Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

everybody to the planning and zoning meeting Thursday March 26 like to call the meeting to order there's seats over here if you'd like to sit down mr. Bolton here mr. Brady miss Salo

Mister here here Mister Spirk here we have quorum thank you.

Order of business any additions deletions deferrals. Hearing none will proceed as according to our agenda public comment like to open the meeting to a general public comment from the public you 3 minute time limit.

Good evening.

State your name and address before you.

Mary Benton, 10108 Northeast First Avenue. I'm here to talk about the vegetable garden ordinance, which doesn't seem to be getting any discussion. And I'm sort of astonished at the lack of institutional memory about what an expensive and humiliating debacle that ordinance turned out to be for our village. To give you a little background, those who are unfamiliar with it, it was enacted in 2013. 17 years after Hermine Ricketts, who lived in the village, had an organic vegetable garden in her front yard. And they were told that she had to remove it, despite the historical aspect of it. And she did, because she couldn't afford the $50 a day fine. However, she fought back. And with the help of the Institute for Justice and a lawyer named Ari Bargil, they took it through the courts. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear it. But they took it to the legislature. And in 2019, the state legislature ruled that you could have a vegetable garden wherever you want. They prohibited municipalities from enacting bans on vegetable gardens anywhere on private property. Ours, so that fell. Our village, I did a public records request. We spent over half a million dollars fighting this. Half a million dollars. And we lost statewide. The whole state was prohibited. Municipalities were prohibited from enacting ordinances regulating the placement of vegetables. It's still in our code of ordinances. I do not understand that. It's going to be discussed sort of peripherally as part of this tonight, but it's not going to be discussed as something that should disappear from the code. It's unenforceable. the state legislature has rendered it unenforceable. And to leave it on the books, it's just a reminder of this humiliating defeat that led to this statewide law that Miami Shores was responsible for. because we were so bound and determined to make sure vegetables could only grow in the backyard. And at another point, Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom, when they bought their house, there was a giant oak tree and a swimming pool that took up their entire backyard. And their front yard was where the sun was in the winter when you grow vegetables here. So it made perfect sense for them to grow it there. It's not that they were trying to... rub the village's nose in having a vegetable garden in the front yard. It just made sense to them. So I would really love it to see that disappear from our code of ordinances. Now, it's unenforceable, but there probably are residents who see it and think, oh my god, I can't have vegetables except in the backyard. And that's just not fair, because that's no longer the law. So thank you.

Thank you.

Doug Barnes, 10108 Northeast First Avenue. I also have comments on the proposed zoning changes. And my concern is that it seems, if anything, to increase the amount of impervious surface allowed and the amount of the footprint of construction, whereas I think we should be moving in the opposite direction with increased flooding and flooding and storms and sea level rise. There's nothing about using pervious material for driveways. Couldn't that be in there? Encouraged, if not required, for residents to build driveways, new driveways that are pervious, so we're not just pumping this water onto the city streets and into our sewage or flooding our downtown. That's all my comments.

Thank you.

Susan Howell, 70 Northeast 101st Street. One, I want to echo everything Mary Benton said. I was involved when Hermann Ricketts was fighting this. And the fact of why we would want to say that you can't grow vegetables in your front yard is just like mind boggling to me. We all eat vegetables. They feed us all. And when you have a garden in your front yard or wherever the sun is, in my yard, my garden's in my back because my vegetable garden grows in the backyard. But if it was better in the front, I should be able to feed myself and my family and share with my neighbors. with vegetables wherever I want to grow them because it's my yard. And when you have a garden in your front yard, you invite community in. They stop by. They talk to you. I have a starfruit on my side yard. I share it with anybody who wants it. And then my other neighbor gives me papayas. And we switch back and forth. That is what community is. And when we're a village beautiful, part of the beautiful is coming together as a community. And also, you're feeding the birds. We're meant to grow food. It's part of who we are. I mean, we're all created partially by food. And also, as to what Doug Barnes was saying, We need to have absorption in our yards. We have to work with nature, not against nature. So when I see like an AstroTurf yard go in and somehow that gets approved, I don't really understand it because that works completely against working with the environment. So it seems to me it's such a simple fix. We plant native plants. We allow people to grow vegetables and fruit wherever they want to grow them, wherever the sun is shining. And we come together as a community to work with one another, to share with one another. I would love for our community, for Miami Shores, to just share our fruits and vegetables with everybody. And to also help the environment. We really, really need to be working with the environment. And the seawall is so refreshing that we did kind designs. And I think if we come together and really put our heads together and our hearts together, we can make a lot of positive change. So I'm asking you to take know don't leave it in the ordinance it's not legal anyway Florida's already said it's not legal so why would we put it there because it fools people into thinking they can't plant a vegetable in their front yard which you can so I ask you to take it off of the ordinance thank you any other public comment before we get started hearing none

It was too quick of a turnaround and we weren't able to make it so you'll probably have them at the next meeting All right, so no minutes Reviewed Good Legislative items ordinance Proposed code text amendment to Appendix A, zoning regulations related to the residential district. Comments?

Yeah, read the title into the record, please. An ordinance...

the village council of Miami Shores village Florida amending appendix a zoning to comprehensively update regulations read related to the residential our district providing for implementation providing for an effective date thank you I propose we do

uh read through this second draft page by page page turner i pardon me sir i have a presentation i'll keep it as brief as i can okay um but essentially what i'd like to do is just kind of frame the discussion kind of give a quick summary of what we've done where we are first since the last meeting yes sir thank you yeah i t could we get the presentation before beginning I did want to address some of the commentary that we heard here tonight and the first of which regarding paved surfaces there is a recommendation within the code of that we are considering tonight it's under the required off-street parking and it does require essentially right now the way it's teed up is all spaces provided above three spaces and above must use permeable or semi-permeable services for driveway areas so that was an item that is in this ordinance There's also within the same section something that our Public Works Department is currently enacting and enforcing, and that is limiting a 20% maximum of impervious surface within the public right-of-way. So those are two efforts aimed at trying to mitigate stormwater and those types of effects. And the other item is regarding the gardens. I think that's in the landscape chapter and essentially What's in the ordinance is that we are modifying, we're adding standards to adopt to Miami-Dade County's standards, right? We're including them in our code. And the fact that we are renumbering that section, we had to show what is currently enacted or what's in the law. And you are absolutely correct. Right now, as it states, vegetable gardens are permitted in rear yards only. written in the code so this would be the perfect opportunity to clean that up what section that would be so it's a line item five five two five in your ordinance And we can strike that through if it's the board's will once we go through it. When we discuss it, yes.

If I could clarify, that I would say is not necessarily at your will in the sense that you can or you cannot. If it's illegal, we just strike it. It's as simple as it gets. So I think in terms of reviewing this code, it was just an oversight. It's housekeeping. Yeah, housekeeping. It's really that simple.

awesome thank you all right so I'll try to be a brief as I can so essentially where we are tonight is we're talking about the the next iteration of our code and where we are tonight is a summation of where we began April 2025 in July of 2025 when we had our first workshops regarding the residential single-family zoning districts we're staffed and prepared an executive summary report that kind of surmised the the what had transpired at those meetings all of the public summary input surveys that we've collected there's a dedicated web page on the village website under our department head that kind of was dedicated to the our code where individuals of the community could submit their surveys and we can kind of put the draft ordinance, our summary report, trying to keep things nice and open for everyone to essentially contribute into this important discussion. In November we released the first draft of the zoning code And in December, the board had their, essentially, opportunity to review it, hear from the public once more, and then make their suggestions as to what could be improved moving forward. So tonight, what's before you is an ordinance that is for your consideration. We teed it up, so if you are accepting of what's in it, it can be approved. However, it doesn't have to. If there needs to be further edits to it, those are things that we can do and address at a future meeting.

But for now... Well, either or. They can address it tonight or... Or at a future meeting.

