Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. I'll bring this meeting to order. I can't see anybody in the audience, but you guys can take a seat. It's fine. It's fine, Graham. Okay, everybody. Hold on. All right, if you guys can join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Hula, Alba.

See you here. We need to roll call.

Board member Andres.

Here.

Board member Murphy.

Here.

Board member Schottke is absent. Board member Thompson. Here. Chair Shaw.

Here.

Chair Iverson is absent. You have a quorum.

Great, thank you. I'd like to, we need approval of the minutes for last.

I recommend approval of the last meeting minutes.

I recommend approval for last meeting.

No, you need to second it. Pardon me? You need to second it.

I second.

Okay.

Do you want me to do a roll call? Or voice vote is fine. Okay, that's fine.

Is everybody in consensus? Yes. All those say aye. Aye. Thank you. Aye.

For the record, Board Member Abramson is present.

Thank you for joining us.

The board member, Abramson. She should have said that, right?

Vice chair.

Actually, she's chair and Ryan is the vice chair. There you go, Ryan.

So number three.

Item three, a resolution of the Mayor and Commission of North Bay Village, Florida, approving and approving with conditions or denying an application by 7940 NBB Partners, LLC, concerning property located at 7938-7940 West Drive, North Bay Village, Florida, identified by Miami-Dade County Folio Numbers 23-3209-001-0402. and 23-3209-001-0400 for a variance request pursuant to section 7.3 of the unified land development code ULDC to vary from the strict application of section 8.12 bonus height to allow building height of 322 feet where up to 312 feet are allowed with application of all bonuses. and subsection 8.17L encroachments to permit portion of the residential balconies to project up to 75 feet into the front and rear setbacks, where a maximum projection of 48 inches is allowed into the setback, providing for findings, providing for conditions, and providing for an effective date.

Okay. Heidi, this is a question judicial. Do we need to... Yeah.

So all the individuals that will be testifying in this hearing, please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Just for a second. When you read that, I believe you said prior to. up to 75 feet and 75 inches. 75 inches. Yeah, okay.

Thank you for the correction.

That would have been quite a projection.

Yes.

All right, so I think most of you are familiar with this project. You have seen it come back a few times. New member Thompson may not, but this is a project that was approved in 2023 um there was a side plan application for the project itself which is a multi-family residential tower um located at 79 38 and 79 40 west drive so it's like just south of moda and um that uh that project approval happened on September of last year. The project has 70 units, by the way. That site plan application came in with two variances. One was for the provision of 77 spaces less than the minimum parking requirement at the time. The second variance was for having a two-way garage driving aisle 22 feet wide, where the code requires a 23-foot wide aisle as a standard for the two-way aisles. And the third item that came together with the site plan was a special use exception, which under section 8.11 and 9.3E of the code, if approved, allows 20% of the parking spaces that are required by the code to be designed specifically for compact spaces. So all of these items were approved last year via several different resolutions. Then sort of on a related track in May of this year, the applicant sought and was granted approval for a use exception to erect a temporary sales center on the property. And the building permits for that have been issued. There's a construction fence. So there's been a lot of activity on the site so far. Now, one of the things that happened before the site plan was approved is the same applicant had submitted an application for a code amendment. You may recall for the sections of the code that deal with TDR transfers, and that was adopted by the commission. to establish basically a cap on the percentage of units that could be transferred into the site by TDR, which is a maximum of 30%. And with that 30% TDR limit, came a 30% addition of height above the maximum height that is allowed by code in that district, which is 70, I'm sorry, 150 feet base plus potential bonuses up to 240 feet. And with this 30% additional, if you transfer TDR, then you could go through to 312. So this project, transferred tdrs as part of their site plan approval and they went to the maximum height of 312 feet so this variance now uh is uh to go above that 312 feet to 322 um you know i'm going to let them speak a little more about the reasons for that but you know um there's um There's some changes in floor to ceiling height and some variations of that nature that they're providing as the justification for the variance. Also, this will give them the ability to increase the number of parking spaces in the garage, which they previously had asked for a reduction for. And As you know, variances have a pretty high bar. There are seven criteria that have to be considered, and an applicant has to meet all seven in order to be found, you know, approvable. And so in our analysis, we went through each one of these criteria. We found that they do not meet all of them. They do meet a couple. But the majority of them, they do not. And for that reason, staff is not recommending approval of this variance. However, we do acknowledge that a 10 foot difference in the tower height is probably not going to be noticeable to most people. and that there is a benefit to having more parking for this project. So if the board finds and decides that it isn't the benefit of the village to allow for the variance to recommend to the commission that the variance be approved, there's a series of conditions in our staff report that we would recommend that you forward to the commission along with your recommendation.

