Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

And it's absent. Board Member Aparicio, it's absent. Board Member Chavez. Here. Board Member Solarez is absent. Alternate Board Member Pinto. Alternate Board Member Sanchez.

Here.

Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Great, and we have a new board member tonight. I'd like to ask him to briefly introduce himself.

Hi, good evening, everybody. My name is Moses Pinto. I've been a resident of Surfside for almost two years now. I have a paralegal legal background and we're in commercial contracts. So I'm just happy to be here and working with the town.

Great, welcome. The town liaison will be here a little later today, so we'll go ahead and hold on that item and move to approval of minutes. I guess, were you here last year, last week, last month? Yeah, so I think maybe you can motion if you have any changes or for approval of the minutes.

Okay, motion to approve the minutes from last meeting.

Can I have a second from Reggie or Moses?

A second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, any opposed? And also need a motion regarding the November 6th design guidelines workshop minute meetings. Anyone, anyone? I can't make a motion, so I need one of you to do so, please. To approve the design guideline meetings, minutes.

Okay, motion to approve this board design guidelines.

Can I have a second?

I second.

Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. Moving on to the agenda and order of business. As I mentioned, we are gonna hold on the town liaison report And he also did ask us to hold on the ordinances. So if we do get there before he's here, we'll cover the rest of the agenda first. Any other comments to the agenda or order of business? Hearing none, I'd like to move forward with our applications beginning with 9505 Harding.

Chair La Cour, please. Through the chair, may I?

Yeah, I always forget whether it's ordinances or applications, yeah.

Madam Attorney, please read your. Tonight's meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is an in-person meeting as set forth in the town code. Applications in section five of this meeting's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. For each application, following presentation by staff and the applicant, the board may take public comment, then close public comment, allow for rebuttal by the applicant, and then deliberate on a resolution. The quasi-judicial procedures require this board to consider the evidence presented to it and base its decision on applicable law and primarily the evidence presented, whether by staff, applicant, or the public. The applicable law includes standards for issuance of design review approval pursuant to Section 90-19 of the Town Code, the design standards set forth under Section 90, Article 5 of the Town Code, and the signed code pursuant to Section 90-68, Article 6, and related sections under Chapters 90, Article 7, and 8 of the Town Code as applicable. The evidence considered must be substantial, competent evidence, meaning testimony or other evidence based on personal observation or relevant expert testimony that reasonable minds accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The board's conclusions are not to be the result of a popularity contest and may not be solely based on non expert opinions. Anyone seeking to speak on an item should be given an opportunity to speak. Anyone seeking to testify on any item in section 5 of this agenda should be sworn before testifying and may be subject to cross examination. Anyone testifying without being sworn or subject to cross-examination may do so, but such testimony may be considered in that context and given its due weight. The public may not cross-examine witnesses, but may request this board to ask questions of staff or the applicant. Anyone who seeks to testify on any item in Section 5 of this agenda should now rise and be sworn by the clerk.

If you think you may speak, please rise and be sworn in.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm? Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to say the truth and only put the truth? You may proceed. Sir, can you stand up as well? Can you raise the other hand? Do you swear or affirm to say the truth and only put the truth? Thank you. You may be seated.

Clerk, please confirm compliance with the advertising and notice requirements.

There were no requirements for advertisements.

Members of the board, have any of you had any ex parte communications about any of the applications now before you? No.

No. No. Yes.

Which application?

9236 Bay Drive.

And who did you speak to?

The architect. The architect.

Do you believe it can still be fair and impartial in considering the application?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

OK, thank you. So let's move on to our first application, 9505 Harding Avenue, commercial sign permit for BBs.

Yes. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions, that all illumination must be white and a separate electrical permit will be required. This application is a request to place one reverse channel lit sign located on the wall face above the entrance at 9505 Harding in the SDB 40 zoning district. One wall sign is permitted per store frontage and allows for a maximum sign size of one square foot per linear foot of the frontage. The linear front of this restaurant, Bebe's, is 19.6 feet, while the sign is proposed to be 10 square feet. The sign size is in conformance with the allowed size and complies with code section 9073. The applicant is proposing an LED illumination, which is permitted according to the code, and all lighting must be white. The lighting will be located directly solely at the sign. And again, staff's recommendation is for approval.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak or any member of the public? You're here for questions, okay? You represent the applicant? Okay. Any member of the public have any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing, open it to the board for comments, questions, or a motion to approve with staff conditions.

What is Beebe's?