Right. They have that discretion, essentially. Thank you. Once again, these are the scope of services as far as the code sections that we're going through. Within this presentation, I did include, so we're going to have some graphics. One of the things that we talked about last meeting was the lock coverage study and how the best way forward to kind of present that and administer it so it's evenly applied and applicable throughout the village. So there are a lot of slides that I included just to have as a reference if we need to go back to it, but I'll just skip over them if we don't need to discuss them further. but they are in this presentation. So highlights from our December 8th meeting are listed on the screen. Building height definition was amended. We removed definition for lot frontage. We clarified the definitions for setbacks. We utilized the existing yards for setbacks and we went away from using the actual setback language. The reason for that is because throughout the code In other areas of the code that are not the single family, it references yards. So it was going to be too difficult to go in and make that clean sweep, where it was just easier, modify the yards, make it read as setbacks, and it was a much smoother transition. We brought forth... As of right now, there are 26 different zoning districts. We brought forth a consolidation of four. And during the board discussion, it was recommended that we just limit it down to one. So that's within this ordinance also. We included a term, a definition for guest houses that was not outlined before and we felt it's important to have a definition for it and I can get into that further as we go through the slides. And also there's the lot coverage study which what we heard from that was let's move away from applying a one size fits all lot coverage based on lot size. Let's keep the one story, two story analysis But let's figure out a way to do it in a tiered system and also incentivize existing single-family home additions. So we hope that what's before you, and I'll be able to explain that as we continue going through, and then some other cleanup items related to air conditioning equipment, the temporary construction fencing, and metal roofing, design-related language. Now, before we begin, one of the important processes that we had to undertake that was not done so prior to the December meeting was the fact that there are enacted laws from the Florida legislature that we had to review these guidelines by and the first of which is building design criteria with essentially says that no local municipality is to govern aesthetics architectural treatments windows roof structures those things are essentially we're not allowed to render opinions on those items so we went through the ordinance and we reviewed it in light of that to ensure that there wouldn't be a potential conflict moving forward secondly we also have Senate bill 180 which was also enacted by the state of Florida which essentially says no municipality is allowed to enact or pass a ruling a zoning rule that is more strict than what's already in the books so what you have before you is we went through the ordinance we made those qualifications and in a follow-up email I provided each board member a listing of the items that we recommended we could not place within the ordinance because of these potential conflicts One of the items that we did want to bring to your attention, it's not approved yet, but it is moving through the house, is an ADU bill, which is Accessory Dwelling Units. It's something that we just wanted you to be aware of. When we provided the first draft of this ordinance back in April of last year, there was a similar bill moving through, and it failed on its last attempt. So we were going to propose some language, but being that it failed, we did not do so. However, it seems that the House and the Senate are... tweaking it and they're moving through it once more so that is something that you may see before you and we may have to manage but we wanted to bring it to your attention just so if you wanted to have some sort of language or text that we can introduce now but it's something that is it is in the pipeline so moving quickly some of the legal considerations that we weren't able to enact within this proposed ordinance is obviously numerical values. If your code says right now that your building heights are to be 30 feet, reducing it to 28 is making it more strict. So that's an item that we could not offer a recommendation within this ordinance. The same thing with the water tanks, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts. The recommendation from the board was if we could remove those items. However, they are allowed as of right now. So removing them would make it more strict. The same thing for guiding where to place air conditioning equipment. We were trying to see if there was a way where We wouldn't allow properties to place them on the roof. Unfortunately, they are allowed on the roof at present time. So putting in legislation that would force someone to not put it on the roof would make it more strict. So that's why that language is not within your draft ordinance. As you can see, though, we did have a proposed set of rules, and we wanted you to at least see what we were proposing. Secondly, the garage conversions. As you know, we made the recommendation of having garage conversions be processed administratively. However, the mechanism that we used to try to do so was to guide a potential development to introduce a window that should comprise of itself no less than 40% of the opening that is to be removed. Obviously, we can't do that because state law doesn't allow us to guide window placement and design. So we were able to find an acceptable way to treat it. And therefore, let me see. I have the language here. One second. So what is before you now is essentially the intent is to prevent blank walls facing the street, which is a massing concern. So therefore, we're regulating transparency ratios, such as bulk and massing. in order to avoid dictating window style or compatibility. So therefore, this is the language that we're proposing. We feel that it does meet the goal of what the board was trying to get to, and we think that we can achieve the same end result without having to dictate the actual design of a window or the characteristics of window placement. And then obviously this was also discussed. Right now in the code there's a myriad of regulations regarding metal roofing materials and things of that nature. We're making the recommendation that that should probably be omitted because it's in conflict with the state statute. And the board asked us to provide language regarding stormwater retainage. As you can see, we provided language. However, when we did the thorough review, it essentially is more strict than the rules that are to be right now and that are codified at the moment now an important thing to keep in mind is that we also reached out to Miami-Dade County as they were working on an impervious surface ordinance they have no longer they're no longer enforcing that ordinance due to the same Senate bill 180 conflicts So now we're at the part of the presentation where we'll talk about some of the things that we were able to, which is the majority of the ordinance, is adjusting the building height. We provided the definition for guest house, which was not in the code. We provided a revised definition for structure that was not clearly listed in the code. The reorganization of the chart, we had to... streamline it to only dictate it towards the single-family zoning district. We tried to approach it from reorganizing all the chart, but unfortunately, any reorganization of a codified language automatically means that you're changing it, and therefore, it would create an SB 180 issue. And there's several other items within the other zoning districts that would be of conflict. And therefore, we just made the decision of let's just stick to the R district. And we'll simply reorganize everything within that section and just keep it nice and tidy so that we don't create any other issues for us moving forward. So here's an idea of what that looks like. We're still doing it in the same phase where we have your permitted uses table and then we're gonna have the dimensional requirements table. And... Oh, one thing I wanted to talk about. So in this table, during the discussions during the last meeting, there was a comment regarding maximum building height where it talks about four other buildings and it states 40 feet. When we dug deeper into the code research, what we found is that many of the other zoning districts, such as the townhouse, the multifamily, A1, A2, They don't provide a specific building height. What they do is they refer back to the R1. So the reason the 40-foot building is here is because all the other districts cite to this. So we can't remove it, and we can't change what's already in the code in these other areas. So it's best to just leave it be. And that's our recommendation for now. that's one thing I wanted to highlight so I think the bulk of the review time here was really focused on the lock coverage this is how we teed it up during our December meeting where we were approaching it from the standpoint of doing the lock coverage for all types of structures and essentially limiting it to the lot sizes. And this is kind of the comparable research that we did with some of the nearby communities that kind of helped us arrive to some of those numerations. Now, and this is what the graphics would look like. So what we did was we pulled the most current data from Miami-Dade's GIS systems. And what we did was, what we found from this is that throughout the village, so this chart is essentially all of these single family residential lots within the village. There are a total of 3,191 single family zoned lots as of today. We broke them down by lot sizes and what we found was that 64% of the lots fall within the 7,800 to 11,800 square foot lot size, which is an average lot size of about 9,900 square feet. There was concern at the last meeting about the larger lot sizes based on the recommended regulations being able to build too large of a building footprint. And what we found was when you look at the data, there's only less than 2% of lot sizes within the village that contain an average lot size of 21,000 square feet. And furthermore, there's only just slightly above 2% more that contain a lot size of 15,400 square feet. So really, the bulk of the lot sizes within the shores, within Miami Shores, range within 7,800 square feet on the low end to about 13,700 square feet to the higher end. We thought that really should be our focal point of guiding some of these regulations regarding lot coverage because that's really where all of the percentages are regarding the existing lot sizes in the village. So therefore, we're recommending this sort of tiered structure in alignment with what the board kind of spoke to us about. The one parameter that we did have to work within is the established 30% for two-story structures, 40% for one-story structures. Because of the SB 180 implications, we had to work within that framework and not essentially provide a numerical value that was lower than what was codified, the 30% mainly, because it would be a conflict with SB 180. So what we did was we're proposing for two-story structures, 32% for anything that's 7,500 and above, 12,000 also. And then for one-story structures, a 40% and then a 42% on the 12,000 square foot lots. And the reason that we've done this is the following. We feel that this recommended approach does the following. It introduces a meaningful differential between one and two-story structures. It encourages one-story development on larger lots. It maintains tighter controls on two-story mass, regardless of lot size. Larger lots do not automatically equate to vertical bulk or mass. And we also provided an exception of an additional 2% max lot coverage for single family renovations and additions. And we feel that the ultimate neighborhood preservation, as indicated by these categories, is essentially highlighted by what we're proposing. So the exception to the existing single family homes is only applicable if they do not demolish and they retain 50% of the existing exterior walls and 60% of the existing floor area. Only then would they be allowed to utilize an additional 2% one-story additions within this framework and we felt that it just made sense and it worked well with with what was described before so what we have here now is what some of those things look like so graphically this is what the one-story structures would look like depending on these lot sizes and the percentages that we're recommending and And the same for two stories. And we also included some of the historical approvals that we've seen come through. We went as far back as October of last year with some of these, which are all, obviously they all met the code requirements and were approved by the board. like I said I'll flip through this and I can go back to any graphic that we may need to address and then also the floodplain this is an item that was discussed we were asked to review some of the local understory master plans I believe we we found the one from Miami Beach we reviewed it and we essentially recreated it so that it essentially works for miami shore so what's before you is that we were we were able to propose it within the ordinance because we we are looking at it as falling in alignment with the state statutes regarding fema which right now we only resort to the building code So we're not really recommending anything that's not already required by FEMA. So that's why we felt comfortable putting it in the ordinance, and it's before you tonight.

This isn't question and answer. I'll give you a chance to comment after we have our discussion. I'm sorry, I thought I saw you raising your hand.

Yeah, I commented, but I just wanted to get noticed. Okay.

So with that, I'll bring this to a close. The proposed amendments now before the board we feel reflect the community input, professional analysis, and prior board direction. These amendments are intended to promote compatibility, predictability, and the long-term preservation of the village's single-family character. The proposed code text amendments have been reviewed for consistency with the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the village's comp plan, as well as the relevant provisions of the village code. And based on this review, staff finds the proposed amendments to be consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan. And therefore, we recommend that the board consider the proposed text amendments.

Thank you. Thank you. So what I'd like to do is just turn it page by page, have comments, see if we have consensus.

Can I just ask a general question before we go into the specifics of page by page? Sure. With respect to Senate Bill 180, my understanding is that it's being severely contested at the moment. There's at least two dozen municipalities that are challenging the law, but I also understand that it has an expiration.

That's correct, and our law firm has led the charge in that lawsuit. The ruling on it in terms of the motion to dismiss was on certain counts in favor of the defendant. So it's still in place. And the glitch bill that would have fixed those issues did not pass. So as of right now, the expiration would be October 1, 2027. And if a hurricane or something else comes about in that time, then we know it could be extended. But as of right now, 2027.

I would ask my colleagues here to consider that we move forward with an assumption that Senate Bill 180 is either struck down or modified such that these restrictions that are preventing us from addressing the community's concerns be disregarded and that we actually go forward and adopt the language with the understanding that either it would be struck down or otherwise it will expire. and let council decide whether or not they want to enact those particular provisions.

So what would be the reason for not proceeding as suggested by Brandon? I mean, if we put it in our code and it gets challenged, then all we do is, you know,

Certainly, that's always an option. Legally, probably won't have a signature for legal sufficiency. Can't tell you. So these type of risk level conversations, we can have it here at the board, but ultimately the board does have doesn't have any authority when it comes down to litigation risk assessment for the village that's solely within the discretion of the council so to your point certainly your version of this can be presented to the council with those sb 180 violations certainly and then at the council level i'll advise them as to what those risks are and i'll have to take that back internally to see whether or not i can sign that ordinance So that would just really be the case. At this level, if you were to pass it, there's no final binding authority that you have. It's a recommendation. So if you were to do it here, yes, it's just, and I hate to say this, this is not in a way to minimize your role and your authority of what you all are doing tonight, but simply it's paper. Until that second reading becomes law, it's just paper at this point. So on paper, if you want to include in your recommendation to them and now they have to take it out themselves, certainly there's nothing I can't prevent that from happening.

I would think that that would be kind of a prudent way for us to proceed given that we are not elected but merely appointed. And at risk of trying to be cautious here and not violating Sunshine Law in saying what communication that I've had with various council members prior to their vote, I actually have to just leave it right there and not say anything else. Okay.

Any other discussion before we turn some pages? What I'd like, can you follow along with us, turning the pages on the screen?

Yes. Oh, you want the ordinance?

Yeah. No, the second draft that you gave that we're going to be reviewing, just so that...

AB, would we be able to put up the draft ordinance?

While he's working on that, do we want to get started? Keep this thing going?

