Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Mr. Brady? Here. Mr. Bolton?

Here.

Ms. Saddle? Oh, she's not here. Mr. O'Hara?

Here.

Mr. Spirk? Here. We have quorum.

Thank you. Thank you. Fantastic. Order of business? Any additions, deletions, or deferrals? Statement? Do you allow me?

Go. Okay. Some members of the audience may have received mailers for proposed development at 1285 Northeast 103rd Street, RSP 25-65. This item was originally scheduled for tonight's meeting but was removed from the agenda due to an incomplete submission of required materials by the established deadline. The item is expected to be rescheduled for the May Planning and Zoning Board agenda once those requirements are met. So please be on the lookout for updated property mailings regarding the item. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We'd like to open the meeting up for any general public comments. We'll have item-specific comments we have for the three agenda items. But if you have a general public comment, you're welcome to speak at this time.

Minus items.

Item specific? Okay, fine. So no general comments? All righty. Minutes? Review and approval of the minutes from the February 25th meeting?

Simple correction I have with regards to, it was, I think it was RSP 25-60 in the motion. where it says both sides of the driveway shall not exceed 50% in between the words exceed and 50% we need to add a total cumulative impervious does not exceed 55% because as it's written now is technically incorrect as to how the motion was made looking back at the video and if you'd like I'll read that again Okay, so in between the words exceed and the number 50%, the added text is a total cumulative impervious does not exceed 55%. And probably the word area there, total cumulative impervious area does not exceed 55%. Thank you.

All right, we have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Item 6, quasi-judicial items. I'd like our attorney to address that.

Good evening, everyone. Please be advised that the following items on the board's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentation on each item. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. In accordance to Section 2-100 of the Village Code, any lobbyist must register before addressing the Board on any of the following items. Additionally, board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning any items on the agenda pursuant to Section 2-86 of the Village Code. So at this time, I'll just give the board members an opportunity to disclose any ex parte communication.

No. No.

No.

Thank you. So now, would the Madam Clerk please swear in any persons who wish to testify on any quasi-judicial item this evening?

You're going to talk about your application. You need to be sworn in.

Okay, so do all the applicants swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when presenting their application? Thank you.

Thank you. All right, new items. I have item 7A, RSP 25-105, owner Ernesto Bayaga. 1255 Northeast 93rd Street.

Planning Director. Thank you, sir. This is RSP 25-105. The lot is approximately 15,700 square feet in size and contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1957. The existing structure is a living area of approximately 3,641 square feet, configured with three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling comprised of 6,728 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of six bedrooms, seven and a half bathrooms, two car garage, and swimming pool with outdoor terrace areas. Staff has confirmed that the our 22.5 zoning district is compatible with the single-family Future land use and the site plan generally complies with the 22 Different zoning criteria is found within the villages zoning code and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated Conditions that's found within your report.

Thank you Thank you any questions from the board to the planning director on this application I

Just kind of a general procedure question as to how your team reviews the applications. Some of the commentary I'm going to have has to do with how the building meets the crown of road, the elevation heights. There's discrepancies there. Is that typically part of your review? Is that one of the items that you look at?

The crown of road item, I'm guessing it's in relation to the interior finish floor height.

It has that relationship, the respect to how the stairs come down, how is the driveway sloped, all those things. What degree of elevation are we looking at, and is it tying to the road? Right. The application is not, and I'm wondering if maybe we can add that as a thing that we check off so that when an applicant comes to us, we know that that's going to be an important thing that we're going to want to see. Sections usually help, too, and I notice this application doesn't have sections.

I don't believe that sections are a requirement in the submittal process at present time. I think they're encouraged, but they're not a necessity.

Fair enough. But if we're going to evaluate it, it's not really about it being a requirement and more about the applicant providing what is necessary for us to properly evaluate it. And if we don't have a section, then we can't otherwise determine that it is properly connected, and that is part of our purview, as I read it. Okay.

Any other questions from the board to the planning director? None. Would the applicant like to discuss the project?

Yes. Hello, members of the board, staff, and attorney. We come to present the proposal for a new two-story single-family home located at 255 North East 93rd Street. I'M SORRY, ONE MOMENT. I MISSED YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS MICHAEL. MICHAEL.

ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT OR ARE YOU THE OWNER? YOU'RE THE OWNER. OKAY.

GREAT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. PLEASE, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OR THE INFORMATION ON THE PLANS. WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE STEP BACKS. Everything is there. We want to know about your recommendation, any adjustment that we have to make. Do you see anything that is not according to the signing requirements? We are eager to comply.

Thank you. Any questions from the board to the applicant? Don't kill me, please.

just a comment that you heard me reference with regards to how the house comes down and meets the street if you I'm gonna I'm gonna direct everybody to the screen oh you can't hear me okay I'll speak up I believe it's drawing a 8 which is where the elevations are and I just want to point something out that I think is very important a 8 I think it's a 8 yeah Yeah, A8 or A9 for that matter, it's the same thing. If we're looking at the top of your ground, and I know you can't see that on the screen, but you're welcome to come over and look at it on my iPad. You have a finished floor elevation of 11 feet, but yet your survey says your crown of road is down at like 4, 4 and a quarter. Your drawings don't show that at all. In fact, your drawings show that your grade is about 2 foot 10. So you have to make up a total of 6 foot 9 inches. And I don't see how that's working in your plan.

Well, let me ask you a question.

So I think that that's a little.

The 30 feet is calculated from the finished floor to the roof or from the ground?

Finish floor elevation is not what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about building height either right now.

You're 30 feet. I'm not questioning you're 30 feet. It's the other way around. I'm questioning the bottom.

That's okay. We'll have to put the 30 feet all the way to the bottom.

No, you're in the flood zone.

The crown row is 430-something or 470-something, I'm not sure.

Yeah, you have two measurements in your survey crowns, and they come out to like 4.26.

The minimum elevation that I need for the house is 90.

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

11. You have to speak into the mic. 11. You're at 11. You're at 11.

According to FEMA, we need the minimum floor elevation is a feet. So we always add another foot.

