Village Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. This is Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. It's 5.30 p.m. And this is the local planning agency meeting. I've called the meeting to order. We have a roll call of the members. These are sensitive.

You're getting a little bit of an echo on the new mics.

I'm here. Quorum is present. All right, we'll get this one. Oh, okay. So do we need to... Nope, nope. Minutes of April 8th, 2025. It's been a while. Do we have those? And does anybody want...

Would anybody like to make a motion to comment on the minutes of April 8, 2020-2025?

I'll second. We have a motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? The minutes are Agenda and the order of business. We have a review and recommendation of four different things. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Olmsted. Is that the appropriate person?

Got it. I think it'd probably be more appropriate to have the presentation at the council meeting since people might be watching that more than they might be watching. It's not like the internet's not jam packed with people at this point in time. Because I got several emails.

different topic you can do baseball related.

All right so with that I'll open the public hearing if anybody wants to comment on these changes. Seeing none we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion to refer this to the esteemed village council for their review? I'll second. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, that's awesome. So with that, I think we're done, and we will adjourn this meeting, and we will reconvene with that same esteemed village council in 30 minutes.

So I'm, these things are picking up everything you said.

What do you think is the biggest agenda item for the crowd today?

Welcome, everybody. This is our regular meeting of Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. It's 6 p.m. Call the meeting to order. Can we have a roll call of the members, please?

Let's do the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag is over here. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. All right, first on the list tonight, busy night, we have the Consent Agenda. There are seven tabs on the Consent Agenda. Does anybody want to pull anything from the Consent Agenda to review? Minutes, Mr. Mayor?

Do you want to pull the minutes? No, no, that's part of the Consent Agenda.

Come on, man, I have enough room to put this in right here. Yeah, pull all the minutes and we'll read them. I'd like to pull tab four, please. Pull tab four. Okay.

I'm sorry, Joe. Mr. Mayor, tab six. Tab six, not five. Anybody want five?

At the risk of being that guy, I'm gonna pull three.

So what's, I wanted to pull two. It sounds like nobody called that one.

Yeah, TAP 7 was pulled. Well, we don't know. All right, so we have a, does anybody want to speak on the minutes? Because that's the only thing left in the consent agenda. We'll have individual public comment for all of the other tabs. Seeing none, hopefully, we will close the public comment portion of the consent agenda and we'll ask for a motion on tab one. Do we have a second or is it going to fail? Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, that'll be closed. Let's go to tab two.

I pulled it because this was deferred from last month's meeting under the premise that the agenda packet included a redesign of the intersection that stems from the days of the True North hearing and the meetings. It is not a design that reflects, however, I think some of the best practices that we have discussed that we wanted to include in the design that protect the students as they cross the intersections, it's gonna be a wider intersection. It also does not consider the fact that we wanted to promote biking and walking to the true north and certainly to the schools in the area as a result

OK, thank you. That's the clarity that I was seeking that we didn't get last month.

Anybody else want to comment on tab 2? OK, I'll open the public comments section for tab 2. Does anybody want to speak on tab 2?

But we'll get those numbers. And if you want, just email us and we'll be able to provide whatever.

All right, anybody else want to comment on this one? Mr. Mayor, I do have one question. Yeah, let me close the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing, see if somebody has a comment and your question, sir.

To the village manager, so our public works director, does he work with these design people to bring in some of his thoughts? Because I know he's had a lot of thoughts about... The intersection.

Any other questions? Seeing none, we have a motion.

All right. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Resolution passed unanimously. Okay, number, tab three.

I just pulled this because I simply wanted, this is an issue that's gotten a lot, I've gotten a lot of communications about over the last year. And I just, this is a big deal in a very good way. And I just wanted to note that and commend the manager and staff for getting this, moving this forward. The concept here is the county is gonna pay But we are accelerating the process, because if we just wait and let the county do all of this, we'll keep waiting. And this is a badly needed improvement of that shared use path covering between Kendall and the end there at 136th. It'll make it safer. It'l

Anybody else? Okay, we'll open the public comment portion of the meeting for tab three. Anybody want to speak on that? Seeing none, we'll close the tab three. We have a motion.

I'll second. All right. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Anonymous. Number four.

I think it's a great idea. I mean, maybe there's a way to think of people like Girl Scouts or those things that just naturally discount or something like that, because they're different than if somebody was going to have a party. I would love that, too.

I think it's a wonderful idea. I go further in terms of just clarification. Do we charge the same to residents and non-residents throughout this room? And it's available for anyone to rent, whether you're a Pinecrest resident or not? And we're not allowed to charge differently? We are not. We can charge different rates for the community center gym if you're a resident and a non-resident.

I think there used to be different rates for residents and non-residents. Has that changed?

So will we estimate it? how much more revenue we'll get from raising from 300 to 750? What impact does this have? Because what makes me uncomfortable about this is the residents have already contributed $6 million to the renovation of the park that's just about to be unveiled. And we're going to ask that the same residents that have contributed to the improvements to now pay more for renting the space going from 300 to 750. Unless this has a material impact on our finances, I don't really see the need to go up in the rental fee. And I would also support what Council Member Del Prado has sugges

OK. I see. It's 300 for the. First three hours, and then there's $200 for the terrace. So that may be the $500.

We can always adjust it later. I'm good with it. My opinion is we're going to need it.

Madam Manager, what do we do for like the Rotary Club at Evelyn Greer or the Native Plant Society at the Gardens? Do you know what we charge organizations like that?

And this 750 seems to be like for a major function rental.

So a club would pay... $375 for a night to have a meeting?

I think it's a good idea to kick back to Rob to hear a little bit more about what they expect to use, how they expect to use that facility.

To me, the question is also what we're doing, what we do at Greer, what we do at Sunnyland. Thank you. Sunnyland and the other. So because if we have different levels of options, this room, I haven't seen it. But if this room is state of the art, that may be the more expensive one. And maybe we can. My take is, I think, Council Member Meyer, I think everyone's making good points. I would be OK with this for now. And it could be something that we revisit entirely. I'd also be fine if we want to put it off a little bit. But I do like the idea, frankly, at all of them of having, these aren't in d

A motion or? Yeah, sure. Are we moving to amend it to allow the one night?

Sounds like you just made the motion. All right. We have a motion.

Do we have a second? Do we have a second? All right. Greenberg seconded. Del Prado motion. All in favor?

Oh, I did not. Okay. We know what's going to happen, but either way, go ahead. Maybe we can change our minds. If anyone can change our minds. Somebody can change one mind.

Okay, do we have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just so eager to get past this. Please, Harry, come on up.

Thank you, Harry. Anybody else? I'll close the public comment portion.

Mr. Mayor, so I'm not against this, but what I don't like is the way we're dealing with it. Staff came with this concept of the price pricing. I'd rather kick it back to staff and ask them to look into into the organizations and how they, maybe there's a different price structure. I'd like to see them coordinate with the other parks. I don't want to limit it to just one night if we have availability to do others. So I would just rather defer it, have them come back with something that includes what they're gonna do for non-profits, neighborhood groups, things like that, and see what they come

When, and these are well taken, Points. When will the facility be usable, rentable? Do we know? I know we have a ribbon cutting soon.

And we meet May 4th. Is May 4th our next meeting? May 5th. May 5th.

if we're done with this one. I mean, look, I'm happy to, if the consensus is that we either want to start a lower number until then or kick it till May, kick it a few weeks to hear back from staff, I don't want this to be what I don't want. And the reason why I wanted to vote for it now is I don't want this to be, and I'm not saying this at all critically, I just don't want it to be that we're going to leave the status quo for too long, because I think it was part of the understanding that we would be raising. It is a much better facility. But if people want to wait a couple weeks to be more c

It doesn't mean that it may not necessarily go in my way, but these kinds of things I think we should be able to make a decision on, unless we think it's part of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed. If it's just an isolated thing, We could just basically vote on it. I don't think it's going to solve the budget gap that we have in other public locations, which is, I think, to the comment that Council Member Del Prado said, I don't think this will have a material impact to budgets. But at the same time, it's a simple item. We can always amend it if we want to have carve-outs for oth

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Four. Four to one. All right. Tap six.

Mr. Mayor, pink lemonade in the corner. Yes.

Only pink lemonade? Yes, only pink lemonade.

OK, look, my thought on this, and I appreciate the clarification or the amendment from the manager, This is a tricky one, obviously. My view is that we should, as amended, I think it's, the amendment is significant because I think we cannot and should not bind ourselves or bind the village to anything beyond what's already been budgeted on this. That doesn't mean we're not gonna go above that going forward. It doesn't mean we're gonna abandon the park project. But what it means is that we're gonna, until we have clarity on the budget going forward, next year's budget and beyond, we have to be

I like the original way of doing it myself. I think that's probably going to save us more money in the long run and change it as we go. We don't have to spend it. That's my opinion. All right, anybody else? All right, well, seeing nobody, we'll open the public comment portion. Mr. Pena. Welcome back. It's been a while. Blake is still there, I'm assuming.