It's on the agenda. I'm sorry. No, it's an item that is on the agenda. And you can click the exhibit number two.

Bingo. All right.

Page one? I don't know if I can control it. Oh, OK. Page one?

Are they in the zone a little? What are you doing? You've lost a page.

Yeah, I can control it from here. I just can't zoom in.

Can we reference things by line item?

Yes, we can. So page one, any comments? No, that's boilerplate. This is page two. Discussion, comments from the board?

If I may, through the chair, if you would like to have public comment first and then your discussion so you can weigh the two together and make your change, that might be a better approach.

Okay, I was going to have comment at the end, but that's fine. I'll open it in both beginning and end.

No, no, I'm saying each item, this item needs to have public comment. And if you were to go through now and make your changes to this ordinance.

This item, meaning this ordinance here.

This ordinance here.

Okay, I'll open it for public comment. Thank you.

Any public comment on this ordinance? After you can go first. State your name.

Nancy Dawson. Right now I'm speaking as a real estate broker. I think that if you don't limit the amount of what can be built, a savvy purchaser may say, well, I already own a 21,000 square foot lot. I think I'll just buy the guy next door and now I'll have a 40,000 square foot lot and you're going to give him 45%. What is he gonna have like a 20,000 square foot house? That's gonna tower over the rest of the neighborhood I think that your ordinance or whatever you're writing is based on what exists currently and not it didn't seem like there's any limit to someone buying the entire street and everything continuous and you know the horses out of the gate and We're not thinking about that

There is some language as far as combining lots and maximum lot sizes and such.

But it's getting pretty towering. Like they're just getting ready to eat our houses.

I'm just saying there is language as far as combining lots in the code to prevent that.

How big?

What's your limit? I don't have the details.

It would be good if it was in the chart.

I can answer that. So right now the way it's drafted, the limit is 21,500 square feet.

Max total? Yes. So for the people who have larger lots than that, then?

They're like grandfathered in, if it's already existing. But remember, it's less than 2% based on our data analysis.

Okay. Through the Chair, just a point of order. For the purposes of public comment, we have three minutes, and those three minutes are allocated for the public. And so that we are mindful of that, there shouldn't be any back and forth. QUESTION Q&A FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. THE FULL AUTHORITY, THREE MINUTES.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

YES, GOOD EVENING. DREW MCINTOSH, 434 GRAND CONCOURSE. THANK THE BOARD AND THE STAFF FOR ALL THEIR WORK AND EFFORT AND SO FORTH. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY SPEAR OF CONSIDERATION AND EXPERTISE AND SO FORTH. And my understanding, the legal interpretation is that at this time going forward, we cannot go ahead and create any stricter ordinance than is already on the books. For instance, July of 2024, we passed an ordinance where we increased the FAR by 45%. We increased the lot coverage. by 33%, and we've increased the 30-foot maximum height, which is a 57% increase. That, to me, is quite an increase when you look at it from a percentage standpoint. That's just my opinion. But in essence, from a legal standpoint to the board, if you can direct this to the attorney, is this interpretation cast in concrete now And then, Eddie, I'm a little bit confused on your description of the lot coverage here concerning the single family. Basically, I got the impression you outlined it as being more restrictive than what is already in place. Is that not a violation of SB 180?

To finish your comments and then Then we'll have some discussion. Thank you. That's the end of my comments. Thank you.

Sir?

I'd like to comment on three items. The first is the understory.

State your name and address.

726 Northeast 92nd Street, Apartment 1.

Speak into the mic, please.

726 Northeast 92nd Street, Apartment 1. I'm sorry, 12L. My comments, first one is about the definition of understory. I work in Miami Beach. I also work in as an architect. In both instances, the use of the understory is turned into an additional story because now the floor level is measured from the ground level, which is now elevated sometimes eight to 10 foot above ground. So the understory is basically introducing another level to a height of the houses that it's kind of sneaking in under the radar. You'll find out when it's too late, when you have houses and stilts that in bulk will be dramatically different than anything that has been built historically in the shores. That's number one. Number two, I appreciate you giving me more than three minutes. In the lot coverage of our experience both in Miami Beach with resiliency and Coral Gables with resiliency, I've also worked with Corradino and other engineers in a village of Portal for resiliency. Flood coverage is one of the most dramatic factors to be regulated because if we don't have sufficient permeable surfaces, we're going to have flooding on our streets. Also, you mentioned about public right-of-way coverages. We have asphalt streets in Miami Shores, not permeable. So the houses and the streets together are really not doing well. to dissipate the water. So I encourage you to have very specific, pervious and impervious terminology that help us absorb better and also works well with septics, which we still do. to basically have not so many paved services in front of houses. Today we're going to see a project where the render shows grass, the plan shows concrete, and it's just kind of the way that things are moving very rapidly, and it's just kind of running us over with all these code changes. And the last, I want to mention that municipalities such as Cora Gables have neighborhoods that review architectural elements, and they have board of architects that review architectural elements to prevent houses to look like dental and medical offices. We're going to see that in Miami Shores, and I know we're doing whatever it takes to stay away from problems in the future with the law, but it's not going to look good, and you need to put your foot down on that. You can't just coalesce around something that's going to look like really bad and then later say, oh, we had a reading, we had our comments, we met, everybody liked it. Every time they get you closer to the finish line, there's less that you can do and less that you can change and less that you can keep what's really good and beautiful. And they place it with dental offices at every corner. And now the dental offices, they're going to have an extra floor because you're going to have an understory that supposedly the water can go through. But in reality, it's going to be pool tables and things like that. And people are going to have fun with an extra level. So I wanted to mention that. And please invite all of you to take your time. Don't get rushed.

Sir, your three minutes are up. Thank you.

Good evening, Maria McInnis, 1250 Northeast 101st Street. I agree with you proceeding tonight. I think that's a good idea. I do understand that there is a limit with the SB 180, but I also believe that there's an expiration date, and if we can time it properly and work towards what we want, that would be the best-case scenario. I want to remind this Board, and some members may not have been on it, but when the amendments, the metrics were put in place in the summer of 2024, it was under duress. It was under a limited period of time of a zoning in progress, 60-day window, and it was meant to address key metrics to stop the hemorrhaging, which we successfully did, as you recall. But you know that the houses that are still being approved are still quite large. And even though we haven't technically up zoned our residential area with a new name or new designation, when you're doubling the size of a house with the bathrooms, with the rooms, coverage with concrete, you can see it for yourself. Everybody can see it. So I brought this to various meetings. The last meeting I gave it to each of you individually. Why is this being ignored? It's great to analyze all these other municipalities. This is Miami Shores. These numbers are considerably less than what's on the books. We're stuck with what's on the books because of SB 180 for the time being. These are our numbers. This is why the character is being destroyed. And I disagree with the limit of 21,000. On my block alone, I have a 27,000 square foot lot, a 24,000 square foot lot. And the largest lot in Miami Shores with a home on it, which is over an acre, 40 some odd, maybe 44,000 square foot lot. Do not marginalize them. They are massive. You all know the house on my street. It's massive. And it's within these numbers that we've got on the books right now, which we're stuck with. But we're supposed to do the deep dive. The understanding of the amendments that we passed in July of 2024 was to go forward to now and do the deep dive. You have the time. You have a year and a half. You can do it. You can line it up. You can have it teed up, put it in the window, pray to God that we don't have hurricanes hitting anywhere near us or within 50 or 100 miles of us, and just get it lined up. We saw how long it took to do the CR district. We know how long this stuff takes. take the time, look at it, check it. I completely disagree based on the workshop participation in the summer of 2025. These inverse relationships need to be with the larger lots. It's absurd to think that that's what the resident wants and it's inconsistent with the comp plan. I don't agree with any delegation of your duties as a board. As the existing code says, you review all of these things. Do not delegate it to staff. How many times have you had a staff report that says don't pass it? Every single thing almost comes in here. I can count on my hand in the past five years how many times there's been a recommendation not to pass something. You all have caught it. You've caught trees. You've caught windows. You've caught all sorts of things. That's your responsibility. That's how the code is written. Don't delegate that duty. I am not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of this as written. I think it needs a lot of work. The understory in particular is not even close to the legislation that's on the books in Miami Beach. It doesn't protect you. It doesn't tell you how much air conditioned space. It doesn't tell you what inhabitable or uninhabitable is. You need to divine these things. Look at this code for how it's going to help you when you have an application in front of you. That's what it's supposed to do. So you have the grounds without having to come up with a theory as to how to reject something. Thank you.

Paula Correa, 1200 Northeast 97th Street. I think that we can see the code and the requirements two ways. One way is We have to go the safe route, not overpass, don't go overboard. But also we can see it historically of what we have done here in the shores. And we had before actually rules about color. We have a historic preservation board that talks about windows and restricts a lot of things like the roof and those type of things. We can also look at it from that side. We have in our planning and zoning the harmonious chapter, which again, talks about the look of things. So we can also see it that way, Not necessarily only we cannot go two feet more because that's the new state code or rule. And also, again, this is temporary. Let's think about it that way. I'm just reinforcing what the other neighbor said about that.

Thank you. Any other comments? So I guess we'll start with Paige Turner. All right, first page, boilerplate. Second page, I guess the only issue is we're removing the building cubage requirement. That was part of the initial code. Any comments?

I have a comment on line item 69.

You're going by page number, but I don't see that on my – Third page, removing all of the cubage. Line item 69, building height. You're up.

I think that we're making a mistake by saying establish finished floor elevation because that doesn't mean anything I think that that word on line item 69 should be established grade which we then define further further below I think we need to have an addition we need to add rather an additional definition to establish building grade which I think is already defined down in section 508 so perhaps that's just a reference to section 508 But I think building height needs to be to the established grade.

Can I get – I'm sorry, through the chair. Can I have clarity? So you're saying – You want to, I understand the established grade, but you want to add a definition as well for established grade as well?

Yes.

Okay.

And I don't think it's necessary to repeat what we already have defined in Section 508 because Section 508 already has the definition for established grade, which includes areas inside of a flood zone and areas outside of a flood zone.

Okay. We'll just need to relocate it so all the definitions are in one place so it's clear.

So I'm sorry. Let me just make sure I understand. So the building height, you're saying the vertical distance from the established finished floor to the top of the roof?

In this case, it would be established grade rather than established finished floor.

And the established grade is the grade of the site?