If you can come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, please. I don't think that's on.

Okay, my name is, it's okay, Maria Armandola. The address is 9505 Hardin Avenue. This is Vivi's, it's a restaurant.

A restaurant for what?

I have no idea. I'm the sign company, I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry, I know what is it. It's like fast food.

Hamburgers, yes.

Hamburgers.

Oh, okay.

Other questions regarding the design of the sign? Seeing none, can I have a motion to approve with staff conditions?

Motion to approve.

Can I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Board Member Aparicio? Yes.

I have a question. Is this property also allowed to have a blade sign for this address?

That's a question for our planner. Sorry, what type of sign?

Blade sign.

Blade.

Blade? Blade.

It's like a vertical sign that sticks out.

I think it's in the photo. There's a small illuminated sign there.

Maybe we could talk about that tomorrow, because I don't have the answer off the top of my head. So are we approving just the overhead sign that says Beavis tonight? Yes, the wall sign.

OK, so we have a motion and a second for that wall sign. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, Madam Chair. Carlos Aparicio?

What do you want?

You have already said yes.

I said yes, yes, I said yes.

Board Member Chavez?

Yes.

Chair LeCour? Yes. Alternate Member Pinto? Yes. Alternate Member Sanchez? Yes.

Madam Chair, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to 9509 Harding Avenue, commercial sign permit for 16 handles. We'll have the staff planner present first, and then we'll have you present. Thank you. If you guys could maybe do that afterwards, that'd be great. Thank you. Yes, staff recommends approval for it.

Can I stop you one second? I just want a clarification. When we're approving the signs, it usually comes with an awning. Is that we're supposed to take that into account? There's an awning shown in both of them.

No, that's just a graphic. They did apply for a permit for the awning.

Like we're not supposed to pay attention to the awning part of the awning just to sign?

At this point, no. That picture, that awning does not meet code. So we're working with them right now on getting them to put an awning that meets the code. And it's not part of this application.

But would that come back to us? I can't remember. Awnings do not.

It's a building problem.

We don't have anything to say about awnings.

Do you can opine on the awning?

No, no, I'm just saying it because it's weird that we comment on signage and not awnings because awnings seem to be the ugliest part of Harding Avenue, the mismatch of a thousand different types of awnings. So I'm just curious because I see them in the prospectus but I don't see as part of this packet of application. I don't know why signage and an accompanying awning to me should come hand in hand and be part of one application.

Yeah, seems like a good conversation for a new business, and we should talk about that.

We should definitely talk about it, because actually, it's the awnings that create, to me, the worst mess on the street, and not so much as signage. And we asked to comment on signage, but not on awnings. And they're all over the place on Harding.

We'll make a note for a future discussion. Again, this is a recommendation for approval with the following conditions that an illumination will be white and separate electrical permit is required. This application is a request to place one reverse channel lit sign located on the wall above the entrance at 9509 Harding. in the SDB 40 zoning district. One wall sign is permitted per store frontage and allows for a maximum sign size of one square foot per linear foot of the frontage. The linear front for this self-serve dessert shop, named 16 Handles, is 25 feet, while the sign is proposed to be 24.7 square feet. The sign size is in conformance with the allowed size and complies with the code. The applicant is proposing LED illumination, which is permitted according to the code, and all lighting will be white. Lighting will be located and directed solely at the sign, and staff is recommending approval.

Thank you. Did you wish to speak on behalf of the applicant, or are you available for questions if there are any? You've got to come to the...

If you have questions, I'm here to give answers. OK, great. Regarding the concern.

If you're going to speak, if you could state your name and address for the record, please.

Excuse me?

State your name and address for the record.

OK, my name is Daniel Tarab. I represent Advanced Multisign. We are the science company that is moving forward.

And your work address?

The address?

Your work address?

uh seven nine five six west sixteenth court hialeah great thank you go ahead okay so regarding the concern about the canopy we also have independently proposed another permit for the same location just for the canopy which I think it's very good. It's according to the design of the sign. This company is from out of Florida, but they have several locations along the United States. So we are running a permit for the canopy independently.

Okay, thank you. We're not opining on that permit tonight. We're opining on the sign, but I guess you would be open to commentary on the canopy if the board has some.

I have nothing to say. If you have questions, I'm here to answer. That's all.

Great. Thank you so much. Does anybody else from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, board members, comments or questions? Anyone on this side of the dais?

No.

Anyone on this side of the dais?

