make these kinds of decisions that we're making here today, and especially when we're talking about a developer and not a homeowner. Because the developer's there to get their $750 grand after they pay their $1.2 million for their property, and they pay $1.5 million for the builder, and then they sell it for $4.5 million in a part of Miami Shores where somebody really doesn't want to buy a $4.5 million house. So please let us think about who's gaining in all of this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Cindy Herps, 1000 Northeast 96th Street. The question I have is, do we have a flat roof issue or a design issue? You have to ask, what is the attraction to the flat roof? Flat roofs on new two-story construction have led to surrounding homes getting miniaturized, which can lead to being devalued due to loss of light, breeze, and privacy. It also devalues the character of Miami shores. Too many of the same look, same design, especially on the same street, will end up removing our long-standing community character and turn us into the modern-day planned development, a cookie-cutter mashup of two-story cement boxes that are void of character, charm, warmth, and in fact, true design. If the objective is to limit flat roofs, we need to understand the cause and effect, massing. Flat roofs allow for ceiling heights contributing to the overall disproportionate scale of the tropical modern home design. The heights need to be reduced to 25 feet to 40 feet max in flood zone. Right now, we are at 47 feet in the flood zone. Our most egregious examples of two-story homes previously approved before the July 2024 amendments are located within the flood zones east of Biscayne. And while these homes are no longer legal, they continue to be referenced in the applications today. Flat roofs on new construction homes do not fit in. They stand out. This board has an opportunity to help guide and preserve our history, our legacy, your legacy. We do not want to look like Miami Beach, or worse yet, Belle Meade. We want to preserve and enhance our beauty and our character. The board needs to go back and review the recent study again, the residential parcel analysis. The consultants provided flawed data to work from which resulted in flawed decisions being made for the 2024 amendments. The height needs to be reduced, especially in a flood zone. We need 40 feet max in flood zone. Right now, we are at 47 feet. It bears repeating that the most egregious examples of the two-story homes are located within the flood zones east of Biscayne. You cannot expect or modify if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. It's not okay to piggyback off of poor decision making and continue to miniaturize and devalue the homes around them. Most new builds change hands within a couple of years. Most new builds are being driven for investment purposes and by developers who never move in and don't care about Miami Shores. It is up to the board not to allow more of the same to proliferate our community, help to preserve the assets of longtime residents, put the rules in place to guarantee the vision we want, and we should not be so quick to tear down our history, our legacy, but instead embrace and preserve that which has made us distinct because once it's gone, It's gone. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else for the comment? Okay, we're going on the agenda. Tabled item 7A. One second. Oh.

We didn't do the quasi-judicial. What? Quasi-judicial.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. No problem.

Please be advised that the following items on... The board's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. Swearing in, all testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. In accordance with Section 2-100 of the Village Code, any lobbyists must register before addressing the Board on any of the following items. Board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning any items on the agenda pursuant to Section 2-86 of the Village Code. At this time, if there are any disclosures, the Board members can make do so.

Any disclosures? No.

And I know that we had a swearing-in before, but just clarification, that was for the purposes of these quasi-judicial items. If you did not swear in, you can have an opportunity to do so now if you did not earlier. Everybody good? Okay.

Thank you. Item 7A, staff.

Thank you, sir. RSP 25-105, property address toll 55 Northeast 93rd Street. The parcel is approximately 15,700 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1957. The existing structure has an actual area of 3,641 square feet. It's configured with three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant is seeking to demolish the single-family structure while proposing the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling comprised of 6,728 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of six bedrooms, seven and a half bathrooms, an indoor gym space, two-car garage, swimming pool with outdoor terrace area. At its April 23 planning and zoning board meeting, the applicant's request was subsequently tabled pursuant to board commentary. requiring the applicant to provide additional analysis and revisions regarding the transition from the established grade to the proposed interior finish floor elevation, overall site drainage and permeability details, the preservation of the existing black olive tree within the right-of-way area, prohibition of second floor balcony access from interior common areas, and the overall harmonious character and appearance of the residence, which include facade articulation and massing. The applicant is here and is seeking to be untabled. It has incorporated the technical sheet revisions addressing previous board comments. Staff is therefore recommending approval along with the stipulated conditions. And the applicant is here should you have any questions. Thank you.

CHRIS RODGERS. Move to allow the table. Motion to untable. TODD BANDUCCI.

I'll make a motion to untable the application.

CHRIS RODGERS. Second. TODD BANDUCCI.

All in favor, aye.

CHRIS RODGERS. Aye. CHRIS RODGERS. OK.

Hi. Good evening, everyone. My name is Ernesto Chavarria. I'm the owner of 1255 Northeast 93rd Street. I want to thank you all for your time today. And I also wanted to thank you for your feedback during our previous planning and zoning presentation. We took your comments into consideration in modifying the facade of the home, particularly the roofline. We are providing a significant roofline setback. We are presenting a variation of the straight roofline that we used to have. I have to say that I like the new design better. I appreciate your recommendation. My family and I like the new facade, how it looks, the roof set back. We are also providing the calculations for the elevation of the driveway and the entrance of the home. The finish grade. The finish grade. I want to say that based on your recommendations and already the revision that we are providing, we feel that the project is stronger. What you recommend the benefits, the new design that we are presenting today. Yeah, I want to thank you all for your feedback. I think that it benefits the project.

You want to add something, Mike? No, no. What do you guys think? Do you have any questions on the design? We already upgraded or finished grade. Everything is on the plans. We fixed the roof, the elevations.

The roof line is no longer straight roof line. We pushed it back. So everything is according to your request.

Any questions for the applicant?

You go first.

not question, comment. Much improved design. No, thank you, thank you. And I think this is, you know, I've said at a couple of meetings that we're not up here to design the project, we're only here to try and make things better, and I think that the architect and the homeowner listening to the concerns that we had resulted in a much, much, much improved product.

We like it better. My family and I, we remember your comment in regards to the straight line. Once we saw it in the renderings, we understood what your point was, and we appreciate it. We appreciate it.

Well, I appreciate you addressing it. Dramatic, dramatic, dramatic difference. You like it? Yeah, love it. I'm only one.

Any other comments? Go ahead.

Yeah, I would agree. It does look a lot better. I appreciate you looking at the comments or listening to what we said. Can I ask about in the back, there are four air conditioners and the pool pump, it looks like, but I couldn't figure out what the landscape is doing. How are you screening that?

Can you speak into the mic for the record?

Cheat one. It's at the end. At the end. Which is the existing? All the way to the end.

I think it's L2.

That's existing landscaping. Go to the next one. There it is. As you can see, the AC is right there. I mean, the four units and the pool pump and the pool equipment.

Right.

They are on the left side of the house. They comply with the CERB. Actually, they have 13 feet CERBs. And I mean.

So there's existing Alexander palms there?

What?

There are existing Alexander palms there? That's what's screening it?

All of those palms are 16 feet. I mean, right now, they're on the property. So they are at 16 pumps. Did you go to a previous land? Yeah, yeah.

They're existing.

But our intention is... All of that is at 16 right now. We were moving the one on the front because we're putting a new driveway. But we have a ton of pumps on the back. And we have, you see, a 16-tree inventory. Everything is there.

Our intention is to provide privacy to the neighbors and to our own property. We're going to be adding as many trees as we can in the lot, on the sides, on the back.

We didn't want to remove them because some of those palm trees are part of the neighbors and we don't wanna toss them, so.

I'm not, yeah, I'm not saying to toss them. I'm just saying that I don't think that's gonna give you the screening that you probably need because the height of those are what, up five feet? Five feet. The bottom of the AC units are at what elevation?

So the 16 palms that we have are tall palms, really tall. Either way, we're going to be planting poor carpets and trees, vegetation in that area.

You can't go to the 16 pictures in the house? Maybe we can see some palms here.

There it is.

On the other side, same.

That is an existing royal tree, so we kept them. All of those palm trees, part of the house. You see how all the palm trees are right here?

i guess all right guys so you think they should clean more i i i'm concerned not so much that they're right there but that they're they're going to be up higher what if you make the conditions for the 30 cocoa plum red tip cocoa plums they have okay that you go from i guess size to a larger to give more they'll grow eventually yeah okay yeah start with a higher

Okay. You have red tip cocoa plums already shown there in front of the air conditioning units on L2. You can go to L2. Oh, you guys have a clicker now.

