Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Mr. Bolton? Here. Mr. Brady? Here. Ms. Salo?

Here.

Mr. O'Hara? Here. Mr. Spirk? Here. We have quorum. Thank you.

Order of business, additions, deletions, deferrals.

What I'd like to do is if I could maybe get a motion to change the order of these, and maybe we could hear 8A and 9A before we go to 7A, since I think 7A will take a little bit longer. Okay.

Okay, I'd like to move that we change the order of the agenda but 8a and 9a proceed 7a on the agenda They don't get hurt But if you see the the order of the agenda

You may be thinking, okay, I'm not going to show up at 6.30. I'm going to show up at 8 o'clock or I'll watch from home and show here.

Then they can run over if they're watching from home.

Did we just find out?

Are applicants here in the audience for item 8A, 1285 Northeast 103rd Street? Hello? Is the applicant for 1285 Northeast 103rd Street here in the audience represented? Are the applicants for 149 Northwest 97th Street represented? Yes, we are. Okay. Maybe we could make the order 9A and then 8A and then 7A. And that would give 8A and 9A. Sure. Does that work? Yeah.

Okay. Amend the motion to change the order in the agenda to 9B, and then 7A, and then 8. 9A, 8A, and then 7A. Yes.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. All right. So the order's been modified. Public comments. I'd like to open the meeting to any general public comments, non-items specifically. non-item specific public comments is there any general public comments that would like to be expressed before we start with our our new item state your name and address before hi my name is Cindy Herbst at 1000 Northeast 96th Street

With all due respect, I am very much not in support of the zoning update for the sheer fact that the information provided recently on the residential parcel analysis and consolidation recommendations for 2025 which is this colorful chart, shows a much different picture than what we were led to believe by the consultants' information which guided the workshops. At a glance, the height lot coverage percentages and FAR are much lower than what was in our code amendments. If our goal and the purpose of this initiative is to be effective regulating home size, bulk and overall scale to maintain the neighborhood compatibility, then we owe it to ourselves not to turn a blind eye to the fact that the information we worked from was somewhat flawed, and as a result, our results are flawed and will not align with or deliver what we want. It will leave us with much larger build-outs of homes which fly in the face of neighborhood compatibility. think it's important that the board go back and review the changes outlined against the 2025 parcel analysis with intention review edit revise as needed to make sure the regulations get us to where we hoped we would land I just don't think we're there yet When I look around the community, we still have very large homes, an inordinate amount of flat roofs on the same street, and the sad realization that younger generations of families who in the past would look to stay and buy in Miami Shores may no longer be able to afford since we are decimating smaller homes this board has an opportunity to help guide and preserve our history our legacy we don't want to look like Miami Beach or other nearby communities we want to preserve and enhance our beauty and our character and protect our tree canopies we should not be so quick to throw away our history our legacy but instead look to embrace and preserve our that which has made us distinctive, because once it's gone, it's gone. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yes.

State your name and address.

Larry Hoffman, 1340 Northeast 103rd Street. I can only second that motion if it were a motion. Our neighborhood is going to hell. I'm going to put it just bluntly. It's going to hell. And I don't like it. And I'm a Shores resident for over 40 years. I was born right down the street. And it's wrong. We don't want these big houses. I raised seven children. None of them can afford to live here. None of them can buy a house. It's terrible. And somebody put three square houses on my block. We don't want no more. I don't want no more. I don't know about everybody else. I'm telling you like it is. It's terrible.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Hearing none, minutes, approval of minutes.

Move to approve the minutes as read, as mailed.

Any discussion, comments? Second. Second. Second. All in favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. Aye. Quasi-judicial items.

Please be advised that items eight and nine 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 announcements 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 presentations on each item. Swearing in, all testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. In accordance with section 2-100 of the Village Code, any lobbyist must register before addressing the board on any of the following items. Board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning any of the items on the agenda, specifically items 8 and 9, not item 7, pursuant to section 2-86 of the Village Code. At this time, board members, if there are any disclosures, you can do so at this time.

all of the applicants if you could raise your right hand please do you swear to tell the whole truth in your testimony today thank you thank you

All right, so we'll start with item 9A, new items, RSP 2576, 149 Northwest 97th Street. Mining Director.

Thank you, sir. The lot is approximately 7,725 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1951. The existing structure is a living area of 1,541 square feet. It's configured with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant seeks an approximately 745 square foot rear addition to the existing residence. The proposed site plan also includes an approximately 315 square foot garage conversion along with interior renovations of the existing home. The new total habitable area indicates 2,286 square feet, complete with four bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, new swimming pool, and outdoor deck being provided. Staff confirmed that the R15 zoning district is compatible with the single family land use. And we've measured the proposal 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. Any questions to the planning director from the board? Is the applicant present?

Yes, I'm the architect, Jose Ortiz. Hi, how are you? Good. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do you want to just maybe start with just telling us a little bit about your inspiration and what you're doing here?

Yeah, so, I mean, it's critical to discuss some of the opinions here. can you speak into the mic I'm sorry our addition respects the existing home we wanted to expand the floor plan make it more usable for an expanding family we maintain the roof lines from the facade of the house and extend to the rear of the house and maintain the gable roof, the style of the house, as well as the materiality of the neighborhood. We respect that. We don't go ultra-modern. We stay within the traditional scale and style of the existing home. We can talk about – so we added arches in the front porch, if you can see that. I'm sorry. In the elevation in the rendering, you see the front arch, some of the stone detail to accentuate the front entry. If we go to the plan, the next one, sorry. So here, you can see the context, neighborhood context. This is the scale of the house. You can see where we've added the additional gabled roof through the house. We added a new driveway and steps into the entry. The rest would remain open landscape. And the next slide. Next. Yeah, the demolition is really a total gut interior renovation. So we strip the interior away and make the interior more usable where we add more bedroom. And in the rear, we expand the kitchen for a more open plan. And then in the rear, also add two bedrooms. And next slide. Yeah. And then, yeah, that's just a reflected ceiling plan into that. Those are the expanded roof. And the materials, all in keeping with the neighborhood.

Thank you. Any questions from the board to the applicant?

Where's the flat roof?

Oh, yes, there is it. Yes, good point. It's in the, if we go back to the roof plan, please. Yeah, it's on the left top where the kitchen gets expanded more to the rear. But we maintain the same barrel material, clay tile. So we don't just add a metal roof at the rear. We maintain the same materiality of the existing roof.

Just touching on that, you mentioned that you're not going to add a flat roof. You're going to maintain the existing barrel tile. You're going to put that on a flat roof. Doesn't barrel tile have a minimum slope that's associated with it? Are you at that minimum slope? Because it looks like that's a flat slope to me.

No, if you look at the elevation.

Yeah, if you look at Section 1A302, I think that maybe that's where it shows it. looks like a flat roof I'm just gonna say double check that because to me that I think that might be a little too shallow of a slope for barrel tile we could probably detail it where we can get a little bit more angled yeah there yeah sure yeah what is the minimum slope for a barrel tile I think it's two or three two and twelve

Well, that's obviously not 2 and 12.

No, it's not 2 and 12.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, starting from this low – I mean, you know, it's going to look goofy if you put barrel tile on a flat roof. Well, we can do – Or I think it would because I've never seen it. Yeah. That's okay.

I think we can detail this moment there where it meets the existing roof. Let's start at this low point and try to meet at that – where the overhang of the existing roof is. So I think we could play with that from a structural standpoint. And that's in the backyard, right? The backyard, yes. Yeah.

Any other questions from the board to the applicant? Discussion? Do I have a motion? Public comment. Oh, I did not. I'd like to open this application for public comment.

Any public comment on this application?

No public comment?

All who to approve the application as presented What provision do we want for this? As presented with conditions identified by staff.

I have a motion. Second. All in favor? Aye. Application passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item is tabled item 8A. Can I have a motion to untable item 8A?

Move to untable.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Item 8A is untabled, RSP 2556, 1285 Northeast 103rd Street. Planning Director?

Yes, sir. The lot is approximately 10,980 square feet in size. It contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1954. Okay. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the development of a new two-story single-family dwelling comprised of approximately 4,426 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of six bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, two car garage, and swimming pool with outdoor area. At October 23rd, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting, the applicant's request was subsequently tabled pursuant to board commentary regarding the second story step-back adjustments and the general harmonious character and appearance of the proposed residence. In contrast with existing buildings within the neighborhood context, the applicant was seeking to be untabled and has incorporated those technical sheet revisions addressing those previous board comments. staff has confirmed that the application generally complies with the zoning district qualifications and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated conditions thank you thank you questions from the board to the planning director yeah Eddie I have a question yes six bedrooms plus an office

I mean, which I guess is maybe not a bedroom right now. But it says three and a half baths. I counted seven and a half baths. I also, the square footage, by their calculation, I didn't do any, is 5,489, not 4,004. So I'm just curious, were those old numbers from the first submittal?

No, the numbers.

Go to sheet SP1.

Yeah, they definitely were updated.

I see SP1 right here.

I know that they had the chart on SP1, and that's where we. They historically have updated the SP1, so that's where all the data.

Okay. So it's not 4,426. 4,426 is the FAR. Okay, but that's not what this says, right? I mean, your explanation is that the approximate size of the house.

Yeah, we typically use the FAR, the habitable area, is typically the square footage that we utilize within the report. And the FAR is 4,426. What's the number?

Because that's the habitable area. Under total proposed area.

Where do you see that it's on this sp1 right there total proposed area?

Or maybe the applicant yeah, that's Oh, so that's why it's not the same.

Yeah, that's that's under ACS for something 4,000 426 yeah

okay what about seven and a half baths to three and a half baths did I count wrong you can go to a one we have service bathroom two three three and a half on the first floor and one two three four on the second floor So was that also only on the first level somehow?

I don't know.

Yeah, here. One, two, three, half. One, two, three, four. And the second one, that's a half.

we may have miscounted the restrooms okay but I mean on the lower level they're not labeled right ones is a service bathroom so the other ones a foyer so you know when you don't get this data articulated by the applicant you kind of have to count and we we miscounted so okay

yeah you're correct there are seven okay any other questions from the board to the planning director I'm gonna let the applicant go through I mean come back with some questions Would the applicant present the project to us, please? And do me a favor, state your name and address.