While I am much in favor of these race crosswalks and giving them to see how well they work and to finish off the path on Kendall Drive, I have concerns about their construction and the way they're going to look I don't know if it really gives a pinecrest aesthetic. I see one, two, three, four different materials being used for the construction. And having seen how some of the traffic circles have fallen apart over time, I do have concerns about how well these things are going to hold up. And I think the worst thing to do is go into something that maybe doesn't look good and maybe doesn't hold

I don't mind deferring it for a month if it gives us a chance to take a look at renderings or just have a more realistic perception on what they will be, what they will look like, and whether they will sustain traffic in time. Now, what I will say, though, is I don't think they'll behave the same way that a traffic circle behaves, because there's a lot more traffic on a traffic circle, typically, than there will be on something like this. But I do think it's a fair ask to at least take a look at one of the renderings and see what it would look like. Today, you can do renderings really easily.

And these are fairly sizable features. Kind of what it would look like. Very prominent.

Does it affect, though, the allocation of the bond funds?

All right. Anybody want to speak on this one?

You still need to open up the public hearing. All right.

We're going to open up the public hearing and see if anybody wants to speak to that one. Going once while she's verifying. Going twice. Nobody wants it. All right. Close the public hearing.

Look, I'd filibuster and fire some time, but I have nothing to say on this one. I got nothing.

Does it matter to the motioner? Does not matter to me. Does it change your opinion, or would you just like to get rid of this one?

I don't know. I don't know how any changes might affect the cost. So I'm a little concerned about awarding it. Why don't you just make your motion? OK. So I move that we defer this for a month. All right. And that we receive better renderings of what it's going to look like prior to that.

We have a second? Second. Motion and second. All in favor?

Aye. She's still checking because we might have some implications over allocations of our money. We have some deadlines for that. That's, do you still need more time?

Somebody want to make a, what do you mean, table it?

What are my choices again? Lay it on the table.

Okay. Motion. Do we have a second to lay it on the table? I'll second. All right. All in favor of tabling? Aye. All right. Anonymous to table. So we come back to tab seven.

I just pulled this. I have one. thing that I think we may want to talk about, which is in Section 2, which is the maximum membership of the Youth Advisory Council. Vice Mayor Fehrman, first of all, thank you for leading the YAC this year. I know, by the way, we have Mayor Lerner and former Councilmember Abbott here who have led the YAC in the past. And I just wanted to get everybody's thoughts or the thinking behind putting the number at 20. It's currently at 28. And from 2020 through 2025, it was 24 members. I certainly understand, based on everything I've learned, the impetus behind reducing

We just put it to 20 just to give us a little bit of latitude should there be a lot of, but there was, you know, and this is a discussion on only the three board members who are here to talk tonight, but the group as a whole, we had these discussions and The 28 was kind of set upon us for a lot of different reasons. And it became a little bit, not everybody got to know each other very well. And so it wasn't a good number. And so this is more of a, let's set it for, let's see how 18 looks, run through a year of it, see how it does. And then, so it's a little bit of a learning curve. But I have

Sure. Yeah, I mean, I would go for 24 if you think it's fine. I don't want to be meddling in how you're doing it.

I think that's not a bad number either if we do go there. It's not like 22 and a half.

So with that in mind, I mean, I would propose amending it to make it up to 22.

So just for your information, the group also liked the idea of you're not an automatic in just because you're a current member. So everybody will have to apply again. And they also requested that we do interviews. And Priscilla and Nicole and Rob have all volunteered to interview them. the applicants as well. So I think this is a, which I think is a great move.

Okay, let's dispense with this one first. Okay, any more comments on that? Go ahead. Oh, will you open the public comment portion? Yes, ma'am. Welcome back, Katie Abbott.

Thank you. But it's up to 22, right? Right. Anybody else? All right. We'll close the public hearing.

I have no problem with that. All right. You accept it? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? That one's unanimous. Back to tab six. I think your motion, Mr. Fairman.

I'm going to second that. Okay. All in favor of taking it off the table?

So I move to defer until the next meeting and the next meeting, prior to the next meeting, that we have some renderings of exactly what things will look like and have had a chance to discuss it with our public works director.

All right. That's a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. The resolution passes. OK, perfect. OK, that was the easy part of the meeting. Now we'll go to the fun part of the meeting, and then we'll do the rest of the 27 tabs of the difficult part. All right, so we have our agenda and order of business. I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege. This is an important night for us tonight. be leaving us. And I just wanted to say a few words. Normally, she's decided to run for mayor. And as such, she is going to

So with that, I want to present you this proclamation. You're welcome. We also have parting gifts. You can take these or what's behind door number three in the back. This is something that you can put under the proclamation.

I don't know what this is, but this is a paperwork that you can have also. You have that left over in the gift closet.

Okay, resident concerns, school zone lights, council member Greenberg. What did I do? You are up next.

Yeah, this was, I wasn't really, she just reached out to me to speak, so.

Absolutely. I believe that's permissible.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Chief, do you know if the lights are flat? Are they malfunctioning, or we don't flash them?

I think it's 67th Avenue. I think we just need to look into it and see whatever changes we can make to the program that make sense, that abide by the law, and whichever. Anybody else have any comments on this? We don't do public comment on this, right, Mitch?

So which debate, we'll take no action tonight. And the next one, I believe it's 9. that will take your comment.

So Vicki, thank you very much. This is actually fairly a topic that had been coming up with the council talking to our public works director, partly because I've gotten one of those tickets. And I think about how did that happen? How did I not notice this? And there's two-fold reasons. Number one, we should put the ticket people out of business. And we should do whatever we can to prevent an accident and keep our residents from getting these tickets. And I think that one of the problems is a lot of school zones, none of them are exactly the same. And of course, the times are all different. So

Yeah, I just wanted to thank you, Ms. Siegel, for coming in. We had emailed about it. And I thank the chief for the explanation of it. And it's something we need to do our part. Obviously, the schools have to do their part in keeping these things working. But I think it's very important that we're aware of this. it's important that we just do everything we can to make sure they're working. And we only know about these issues when residents bring them up. So we appreciate both your raising it and coming in tonight and providing such information. So thank you.

Yeah, yeah. 15 miles an hour or whatever. Oh, totally.

I don't think anyone could argue that's a necessarily bad outcome, because then you're making the community safer. But I did want to highlight and really just call out how respectful you were bringing this up to us. You took the time to write a memo. You read calmly, and you were respectful the whole time. And that makes it just a lot easier for us to listen and to be able to help in finding the solutions, some of which you're proposing. So thank you for doing that.

All right, let's go to Youth Advisory Council Vice Mayor Fairman.

Okay, so we have the Youth Advisory Council board with us tonight that would like to introduce themselves and say a few words about the year and the future of YACC. So we have with us Juliana Kay, who is the chair, Sophie Perales, who is the vice chair, and Miles Messinger, who is the secretary treasurer.

All right, welcome, guys. How was the year?

Thank you very much. Excellent work, you all. That was wonderful. Mr. Pearman, any final statements?

I'm glad we had a full house because it was evident why these three were elected by their peers to lead the group. And it wasn't always easy. It was kind of a transitional year. Communication was very difficult. We learned a lot of lessons about communication. But what a great group of young people. And I'm so excited about their view on the future. Good work. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Vice Mayor Fairman, for doing that. Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you all. Okay, we only have 11 ordinances tonight, so this ought to go pretty quick. All right, fire away, tab eight.

All right, Ms. Manager, what do you want to do here?

Does the Chief have anything to add on this?

Yeah, I would just say, and again, also, thank you, Chief, for opining on this. I think it's a very important first step. It is truly one of the most frequent questions that we get. And I know a number of people in response to the survey that just went out in the village talked about concern about this. And while, as the Chief has explained, a lot of the concerns are things on the road and things that we can't really regulate. This is an issue on the sidewalks, and I think we are absolutely doing the right thing. I view this as just a start. Let's see how it goes. I know there's also the educa

All right. Anybody? I'll have something to add.

Just to add. I appreciate the work from the attorneys, the chief, obviously the manager. I think this initial proposal, this proposal to me represents an ideal balance of... between public safety and also the protection of the independence of children who have seen their independence be taken away bit by bit, year by year. And the fact that there are now some of them adopting the use of some of these bikes and generating the right level of concerns amongst adults, et cetera, does not necessarily mean that all of them use them in ways that are irresponsible. So I'm glad that we've reached out a

I have a question for the attorney on that. We effectively allow golf carts if they're low-speed vehicles, right? I mean, it's a safe golf cart. Is that true?

OK. And so my comments on that, I think we addressed this years and years and years ago. I don't know if we should let golf carts on the road without seatbelts, without blinkers, without those types of things. I mean, that would make them dangerous. So, I mean, a low-speed vehicle is a golf cart with all those safety things on it. We got confused on that a while back. I just wanted to make that statement. Either way, we'll open the public comment section of this. If anybody wants to comment on tab 8, more than welcome to. Seeing none, we'll close it. We have a motion. Second, anybody? Second. Motion is second. Voice vote for the ordinance.