Fingers are quicker than a clicker, though.

You know, I think the primary concern is that... Privacy on the... Well, it's that the air conditioners actually sit on a shelf that's probably five or six foot tall, and then you'll have the height of the air conditioner that probably gets you to 10 or 12 feet, and so you need additional screening to reduce it. Okay.

So those plants that are shown in cyan, if you... I know you probably can't zoom in, but they're tagged as 30, and they're they're new and they look to be red tipped cocoa plums your specifications call for three gallons but if you bought 15 gallons there okay yeah they'd be bigger yeah any other questions or comments um yeah i think the only other thing is can you go to a10

Which was the roof plan. I wasn't quite sure how you were draining. And I know that you sent a 10. Okay. So explain to me how is the roof draining?

You have to speak into the mic. I'm sorry. You have to speak into the mic.

Just take it with you.

I forgot my stick. So this is the line on the second floor. But this is on the first floor, and this is the the wall, the wall on the first floor. And this is the wall, I mean the on the second floor.

So pretty much the water is going to fall on the first floor, planters or whatever.

Because we have the step back on the second floor. Remember, we have 10 feet step back, and then you have six feet step back. you have to go to cheat a 3.6 so are you saying that it's sloped that way so that it sheets off the edge of the roof into the planter go back there well you cannot see you there but I have a more a better detail here or the second back from the roof step backs but It's like images, supposed to be PDF. I mean, you cannot, you have no Google solution.

Zoom, you can't zoom.

You can zoom if you want to. No, not zooming.

It's fine, it's fine. I just wanted to understand, because I don't see any gutters or anything around, so your intention is that it's gonna sheet off of the sides of the... Pretty much.

We have slopes, so it's going to fall from the planters first, and then on the swirls that we have on both sides of the house.

Okay.

But the water is going to fall on the roof or the first floor. It's not going to fall on the neighbor's property. Remember, we have 17 feet.

Separated from the property line.

To the second floor, we have 17 feet. So it's 13 feet from the neighbor's floor. It's a lot of space. The neighbor's gonna be like, no problem. I mean, we don't have a cascade . Okay.

You're from South Florida, right? Mm-hmm.

Well, I was gonna show you. Okay. I'm gonna show you the detail.

That detail. Yeah. Well, now here, I sent you an email explaining about the water runoff.

Right, mm-hmm, I got that, thank you.

Water fall here, you lost pressure. Water fall here. So we have the bench, all right? And we have six inches deep all over the house, all around the house. To retain the water on the property. That's the way you do it. That's a senior plan. I mean, I've seen one of the projects, they don't do that. You have to do that in every single... So I provide the detail here, more office care, so that you can... So we have the... the burn here, six inches high, and then we have six inches, which is still one peak. It's in the water.

And so that little peak, that's?

Oh, that's the burn. You have to divide that to do the construction. It's a requirement.

And what is that made of? What is that made of? That's just dirt? You need to speak into the mic. It's very rectilinear for dirt. That's what I was wondering.

Well, when you're going to do the construction,

I mean, it looks very perfect, just perfect triangle. That's the way it's going to.

Well, he had to do all around the house. As you can see right here, detail AA, that's the burn right there.

Got it. You go here, burn.

Yep, got it. He had to do all around the house to retain the house, the water in the house, during the construction. While he's doing the construction, he had to make sure the water doesn't fall into the neighbor's property. That's a requirement.

Even after the construction, he needs to make sure the water doesn't run.

After the construction, that remains. Plus, he has to provide the swell all around the house.

We have an inspection specifically for that.

You see the construction PPP nodes? That's a requirement. He has to do that. And this plan has to be submitted to the Miami-Dade County. They're going to review the plan. They're going to approve it. He has to take care of that.

Just jumping into the comment about the roof, I noticed that your window system is pretty much going right up to the underside of the roof. Just for you to consider, not really part of our purview, your roofing system you're calling for is a waterproofing system, the Volcom. That's a waterproofing system. It's not a roofing system. So our building department likely is not going to allow you to use that because it's a waterproofing system. The roofing system will require insulation. So because you have your window system going all the way up to the underside of your slab, Unless you do something creative with interior soffits, you really don't have a place to put insulation. Typically with a roofing system, you'll do like a sloped poly iso, but then you'll have all that water flowing over the edge. When that happens, it'll take all the dirt with it. So unless you put a drip edge or something like that, you're going to wind up getting really stained elements. It's part of the reasons why people don't like flat roofs, is because they tend to look really dirty on the edging. So the detailing of that's going to be really important, but outside of our purview. couple of things for our planning director it's in a flood zone and we still don't have signed and sealed septic system I know that they submitted well I know actually I think they submitted when when this was a requirement but it's still not there I'm not looking to hold you guys up for that but I would like to maybe consider a condition okay before that I want to come back I want to come back to that Design-wise, a couple of things for you to consider. If you go to your renderings, if we can go to sheet A11 when you get a chance, Eddie. Yeah, I'll try. Okay, so it's hard to see, but up at the top right, front right rendering, you see that you have a stone-clad wall? You see that stone-clad wall stops at that outside corner?

Okay. This one? It's beyond your reach.

It's on the other side where you actually have a stone wall. You can also see it in the bottom corner where you have that. This one, right? Yeah. See how that's stucco? And then as you turn the corner, you have stone cladding. Think about how those materials come together. You might not enjoy that, just pointing that out. That's not in our purview. But you might want to consider that and try to detail that a little bit better. Maybe take the stone off that wall and just have it on the back wall. then it's easier to detail that's up to you guys you decide what you want to do there I just wanted to point that out the drainage plan on seat on sheet c3 is missing a trench drain at the property line yeah you can go to c3 so and it also c1 is your drainage plan I think I got my sheets incorrect actually I says that's correct says true stormwater drainage plan at your property line on your driveway Put a drain, a trench drain there. Because otherwise what's going to happen on that street is very pervasive. We have flooding issues on that street in particular. If you drive to the end of that street after a heavy rain, the people who live at the end, they can't get through. It's deep. And part of that's because lots of people's properties are sheet flowing from their driveway into the right-of-way, and it's going down to the lower-lying areas. So if we could put that trench drain there, I think that'll help. Maybe we add that as a condition. And then finally, on sheet A6, when you get a second, I'll narrate it why we're going there. There is a step up in the garage that eliminates one of your parking spots. Yeah. So if you notice in the top right corner of your garage, you see there's a line there. And yep, right where the door is. is invalidating the minimum depth you need for a parking space. So you wouldn't be able to bring a car into the garage. That step is going to invalidate the parking space.

No, it won't. It will.

You can reconfigure that.

It's not a difficult thing, but you won't be able to park your car in there.

The problem is we wanted to change the design, right? So we had to lower the finished floor of the house.

and that trigger is right now your total garage depth is 20 foot 8 inches that's what that dimension there shows you can't really see it because it's too small our minimum depth is 20 feet requirement so you're out you're at it but with that step there you can't it's a seven inch step you're not going to drive over that okay okay so um those are all the comments that i have but also i commend you you've done a remarkable effort in addressing the commentary we have i think Although it is a flat roof, and it is more massive by nature of it being a flat roof, the fact that you have a larger front yard setback goes a long way to helping to reduce the scale compared to some of the other neighbors on that street for which we rewrote the zoning code. So I think you've done a good job. I agree with my colleagues here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate your comments.

Coming for you means a lot. Yeah.

As far as conditions are concerned, do you want me to try to narrate all of them? If I miss something, we may need to kind of go back and forth.

If you're going to make a motion to approve with what conditions, identify the conditions you want to have that included in the motion.

