Village Council - Regular Meeting

There's that four days a year when it's just perfect and you can't compare

Everybody complains about traffic.

Literally, it's a half-hour project.

Oh, she is? Oh, okay. I told her I'll be here until she talks. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning.

Coffee? Anyone? Coffee? Coffee? You're set?

No, I'm good. All right. John, one more coffee? All right. I'm good.

Thank you.

Copycat has to get back. Well, Steve is, he's got to be here, right? Yeah, and the little guy.

I'll take like a three, because now we're down to like three pieces. Oh, no.

I'm thinking about if I were a Christian, I would take the Bible. Honestly, I just think every day.

I found the phrase that if I were a Christian, I would take the Bible. That's not great.

Something about speaking a Bible that, you know.

Yeah, I mean, I would take half of it now, but it just seems wrong. When you're in a hotel, I just always want the pen and the paper as well.

Jamie? Jamie?

Oh, yes, I did see that. Oh, excellent. Wow, welcome.

It's good. It's important. It gets rowdy. I'm eager to not eat.

Five nights in a row. I'm surprised you're not blown up like a balloon. Some of the days I just did, I would not.

Yesterday I went with Dippin' Dots.

I got there because it was cool out there.

I was just like... Was the stadium filled? Oh, yeah. The last few days were...

So when it's got energy in it, not only is it a beautiful stadium in the first place, but then energy makes it... Oh, yeah.

Although I like when it's... There's a level I like. Enough people, but not... This is weird because it's a park. There's a park and the whole thing. It happens to be an outside... All right.

Well, we're waiting for Mr. Olmstead. When he gets here, we'll kick it off. But why don't we do this? We'll call the roll. Ms. Clerk.

Council Member Del Prado.

She's here, but she's getting a call.

Council Member Greenberg.

Here.

Council Member Meyer.

Here.

Vice Mayor Fairman. Here.

Here.

Mayor Corradino.

I'm here. And I'm here. Yep, we are. Okay, so let's do the Pledge of Allegiance, then we'll get started. Pledge of Allegiance. And Thierry is the man of the hour, hopefully just an hour, but probably the man of the morning. Good morning, sir. And we're going to have our discussion items proposed amendments to the land development regulations. What do you guys want to start? I have this novel idea about starting at the very beginning. Wow.

Pretty good, right?

Let's do it. I've been the mayor for 10 years, and this may be the first time we've started at the beginning. Clerk puts together an agenda. It's in order A, B, C, D, E, right? And then we go F, L, Z.

If you think this is a good idea to start at the beginning, go for it.

All right. I'm going to make an executive decision to do that.

Mr. Olmsted, is the book that's on the dais the same one we had before?

Oh, yeah. You want to do it now?

Start off with that?

Either way. It seems to be at the same date.

Is this book that you put on the dais this morning the same one that you had given us last week? No changes? Thank you. All right.

Do it at the end.

Yeah.

Or while he's passing it. Okay.

Just to break for a second with the start at the beginning, I just told the mayor... I'll screw it up briefly just with an update, but if you want to, we can talk about it later. Two things relating to sign... Well, just unrelated to... the school sign issue, which was 7.16, what have you. We do have some proposed language. I'm meeting on, I don't know, did that get passed around? Is that part of this? Okay. Well, you know, since there's some revision, let's just do it in order at the end. I don't want to diverge. We have proposed language, and I'm meeting with some of the interested parties from the schools tomorrow, but I can fill you in in a little bit.

At 2 o'clock.

At 2 o'clock.

Are you going to be able to do that?

I will be there before, yes. But I didn't get this.

What's happening at 2?

2, I have a virtual. Hang on, I screwed up. I didn't take this.

Actually, it might be tied up.

No, now you're telling me this. Oh, go that way. I don't think I have anything to steal from you. What? I don't have everything. I'm going to have to copy off you because I don't think I got everything. What was given out? Because I wasn't paying attention.

I took all of that.

I have 12 of the Valero sign. Let me see. What did you get? You got the Valero sign. Racetrack. I've seen enough Valeros in my life. Yeah. But what else did you get? What's after? Let me see.

You want to start it on page two, and then we'll just, you know what, however you feel that it's best that we go through this.

And I guess if anybody has any questions, we're going to go to page two. Do you mind if we finish the discussion on parking and signs?

Oh, no, no. Okay, we didn't finish that? Let's do it.

Let's go back. With regard to signs, Jerry Proctor had also proposed an amendment, and I have a supplement that I passed out.

OK, so .

We can talk about banner signs. Okay. Oh, look at you.

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to print out what I have and bring it back in a few minutes. Something happened. You remember Mr. Tuma had requested the opportunity to, or an amendment that would allow for digital gas price signs. Right. And I've given you a couple of examples of those types of signs here. So that would allow him to change the prices on his signs on a computer electronically instead of having to climb a ladder and change the prices. Good morning. This is a couple of examples here, and he may have some other examples, but there was discussion requested last time regarding those digital signs. I don't know what the village council is.

I think it's a modern idea that we should probably implement. Probably want to add another digit on there. Other than that, anybody else?

I don't mind the idea. I wish it wasn't basically bright neon colors. I've got to believe there's a way to do a simple black letters with a white background that glows a little bit so you can see the price.

On the lights or the entire sign?

You mean the numbers?

Oh, I mean on the digital part. What's that?

The numbers. No.

What did I say?

You said the letters.

Did I say the letters? Oh, he did. I did.

It's tricky.

No, I think you missed it. On the numbers, to make it look a little bit less like either a red or green stop or, you know, to kind of blend in a little bit and more of the residential character, these are great for the highway. That's where they are? Right, because that's where they are. But they're on the interstate, not US 1. Got it. But that would be one thought. I was hoping to see a few more options that might be available to them to make it slightly less commercial, but still give them what they need.

We could allow for one uniform color instead of multiple colors. The gas prices would have to be integrated into a monument sign.

Yeah, I do like the monument sign look. I think that would be our code, correct? If we did allow it, it would be a monument type sign?

So if they were to revise these, they would have to be on a monument sign is what you're saying?

Well, currently the maximum permitted height of a sign in the commercial district is 15 feet. So whatever that would allow.

Yeah. So you're saying black background, white letters?

or vice versa. I'm just, this sort of neon glow.

And the rest of the signs could still have logos, words, and colors.

I think whatever we allow them, correct.

Yeah, I have no problem with that. It's very elegant.

Do you mind if I go back and print out what I had on the signs? Because I have Mr. Councilmember Greenberg's changes and Mr. Proctor's proposed change in a handout.

But for some reason, this doesn't print right. If we just take...

What I was asking the mayor is we should probably find an opportunity to discuss the e-bike

proposed ordinance. And I know you're always prepared to discuss it and you know a lot about it. Sure. Perhaps you could give us something that we could study and then discuss. But I think there's a little more, there is some urgency to that.

It's not going to be in the zoning code.

Correct.

But we are planning to bring this hopefully at your next meeting. Okay. Um, we've had a couple of meetings that got delayed because of what was going on the past couple of weeks. Um, but we're ready to speak on it. Um, there was a bill that I believe passed. Um, we're still trying to figure out frankly, like it's unclear online that would also have some impact on what was discussed before in a positive way, not negative way. So we'll, we intend to bring something in April, um, to the council.

Thank you. Thanks.

Does anybody hate the number color issue?

No? Okay.

No opinion. Sounds reasonable what the Vice Mayor was saying.

No, I agree that it's aesthetically, it's a little more elegant. I like it.

We want elegance in our gas stations.