All right, tab nine. Oh, that's gonna be a terrible move.

Thank you. Any questions from the council?

All right, let's go open the public comment portion. Would you be ready? Just give me your name and address first and then you go.

Are we putting – we're not installing any new traffic control devices, right? We're just putting the ordinance so that the speed zones are where the specific – the existing traffic control devices are? Am I correct?

I'm thinking that the vendor put cameras in an existing school zone.

at all of the times that were previous and the traffic device and the and the and the devices the traffic control devices that were placed there they're not village of pinecrest traffic control devices right they're they're permitted by fdot they exist now and they're school board traffic devices right this we don't we're not in the school business no we do we have a vendor that the the

What I'm saying is that the flashing of beacons, the signage, the location of the school zone has nothing to do with Pinecrest. It exists already. It was put there when the schools were established, or it may have been changed over time. It was permitted by FDOT. The speed limit sign is permitted by FDOT and established by the county. They are Miami-Dade County rules, not Village of Pinecrest. We don't set necessarily school zone speed limits. So if the school zone speed limit is 15, not 20, that's Miami-Dade County school board problem, not a Village of Pinecrest problem. We simply authorize

All right, thank you. Can I say one more thing? Yes, but.

Understood. Is 924 in the morning, is that in the school zone time?

Is everything permitted by the Department of Transportation?

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? All right, no, we did that already in rebuttal. Does anybody else from the public want to speak on this?

No, I'm relying on the orders. Does anybody else want to speak on this? Please, Mayor. Welcome back. Good to see you.

while you're making money at the same time thank you i appreciate that i guess my question is we're not changing the start and stops times of the uh of the school zones are we we're no those exist those exist and they've always existed the way they exist permitted by requested i guess by miami-dade county schools and permitted by dot and all others so we're simply i i'm trying we're just clarifying that the whole area is an overlapping district that is enforced during the entire period okay so help help me think so if the sign says that the that the school zone and again it's not a new sign if

Okay The vendor hasn't suggested to change the time the vendors

So if we have slow speed in front of Palmetto Elementary for an extra two hours that we that some would say is unnecessary because the kids are already gone, we have nothing to do with that. We have to enforce it, but we don't get to adjust or change it.

And we operate the camera enforcement when the school zone for the entirety of the time that this sign sets.

OK. What do you think? Well, that gets a little bit tricky, because if we decided, OK, we can control our cameras, we'll cut them off at what we think is the appropriate time. What if there is an incident that falls within the time, and we're not enforcing, and therefore we're re-encouraging people to speed at an hour that's posted not to speed?

Look, we're enforcing it for the entire time that the school board said you can't speed. You can't go over 15 miles an hour. That's what it sounds like. We're not changing the time. We're just enforcing the entire time because that's the most fair thing to do, for the village to come in and enforce part of the time. That's not a good thing, right? We should enforce the entire time, or what?

Right, either have the cameras for the full time or don't have them, and just have our police officers there. Right.

That's wrong? It's really not wrong. And also, no, we've done the public comment. So this is first reading.

All right, is there anybody else that wants to give a public comment on this topic? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Why don't we do this? Why don't we go through this and do what we're going to do tonight? And then maybe if you want to chat in between readings, get together to get a better understanding of maybe what the issue is. So this... doesn't look necessarily wrong to me. It doesn't look like necessary. We're enforcing when the signs say enforce. No new signs, no new times, no analysis of speed limits or any of that. This was simply placement of cameras. Okay, so

I mean, I think there are questions. Look, there are questions. We've had them in two separate settings tonight about the cameras, about the enforcement. I think on the whole, the program is a good and important one. I think it enhances safety, including some of our most vulnerable residents around the schools. That doesn't mean it's perfect. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be tweaked. I'm okay on the understanding that what's at issue in this program And this ordinance is limited what it's actually doing. I'm comfortable advancing this to second reading. As I've said in other settings, advancing

Okay. I'm just going to need to understand that a little bit. But they didn't recommend times. They just recommend here's where you should put your camera.

Thank you very much. Okay. We have a motion. I move. We have a second. I'll second. The motion is second. Ms. Clark?

Excellent. Let's get together and we'll go over this and make sure everything works out the right way. Okay, tab 10.

Mr. Olmsted, if I'm not wrong, this would be your last meeting. You're going to go out with a flourish of comp plan amendments. That's correct. There's no better way to go out as a planning director than amending the comp plan. So congratulations. By the way, you've done a great job. Thank you. Let's do it. I want you to read it verbatim, the entire comp plan, but with no notes. All right, how do you want to do this? If you want to just give a quick update, Mitch, do we do each one of these individually, vote them all at once, or vote them all?

Yes, she should do those, and then Mr. Olmsted will give his presentation. Then we'll debate, have public hearing, and vote on them individually. So that will be tab 10? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. We're doing tab 10.

That's what I'm talking about. Tab 10 is the 300-page one.

Let's just do tab 10. It's next, right? That's what we're doing.

I think they have a presentation for us.

This is different than the code changes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a... Yeah, Jerry's going to do it. Let's take a two-minute break before you get started. Ms. Kirk will prepare. We'll read the thing, and then we'll get going on those things. It's 7.58. We'll start at the comp plan, the EAR, as many comp plans and the other things, the future venues maps and the comp plan. There's a lot of comp plans. There's a lot of stuff. They're tangentially dealing with the comp plan. Right. I don't want to confuse everybody. And this is our first look at it, too. We're on tab 10. Really quickly though I wan

Good luck on your scouting stuff. This is how local government works. I think it's worked pretty well. No fisticuffs have broken out, and we've been relatively calm. I'm not going to do that. Thank you. MR. Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Olmstead, please take away. This is a 10, every 10 year event, correct?

Well, we're working to drag her here for nothing. So Ms. Hagee, would you... How long have you been working for the village at this point?

Sorry, can I ask a question? And I'm sorry to interrupt. Yeah. Is the data being normalized by the distribution, the demographic distribution of the population? Because it could be the case that your respondents over index on a certain group that tends to be more engaged than another group. So have you looked into that?

Right, but are the results normalized by the demographic distribution of the population? So let me explain what I mean. Maybe I'm not being clear. Say we have 40% of people living in the village that are older than 55 years old. However, 60% of the respondents are older than 55 years old. Therefore, you overindex on the responses of people that are over 55 years old. However, they represent 40% of the population in Pinecrest. So normally, what you would do is you would bring down or adjust for that over-indexing. And maybe a younger subset of the population tends to be less engaged. They respo

So the responses that we've received are representative of the distribution of our population, both in age as well as in families with kids, families without kids.

But that's not my question, I'm sorry. My question is, the percentage breakdown of the respondents, does it match to the percentages of demographic distribution in our village? Or are certain groups more over-indexing over other groups, and therefore their responses carry greater weight in the outcome?

Yeah, roughly the same. It doesn't have to match perfectly, but actually, OK.

Well, I think it's important to the study, not to me. I think it's important to the merits of the study, not that I care about it. I think it makes it a more higher quality study.

No, just for context, I mean, I don't know if we have this data. So we have almost half of the respondents have been in Pinecrest for more than 20 years. Do we know of the overall population, what percentage of the population has been in Pinecrest for more than 20 years?

Because if they say that it is 50%, then that's, I think, great. It's representative of the distribution. But if it's 30% of the residents have been in Pinecrest for more than 20 years and 70% have not, then the responses of that 70% are not weighted appropriately in the outcome of the study, in my opinion.

And that's based on future land use map?

No, but when they did that, they looked at our future land use map and figured.

Is that OK with everybody? How do you want to go through your edit?

So I'm fine the way I just want to be. Some of my comments are sort of why was stuff removed. Some are specific, very specific wording type things. Would you rather we do that? I mean, I don't know.

However you feel most comfortable going through it. If you want to go, if you have issues that you want to go page by page, that's fine with me.

OK. And on one, if we're in the one, 1-3.5, the protection of natural resources, that all comes out. And forgive me if you said that already. But why is this all out? I know there's a bunch of stuff later on about natural resources. Admittedly, I didn't go to see if it's all the same. Did 1-3.5 and the ensuing sections get moved somewhere else, or did they come out for a reason?

I'm sorry. The policy 1-1.6.2, Village Management and Service Center, did that get relocated?

The last line talks about considering future needs for facilities, possible fire protection or rescue department. I think in the future, something like this, if it's moved, it would be nice to have a footnote saying not just stricken, but moved to...

Or you could ask me and I'd type it into the AI. Yes, yes, yes. Ken, what was the number?

Well, they were looking for the fire, considering a fire department. Right.

Okay, so it's more specific to the study than the concept.

There was also the thought, would we be able to find land and then work with the county to even start maybe just another rescue station on the western part of the village or the southwest part of the village. So that's, I don't know if we'll ever do that, but I'd like to have that as part of our.

I don't have anything. I had nothing in there.