Yeah, and I'll capture it. I think the only one that you wanted to put in there was about the air conditioning units okay before you make a motion can we open up for public comment is there any public comment on this item yes yes yes

Hello, my name is Frederick Muller. I live directly east of this project at 1263 Northeast 93rd Street. We currently have another 40-foot house that went in next door to us to our east, so now we have two huge houses going in on either side of us. I think it was pointed out earlier, the young lady here pointed out about the consistency of these flat-roofed houses and so forth. And they're not being staggered on the street. So visually, it's going to look kind of awkward to have these two big houses right next door to each other. But that's not my real concern while I'm here. The house to our east already has runoff into our property, even though they put up this vinyl barrier wall it's about eight feet tall and the runoff from the backyard actually runs through their friends into our front yard and into the street uh with all the the dirt and i think he tried to mitigate it uh this last week by putting some sod in on the side of the house and the uh um setback space there between the two houses but my concern is will always be whether or not the design as it is right now will be adequate to prevent water from leaving the property and that includes off of the roof as well when it rains hard there's an awful lot of water coming off of these flat roofs and without a channeling system to lead it out towards the street it's going to flood the backyard neighbors behind this project have already complained about flooding and our property given that the fact it's going to be raised up as well there's going to be a slope going into our property in the setback area on the side of the house that is certain to without a physical barrier to have a water runoff into our property so I just want to make sure that that the design is going to be adequate enough to control water runoff in the property so that it goes out into the street and not into the surrounding neighbors. The swale, even though if it's a foot deep of rock and so forth, I don't think it's going to be adequate enough to channel the water away from the property. As it is the big house directly to our east, since they tore down the home that was there before, before construction, now we have, after three days of hard rain, we get four to six inches of water in the crawl space under our house. And that's just seepage. coming from under the vinyl barrier that doesn't have a footer on it. So I just want to make sure that this plan, as it's proposed, will be adequate to address those concerns for us and for also the neighbors surrounding in the back. Thank you.

Go ahead.

So we don't normally respond to comments because it's not really a question and answer thing, but we don't also expect the public to sit through all of our zoning code discussions, of which there's been many, and it goes until late in the evening. But it is one of the things specifically we've been talking about. And if approved, the latest version of the zoning code that we've been mulling back and forth, it will include a provision to require a final inspection. Because what we suspect, we don't have proof, but what we suspect has been happening is that plan is submitted goes to county gets approved ostensibly should right address all the issues but during the course of construction construction is controlled chaos things change and ultimately things don't always get built the way the plan showed so we're going to require if again if this is approved a final inspection with a sign and seal from the engineer of record indicating that it was built as it was designed

Okay.

So then if it floods thereafter, we have some recourse. Okay.

I thank you for your attention to this.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Any other public comment on this item? Mr. Ward?

I propose that we go through the conditions so that we understand them first and we get the language and then make a motion to approve it with those conditions referenced. So the first condition, as I understood it, was the red-tipped coco plum that is shown on landscape sheet L2. Let me just double check that. And I think that is the west side of the property. adjacent to the air conditioning units that the applicant will proffer or it will be required to 15 gallons 15 gallons instead of the three gallons which currently shown on sheet l2 so that would be the first condition okay um a second condition would would be in relationship to the septic system it may not be required to elevate the front yard to to install the septic some properties have been able to do this without elevating it others have had to elevate it But the condition would read that in the event that the front yard must be elevated such that any retaining wall would be required, that it would need to come back before the Board for review and approval.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Okay. Yes. MR. That's nice.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT. And then another condition would be the modification of Sheet A6 to remove the step that's shown in the garage that currently invalidates one of the two parking spaces inside of the garage. And I think that's everything.

Okay.

No, and I think you said a trench at the property line. Oh, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Drainage plan C3 to add a trench drain at the property line in the driveway. Do I hear a motion to approve with those conditions? I have a second. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. I'll pose like sign. Motion pictures with the additional conditions. Thank you. Thank you all for sure.

Thank you so much. Mikey's not jumping today. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all.

Do you need something?

So sorry. I'm trying not to be disruptive. Okay. But granted.

Okay, well, we knew that.

Yeah, but there were some people who were texting me from home. We don't know that.

Okay.

Didn't mean to bother.

Thank you. No worries. Okay, new item. 8A. Staff.

Staff.

RSP 25-88, property address 9153 Northwest 1st Avenue. The lot is approximately 8,662 square feet in size and contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1956. The existing structure has a living area of 1,999 square feet. It's configured with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant is seeking the 330-square-foot garage conversion to the existing single-family residence, seeking to accommodate a new den and utility room area. The total habitable area will remain at 1,999 square feet and will facilitate three bedrooms, one den utility room area, three bathrooms. Staff confirmed that the R15 zoning district is compatible with the single family future land use. And we measured the site plan request against the 20 different zoning categories as found in the zoning code and found that it generally complies. And therefore, we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. And that's all that we have. And the applicant is here should you have any questions for them.

Any questions for the planning director?

I was a little unclear how the parking requirements being met that were removing a garage. It wasn't very clear on the application. I may have missed it.

We have here a 20-foot new driveway being constructed to utilize two vehicles.

Any other questions?

The only other question I do have for the planning and zoning director we've had a number of applications come before us that whether they're new construction or their garage conversions they show a room that ostensibly could be utilized as a bedroom given that it has its own in-suite bathroom and it has egress windows and it meets all the requirements of a bedroom yet the labeling suggests that it's not a bit bedroom in this case it's an office I don't know that there's much of an impact here on this particular project because we're not really increasing any footprint. But there are others in the past and indeed in this particular set of applications that show that it's a smaller number of bedrooms than actually is likely to be utilized. I'm wondering if we could change our method of crafting our staff report. Because I know that the public typically has hard time reading plans, but they do read the staff report. And when it shows that there's a certain number of bedrooms, let's say if there's three bedrooms, but there's actually another room in there that could be used as a fourth bedroom, that we actually call that a bedroom, regardless of whether the applicant is actually showing that or not. Maybe we go a step further and make the applicant actually show that as a bedroom on the plans, if it has everything that is otherwise required for it to be utilized as a bedroom. So those things would be, for example, egress windows. It has that in that room, and that room is big enough for it to be utilized as a bedroom. There's nothing that would stop it from being marketed as such. And so I think it's disingenuous for the public if we're not being very clear with them and showing the true impact that a potential proposal has. And I think it could be concealed, and I just want to make sure that we're protecting the public and they understand what they're looking at.

Understood.

Hi, good evening. My name is Idan Marwan. I'm the owner of 9153 Northwest First Avenue. We're requesting the approval for garage conversion of 330 square feet to add an office into our house. Both me and my wife are, my wife 100% works from home and I work partially from home. And we were working currently from one of the bedrooms. We reviewed the staff approval and and met with all the conditions and obviously willing to comply. Within there, we ask for your approval for the project.

Any questions for the applicant?

Oh.

This goes along the same lines of what we were just discussing about something being labeled something that it's not. In this particular case, it actually has a door into, so you've added a bathroom, you've added a closet, and you have egress windows, and you have a separate door going into the space. To me, we've had issues with these kinds of presentations before because it's looks like it could be used as a rental unit, an adjunct rental. Would you be willing to proffer that door or that siding glass window being fixed instead of an operable door?

You mean the inner door or the door from the exterior?

Yeah, the door to the exterior. If you go to sheet A3, where you have the sets of steps, which it's actually unclear whether or not that projection is legal.

Yeah, it's for the backyard to have access for it. That's the main reason for it.

That's access to a side yard. I have a question.

Is it a sliding glass door or is it a door? Because I have a door in mine.

So it was a sliding glass door and we made changes because the steps were too wide. So we made the changes based on the staff request.

So it's a door or it's a sliding glass door?

It's a sliding door and the stairs are narrower than what it is in the original plan due to the staff request. But yes, for your question, we are willing to make changes.

I think that... To me, leaving that door there is, whether you're going to do that or a future owner, I'm trying to get away from that to improve the standards of the village to not allow for illegal rentals.

We currently have the side door over there as well. We just kept it.

I will add that as far as the garage conversions, it's a standard template in our conditions that we make the applicant file a covenant that restricts the property to a single family use to prevent any sort of subleasing or sublet.

I mean, I would like to make it architecturally difficult, too, because a covenant could be easily ignored. You have to prove that somebody's renting it illegally. They say it's a family member. And we've all heard that song and dance. If it doesn't have a door, it makes it much more difficult to rent it.

Is the garage that much above the plane that you need a steps and a door to get into it?