new buttons new buttons to learn uh me everyone Graham Penn Burke Albert Del Fernandez Larkin Tappanus 200 South Biscayne Boulevard here representing 7940 MBV partners those MBV partners are with us today we got Paul McHale um who have been a fixture of these board meetings and and other in other events in the town in the last couple years. Also got Peter Caseri from Fortis Design. Our architects are on their way. So I'm going to endeavor to go through it. And if technical issues come up, I'm going to rely on those guys. So as Sylvia explained, The village approved this site for what is now the Pagani Residences, which is going to be an ultra high-end 70-unit development, the first branded Pagani development in the entire world, which will be located in North Bay Village back last year. The sales center, if you've been down there, is actually under active construction. We're anticipating it to be complete by Christmas is what I heard. So we're really eager to start moving forward with sales and get this building going. As you may imagine, we're also, you know, of those 70 units, all those 70 units have been, are very large family oriented units, not small, tiny apartments. So, you know, to bring more families hopefully into this part of the village. And of course, as you know, we're very excited to be bringing an internationally known ultra high-end brand to the village. Pagani, for those who don't know, builds hypercars out of Italy. So they stand for cutting-edge design in that realm. And we think this new design does in the residential realm. And, you know, we believe and we think the new updated design makes it clear that this is going to be a true catalyst in this area of the village, bringing, again, an international high-end brand known for its design to the village for the first time. So since we were approved, we've been working on the detailed tweaks to the project. And as part of that, We've needed to make a couple changes that were that necessitated the application we have in front of you today. So just briefly what isn't changing as Sylvia noted the density is remaining the same it's still 70 units. The design on the orientation of the project all the same. We've got two accesses to the island walk, the full island walk provided, lots of green space in the front, very quiet neighborhood in this area of the town. So this kind of the footprint not changing at all. So what we've done with the two requests we have tonight as Sylvia noted. First, we're asking for modification of the overall height of the building from 312 to 322. And second, we're asking for de minimis variance to allow an additional balcony intrusion into the front and the rear setback. So that's the street setback and the water setback. And I'm going to show you what that looks like in a second. So let's start with the height.

So hopefully you can see this.

John, are we allowed to pick this one up, John? So I'll do it. I'm not going to break it. They were a great sale is what I heard. Four units for $90. So this is the cross section of the proposed building. So there's two major reasons that we need the relief. I shouldn't pick this up. It sounds terrible. But I pick it up. The two major reasons for the height relief. First, we're accommodating additional parking in the building. um to ensure that the the project will not be a burden on the neighborhood and in doing that what we've done is we've raised the top parking levels height by four feet to allow rooms for mechanical lifts so that allows us to add 20 more parking spaces to the garage over what was approved That is, again, based on the brand requirements of Pagani, that gets us at least two parking spaces for every unit, which is consistent with their brand and their requirements. So we think that that's, in our opinion, a necessity. The second element that's a characteristic of the Pagani brand, and again, that whole kind of bringing this unique ultra high-end project to the village, is that we are proposing to slightly increase the height of some of these, the upper, So the combination of that four feet within the garage plus the additional six feet kind of blended into the rest of the tower gets us the 10 feet. Now, as Sylvia noted, from an impact point of view, the impact is zero, right? The visual impact is no difference to anyone on the street or any of our neighbors from a 312-foot building to a 322-foot building. But it is for our purposes and the Pagani branding, in our opinion, a necessity to make it work successfully. Again, just really trying to bring a turn this part of the village into an exciting area with an ultra high-end project that's really never been tried before. So that is the height.

These really are heavy.

The balcony is actually even more simple. So part of this design, and you'll see it. Try this again. You can see the new architecture. It's been significantly worked on since you last saw it. And part of the big element here is these swooping balconies. You see them up and down the building. We think it's really going to be a beautiful architectural gem with these additional swoops that we have in all these balconies. The unfortunate part about swooping is it has some of these tips of the balconies. extend slightly beyond what's permitted under the terms of the code for intrusions of the balcony into the setbacks. We're allowed four feet. So you can see the maximum intrusion is this little triangle here, which is two feet, three inches of additional intrusion. So again, completely de minimis. It's not the majority of the balcony. And I think the design that we get as a result of that change is a significant improvement and it will be a really an architectural gem in this portion of the village. So in my promise to the clerk, I'll keep it short. So this is the end of our presentation. Again, we think that these changes, in our opinion, are necessary to get this project going, which will be a unique high-end development in the village. The first one, we're very excited about it. Our team is here. If you have any questions, architects have now arrived in case you have architectural questions. But we would ask for your approval with staff's conditions this evening or recommendation of approval. I apologize.

Thank you. I have one question. Sure. The additional six feet that you're putting in the height for the units, is it equal throughout all the units or you're doing mostly higher units on the upper floors? The answer to that, Paul, is that it is not.

Most of the units are staying the same, but we are introducing these, what we call sky residences on the upper levels.

Those are getting taller. So two feet per residence or something like that?

Yeah, just in the... Can you state your address? Juan Carlos Sotomayor from Revolved Architects, 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue. We are in the, just on the top floors because of the quality of the units at the penthouses. And actually when there are some, when you change unit layouts from let's say an A on a B unit, there's a lot of things going on in plumbing and air conditioning, everything. So we need more height in order to achieve that transition. So that's why. And you know what, I apologize.

Well, just to be clear, we are ending up with one additional residential floor. So that's how it all susses out. So we're adjusting some of the additional heights. So these sky units are taller than a lot of their brethren, but we are ending up with one more residential floor.

And by the way, it's 10 feet, not six feet.

No, it's six feet in the units and four foot in the garage. But I don't think they're going to have people sleeping in the garage.

You never know. Well, it's your choice.

With sleeping bags, maybe you could do that.