Yes, it varies depending on whether or not you're in a flood zone. For example, if you're in a VE flood zone, something the gentleman spoke about, you could be up to 11 feet above that grade, but that would be your established grade. That's where height is essentially measured from, and it's a variable item. If we just say finished floor, there's nothing that defines what, wherever the applicant decides that my finished floor is going to be.

So, because I thought I saw in here somewhere it did say grade unless you were in the flood. Section 508. Which is in that table. Section 508. In the table, which is 411, right? The table says for maximum building height for dwellings two stories shall not exceed 30 feet was the lawyer's revision. We had 28 measured from the minimum grade of the plot or when located in a flood zone, the minimum finished floor elevation as established by FEMA. So we have a conflict there then?

We probably do, and maybe we address that when we get down to that.

So to be consistent with that table, you are correct. This should say established grade. I think so. Are you with us?

Yes. Page 3.

Where is the identification? Page 8.

That was line item 69? Building height.

Right. But where is the potential conflict? That was referenced. You said something.

Line 69 is in conflict with page 8, the chart that says maximum building height.

I believe.

So page 8. That's 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. So right there, that table there. For dwellings, two stories shall not exceed 30 feet from the minimum grade of the plot.

That should also be established grade.

So it's not a conflict. We're just changing minimum to establish. That's fine.

Well, the conflict was it said here finished floor elevation, and it should say grade.

Okay.

They're two different things.

Right. So we've established that we're going to go with what Mr. Spirk had said, and now we're just cleaning up the chart. Got you.

And how are we saying what the established grade is?

Based off of Section 508 is my understanding of how that grade is going to be determined. So let me tell you the line item. If you go to 272, and it now specifies established grade in that section. Yes. 272, lines 272.

I do have a comment when we get down there, but I'd rather hold. It doesn't conflict with anything we're talking about now.

All right. So back to page 3, please. So continuing on that building height, what is our feeling on the top of tie beam on the top floor for any? So for flat roofs or the top of tie beam on the top floor for any other type of roof.

Line item 71, I suggested adding supporting a roof structure. The intention there, just to reiterate, was let's not penalize sloped roofs because as it currently stands, you could build more cubic area with a flat roof, so people are tending to design only flat roofs. So it already has the cost implication working against the sloped roof. Now we're removing that penalty by essentially measuring the two the same.

And I hear you on that. So essentially, if the height's going to be measured to the top of the tie beam and you have a pitched roof, then some of these roofs we've seen were four on 12, right? You could essentially have 10 foot above that.

You want to put a maximum there for sloped roofs which shall not exceed?

I do, but I also want to discuss one other thing. The way the code reads now, it reads the mean of the pitched roof, right? And if we were going to stay with the 30 foot, then I think we ought to stay with that definition. If we're going to go with, I think as you suggested, 28 feet, then we could go with that in my opinion. I agree. But I think we also discussed that we were going to go ahead and make the suggestions as we see fit.

Yeah, I think that's the prudent approach, but we just need to make sure that when all is said and done, staff is clear as to what we were advocating that does violate or that does potentially violate SB 180 and let them make a decision as to how to proceed.

So I think what we're doing isn't necessarily more restrictive than SB 180 either.

I don't think it is.

You know, 28 feet, that's only two feet for a pitched roof to the median of the roof.

Except that under the strictest of determination or interpretation, I would think that if you were previously able to build a flat roof to 30 feet and now we're saying you can build a flat roof to 28, that would be a potential area of concern. But I think we move forward with that anyway. Okay. Would you be, would you all agree with adding a little bit of clarification there supporting a roof structure so that we can be very clear that that tie beam is not just any tie beam but it's a tie beam that supports the roof structure? Yes. So that would be line item 71 after tie beam adding the words supporting a roof structure followed by on the top floor of any other type of roof.

The top of tie beams supporting the roof structure.

Let's see if that makes sense.

On the top floor of any other type of roof.

Can you give me some leeway to wordsmith, if anything, just so it flows?

Yeah, just as long as you understand the intent. It's really just about capturing the intent.

So I got a discussion. So the last sentence, in flood areas, building height shall be measured from the required base flood elevation plus freeboard. We don't have a definition of freeboard, do we? Defined by FEMA. And can you define that for us?

It's one foot. Currently.

So if your raised floor elevation is AE8, your finished floor would be 9. Plus free board to the tie beam on the top floor.

I don't know. I think that those words are maybe superfluous. I think You could simply say in flood hazard areas the building height, you could get rid of that completely because you're measuring to establish grade and Section 508 already gives you that definition that if you are in a flood area, it is to the base flood elevation plus freeboard. So you could actually strike that.

So that's defined later in our code?

Yeah, you could strike that whole sentence in flood hazard areas areas building height should be measured from the required baseline elevation plus freeboard to the tie beam of the top floor it's superfluous all right I agree as long as we've added an established grade it prevents conflicts not saying things any more comments on building height building main

principal structure located on a lot that contains the primary permitted use of property as allowed. Why, Eddie, why did we redefine the building main on this?

To make it even more clear because what's written there, it just didn't have enough clarity to it. Yes. Okay.

Any comments on that? Are we good?

Before we get to guest house, I've noticed that we've deleted a couple of definitions, FAR and lot frontage. I believe you talked about deleting lot frontage in your preamble.

I thought so too, but when I read this, if it wasn't addressed here and crossed out, then that means it's not deleted. Is that correct? So it is, in fact, stays.

In our previous version, it was included here in this section.

Yes, it was. That's where I looked at it too.

What's the significance of that? Do we need to add it? Should we be adding it?

So we take out, when you see the asterisks, that's language that's in the code that's just not here. In ordinance drafting, if something's not being touched and it's not useful to have, we usually try to just streamline it. So that was a way of us just focusing in.

That eliminates a few more comments that I have. Okay, I'll skip those other comments moving forward.

I think it was put there just for us to discuss it. More like a reference, yes. Got it. Because I had the same thing and then I looked into it a little deeper and that's what I concluded. Correct. If it's not crossed out here or changed, then it stays. Guesthouse. Eddie, why did we add a guest house?

So right now in chart 411 within the R district, it essentially says at the end of that permitted uses that these are expressly uses that are not permitted within there, and it lists guest house. So I think we're fine the fact that it's not permitted, but there's no definition for it. So if we don't define it,

so that's why we decided to add it so you pick that up right we don't want to leave room for interpretation for an applicant to say this is not a guest house so it is allowed so if we're crystal clear about what our definition of a guest house is and so you guys can look at this if it's efficient great if you want to make changes certainly we can do that any comments on guest house definitely so I just have one kind of purely minor the last sentence I

A guest house may include sleeping, cooking, and are not permitted. She'd probably say is not permitted. Projection. Comments? We're good. Step back. So that all stays the same, right?

structure why did we add the definition for structure there it's another term that's that you find throughout the code and it's not properly defined so we wanted to make that distinction so it's clear okay story synthetic turf

I have a comment here. There are some concerns about synthetic turf and the permeability of certain types of synthetic turf. And while I understand that we are not allowed to prohibit the use of synthetic turf, my concern here is not really about prohibiting it. I think we should still allow homeowners to utilize it. But I'm opposed to counting it as permeable. I think that if we're going to have synthetic turf on a lot, it needs to be counted as impermeable.

That's not correct. It is totally permeable.

It is not.

I have it in my house.

It is not.

Water flows right through it.

Not. Not every single type of synthetic turf is permeable. And there's scientific evidence that suggests that over a longer period of time, synthetic turf actually doesn't drain as well as natural sod on soil. So I think for that reason, we need to be very careful about allowing synthetic turf to be counted as permeable. Now, we can maybe put a ratio on that if you feel strongly about it. But you can imagine, for example, the image of a front yard completely covered in synthetic turf.

First of all, you can't put it in the front yard.

According to the state, you can.

Oh, is it?

Yes. So if the concern is permeability... then you could say you can use synthetic turf. There's no issue. We're not disallowing it, but we are having some concerns about the permeability of it. And so if you're going to use it, it's going to count towards your impervious. So I don't know if in this definition it's the best place to use this or further on.

There's a whole section. A whole section about permeability and impervious.

I just wanted to bring it up here because I'm not certain if this is the best place to say, for example, shall not be considered pervious under the definition.

think this is just definition I think there's probably a better section under pervious or let's that's fine you can make a note to come back to it I just wasn't sure if maybe this was the better area it was really a question for staff under story yes

I have some concerns about understory. We've had a couple of applications come before us that I think show some promise in the sense that because they're in a special flood zone or a VE zone, their finished floor elevations are always, by virtue of FEMA regulations, going to be significantly higher than our existing street grades. And we've seen essentially two different types of solutions. One solution that uses earth berms to bring the finished grade of a property up, but essentially walls off air and light that would otherwise be available. And we've seen other applications that use collotes or commonly referred to stilts. But there is a problem with respect to understory and not regulating that properly because it does tend to be an additional story for people to use. And so I think we need to talk about how we can further regulate the use of an understory. I think that it needs to be minimized. It can't just be a sprawling storage space. This is not a third story for somebody who has the great fortune to be on a waterfront property. This is just simply to resolve a flood concern. So you need to park your cars. You need to access your home. my opinion would be we limit it to those things and those things only and I don't know what the right language is I would actually put this to staff for them to further look at this I don't I think because of this issue and a few others we may not be ready to pass this this evening but I would be a little hesitant to try to wordsmith an entire section that deals with the understory here this evening while we're sitting here, but I do not think that the way it's written gives us enough of a chest of tools to be able to look after the rights of the adjacent property owners.

What is the maximum height of an understory? That has to all be squeezed in within the maximum building height. So depending on what the maximum building height is.

FEMA next year could say that the VE zone is not 11 now, but 14. And our existing grade on the street is 5. That's the understory.

So the understory is you got your flood elevation set. Plus your freeboard, one foot, and that becomes your finished floor.

It's a little different in a VE zone.

And then you're allowed 30 feet. So if you want to do two stories plus an understory, you've got to squeeze that all in to 30 feet. No.

No, the understory is your finished floor, and that's what you're – The top of the understory is the finished floor.

Actually, in accordance with FEMA regulations, it's the bottom of the structure supporting. Say everywhere else, every other flood zone is the finished floor.

I got it. If the flood elevation is eight or whatever, then from existing grade to eight is the underfloor.