Yeah, because we need to elevate it. We need to meet the same level of the house height.

Is there currently a door in the garage going in there and steps?

Yeah, there is a side door. There is no step because it's on the floor level. There are steps to go into the house from the garage to the kitchen. Currently, the stairs are inside the garage.

I mean, look, from my perspective with regards to your question, I'd have no problem with him calling this a bedroom as long as it can't be legally rented. I mean, we can't make it easy. So if you're going to put a shower in it, definitely you've got to get rid of that door. Otherwise, yeah, get rid of the shower and then you want to keep the doors. It's going to be one or the other because as it's currently designed, this is a rental. I mean, it could be utilized very easily as a rental unit. We need to avoid that.

Okay.

I would agree. I think removing the door would go a long way. Okay. We didn't have that access.

That's in all likelihood going to be a part of the motion to approve the application. Do you accept that?

Yeah, we do.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Can I have a motion, please?

Oh, for comments.

Is there any comments?

there's no comments and motion please okay uh motion to approve the application with an additional condition that the door currently marked as door number six will be changed to become either a fixed glass element with no steps to the outside or otherwise eliminate it entirely

Have a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Those like sign. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Item 8B.

RSP 26-12. This is 79 Northwest 97th Street. The lot is approximately 10,200 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1950. The existing structure has a living area of 1,999 square feet. It's configured with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant seeks a facade modification an approximately 400 square foot garage conversion, and a 51 square foot front porch enclosure to the existing single family residence. Upon completion, the new total habitable area will indicate 2,050 square feet consisting of three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a new entry for it. Staff has confirmed that the R15 zoning district is compatible with the single-family land use, and we've measured the proposed site plan along with the 19 different zoning categories and found that it generally complies, and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Any questions for the planning director? If not, please.

well first of all good evening thank everyone for their time i think uh you know this process was extremely useful i think in strengthening our plans overall to get to the point where all requirements have been met as mentioned right we are extending the front a little bit right in the front facade right there and enclosing the the port specifically and converting the garage but there are no changes to the front facade aside from that essentially and ultimately there is no addition right to the house so this is a pretty straightforward this in this case it is a bedroom right for the conversion of the garage there is a bathroom being added to that garage conversing and conversion and we are raising the floor of the garage this is mostly because we just had a second child and we need a little bit more room inside the house and so ultimately that's pretty much it Eddie I think you covered it well so thank you any questions for the applicant just a really simple one I noticed the renderings up here to suggest it's a flat roof but nothing else in your document show it's a flat roof just for the record yeah it's not a flat it's not a flat retaining the slope retaining the exact same roof as it is probably looks that way just because of the renderings as mentioned but we we actually like the roof as it is with the clay tile there so

Any other questions? Do I hear a motion? Oh, public comment. Anyone like to make a comment on this proposal, on this application?

I'll take a motion to approve the subject.

I'll second. Motion for a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign.

Thank you all so much for your time.

Item 8C. Mr. Planning Director. Thank you, sir.

This is RSP number 26-21, property address 73 Northeast 99th Street. The lot is approximately 12,030 square feet in size. It contains a single-story, single-family home originally built in 1926. The existing structure has a living area of 3,164 square feet, configured with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, den, and utility room. The property also contains an existing detached accessory structure with two bedrooms and a bathroom. It is also proposed to be renovated as far as the applicant's request. The proposed site plan includes a facade modification, new roof structure with revised roof pitch, and an overall addition of 291 square feet to the existing residence. The proposed improvements also include a new foyer entrance, modification to existing window door openings, and interior reconfiguration of the residence. Upon completion, the new total habitable area will indicate 3,455 square feet consisting of four bedrooms, four bathrooms, and an office being provided. The R18.5 zoning district is compatible with the single family future land use. And staff measured the proposed site plan along with the 20 different zoning categories as found in the zoning code and found that it generally complies. And therefore, we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jonathan Dahari. I'm the owner, also the end user of the project, the property. so this is a modest renovation to the existing home the work is including interior renovation the new roof updated windows and doors a small amount of added square footage to the interior of the house to make it more functional for modern living the actual the enclosed additions are limited to 159 square feet and it includes 126 square feet to be added to the front master bedroom to create a walk-in closet and an additional 33 square feet for to the rear to create a proper laundry space the additional 132 square feet of covered roof extensions is at the main entrance which improves the entry and gives the home a more finished architectural look but overall I think the project from a neighborhood standpoint you know the goal here is to improve the property while keeping it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and and the character of Miami Shores

any questions for the applicant yeah I have a question I know you said it was a small renovation but you're basically gutting the house correct yeah the interior correct in terms of the addition it's a hundred and thirty yeah okay where is the front door for this house

Right here.

And so you want to, what's the facade modification that you want to make?

It's going to be to the front. This is the front bedroom, the master. It's going to just be pulling one of these walls forward in order to create an additional.

So you're going to square off that corner.

Exactly. And then to the back side of the house, to add an additional 33 square feet, also to square it off for the laundry.

Any other questions for the applicant? There are a motion to approve the app. Oh, I'm sorry. They climate. Any comments on this application? Any public comments?

And then all 37 northeast 100th Street.

Those are beautiful pictures. I love that.

Have you seen what the place looks like? Ever you drove by? I'm sort of wondering, I know that a lot of the walls were torn down. I was told that that structure would have been built in months. and it's been vacant, there's been nothing happened in over six months that I'm aware of. I know that our wonderful public works cleaned up their yard, so I'm sure they're gonna get a fine for that one. But my question is, and I spoke to these guys months ago, so they know who I am. There's like gaps, they tore all this down, And there's all these gaps. It's like, what happened to this? What are they going to do over here? I don't, it doesn't, you know, the plan looks beautiful if this is what it's going to look like. And if it is, I commend it. It's sort of, like I said, it's almost harmonious to the existing structures. I mean, it's not a 5,000 square foot home that some of our wonderful LLCs are building here. So we all know what LLC means, right guys? But anyway, I hope that if you do approve it, the inspectors look at all the stuff and make sure that everything lines up and connects to where it's supposed to. That's my concern. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.

Nadine Davy Rogers, 121 Northeast 100th Street. This is the third of three effective teardowns within line of sight of my front door. So this property, and I think what I just want to speak to here is sort of representation of reality. We heard things like modifying the existing structure, modifying the existing line. To the comments earlier, there is effectively nothing there. So let us represent reality and then talk about what we are rebuilding. And I think that's an appropriate articulation. My second point is to Mr. Dahari, I look forward to having you as a neighbor. And you mentioned that you would be the resident of the home, but it will be owned by an LLC. And so I'm baffled by that a little bit. But just want to kind of tighten up our representation of reality when we talk about these things. I encourage the board to have a look.

Go to 821. Is this a rendering or this is a rendering? What is the condition of the home currently?

No, this is the prior condition of the home.

This is photographs?

Correct.

And when were these taken?

When I closed on the home about a year ago, a little earlier.

And the current condition of the home is fairly bad shape?

We already started the renovations, and at a certain point, we had to stop in order to come before the Planning and Zoning Board to get the additions approved.

you so essentially you had a permit to do interior work and you got stopped because you did you did work outside of that scope correct right correct okay any more questions for the applicant um not for the applicant this changes my my my disposition of the project um i'll usually go past every single one of these but i just got back in the town i didn't get a chance to go past this one i don't like getting caught off guard Is this change, Eddie, is this change your perspective of this application, knowing that what they proposed in the application is not, in fact, the existing condition?

The way I see it, what they've articulated to us is that it's a facade modification, a minor adjustment to what's there. The way we see it is they're going to build it back, or they're going to build exactly what we're seeing.

Demonstrating to us that these walls are going to be retained when they purportedly have been demolished. I'm not sure as to whether or not that's the case, because I haven't been able to personally verify it, but it was presented to you as though this was going to not be

definitely so how do we know what's been demolished and what hasn't been demolished at this point what we need kind of an as-built through the chair just so clarification purposes the requirement in our application is it for the existing the view of the existing home that's what was presented to us yes no I'm I guess what I'm asking is our requirement is that they give us the existing correct So I would suggest that the application needs to be amended. If our requirement says they need to present something, then they need to present what the existing home is, if that is indeed our requirement.