Jonathan Bergenstedt, I'm the owner. of 1285 Northeast 103 Street. So basically, we redesigned everything from scratch. Because of last time comments, we realized that the board was right, that the house that we designed before was perhaps too modern for the neighborhood. And what we try to do now is we base on other houses that were approved in this past five, six months or more. And we redesign everything from scratch, fulfilling the setbacks, the type of roof, the inclination. We try to make it as nice as possible for the neighborhood.

OK.

And we appreciate your efforts. I think it has changed quite a bit. Any questions from the board to the applicant?

Yeah, I have a question. The floor, it says it's at, what is it, established 10 foot, the finish floor?

I'm asking.

Okay, on one of them it says 10.8, which appears to be the finish floor. But the established grade says it's at 12. So you're going in the wrong direction. The first sheet, T1. So it says established grade 12.17, but the finished floor is at 10. So I guess overall my question is what is the established grade? Because I see from the original demo plan that the corner of the house that the adjacent grade is at 8.65. The house is at 10, I guess originally the house was at 10. Now it's at 10.8. but I don't know where the 12 figures into there. And if the grade really is at eight and you're finished, you want your finished floor or your established grade at 12, you're talking about four feet. So that's my question. What is the adjacent grade?

Is there a site plan? I see a site plan.

Well, we have the demo plan that has spot elevations. But there's no elevation. Oh, there's an elevation on the wall over here. But this, I mean, these are the existing grades.

Here, what's this right here? Ten points.

That's what he's saying the garage will be at. So I guess my concern is what are the heights there? Because then you go into, I think there's a civil plan, and it shows the swales. I took it all apart. Hey, Eddie, is there a civil plan?

So do you care to opine on elevation?

We can see the cross-section.

You want the cross-section sheet?

Yeah.

All right, so that would be sheet.

So the civil plan is only requested when it's in a subflow zone.

So sheet A-1.4. So if you go back to G1, they do have the heights and they have some sections A, B, and C, which is kind of showing how the water.

1.4.

yeah wait go back g1 so it shows the three different a B and C sections which are different swales but if you look at the heights it's reversed so instead of the swale being the lowest point it's at at the back which is section C ten point one seven and and the outside is 9.29, which would make it a peak as opposed to a swell. So I'm just very confused at what your elevations are around. And the reason I bring it up is because I'm concerned about your neighbors. So if you are building up your site, you have to be thinking about where is all that water going and how is that being drained. And I think that showing these different swales was kind of an indication that you were trying to move the water in the right direction. keeping it on your property, but the numbers don't add up. So I'm not sure what's going on. So in all the sections, they're reversed. Section B, the height of the swale is at 10, the side of the swale is 9.29. A, I don't have any heights, can't read them. And C is in the opposite direction. Does that make sense?

Yeah. I don't know what you did.

Okay. Perhaps, yeah. So you've got some elevation issues, it sounds like.

Yeah, maybe they copied wrong the numbers.

Yeah. Need a civil plan.

Yeah, because in the city events,

No, understood, but this is, I mean, this is a grading plan. I mean, that's pretty easy to read. I mean, I don't, you don't have all your calculations and stuff like a civil plan understood, but.

Yes, in this case, we focus more on the design since the last time that was the first thing they told us it couldn't work.

well I mean it is a site plan review I mean that we're kind of going through so I appreciate I mean a much better kind of layout and look of the building than what was presented before But yeah, I just have questions And and also the overall height when you show Compared to your neighbors and maybe this has to do with some of the elevation Like maybe the elevation wasn't quite right, but it's it's quite a bit higher than any of your neighbors

Yeah, because most of the other houses are .. I'm sorry.

For the record, just so everyone knows, it's really hard to review the record without .. No, what I meant is, sure, this house is way higher than the other ones.

But most of the next door houses, are older houses, one floor, and of course, they're gonna be a much higher difference in height. And we see this in all the neighborhood. I live also in Miami Shores on 100th Street, and yeah, you have smaller houses, you have taller houses. It's part of the progress of the neighborhood that more people are gonna continue building two-story houses, it makes sense.

you know when you were here last time I rewatched the video and there were two things that caught me it may have been the same neighbor but one of the neighbors mentioned that you were not in zone X but you were in zone 88 I looked at your survey your survey says you're in zone X But I don't know why I decided to go to the FEMA flood maps. You have a corner of your property that's crossed by Zone AE8, and from my knowledge, that means you're in a flood zone, not in Zone X. So the question is, have you gone to FEMA to get a special determination that you are in Zone X, or have you done that?

No, we just did a survey.

Okay. And I understand I would also rely on the survey under normal circumstances. I wouldn't normally look up a FEMA flood map. In this case, I did. Part of the reason why I did that is because I noticed that you don't have civil drawings. You just said that. We've been asking for those and I'm not sure why we're still getting applications without them being complete because you can see the community wants us to really pay attention to these things and although it goes to Miami-Dade County for them to review it, there are several instances where we have had applications come before us where either the property doesn't tie into the adjacent grades properly and or we're building them up higher than they need to be built up in order to comply with code and then we're seeing applications sorry neighbors come back to us and say recent builds are causing their properties to flood so because of all of that we've said here numerous times that we need to make sure these applications actually have this data already prepared so that we can look at it because what I'm finding here is that the drainage calculations seem to be completely at variance with Miami-Dade County requirements. They're shown, but they're not really, they're signed and sealed by you, I think, right?

What? No, no, no.

By Fausto, yeah, by Fausto, yeah. Yeah, that's the engineer. But he seems to be your structural engineer. He's signing and sealing your, what appears to be your architecture also. He's also signing and sealing your landscape. In other words, he can't possibly be specialized in all these things. He's signing and sealing your septic. So if you're in the flood zone, that corner where that septic system is shown is cutting right through the flood map where AE8 is. That could mean that you may have to raise that. If you do, that materially changes what you are presenting to us and what the village will see. Let me finish my point here. The important part about that is we will approve something here. and we won't know exactly what we're approving, it will get billed. And then the community will show up and yell at us. You walked in after that. But that happens. It happens regularly. And you know what? The community deserves. They can do that. That's why we're here. But we need to make sure that we're taking these things into account. There's more.

The problem with the civil plans is that, like, Let's say the last time I did have the civil plans and everything, but then the sign gets rejected, and then you have to go all over again and spend a crazy amount of money to redo everything. Yeah.

So that's why – That's part of development. No, but like that's – I've been through it myself. I understand that. But that's not what we're here to discuss tonight. We're to discuss the quality of your proposal.

No, the thing is that I was never told to do the civil plans.

It needs to be there. It needs to be there. The neighbor also said that there was nothing being done to address her privacy. As referenced by my colleague here, your proposal is significantly taller than your adjacent neighbors, and you're proposing nothing along your eastern property line to address that. In fact, you have a six-foot-high fence. If you look at sheet L-1, it only runs part of the property, and you're removing every single tree that's along that side that would have otherwise provided privacy to that neighbor.

No, what we are going to do is we are going to change the trees.

Okay, but that's not what your proposal shows. Your proposal doesn't show that at all. What your proposal shows is that you're removing trees, unless I missed it.

Yeah, we are removing some trees, of course.

Then we're adding others. I don't see where you're adding. Maybe I missed it. Anybody else on the board saw where we're adding trees? I don't see a landscape plan. I just see what's being removed and what's remaining. I don't see any ads.

I didn't see any ads.

so there's more my colleague already mentioned the swales being inverted that's a big issue you're gonna cause flooding onto your neighbor's property you don't have a section through that Eastern property it literally that same property owner that's right next to you said that that existing conditions flooding her house now so you don't have a section through there that shows that you're dealing with your stormwater properly and you need to I do appreciate the fact that you've redesigned. I think that's a step in the right direction. I think there are a lot of details that still need to be worked out. The height is one of them. Your rendering shows a lot of plants. If you can scroll to the end, the first rendering in the set. You're showing planting that is draping down over that very large eyebrow that is on the south, I think, east corner of the property. But your second floor plan doesn't call that out as being a planter. There's no indication. So it just looks like you took some artistic liberty in the rendering, which is fine, but that's not what the community is going to see. There's no planter called out. And you have called out planters in other locations. So it's unclear as to what the intent there is. But otherwise, I think what you've done with the design more or less works. I'd like to see the heights pulled down a bit because I think that although you are entitled to build two stories, no question about that, I think when you have single-story older residences right next to you, you need to respect them a little bit more. I think that goes to Harmony, and that's written into our code.

Yeah, but the problem is that you are asking me to do a one-story building.

Well, I'm asking you to take a look at your flood zone. Make sure that you're in the right flood zone. Make sure that you are setting your finished floor elevation correctly. You're at 10.83 now. The existing structure is at 10. If you are in AE8, our current code requires you to be two feet above that, which is already in excess. Normally, it's just one foot. So if the existing structure was at 10 and it complies with all of the FEMA requirements and even our increased requirement, I don't see why you would put it up an additional foot almost. if you were able to pull a foot out of the ground floor and those two things together get you another two feet down, in my perspective I think that starts becoming a lot more harmonious with the neighborhood. Because we can't tell you not to build two stories and we shouldn't. That's an infringement on property rights. But what we can do is tell you to be more harmonious. So from my perspective I would like to see that and that's all I have.

Any other questions from the Board to the applicant?

Just comments? I think the design is much, much improved over the last time, so I do appreciate that. I'm not an architect or an engineer, so I will always yield to my colleagues here that there seem to be some technical details that need to be worked out. But overall, I think the design is much improved, and it is appreciated. That's very nice. Anybody else?

I'd like to open this application to public comment. Any public comment on this application? Go first and state your name and address.