Absolutely. All the way through. It's Pinecrest. Yeah.

Given the prices, it should be elegant. Or at least one color, right? Yeah. No kidding.

Should be four seasons, eh?

Yeah, seriously, cash.

I don't want cash business. It's the same.

Good. That's a good down.

Well, Mr. Olmstead, this is not far out of turn. I just want to explain. A couple of residents two years ago, I want to say they all came at once. It was like five or six residents who had the same situation with a tree growing over their neighbor's property onto their property. And so there is a proposed ordinance in here. And I didn't mean to make anything onerous, but I just want to share what the genesis of that request was. That was it. That was it. It was people asking for code enforcement to help them mediate the situation where their neighbor's tree was growing over their fence.

Did they just trim it?

I don't know. Well, you know what? It came to great... Like one lady, it was over $2,000. And so her position was, I don't want to have to pay $2,000 to trim my neighbor's tree. Plus, I think she was concerned that she might, in the process, damage the tree. So I had asked code enforcement what they thought about it. And they said, well, we could take a stab at an ordinance. Because otherwise, they have nothing, no teeth, you know, other than to go and ask the neighbor to be a good neighbor.

Yeah. Right. That's a difficult situation.

Zero. We haven't really started. We did stuff for the other day, but it was sort of scattershot.

OK. I'm just feeling the silence. I was going to say, nothing bad can come from dead air with microphones. Page 133. What's that? That's where we're at.

Yeah. I have stock. Yeah, but that's where we were, but we haven't done one through one.

We were actually going to start with page two, or one. Okay. But we got way later.

Oh, I thought he was on the school signs. Is he on the school signs? This is the school signs.

Yeah, the school sign one, I think, should be quick today.

That's what he was talking about, 133. Okay.

Okay.

Michael, did you want to say anything?

Did you want to say anything about the gas station signs?

Why don't you do that since we're, come on up to the

It's just for the new sign that we have. Okay, my name is Michael Tuma. I own some commercial properties on US 1 in Pinecrest. Two of them are the gas stations on US 1, the Chevron and the Marathon. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. It's my first time being in front of gathering like this, so I apologize. So my request is, since we got new signs, we might as well, if we can modernize it, and instead of having the digits and numerical symbols, it will be only in dots, LEDs, and they can be changed remotely, which is very hazardous the way we do it now. It's been since 50, 60, 70 years we've been doing the same. And it's the only gas station that I know of in Dade County or even in the state is only in Pancras that was supposed to be more modern than the way it is now.

Yeah, well, the concept was we're going to be like Fenway Park and just keep it really old until it looks good. But we decided to change that. I think we're good with the digital change copy signs. And the only, I guess, question we had is we'd make the letters, it would be black and white, either white letters in a black background or black letters in a white background. But other than that, I think we're good with the digital.

I do have some sample of how they look like.

Yeah.

The way we have them now, and they would look exactly the same. You will never know that it is. So it could be the white or the red.

Or black.

Or black. How about black and white? I'm not sure the LEDs, they light up in black.

Well, they could line up in white. In white.

White, I think.

All right. I think we're good with that, right? White. White, changeable copy, letter, numbers.

The number, the digits.

Okay, good. Will be in white. Yep, good. We're done.

And I think where they have the diesel would be in green.

It has to be in green. Is that a law?

The diesel. Well, it is not necessary, but that's how they have them all over the states, everywhere.

Black, green for diesel, bother you? Yes? That takes away from what we were achieving.

I mean, they have the words diesel, I believe, are on the sign.

I mean, only the digits, not the wording.

Right.

We're thinking about just making it one color, white letters. White numbers. White numbers. For gas and diesel.

And diesel. Oh, OK.

You can have a green border around it and a red border around the gas, but not the digits.

Make sense? That's fine.

All right.

Yes.

Thank you for being here.

Well, thank you so much.

Appreciate it. Thank you. That was the easiest.

Okay.

I was just going to say, under the law, it just says that the – it has to be clearly visible and legible to drivers. I mean, I assume that that's okay, but it'll be something that'll have to be looked at. Okay.

As long as it's visible.

Yeah, for retail price of gasoline, the law says that it has to be clearly visible and legible to drivers approaching from a vantage point of any lane. So we'll just look at that.

All right. Mayor, just to, Just in case we're not clear, we're not talking about the sign. The sign, whatever design color.

Can be whatever color.

Whatever they want for their sign that code currently allows. It's just the changeable electronic digits is what we're talking about.

White on a black background.

Right. So they could have the word diesel in green next to the numbers or whatever they want to do.

I can't imagine how that's not visible, but.

Right.

Especially it so the way we're going to draft it then is to allow the prices to be white digital lettering changeable copy and the rest of the sign is Permanent regular signage whatever the sign is, right? Okay All right. Thank you. So Thank you for your patience. I've given you a copy of division 7.16 the sign requirements we've discussed and page in the BU2 district. For parcels and lots that have sufficient frontage, they're allowed, or on corner lots, they're allowed to have two signs, one on each street. And Mr. Proctor for University of Miami Health is asking to have two signs, but because of the length of the roadway, to have two two signs placed on the same street or roadway and not necessarily to limit it to one on each street. But if they have sufficient right-of-way on a corner lot to have two signs, he's asking for the ability to have two signs on the same street, not One on each street.

Just before, Council Member Martin, I was about to say something. Since this is coming on that university request, I'll do the same thing I did. Just want to make the same disclosure as last time.

What's the right order in which we want to do this? Do we want to... prioritize the requests that are coming in and discuss those first, or do we want to go through the book? There are things on the book that are probably going to take up quite a bit of time to conversation. So just conscious of timing.

Mr. Olmsted wanted to start, wrap up the signs from last time. And when we wrap up the signs, we'll jump back to page two and go in page order and get through the thing. Or if you have something you want to, I mean, I don't really care. So as long as we get through the book today, if you have a special thing you want to,

Would this be like a special situation that they might come before zoning board or come before council for this particular property when the time comes? I mean, should we make the code based on one property? No.

OK. We should make the code based on everything. And if there was a special circumstance, I think we'd deal with that as variance or insight planning. On an individual case by case. I think so.

So this change would apply to all properties And it would apply to University of Miami Health, and it has been proposed by University of Miami Health. If you'd rather not include that in this proposed packet of amendments and require University of Miami Health to go to the zoning board and request a sign variance, that's another option.

So can you explain it in a little bit more detail? So this means on a corner lot with dimensions of 300 feet by 300 feet, we'll be allowed to have two detached signs for

The size of the first sign.

Okay, so the second sign is half the size of the first.

So ordinarily, they would be allowed to have two signs because they're a corner lot. The second sign would be half the size of the first.

They're allowed to have two? Yes. One on each street? Yes. And they're asking to put two on one street, but not... In that case, they'd only have two maximum, but they'd just have two on one street, not one on each street.

Yes.

Okay. And the same size standards would... I don't guess I have a problem with that.

I mean, that makes... How big of a problem is that, like, if we said, okay, that's something we may want to entertain, how many other properties, you know, along Pancras Parkway fit that definition, and wouldn't we, therefore, be allowing for more sign pollution at the end of the day? How big is this, like, The problem, is it just one property that's that big, or how many other properties would have a similar?

They're probably at least three or four.

The Spector property is one, yeah. Because it's a larger lot. I think the issue is that, you know, depending on where you put a sign, if it's just one sign, if you're coming southbound on US 1, you would likely be passing the location before you notice that that's where it is. So I think that that adds about having more than one of those signs on the same US 1 is basically what they're talking about.