I'll be insufferable, but I really think that the signage and the accompanying awning should be part of one packet. I think that there's... We need to look into that because it's, I mean, when I look at this, it should be considered as one.

Okay. Basically, how the code is today, though, that is an exception. The awning is an exception for what comes to the board. So we're currently following the current code.

Got it.

Okay. But good point, and we'll come back to that. Do you have any comment? Does anybody have comments on that?

No.

The sign or the awning. Okay, then I'd like a motion to approve with staff conditions, please.

Okay, motion to approve. Second.

Sorry, Reggie, you seconded?

Yes.

Okay, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Board Member Aparicio? Yes. Board Member Chavez?

Yes.

Alternate Board Member Pinto? Yes. Alternate Board Member Sanchez? Yes. Chair LeCour?

Yes. Madam Chair, the motion carries. Thank you. That brings us to Item 5C, 9236, Bay Drive, Home Addition.

Yes, this is our single family home for this evening. We find that this applicant meets the zoning code requirements and present it to the board so that you can determine if it's consistent with and conformance with the design guidelines. If the board finds the plan is consistent, staff recommends approval with conditions that the drainage and grading plan are reviewed and determined to be consistent with the code requirements. The applicants are requesting site plan approval for an addition to a single family home at the property located at 9236 Bay Drive. The applicant proposes adding 1,656 square feet to what is currently a single family home consisting of 3,827 square feet. The home will remain a two-story structure. The property is over 11,000 square feet in size, and the single-family homes are permitted in the zoning district. And no variances are requested at this time. This addition will be located in the front of the home. The proposed addition in the front will remain approximately 25 feet from the property line, so it meets the front setback. The applicant's design elements include the following proposals. marble stone tile cladding for the facade, gray color cement tile roof, aluminum glass railing, light aluminum for garage and front doors, and a matte charcoal aluminum louvers. Based on the value of the home and the cost of the addition, the addition remains less than 50% of the value. The resulting FAR will be .46, and the lot coverage will remain less than 40%, which is the maximum for the two-story home. And pursuant to the code requirements, the procedures of the site plan review for zoning in H3A, H30A, the applicant shows good cause for compliance with land use regulations and the development standards. This home was presented to the board at a previous meeting. The board provided comments at that time and the applicant has made revisions to address the feedback that they received. Staff finds this application for this remodel of a single family home meets the zoning code and therefore recommends approval.

Thank you. Hi, are you with the applicant? Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Zalmi Meyer. My address is 335 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm the architect for the project. Like she said, we presented back in September. You guys gave very good feedback on the project. And in the interim time, we were able to meet with Carlos a few times to go over some of the changes that he thought would really improve the project. So Just wanted to thank him for his time and for doing that. And as you can see, if you kind of remember the original project, there's been quite a significant improvement to the front of it. Last time we saw it, you guys really liked the back of the home, but the front of the home, you felt, did not really match the style in the back, which was really appreciated. So we reworked it pretty heavily to kind of make those feel like one project and add a lot more glass and openness, a lot more vegetation.

really happy with the redesign and you know once again really wanted to thank you guys for your comments and yeah okay great thank you um let me see if there's anybody from the public who wishes to speak on this one don't see any um let me open up let me close the public hearing and or the public comment and open it to board members on this side for me just just wanted to remember what were the the comments from the board

We have them.

I have my notes.

Yeah. Okay.

If that's helpful or if you want to go ahead.

I mean, yeah, I mean like the, the original design had a kind of two tone design that you guys didn't weren't going for the top and the bottom.

Yeah.

The top and the bottom had two colors and then the front had this big archway and the front of the home was much more of a flat facade with just a projected archway. So you guys suggested adding more massing to the home to give it a little bit more depth. and to get rid of the two-tone design, add a lot more vegetation, a lot more glassness, and really try to take what was successful in the back and bring it to the front. There was also a kind of mid-level roof in between the first and second floor that we removed as well. So I do have the total list. So we removed all the arches from the front of the home. We removed the mid-level roof between the floors. We brought up the stair tower. that you see on the right of the render about five feet to add a lot more depth to the front of the home to kind of mirror what was happening in the back. Um, after discussion with Carlos, there was wood core bells along the top of the Eve that we removed and brought out the roof line a bit more to give it more of a heavy crown that felt more grand. And then we, the stair tower and these glass sliding doors, those were originally, much smaller windows so we turned those into full sliding glass doors and fully eroded the stair tower to give it as much glass as possible to make that modern and then that same kind of colonnade with the aluminum trellis and the vegetation that we had in the back we found a way to bring that into the front design to you know again mirror that language that was appreciated in the back um we made the front bathroom window a lot larger and then In that walkway that leads into the home, we add a lot more vegetation, a lot larger glass windows, and a lot more transparency to that area. So just a lot more light and vegetation throughout everywhere. Good, thank you. That's helpful, thanks.

