P&z Board - Regular Meeting

[Music] Who's the vice mayor? Vice chair seat. Just call the meeting to order. All right. Uh, we have a quorum. So, let's call this meeting to order, please. Roll call. Starting with roll call. Board member de laier present. Board member Julia present. Board member Leonio present. And vice chair Rodriguez present. Vice chair you have quorum. Thank you. Let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance

to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll have a moment of silence.

Thank you. May be seated.

Mr. Clerk, the first thing on the agenda is the approval of minutes. I file a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second that motion. Okay. Roll to approve the minutes. Board member Deasier. Yes. Board member Julia. Yes. Board member Lonzio. Yes. And Vice Chair Rodriguez. Yes. Okay. The minutes have been approved. Okay. Do we have any public comments, Mr. Clerk?

No one is online. And I believe we have no public comments uh here present as well. Okay. So, we'll move on to our our next agenda item. Uh, it's five 5A, correct? 5A.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Um, please be advised at this time that the following items on the board's agenda are quasi judicial in nature. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you do not wish to be either cross-examined or sworn, your testimony will be given its due weight. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses on their be when to sorry to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the board to ask questions of staff or witnesses on their behalf. Persons representing organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for that organization. Any person presenting documents to the board should provide the town clerk with a minimum of 10 copies. Further details of the quasi judicial procedure may be obtained from the clerk. At this time, the matter that's before you uh is u Mr. Carlos Andres. It's variance 2025 0286. Uh and what would be appropriate now is for all those that are going to be appro giving testimony to be sworn in. Mr. Chair.

Okay. Those individuals who will be providing testimony, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide is the truth? Nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. At this time, Mr. Chair, it would be uh wise if all those who have had any exparty communications and have not previously disclosed it to disclose it at this time. I have nothing to disclose. I have nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose. And nothing to disclose on mine. We've all turned in our exparte uh official signature declarations. Clerk,

Mr. Chair, at this time then uh it would be uh the first thing is for us to hear first from the city uh and then after the uh the town has uh presented its uh case, then the applicant will be provided an opportunity to provide theirs and then anyone from the public can provide uh testimony as well.

Excellent. City's ready for town. Hello, Justin Teleria, transportation coordinator. Um, representing, as Lorenzo stated, VR 20250033. Carlos Andress is the applicant. The location is 14530 Dade Pine A and staff is recommending denial for the proposal as shown in the attached plans. And the requests are three variances or three requests, sorry. And the first one, there's actually a typo. It's supposed to be from section 13-16005. All of them are in the waterfront properties section. Um the first one would be to permit construction of an accessory building with a total area of 428 square ft, which would exceed the maximum size of 150 square ft. And the second request is to allow expanding the pavers beyond the tie line to 915 square feet where 225 is the maximum allowed beyond the tie line. And the third request is to allow pool decking to be located 5 ft from the side property line beyond the tie line where the minimum required setback is 7 and 1/2 ft 7.5 ft. And that's all. It's your turn. Um, at this time, um, we it would probably be proper to hear from the applicant. Okay. Good evening, um, vice chair, board members, and town management. Thank you

for your time. from Carlos Andres 14530 Daypind Avenue, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014. I'm here to request a variance uh for those three items that were mentioned by staff. Uh but before I do that, just give a little introduction of myself and my family. Um I've been here since 1992. My wife has been here since 79. Um consider ourselves, you know, very strong, supportive Miami Lakers. Uh you know, definitely community first. Um, I I showcased that by, you know, my public service uh to the town, been involved with the part three committee. I'm the chairman of the public safety committee, active neighbor in in my neighborhood, which obviously this um application for these uh variances is is good to discuss with neighbors and make sure they don't have any objections to it. And my children, Belle and uh Emry, are here. um their schools of Bob Graham and uh they're happy here to support this cause cuz this eventually will be for them. This is our dream home. This is for them to enjoy um you know their backyard and the beautiful lake that we have, Lake Martha. And essentially what the project that we're seeking to do is an open concept terrace with pavers to uh extend and accommodate the design. This will lead to a new roof and eventually um you know will be a pool that we plan to remodel so that um my girls can have um you know their friends over and not be embarrassed that the pool's from 1980. But nonetheless to start off with my testimony um is essentially there's a third variance on there that uh states that I am beyond the the setback by 2 and 1/2 ft. Uh we're going to wave that. That was actually a typo. Uh that's that third request. Um we don't seek that. Now to go into you know some of the analysis that was performed by staff and we've we've done um our analysis ourselves um along with you know my

architect that's helping with this project. Um I have passed out the uh appendix and letters that you all have received. There's six letters there and those six letters um two of them are are my neighbors uh that I share my yard with that are supportive of these variances. One of them is my backdoor neighbor which would be directly impacted um by this which is Rafael. They have all signed uh letters. So my immediate neighbors are Josie Josephina and Liliam as well. So those are the argument when it comes to letter A in the analysis performed by staff. Now, the the property, if you see photos in there of what um is currently under there's a gazebo in the back, which you know, surprisingly actually is is permitted. So, that was approved in 2003. And um I've attached that as an exhibit. You'll find that in your exhibit D. And um you know, that's above the survey line. Um but nonetheless, it sits there um in the present moment. the the next point which is uh letter C the essential character of the neighborhood would be preserved. So essentially you know the the this design you know obviously is a big investment and it's an investment we want to make for this property we call our dream home um is to extend the roof line. So the you know there is no pergola there is no aluminum roof. This is going to be the same roof line of the house. And um I've ex I've attached actually a exhibit B which is a neighbor that has the similar design. The difference is that he has a wall and ours will be open terrace. Now the the variance can be now we're moving on to letter D. The variance can be approved without causing substantial detriment. Well, um, speaking of drainage, there when we purchased the property, there was a wood dock. That wood dock is no longer there. We removed

that that was affecting the drainage. So, that's that since has been removed. Doesn't show in the in the survey, but nonetheless, that's been res removed. And that's actually included in a exhibit. And that exhibit is uh I want to say exhibit E. Now, the area between the lake and the gate, I I measured it today conservatively. It's probably more than this, but it's 858 square ft of grass, you know, and that's obviously where the majority of drainage goes through right now. Um, and that's also a photo that I've attached in exhibit C. Now the next thing that's that's interesting here and some of the research I've been doing and going through the different sections of the code is that the the actual tie line is um works against us when it comes to the top of the slope, you know. So the top of the slope is actually a little further than the tie line by approximately 4T. And I've actually shown this I took a photo of it today. Um and that is actually uh one of the exhibits as well. And um you'll see that on uh exhibit F. So you'll see that that PA that is different than the orange, you know, ugly PA um is is where the top of the slope I would think is when you go up to it, you see it slowly decreasing downhill. And I know that there's there's um you know in the code 13-6005 letter B there's an opportunity for you know the administration to possibly you know entertain the idea of the slope being the the survey line. The the next uh item is uh e the variance will do substantial justice to the property owner. Um, and I I believe it it would we will we believe it would. Um, you know, so essentially right now when you know neighbors in Lake Martha, they they see my property, you know, where the gate is. And essentially that

is that is a photo that um I've attached. That's exhibit C. So you'll see how my property or our property has that that fence runs into hedges and kind of goes traditionally with my neighbor uh Lily. Um so in addition to that you know the reason why we actually feel that this because of of our property and the way it sits on the actual land we feel that this design is actually more conservative than going according to code because if you go according to code for an accessory building you would have to go 10 ft off the wall that would put us deeper into the area of you know the lake in the drainage area. Uh so we feel that it's actually accommodating that aspect of it. The next letter uh which is talking about the the um the unique circumstance of the property letter F in this case I'm a strong believer and I think this is the most important part of our uh debate when you look at exhibit A which is the survey you'll see that the left side of our home is approximately 44 feet that you know it sits in the front and that 44 feet as you can see technically you can you know modify that a certain portion of that 44 ft. Um that 44 ft essentially has really what has what brings us here today. Um so you know uh that's you know where we have a unique circumstance. The neighbor that I took a picture of his terrace uh lives in my same neighborhood. His front yard is just much smaller than mine. Uh so his property sits you know closer to the sidewalk and uh he has the ability to do what he did without a variance. So essentially, you know, that's, you know, that's that's our our our items that we have for debate. Um, you know, I would we would really appreciate your support with this. Um, you know, this is, uh, you know, investment and beautifification at its finest. You know, it it will increase the square footage of our home, bring up the value for our home, bring up the value for our

neighbors, um, you know, and and the neighbors, you know, and and our family can can gather under this terrace and have a a nice time. Thank you. I have a question to the chair. Go ahead. The uh existing fence that's uh on the property. Yes, sir. Do you have a permit for that? Cuz I see you found it for the gazebo. That I I did my research and there is no permit for that. So that fence is there without a permit?

I I purchased a home with that fence. So, I have no problem um as a condition to remove that fence in order for me to comply with uh code enforcement. Okay. And the pavers that are down that was done with uh all the pavers that I see on the property I see a gazebo permit. No drawing for it. But uh were all those papers approved? Was were all those part of a permit? So when I when I research it's all beyond it's all beyond the tide line which is the same as the top of slope by the way.