So this basically says the property at a minimum has to be 300 on one direction, 300 on the other, 300 feet. So something that's 300 on US 1 and 250 on the cross street does not apply. Correct.

There's only, that I can think of, it's just a specter property and this property because further north they're not that deep. The only other property that I could think of that's large like that has 300. Is Sunnyland that deep? Sunnyland is that deep.

Yeah, Captain's Tavern property.

Sunnyland would be, yeah. No, but Captain's Tavern is not on a corner. Right, so that one wouldn't work. So it would be the Sunnyland Shopping Center.

So Sunnyland, Spectre, and University of Miami.

Sunnyland already has two large signs actually on the S1.

What do you guys think?

I think that, Mr. Mayor, that since it's probably a small number of cases, I'd rather not have it part of the code here, but they come before the council or zoning board. to be able to detail out what their plan is, where the sign would be, what it would look like, and then make that case-by-case decision. I think that'd be a little better served if we really wanna minimize signs. I know we're having people take down signs that are a little bit too big. So I'd rather be able to look at it and see, yes, and look at something and say, that makes perfect sense, let's approve it, it looks nice, it serves a purpose, versus this, which,

Is there a way to do that in the site planning process and not require variance and the extra money and time that it requires?

I mean, you could allow for this option as an alternative subject to review and approval of a site plan by the village council.

Yeah, that would make sense. That way they don't have to ask for variance after the fact. And timing and everything. And timing and the money that it costs to do a variance could cost them. That seems reasonable. Right, it's fair.

So this would then be an additional option for an applicant is what I'm understanding.

If they meet these parameters.

Okay. My only concern is maybe we can rework the language a little bit. I fear there's a little ambiguity about the spacing if the two signs are on separate streets, meaning the code used to provide that the spacing needed to be equal to 15% of the total amount of frontage on both streets. If you had a sign on... each respective street. However, the way this reads now, it only considers the spacing if two signs are on one street. So I think maybe we can rework it. I'm happy to assist in doing that where it's clear that spacing requirement applies even if the two signs are not on the same frontage.

But would we be making this part of the code change or we would not and it would just the change would be that they would be allowed

You would be making a code change, but it would specifically say subject to approval in the site plan process.

In addition to what is already there.

Thank you. I think what we're saying is they'll have one sign as of right, a second sign would require council approval through the site planning process after a public hearing.

Right.

But max two signs total. Max two signs total. Right, just moving it from one frontage side to the other one, provided their length is long enough, there's enough space.

Well, currently they're allowed two signs if they have the right dimensions, 300 feet by 300 feet. They're allowed two detached signs one on each street and we'd leave all this language intact and just add what it what we did we'd allow for the proposed amendment here subject to review and approval by the village council with site plan review i think so yes mr proctor do you want to comment

Good morning, Jerry Proctor, 7600 Red Road. Thank you for the opportunity to appear again. I think you've framed it very well. We just want to have the ability to come in front of the council and show you a particular spacing of signs. The number, as the mayor stated, does not go up. The size does not go up. The height does not go up. Your code really doesn't change in those significant ways. This, in certain circumstances, probably not just ours, but not widespread either, allows commercial developments to have their signage on US 1 and not on side streets. That's really the practical. implication I think that you will review case by case is that some of the signage not necessarily all of it but some of the signage will come off of your secondary streets and go on to the main corridor so I think it from a practical sense I hope that you'll agree I certainly don't have any objection to the wording that you're talking about. Because anything that's 300 by 300 or more is going to come in front of you for a public hearing for site plan approval. Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions on that one?

All right. The next change is the change to the school banners using language that was proposed by Council Member Greenberg. So it'd be page seven, I think, of your handout. So the maximum display area of 128 square feet would be eliminated. Instead, it would allow for banners to be displayed so that the fence or green covering remains visible, but would otherwise allow for those fences adjacent to a street to be covered in banners, provided a portion of the fence was still visible. And then the other change with school banners is that rather than requiring a no-fee permit, we just require the school to submit a letter acknowledging the village's banner sign regulations and agreeing that any signs in violation would be removed by the school upon request by the village. The other change is eliminating the size and location requirement. The maximum vertical dimension of any display area is four feet. That would be eliminated.

How do you define ample? Yes.

Well, I thought there was a, wasn't there a separate, I saw in one of the drafts that there was something saying that there would be, and Esther can jump in because I know I like it, something that there would be 24 inches between signs, or there was something along those lines that I saw. Yeah.

I wrote the language, and I used your email that you sent to me.

Yeah, and then after that, there was a, just because on that question, and thank you for that, Steve, but there was a suggestion that, you know, maybe to define the ample, because I think it's, you're spot on.

We can do that. And then it says banners may be displayed from August 15th to June 15th, so they'd be required to be removed a week. outside of the school year. And distracting colors and designs would be precluded, and all signs would have to be consistent with the appearance standards of the church or school.

What I had, oh.

No, go ahead.

Sorry. I thought it came from you, Esther. I'm giving you credit. It said, banners shall, this is on the ample issue. It said, banners shall be spaced at a minimum separation of 24 inches from each other to allow for visual clearance. So that was the, that put some, and then that combined with the general four by eight component would keep it so that There would be ample space side to side, but also there would be ample space top to bottom because of the four by eight. And just so you know, I'm having this EAC special meeting tomorrow just to go over this with the schools to see if there's any tweaks. But the hope is to, this has been vetted with folks from the high school, which is generally the one where the issues are most prevalent.

Do you want to add 24-inch spacing between the panels?

Yeah, and I got this in an email. I can hand you what we had, but I thought this was good.

I have a question, because this also affects church properties, and so we're limiting that they can't have anything over the summer at all. What if they were going to have a festival or something like that that they want to, or some special, not that it comes to mind, but any... holy days or whatever, are we then limiting their ability of putting anything over the summer months?

It certainly wasn't the intent. I don't know if we want to say, I guess there's two ways to do it, and maybe this applies at the schools too. I don't know if we want to say that in the summer, whereas during the school year, we're saying you don't need advanced permission. Do you want to make it that anything in the summer is by request or...

But what about, so this is, what about for churches though? Because are you just, is this only if the church has a school?

No, you bring up a good point. These regulations apply to the PS public service zoning district, which includes schools. Right. And so this would preclude churches from having advertising events during the summer, and I don't think that's the intent.

I don't think that's intent, because I know that Christ the King, for example, has that banner that they have out there and stuff, and they put stuff out there all the time. So I think we need to. Tweet that.

I think in the same language that I have in this phantom draft here, it says instead of defining it as June 15 to August 15, it says banners are prohibited from being displayed during summer recess. I think if there's that language, that's a term that applies to the schools. So I would think that could be read or maybe tweaked slightly. So the churches, since they don't have a summer recess. I don't know if we could get away with saying school banners. Banners can't be at the schools during summer recess. And then the religious institutions that don't have them don't have a summer recess. I think there's probably a way to word that.

I think summer recess is probably pretty OK. That's what we said first.

That still presents a problem for schools. Do you have something there to point out?

Yeah, this was a.

Yes, I don't know if .

I sent the email with the general concepts. Then I got that from Esther with some specific wording that I liked. The concept's the same.

We'll make those changes, though, to make sure churches can display banners during the school year.

I mean, as long as the banners are somewhat tasteful, I think there's a wording here that basically says that distracting colors and designs shall be precluded and all signs shall maintain a consistent appearance at each church or school. Why are we worried about restricting summer time from having banners put up? Why is that a big deal?