The issue that I have sitting here as just one member of this board is that you've presented something to us that is a statement of fact, that we are then supposed to make our own individual judgments on and come to a conclusion amongst our board. But what you've given us is not factually accurate. And it's impossible right now here to understand the degree that that impacts other items that we would consider as a board. It might not. It might be that everything that you've presented here is fine and none of our opinions would be changed. But we don't know that. And yeah, I think I would agree. I think I would make a motion. I mean, after a public comment, of course, or we've already had public comment. I'd make a motion to table.

I agree. Just some questions. So on the notice requirement, are we at less than 50% now?

I'd have to defer to the applicant because I don't know. We reviewed these documents based on what was provided. So our knowledge is that the majority of the structure was fully there. So if what's being told to us is that's not fact, then that would make this application incorrect. So I don't know what's there. How much is there? not sure how to answer that question I mean the roof has been removed because of structural issues that it had to go and that's why we're here also right but you're asking the board for 51 square foot front porch enclosure right so that means that the remaining of the square footage is in place yeah yes yes because it seems like there's there's gushing that there's there's missing walls that the walls that you're we're being told are in place are in fact not in place that that's what we're sounds like we're trying to understand okay I'm not sure how to answer the question I as far as I'm as far as I know that there's nothing that's

That shouldn't have been, aside from the roof, there's nothing that shouldn't be moved forward based on the plans I gave you guys.

Eddie, is this flood zone X? I am looking at this survey and it's not immediately popping out. I wouldn't have normally looked at that for this kind of minor renovation. I will confirm that. If it is flood zone X, then you don't run into FEMA issues. If it's not flood zone X and you demolished a bunch of things?

Yeah, the plans say X.

Okay, you're in luck. Because if you had done this in a flood zone, you would have been up the creek. From my perspective, I would suggest that we get an as-built survey of the existing condition and then have it resubmitted to us to reevaluate.

An existing flood zone.

second the motion motion is to defer table the item restate the motion so I'd make a motion to table the item with a as-built survey to be submitted signed and sealed as-built survey to be resubmitted for reconsideration I have a second I'll second it all in favor say aye

All opposed, like sign. The item is deferred, tabled. Item 8D.

This is RSP item 26-28, property address 1210 Northeast 97th Street. It allows approximately 10,900 square feet in size. It's currently a vacant unimproved parcel of land. The previous one-story residence originally constructed in 1955 was demolished in October of 2025. The applicant proposes the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling comprised of 4,892 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of four bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, two car garage, and swimming pool with outdoor terrace areas being provided. The R25 zoning district is compatible with the single-family future land use, and staff has measured the site plan along with the 21 different zoning categories as found in the code, and we're recommending approval along with the stipulated conditions as found in your report. And the applicant is here should you have any further questions. Thank you.

Any questions for the planning director?

Just another question. example uh eddie this is another plan that has been submitted that shows that it's four bedrooms when the reality is it's five just we have to i think be more focused on that and so we'll say like anything that is like a flex room will would just automatically count it i would say if it if it can qualify under the code as being a bedroom i think we should be counting it as a bedroom because even if it is an end user proposing it, that end user may not retain ownership of it. But particularly if it is a spec home builder that is presenting it, I mean, the natural tendency is to want to market that as the largest number of bedrooms you can have. And just because the plan that we see shows, in this case I think it's an exercise room, there's nothing stopping that applicant from being able to market it as indeed a five bedroom home. And I think also we should be cognizant of the fact that that is the impact it's going to cause in the neighborhood is not a four bedroom impact it's a five bedroom impact and i think the neighbors that are looking at these planning and zoning signs when it just says four bedroom home i think it's a little misleading for them because they might say okay four bedroom home i have no problem with that but who knows if their threshold is five bedrooms and all of a sudden they have an issue and they otherwise wouldn't have come to the planning and zoning no

the number of parking spaces to the number of bedrooms. So there's a relationship there. Good point.

That's all I have for the planning and zoning director.

Any other questions for the planning director?

Go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you all for having us here. My name is Matias de Roche. I'm the architect of record of this property, this project. It is in a flood zone. We have a base flood elevation of which we are attaining, but I don't want to get into that so much as we have... all of the elevations there. And after hearing all of these comments, I wanted to go and talk to you a little bit more about our, of the way that we've been thinking of this so we can keep that Miami Shores feeling and aesthetic right in place. So this is a 100, yes, this is a cyclone. I don't know if this pointer is gonna work. More or less, can you see the green dot? So, the first things I want to say is, I think it's in A1002, if you don't mind.

You want previous than that? Previous, yes.

There we go. So, the first thing we want to do is, this is a two-story flat roof home. But we've taken significant elements to mitigate all the concerns that we have been hearing lately. First of all, we're stepping back the second level significantly. This is that red line that you can see there, that is the required step back for the second level, and we are actually stepping back a lot further, nine feet to be precise, plus we are stepping back on the sides as well.

So the step back, sorry to interrupt you,

Additional nine, additional nine. So the six, we not only step back the six that are required by code, but we step back an additional nine feet. So it's 15. Correct. 15 feet of step back instead of the six required. That's for first, then also doing the side setbacks, understanding that we might have these elevations of the FEMA flood code, FEMA requirement plus two-story, we decided to step back an additional six feet on the first levels on both sides so that we can start filling and scaling that house a little bit backwards. We've also complying with all the, other than the, if we consider the exercise room, which does not have a closet, by the way, so it's not considered a bedroom by Florida Building Code. But we're complying with most, if not all, of the next code things that haven't been in effect at this moment. So there's a The mechanic, well, yeah, sorry, I'll take that and I will explain that later on. Can you go to the next two slides, please? So this is a fresh level. We have, no, there we go. So this is the first level. We are coming in through here. Again, I'm showing again that this is the required front setback there. The only portion of the house that we have at the setback is the garage, and then we are stepping back the house completely further back than is required. Again, the setbacks here, we can see on the sides, we are stepping them back also on the first level on the sides. Next one, please. So this is the second level. Once again, that is over there. If you don't see it, that's the front setback. And then that is the required step back by the code. This is where we stand for the second level. I'm going to show a little bit later why we're tending to do that, because it has a lot to do with the context of the street and the houses on both sides of this house. Next sheet, please. Roof plan. We've seen that in one of the previous comments today. No, going back. proposed to do interior drainage, so all of the house, all of the drainage, the rain that is captured on the flat roof of this house goes into the drainage of the centers here. Those go within the walls and then discharge it to a swell or to a fringe drain, depending on how the percolation is going to be, and we're doing the percolation test for this house, and we retain the civil engineer, but that is up our utmost concern because we want that to be below level, not in the ground level.

Those drains go through your walls?

Correct. All the way down? Correct. We are designing that from the beginning because we know that is a concern later on. We do have a roof projection. This is all the parapet all around, that double line. We do have some small roof projections. Those are just for concrete. We will be using a waterproof layer there. But on the roof, we will be using TPO with insulation that gives us all the slopes into that drainage. I don't know if you have any other questions here.

I don't see where it goes through the floor.