Um yes sir. So when I purchased the home those papers were there um and you can actually see that in the survey that I've ex that's um attached to the agenda uh because that's a survey we we got when we purchased the home. Um so uh when I looked at the permit I see a permit for the front of the home of a walkway. So I don't think those papers are there with a permit. You didn't get the permit actual copy of the permit drawings that the uh that this would have been through the county. Um well, when when I looked on there today, I didn't see anything that said backyard pavers. It just said front. It said front with a walkway

when I when I looked at the uh the permitting system. So, I looked at both. I looked at Miami date county and I looked at Miami Lakes and I didn't see anything that said, you know, backyard pavers. Um, so more than likely my my my predecessor put those without a permit in. So you you have an existing pool. You want to change it, make it bigger. I understand.

Yes. The the the pool is is a is a project we're going to do down the line. Obviously, this is the first step. Um, God willing we get this opportunity, but the pool eventually either will be redone where it is exists right now in that kidney shape or we might move it to obviously to comply with setbacks to the corner of the lot. Most people in our neighborhood, they usually go the 7 and 1/2 ft off the fence and they they kind of put a rectangular pool um along the property line. So, those are the two options that we're looking at.

You're now what 9 10 feet away from the property line with the existing pool. That's a good guess. Yeah, I because the and yeah, I didn't measure it. Um my apologies, but I would I would say that's a good estimate. Okay. Yes. Thank you. No, thank you. Anybody else have a question?

I I have a question. So that that area right adjacent to where you were proposing the terrace that's like a what is that area there is like a bedroom or Yes that's our master bedroom because it looks to me according to the survey that even that part of the house was built on top of the survey tie line according yeah it's past the survey Thailand but it it showed it and it was in the paperwork that that was being withdrawn because it was originally permitted and done that way right passed that Thailand like two feet I believe. Two and a half feet. Two feet. Two and a half ft. Yes. Correct. The survey that you submitted um is it the one that says target survey surveying or

Yes, sir. And that what's I'm trying to figure out the date of that survey. Is that when you bought the property originally? Yeah. Yes, sir. And when was that? 2016. Okay. So all those papers and all that stuff was already there. Was the gazebo there or no? Or that Yes. Yes, it was. Yeah. Is this the paper in the in the driveway? Is that the same paper along the side? Yes. And that's where I was hoping that it would say something on the Miami Lakes uh permitting system, but it just says circular driveway with a walkway.

So I made an assumption that it wasn't part of that permit, you know, and was done without permit. And the the terrace that you're proposing in the back is 15 feet by the 28, I guess. 28 and a half roughly. Yes. Yeah. We'll follow the same right now. Do you have any part that's covered terrace in in the the rear side of the home? Just the gazebo, right? Cuz your L is where your pool is. There's nothing there's no covered terrace in that area. Well, yes. The the overhang um I believe is about 7 and 1/2 ft give or take. Yeah. You know, my my brother house my brother's house is very looks kind of like this. So, I kind of had an idea how it looks inside.

Yeah. Yeah. There's there's some models that are similar. Some are whatever reason 100 ft more. So, yeah. I have no further questions. Thank you. I have one more question for the chair. If you when you're no good, go.

No, no. uh you have an area that is 311 by 359 now that you could actually build in if you changed the pool and you made the pool within the within the millimes of the property line. You could put the pool on the property line, make a 12t pool. It still would leave you 18 feet clear where you could set up a kitchen along that 35 foot line and do whatever you wanted to do in that area without having to come before us for a variance and maintain it all within your property.

Yeah. And and and the reason why we didn't choose that option was for two reasons. Number one, because we're still debating if, you know, we have budget to move the pool. Um, and then the next reason is because quite frankly it's just not the air doesn't flow as good as it should in that area. So when you set in the back of the house, you get the nice breeze of the lake and uh essentially the the terrace is the perfect location um for that spot. Thank you. Thank you. So, one of my questions was answered about the fence and the tideline. And then how many how many feet beyond the tideline is the the pavers? The the existing pavers. Yeah.

Yeah. I want to say well on on one portion of it you have um four feet. So if you're looking at exhibit A that goes beyond the tile line by a pro by by let me make sure I measured that today. Yeah, it's actually five five feet beyond the tie line. Okay. On the right hand side. And then on the left hand side where the proposed terraces, it goes it goes beyond it by 15 ft. The pavers now currently. Yes.

So basically you would you would be taking the area that's already got pavers on it. Is this am I correct? And adding the co cover equal to the square footage of the pavers. No, the actually the idea is and I'm glad you asked that question because I didn't mention it in my testimony. The idea is that we're going to remove everything we have now, right? And then it would be all new, you know, papavers. No, no, I understand it. What I'm asking is the distance from the wall of the home to the end of the pavers, is that equal square footage to what that you want to build in in the new construction?

Uh, yes. on the left hand side. That is that is correct. On the on the right hand side, the second variance is essentially to put the let me show you if you look at am I not seeing something here? Yeah. So the where they get the math for the 900 square ft if you look at the proposed plan and I don't know what page is at on the agenda, but you'll see that there's uh the covered patio terrace and on the right hand side there's pavers across. Give give me one second. Sure. Sure. Absolutely.

Okay. Yeah, I see. Yeah. So, on the left side, the pavers extend to the left of the house. So, you would take out those pavers and not replace them. That's correct. So, that's why you're not asking that other variance. Correct. Yeah. In fact, what ended up happening and it was an error on the proposed plan on the right hand side there's the 2 and 1/2 ft. Right. So that I don't we we dismissed that variance. Now on the left hand side there's actually pavers there now and when we put the new papers in they will be removed and not added back because that will comply with the 7 and 1/2 foot set back. Do you know staffwise all the way across

the pavers on the right that were there from before Is he going to run into an issue? Yeah, I believe so. Yes. Is any obviously there there had to have been a variance for that or if not they're not they're done without a permit and not legal cuz if you need if if it's 7 and 1/2 ft from one side, it has to be 7 and 1/2 ft from the other side.

Well, I I I will tell you that um we went through this when I was on the council. Um and in in in my own home, there was an issue as well. Um and in 2000 when the town became a town, um the amount of paperwork that the county handed over to the town was in a um a box of where you you get the uh the paper the loose the paper that goes into the copy or copier box. And I think it was a maybe an inch thick of documentation um from the county. Um so there may be a variance before 2000 to this because he bought in 2016. It was already existing. There may be a permit and we'll have no way of knowing that because the when the county transferred that information over and this was told to me by uh the pre previous building officials when we were doing some research um on my property specifically um we found this out. So that's why I'm asking you, sir, because you're you have 15 ft of pavers now, but you're asking for 19 ft, right? And is 15 feet not I mean, I'm seeing what your neighbors are seeing because I see the pictures that you provided from the backyard,

right? So, and you have an existing gazebo, which aesthetically I don't think it's pleasing. I'm sure that's probably what's happening to you as well. Um, and it's not functional, at least not to to today's standards. Absolutely. you know, um, but is 15 feet not enough there? That's why I'm asking about the 15 feet gap of pavers. That that four feet that you need is I mean the extra four feet, is it that critical to your to try to stay inside the boundary of what you currently have is what I'm asking.

That's essentially what I'm doing. Right. So, and and and maybe and and my apologies if I if I mis misunderstand you, but yes, the the 15 feet that is on there is what I would need, you know, for the terrace. Now, the proposed project and hopefully I'm answering answer your question correctly is that because I'm extending my, you know, the variance for the 15 ft, I'm asking for the the pavers to be parallel from left to right of the property. And that's where the 900 square feet and the second variance comes up from.

And I think the 19 feet, let me just interrupt here, excuse myself, but I think the 19 ft is from the survey tie line. So I guess his house is like 4 feet beyond the survey tie line and then there's the 15 ft of his terrace. Right. That's what I'm looking ex. That's exactly what I see as well. Yep.

That's what I'm looking there. Yeah, that's my concern. My my only thing was the the your proposal you already have, you know, 15, it looks probably a little bit more um of total. Um it would be 19 ft from the tideline. I'm not so worried about the tideline, right? Because the house is existing and it's already been there and obviously they wouldn't let you get to this to this depth if there was any violations that they found. M. So, we go back to it. Am I uh my calculator here? I'm looking at 15 plus maybe two more. Is that 17? Am I looking at on there on page 18?

Yeah, it's showing. Now, I understand. Now I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the right hand side of the property because technically there's 15 ft where the terrace is, the proposed terrace, but on the other side. Right. Right. I'm not worried about the other side. Now I got it because I know you want to equal one to the other. I got you right. My thing is I'm not so worried about the pavers because you'll still have the runoff is is the your your covered terrace that you're trying to build. So I see that from the property line the the edge of the house to the edge of the house to the end of the pavers is probably about 17 ft. No.

Yeah. He's going you the the measurement that I can see here from the edge of the house to the outside part of the column that he's proposing here is uh 13 ft and then you're showing beyond that the u a line a dotted line to show to me it would be concrete that he's adding in there right you know I I I I want to say because I literally was out there uh measuring that before I got here I think it's something the way he designed that but I know for a fact that and the reason why I'm guiding myself through this is because if you notice that dotted line is where the gate is which obviously will come out. Yes. That gate is 15 ft from the wall. Okay. So it's the fence.