Just during the school year, if the banners are left up on the fences when school is out, they don't really, it's just a way to help. restore the appearance during the summer months and give the residents who have to look at it a break. Understanding that it's probably not necessary for them to continue to advertise throughout the summer. It's a fundraiser for schools during the school year.

probably a good way to go out with the old and in with the new as well kind of forces some housekeeping on signage as far as the churches are concerned do we word it like school related signage because i don't think it's fair for say my church to put out a school banner during the summer when the schools can't i think the content is you can't stay away from

then is the play, because I agree with the outfield and with the new concept, but is the play then, is it better just to eliminate the summer restriction overall? I mean, because if we can't, because I think it's a fair point. We don't want the schools, I mean, I can think of a specific issue where they're allowed at, say, a school that's located in a synagogue that's across from a public school, and then the public school has to take them down, but the school across the street can have them up, I think people will be concerned. So I wonder if we should just... Yeah, I just had a specific example in mind, but you're right. You're absolutely right. So maybe we eliminate the year restriction. There's also, to the concern about things getting sort of ratty and gross over the summer, there still is, because that is a concern, right? The school year ends, the PTAs are between administrations, this thing just sits there and it's ugly. But we have restrictions in there that they can't get. Grows have to look nice. So I think we're covered by that.

What is a distracting color? Which one is that?

Red. Red is distracting? Yeah. What did you think?

I'd like to know who's going to make that decision. To me, I love red.

But if you had like a totally red banner with white letters, you don't think that would be distracting as people are driving by?

It might be attractive, but I don't know. But I think it's subjective.

It's objective, I guess, if you put a certain, like who decides whether something is, right.

We have some architectural design standards that we apply. And it's just to make sure that the signs are aesthetically appealing and not offensive in color. And there can be some offensive designs in colors. And it's subjective. Totally subject to review by the administrative official or the village manager.

The thing is we're trying to get away from them having to come to us or even permit. So I would just not even worry about it.

Do you allow a simple permit for the summertime months? Like if somebody's got a festival, they send in the letter to the village saying it's going to go up this date, come down this date, and it's about a festival?

I think if it's a festival issue, we could deal with it like a special event kind of banner situation. This isn't that, I think this is meant to be just sponsorship type thing.

I love the idea that we're gonna allow schools to do more of this. And I think that's great. I think it's a great idea to have it taken down at the end of the school year and whatever they wanna put back up, it's a good way to keep science from just staying up forever. that no longer apply perhaps. But as far as this summer period where some other, even a school may have something going on it would like to advertise for a period of time.

Summer camp or something like that.

Right, so how do we allow that to occur?

Well that's what we were talking about doing away with the date restrictions. So it would be allowed throughout the entire year. And the question now was, what's an offensive kind of color?

Do we have a color code for houses?

Not a color code, not a color palette, no. But there are some colors that we would object to.

If I may, just to clarify, do you prefer to keep the original, that it's limited, that the display of a banner is limited to 90 days, rather than this carve-out? Or do you want to remove this entirely?

I was just... Yeah, the 90 days was problematic for the schools. By the way, I mean, we could put something in. We could say... We could limit the duration to 10 months or something, which does correspond with the school year. The 90 days was a problem because they do like to have things up for the whole year. But what if we say there was time restriction of 10 months or even 12 months? I mean, that at least prevents the perpetual signage from being there. Does anyone have a? I think that's fine with the schools.

I think that's a good suggestion, so long as it's not less than 90 days. I don't see an issue with that. But it could give you, to your point, the same effect of having some sort of insurance that nothing is there all year round for multiple years.

I like that. And I think that addresses your issue now with the old and with the new.

So nine months or 10 months? It's a little bit awkward enforcement, perhaps, because when did they go up? Who's keeping track of all that?

I agree, but I actually think it's easier. The 90 days, it's almost impossible. I think if something's up there for over a year, over 10 months, there'll be enough photos and whatever else if it's really a problem. So I agree with you. It's a little awkward, but it's better. I would suggest if we're going to do that, we do... 10 months because that covers a full school year. Unless you want to say a year, I don't care.

Well, we have two month gap written right now.

Right, so if we make it a 10 month.

Yes, I think maybe just for further clarity, rather than 10 months, we can put something like 300 days. Would you be comfortable with that? Just so that it's clear, the timeline, because months vary in amount of days.

Sure. Great. So for what it's worth, I think all of this is unnecessary as long as the signs have some sort of fit or profile as a village. And maybe we should define what that is. Maybe it's defining a certain range of colors, et cetera. Then everything else just adds bureaucracy, paperwork, the need for oversight that I don't think anyone's going to execute, the schools. It is against their own interest to leave a banner up there for three years and not touch it, unless they're getting something for it. And we're trying to over-police, I think, this situation, in my mind, which is just simplify it. What we want is something that doesn't look terrible, doesn't look bad. We don't want signs that are all of different colors that just cheapen the perspective of our village. or the image of our village. But other than that, I don't know why we need to get into so much regulation, definitions, and most importantly, who's gonna oversee this to make sure this is happening? It's like, I don't think it's necessary. We're overstepping.

There's no application required now in the proposed revision, and these regulations are just designed to make sure that we maintain some semblance of order and aesthetic appeal adjacent, on the fences adjacent to the schools. there was a big outcry from the public at one point in time when they came and complained that's how we got to these regulations in the first place because schools were putting banners everywhere and neighbors found it to be offensive. And so we adopted these regulations to allow for them in a controlled manner. And I think what you're doing here is gonna make it easier to enforce and easier on the schools and a little bit more relaxed in terms of what they can do.

If we went just with the two months as originally put on this change, could there be an application to put up something during the two months? I mean, we're not talking about many instances. I understand what you're thinking is Council Member Meyer, but I'm just thinking if there's four churches and...

It's not an application, though. Remember, they're not applying. So they're sending in a request or an FYI.

Who's going to look at it and say no? We don't think it's appropriate.

We're not, though.

That's the point.

So then why are we even imposing it?

Because the issue, the reason for that is we can't simply say, we have to have some standard. Look, again, I mean, I'm the proponent of giving them as much as we possibly can here, but we do have to have some standard. And the standard can't simply be we have to like it or it has to be consistent with village character because that's vague. And it's going to lead to both uncertainty and constitutional challenges. This, to me, is the equivalent of a time, place, and manner restriction. I don't know if that's the term that's used here. But the only thing we can regulate, and I think even color starts to get tricky because we have to really start defining them. To me, the only thing we can regulate is the size, like we're doing, and some sort of restriction on when they can be there. Again, I'm fine if the consensus was to say, We don't need a time restriction. I'm certainly fine with it. But I think if we want something, this would prevent us from having. There are some places that put signs up. I can think of one. And it just happens to be a place I go a lot, one of the religious institutions that has had some signs up, I think, for years on end. And if we want to prevent that, I think this allows it. I mean, listen, I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying. We don't want to be policing this too much. But to me, this is the minimum that we can do to have some restriction without getting into content, which I think is too dicey.

Because I think it's easy for code compliance to say those signs are gone June through August. They don't have to go around looking up to see when the sign went up. They know when all signs should be down. I think that gives a refresh to the schools, too. I think it's actually probably helpful to them. to force that issue.

Then we would allow churches to display banners during the summer months, perhaps.

We can't distinguish, right, between churches and things. So I think the way to do it is that during the summer, then you just require a permit.

But I think, or we just accomplish it by saying you can't have a sign up for more than 10 months whenever it is. Because I don't think the goal here is to say we want sign-free summers. It's more just say we don't want stuff there forever. So to me, rather than, OK, in the summer you have to get a permit, if you want to put a sign up in July and have it down in six months later, I don't really care, right? I think the issue is we just want to have some removal at some point so they're not permanent.