Hi, Lauren Friedman, 1297 Northeast 103rd Street. I just want to say I really like the plans, and I think we have consensus from our street that they look much better, and we don't dislike the design from the street. Good business move that looked like the previous ones that were passed on the day it was tabled. My only biggest thing was trees. On the east side, you are saying that you're getting rid of some trees, tree 8, 8A, 9, and 10. But in the renderings, you have very similar trees. So kind of why take out the trees when the same similar palms are along that side? Once again, I had a comment about the six-foot hedges along the east side and west side. I wasn't sure if they weren't along the way, but they were there. In SP1, I just had a question. It says in the – I don't know what the marker means on the bottom, but it says front paved yard. So I didn't know, if I can get clarification, because in the renderings it doesn't look paved, but in a huge section it says paved. So I'm just worried about flooding in that area if it is fully paved. I can't really talk about the drainage concerns, but I leave that up to you guys, which you have said. I do have running water that comes down the street, collects at the end of the pool, so it is a major concern, and I'm glad you guys picked it up from last time as well and keep it in your head. The other things is that I just saw some inconsistencies in the report that have been noted. It's not a three-and-a-half bathroom, and the front elevation picture is wrong. It's the house to the left of it, so it doesn't show the right picture in the staff report. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Raymond Alleman. I live in 104th Street adjacent to this project.

Can you give your whole address, please?

Yes, 1286 Northeast, 104th Street. So I would like to read something I wrote when I saw the project and my request to the board. This spec home pushes for maximum lot coverage with a volume 10 times larger than the existing structure.

This is not a made-up number.

This is based on the report and the plans. It's more than 10 times the volume of the current existing house. It is out of character from my point of view and completely out of harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods. You simply do not see seven-bedroom, seven-and-a-half-bathroom homes on 11,000-square-foot lots in this village. And make no mistake, it has seven bedrooms. Labeling a room an office when it features a dedicated full shower is just a workaround to disguise the home's actual density. We have already seen the negative impact of these oversized spec houses. A similar spec home on our street was approved during COVID before this board was in place. The big difference is that the other house has prime waterfront access, yet even it has sat vacant and unsaleable for years. I request the board to do the neighborhood and the applicant a favor by denying this proposal and request requiring a sensible downside has mr. Spirk said maybe taking a couple of foods it's gonna be less volume and there's no need to go to the maximum on the height. So you don't need 10 1⁄2 or 11 foot ceilings in 11,000 square foot. Don't take me wrong. I really think and I can talk for my neighbors in this point. We appreciate it. Don't take me wrong. It's a nice project. But maybe it's a nice project for a double lot or a bayfront lot. It's a seven-bedroom, seven-and-a-half bathroom on an 11,000-square-foot lot, which is quite a lot. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on this item?

Excuse me.

Linda Schwartz, 1304 Northeast 104th Street. I appreciate you trying to fit in. It's still, I agree with my neighbor, Mr. Alamon, that I think the house is just too big. That house that was built on our street, 104th Street, is sitting. I mean, he... I think if you want to, you all should take a tour of what the house looks like. I mean, I don't know what kind of stairs you have, but the stairs in this house that's not been sold and has now reduced another million dollars, but I'm sure it's going to be sitting there a lot longer, is not childproof. I don't know who could live in the house on my street. The house that's east of you? on 103rd Street has been redone. Yes, it doesn't look like, and yes, they kept the integrity. I don't know if you were here for the house before that made the proposal that architect chose to keep it in the similar style that it was built in, the integrity and the integrity of the neighborhood. I appreciate, you know, you want to try to help us in the Shores, but by helping us with these real ultra-model houses, No, Miami Shore is beautiful. We like the outside. We like the plainness. If you spent the time, wait a second, if you spent the time and went on tours here in Miami Shores for the houses that have been built over 100 years or to go to the mid-century homes, the houses on the outside look plain. But believe me, the inside is what you are aiming for. that would be more family-friendly. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Just through the chair, just a reminder for the public.

I'm sorry.

One moment. A reminder for the public, when addressing any items, you should address the board and not anyone in the audience. So for anyone who wants to speak, you'll just speak directly to the board.

Encadal, 37 North East 100th Street.

I'm familiar with that property and all the houses in that area.

And that house that he wants to tear down is actually a beautiful house. It looks better than my house right down the block here. So I understand somewhat what he wants to do. What's confusing to me is What is LLC? I see this popping up all over the place. What is that? Somebody give me a definition of what that is.

This is comment. This is public comment. So just address the board. It's not question and answer.

As far as I'm concerned, LLC stands for love lots of cash. Okay? And we're out of control here. And as far as I'm concerned, this started maybe six or seven years ago. I don't think our planning and zoning or building department should be run by our people in the village, not outside contractors. No offense to anybody here. And I just can't fathom the fact, why are we allowing all these huge houses being built? Mr. Hoffman said something that young people can't afford to buy a house. If he tries to flip that house, which I'm sure that's what he's going to do, you're going to have to have, I'm guessing, $10,000 or $12,000 monthly payment just for your mortgage. So unless you're a rock star or something, I just can't see a young family moving in today. And I'm old school. We had a couple bedrooms, a couple baths. All the brothers, all the sisters lived in one room. And that was more than enough for me. Let's go back to basics. Miami Shores is unique. We know we had homes built in the 20s, the 30s, the 40s, and the 50s, and a couple of mid-centuries. And that's what the majority of the people that are here now and live in the village expect. Not none of this modern money-making things for the LLC people. Thank you very much.

Any other public comment?

Yeah, Larry Hoffman, 1340 Northeast 103rd Street. I've lived in the Shores for over 40 years. I was born on 79th Street and 22nd Avenue, right down the road. I never could move to the Shores as a young man because it was too expensive, believe it or not. We were the poor section. Finally, I got to the Shores, bought a nice house on the water. I have two lots. The LLCs come in. They give me a proposal to buy my property. They offer me $3 million. I tell them no. The next day, they come. They offer me $4 million. Sign contracts. This is what Miami Shores is becoming. It's nuts. Now, for young people, it's wonderful. And if I was a young man like you, And I was going to live there and have a family. Yes. But I don't know about seven, eight bedrooms. I'll be honest. I raised seven children with three bedrooms. But maybe times have changed. No, honestly. And I don't... I want to see the shores get better and better and everything. There's a house built on 101st. I call it the Marriott. Everybody knows what it is. They're my friends. I love them. I go there. It's still the Marriott. I'm sorry. Another house here on 96th Street, a beautiful one. No question about it. This is a beautiful house. No question about it. I'd love to live in a house like that, but not in Miami Shores. That's the problem.

Larry, Larry, you've got to address the board, please. Sorry. That's all right.

I apologize. That's all right. First meeting I've ever been to, and you're right. Yeah.

And she just... So I can't have you bantering with the audience. You're right. I was trying to be... All right.

Anyways, I don't want to belabor the point. Everybody's heard it. I don't think we need these monsters. And I'll tell you something. I don't know what the distance between this house and the lot line and the next lot line. It used to be you had to have a big difference in it. Now it seems like you can build right like that to the property lines. I don't think it's right. You should do away with them. No more big houses in Miami, Georgia. It's a family place.

Okay. Name and address first.

Cindy Herps, 1000 Northeast 96th Street. I think this is a very nice designed house, right? I love this style. And it's just, as I listen to the comments coming from the board that have been very good comments back to the owners, This is just, I think they're getting caught in the crosshairs of something that has been going on with these regulations, these guidelines for building that I think we really as a board need to take a step back and kind of question. If in fact we are doing these studies off of what I consider flawed information, that allow us to come up with guidelines, then every person, owner that comes before the board in which to get approval, in some cases, we're building off of homes mansions, whatever you want to call them, that are too big and should never have been approved in the first place, right? Now, there were a number of homes that have been built in Miami Shores. You know, they almost look like commercial buildings. They call them California mansions. They are way too big and it is what has created the desire to make changes to the guidelines. This is a beautiful home. Should it be on 11,000 square feet? I don't know, right? But what I'm saying is we have an issue because we continue to allow approvals to happen and we're not taking into consideration the changes that need to happen. We're using, you know, already built homes that are too large not to our liking in the first place, and we're making continued approval processes off of that. I think we need to, like, take a step back. I think that having owners come to the table and present or not present in this case, you know, not being able to speak to everything that they're trying to do, we shouldn't pass this along the process, right? There should be a set methodology with regards to what comes before the board it's not like you want to be here until 9 o'clock at night right and I just feel that we need to get a little bit more intentional as to what we want to preserve in our town and what how we want to grow it because it does need to be grown we just have to do it the right way thank you any other comments

discussion on this application maybe I think I was just gonna follow up on a question that you had to our planning director you said on the the front yard says front yard and I see it says front yard paved area 625 square feet So that's the paved area for the driveway alone, right, on sheet SP1? Yes. That's just the driveway. The label is not over the driveway. The label is on the grassed area. Yes. Yes, that's fine.

I thought it was just that part. I have a question for Mr. Nunez.

Wait, wait, wait. The public comment's over?

Sorry, I have to maintain decorum here? All right. I just ended public comment. If you want to come... Well, actually, you already gave your allocated time, so I can't have you again.

Just to make sure, is it really 10 times the volume, the new house, than the old house? Or is that a mistake on the...

It's not 10 times the volume.

No, this volume is 4,400, so the old house is not 440 feet.

So there's a mistake on the... Yeah. The volume shown on the...

I'm sorry Brandon you had a comment for the planning director um yeah I think it goes to what a lot of the community has already said I think we're struggling with these applications as they come before us because the community is seeing for the first time perhaps what our zoning code is always allowed and indeed doesn't realize what we've done to try to pull it back and restrict it to the extent that the Florida law allows us to do that So that's a hard thing to explain. But we are limited in certain ways that are too laborious to get into right now. So a lot of what you might be frustrated with in the way that the code is being proposed is to a large extent because the state ties our hands as to what we can and can't do. With all that said, I do think our job here is a bit of to be gatekeepers. It's a very special community, and we need to make sure that what we do allow to get built here is of the highest possible quality and of the highest level of respect to the neighbors within limits. It's always about striking that balance between the maintenance of the character of the village and the maintenance of individual property rights. But I think we've given you some feedback. and what I would like to also see you think about is to have quality a little bit more mind a lot of what we see in drawing sets as to the quality of the presentation holds over to what we see get built and as one member of this board I have some serious concerns that if we're approaching a development and I'm using that word very intentionally of this magnitude with a little bit of recklessness with regards to errors in calculations, having your finished flooring correctly set, and also not really thinking about how some of these design details will get executed in three dimensions. Not being honest, let me change that word, not being accurate with respect to what you show in a rendering versus what you show in an elevation and a plan. I think all these things I would ask that you would address. I would assume my motion to the extent we're ready for one would be to table this. But I don't know how the rest of the board feels. But to the extent that that does happen and you do come back, I think that you would do yourself a good service to listen to what the community has said. We're not asking you to build one story. But there are some adjustments I think you can make with respect to the volume and the massing. and with respect to the quality of what you intend to actually build here. That would be my comments. Sir?