The fence. Yes. The fence that is now you're going to run this all the way to the bushes that you have there. It's a fence covered by by bushes. That's correct. Yeah. And those bushes will come out. Um that's all that's that's going all the way to a you have covered by bushes. I saw it in the picture. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Okay. And I saw it before. Right in there. Yeah. It would be exhibit D.

Yeah. Miss Alonzo, are you I know you you guys are against it. The city is the town is against it. Um but he's already got pavers. So for drainage purposes, this wouldn't add or decrease anything from what he currently has. Correct. Correct. U I've discussed with them in the past uh removing all the pavers that are within the seven and a half or five feet within and replacing it with a walkway and all that stuff. Um obviously the pavers are already there. Um extending the pavers obviously is the part that we have more of a problem with because we're making more pavers and that's what's

that's so the total length. Yeah, right. It's a second variance. Yes, sir. And that that second variance was four feet, you said. Uh

yeah, I I did I did some Well, now that my math was a little off because I was you got me on the two feet, but actually I thought I did. You know, it's funny because I might actually because I what I got was 60 by 15. That's what I got, which is 900 square feet. I'm 15 feet shy of what's on the variance right now. Um, but like you said, and and maybe my calculations are kind of, you know, maybe not on point of those two feet because if you notice, the property kind of does a u a downward angle. And I think that's why I'm coming up with 15 ft on the right side because it's going like this. So, you're coming up with 17 ft because you're thinking the house is perfectly square. But, you know, again, I'm going to the

Yeah. And and just as a reminder of what is allowed per code is a detached structure that is 150 square feet with corresponding 225 square ft of pavers underneath. Um which is a little bit more than the 150 square ft that the structure is. Uh he currently has he currently has about 400 square ft of pavers which is already a little bit more than the 225 he's allowed. Um and the structure that he's requesting is larger than the 150 that it would be allowed if it was detached. Right.

Yeah. But a detached structure would make it what? Eight feet. Eight feet by by five. Eight. I mean, something ridiculous. I mean, just asking it. Yes. Those are it would look oddly. Those are small detail. Yeah. Right. But Right. But I'm saying it would look it would look awkwardly detached. And so a 10 by 20 would be 200. Yeah. Yeah. So, exactly. Pretty large. You're looking probably like a 14 by 18. Yeah. Which is huge also. Yeah. I I mean I don't have a problem with with going up to up to the the the paper. I I see. Are we are we done with questions? So we can go into the discussion part of it.

You would need to close um the hearing and then go into discussion. Yeah. Any more questions? No. Are you good, Ro? Okay. What you're proposing is Let me make sure. So, the terrace would basically be the wall of your master bedroom. That's correct. That would be it would be because on one of the plans it has like a little It almost looked like it if it extended, but it could. So, so it's just basically going to be completely the paved area now just beyond your your your master bedroom. That's variance number one, shall we say? Correct. Variance number two is to extend that same deck behind your pool. That's to kind of square it off.

Yes. And variance number three is gone. It's gone. Yeah. All right. Any more questions? So we can clo close uh our question answering question session. We're good. Okay. Mr. Attorney, we're going to go ahead and close and go into discussion. Sure. Okay. So, um if anybody wants to go first anybody else had anything to say just in case. Yeah. town. Anything to say? Nobody. There are no public comments on that.

Not yet. Because we had already we already had the public uh side. Um I'll just go and say I mean I I'm looking at the proposal that you're trying to do. You don't have a backdoor neighbor literally because you have a canal back there or a lake. Um, and you're not going I I have a different definition than the town of the slope, right? So, I don't totally agree with the slope and the way the slope is, so I have an issue. Um, but I think you're going to be bringing something uh functional to your family and and and uh pleasing to the eye of of your neighbors. Um, my only thing is, and then I should have asked you this earlier, um, but maybe the town can, how how far uh, Miss Alonzo, how far from where the existing fence is to where the structure ends if once he removes the fence? I know, but is there is there a a measurement from where the fence?

It's not indicated in the survey. It looks to be about uh 15 feet 15 feet more or less. So there'll be 15 ft of grass between the end of the the end of the construction to to where the existing fence is now. Correct. Well, if you don't No, it'll be not. It's going to the existing not in the not as proposed. Oh, it's going to go up to the existing fence, right? It'll go up to the zixing fence. So, it'll Okay, I got you. He's taking all that.

Oh, yes, yes, yes. I'm sorry. Okay. If you if anybody wants to make another comment, go ahead while I review something. If you refer to your package, the uh page after the survey in your package shows the proposed um configuration and then there's a blowout next to it. It's pages A1 and A2.

Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair. I uh sometimes when you have a uh area like this is in and it's been all done and is allowed, sometimes it's better to keep it than to come before the town because we've never approved anything disegregious as far as going into the area past the tie line. We're talking about going It's 15 by almost

60 60 60 75 ft that he's trying to 60 ft 15 by 60 feet that's

egregious I mean we've had people come in for a two foot 5 foot variance at the corner of the Bach property for a corner of a pool. This is like way beyond. And I mean, he has it and he's maintaining what he has. And if he maintains in the area of where he has the pool, he can actually do everything he wants to do there. I uh I really feel like it's way too much just beyond what we've ever even considered to allow. I I mean that's why that's why I was asking about the existing pavers and going and and using but he has it existing he can keep it right but I'm saying using that

let's say let's say he asked for that variance up to the existing pavers um you know the the 13T or 15 ft that he's got now you but I'm just saying if if it went up to the existing pavers but he's going beyond the existing pavers way beyond which is where where my concern is as well as yours and carrying it all the way across That's my concern, right? I And as long as he has it and it's existing according to the town, right? If if it was there existing, he can keep it, right? Really, when he purchased the property once if it was after the town became a town, he would have to remove it.

Right. No, no. I'm saying if if he chose to go up to I I mean I can I I can tolerate and and pallet that um up to the pavers. Let's say he says, "Look, I'm taking out the pavers. I'm going to put concrete up to where the pavers are and build a roof in that area. You know, it's already there. The that's why I asked about the water drainage and I can deal with that. But going all the way to the fence and that's I mean the house is already past the tideline. So is the pool maybe technically. So, I I understand what Mr. Sierra is saying about moving the pool and but it just it's gonna cause it's gonna cause um I think a a really bad president to allow it to go that far out

and that's my concern. Right. I if if um to to town to the staff if we were to move let's say agree to the covered the terrace component and not the second component of the 900 square f feet. How does that work with the pavers that are there now that we know he's the intent is to replace him. I mean, does he get messed, you know, like will he need a permit to replace the existing? You could approve one request and not the other. You can approve the request for the No, I know. But I I But my concern is if we approve the terrace,

okay, and don't say how many square feet we're going to allow him on the bottom. We know that they're going to replace that PA. Is he going to run into a situation where he's taking out that paper now, putting in a new paper, and then they're going to say, you didn't, you know, you don't have a permit to replace the paper.

You can approve the you can approve the the roof area and the pavers underneath and legalize the pavers underneath and the same with the same action. Does that make sense? So this is this is a situation uh we've discussed this in the past little vocabulary lesson is a situation where we have an existing non-conforming structure right

it could be a legal existing non-conforming structure or an illegal existing non-conforming structure. Whether it's legal or illegal is the part that is in question. If there was ever a permit for it then it's a legal existing non-conforming. If there was never a permit for is illegal non-conforming. Legal non-conforming is what it is. If he removes it, then it's gone. If he doesn't remove them, then he can keep them. Illegal non-conforming, we could potentially ask him to remove them uh by virtue of a violation or some other instrument of the town. Um, however, you may grant partially the PA variance, not to extend further, but to legalize the existing pavers and allow the roofing of whatever square footage you choose to grant because you don't have to grant the entire square footage he's requesting either. Sorry. when when that gazebo permit uh it says it was applied 2003 were you already were incorporated.

Yes. Right. Something that I'm I'm going to stick my is that I'm looking just as far back as the property appraiser goes and those pavers and they were there. It seems staff staff has gone back to 1997 and seen them there. So yeah, they've been there for a while and you can tell that they've been there for a while. Something that that old that back I I would almost consider it illegal non-conforming. No, there's annual pictures. Yeah. All the back all the way back to the 30s. I've seen them.

Yeah. So that's that's what happened with my property. That was an issue and we had to go to aerial pictures and go back and we were able to find that. So, um, have you measured what the tariffs would be if you went right up to where the pavers end now? I'm sorry, Mr. You'd have to open the make a motion to reopen the whole My bad. I'll make a I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing. Second. Think everybody's in favor. Mr. Julia, we got a vote. We got a vote. Oh, Mr. Go ahead. Say all in favor. All in favor? I I I Go ahead. Now you're going to ask now you know. Go. Just do it. So public hearing is now open. No, you're absolutely right. Just do it correct. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, you're absolutely right. I get a step. I get ahead of myself.

Okay. Then they say you didn't do it. Absolutely. Public public hearing is open again. Sorry. Thank you. Um so the And it's funny because there's been so much measurements that I've been taking. It's like you almost lose track of it. you know, something that I was, you know, keeping in the back of my head, um, or, you know, if I were to leave what is there right now

and take care of because on the left hand side, it's non-conforming because it it goes beyond the 7 and 1/2 ft, right? So, if I fix that and I just did what I wanted to, the cover tears up to the overhang. Okay? Okay. So, it would be the overhang that I have now existing runs all the way through the extension. And I take the existing pavers that are running on the right hand side of the property that that uh that 5T it gives me uh 600 ft. Okay. So, um that's what you Sorry. That's with about what you have there now.

