Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Mr. Bolton? Here. Mr. O'Hara? Here. Mr. Spirk? Here. Ms. Salo? And Mr. Brady? Here. We have quorum.

Yes, thank you so much, Chairman Bolton. And good evening to everyone here and elsewhere. I just think it's necessary that I read this into the record because of some anomalies that happened recently, as recent as yesterday. And if you don't mind, I'll just read it, all right? So the Village of Miami Shores is alerting all residents and customers to an increase in scams and impersonation attempts. Criminals may contact you by phone call, text message, email, mailed letter, or even in person pretending to represent the village. These schemes are designed to steal personal information, demand payments, or trick you into clicking on harmful links. How scammers work. They may use official-looking logos or spoofed email addresses. And by the way, that happened yesterday. They often create a false sense of urgency to pressure quick action. They may demand unusual payment methods, such as wire transfers. And that was done only recently. My understanding is that the applicants that are here tonight, some of the applicants got that kind of Yeah, you were contacted in that manner to send wire transfers. Okay, you need to speak with our police department. Okay. So we were aware of that yesterday. We contacted the police department and we called all of the applicants. I'm sure some of you got calls from us yesterday. And we had heard that there was one person who paid, but then when the police tried to contact, they were told that there was no need to contact. I don't know if you were that person. Okay, good. So you need to speak with the police. Thank you. I'll tell the chief. So the village will never request or accept wire transfers. Very important. We'll never request or accept wire transfers. All official payments instructions will come directly from village staff using that appropriate msvfl.gov address. And through approved payment options, you can go to www.msvfl.gov to see what those are. Thank you. um or via on village facilities i guess the best way for you to do this right would be to verify directly with the village staff conducting business with or call the main number the main line at the village so we're we're very sorry to hear about that it did not come from the village this is just another um attempt to um to scam you from dollars and my understanding is that the The letterhead that went out looks real bona fide as if it came from us. So I'm sorry to hear that. The best way to do it, you have started this process. You're in contact with a village employee. If you get anything, just do a double check with the village where we work on this. So thank you so much, and I'll get your information for the chief to be in contact with you. So sorry. Thank you very much. Have a good meeting. Have a good short meeting.

Just to clarify my understanding, so a hacker sent out a letter to applicants who are coming before this board basically requesting or disguising it as a required fee before their application can be heard in front of this board. Yes. So they specifically targeted... the planning department and planning board applications.

Thus far, yes, planning board. Thus far, as far as we know. Yes, as far as we know. Thank you. Thank you so much. By the way, we have this notice on our website and all the different platforms just advising you about this. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, board. Bye-bye.

Continuing on order of business, additions, deletions, deferrals.

I have something if the board would entertain it. We obviously have all been made aware of the demolition of 1086. I just want to do a general review on that and maybe just if we can add that to the beginning of the agenda.

So add an agenda item before tabled items?

Yeah. Yes, I guess I'd make a motion to add that to the agenda.

Second. All in favor? Aye. So the agenda has been touched up.

Well, just one more approval of the agenda as amended. You voted on that amendment, so just one more.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. I'd like to now open it to public comments. These are general public comments. They're not item-specific or application-specific comments. They're general because I always open it for public comments after each presentation, which would be more appropriate.

Got it.

Go ahead.

Just so it's noted, in previous meetings, it has not been strictly enforced the three minute time limit on public comments. But in this meeting, just let it be known that the three minute time will be enforced and there will be an alarm that will go off.

Okay. I'm actually Jeffrey Sade, 261 Northeast 102nd Street. I'm also a member of the Miami Shores Historic Preservation Board. And I do want to talk about that topic.

I guess I'm talking about it now because that wasn't on the agenda before.

But I come before you tonight to speak about an unfortunate loss at 1080 Northeast 96th Street, the demolition of a Miami Shores centennial home. This house was only one of 36 original 1920s residences built by the Shoreline Company and its successors and it was designed by renowned South Florida architect Robert Law Weed. Weed's work shaped much of our region's architectural heritage from the tropical modern design of the University of Miami campus to Miami Shores landmarks such as the Grand Concourse Apartments and the Miami Shores Elementary School. The home at 1080 Northeast 96th Street was part of that legacy. When the remodel proposal for this house came before the Planning and Zoning Board on September 19th, 2024, the applicant represented that approximately 90% of the structure would be preserved, acknowledging only some spalling damage. The board approved the project based on that understanding. However, the house was later demolished in its entirety reportedly after the owner determined that The structural damage was more extensive than first believed. While spalling is common in South Florida, it is also repairable in many cases. I've personally owned a 1938 Art Deco condominium in South Beach that suffered similar deterioration and was successfully restored. I can't say whether this particular structure could have been saved as I'm not an expert. but the fact remains that a rare and irreplaceable village treasure is now gone. Rebuilding it, which the owners have promised to do, no matter how faithfully executed, cannot replace what was lost. It appears that all existing procedures were followed by the owner and the village. However, to help prevent similar situations in the future, I urge the village to strengthen its review processes. In particular, if a historic house project that has already been approved undergoes a major revision, such as a demolition, It should be brought back to the board for reconsideration. This board. And if a demolition is requested for any home over the years, regardless of historic designation, the Historic Preservation Board should be notified before approval so we can assess its historic value and provide informed recommendations to this board. Let's make this loss a lesson learned. By improving our procedures now, we can help protect the remaining historic homes that give Miami Shores its unique character and sense of place. Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Paula Correa, 1200 NE 97th Street. Good evening, board members, staff, and neighbors. Miami Shores is one of the very few villages in Miami-Dade County that has maintained a century of history. Unique homes, dense vegetation, and a distinctive character. All main reasons why so many people desire to purchase property here. We have an incredible potential for transformation in higher property value. while at the same time preserving what makes this community unique. Demolitions like the one just happened at 1080 96th Street carve away not only the presence of a beautiful structure, but the characteristics that give us so much appeal. It is unsettling to think that this village with all its unique characteristics can become any town in USA. or a generic aisle in the grocery store. This loss is a wake-up call to generate the necessary process and procedures to stop the erosion of historic significant homes. I think it's an opportunity for both of the boards, the historic preservation and the planning and zoning to come together and think about how we can manage these type of situations for the future. It is very important that we as boards can tackle this task and avoid more of these situations to happen so that we can maintain this beautiful neighborhood that is also part of the history of the very short history that we have in Miami. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Brian Tenney 1183 Northeast 99th Street and last month was the first time that I attended this meeting and I want to appreciate you all for the attention that you're showing to our building code and the oversight that you're seeing on what's going on in the community. Last month we were here because a home on our street was supposed to be discussed and I was wanting to give a recommendation that if there is a notice that goes out about a home to be discussed and then it's not, announce that at the beginning so that people don't wait until the end to find out that it's not being discussed. I understand the agenda's there as well. So I did look on the agenda today, and I see that it's being discussed today, but no public notice was put out. So there's a little bit of a breakdown on what's going on there. As a new member to these meetings, and also as new as we are to a lot of the revisions that you all have already made to the building code, It was my opinion at the meeting that maybe there could be some way of communicating to the audience that are participating how these developers or homeowners are meeting these new regulations so that then you don't have people coming up and asking questions that are based on old information because even as someone who knows that there's changes that have been made, I couldn't tell you how any of those homes that were discussed last month were meeting or not meeting those requirements. And maybe that would help to alleviate some of the unnecessary questions. So I just wanted to give input on that and thank you for what you're doing.

Any other public comments?

Edna Dole, 37 Northeast Hunter Street. I'd like to have something put into the building code that suggests or makes the contractors If they're going to tear a house down and build another house in its place, that it should be harmonious to the existing structures in the neighborhood. And it's about the house on 98th Street. I know I'm not allowed to talk to you about it right now, but that's what I'd like to see proposed, that if you're going to tear a house down, you build it so that it's harmonious to the existing homes. In other words, if there aren't any two-story houses in the neighborhood or close to the houses, then you don't build one. Thank you.

All right. Closing on public comments.

If I may? Yes, sir. We did receive a, well, it's not typical for advisory committees to have e-comments available, but we did receive one, and even though it's not common practice, we would like to read it into the record.

A general, if you allow it, as opposed to, I saw two of them. One you're going to read with the specific application, right?

This one is a general.

Good.

Dear Planning and Zoning Board members, please serve the following email as a public comment for tonight's meeting. And as chair of the Historic Preservation Board, Ms. Patricia Bonaduce, I would appreciate this report to be read during the public comment section. Thank you. Dear PNZ Board members, as you all know, a significant centennial historic home has been demolished. 1080 Northeast 96th Street, Miami Shores, the Andes House. designed by remarkable architect Robert Lawid. On September 19th, 2025, I attended your PNZ meeting where item 8A presented a request to build an addition of 4,236 square feet to this historic property with a demolition of only 668 square feet of the interiors of the current house. The applicant's letter represented a preservation of 90% of the historic structure, acknowledging some concrete spalling was found, which is absolutely common and perfect repairable condition of any house. Applicant's letter expressed an absolute love and respect for our village historic houses. With this representation by the owner and owner's agent on minute 34 of the public video, the project was approved. To the shock of the vast majority of Miami Shores residents, months later, this house that represented 100 years of heritage was demolished. Last year, the Miami Herald praised Miami Shores for being a community that preserved our historic homes instead of demolishing them like the rest of the county. We were on the TV news, we were on the newspaper, we won the 2024 Dade Heritage Trust Annual Award for Preserving Miami Shores. It is typified on the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances, the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances, and the Miami Shores Comprehensive Plan that preservation and protection of historically significant structures, designated or not. Last year, a non-designated Centennial House was saved from demolition applying these codes of ordinances. Why was the PNZ board never notified of this drastic change of their approval? Why was the HPB never notified of this potential loss? Why was it approved quietly, alluding the house was so damaged that was on the verge of being condemned, really, without exhausting any resource? This procedure urgently and definitively needs to be changed. If Miami Shore is indeed a historic neighborhood, shouldn't the employees be working here? Respect more historic houses. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, that ends the public comments. Minutes, approval of minutes?

Move to approve the minutes as presented, as mailed.

Second. I have a comment. At the beginning, September 25th, actually right there, call to order Chair Brady. Did I chair that meeting? No, you were out of town. Oh, was I out of town? Present, Chair Bolton. So we got a little complication there. Who was at that meeting? Were there four people or only three people?

Four.

So Salo was at the meeting.

I was not at the meeting. Mr. Bolton, you were here at the last meeting.

I was here at the last meeting, and I chaired it. Yes. All right, so it was the one before that that I missed. Yes. So we just need to change the very top where it says Chair Brady to Chair Bolton. Everybody was here except for Ms. Sala. So can you, I guess, offer to approve as amended?

Move to reflect on Mr. Bolton as the chairman of the minutes. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Minutes? Done. Quasi-judicial items? I was going to do it after the quasi-judicial. Swear in.

Okay. Yeah, don't matter. Please be advised that the following items on the board's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for the persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their 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 lobbyists must register before addressing the board on any of the following items. Board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning any items on the agenda pursuant to Section 2-86 of the Village Code. At this time, board members, if there are any disclosures, you may do so at this time. If not, the board clerk will swear on any persons who wish to testify only on the quasi-judicial item, not the additional item that was added to the agenda. So if you plan to speak on any of the quasi-judicial items, you can be sworn in now.

For those who wish to speak on any items tonight, do you solemnly swear to, do you swear or affirm that you would say the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay.

All right. Swearing in is complete. Brandon asked to put an addition to discuss the demolition of 1080 Northeast 96th Street on the agenda.

So we've seen the outcry of the public with respect to this particular property, but not only with this property, but also with historic structures in general. And I think that when we redid our code, we were looking towards the existing fabric that we had. We all came to, I think, a lot of agreements in that code, some disagreements. But I think we all agree that we're shepherds of the built form in the community. And I think that having something such as a representation that 90% of the structure is going to be preserved and then maybe 10% is going to be preserved. To have that not come back before us, I think, is a grave mistake. And I think that this is an opportunity, a learning lesson, to understand where the wheels came off the bus. And I don't know where that is, but Eddie, you happened to respond to my email, so I'll just start with you and just ask you, generally speaking, what was the decision-making behind not bringing it back to the Planning and Zoning Board?

The development order essentially laid out that the approval is for an addition of a certain square footage. And then when you review the village code, the village code essentially outlines that new construction and additions are supposed to come before the board. So demolitions or requests for demolitions are not part of that review process. And in essence, that's what we arrived to.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, I think what needs to happen is that we add that to the review process administratively so that it does come back before the board. In other words, if there's a development order that's approved by this board and something that is substantial changes, I think that it needs to come back to the board. We have an engaged community, many of whom have spoken at this meeting and at council meeting on Tuesday about this subject matter. If we are not the gatekeepers, then why have the board? So I think we need to change the part of the process. And I think we can do it very simply. And I'd like to ask the village attorney how we would go about doing that.