Can we go one back? It doesn't show in this moment, but part of them goes below the ceiling. And within the drop ceiling, we have slopes and goes within a few walls here. There's spaces around and inside the partition wall, some of them we might need to widen, so it's six inches so they go in. Same thing goes here, we have shafts right there. And those go down then to the next level, onto the drop ceiling, and they start moving around the house until it goes, can you go one back? And it goes down probably into the drop ceiling and we will, move them as much as we can into this to the side so that it can later go under the slab and under the slab where does it go under the slab it can either go into the french drain that is part of the civil plans that we are working and and it is part of the design development of the house the civil plants can you go one one to the side plan please so there's a couple of alternatives we have we can have either a french well a french drain which captures all the drain. Or in either sides, we have 16 feet after all. And then we also have options in the backyard if we end up putting in there. It really depends a lot on the plumbing engineer as well, how the slopes work and what conditions we're going to need. in the end. So again, 16 feet on both sides, that helps a lot with the French strain and the French wells, or if swells, if the percolation is enough. One thing I want to add here is that this side is higher on the front and it naturally slopes to the back. So we will be working and fixing the backyard for more retainage than the front and naturally go to the back so we're not so much concerned of the water flowing to the street. We do have an alley, so we still have to protect that. And of course, if we had a neighbor, even more. So we're working on all of it with the civil engineer. We're working on the sides and the rear yard to be the drainage field. And that's the reason why we're putting the septic drain field on the front. The septic tank is over there, by the way. All right. I don't know if you have more questions in that regards. OK, so we can move forward to the A201. Thank you. This is the front facade. And on top, you can see the south facade, which is the rear facade. We worked here to have and incorporate these horizontal elements that can break down that two-story stacked effect that we dislike so much. We also intend to have these facades on the first level to be oolite, so we're stone and a little bit more texture. And then on the second level, we have incorporated elements, vertical elements, but just for the second, between the two horizontal elements. so that we can add those textures, shadows, and changes of volume into the facade so that it can also help mitigate that two layer effect. We step back, well, like I mentioned, these are overhangs that help a little bit more also to not feel that two story stacking effect. And if you can go to the next slide. This are more the side elevations. And you can see here how the step backs of the second level from the first level goes back and helps a lot with that scaling and massing effect that we want to highly avoid. Next slide, please. Again, I don't know if you have any questions in this regards. have a question the landscape that's in front of the ac units i see the landscape but i don't see what it's called out you are right we would be screening that with hedges that have that height what is it what is proposed we didn't propose nothing in this moment but we're happy to put that into a condition or um otherwise if you have any other now that being said we go to the landscape we are screening the whole lot so the concern is just don't know what it is you you haven't chosen a plan oh all of this this is this is a hedges a hedge how high at least six feet well it can't be six feet well never mind on the sides it actually called there is a note on here that says coco palm Yes, coco plum hedges, they can grow to those hedges.

So is that what you're proposing, that this hedge all the way around is a coco plum hedge?

Correct. It's not a shrub. So there's coco plum shrubs, and there's also coco plums that are used as hedges. They grow higher, and at least that's what our landscape told us. We are screening there is a I don't know the double line you can see there You can also see that in the setback and the site plan There is a screen there that we are posing to cover the units from the street It's a fence. Yes a fence and a wall so a solid wall that was screened the mechanical units plus the fence Same on the other side, but that's more for the for the pool safety If you don't mind going back to 203, please. Again, this is another sheet where we can see the clues, see the setbacks required. These are the red lines. And what are we proposing for this project? And then can we move forward to 901, please? Let's go to the other side. so one of the main reasons that we shape the house as we have is because we're following lines of the two homes that we have on either side first we have the setback of the of the garages or the homes on this side which is why we intend to to keep that line then on the second level we try to I don't wanna use the word mimic, but I can't find a similar word right now, but we wanna try to follow that line on both sides. So we can keep that set back in place and and you know, feel what feeling being with the context of the house. This is over here, you got the full context of the of the both homes with the street. Again, understanding that the high the house does look higher, really back separating the house even further than required. Another thing I want to discuss, and I should have mentioned it before, this house, we're not proposing to remove any trees. We've actually used them and we want to favor them as part of the design. All these trees that we see there, those are the existing. We have six, six trees in the lot, a few of them that are right there, and then we have the existing two or three trees that are in the right of way that we, of course, want to keep and retain and maintain as they're so, sorry? Sorry? So we're not proposing to remove any trees because we want to use that actually in our design. And they're mature and they're pretty nice. And then lastly, the next sheet, this is how the house will look like in our renderings. We've avoided putting the trees here because if not, it will be a little bit, a lot covered. Again, material-wise, we are proposing the Oolite stone on the first level, and on the second, a bronze texture stucco. I do believe that a second level, a little bit darker, might hide more the second level volume than a white or a more clear color, and I believe that helps a lot with the stacking effect, and of course, avoiding The ice cube effect that we can see in other cities like this one that we all hate. This is absolutely what I agree with everyone. Flat roofs should not look like this. But when we put in a little bit of effort and design, of course, it looks a little bit better in my opinion at least. This is what we intend to do in this house. Thank you so much for hearing.

Would we entertain public comments first and then potentially come back?

Sure. Do we have any public comment regarding this house? Just so you know, there is no sidewalks on the street here in front of any of these houses on this road. So the rendering, you should correct that. There is no sidewalks. You're absolutely right. Thank you.

thank you i live on 97th street in between 12th and 13th avenue there's presently four ongoing construction projects right now so it's a kind of a safety issue there so this will be the fifth there's two major renovations and two new constructions uh it's uh what did my wife call it our quality of life has been diminished over the last year uh there's a lot of safety concerns that aside this house is too tall i i did i asked alexa today i said how how tall is an average two-story house she said 18 to 20 feet this thing looks like it's 30 feet so that must mean that those that first floor looks like it's got 12 or 14 foot ceilings i don't know but it looks too tall it's going to break the flow of our street and uh i think it should be brought down a level eight or ten foot ceilings. That one picture I saw just put it in perspective and I'm going to be driving around that corner every day and looking at it and it looks like one of these McMansions to me. So that's all I have to say. It's unfair to the neighbors. Thank you.

I'm Pete Shaw. I am the house just directly to the east at 1226 Northeast 97th Street. Only concern, and they address pretty much all that, to keep all the trees within the enclosure of the lot existing. I think there's like five, maybe six trees that are probably 50, 60, 70-year-old oaks and mahogany. So the umbrella cover of these things is very good. The concern I have is just down the street at 1259, they had some of that too. Because of the size of that house, which is, I think it's a little bigger than this one, um they've built retaining walls they have taken all of the trees some that are on the street side and on the neighbor's side and it's not even their tree it's on the neighbor's tree and they have sheared them straight up on the property line they've dug retaining walls within two or three feet of the base of those trees so in sense i don't know if it was the arborist or one of the other city inspectors that came through said That elm tree that's between the two houses will be dead in two years because of the way they dug the trenches and the way they cut it back. I've got a concern because I've got one of those oak trees that's sitting right on our property line. The other one is in the back of the house, in the back of the lot on the alley. There are two big trees that I think with this, if it's going to 30 feet, you're up into that tree umbrella. which wouldn't probably entail cutting back some of that stuff. And with the swimming pool, no one's going to want any of those three trees back there because it just dumps more leaves on my pool. my pool is 100 yards away so i don't know that unless they're going to put one of those cages around the pool i don't know that the trees are going to make it somebody's not going to want them but it was the concern was to keep the umbrellas there and there are some some great trees there but if you're keeping them we're keeping them but i don't know thank you any other public comment

Maybe you want to just address the comments that you've heard.

So for the first comment, height, we are at 26, 28 feet. 26 to the, can you go to the elevations, please? Thank you. So you can see right there. From the first level, which is the FEMA level, to the top of the overhang over here, that is 26 feet. If that is a concern, well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. It's within the code. This first level is 10 feet. That second level, we are proposing 12 feet. It's not floor to ceiling. It's only slab to bottom of the overhang.

