Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Great, thank you. If people want to take their seats, we'll go ahead and get started. I want to make sure our town staff is ready. Are everybody ready? Scarlett? Manager? Okay. All right. Madam Clerk, please call to order the planning and zoning board meeting.

Thank you. Okay. We have our town commission liaison here. Please come on up and congrats on your re-election.

Awesome. Thank you very much. Yeah, we have that on our agenda tonight.

Okay, great. Thank you. So we'll see you all in April. Okay, any other questions for our town liaison?

Okay. No, I have a little bit of a, in terms of what is significant, in terms of design, you know, that's always a word that I really avoid using, because I don't really know what's, significant means a lot of different things to different people. To me, a trash can is significant, but then some other people, It doesn't mean that's the kind of word you use when you don't want to commit. So, yeah, I find that problematic.

So I welcome your advice on it. My view of it is actually very simple because it's, you know, they bring signage in front of us for, you know, comments on signage to this town on Harding Avenue, which is one of the less sort of significant portions of, you know, that had consequences on what the town feels like.

I mean, to me, the word is, should be anything that gets designed in this town should come in front of us. I mean, anything that gets manufactured, implemented, designed from, because it's what we do. I mean, there's not that many things that get implemented or built in the town, but if there was a selection that's going to happen to the hardware of this town, the benches that go in this town. That's what sort of gives a soul to a town. The light post, the benches, that's what some towns are known for. So I think that those are elements that should come in front of a board because they can mak

I mean, we're here to help. We're just here to serve.

We've got it on our agenda, item 6B. So we'll dig into that.

Great. Thank you so much. OK, let's move on to approval of minutes. We have both our January and February meeting minutes. Comments, questions, motion to approve?

Okay. Motion to approve both the January and February meeting minutes, seconded by Carlos. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes. Okay. Any comments on the order of the agenda, either from the board or from our staff? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move forward as agreed. with the current agenda. Let's go ahead and start our applications. Madam Attorney, go ahead.

So if you plan to make any comments tonight, if you'd rise, please, or if you're not sure, go ahead and rise and be sworn in. Nobody else over here presenting tonight, speaking tonight? Go ahead and stand up. Thank you.

No. Yes. Oh, sorry, yes, yes. Which application? 9048 Emerson. The owner of the property, Albers Canasi.

No, that's it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Let's move on with 9531 Harding Avenue sign permit.

Is the applicant here, and do they wish to speak? OK. Anybody from the public? Sorry, are you the applicant? Do you want to speak, or are you here for questions if there are any? OK. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment and open it to the board. Comments, questions, or motion?

No, I mean, this is one case that I guess we're not looking at the awning. So basically, it's just a sign, and the awning is just not part of what we need to comment on. Correct. Correct.

OK. OK. May I have a motion to approve with staff conditions?

Okay, thank you. Moving on to 8842 Froud Avenue, new single-family home.

One question for you. In the zoning table, the additional second floor setback on the north side requires 14 feet, but the proposal is for a nine foot setback. Could you help us understand that, please?

Okay, why don't we have the applicant, and if you could verify that and come back, that would be helpful. Is the applicant here, and do they wish to speak? Hi, come on up and just state your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Welcome to Surfside. So sorry for the loss of your home and that tragedy. And looking forward to reviewing your home together. So we did hear, we saw this home last month, I believe. You came before us, no?

8842 Froud, no? This is your first time here? Oh, I thought we had seen this before. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Maybe you can give us sort of your architectural vision and overview. I mean, we've read the packet. I'm sure there's questions, but give us your thoughts.

Thank you. And are you an architect? No. Do you also have an architect on the project?

Okay, gotcha. No problem. Okay, thank you. We're going to open it up to the public and then to the board, and I'm sure we may have some additional questions for you, so stay close. Okay. Anyone from the public wish to speak? Okay, seeing none. Board members, your thoughts and comments, please. Moses, do you want to go first? You want Carlos to go first? Okay.

Okay. You know, I think that I have a lot to say about this house, but the overall thought about the property, the way you've gone about this is, and why I find it so problematic, is that it I don't know what the house is about. To me, it's a little bit of pastiche of certain things that you like that somehow have been sort of put together into some kind of looks like a house. But I'm not quite sure what this object is. For example, when you look at the ground floor, you have this wall, this water feature that's in the front of the house. And then the house juts up right above it, and that bec

Yeah, well, I mean, we need to see, I don't even have the slightest idea what this house is made of, but, yeah.

So this tile would be cladding the exterior? Correct.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, that's something that I... And this is a... Is that the part of the wood?

Yeah. This is a teak-colored composite wood? Yeah. Okay.

So, I mean, it has a feeling that, especially when you clad an object of this size with these man-made materials, it feels like you just, it's an oversized Tesla house. I mean, it feels like it has a prefabricated feeling to it that is very disconcerting to me. It's also I find the way that the house is being articulated, there's so much going on. I mean, you have a higher portion on the second floor on the right hand side, then you go down and then you have these fins on the other side and then you have an angled. It looks like you went around and saw things you liked and somehow made it to l

I think we get the gist of your initial comments. Moses, did you have? Okay. So I'm not crazy. I think this was submitted for last month's, but it was deferred. So I had reviewed it. I was like, I know I've looked at this before.

It was in this, but we didn't look at it here.

Yeah. We didn't discuss it. So I do share some of Carlos's initial response just to the look and feel of the mass and the scale and the compatibility with the fabric of Surfside. I have no problem with sort of modern architecture and, you know, that sort of concept, but I think... This does read, first of all, I think we don't see a real contextual, you know, this is what it looks like next to the real homes that it'll sit next to. We have sort of these gray boxes that are, I think, supposed to represent but don't really show us at scale what those neighbors look like. So I think it would be h

Yeah, go ahead. You can you can scroll down. I think it's just one down. Yeah. So the proportions of that upper room, they're sort of the balcony feels a little awkward to me. I measured it and I think it was like 11 and a half feet wide by 12 feet high, I think. And I just I don't that height with that width seems awkward. And I'm not sure you need the 12-foot ceiling on the second floor. And so that would be something I'd want you to take another look at. I think you did provide a nighttime rendering. Yeah. So another thing that we've worked hard to try to move people away from are the strip

Yeah, take a look at 6, 9, and 10. I think 6 was a mango. And that's a real special tree here. So if there's any way you could incorporate that into your deck or otherwise, sometimes I've seen some cool cutouts of the deck around an existing tree that creates some nice shade and vegetation. So those were my comments. I also want to make sure we loop back around to you on the upper story setbacks.

OK. So I think that sounds like that's our comments.