Maybe in the Pagani they have to sleep to make sure it's good.

The garage is basically because we're adding some lift on this floor, so we need more height. Yeah, they said that.

Well, I have no questions.

The setbacks on the podium versus the balcony. I'm just trying to understand the difference. Sorry about that. The setbacks. So how far does the from the podium to the balcony, how far does that extend?

The parking podium is all around the plate of the building. And then the balcony is at some point, because there's this difference, five feet, more or less. Here is 16. Okay, I got it.

Well, your new design with the sort of curved balconies, right?

yes that's a beautiful design and it's better than the one you had before so i like everything you've done yeah i think it looks good beautiful building sure you got any questions no my only comment would be that um i would move uh move to approve it but with the staff conditions the six criteria

All right, let's open it up for a comment first. Just out of curiosity, where's the additional parking spaces? What is that going on the top floor? So you're putting all the compact cars up top? Because there was a little bit more space, I think, where you're going to do valet and stuff back there, if I'm not mistaken.

The extra parking, it's in this floor, but we're adding lifts. So when we have these two spots in the same place.

Um, so since there's no more questions up here, let's open it up to public comment.

Do you have anything online? So we're gaining 20 parking spots, which will be in lifts and you need 10 feet throughout the building, two feet, three inches of balcony extension beyond what's allowed.

Correct.

Still, my motion would be to approve with staff recommendations.

I'll make a motion to approve the project. I will second her. I make a motion to second the project approval.

So roll call. Vice Chair Abramson? Yes. Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Andrus?

Yes.

Board Member Thompson?

Yes.

Chair Schell? Yes. Mr. Hernandez?

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it, everybody. Hey, Graham, don't take that microphone with you.

I'm going to get out of here. I'm not touching it again.

So we're on to number four, applications.

There are no applications. Item number 5A.

5A.

An ordinance of the Mayor and Commission of North Bay Village, Florida, amending section 9.22, synthetic turf of the Unified Land Development Code, ULDC, to modify the standards for design permitting and installation of synthetic turf, providing for subability, providing for codification, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date.

I want to ask them one question.

Mr. Murphy, we have started on the next item.

I just want to make a personal comment to them.

Sure. See you.

You guys can talk about this after so we can get out of here. Now that you can think about it, we can talk about it later.

I apologize. Bye, guys.

See you soon. Bye.

I still have to clean my house tonight, you know, so we got to be going. Go ahead.

And we just all wanna get out of here. All right, so this item and the next one are kind of cleanup items. You may or may not recall, that we actually have synthetic turf regulations in our code. They were adopted back in 2020, along with the whole package of resilience and sustainability amendments from that time. And I think maybe the problem that we have had is that it has that section of the code has been kind of dormant in a way because we haven't had a lot of applications or inquiries about synthetic turf until recent. And what we have found is unfortunately that many people did not know that we had these regulations in place and have been installing turf without knowing that a permit is required. And in finding that out and trying to look at their situations, which are after the fact permits, several of them at least have been in excess of what the code actually allows, which presents an issue. So we have been contemplating what to do with that. And a couple of months ago, maybe we received direction through the manager that the commission wanted to initiate an amendment and they wanted to see an option for increasing the amount of synthetic turf. that you can do. So that's what we're doing. They told us to start with a 50% allowance.

We're at 40 now, right?

we're at 20% of the plantable area of any yard. So in other words, you can do 20% of the plantable area of the front yard, the side yard, the rear yard. We did a lot of research into this, went back and kind of looked at the way that other communities do it now. Some of them have had the same regulations even from the same time that we adopted ours, and they're similar. But there's a couple of differences. The first one is that they don't necessarily do a percentage of the plantable area, but just a percentage of the yard. And the other thing that we found was that many of the communities that we looked at at least do not allow synthetic turf in the front yard. We do. So that's just kind of to tell you some of the, I guess, peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of our ordinance, but not necessarily to say that we are changing that. We have had the provision that allows the turf in the front yard. And we have several permits that are going through, that have gone through with that provision. So we don't necessarily wanna take that away now. If you choose to recommend that we do, that's going to be up to the commission ultimately, but we're not necessarily what's allowed now in the front yard. And in any yard, 20% of the plantable area of a yard can be front or back front back sides. Okay. Yeah. Right now. Um, So we're not touching that. We're not excluding the front yard in our recommendations. And the other thing is, what did I say? I just lost my train of thought.

So what are you recommending we do?

Well, I mean, we actually are taking a more comprehensive approach because when I went back and looked at that section, I was like, okay, this is really sort of disorganized. The things that should be clear to the public are like, you know, way at the end and sort of buried in other stuff. So I tried to reorganize it. And that's why you see that there are a lot of changes, but in reality, it's more like holding things from the back and putting them at the front. So now we have a section that specifically says, it tells you what the minimum requirements are, tells you that you have to get a permit upfront. It tells you that the maximum that you can get is now, according to these recommendations, 50% of your plantable area of a yard, any yard. And we define what a plantable area is, which was not defined before. We are requiring that areas of living plant material have to be at least 20% of the plantable area. Living plant material. Um, we also did a few refinements with respect to the permitting section, which was at the very back and before, like I said, um, we worked with our attorneys, uh, in clarify and, and, and public works and clarifying, uh, that, uh, If you are a property owner that wants to extend synthetic turf into the swale area, then you have to do certain things. You have to get, and Heidi, you may want to- What's the swale area? The swale area is the area between the paved edge of the street and your property line, right?