Could we stop there for a moment and just address height? So I've noticed that you've set your ground floor elevation at 10.5 feet. You're referencing that as being your female elevation. But you're in an AE8 zone. which FEMA requires your finished floor to be set only at 9. That's really where you would measure your building height from. With that in mind, your parapet is 29'10", and your roof level is 27'10", still below the max, which I think is a step in the right direction. But I think that... There's a potential that you can lower this home a little bit, maybe without reducing too much your interior finished floor heights. I think that if you were to consider lowering your finished floor to something closer to the actual base flood elevation, I think that you have some crown of road issues you need to contend with. As I understand it, your western crown of road is higher than your eastern crown of road. So if you took that western crown of road said that you're going to take 6 inches and set it up 6 inches above that. That probably brings you to 9 feet. I think your 8.66 is your western crown of growth. So you'd be somewhere around 9 foot. So if you took that entire home and just brought it down a bit, now you're already clocking a little bit of height reduction. And I wonder if there's something you can do at the second level. I think your second level floor-to-floor height is... probably have some space there that you can work with to bring that down just a bit and I'm wondering if you did that if that wouldn't start making the harmonious concerns a little you know address those a little better the harmonious page I think is 901 if you if you go to 901 Because as it shows right there, I think you're hard-pressed to make a harmony argument. I think you've done a good job, better than most. I would also say I like your design. I think you've done a good job. I think you've tried to be as sensitive as you can be. think we need a little bit more there given the fact that you are immediately adjacent to two single-story homes and your single-story homes with pitched roofs and you're proposing a two-story home with a flat roof that essentially although you've taken great efforts in your design to try to break up the stack nature it still nevertheless is a stacked design But I do understand and appreciate the concerns and the considerations you've made. A wider side yard is going to help for percolation and drainage. And having additional area in between property lines is not a bad design decision to make in terms of protecting wind and light corridors. I think that that's important. But you're mentioning that color is what establishes harmony there. And I don't agree that color is what establishes harmony. I think volume and massing do. And I think that's actually written into our zoning code. And so I think that there's still a little bit of work left to do to try to get there to create that harmony. I think pulling down the height might be one thing that you could do. I do appreciate the internal drainage as my colleague mentioned that I see a primary and secondary drain so it seems like you've done this before you understand what's required but your natural centered slope locations don't really line up with your floor plans and as you know you have pitched slope requirements on pipes so that's going to make your soffits even deeper than what they need to be the carrier mechanical ductwork, and you'll probably wind up having some conflicts there trying to find chases and vertical shafts to get down below the home. And then at that point, you're actually below your slab on grade, and you'll be limited to only connecting into a French drain or an exfiltration trench of that sort. which I think that's great. It's a higher quality product than sheet flowing over an edge. The dirt issue that we spoke about on a previous application would be alleviated, which I think is important if you're going to do a flat roof. But another option for you to consider is a pitched roof, and that would alleviate those internal drains altogether. A couple other comments that I had. since we're very close to it if you could go to 902 i've noticed that you have keynote number three which is calling for a light wood soffit uh really the material that's underneath of the exterior eve there but there's nothing referencing the second floor are we to to extrapolate that because the rendering showing the same material that is the same material

Down the overhangs? Yeah. Yes. They are intended to be the same material.

OK. All right. You're right. We have a couple of more questions. We have in our current zoning code a parking space requirement of only two spaces. We are working to address that and change that for a home of this size. And while I did acknowledge that you suggested that there was no closet, I don't think that that's a qualification in the building code, in the residential section of the building code, to classify as a bedroom. You're not required to have a closet. You're not even required to have a bathroom. You're required to have an egress window. And you have that. And so whether or not this is a four-bedroom home or a five-bedroom home, I think... or us sitting here on a board, we have to err towards safety, and that would be to consider this a five-bedroom home. You have a 16-foot driveway width. That's not enough to park two cars outside, but you do have a garage, and there are two spaces in the garage. So from a usability standpoint, you have one parking space outside and two parking spaces in a garage, but you have five bedrooms. So the question would be is that how is that going to work in practicality? Are you really going to be able to utilize that garage? Is the end user going to be moving vehicles in or out? Or are we going to have a situation where we're having to call code because somebody's parking in the street or parking on the grass? I think that's something that needs to be addressed.

Sorry, may I ask? You can jump in any time. Thank you. So my question is, because a lot of homes today come with Wellness Center, comes with a a gym area or an office area. It's not just rooms. So when do you push that to a bedroom? When do you push it to an actual office that is not gonna be considered as a bedroom? It's kind of a blary.

If you have an egress window, we're gonna count it as a bedroom.

Oh, I'm sorry, but all living areas, even the living room has to comply with an egress.

No, only bedrooms there.

Just bedrooms.

We could get into a code conversation.

Habitable spaces require an egress. Habitable spaces are anything but a kitchen or bathroom. So even gyms are required to have an egress.

Because the code assumes that it's going to be used as a bedroom. And if you read the commentary of the building code, we can get into a long, drawn-out building code conversation. Exactly. This isn't really the forum for that. But from our perspective, this is how we're going to likely be interpreting it moving forward, just so that you know. we are going to look at this as being a five-bedroom home not a four-bedroom home because it could be marketed and sold that way it could be utilized in that fashion so from our perspective we have to look at it that way we don't have a choice it classifies as a bedroom a couple of more things I noticed that your septic system your your did submit a signed and sealed system thank you a lot of people as you heard we've been having comments with that but your septic engineer notes that they're going to ask for a reduction in drain field miami-dade county's osts manual specifically states those reductions are not allowable so you have a tree that's there which is the reason why your septic system is reduced the concern then is if you need to change the septic system can't be at the expense of that tree.

Of course not.

So what's your plan if the county comes back and tells you they're not going to allow for that? You're classifying that as an additional treatment, so you're going to chlorinate the effluent, but the OSTS manual won't allow you to do that.

I've done it in other projects.

Great. So if you're able to do that, because the OSTS says one thing, and sometimes you can get an approval to do something different, I get that.

So I've done it in other projects, and my alternative is to change to a drip system. which would require, which would allow us to go around some systems. It is a little bit more expensive, but that's like the second alternative.

If you are going to maintain the chlorinated system, there's a chlorinator element that's associated with it. You can see it for everybody's benefit. If you go to the last page in the set, this is SP1.

Yeah.

just all the way to the end. So the element that's shown there, roughly the top middle of the page that has a drawing title called Biomicrobiotics, that whole piece of equipment there sits proud of the ground. And it's currently shown right in front of the property. I don't see anything in the landscape plans to try to mitigate or hide that. If indeed you're able to get this approved, which I think would be great, you're able to maintain that tree, you're able to get around the requirement for a larger drain field, excellent. If that is to be approved, there's nothing showing to kind of conceal that. I think that's a bit of an oversight we would need to see.

The overground element, you mean? The underground element, you mean?

No, the part that's proud of the ground. So you see that that entire portion that's just to the left of the tank, that's all above ground. The pump is in the bin. The chlorinator is in the bin, but the element that is immediately adjacent to it, which is labeled as the inspection pump out port. I see what you mean. That's all above ground. You have the 3-inch vent pipes above ground, the 6-inch diameter inspection ports above ground. I see what you mean, yes.

We would definitely screen that with landscape.

We would need to see that. There is a requirement for a trash indentation. Some of the other properties do have it. Some of them don't. They were mistakenly approved in the past without it. But just so you can reference it, it's Section 518.10. It requires 40 square feet, minimum 6 foot by 3 foot in the rear alley. When you have an alley, it applies to properties that have an alley. That's not shown. It needs to be shown. And I think that's everything I've got for right now. I don't know if any of my other colleagues have anything to add.

Regarding the elevation, we, yes, the FEMA flood zone is at nine, plus the freeboard at one feet extra.

You're at eight, plus freeboard at one, put you at nine. I apologize.

Then we went with the Miami-Dade flood criteria map to put our minimum elevation. Of course, we do not want to elevate the house more than we want to. So the Miami-Dade flood criteria, I don't know if you're aware of that. That one, when we asked the request and to show the elevation there, they told us that would be the required.

Yeah, my knowledge is that's not the case. So if you have that, submit it, and we'll consider it. But my understanding is that Miami-Dade flood criteria map shows just like the FEMA flood map does for this area. Freeboard is something completely different. And that's prescribed by ASC 10-24.

In that case, we would happily go down to the... It would help.

It gives you a little bit of maneuverability to address some of the concerns.

Of course. We would want to start the first floor as low as we can.

Any other questions for the You know, I'm incredibly familiar with this particular street. A childhood friend I went to high school with lives down the street. And if you've been there, you know there are now a huge project at the end of the street. One project that I don't know what happened to it. It was doing stuff and then they quit doing stuff and then a project next to that, which apparently they kind of stuck and aren't doing much with. And then, and then this project, uh, and also there are no, there are two story houses at the bay and the house that's across the street is really a ranch-style split level, not really a real two-story. I actually think I have a picture. And I understand how people that aren't used to seeing two-story houses in their neighborhoods are not overjoyed at seeing the houses. So there are a subset of issues, you know, particularly with the height. Do you think that's something you can do something with?

Sorry, I didn't catch the last part of your answer.

Is that something you think you can do something with, the height?