I think there's one more thing that I just, when you think about, I'm trying to give you pointers of how to move the house forward. I'm not trying to, because I'm not even necessarily asking you to, what I'm asking is to make the house better. It's going to make the house better. Trust me, it's going to make it better. But I think that the second, the humongous terrace on the second floor facing the street, It's also a problem to me, because I think that just the scale of a terrace of that size in a community like Surfside is a very odd gesture to a side street. It's basically like a humongous

And I would also recommend, we're on our agenda tonight, our design guidelines, which we've been working on for a year plus. I would highly encourage you to take a look at those. I think that a lot of the things we've been repeating at meetings are captured there, so that would be also a good guideline. Okay, so I think we're ready for a motion. I think I don't hear a consensus for approval, but we can either deny or defer.

I mean, I think that you have a lot of work ahead of you, but I think that. I mean, I'll be okay with deferring for the next 1. you have to work your 2 sheets off to bring it back to us, but. You know, I think that that's, I mean, we'll be here. So apparently, so we'll be here. So yeah, we're more than half. I mean, I think that since we talked about this, we'll be more, you know, it's basically have a little bit on there. You have three weeks to do this, but I think you can do it.

Okay. Um, so I hear, are you motioning moving to defer to date certain next meeting motion to defer for the next meeting? Okay. Do I have a second?

Thank you, guys, and we'll see you soon. Okay.

Thank you for the feedback. Our pleasure.

All right. Moving on to 9048 Emerson Avenue.

And have we reviewed this prior as well? No. We have not. Because I've seen the plans before. So was this also pulled from an agenda? Okay. Okay. You're the applicant. Good evening. Hi.

Sorry, you said mahogany. I think in the details it's called out as a vertical grain walnut door with satin finish.

Can you identify, are those all new trees, or are those existing? Are you removing new trees?

I see three palm trees in the renderings. Is that, am I missing, are those, is the rendering just not accurate?

You have three palm trees. There's three.

No, go ahead. I'm letting you complete your...

You should show the night view, because actually it's very nice. Excuse me? Do you have the night view of the houses? Because we have it here. Yeah. There we go. I think that's a more evocative image of what the house looks like.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. We may have some additional questions for you, but we'll open it up to comments from the public, if there are any. Seeing none, we'll close public comment, and I'll open it to the board. Moses or Carlos, comments?

You're referring because of the flat roof in the back? Yeah.

I think that in the back, I think the detail of the overhang on the flat part of it should be studied a little bit more. The eave, I think it's a little bit on the chunky side. It's thick. It's a little bit too thick. That's why he's reacting, I think, that way, because it's a bit top heavy. I think it just needs to be, the thickness needs to be adjusted, I think.

Yeah, but I think that house hits. It's so carefully sort of, it adds to Surfside so beautifully. And it makes it almost like a new interpretation of Surfside. It's like Surfside with a new sort of point of view. And I think it's a marriage of modern sensibility with what we all love about Surfside. So I think it's, to me, the house addition is very successful. I mean, all I have to say.

I had a similar reaction to Moses, where I felt like the front of the home and the rear of the home were two different homes. I think if you pull up sheet A331, if you go down, it didn't read to be the same home to me, just the two styles.

What I was suggesting... Is that because if you have the thickness that you have in the front above below on the eve right below the tiles, right? What I was suggesting is that you copy that thickness onto the back and then set back. The other portion of the roof, so. That line carries on the back of it. Even if you have a flat roof, you have the same. I think where you're reacting to that top heavy chunk, to me, it's the part that I don't like. I don't like that top heavy sort of eave there that doesn't match.

Well, and I feel like the two roof types are a little disjointed. Like why wouldn't you do, why wouldn't you carry the same roof all the way to the back?

It's a fair point. I think part of what I'm thinking is for you, for future resale, having a cohesive house design is going to help you. But you're right. The public's not going to see this.

I think it's the flat roof of it, because it's in the back. I think it's the detailing of that eave that needs to- That needs to be worked, yeah. needs to be thinner so you don't have that top heavy sort of heavy that doesn't match the rest of the house i think that that should be a thinner and then you set back the other structural part of it so it's it's thinner it's just very top heavy i think if it becomes thinner you'll match more the front of the house even with a flat roof i think it'll be lighter to the eye and then the other comment i had is on the front elevation if you can pull up t

Yeah, maybe you can scroll up to A311. Sure. No, that daytime. Yeah. So a question for my colleagues is you have some French doors onto that courtyard. Is that what those are? Yeah. And I from to my eye, the, you know, sort of the mullioned French door.

Okay, that's better. Because I'm looking at the front door and then doors right there. It's a little awkward.

I think the whole front needs to be modulated so the side lights of the front door and that other portion, it's all the same rhythm. Same language. Same language, yeah. Yeah, I think that's your intention. It's just drawn this way. Yeah. Like a French door doesn't make any sense. No.

And, you know, I don't know if you would want to consider landscaping in front of that, you know, patio area that's maybe a little higher for privacy. You know, I'm not saying a hedge, but maybe some more texture coming up there to give you some green screen from the street might make that a more usable space.

It looks a little bit like lettuce right now.

So those are my comments. Okay. You know, minor, relatively minor. But with that, board members, how would you like to proceed here?

I mean, I would hope that it takes into consideration the detailing of the eave, so it's thinner in the back, and I think it should be approved with that condition.

Moses, are you comfortable with that direction? Okay. I can get on board with that. So let's get a motion to approve with the conditions to reduce the thickness of the rear elevation eave and to remove the mullions from the front elevation patio door and to consider some higher greenery on that front elevation exterior courtyard.

Okay. Moving on to 8935 Hawthorne Avenue.

What is the round? Is that a cut through?

And you have a second feature like that elsewhere in the house on the upper story?

I see in the... Well, I can ask you later.

Great. Thank you very much. And I know when we saw this in January, I think it was similar to this. Can you point out the specific changes since January? I mean, the house is very different from what was presented in June of last year. That's clear. But can you just highlight what's changed since January?

In June of last year, but I thought it came back to us in January. Okay. Oh, you got it pulled. Okay, so this is like the third one tonight where I know I've seen these plans before, but we didn't actually hear it. Okay, that explains my confusion. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so anybody, let me open it up to the public for comments, questions. Seeing none, I'll close public comment and open it up to the board members.

It's on to me. OK. I'll be frank. I like the house that was before us better than this one. I know that the attempt was to make it look different than the other one, but let's accept this is the house, right? We have to forget that the other ones, you're presenting this house to us. And I think that when you look at, there's a modesty to this house that I like. In the attempt to change this house from the previous one, things have happened that I have issues with. And I think that you had a perspective from the side, what you see, that stone wall, this one. This one is my least favorite view o

So you want us to consider the opening and not the street wall. Yeah. Strangely enough, I like the solid wall better than the opening, although I like openings. I just, I find...

But don't you think, I mean, I think you're maybe, are you eliminating the circular cut through and putting the square instead or you have both here? You do, okay. I mean, I found the circle to be a little bit incongruous with like the linear shapes of the home. And so I thought maybe you were trying to get the light in from the side instead, which could be a solution.