Actually, our code requires two, which we're trying to change, but we'll see. So you're at 11. You got your finished floor set correctly. Again, my question is not about the height of the building as you have it prescribed to the finished floor, which is prescribed by FEMA, you're fine. My concern is that creates a big slope, and your design does not account for that at all. And I have an issue with that because flooding has been an issue. I have some other issues I'd like to go through, too. This is one of them. But before I hog the whole thing here, I want to find out if my colleagues have anything to add.

All right, so on this item, on this elevation item?

No, any other items that you might have. I have others if you want me to continue.

Continue.

Okay.

We have to raise the ground. That's different. We have to do that.

Your structure is entirely massive on this site, and it is totally true. Your height is fine. You match the height. You do match the setbacks. But as to whether or not that flat roof line is harmonious? The flat roof? You have not got the flat roof. I'm not saying do a sloped roof or do a flat roof, but you have one elevation going entirely across. So there's no variation in your roof line. It's just like a gigantic box. And the community has said repeatedly, they don't want to see that. So we changed the code so that that wouldn't happen. And although you are technically compliant with the prescribed conditions of the code, the intent was that there would be a variegation. So I'm not going to hold that against you. No, no, no. That is a concern I'd have. I would like to see some variegation in the roof line, but I can't force you to do that.

No, actually, I explained it out to the owner, but they only wanted a flat roof. We wanted a modern house.

You can have a flat roof. I'm just saying some different elevation. So what you've done is you've maximized the height all the way across the entire property. I think a little bit of variegation would be a wonderful thing for your neighbors.

But the problem is that that is going to alter the design. Now, if you got a sheet, I want to show you something real quick.

Yeah, that's fine.

I want to show you something real quick. We got a sheet. What do we got here with this? 833.

You're saying 33? 3.3. 3.3. I don't want to move.

I don't want to move. So these are the houses that you have one block away. This house is just across the street right there.

I literally just walked my dog down the street today. You don't have to tell me. I know this area very well.

But what I will tell you is this.

Those were approved previous to code revisions. We revised codes so that that wouldn't happen again because the community came to us outraged. So we sit here as kind of the gatekeepers as it were. And the community doesn't want to see this anymore and the code was changed so that we don't have to do this. I understand that you could do this. This is your context. But respectfully, I think that the design could improve volumetrically.

All right. So you want different level, different slope. No, I prefer that way. It's going to be more. It doesn't need to be different.

Just variate that height line. What you're doing is what you have at the house at the bottom, which is a flat element that goes all the way up. Something like this? Don't do that. No, that's what I'm saying. Variate it.

But I won't be able to do two floors. Yeah. You can because I don't have the setup.

Push the front back a little bit so you get a little bit more of a movement.

I mean, there's a lot of things you could do as a designer. I can't tell you that. But there are solutions.

It's already done on cheap. I mean, I have some kind of step back.

Okay. Respectfully, you can disagree with me. No, no, I'm not disagreeing. But I just want to explain so they don't understand what's going on here. I mean, I think I explained it. You can go back and watch the video. My next thing is your second floor. The second floor has access to a balcony that is off of a common area. And we've said specifically no to that. And the reason for is that that that is a nuisance item you're gonna have a party up there because it's off of a common area It's gonna be a noise concern for your neighbor to the rear So we've been asking applicants not to do that And then you're with the house a little back walls, I mean I Don't see it was related to lower the floor.

We're gonna have to put into square footage in the house and try to do something

I don't know if you need to reduce the square footage of the house. Whatever you need to do, that's up to you. Do you have some kind of code? My last item is that you're proposing to remove a black olive mature tree on the parkway, and you're replacing it with two trees. Why are you removing the mature one? There's a mature black olive tree that is in the parkway. It's on a village property, and you're proposing it to be removed.

Remove what? The tree.

OK, hold on. Can you explain that to me? Because I couldn't.

There is a tree in the parkway you're proposing to be removed.

All right. The problem is that, well, if you go to a landscaping course after 18.8,

I'm asking why? Why remove a mature tree? Is it blocking anything?

Because we're doing a new driveway, and it's right there where the driveway is going to be. So you go, okay, there it is. The tree number 10, go to the next sheet, it's the proposed sheet 02, there it is right there. So it's pretty much right here. So what we put in new, nothing.

I don't know if that tree is accurately defined because I looked at it on maps and to me it looked like your driveway was going to fit. I don't have an overlay to show you. Sometimes I do that.

We need 10 feet from the sidewalk.

I'll just leave you with this. If indeed you need to remove that tree because your driveway doesn't work, that's fine. But I'm telling you, when I looked at it, I didn't think that was the case. So that's all I have.

So you recommend keeping the tree then? Okay.

That's all you got? OK. You made a comment. Let me understand it. The balconies are off of the comment. So you're referring to the front balcony, not the back balconies.

Because the back balconies are off the bedroom.

No, if you look at sheet A7, right when you come up the stairs.

Oh, the one inside in the courtyard.

There's a gym there, and then there's another room. Yeah, it's off the courtyard.

Inside the courtyard?

Yeah, the other ones off the masters are fine. That's not a common area. You're really not going to bring a bunch of people through your bedroom into...

For the balcony issue, I understand that that was part of the rewrite of the code. However, it hasn't passed yet. Oh, I know.

I know. That's why I'm telling him. I'm not telling him to do anything. I'm just saying these are the things that go to harmoniousness.

Any other questions from the board to the applicant?

If you don't want to change the slogan, who's your thank you? Would you do it?

My wife.

You have to speak into the mic. I'm sorry. If not.

My name is Ernesto. I'm the owner of 1255 Northeast 93rd Street. We designed the house that way because my wife and I were a young couple, and that's the type of design that we like. We added the greenery in the front, on the side, to make it more similar to the Miami Shorts landscaping.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not asking you to completely redo your design. I think there might be a confusion there. I'm only asking for you to consider minor modifications that help break up that roof line a little bit. I don't know if there's a way to do it without losing square footage. I'm sure there is. I'm just telling you that from the community's perspective, we know that they've expressed that. We're not telling you to do that here. There are other concerns. I do have a concern about how the house comes down to the ground. I'm going to need to see how that works for me to give you an approval. But I don't know how the rest of my colleagues feel. They may be fine with the proposal as you've made it. But those are my two concerns that I think need to be addressed.