And you said the table, the big table that's here is nothing new. It's just putting it on. It's a reordering, but not, or it's a presentation, but nothing is substantive.

I just don't, I don't see fully that we've, I know the policy that the manager referenced earlier regarding interlocal agreements for joint school and park sites, which was fairly explicit previously, and it was deleted from at least section one. And is that being covered? in the sort of like the education element, or is there an education specific element within the plan that's covering for this, or are we abandoning this as a policy altogether based on this draft? Yeah, and I'm sorry, I know the manager had asked this, but I don't see it being reflected elsewhere in the document as explicitl

I guess the question is, does it have to be in here at all? I mean, this is a comp plan, not a strategic plan. Wish list. I mean, I don't know. I would say the same on five ends.

Can we then soften? I would say this is about five and six.

That's exactly the question I have. Yeah, if it's in here, and then we decide we don't want to do this because we lack the funding or whatever, then are we bound to having to do it because it's comprehensive?

No, I would agree. I don't want to tie the hands of the future of the councils by saying we will do something that maybe becomes cost prohibitive.

So this is in 2.1-2.1.1.3. I would also, without specifying it, note in number three, A typographical might merit a second review. 2-1.1.2-1.1.3, number three. I would just check the spelling one more time. There's a T before the word it's. That I don't think is part of the comp plan. I don't know. I'm not saying my eyes were drawn to that particular item in the compiler. Everything equally counts.

Careful reader. I'm just pointing out typos.

I am curious, however, why this one item seems to be singled out as the only one that states that we will evaluate its success and the support of the community to consider its future viability, whereas I don't see that language applied to a lot of other things that we have in this comprehensive master development plan. So I'm curious as to why we have this one specifically being called out that way.

It just sounds contradictory to me because we have, also as part of the strategic plan, language that states that we would be implementing a master plan, bicycle and pedestrian master plan in phases over X number of years, so that sounds more determined than this word. It's not necessarily definitive, but certainly does not sound as conditional as this language seems to imply here under three. Do we need it in here long? Is your suggestion just to remove it? Because I'm fine. Yeah, we can remove it. I would mention it as another element that we're considering as part of our transportation stra

Well, don't you think that one, I'm with you, but don't you think that one and two, one at least sort of covers that point and then, I'm not trying to step in, but I'm fine.

It could be included under one, although I think one seems to suggest a county-wide system of connectivity, whereas we may want to have, even within Pinecrest, our own system of connectivity. Parts of it will connect to the wider system in Miami-Dade, but not all of it.

Do we have a bicycle pedestrian level of service?

I don't mind tracking it. I think that's a healthy policy.

Well, the DOT's got like a, it's not a level of service in the sense that automobiles, you get X amount of cars past the point in a certain amount of time. It's a quality of service type of issue that looks at your streets and says, well, are you too close based on the road? Are you too close to the vehicles? Do you need to separate a path? Those types of things. Maybe if you do a transportation master plan in the future, you'd put a bicycle and pedestrian quality of service. When's the last time we did a bike and master plan?

That was the whole thing. Okay, so we didn't put the level of service in there.

So at that point, you'd just say in the next update of the master plan, include a bicycle pedestrian level of service. just tells you what you want to do in the next place.

In general, I think what we're missing in relation to alternative mobility is a statement that quantifies an outcome. So, for example, things like you know, we will want to see x percentage of kids walk or bike to school by a certain year. Or we'll want to see x percentage of park visitors walk and bike to the park instead of drive to the park. Or we'll want to see x percentage of kids carpool to school versus whatever baseline we have now. So instead of focusing on the input, we could just maybe commit to the outcomes. And then we can arrive at the outcomes in many different ways. It may be t

Would you put those as policies or goal or objective?

But on the master plan, can we at least agree on what would be the metrics? We can establish the goals in a separate document, but at least here we're saying we will measure our success based on these variables. Because until we have that, it's just like it feels very, like council member Greenberg has said, very aspirational, but it's been aspirational

this draft can we at least have a placeholder for that and then as we work to then receive the feedback as well as incorporate our additional edits we incorporate a language that speaks to a commitment to outcomes just like we have commitments for levels of service on roads there are very specific why don't we have commitments on you know mobility percentages

I agree. How about if we? I agree to not establish now. It's just that I want it to be on the radar so that by the time we submit our final version six months from now, it does have that in there.

They were mentioned, yes, as examples, but I don't consider myself an expert in this. It's just that I think, you know, it could be those or it could be something else. And I think it leads on, because otherwise we're stuck on Our discussions are usually a lot more about the what. OK, we need a shared use path, or we need this, or we need that. And we don't always agree on those things. But I think it might be a lot easier for us to agree on the outcomes. Wouldn't we all want to see more kids bike or walk to school over the years? Wouldn't we want to see more people walk or bike to our parks i

Right, that could also be part of a, like, X percentage of kids go to school on a Pinecrest-provided bus. You know what I mean? It's just that these things will help us over time alleviate some of the issues that we have with traffic around the school areas, for example.

Do they really help us, or just the fact that we're committing to these ideas and concepts and development, the things that we've been doing? And I don't know if I need... Does a number of kids walking to school, are we going to be focusing on counting those, or are we going to provide the infrastructure and the safety aspects that allow them to do it? I mean, I think there's a build it and they will come aspect to some of this. I don't know if setting a numerical goal makes me feel better about it. As a community, I feel good what we've got laid out here as far as alternative transportation,

I think that aspect isn't bad, because if nobody's using the pathways after we've built several of them, You know, either we've got to figure out why they're not using them or they're just never going to use them, so why have them? But I think we will. But I guess having some sort of count, but to set a goal for it, I don't know.

I have a question with regards... I don't know. I worry this could go on forever. I don't know. Okay. But I do have a question. There was a portion of the text that was removed under Policy 2-1.1.3 that spoke specifically about... The village shall establish transportation demand management programs to modify peak hour travel demand and reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled per capita within our community and so on. And that was all taken out. Is that just like it's happened with other aspects of this? Was that moved somewhere else or was this language removed entirely?

Okay, so is this a Miami-Dade program or was it a Pinecrest program?

That's a good idea, because I think that the PDM stuff is kind of like, it's not roadway-based. of ways to alleviate traffic. For instance, transportation demand management would be employment in South Dade. So when Cutler Bay puts in X amount of jobs, 15,000 jobs in South Dade, traffic then improves for Pinecrest because people are commuting south on empty roads. And so transportation demand management is a great idea. We should continue. Just leave it in there.

I did have someone said on two point on two, though. Should we do this now? OK, two. Oh, I'm sorry, but I don't want to cut you off.

No, that's OK. 2-1.5.2, lowering the speed limit. I don't think we have to debate the issue here tonight, but I do have just some I'm concerned about the way it's worded. I would suggest that because I don't think we're, at least I'm not ready to commit us to lowering the speed limit yet. It's something obviously we just did some of the streets. I think the understanding is the study is underway. So I would suggest this be changed to studying the speed limit and say that we will conduct a study regarding the study of speed limits, or evaluating, not a study to reduce. Because I don't want to s

By the way, I'm not really sure that it's reducing cut-through. It's about the safety and the community component, however you want to do it. But I just don't want to make sure it doesn't look like we've reached a decision on that.

Right, so I would change the title. Well, two things now, though.

Lowering the speed limit, period. It's a concept.

No, but I think we should say study lowering the speed limit. But also, it's not conducting a study to reduce. It's conducting a study.

But I would just change both and make it clear. I'm fine with the title, but I would add.

I would change both and make it a little clearer. I think that's a fair point. And I also think it's been there for 20 years and we haven't done it, so.

Yeah, listen, I think the discussion, the debate is one to have. Yeah, that's a good suggestion. All right, got one.

So how is that impacted? No, no, no. We're not multiple dwellings. So we're not saying you take the acre and put a duplex on it. We're saying you can only put a single-family home on the resulting acre.

on those lots. That's what we're saying.

I think the state is saying that you, that the state and the county have some great, I think you can help. State and county have some rule about allowing accessory units, but they're still not, They're still not subdividing. Well, they're not separate units. I mean, they're still part of the same dwelling. Like a single family home can have an accessory unit and not be two units, meaning that it's owned by two different people. It's one unit. Makes sense?

subdivide lots beneath the one acre, well, whatever the zoning category is, but I think that we can't do that anyway, because that's a zoning change, right? We can't do that, right? We can't.

But we couldn't divide. We wouldn't be allowed to divide a multiple acre lot and one of the resulting things be something less than the acre. That would be a zoning code change.

Just the reference to 3.2.3 to opportunities for group homes, housing, and elderly and foster care. I mean, that's perfectly fine. But it looks like it was originally in there because of a statutory, sorry, 3-2.3. 3-2.3.

Yeah, sorry. Objective 3-2. There's a strikeout pursuant to a statutory requirement.

So we're just still keeping it in as a...

I mean, I don't know that we want it as a policy of the village if we don't need one. I certainly have nothing against them in the appropriate context. But I don't know if we have an affirmative policy that we want group homes.