I think that, I mean, I loved the house before. This one, not so much. I find that, again, in the attempt to try to make it different, I have a problem with the stone wall meeting. Maybe it has to do with the height of that roof over the entrance. I think that in your attempt to break the massing, you've lowered it to a point that I think it's a very strange move to me to make the entrance sort of have the lower ceiling. And I think that maybe bringing it up higher. I mean, I understand you're trying to play with the volume, but I find the entrance way, you have that freestanding wall that is

It's going to be an oculus of rain for a lot of the seasons.

Yeah, we're in Florida, so it's not the pantheon. I mean, it's going to be a problematic hole. But strangely, I like, you show it without the opening. I particularly like without the opening, which is odd, because I just don't find, I find the opening doesn't work with the house. I think that corner, when you look at that corner, having that huge wall, but then you make such a massive gesture, but then you cut a huge hole in it, a bit of a contradiction.

I think that maybe by reducing the height of the stone wall and making the roof there just right below it. So I think it's over articulation. I think there's too much happening in that entryways between you can't make up your mind. You have the wall and you have the hole and then you took out the hole and then you put the hole in the ceiling. So I think that There was an economy of language in the last house that we saw that I loved, that I think that in attempt to try to make it certain things have been lost. And I think that resolution of the entryway is one. I have a real problem with the a

It's screaming, put a window here. And, yeah, I mean, you have a bathroom up there. But that bathroom is set back. You can put a window there. I mean, no one is going to look in there. So it's not, you have a. It's on the other plan. You're on the wrong floor. It's on the second floor. Yeah. See, it's that wall there where they have a bathroom. So I think you can move that bathroom around to have a spectacular window there because it's completely private up there.

It can be a, I mean, even a clerestory or a half, you know, an upper window, something. I don't know.

I think it's a moment I would do, I think you would benefit from having a big piece of glass up there. I think it's just, you know, and so in trying to make sort of a path to move forward, I think that my suggestion would be to lower the stone wall, lower it a bit, raise it somewhere in between the two, but have that just right below the stone wall. So it's a lot more quiet.

A little bit more setback. Get rid of that hole, which is not a good idea. Have fenestration up there, which would look beautiful. I think that you make up your mind. I think that I would try to lean towards the lightest object up there possible, because I think You've gone through the trouble of setting back the second floor. I think that you don't want to bring it forward with a big, heavy piece, because it sort of defeats the purpose of the setting it back of. Plus, you don't really need it. I mean, you could do a much lighter. And I would seriously consider I think that you need to look at

The only thing I would say there is on a side elevation, you're looking right at the neighbor. So really you're just trying to get a little light and you're trying to leave some wall space for beds. So I don't mind the thin windows that much. I think they accomplish...

I think that what I'm trying to say is that there should be a hierarchy of windows that matches what the rooms are. So if it's a bedroom, you don't want a window that is literally 16 inches wide. I mean, I think that a bedroom should require more light, even if you look at the side. I mean, the beauty of Florida is that you could be 10 feet away from your neighbor, but if you have planting, you look at a beautiful wall of green, and that's beautiful. So I think that... I will work on the hierarchy of those and work on making, it would reduce the amount of, remember, we see these houses on the

So he covered a lot of the commentary I had, so as not to repeat ourselves. The only thing we didn't touch on is your tree disposition plan, which you're removing a lot of trees from what I recall. Probably td1 right. So I guess I'm just curious why we need to remove. At all those trees that's the wrong house.

This is this is the old the old house, but you're doing the same thing for the trees.

So maybe you should look into trying to save as many as they can. Yeah. Please. Yeah.

Certainly. OK. So I think, Moses, did you have anything else to add?

I think that what overall, so we can summarize. I think what, I mean, we're very clear about I think what needs to happen. I think that you need to go at the whole project and try to synthesize. Mm-hmm. language because there's an economy of means that the other version of the House had, which I thought it was very successful. It said a lot with very little. And I think that in an attempt to try to make this one feel different, which is totally okay, I think that you need to go over it and think about what we said and try to make it somewhere closer to the other one so it's i don't know i i i

We don't want to copy- We don't want the house to go back to the other one. We want this house, but- Unify the language. Exactly, a unification of language that the other one had. But we're sticking with this one. I'm not asking you to go back.

Okay, so I think, again, I don't think we're in a position to approve tonight, but I think I would entertain a motion to either defer or deny.

I would totally want to defer to the next meeting. I think you can definitely get it done in the timetable and get it done. I think that we're pretty clear what needs to be done. Okay.

Moses, are you on board with that? Okay, great. Can one of you make a motion and one of you second?

Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. And with that, we will move on to 9156, Emerson.

Thank you Hi, please state your name and address for the record.

Can you clarify the front elevation, the wood is a composite?

And do you have any samples of what you're proposing? Yeah. Great. Oh, I can't see down there.

Yeah, I'm going to speak for a minute. So those are two paint colors of stucco, and this is the composite wood cladding system. Do you need to see this? Ooh, that's heavy. Okay.

A question for our town planner. This is an elevated pool. I thought pools need to be in the ground level at this point.

If you could just speak into the microphone a little bit more. We're on air.

Okay, we can come back to that. Let me open it up for public. I'm sorry, did you have anything else you wanted to add?

Okay. Anybody from the public have comments or questions? Yeah, come on up.

That reminds me of a future discussion item. Thank you. OK. I don't think there were comments from the public beyond. Anybody else want to say something? OK. Board members?

I'll take this one. Where to begin? As an overall comment, I mean, this house has a series of things that we've discussed here as things that we would like not to see repeated in this town. And this house has several of those. One being the fact that it has a garage door leading to what I would assume is what you consider some kind of storage space. We're very adamant about the fact that those are very strange decisions. A garage should be open to a garage and not to a storage space. So the creation of space that is a garage door that doesn't lead to a garage, it's something that we've seen he

What do you mean? Because I see windows on the side elevation.

No, we're talking about the front of the house.

Oh, okay. The ground floor of the house. I see what you're saying.

The ground floor of this house is what I mean. The ground floor of this house has no windows. So it has a slightly kind of commercial feel to it. I'm not quite sure what composition-wide I find. That's just so brutal, that ground floor with that planter and going into that black hole where somehow you have to find a front door into the home. And then that garage door, it's the biggest feature on the whole ground floor, and somehow it's a garage door that leads onto a five foot storage space, which is even odder. You have that stucco balcony wrapping, and then wraps on the right-hand side, and

I don't think that's permitted by our permitted. Yeah.

So, um, you can't just burn your house up on and throw everything out to your neighbors. That's just not. Okay. The whole idea that the pool, look at the pool in the back. It's as tall as the houses next to it. Why would anyone want to put a pool up there and then create a seven-foot space between that humongous wall and the back of this house? That's a dead zone. These houses have tiny little backyards, and by putting the pool up there, basically you're getting rid of a third of the backyard, because that's just not usable space. I mean, that really has no use whatsoever. I have a humongous p

I'm seeing the railing you're showing there. You're showing a railing that says 3-6, and then you have in the back elevation, you're not showing the height of it, but you're showing the cross section of the building next door, and you're showing the height of your pool. That is not six feet. I don't know what that is, but that's not six feet. So... You have 4.8 between the berm and some height, and then you have more pool, and then you have the berm below. So we're talking about this thing is about eight feet, if not more. So in the back elevation, I'm just looking at it. I mean, I'm looking a

Moses, did we get through all your comments?