No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It would be 900. Let me do the math correctly. It's 900. Nasty there. I didn't do add that up. 900 minus I'm going to count and I can't count. 680 ft. That's what you have there now.

Uh no, that's a slightly more than what I have there now because I'm considering the overhang from the terrace. So I believe the overhang of the terrace is um I want to say seven god I want to say it's it's 7 feet by by 10. I think it's like 70 square feet. I think that I need to follow that that track of the roof. So, um that's what you know it would be. So, I have I we we have no problem you know reducing reducing from the 900.

Yes, absolutely. We'll reduce I mean what I came up with you know um I you know we can reduce what I measured today was 220 ft to reduce that. So it's almost identical to what I have right now. It's just literally reconfigured a little differently. Right. I'm just taking into account the overhang just to make sure that it has a consistent walkway to the terrace. I got you. You want to use that that terrace, the existing terrace now and have a walkway continue to to the other side. Right. Sounds great. That that sounds completely logical. Okay. So, how how big is your gazebo now from the wall? Because it looks like it's almost attached to the wall.

Do you know the measurement of that gazebo? cuz I mean I'm I'm I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to help you here. No, and I appreciate it. So, I'm trying to figure out where we can come up to a happy medium here. So, um so that you would be able to No. And and and by all means, you know, um you know, our number one priority is that terrace, you know, so we can discuss what is appropriate, you know, for the pavers, right? Um that's a decision you need to make. Yes, we're willing, you know, and that's and and I'm already and the reason why I'm saying that, that's why I'm mentioning the 220 square feet, which I I feel is logical based on the concerns we're getting from this board. Um, but yes, to answer your question, I believe that's a might be a 10 x 10 that it's like an octagon shape.

Might be 10 x 10. Yeah. Let me see. So, you'd have 10 out and then the length of the the the length is uh 28. 28 28, right? That's I mean that's a pretty good area. I know it's not what you wanted, but No, absolutely. No, it's it's

so so what what is being I guess thought about in everybody's mind is instead of 15 ft of your terrace, maybe reduce it a little so that it's not remember we're in a precarious situation. It's not like we make a decision on one and it's grandfathered in and we have to do it for everybody but we do have to kind of follow certain you know patterns and stuff like that

and our the board has traditionally been you know cognizant of the overall feel of Miami Lakes and the whole thing the reason why I could go into a whole dissertation as to why there's a tow line and the slope and the green area and the fence and the no fence and all that stuff that make us a unique city, right? And part of what we look at while we're open to variances for this or that, you know, you still want to try to just not do whatever because I personally love the plan that you're doing, but that's really whether I like it or not is irrelevant, right?

The goal here is to try to do something that works for you, but it doesn't set too much of a of a problem and and precedent for us going forward. Again, even though that's technically not a, you know, you just technically speaking, you can't say, "Oh, you approved that, you got to approve it to me." That's not the way this works. Absolutely. Um perhaps one of the things that we could do if we could, you know, pull back that and pull back the square footage of what you're requesting on the pavers. I think that's kind of the happy medium that we're all trying to right get at.

Yeah. I mean, um I don't know if you've designed in your mind you know what would be underneath that terrace and how much room would that take you know can you live with 10 feet can you live with 12 feet um you know I don't know what your plan is for the bottom obviously but right that's what I guess we we reopen this to have the conversation the dialogue because if you go with the detached then that's a different story you know what I'm saying yeah the detach you'd be limited to you know 150 ft so yes sir Can I ask a question just out of curiosity to absolutely No, it's not kosher. You've attached a picture here, exhibit B, to your photo, right?

Is this your house which you have currently there? No. No, that's a neighbor. Yeah. So, that that is a neighbor's home that has that has the same design and his is 15 ft. Um, and as you can see, it's still kind of tight with 15 ft. Yeah. He he that neighbor doesn't have the when you look at the toine the toll line the house doesn't go past the toll line right so once once they did that then he had the he had the space to go um you know so I mean if you you if you go detached then you know you can have 150 50 feet this is going to be 10 by 28 280 ft I mean it's not the 400 or 900 you're looking for

right well The the underneath would be 400, right? There's the existing. There's the existing there. He wants to go way past that. No, I got them all existing across% understand. we start doing it for everybody.

Trust me, I fully understand that we don't want to open that Pandora's box. I 100% with you. That's why I'm saying are we is there an appetite for this board to look at and say you know you have some existing pavers there would going up to that edge of that putting the columns right at the edge of the of those pavers um is that acceptable to this this board and that is acceptable to the homeowner so we can come to a happy medium right and something's already there and

yeah and and the whole thing with the, you know, going back to what staff is recommending that that structure just doesn't fit the, you know, because of where my house is set up. That would put me so far out that I think at that point, you're really, you know, not preserving the look of the neighborhood. In this case, this is again just, you know, following the same roof line, just an extension of what I currently have. And again, I have no problem with, you know, uh the the the pavers, you know, I mentioned the 220. Um if it's something that we need to cut back more on, um I can I can look at really quickly the the area where on the photo that I'm mentioning those um exhibit. So on exhibit F, you know, the those that extension of the pavers there that are the five feet, you know, that's something that we can, you know, discuss there. If it's if there's an appetite for cutting that back, I have no problem doing that either. But, you know, we're we're pretty much very adamant about the terrace because again, it's just and and and this is just a flaw in the design of the lot and the house. Um, it would probably be better if I had more length as opposed to width. It would fit better, but I'm kind of, you know, pigeonheld by the design of the home and I want to keep that design smoothly. Um, so it's uh, you know, that's essentially where our focus is. Any other questions? All right. Um, are we ready to close comments? I'm done asking questions,

Mr. Sier. Okay. So, we're going to close public comments. Make a motion to close or a mo motion to close public comments. Seconded. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm It's been a long day. All in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. And apologize. It's just been a a little bit of a crazy stressful day. Um, any suggestions for this homeowner so that we can

I'm going to I'm going to make a motion and you know obviously subject to friendly amendments as many as you guys want. I'm thinking that um the way to work around this is there's already a structure there. So this first variance they're asking for 428 square ft where maximum allowed was 150. Um if we do a 10 by 28 1/2 that's about 285 square ft. So what I would suggest is a motion to approve a variance of 300 square ft to give them a little play area instead of the 428 but more than the 150. And on the second one, uh, a variance of up to 600 square feet. Um, and that could be done. And I'm just saying the 600 square f feet, not necessarily of new, but of what's there. Now, I'm assuming even to replace a paver, you need a permit. And so that's that's my motion for discussion. So basically one would be 300 instead of the 458 and two would be 600 instead of the 915.

I'll second your motion. Any discussion for discussion on any discussion on that? Yeah, we have discussion.

I'm looking at the uh through the chair. I'm looking at the aerial from above here and there's the exact similar houses right next door with the coverage next door with a pool and everything in there. And I know that he has a covered area from looking at photographs. That's at least minimum 7 to 8 feet that he could actually do his kitchen in in that area. If you look at it without giving any additional variance, I just allowing it to stretch out further than it is. And you go down the line, you see everybody's holding that line. There's one gazebo that's in there. I don't know if it been permanent or not. And then one house that's a bit past the line itself on that block. I just in good conscience. I can't uh I can't extend it for him. So, it'll be up to you all.

Any other comments?

Not really. I mean, I I I see what you're saying. The only reason I'm suggesting this because I I saw the rest of the line. I mean, it really is that there's something already approved there with some kind of a permit uh of some kind of nature. And that's kind of like the terrace better than that gazebo floating back there. But that's kind of where um but I see where the roof line is. Even his right now according to this is pretty much extended beyond. Forget about the gazebo. It's almost the furthest house down. But I mean, I didn't see anything that uh any letter or anything from Lake Martha Homeowners Association on this property either on this variance request if they had been contacted and they approved it or not. I didn't see anything in the paperwork for the m I I don't know if if this if the association has to approve this. They I I don't believe they do.

Yeah. Because it's uh I think the Lake Martha Association is only for the lake. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So that uh I mean they they they actually come in and tell you what color you can paint and what you can do on the property. I have a townhouse on Mara. Yeah. I I think that town houses are a little bit they tell you when you pressure clean your room. Yeah. Yeah. The tin houses are a different Well, they're part of the Lake Martha Homeowners Association. Okay. It's a complete association. Was that something required for the variance uh by the town? I mean, did we that should have been part of the package if it was No, it's not. Oh, okay.

So, I'm going to play attorney now because he's being shy. Uh the town cannot withhold a permit and or a variance just because an association may or may not disagree with uh our findings. They have their own uh declarations of restrictions to um to enforce and we uh do not enforce their declarations of restrictions. Yeah. Is that by state statute or pretty much? Yes. Is it by state statute?