I'm not completely clear on what you're asking, if I'm being honest. Are you asking to administratively require... We already require site plan amendments to come back. So that's the... Non-statement. So can you just clarify what you're...

So if there's any material change to a development order beyond, let's say, an inch here, an inch there, a minor change in the fenestration dimension, if it's something substantial like representing that we're going to preserve 90% of a structure and then we wind up only preserving 10% of a structure, that that comes back before us. Now, I don't know if my fellow board members agree with that or not, and perhaps we should just have kind of an unofficial tally to make sure we're all on the same page, but...

I mean, I think you still run into an issue of interpretation, right? Because as of today, no one can go and get approvals from this board and then make some type of material change without coming back before this board. That's what site plan, right. So that's what I'm saying. I think it boils down then to interpretation of what exactly amounts to triggering coming back for a site plan amendment. So from staff's review of it, the square footage and all the other things that was mentioned was unchanged. So it didn't trigger that review process again. However, I think we can make our code more clear to make it crystal clear as to what is that material change.

So let me jump in there. I'm not advocating making a code change. I don't think we need to do that. I think that that's cumbersome and time consuming. I think what we need to do is, the code does not give the Planning and Zoning Department the authority to change a development order. So I think that we don't need to be, we don't need to split hairs and be uber precise about it. I think this is an egregious circumstance. We're not talking about moving a window. We're not talking about changing the size of a garage door. We're talking about the demolition of a centennial home when an applicant came before us and represented that they were gonna keep it. I think that we can say procedurally speaking, if something like that comes back before planning and zoning department, if there's a question, then ask perhaps the chair as to whether or not he feels it's appropriate to bring it back in front of the board. If he says no, I'm sure we would all support that.

It doesn't work quite like that, Mr. Spirk.

So tell me how it can work.

You understand what we're trying to achieve? I did, and I think I gave you what my answer would have been.

You disagree with that. We had that situation once recently. Remember on Northeast 10th Avenue around 90th Street there? the owner had approval and then he made some changes because it complicated the build or something like that. So he came back, you know, and changed the slope of the roof, which was an aesthetic change, you know, a significant appearance change. So he came back to the board. And we approved, you know, what he was proposing to change it to. So if there is a change. Now, here, let me just, I guess, review in my mind, I guess, what happened. Because I read the report, I guess, that was given to the planning department. And the owner basically, the owner's engineer, saw significant spalling on the front wall of the building. The building was not entirely demolished. Still, the side walls and the back walls are still up. So I think the only change was the front wall on the west side was demolished, right? And there may be another wall. No, no, no. But there's still, I'll give you a chance to read, but there's still a significant amount of walls remaining up. So it wasn't completely demolished. And the engineer's report and the spalling I saw was significant spalling. So I guess I would, if I was the homeowner, I'd be a little hesitant to go ahead and continue to build it, spend $2 million construction really working around something that I guess his engineer told him was bad. So I guess the decision was made based on the fact that they asserted to you that they were going to build it back. to completely imitate what was there. You're correct. That was their commitment to you and their commitment to us. So I guess the reason it didn't come back to us is because it was not going to substantially change and it was not historically designated house, which would make it a different game also if it was a historically designated house.

So can I ask you a question? If that project had come before us and they had known, That there were structural deterioration and that they had planned to knock it down now I'm not alleging that that's the case to be clear hypothetically speaking Would we have looked at the project the same way I know personally I wouldn't have but I don't know how you would have looked at it I don't think I would have I would have felt that a reconstruction of a new Mediterranean is appropriate I think we gave, in my mind, it doesn't matter. In my mind, it goes to the character of the village. It goes to harmony, which we enforce. From my perspective, I can only speak for myself, but from my perspective, I would not. I would most certainly not have looked at that project the same way, and I don't think I would have voted. I already didn't vote for it, but I definitely wouldn't have voted for it. And I suspect that if you open that question up to the rest of our board members, they may say that they would have looked at it differently. And I think it's our job. We're get appointed for that reason. I think it needs to come back before us. And let's be clear about this. Again, I'm not alleging that this particular homeowner did this. But we know that from news articles in the past, Miami Beach, for example, when they were looking to preserve history, developers and builders would come in and they'd chip out rebar and they'd let it sit there for three months and take a picture of it rusted. But if you scraped it, you would find out that it was superficial. We owed it to the community to require that. So in my mind, we would have said to the applicant, sure, you can knock it all down. not get that little 10% so you get the tax credit. But you knock the whole thing down or you come back with a new project. That would have been my disposition and I think I am also a voice of others in the community that have said the same thing. I think we need to take our history seriously and doing that means we need to give it a fair shot. So I'd like for one to see these kinds of things come back before us. If there's a question, bring it back before us.

So I guess my position is a little different. I think the homeowners made a significant commitment to build it back exactly the way it was. They were making the best decision. That's not appropriate. They were making the best decision they could. That's not historically appropriate. To try to build it. It's not a historically designated house. But neither is the massing. The massing is not appropriate.

The massing of that structure is now not appropriate.

So, and then... The project would be stalled for, who knows, two or three months if this thing had to get re-noticed, come back in front of the board for further discussion, and who knows what. I don't want to overreach here. I think our building department made the right decision on this. There are decisions that have to be made when you open a job up and you see damage, rather than just putting a complete halt on everything.

Yeah, I agree. I understand that, yes, when you get into construction, there's unforeseen things, absolutely. But I do feel a little bamboozled, if you will, that a project was approved in good faith We all, you know, thought that was in good faith. This is what was promised, and there was a change. So why shouldn't they bring it back before us?

I still think the owner did act in good faith, committing to build it back, you know, and completely, you know, building it back in the same look that was there, making the correct decision to not go forward with a structure that may have not been that had significant damage. Just because we're sitting here saying it could be repaired, I mean, they had an engineer telling them that it was significant damage.

No, and I'm not saying that if it was, if it really was spalding and there was no way that it could be repaired, you know, absolutely. But they're making a change to what they agreed to do. Not to their fault, it wasn't anything that they went out and did, we're saying, but that's the purpose of the board is to review it then. And if that's all up and up, yes. Could it have been expedited? Could there have been other things that could have been done not to cause, you know?

In good faith they found significant deterioration. And I think they made, I guess, I hate to put a giant hurdle there to shut their project down for three months while we wait for it to come back in front of this board, which is what would occur with our notice requirements and our hearing requirements.

and do that. I also believe that we have sets of people that are professional, that work for the village, that make decisions based on particularly engineering studies and things of that nature. When they opened up the house, maybe they found there were things significantly different than they believed on their initial inspection. I mean, you saw they had to basically put supports to, I guess, maintain the integrity of the building. The walls. The walls while they were waiting to do whatever they did. But I think to, I mean, I don't think that was, I don't think us finding out was not particularly well handled. My general belief was it shouldn't have been because we drove by and saw the house being knocked down. Matter of fact, my wife had commented about the fact that we could hear the excavator hitting the walls and was wondering what was going on. But I think there are judgments that have to be made by professional engineers, people who are much more trained than I am. They made a decision. They presented that decision to the professional staff of the village. The professional staff of the village, I assume, looked at the engineering reports fairly thoroughly and determined that the applicant was correct in saying it was not I don't know, safe, economic, whatever term they use to be able to maintain parts of the existing structure. I'm surprised that they have chosen to maintain some parts of the existing structure, not exactly sure why. Maybe it was because of the overwhelming complaints on the part of people about destroying the house. But that's a professional judgment. And I don't feel comfortable, maybe the architects do, making a judgment when somebody comes in and tells me the smallest of it. And the people I worked for, we owned a Art Deco hotel in Miami Beach. And I can tell you, we spent, did we hit the button?

Yeah, that's not a meeting item. That's something outside of the meeting. Oh, thank you.

You know, and that we used to spend in excess of $100,000 a year to repair this building and that. building and when our guys knocked the concrete down and scratched the rebar, they found the rebar was significantly gone and we didn't wait six months to see whether or not it would be. In a democracy, we need to believe that when people swear they're telling you the truth and they do that, that you accept what they say is the truth, that we cannot second guess and believe they're saying that to fool us and to fool the community. And when they get further investigation and they find out that the thing is not how they initially believed it was, as a consequence of that, they had to make changes and that that is something that's, vetted by somebody professional and then presented to people that are professional, we need to basically allow them to exercise their judgment. I think letting us know was incredibly poorly handled. I guess Eddie or building or somebody could have sent us a letter and told us that The owner had found additional damage to the building that he was unaware was there. And as a consequence of that, had to modify their development plan. And I don't know if that would have made any difference beyond the fact that you look at the documents if you wanted to do that to see if you believe they were correct. But I mean, that's interesting. And if you really want to change the criteria for bringing things back, Then we need to amend the code.

We don't want a knee jerk here. I think the criteria is if you're going to change the look.

No.

If you're going to change the elevation view of the look, which is not going to change in this case.

To the chair, I think I want to be crystal clear. When it comes down to what triggers site plan modification or approval, we need to be very clear. It's not something we can pick and choose. This applicant gets to go, but this applicant doesn't. It leaves staff in a very compromised position if they don't have clear guidance.

We could come up with the particulars. Right. We could.

But I want to give you an example of a case where you did see something that came back to you very recently after you approved it, right? Case and example, the application where we wanted to remove and relocate the tree. The reason why that came before you and the reason why staff clued me into that before in terms of making the decision about it coming back before you is because it was very clear in that development order as a condition of approval that had to take place there was no getting out of that so even though the applicant was saying we don't need to go back before P&Z I was very clear you do because it's a condition of approval so I think another way to ensure certain things is that I'm not telling you all to condition things that are not part of the code requirements. But when you have an applicant that proffers something, we need to be very crystal clear about what that condition is. Because that administratively allows staff to say, hey, I cannot approve this within my administrative power. I can't give a sign off because it is a part of the development order. So when staff looked at this development order, when I looked at it, I was obviously brought into speed after the fact. WHEN I REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WHEN I WENT BACK TO THE TAPE OF HOW THIS WAS APPROVED, THERE WAS NO CONDITIONS BUT THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAD IN THAT REPORT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO ENSURE THINGS COME BACK IS HOW ARE WE WRITING UP THESE CONDITIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER ITSELF.

Go ahead. So I see both sides of this.

I see where staff was put in a predicament. I see residents' concerns.

I kind of think staff handled it as appropriately as they possibly could given the situation. So I don't have an issue there. The issue is it wasn't a change. A change is moving the window, moving a door slightly, adding a window. This wasn't a change. This was like a bomb went off on that property and it left a couple of pieces of the wall left. So I would propose that forget the code write up and all of this. We should just say in all development orders that require any type of demolition, that if the demolition is going to exceed by 10% of the stated value, it triggers coming back to the board. Just very simple like that. If it's going to go a little bit more, you're okay. You go over that 10%, bring it back. And if it comes back, it comes back. But we talk about inconveniencing the applicant. Anybody that has listened to me here, I'll inconvenience the applicant at all times, not purposefully, because the other side of that is inconveniencing the community, inconveniencing the neighbors. That's where my first point of view is, is making sure that what we approve is what the residents and what the community needs. So if an applicant has to sit and come back for another two, three months, so be it, because the greater good is for the Village of Miami Shores.

So just to try to tie it all up there, I also agree, Mr. Brady, with what you're saying about needing to trust the applicants. But I think we can adopt a hybrid approach. Trust, but verify. And the verification of this would have just been a scarification test on the rebar, just to make sure that there was no funny business and that when the community raised objections, we can say, no, no, no, no. We verified that it was legitimate. They had to demolish it. I think that in conjunction with maybe just putting a blanket condition in all development orders with respect to demolition of any structure that is over 50 years old. There's a structure that's over 50 years old and you're demolishing more than 10% of it. Bring it back before the board. Is that a motion we can make?

Even if you make it, I still need to vet it. So you can make it, but I still got to take that back internally.

How about we make the motion, generally speaking, and if the materiality of it changes, then we have to talk about it again at the next meeting.

I think Shanae had a good point. Especially on a home that's significant or historic, let's make sure we put that in the conditions, which is, I think, a good point. Because some standard garage conversions don't necessarily need, you know, this would be a non-issue for those. You know, this happened to be, you know, a 100-year-old home that was historic. So, it is an issue. So, I like the idea just to make sure it's a specific condition, you know, in our approval.

And I know this is.

I think Eddie did. Eddie, I assume somebody from the building department went out, structural inspector went out and looked at what reviewed that report and concurred with it, the engineering report. and concurred that it was a significant damage and concurred that it should.

They conducted a site visit and they confirmed. They did put eyes on it. You're correct. They confirmed that what was submitted through the village and what they saw at their site inspection checked out and made sense.

Through the chair, and just to wrap this up, this is, I'm not going to say this is an isolated situation. I understand this is a very impactful situation Situation because there's not much we can do the bell has already been wrong, but I think moving forward What we hear from the community is is crystal clear what we hear from the board is crystal clear and Although you may not want a code amendment. I'm always pushing for it because it gives you the strongest Authority there is and so we are in the process of working on the code amendment that this board is ASK THE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BEFORE A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS EVEN ISSUED AT ALL. SO THERE ARE THINGS, AND THEN EVEN FURTHERMORE, BAKING IN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING AS WELL. SO YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING TO REVIEW and to tweak and to change to also give some type of more, like I said, something that staff can look to to actually enforce. So we hear you and it's coming.