Yeah. Does anybody else want to speak just in case? George, Marianne, you guys might want to speak. If you do, here's your chance to get sworn in. All right.

So I also want to have a chance to just give you my thoughts as well. I do share some of the sentiment of my colleagues in the sense that the design itself from a massing perspective, doesn't feel compatible yet with its neighbors in the neighborhood. I agree that the massing and the materials also I can't get behind this plastic tubing on the house. I think we need to reconsider some natural materials. The lighting you mentioned, but the strip lighting in the eaves, the white light instead of a warmer color. I would like to see the lighting re-evaluated. In addition to the elevation of the po

Okay, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, Chair.

Okay. We'd love to see another shot in the future.

Thank you. We're moving on then to 9017 Garland Avenue.

Okay, great, thank you. Anybody from the public wish to comment? Nobody? Board members? Moses?

Yeah, I have just, you know, I've seen this before, and I think that what I recommend is, I was just looking at the section, the cross-section of the entryway. I'm a little bit, the only thing that hits my eye is the height of the front door. I think that I think you have a chance of making that indentation there as tall as possible. And I was looking at your cross section, and that's all new. And you're dropping a ceiling there in the cross section. And I think that you have a height of 1010. And then you're putting the header above the front door. And then you have a drop ceiling of nine fee

Yeah. I would recommend visually, I think that that should be taller. I think that the heaviness of that beam there is a bit disturbing to me. I think that you should Make it smaller, raise the ceiling inside to more than nine feet.

Everything. Yeah, because you have a ceiling here. You can raise this here, take this down to its minimum. take this down to here as much as you can, make this as taller, and then go down. I think that because the gesture you're making on the outside is pretty much is so simple, but I think the front door is the biggest, the biggest gesture is the front door. I think the front door should be as grand, as tall as possible.

You can. So I think that, to me, that's really heavy. I think you should minimize that, bring it as high as you can, and then I think it will look...

Yeah. I mean, it's already a tall door. You're bringing everything high, but then you're bringing the door back down again. It needs to go up about a foot. And then, because the rest of it is so simple. I mean, it's such a dry, the only bang you're doing is that- The door. That whole composition of the front door. So it needs to be as grand as possible, so it justifies the height that you're raising everything at. So it's a very simple comment. Because the garage door and the other one could stay where you have them, and then just make that as glassy as possible.

The only- It will use it as a garage, because they're going to put a golf cart and- A golf cart, yeah. They don't want to have a real garage?

No, no, no. I think it's also in terms of the landscaping, I think that it's a little bit bare. I think that- know the house is going to be very clean very elegant and what's being built next door is also very nice so it's they'll they're going to work off each other which i think is going to be beautiful best idea to work together with the neighbors yeah and i would work on uh i think a landscape plan yeah i i i would so my comment is really about the trees and landscaping i know you have to get rid of that tree to build a house but i'd like to see you plant

So in the landscape plan, I guess I'm a little confused. A lot of the trees called out are existing, but are these also adding all these trees? Can you just walk us through? Yeah, I think we'll be, so here,

So we are adding this as well. And what are those? Aricas?

No, they have Clusias in the front of the house, no? They were Clusias in the front of the house. They're saying to make a tall hedge in the front of the house because the house next door has a tall hedge. Just to continue the same tall.

Yeah, I don't know about that. We don't like a huge green hedge. I don't know how tall that is. I can't really tell at this level of detail. But I wouldn't be in favor of anything above a four-foot hedge in the front of your house. I think also having a little more texture versus the very manicured hedge, linear. It has to be more tropical.

It's a little bit suburban looking in the perspectives. It looks like it's just a house in the south, you know. It needs to be luscious. It needs to be, you know, it needs to be tropical. It needs to be just beefier, like a beefier sort of landscape. You still need to provide that level of detailing in the house. I think it's a little undercooked with the landscaping.

And then the only other comment I have is regarding lighting. I saw a floodlight and some lighting in the soffits on the exterior that I would like to see removed.

She has two in the soffit, but they're in the entryway.

I mean, if we think that's okay in front of the... But I did see, I thought you were adding a floodlight. No, it's existing. Okay, and that needs to stay? Those are very intrusive to neighbors. So we don't tend to accept those. I mean, if it's existing, it's existing. But I look at that.

I think that the next, you know, on one layer I need to add is the understanding of landscaping and exterior lighting and uplighting the house at night. You know, it needs to be luscious. It needs to be, because it's a very plain, it's very simple, it's very dry. So I think it just, it's one step that you need to provide to the house. I think it's a landscape sort of sensibility and understanding really the lusciousness of this project. Because right now, just a lawn just makes it look like it's a suburban house. But I think it's just missing. I think it needs to be considered.

I would like to approve it. I mean, I think we should approve it with conditions of, you know, the few things that she was discussing about the lighting and the landscaping, yeah.

Okay, so I think the conditions, just to be specific, I know that our staff had a couple conditions, no? I think it was just the grading plan. Just the grading plan. Okay. Then I think the additional conditions we discussed were regarding the front elevation, height of the fenestration and front door, pulling that up. I think making the landscaping, especially in the front, a little more lush and tropical without having a green... wall in front of the house.

I don't know what elephant ears are or what they look like. So, you know, I think we're giving you the discretion to follow the concept.

I mean, you're Brazilian. You know how to do landscape. Come on. I mean, it's like, come on. Just do the Portland marks and just do the whole thing.

The final comment is regarding lighting. If you could just take another look at the lighting of the home and try to eliminate... First of all, make sure it's a warm color. I think we say 3,000 or lower. And that it's more, as much as you can do kind of uplighting from the ground and less overhead lighting, whether it's flood or soffits.

Light up the property from up this way instead of up.

Okay, yeah, and again, it's to your discretion, but just keeping those principles in mind. Okay. And those principles are also outlined in our design guidelines that we're going to public, that we're looking at tonight in case you want to reference. Oh, I will take it. Same with, there's a lot of landscaping reference in there too, so.

I mean, I think that, the last thing I'm going to say is that, the entry threshold is what you're really doing. It's that entry door needs to be, the whole threshold needs to be the feature of the house. I think the little sconces on the side, a little bit mingy, a little bit, I would get rid of those and I would maybe put lights on the floors, up light and very small ones on top and maybe two on either side to make that whole entryway very dramatic. I think the drama needs to happen at the entryway. Okay. And you don't need those concerts there, because they'll give you really mingy, sort of

Okay, so just with those few conditions, can I have a motion to approve with those conditions, please?