Yeah, we we we can while while it is part of your um consideration as far as the letters of the neighbors that are coming in. So obviously it's one of those important letters like the letters on both sides and the person behind certainly the association is an important letter but it's not you know it's it's a absence is not dispositive of of so so they could have been another party that could have presented themselves today if they had an objection to it

and and presented as as an entity their objection or presented a letter. Um, and I'm not sure if if and I may be completely wrong on this, uh, but I know that there are different rules at least in in this in the town with regards to painting and certain things that can be done on town homes versus single family homes. There's a different set of rules that apply to to each of them. So, that that I know for a fact.

Okay. I don't know if you noticed uh to the to the board um the neighbor across if we were looking on Google Earth um the neighbor across the street uh the the the lake actually has the same home and it's it's got a detached um it's a reverse from from the homeowner

and then it's got a it's got a detached gazebo there. So, and it and it does go past a slope. Yeah. Yeah. If you look at the lake boundary line. Yeah. He actually built a huge beach there. So, all right. If there's no more, I think we're Yeah, there's one that 14710 date Pine has a gazebo in the back that goes out half the

Yep. just part of the roof area like half of what he's asking for and goes back past to the Thailand and has a pool just past the Thailand. That's the only one that I saw.

Yeah. Well, we have a motion on the floor. So, if uh if you're ready to to call for a vote, um what's the actual motion? So, so the motion was to approve uh a variance of 300 uh square feet instead of the 150 um and less than the 428 that's being asked. And the second one is to approve a total of 600 square ft uh where um I believe two

95 225 is a is is our code. Um, and that's because I'm assuming that again the the roof it's not additional. I don't know if I could add that that the the idea of the 600 is not that he could build another 600 ft of pavers to the existing survey. It's basically 600 square feet will be permissible total of of replacement of the pavers that he currently has. What about the variance for the pool? There is no pool. There is no They're not seeking a variance for the pool. They're not going to seek a variance for the pool. Yeah, the third one is out. The third one they they removed.

Okay. Yeah. The pool is um they have not prepared a project for that yet, but he's seeking to design it within within parameters within code. Okay. All right. So when when that comes along, they'll that that what could potentially be of uh something illegal is that the pavers all the way to the fence won't be allowed when they redo that pool. The existing or the proposed

Well, I haven't seen the proposed pool, but I'm assuming when they come in for a permit to pull the pool and the deck. Well, if if you approve this variance right now as requested, then yes, those pavers will be allowed to be grandfathered in. Okay. Well, so so you have to move something for the actual pavers, state actual pavers, the square footage of pavers you're going to allow to be in the area and the size of the building that you're going to allow to be in the area. the square footage of the actual footprint

of the extension of the roof line and roof of the existing structure further out and how many square feet of pavers you're going to allow underneath them all the way across. But the the way that the that the variance is worded the second one is we're talk we're only talking about this maximum allowed uh amount of pavers beyond the tie line. Correct? Not what I'm saying is when they come in and right now there's more than 600 square feet probably there. I'm just basically grandfathering in with the 600 ft what's there. Um what I'm saying is the pool right now to the right.

So the pool pavers right now, right? with the exception of the ones that are beyond the tie line and the ones that are too close to the property line within five feet of the property lines. Those are allowable. If they were to seek a permit, they could get them without a variance. You could do a pool deck all the way to your neighbor. That's what I'm saying. Not all the way to the neighbor 5T. No, that's right. Right. That's what I'm saying. with the exception of those which if you choose to approve any varants I will be adding a few conditions and one of the conditions is that those disappear. Oh I just realized that the pavers are all the way down the property line. Yes. Right. That's what I'm saying all the way down the side. That's even more

the condition of approval of anything that you uh prove right now unless you approve those explicitly which is the variance that he was number three variants which he has he's no longer seeking. Right. So the condition of condition of approval is going to be removed. Right? So that's why I'm saying I'm only limiting number one. Right. The new roof in the back. Number two is pavers beyond the tie line. Meaning between the house and the lake, not to the sides. Correct. Because the sides has been seven and a half feet beyond the tie line. Right. Right. Not 5 ft before the tie line, seven and a half after. Right. Right.

Okay. Call roll. Calling roll for item 5A with the motion made by board member Julia and seconded by Vice Chair Rodriguez. Board member Lonio. Yes. Board member Julia. Yes. Board member Deassier. No. Vice Chair Rodriguez. Yes. The motion passes. Any other items on the agenda for tonight?

Uh yes. Uh we have we don't have any more quasi judicial items. However, we have two ordinances. Uh as you know u Mr. uh vice chair uh part of the responsibility of this board is not only to act as a uh quasi judicial board when it comes to variance applications but is also to ask act as the local planning agency as required by Florida statute 163. um and that is to transmit uh the approval or denial or um with you know conditions of any item uh that affects the land development code of the town of Miami Lakes. So for that we have uh two ordinances uh for you and I'll turn it over to the uh BL and zoning director. Um so the first ordinance that we're looking at today um is regarding parking requirements. Um we're updating our parking requirements to comply with new code requirements of the county regarding EV vehicles and u uh parking requirements for people with small children. Um to to add more requirements in commercial parking lots for both of these things. Um basically it's uh um keeping up with the county so that we are um this is the portion where if the council chooses to go above the requirements of the council of the county we may at the but at least we have to meet the requirement of the county. So we're not less strict than them. So this is this is a bottom this is

this is the proposal this is the minimum proposal that that that the town has to accept from the county. This is if if you and again you may discuss amongst yourselves but if you choose to go above the consideration of the county then that's something that would be recommended to for second reading uh next week. Okay. And these are basically I see the 45 degree parking the 60deree parking 75 degree parking that they allow they give developers and the straight in parking. No, correct. I ran I read through all of it pretty much. These are our current regulations for parking

with the exception of the portions that are underlined and double and and stricken. U which comes to figure one. We're adding figure one um for if you see on page 34 um a required signage for uh uh people with small children, special parking for people without children, which right now we don't have any regulations requesting that. So we're um we're requesting that they have Hold on, let me see. That would be number five. Correct. All the way to C. Correct. Yeah, I read. Uh and then uh as far as EVs, um that's further back at the at the very end.

It's further back. Correct. There's no changes as you can see. And we're adding section 1801 uh 1801.1 with um how to deal with EV vehicles. And again, this is strictly meeting the requirement of the county. If you see up to nine spaces, they're requiring no charging stations. is only after 10 or 10 or more where they request 20% of the required parking spaces with one minimum. A question do has the county taken into effect um of the priority of of are these are they trying to put TVs up front giving them priority parking?

No, there's no location requirement for those. Okay. Has the town considered that due to the fact that the something we can consider? Yeah, I mean because my recommendation would be that the town consider moving them as far back from the structure as possible. Um due to the major fire hazard and the issues that you deal with these EVs when they go they go fast, hot and cause a lot of damage. That is correct. And so my suggestion to the council would be to um attach to our ordinance to keep those EVs EV parking. I mean, if you're going to park it, okay, but if you're going to put it on a charger, chargers. Yes.

Yes. And and keep it as far away from the structure as possible. The requirement is for electric vehicle charging stations, not just for parking. Right. And that and this this will only affect new or new parking new parking areas. New parking areas or or refurbishment to bring it up to code or whoever. Yes. Right. Whoever's refurbishing a parking area, right? Yeah. If you make it Yeah. No, we wouldn't change it if you're doing a black top to I mean refurb complete refurbishment. I would think if you're repaving repaving black top maybe not but repaving and rec redoing a parking area and re seal coating and repainting. No, not that because that would be

because that would be normal maintenance. Yes, that would be an unburdenance. That would be an unburden to the property owner. I would Right. Right. Right. That's what I'm saying. Normal maintenance shouldn't require them to bring in EVs, but if they're wanting to do it, they should. Actually, it's a good idea. Not that I don't have one, but it's it's a good idea. And keeping it away from the building is also a good a great idea. Absolutely. It's uh just seen too many EVs go up, especially while charging. Mhm. Um and they they go so fast um that it really it really um you almost have to pull the car away from the structure to put it out because of the time it

as a fireman. You know that it's it's almost impossible to put them out. Absolutely. And that's why our next fireman actually retired fire. It's like a marine. You're always a marine, you know. Um but yes, we we that's something that I would recommend to the council. We do not see a provision as to whether it applies to refurbishing parking um area. So maybe we need to add that too. Okay. To uh whenever there's a new parking configuration and not just a repainting a reconfiguration of the parking lot. Yes. If they're just repainting seal coating and repainting the existing it should not

and 20% Now, can a non-EV car park in front of one of these EV chargers? It doesn't state that here. You can. Yes. No, you cannot take up one of these spaces if you're not charging. As a matter of fact, not an an EV vehicle cannot be there if I don't care if it's a county or who the hell it is, but they're current. It says it says that here because I didn't read it in here. Yeah. And you can't use them for parking. Not for parking of a non-EV vehicle and not for parking of an EV vehicle because it used to be 10% in the county. So they must have changed this to 20% recently. This is new. This is what three months old. Yeah. And and and does that spot count as a parking spot towards your It does. Yes. Total parking

total. So So it doesn't it counts whether it's an EV or not. It still counts as a parking spot. But then you can't use it. You can't use it. Wow. Well, you can if you have an EV. Yes. But no, only if you're charging. But only if you're charging. But only if you're charging. I mean, it makes no sense. You're not charging. Imagine imagine the parking problem that we have in like let's say go to Cancun Grill and that parking space. We're going to get 20% of those spaces now have to do this EV thing if they refer if they were coming in from from scratch. Yes. That's insane. I'd like to be a devil's advocate. What happened if you I mean I'll be the first. Can I grant a variance like right now? Like a standing I make a motion.