Am I understanding you correctly when we're going to talk about basically a two-prong approach, one where we put that condition in every development order moving forward from today onward, and then two, we make a code change?

Correct. With that condition in particular, I need to review that internally. And once I do that, we'll see about that.

So I would like to make a motion to include as a condition in all development orders moving forward that demolition of any structure aged more than 50 years, the extent of which deviates more than 10%, shall come back before the Planning and Zoning Board for further evaluation. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any comment?

Well, we do have sets of plans that show demolition. I assume you're saying if they're greater than what's identified in the plans for demolition. By 10 percent. 10 percent is not much, but I mean.

I'm of the opinion we should let our staff do their job. And if we want to add a condition for historically significant or unique structure or something, we add that condition, you know, at the board level. I think rather than just, you know, a knee jerk random.

The rate at which things are changing.

A demolition for somebody doing a garage conversion.

No, but that's not what we're talking about. 10% will cover that. 10% of the entire structure?

Yeah.

I think it's a no-brainer. I think we should do it. I just wonder if there's been a motion, a second.

And we're in discussion right now. Any further discussion on it? I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Nay. Motion passes. All right, moving on to tabled items. Item 7A, RSP 24-37, applicant Blue Nest Homes, 9305 Northeast 9th Avenue. Do I have a motion to take it off the table? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Item's untabled. Planning Director? Yes, sir. Brief us.

This is item 7A, RSP 24-37, 9305 Northeast 9th Avenue. The law is approximately 9,600 square feet in size and contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1940. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the development of a new two-story, single-family dwelling comprise of 4,276 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates four bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, one car garage, swimming pool spa with outdoor terrace area. At its June 27th, 2024 planning and zoning board meeting, the applicant's request was subsequently tabled pursuant to board commentary regarding the general harmoniousness, character, compatibility of the proposal in relation to the existing buildings. The applicant is seeking to be untabled and has incorporated an overall redesign of the project and thus addressing all the current code regulations. Staff reviewed the request and found it compatible. The R16.5 zoning district is in alignment with the single family land use. The 22 different zoning criteria all generally are satisfied and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board to the planning director? No questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And in your presentation, can you please just kind of summarize for us some of the changes that you made from the original submittal? Thank you.

Sure. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Denise Presho. This is Cheryl from Presho Basan Studio. We are the architects for the new project at 9305 Northeast 98th Avenue. So as explained by the board, we originally presented to the board on June 2024, and we had the item tabled because we had concerns about the size of the home relative to the lot. It was designed under the previous zoning ordinance and we also had comments in regards to how the entry doors were positioned because we had two ways to enter the house and also regarding the fenestration in the facades. Since then, we have redesigned the project in order to comply with the current zoning regulation and we have taken into account the comments from the board in regards to massing, character, and also the access to the property and the fenestration in the facades. I don't know.

Okay. It's okay.

So it's fine. So if you go, no, that's the previous project.

That's the original.

That's the original. So we want you to see what the changes are within front facade on one project and front facade from the other project.

Yeah. So just to give you a quick recap of how we thought about this project, if you go through the next sheets of our presentation, next slides, you will see the survey and pictures of the existing home. Also, we did an in-depth analysis of the adjacent properties in the next slides, where you can see the current conditions. And if you go a couple more on that one, you will see how we made an effort to map the two-story homes that we have in the area. We do have many two-story homes. Some are older structures, some are new construction that are in close vicinity to our project. If you go to the next slide. Those show the zoning diagrams and how we are complying with the new zoning regulations. We are proposing a 44% FAR. and a 29% lot coverage. On the bottom, you also can see diagrams of how we are complying with the front setback regulations and also the additional step backs for the second floor in the front and sides. In the next slide, you will be able to see the open and permeable area diagrams and how we are code compliant. If you go to the next one, We are showing the site plan. You can appreciate it's a corner property. And what we think, as designers, that it's a beautiful characteristic of this lot is that it presents lush vegetation, a lot of shade trees that are native and specimen. And we maintain the original concept in which we are really trying to preserve as many of those trees as possible. We have Mahogany's oak trees. and we place the house in a way to preserve as much as possible those trees, working also with the landscape architect. Another concern that we got from the board's feedback was how in the previous version we had two entrances to the house. Right now we are only doing one towards Ninth Avenue, and you will see how it's basically developed as an open floor plan that overlooks towards the back. In the back of the property, in the property line, there's a large live oak that is really beautiful and we're trying to have the interior spaces lift towards that tree. If you go to the next slide.

On that picture there, where's the front?

So Ninth Avenue, it's to the left side.

Which was the rendering that you showed at the very beginning.

Yes, exactly. And we have renderings of both sides that you'll see it. These are enlarged floor plans. Basically, it's an open floor plan, very open towards the back. And if you go to the second floor, you will see the additional step backs and also how towards both 9th Avenue and 93rd Street, we are providing planters as a way of also relating to the natural environment. And if you go, we're proposing a hip roof with a flat tile finish that is harmonious with the other properties. And the elevations show that we are making an effort in order to clad the walls with warm materials to soften the architecture. We're using wood composite panels and also porcelain tile finish. You can go one more, and you'll see a section. We are proposing a building height of 28 feet 11 inches, which is below the maximum 30 feet, also in an effort to maintain harmony with the context. And in here you will see another rendering. This is from Ninth Avenue. And again, the idea is we're working with strong horizontal elements that break up the massing, making sure to try to minimize as much as possible the impact of the second floor, setting it back, and providing a lot of fenestration also for your feedback in order to relate to the context. This other view is from 93rd Street, and you can see how we depicted also the current vegetation and how the house will blend in with the existing context. And in the next one, That's the rear view. The spaces are overlooking at the oak tree. We also presented as part of the presentation landscape plans, civil engineering plans, all in compliance with the code. And as a conclusion, I would say that we are presenting a project that is a lot smaller than the original one. The original one had a living area of 5,000 square feet with a two-car garage. Now we are proposing a 3,900 square feet of living area with a one-car garage. The FAR was previously 58% now it's 44% and the lot coverage was 35% and now it's 29% and also incorporating the comments regarding fenestration and access and We do think like if you see the front elevations we do see from a designer and architect perspective how the zoning code update really enhanced this project. So we wanted to let you know, okay?

Thank you. Questions for the applicant from the board? Brandon?

Not a question, just a general statement. Thank you. And thank you for doing this. You didn't maximize it. You know, you left just a little bit there and I think that that's also a good gesture. I actually think that the neighborhood has been attracting people that are looking for architectural pieces and they're willing to pay premiums for it. If you build it, you're going to get it.

Thank you.

Yeah, actually you're part of the applicant so just, yeah, discuss it from the, you got to say your name and address.

I understand, right, bringing the massing down. If there was one suggestion that I think could uphold the value of all the properties in Miami Shores would be to somehow find a way to, you know, have a two-car garage in a property like this. for a property that, you know, you're looking for a premium or like for a high price, it's going to be needed. And it was either sacrificing living spaces or having a one-carat garage. And, you know, we were back and forth a lot on this. And in the end, we decided to have a bigger living space.

You know, the thing is, it's a small lot. And I think you made the right decision. The mudroom and the antechamber that you have there is, I think, a premium feature that a lot of homes are not incorporating. The way the space flows, the accesses that are created, I think you're going to get a good price on it.

I think I like a two-car garage. But you're right, a lot of people come in front of this board doing garage conversions. A lot of people don't want garages now, you know.

And I understand, you know.

But I think the improvements are very nice. I concur. And I think as far as this board, this gives us an idea of what those, the criteria that we enacted in the middle of last year, what this pretty much shows you what you can do with those metrics that we implemented. If you have a skilled architect. Yes.

If you have a skilled architect. We'll see another one that complies.

Yes. Yes, I know. So yeah, and it does show what the metrics have kind of adjusted the volume and the massing and on the, we have some others in front where we'll discuss articulation on some of those.

Any other comments? Yeah, I appreciate the breaking up of the massing, definitely fantastic. It just looks great, and I love that you brought the wood paneling from the second floor down to the first floor, the ground floor. It makes all the difference. I just have a question. So when you demolish the existing house, are you going to fence the property after you demolish the house?

Yeah. So if you go to the site plan, it's on sheet, one second, let me see. It's 809. There you can see. So the plan, as depicted here in the site plan, is to provide fences.

I'M JUST SAYING AFTER CONSTRUCTION FENCING SO WHEN YOU DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ARCHITECT'S DEAL. THAT'S THE CONTRACTOR'S DEAL. THAT SHOULD BE IN OUR PERMIT. THAT SHOULD BE IN OUR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCESS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING HERE.

NO, BUT IT'S NOT.

That's why I'm bringing it up. It actually is.

It's not enforced. It's not being enforced. I found an application that your checklist is that.

And a lot of, most sites do it, I believe, but it should be enforced because it makes all the difference.

So just for liability purposes, when we build, we do fence the property. That's a contract we have with our insurance company as well. We need to fence the property.

There are a lot of applicants that don't do it, so that's why I'm asking the question. So I would ask that that the construction fencing be added as a condition to the purpose. Just want to make sure that it's in there.

That's proffered by the applicant.

Of course it was proffered. Yeah, absolutely. He said it.

I'm sure that's his M.O. Any further discussion on this item? Let me open it to the public. Any public comment on this item? You come to the podium and state your name and address, please.

My name is Dennis Tinsman. I live at 966 Northeast 92nd Street. This house is right around the corner from me. And I kind of hate to see the old home torn down. I was talking to one of the homeowners next door to it today. And I don't think they're looking forward to seeing a two-story house next to them. That street right where I live is a very quaint part of Miami Shores. It's a very secluded area behind the Catholic Church. And a lot of people like the quietness of that area. And right now I have a house being built next door to me at 970 Northeast 92nd Street. And it looks like a hotel. It's a two-story house. It's got 5,500 square feet in it. seven bedrooms, six and a half bathrooms. And while that doesn't really matter about anything, it's just a humongous house that's being built next door to me. A lot of residents lose their privacy in their backyards, you know, when they have a two-story house. The house behind me is being remodeled. I had a feeling that they were going to tear it down and build a humongous house behind me. So that's why I was concerned and I wanted to come to the meeting to see, you know, if this is going to be a continuing thing where these mega mansions, what I call them the mega mansions, are crammed onto these small lots. I just wanted to mention that the thing you were just talking about a few minutes ago about the fencing, that little area right there, right around the corner from me, the streets are very narrow. Ninth Avenue, when it goes around, it makes a little S turn. The fencing, depending on where they put it, it's going to maybe cause a traffic problem right in there because all of those streets are just almost so narrow you can barely get one car down the road. So I just wanted to mention that when you were talking about the fencing, that it needs to be held back at the corner so when this car is coming down there, he can see around the corner. So that was all I had.

All right, thank you. Any other comments on this application? Public comment? Hearing none, Brent, did you have anything else you wanted to close on? All right, do I hear a motion?

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

And the additional proffer by the applicant of the construction fencing. And that's a requirement. But that's not being enforced. That's why we're asking that it be included and the applicant has agreed to. So we can include that in the motion.

I mean, we can. But to your point of enforcement, putting it in the development order would not. Enforcement means we need to tell staff to enforce it.

This is our mechanism to let people know that it needs to be enforced.

Okay, it doesn't work, but we'll put it there, but we'll still tell staff directly.

No problem. Just need that flag being flown.

So I have a motion. I have a second that's offering an amendment. Do you agree to the amendment? All right. Thank you. And second, all in favor? Aye. Application passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Eddie, let the building department know that we discussed construction fencing and maybe have them audit their projects. Audit the project. I'm serious. Audit the projects, and if there's no construction fence, notice the contractors to put up the construction fence as required by our code. All right. So let, I guess, Ishmael know that we discussed that at length.

But unfortunately, there have been instances where we have contacted the building department and code enforcement, and nothing has been done.

And we got escalated to the manager.

I will need to clarify, because the zoning code does not require the construction fencing.

I'm just asking you to let the building department know for us, please, that it was discussed.

We've discussed it and he's going to say your code, there's not a code that requires him to enforce that.

Oh, I thought Brandon said it was in the code.

There's nothing in the code what I did find was when you go for your for your building permit There's for a demolition permit. There's a checklist there and in that checklist is construction fence So our building department in their application has it All they need to do is when the application comes in if it doesn't include the fence reject it Okay All right.