Yes, we can definitely work with something with the heights, and especially the part of the FEMA that we mentioned. And I don't know if the heights, what does the height mean, actually? Are we talking about heights in the first level, ceiling heights? Are we talking about?

We're talking about single-story houses in a neighborhood. that has, at least on that street, no two-story houses on it. It has one split level.

Yeah, so this is the house that it's across the street. I don't know how, can you show it?

I don't think that's a two-story house. I think it's a split level, isn't it? It's two-story.

It's the new house that's being built on 1259 Northeast 97.

The house at the end of the street? No, no, directly across the street.

It's not directly across. It's further down the road. 1259 is a little bit further down, but you're right. It is a two-story home.

It's in the street. No? Yes, it's on the street.

It's across from the three-lot store.

So can you go to 901? Sure. We have the whole street there. That's what we're saying.

Right.

Oh, but that's not there. It's being built. That's the one that they've stopped building, right?

Yeah, that was the one that was referenced by the neighbor as destroying the trees that were there in order to build the... And that was also approved prior to this current zoning code.

We're keeping our trees.

We're protecting the trees. And I think that was one of your questions, and I wanted to address it also if there's nothing more. okay thank you no sorry i just wanted to address the last one um the the gardening trees uh the reason we were very focused on going into a french rain or a french or a well french well which is just vertical right is that we may not be able to do much swells because of the existing trees that we want to protect because as well as the gentleman here just mentioned whenever we do a retainer that needs the footing and that kills the roots. So we're avoiding 100% to retain. We're keeping the same level that we're having in the 16th grade on the sides of the street. So we don't have to elevate anything and that helps, of course, salvage the existing trees that we love so much. But yes, thank you so much for hearing me.

Do I have a motion?

I'll take a stab at it.

Is your mic on? Or can you speak into it?

Based on the number of comments, I think it's wise to just table it and bring it back. I think there's a little bit more that needs to be done here. So I'll make a motion to table.

Yeah, I think I would second and support that. But I think by way of providing some guidance to the applicant, When we're talking about height, I think we're talking about, which will help you, is reduce the height based on FEMA minimums. And if you have something that is Miami-Dade County that's different, bring that in. Submit it. But I would look at taking a little bit out of that second floor, too. Just bring it down just a little bit. I think that should do it. So as far as making a motion to table, I would make that motion with that guidance there.

Do I have a second? I'll second. That was his second. You second?

I made the motion.

Oh, you made the motion. Brandon. He seconded and added to. In favor, say aye.

Aye. Opposed, likes, fine. Resolution that the deferral to table. To table for next. Approved.

Can I ask a question just about the code so we can understand to learn? Is there any specific section in the code that references new homes having to be one story, two story relevant to a ratio of existing homes or what's being built on a street?

There is a section that's 524 and it references Harmony. We are looking to modify our code to make that a little bit more clear for applicants so that they understand easier what the board is looking for and rely less on 524. but that's the section that we've referenced this evening when we're talking about harmony. It's the reason why you prepare those elevation diagrams that shows the home that you're proposing adjacent to the additional structures. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 9, discussion item. You have a handout here regarding section 412 development standards. This was where we got sidelined a month ago. And what we want to do is try to finish the R code. Who did this?

So essentially what we did was we printed out the current code 412 that essentially has that drafted language.

OK. This is the existing code.

That is the existing code. So at the conclusion of the last meeting, the board was assessing essentially rooftops and how to kind of guide those for potential development moving forward. And I think where the board kind of left that discussion was, well, what if we considered a different uh step back provision for any flat roof structure and then I believe the discussion was well one of our members won't be here in June uh can we bring it back let's discuss it and then hopefully for July we'll be on the same page correct so that's what's before you my uh recollection of our last meeting was there was

not a majority that would vote to limit or stop flat roofs. That even though they are growing in the village and are concentrated in certain areas, that we didn't think that was an appropriate step to take. What I think you came up with was to talk about whether additional setback would help in terms of both the front setback and then I guess the first floor setback.

Right. So when we started, this was a couple of years ago, trying to figure out ways to break up that front mass was to institute a step back. So we instituted a six foot step back that wasn't there before, but what we're seeing from the sidewalk. So what I would propose is that we would step back at least 10 feet instead of six feet to show the breaking up by the massing. So that would help us maintain the historic single story scale visible from the street. I think that's the only way that we have, that's the only tool, I think, that we have to break up that mass.

Quick question for you. Does that relate to flat roof structures and not pitched roof structures?

There's flat roof structures, I think, which we're talking about. Yeah, I think that's what we're talking about.

Yeah, because I think what I had proposed was... Based on historic guidance, historic inventory, I think the consensus was, well, it's a little complicated. How do we enforce that? What happens if we have applications and process? And it became cumbersome. And you came up with a brilliant, very simple way of dealing with it. To try to level the playing field, right? Right.

Miami Beach I'm doing it's a multi-family step back is 20 feet but it's 20 feet after going 20 feet up so it's 20 feet up 20 feet back so if you kind of figure going up about 10 12 back 10 so I think that is a way to help us break up that that mass now I not to pick on the previous applicant because I'm just using that design as the loophole here that I think we need to try and fix is the front is set at the garage and then they moved back. but then you're straight up. So that wasn't what we were trying to do with the step back. At least the idea that we were envisioning was the majority frontage, wherever that is, the majority, not where the front of the building is, where the majority of the frontage is, that the step back happens from there. and goes back to 10 feet. Because what you had here on the garage, the garage was where it needed to be, and then you stepped back the whole building, and then it went straight up, and that wasn't, that's not helping what we're trying to fix here. Does it apply to the side yards?

I don't think so. I kind of think that a lot of this is perception, and I think

It's from the pedestrian view on the sidewalk or from across the street. I think that's where we need to be looking at this from. Not really so concerned on the sides. Because really the only way to do drainage now is to pull in the building to have more setback on the side to deal with the drainage. So I think really the issue is in the front.

Yeah. To avoid installing drainage wells, which are very expensive.

Right. Yeah. So this is...

What you're saying is from what, maybe the 10 feet from the first floor setback?

It sounds like it's actually really simple, whereas right now we require a 6-foot setback, and then there's the 80% rule of the frontage. We keep that in place. It's just that if you're going to propose a flat roof structure, it's not a 6-foot setback, it's a 10-foot setback. Right.

From the front.

Yeah, only dealing with the front yard. Right. Not with the side yard. I could support that.

Yeah, it's a camelback in New Orleans. You have the front and you push back the entire back and the mass is in the back and not in the front. And that's what we're trying to do

with modern architecture use that idea? Well, I think, you know, the other thing is What prompted me to come up with that analysis and try to find a way to deal with this is comments we've heard from the public over and over and over again. And it usually has to do with flat roof versus pitched roof. But when you get into it and you really drive at what the root concern is, it's not about the roof type, it's about the mass. And the fact that when you do have a sloped roof, sorry, a flat roof, it generally, if it's designed well, has a bit of a parapet to it. And that perceivable mass is greater. Exactly. and it's also usually cheaper to build a flat roof so you have that mark that lopsided market driving force that will make you do a flat roof just by nature it's also a trend this levels the playing field it makes the sloped roof a little bit more appealing so they could choose to do a sloped roof and you get a little bit more usable volume in the interior and you don't have that parapet issue that you have to deal with because the volume and the mass of the roof slopes up in a way usually at a very low slope

Any other discussion, any other comment?

No, I just.

You think that would do it?

Yeah, I think so. I think we're not left with many tools to accomplish what we're trying to do. And I think this is the only one that we have left.

Sure, developing a design guideline manual.

Okay. Can we do that? Council? Director?

I think there's consensus that we gather, and so the next draft, that'll just be baked into it for review in the July meeting.

Okay. Eddie, do you have any commentary on this idea? Yeah.

I mean, I understand what you're trying to achieve. I think it makes sense. I think any time you tie something to a proportion, it works well. So if the frame of thinking is 10 foot first floor elevation, then to the I, it should achieve what you're trying to get. That makes sense.

I reviewed the document that you sent, and I only had one minor comment that I'm trying to find. we crossed out a bunch of things did you is there anything you needed to say or do can we make a comment

Can we make a comment? Love the shoes.

Stand adjourned.