I noticed what you said about the other homes in the area. Some of them look so brutal. It's like too massive. That's why we're adding a bunch of landscaping to make it match the area and somehow break with the type of structure that used to be built in that area. I mean, from my point of view, that looks very Miami chores, I would say.

Yeah, I mean, I really need to understand how the building comes down and meets the ground. I think that's where we start at. Whether or not you want to make any other changes is totally up to you, but for me, I feel like I need to see how that building comes down to the street, because you're at 11 feet, and that's a two, and we have seen this before, and it's caused problems for the neighbors.

Yeah.

You know, we could include that in the... DERM will review everything.

DERM will review everything, believe me. I understand that. I know what they review. I get it. I get it. But I'm just telling you, these are the concerns of the community.

We can change it to a major one. You have to talk to the lawyers. There's nothing to back it up.

Is the roof slab, I guess I'm looking at your elevation, it's a 12-inch, just flat on top, no parapet wall or anything like that? No. Just flat concrete? Yeah. 12 inches? Yeah. Pretty solid. That's a hurricane-proof bunker, isn't it?

Yeah. Remember, he got on the back, he got six feet from two of us, so you had to provide proper calculations to... depending on the slab. So you cannot do multiple levels of slab inside the house. So you have to keep one straight slab and do the calculations to comply. So that's why it's two inches. Now we can try to do a parapet. Do you think that it's going to be a better design?

Not necessarily. It's still straight.

The flat roof, as I told you, the flat roof has to go. It's running out. I mean, I explained it. I mean, I've been coming here for a long time.

The aesthetic has its place in the shores. This is not an argument about aesthetics at all. It's really an argument. I mean, the finishes that you have on it. Apologies for not leading with what I like about it, because I don't dislike the design. And I jumped right into the meat on the bone. The meat on the bone really is about the volumetrics. The community is asking applicants to respect that. You don't have to. But if you, yeah, I think you really should do that. And since you have to come, oh, well, according to me, to get my approval, you would have to address the connection to the ground. I need to see that. So it would basically, from my point of view, mean coming back. But I don't know how the rest of my colleagues feel, so I would ask them.

So let me ask you, Brandon, just discussion on the connections to the ground. You're talking about how to go from the finished floor to the property line? Is that what you're talking about with the gravity wall or whatever that they have to basically?

Yeah, there's going to be elements on the side because the neighbors aren't at the same elevations. And we don't really have a site plan. And we're going to spill water into a street that's already flooding. Or just how to come from 11 to 4. However they're going to do that, but in my estimation, I don't think that's worked out in the plans. And I think that is a required item. So I do have an issue with that.

We can lower it all the way to nine feet, but you should be able to move it to Miami-Dade County.

Our code won't allow you to do anything less than 11 right now because your finish floor is higher.

Well, we do – I mean – I mean, maybe you can bring it down to 10.

Maybe you can bring it down to 10, because I think you're AE8, right? Huh? You're AE8. Is your flood elevation – you're in – you're 8? Flood zone. Flood zone. Ultra. Flood zone. Where – oh. You're AE8. Go to the survey first, Dave. Yeah, I think it's – it's AE8 and 9, based on – Okay, 9. So, yeah, you have to be at 11. It's both. Because you're 9. So you can't lower that. You're saying lower it to 9, but you really can't. You're stuck there because of FEMA. You're – We couldn't let you build lower than that because then our participation in the insurance program is in question.

That's awesome.

We don't want them at that height, but what can we do? FEMA says yes. But that does create a challenge for you And I think you should see it yourself. You're going to live there. You can see it every day. You don't want to be like, oh, we messed this up. So I think you want to look at it. And also your septic system, how is that going to work if you're lowering that? Are you going to put a little retaining wall there or something? There's a lot that if you went to building, they're just going to send you back here anyway. You go here to cheat?

A5, you're going to see the flood criteria, and you're going to notice what fuel requires for these flood elevations, and then you can do the calculations. So I can put all the information there?

Yeah, you got it. And it shows on your survey, first page. First page in the set.

So the 8 feet is the minimum. 9 feet, always you add another feet on it. Yep, 1 feet. So we get 9, 9.

Please be mindful of the mic.

I think what you're saying is incorrect. Your survey, page one, shows that you're in flood zone AE, alpha echo, eight, and AE, nine. Our code requires you to do two feet. Two feet? So that's 11. That's why you're at 11. 8, 9, 10. FEMA only requires 10, but we can't. Our code says 11, so that's what our code is.

Okay, but we got 11. In the center of the heart, we're going to raise the ground. And in the back with the pulleys, we're going to raise the ground. We're going to slope it. And then on the side, we're going to have the swirls.

So you're going to be at a significant elevation difference to your neighbors. Just keep that in mind. So you're going to have a drop-off. You're going to have some sort of a retention element.

Make sure that... We're going to have a retention wall. Definitely. When you do the two-triple fence, you're going to have a retaining wall. You're going to raise the floor four or five feet. Sand, compact it, and then the slab. And then in the center of the house, you're going to raise... The vine is going to be raised from here over. And then you're going to have this...

Oh my God, I'm so sorry.

Look, I get nervous here, man. You guys are freaking out here. The only expression with me, man.

Michael, so everything that you explained with the sloping and all of that, that's what we want to see.

Well, we usually do it in Miami-Dade County. We put the slope on the elevation and we put the slope on the stuff.

But there's a lot of houses that were built that came that were up like that and then we see them later and the neighbors see them later and they see It going down and the water running to the... No, you can't.

The water getting to the neighborhood.

But that's what we need to... We need to make sure that it's good for the whole neighborhood. I like the design. I think there's a lot of windows. I like the fenestration. I like the design. I would just chime in with Brandon where... It's just, it's a very, it's a box. That's all we see. There's a lot of breaking up of it. You attempted to break it up with the windows and the wood paneling and the things like that. But I think you can break up a portion of the second floor a little bit, move it back, just kind of do something a little bit different to not make it be that big box. That big box, yeah. So I think that's the concern that I'm hearing up here, that it's the big box. I think you're very close. And I think if you... Can I just listen to the plan, play around with the massing at the front? I think you're right there. But I think in comparison to the other big ones.