All right. That concludes our applications for the evening, and we will move on to ordinances, beginning with 6A, the ordinance adopting design guidelines. Madam Attorney or Clerk, please read the ordinance into the record.

So the question is changing of must to should.

Overall, the feeling, so. Yeah. I mean, when you want to use should, it's because they want to get away with what we don't want them to get away with. That's why you use should.

I mean, I would like our town attorney's thought on how the code and the design guidelines work together.

Well, I mean, the design guide, it's about being binding or being, you know, one is code. Code is binding. You know, this one is recommendations.

Yeah, well, I mean, my recollection, and we'll have the town attorney opine, is that the board's role is to use the guidelines to determine if the design is compatible with, you know, with the guidelines and with the neighborhoods. So I guess in that context, we'll see what happens.

I mean, to make it very clear, a guideline, you know, code is code. A house can meet code. Guidelines, since we've come into place, is a tool that we have to fight presentations into this town that don't fit. through a completely different series of criterias that has to do with aesthetics, that has to do with sensibility, things that are very hard to regulate only by a body that is qualified to make those judgments. So it's not... That's what guidelines exist.

I mean, from my perspective, I wouldn't have a problem changing the musts for shoulds because if something should do something and it doesn't, I'm going to say I don't think it does that. So I can't get behind this as being compatible.

I'd just like to know what the intention of why someone was offended by the way must.

To me, the thing is that the code goes up to so far. Then guidelines kick in. Because code only describes a portion of the project. Guidelines is really the real tool that we have to enforce... you know, this town not being destroyed. It's really the tool that we have. That's why it's binding legally or not. It's not, but we need to have the authority of making those calls. That's why we're here. But, you know, I don't have an issue with changing one way or the other. I mean, I don't care. I mean, I don't think that they sound that different.

Those are good questions. Thank you. George, did you want to? You played a big role in this.

Oh, you're being quiet today. Were you falling asleep?

I think that something that we see here when people present their houses is that they think that they've won the battle because they meet code. You know, they think that because the code is a bit on the complicated side and don't meet the code, I think that they think that they've won the battle of the code. So I think that there is a sense of entitlement that some people have when they show up here that they think like, well, it meets code. And the guidelines is what comes, kicks into, is our tool that we have to make understand. And I think that's a board We're such an incredibly good board

Moses, do you have thoughts on the design guidelines?

No, I mean, that would be a pretty simple find and replace. I wouldn't be in favor of it if it were to restart the.

And maybe our town attorney, when she's ready, can weigh in on that. I have just a few thoughts to think through with you all. The design don'ts. What do we think about the design don'ts? I'm really on the fence about whether to include them or not. And I want people's opinions. I mean, at a minimum, I don't think we would say frowned upon. I would remove that language. I mean, looking through what you included, I think there's a lot of good things there to caution people about. So I just wanted the group's thoughts on do we want to come out of the gate expressly saying what we don't like in a

So we've got bullet points for each picture.

And I want to make sure that we've accurately captured. And, Scarlett, it may be worth spending 10 minutes just walking through these with you to make sure we agree. Because I think that's really – That's sort of the last. I want to make sure we're doing that right. So maybe we can do that. And we can all just look at them real quickly. While she's coming up, I have just a couple of nits. I think there's a few images in this document that are very low resolution that I'd like to see, like the glossary title page, page 32, the nighttime image. that are very pixelated. So I'm wondering if we can

Let me see if that's of the PDF or the actual page. No, I think it's page 16 of the document. So it's page 23 of the PDF. In understory designs under the second bullet, it says maximum clear height of any non-habitable understory space measured from finish grade to the underside of the elevated structure above shall not exceed seven feet. Is that right? I think we meant that as a minimum.

I think that's I think that's a minimum not a maximum and then Excuse me

Right, but we're not putting a max. We're saying this is saying maximum of 7 feet. I think at one point this group discussed a minimum such that It read as an understory and wasn't like a crawl space, like a four foot understory.

Yeah, okay. So I think we might, in efforts of keeping this moving forward, we might just want to I mean, it says because we're limiting parking areas, open or partially enclosed ground level space. I mean, there's a whole list of things that are limited, accessory or storage areas. So I think that limitation would preclude the house we just approved that you designed. So I'm not sure we do want to do that bullet point. So we have the bullet point above it, which I think is interesting. It says non-habitable understory areas, as defined pursuant to the code, shall be designed to maintain human

So let's remove that. And then in the index of approved homes.

One question I have. Do we have permission by these people to use our homes for these design guidelines? Do we need to acquire permission?

It's public record. No, I'm just double checking that it's public record. So you can't print.

So, no, I'm saying accessing the information is public record, but printing it as a document.

It becomes public when you submit it to the town.

The appendix of approved homes for reference, we have one of Stephen Betts' homes on the front, and then we have it again, I mean, I guess we have it daytime, nighttime as the first home, and then we have another one of his homes. Let's mix them up a little bit more. I don't want people to think I have to go hire this architect to build this home in Surfside. Let's spread them out, I guess.

Okay, we got one tonight. You know, and this will grow. So maybe just split up those two with the one we approved tonight, and we'll keep adding.

The house we just approved is next door to this one. So that's what they were saying about that. It's here.

Yeah, I mean, and I think we don't have, actually, yeah, this is an addition, this one at the end, right? Yeah, the garland? Yeah, and that says addition? Do we not specify new home versus, no, we don't. Interesting. No, I think we mixed those together. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Okay, so I think those were all my comments.

More of a visual glossary than really about.

Yeah, and you're going to remove the draft from the front page? Yes. Okay, great. Okay, let's go over, unless there's any other specific comments, I'd like to review the don'ts with the group. Absolutely. And Madam Attorney, were you able to come to reach an opinion on the code versus design guidelines yet, or do you need a few more?

Okay. Okay, let's go for the don'ts. So I think just title-wise, how can we phrase this in a slightly gentler way besides design don'ts frowned upon? Things to avoid? Elements to avoid? Things to avoid? Something like that?

Right. Let me rephrase what Carlos says, as I usually do. Is that too harsh? Things to avoid. Let's maybe stick with that. Okay. So, Scarlett, maybe we can pull it up on the screen and we can walk through those few pages.

Yeah, it's 48 of the PDF. OK, got it. OK, so we'll change the title. Page 49 is the first. So Carlos and Moses, I'd really like your thoughts on these. So the first one, double height window at front facade, agree. Two-story vertical plane, prominent, agree. Bulk of structure out of context, agree. Gate not 50% opaque, agree. Any wall sconces are the other thing I would say there.

No. The wall sconces you see in the image?

Yeah. These are things to avoid. especially since they're at weirdly different heights. Okay, anything else? Can we go on to the second one? Because there's a lot.

Scale of garage wall above door, yes, we hate that. Wall proportions out of context, yes. No green niches at side walls. Mechanical equipment not screened.