That's what I'm saying. I would think we might want to.

Okay. And on 3.1.9, all the energy efficiency stuff, is that coming out?

Okay, so it's still there. This isn't because somebody's telling us we're not allowed to talk about that. Right. Okay.

Have we given any consideration to mentioning the conversion from septic to sewer in here?

The recycling, right where she was asking, 4-4.3.3, is that recycling elsewhere? Or is the county, it says that those are about assisting the county in a recycling project. Yes. It's elsewhere? You can let us know, I mean it's not urgent.

I have a question about the potable water. On page 60, that 4-3.1, maintenance and expansion, and expansion was deleted, but I know we have what's something like 150 homes that need laterals and we have a whole lot of homes that need to eventually hook up. So do we rephrase that a little bit, maybe maintenance and completion? Or I don't know how critical it is, but we do have.

But are we going to still be communicating with residents or maybe postponing this and putting it off because eventually that comes around? Are we going to be active in trying to remind them to hook up?

Do we know how many people have hooked up from our project that came out?

To remind them there's deadlines coming. It's... Could be, it's an eventuality.

I think they're going to dive right into the comp plan to figure that out.

No, I'm fine. It was just a curiosity. I know we're not expanding it, but we are trying to complete it, because it's not complete.

When I think of completion, I think of everybody is able to hook up and has hooked up.

I'm sorry, excuse me. I have one more thing back there because I just saw my note. Talking about the recycling, we're also promoting, and for you in the audience and listening, we do have our annual recycle day this Saturday from 8 to noon for household chemicals, electronics, paper shredding, clothes donation. And that's happening at Greer from 8 to 12. But should we mention it in on page 67 4.3.4 that we are kind of providing our own annual local recycling center for those hard to recycle items. Which again, it's real easy. You put them in your car. You drive to Greer Park. They tell you whe

Are you going to say that to all of these?

Can we make this a general, this 5-2.1, just a general thing that we will explore, or whatever the verb is, programs, even whether it's for the Everglades and for water quality? And I would also include in the same thing for mitigation of peacock and iguana. Yeah, without committing to the specific vasectomy program. Just because it is. It is. We know what it's saying. But I would just make those general. And I would include the iguanas if we could.

Chapter 6, recreation and open space element.

Just in relation to parks and recreation, so I noticed in the surveys there seemed to be an over-representation of input from residents who have kids that play soccer and that say that At certain times of the year, they have to drive long distances because the village doesn't have enough space to house soccer programs at the scale that maybe the residents are expecting. Have you considered that input? And if so, where in the edits is that being considered?

Oh, in the comments. Yeah. It seemed to be overwhelming in the comments area.

I got the sense it might have been a cool, you know, that somebody got word of the survey. I think they used it.

But it's still a sizable number of Pinecrest residents that are asking for it. So even if somebody got word of the survey or promoted the survey so that other families responded, it seemed to be a fairly large number of families that are concerned about that. And so I'm curious if we're being reflective of that feedback. broader in terms of continuing to expand space offerings?

Well, I experienced that too when it happens only half in a few months of the year, which is when baseball season kicks in. And therefore, the soccer programs get pulled out of the parts that otherwise they would use when it's not baseball season. And so it's not the fault of baseball. It's just the fact that we're not solving for the fact that soccer is a year-round activity. It's not a seasonal activity. That creates the issue and I think that's the timing was just probably that that all these families that would otherwise train in Pinecrest when it's baseball season have to go outside of Pi

So for the sake of this, should we just say explore, continue to explore and expand options? I mean, whatever. Including advocacy, including facts. Including for regional. Yeah, I think it's a, I agree.

We need a solution for it, because otherwise there's, you know, we're, We're not fairly, I think, covering the spectrum of sports that the residents play or their children play equally throughout the year. And that creates a problem.

It's not seasonal. That's the problem. Soccer should be seasonal. Why? It's not seasonal anywhere in the world. The fact that we live in South Florida, so every sport is year-round. Just about exactly.

No, that's fair, but my understanding is that the leagues are not active throughout the entire year. Is that the case or not?

Oh, they'd like to I mean all these sports especially ones where you're paying for coaches and stuff They all want to be active the entire year. I think the village is a very good job of balancing different sports throughout the year So our residents can participate The idea of dealing with the schools to get more field space that is probably the ticket I

I think it's a gap that we have in the plan right now, at least because we don't have a specific policy that states how the nature of the sports has evolved and that we're not, we may need something specifically stated that helps us address the changes in demand.

So just two questions. Well, one is already covered. I think Mr. Olmsted said it. The ones that former Council Member Abbott raised, which was the former. OK, perfect. OK, perfect. This is nitpicky, but it actually, I think it's kind of, I'd like to change it if we can. 9-1.5. It's just a wording issue.

I'm sorry. 9-1.4? Yeah, objective 9-1.5. Oh, objective. And this is just one word choice. It's page 9-141. We say improve security and safety. There's an implication, and this is like I said, nitpicking, but there's an implication in that word that there is a security and safety problem in the schools. And it's really in all the studying and all the analysis we're doing in the schools, there's not, I mean, that's in our community. And I would just, if we could just say foster security and safety versus improve, I know it's a little issue.

And then it says Miami-Dade County will in conjunction strive to improve security. That's fine. I just, as a title, that's fine. Just remove that word.

That's relevant. You earned an extra credit.

I have a question. Considering what we heard from residents in the survey, that public schools or schools in general, I don't know if they were specific, or the question whether it was specifically addressed in public schools. But say the schools in general was one of the top things they mentioned that we needed to actively support. have we added anything new in our policies tied to education that helps address that? I don't know if it's a concern by residents. Are they telling us something that we don't know? Are they expecting that we have more active support in our public schools beyond wha

Yeah, it feels, in my opinion, it feels a little bit generic language compared to the fact, I mean, in relation to the sort of relevance that our residents are telling us that this is, or that this should be given, rather. And shouldn't we be a little bit more committal than just saying we will continue to support high quality and excellence in education for Pinecrest schools?

That's a great question. I don't know the answer to the question. I was just maybe some of us here on the council or other members of the public have some ideas. But it just feels not very committal this way. It just feels like very generic language.

And I don't know if this is going to be much more specific but support and advocate for because a lot of what we've done as a council through the EAC and whatever else has been advocating with the state because we don't could right obviously we don't get to control it but right advocating with the state advocating as necessary with the school board although we have an extremely responsive school board member so maybe that word I mean I know that doesn't it puts a little more meat in there I don't think it it doesn't you know it's a little amorphous but I just wonder what our residents mean by

What do they mean by that? Are there expectations of things that we should do supporting our schools beyond what we already do? Does anybody have any insights into that?

At least my take through the DAC angle and all that is I think they're, I think they want more of that. I mean, I think that what I hear from people about the schools all the time in that setting, and it typically comes up in the context of either working with the PTAs and the schools on their issues, whether it's banners, which we can get to in the next six or seven hours, or whatever else, the speeding, the safety issues we talked about, or like I mentioned, the advocacy issue. So I don't know that there's a, I read a lot of that as sort of continuing what we're doing, because I'm yet to hea

But I'm not sure that there's something else I could think of to add in here, at least in my opinion.

Well, we give them money every year. We give them money, right. They're not our schools. So I don't know if we can do much more than let them.

We probably ought to maybe just leave it at that.

I think the reference to advocacy helps.

I think there is not specific to that element. But in general, and I don't know if the comprehensive installment master plan is the place to reflect this. But we learned recently, as we were facing a threat we're at the mercy of Tallahassee really. This could come back to haunt us in the future again and that our revenue source is not diversified enough and it's a vulnerability in terms of the sustainability of our village. that maybe we didn't think was something that we should proactively deal with up until recently where we thought maybe we should proactively deal with it. Because if we don

Maybe it's in the future land use element where you address, I mean, I don't think we can come up with an answer, but I think we can call it out and address it in the future, right? What do you do? You can do annexations and corporations. You can do land use changes. You can do.

You don't have to address it necessarily specifically, but you would want to address the diversification of revenues.

But you wouldn't know, right? Because if you needed... I mean, like, for instance.

No, no, no. You wouldn't do it, right? You would say, let's examine diversification of the revenues. Which is what's in our strategic plan. If you had a bunch of industrial land that cost nearly nothing to service and generate a ton of tax revenue, that might help. But we don't have it. Right.

And we're also hearing from residents they don't like to see high taxes. But their expectations for services and the quality of services continue to grow over time. We just don't have the right financial equation right now to protect our village from a revenue source perspective.

Well, that's going to come out. I think you're right. I think that's going to come out during the budgeting process, whatever you see. If you run into financial problems, you're going to have to figure out how to diversify.

All right, let's do this. Should we open, what did you want to do next? Did you want to go through the tabs 11 and 12? It's done.

If you want to, we need to open the public hearing on this, public comment period. Does anybody want to comment on tab 10? There's just one. All right, go ahead.

And that's all pretty much standard stuff.