Yeah, I would support a motion to table, but I really want to make it clear that they know what we want them to provide. is clear and concise and would allow us to move forward in the event that we feel it's accurately done. I mean, it surprises me looking at this rendering if the first floor is actually 12 feet above the grade. It doesn't look like your driveway slopes very much. And I think it's things like that that kind of distort being able to make a and then delivered. But I would support the motion if we can articulate what we want in terms of corrections or additional data in the plan.

I don't have a motion. This is discussion. I don't believe I have a motion. This is discussion right now. But what were some of the, to follow up on Dan's, so I mean, what were some of the bullet points that our applicant could do, Catherine, I guess, to address some of your concerns?

I think overall the grading of your property you know it needs to be clear how how that's that's gonna work I think that your overall elevations you need to take a look at and make sure that that's you know because something's wonky there I mean that's one of my biggest concerns that if I were the neighbor next to you I mean it's and and I agree with most of the comments it's a beautiful house I mean I don't think compared to what we saw before and everything, you did an amazing job there. It's just the elevations. You know, I don't want to see somebody next to you get, you know, washed out with all of the, I mean, just regular rain. Let me ask a question.

So we can correct that. The elevations, we can correct it. What I need is this, this feedback where you tell me, like, this, I think, like, for example, last time the design was wrong. OK, we did redesign and everything. But I appreciated what you're saying. And that's the right way to go. It's easy.

From my perspective, I think that I mirror the comments of my colleague with respect to providing a civil plan with your drainage worked out. I don't disagree with comments that the design is significantly better than where it was before. I do think I'd like to see some of what you're showing in renderings reflected on plans.

The example that I gave you was the landscaped element that you have there on the top rendering actually being reflected in the drawings.

I think that we definitely need to take a look at the septic system particularly if indeed you are in a flood zone and confirm to us that that does not need to be raised and if it does need to be raised show your design as to how you address that to my colleague comment about sloping of driveways My gut feeling is that you just made a scrivener's error on the elevation and that you didn't intend to put your finished floor below the established grade, that that's just a simple error. But it does feel like there's some room for you to potentially reduce the height of that finished floor and still be totally compliant with FEMA and with our local code and with county And that might help pull down the structure a little bit without you all maybe only having to lose only a little bit. I think that will do a world of good when you show that same elevation again with those slightly reduced heights and with your grades worked out. I think you'll see that that's probably going to be sufficient. Stormwater is a huge concern. all you have to do is go back and watch these videos. Almost every single meeting we hear somebody come in saying that a new construction is flooding their property. I've driven around and I've seen it. So it's not just conjecture. It's happening. Why is that happening? Well, we're going to talk about zoning codes and what we can do to try to adjust that, but that's a whole other subject. I have that on the street. I think privacy, privacy of the neighbor being sensitive, putting yourself in that position, hey, if I live in a one-story home and I've got a home that's going to be built next to me and somebody's going to be looking down in my yard, what can I do to deal with that? There are design solutions, lots of them. Even if we were a pure design board, and I do have an argument that we are, I still think that I wouldn't opine and tell you exactly how to solve that. I would just tell you that that's a concern that has a design solution, and it's up to you to find it. I think if you do those things, from my perspective, and it sounds like from my colleagues' here perspective, you'll likely make it through on the next round. Okay.

Do you feel comfortable that you have an understanding of what we're looking for?

Yeah, drainage, civil plans on the drainage and elevations, correct that.

I'll second the motion.

Did I formally make that motion? I don't think so. Let me just do it for the record just to be sure.

So I make a motion to table this application subject to the feedback that the board has given the applicant.

I'll second.

Discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Your applications table. When can I return with the corrections? I guess you'll have to... I'll guide you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

And I do want to just address, because when the board essentially coordinated with staff regarding paving and drainage engineering, it was done so with the understanding that it was for properties that were located in flood hazard prone areas. with the understanding that staff essentially doesn't have the resources to perform those reviews and what we were told was essentially just collect the item bring it to the board and that this board or this body would essentially conduct those reviews but at present time staff just doesn't have that that ability to perform that review and it gets performed at the building permit.

Because it's an engineering, it's not really a planning. What I would say to that is this. I respect the fact that there must be limitations on what staff can review. And I would also say that none of us are going to perform the technical level review necessary to determine that the math and the calculations are correct. We will leave that up to the professional engineer that is signing and sealing the drawing, because by doing so, they're taking on a certain responsibility and liability that what they presented to us is factually correct and accurate. But that has a material effect on what we're approving as far as how it relates to other things that we do have direct purview over, the tie-ins to the street just being one of many examples. So I think with that in mind, because this property is indeed – I understand they didn't show that. And I don't expect you to look at the FEMA flood map, but I did, and I can show you. That property is intersected by Zone 88, and so in this case we would need to see it, but you would have no way of knowing that before, so yes, I do acknowledge that.

one quick question because each time I come back or like anybody comes back we still need to do all the letters and all the ads and everything is there a way to like make these things faster and easier for the applicant and not to waste money on like Unnecessary things. I understand, like, sure, first time you do it, but, like, each time you have to get to the notice.

Essentially, he's addressing the ad notice, but, I mean, it's codified. Anytime an item is going to come before the board, we have to mail the ad notice.

The only thing I would say is this. As a fellow developer, I also have to go through the exact same thing when I make proposals to the community. But I approach it perhaps maybe a little differently than you have in the past. I start by watching videos of the neighborhood that I'm going to make a proposal in, and I try to tailor my initial feasibility analysis of the site to determine can I build what the community will likely accept. And if the answer to that question is no, I don't buy the property. So what I will tell you is this. It's not a waste of money from the community's perspective. It might be towards yours because you don't see the perceived value in it. But the fact that you're getting a command at premium price on your product in Miami Shores and not in Keystone Point or any other community is because we sit here and make these things very rigid and very laborious for you to get through because we want to make sure that the quality is as good as it can possibly be. That's where the value comes from. So if you're looking at it through an LLC, limited liability corporation, love lots of cash perspective, I think it's important because that's how you get that value. That's how you make that sale.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, before we go on to the next item, can the planning director for the next, for when it comes back, correct the cubage on page two? Because that's where the confusion is coming in that the cubage is listed as $130,000 plus, which it's most likely $13,500 instead of $130,000.

Most likely a scrivener's error.

Yeah.

Okay. They'll fix that. So moving on to Item 7A, legislative item, an ordinance of the Village Council Miami Shores amending Appendix A zoning of the comprehensively updated regulations related to our districts. Planning Director, did you want to give a presentation to kick that off?

no sir other than we amended the ordinance pursuant to all of the board's comments and we didn't want to take away any of your important time to discuss the item so feel free to try to try to close out on where we left off on that and just just a reminder hopefully

We get to work tonight, but in case we don't and in case you go through the exercise again of making changes, please just be reminded to speak into the mic because when we watch these videos back to try to be clear in terms of what you all want, sometimes it can be challenging to hear. So we'll do the best we can in terms of note-taking, but speak into the mic so we're able to recall. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so I guess I propose, unless somebody else has a better idea, just to do a page turner like we did before and discuss the revisions as written by our planning director, see if it's what we discussed last time, and then I guess Brandon had something to bring up when we get to that item, then I guess would be appropriate time to bring that up. You guys agree? that's Brandon's study yeah all right so page Turner I guess page one is boilerplate page two I guess follow with us here on page two boilerplate I've got let's go with line number page three page three yes line item

I think line item 84, unless somebody has something before that. No, go ahead. Okay, so where it says established grade, item number one, it says the established finished floor of a plot shall be at or above FEMA, sorry, at or above minimum FEMA base flood elevation I'm adding in the words plus one foot because that's what's technically required by the state, by FEMA, and by the county. But herein lies the rub. I've brought this up in the past. Chapter 612, which has been said to be out of our purview, requires two feet. In my opinion, that's entirely arbitrary. I don't know where it came from. Nobody can tell me where it came from. But that's what that section says. As a result, we're seeing applications come before us that are unnecessarily higher than they need to be in some cases. So we can't opine on actually directly changing that code like we can with the planning and zoning portion. But what we might be able to do is make a recommendation to council that they investigate and consider changing this. Because what we are seeing is adverse flooding impacts from this policy. And from what I can tell, other than us having it in our code, it's not a building code requirement. It's not a county requirement. It's not a state requirement, and it's not a FEMA requirement. So where is it coming from?

Well, I think we have a conflict, and I think you pointed it out. If you look on line 306, established grade of plot. So this is under definitions. And then under 306, the established finish floor of a plot shall be a minimum of one foot above one foot above or in accordance with FEMA regulations regarding base flood elevation plus freeboard requirements. So maybe we should take this out since this is the definition section, take that out because that's a... You have that at, just to confirm, I'm looking at the same thing.

You said line 304. 306, yeah. So this is section 508, establish greater plot. Yes. And line 310 where it says the established finished floor of a plot shall be at a minimum of one foot above or? Line 306, it says established finished floor.

For flood zones, right?

The finish, I'm going to read the whole thing, 508. The finish grade of a, starting at 301, the finish grade of a plot shall not be less than four inches above street grade, but use of any fill to make it harmonious. For those properties located in flood zones, the established finish for the plot shall be a minimum one foot above or in accordance with FEMA regulations regarding base flood elevation plus I had here as an edit to cross out at minimum one foot above or because of the conflict and just simply reference FEMA standards because FEMA already prescribes that one foot so just to back up one sec should we first just take this under the definition section that says that's telling you what to set the grade at take that take that out no no the finished grade of a plot shall be I don't know, it's kind of like, it's not really a definition.

I think that's important that we define that because established grade is how we then define building height.

So it should be in, okay, then we'll leave it there, but let's just, I guess, clear out the conflict then.