Comments or questions on this side? How about on this side?

I do.

Okay. Moses, do you want, okay.

Just a few comments. In terms of, let's begin with the gate on the outside. Again, something that I think is very important, I think we have to remind people, I mean, it's really important to bring a materials board to these meetings. I mean, I think that a level of a renovation like this and something of this caliber, it's really very important to understand what the materials are and something that we've mentioned to make sure that people do show up here. And it's just, I've been to so many of these council meetings that you always come with, it doesn't matter how small the addition is, you have to come on the materials board. Something I, several comments I'm gonna make, it's a lot better. I think the front looks, a lot more cohesive with the back of the house, which was the aim. I think that I have, let's begin with one question I have. It's the gate in the front. I really have a problem with the gate on the front. And I think that I have a lot of problems with the houses in Surfside and the gates that they're putting on the front of the houses because this one that just was put on Harding and 88th Street that literally looks like a pig corral.

Just a question code-wise. I'm not sure this meets code. It doesn't have enough stacking. It's not sufficiently inside the property line, I don't believe.

So I don't know what the height of that gate is. It's hard to tell.

So the gate is at four feet with the columns being at six feet. And then the property line is about two inches in front of the face of the in face of the column itself, so the gates are pushed back a bit.

I thought you had to, I can't remember what the code is, but maybe somebody could check that while we're.

Well, that gate is actually not drawn at four feet. Right. That gate is six feet in that drawing.

Or five, yeah.

It's between four and five.

Can you live without the fence and the gate? I mean, I had the same reaction. I think it's.

The gate measures are in a 4.01.

And it's four, is that four feet?

Four, and the structure, I don't know if it's cement or, I don't know, it says five.

Yeah.

But the gate is four.

It also has the sconces.

I'm reacting to what the perspective, I mean, I'm an architect, that perspective is drawn too high. So that's more like showing between more like five feet, six feet. Yeah. which changes completely the feeling of this house because we go from a real fence to something a lot more modest. I think it's also about, I'm not quite sure where it sits on the setback of the property because it looks like I don't like the fence. I really have a problem with the whole fence.

It creates sort of a very harsh barrier right at the beginning of the streetscape pedestrians.

Yeah, we can absolutely remove the fence for now.

No, I mean, I just think that when you look at the perspective, the house feels caged by the fence. It feels like you're caging the house, which is never a good idea. feeling for any neighborhood. And I think that there's no need for it because it doesn't really provide you any privacy. And it's just a sheer amount of metal, harsh black, dark metal on the front of the house should be reconsidered. I think also absolutely the lighting on every one of those posts, it's definitely a no-no. Those strip lights, we don't We don't want to see him anywhere, but certainly not in the posts of the fence. I think that the fence is also overly articulated. I think that the fence should be just plain. It looks like a mini version of the house.

He says he'll get rid of the fence. Let's move on.

Oh, you. Yeah. I mean, I'm not. Let's keep going. I mean, I don't want to be that guy.

I hear improve or get rid of it.

If you have suggestions. No, but I mean, I want to be accommodating the client who would like some kind of, I mean, I don't want to just take it out. I'm just giving you ways of.

Yeah, if you have suggestions for improvements, for sure, I can understand if the perspective and the rendering throws you off a little bit. We can make sure. that it is actually four feet as the drawing show. But if there's a different design style or language you prefer for it, of course, we can get rid of the lighting on the columns.

Well, the problem is that you have two points of entry with the house because you have two driveways. So you already have two gates in a very narrow house. I know this house. So it's a lot of gate for a house that narrow.

I think it's a distraction from the house. I think it detracts from the house.

Yeah, I think that, yeah. So we can remove it for now and discuss it with the clients and then, you know.

Well, I mean, we're going to make it a condition not to put a fence. Yeah. So if you want to put up a fence, then you have to come back to us.

Yeah. I mean, just for the sake of moving forward for now, I think I'm okay with getting rid of it. And if anything, I'll discuss with the clients.

I mean, great. Then that's great.

Just one last comment on that. The neighbors, they don't have a fence, so it will also help, right?