These really deal with more VE zones and structures that are in floodways, so special flood hazard areas. So it's not your AE zones. It's not your typical zones we see in the majority of the community. These are the waterfront properties.

Yes.

That now, according to the latest FEMA flood maps, almost all of them are in a VE zone. So we'll see more and more properties presented to us that are enormous.

And part of the reason why we were saying 28 feet instead of 30 is

your feet isn't much but it's to help prevent a 40-foot structure from being built on the waterfront so I think we need to be very careful about these under stories or it's going to look like a 40-foot structure okay if I made through the chair just a bit of clarity so I

Is it that the intent is that we want to make sure the understory is not habitable, not air-conditioned, solely parking, in compliance with obviously FEMA regulations? But is that the concern? Because that's, I think, an easier fix.

Yes. For me, my concern would be the extent that we are allowing to be built. And so I don't necessarily have an objection to the building access and the parking garage limited to a maximum area being air conditioned. And I think FEMA does allow for that as long as the equipment is above the flood elevation. don't think that we should be forcing a property owner to have their building access enclosed and hot on a summer day but I think we need to limit the degree or the amount of footprint to a certain maximum and I don't know what that is just sitting here so quick so we have a section on on with some discussion on understory later on and in this code where it says understory areas

Where elevation of the first habitable floor is required to meet minimum flood, such elevation shall be achieved to the maximum extent.

What line item is that?

I'm on page 15. What line item? 485. Elevation of a primary structure through placement of, primarily through the placement of structural or non-structural fill for the purpose of meeting minimum floor is discouraged. which makes sense, you know, so it doesn't look so massive. Understories are limited to the following non-habitable uses, parking and vehicle storage, building access, including stairs, ramps, elevators, storage, incidental or residential, mechanical, electrical, plumbing equipment, other non-habitable uses.

Yeah, my comments here are flood prone areas needs to be revised and because that's not specific enough and maybe we come back to that. I don't think that this limits it. I have the same comment here.

Is this definition good and then we can get into more detail later on that?

We can get into more detail later. I think the definition is probably okay as long as we know what the objective is, which is to.

And this is just defining it, not basically providing guidance for it. Yeah.

Yeah, I just, that was the first time I saw it, so that's where I put the comment.

So here it says understory areas may be open or enclosed and may be air conditioned. So is that creating a conflict if we're going to be describing uses in a later section? Maybe that's more of a code and not just a description, in my opinion, or non-air conditioned. So maybe that should come off. provided such areas comply with us so maybe take the maybe air-conditioned or non air-conditioned off

I would actually strike from line item 119, which starts with, I think, actually further up, including base flood elevation plus required free board. Period. Because we're saying FEMA regulations.

FEMA regulations, period.

I don't think that free board is a thing in a V area.

So you're saying in the definition after FEMA regulations?

Yeah, and then further down where we talk about understories, I think we need to talk about it being limited only to special flood hazard areas, but we'll get there.

And that might be in this later session.

I have a comment about it as we get down.

So are we concluding as far as removing line 119, 120, and 121? Yes. All right. Striking 119, 120, and 121. Any comment? Sinead? good yeah for now yes front yard any comments discussion good we that one sentence has been expanded rear yard good with it side yard comments page five this is consolidating all the our districts into the one one our district my question on this is and maybe this is something that follows we have a zoning map that shows all these are different our districts on it right So that map has to get updated with this also? Just one color instead of five colors? Yes, sir. And where's the zoning map in this code? It's referred to, I guess, at the beginning as a map that's in the zoning office or something? Yes.

So essentially this code section outlines the designations that are on that map.

And that will all get consolidated. Okay. Section 402, compliance with cubage, that's removing all of our cubage, previous cubage requirements.

Sorry, where do we get past?

We're on, I'm on line 168.

All right, line 143, if we can go back to that. Sorry. Where it says in the In the yard side, I think it's under that. I had to convert this to a Word file so it's a little wonky. On line 143 it says shall be considered a side yard. I think it's a secondary frontage and I'm worried that if we say it's a side yard, side yard has a different setback. Side yard has a 10-foot setback whereas a secondary front has a 15-foot setback. Should we change that? Shall be considered a secondary frontage?

trying to seek some clarity here because I know we've had that that we've had applicants actually come in and incorrectly have a side yard so what is this thing on a corner lot yeah the side next to the side street secondary front it shall be considered a side yard so in other words you only have the 10-foot setback requirement there as a side yard

I think it's just a secondary frontage. I don't think it shall be considered a side yard unless there's a reason to use that terminology.

I guess it's considered a side yard for the setback to define the setback. But it's different.

So a side yard typically is when you have two structures adjacent to each other. Those are side yards. Where you have a corner lot, those are typically referred to as secondary frontages.

So secondary frontage would be the front yard setback? My house, your house. So that would be the front yard setback?

Yeah. No, no, 15. So secondary frontage. So not primary frontage. Primary frontage is 25 feet minimum or the average of the street. Yes. Could be more than 25 feet. The side yard is prescriptive at 15 feet. If you choose to go more, you can. Or 10 feet, yeah. No, 15 for secondary frontage. That's the confusion with the side yard because the side yard is 10 feet.

Yes.

So if you guys are good with that, I think it would help clarify.

Okay, I'm good with it.

So we would remove item 143.

We would consider it a side yard. Right, gotcha. Our districts went down to 168 section 102 take all that out So they're naming it a now Yeah, they're striking this a and a starts here that's what they're doing no parcel of land on Residential shall be subdivided unless the newly created has a minimum area of 12,500 square feet go to yeah 12,500 square feet and 85 feet of primary front yard frontage so here I guess this answers one of the questions that we had in the thing item B No parcel of land zoned one family or district shall be combined or unified to create a buildable lot exceeding 21,500 gross feet in overall size. Any comments? We're good with those?

If we, in my estimation, lot coverage on staff's proposals reversed as an inverse relationship, it should be larger lots are less percentage, not more. If we're not in agreement on that, then I would propose reducing that from 2150 down to something lower. So, in other words, maybe we come back to that once we get to lot coverage.

I think you'll get it.

Okay.

All right. Our district schedule of regulations.

I've got something in here. Two things, actually. We've seen a number of applications come before us that the applicant conveniently shows the pool without any hardscape around it in order to just skirt in underneath of the number. The idea is that the pool is under a future separate permit. The building official is not going to look at that. They're not going to look at whether or not that new pool that's being proposed is actually going to exceed the previous requirements. He's not going to care whether or not that whole backyard is a deck as long as it doesn't exceed the setbacks. He's not looking at this part of the zoning code. That's our job. So with that in mind, I would say that any pool should come before us too. I know that puts a lot of additional work on us. But I think that if a pool is going to be proposed, we need at least a check. At least it needs to go to staff so that they can review the pool and the hardscape around it to confirm that it doesn't exceed permeability and impervious. Right now there's a wide open door for somebody to come in, propose something that's right up to the line, knowing later on all they have to do is just come in and do a bigger

after after the am I making sense there is that understand to a to an impervious requirement it's under separate well that's what I'm saying it would come to us at that point they can propose let's say you're an applicant right and you know that you're you're coming up against the limit

You're just going to propose a project without a pool. We can't make them put in a pool. And now the project's going to come before us and it's 44.9% pervious. Right hair under. We've seen it happen. Now they come back to the building official and they put a pool under a future separate permit. The building official's not looking at our zoning code. So I think we need to have that come before us so that we make sure that there's nobody that can take advantage of that by playing those games. We've seen it. We've had to reject or make modifications on the fly here. So this is a loophole. I think we should close it.

You know, the same thing occurs with people in their driveways, sidewalks, whatever they're on. So in Northeast 6th, there's a place where they took out 80% of the front yard, and you have places where, you know, in the front yard and how much pervious you appear. Yeah, but the zoning staff are part of that review.

So zoning staff would review driveway permits, decks, pools, and we essentially enforce. Absolutely, absolutely. We have them provide the calculations and we check that stuff. So you guys are already doing that? Yes, sir. Okay. I disregard my comment then.

I have another comment immediately in the column next to it. It says one kitchen per dwelling. I think we need to make an exception for summer kitchens.

What line are you on? This is in the R district and it is permitted and unauthorized uses.

It says only one kitchen. I think that, right, we only want one kitchen per dwelling, but if it's a summer kitchen, we would technically be in violation of that. It's at the very bottom of the chart.

Oh, so 6D.

Before we get to line item 195.

6D.

Yes.

The following is a partial list of uses deemed not to be included in authorized uses.

I think we're in the list of I think when you compare it in context to the uses before I think it's trying to surmise it as an accessory dwelling unit but I don't think we lose anything by removing it well what's the definition of a kid I wouldn't say remove it just just say except the summer kitchen except summer kitchens yeah except for outdoor summer kitchens

Are those kitchens or just cooking areas?

What's the definition of a kitchen?

I mean, is it just a grilling area and a sink?

We're going to be here all night.

I know. I'm trying not to.

What's a kitchen? A kitchen is all the facilities, a dishwasher. Yeah, that's kind of where I'm going. It's more of a room.

I'm not sure what prevented it. I mean, yeah.

That's more of a room as opposed to just a grilling station. I mean, we're not... preventing outdoor areas as is.

I would interpret this to be a kitchen in the sense of all the facilities that would make an indoor kitchen to a residential dwelling, which is a dishwasher, a sink, a stove. Those are something you wouldn't see. I don't know if you can have a dishwasher in an outdoor kitchen. I suppose maybe you can. A stove, probably not. Really?

So I don't know. Yeah, you can do anything in an outdoor kitchen. You can do it. That's why I would just accept summer kitchen. That allows people to do a summer kitchen, and we don't have to worry about running afoul of a code.

What about under permitted uses, what do you think about, do we need item number two there? Or is that just unnecessary? Parks, permitted uses in the R district. any parks, playgrounds, other lands or reservations owned and operated by the village, including all uses customarily incidental there too, but not including any place for the storage of it. So what is that trying to say and do we need it here?

I believe what it's trying to say is if the village has acquired a piece of property that has the zoning of R1 and the village retains the right to place a park in it, they have the ability to do so.

Just to make a little green space, right?

Correct.

Neighborhood green space or something. Yeah. So that's what that's trying to say. And if it does that, then they can't park vehicles or construction equipment or anything like that. No.