Yeah, and to be clear, there's no real way for us to clear out that conflict. It must go to council as far as I can tell because we don't seem to have purview to make an edit to Section 612 of the rest of our code of ordinances where it says that. Basically, I'm paraphrasing because I didn't bother to copy based here since I didn't think we could change it, that it's arbitrarily setting the finished floor at base flood elevation plus two feet when nothing else requires anything more than one foot. Okay. So we are arbitrarily setting that finished floor up higher, and in flood zones, that's our established grade. We measure building height from that one foot unnecessarily higher data, which means the building is one foot taller than it needs to be.

Okay. Two separate issues. So on your chapter six issue, I think you just make a, we know you don't have purview over that chapter, but nonetheless, make a motion separate and apart from this to ask council to look into that, something along those lines.

To make a recommendation?

Wouldn't necessarily Recommendation you don't really have purview to do that to other chapters of the code But I do think you can inquire or prompt them to ask staff to look into it further something along those lines But the conflict that you're referring to mr. Bolton you're saying there's a conflict between 508 and the initial definition definition that was that was spoken about but I'm thinking that the two are separate and they operate differently and one being for properties located in in flood zones and then the other is might be for properties not located but even with that my understanding mr. Spirk is that you want to make changes to 508 to remove that one foot language that was at it

Yeah, I would suggest we just hit that on the way back.

Got you.

Otherwise, we're kind of jumping all around the document, if that makes sense.

So going back to your, what was it, 86? 83. 83. What are we doing here?

The established finished floor of a plot shall be at or above the minimum FEMA base flood elevation.

That's it.

And I add it plus one foot. Make that conform with that other section. The other one says a minimum of one foot above. Yeah, I realize it's the same thing. Here's the problem though. I don't want us to incorrectly set that established grade because then the applicant by FEMA regulations has to build one foot higher. And so we will be by effect subtracting one foot out of their allowable height if we don't put the one foot. Does that make sense?

So usually in the other municipalities I've seen this in, we just reference the minimum FEMA base flood elevation. And that minimum FEMA base flood will dictate it. And that way if it changes, we never have to go in and change it.

The reason why I add plus one foot is because if you just reference the female elevation, let's use the example of the applicant that was just here that mistakenly thought that he was in zone X when he was in AE8. That 8 references the actual elevation. Our current code will require him to be at 10. That was okay for his current instance because the actual ground is higher than that. But if you move down the street just a little bit, now there's a big difference between where the street is at and where that 8 is going to be at. So if we're arbitrarily making him build at 10, it's higher than it needs to be and if we just simply say FEMA then we're not taking into account that additional foot and we're already subtracting one foot away from the height that he's allowed to build that so I have a proposal to we already previously talked about reducing by two feet and this affects how that gets measured too I wouldn't also want to penalize those properties that are in that flood zone by subtracting the foot because of the way that we're defining this Does that make sense? I can try to rephrase that. So what are you saying?

Take the plus one foot off?

I would leave it. I would leave it knowing that we're creating a conflict with Chapter 6-12. But take the plus one foot off of our code section. I would leave it.

So you're going to keep it on 508 and then we're adding it into 84-2?

Yes. And I would leave it there knowing that we're creating a conflict with Section 6-12 because Section 6-12 really should be corrected. It shouldn't be two feet. It's causing problems, flooding problems. It's causing mass perceptibility problems.

It's raising the houses that everybody's... And we're in the process of making a code change.

Why can't council just consider that code change and change it?

Yeah, I agree.

But we do like the plus one foot above FEMA.

I mean, we don't have a need to do that. I mean, we could make it even to FEMA, right?

Not really because they're allowed there. They must build at that plus one foot. It's FEMA elevation plus free board. But if you only say FEMA, then that's our established grade, which will be eight instead of nine. So when they measure their height, they're going to be subtracting a foot from what they're allowed to build. And I don't think – if we need to lower building heights, there's – The right way to do that is in the building height section, not a hidden penalty in a flood section.

All right. So, I mean, we do need to at least be consistent here. So on line 83, on the line 83, right, a minimum one foot above?

It would just be at the end where it says base flood elevation. Minimum one foot above FEMA base flood elevation. At the very end where it says minimum base flood elevation, just add the word plus one foot.

And it does need to be consistent. You're correct. So either way, we need to make sure that they're consistent.

Unless somebody has something before line item 86. Shoot. It says finish grade, but we should probably call it established grade as a defined term capitalized because that's what we're referencing elsewhere in the code to define building height.

I'm with you on capitalization of defined terms but we did not do that for any of the defined terms and out throughout our entire our district so to do that it would just require a complete cold rewrite and usually I would be for that but we didn't do a complete cold rewrite we kind of so if we just have established grade and didn't capitalize it it's we wouldn't know no we wouldn't know that it's just that we would know it's that definition so that's all

Okay.

I think my next comment is on line 212. So any other comments on page 3? Page 4? We're good with page 4? Page 4 up there on the board? Looks like page 11. No, I have something before that. Page 7. Page 5. Any comments on page 5? Page 6. Comments on page 6?

Page 7.

Comments on page 7?

The chart that starts on page 6, line item 189, and spills over just prior to line number 190. Okay. at the very end of that statement where it says comma except outdoor kitchens yes and I added and but Butler kitchens that are accessory to an open or show kitchen are permitted why did I add that We saw an application come before us that had a show kitchen and a butler kitchen, which should be permissible, but this code would make it impermissible. I think the intent of the code is let's not create an accessory dwelling unit or an illegal rental, but in that configuration, it cannot possibly ever be used in that sense. So I don't see a reason why we would arbitrarily prevent that from happening. If somebody lives there and they're a chef and they want to have a nice presentable kitchen but also want to get messy in a butler's kitchen, the fun with that.

So what's about this kitchen?

Because it was next to the... Because it was next to the regular kitchen, we said it was the kitchen. So... What's your say?

It's one kitchen? That's what we said. It would be a matter of interpretation?

I mean, it was in the same building, though. It wasn't like a kitchen in the guest house. So it's just a Super big kitchen?

Yes. Part of it open, then separate. Maid's pantry. Because it said kitchen, then it said butler kitchen, which were technically two different kitchens, and just by the literal writing of the way this code is written.

If you guys are okay with leaving it as an interpretation, that's not a hill I'm going to die on.

I'll tell you from a staff perspective as an administrator, what we're typically checking for is if you have a detached accessory structure, that you don't have a full kitchen within it. So if that eases...

Let's discuss so we're all on board here as far as the 28 foot height and sorry where you at I'm just on page 8 I just saw there 28 feet as far as the height and then it was in previously under definitions I know we discussed it back and forth between 30 and 28 I just want to make sure anybody want any comments on the 28? We're all on board with that. To be honest, the community wants less than 28. I know, but we're trying to find that balance. We're trying to find the balance.

And I know we're also a bit hamstrung by what the state says we can and can't do, and we're probably already pushing that one a little bit. I would definitely not advocate going back to 30. I'm good with the 28 myself. I just want to make sure everybody else is. Yeah, I think if we were to try to reduce it past 28, we would likely get slapped. All right, so we're good. But there are other – this does help deal with that a little bit, though, when we get to it. Any other items on page – I guess we can turn this to page 8 on the screen. On page 8 and line item 211 to 212. I think that one – Setbacks. Let me just make sure I collect my thoughts on this one really quick. okay actually I had I had two things written here and I had gone back and looked at the video and mr. Bolton you had asked about a pergola being built close to within five feet of the line and the rear property line and we said yeah that probably should be okay we weren't clear on whether or not we were changing definitions to accomplish that or whether or not there was language that allow allows that but it isn't clear to me reading reading this for accessory buildings under setbacks that we would be allowed to build a pergola within that five feet. Maybe I'm misreading it.

MR. In this draft, pursuant to that comment, we added the section that deals with pergolas. Believe it or not, this code has it. It's just in a completely different section. So I can – if you let me find it, I can tell you.

MR. Is it dealt with? MR.

It's in here, yes.

MR. And it allows us to do that within five feet?

MR. I don't recall the measurement, but it's in here.

I just don't want to lose this track because it's not the only comment I have on that particular item.

So it's line item. It begins at line item 508 through 515. Okay.

508 through 515.

Hold on.

Pergola, Arbors, Chalices, Arbors. with minimum required setbacks as well no minimum separation distance is required between structures front yard 25 feet side yard 10 feet and rear yard 5 feet okay so it's there under under the definition of pergolas so good we dealt with that great let's go back up to 11 so what does that mean that you can build a pergola 5 feet from the property on yeah what you were asking for

Well, now you can do it. Now I can. I think we need to add the word side secondary frontage. I'm on line item 211 going into 212. It says, granted, the way this is editing is showing up on the iPad is a little wonky. So forgive me if this language is already there, but I think I may have added it. Does it say 10 feet away from any plot line of budding a side secondary frontage? It does, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, because my comment is that the net effect of that is on a side secondary frontage, you're required to have a 15-foot setback. Now your accessory structure that is in the rear yard can project closer to that side property line, the secondary frontage, than the main structure. So now you have an accessory structure that breaks that setback line. See, what's happening is that corner lot is setting a 15-foot setback. And then after that property breaks, it goes back to 25 feet for all the remaining properties. Now, the way it's written, we have that 15-foot secondary setback. And that little bump out to 10 feet for some shed or... which is effectively in the neighbors aligned with the neighbors front yard and more importantly is proud of that neighbors 25 foot setback so I I feel like we probably need to address that and not allow if it's in the secondary frontage it needs to be the same as the main structure not less than the main structure so how can we word it so that we give Eddie some wording on this I thought that I had tried to do this, but I guess I didn't. I was also checking the previous meeting. We came back to establish 7.5.

What's the secondary footage?

Frontage, frontage. Frontage. So if you have my house, the corner house, I've got 25 foot in my front. As I go around the side, I have 15. Right. The way that this is written is that if I had a shed there... You'd go to 10.

Yeah.