No green niches. I think that, sorry to interrupt, but I think that the mechanicals, we don't allow mechanical systems to be that close to the side. I think, don't they have to be a setback? Isn't there a setback?

No, it cannot be in the side setback. So yeah, you could say mechanical equipment does not meet code.

Yeah, because it's important that they know that that's not allowed. Because right now it just refers to the fact that they just need to be screened, but we don't allow those to be there. So they need to be added.

OK, the next one, no main entry porch design. I think what we're saying is no prominent main entry, because that doesn't have to be a porch necessarily. No 360, but we don't really see any other facades, so hard to say. I think the driveway design, it's, what do you mean by, I think it's that there's too much impervious, it's too much pavement, which you say no permeable materials, but I don't think the driveway design or permeability meets code here, would it?

No names. That's not on Harding? Well, that house doesn't... Yeah, the whole thing is paved, so that doesn't meet...

Right. Yeah. So I think it's just too much pavement, not enough green is the big takeaway there. and no prominent main entry. Okay, moving on to page 50, bulk of structure out of context, balcony design out of context.

So balcony design out of context. What do we mean there? I'm not sure the balcony is the issue. I think this is the height and mass, yeah, bulk and mass and height of structure is out of context.

Well, that one has a pool that is up eight feet up in the air.

Yeah, the elevated pool is not compatible with the neighborhood. I think that's part of it.

You perfectly capture what I mean by that side wall. On the right-hand side, they're putting up a... Yep.

You're capturing all this as we go, right?

Sorry to interrupt one thing. I think we talked about it. I don't know how it works out, but didn't we say that if anyone builds a pool up like that, it's considered square footage? Because I don't know if this one came into play for this house or not. We didn't mention it, but remember we mentioned that if that's going to be built, it's square footage.

i believe that that's kind of where we have the disconnect right now we don't have that specifically stated in our code but we could put it for a future well i mean it's it's it's one tool that we have to say that listen if you're going to build we don't we don't want them but even if you do no one is going to do it because the tool that we have is that is counted as square footage right no one wants to count the pool of square footage i've already got this issue noted for a future so okay we'll add that at the end

but this this image shows that so i think that the key part of this image is both the buck bulk and mass of the house and the elevated pool that's incompatible um metal roof on legacy home yeah i think the metal roof is not compatible with the existing homes architecture i mean that's a little up for interpretation um i mean i

Are we allowing metal roofs on legacy homes? We are. I see there's like three of them went up in the last week. Yeah.

So I think this one's a little bit harder. I mean, I think if this had a cement tile roof, no one would care. I mean, it'd be fine. You know, like, it wouldn't be egregious. But yes, the landscaping, I would say, and the driveway.

Well, I mean, the Home Depot door doesn't help, but, you know.

Yeah, I might, I think I'm okay leaving this as is, as described. Okay. The next one, I don't see a metal roof in this image.

Yeah, I think we've got to get rid of that.

Oh, I think we accidentally duplicated the comments from above. Okay. So what do we need to say about this home, if anything, or do we remove this image?

No, it's hideous. It says everything. It needs to be said. Ugly as hell. No, we talked about this one. I think this one is a good one because this actually was an incredibly sweet art deco house that completely got butchered. They made the addition with the baluster. Remember we talked about the windows and how the addition is completely incompatible with that.

So the addition is what's in front of the car?

Yeah, so I think this is an example of a very- The perfect example of an addition is also the fact that I think it's a really good example how these windows, the color of the windows and the tint in the windows isn't compatible with the art deco house. I think the choice of windows is completely wrong for this house. It's actually, it could have been a very sweet art deco house, and it's completely butchered.

And I think you're right about the driveway width. That's a weird one. All right, so you're going to have to read the next few because my computer just shut down.

Here, just take this. I'll share this one. Yeah. Take this one. I'll share this one.

Okay, so moving on to page 41, or is that it? Oh, 41, okay. I'm not used to this. Okay, another example of an incompatible addition to a legacy home, architectural, I think it's an incompatible architectural design and addition, maybe.

This house is, why are we punishing this house? It's a really nice one. The top one. The one on 91st Street, the white one. It's actually a three unit house. The one on the top. That's not a single family home, it's three apartments.

No, I love that house. I think they did a beautiful job, actually. But it's not a single-family home. It's a very unique house that it's... Multi-family.

Okay. So, yeah, I think what we're trying to get at here are single-family elements. The next one says main entry feature not prominent. I mean, this is an existing home, right? Yes. So...

Yeah, I think we're trying to show, you know, additions or new constructions. I wouldn't include homes that haven't been renovated in this. I'd probably remove that middle image, and the one below is also just an existing home, right? Yes. Yeah.

So, and then... Well, I do think that, I mean, in this case, and this is a real problem we have, Those circular driveways in the property that I don't think it was necessarily original to this house. So, I mean, we can point that in another house. We can take rid of this one, but we can point it out in another one because they all have it. But I think that that one is not fair because it's just an ugly old house.

I think so, yeah. I mean, I feel bad pointing at someone's house they live in where they haven't made an, you know, like, I just, I don't think that's what the spirit of what we're trying to do.

Do you think that they're proud of the house?

Let's go to the next page. Let's go to the next page. So we'll remove those. Main entry feature not prominent. Yeah, it's hidden behind, like, a massive... metal... We've got to say something about the metal work on this house. That is absolutely not compatible.

This house is the single worst house in all of Surfside. It's an abomination. How this... group of people that were before us allowed this house to build is a crime against this town. Yeah, I mean, the driveway covers, the pervious, there's no pervious- I mean that this town, and I'll say it again, and I'm going to take this because it's going to go on record, that a body of people Approved. Some of the other houses, I get it. But this one, this house was approved and went in front of a committee. It's a crime against this town, and it goes here on record. That is an abomination. I could not b

So I would add that the metal detail is stuck on. It's not, you know, this is not a cohesive architectural style.

First of all, this house, the most important thing that this looks, this house looks like an apartment building. It doesn't look like a single family home. It's completely, it looks, I mean, it not only looks like it's three floors, it almost looks like it's four floors. I don't know why I keep on reading four, but it's... Because of the understory on the right. It has that weird understory, that crawl space that I passed by. There you go. On the right-hand side, there we are.

That's the four-foot understory, George, done poorly.

So the whole thing is paved. Do you see how the second juts out to there? The whole thing reads like it's this three-story apartment building. It's really probably the ugliest house I've ever seen in my life. And this is here in this town, and this is allowed to happen, and anyone who allowed this to happen should be very ashamed of this. That's all I have to say.

There's only two years I wasn't on, so I don't know. Okay, so I think that's all of the homes in that section. So I think in addition to the edits we've discussed, which I think you've taken down, I think there are two issues. Guys, is there anything else you want to add before we sort of wrap this up? I think we've covered that. I would be fine with changing all the musts and shalls to shoulds. I don't think that changes anything for us. So if the town attorney feels like we need to soften it or whatever, that's fine. Do you disagree, guys? Are you okay with that? Okay. And then I would like

How are other, I mean, many, many, many municipalities use a code and design guidelines in conjunction with each other? How are they handling this?