It's not our opinion. Okay. With that, we'll open the public comment period. If anybody wants to comment on tab 10. all that discussion there. All right, so we'll close the public comment section. Do we have a motion? Do we have any discussion?

And we'll have to review it again for the second reading.

We have a mover, and we have a seconder. Do we have, can we call the?

I've got one question. Yes, sir. The area west of 105, 10500 that's on South Dixie Highway, any consideration about taking that bit that's shaded red into that boundary? The area that's just west of the 105 property.

I think it's a good idea. I mean, the transit station is directly across the street from that. I wouldn't see any harm in including those. Not only that, but all the all the commercial even down to 106th Street. I mean, I wouldn't mind.

I would stick with this amendment for today.

I just wonder if there is any discussion about that.

Are we allowed to comment on this? Yes, I'm going to call that up as soon as we get done here. You're on next.

Let's just take that off the table for now.

going there other than what's there right that's why these properties are this one's one is pretty much vacant it's under the alcohol right it's not the best drag on the use for that property yeah i mean that's for a later discussion i think this is a this is a good interim

Just a question in terms of the timing. If is, and I asked this and I forgot the answer. If Would the second reading of this, because it's a comp plan, also be after this is transmitted to the state, or is this a sooner second reading? I mean, in other words, is this second reading at the same time as these other comp plan events, or a second reading of this in a month?

In other words, it doesn't have to go to the state? No. OK. That was OK.

I'm sorry. This is my first time. It's a small-scale amendment. And therefore, it does have to be sent to the state? It does. But it comes back sooner than these other ones? It comes back sooner. OK. Thanks. I just want to have that.

I'm OK with doing this. I think the public in Pinecrest is very well educated. They know exactly what we're doing. They watch the agendas all the time.

The referendum is proof that this is This doesn't raise the hackles of the vast, vast majority of people in Pinecrest. It's the reason we do have a second reading. There'll be plenty of time for people to come out and raise their concerns or objections then. And so I just think this is par for the course. There'll be plenty of public involvement over time. And I think we need to move the process forward.

I would like to hear. I know there's some people who want to speak. I'd like to hear from both sides and then maybe discuss a little more.

Absolutely. Let's open the public hearing. If there are no more comments from counsel.

If you would like to make them, that's fine. You can go. All right. All right. Let's open the public comment period.

You're welcome. Is there anyone else who would like to come? Please.

Thank you. We appreciate it. Anyone else? Please. Welcome back.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. OK. Any debate amongst the council? Look, guys, this is, in my opinion, this is the right thing to do. We've got two undevelopable, effectively, pieces of land. The transit station is right across the street. We need to do something on the US 1 corridor that improves these things. We've talked for decades about property values. And just a quick little story. We sued Dayland when they came in to develop Dayland. And the story was, that they were going to ruin the property values in Pinecrest. Now, statistically, across

Sir? I had a question, but please go. I just had one question. I want to give my comments after. There was a reference, I think it was Mrs. Witkowski, I hope I'm getting your name right, said that there had been, they'd been told that there wouldn't be more. I mean, is there any... either for council or for manager, I mean, is there any sort of covenant or whatever it may be, the development order or something that we should know about in that regard?

I don't want to hijack because I know your comments, Well, actually, I would like to know this, because this to me is, I mean, I do think, ultimately, I do support the project. But I think this is something we have. But if there is a legal issue or something we need to clear up first, I'd like to know. So I don't know if Mr. Sesso knows or somebody knows.

I don't mean to put you on the spot. I don't know. Wouldn't we have any covenant that prevents zoning code changes or right there's nothing i don't know that we've looked at that did you look at that no all right we can go check if there is anything obviously we have to deal with that because that would prevent us from doing that would make it not legal but there's not been presented here can't i don't understand what what

I think the question is, the public said they were promised that this would never go south. I don't know what this is or never go south. Mr. Greenberry asked, was that promise codified by a covenant or anything that restricts land? We haven't had that presented. We can ask and answer that question before second reading so we know.

I don't think she was referencing probably something in the 1970s, when they moved here, and and all of that. So I'm sure it's an easy search through our records, if it happened through post incorporation, or if it happens, pre incorporation, we would have it because the county would have given us the information or the county would have it, it wouldn't be very difficult to find. But

Well, so this misunderstanding played a big part in a few years ago when we had a referendum. And same thing here. And I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. If this gets rezoned, it doesn't mean that it's going to get re-land used and then rezoned.

OK. Re-land use and then? No. No. No, the zoning?

So you can extend it all the way to the district. You can pick one or the other. So what I want to clear up is that it doesn't mean that this all of a sudden gets a four-story building put on these two parcels of land. They could be included in, in all likelihood, a redevelopment of that corner.

just like anything just like when we created the business districts years ago it doesn't guarantee anything nothing has happened on any one of those business districts so maybe nothing will happen here somebody's got to come in with a site plan that fits the code and go through the process of a conditional use right that's what it is so that's not just a site plan That is a site plan on steroids. That means we can put conditions on it. We can do all types of things to balance that development, more so than we deal with in a regular site plan.

It allows for the opportunity to be presented. And then it would have to pass the muster to the community and the council.

So this goes through... This isn't a development. This is a complex. This is changing the future land use map to just expand this district that we already did. The district is already south of 104th Street. We're just adding two properties to it in, in my opinion, a very logical way.

And if something were to be designed and come before us, again, like you said, it'd have to pass a lot of review.

yeah that's when that's when like like any other development comes in or a large development it comes in an application is filed they run it through traffic impact analysis all those studies site plan review anything like anything that's developing on us one um it's months and months maybe years in the making from the time that an application is put together. This is certainly not the last fight at the Apple. This is just providing opportunity out there where none exists right now.

See, in my view, it takes some of this business here and makes it even more palatable to the rest of the community because you don't have all these entrances independent all over the place and the cars trying to come and go. You have something that's a little bit more thought out, developed as a whole, rather than all these individual pieces that make a bit of a complicated puzzle with traffic.

This is old-timey. When did this develop? 50s? 60s? 1950s vintage Miami-Dade County development.

It's past its prime. It's undevelopable. Right? We, dude, we're getting killed in the US 1 Corp. I mean, Mayor Fernandez here, there, again, killing us because we haven't been able to upgrade our zoning code. I mean, we got bacon shopping centers. We've got, people are moving out of here. Hopefully, we'll be able to go to the gym sometime soon. But, you know, there is, you know, this code needs an upgrade. We're talking about, you know, looking at future revenue sources. My God, we got sitting on a bacon. This is a large piece of land. sitting there, undevelopable. You can't even bring water a

So my thinking is a couple of things, and a lot of it's been covered. First of all, you hit the key point. This is an expansion of the alternate business district. A conditional use approval will still be needed for any development. That is a full and rigorous process. And it would require analysis. It would require expert positions. It would include significantly in the points that Mrs. Bogert and Ms. Apasios made are significant about the traffic. And much as we have before, we were all here even past this time some months ago on a conditional use where traffic in the neighborhoods was a cri

But we would even, with that though, we would still be able to review, I mean, again, if the plan was, if it was out of character with the neighborhood, if it was too big, I mean, those would still be, let me not ask it as a leading question. Would those still be factors we could consider? when the site plan approval came up?

Well, just as a hypothetical, if they were to come in with a 30 office building, a building that allowed 30 offices, Right? I mean, again, it seems unfathomable to me because the space doesn't seem to allow it. And certainly, I know that the applicant is not going to be. But that's not the point. I guess if they were to come in and say, we want to put 30 offices in here, and it's going to be hundreds of cars coming in and out all day, would we have some ability to say no to that?

This isn't a site plan. This is an opportunity to get this property into a position where it needs to be so it can be developed.

And beyond that, that's in the narrow use that we're already talking about.

Which would be a condition which would require.

So I have a question in my, excuse my ignorance for this, but when you look at the site plan, it's almost feels, it comes across like a triangle shape, like bordered by US-1 and there's 104th and 77th and then 106th, right? So that would be a triangle, it's like that. Yeah, it's four sides. But if we were to do this, why wouldn't we consider extending the overlay area to include all of the properties that are covered within that boundary? And that way give the residents that would be included in that boundary the option to choose. I mean, by the time that we would extend the boundary, I would

My opinion is over time, that's a good idea. It wasn't contemplated in this, and therefore we can't do it as part of it. We'd have to start over again.

We did invite the community and they didn't show up they're gonna be invited in again and After this, but you asked me to answer the question. We invited the community in. We sent 1,000 of these notices out. We got one email back. A handful of people showed up. Everybody knows about this. If they don't, they will. They're going to come back, and there's no guarantee that we're going to approve this on second reading. We're going to hear from the community. There is no benefit to... This is the process. That's why it's got two readings. No benefit to starting the process and stopping because no

I presume that the public is more intelligent than that because they got a notice. They know that this is happening. I don't think we have to spoon feed them. We never have before. They understand it very, very well. Years and years of them dealing with zoning says that. And they had the opportunity to come tonight. They didn't. They'll either come next time or they don't. It's not out of ignorance and it's not out of not being noticed.