And... the house next to me has their in actually my house is not a great example because that's also that's not their front yard that's also their side yard but there are many examples in the village you can find examples in this document where you'll have a secondary frontage that's immediately adjacent to a front yard with a 25 foot setback so now a shed can be right there as the marker of that block rather than the main house if that makes sense no I think we see your concern yeah in the on the next line item it discusses corner plots I don't know if that addresses your concern but I can read it I think it would if we eliminated the words under line item 211 not less than 10 feet from the main building and not less than 10 feet from any plot line where it says a butting a secondary frontage get rid of that all entirely for the secondary frontage condition because the corner plot language down below might address that actually it doesn't it still says 10 feet I think maybe if that were to say 15 feet because essentially that's the secondary frontage then that solves that problem and we just eliminate the confusion that is now presented in line items 211 through 213.

Okay, so for clarity, we'll be deleting at line 210, abutting a side secondary.

211, at least in my copy.

And mine is starting at 210.

Okay.

So the language that says abutting a side secondary frontage.

Let me read that.

Jill, you want to stay for the rest of this? I'm good. My name is Joe.

any 10 feet from any from any side yard so yeah not less than 10 feet from the main building and not less than 10 feet from any plot line because then that then then the modification then comes in line 215 through 218 if we include that to the front secondary front of setback

Right. And so at 216, instead of 10 feet, it'll be 15 feet.

Yes.

And that, okay. So those are the two changes to resolve that issue.

And I think then we prevent that shed from being a demarcation of that block.

Okay.

We're good? Okay.

Page 9. yeah can you change it to page 9 please this will be line item 237 let me before we go there let me just discuss something so on the coverage is the numbers

Do we all like the number or on the largest lot there, the 21,000, looking at it, did some numbers. Do we want to possibly drop that down two points on both from 38 to 36 and 28 to 26? Because even at that same thing, it's still massive. I would support that. So we're all in agreement? Yeah, go ahead. So for the 21,000 square foot, the one-story structure, would be a 36% coverage, and then the two-story, 26%. I mean, I think we saw a lot of discussion tonight, you know, on that one building, which he was at, his coverage was at, his coverage was at, it was two stories, so he was right at 30%. Yeah. For 12,000.

Yeah.

All right. So we're in concurrence with Don.

So you had line number 238. We're talking about synthetic turf. And I think we came to a reluctant agreement last time. I don't know if we came to an agreement on it. Well, we voted. We took a straw vote. I think it was three to two, looking back through the video. So let's just say, ostensibly, we came to an agreement, right?

if we are going to do that i think that the language is a little confusing as it's currently written first of all um synthetic turf shall be counted toward impervious surface coverage in accordance with section 563 of this code so i mean does the board i mean i don't agree with that i want to go on record and i'll tell you why i don't agree with it because Synthetic turf is not an impervious surface. It's very pervious, and it's actually more pervious than grass in a lot of cases, especially if the ground is quite compact.

I would agree with you when it's first installed, but I have photographic examples that I can try to find of properties that I've found that haven't stood the test of time, and that might be an engineering issue. It could be an installation issue. But what I will tell you is that I'm a little hard pressed to find too many examples of sod on soil that refuse to accept water unless the water is saturated. But as you know as an engineer, if the water is saturated and it's synthetic turf, it's also not going to drain.

That's just a groundwater issue.

Right. But I guess what I'm saying is I have some concerns about synthetic turf, and I understand that there's a Florida statute that we need to be very careful about. But I think as the way it's written, there's no ability to prevent somebody from putting that in their entirety of their front yard.

And I'm not in support of that. And I know the language here in our code says side yard and back yard. But I think also, and I guess Sinead put the language in that says it must be in compliance with DEP.

Yeah, and I guess we'll probably get to that. I don't know if that's material to the conversation we're having now. But what I would say is that my understanding is that we cannot preclude it from being in a certain yard but we can define whether or not based on factual data whether or not the degree of permeability can be regulated I've checked this with a couple of people and I believe we can and that it becomes a lever so that if somebody wants to put it let's say in their side yard because they have a dog and the dog tears up there's no light grass doesn't grow they can do that but it will be counted at 35% permeability. That is the lever and the mechanism that we can, I think, legally use that would ultimately have the net effect of preventing somebody from putting it in their entire front yard.

On that discussion, I'm looking at line 694. which is the synthetic turf requirement. And it says synthetic turf is permitted in the rear and side yards of any plot, provided it complies with the following. And then the following says it must comply with FDEP.

Yes, and then it goes on to propose some language that I'd like to say that we delete, which completely and totally negates what was just there. So that's what I'm getting at. And that language starts on...

But are we saying synthetic turf is not going to be counted towards...

The way it's written right now, it's counted as impervious surface. So if somebody wants to put synthetic turf in, it's going to preclude you from putting it in your backyard and your side yard because you're going to exceed the impervious surface requirements.

That's not how it's written. It's not counted as 100% pervious like grass would be. It's counted as 35% pervious. And where do you get the 35 on this line here?

I need to go back up to where we were And even then at 35% that's still a lot I mean I just that's 691 is the reference to 35% also 237 is where it first happens maximum per view surface Recommend that you restrike that I think for cold purposes I

You're going to create conflicts.

It's just easier for things to be in one place.

Strike synthetic turf here and just let it exist down below. And then let's discuss it when we get back there.

Correct. Like the impervious standards, let it stand on its own, and then synthetic turf, that's where you can reference.

But I just think that for the reader, it's best to take out there. So strike line 237, 238.

Correct. Because you could have a whole list of things.

And then we'll discuss it again when we get back there. All right, anything else on page 9? Page 10?

I'm not sure. Yes. Under development standards, what line? This would be a new item. After item 5, my item 5 is line 244, so this would be a new item, item 6. For me it starts at 247. I'd like to add the words. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for new construction or additions meeting the section 529 applicability threshold without a signed and sealed as built drainage and grading certification from the engineer of record. Let me explain what that is. So this is something that we do on commercial properties because we've had problems with flooding. And we're having problems with flooding. And in certain circumstances, it could very well be due to the fact that it wasn't constructed in accordance with the design plans. And the only way for us to determine that it is is have the engineer of record, or if we want to loosen that up a little bit, any registered engineer or surveyor. No registered engineer because they have to understand the calculations and the size of the pipes and everything, sign and seal on that as built condition that it matches the approved design drawings because what I suspect is happening, what normally happens in construction you have design changes and whether intentionally or unintentionally stuff gets changed and you don't keep track of things and all of a sudden that exfiltration trench that was 100 feet is now 75 feet and yes that is oddly specific. this prevents that from happening and I've gotten tripped up with this on my own sites and thankfully I did because I've had sites that have flooded and I've been sued because of it so this will go one step further I think to helping ensure that we have a means of checks and balances to make sure that what ultimately does wind up getting approved by us by our building department and by the county is ultimately what got built So that's why I'm proposing that.

Can you say that again? Sure.

The language. New item number six, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for new construction or additions meeting the section 529 applicability threshold without a signed and sealed as built drainage and grading certification from the engineer of record.

So if I may, the issue with this line is that ultimately The purview of a certificate, you said a certificate of occupancy, that's the building official. So to put that type of requirement in our planning, I'm trying to help me then.

I'll tell you how it gets done elsewhere. You already have a checklist for planning and zoning. And if you don't, we need to have one because there's other issues that are happening, designs that get approved that aren't getting built the way they're approved. So planning and zoning should have an inspection at the end of the project that they're signing off on it. And as one of those checklist items, If not, then this is an administrative issue that needs to be addressed. One of those checklist items needs to also be have we received the signed and sealed certification with respect to the drainage system that was approved.

I mean, the thing is, and then that's where... you know, once we approve it, planning, zoning, it's turned over to the building department and it's kind of a building department inspection. They're the ones doing the inspections on the job.

You know, you mentioned planning and zoning.

I think I think it's a I think it's not we're not asking our planning and zoning inspector to opine on engineering we're just asking our planning and zoning inspector to make sure that something that this board looks at as part of its material considerations for its approval has met

That's going to be conflict with the building department. Yes, but there are always conflicts with the building department. There always are.

I deal with them on my projects now.

And if they find it at the end, I mean, I don't mind having a certification. I don't know if we need to specify, you know, I guess for new construction projects, you know, or projects.

Yeah, that's Section 529 applicability.

So this is purely for new construction projects, development standards?

I'm fairly certain, but it's worth a double-checking. Development standards.

So we don't get too onerous on small projects.

So basically there's a lot of comments I have here, but that's for new construction.

That's level of service standards. So this section here, 412, development standards for new construction.

I've proposed some formatting edits to this, but basically there was a portion that said for new single-family construction or additions that increase the existing square footage by 50% or more and involve significant land disturbance. Assigned and sealed stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be submitted. That was language that was already there.

That's coming. That's down the line. Yeah.

So that's referencing by that applicability. So if you don't meet that applicability threshold, in other words, you're doing a renovation that is 40%, you don't even need to do this in the first place. Therefore, that certification is irrelevant. So...

So level of service, so I guess instead of putting it here, would we want to put it there? The reason why I put it there is because these are development standards, and I think that these development standards are those kinds of checklist items that we're looking at. Under 534, which says development?

Under 412, development standards, starting at line 230.

So then under... 534 development I guess that's specifically for development adjacent to Biscayne base we have a whole section there on on flood resilience yeah and this doesn't that this has some tie-ins to that but it's not exclusive to that so I don't think it would belong in that subsection the only I'm not opposed to it because we are getting a lot of drainage we are getting a lot of drainage and I've seen it

Many other municipalities, the building official and the planning and zoning staff interface with each other through multi-tiered inspections. I have a project now. It's not a single family project, admittedly, but it's similar for their single family properties in Fort Lauderdale. where the planning and zoning has an inspector that goes out each and every step of the project to make sure that the shell you've built complies, then whatever skin you're putting on complies. I'm having to deal with an issue right now where I'm on the applicant side fighting against something that I don't agree with. But I think even though it affects me adversely sometimes, I'll be the first to admit it has been exceptionally effective. It's kept our group in line. I have to be careful what else I say. Yeah. Yeah, it's been effective. I think we could do that here. It's really not – let's be clear. It will add some cost to the applicant, no question about it. Yeah, it will. But is that cost justified when them not doing that could potentially need them flooding their neighbor and costing their neighbor money? So who should pay, the person who's actually building the property, the verify that it's been built the correct way, or the neighbor that gets the effect of the floods?