So again, it's an odd to those neighbors that get tired of the sign clutter. And so if it does come down for a couple of months, to me that seems easier to watch. then just make this, I think the two months in the summer makes sense because school's not in session. Number one.

It's the churches that are the issue.

Right, but the churches could put a permit. They're going to have a special event. They do a simple permit and code compliance knows that it's there and they know it's gone and that's it.

Does that make sense, Esther? Like what are you seeing?

unless we start making everybody put dates on the banner, like we put in the state that we're all getting out of our vehicles and checking the sign, it would be difficult. I do not see an issue with it being all year around. In this way, we wouldn't have to worry about between churches and schools. And we also look proactively. If we see a sign that's torn or it's starting to fade, we write up the school. This would be part of their affidavit that they would sign yearly. I feel like we're going to struggle with them turning in a permit over the summer months, and we're going to be spending most of those summer months trying to get them to get a permit, and by the time the summer months have gone, it's back to allowing permits.

We're not asking for permit applications.

Right, but there was a point we were talking about maybe during the two months.

For the churches, right. Well, I think that if you do it so that we just can't leave signs up that start looking like faded and tattered, whatever. The one thing that I'm not seeing here is, and maybe I'm wrong, but would you, for example, with Palmetto High School, would you allow banners to wrap around the entire field and be there year round, or are you limiting?

That would be allowed with the 24 inches of separation.

So technically, they would be able to do it across the entire field, around the entire length of the thing.

And as we talked about last time, I mean, technically, yes. I think they would be unlikely to, given the, as they've acknowledged too, they don't want to be, the value in these is not an oversaturation. But I think it's hard to figure out how else we would restrict that.

Match the school colors. Yeah. So maybe consistent with school colors or neutral black and whites or something like that.

Yeah, I think as long as it says predominantly consistent. For example, there was an issue at Pinecrest Elementary where they got something from the school system that had a puzzle-type thing on it. Part of it was multiple colors. I think we don't want to be absurd.

All of those signs are uniform in appearance at the schools except for the Silver Knights banners, and they're all consistent in terms of their color and appearance. And the intent is to make sure we don't have a commercial environment, really. It's just intended to advertise the events at the school and serve as a fundraising mechanism.

Thank you. With this in mind, does anybody still really want me to go back and speak to the EAC about this? Or how about if I share, would people be okay if I shared the concept with them and elicited feedback from them and told them they could come back? I think we've spent, people are giving this consideration. I definitely want to get their feedback, but I know there was a request that we meet with them. Does anybody?

I wouldn't mind you asking them, especially about coming down during the summer months. I really think the neighbors, the people that live here, might like that little bit of break, and it forces the schools to be more in control of their banners. I don't think there's a negative side to the two months.

Listen, I think there's zero negative downside, and I think the schools will be fine with it. And I will talk to them. I'll keep them to me. It's the church. It's the religious institutions that may care, but... Daniel, I'm fine with that.

I think that's a summer festival, a white elephant sale. It's going to be something like that. A special event, Tanner. The churches are going to be doing it.

Is the EAC meeting tomorrow?

We're having a Zoom just to talk about this.

So I'll revise this language and email it to you this afternoon. That'd be perfect.

And I'll let you know if they have any issues. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

OK, and then the other change to the signage is Councilmember Greenberg is requesting an increase in the size of political signs from six square feet to 12 square feet.

Within the 90s. So the, and I discussed this with Susan Trevarthen from ,, who's the sign guru. and the notion is this would just be in the 90 days prior to, it would actually be worded, I thought the wording was 90 days prior to any election. The idea is I think that our, and I had a number of complaints about this from people before I was on the council during the last big election cycle, that the six square feet we have is very restrictive. It basically means two or three signs, and when we have situations like we did in 2020, for example, where there are multiple elections on multiple levels. We now have all these additional county offices that are getting elected. Some years, we have none. Some years, we have multiple Pinecrest elections. At least for the time being, we have presidential ones. And I think that we want the ability for people to express themselves in that window before an election. When I say we, I do. But that's one that I just asked them to come up with language what we could do if there was an appetite on the council for this. I could understand either way.

I was hoping I could put up four by six signs for my re-election campaign.

You can, but you're going to have trucks and a boat parade. That's true.

So you're saying total signage on a lot, not a, what about the size of an individual sign?

My understanding from speaking to legal counsel is the restriction, really the only way to do it legally, constitutionally, right, is as an aggregate of signed space, not individual sign. There may be a separate thing as to that, but.

No, that's correct. After the Reed v. Gilbert case, the United States Supreme Court case, dealing with these types of temporary signs, it's an aggregate square footage, and the property owner can choose how many signs they want to post within that aggregate square footage. So that's... was the compromise language.

So in this language, we could put a three by four sign up.

No, you could, but I think you'd have one sign.

But you'd have one sign. Correct. And if you wanted multiple signs, you'd have to put the smaller yard signs up.

It's forcing the homeowner to make the choice or the property owner to make the choice.

And three by four is harder to steal because you're running around. It's a lot bigger. It's harder to get in the car right away. Three by four is like a little billboard. Are you sure you want to allow that?

I don't.

I mean... But if you can't restrict the size of an individual sign... You don't have a choice. You still can, though, right?

You can. You just have to choose. So the typical, like, historically political sign, I think, was like 22 by 28 inches or something like that, which is the ones that you, you know, stick. So you could have multiple of those that would add up to now 12 square feet. You could have one sign that's 12 square feet. You could have, you know... It's just telling you that your overall amount of signage that you're allowed during this period.

But we could restrict the maximum individual sign size.

Sign size?

As part of the aggregate.

Oh, aggregate? Like no sign shall be larger than 22. What is the typical one? The typical, I believe, is like 22 by 28. I believe that's how it historically was.

Could we say individual signs not being larger than?

The issue with that is, I mean, and we can look at it, but then as Council Member Greenberg said, if you have multiple races, then you may not be able to express yourself in every race. But you'd still have the aggregate. Correct, but I mean, if you say that

No individual sign should be larger than blank, because otherwise you're having billboards in front of people's homes. I don't know that we want to do that.

I mean, I guess that's their choice. We can look at it.

Yeah, I imagine, and I would defer, of course, to Susan and your team, but I would imagine constitutionally you could say the aggregate can't be more than 12 feet, but no individual sign could be larger than, say, 35.

I believe we've done that before, post-Reed v. Gilbert. We can look at it. What number would you guys want so we can go back and just?

I wouldn't go bigger than the standard political yard sign because I think it actually becomes a liability, a danger. If you have these huge signs and children running, like Vice Mayor Fairman said, children running out from behind them or something, plus it blocks your vision of oncoming cars. I mean, I don't think we need to go bigger unless we are required.

The standard yard sign has been fine for Pinecrest, correct? Yeah. But just allowing more of that.

To ring that narrow window, allowing more. That's the only motivation here. And I think it's not to cause clutter. It's just in that window to allow a little bit more. And I don't know. Whatever the standard sign is, I'm guessing, do you happen to know?

I don't know, but I can look real quick. I'm pretty sure, my recollection is that it was historically, like I said, I think it was like 22 by 28 inches. Do we have any downstairs? We can verify.

None of mine.

I'm impressed that you don't have it memorized. Council Member. Hopefully, hopefully.

So for what it's worth, I think it's just better to standardize the size and be more flexible in the quantity than begin to open up the size thing. Then we're gonna find ourselves in situations where people use the large sign and exceed the 12 square foot limitation and then have a large sign and four other small ones. It becomes a mess. I think it's one standard size, but let's just be more flexible in the quantities.