Yeah. I think that just to try to fine-tune the house and just to get to – I think that you did a good job with the front of the house and the back of the house. I think the house is cohesive now. I think that the front piece that you added on front of the garage, because that's existing garage, correct?

Yeah.

So I think that these thin columns that you have in front of the existing garage I think if there's a way of maybe turn them back to the existing house, you look at the left-hand side where the car is, it just looks very tacked on. It literally just looks like it doesn't belong to the house. It looks like you just put these two columns with these pieces of wood. I don't know what they are. I'm talking about... I don't have... Maybe we can pull...

It would be great if we could pull up the visual.

I think I'm with you on that. There is a thick part of the top kind of trellis similar to the back that goes across, but it's hidden by vegetation in the render.

I think it's also a matter of the proportion. I think that those posts feel... Maybe it has to do with the fact that you have those reveals. You have the reveals on the posts and then you have the reveals on the windows. I think it's overly revealed. I think that there's too many reveals on See, again, those lights that we hate, those strip lights on the thing. But I think it's the proportion of the pier holding the top. I think it's too thin. And I also think that you should turn it, maybe take the element of the strip that you have on top, which I don't know what it is, because that came after me looking at it.

I actually have it on all sides.

No, I'm talking about the metal pieces that look like there's some leftover fence that you put up there. Yeah, those ones there, yeah.

Yeah, again, I was imagining. What are they? They're aluminum. They're black aluminum. Again, those were previously in the design from the back. You guys had mentioned liking them before, and the suggestion was to add them to the front. So I added those.

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about any of them. I don't... It's the biggest design element, and maybe this is so disconcerting because you look at them juxtaposed to the fence, but I'm not quite sure what they are. I have a bit of...

They just look like strips of aluminum with... Yeah, in the back they work as aluminum sunshades to provide extra shade for the back area. Yeah, I'm just saying the materiality of it.

I think that they should be... You should maybe make them out of wood. They should be warmer. I think that they're, just the fact that they're metal, I think that they're very, they're a bit strange. I don't know if they should be, should look at it more like adding an element of warmth to the house.

Okay. Yeah, right now they're aluminum channels, especially here.

They feel a bit cheap to me, to me. And I think that... The columns of the reveals, the columns are very, very thin. The two columns next to the garage. And maybe what I was asking you is to maybe, in the perspective that I have, maybe turn them, maybe if you want to do those fins, that maybe you can turn them around from that last column back to the existing house. So it doesn't feel like you're just sitting there doing nothing.

Like an L. Closing the end.

Can you show the front of the house again?

Yeah, sure. I think I understand what you mean. Yeah, right there. So instead of it being a square, it should be more like an L. You see, it just feels like it just sits there.

It just doesn't feel like... Wrap around the corner. It, to me, needs to go back... to, so it doesn't look like it's just sitting there, like it could topple over.

Like a facade, like not just a facade.

It looks like it could topple over. It looks like it can come down and you need to tie it back to the house.

What is it tied to, the slab on the?

So it's tied to the slab. You see it may probably a little bit more in the elevation because it doesn't have the vegetation. It's kind of hard to know what it is. But there is this kind of thick piece wraps around proportionally throughout the thing. In the render, we have the vegetation kind of covering that space. So that's why you don't see it so much. But it's kind of proportionally attached to that whole thick banding, which is that balcony that goes above it.

And how do you think the aluminum silver railing top goes with the bronze elements of the metal and the window frame?

It would be matched to the frame.

It would?

It would be matched to the window frames.

So the cap on the glass railing is actually bronze?

Yeah. Yeah, I apologize for misrepresenting that.

I'm not saying it has to be.

I'm just curious if it's a rendering thing or if it was... Yeah, we would try to match all the metal in the home to the same frame.

Go back to the elevation. I think that you should add the front elevation. Yeah. I think that one odd moment in the house is the fact that you have a frame around the... I get the part of the garage. I get it. I wouldn't do the reveal around them. I think it makes it a bit hokey. I think it should feel heavier, clad in stone. I don't think you need all that reveal. But I think on the right-hand side, where you have the six, I think that column needs to come... Do you need another column coming down on the right-hand side? I think it's very odd that the metal pieces are going to be fastened onto the side of the house without being received by another.

I'm trying to find the render showing that way. But I think it's one of those things that kind of looks weird in elevation but feels a bit better in the render because That stair tower does project out five feet past the rest of the house.