Keeping the same roof.

Keeping the same roof, but just moving back some of the second floor volume.

Just had to play around with it a little bit.

So when you look at the building, it's not that mass. So in the other pictures that you showed, It was good that you showed it because your design is much better than those. But I think you can make it a little bit better that everyone would be happy, including you and the owner. He's paying. He's paying. So I think you're right there. I think the design is beautiful in comparison to the other ones that we've seen. But I think a little bit more work, I think the product will be fantastic. But I think you're right there.

I think you're right there.

So I don't want to be the... the damper on it, but I think you're so close. And most times when we have this discussion and this back and forth, the second time is brilliance.

So, proof? Do you still want me to remove the tree? Look, if you don't have to, to fit the driveway, it doesn't make sense. You're going to pay a bunch of money for a live oak, and you've got to... Can I show you the tree?

If I don't remove the tree, I'm not going to have the space to put the second tree. Just show it. When you come back, show that.

Just show it. Just give me an overlay of where it really is. What kind of tree is this? A black olive?

Yeah. These aren't really native trees anyway. I know.

But it's mature, and it's a nice tree. I mean, you guys could disagree with that. I'm just saying it's a black olive. It's special. I'll be fine.

I mean, if this is going to bother you guys, then you don't have to worry about it. Yeah, it doesn't bother me.

But I just want to make sure you're clear on what they're saying, and I agree with them as far as the roof line. And I see what you've got here, and it is nice. But, I mean, what do you, you try to vary that roof line some, or pitch it, or, I mean, it's so high. This thing is, my comment is it's going to tower, I mean. And I know this street too. That house right across the street from it is what we're trying not to do. You know, it starts up here and then it towers over everybody else. And it's horrible. It's about mass also.

It's not just design, but it's really mass, volumetrics. That street's already narrow. Pushing it back is going to be a win, a major win. So I used to come back the same way you are.

Just a little bit.

Or maybe on one side. Is that a remove the center? And I have the center just all the way back.

Is the second floor set back? I mean, it's stepped back, right? Yeah.

The second floor, it's stepped back, though, right? Yes. How far? 37, 31-something feet.

I mean from the front, from the face of the first floor to the face of the second floor. It's 36 feet.

No, no, no, from the first floor to the... Oh, it's more than six feet.

More than six feet, okay, all right.

It's six feet to the balcony, and then you have like another three feet to the wall. So it's more than the core requires. Yeah, I have about 35 feet from the property line. It's the way they step by. It is a deeper property.

Yeah, it is. That's why it's nice in the back, I thought, you know, where there's, even though you have that balcony there, but you have a good distance to the property line, you know.

It's a very deep property.

If you go to the sheet side plan that you see the second floor over the first floor, maybe you can see the difference on the step backs.

What sheet are you? Yeah, I saw the step backs, but what sheet are you? Let me see.

No, that's a silver side plan. So many sheets. This one. Let's see here. I'll find it. Okay. No, actually, I'll remove it. No, I don't move. I don't move. But they gave me some comments for the, uh.

I didn't catch that.

They gave me some comments. I can move. Don't worry about it. I don't mind. Let's change it a little bit for me.

I don't mind.

But it's a lattice.

Oh, here. That, that, that.

Oh, here. In sheet A5, you will see the difference between the second floor and the first floor.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Well, I guess my question would be, does that relationship change with the additional 35?

How do you watch?

Now, would you be okay if they brought this out? Because they could. I mean, maybe not at 11 feet, though. That's a big distance.

I guess we'll leave the top the same and pull out the front.

I don't know. That makes a difference. I don't think that's even, not even about that, but...

Does it look that way because the second floor... Another idea. The top roof comes almost onto the...

It's on the first floor. Pull the first floor out.

More? More.

And leave the second... leave the second story the way it is, and pull out the one portion of the first floor so it doesn't...

I had it that way, but I had to reduce it because of the lock covers. Freddy asked me for a bunch of comments. 19 comments. So he can't really pull it out. All he can do is set it back.

Or let him fly with it because he entered the 35 feet.

Is that removed part of the center of the atrium where the palm trees are? That would be nice.

I mean, like, you'd have a... What if those two elements were just... I mean, I really don't want a design for you. I appreciate your design. I'm not trying to step on your design. But maybe it is that centerpiece that, you know... You would love to watch a dog across the house.

You don't like the centerpiece.

No, it's just about the roofline of the centerpiece. Still do the centerpiece, but step back that roofline a little bit. I don't know. We shouldn't be playing designer. Either we have an issue with the massing and we let the applicant do it, or we don't have an issue with the massing. For me, I thought it was 25. I misread that because it was small on my iPad, sorry. And that drove more of my comment about the volumetric change. But you did set it back an additional 10 feet. So I think that due to value.

It's 35 feet.

Yeah, I think now that I see that, I'm willing to admit, hey, I...

Should I move the house back another 10 feet?

You already did it. You did it. Oh, yes, I did. You're fine. You're at 35.

Please, man, please.

Based on the plans, it looks like not only do you have 35 feet, but you also have, it looks like, 25 feet from the edge of property line to the center of the road, which is also pretty considerable distance.

It's far from this.

The 3D makes it look like it's right there. Oh, my God, this is so big. But actually, when you, you know, You go to a plan and numbers is a bit more.

I like it. I could go either way. in comparison to the other houses in the neighborhood. This is a far superior.

Yeah, I think so, too. And I brought it up believing that I had read 25 and not 35, and that does materially change that feeling on the street. So because of that, I'm retracting my concern. You won, buddy. You won. Yeah, I'm going to retract my concern on that then because I don't know if any of you guys still have concerns about the volumetrics, but for me it was driven off of that if you guys do.

So let me understand what you just said. So because it's a 35-foot setback in the front, you don't think it's going to be as imposing as a 25, and that's probably true.

You still want to see the slope of how they're handling going from the 11 to the street? Yeah.