And they are 18 by 24. 18 by 24? Correct.

That'd be my two cents on this.

So the maximum size of any individual sign would be 18 by 24, but you could have... The maximum of 12 square feet. Which is what? A foot and a half.

That's what I'm seeing here. But you know what? Would it be all right with everybody if I circle back to Mr. Olmsted and give him the exact dimensions? I think it is 18 by 24.

That's three square feet. So you could put up four signs with the rule the way it's written.

That's three and a half square feet.

I'm sorry to make y'all do math.

One and a half by two is... Look, that's totally fine.

Again, I'm not trying to... No, I understand.

We want to allow more signs for four signs.

Four signs of that size seems to me like it accomplishes what we're...

for the standard size? Yeah.

I mean, I don't think you need to have 20. And that's a lot easier to just oversee.

Like, how many signs are there? One, two, three. But if you need to start then estimating square footage, because now you have different size. Let's just keep it simple, but achieve the same goal if we can.

I think you still need a maximum footage, right? Because that's under the way that the Supreme Court came down, right? In other words, you could have a number of smaller sign. We're getting esoteric here, but I mean, right?

This was a solution to the Supreme Court decision was to create a maximum square footage and allowing the property owner just to choose within that. That was the solution to dealing with these non-commercial temporary signs.

Okay, so the issue is that We want to achieve allowing people to be able to have more signs, but not billboards.

I think we understand the issue. Let us come back, and we will try to address the concern. I think we get it.

Otherwise, we leave it the way it was.

Yeah, I mean, you don't want to have like one 12th, don't know, three by four sign. You would prefer it to be letting people have multiple signs.

Mr. Mayor. Those larger signs, then they're typically going to be plywood and they're going to have to be anchored and cemented in and cause all kinds of problems.

Mr. Mayor, are you impressed on how this council can dig deep into any subject?

I'm loving it. It's great. During political season, all the rules get thrown out the window. It becomes a disaster anyway.

So what I'd like to do now, if it's okay with the village council, is to go to page 33, which is starting at the beginning of the land development regulations, and finish the land development regulations, and then we can go back to the beginning of the book and deal with other sections of the code of ordinances.

Excellent. 33 it is. Land development regulations. Ta-da.

We did some of these, didn't we?

If we want to go to page one, I'm sorry, 38. So we've got appeals from decisions of the zoning board and the change here is rather than a tie vote. I think that's page 35, Mr. Olmsted.

Steve, would you mind just starting at 34 with the yellow marks just to just quickly go through those?

So page 34. The Robert's Rules of Order.

Most recent.

That seems obvious. We're just referencing the most current edition rather than the 1990 version of Robert's Rules of Order. We're just referring to the most recent edition to make sure we're always using the most current edition.

On page 35, Steve, there's where it says lot size restrictions. That's been taken out. What about height limitations? I didn't know that zoning could authorize a one or two story house to go higher than the code allows.

That's the way it's written now. And that's concerning, because I know that height and lot size are really very important to the character of the village of Pinecrest. And to think that the zoning board could issue a variance for a six story building.

I think maybe you can limit the height to no more than a blank amount above the existing, you know, because it really is a design issue, whether it's a pitched type, you know, roof and stuff like that, where you want potentially architecturally a little wiggle room there. But yeah, you definitely don't want them to be able to come in and, and go beyond whatever

I mean, if the board can't do something about lot size, I don't think they should be allowed to go above our height restrictions.

but we've had instances before where we had to deal with like the Lexus dealership, right?

Yeah, so in order for zoning codes to be constitutional, need to allow for variances to all of the regulations. So we have a very stringent requirements in our code that it has to be a hardship. So if they were to come before us, we'd look at it. And we have had circumstances, I think what the mayor is saying, where the way we measure height, I think it's, what is it, Rolling Rocks Road, was that it, Steve? Where the road actually curved down in front of the home, which prevented the home from having to have a normal height, because you're measuring it from that point, so we allowed for those. I don't know if you guys understand what I'm saying.

So then why strike out lot size restrictions? Well, on page 35. Why strike that out?

The reasoning behind that was that somebody can't say, well, a minimum of one acre is required for lot sizes in the EU1 district, and they apply for variance. To allow for half-acre lots.

Yeah, I think that's different than your typical setback open space because we have lot sizes. They're all parceled out at this point.

And you can split a lot if you wanted to. You could fit the parameters. Correct.

So I don't know if you needed to. Okay.

Another thing is you don't want these rules to get antiquated over time and then have future council be hamstrung by some arcane rule that we put on them. You absolutely can't do any of this stuff like no height limitations. Lexus needed to go a handful of feet over the limit but there's an extremes, you could give somebody an extra floor, but that's up to the elected people at the time to make those decisions.

I just don't know enough about the history, so I like finding out where this is coming from a little bit, just to get a clear understanding.

I'm just concerned that somebody could come and ask for a variance for very small-sized lots, and I think that's something that should be controlled through the plan for... the zoning district. If somebody wants to apply for a zoning district change and a map amendment, et cetera, that's one process that's available to them. And that's a lengthy process that requires review and approval by the village council. And I'm much more comfortable with that process than allowing the zoning board to grant variance for small lots when a certain size is otherwise required.

Yeah, I think if you change the zoning, if you change the lot size outside, you're almost changing zoning through variance. Spot on.

I think that's the issue. The issue is the way that our zoning code is set, that you're effectively backdooring or rezoning by doing that, and that's why Steve's doing that. Because our zoning districts are based upon minimum lot sizes. One acre, 15,000 square feet, half acre, that type of thing.

Moving on to page 38.

So we'll leave height limitations in as a?

Yes.

Okay. So moving on to page 38. Saying an appeal of a decision of the zoning board shall not require payment of an application fee. And somewhere in here, I haven't, I'm trying to find it, but there's a section in the code that we're proposing to change where if the zoning board reaches a, or if there's a tie vote on the zoning board, that would be considered a denial instead of leaving the property owner in limbo and requiring them to come to the village council. And so in the event that an appeal is required, I think there was previous discussion and recommendation that they not be required to pay an application fee.

Any objection to that?

Not from me.

Okay, moving on. I just quickly, Steve, the letter of intent public hearing and application fee, that already exists, correct? Is that already the process under 3.9 subsection D1?

Yes, we already require, I mean, a letter of intent and an application and an application fee, but it's not specified within here, so we're just making that clear.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, then on page 41, there's been, this would be a topic of discussion, recommendation that we provide incentives to property owners to not build a fence along the front street of their property. A six foot wall, for example, we're allowing for an additional 5% of building coverage if they agree not to. build a wall or a continuous hedge adjacent to the front of their property or the side street. And we'd require them to record a covenant on a form approved by the village attorney.

Covenants are only good for how long, Chad? 20 years, 30, 40?

Typically, the covenants say they're required for 30 years, and then they get automatically renewed every 10 years. There is a concern with MARTA, which is a procedure under Florida law which can wipe out covenants. However, if they're imposed in a proper way as part of a proper zoning process, they can stay in effect.

So can they stay in effect in perpetuity, or do they have to come back up after a certain time frame?

No, they can stay in effect in perpetuity if they're done in the appropriate way. This is also a bonus, right? So I think that in order for them to want to keep the bonus, we're going to require this to be a bonus.

So if somebody comes in for an addition to the house, at that point, we would not allow it? Because they would have already availed themselves of the extra 5% on the first floor.