Is that only, that's only North Bay Island?

Well, it's anywhere, you know, where there is...

There are no swales untreasured.

Anywhere that you may... Actually, there is. Yes. Yeah, we do have a couple of areas where you have them, but...

Right now, you can't.

No, you can't. Now, right now, you can, but the terms of how you do that were unclear, and the village has to... Yeah, for instance, we had a property owner who had already done this work. He had already extended into the swale area, which is part of the public right-of-way, right? And so retroactively, we were coming, like, you know, we were like, okay, what do we need to do with that? Well, you know, the village public works department would like them, they can do that. But we don't have a problem with them doing that. But they need to sign a whole harmless agreement saying that if we come through doing work on the public right away and we destroy their synthetic turf, they're responsible for replacing it if they want it. We're not going to replace it. And the other thing is a maintenance agreement. So they are responsible for maintaining the turf in the soil area in good shape, not the village. So none of that was... um explicit none of that was specified we now have language that refers to that in more specific detail uh ways to that anyone that comes and wants to do this kind of work in the public right away can look at this section and know immediately what they have to do we now have also the forms for these agreements in place etc so that's something different um the other thing that we have is now which is new an exception section um so what we're saying is okay you have to get a permit to do the application of synthetic turf but if you are proposing an application that is less 15 or less of the plantable area of your yard then you don't have to get a building permit that's the only um And we also have some language in there that tells you how to allow the village to verify that that's the case, that you are 15% or less, and therefore you don't have to get a permit. We have just tweaked the design standards section. We have added some language in there to make it clear that synthetic turf has to be On a permeable surface, because we had a couple of instances where, again, without permits, somebody had gone and installed turf on top of a concrete pad. That can be done. So now this clarifies that and clarifies sort of the standard at which turf is considered permeable by meeting certain criteria. Okay. Installation, we have added a few things there also that are sort of emphasizing the idea of permeability and drainage, stormwater management and so on. And that's it, that's the whole of the ordinance. But the key points that the commission wanted us to address, that was with respect to the percentage that you can have. And right now we are, per their direction, recommending at 50% of the plantable area.

Is there anything for design? Like the way it looks? Especially for the front?

design? No, there are design standards for the design of the turf itself, like the manufacturing standards, right? How it has to look, what colors you can have, you know, what backing you can have, that kind of thing. We have a section in there that already existed. We're trying to refine it a little bit. But if you're talking about like designing of the yard, no.

I mean, I don't know about you, Ryan. I'm more I'm okay with upping the allowable number of turf in the backyard, but I've never had a full turf front yard or...

No, it would not be a full, no, no more than 50%, but off the plantable area of the yard. So I actually have the same notes.

In conjunction with what they're saying, I totally disagree with putting synthetic turf in the front or the swale.

Okay, I actually have the same exact thing.

Yeah, the swale, definitely no.

I have no turf in the swale. That's a non-starter.

No turf in the swale, no turf in the front. If you want to put it in the side, in the rear, I don't care. But the entire front yard in this way.

No, no, no. Again, it's not the entire.

I want to make that clear. I understand. I'm just saying I would prefer if you're going to put synthetic turf, do it on the side of the property after the front. I understand. You want to put it in the back. Fine. I would highly prefer. In fact, they just renovated a house next to my house, and he put turf in the front, and then the inspectors came out and said, you have to take your turf out.

Yes, but- No.

Yes, but no?

Yes, but no. Because, again, we did have a standard in the code that allowed that, that allowed that to happen. So there was... At that time, it was 20%. At the time, it was 20% of the plantable area, but you could have it in the front yard and you could have it in the soil.

So... I think there's an agreeance on this front thing. The only caveat I would think on the front, and Paul, you know what I'm talking about. You probably know what I'm talking about. So if you have the squared concrete driveway but the grass in between to maybe be able to put I have a square concrete driveway with a lot of gaps in between and it's all grass.

I didn't use any synthetic turf.

I'd be okay with their, I would keep actually that 20% max in the front yard to allow for those type of projects. So for me, I would again, say no turf in the swale, 20% max in the front. And then I would like to increase the percentage for the side and the rear.

And what would that be? That 50 or you could go to 100?

I mean, I'd rather see it higher than 50 for the side. I have no problems with somebody from the front of their house on back for lots of reasons. If they want turf back there, have it.

Yeah, I don't care. But I don't agree. If you're going to put it in the areas in the concrete driveway, if you want to approve that, I personally don't care for that. But I would just limit the turf, the synthetic turf in the front yard specifically to those areas in the driveway where you have to put turf.

And then potentially on the sides, you know, to...

to finish that well no it's not i mean i have a driveway that goes straight up from the road and there's multiple little valleys there that's right and i've got and it's all green grass so if you want to put turf i understand there's a lot of people that put turf in those areas but that's the only place in the front yard that i would put it i can agree with that

You know, I mean, if we leave it at 20% of the plantable area in the front yard, it's probably not an advantageous thing to do it anyway, because you're not, you know, it's not like you can cover it. If you're going to do turf, you kind of got to be all in with it. You know, you got to like.