Just the grading, the site work.

Can this piece of the roof be moved back? Oh, just for the clerk purposes. Okay, I'll ask you again up there. You go up there, I'll ask you. Okay, Michael. So on the cover rendering, if we could just go to the cover.

The front.

Is there a way to break up the top roof line by maybe removing that second or just cutting it out and bringing it back a little bit so it's not one. It's not a straight block. Right. Is that something that you would do?

You probably don't lose any square footage like that either.

No, the building stays the same.

Because it's over the open area.

Five feet. You got it?

Do you understand what we're talking about? Okay.

So go to the A0, please. So I guess A0, let me just reiterate my understanding. The second floor roof line, where it's straight all the way across the property, it's going to indent in that middle atrium or courtyard area. It'll set back about five feet. That's what you're proffering to do that, to maybe break up the line a little bit. And you think you can do that and make it look... Architecturally pleasing.

Yeah, we can do that.

I mean, it'll open up. It'll feature the second floor landscaping a little more, I think, by doing that, too. Actually, give it more sun, too.

Yeah, yeah, we'll do it. We'll do it. Yeah. That will get the job done. I mean, like, are we providing the eave? A little bit more to the side and go all the way back. I will do this and I'll be stepping back.

What is the cantilever distance or the overhang distance of that second floor roof from the face of the front to the roof? What's that overhang? Four feet. Four feet, a four-foot cantilever?

Yeah, because the projection had to be four feet maximum. And for the planters, three feet. But yeah, the size, four feet projection.

So it's set back so much, what, six feet on the second floor?

More than six feet, yeah, because I have a balcony. So I move the balcony six feet, and then I move the house another three, almost four feet.

Okay, I mean, I think that's, again, part of the issue is the four foot coming out really does make it look like a single solid bar. I mean, when I first saw it, I mean, that was my first impression was... This is really a big house, and there are big houses on that street. But this is a big house, and there are also smaller houses on that street. But it really struck me as just a very

Well, this is tall, too.

This is the full height, too, which is going to make it... We have a house on the neighborhood two houses away that is bigger than the other one.

Higher.

I mean, like... Well, yeah. It's taller.

You didn't have to cut the roof because it was so high that they cut the roof and make it look like a French house. Ugly.

Yeah, I know.

I mean, you know what I'm talking about. You walk the dog.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

This house, you will want to walk your dog.

Where's the mechanical equipment in this house?

On this side, on the left side?

On the ground floor or the? Ground floor. On the ground floor on the left side?

Mechanical equipment.

Oh, it's on the, we prepared a space for the mechanical equipment. Floor plan. Next one. Oh, I see. We have 13 feet to the mechanical equipment, more than 10 feet. We make sure the neighbors have privacy. No opening on the sides. We don't want the neighbors to be bothered at all. We respect all the parameters of the staff. I don't want a house that big and the neighbor looking over my wife. I have that problem with the poor neighbors looking over them. Sounds like a person. I know what that feeling is. But we have privacy on the sides.

All right. Any more questions from the board to the applicant? All right. I'd like to open this item up for public comment. Any public comment on this item, please approach the podium and state your name and address before you comment, please.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Frederick Muller. I live at 1263 Northeast 93rd Street. directly adjacent to this project to the east side. I'm a Miami Shores native. I've lived on that street for over 60 years. I've seen everything come and go, hurricanes, flooding, you name it. What I've seen in the last five years is three houses go up so far, well, two and a half. I think the house directly to my west, which is 1276, is unfinished. And I'm not mistaken. I think the owner developer is living there. I don't know if he's got a certificate of occupancy or not. But basically, in each three cases of these houses that have been built so far, 1202, 1275, and 1276, they all have the same problem. They're built up to accommodate the FEMA and other height elevation things. But they also share the same problem of flooding the neighbors on all sides around the house. Another neighbor, Tim Durkopp, who lives at 1250 Northeast 94th, He's going to be backing up to this project here. Directly the backyard is exposed. Already he's getting flooding in his yard from the project that was the Whitman House, which is directly to his west. Now, in the case of 1202, the neighborhood has known for years since that was built that it's been a problem with flooding neighbors surrounding. Even with these plastic retaining walls, It doesn't seem to be doing the right thing. In the case of 1275, it's a similar thing. We have to realize that East Dixie Highway, Northeast 12th Avenue, is a coral ridge. And everything east of that is filled, landfill. That's why we have the spoil islands out there, because it was dredged many, many years ago. In the case of 1275, the water table is very high on 93rd Street, east of 12th Avenue. And they put a berm in the front yard for their drain field and septic tanks. And I'm not sure it's even still working because they still have to pump it out all the time. It's just been a nightmare with this big berm. The facade of the house looks like it's ready. I mean, he's planted some stuff and whatever. But there's nothing in the backyard yet. And the house was surrounded with this plastic, I don't know, barrier material. I don't think it's set in concrete. There's no footing. And we still have runoff in our property at 1263, to the point where when they tore down the house to build 1276, After they did that, we started getting, after two days of rain, six to eight inches of water in the crawl space under our house. So I have to pump it out then. What worries all of us in the street and surrounding these particular types of houses is the elevation and the runoff, whether it's adequate and whether it's going to impact neighbors. And there are legal protections. That's your time limit, but just wrap it up. I'm sorry. I'll try and be brief. But these houses are coming on our street. There are six-bedroom, seven-bath houses with two parking spaces in the front, which means there are always cars on the street in the front. The impact on the neighborhood has been dramatic and changed significantly. The last comment I want to make is 1276, which is directly east of us, adjacent, is 40 feet tall. above where they had to raise the level. And 1275 is pretty much the same thing, these huge tall houses. If we get a tall house on our west side, it's going to be even a bigger impact on our property, only because we all know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And wherever the sun goes, it leaves a shadow. And wherever there's a shadow, nothing grows. And that has to be a consideration too, that there's going to be adequate sunlight to guarantee a thriving green space in each property. I applaud the board for addressing a lot of these issues, especially with regards to flooding. But I think that there also has to be a better partnership with building and code enforcement to see that the directives that are issued are followed through and that walls get built and that they're retaining walls and that they actually do their job. I hope that we can make that happen going forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Any other comments on this item?