If they're exceeding the proper, you know, the max. Yes.

The open space requirements. Okay.

All right. Now, we've had people that have said, you know, forget about the bonus. Fine. I'll just rip it out. Forget about the bonus. I don't want to do this. We've had a couple of, not in this circumstance, but in others where they were like, forget about it. We don't want the covenant and they just rip it out. We've had like two of those at least.

Where they tear down extra.

Yeah, they have approved plans and then they're like, we don't want to do a covenant. So it's kind of like they don't want us to confirm that it's going to stay this way. So we're like, well, you have to have it. So then they rip out what they were going to build you.

Any objection to any of this language?

A little bit. I think a four-foot continuous hedge is almost the same thing as the wall. So I would like to strike a continuous hedge at any height as a condition or as an allowance.

Mr. Mayor, the height.

I just think the whole concept from my perspective is that we're trying to Keep Pinecrest kind of the open neighborhood, incentivize the open neighborhood look of Pinecrest, the parts that still have it. And if you allow any kind of continuous hedge, whether it's three feet, four feet, kind of defeats that purpose. So that would be something I would suggest that we eliminate that. The other thing I don't understand is the front or side street property line. they get to pick and choose, or how does that?

No, that's applicable to corner lots, right? So people tend to, if you live on the corner lot.

So it should be front and side instead of front or side? Because the language says front or side street property.

Right, so you would allow a wall or a hedge on, like most people, for example.

So it would be front on a non-corner lot, front and side on a corner lot.

Would you not allow it on the side on a corner lot at all?

Well, if the intent is to get rid of fences to prevent the canyonization or enclosure of these properties, then it would also apply to the side if that's what the village council wants to do.

Okay, I would caution that because you have the requirement to keep pools enclosed, so... I would suggest that you can't have it beyond the front wall of a home on the side. On the side lot. Correct. On a corner side lot. On a corner. In other words, you can't wrap it around the entire property, but you definitely want to allow for you to be able to have it so long it doesn't extend beyond the front wall of the home.

That sounds appropriate.

This is only about bonuses, right? Yes. We allow this stuff to the owner now, right?

Right, yes, this would be a bonus, an incentive to the property owner.

But yeah, my concern was if you don't allow it at all, then you can't secure a pool, right? Okay, so we need to make that little change, okay. 44.

It goes on. And it repeats it through the various districts. So we would fix that issue.

Just a question. And by the way, I think this is the right way to go. This makes neighborhoods safer, actually, when things are more visible than when they're gated. contrary to what is the public perception. So, and there's research on that, so anybody that is in the mood, they can actually do that research. But, this is, can we have dual language so that moving forward, if there is indeed new development, that we introduce these conditions for new development? Because this I think applies to OK, you're in a house already, or you're doing some renovation project while you're at it. If you get rid of this and that, you can do more cool things in your property. That's the incentive piece of it, because it's already there. But for new development, can we consider having language that basically says the same thing without the incentive? Because basically, it's new development. Therefore, our code has evolved, and we don't want you to have a wall or a hedge or these things.

So this would apply for new development. It wouldn't apply if somebody comes in asking to build an addition. Well, OK.

unless they're looking for a bonus. It only applies to the bonus.

If they wanted a bonus, then they could.

A bonus beyond, in other words, where we shrink the open space requirement by 5%, in other words. Right, correct.

But I think what you're asking for is to eliminate walls

So where the walls already exist, I think we need to have an incentive. You can't go back and say, okay, now we don't want the walls. You have to tear all this out. So we're going to give you an incentive to get rid of them, which is this one. When there's new development, I just don't think that there needs to be an incentive. I think our coach would say you cannot develop with a wall or a hedge or this or that without the incentive.

Around the entire problem? back and sides.

Except for pool periods.

As we're describing here. Just the same way we're describing the incentive. Just the front. I don't know. I'm putting it on the table. The incentive works for when the structure's already there. And we want people that are already living in that property to say, OK, get rid of this, and maybe you can do other things with your property. But when there's new development, why do we need an incentive and why not just say we don't want to build a wall? I think it's incentive for new development, right?

It's to tell a developer you can build 5% more if you don't do the wall. So it is also a new construction incentive.

Right. But what he's suggesting is that when somebody comes in to build a new home on a vacant lot, that they not be allowed to build a wall in the front. Right.

I think language consistent with this one, which basically not allow for any.

I would love that, but I think the cat's out of the bag on this one. That would be tough to go back so many people. I love the idea that we're trying to incentivize it because I think we are somewhat restricted because we've allowed so much of this to go on. I like the incentive. I'd also like to look at areas like people put up the walls. And I've noticed this a lot. We allow these three foot solid and three foot where you can see through for a purpose, right? But then they're putting hedges that are going up six, eight feet and you can't see through. So it's completely defeating the purpose of our wall regulations. And I think we should address that as well.

So the hedge height... is an issue i've noticed some of the houses they just hedge it all in and then you can't even see in um so the hedge material i don't know i mean like you you see it like patsy britt's house we just put in that high hedge so you know i caution only because some people want to have their homes secured and i don't know you know i know what you guys are dealing with.

Give them even more than 5%? Because 5% is pretty significant.

I think it's worth a lot of money to a homeowner.

Right, but if you're gonna give them that we want that open space So that's what I'm thinking not even a four-foot hedge because if you're gonna line a hedge right at the property line You're kind of defeating the purpose. Don't give them the five. Don't give her five percent.

Yeah, it's a visibility thing, right?

So right now They get 5% if they decide not to build a wall going across the core front or down the side on a corner lot and And the purpose of that is to leave us the open character of Pinecrest. If you say you can do that, but we'll allow you to put up a four-foot hedge, then you're breaking the purpose of having an open lot. So there would be no hedge that you could put in.

Well, remember, four feet.

is pretty high. Is it really?

You have to agree to remove the privacy wall fence or the hedge.

That's right.

You can't have the hedge.

That exceeds four feet in height. There shouldn't be a barrier if you're going to give them 5%. Just no barrier, because it's the same thing like these walls that were half.

I don't think there's a barrier. Four feet is not even...

I wasn't going there, but councilmember Greenberg might not see over the four-foot hedge. What I'm saying is that we're well, there's two things I said number one this we have this open wall and

that says you can build a wall in your front, three foot's gonna be solid, the rest has to be open, where you can see through it. People are getting around that by putting a hedge behind it or in front of it that goes up six plus feet, and you can't see anything anyhow. So if we're gonna give them 5% buildable coverage, more additional coverage on their lot, We're saying no such barriers. In my opinion, that's what we're saying. We're saying no such barriers. So you're going to have an open lot. Whether it's wooded like mine or open like a lot of other people's, it's an open lot. There's going to be no defined barrier between the public and their house.

Isn't yours effectively a barrier?

Right, my big wooded lot, correct. I mean, you can't see my house, but there's no defined barrier.

What's the difference?

I don't know. Is there a difference between that and a wall?

I think the difference is a structural issue, Mayor.

So I say there's no difference between a wall and a hedge, a continuous hedge. I'm saying those are equivalently the same.

The goal is the same, right? Somebody will work around it, not build a wall, just put trees up and...

Well, that would...

It's not everybody's taste, but it's not a barrier.

Well, that wasn't my goal, but yes. But it doesn't give me any additional... It gives me some privacy, I guess, but it doesn't...

It's not a linear barrier... So what if I did a non-linear hedge?

Well, those are all good. It's just kind of like this wall code that we have that's been defeated by people who put a hedge in front of it. I mean, it was a nice code. It was a great idea.