And isn't it your opinion that the code trumps the design guidelines? It is. So, I mean...

I mean, I don't understand what you're saying, because in reality, the guidelines, it's not code. The guidelines is a series, I mean, we're entrusted with this way of looking at these projects and applying the guidelines. But at the end of the day, we have, the guidelines is a tool that we use to, it's not specific. We refer always back to code, but code stops somewhere. Code takes you so far. And then the reason why we exist is that we're the body that protects this town from over development, development in irresponsible, I mean everything that needs to be saved from over developing in this

So I don't think anybody up here is opposed to softening to a should. So I think that's fine if that's going to help move the needle. You know, I don't think we are going to weigh in on the legal about, you know, whatever. I know you guys are leading the charge. Thank you. And other local municipalities are trying to fight this. And I hope we're joining them and, you know, trying to do exactly what our manager just said, which is preserve what we love most about our little town without, you know, I'll just leave it at that. So thank you. Thank you for the explanation. I don't think there's any

Yeah, it's too bad because I think that, you know, the most successful outcomes have been with our neighbors and applicants who iterate and work with us and compromise.

I mean, all I have to say is that we pay a shitload of taxes in this town, and I pay a lot of taxes, and if my town is not willing to defend our town and its hold, we have to. We have to. We can't allow this to be built. I don't know the minutia about the legalities of it, but there's something that... We have to put a stop to rampant overdevelopment of a town that just can't support it. I mean, that's our job. That's what we're here for. And I think that we're incredibly accommodating as a board and incredibly helpful to people in a way that no board I've ever seen does. So we're here to work

Yeah, so a lot of elements of that house are against code today. So we'll call those out in the bullet points. In terms of the legalities, I mean, I think you've gotten all the changes that we would recommend. I think they're not material that would prevent us from moving forward. There's edits. And yes, we can soften musts and shalls to shoulds. That's okay. That's not going to change our role necessarily in trying to help design be compatible with our neighborhoods.

I know, but we also have to bring people into this town that are willing to work with us. The bodies are here to help them, to help them develop. We're here. We're here for them. We're here to help them. So if you're here and you don't want to ask for help and you don't want to engage in this town and you want to engage in the bodies, there's... That's a problem. I mean, it's a problem. You come here for all the wrong reasons and that has to be stopped. You're not here to work with this town and make this town Then, I don't know, we have to say at some point, no, we don't want you here. We hav

Yeah, so let's, speaking of 915, let's move this along. I think we are recommending approval also with the add to the ordinance of a five-year review. You got that? Okay, so I think we're, I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues is we would be recommending this back to the town commission for approval with the minor changes that we've discussed here tonight, along with the addition of a five-year review of guidelines. Is that a fair statement? You want to say so moved, somebody?

And I really want to thank everybody in this room for their contribution over the years to this design guidelines. I do think it's a huge step forward. And I'm very proud of our efforts. And I hope this will help both applicants and future boards try to interpret what we're looking for in Surfside, which is preserving what's special about Surfside. So thank you. Let's move on to the second ordinance. Madam Clerk, would you please read it into the record?

Thank you. So I think this is what our town commissioner liaison mentioned earlier, is a change to the code to engage this planning and zoning board on municipal construction. I think I had a couple questions, either for our planner or manager. um what what is the process for municipal design and construction does it need does it follow the same like a building a municipal building i believe does that follow this typical process of any applicant or is it exempted from the process um or maybe it's a town planner question i don't know

For example, I don't think the 96th Street Park building ever came before the planning and zoning. Maybe it came for the two years that I was not on the board, but we never saw that. So I think we need to work. It's not just advice. It's the municipal construction needs to go through the process. Sorry, but that building never came in front of us I mean one of the new big I mean the community center I don't think came before us when I was when I first started so I think that you know town buildings and structure anything that that a non town applicant would have to come to us for should come t

So I think that inconsistency is more critical almost than this. I mean, I think this insertion is good for the little stuff. You can come get advice. You don't have to go through the whole process. But buildings and signage and memorials, which are structures, need to go through the process.

I mean, I think that in the DE, it says that it shall seek a planning and building advice on new municipal construction. And it says significant design component. That involved a significant design component. The problem I have with that is the word significant. Because significant, what's significant to you is certainly not significant to me. Not that you're any different than me. It's just significant doesn't mean anything. Because, you know, a speed bump, I mean, I almost lost my... I didn't sleep for two days when I saw the speed bumps that they built. So it is very significant to me. Ever

You know, by trying not to bother with certain minutiae, you don't present that building on 96th Street and you don't present the memorial to this town. So, I mean, on that note, depends on who's at the helm of this town. They're going to use language in every way they can.

That's what I'm... Yeah, so open to suggestions. Huh? We could just take significant out and just say involves a design component.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Just take the word significant out. Anything that gets designed... No, it is. A fire hydrant doesn't get designed. You don't design an application of a fire hydrant. It doesn't get designed.

Let's parse the issues here. What change needs to happen to make sure that all municipal buildings and structures come before us? You identified something in 90-18, but I don't...

Well, right now, the design guidelines are only written for single-family homes. So I think we need to... I mean, multifamily also comes to us. So that's not the right... The second section B, we shall review each application for single family, multifamily, commercial. Maybe we just to say include municipal there for conformity with the town's code and adopted design guidelines. But that wouldn't reach a speed hump. Sorry? That wouldn't reach a speed hump. i know so that's why i'm separating the issues i'm trying to say first of all let's clarify that the towns any any development or major add

You know, the other problem with this is that you know there's so much money being spent on decisions that we can make here in this week advice that we can get to this town for free you know this town is spending money in these studies and and and and and hiring people to to put it's like you know why are we here for i mean we're here to to give an incredibly educated advice that is free to this town you know it's like If we're going to redo the benches, come to us. Of course you should come to us. You come to us because we're incredibly educated and we have incredible good taste and we unders

So Carlos, we have to dig into the detail of the words. What does this need to say?

No, I just think that the word to me, I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm just saying the word significant bothers the hell out of me.

I know, but, you know, they built a park on the corner of Bay Drive, and they put a little pergola. They put this plastic brown pergola there with these benches there.

The pergola is problematic, but that should have come in front of us.

That's a structure, though. That's a structure. So that would be captured.

I know, but that happened. We were here. That happened. It didn't come in front of us.

This wasn't that bad. We have to change the code to get that to come before us. That's what we're trying to do right now.

No, I know, but I'm just saying for someone that is so significant, for us, to me, is significant. So that's where the word significant comes into play.

Anyway, I invite the manager to weigh in.

Yeah, but that becomes a standard. So that's why you standardize. That's what I'm saying.

So it's, I mean, we talk about it as brand guidelines in like development, like for marketing and stuff, same process.