I got a question, I guess, for our planning director.

I mean, we're not really reviewing drainage plans here or going through that. That's not really in our purview of what we're just reviewing it for compatibility with the neighborhood. My question to you is, I mean, you're not allowed by law to drain on your neighbor's property. You have to capture all of the rain that rains on your property, right? I think that's law.

Yes.

According to him, apparently that's not being done. What is the... criteria or what is the mechanism for ensuring that that gets done and gets done correctly? And then what is the recourse? I mean, maybe you can answer this, maybe you can't. What is the recourse of owners that live next door that find, you know, their property now gets flooded regularly every time there's a medium rain? I mean, is that something that the drainage reviewers aren't doing an adequate job or what's the recourse on that?

I mean, it's a difficult thing to...

Besides lawsuits.

Yeah, it's a difficult thing to answer. I mean, definitely whenever a development goes through the permit process, there's a dedicated reviewer that essentially is looking at proposed drainage systems, right?

So he sees a straining and he may require a... Exfiltration trench or something like that, or just...

It could be a combination of things to mitigate any sort of stormwater. And then aside from the reviewer, obviously they have to go through Miami-Dade County's DERM agency, and then they also review it for those sort of particular characteristics of the site plan. Now, as far as... implementation there's dedicated inspectors that go out and there are certain phases throughout the construction of the project that get and they're just expecting to the plan and they're inspecting that what's being built matches what's in the plan you're correct um It's very difficult for me to ascertain what could be happening on the site. I know that Public Works is having considerable issues with many of the local neighborhoods that there's not a built-in drainage system to capture the infrastructure. that's a combination of the shores uses the swales. I think they're probably 95% of one of the things that they're doing is they're trying to reclaim the swell areas back because there are properties that they have impervious surfaces within the soil. So, um, I mean, outside of that, you'd need more of an engineer to kind of guide you.

Uh, apparently I'm sure they submit engineered plans with drainage systems in it, you know, um,

apparently it's not working I mean just to add to that that would just be a code enforcement you know issue we do have code provisions relating to tampering with stormwater systems we do have code provisions regarding having synthetic turf on the swale I'm not particularly sure what the cause is for the for the you know the drainage issues of that street, but there are particular code provisions that kind of tackle each issue, and then that would be code enforcement.

Well, I mean, I think that assumes that it wasn't installed in accordance with the plans or it was modified.

And that would be a violation. That's what we're seeing happening.

And I think part of that is because if you look at the way that it was done, it may have met those standards that Dade County has. But if they're using a plastic barrier, I think those ones are generally assuming that another property is going to be built to it soon. But what happens if it takes three, four years? We go through an economic cycle, for example. So I think we need to make provisions for that. And I think that's harmonious. I think that definitely, in my humble opinion, relates to Section 524 because that is about doing right by your neighbor.

I just wonder... I just wonder... I mean, what is the recourse? You say code enforcement, so does the neighbor say, every time it rains now, I'm getting flooded, and, you know, my property's not doing it? And then code enforcement, I think they're kind of limited on what they can do to make the property, you know, drain properly at that point. You know, I mean, I'm just wondering, is the only recourse at this point, you have to sue your neighbor, you know, to, and then you have, and then you got to do I mean, it's a lot more complicated than that because everybody could be draining into the right-of-way. And then if you're the low point on the right-of-way, then that ends up in your yard. I think it's a problem there.

Yeah, and when I say code enforcement, that's very broad. Again, it depends on the cause of the issue. So if it's a drainage issue and it's caused by the homeowner tempering with the stormwater system, then we do have a code provision for that. Again, you can call code enforcement and then they can come out and see if there is an issue and if that issue violates one of our code provisions. But I can't really... you know, tell you the exact method, they'll probably go out, investigate, and see if there is a violation of the code.

Yeah. If I just may make a brief comment. Brief, please. Very brief. This is consistently a problem on our street. And in the three cases of the houses that are preceding this, they're all problems. They all have the same problem, and somebody's not getting it right. And I'd hate to see this young couple invest in building a house next to us and have that kind of a problem. Because, after all, the bottom line is there is legal recourse for flooding and, you know, this kind of problem. And I'd hate to have it get to that.

Well, they're not going to have a problem because they're setting up that Elevation 11. Right? Unless I'm missing something here.

Why about FEMA now?

It seems to me, the problem is if you're, most people probably a lot of their drainage drains to the swale, to the front of the house. And then if you happen to be the low point or one of the low points on that street and the swale's not absorbing it, it all ends up in your front yard going into you. And then that's more complicated because the whole street is interested. Or maybe the city has to get involved and put some drainage in that street to make sure. Well, it's not the street.

The problem is the county code says you have to keep all of your stormwater on your site. And then it makes some prescriptions as to how to do that. The problem is those prescriptions may not be working. We don't know whether or not they are. Did the builder actually build it in accordance with the plan? Did they get the tests?

Assuming they do, and they build it according to the approved plans, but it still floods, then that's the problem. Yeah, exactly.

And that's why I think it's important for us to see that. We need to see how that interfaces with the street, you know, how you...

But that's not really, you know, we're not doing plans review. We're just looking at it for... I mean, that's a detailed thing, you know, to do a drainage review and make sure it works. It's on our list of requirements.

If you recall, the board asked us to make it a requirement, but we don't have engineering staff to conduct those reviews.

This is required by the journeyman. I hear you're concerned. The neighbor bought my house and cost me $80,000 because I had to remove all the sheet, the drywall, two feet from the floor. I mean, I know what... I mean, I feel you. Yeah. I feel you.

I think that street is an obvious example of this problem.

But look, that section right there, if you don't submit that section to the department of the government, you will not get the transparency.

And that's fine. That's trying to capture the water and percolate it into the ground.

Yeah.

But that may not be holding enough of the water, especially on a heavy rain. That's the engineering of it.

The problem is your civil sheets don't really address the front. So if you go to C3, for example, and you zoom into that where it says new drain field by others,

The house is cold.