How would you have a standing variance for everybody? when when and if they get them handicapped vans they'd be charged there. What did that for transporting people you know that they have? Good question. I don't think we make handicap spots with an AE charger. That's my question. It's a very good I mean at some point they're going to come up. Very good question. They will. It just hasn't. At some point they're going to come up. I haven't seen one myself. Right. And and and I have I have one more question. and and maybe you can answer this. It's nothing to do with this, but I do see a lot of handicapped people use the uh young child parking space.

They can they can they can they can because they can park anywhere. So, if you have a handicap tag, you can park in any legal parking space. would I would suggest that as well to the council to maybe tag it as you know additional use or maybe I don't know if it's going to cause because I I seen the fights between people that are handicapped and people that are that are have young children because the spot was taken by a handicapped person and then they're like well that's not tagged handicapped that's for you you really can't park there so it creates some animosity I can see it on the other on the other side if you if you tag it with both Then yes, it would really create some.

I think the handicap can can park in the in the uh child, you know, the child, but the child cannot park in the hand and you know, tagging it would be problematic because then you're just going to sort of like create even more conflict. If this is one of those if you know, you know, right? If you know, you know. I gotcha. Okay. And I I as as somebody that has driven a person with a disability for many many years, I can tell you that you can park anywhere that is legal, including blocked spaces. If it says that is this is for Dr. So and so and I'm parking there with a handicap tag, they cannot tow my car from there.

So just Yeah, the handicap overrides overrides. I know I know the county is doing u they're trying to do an uh an abuse of handicap campaign um right now which is a different it's a definitely another story yeah they should there's a huge there's a huge push okay anybody else have any more suggestions for this parking requirement update other than I mean how do we is there any way to to to to

this define the thing of of a refurbishing or something like that that this is not like cuz I don't if it's a new build you could design around this stuff but some of these older shopping centers I mean even the new one that uh the Grahams just built over there where QC is at they could they could at this point do whatever yeah but there because they knocked down the whole building and then they were but you know no but they have a lot of parking there they have a lot of they have the ability to do it there yeah I mean no they have a lot of parking there way more than they need for I talked to the architect Yeah, they have way more parking than is required. Yeah, but at the one right here on 67th Avenue where Vicky Bakery is, where Vicky Bakery is,

that would be a huge inconvenience if they did redesign their Lake Patricia. No, and it would be And I'm And I'm not even thinking about the inconvenience for the land owner. I'm thinking the inconvenience for our residents because if you're saying that I could only use that space if I'm charging my EV, that's useless. That eliminates 20% of of the parking spaces. You do that in any of our shopping centers and we're going to have an we're going to have people parking in the middle of the street. Lake Patricia has a lot of parking in the back also that most people that people just don't know about it, but it's there. I I use it when I go there. Yeah, it's easy. It's much easier to park there and get in and out than in the front.

Is there any way to define how this applies for a, you know, can we just say that it's for new parking spaces and let if if you or at least suggest obviously we don't have the decision the the council is the one

right now I have two considerations for your uh recommendations for the council member they're going to hear this next week on second reading so your recommendations will form part of the memo I will not change the ordinance because it's how it was read in first reading but I will add all your recommendations to the memo and I will present them to the council as this is what the planning board recommended and if you choose to, you know, make a motion that these are your recommendations, I will add that to your memo. So, the two that I have right now is the location far away from the main structure and number two, the the configuration um what uh when they're reconfiguring the parking lot, not just repaving and and restriping.

Right. So when there's true reconfiguration of a property, basic maintenance, your your basic maintenance is seal coating and rec. Don't say repaving because repaving. Yeah, repaving. Then you could have force them to make a change. But seal coating and restriping would be the one. Any uh and you want to bring in your idea, Mr. Julia, please suggest it so we can Well, my my only concern is like for example, sometimes when you go in and you have to like redo the French drain and that kind of stuff. How is that considered in that refurbishing? Yes, that would be a refurbishing. That would be that would be that would be subject to drainage work.

That is structural. I mean I mean so so so basically what which what if you're the owner French drains last a long time 20 30 years. I know but I could tell you of of a couple in in shopping centers that I know that the French drains there has to be a problem with them because they flood like two seconds. They probably have plugged something. Yeah. But with Windixie for example there's a there's a rainstorm in Haley and it floods the parking lot in Windixie. I don't know how that works. So they do have a there's something going on there. And I I would hate to see somebody try to fix that and then oh no now you got to put 20% of that into oh man

add it as as add it as periodic maintenance for as long as they don't I guess if they they're just repairing an existing French drain and they're not reconfiguring the parking they're not doing anything else other than repairing the French drain and the parking spaces are staying again uh same way you're not changing in my opinion you're not changing the architectural design of that parking lot. Can we add that as part of maintenance? Yeah, you could replace the existing French train or actually make it a little larger if it it requires because it it wasn't properly configured originally. Uh right. But you're still not changing

you're not changing the layout of the park. Exactly. You're not changing the layout. We can consider that consider as part of maintenance and attach it to your but still drainage to the to the main you know as long as it stays in the existing area you know and doesn't reconfigure the parking lot I I don't see I mean I I really don't this could bring a really a bad undue burden on these property owners you know um that have to upgrade you know the only caveat that I have to add to that is that if if the county's regulations require require them to add these even if it's just a repaving and restriping then we don't get to say less.

Am I correct? I think that's and that we would be preempted by the county in that that's the council's battle with the county and I think the council should take that up with the county and every other of the 33 cities that we have that should be battling this you know because this really unencrous each. Yes. Yeah. Well, that's just a purchase. That's just a purchase. Yes. That's without doing the actual

And if you don't have and if you don't have the electrical backup, then you're putting in a generator, which is genius. It's genius with these EVs. You put a generator that runs on diesel to charge the EVs so you can save. So, you know, it's it's a great system. I saw it all through California. And they have all really nice, beautiful generators. Huge generator running diesel running running diesel um to charge the EVs. It's true. I know what you're talking about. I got pictures. And then the EVs are a lot heavier than the regular gasoline cars and they're putting more tire wear

more stress on the roads. more stress on the roads and more particles of the tires that are going into what the drainage system that we're just talking about. Exactly. Yeah. So, um any other suggestions? Parking enforcement on that. That's not covered here. So, this is private parking areas. Um we do not necessarily enforce parking in private parking areas. Am I correct, Mr. Yes, that is correct. No, because I mean my my cons my you know I have a consideration for the land owner and but I'm just thinking outright for the consumer

park there or not parked there with the exception of handicap parking which is the only exception. This one doesn't have one of those $250 if you're not a Okay. However, private parking areas usually run by a contract with a towing company where they the private property owner has some sort of contract with a private towing company that does their own. Well, Miami Lakes Police can come in and ticket somebody that's in a in a handicap spot. In a handicap spot, even though it's private parking, even if it's private parking. Yes. Okay. I want to make sure that's correct. That's correct. But no other kind of parking. If you're parking in the 10-minute um dry cleaner spot, police would not get involved.

I believe in the child the the young child parking. It is an ordinance, but I don't think it's not one that they enforce. But I mean, it's more of a Yeah. Again, I any property owner can contract with a towing company. Um I I would imagine that these property owners were not going to tell the I mean, it would be terrible for their business to tell these people. Yeah, tow the cars. Tow the cars. No, that's not going to happen.

Now, a tow company and and Mr. Attorney maybe answer this just to make sure that if we need to add it. A tow company can't just arbitrarily go on to private property and tow cars because they go, "Oh, that car is not charging. It's in violation and I'm towing it without permission of the property owner." Correct. That's correct. All right. You can't. So, we don't need to add that. All right. the hour thing that says on this little thing, hour charging 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Is that also like part of the sign that has to go on or is that just I don't really care, but this sounds kind of weird. Or is that or or is that done on purpose so that after 6 p.m. That's just for example,

you know what's what's and and this is a a good point. Um, the apartment dwellers are coming home from work and they're taking their EVs to all these local charging stations and they're putting them to charge and then their friend comes to pick them up, takes them home depending on what charge level you use it at.

Um, and then the car is charged and there's nobody there. I mean, it it it is just it's one of these things that uh I guess we call it poor planning. Well, they leave them because it takes so long to put a charge, right? And then the next it does catch fire, it's gone. Exly. Yep. All right. So, I think we're done with the the the the do we have two or three recommendations,

M? I think we have two. So, the two configur the two uh recommendations that I've heard are that um that this be triggered for remodeling parking lots when it's a reconfiguration of the parking lot, not just regular maintenance and or drainage maintenance and or repaving. So, that would be a line at the beginning. That would be uh restriping and the uh seal coating, right? Not paving. Not paving because paving requires physical. Right. At some point at some point there's a there's a point where reconfiguration of a parking lot requires adding um handicap spots if you don't have them.