We have next item is table item 7b and on the table second second rsp 24-48 78 northeast 98th street applicant blueness homes i have a motion and a second to untable all in favor say aye aye it was untabled building director thank you sir item 7b uh 78 northeast 98th street

The lot is approximately 14,375 square feet in size. It contains a single story single family dwelling originally built in 1940. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing single family structure while proposing the development of a new two story single family dwelling comprised of 5,686 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of six bedrooms, six and a half bathrooms, two car garage and swimming pool with spa and outdoor terrace area. At its July 25th, 2024 planning and zoning board meeting, the applicant's request was subsequently tabled pursuant to board commentary regarding the general harmoniousness, character and compatibility of the proposal in relation to the existing buildings. The applicant is seeking to be untabled and has incorporated an overall redesign of the project addressing the current code regulations. As such, staff has confirmed that the R18.5 zoning district is compatible with the single family future land use. And we've reviewed the site plan and generally found that it complies with the 22 different zoning districts as found within the village's code. And therefore, we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you put the elevation up, please? Any questions from the board to the planning director? Hearing none, would the applicant like to present and maybe summarize some of the changes from the original? Yes, please.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, so for this project, if you can briefly show what we had in the previous rendering. I don't know if you have it there.

It's okay, don't worry.

I think the board members have it and I have it here so you can see it. Okay, so for this project we presented it on July 2024. It was also designed under the previous code. We got tabled and we had the feedback regarding the scale of the home and also regarding the style of the home and its relation to the context and specifically to the historical house that it has towards the east side. So we heard the feedback, we understand, and in this one we had an approach to start from scratch. We completely redesigned the home, and I'm going to show you briefly how we thought about it. In the next sheets, you'll see the survey, photos of the existing residents, also the neighboring properties in the same street, and in the next one, similar to what we did for the other property, if you want more. We have an analysis also looking not only at the same street, but also about a little bit wider context of other two-story homes that we found in the area. If you go to the next slide, okay, for us, this is really important. We know that we have a historic house called the Murphy House east of our property from 1926, and we heard the concerns in regards to the style and how it we want to propose a structure that is harmonious and taking into account the context. So what we did is we did an analysis of the elevation of the existing historic house, and we took the main lines. We took the upper level the main ridge line and also the design lines of the windows, and we designed our facade with those elements in mind. We're trying to introduce horizontals in order to also break up the massing and bring down the scale, and those horizontal lines come from that historical residence.

Sorry, do you mind going a little bit lower on that elevation?

I'm sorry, you need to speak into the mic because we won't hear you.

Okay, but I'm trying to, I'll try my best. Okay, so the idea is that within those horizontal lines that are also part of the historical facade, we mark them down in the new residence. You will see that there is a mooting that passes through entirely that front facade. That same line passes through our line. in order to try to break down and to create a more contextual view of what's next to us, even though this is a new construction. And it has been, it's being done in a new time.

So please stick into the mic so the viewers at home, they don't hear anything if it's not on.

And if you see the middle graphic, what we did is we worked, if you shift up the view a little bit, and you see the middle graphic, we worked in collaboration with the landscape architect as well, because the architecture is one part of it, but also landscape is a huge component. So towards the front, we are working with different layers of vegetation. We have a lower layer in the interior of the property We have the street trees that are gumballimbos that are going to give middle coverage. And then we have an upper coverage with relocated palms. And also we are providing a very, a buffer of vegetation towards the historic home of fishtail palms and also native trees.

And may I say something else? One approach as well. Sorry, I'm always here. But one approach was also the second floor. We have a setback. The second setback, it's even more. And we put a planter that looks so that you have the lower buffer with tall plants, and then you have a planter on the upper level. So that way, when you are within that residence, what you're able to see, it's mostly vegetation.

So that explains overall our design criteria and how we are approaching the harmonious component. If you go to the next slides, those are the zoning diagrams. We are in compliance with a 39.5 FAR and a 28.6 lot coverage, also complying with permeable area and open space. And if you go one down, if you can show that, okay. So you'll see that we have the front setback regulation and also the additional step backs. In this case, we worked with maximizing as much as possible the second story step backs to have the structure compressed and be away from the neighbors. If you go one more down, you'll see the site plan. The placement of the house also comes from the location of two beautiful mango trees that we have in the back of the property. And they're shown there in the site plan. So we are preserving those mango trees. It's number seven and... And number eight. Yeah, exactly. So because those are really beautiful and provide a lot of shade, so we wanted to preserve them. It's an open floor plan concept. It has a two-car garage and two bedrooms towards the front, and then all the floor plan, it's open towards the back. If you go to the next... you can go a few to go to the second floor. That's the enlarged first floor, but I wanna show you this one, the second floor. So you'll see how we have that additional step back. And also you'll see how we are incorporating planters towards the historic house to provide that second layer of screening and privacy and also towards the front in order to reduce the massing.

And you changed the roof to a pitched roof.

That's the next one. It's not a flat roof, it's a pitched roof.

So in the previous project, if you see the next slide, in the previous project we had a flat roof and we had a, because it was flat, the design, it ended up in a large terrace. We heard the concern regarding that large terrace, so we removed that feature and now we're working with a hip roof with flat tile finish. And if you see the elevations, we are working also with cladding the facade. In this case, we're using also composite wood panel, which provides warmth. And we're working with a travertine stone finish, which relates to the warmth and the history of the area. And I don't want to take much longer. We are proposing a 29 feet high that it's one foot below the maximum. And if you go to the rendering, a couple more down, For this one, there. I just want to say that we removed the landscape just for visualization purposes, but the tree that you see on the right side, it's one of the street trees. The swale of grass, it's all covered with those street trees, so the house will be screened by landscape. And again, you'll see how the volume in the first floor is towards the front, not towards the back. It's bigger, and we reduced as much as possible the volume in the second floor. And the next ones are rear views. And also, just wanted to point out that we reduced the size of the project from the previous one, which was 6,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet. and the FAR from 48% to 39%, and the lot coverage from 36% to 28.6%. And as we explained, we did the whole design taking into account the harmonious relation with the neighboring properties.

That elevation doesn't really show like a hip roof, does it?

No.

I understand what you're saying. If I didn't know, I'd say it was a flat roof.

It's a shallow slope. It's a two and one half slope.

In order to get to the height that it's even lower. But still, the idea is that it is a head roof.

And you can see it in the elevation and you'll understand the scale of it. It's just the angle.

Any questions for the applicant from the board? Brandon?

I probably will have a couple of questions after the public speaks about it. I'd like to hear what the public has to hear and say.

Any questions? Or you want me to go ahead and give public comment?

Yes, it is. And you can see it in this rendering. It's actually to preserve the mango trees. And if you see the site plan, you'll see clearly how we took into account the critical root zone of those mangoes, and we tried to shift the house to preserve those trees.

Do you want to look at the site plan?

Yeah, you can look at the site plan.

Can you put it to sheet A08?

A08. Yes. And there you'll see, I don't know if it's clear on the screen, but in our booklet it's clear. Tree number seven, if you can point tree number seven so that.

It's got the perimeter.

Yeah, there. We understand.

If we're able environmentally, if there's a way to preserve it even by moving with the critical root zones, we would consider that absolutely as part of like,

This came up as part of the design many times. And we made the choice to preserve the tree. I can show you pictures. It's a beautiful tree. And what we did is the second floor, if you see the second floor, tried to set it back as much as possible from the historic residence. That way we are working at great level with the tree and at a second story. like keeping our distance from the residents. But I completely hear your concern.

Yeah.

So given that we'll have to submit a tree disposition plan to Durham, and we'd be happy to have that tree as part of our tree disposition plan to be removed and pay a mitigation fee, and we'd love to, if this is the only concern, get approved on the condition that if possible, to remove the tree, we'll remove it and shift it and potentially... It'll be removed because relocating it at that point would be very difficult. But we'd love to have it approved as that condition and work as much as possible to get it done.

I'm just one person. I do like the design. I do like what you did. But it imposes on that historic house there. So that was my concern.

Any other questions for the board?

Yeah, no. I would concur with you as well. and putting the palms along the one side, which are great, but they're only about five, five and a half feet, so it's not going to really buffer the neighbor, unfortunately, to that side.

There are actually, the fishtail palms grow really high.

All the way up to 22 feet.

Okay, I don't think it says it's a fishtail, though. Okay, give me a second, let me check. I mean, yeah, we can adjust. I'm just saying that we did have here, it's actually lady palms. It's a lady palm. Yeah, you're right. It's a lady palm.

I think it says five to five and a half feet.

Okay, yeah, we can update that.

I mean, something that's going to give more of a buffer. Yes, I mean, it would be nice to move the building over, but something that's going to give more of a buffer that's going to grow higher would be better.

I think if we could plan... We'll commit to having 10 feet, you know, it could be at the palms of cluchas or, like, you know, kind of a barrier that's at least 10 feet. We can do that. We can commit to that.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay.

I'd like to open this to public comment at this time. Any members of the public like to?

Actually, just to clarify, we have fishtail palms within the front setback, sorry, lady palms within the front setback, and throughout the property line, we do have fishtail palms. It's in the landscape plan, but you are correct, they're planted at low elevation. We can obviously modify, okay?

Thank you.

No problem. Mr. Chair, before we do public comment, there was a public comment on our... That'll be read. That'll be read during public comment.

By Eddie. Okay. All right, public comment?

Yes. Ed Goodall, 37 North East 100th Street. The pictures that these people showed you, I want to say something. There are no two-story houses between North Miami Avenue and First Avenue where this house is located. If you go from First Avenue to Second Avenue, there's one two-story house and it looks like it was built in the late 20s or early 30s. Most of those homes are built in the late 30s and early 40s. I said once before that I think that there should be, if you're going to build, you build a house that's harmonious to the structures that are immediate to the structure that you want to build. In other words, there are no two-story houses, you don't build a two-story house. And I don't know, is that a 100-foot lot, frontage, or 125 foot? 125? So that's as big as my house. You got plenty of room to make a giant one-story house there.

You know, you're, here's what's going on here.

You're allowing all these builders to come in here and all of a sudden, Miami Shores looks like, not even Coconut Grove, somewhere south. I mean, it's, you know, stop. The whole purpose of this community that most people bought their home is because it's unique. And you've got beautiful construct, you know, houses. And I'll tell you one thing, the constructions on those older houses are a lot better than the crap that they're building today. Thank you.

Hi, Tanya Galoni. I live at 53 Northeast 98th Street. My husband and my eight-year-old daughter are here as well. My husband and I have lived in Miami Shores for almost 20 years, my daughter for her whole eight years, seven years in our house on 98th Street. And the centennial home that this would be built adjacent to is absolutely stunning if you have not seen it. And if you look at A06 on this presentation, it will show you everything you need to know about why this proposed house is not harmonious to our street. No two-car garages, no two-story homes. The angles and the image of this next to that beautiful centennial home, it will destroy the character of our street if that house is built. adore our neighborhood, we adore our neighbors in the Centennial home, their quality of life will go down, their privacy, their enjoyment of their property will go down, and the character of that street, of our street, of our neighborhood will go down. And then this becomes the standard. And then you get the next set of developers who come in and say, well, you approved this one. And of course, they have to look outside of our street to find comparables because there are none in our neighborhood. And like I said, if you approve this, then that becomes the standard. And then we're looking at, you know, that's the end of Miami Shores. You know, where that goes, all the houses go. And then you get this, which happens to look a lot, and I realize it's the same designer, but it happens to look a lot like the house they want on Ninth Avenue. So that's what you're going to get. That's going to be the new Miami Shores. And these centennial homes are going to be a relic of the past. I think the community's been very clear about what we value and why we're here. and and what what draws people to miami shores these homes do not belong in this neighborhood this is this is not harmonious to to our area it's a beautiful home to be built somewhere else but if you're going to build in miami shores you should keep with the character of the neighborhood and you should maintain what makes miami shore such a special place that we all adore and that draws so many people here if they can be harmonious with the neighborhood welcome thank you thank you

Jeffrey Sade, 261 Northeast 102nd Street. My friends Glenn and Dennis live in that historic house, that centennial house next door to this one. And they just had a couple of requests, one of them which we've already spoken about, which is moving the house five feet over to the east, which would give them more privacy. The other thing that they were hoping could be ameliorated is the equipment that is on the west side of the house next to that property. So there's three air conditioning condensers and there's pool equipment. And I think that the noise level from that equipment might be bothersome to them because they have their lanai right next to them, right next to it, and they spend a lot of time there. So if we could relocate or redirect the pool and AC mechanical equipment, One solution might be to relocate the block wall that appears in the plan right now. But it looks like the block wall right now is shielding the new house as opposed to shielding the neighbor's house. So if something could be done to alleviate that.

If we're moving the house because we're moving the tree, I think we're able to relocate that area. Okay. We weren't able to do it before because of that tree, but that's going to be relocated. All right.

I'm sorry. Let me, this kind of public comment, let him just finish the comment, and then the board has a few questions for you after we finish, and that's okay.