Yeah.

Do the whole. Let's say that you have. I keep forgetting about this, Mike, but.

Let's say that you have a 2000 square foot front yard. Right. And. The only plantable area that you have is, I don't know, 600 square feet because the rest of it is your driveway, your walkway, and you have, you know, whatever, something else, right? That ends up being about 120 square feet of turf, which is nothing.

I still wouldn't want it synthetic. If it's a plantable area where you can put green grass, that's what I would require. Unless it's in those slats in the driveway and if you want to put it there.

Okay. What about this? 100% in the backyard, zero in the front. Zero in the front.

100%?

In the back and sides.

Okay.

And then... would you allow the inserts in the driveway?

Yeah, inserts in the driveway. I personally wouldn't, but I understand you like that. So in deference to everybody.

Do we even need to have a percentage associated with that because it's just the gaps in the driveway?

No, it's just in the driveway slats. No, I know, I understand. Okay, that's it. Yeah, I don't know that a percentage is going to make too much sense there.

A percentage won't. I would just put the terminology... You can fill the slats in the driveway with... Well, you could say a percent of the driveway.

No, I wouldn't. No? I wouldn't do that. You know, like...

I wouldn't put a percent.

You could probably switch it.

Listen, just an observation. Some of them do the driveway and they do a walkway that matches the driveway. So if you do the walkway with the things, you're going to allow the turf and the driveway.

I think it's blended into any type of concrete.

I disagree. I still disagree with you too, Frank. I'm just saying if you are allowing it in the driveway. In the driveway slats. Right. And then...

you know i've got a two foot on both sides of the walkway going and that's all correct no no no that's not what he's saying he's talking about the gaps the gaps between the yeah and there's slats in it just like the driveway right so that would allow for like a cohesive design between the driveway and the walkway i think that's fine there's just something that i i i mean um i kind of say that in my staff report but um Just with the 100% rear inside, I mean, obviously, there are a lot of positives to the use of turf, because it reduces the need for irrigation and that kind of thing. But also, you have to remember that it's plastic, essentially. And it gets very hot, much hotter than grass. And it degrades and ends up being microplastic that goes into your water. So, you know, that's the only thing that, you know, I know that was the basis for the restriction to 20% before. So just something.

I've seen it age, I mean, in Orlando when I used to live up there and it's just, it starts out great. And then after, if you don't maintain it, you get the ripples in it. And the next thing you know, the neighborhood's looking a little,

Shabby. For me personally, I wouldn't allow it at all.

The backyard, I think it's totally, back and side, you could go 100% in my book.

I mean, I'd knock it down a little bit from 90% just to allow for some other live plants, maybe around

the edge of the property well yeah i mean look i don't think anybody wants to do 100 so i mean i'm saying that as much as you want i i mean you're gonna you'd have a pool you might have some rocks you might have some trees so um i would think that let's just take a look at this real quick because um kind of we have something okay um we we

And also to your point, if you have it in the front yard, microplastics, stormwater runoff, it's in the swale, it's in the street, it goes in the drain.

Yeah. Well, yeah.

Did you have these little grass things everywhere?

I do want to say.

It's on. Um, there is a, um, there is a provision in here that says that turf is not going to be permitted within a buffer area of two and a half feet from a property line. And so you would still have a strip around the sides and the rear that where it's not permitted. Okay. Does that suffice?

I would, I would still bump it down to maybe 80% of the back yard.

That'd be fine.

except no turf in the front yard at any place. We got that.

Yeah. So 80% side and rear.

Okay. And this is still of the plantable area or of the entire yard?

I would say the plantable area.

What else is there?

Well, anything that is not plantable, swimming pool decks, swimming pools, backyard gazebos over a concrete path, none of that is plantable.

Yeah, but the code doesn't allow for you to put turf on any of those. But that's what I'm saying.

That's why it should be 100% because if you have all these different features in your backyard...

In other words, and the setback.

You would be planting on the plantable area. You would be putting it on the plantable area, yes. But the calculation right now is based on a percentage of the plantable area, not a percentage of the entire yard.

So it would be 100% of the plantable area, and that allows for a two and a half foot setback where it could not be planted in the side and rear.

It would require that buffer.

Yes. So that buffer would be live.

It would have to be live.

It cannot be turned. So that's what I was saying. I think we should allow for 100% of the plannable area based on your site plan. Because if you have a pool deck, you're minusing your plannable area if you put a fire pit or whatever it is. Okay. And then I'm okay with zero in the front.

Good. Zero on the front.

Not to add more, but I've seen pool decks that aren't made of pavers or concrete or anything like that.

I can't hear you.

Sorry. But I've seen pool decks or rear yards where instead of having a traditional pool deck of travertine or whatever you're going to use back there, I've seen artificial turf being used. So just something to think about.

That would be fine. Yeah, to the coping of the pool. If they don't have a pool deck and they prefer to have that as a surface, they could do that provided that they do not, you know, bump into those two and a half foot buffer areas.

That would be compacted. That would become plantable, yes.

Unless they put the pool in the front yard. Which is not allowed, Paul.

It's not allowed.

And they can.