I find the metal meeting that side of that beam just bolted onto the side an odd moment, kind of a weak moment. But I think that it looks so much better when you have piers on both sides and the metal gets held by the masonry. I think it looks so much successful.

I mean, can we go back to the front?

What I was going to say real quick, sorry, is these ones in the back of the house, these are, I believe, 24 inches wide, the piers, and the ones in the front of the home are slightly smaller. They're 16 inches. So I think that, would you agree the reveal kind of works a little bit more...

The wider column is better. It's more substantial.

The wider column looks a lot better. So we can definitely widen the columns in the front to kind of match that, like you were saying, that heavy masonry.

I think that whatever you do in the back of the house should be repeated in the front of the house. I think that there's no poetic license that you need to take to make it. I think you need to bring another column on the side meeting, because I know The stair tower projects forward, but I think that if you have a pier there and then the metal pieces are held between masonry, it's a lot. The back is the best part of the house. I think the front should just match whatever they do.

So almost like a pilaster coming out of the side of the stair tower. The stair tower projects forward from it. Right, but where those bronze pieces connect, almost kind of like a pilaster sticking out a few inches.

I just think it's too toothpicky, the front of it. I think you should beef them up, add one more. and copy the same detail you have in the back to the front of the house. So it's cohesive. It's like the back of the house and the front of the house has the same detail.

And what was the justification for bringing that stair tower forward so much?

It was quite literally just to create a depth. So in the original presentation, this kind of front line where I am now just projected all the way across. It was much flatter. And similar to how, like he's saying, the back of the house, you guys appreciated much more with this kind of cascading effect. You suggested that we try to create that depth and cascadingness in the front. Because we're working with an existing structure and we have setbacks, there's only so much we could project and create that depth, but this was done to mirror that back and create that cascading massing and depth, which I think it looks a lot better before it was just flat all the way across.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I agree that the angle at which the house sits on the street creates that even worse effect. It's difficult for renders. Yeah. One question. I know this is not part of what we're looking at today, but the pool is rendered above ground.

So the pool deck itself is just matching the grade of the home itself. So it'll partially go underground. This area here is just about 18 inches off of the ground. So it would still go underground. It's just so the pool deck.

I thought our code had to be level with the ground.

No, that's not part of a code requirement. That's been a preference that the board has mentioned.

And I remember we talked about it because the neighbors can see you and you can see them and it's uncomfortable for both properties.

Which is why we're proposing a lot of vegetation on this back end where that is. But yeah, the current pool right now sits below grade and it's been a point of... I guess annoyance is the best word I have for the owners, especially they have seven small children and just kind of worrying about them falling down the stairs consistently was an issue they brought up early. I mean, that wall is shown like almost three feet.

Right. I mean, does that have a glass railing around it?

Yeah, the whole thing will have a railing around it to protect the children. Which is required by code. So even if it was on the ground, we would have to have...

I think you're better off putting it in the ground and just... I really don't get why... That's going to be like a cooktop in there with a glass railing, you know?

Either way, we need that railing by Florida code because we can't have a swimming pool without it. And especially, like I said, they have about seven children under the age of 10. And they wanted that extra protection to know that, you know, none of the kids can get into the pool without that.

But are you setting a fence around the backyard?

No, I think there's a glass.

There's a railing that goes around this way. You don't have a railing off of the terrace.

The kids could just fall off of the terrace.

We do. There will be some form of protection here.

Because if you have a fence all around the backyard, that meets code, right? If you have doors.

You need a second fence for a pool, I believe.

And again, more than code, it's really a lot of small children running around and it's one of those things that, you know, even if it's not the most aesthetic, we'd rather go with protection. And we figured the glass is the most aesthetic way we can do that without, you know,

Yeah, I don't really love the pool up there in a box, but I don't.

Yeah, I'm more concerned about, I have other concerns about the perception of mass on the north and south elevation now that we've filled in a lot of those walls. Can you pull up the A204 or A202?

The A202? So everything here is really existing.

So you've got different window types there? You have some mullioned and some not?

Everything on these side elevations is existing. They're not really in the scope of work to be reworked.

So they're not putting new windows in the whole house?

No. Some of them are being replaced. I believe those are all going to be existing.

They're all what?

Existing. It's just that front area where we're building the addition and the back area.

OK. And can we go to the 204 then?

Yeah.

OK. So this is where you're adding quite a bit of mass. I couldn't tell from your, I mean, you included a lot of marked trees in the packet, which was helpful. Thank you. But I am unclear what trees are remaining and which are being removed. If you go to A.02, I see a lot of red trees, which leads me to believe those are to be removed.