So those were the issues that they identified. They were very thankful on the redesign of the house. They thought that the proposed new house is a big improvement from the previous design, especially the hip roof that you were going to be putting in, and the setback on the second story there. So I think if we can... help them with those issues. I think that that would go a long way. And on the mango trees, I mean, mangoes are not native to Florida. They're not protected in any way. They could maybe be replaced by some other canopy trees after they're removed. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

Bob Domusky, 285 Northeast 91st Street. I moved here at the turn of the century for a very intentional reason. Our family had been in a variety of places around the United States, and we found Miami Shores very charming. There are literally developers all over the United States who are trying to create communities just like this. So I really understand some of the local sentiment. But I'm a retired systems engineer, and what I hope I can do is bring a little clarity to this process. Because what's evident to me is the folks who have lived here are trying to optimize their community with respect to the charm that it has. Architects, and this is no means an indictment, my daughter, my son-in-law are Harvard-trained architects. They're not developers, though. And a lot of developers are developing in Miami-Dade. A lot of architects are developing. A lot of house flippers are developing. And where are they doing it? At Miami Shores. I paid $315,000 for my house at the turn of the century. It's probably, I could sell it probably now for close to 2 million. The stakes have changed. And I think it's important for this board, this group, and bless you for doing the hard work.

Bless you for doing the hard work of trying to match up with expectations.

But developers optimize return on investment. That's why everything is getting maxed out to the number of stories and the constraints of the property. I think it's incumbent on somebody who comes in and is going to do a scrape off Which is going to happen in my my neighborhood next? You want to begin with a developer or realtor whoever is scraping off the house and building a new one to start by optimizing to the neighbors and It is somewhat of a subjective process. But right now, every case that I'm seeing you review is, I like your bamboozle. I like your bamboozle thing. It's a negotiation between maxing something out to the maximum amount of space that creates the maximum return on the investment. It is not optimizing to the neighbors. And that's what this pressure, this stress, is evolving from. Now, I understand it's a little subjective to go to all the neighbors and go, well, how can we optimize this project that we're working on here? But I guarantee if you start there, I don't even know how you begin to put that into some sort of code or zoning application. But if you start by optimizing to the neighbors, It's going to somehow reduce this monetizing of real estate in Miami Shores, because that's the real stress point that exists. I haven't yet seen a plan that's coming in and going, oh, we're going to build a little small thing that's really cute. We're not going to make any money on it. Everybody's optimizing the space, the height. They're pushing the limits. They're getting rejected. They're coming back and going, okay, now we're ready to nickel and dime. We're ready to negotiate. We might even be ready to bamboozle you. And it's unfortunate. As a process engineer, it's just frustrating to me to see that happen. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Any email comments on this?

If the board would like me to read into the record, they're essentially the same comments that Mr. Sade shared, but I can read it if it's the will.

I think we have to. All right.

Mr. Glenn Lamoroso and Dennis Pena, they reside at 52 Northeast 98th Street.

Members of the- The owners of the house next door, right? Yes, sir. Yes. Yes, sir.

Members of the Planning and Zoning Board, my name is Glen Amoroso and I reside at 52 Northeast 98th Street, Miami Shores. My partner Dennis Pena and I live directly adjacent to the proposed project site on the west side. Unfortunately, we're unable to attend the upcoming hearing in person, but we wish to share our comments regarding the revised development proposal. First, we would like to thank the property owner and developer, Blue Nest Homes, for revising the plans to improve the overall compatibility of the proposed home with our historically designated property adjacent. The changes to the roofline and the second story step back on the west side are appreciated improvements and we sincerely thank them for making those efforts. That said, we continue to have serious concerns regarding privacy compatibility and the potential noise and heat impacts from the three AC compressors and pool equipment. Privacy concerns. While the second story step back helps, the west side balcony still overlooks our side yard, lanai, and living family rooms. The proposed landscaping cannot guarantee privacy due to the balcony's height and location. Losing privacy in the areas we use most are indoor living spaces in our side yard where we spend much of our time outdoors. It would have a direct and negative impact on our quality of life. Suggestions for compatibility and privacy. Number one. Increase the west side setback from 10 to 15 feet. Shifting the home the additional 5 feet to the east would greatly improve privacy and compatibility. It will increase privacy by lessening the dependency on very tall thick greenery which would take numerous years to grow in order to hopefully achieve the desired effect. It would increase compatibility by providing additional space between our modest home and the large two-car garage and driveway of their project. Due to its size, this garage and driveway is a significant visual distraction on 98th Street, as no existing home has a two-car garage on this block face. There is adequate room on the east side to shift the project five feet, especially given that the east side setback ranges from 21 to 24 feet, and such a change would not prevent maintaining existing trees on that side. Number two, relocation or redirect the pool AC mechanical equipment. As currently designed, the AC equipment is positioned to vent very close to our lanai, areas where we regularly relax and entertain. This configuration includes a block wall intended to protect the backyard from the equipment's heat, noise, and directs ventilation of heat and noise toward our property, making our outdoor spaces less enjoyable. some reasonable and considerate solutions number one relocate said block wall to serve as an acoustical barrier between our two properties number two separate equipment pool and ac relocate them and fit with acoustical barriers the pool pump does not need to be together with the three ac compressors compounding the equipment pollution Number three, explore applying any other and all other methods to ensure the noise and heat are properly contained within their own property and do not affect neighboring properties, understanding that landscaping is not a buffer. We are not opposed to new development. We simply want to ensure this project respects the privacy, character, compatibility of the surrounding homes. We believe our requests are both reasonable and fair, and we respectfully ask the board to consider them carefully and ensure these concerns are addressed prior to your project approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Hey, can you put the next sheet, A09, up? And that shows the condensers there. So with that said, any questions from the board to the applicant? Now that we've had public comment.

So it sounds as though you are willing to address both items, the five-foot shift at the expense of the mango trees, which are non-native, as long as you plan something decent there. Yes, perfect. Will do. And it sounds like you're willing to address the acoustic issue. Now, the acoustic issue, I imagine, will be some sort of a mirroring of this element to the other side.

May I suggest something just so that we can discuss?

Just so we know what you're going to proffer.

Absolutely.

You have to speak into the mic.

Sorry, I have to get used to it. Okay, so where you see the living room area, if we're able to shift the house five feet and that tree gets relocated, then behind that living area we have a tall wall. Do you mind showing it? Here. Here. So we are able to shift it all the way to the other side.

SHIP THE EQUIPMENT.

ALL THE EQUIPMENT.

SO THAT LITTLE AREA OF EQUIPMENT, BOOM, GOES OVER THERE.

SO WE'LL DO A NICHE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE. WE'LL DO IT BEHIND.

I THINK THE MURPHY HOUSE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT.

YEAH, EXACTLY.

So it sounds like all of the public comment that we've heard with respect to material items will be addressed via your proffers. I just want to say a couple of words about developers. I think it's important to remind everybody that this community was originally built by basically two different developers. So the idea that developers coming in and developing homes, that that's bad as default is not a good point of departure. Because the other hand of that is you'll get an inexperienced homeowner that tries to build a home. And they have no idea what they're doing. And it's very difficult. And the quality of that tends to be worse than the quality of somebody that's building a home.

We lost the live stream again. I don't know what's going on.

Sorry, I should pause.

It's that last meeting. Come back on.

Pay a minute.

I don't know.

But we're still having recording now.

I believe it.

How long do we have to wait? They don't come up before I can start?

They're telling us it's live.

It's still active?

Okay, picking that back up. Thank you. So if you had a homeowner building it, we've actually are considering demolition ordinances because we've had a number of homeowners that try to build something. They have no idea that the price they initially get from a contractor is to get you the foot in the door price and then it goes 3X and then the site sits empty. This is the reason why we passed these zoning codes, is because we heard people who came and they participated in the workshops, and they expressed what was important to them. And working within the letter of the law, because we can't overstep our bounds, we are allowed to make certain actions. And indeed, it is a negotiation to a certain extent, because we are trying to make sure that the community's desires and needs are taken care of. But we won't get absolutely everything. With respect to this home as it relates to the historic structure, opinions will differ and what I'm about to say is only mine, but we've had maybe 13 different architectural styles in the Shores. It may be more than that, but those are the majors. And each and every time that they've come there's always been comments and criticism. But it's the good quality ones that stand the test of time and that have defined this current fabric. So our job here is to try to extract the highest quality product that responds to the community to the fullest extent of the law. And we are admittedly hand tied. The state doesn't really want us doing that. but we do it within the bounds of what they allow us to do. So just keep that in mind that if we vote to approve this with these items, there's only so much we're going to be able to get. But it is a notable improvement. It is a larger lot. um therefore it's appropriate that there would be a larger home if you were to build a single story structure on this lot first of all it would violate the maximum impervious that we are allowed to have because we need to have drainage people's properties are flooding and so the question is whether or not there's a two-story house on the street well there are two-story houses in this community and they've historically existed So we can't, on this board, I don't think, say that you as a property owner don't have a right to build it. But what we can do is try to get the people who are proposing buildings here to coordinate with their immediate neighbors and try to come up with something that respects both sides of that property right argument. I, for one, think that this has done that, and I'm happy with it. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I have to echo what Brandon said. I think they did respond to our initial comments. They did comply with our revised code. I like the change to the roof. And yes, it is up here. a yin and yang between respecting people's personal private property rights, the desire to build what they want on their property, versus making it harmonious for the community. And that's what we have to do up here, and it's not always easy.

We need to formulize the suggestions that they hypothetically agreed to.

We would welcome that, yes.

In the motion, we'll do that. We're in discussion right now. Any other comments before I ask for a motion? Go ahead.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve the project proposed with the staff comments in addition to the staff comments proffers from the applicant which include a relocation of the design as presented to the east by five feet.

By no less than five feet.

By no less than five feet. And the relocation of the three air conditioning compressors or any number of compressors that so may be required in addition to any pool equipment to the west side of the house. And with the additional proffer of the construction fence.

Did I capture everything?

Yes.

I'll second that.

Oh.

Oh, the landscaping. Oh, yeah.

Ah, yes, and also the height of length at the 10-foot minimum palms in the front.

As long as the height of them are more. Okay. To be honest, the fish still cover more.

No, but they're planted at a five feet high. We can propose them planted higher.

So we've said palms? You're good. That will give more buffer than the actual palms. That's what I'm saying. They're a type of palm that you're proposing? Yeah.

On the east side. That's on the east side.

I have a motion. The palms along the east side are going to be planted at a maximum height of 10 feet. Minimum height.

I'll second the motion.

You're clear on the motion, Eddie? Yes, sir. I have a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Motion passed.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

All right, moving right along to new items. Item 8A, RSP 25-46, address 300 Northeast 103rd Street, applicant Giovanni Munoz, Planning Director.

Item 8A, 300 Northeast 103rd Street.

300 Northeast 103rd Street, item 8A. The lot is approximately 11,400 square feet in size and contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1949. The existing structure has a living area of 2,353 square feet. It's configured with three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant proposes a facade modification with no changes to the existing interior square footage of the home. They're seeking to enhance pedestrian access from Northeast 103rd Street. The facade modification proposes a new wood pergola, raised planters, and a raised concrete porch to integrate the mid-century curved entrance feature of the ranch-style home. The property is presently under construction with a building permit for interior renovations and a new rear pool and deck. Thus, three bedrooms, three bathrooms will remain on the property. Staff has reviewed the request along with the 22 different zoning criteria and found that it generally complies and therefore we're recommending approval along with the stipulated conditions.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the planning director from the board? I have a question. The rendering here kind of shows a sidewalk going to... The side street, whatever street that is, I guess 3rd Street. And since this is 103rd Street address, Does that have to face 103rd Street, or will this comply, or is this a confusion issue?

Right now, there's not a requirement in the code as far as the front of the home.

The front has to face the address. It just has to face the street, right.

There are some codes that will say the narrow side of the lot shall be the front. The village code doesn't have that requirement.

Since we're not really changing the front door.

They're not changing the front door, so this would comply. Yes.

All right. Would the applicant like to discuss your project? Sure.

Thank you. Good evening, members of the board, Mr. Chair, the public. My name is Giovanni Munoz. I'm located at 8325 Northeast 2nd Avenue, and I'm the architect of the project. As Eddie mentioned, the project is under construction presently, and this changed. came to the nature of the code requirement to come in front of your board if there's any modification. Truthfully, the only modification at this time is replacing a picture window for a three slider to create a new raised front porch deck that will be accessible from the inside of the street rather than having to come out and then go to the porch. In regards to your Comment mr. Chair the access from the side The owners requested it just because the parking is up against the alley So they would wouldn't want to have guests going all the way around the corner So it was more beneficial to them to kind of give some sense of privacy Since they're trying to generate that front deck and I think I

Does this house have a garage in the back?

It does, yes.

And that's in the back there where the site plan says pavers, I assume. Correct, correct. Okay. Yeah.

In addition, well, this property does not have any historical contribution, and we are adding a pergola just to enhance, obviously, those mid-century moderns since it was built in the 1949s, and it's a typical ranch style, so it's not major.

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

You're maintaining the rounded corner. One of the renderings shows a chamfer. Not sure which one.

The rounded corner.