All right, so okay. So what I have just summarizes 0%. In the front yard. 0% of the soil. The only exception is between the inserts between the gaps and driver or walkway in the front yard. 100% in the side or rear. of the plantable area. Is that correct?

Yeah. Wasn't there something that you said you have to have two and a half feet?

And I hate to shake it up, but I think we may have to define the area of the driveway too. Like, cause you know, I've seen, you know, we've all seen it where it looks good, but you know, you know, you don't want like a driveway that looks ridiculous.

It does say there is a provision for maintenance. It says there is a provision for maintenance. And there is a design standard also.

Like say you have a driveway and it's you space those lines, you know, every four feet, every three feet and have a strip like, you know, like how you see it in L.A. or Palm Springs or whatever. If you have a standard like that, or maybe 10% of the driveway, 20% of the driveway, because then it's open. So somebody could be like, all right, well, I'm doing, they could do something wonky. I don't know.

I think we can allow for some design creativity. I don't think anybody's going to go nuts because they want turf so badly in their driveway. You'd be surprised.

the problem is that we cannot um or maybe they have to create a drawing and we review it or something or oh they have to submit it yeah so that's it and we do have driveway standards that are separate from this uh but we cannot anticipate every possible configuration that's true you know and and many people have preferences as to how they're some do the like the the the courts yeah you know the auto courts and some people do you know lineal and some people less and less they do the the two ribbons you know uh although they're not as attractive but they're great for stormwater you know and so um all right i'm good yeah so we we got this down

so can you repeat the summary I think and then what I'm going to suggest is that one of you just say if you're in agreement that you just make a motion consistent with what Sylvia is about to say well I don't have the language written down no no but just so the motion that I would anticipate someone making is to recommend approval of the ordinance with the following recommendations.

Synthetic turf shall be prohibited in the front yard or the swale, in which case we're also going to delete that section, I assume, which is further down for installation in the swale. That would be another amendment. But prohibited in the front yard or in the swale, except... I don't know whether to do this here or in the exemption section. I mean, yeah, we don't need to say where we're going to do it.

Just the concept being that it would be prohibited in the front yard.

With the exception of inserts between the gaps in a concrete driveway or walkway. And then... The second one would be synthetic turf shall not exceed, well, shall be up to 100% of the plantable area of the side or rear yard shall be allowed.

But you don't include the two and a half feet on the side? That's already there. That's already there.

Yeah.

Got it.

Somebody want to make a motion if that's correct? Is that it?

That's what I heard.

I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation. Who's going to second?

No, go ahead. If somebody wants to say, I don't have anything to add, I'm just curious what's going to happen with the current people that have it in the front yard?

They're not conforming.

So they're going to have to remove it?

No.

No, no, no, because it existed before.

Oh, okay.

They're being permitted under the current regulations. Okay. And they just stay.

All right. Does anybody got a second? Second. I second. Roll call.

Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Thompson?

Yes.

Board Member Andres, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Vice Chair Abramson? Yes. Chair Shaw? Yes. It's unanimous.

Thank you. All right, 5B.

Can we have like a couple of minutes?

Sure.

I have to go to a little boys room.

Oh, no problem. Do I put that on the record or what?

No. Do you want to take a recess? Yeah, recess for three minutes.

Five minutes to walk back.

As soon as Paul gets back, we'll start again.

Me? Where?

Hold on, traded? Oh, okay. He had me nervous there for a second. I'll take traded. I thought maybe he had a picture somewhere else.

Are there pictures somewhere else?

I don't know. Everybody's got a phone. Everybody's got a phone these days. Everybody's got a phone.

Under 5B, it's the notice of public hearing for my academy preschool in Livingston. Is that from the commission? It's for this one. yeah in that page oh yes so here you see this it's just a better picture of the entire page yeah understand yeah thank you yeah so we don't have to

Yeah. When's the next commissioning? Commissioning? December 10th. Is that when they pick the boards again?

All right. This meeting is back in session.

I just want to inform everybody, when you're 80, you pee more often.

Thank you. We're back in session. We are live and in color, right on the beautiful TV screen.

Well, I'm just trying to give pertinent information. That's all.

My problem is 10 expressos and a gallon of water. So 5B.

Item 5B, an ordinance of the mayor and commissioner of North Bay Village, Florida amending section 5.22, burden of showing compliance of the Unified Land Development Code, ULDC to clarify the village's concurrency compliance requirement for parks and open space, providing for survivability, providing for codification, providing for conflicts and providing for an effective date.