Because it's specifically for land owned, operated by the village. So it's a governmental agency.

So that's something that should be written in here? I mean, that's necessary. To make it clear. It's better stated than not.

Right, because if it's not stated, it would be difficult if we were to acquire. Yeah, and I think there is a situation similar in place now where there's like a residentially designated property that is a park, but that one has a covenant running with it or something, something different, but for us.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

I would keep it because the Shores is, you know, unique. You never know.

So under permitted and unauthorized uses, number three, home occupation and professional offices.

That's a permitted use? That's a permitted use.

So what is, and I'm confused with the title here, permitted and unauthorized uses? Which one? Where does it become unauthorized uses? Number six. Number six. So then this is a permitted use. You are correct. Home occupation and professional offices. Yes. So that's a permitted use. Yes.

You can have administrative office from your home.

So I could have my doctor's office.

well there's there's also limitations to it like a home office you're i think you're restricted to like 20 of it you can't have uh signage you can't have like a work truck outside you can't have people coming to the property you can't operate it like a commercial business it's an administrative and that's written in the where's that written there's another section of the code that's not in the zoning code that talks about

So do we want to have professional offices there and have to go through that?

Well, it's home occupations and professional offices.

And I saw it. I'm saying, okay, we could have a doctor's office in the R district.

No, no. Let me clarify. We are preempted when it comes down to home occupations. office building home-based business and so that was a law that was created during covet that does allow for um yeah so home home businesses they have to meet the qualifications underneath the statute so i would probably say whether we have it in the code or not wouldn't necessarily it's going to default to state law anyways, we still have ability to regulate certain zoning things in terms of parking. That person has to, at least one person has to live there, and it has to be their dwelling. So there are some limitations, but we are preempted by law when it comes down to home-based businesses.

All right, so your suggestion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You can keep it or you cannot, but either way, if someone were to request, we follow the law.

Any comments before moving on? All right. Schedule of regulations, dimensional standards for our district. Sheet 8.

Yeah, under the minimum plot size with 75 feet, there's somewhere else in this ordinance that says minimum is 85 feet. I don't remember where that is, so let's just keep our eyes out for it. I may have another comment further on. It may be about subdivisions, actually.

That is in the area where someone is proposing to subdivide a lot. And that's already codified. So the code says if you're looking to subdivide a lot, you cannot create a lot that's less than 85 feet in width.

Got it. So it's not really a conflict then?

No, because I think what this is stating is that there are platted lots, legally platted lots in the village that are 75 feet. So it's giving that as a minimum.

Under building height, I would propose that we revert back to the 28 that we discussed last time, understanding that council will need to opine on that as it relates to Senate Bill 180.

Brandon, is this where you were referring to on Sheet 176, the 85 foot?

I think so.

Primary? So do we have a conflict that we need to fix?

No, according to Eddie, we don't, and I agree with Eddie, we don't. I thought we did when I read it initially, but now that it's been explained, I understand it. Do we want to have any discussion on that height, 28 feet?

Yeah, I think so. What's the consensus? Right now, we've changed the definition of height. from the median the center the median of the pitched roof to the top of the tie beam so we've given we've relaxed at least a couple of feet there so I think if we can stay with that definition we ought to go with 28 feet here in my opinion what's our consensus any comments on that as far as

Even though we're just kind of click since we changed our definition of height. That's why we're changing this to 28 pretty much

to try to stay consistent with what we've got.

I understand. Once, from the very beginning, council instructed us to move forward. And as we move forward, anything that we identified that would be in violation of SB 180, we would flag. And then we'd come to this point, and you guys would make a decision. So here we are. If that's the direction, as far as what our opinion is on SB 180, you guys know it. So anything you want to do moving forward, you do it. And at the council level, we'll handle it there. I'll take it back internally to the firm to see if there's areas that we can sign, not sign. But ultimately, I'm going to advise the council on that.

So if the council has a problem with changing that to 28, then we'll ask that we change the height definition back to what is there at present.

If that's what you want us to explain to the council, we certainly can.

Do we have consensus on that?

I'll defer to you guys as to what you think is prudent.

But we're going to go ahead and make the recommendation at 28. Okay.

I have another comment in this section where it says or FEMA FFE other buildings 40 feet. I think we should get rid of the or FEMA FFE. Everything after 28 feet from established grade, by the way, it should be established grade, not minimum grade. And then everything afterwards, get rid of it. Except for accessory buildings not to exceed dwelling height, there I think we need a limit on accessory buildings to 15 feet.

So you're saying from the established grade period, established grade of the plot period?

Established grade of the plot that get rid of or FEMA, FF&E, other buildings 40 feet, get rid of that part. And then under accessory buildings not to exceed.

Or when located in a flood zone, the minimum finished floor elevation as established by FEMA. But we had language establishing that differently than that. That's why it's a conflict.

Yeah. And then also accessory dwellings. I would propose we limit that to 15 feet only because we're now getting into the realm of very, very tall structures and you could conceivably build an accessory building five feet. A two-story. from your rear lot line that will look right into your neighbor's yard at 40 feet, depending on where you're located, but it could effectively be very tall. So I think we should limit that to 15 feet. I concur.

There's another section of the code that discusses accessory buildings and it limits it to the existing eve height of the primary structure.

I don't think that's too tall. If the primary structure happens to be one of these very. Story. Yeah. We're trying to keep it one story. It's too close to a neighbor. Okay.

I think we need to respect the neighbors the other item for the other buildings I touched upon earlier that unfortunately is it it's indicated by reference in some of the other zoning districts the a1 to a2 where they allow townhouses and single-family They tie back to this. So the fact that there's no building height in those other sections, we can't make this change because we can't make other changes in the other sections of the chart. Sure you can.

Accessory structures in the R district not to exceed 15 feet in height.

No, that part, yes.

I'm talking about the 40 feet. the 40 feet oh other buildings not within in our district so for example right right I just want to be crystal clear nothing in our district should be considered another building at 40 feet I just want to say this is an ideal right

And when you guys get over to making your changes to the other districts, I want us to be reminded to come back to this and clean this up too. But the only reason we're still keeping this is because I cannot touch those other districts without us – like those – there are some things in the other districts that really need to be changed that we cannot readopt right now. So because of that, we're not going to touch them. So I just wanted to kind of – Touch the 40-foot.

Well, we'll just simply add other buildings not within an R district.

Yeah.

And then we'll come back and clean that up later, too. Accessory buildings within an R district not to exceed 15 feet. I think that solves the problem for now. But, yeah, even if we forget to clean that up, it's not ideal still.

So you're suggesting for other buildings not within the R district, 40 feet?

Yeah.

Okay.

If we must, which it sounds like we must.

Accessory buildings within an R district.

Yeah.

But not to exceed the height of 15 feet.

I think that's reasonable. That's a good, healthy, single-story structure. It shouldn't be a two-story structure.

And then accessory buildings within our district, colon, not to exceed.

Height of 15 feet.

Not to exceed. Well, you don't even need to say that because we've already referenced that elsewhere. Okay. A height of 15 feet. Accessory buildings.

All right. So we'll have some comments later and we'll address those.

I think it might already be done.

Any other comments from this table?

Can I just get some clarification just to make sure we got everything? So we're doing on the first paragraph underneath for dwellings, two stories and shall not exceed 28 feet measured from the established grade is that grade of the plot period were taken out or anything related to the FEMA? Yes.

okay that's what I wanted to clarify second paragraph in that for other buildings not within our district 40 feet got that and then I got accessory buildings in our district is we're at 15 feet okay and then I got one on the column to the right the far right column the second to the right column year that's rear yard depth so the very top Senate says for dwellings shall not exceed 15 feet you know your your questions about the word max should be not less than 15 feet are you are you still in the chart yes yes it says dwellings max 15 feet is what it says now for dwellings shall not exceed 15 feet for the Which required rear yard depth. So it says the depth shall not exceed. So shall not exceed. So you're saying it should be less than 15 feet, and we want it to be 15 feet or more. So it should say not less than 15 feet. Am I correct? Yes.

Could be a minimum.

Or a minimum of.

Yeah, that's what that is.

Bynes says, has different language. For dwellings. shall be a minimum of 15 feet, yes. And how come yours says different?

Because I didn't get the Word file, and I converted it using AI, and it dropped off. And it fixed it? No, it dropped off a section. I'm looking at it here, and I'm looking at it there, and they're not the same thing. Yeah, so far so good has been fine, but here it dropped it off.

So we're good? All right, page 9, development standards.

Brandon I got something on 209 though under accessory buildings the definition we're saying that starting it's at line 209 I think it says as a met basically saying that the 50% covered or otherwise obstructed from the sky fabric or metal roof structures permitted under section 523 1 9 as amended that attached to the main building shall not be excluded from okay no no no never mind I excluded from the rear yard coverage calculation shall be excluded from the rear yeah actually no so why is that being excluded so we have a main structure we have an accessory structure and we're connecting this is an attached structure it's based on what I'm reading

So it looks like they wanted to place a limitation on a detached accessory structure, which is 20%. But it seems that this is referencing an attached canopy of some sort, and they didn't put a restriction.

But it's just saying fabric or metal roof structures. I don't like the way that that, if you think about what that, how that can be misused. So it's annoying. With another accessory building, it just happens to be connected with an awning, and now it's an attached building, and we're excluding that whole thing from lock coverage. Not lock coverage, from the rear yard coverage for an accessory building.

Do you want to take it out?

I think so, yeah.

Okay. Got a long way to go.

Just scratch. The whole sentence, right? Yes.

Understood.

Yeah. Strange. Line 208 through 210. Oh, no. Leave fences and walls. Sorry.

Yeah. I don't know where you guys are, but I have something on 218. Line item 218. Okay. Okay. This is setbacks. This is, again, setbacks for an accessory. Five foot from any other plot line. So 15 foot from the main building line, not less than 10 feet from any plot line abutting a side or front yard, or not less than five feet from any other plot line. So if you don't have an alley and your neighbor decides they want to build a gigantic accessory structure, it could be literally five foot away from your property line. Are we okay with that? that was how it was previously written for years and years and years i believe that's how it's codified that's currently how it's codified that's that's how it's written right now i've always had i've always had had issues with that approach just because i think one of the things that we have in our community that is something that's worth cherishing is privacy and we've heard a lot of residents talk about towering structures peering down into their yard and I think that's one thing but if you have an accessory dwelling that's used for entertainment purposes for example that's now only five feet away from your property line it doesn't leave a lot of linear footage for sound attenuation so I think that's a little too close given what we're seeing in our code now.

not in our code, but in our built environment.