So get this visual in your mind. That plane is now sitting at 11 feet. You have a retention swale that is sitting presumably at a higher level, or is it sloping? You're not indicated if it's sloping. If it's retention and it's sloping, you're now sloping that to the street. Further, you don't have a trench drain at the bottom of your driveway. then that drainage field has a certain situation in the soil. So that means you're going to come up and you're not showing at all what you're doing in the front. So you need to look at the way you connect to the streets.

So, yeah, that's a good point. Like, you know, if you're just sloping straight down to the street, obviously you're contributing water to the street that goes to the low point I was talking about. And whoever's at the low point gets stuck with it.

I think it's okay for us to apply a little bit of common sense here, even though Durham's going to review it. Common sense, that's all we're asking for.

We cannot put a swell 15 feet from a drain fill. That's a problem, too. We cannot get close.

This is in your engineering department. We're not going to engineer it for you. We have two other applicants that we have to get through.

But I think we've been clear. Yeah, I was just opining.

I think we need to go through the options.

I'm going to now close this for public comment on this item. And any further discussion? Do I have a motion?

Well, I guess there is further discussion when we're talking about options of what the motion would be to approve or would the motion?

Approve with conditions and the proffer.

You don't want to see the plans come back?

That's up to who makes the motion. I mean, I'm on the fence here. Okay.

I can just tell you for me a straw vote I wouldn't I'm unable to support the the application as presented because it has some deficiencies that we've heard our neighbors discuss and I do think we have a certain responsibility to look at it not necessarily an engineering responsibility but our harmonious responsibility we've heard these concerns expressed by our neighbors repeatedly And I think that at least my view of it is that we're here to try to look after those concerns to the best that we can while also preserving the rights of the owner. And I think from my perspective, I would like for them to propose tabling it or I wouldn't be able to support it.

And then coming back with the revised roof design and the site.

The applicant has to proffer it. So we may have to explain what that means. well if you make a motion to table it then I think he understands what we're okay so how do we want to form are we all in agreement I think so okay so then I think we need to understand how we're gonna write the conditions or are we gonna are we gonna put anything on the record at all with regards if you're tabling it I think you know the applicant has heard your discussion so if it's a motion to table then there's no conditions to all right I think my motion would just simply be to table this application and allow the applicant to come back and address the concerns that we've raised here as a board this evening all in favor aye

All opposed?

All opposed? Let me finish.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. All right.

Well, the motion passes to table it.

So what that means is it wasn't approved here. It wasn't approved here? It's been discussed. It's been discussed. You know, it's got... We like it, but an opportunity to come back to our next meeting and make the adjustments, I guess, get with our planning director, and he'll guide you to make whatever adjustments. And I think you know what we're thinking, right? I appreciate it. All right. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for joining me. Thank you. The flood grate that is at, what is that, North Bay Shore Drive? Yeah. What is it? I mean, I walked by there today. You look down, there's water four feet below the grate.

The one right next to 1276, next to my house, is two feet deep.

So you see the water two feet from the grate. Yeah, I mean, depending on the tide, if it's high tide or low tide, you know.

Well, a little known problem that is rattling the whole neighborhood are these yard guys that dump trash on top of the drains or in close proximity. So if we get a hard rain.

That's not little known. I think that's well known. The city public works director will probably tell the ones that are the worst.

I tell the guys in our neighborhood, hey, don't put your trash next to the drain. And they do it anyway. So, you know, but I appreciate your listening to me.

I don't know. The drains there, you said there's drains on that street? Yeah. At the very end. Are they what they call positive drains? Do they drain straight to the bay? Yes. They do? Okay.

Yeah. And when 1276 was being built, I mean, he was dumping concrete and all kinds of stuff. He didn't have booms, you know, to control the concrete running into the street. I mean, there's got to be greater oversight.

And that's a code enforcement thing. Right, exactly.

But the directive, I think, probably comes from you all, from the design point of view, because if it's a defective design or the implementation is impossible to do, it's not being solved. And that's why the idea of barriers and French drains and so forth.

We don't do drainage design reviews here. That's when you get the permitting, and that's where... That's where apparently there's deficiencies.

Thank you. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I'd like to discuss item 7B, RSP 26-11. Owner, Kevin Crago, 129 Northwest 97th Street. Agents, Victor Bruce.

Thank you, sir. The lot is approximately 7,725 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1941. The structure has a living area of 1,755 square feet. It's configured with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant is seeking an approximately 255-square-foot garage conversion to the existing single-family residence to accommodate a new den area and interior reconfiguration of the western portion of the home. The total habitable area indicates 2,010 square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms being provided. The single-family future land use is compatible with the R15 zoning district, and staff has measured the site plan and generally found that it complies with 22 of the different zoning criteria, and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board to the planning director? None. Would the applicant like to discuss the project?

One car garage and an existing single-story house, converting it to habitable space and modifying the driveway, very straightforward garage conversion.

Thank you. Questions from the Board to the applicant?

Just a quick question. Is the den at the same elevation as the interior?

We're matching the elevation, yeah. Okay. That's it.

Any other questions from the board to the applicant? I'd like to open this to public comment. Public comment on this item? No public comment. Do I have a motion?

Move to accept the application as presented.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Item 7C, RSP 26107, owner, Miami Ghost Group.

Mi Amigos.

Mi Amigos. I saw Miami there. I guess I emphasized the wrong part. Mi amigos. And Raul Arevalo, 1042 Northeast 95th Street. Planning Director.

Thank you, sir. The lot is approximately 9,333 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1938. The existing structure is a living area of 2,488 square feet. It's configured with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a two-car garage. The applicant proposes a facade modification of the home with an approximately 138-square-foot porch enclosure and interior reconfiguration of the home. A new exterior front wall will be constructed with hurricane impact double-front stores facing northeast 95th Street. The property will remain a four-bedroom, three-bathroom, two-car garage, one-story single-family residence. The single-family future land use is compatible with the R25 zoning district, and staff has measured the proposed site plan along with the 22 different zoning criteria and found that it generally complies, and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board to the planning director?

The renovation, I mean, this home's been vacant for, three years? I live two doors down from this house.