And these ones here.

So I wasn't sure why any of those need to be removed with this plan.

The trees there, let me double confirm that for you. So the reason I think those are being removed is because they're in poor health and we're creating a whole new vegetation on the side of that home. The ones that are red are just ones that are in poor health on this side. And then the ones here that are being removed are just, again, they're in poor health and it's to interfere with the new back area. But we're replacing them with about 10 times the amount of trees. I think we're bringing up the vegetation on this property Probably it's not dramatic to say by 90 percent if you see the amount of new trees on this landscape plan.

Yeah I just you know we have existing trees. Can we not work with them.

I do believe some of them are being relocated. We had a full landscape packet that was submitted with this. I'm not sure why it didn't make it into here. But I don't believe that all of the red are being removed. I believe some are being replaced.

Yeah, I couldn't tell from this table. I see the condition of the tree, but I don't see what's being removed.

Isn't it AO3? Yeah, I believe any of the palm trees that are healthy are being relocated on the site. They're not necessarily being removed.

And do you have any specimen trees on this site that are being removed or relocated?

No, they're only palms.

What is the material of the house? What is the gray? The gray, sorry? Again, it's really, really, really hard to not have a materials board for a level like this.

No, I do apologize. I actually brought one into the last meeting and didn't bring it to this one. But the cladding itself would be a stone cladding, like a marble stone cladding all throughout it. throughout those, that's what's shown in that front render, is stone cladding.

I know, but what stone, what pattern, what color? It looks beige there in the perspective, looks gray. I don't know what I'm looking at.

It's a problem.

To me, it's a problem. I don't know, I really... It's very, very... Just not... We don't have all the information. It's like pulling teeth to try to... I mean, a materials board is an ABC of a presentation when you come to a board.

I mean, it's just not... Was that communicated? Yes. And why don't we have one?

It was not communicated. It's not an official rule. I did bring one to the last meeting and I'll be honest with you guys. I gave it to you and you didn't look at it at all. And I figured it wasn't something that I don't know. I apologize for not bringing that, but I do have the material board here in the PDF and I do have it on the renders.

I don't know what that marble stone tile clad exterior or this random pattern of beige stone is. I don't know what this house looks like. I know what the perspective shows, but I don't know. I'm at a loss of what this house is really, truly going to look like. You know, I'm trying to wrap my head around it, but it's just I don't feel like I have... trying to help in every way, but I just don't have, I don't know. I just don't see enough information to, you know, a very, very concerned board.

Carlos, when we met privately, I showed you some of the reference stone materials we were looking at together.

I know, but it's not my job. Your job is to come here with a board. It's an ABC of presentation. I'm an architect. I go in front of boards all the time. A materialist board is an ABC of a presentation to... for a PMC board. You have to come here with every square inch of a material that's going to go into the house. Even if you come five times, every time you come, you have to show it. And right now, we don't even have, I don't know what those windows look like. I don't know what the stone looks like. I don't know anything about what this house looks like. I'm going to take your word by a perspective. And then you show me the stone. And the stone looks cream. And then the renderings look gray.

I don't know what to say. I understand and I apologize and I'll definitely make sure.

It's very frustrating because I tried to help in every way I can, but it's very ill-prepared to come here and not... I don't know if you guys read between the lines, but I really don't know what this house looks like. I don't know the... I'm making functions that I don't think that we should be making because I don't... I don't know. I really don't know.

I mean, I agree it's frustrating that we keep trying to have this minimum standard met, and it's not. But in this particular case, what's being proposed is pretty simple.

I can bring you guys a material board tomorrow. I can do whatever. But I do want to just make a plea here on this, because we really have tried to extensively redesign this based on the comments last time. We've met with Carlos, you know, multiple times. We've taken every comment.

Well, my first thing, because I spent an insane amount of time helping, and I think that just you come to a meeting, you have to come with materials board. It's a huge part of the discussion is what the materials of this house is going to be. And to come to a second meeting to try to get it passed by us, you should not forget one square inch of what you should put here. And the materials board is something that, I wouldn't even come to a meeting if I didn't have a material for it.

Okay, so we understand we don't have it. I got it. We have to decide how to act. We understand.

I understand, but I'm still not quite 100% clear what the materials for the house are, and that's a problem for me.

Are there other comments regarding the design of the home that we should discuss? If not, we can decide how we want to proceed, but...