One thing to note is that the village does not perform any sort of zoning inspections.

No, they don't.

We don't know how much the village does drainage inspections either. No, they don't.

I wouldn't be able to. I don't know.

Not even the village official. Probably not. Probably on the closeout. Probably on the closeout they walk and you see their French drain here.

No one's doing it. And we're not even requiring a certificate. This could be a big reason why these properties are flooding. Mr. Bolton, I drove down 100 and I think it might have been 94th, not 94th, 92nd Street. Was it 92nd or 93rd? It was after the rains that we just had.

93rd is the one with the big house. Yeah. The big ugly one.

I couldn't continue driving down that street. I don't know how those neighbors do it. It was basically hitting the underside of my car, and I was worried that it would start coming in my doors. What I did observe, and I'm not going to name properties here, but I will say their recent construction is lots of flood water spilling right over that property line and right into the street. I also observed some other stuff that's really troubling, water percolating up from underneath the street, but that's a whole other issue. I think we can do ourselves a world of good and our neighbors to make sure that if nobody else is looking at this, we're on board with it.

Is anybody opposed to it? No. If not, then I guess... Do you need them to read the language one more time?

I think you should just send it to us, that direct language.

So it will be line 245A. Mine is 247 and it would be subsection number 6.

So we got that direction and then when you guys make whatever motion we'll adopt all of these as amended.

Any other on this?

Not this page. I think I may have had something that I skipped.

Let me ask you, let me discuss. I'm looking at line 270. Water tanks and air conditioning equipment. when appropriately screened may be erected on a building to a height greater than the limit established for the district in which the building is located provided no such exception shall so in other words let's say if the district is 30 foot or 28 feet it can go up to 28 feet And then item two below for non-residential, exceed an overall height of six feet above the roof slab or flat roof. So if you've got a 28-foot roof elevation and you have to put your AC on there, you can't put your AC on the roof then. Is that the way that's reading?

Mm-hmm.

Because you cannot go higher than the 28 feet. In other words, it doesn't allow you to go six feet above the 28 feet if it's properly screened.

A height greater than. So it could go six feet above.

Oh, I was reading that wrong. You're correct. It may be erected on a building to a height greater than the limit established as long as it's less than six feet. Yeah. um the only thing is for a pitched roof it might not make sense right and then I don't understand that right I mean they would I mean I don't think or above the top of the tie beam for a pitched roof I think it was trying to tie in to the previous way that we that I proposed to measure pitched roofs which I now want to change So do we need to change it above the top?

Let's ask a basic question. We've been trying to prevent mechanical equipment from being on roofs. To the extent it has to be on a roof, do we really want to allow it to go even higher? I think if it's not visible from any neighbors or from the right-of-way, maybe. But if it is visible from the right-of-way, and I mean like, screen screen and it's allowed to go six feet above the there may be some some conditions where an applicant just simply does not have another yeah that's covered as far as on the next page an exception may be granted by the planning zoning pursuant to you know blah blah blah no reasonable alternative location exists that would allow compliance with the maximum building height I think we say that we don't allow it past the maximum building height and we leave that as a judgment if they have a hardship would take the six feet off the six foot is for non-residential

For non-residential.

Right. It's nothing to do with houses.

So for residential, shall be located at grade where feasible and designed to minimize visual and noise impact. And for residential, you go to this whole item six here.

Right. But before we even get there, I think there's also a question. We're only talking about our code, but this pertains to other districts, not just ours. In my opinion, I don't think we should be allowing this to exceed any of the heights, whether it's in a commercial or if it's in the S institutional. I don't think it should be exceeding any of those heights.

Is the six feet the way it's written right now for non-residential? Otherwise, I would like to just leave that alone and focus on residential here on this. That's new language.

How would it treat it now? It would be right here? Yes. Let's check it out.

How is it treated not for non-residential? I'd rather just focus on residential here.

Do we need to bring that up if we're in the R district?

In other words, can we leave the whole item two out? Correct. Strike the whole thing.

Well, if you strike the whole thing, then you're allowing it in the R district greater than the height. Well, no, because item five. Oh, got it, got it, got it.

I just, before we do that, I think we need to think through how it, I don't want to unintentionally now allow something for the non-residential. So if I strike it, I just want to make sure that I'm not saying it's a permitted or something, or now it's unlimited how high you can go. So I just need to verify.

Just leave it as being for now.

okay so I understand not wanting to get into the commercial area but but then let's just focus on solving it for the residential I'm not certain that we're there yet so Then we're good for number five?

For number five is for the residential area. And then you've got to go to six. Do we want to discuss six? Yeah.

So six says, where the compliance with the aforementioned regulations result in a practical hardship due to floodplain regulations, site constraints, or other conditions not self-created by the property owner. An exception may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to site plan approval. And granting such exception, the Planning and Zoning Board shall make the following findings. Now, in those findings.

there seems to be a problem with them we're saying where did this language come from any did you write this or did this come from our discussion so you didn't find a template somewhere we're talking about item six

283 to 298. Yeah. And mine goes further than that. So I might be referencing line numbers a little differently than you guys are. I don't know why mine's different. I was using the Word document that was sent. Maybe there's some slight differences in the formatting. Here's the job.

Do you have an extra copy? Yeah, because I got the one that was marked up. Okay. So that was the final draft.

Okay. Because we're saying, I thought we were saying we wouldn't allow rooftop mechanical equipment it's certainly discouraged so well at all except for special circumstances and in those circumstances most certainly not higher than the allowable height and I think that's what we're saying here except that the finding for item number two no reasonable alternative for location or configuration exists that would allow compliance with the maximum building height we have to find where are you just reading that right here item six two no reason so yet in other words there's a hardship so they can bring a hardship to the planning and zoning board in there I don't application process I don't think I ever want to allow them to go past the maximum building height so I'd like to take that out yeah I would agree you can you can make a nook you can the hardship would be the the relief to the hardship would be yes well that you put it on a roof But if you do that, you're going to have to pull that part of the roof down below so that the top of the equipment plus screening is not above the maximum building height. I think that is the hard relief to the hardship. Not yes, you can put it on the roof.

Or you put it on the roof of a first floor section or something. Yeah.

But right now the way it's written is the relief is yes, you can go higher than the maximum building height. And you can put it on a roof, and you can go higher than the maximum building height, when I think our default position is not on a roof, unless you have to do your effort to demonstrate that there's no other option for you.

So I think this is a simple one. If you don't want it, strike it.

Yeah, I think strike number two.

So if you don't want variance or hardship, take it out.

Take the whole thing out.

Yeah, if you don't want it at all, it's not something that I think... You take all the six out?

Yeah, take all the six out.

I don't think you would need six.

It's supported better. Yeah, but then we have to change item 2 also. Where are we limiting it to the maximum building height in the residential area? I'm not finding that.

Once six is removed, you'd be limited to two. Then you're limited to the maximum height.

Yeah, but the two is for non-residential districts.

But then you're limited to maximum building by definition.

Again, we're allowing it six feet above the roof. That's for non-residential.

It's for non-residential, so then that means we'll strike six, we'll go into five, and make five where it's the main...

it's no higher than the main elevation of the building but but five should be then no mechanical equipment on roofs except the hardship though I do think we need the hardships though that's what I'm saying right now the way this is written there is nothing saying that in a residential district that you shall not be putting equipment on a roof But that we allow for a hardship and that under that hardship, yes, you can if you demonstrate certain things to us, but under no circumstances higher than the maximum height of the building.

So let me just clarify because I'm confused. Let's start with one is what's the standard we want for mechanical equipment on the roof? Is it simply that it's not allowed, period? Yes.

not allowed well it can be allowed as long as you don't exceed the maximum height for me i would prefer that if it's screened at all unless an applicant comes to us and says hey look i just don't really have another feasible way of doing it what if it's one story and he wants to put it on the roof and he screens it well i mean i mean you know yeah so you have this pitched roof

Now you have this wharf on the top of the roof that you can see from the street.

I don't think the guy wants to. If he screens it, it makes it look, you know.

Well, it can't be visible from the right of way.

It can't be visible, and it must be screened. When appropriately screened.

Visible from the right of way. So there's these houses that have these air conditioning units. If you're standing in front of the house at the crown of road, which is where you typically measure it, you can't see the unit. But go down to the end of the road, and because that house is – I'm just saying what do you see on that roof you see a gigantic air conditioning unit on that roof so technically the way that we would normally measure that I would comply because I can't see it from the right of way but I can see it all the way down the end of the street so because of that I just say don't put on a roof so number five which currently says residential for residential districts right so we're talking about

Air conditioning equipment, mechanical equipment, all of these things. It says it shall be located at grade, where feasible, and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent properties, streets, and public right-of-ways. What are we changing to that, if anything at all?

Where feasible, then.

No, because we don't want to, because at grade, you can't put it at grade when you are in a VE zone and your first floor elevation is 11 feet. So where feasible still doesn't count. But under no circumstances. But shall not be placed on roofs. I'd be okay with that.

If we're going to say not placed on roofs, then we've got to back up and take starting at line 69, we have to take out when appropriately screened may be erected on a building to a height greater than the limit established for the district in which the building is provided.

Right. We've got to take all that out. We need to do that and take all that out.

cover at a level more than 15% of the roof we got take that out where you 272 505 a what line item line starting at line 279 270 when appropriately screen may be erected on a building to height greater than the limit so that would all have to come out and then and then provided no exceptions To be used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes, that's kind of wrong too, right? I mean, we're talking about mechanical equipment. Nobody's going to sleep on a mechanical equipment, right?

A maintenance man.

If he gets tired or doesn't fix it in time.

So it can't be relocated. Well, how could you use it for a commercial purpose?

yeah this section that's the problem this section is applying to both commercial properties institutional properties and residential properties and because of that we can't take that out completely unless we're saying that you're not going to put mechanical equipment on those roofs but i think that's unreasonable because a commercial building puts the mechanical equipment on the roof that's normal but in a residential district just add to the end of five yeah That's what I would do. I think that's the decision. And that would clarify. For residential districts, shall be located a grade where feasible and not on rooftops and designed to minimize. That's where I would put it.