All right. Like I said before, this, like the previous one, is a cleanup item. This section is actually relatively new to the code. We introduced it during the overall cleanup that we did, which was adopted back in March of this year. And this language was implementing a policy in our comprehensive plan. This language had never been in the code. but we had a policy that said you have to meet concurrency for parks and recreation. And so in order to ensure consistency of our code, which are with our comprehensive plan, which we have to do, and also to implement that policy, we added this language about parks concurrency. However, when we started looking a little bit more carefully as to how this would be sort of implemented, materialized when you review a new project, we realized that we were kind of a little bit off the mark with the wording that was here relative to what was in the policy. So I'm trying to clean this up a little bit and make some clarifications. Now, you do have to know that the level of service standard for Parks and Rec for the village used to be super high, something that was going to be entirely unaccomplishable ever. And I think I understand why, because at some point Frank told me the story of a fourth island that was going to be, you know, like behind us here, which was going to be all parks and recreation for North Bay Village, but it never happened. So let's do it. So it used to be a level of service standard for parks and rec of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people. That's super, super high. So during the EAR-based amendments that we did a couple of years ago, we lowered it. I wanted to lower it actually to 1.0, but the state would not let me do that. So we compromised and we went to 1.5, which is still high. And with your current parkland that you have and your current segments of Island Walk, which counts according to our comp plan, we're not meeting our level of service standards. So we have to do what we can to move the needle towards arriving at that concurrency. I have done calculations of every project that we have approved in the last couple of years, those that are putting in new segments of the island walk, new view corridors. Some of them are bringing in facilities like a dog run or a civic space. Like Sunbeam is doing both of those. There are little plazas that Shoma is bringing in. And so we wanted to begin clarifying everything that counts towards that calculation of level of service. So what we're doing here is, first of all, knowing that there's absolutely no project by itself that is ever going to meet that requirement. We're clarifying here that no building permit for new developments, not new development approval, but no building permit. And that for the purposes of this section, parks and recreation facilities is not just the village parks, but also the island walk, also the waterfront areas that are accessible. to the public and marine parks and also public and private recreation. Alba, this is not the one. I'm sorry. Parks and recreation facility, private recreation uses and facilities. And I am describing those, which ones count. So it would be like if you have a kids play area. in your complex, then that can count. If you have a walking track, that can count. If you have a pickleball court, that can count. Even a fitness center can count. And little by little, that will get us closer to overall concurrency. So this amendment is meant to clean that language up, to make it a little bit clearer, and to help us make progress towards achieving concurrency.

May I ask a question? What happens if you don't reach the 1.5? What does the state do?

The state is not going to do anything necessarily, but the next time that we have to do I mean, they're not going to send the police here to, you know, arrest you. But what could happen is that the next time that we do an EAR-based amendment, which is going to be seven years down the road, if we have to do our data inventory and analysis, and that's the reason why I started doing the inventory and analysis. Right now, already, I have a little table that says, these are all the projects. This is what they're providing. This is what we have in IslandWalk. This is what we... have in parks you know and now we're counting uh the tides park we're counting the community center behind it and so on um we're probably going to be short with all the projects that we have now but we also have a couple more projects that are going to come in in the future and for every one of those projects now i'm making sure to tell them look you have to provide a certain percentage of parks and recreation facilities on your property. Before, we were not really focused on that. We wouldn't even have the language in the code. But now I'm making it a point to let them know that this is going to be important. And I think that when the Sunbeam individual buildings come in for their approvals, each one of those, we're going to require them to kind of up the the amount of facilities that they have that are recreation and open space.

Those buildings don't come before us, they just go to you?

Yes, because they have been approved via SAP and so now it's SAP permit that comes administrative. But don't worry, I'll do good by you.

Just out of curiosity, where are we now in terms of percentage?

Yeah, let me go and open my staff report, which I haven't done yet, sorry.

He works or something.

What's your name again, bro?

Antonio.

Antonio, okay. I'm not good with names. I thought I'd meet you a hundred times.

That's good. While I open the...

I thought you were waiting for public comment for some, you know.

While I wait for this... Where did it go? Oh, I know. I'm sorry.

And while you're looking that up, is there, is the ask to also include, to change the language, to include more things so they count as open, as park space? Yes. So it's to define.

I'm going to put it up because the language that I was showing you on the screen before actually is not up to date. I was looking at a normal version of my own.

So yeah, give me just a second.

But what I was going to say is that Antonio, you may be seeing him a little more in the future if he sticks around. Because I think we're going to start assigning him some of the planning and zoning board meetings. So give me just a second. I got it now. It should be fun.

Yeah. You can see how fun this is.

Let me answer Mr. Murphy's question first. Where we are today is based on population at a level of service standard of 1.5 acres, we need approximately 11.8 acres to meet that standard. um existing public facilities include the three village parks plus the future community center ties park existing portions of the island walk and with those we are estimated to be uh at roughly six acres which is uh equivalent to a level of service of approximately 0.76 acres per 1000 population. So you can see where we're short, right?

So we got a double, we got a double, we got a double.

And I think that the way that we're going about doubling it is kind of I don't know, I don't know that these private amenities should count.

There they count in other communities, which have the same kind of limitations that you do. You don't have more land.

No.

So, I mean, there could be an acquisition strategy that the village adopts, but that's not for me to say right now. That's a policy issue and the commission would have to make those kinds of decisions if they do want to reach it. In the meantime, and just to go back and answer Mr. Murphy's question about what happens, if in the next cycle of amendments or updates of the comprehensive plan, we do that analysis and we find out that we're really, really short or even, you know, somewhat short um the um the state planning agency which reviews this and other agencies that review this could say well no you have to figure out how to how to meet the standard, or you have to change the standard. We could change the standard at that point. And if we're close, we could just say, well, this is as much as we're going to be able to get. But the other, and I'm going to put the language up in just a moment. Let me just quickly go through this. When we count all the civic recreation and open space facilities that are included in the approved and anticipated projects, We go to a level of service standard of approximately 0.95 acres. So we're getting a little closer there, right? If we include the private recreation amenities and the potential marine park over here, then we're going to be fine. And that counts for recreation facilities as well. what is it? It's not a marine park. What is it? The marine... If and whenever that comes to... The fourth island? No, not the fourth island. No, the underwater marine reserve or, you know... What is it called? I forget. Where is this happening?