Right. And right now this would be triggered as well. Well, if your parking lot doesn't comply to the present code and you go to pull a permit to repay to to stripe and seal coat, they'll make you they'll make you comply comply, right? So for for the handicap now now there is going to be some paving as part of the French drain maintenance because once they dig up they have to. So, we need to include we need to include that paving to repair that area of of French drain. Again, this is all based on what the county is going to accept. Yes.

So, maybe we'll do it add that that the additional p uh replacement of of current paving for you know potholes or string maintenance or something like that. So that you know it it's obviously part of general maintenance and not additional paving in the area or adding parking spaces because that'll trigger the the aspect. Okay, I think we're done beating that one up. Um beat the dead horse. So do we have So you just have to make a motion to transmit to the council with the recommendations. All right. So somebody want to make the motion. I'll make the motion with those recommendations. All right. And I'll second it. There you go. All right. All in favor?

I I I'm going to make your life easy, Mr. Clerk. Yeah. I'm going to make your life easy. On the qualified judicial, if I'm running the meeting, you can run the role. If not, let's let's move on. All right. So, let's go to our second. Come on, Nelson. Take it easy. He's not here today. No, that's true. have anything yet

on this canopies and accessory buildings. This is only on the canopies and accessory building. This is basically for this west end west of 87th Avenue. Uh no, this is for townwide. Townwide. Yes. So town houses would also be town houses are different than this is for single family homes. It would only be for single family because it does bring in serial lot lines and serial lot lines. Correct. Which are not town houses. Town houses and serial lot lines are different. I know. Okay. So close. Well, steps everything is steps.

Steps. Yes. So this includes single family. Are you are you one and R1Z? So zero lot lines and single family and single family. Are you okay? Townwide. Townwide. Correct. And what we are amending it to be is this is basically chasing u variances that we've had granted in the last eight years since I've been here. One of the most common ones is the one the reducing the distance from the main structure to the to the canopy. Uh we're reducing it to the same uh distance that is allowed in the RU1C right now which is 6 ft.

Mhm. Um but hold on hold on let me get let me is that 13502. Also the roof overhangs say that again. In number three, it says accessory build building shall be detached a minimum of 10 feet from the residence. Correct. That's the that's the existing language and we are proposing that it be reduced to six feet. Well, the 10 ft is under that's part of what you're allowing. Yeah. So that I think needs that might be scratched out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a mistake. That's a mistake. Okay. Say 10 ft is underlined also. So

yeah, because the underline is you're adding I think it says it should be a minimum of six feet. Correct. Minimum of six six feet from the residence. Yes. And a minimum of how many feet from roof overhangs? That's the question. Uh, if you're measuring from the wall, six feet. If you're measuring, if it's six feet, see, that's another thing that didn't make any sense because if you have 10 ft from the residence to the to the thing and the overhangs are only allowed to be one foot each, then by default, 10 - 2 is 8, not six. So, this was one of those things that never made any sense. Overhang one foot.

Yeah. Uh, okay. allowable encroachment overhangs are only one foot. That's what I'm thinking. It's two feet. Isn't a normal roof overhang from like an existing house an overhang can be as as large as the physics allow you to be when you're encroaching into a required yard. It's a foot. No, I know. But I'm just thinking so I'm thinking the person that has already a house the typical house in Miami Lakes right now elo the overhang is what 2 feet two and a half ft again if if it's not encroaching on the required yard it can be up to like the rear because we're doing the rear but if it's encroaching the maximum that it can be is one foot

you can have as big overhang as the architect can design or the engineer you as long as that it doesn't encroach So when you're measuring the six feet, you're measuring and the overhang or from the wall. Remember that all of these are allowable encroachments. So everything we're discussing in this point are things that are allowed to be encroaching on the required rear yard. So by default, we are discussing encroachments on the required rear yard because if they're not encroaching, then we don't care,

right? then this part of their main structure and it could be whatever it is that they want to decide is between their their allowable setbacks. Right? So this is on those last 25 feet that is their required rear yard or the the last 20 ft or the last 15t if they've been granted a variance for a 15 foot backyard. That's that's what we're discussing. Okay? Not not anything that is outside of those setback lines. Right? So, but what I'm saying is, so go back going back to the first sentence, the accessory building shall be detached a minimum of six feet from the residence. Are we talking six feet from the overhang or we talking six feet from the wall? From from the wall. From the wall, right? Okay.

And accessory buildings are sheds, storage sheds, gazeos, storage sheds, um, and now summer kitchens. Now we will be allowing summer kitchens with this, right? Which is good. Correct. Well, we're mentioning summer kitchens. They were never mentioned before because they weren't a thing. So, now we're adding mention of them as a thing, which is a good

But then, so that so I'm reading on page 48 13502 1502 uh sub number two. No, number three. The one that has a 10 ft that I know that's a mistake. It should be six feet. Now the second thing it says and a minimum of blank feet from roof overhang. So and that should be four four. Right. Right. Because so this is where I'm thinking one from one side and one from the other. I know. But that the the roof that's on the house if it's an old house already has two two. Oh tell them to chop off that overhang. Probably not. Well then then you need to move the thing over.

Then it would be no overhang on over here. So that's why I'm thinking maybe we do three so that'll be two in one. Even on a gable on a gable end, is there an overhang on a gable end? No, I have no idea. Oh, is there a gable on a gabled end? Is there an overhang? Yeah, there's a little bit of usually foot. A foot. Yeah, you can make it more. You can make it whatever you Whatever the engineer the hips are usually two feet and I've seen the gable dens very minimum a foot. Right. A foot. I personally think anything less than 18 in looks silly, but yeah, our code contemplates a foot as the allowable for a roof. So that's the we got to go with what we

but that's the allowable encroachment into the setback. So correct. But this here we're talking house to to gazebo. Correct. So we're saying wall to wall six feet. Now it's roofto roof. Are we going to allow four feet? Four feet. Three feet. Is that going to be enough? Four feet. I always thought it was silly just to tie it on, but whatever. No, I I've always felt that you should have it connected, but because getting wet, but whatever. I always thought it was silly to to to have it detached to have it. But it's in the it's the code. Yeah. I mean, I do they do look at the fire code, too, because people are barbecuing.

So, that's why they have it detached away from the home. and now technically summer kitchens, right? So, so this is where like you're absolutely right. Good conversation because this is where this this this goes to, right? We have detached structures that allow a larger space to be enclosed. And then we have attached structures which we have looked in the past which are the ones like we were considering this afternoon which are a different kind of encroachment onto the rear yard which is going to end up being a summer kitchen. Correct. So, and they're both likely to end up as summer kitchens.

In some yards, the detached structure is not even possible. It's just not feasible, especially if you're putting in 10 feet between the the home and the and the structure itself. You end up with a long skinny thing, which is why we I think it was last year or the year before um allowed those to be attached to the home instead of detached. and then now you allow that same square footage attached to the home. Right? So that's that's a little bit of the play that we're trying to do. And again, this is this is all because, you know, all of a sudden these structures are very in vogue and everybody wants one and hence the three million variances that we keep hearing every couple of weeks. Um now what is the right the reason that you have to have some sort of detachment is that then the setback on the sides are five feet right if you want them attached we requested a larger setback which is part of the discussion here as well that's another part that we haven't gotten to yet okay where we're reconsidering for even smaller yards how that works okay so we're not there yet

I see it right um Actually, these summer kitchens in reality should be an extension of the inside kitchen if they're going to have a summer kitchen be connected. And they we as a town should require because you can do it connecting fire two fire sprinklers in that area which can be connected to a regular 1 in water surface by code. You can have two fire sprinklers in these outdoor kitchens to be able to put them out. That's something that he was bringing up.

Yeah, it's uh and you can you can require two heads because they're at 75 square feet and then um you can do it right from the water source. They don't have to have a fire pump. Nope. They don't have to have anything. It just has to be a constant open line right to the sprinkler head. But I don't know. Do we want to get into that? And it's possible by Yeah, they do have residential by the pressure that comes in. You can have two heads in a in a house in any K. You could put it in any kitchen actually, but I would suggest doing it. My concern is whether that belongs on the town code or on the fire code.

It should be somewhere that that it's in there. Uh most of the cooking you do out in the summer in these summer kitchens are things that like fish or whatever. They require hot oil that they don't want in the house to create the smell or the heat. That's what I see. What historically I've seen at people's houses. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm okay without adding the undo burden onto the the resident to add that sprinkler head. Um but if Mr. Sierra would like that makes sense,

right? Right. No, it does make sense. What would be nice is u maybe offer it to as part of the building variance or building permit that our building department suggest hey look here's a suggestion um this is possible and this is a safety thing that you can add to your you know because I mean if we go we can also add cooking hoods and all that other stuff. Oh yeah then you know exactly but if we could stop the fire Yeah. Yeah. or slow it down. Yeah. You can also just require a fire a class C fire extinguisher, but you know,

which is better. Yeah. And it'll be set it but it'll set outside in the weather. So, you know, it gets fire sprinklers outside um require a lot of maintenance. That's the only problem with adding that especially to a residential.