So, for example, when I was talking about the park, which I think is super pretty. I don't like the bench and I like the pergola, but. When when it comes time to choose that bench, you know that if there's a standard in this town. You refer back to the standards. So we code the town. When you see that bench, you say, that's our side. That's what you do in Europe. When you go to Rome and you see the same bench, that's how towns develop language. Correct. And I think you're incredibly sophisticated in thinking that way, because that's exactly the way it should be done. If you have to change a be

I know, but we're here for two years, so I don't know. We might be dead. We don't know what's going to happen to us. Where are we going? I don't know.

Okay, so in the interest of time, again, are you guys just stretching or you want to say something? Okay.

You know, I'll say one example. I have a park at the end of my street, and they placed, you know, that park is completely in shambles, but they placed one of those green things with a stick for the garbage bags for the dogs, the pooping thing. It's the size of a trash can. It's this huge object. They put it right on the path of people coming into the thing. There's a trash can and the thing is like, we need to have a standard. That doesn't belong in a town like this. We have to have a standard, so they need to place one. They know which one it is, and we have to agree with it. But it's actuall

So what I would recommend just hearing everybody is yes, I agree we need to figure out a way to make sure that municipal structures, new or additions to are included in the regular process. They have to go through P&Z. I will leave it to our staff to figure out how to amend this code to say that. And then I agree, I would be in favor of removing the word significant and adding a couple more examples in the parenthetical. And instead of saying including, I would say, for example, so they don't think it's an inclusive list, I would say, for example, signage, street furniture, lighting pergolas b

a shantytown with this, you know, we need to find a way of helping Harding.

So let's get to that in new business, please. Yeah. I've noted it. We'll talk about it in a minute. But I think for purposes of moving this forward, with those changes, I think we could recommend for approval to the town commission. Do you agree, colleagues? Moses? Okay. So everyone got those changes on the record? Do I need to state them? I can repeat it.

Yes, thank you. And if the attorney or you, Scarlett, or our manager think there's any other way to make it clear that the municipal construction and design needs to go through the process, please make those changes as well. That was just the first thing that came to mind, but I'd really love a more comprehensive look to see to make sure that municipal buildings would come through PNC. So with those changes, I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Chair LeCour? Yes. Motion carries. And thank you again to Commissioner Valdostegui for moving that forward. Okay, when is our next meeting?

Okay. For future discussion items, there were a few that came up tonight, so I would like to review that tracker. So I think one thing is the... We mentioned a site, 9156 Emerson, that came before us tonight that had been demolished a while ago and has been sitting vacant. Does our code allow that anymore? At one point, there was legislation where we were saying you can't demolish it and just let it sit forever.

Because that's a loophole for people who want to just take every tree off the site and then come back.

I just demolished the house that I purchased, but I had to go through an incredibly lengthy process. It's not a safe structure. That structure is going to cave in. Right, and so do we need to discuss- But we made sure that we showed that there were no trees in it, but we're not touching any trees. Right, so is that part of the process now? We're not touching any trees. But could someone come in and say it's condemned, I gotta demolish the whole house and- Well, Scarlett asked us, we needed to provide a plan saying that we're not touching the trees. It's required now. She asked for it. But the other people just, there's so many of them. They're not one lot. There's like about 10 lots here.

Maybe you could just share with us what the code says right now when somebody applies for a demo permit. How are trees protected? And do you think there's anything that we could do better to make sure we're protecting, especially large specimen heritage trees. I'm not talking about every tree. So that's one issue. Another thing is, I think, an audit of the design guidelines to see if anything should become code. For example, pools at ground level, or otherwise it should count towards FAR. And then third is this concept that the manager brought up, which is town design guidelines or town brand

Can I ask one more thing? I mean, I've worked in towns that above ground pools are not allowed, because the problem is the pool. When you build a pool and you build a structure and they put the pool up there, it's an above ground pool. So it's actually a building, it's a structure. So it's not a pool. It's a completely different, I don't know how a code reads. To me, something that is built in the ground has one type of permit, but when you build a structure and you put a pool on top of it, it's not a pool permit. You're actually building a structure. Maybe we could take a look at the definiti

Well, that's still a still a pool is a hole in the ground.

No, I mean, I'm not talking about the language of it. I'm just saying that, to me, it's two different things. A pool that is built on a structure that has water on top of it. It's like if you built a pool on top of a roof of a building, it's a very different thing than digging a hole and building a pool on the ground. Regardless if you raised the whole level of a couple feet, there's still a hole in the ground. So I don't know how the code reads.

So we're not going to figure that out today? No, no, we're not, but just asking her. one example, I think, of something that may be strong enough in the guidelines to be considered a code change. But I think writ large, we should be auditing. It would be great if the planning staff could do a first pass and say, here's five things we saw for discussion. And then awnings in the retail district.

So that's linking signage and awnings, but I think there's also just in general what's allowed for awnings. Okay. But, yeah, does that get – we can see what's allowed?

Well, I mean, I think that someone might just want to replace their awning without changing their sign. So, you know, it can be joint because it's – right now it's a disgrace. I mean, they really – the whole – the signage is less of worrisome as the awning situation in the town because we have such a pretty town and it's been defaced by the multitude of different kinds of awnings and colors.

So I think, you know, looking at what's allowed for awnings, again, revisiting that. Okay. Okay. Anything else that I missed, guys, for discussion?

I'm sorry to be so obsessive about the pool, but... I know I'm a broken record. Last thing I said. If the pool is in the yard, in the backyard, maybe it's for George, the edge of the pool is considered the same setback as a regular pool on the ground? Like from the back of the house, if you have a pool, if you have a wall that is up in the air, are you considering the same setback for the pool? Because that's actually a building, so it's not really a pool. So that's a problem. You have someone in the yard in the other house that's going to look at a wall that is five feet away from the house.

A raised pool needs to be treated like part of the structure. We need to change that because- And it needs to be included in the FAR, and it needs to be included, you know, it has to meet the setbacks. That's the quid pro quo. If you want to pull it in and have it be part of your house, I guess.

I know, but again, I'm sorry. This is the last thing I said. We're doing that to the neighbor. The neighbor in the back of the house, if you allow them to... If someone wants to say, okay, I'm going to count it as square footage, the neighbor in the back that backs up to the pool is going to end up having...

Okay, so maybe we still don't even like that. Yeah.

It's going to have a wall in the back of their house five feet from their property, so... That's not okay. That's a structure, so we have to fix this. It cannot be allowed in any way, shape, or form. Because we can't do that to the, it's not responsible to the neighbor. You're building a structure within the setback. You know what I mean? It's a big deal. There's so many of these pools, by the way. I mean, there's not one or two. There's several of them. And they still keep on trying to build them. So we need to be very clear about in a town where we have such little lot, we have to be very cl

Okay. Anything else for future discussion or new business? Hearing nothing, may I have a motion to adjourn?

Okay. Thank you, everybody. Wow. Good night. Thanks.