It's like somebody builds a wall for all that money and puts a hedge in front of it. It makes no sense, right? But when you put a hedge behind it.

Right. But they want people not to see it.

So why don't we just limit it to no visual obstruction over 480?

I think you're arguing the fact that four feet is too high. My argument is that four feet is a good compromise because almost everybody from the street can see over four feet. Nearly everybody from the street can see over four feet. You're still open. You've got this linear barrier in front. I'm afraid that if you eliminate it altogether, people might say, screw it, I'm just going to not take 5% and build my wall.

Well, they may, but if they say I get 5% and I can just put up a hedge, it's really an effect, a wall. And by the way, that will get to be six feet because I'm going to grow it.

But we'd say only four.

Right. I think that goes against the intent of why we would give them the 5%. But there are some definitions.

It's over the four feet.

Somewhat, but it's still a pretty, four foot's a pretty significant barrier. And it becomes an enforcement issue, you know, looking at the properties that have covenants and making sure their hedge doesn't grow over four feet.

It's too much. There's two things here. Number one, I would suggest that the canyon issue that we're talking about is really based on things that are not green, you know, native. Living things I think the wall, the walls are really what we were trying to avoid the walling in effect and all these gates right people. In the case where they get and avail themselves of the 5% increase, I do believe that we should prohibit them from even putting in a hedge because they've availed themselves of this additional square footage. But I think it would be difficult to go back with people currently that have hedges and now just disallow a certain height. We already have a height restriction, but we... How many, 14 feet? Yeah. So I caution because it's, from an enforcement perspective, that will become an issue. Because some people just do want that privacy and they don't want to pay for a wall. They'd rather just have a hedge, you know. But at least it's green and it doesn't look, it's not that, you know.

But they won't get the 5%.

They won't get the 5%, right. So I think it's okay to prohibit it even in the... you know, when they have this 5% thing.

So we can take out the continuous hedge.

And they would be able to still hedge in the back, like from the rear. So if they wanted privacy, they would have it for their rear yard. Get me? Like where they have, they just won't have it in the front.

So then the question is, do you want to prohibit fences in the front and walls and hedges for new construction, not provide an incentive? I would love to, but I don't think we can do it. I don't.

There's no, I don't believe, I'm seeing three nos.

What is, why not? What's the rationale for why not? Is it a concern of, on property values, that it might lower the value of properties if we have that restriction?

I'll tell you, my immediate thought is simply, it's, something I'm happy to discuss. To me, this is an incentive to me is easy because it's totally optional. I just have concerns about regulating it too much. I think there are people who want it. I think there can be value. But for me, the immediate reason is I think that's something that I would like to have more debate, discussion, analysis of over time. And it's a lot more complicated and tricky a question than an incentive. And I think in the spirit of trying to get something done and moving, I'm all for including this in here. But to me, a ban on it is just a much bigger topic than for right now. That's my thinking.

My thoughts are similar. I mean, I think the incentive to incentivize what this council wants, I think, is appropriate. I don't think we can legislate taste or style. I don't like architectural review boards. I don't like paint colors. materials that we have to have on a home or any of those things, I think you've got to let the homeowner express themselves the way they want to. And I would prefer to, if they want a wall, within reason, what we decide is wall, then they do a wall. But we've incentivized, and with real value, not having those things that we may not like as a group. So I'd like to leave it at that. I agree.

All right, it's the first step we can revise next year.

We think this has actually had an impact and people like this then we can maybe just look at something beyond this Okay, then moving to page 53 Because the rest of it is all the same in the different districts. So page 53 councilmember Meyers requesting discussion regarding Sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises wants to make that a permitted use that would be permitted by right instead of a conditionally permitted use that would require review and approval by the village council in a public hearing. Didn't we talk about this last time?

Last week already?

Yes. We did, and we agreed that we were going to leave it, correct? Yeah. Yeah. We're going to leave it as is.

We're as is, or we're allowing by right the alcohol so that they don't have to come before council?

Oh, no. I thought that we were leaving it as it is. And the reason being, listen, I appreciate the spirit of it, that we're trying to be more efficient. But I don't think that it's that onerous on us. And we had a conversation during our last workshop about it was a tennis facility that was near a residential home. near homes, and we decided, you know what, there was some value in having that discussion when the mayor sent everybody outside, they came to an agreement, the neighbors were, you know, they were calmed, I think, by that.

I think that was a different zoning issue. We're talking BU1A. Is BU1A US1? In that issue, that was parks and rec.

That was in the PR district.

Right, that was parks and rec land on The reason that there are no BU1A uses on the US 1 corridor, I'm sorry, on Red Road or anywhere else within the village except on US 1, unless perhaps.

Is there BU1 where Herney's and the fruit stand is? Or no? Where what? Herney's, is that BU, no? No. Okay, so yeah, this is strictly to US 1.

Yeah, okay, no, I don't have any problem with that.

I mean, it's up to you, the staff effort involved is, minimal, but there is an advertising requirement and a public hearing.

I think that they're in agreement to go ahead and remove the restriction on alcohol for the BU district along US 1. Right.

That's fine. OK. OK. And to clarify, so the sale of alcohol beverages will be permitted within BU 1A?

Correct.

OK.

And so it'll be approved administratively, it won't have to come to council.

And then on page 56, Council Member Fehrman is proposing to eliminate requirement that 10% of parking spaces in the Corson District be constructed of pervious or porous materials. Vice Mayor Fehrman.

No. Sorry, I'm sorry to interject. Back to the sale of alcohol beverages. Permitted as of right,

Yes.

Okay, so it will not then have to come back.

So we'd move sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises up to the list of uses permitted by right. Is there no requirements? No. State requirements?

Yeah, they still have to get state requirements and all the licenses. It would just be... We don't have to approve it. You don't have to approve it.

Okay.

So an applicant brings an application for a license from the state to the planning department for review and approval. That's the requirement of the state. We would sign off on it if it's permitted.

Okay, so the green space, page 56.

Okay, so page 56, Vice Mayor Thurman proposing to eliminate the requirement that 10% of parking spaces in the commercial zoning districts be constructed of pervious or porous materials.

It's an interesting idea when you don't have drainage or if your drainage is going to be out into some retention pond or some public right-of-way space. But I think for commercial property, if you're going to be constructing parking lots, you're going to have enough drainage. If a developer or landowner would choose to put in some pervious paving as part of the requirements, maybe to avoid some other drainage infrastructure, that's fine, but I see no reason to demand it as a percentage of a paved area.

So what you're saying is if they can use it to make it work from a drainage perspective, they're more than welcome to, but we wouldn't just arbitrarily demand 10%.

Correct. If that was how they want to tackle their stormwater management, fine.

So there was discussion of stormwater drainage and flooding requirements years ago and different green initiatives that could be added to the land development regulations, and this was added as a means of, along the parking lot to be a little bit more environmentally friendly. We do have stormwater drainage requirements. This would be in addition to those. And if the village council wants to eliminate that requirement, then...

My thinking is there's no environmental friendly nature to it. It's concrete block with typical gravel. It's not particularly easy to walk on in some cases. It's a maintenance issue. It can be dubious over time whether it actually allows percolation of water through the ground. So I think maybe one time it's an interesting consideration as an alternative to drainage structures, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Is this in the code for rainwater management purposes or is this in the code for green space or because we don't want otherwise just have only asphalt covering parking lots but rather have some sort of like...

It helps with stormwater drainage but it's not essential because we have other stormwater drainage requirements but it was intended I think just to... make a parking lot more environmentally friendly, less asphalt, more storm water drainage, more green space.