If you go to the floor plan, it's showing a rounded corner. But if you go to your sheet where you have four renderings on it, that one shows a chamfer. Just confirm that it's rounded. That's all I'm looking for. You're not touching the existing condition.

The existing building level remains the same. We're only adding a pergola and the raised deck. Yes. Yeah, that remains.

Any other questions from the board? Any public comment on this item?

Motion to approve is to ask comments.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Application passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

How we coming with our IT over there? You can pull up plans now?

I was waiting because I can't type and do it at the same time.

All right. Item 8B. Good Heirs Realty. Agents Fausto Guerrero, 1285 Northeast 103rd Street.

R.S.P. 25-56, item 8B, 1285 Northeast 103rd Street. The law is approximately 10,980 square feet in size. It contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1954. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the development of a new two-story, single-family home comprised of 4,810 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of four bedrooms, four and a half bathrooms, a two-car garage, swimming pool, and outdoor terrace area. The R25 zoning district is compatible with the single-family future land use, and staff has generally found that the 22 different zoning criteria complies with the proposed site plan, and therefore we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the board to the planning director? Would the applicant like to present the project?

Sure. I have a question.

For the planning director?

Yeah, for the planning director. Section 521, green space, previous area minimum 50% of front yard. It says here required 50%, proposed 22%. On section 521, front yard paved open space. Screen sharing. So it doesn't meet the requirement?

I think this is a typo. So it's the opposite. What they're proposing is 625 square feet of paved area. So the opposite amount, or basically 100 minus 22, would be the green space within the front yard. So the math is inverted.

Jeff, if you can, I know you're struggling trying to get that up on the screen. Actually, I think I would let the applicant go and then I ask him.

Yeah, so would the applicant like to discuss the project?

Sure. We're building a new house there. It's going to be four bedrooms. It will be harmonious with the neighborhood. It's going to be a modern house, but still have like green, stone, wood.

Can you scroll to the 3D, to the color renderings, Jeb, if it's working? I'm trying. I guess toward the very end.

I like trying to open it through the browser because it works faster in Adobe in the village for some reason.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Continue.

Just bear with him because he's working on the minutes and also, so it is a bit tedious.

And it's not that responsive either, huh?

I think the computer's from 86.

I guess that's it. Yeah, that's it.

We'll go back one.

Yeah, that's the garage, front entrance. This is going to be the living room, bedroom. And that's all open so that we can like have a much nicer living room. So there's no room there. And you can have access to the balconies, which was required. And also, it looks very nice. The idea of having wood, a lot of wood, a lot of stone will like bring the house to flourish in the area.

David Plylar- Jeb, could you go to page four? It's the sheets labeled ID, NEIG. Yeah, you passed it. You were there. That one. Could you walk us through, if you will, how you believe your design is incorporated influences from the surrounding neighborhood? You mentioned that you feel that it's harmonious.

Yeah, I live also in the area. Just because I'm looking at the renovations there. They are older houses.

Well, older houses are one thing. I guess what I'm noticing here is that your design is exceptionally rectilinear and boxy and massive as it relates to the adjacent structures. It's not to say you can't build a two-story building. It's not to say any of that. I'm just wondering. To me, it just doesn't feel like it's harmonious at all.

No, it's going to go more with the style that you find on 101 Street as well. you find on 104th Street as well, those type of newer homes.

I mean, I think, I wouldn't say that's the style you find on that street. The street is characterized by the entirety of the street of which there's lots of other designs there that are, I would say, they're better articulated in terms of massing and volume.

No, I understand, but perhaps not in the immediate houses, the six that are around there, but if you walk that area, I live on 100th Street, and if you walk there, you'll find tons of.

So you think that, I guess what I'm hearing you say is that from a harmonious relationship, you're talking about another street altogether.

No, like if you walk around the 103, 102, 101, 100, you'll find just not on the just neighboring homes perhaps.

I got a question for you. We have step-back requirement on the second floor. Explain how you complied with our step-back requirement for the second floor. And the intent of the step back is to provide some articulation and some architecture so we don't have a giant wall or a giant box, which is what I'm seeing here.

No, initially it was going to be a box, kind of boxy, no balconies. But then we got reviews from the city. We were requested to have the balconies and we were requested to go back the size of the balconies.

Six feet on the sides, a step back.

Yeah, we did it on the sides.

Show me the step back. So it's just those two little wings there. Yes. Instead of, we still got a giant wall on both sides there with just two wings. So I don't really see a good articulation or a step back there. It's kind of one of my concerns. And then the other concern I had when I looked at it, I really had a hard time with your plans, trying to envision the elevation views. And I don't think this rendering here is not accurate. You realize that, right? It doesn't match your plans. Yeah, because your plans show this going out well past the front door, and the front door is under that overhang there. So that was kind of hard to see. And then the other sheet, A7, didn't really give me much as far as seeing what the elevation is going to look like on this house. Can we go to A7? There, back one. It's kind of hard to get an idea what this, can you explain, the front of the house is the? The top. The top. The south elevation. Walk us through that elevation view, please.

You have the garage there. You have the entrance. This is going to be the living room.

Upstairs is all balconies where we need to step back.

And you have access to the balcony from the middle door, the middle window. And then on the left side, you have one bedroom. no bedroom on the right side which is what we wanted to create like have like high very high ceilings for the living room and then so what is that an eyebrow on the top right there or what is that you know what i mean when i say the eyebrow over the three windows

Because it looks like an eyebrow there, but here it doesn't show anything at all. And here it's not accurate. Like I said, your section views don't match. And then in the back, we've got a giant wall here. Oh, there's no window there, yeah. So I don't know if this is good enough for us to really render on it.

I tell you, on the back it's going to be one bedroom, which you have the access here, and it goes to the garden. And here you have the kitchen, where you have access to the outdoor area. And then you have master bedroom there with the window. You have bathroom there, and this is the second bedroom on the second floor.

Any other questions from the board? Yeah, some comments. I appreciate what you're trying to do here. We only have really two sets, not even a full set of renderings, color ones. So we only have the front and the rear, not on the side. So it's hard to tell what the sides are looking at even from those elevations. I think you kind of need to go back to the drawing board and kind of work out some of these. Develop it a little more. Break up the massing a little bit. I mean the front elevation looks like Roblox. So I think you just need to break up that elevation a little bit more and like that front set of windows not have them be all squares. It kind of just doesn't sit well on the street or in the design.

There's no step back really on your second floor. You just have those little wings there on the side But you know our code has a step back requirement for the second floor to be step back six feet.

Yeah, the step back was like, it's new from 2000.

So, I mean, it still looks like a box is I think the, you know.

Yeah, but we did the step back on the sides as we comply with the code.

What we've done in the past is on the step-back directive, there have been applicants where they've essentially added to their setback. So if their setback is 10 feet, they've increased the setback and that's what was done here. He increased his side setback from 10 feet to 16 feet. So, he's given much more space.

And so, hence, there's no step back. It's just increased, yeah.

He increased the space within that side yard. And that's what was done here.

I think that that's not really the intent we wanted when we were trying to get articulation in this thing. I mean, it's another big box. So I'm, you know, I think it needs, I think it needs more development.

For the step backs, we did, like, consult with Sony reviewers on how they wanted and how we, like.

And I appreciate you working with them. No, no, no. I mean, we're up here just opining, you know. No, no, no, I understand.

But it was, yeah. with them that we got the feedback that of the step back and then we provided them with the review, with the correction and then we came here.

I might jump in if I could. I want to avoid you having to come back over and over and over. When I asked you if you had, what you had done to implement harmony here, your answer is not an answer of an architect. My suggestion to you would be strongly consider retaining the services of an architect. Otherwise, what's going to wind up happening is that when you come back with a couple of little changes, it's still not going to be harmonious. So this is, this needs real serious attention. And for your own benefit so as to not come back over and over and over, I would strongly encourage you to really take a look at this from starting over. There's just nothing here that's going to be preserved that is going to, there's nothing that's going to relate harmoniously speaking to you Jason Helms here. You've taken absolutely no cues, no context whatsoever. And I think that's a big problem. I think I've been on this board now nearly two years. We all kind of get a sentiment of where we each fall. There were some great examples that came just before you earlier of them working with the code, working with the articulation, taking influences from the neighborhood. You saw exactly how that's done. I think we need to see that here in order to approve it. I'm just trying to save you unnecessary steps. I would recommend we defer it.

John, can I ask?

Yes.

Did you notify everybody within a thousand feet of this house? There's no certification in your package that I saw that you did that.

No.

I didn't send all the letters to everybody. No.

Well, in the other packages that were requirements, people have either a list of every house that they.

No, I didn't. I did provide a list.

That would be a question for the planning director. We definitely have it in our files because it's part of our requirements. Now, what happens is what's before you, it's the burden on the applicant to produce all these packets, all the files, everything that they've submitted to us that we've reviewed.

I live less than 1,000 feet from this home, and I go there myself. I know I took care of that.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Let me open this for public comment. Any public comment on this application?

My name is Linda Schwartz, 1304 Northeast 104th Street. I've lived in Miami Shores for over 50 years. I moved to Miami Shores because of the neighborhood. Miami Shores is beautiful. I would hope, sir, that you, the developer takes consideration that most of the residents, especially surrounding the said property, will try to keep the spec house harmonious with the character of the street and the scale of other buildings. The house diagonally across from that street was recently redone. The building was cleaned up because it had too overgrowth and the inside was modernized. I was inside the house previously because I knew the owners and I also was in the house after it was fixed and I think that a previous owner would be happy to see what that person did to fix up the house. The house to the east of you was also redone, almost to the ground. So it's possible to preserve the house. If the house was that bad, then make it compatible. None of the houses to the left, to the right, behind you, across the street, Look anything like that. And don't refer when we're talking about what happened on 101st Street. That's a travesty. That shouldn't have happened.

Hang on. This is public comment to the board. Please.

And so I suggest that you look and respect the neighbors. You live in the community. Where you live, you're by the water there. That's a completely different neighborhood, a different, you know, facade. The people that are living there are smaller houses. They're beautiful. Even on 101st Street, there's a property that's the same size and they fixed it up and they don't, it doesn't look anything like what you're trying to do. We're asking you to, to try to preserve the house. If you can't preserve it, at least make it compatible to the neighborhood so that there's privacy. The house that you're referring to on 104th Street went crazy and the board realizes it and that's why they have new rules so that the people next door could go into their pool with privacy and that they don't have to listen to the machines disturbing them at night. This is all we're asking for, to be considerate. Go see an architect. Have him help you do this. But please don't destroy the neighborhood. I don't live in a huge house, but I could have 70 people for Thanksgiving, and I did. And they were comfortable. I have a 900 square foot deck, so some people were outside. But you don't have to have a humongous house. Why? Anyway, I also want to say the house east view has water problems as it is when it rains. So I want you to put that in consideration. Thank you.

Thank you.

Am I able to give things to the board to look at?

Yes.

First of all, I have letters.

First, introduce yourself.

I'm Lauren Friedman. I live at 1297 Northeast 103rd Street.

Thank you.

Okay. My name is Lauren Friedman. I'm family, sorry. I'm family and I live at 1297 Northeast 103rd Street. We live directly to the east of 1285. I'm here tonight to respectfully voice my family's opposition to the proposed design and to exercise our right as neighbors to share our concerns about how this project will impact both our property and the character of 103rd Street. Sorry, I put a lot of time into this. First, we would like to note that the plans for 1285 were submitted only by an engineer with no architect involved. That in itself raises concerns because an architectural review is an important part of ensuring new construction fits harmoniously within the existing neighborhood. The design of this proposed house, not keeping with the character and charm of her street, The flat roof combined with the use of multi-textures and colors of the exterior makes the structure feel out of place compared to the traditional home surrounding it. Our neighborhood has consistent cohesive aesthetic that this design would disrupt. we have two major concerns specifically to our property. First, drainage and flooding. The east side of 1285 property is located in a flood zone, as you see by the new elevation maps. And because our home sits directly east of it, our property is as well. We've already experienced extensive water drainage issues on that side of our house. We have videos which we would like to submit to the board that clearly shows that water running down from the top of the street along the sidewalk and cooling by our house where the sidewalk ends right at the flood zone. Our concern is that the proposed flat roof, increased elevation and additional cement and impermeable surfaces will make these conditions worse, pushing more water towards our property. If the flat roof design remains, we strongly request that it includes internal drainage to properly manage runoff. We are also requesting that a septic and a drain field plan be submitted to the board as part of the review. Second, privacy. The proposed structure will be significantly higher than the six foot fence dividing our properties. Currently, there are 24 trees on the lot. Under the new design, only nine trees would remain. This would create far less natural screening between our homes. We are requesting that privacy hedges or landscaping be installed along the sides of the property, especially where there's balconies and windows overlooking our yard to preserve privacy for my family. We've invested deeply in our home of this village. This is where we plan to raise our family. And in contrast, this project appears to have been designed primarily for profit, not with the neighborhood or surrounding residents in mind. The developer will likely only be involved for a couple years before selling and moving on, while the long-term consequences of these design choices will remain with the homeowners and neighbors for decades to come. We have the right to our air, to our privacy, and to the protection of our property from drainage impacts caused by neighboring developments. We look forward to welcoming our eventual new neighbors with open arms in this wonderful village, but we ask that the board please hold the developer accountable and ensure that what is built at 1285 Northeast 103rd Street truly reflects the character, integrity, charm, and livability of our neighborhood. Thank you for my time and consideration.