It's because they didn't, they don't care to come and voice their opinion. If this was a resolution that was a one-timer, I think the question of what's the rush is a fair one. I think if this was a resolution that was a one-time vote, it would be worth more considering. I don't want to say it's worth. What you're saying is worth considering. It would be, it's late. It would give me more pause, perhaps. However, I mean, as I've done before, voted yes on something first time, voted no on something second time. I mean, I think, to me, because we complied legally with notice, I think it's appropr

All right, anybody else? No, you can't with a public hearing. No, I'm sorry. The public hearing is closed, and we don't allow two bites at the apple. Does anybody have a motion? This is for tab 11.

All right. Do we have a motion on tab 12? I'll move to approve. Ms. Clark, we have a motion and a second.

We don't need an open public comment on 12.

Yes, that's my understanding. Okay, call the questions.

By the way, we now go into the second look.

Second look. Halfway done. We are officially done. This is going to be fast. What have we workshopped here? All these? These are the land development regulations. I just want to remind everybody that they voted 67% to whatever the other one is not to send every one of these things to a referendum. We've crossed that bridge. This would have been gone to a referendum if that craziness would have been supported by that's very

Can you quickly explain the ones with no issues? If there's no issues, we'll open the public comment period. And then we will vote on those one by one. And then if we need deeper explanation on something else. So which ones didn't have an issue? You can just list them.

So this is not, this is just a... conditions because they haven't submitted reviewable information?

Got it. All right. So it's not like it's being denied because it doesn't pass muster. It just hasn't been reviewed completely. That's correct.

before that on second that they have to deal with all these issues right because if for instance they were to come back um and we would not recommend approval on second reading we could just then deny it Right. But this moves them along. It's time, it's money. Potentially, yeah.

Are they looking at the number 12? Is that set for now? I mean, there still seems to be a murkiness for me between the instructional studios for dance, karate, and so forth, and the health and fitness establishments. I don't want to throw a new, it's too late for metaphors. But is that one being reviewed? I'm just, are we gonna get any additional information on that distinction? If not, we can address it at a later point, but. Just this notion between a dance studio, you know, dance and karate, you know, we took out aerobics and health and fitness, but then there's health and fitness establishments. I mean, it still seems to me It's hard for me to tell where the line is between those things.

I mean, it may be something we wouldn't allow, I don't need to throw that in right now, but I think it's something to think about, or maybe just defining it a little more clearly, but.

I mean, if these are sort of boutique-y type studios, the number 12, I think that's fine, and 13, I know what we're talking about, but maybe it's definitional for now.

And I'm assuming you're just clarifying what already exists.

Yeah, and making sure that existing arrangements are protected. And I think, Councilman, I think you were about to explain them, so you'll do a better job.

You said it better than what I was going to say.

Yep. My recommendation would be to include the language in what's in this language that Fernandez proposes in what were in the document, and then write it for first reading. And then if there needs to be a clarification for second. But I think putting it in there, I think there's a presumption that it's appropriate. So I would put it in there.

But Graham, you're good with that? Or no? The wording on two is still. Blink twice if yes.

But even that, if you owned a piece of Sunnyland and then you skipped a piece and you owned another piece, and your two pieces could affect the people in the middle, it still seems odd to me that you would allow two more uses on separate sites.

But I guess if they were to come to an agreement, right,

Well, they have an agreement that you don't even need number two, I think.

I just want to make sure the wording is right. I mean, there's no S on the use. So I assume that's uses. But in our code, it's written, the or separate sites is struck out, which makes sense to me.

Page 81, and actually we might want to, maybe we rethink this a little bit more, but for a new home that exceeded certain square footage, at some point in the past we decided a list of environmentally friendly designs that we wanted to see incorporated into the structure. Part of that was the idea of having permeable driveways. And at the time, this idea of everybody seeing these blocked concrete driveways with the fake grass strips in between them became something that was considered permeable. which it isn't permeable whatsoever and so we have dozens and dozens of these driveways put in beca

And these other, like a SEER 15, I don't know if that's the current standard these days or if that's changed to a higher SEER rating now.

So just my thoughts on the driveway. Just take out D altogether would be my suggestion.

We agreed on that last time, right? You did.

Okay, so we can hold. Is there any rules on the second reading?

Because we have a short window between meetings, it may not make sense.

All right. So with that, we'll open the public comment portion of the meeting for tab 18. Wonderful. Nobody? All right. We'll close the public comment. Do we have a motion? Do we have any discussion?

I have some follow-ups from some of the feedback we provided during the workshop, and I wanted to make sure that it's incorporated into the new draft, but sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no, no. It's just a few minor points. One was the roof condition standards. I think we had talked about excluding language that mentions algae and mildew. You had suggested decoloring, like something else besides that. But I think this draft still includes algae and mildew.

What page is that? That's here in the front. So that would be in the pack, okay.

Okay, so secondary dwelling unit for family members, yes, that would be within this scope, right? That's chapter 30.

Did we agree, I'm double checking, but didn't we agree that we've said to say that for family members, we wouldn't call it temporary? Thank you. So the rest is chapter. The point on bike racks, would that be within the scope of, would it be chapter 30 or that comes in a different one?

Okay, so on that one specifically, we had discussed the idea of offering some sort of incentive for an X number of parking spots. So for X many parking spots, you would require X number of bike racks. And I think what I've seen is a language that speaks to something different than that. It suggests that a bike rack would be required if there's new, if there's basically substantial redevelopment of the commercial property. And at that point, there will be some incentives offered. But it doesn't necessarily speak to a requirement to having X number of bike racks spots or slots for X number of pa

Council Member Meyer, are you familiar with the county requirements on bicycle racks? So if you have a parking lot over 25 spaces, regardless of when it was built, you have to install and maintain bike racks. You may want to have them look at that. have them research that code a little bit. There may be something there that makes sense without being too daunting.

It's redevelopment of a commercial property to an extent that it exceeds 50% of its existing floor area. So I mean, that's substantial redevelopment. to trigger the bike rack condition. If it's just redevelopment that beautifies the existing development, for example, this condition would not trigger. And so we could wait for many, many years until there are any new bike racks installed along US 1. I mean, until we see some major redevelopment, we won't be seeing substantial change there. And hence why I had suggested that we include some incentives or some language that changes that, right? So

So we can just note that as for a second reading.

Okay. You guys ready? Did we open the public? No. All right. We did? Okay, thank God. We have a motion. I'll move. I'll second. All right. You call this one?

Whenever it happens. Whenever you get the ad out. OK. Raise your hand. Is anybody here for anything specific at this point in time? Or is this just entertainment?

Let's knock them out. ASAP. I don't think I'm doing my best work.

So what do we have to do to get to the executive session?

You have to agree. Thank you all. Thank you. I don't know why you're all here.

Anybody here on tab 13 wants to speak? What's tab 13? Chapter 2. Chapter 2. All right, nobody. We're going to close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on tab 13? I'll move. All right, do we have a second? Who moved? Second. Ariel moved. Fairman seconded. Call the question, please.

All right. Anybody here want to speak on Tab 15? Seeing none, we'll close.

All right. Seeing none, we'll close it. Do we have a motion? So moved. All right. All right. Fairman and then Jerry seconded it. All right. Caller.

All right, anybody want to speak on 16? So none. We'll close it.

All right. Motion? I'll move. I'll second. All right. Motion to second.

Okay. Anybody want to speak on 17? Seeing none, we will not. Ms. Clerk, anybody online that wants to speak? I was going to ask. I thought I'd ask once tonight. Motion. Move. Okay, Mr. Prado kind of did a motion, and Mr. Meyer kind of seconded it.

I still don't like the idea that we're going to write citations for people's mildewed roofs. That's their only issue. I agree. And we've decided that we're going to allow them to put 30-foot skeletons up in their yards all year round and their lights all year round and everything else all year round. Yet, if they have a dark roof and the rest of the house looks great, we can write them a citation for a mildewed roof. I'd rather it be part of a... And a comprehensive, the property is in shambles and needs to be fixed up, if that's one of the items, fine.

It would be affecting like... The fascia of the house, the sides of the house.

I can distinguish a barrel tile roof that's got mildew and the rest of the house looks really nice. I can make that distinguish.

If it's so bad that the mildew is running down the sides of the house and there's black streaks and it looks in, then I get that. But that's not just- Well, you want to say- Because I think we've written people citations for just having a mildewed roof.

Related to the condition of the property, right?

Well, OK, even, I'm sorry, but even a warning. Because the warning, they have to go, you're telling them they have to go pressure clean the room.

Well, if we got rid of it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

I've been on a ride around where we weren't excited at the fact that we were writing citations on Mildred Roof.

I know the case of a neighbor that has a house. I mean, it's a 1950s home, but they keep it in good shape. But they did have a discolored roof, or it was darker versus, I don't know, charcoal red. And they received a citation from us, and they had to hire a pressure cleaner to come in and clean it up. basically deal with the citation. They were so upset they believed some neighbor had ratted them out. But that's the kind of stuff that I, I mean, the rest of the home is just fine, but they were issued a citation for the roof.