Go ahead, Miss Ready for part two. All right. So, basically on the just in summary, the the accessory buildings that are detached, okay, we are um um reducing the distance from the accessory building to the main to the main home to be six feet and we said four or three. That's something you you can I would suggest three because I know that the more than likely the roof already has two and then if you're going to leave one over here that six minus three is three. It's my suggestion. Not

I don't know. That's kind of I I did it on my calculator on my phone. No, we have common core math. I'm just curious. No, it makes sense. See, if you look at the RU1C, they they allow six feet, and this is again our current code, six feet from the main residence and 5T from roof overhang. So, it doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Yeah. That those numbers don't make any sense. It doesn't. So, it would be the same thing. Wouldn't we do six and three? Yep. It's going to be the same thing whether you're an RU1Z or zero lot line or wherever you're at. uniform 6 and three

and again um the main portion as well is that we continue to allow only 20% of the required rear yard and that's an important like this is a proportional number to the yard maximum 350 ft that's not been being changed right and these are open so there's not

because the there is a limit the limitation of enclosed is still there the 100 feet and the 60 feet right that's not Right. If we go back to the canopies, which is the attached structure that we added a couple of years ago to allowing smaller yards um to have a larger attached canopy. Uh if you don't have a small yard, your largest attached canopy can be 7 and 1/2 ft or 7 feet. 7 feet. And again, that's an encroachment, right? Mhm.

plus 7 ft plus whatever uh distance from your home to the actual setback line. Right. So sometimes that results in a larger canopy. Uh but the the in in yards that are 25 ft or less where a detached structure is difficult to fit, right? Uh we were allowing them to go to halfway through the halfway to the required setback which in the case of a 25 foot would be 12 and a half. In the case of a 20 would be 10. In the case of a 15 is seven and a half. And this is where we start running into trouble because seven and a half is really not the minimum. It's the minimum for like basically a shade structure. It's the minimum. Yeah.

Um so we're trying to tweak that a little bit better to you know especially on those smaller yards like 15 feet which exist in the town of Miami. Yeah. Unfortunately, the west side, the west uh west lakes has a lot of these odd odd re odd shaped homes. Yes. Um that that that that are caught into these into these. Yeah. A lot a lot of the ordinance in Miami Lakes that has changed throughout the years is because of this awkwardness of of West Lakes, the the way they built the homes and and it's what we're seeing in uh in our various requests. Uh we've seen several of these through the years where you know

like one of the one of the things that that I always and and it's kind of here to an extent. So on your required rear yard on on 2A1 it says the attached canopy can projected to the required re rear yard setback. What happens to the site setbacks? Because sometimes in these in these especially these zero lot line homes that they think I could start from the the property line because my house started from the property line. Now what do you do with with the site setbacks? Is there anything here with sight setbacks?

So there is one that's a two-part question. There is some properties uh and I don't remember where I put this. What is this? Like there are some properties where the sideyard is functioning as the rear yard because they're just especi um they're in Westlakes. Um they're actually uh homes where the sideyard is like a U shape

and their sideyard is actually acting as the rear yard because their pool is in there and everything in is in there but it's actually a sideyard. those. We're adding a little caveat here so that we can treat those sideyards as rear yards and allow them to have canopies there because canopies are not allowed in in side yards unless they are covering a door or a window and they're maximum five feet um in projection, right? Which is basically for shade um or to keep you from getting wet

or for to keep you from getting wet as you access a door, right? like just basically a little shade over your door. Um the ones that you're discussing right now, which are the the RU1's that have actually 10 feet from one structure to the next property line. And there's several properties that have roofed that entire thing all the way to the property line. and that we cannot allow no matter how we we don't have a variance to grant because they're covering their 4 foot uh easement that is a drainage easement that we cannot encroach upon. So that's not even a setback. That's that's a required easement for drainage. So the most that we could allow there if you think would be those six feet and then one foot encroachment for

it only going to be a feet four feet then for but it was still very very small canopy. Yeah, but that's so rare. That's going to be it's not rare. You think you think it's more than that? Yeah, I I know several homes and then some of those homes actually violations. No, no, I understand with the violations. I'm talking about that are going to have four feet. So, the 4 foot uh required easement for drainage is standard in RU1C homes. No, no, no. I know. What I'm saying is is is there homes now with current construction not in in violation

that will only min that will only have either the four or the six feet. So they only have a twoft canopy well three feet because of the over the six feet six feet because they have they have 10 feet. They have there's 10 feet. That should be the minimum is the 10 feet. They have the 10 feet and they allow a walkway in there. Right. And then and and of course, we're not going to allow any attachment to the other property. So, let's say they're buddies and they decide, "Yeah, you can attach to my home." All right. Just want to make sure we don't Yeah, you there's there's a couple of those already. Oh, we know. I know. Quite a few. All right. Any any suggestions? In the yard to paint the wall. Any Oh, yeah. That's another issue. Yeah.

You want to paint the wall, you can. I know a couple of my friends, right? Hey, the guy won't let me paint. Okay. Yeah. And then they and then they paint it and you can't go onto their property to paint to they paint it whatever color they paint it whatever color they want. Yeah. I know we had that those problems when um any other suggestions any other modifications to this ordinance or leave it as is. And I'm sure you're going to do all the corrections on the uh on the errors. Correct. Any other corrections? We're going to leave it at three and three. You want to you want that three? Six and three. So just a six and three would be your motion. Motion to six and three and then anybody want to second it? I'll second.

Second. Okay. Second by gentleman. And then uh you want to call ro? Seconded. Sure. Yes. Go ahead. Calling roll for item 5C with the corrections made. Uh motion by vice chair Rodriguez and seconded by Deasier. Correct. No. Motion is by Mr. Julia. Oh, Julia. Correct. Motion is by Julia and was seconded by Mr. Leon. Okay. Motion by board member Julia, seconded by board member Leonio. Let's go ahead here. Board member Julia. Yes. Board member Deasier. Yes. Board member Leonio.

Yes. And Vice Chair Rodriguez, yes. The motion passes. See if we have any report from the Yeah. All right. So, before we close the meeting, do we have any additional information from the town attorney or town staff? Any report from any reports? Anything you want to discuss?

No reports at this time. I do want to bring up that we're working on our transportation master plan. This is a point of privilege. I'm using all the microphones I have. We're working on a transportation master plan and our uh uh vision zero master plan for the town. Um we have a little website where uh everybody gets to put their input and their opinions about both transportation master plan and the vision zero. Um I know we have uh some uh people interested in this kind of thing. The vision zero is about um um is a goal of uh going down to zero fatalities and or um high injuries uh by 2050 um due to traffic accidents and or crashes. So I think it's a very lofty goal for the town and uh we're we have a wonderful consultant that is doing a great job of producing great statistics and uh recommendations and we need everybody's input. Uh so go on to the town website there's a link there and we need everybody's opinion.

Yeah. I know that Major Gonzalez has done an incredible job. Yes. With controlling the traffic down Miami lakeway all the way. He's done an amazing job. I've talked to him over and over for the last five years of what he's done. He's a The man is amazing. Now, they call him the traffic whisperer. No, no, he's a No, no, they they literally call him the traffic whisperer. I believe it. He's amazing.

And uh I I would love to participate since since I it was part of the original um traffic plan and and and and all that stuff. So, anything that that you need for me that I can participate, I'd love to. And I'll go on to the website and and and do my research there. We are having um two meetings in September for traffic. We're doing our our outreach right now, community outreach. This is where everybody's opinion counts. Uh and it's about also pedestrian safety, bicycle safety. Um obviously on the transportation master plan angle, you know, facilities that we need to like look forward to building in the next 5 to 10 years. Um we're looking for safety improvements everywhere. Uh, and anything and everything is important at this point because, uh, the more the more cooks in the soup right now, the more versions of everything we get. Um, so, uh, I appreciate you all. I volunteered some of y'all for some of the programs. Um,

no problem. I'm fine with it. And, and you know, I appreciate your involvement. We will be presenting to you uh sometime either September or October when we have a little more data put together. I'll put it on your agenda so the consultant can come and give you the preliminary findings that they've already found.

If if you would um please share whatever emails or whatever you're sending out with us. Um I know that since we don't have the Miami Lakes email u but if you're sending anything out to us, it'd be great to I hear our social media was uh all over it this today. So, it's on it's on the town social media today. We will be putting it all over our all over our social media as well hopefully in the next few weeks consistently. Do you have the dates already repeatedly? Uh and the dates will be uh September 8th and September Yes. The 4th and the 8th. Yes.

Excellent. Okay. What do you know what's happening with 57 59th Avenue? it it's still it's still under process where we're going to be de uh demolishing the actual building um in the probably the next month or so. Um and then the uh next portion is finalizing agreements with Miami date county. Uh we also have to finalize agreements with Caterpillar and Miami date uh public schools as the way that the bridge and the alignment are are going to be connected. We're going to need certain easements from them. So it's still moving forward. Okay.

And one more question. the uh 77th Avenue. There was a lot of concerns about the um the that the the traffic project being done there, the road project by the school. We were promised that they would be finished and wrapped up by the beginning of school, not going and I drove by this morning and I still saw a fire cone. So, I'm going to be raising up a little sting tomorrow about whether or not they're wrapped up because they promise it's all over social media. So yes, a lot of parents are concerned. So that's why Yes. But but it's it was it's going to make them a nightmare. Royal Oaks. Correct. Yeah. All right. Motion to adjurnn. If there's nothing else,

I second the motion. All in favor? I God, you're good. I'm sorry for being negative. Vice chair, there's some orders that we need to