Hi, my name is Raymond Aleman, 1286 Northeast 104th Street. I live adjacent to this project, to this lot. I live behind this lot and I wanted to thank God and thank the board for doing what you do and for sending this project back to the drawing board. Enough has been said about how it looks and how it doesn't seems to be a Miami Shores house. This, the project presented needs to go back to the drawing board. We saw that there are ways build new houses and modern houses with different types of roof and different architecture that merge better with the neighborhood. So I really wanted to step up and thank you for being here, doing what you do, and sending this bad project back to the drawing board. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Joe Schwartz, 1304 Northeast 104th Street. Mr. Allemand is one of our neighbors on 104th Street. And I'm speaking on behalf of all of our neighbors on 104th Street in that particular area and on 103rd Street. response by all of our neighbors on 104th Street as well as 103rd Street have been a 100% no, that it's completely out of context. And everything that you've heard tonight, I agree with. Unfortunately, people are coming in, they're building their homes for spec. We have a home on 104th Street that was built for spec. No one's touched it yet. It's up there, out of context. And so on behalf of all of our neighbors who haven't been contacted and who don't know everything that's going on, we've been asked to please come before you and consider that it should be a no and that absolutely we can't have this in our neighborhood and where we live. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Susanna Antebi. I live right across the street from this project on 1290 Northeast, 103rd Street. I bought this home about two years ago, and it was completely renovated, and it has stayed within style. You're more than welcome to come and see. It goes well with the neighborhood. They completely redid the home inside and a little bit outside. And as you can tell from every single angle that it has respected the village itself. I moved here because I suffer from hyperacusis. I cannot be near noise. I'm actually going to have to move when this thing starts to build. So I'm a little bit concerned for a while until the demolition and the noise gets over. So I'm going to have to rent. a home somewhere else. So I do want the board to go and see this street. It does not have anything like this at all. And I do would like it very much to stay this way. If it can be remodeled, if it needs to be rebuilt in whichever way to respect the neighbors, especially the freedmen who have the flood issue. Thank you.

Any other public comment on this application? Do we need to read those letters?

If I may, just about that. Traditionally, we don't have e-comments for P&Z or any of the board meetings. At Village Council level, we do, but they are restricted to character lengths to also coincide with the three-minute mark. So for the purposes of First Amendment, we can't offer more time than others. That's why we try to be consistent with the three-minute. So I just say that, although... Those appear to be over the three-minute limit.

It's a couple of pages. Five, eight pages or whatever, yes. I think we know where this is going.

Can we please request that?

You can enter it into the record.

Yeah, enter it into the record and then send us copies with the next packet next.

Generally speaking, is it easily to discern whether or not they're for or against without reading the whole thing?

Yeah, you can do that.

Would you just give us a temperature? I think I know what it is, but let's just be sure.

Yeah. All of the comments are essentially alluding to many of the comments that have been made today as far as the harmonious aspect of the proposal.

Would you please make certain that the applicant gets a copy of the letters too?

We can do so. Please.

That's more a building department issue and not zoning, not planning board.

And it's only what the record has. We can't supplement the record later tonight.

All right. With that said, I guess I'll give you a chance to make comment if you want to.

It's pretty clear what you guys want. I think you're feeling the temperature of the room. Yeah. But also they have to have in mind that it's going to be two floors.

And we build two floors. We're having some challenges with the style of it too, you know. And I think Brandon gave you a good point. Maybe an architecture could help advise you to make it more harmonious is the key word with the neighborhood, you know.

I don't know, the type of proof.

No, look, it's not really our position here to play designer. All we can tell you is that it's not harmonious at all. And it's true that you're never going to get 100% of agreement from the community. You were here, you heard the previous presentations, you know that there was still ill sentiment with respect to some of the projects that we may have approved. But the truth is we know that there is a balance between property owner rights and the adjacent properties rights. You're very, very far on your property rights side and you need to come very close to the middle. In the middle, you have to take the temperature of the room. You heard what the comments are. You can address most of what you've heard. with thoughtful design. That does take a skilled architect to do that. And if you don't retain the services of a skilled architect and you come back before.

What I can tell you is this much.

If you look at the quality of your presentation compared to the quality of the previous presentations, you should be able to readily discern a difference between them. If you or your architect cannot, you need to change your architect, all right? Because what you've presented is not harmonious. Not in the slightest. And we can't tell you exactly how to get there. That's not our job. Our job is to tell you to listen to the community and try to find the middle ground within the letter of the law that we have. And it's just not harmonious.

And the plans aren't developed. It's hard to even see what your vision. If you hire an architect, they will help you.

No, we will correct all the renderings, make it more realistic and correct so that it matches more.

Have your architect look at the meeting video and maybe they'll get a sense of the temperature of the room. I don't know, he was supposed to be looking at it. All right, so with that said, I suggest we table this item as opposed making a vote on it. If we table it, then you can come back next month or the month after. If we vote on it and it doesn't pass, you have to wait a year. So, you know, I'd like to hear a motion to table with your concurrence. Sure. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Item 8C. Item 8C, RSP 2560, address 1119 Northeast 99th Street, Blanco Design Bill. Planning Director. Thank you, sir.

RSP 25-60, are we good? The lot is approximately 8,925 square feet in size. It contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1947. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the development of a new one-story, single-family dwelling comprised of 3,216 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a two-car garage, and a swimming pool with outdoor pergola area. Staff has confirmed that the R20 zoning district is compatible with the single family future land use. And we've generally found that the site plan is compatible and complies with the 22 different zoning criteria as found in the village zoning code. And therefore we're recommending approval along with the stipulated conditions as found in the report. Thank you.

Any questions from the board to the planning director? If the applicant would like to discuss the project.

Good evening. Ralph Tate. I'm the architect. Address 11820 Miramar Parkway, Miramar, Florida. I'd like to apologize. Sebastian was unable to make it to the meeting tonight. He had a family matter to tend to. He had to fly out of town. I'm here to present the project. Basically, as staff has mentioned, this is a one story single family home, five bedrooms, four baths. We believe the project fits well within the neighborhood. being that the majority of the home in this general area are one story. We've got open floor plan, along the front to soften the front elevation. We incorporated some decorative columns and changed the roof line slightly. Well, not changed the roof line, but just added a horizontal decorative roof line with aerial planters, things of that nature. So with that said, we're hoping to get your approval. tonight and also I'd like to add that the board may know that we have two previous projects that came before you. The last project that came before you guys, there were some discussions on the pool area some conditions for that one. So this project that you're reviewing tonight was submitted prior to the previous meetings. So Sebastian and I, we got together and we discussed some of the items that were discussed on the last project that we would like to incorporate into this one. It's not in your packet, but I do have samples as it relates to the pool area, adding instead of the grass surface, a concrete pad, things of that nature.

Do you want me to have them pull up the site plan?

Yes, they can pull up the site plan. And I can share with you my copies. Okay, if we can go to sheet AS101, please. Okay. And the, basically the only condition that hopefully we'll like to add to it if this project is approved is in the highlighted area that I've provided to you where we've got the pergola is instead coming out of the home and going onto a grass surface prior to the pergola, just adding a concrete pad in that area. And by doing so, we still meet the maximum impervious area that's allowed in this zoning district.

Can I drop in and ask a question? Question, yes. I appreciate that, Mr. Tate. My calculations with that already included bring you to 57.5% impervious, which means you'd be over. And I'm not counting your permeable paver walkway in the front in that calculation. So I think that, yes, we definitely need to see something happen here, because ultimately, you won't be able to put a pool or a deck around the pool. So I think something needs to be done, but I think you've got to take, in this case, whereas we gave you some ability to make a condition, for me personally, I just don't see how that will happen when we're a fair amount over. It's not just taking out, I mean, there's not really anything to take out, and as I mentioned, I didn't include the permeable paver pathway in the front. So I think it's a good gesture, but I do think you probably... I think it's above, it's over. So I just don't think it has to be. That's my opinion.

Go to sheet A201, please, Jeff. What is, I'm curious what my colleagues think about the roof height. On one of your other jobs, the roof height seemed quite imposing. And I'm wondering if you all have the same opinion on this one. I'm looking at 201, A201. Go back one more.

On the previous problem.

Oh, you don't have it there. Go to A202 then. That's 202. But yeah, A201's the front.

Yeah.

This is the back, but it gives you the same idea. That's an 11-foot high roof, right?

Yeah, it's a four to one.

It's a four to one, yeah. Well, in the previous part. I know we mentioned that and you guys flattened it a little bit for us.

Well, we went from six and 12 on the previous project, the four and 12 for this particular. And this is four and 12? Yes, this is four and 12. Which is pretty steep, yeah. Well, typically 4 and 12, once you start to go lower than that, what we can probably do is look into the possibility of introducing maybe a gable. And so instead of having a hip along the front, we've done in the past where we do a combination of the hip with the gable, that way it breaks up the roof massing. However, that's something that we've got to study. It's not, that's an answer that I can't give you tonight.

It would make it look less massive too.

Yeah. We can probably, even though I don't like to use three and 12, because once you add the three and 12 pitch, you're limited to the type of roofing material you can put on a lower pitch. So it's possible that we can just lower the pitch maybe a little bit more, but that's something we'll have to explore. Okay.

Any other comments from the board to the applicant?

Yeah, I have a question. Can you go to D1.0? Sorry, it's at the beginning. At least on my plan, it has that you're on 101st Street, not on 99th Street.

Which one? Which sheet number?

Demolition plan. I just want to make sure you're demoing the right building.

Yeah, that's 101st Street.

Oh, you just missed it. There, 101st Street.

Yeah, that's a typo.

Glad to hear it. I also have a question about your drainage, your swales. So you're showing these retention walls, but retention walls don't really hold water. And it appears from the diagram, or the little section, that it's gonna hold water, it's not gonna hold water. Water's gonna seep through there. So I don't know how a 30 inch retention wall helps you. I mean, it looks like a pool.

Well, what we could do, which we've done on other projects, a combination of swales along the side yards with yard drains and exfiltration.

Yeah, I mean, I think there needs to be a combination, otherwise your neighbor is gonna be flooded. Which I think is always, you know, part of the issue. All the water's going into the neighbor's yard.

That's something that we can do and something we can incorporate when we do final construction documents where we'll do, like I said, a combination of swales, yard drains, and exfiltration trenches that we'll normally put them under the driveway.

Okay. Yeah, I was trying to make sense of that with the landscaping, and I wasn't quite sure how that was working. Yeah, and also I think it was on the same that your driveway kind of slopes out to the street. So same issue with the water coming off the drive.

And we can do the same at the property line, just have a drain running along the width of the driveway to catch all that water, which is, like I said, something we can incorporate in final construction documents.

To the extent that we wind up tabling it, which sounds like that might be the direction we're going, we'd like to see that when you bring it back, just that it's noted on the plans, is that that's what your intent is going to be, if you could.

Any other comments? I have to open this to public comment. Public comment on this item?

I'm Bill Tenney. I live at 1183 Northeast 99th Street. I knew the previous owner very well. I've been in the house many times. I do not wish to speak against the plan here or Mr. Tate, but I would like to say something in support of Mr. Spirk, and that is that My observation is that this plan would take this house from being the smallest house on our street to the largest. And so I think that there is a problem there. And I appreciate very much that you're sitting in judgment on this and you're going to make a good decision. I've been very impressed by everything I've seen tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? It looks like I guess there's a couple of issues, you know, that it might be best we table if you don't take issue with that. And I think the issues were, Brandon, maybe you can help me here, I guess. You know, I had a comment on the roof height. You were going to look into that. see if we can squash it down a little bit. It's like an 11-foot high vertical on the roof. And then you're going to look at, you're going to check the pervious and the coverage numbers. I mean, Brandon probably did a quick calculation and he's not quite sure it's jiving, you know.

Trench drain at the bottom of the driveway was also mentioned and then making the adjustments necessary so that within the impervious calculation you can provide for a pool, a deck that goes around the pool and access to your summer kitchen and make sure you count the condensing units, the pads for the condensing units. All that's impervious and that's what we've determined is necessary in order to provide for proper drainage.

And then if you want to put that pergola and slab on it on the new plans too, include that in your calculations if you decide to move forward with that. Do I hear a motion?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Item 8D.

RSP 2561, applicant Sebastian Olarte, Blanco Design Build, 258 Northeast 92th Street.