I'm Brad Schmidt. We're also both residents. We have a 575 Grand Concourse and we're renovating this house. We purchased it as part of a foreclosure. So it was vacant for three years, two and a half years.

I was neighbors with the people who lived there. They sold it. The guys did something. They got in trouble. They couldn't finish it. So is the renovation... And this, well, you don't need a permit for this reservation for the interior renovation, do you?

So if you want the history, so we, there were expired permits that we then reopened. We just went through a revision that was approved for sort of a kitchen. We're revising some of the plans. So the rest, everything else associated with this renovation has already been approved and permitted. This is just the one zoning piece for this portion closure.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Any other questions for the planning director? Questions for the applicant from the board?

Just give us a quick rundown of what you're proposing. Show us the elevation view, please.

It's actually pretty – so if we can show a picture of the front. They have a nice little element. There you go. So the modification is fairly simple. We're just enclosing the porch area, the covered porch area. It's underneath the existing roof line, so we're not changing roof lines. If you want to know the reason why, the front door kind of opens into the living room. Yeah, you want to add a foyer.

Yeah, that's the only purpose. That's totally fine. You had other work in this plan, too. I looked at this briefly. Catch me up to the other work that you're doing. Is it all interior?

Yeah, so we have a pool that is actually currently being constructed right now. The interior is we're just renovating the kitchen, adding a pantry. We're sort of not full renovation, but just sort of like fixing up the existing four bedrooms. So it was like a partial renovation, as the gentleman just said there, is that we kind of took it mid-renovation.

I got a question, and it's a huge improvement, obviously. The left side and the right side of the front elevation, those are at the same setback. And then the middle portion where the front door is – you're bringing that forward a bit, right? Correct. Like how far forward are you bringing? And then what is the step back from the left and the right side to your new front door thing there? Why I say that, to me, it just kind of looks funny that there's no overhang. It almost looks like your door is right. There's no overhang over the front door. So it looks kind of weird.

I think there's maybe like two feet overhang of the roof line. where the existing trellis, the ironwork is there, that's where the new front of the house will be. And there's approximately about two feet.

So what's the distance from the, let's say, the left side and then the front door portion there? That little step back there. We have to look at the... I know, I could find it in the plans. Our architect is out of the country. That's the only reason I'm like...

So it won't be like flat across. There is definitely a setback.

No, but it looks like you stepped it back maybe 12 inches or something like that, not much.

So we did not touch anything. This is the existing line of the building, and this is the entrance of the house. We're not changing anything. There's a stat from the wall.

Oh, so it's not all lined up. I'm looking at A202. All three walls are at different. Yeah, the front.

We're not changing the footprint.

So the left side is up front, 25-foot setback. And the garage is a little deeper. And then you have a – the dimension's not there.

But the garage is a little deeper back in. The right side dimension's not there.

So I can't even really tell from this hand.

that stoop is about three foot six so I'd say that dimension it's got to be less than that maybe 24 inches somewhere in that ballpark okay that was just the only thing in that schematic any other comments any other discussion for the applicant

Motion to approve the application as submitted.

I've got to open it for public comment.

I think she needs to hear it.

I think she needs to hear it. I've been cautioned before. Any public comment on this item? Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve the application as presented with the staff conditions.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Well, I'm sure they are. You know, the guys directly across the street, I think have been there for, you know, since the Pilgrims. We've been there a long time, but they were there since the Pilgrims have been concerned because we apparently have had some visitors in the house. I think they've had some. Some vagrants or something? Camping out in there, really?

Yeah.

Good night. Good night.

Quick question for, I don't know if we need to formally move on to another item, but just when are we going to have the residential code rewrite?

We just got it back from legal last week, so we're prepping it for the May meeting. And I think your follow-up question is how many items do we have? And right now we have two. And I think we're going to keep it at that.

Two items for the May meeting?

On the May meeting, yes.

So only two applications?

Two applications.

Wow. It's really slowed down. So that's good, because I was going to comment. So we're going to be able to work.

I doubt that they're going to be ready, because the agenda. She's asking me if the table item, the agenda's due seven days from today. So I doubt that they'll be ready.

because as you know in June three of these board seats expire and so we don't know you know if they'll all reapply if somebody else will be seated so the board may change I guess after June, probably for the July meeting. And I'm not going to be here in June, so it would be fantastic if we could at least get our final draft kind of voted on in the May meeting. And then June, and then because July might be a whole new group.

Yeah.

And I think at this point... Your term's expired and yours, right? Me, all three of us. Okay.

And I think at this point, I think you've heard enough from staff, so I'm not prepping. I'm just going to place it.

I mean, we already had two discussions on it, so it should be close, yeah.

Whatever the board would like to discuss, I'm not even going to have a presentation. I think you've heard enough from us. So I'll try to give you as much time as you can to deliberate and...

Perfect. Any other board member comments?

Is there much they can do about it? I mean, the problem we have in a lot of parts of the shore, particularly the east part, is it really is just too low, and it's all filled. I mean, is that just flooding? part of the plan?

I hear it all the time from the public works department. It's something that they're dealing with, especially on the east side of town. And I know one of the public works initiatives, once they brought on Mr. Peters as the director, one of his plans was to reclaim the soil area and why he's been so adamant in not giving dryways more than 20%. and uh i know that's i'm sure he has other things that he's implementing um but his opinion based on some of the conversations i've had with him is that it's it's the the base thing that he can do at this point without having any sort of infrastructure in in the neighborhoods that protect the swales but i will tell you this much

and and i'm sure you've seen it yourself you live on the east side and you've spoken to neighbors one of the neighbors presented to us a video or showed a video at one point of those properties flooding and there was no trench drain go just go past the properties most of them don't have a trench drain at the bottom of their slope so that means the entire driveway drains into the street those drains weren't designed for that they were designed to take the streets But when you have every new house contributing to the street, despite whatever the county says we need to do, which is a minimum standard, the standard is don't flood over your property line. And if you do, you have to do something different. That's why I think we should raise the bar a little bit. The county's not.

Any other board member comments? Next meeting, May 28th. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Aye.