Well, essentially... Is this Jacques Cousteau coming to the stage?

I think this one is actually still...

There has been a lot of conversation in the last couple of years that I've been here at the commission level about this. And I know that the new mayor has had a particular interest in that, but I'm not really sure where that is and how real it is at this point and whether it's going to happen. But we are putting the language in there as well. And let me go there in case it comes to fruition.

I think your initial calculation of one acre is more realistic than calculating whatever Jacques Cousteau's project is going to be for us. I think that going the path of recalculating this is the most realistic.

At this point, for us to make this a 1.0 level of service standard would require us to amend our comprehensive plan, which is not an easy thing.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- But something that we may have to do in seven years.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, so I think the best thing to do is pass this. HAB-Masyn Moyer- As it is, and work our way towards what we need.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- And.

for the Marine Park. I believe it's the marine protected area.

And since I'm on record, maybe they can like force Sunbeam to actually do something with their concrete block over there. So it's nice and beautiful and open space for a while.

I'm sure that that's the plan that they have.

I'm sure the commissioners that are going to watch this later will love to hear that from my mom. Are you referring to the... We got the land over here that's not activated. There would be nice park space until they actually do something.

Oh, that area. Got it.

Okay.

All right, so this is the actual since Mr anson loves the Community so much, he should do something like that.

All right, so the language that we have that is for the purposes of this section park and recreation facilities shall include open space as the final Chapter three as well as both passive and active. Pop public and private recreation facilities and uses and facilities. the island walk and waterfront areas accessible to the public, and marine parks. Examples of private recreation facilities that generally count for the purpose of level of service include but are not limited to community swimming pools, outdoor fitness areas, fitness centers, children's play areas, walking paths and running tracks, court-based sports such as tennis, basketball, and pickleball, recreational boating facilities such as marinas, and other recreational amenities that serve the local community. Private recreation facilities that shall not count include exclusive private facilities only accessible to a limited number of residents, private recreational spaces within individual homes or yards, and facilities that are not well maintained or that have restricted accessibility.

I mean, I maintain that I think this is a reach, but there's very little that we can do about any of this.

I'm still interested in, let's say you have seven years before the state comes back. Is that correct?

We have, well, at this point, we have approximately five years before we have to start our next DAR.

Okay. So let's say that you reach the 0.98 in five years, right? If the state comes in, what are the repercussions or what can we do then? Just make an agreement that we're going to do 0.98?

Well, I think in five years, we can do a more extensive analysis of our parks and recreation, see where we are at that point, and go to the state with a justification for lowering the standard below the 1.5, whether that is 1.1, 1.2, 1.0 or even 0.95, which is very low. Typically communities go with a 1.0 acres per 1,000 or more.

What can the state do to lower the hammer?

I don't see what they can do anyway.

What can they do? Because here's where I'm going. Here's where I'm going with this. Like, so some of the buildings you can't, they won't allow access, even though they're supposed to per their development agreement for the boardwalk or island walk, whatever walk you want to call it. I think we should use it as leverage that the state's going to come in here and force them to open it up.

But we can't really say that. Because that's not what happens. The leverage that the state has is that they can object to our comprehensive plan. They can object to our comprehensive plan. And if we don't get our EAR-based amendments adopted within certain timeframes, And if there's an objection, then no other amendments can be made to the comprehensive plan. That's really what their leverage is.

I still don't understand if you don't reach the level that you need to reach. What can the state do?

Nothing. They cannot do anything, Paul.

That's what I want to hear.

This level of service standard is what the village adopted, what the village said that they want to reach. It's not what the state told us that we need to reach.

But if you don't reach it, they can't do anything.

No, they can't. But they can object to the comprehensive plan. They can refuse to allow us to adopt it. And they can then not allow us to adopt any other amendments to a comprehensive plan. So that's really what they can do. Well, I hope that doesn't happen in five or seven years.

So who wants to make a motion to approve this? I'll make a motion. So we can work towards our goal at some time in the future.

I will make a motion to approve it subject to the recommendations that you made. Okay.

Anybody want to second that?

I do, yes. I second. You can give it to him.

And I'm happy to go to the associations and tell them that the state's going to do something to, and I'll put that on record.

Don't quote me.

Don't quote nobody.

Sylvia said.

We need to lower the hammer on some people. You said 2.5 earlier. That's what we were.

That's what your previous level of service was before 2022. Okay. 2.5 acres per 1,000 acres.

And that's a lot higher than normal.

It's not achievable.

Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Thompson? Yes. Board Member Andres?

Yes.

Vice Chair Abramson. Yes. Chair Shaw. Yes. Chair Anonymous.

Way to go, Sylvia. All right.

Any discussion items anybody want to discuss? Frank, anything we need to discuss? Heidi? Sylvia? Antonio, anything you want to discuss, my man? You've been sitting back there so quiet.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. We won't see you until December.

Meeting adjourned and everybody have a great Thanksgiving.