Thank you, sir. Item 8D, RSP 25-61, 258 Northeast 92nd Street. The law is approximately 11,050 square feet in size and contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1946. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single-family structure while proposing the development of a new one-story, single-family dwelling comprised of 3,841 square feet in size. The proposed site plan indicates a total of five bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, a two-car garage, swimming pool, and outdoor pergola area. Staff found that the R20 zoning district is compatible with the single-family future land use, and we generally found the 22 different zoning districts as found in the village zoning code complies with the site plan as proposed. Therefore, we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Can we pull the... The rendering up, please. Any comments from the board to the planning director? Would the applicant like to discuss the project?

Yeah. OK. For this project, very similar to the previous project we just reviewed, single story, five bedrooms. The program is very, very similar. On this, however, we did, if you pull up the rendering sheet,

Is there a color rendering or just the? Yes, ID 103. Oh, there is a color rendering? ID 103. Because I don't have it in my packet. Yeah. Oh, variant. All right.

For this one, as you can see, we've changed the roof line slightly. It's still the same pitch, 4 and 12. However, right above the entry, we just extended the roof slope somewhat. So it kind of breaks it up just a little bit so you don't have that continuous fascia. going across. We've also added the elements in front of the front door, the aerial planters, things of that nature. What we've done with this one, similar to the previous version, Sebastian and I, we discussed ways to improve the impervious. So we're proposing, I'll hand this out as well, Again, the highlighted areas, if we go back to sheet AS101, the highlighted areas, what we're doing, for example, on the front driveway, The parking will be off the alley. So from the front driveway, we'll maintain the back out parking for two parking spaces. However, what we're proposing to do is to eliminate the two parking spaces that are parallel to that front property line in order to increase our pervious space In doing so, then we're able to add a concrete pad at the pergola and also a concrete slab from the living space as you enter the swimming pool. So those are the minor adjustments that we'll propose to make on this particular project.

So where are you parking?

Well, you've got in the front of the home, we have two parking spaces, surface parking, but the garage is at the rear. So the parking at the front is just convenience for your guests. Gotcha. Two back here. Yes. Okay.

So you took out the two in the front?

Yes, we took out those two, made that back out spaces just a little bit instead of 18 feet across, it's 20 feet across.

So you took the wings off? Yes. And you have a two-car garage in the back?

Yes.

Any other questions from the board to the applicant?

Yeah, I guess comment, question. It's a very interesting design. I don't want to say I don't like it. It's just very interesting. You walk me through the transition above the eyebrows to the bottom of the roof line. how that all looked. I mean, it looks like, at least from the rendering, I know in reality it's a little bit different, but it looks like the roof is floating above the house and it kind of just looks really odd.

Yeah, if we go to A302, which is a section cut through there. That's 301. 302, please. One second. Yeah, A-2 and 2 shows it. I was hoping to, basically what happens is, I can't. Okay. If we go to A-101. And then, yeah, and then this cuts in. If you go to A-101. I can't read it.

I'm sorry. You got to tell me if it's on or not. It's just.

Are you planning on putting a gutter?

Oh, I'm not saying I prefer that or not. The only concern is if you do go to A202, Jeb, that's page 10 out of 20. You're draining the roof into what looks to be a planter that's above an occupied space. That has nothing to do with planning and zoning, admittedly. Just a heads up, that might become a construction issue for you. And you might want to change it, and then you're going to wind up coming back. That's, you're putting hundreds of gallons into a planter.

And holding it.

No, no, no. Well, take a look. Zoom in, Deb, if you were on the bottom right corner of A202.

No, I see what you're saying. What we'll do, we'll have a gutter system along there and also we typically provide drainage within the planter itself.

Clearly, yes, primary and secondary. Something to think about.

No, we're not going to allow all that water to dump into a planter.

Any other questions to the applicant before I open it for public comment? Any public comment on this item?

Bob Demleski, 91st Street, and the neighbor in the back. I don't know anything about this project and I'd love to know what the process is here for allowing neighbors into the process before it's well along. There is over a century of residency on my block and the block where this house is going in. And a little query that I did amongst my neighbors to find out if I'm the only one who doesn't know anything about this proved that with a century of residency in this area on my block, I'm 91st Street, this is 92nd, this process moves along unbeknownst to a lot of folks who have lived there for a collective century or more. This harks back to the comment that I made earlier about as a process step, I would love to help this board open up a dialogue with residents prior to a spec house. And I love the percussiveness of spec house. I can read you the definition of speculation. It's scary when you think of people's homes as a speculative commodity. Without getting into the economics, homes should never be a speculative commodity. But they are. And now they are on my block. So, what is the process whereby residents particularly long-standing residents who you've heard a lot from over this meeting and previous weeks, what is the specific process for bringing residents in to the process? You can answer that after I'm done. The other thing that I'll point out, Mr. Spirk, You had mentioned the process of developers versus architects versus people who shouldn't be in the business at all. One of the interesting historical perspectives on architects is generally speaking, they're hired by a homeowner to improve or otherwise modernize their house. So they're working directly with somebody who has deep ownership in the property or is about to have deep ownership in that process. The difficulty with spec and rampant speculation in Miami Shores compared to the first 10 years that I lived here is you're taking that consultative, collaborative, iterative process, which was very well done by the first group here. You're taking that out, and it's all after the fact. Much of this is me trying to catch up with Blanco, catch up with the project, and go, well, it's going to work or it's not going to work. I mean, I already have some questions because I've lived there for 25 years. And the two-car garage is a conversion from a one-car garage, a whole different spatial thing. But I urge you to consider, and I'll help with it if need be, a process step that truly involves input from the neighbors who have that century of ownership in the block, in the area that they live. I mean, when that whole group came, it's not obvious how that group has moved.

The timer rang, so wrap it up.

Thank you. What is your address? 285 Northeast 91st.

You didn't get the notice. Did you get a letter?

I did get a letter.

The zoning code was changed to require that people in certain conditions knocking down in new houses, everybody within 1,000 feet, circular, even if you don't live in Miami Shores anymore, you get a letter saying we're going to do this. All this stuff is posted on the website. I think the problem, well, let me give what my impression has been. that when we send these letters, we send these letters to someplace between 170 and 180 people. With the exception of the four people who live next to the property, most people apparently don't read the letters or if they read the letters, they could care less about them. All of this stuff, everything we have is on the website. It's fairly, you know, the website works fairly well. It rarely ever goes down. But this is a problem of you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And what I have seen from sitting on this board over eight years, unless it's the person next door, everybody else in the immediate area could care less.

John Aucott I can make a suggestion about how to make it an active process.

people that talk to the neighbors about what they're trying to do.

You don't need to encourage me very much. And I'm telling you, I've been in the dark about this.

Did you go on the website and look at the plans? Yes. Okay.

Well, good. I also went to all the neighbors and I said, well, what do you think? And I can say that, all right, let me just get cut to the chase. An architect goes to a client and says, well, this is what's possible. What do you think about this? What do you think about that? The speculative developer, and pardon me for calling architects developers, but they are in this case. Blanco has bought five properties that I know of, seven, I think, total, in Miami Shores. Architect developer. If that architect wants to be an architect, then make the effort to go to the neighborhood I don't care if it's just everybody filling out a questionnaire, but get a response, get feedback. It's too late in the process where we have this much going on and you're sitting there going thumbs up, thumbs down table. It's too late in the process to take the stress out of it. That woman who is crying here, should be a very demonstrable example of the stress that exists in Miami Shores right now.

Thank you. It's 9.30. I'm going to continue, push it forward. Any other public comment on this item? No? Do I have a motion or discussion on this application?

We tabled this.

No, was there any issues, any concerns, any discussion?

Well, what I was going to talk about was the proposal as you provided it, if you put a deck around it was going to take you to 59% impervious. But what you're proposing to do only puts a deck right at the foot of the pool. Now is that realistic? I don't think so, because you've got a sloping roof that goes above the garage that's going to dump an inordinate amount of water right there on that sod layer. So what's somebody going to do in the future? Most likely they're going to put pavers down. What's that going to do? It's going to make the area impervious. So this is another instance where I don't know if what you're proffering is going to work. It feels like you've got a little bit more to work with. If your numbers are correct, you're at I just had it. You are at, with this revision, you're at 52.5%. What I'd like to see happen is that you also extend at least a little bit of slab here because that's likely what's going to happen and see if you're still under. And if you are, fine.

Where do you get 50? Your revised sheet shows lot impervious 54.1, right?

It says 52.5, if I'm reading it correctly.

Looking on here.

I'm looking at his diagram here.

So that doesn't even match the table on this one then, right?

So what's correct, this diagram or that one? Okay, so you're at 52.5.

If you have enough to extend that slab for me, That was my concern. I don't have an issue with the design as much except for your constructability condition, but it's not for me. It's going to be your issue if and when it leaks. I mean, generally things leak.

We can do that. I'm sorry. Can you speak into the mic for the record?

Yeah.

what you're proposing if the board agrees and we can get an approval with that condition, we can do that by adding that three foot walkway from the driveway to connect the pool and the back slab coming out of the back door and to help with the previous areas, the entire walkway doesn't have to be concrete. It can be a combination against the house, some sodded area, closer to the pool, just a three foot walkway.

At one point, I'm hopeful that we revise our zoning code to allow for us to include a certain percentage of permeable, but we're not there right now. I would want to make sure that that this encompasses enough of a deck around that to meaningfully access the outdoor kitchen. If you're at that without modifying the house, great. But if you need to shave a little bit from the house in order to make sure that you're under that impervious, I think for me that would be what it would take for me to get over the hump here.

We can do that.

Okay. Well, I just don't know. It might be a table and come back kind of thing. I don't know how the rest of my colleagues here feel about that.

I have a question for that. So, when you demolish the house that's existing there, are you planning to put a construction fence around the property to protect it?

Yeah. We do that for all projects.

Some people don't, so I'm just asking. Okay.

And I just have the same comment as before that on your other project the you know a retaining wall Doesn't hold water. So I mean You have a 30 inch retainage wall on the side I mean if you're trying to use that to hold the water and it's not gonna hold the water and

Well, can we, if I may, I hear both comments and I have an idea of how to address both comments from you and Mr. Spirk, is it? Similar to the previous home, in terms of site drainage, we can do the same. We do it all the time with a combination of swales, yard drains, and exfiltration trenches, and provide a trench at the right of the property line where the driveway is. So that's something I can talk to Sebastian about, but that's possible. And in terms of connecting the driveway, to the back of the home without, you know, we can do that as well and still maintain.

It wasn't the driveway. It was the slab that goes around the pool to make a meaningful connection to your outdoor kitchen. Because right now all you have is that little bit of a, and you go through grass and you have a bunch of water draining onto that. So I'm not saying it needs to be, you know, around all four sides of the pool, but. No, no. Yeah. But it starts at the driveway.

Yeah, we'll just start it at the driveway. It's a three-foot walk. And we can do that and maintain the . . .

Yeah, I would think come back with something meaningful there that shows that it's for real. You might have the area to do that with. If not, you may need to shave a little tiny bit. That would be . .

.

Okay. Any other discussion?

If nobody else decides to make one comment, developers oftentimes have built spec homes in the Shores from a historic basis. A lot of the original homes were speculative. So it's not always bad. The challenge is to keep the developers that are doing decent work here, to keep them empowered to do that work. And the ones that aren't, to send them back to the drawing board. I think that homes are growing in size and things do change, but we did come together as a community. We had a number of workshops for residential district code. We did a couple of quick things here in order to stem the tide and make sure that the 101st Street new park and rec building doesn't happen again. or the Minecraft homes as you've heard them reference. And I think by and large, there's no silver bullet, but it's had a good impact. We can see from the project, one of the first projects that came before us tonight, the before and after of that was notable. Times do change and things do evolve, and I don't think we can say realistically speaking that we're going to build only the small homes that we once had here. And I think that as far as engaging the public, there's one more thing I wanted to say about that. I think the public has been fairly well engaged. It is up to an applicant to decide whether or not they want to engage the public. We can't force them to do that. But what I will say is that those that do, generally come to us and pass on the first or second try. And those that don't and the public is engaged enough to show up and speak, we almost always take into account and work within the maximum ability of our, you know, we can't do everything. We can't mandate design language. We can't do certain things like that because the state doesn't allow us to do it. And I think it's important that the community understands that. But as far as interjecting a new process, this is the process that happens all around the country with respect to the neighbors getting involved. We've gone above and beyond most municipalities to include a 1,000-foot radius for mailers. And it's just in the infancy. It's probably some growing pains and some rust that we need to work out of the gears of that system, so to speak. But... Just keep in mind that the way to ensure that our community character is maintained is to show up. We can't necessarily hold the pen of every applicant.

I hope I was articulate enough for everyone here on the panel to understand I complimented each and every one of you several times for what you do. This is conflict resolution at the highest level. which is very much a part of collaborative behavior. There's a missing process step that even from a distance resonates all the way to me and other neighbors who stand up here and cry at the podium for what reason? It can be avoidable. Just open yourself up to that creative, innovative, I want to dearly believe Miami Shores is innovative. That innovative step, it exists. Thank you.

Thank you. And I got to move this meeting along.