Let me suggest that we just create a separate B without me knowing what else might be in the code. that just solely pertains to residential because my concern now and just remove anything that was added even remotely related to commercial because our title advertises that this is only touching our district and I don't want to make any change at all to anything commercial related even if it's just to clarify so I think if we just make a separate section that way you get the language exactly what you want for residential only then when we go back to the commercial we'll clean that stuff up but I think maybe kicking this back to just the standard language and then now subsection B let's just do exactly what you want to do for and I take off this whole seat six well yeah right we would essentially be operating we put six underneath your new B

that's just solely for residential properties and then it's a a would be commercial no a would just be a so it just says established in no such exception shall period just saying a building to have height greater than the limit established by the district in which it is located or b would basically be what item five says right like b and then if you want to add another sentence to it you know saying and no

No air conditioning or water tanks on the roof.

Formatting-wise... I'll get it to where it needs to be, but I just want direction.

What I would just say is that in addition to that, because it's not abundantly clear to me what our current code actually does say because the edits can get a little confusing, as long as we're not creating a conflict where this portion A that we're now thinking pertains only to commercial also pertains to residential and now we have a subsection B that pertains to residential that conflicts with A.

that I'll go in and I'll make it crystal clear in A that this is not applicable to residents.

For me, I'm good with that approach. I think it solves the problem.

So to summarize, we're going to have no air conditioning or water tanks on the roofs in the residential district. Period.

Period.

Even if it's one story.

I can't even think of a reason why you would need to do it.

I'll tell you that there are water tanks on the roof when they were connected to solar.

Yeah.

I used to have one.

I wouldn't want to prohibit that.

I had a house with a water tank on the roof that was connected to a single story.

We would need another section then to deal with that and just say that, except that is permitted, but only not facing the public roadway.

It looked like a chimney, yeah.

It looks like a chimney. Yeah, but I think that's when basically there's the solar panels sitting next to the tank and that heated it. It wasn't what currently happens in current solar.

I haven't seen a lot of that recently, but I don't think the intent is to preclude somebody from doing that because that could be done in a way that is minimally intrusive compared to a modern air conditioning with its stand is going to be up to six feet above the level that it's attached to.

especially with re-roofing requirements so does Shanae know what not entirely I just need clarification so now for our new resident residential district for B overarching rule is that mechanical equipment is what what's the overarching rule

I think item number five we could just take that language and we could say for residential districts shall be located a grave where feasible and in no event on a roof location shall be designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent properties streets and public rights of way except that solar water heaters and their associated tanks may be located in a manner that is not visible from any public right of way excluding an alley may be located read that last part may be located so as to not be visible from any public right of way excluding an alley does this count for

Chimneys?

No, it's for water tanks and air conditioners.

Well, it says in pertinences.

No, chimneys are part of the house.

Because it said towers, gables, and what, that we struck.

Our new section.

Oh, come on. I have one. We had one. I have one. No, and we had one, and he was here, and remember, he did. It's a fake fireplace. You're right, it was fake. It was a pretend. Mine is real.

Yeah, there's a challenge with the fireplace.

No, remember the guy, and he did that big...

okay just for clarification so we have that separate section I understand now what the overarching rule is are we keeping six which would now be our you know just exception so to say I think

I mean, they can plead an exception.

I would tell you this. There's a variance process. A variance.

They just have to use the variance process.

So we could eliminate six. And I know we're very, very reluctant to issue variances, and I know our planning and billing staff won't do that unless he really believes that there's no other way they can solve this problem other than to issue a variance. Okay. I can move on.

All right. Page 11.

I'm still on Section 508, Establish Grade of Plot. Yes, that's what I'm on, 508, Establish Grade of Plot. Sorry. Line item 305, for me, the finish grade of a plot shall not be less than four inches above street grade. I'm just wondering, do we define street grade?

Yeah. That's the crown.

It should be the crown of road, right?

Yes.

Do we define street grade anywhere? I don't remember.

I don't.

Above street grade. In other words, is that crown of road?

Usually it's crown of road.

And I thought that was written.

What happens to the roads that don't have a crown? What happens to the roads that slope from one side of the property to the other? Do you take the meaning? The high point.

The high point of the road, right?

I don't know. That would be the crown. The crown's the high point of the road. The worst case. Do we talk about that anywhere else? Well, we're talking about established. I don't think we do.

I know, but the last one, you know, that's he had. He had...

nine and he had eight so i mean clearly his his sight was slow which i would say most people's are we have it we have a definition for it okay you want to hear it yeah yes the level of the surface of the pavement top of curb or surface of cement sidewalk as established by the village whichever is the highest

Okay.

What if you don't have a sidewalk? That's the edge of pavement. So that's the edge of pavement as opposed to the ground. Yeah.

So we're saying that it's four inches above what would be the edge of the pavement, which in some circumstances, extreme they may be, could produce a street grade that's lower than the ground? I don't think that can be done. I mean, you'd have to have a really wide road for that slope differential to create a ground that's higher, but... I think it's probably okay.

I didn't need to nitpick this. That's not why I brought it up.

I just was curious as to whether or not we defined it because I did a quick search and I didn't immediately capture it.

What about the...

floor minimum one foot above that's what we discussed earlier I think I would leave it as is at a minimum one foot above or in accordance with FEMA regulations regarding base flight elevation plus plus freeboard requirements we could just leave we can get rid of the app one foot above just put plus freeboard requirements that solves the problem but freeboard is one word

is freeboard one foot currently yes freeboard is one foot so if you take the one foot off then then then this can change with yeah with what every board is FEMA the requirement or yes and it's also prescribed by state and insurance companies as well okay and we took this off from the earlier in this reading so

The one foot. Oh, we added the one foot.

We added the one foot, but I think that's okay there because unless you want to do plus free board requirements there, too. I just want to be consistent. Yeah, that probably makes sense. Plus free board requirements there probably worked as well. If you guys wanted to make a note just to add that instead of the one foot. Plus one foot.

Well, let me clarify. So you're saying up top we're going to remove the one foot and just say plus free board requirements?

Yes.

And then here we're going to remove the minimum one foot and just leave it as plus free board requirements.

Yeah. It's probably the cleanest because then if FEMA changes the free board requirements, we don't have to edit our code. We don't have control over those things.

Bueno. Anything else on page 11? 12.

13 anybody got anything on 13 construction fence

I guess Eddie wrote this. The issuance of a temporary fence permit shall not authorize demolition or construction activity in the absence of required development approvals or building permits. Is that necessary? I mean, obviously putting up a temporary fence doesn't mean you can authorize demolition or construction activity, right? I mean, to me, it's just kind of redundant.

It seems like it's just cautionary language.

Yeah, it's just an additional cautionary so that somebody, when they get there, their fence permit, think, oh, well, I just got a fence permit. I can demo now.

It's just extra clarification.

But it is redundant from a read, but I guess it would keep people from getting confused.

It's kind of a mixed bag on the permitting side There's some applicants that pulled the temporary fence on its own and there's others that do it with the demo So it's really your preference Does anybody

To me, I don't mind having it removed. I just don't like excessive language. It's not necessary.

I think I would leave it.

Would anybody?

Idiot proof.

Well, I guess, Michael, this is coming from.

This is your section. I mean, I'm fine leaving it. I did read it and say it.

But I'm okay with just leaving it. All right, whatever.

Let's move along. Sheet 14. Off-street parking. Two spaces for units with one to three bedrooms. So that one we looked at today, how many bedrooms? And that's interesting. Seven. That's an interesting comment. But they say office instead of a bedroom.

But it had an egress window. Yeah. You don't need an egress window for an office.

He said office. So that would try to make him, he was trying to maybe, I mean this doesn't apply to him, but that would be something that comes up. well he had seven bedrooms he had seven bedrooms so he would be required five spaces one additional So three to five bedrooms, and then six and seven. So that would be five parking spaces. And he didn't have that, by the way. No, he didn't. No.

Because we haven't supplied the client.

One additional.

I'm glad we've done this because there's another property similar to the one that has air conditioning on the roof that you see from the end of the street. On 93rd Street? Yes, that has like nine cars parked. Yeah.

In this whale.

Yeah, and this whale is all messed up. It's like dirt. No, this parking issue is important.

We're on 93rd.

It's on 93rd. It's what the community has colloquially referred to as Minecraft House.

Minecraft House. Yes. Interesting.

Because in the game they just drew. Yeah, anyway. Are we okay with the parking?

Yeah, I think so. All right, so sheet 15.

Do we define the minimum size of a parking place anywhere in here? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. I don't know if it's here, but it's within a garage enclosed space. It's 9 by 18, and when you have the...

All right 15 16 I had a question we deleted the whole section on roof materials Florida statue that Preempts us from Having building design elements included in our code

and so so even specifying roof style so if we take this off people can put asphalt shingle roofs in Miami Shores has been I don't know one asphalt shingle roof in the shores even with having it in they still could what I'm saying is that you're saying the new Florida statute when does it go no no this is not new oh let's see

think that was 2024 2023 and then it was amended in 2024 and so i'll read to you what building design elements means and that's the exterior building color the type or style of exterior cladding materials the style or material of roof structures or porches the exterior non-structural architectural ornamentation the location of or architectural styling of windows or doors the location or orientation of the garage, the number and type of rooms, and the interior layout of rooms.

You're reading from the Florida statute? Yeah.

But it does not... The limited thing it doesn't cover is the term does not include the height, bulk, orientation or location of a dwelling on a zoning lot or the use of buffering or screening to minimize potential adverse physical or visual impacts or to protect the privacy of neighbors.

Could you read exception 7? Sure.

the state planning age wait which seven are you referring to exception seven where it says that if we have a design view board that was I know where you're going we've spoken about it but let's see do we have a duty to remove this

Or can we just leave it be?

I would look at this.

I mean, if somebody challenges it, okay, you know, you challenge it, you win. But if not, they read this, you know.

I would look at it similar to your vegetable gardens in the same way that, do you have a duty to take that out?

Yeah, but that's different.

Okay. Okay, so here's what I say to you guys.

That's not section 163 that would. that would prevent us from putting a vegetable garden in the front.

No, right, but it's still a law. It's not a case law. That law was made because of Miami Showers, too. Nonetheless, but legally.

Section 7 says that if it's a design review board.

Correct, and it was an established design review board.