I think people are looking to maximize their lots.

Sorry, I'd like to interrupt. Is this like a workshop? Do you have a workshop? Well, no, they made it here waiting for it to be heard, some projects.

Yeah, we do, but we've got to finish this. This is our agenda. I understand you. This is our agenda, yes.

It's not really...

It's okay. We always do it this way. Are you here to be... Yes. Are you here to talk on one of the applications?

No, I'm here to listen because one of the construction...

I think what they're saying is that they like to participate. Oh, you mean you're here for another application. You're not. Okay.

Yeah, we're trying to get through this as fast as we can.

This is our meeting.

Let us have our meeting, please.

Let us have our meeting, please. All right. All right, where were we? Setbacks. Kind of an opinion, if it's been like this for a long time. I mean, so you can build your pergola or whatever.

Well, it's a whole, it's going to be an accessory dwelling unit.

It's a part pergola, right?

It's going to be an accessory dwelling unit at one point. So it's a guest house.

So now you can't build a pergola. If you wanted to make it more, you can't build a pergola within five feet?

We could define it differently.

Yeah.

We could define it differently, but right now, if it's an accessory dwelling unit or a guest house, you could build that five feet away from your neighbor's property. I think that was written for a time where people weren't taking advantage of these properties. When this was written, properties were not commodities, and now they are. And I think this is an issue.

You just want to take out the five feet.

No, I want to increase it. I think it should be same as.

So, but if we increase it, then you can't build a pergola within five feet of the lot?

Well, that's different. And I think that goes to a definition as to what is an accessory structure. Because right now, everything is grouped in together. An accessory structure is an accessory dwelling unit. It is a guest house. It is a pergola. It's a storage shed. I think it's even a pool deck. I don't know. Pool decks are different. The definition is very broad, but it allows for somebody to take advantage and really significantly inconvenience their neighbor.

And I think that's our job to try to look out for them.

You can still build a pool. A pool can still be close. If you want to put a pergola over a summer kitchen, sure. But do you want an accessory dwelling unit five foot off your rear property line?

I don't know what's the board's consensus on it. I think if it's an alley, it's okay.

But if it doesn't have an alley, we have to be careful.

Well, it goes back to what's an accessory building?

What are we considering?

Yeah, I just would like people to be able to build a pergola five feet from the line.

Yeah, I don't have an objection to that.

let's um can we put a mark on that and get back to that just so I can try to keep some momentum going here come back and revisit that

I think there might be a scrivener's error here. That language has never really made much sense to me. If you try to read that, read that out loud and see if that makes sense to you. And I have a proposal, but

think that that has always been confusing and other municipalities handle this this corner lot issue much differently so I mean what are you proposing on a corner lot where the rear plot line adjoins the side lot line of a rear plot no accessory buildings shall be located closer to the side street line than the required

front yard depth of the rear plot yeah it's complicated yes I mean the way it reads right now is I would say maybe we used the words adjacent lot to the rear of the corner lot right so right now it reads corner plot on a corner plot where the rear plot line adjoins the side line of a rear plot no accessory building shall be located closer to the side street line than the required yard depth of the rear plot then the required front yard depth. Yes, front yard depth, exactly.

Of the rear plot.

So if we use adjacent lot to the rear. What are you proposing to clean it up? I'm trying to, I didn't edit that in line, unfortunately. I just put a comment on it. I, where the plot line joins the side lot line over the rear. Can we make a note for Eddie to review that?

Let me make a note for Eddie to review. I think that's what we need to do. Because you're right. I mean, I've got to read it five times and I'm still not sure.

I think that can be cleaned up.

Section 412, minimum lot coverage. How do we feel about the numbers?

Reversed. It should be the other way around. What the community has said out loud to us is that they're concerned on bigger lots. The structures are becoming massive. So if you happen to be the unfortunate neighbor of a lot that's 21,500 square foot, you're going to have a gigantic building next to you.

Right now our code reads 40 and 30. 40 for one story, 30 for two stories.

We advocated something last time that we all agreed to. I think that you just go back and look at the video and revert to that. I have notes.

so we had said we didn't have a table on our previous notes we just had maximum lot coverage we narrowed it we narrowed it it said 40% for one story and 30% for two story structures that's what it currently exists at yes well we said we had discussed each of these different four Sizes And we were going from 40 down to 40 down to 34% so we were going yeah We'd already agreed to it.

Can we just say that we revert to what we did before and move on? I mean 40 and 30

No. No.

Well, let's just write the numbers in to make sure so that we're all clear.

I don't remember what it was, and I didn't know. I just made a note.

We went back and forth, so my notes aren't really that clear either. I think we had 40, 38, 36, 34.

I don't recall us agreeing to anything. I recall us talking extensively about it and taking the position that it would be good to ask the staff to produce some information that would help us make some decisions. I mean, we're talking about 4% of the village lots in the community, and why we would invest this much energy on 4% of the lots unless you live next door to it, I really don't understand.

I don't personally live next door to one where that could happen, but anybody could easily buy another lot. duplicate the lot and have a 21,500 square foot lot.

We're saying here that you can put some language in that would limit them from doing that.

No. The language that we've already agreed to says that they could easily do that. So in other words, present day value is not indicative of future values. So I do think it's worth investing that time. which I thought we had done before, and I think that that's important. We've heard the community say this.

I will tell you beyond any question of doubt, I would not have agreed to those numbers. So if we had a 4-1 vote, that's fine, but I don't think there's any basis for those numbers.

Dan, what are your thoughts on this?

I mean, I don't know, but I want some basis for the numbers more than I think that they're too big.

Right now they're 40 and 30, and then with the Senate Bill 180, if we get more restrictive, then that's a no-brainer there.

And that's the, I'm sorry, if you don't mind me chiming in. The issue that I was running into when we were assessing this is that following that trajectory, the 30% was going to fall below. We were going to be in the 28, 26, and that would be more restrictive. And therefore, we made the decision of we need to work within the existing parameters of 30 and 40 And given some of the conversations about trying to incentivize one-story construction and even further single-family additions, this is essentially where we landed on.

I would most certainly not advocate increasing it. I think that that was the wrong direction. If we can't reach an agreement to limit larger lots and the construction on larger lots, which I think we should definitely do, then my fallback would be leave it as it is.

That's where I'm in.

But I would really, I'd like for us to, on the record, just first before we talk about numbers, do a straw vote to find out if we're in favor of limiting larger lots or not. I am in favor of limiting larger lots.

And the larger lot is the category of what? The last two? The 15,000 and above?

Subject to conversation. Just general concept. If you have a 21,500 square foot lot, should you be allowed to build a proportionately similar structure on it than you can on a 7,500 square foot lot? Or should that be less? In concept, I think we just need to understand, do we agree on that? Because if we don't, then we just leave it as it is and we move on. But if we do think that there should be some limitation, then we have to get into a conversation as to what that should be. So, straw vote. Conceptual, I would like to limit it. Okay, so there's three votes here. There's three to two, so we should have a conversation because there's three to two. If we... So...

Have we ever had a house built in Shores that's bigger than 9500 square feet?

Yes, several.

Quite a bunch of them.

What's quite a bunch? Is that a carrot bunch? Or is that a banana bunch? I mean, I don't know what a bunch is.

I think it's closer to a banana bunch than it would be a carrot bunch.

And I looked for banana shopping today, and a bunch can be as small as four and as big as eight. It's true.

But they're still very small numbers. I think we need to define what a bunch is.

They're still very small numbers.

And we can spend like 30 minutes and define that. Or we can just simply throw out some numbers. If we're at 30-40 right now, I think what we've heard, some people who are on smaller lots think that that 30-40 was unfair because it limited what they could do. So maybe we say on a 7,500-foot lot, you can do 32. So it's actually increasing it for a smaller lot.

For a two-story.

And 42 for a single-story. That way if you happen to have one of the small percentages of smaller lots, you can get a little bit more. And then wherever our median is, we stay at 30, 40. And then for the 15,000 square foot up for that next.

For the next line item, which would be.

What was the number?

How many homes in this community are 21,000 square feet and above, more or less, from that table? So 2%.

So 15,000 square foot, instead of being at 40 foot for a one-story, sorry, 40% of the one-story, I would say 38%. Instead of being at 30, it would be 28%. And I think you keep the same numbers for the 21,000 square foot lot.

So you're saying for a second story you would go to 28% for 12,000? For 15 square feet and above, yeah. For 12,000 square feet we leave it as we had it, 44 one story and 34 two story.

For 15,000 square feet and above we go to 38 for a single story and 28 for a two story.

I lost you. I have too many numbers written down. So start at the 7,500. Mr. Spirk, can you repeat from the top? Let me start from the top. Make a proposal of the 7,500.

7,500, instead of being 40%, we'll do 42% for a single-story.

Instead of being 30%, we'll do 32% for a two-story. So that's 7,500.

12,000 square foot, we leave it as we had it, which was 40-30. 15,000 square feet, we go 38 for a one-story and 28 for a two-story. And I would say for the 21,000 square foot and above, we keep the same number, 38 and 28. I'm okay with that and and just for clarity that penalizes my own property so so I'm advocating a reduction for my own interests because I think it's the right thing to do so this is does that make it more restrictive so it tightens it up 3828 see right now we're at 4030 so what I would without what else I would propose here because this is one of those items that really is leaning up against SP 180 heavily if if council is inclined to go this direction these numbers would be it and if they're not we revert back to exactly what we had we don't increase we don't decrease we just stay 4030 for now

So at 21,000 square feet, reducing it by 2%, just 420 square feet, is that even noticeable? I think I'd like to add that the main difference between a lot coverage and far is that the lock coverage encompasses those areas that are not under AC like

a balcony, a terrace. FAR captures everything within AC. So essentially what we're talking about are these outdoor areas that are not air-conditioned.

Because we're not touching the FAR.

The FAR is staying as is.

Do we have concurrence on this, or do we need to vote on it? Brandon, you want to repeat your...

I'm not... I think we captured the proposal. I guess the question is whether or not those were the initial numbers that I threw out. Are there proposed tweaks to those numbers?