We're allowing a lot of other stuff to go on, and we're going to, if you happen to have a roof that gets mildewed and the trees aren't blocking it from the street view, you're going to get picked on. I think if we're going to allow a lot of different things... I don't think we should be writing citations on their roof color.

But it becomes a citation. I mean, if it's a warning, no way.

But if you get a warning, if you don't do it, it's going to be a fine. Then you get a code. He looks at the code he says oh the code says you have to do that I'm just having a tough time But A roof that looks, whatever, it's a natural, whatever, conditions, it's dark. It could be dark tile, it could be dark.

I agree with you. I'll support you. Make a motion, I'll support.

I'll make a motion to extend the meeting past midnight.

If you don't get those next two, guess who stays on council? You better not.

Go ahead. So on the notion of the roofs, I would move to just remove the requirement of cleaning up the roof from mildew. You know, I trust the homeowners that they'll take care of their own homes. And if they're not doing it, it's because they can't do it. That would be my inclination. I think if they don't do it, it's because they can't.

I guess my thought is it seems like it's a common thing in other places. Look, I understand the point about you don't like the skeleton. No, and listen, it's a fair point. You're making it. But to me, I'm not sure why we're eliminating it entirely if it's being enforced with discretion and we're not forcing people And they're working with people. In other words, I'm a little concerned that we're just taking it out entirely when it's not a problem. I don't know that it's a problem. It's also a little hard to make the decision right now, candidly.

I'm not. A roof in and of itself alone shouldn't be the reason to get a violation that you're not maintaining your property. If you're not maintaining your property, you've got a lot of others, and the roof is one of them, that's fine. But you've got a nice looking property, so your roof is mildewed. I mean, it's going to happen depending on how the trees and the sun and everything else is positioned and the type of roof you have. So is it really detracting from the village that this $6 million house has a mildewed roof? I don't think so.

So is there something we could do that would work? Because your point's good. I mean, but maybe is there something we can do because it's first reading now. Is there something we can put in there that allows an option if it's so pervasive or so something, whatever the word may be, so that there's at least the ability if it's a true problem. But your point's a good one. So that it's not a ticky tack foul, but is there some way to, is there something we can do?

Discoloration sounds like it opens it up more to more like I don't like the mottled look of your barrel tiles. I don't know.

If the mold and mildew condition roof is detracting from the rest of the structure, I mean, it's creeping down the sides of the building. I'm cool with that, but just to.

They're using their discretion, I think, to, like, hopefully they're not going out there and touting.

No, but they're writing citations. Again, when I wrote, we wrote a look at it, and it was like one of those. You didn't agree. We don't really like doing this, but we do it because somebody in the village says, oh, melted roofs don't look good. We're not writing citations. Well, warnings, whatever they're. You're still going to be fine.

Yeah, but who says they're right? Right, but who says they're right?

It's the code. Well, there's a lot of things to keep in check in the village. And picking on people's roofs on a nice-looking house, I don't get it. Plus, there's damage associated with doing this work.

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that too. And we can now battle this out maybe on second reading if we do that.

I'm open for some other language on the second reading.

Give me suggestions. Well, nobody's got any suggestions now. We've been here for six hours.

So can we, is it possible to, rather than try to craft language on the fly, to prove what we have now and then at second reading we address it? With the instruction that's somewhere around the second.

I can't think of anything more I'd rather see than that. No, I actually think it would be.

Just make sure it's not mine, and that would be weird.

It could be mine. I think that would be helpful.

Look at that roof. I bet it's got mold all over the place, like stuff falling off. Does anybody want to speak on tab 14? Sides up? Please, please, Mr. Peter.

Motion. So would the motion be to approve with instructions to, what do you think?

We're just approving it and then we'll have some language for the next meeting and we'll decide. Perfect.

You'll come up, but you got a month. We'll have to go back to the drawing board. Okay, so we have a motion to approve it. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Yes, aye. Aye.

We better hurry it back. Okay, so Jerry, can we do Peacocks and Iguanas later? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is there any...

Just a quick thing on peacocks and iguanas. What I was going to ask the manager, and literally it's one question. I would like to, maybe for the next meeting, but certainly by budget time, I've had a number of conversations ongoing about the iguana issue and the peacock issue, and it seems like a big issue. A big problem is the bottlenecking is the trapping. And one thing that has been suggested that we should look into is the possibility of some sort of uh either staff increase or contract you know really to up the trapping personnel for both animals to the extent possible so i would just ask

What are we going to do with them once we catch them?

We can sell them to certain businesses. Yeah, exactly. Cook them. What, the iguana? Yeah.

We'll get that scheduled. There's no... Tab 22 and 23. Ms. Clark, there are no reports from you, hopefully?

Excellent. Mr. Attorney? Nothing beyond the executive section. All right, tab number 22.

I wanted to suggest former council member Jim McDonald for this position. My big thought process where he's not running through re-elections, he's been here before. He's reasonable, rational, no learning curve, not on Facebook as far as I know, and dealt with budgets and dealt with all the issues that we will ever see over six years. Solid person. Nobody better for that job temporarily than Mr. McDonald. And he lives in the right spot. And he lives in the right spot.

I do want to just address one thing and ask Mitch to weigh in. I support this, I think, for all the reasons you just said. I have discussed extensively with Mitch, with Mr. Bierman, and with Robert Myers, who's the ethics guru in this county. And they both have blessed it just with the issue that Mr. McDonald's firm, let me be very clear, the firm with which Mr. McDonald is of counsel, He is not a partner. McCluskey McDonald firm, but he's not the McDonald in the name. He's his brother. He is special counsel to the village on the Megalodon matter. But because my understanding, and I'll just as

And thanks for all your explanations and work on that issue. Motion.

It's a resolution of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida, calling a special election on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026, establishing a qualifying period, providing for the conduct of the election, and providing for an effective date.

Okay. So do we have a motion? Does anybody want to speak on that, by the way? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Do we have a motion?

I'll move. I'll second. All right. All in favor?

Can we discuss it first? Oh, sure. So the one thing I think we should discuss is the amount of time that people will have been officially noticed to run for this seat is going to be a little bit more limited than a normal election. Do we want to push the qualifying date to August for seat three or keep it with the June? I think there could be considerations both ways if you If you've already known that you're going to run for seat three because you've heard the grapevine that it's going to be open, you're going to run, then you're prepared perhaps to go in that week in June and qualify. If you

Well, it's the everybody. We had a discussion about notice earlier today. I don't think you sending out emails while they may go to almost everybody in the village is the same thing as the clerk sending out an email, which she has prepared already, anticipating, but could not do it until tomorrow at this point. Is the same thing and I'm not what's that today or today? And I'm this Nothing else just bring this up for discussion because I don't want to make it appear that we're gonna give this we're gonna give you a five-week qualifying period for this one seat because Whoever's running is alrea

I think you make an interesting point. And if we wanted to over-index on making sure, or at least making sure that we've done the best that we can, as a village to generate the awareness within our residents that there's a seat that's opening up and it's going to be part of the election cycle in November. And we believe that it will improve the outcome of the odds that we will have done our very best if we extended the qualifying period by a month or two just for that one seat. then I don't think there's much to lose. It's a unique circumstance. It doesn't set a precedent that from now on this

I am concerned that people that do know that they're going to qualify or figure in, they're going to qualify in June. The first qualifying period is kind of after school lets out. So people may be taking their summer vacations and doing things. So they may be anticipating the June filing. If we move it to August, they may have made other plans that they have to rearrange things significantly to be back in time to do the qualifying.

Sorry, you're advocating for extending it to August or not?

I'm advocating discussing it because there's pros and cons in each direction.

So one thing, I do think, if I recall correctly from my own situation, you can, if there's a case, you can do it under the statute. It will leave a little bit early if somebody has plans. Because I did it early. And then, of course, right when they changed that form to 6, right after I filed my stupid form. But anyway, that's a different point. I don't think we should change it. I think we should keep it as June. I'm concerned about the confusion of having one seat in June and the other seats in August. You know what I mean. One seat in August and the other seats in June. I think it is plenty

Can you extend the period for a week or two after June and just start at the same date and end it two weeks later so you give them 60 days from today?

Am I? I mean, the charter envisions even having a special election within 60 days under certain circumstances. So I just feel like it's enough time for people to do it. And it is a two-year. I mean, and by the way, the term will be up again in two years. So this is a special election. That's what we just called it.

So I think it's .. Not for nothing, but if you're in Pinecrest elections, if you're on vacation in August, you're not going to win the election.

All right, so if we kept it in June, what is the timeline for communicating with the residents so that they're on behalf of the village?

In other words, the clerk is ready to go. Fire away. Motion to adjourn.

All in favor. All in favor of the whatever. Did we move it?

All in favor of tap 23, say aye. Aye. Aye. There you go.