So Brandon's proposing those numbers. I can't go 30-30 on the two-story? all the things and if you want to reduce the single the option that that was that was you know the option is if counsel if counsel doesn't if counsel is not on board with this because it is in conflict with 180 then we're gonna advise them to just revert to what's existing which is 40 for one story and 30 for two story which is what we've been working with the last two years

That's fine. That's fine.

I think we have concurrence on that.

Yeah.

All right. I got a question. Line 241, maximum impervious surface, 55% impervious. Is it necessary to write 45% pervious? Or is that kind of like a confusion factor, in my opinion? So I propose striking 45% pervious.

I think that's fine. I think it's implied. I don't have an issue with that. I did have a comment on the chart right above it, though. Okay. The chart or the language? The language. My comment was just I wanted to add something in there that provided that minimum pervious areas are maintained. we're says for existing single-family residences built prior to 1965 or prior to the adoption of this regulation undergoing renovation or square footage addition may be permitted permitted up to 2% increase in maximum lot coverage beyond the applicable standards provided that the principle structure is not demolished and remains a minimum of 50% of its existing exterior walls and 60% of its existing floor area. This incentive shall apply only to one-story additions. I think that's great. It's what we asked for. We wanted an incentive. But I do think we need to be cognizant of pervious areas. So I would just say provided that pervious area, our code that limits pervious is maintained. Because oftentimes it's block coverage that we get stuck on, not pervious.

I want to just to say I want to get finished with this portion of the meeting by 9 o'clock so we can hear the applications. So just to make sure we're moving along. Anything else on this page? Yes. 255. Next page, page 10.

Line item 255, sorry. Same page. I think it's the same page. where we're talking about we're talking about the step backs front and side facade I'd like to make it some language in there that another exception so where the step back does not apply if you're doing just a simple bedroom master bedroom addition above a garage I don't think that you should be required to do the step back

And I think that's written in here somewhere.

It was supposed to be, and somehow I never made it in there.

Additions to one-family dwellings that were in existence as of the date of adoption section, if those additions total less than 50 percent of the existing floor area of the one dwelling, this subsection does not apply to those additions. So doesn't that address your concern?

Well, there are instances where you do a ground floor addition and you could wind up the ground floor. Either it's a very small home.

So if these additions are less than 50% of the existing floor, then the step back doesn't apply.

It's a very small home. And the addition to the area above your garage could potentially go past 50%. And if it does, I think that that's penalizing applicants. I'd like to

if you guys guys are opposed okay well I'll leave it I'll leave it let's move on prohibited uses roof decks we don't have a definition this is line item 266 yes

we so in 2024 with the zoning in progress the definition was clarified or provided just but we never right but it was never placed under the prohibited uses so the definition provides the definition and it says they're not allowed but we never placed it within this is one of those things where those three asterisks and it just isn't in this code got it sorry I should have remember that I

Now that whole section on water tables. Water towers. Water towers.

Put that back.

I'm kind of of the opinion we ought to just put it back since that's the direction we decided to go. The original one that you guys struck on this reading.

So are you saying the language that we proposed, put it back in exactly how we proposed it?

Yes, yes.

Okay. Water towers.

Okay.

We're good with that. Establishment, greater plot. We discussed that. we're good see projection of awnings canopies open balconies line item 333 I think we're in that section line 333

where it says generators that were previously permitted and installed within the required yards may be replaced in their current location. I'd like to add the words.

333, I've got their current location, basically.

Exactly. I'd like to add right after their current location, provided they are screened from view.

Okay. That's fine. Provided they are screened from view.

From whose view? From street view, from your neighbor's view.

Good question. Temporary construction site fencing.

I just want to add that this is Michael's code can we put that word in there I have a question the language to me doesn't is could be clarified slightly I don't think that it actually is clear that the fence needs to be erected prior to demolition and remain in place until the structure is substantially complete or otherwise that the continued existence of such fence would directly prevent the completion of permitted work. Because the way it's written now, I can pretty much demolish the building. I can take down the fence. I can start my construction once I have the permit. I don't have to keep the fence in place.

Well, the building permit remains active.

Ah, okay. Did I miss that? Mm-hmm. Okay. Possibly. Or I was cross-eyed by the time I got to line 350.

A silt screen fence shall be installed at the base of the chain link fence.

Yeah, that stands.

Is that being excessive?

Standard erosion control required by Miami-Dade County.

I mean, because a lot of them we don't really have erosion problems, but... standards Miami-Dade County requirement whether it's there or not I had a question on 520 the section our existing section we don't have here 520 G impervious surface it says all parking spaces are considered impervious area is that correct it's not in this but it was in our code when I was comparing them is that something we should discuss I mean some parking surfaces you know might be a pervious

I had a proposal further down when we were talking about somewhere here that we allow for driveways and walkways and front yards to utilize pervious pavers and count that as 20% pervious or 30% pervious or 35% pervious, the number that we would come up with.

So we'll look at that. And if we do that, then we have to maybe modify this Section 520G. you know to because otherwise you know when people are getting really close on previous coverage you know they're you know when we're gonna make and put in five parking spaces it's gonna blow their numbers yeah agree so that might be just don't make a note required off-street parking If you have one to three bedrooms two spaces four to five bedrooms three spaces and one for each additional bedroom About five bedrooms any any comments on that we good with that All right sheet 13 Any comments my next comments on 411 all right so sheet 14

sheet 14 yeah um line 411 411 we're basically telling people what they can do with the interior structural walls inside of the zoning code and you can go to sheet 14 get rid of that what's that which line we're telling people what they can do with interior structural walls inside of our zoning code i don't think it should be there i don't think that's the zoning item what line i'm sorry um

So that's existing in our code right now?

Yes, I would propose striking that.

Interior structural walls. Nothing to do with zoning. Yeah. So strike that whole sentence. Okay. Let me ask you on this. remember a couple months back we had an applicant that was doing like a steel building 10th avenue remember that what was the exterior concrete on top he was like putting a tiling or something on it yeah because i was just reading that with this at construction all exterior walls exterior of the building shall be stone brick tile cement or cement products And he had steel. I wasn't sure if he put a coating on that or if it was something. No, no, no.

The steel was just the.

The steel was the exterior wall. No.

The steel was the.

The structure. The structural supports. I thought he was just putting a painting on it.

And then there was something that he was going to have, and then they'd spray it with some kind of acrylic coating. But the only, the steel structure was for the.

Well, the structure.

For the structure, yeah, like a steel building. And then there was some kind of something else, which I don't remember exactly what it was, which would basically be the exterior walls.

Garage conversions, we discussed that already as far as being in compliance. Can we go back to 374 for a second?

On the total of paved areas within the right-of-way driveway approach in Swale, some not occupy more than 20% of the required right-of-way. Do we need the rest of it with at least 80% to be maintained as green space? Because there's some corner lots that have utilities, utility boxes and things like that. So if it has to be 80% and then 20%, you can never meet 20%.

I was going to say, but yeah, you won't be able to meet it.

Yeah.

I don't know if we want to try to...

Just leave it. And just take out the 80%.

Okay. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. 20% of the required right-of-way area. Yeah. Period. Okay. Less is more. And then remove the whole rest of that paragraph, huh?

Okay.

Okay.

I think the reason we allowed for that is because there are situations where the public works director has to make a judgment call either to go below the 20% or to go slightly above it conditions kind of vary so we kind of coordinated with him and it's kind of what they've been doing unofficially And we just were trying to put something that was a site issue or whatever.

You're correct. Leave it in there.

Right. Or if there's like a vegetation in the swale that makes it difficult for them to put a driveway.

All right.

Okay.

All right. So we're back to garage conversions. We're okay with that?

Yes.

roofing materials section gone my next comments on 469 I don't know where we're at yes I'm on page 15 but if you're on 469 so you're on page with us yeah development

Yeah, that's actually my comment. Well, actually right above it. There's three asterisks here, meaning that Section 529 was taken out, but previously we narrated a couple of conflicts here. So there were conflicts with Section D and E. I don't remember what that said at the moment. But this is going to have to come back before us again, no question about it. So why don't we just put that back in in the next review? Don't streamline it. Let us see.

What we had before? Yeah. I'll tell you where the problem was. E&E were conflicting. The language we had there said all single-family lots shall be designed to retain on-site minimum stormwater runoff generated by a 25-year, 10-minute storm event. And at present, the county requirement, which is what we have to come abide by, is that 10-year one-hour rainfall or 3.5 inches. So this is what we had was more restrictive, hence SB 180.

That's why that was taken out. This is the version if you did not do SB 180, if you want to add it back, you just add it back.

You add it back.

Yeah.

Are we in agreement with that?

We discussed it here. I think we agreed to it, I think. The intent was we have flooding issues.

One thing I did like was we had... If the elevation of the grade increases more than 1.5 feet, you must put a retaining wall in so you don't have where everybody's dumping on their neighbor's thing. I liked everything from D on that you had originally, but if we're in agreement to go with the more restrictive flood 25-year, 10-minute storm event, how do you feel about that?

Fine.

All right. So let's revert to the first reading.

Who made it?

Sir. Design standards.

Under Section 534 development, I don't know if I didn't catch this before or this is new. This starts at line 469 and ends at 472. I'm not sure the syntax is correct because it implies that all the parcels that are adjacent are within VE or special hazard flood zones. And if that's the case, we're allowing for understories in all of these properties regardless of whether or not they're in a VE zone or not. So let me narrate that a little differently because I didn't even understand what I just said. It seems as though we're grouping all these parcels together.

You're in Section 536, landscaping.

534. So the way it says, it says any new development on land adjacent to Biscayne Bay, Biscayne Canal, or other tributaries of the bay shall be subject to special approval under Article 6 of this ordinance. The site plan shall be reviewed with respect to, and it goes on.

With respect to, and we just discussed going back to the first reading.

The problem is, I don't think that syntax is correct. I think we shouldn't be grouping all those properties together because they may not be in a special flood hazard zone. And if we group all those together and you happen to be on a waterway, but you're in Zone X, there are properties like that. Now we're allowing them to have an understory. Is that what we want to do? No. So I think we need to change that preamble.

We could just make a new... I can fix it in terms of where we put it, but just tell me the intent. The intent is that we streamline this solely to...

It needs to be only if it's in a VE zone. A flood zone.