It really seems to me that, I apologize for speaking out of turn, but it really appears to me that we seem to be a lot closer than we were last time. I think that we really tried to make every improvement we can. And it feels like as a general, correct me if I'm wrong, I think as a general massing and overall understanding of the home, it seems we're kind of satisfying everything that you guys have asked of us. We can remove the fence, we can thicken out the columns, we can do as we suggested, but we've come here in September, this is our second time coming back here, and I really would just plead that we don't have to come a third time just off of my ignorance of not bringing a material board out. I would really hate to do that to the clients. I think that we've really done everything that was asked of us other than that, and I apologize for that.

Okay, thank you. So can the board see their way to enough conditions to get comfortable to move this forward?

So, Carlos, in the materials that he's showing on pH 1.08, it looks like everything is natural, but... Looks like what? The colors, like what the board wants, right? Well, the code or the design guidelines. So it's stone, it's marble... So just the quarters, I think, is what we don't know, right? Exactly what the quarters are going to be.

The colors would be exactly as is shown in 108 with that exact material.

The image that you have of a marble stone tile clad is this random pattern of some sandy looking stone. I don't even know what the scale of it. I mean, what I see there, I certainly don't see it in this house. So I don't know. It doesn't correspond to what I see in the perspective. So I don't know how to make a leap of judgment I'm not crazy. I mean, marble, stone tile, clad exterior walls. The exterior of these walls, I mean, it would look like this random pattern of stone that it would be very weird. I mean, why would you put a random stone pattern like that on the face of the house that has so much glass? It doesn't make sense that you want to cut up... It's your house, not mine. I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know what the pattern is. I don't know.

I think it adds a lot of texture and luxury to the home. We looked at, you know, reference homes together and it was something we really liked on that pattern. The last time we presented, it was more of a flat stucco and it was not a stucco, but it was a flat stucco look. And one of the comments was to add more texture to the materiality of the house. So, you know, this is how we've added more texture to the materiality of the home.

I know, but I don't see a pattern like this on a house like what you're designing. I don't see your house has an insane amount of fenestration. And this pattern seems to be just overly, first of all, I don't know what the scale of these pieces are. I don't know why it's not flat. It looks like it has a projection. I don't know. I mean, if this is the look that you want, you should have it at least in the perspective. So at least I could say, listen, at least I'm showing you a perspective because it doesn't correspond.

We do have it in the perspective. It is there.

So the pieces are square. They're not rectangular, right?

It is a not randomized pattern, but it is not a perfect square nor rectangle. It has multitudes. PH 105, you could go to that one.

Yeah, right there, towards the garage door. Is that the true color that we're looking at?

It's closer to this color shown on the material board, yes.

Okay, and then you do, so on that flat wall, that's the entryway, you're going to see the, I guess the... The stone material. The stone material protruding out.

So there is some protrusion of the stone as it's shown in this... Quarter inch maybe, but nothing significant, nothing that would astute to an actual rejection, so to speak. Okay.

But is it a random pattern of slightly rusticated, protruding texture marble surface?

The rustication is falling in line with the actual elevations itself. So we kind of have the score lines here shown in the elevation. So this, I think, might represent it a little bit better. And we made sure to line it up with certain elements on the house, like the sliding doors and things like that, so that it It's not randomized, so to speak, but it does have a logic to it.

So the intent is everything that looks gray on the rendering on the outside facade should match that and should have those protrusions.

Yes, it would have a stone cladding to it in this effect.

OK.

Yeah, which again, it was one of the recommendations of the board.

So it's a warmer looking house. Okay.

Yeah, it may look different on different lightings, but yeah.

I mean, I think that a random pattern beige stone that what you draw in elevation doesn't match what this marble stone ticlatic steel walls look like. This doesn't match that. And a sandy, honey-colored beige stone like this with a gray, I think it's a...

I agree.

I think it's ugly. I don't know how these things to go together. And I'm trying to help, but I don't... Your drawings don't even match.

If there's a recommendation of the board to go with a more gray tone versus a sandy tone, again... We're fully willing to oblige here.

No, I just, I don't know what you...

Here's what I'd recommend so that we can move this forward. I share your frustration. The renderings are not accurately showing the materials. We don't have the materials here. However, I think what you've shown is generally within the realm of reason and acceptable design with the conditions that we're likely going to agree to, and I agree that the honey color is not what I see when I see the rendering, and I think you'd be better off adhering to the concept that's in the rendering, a more grayish or beige stone, but it's your house, so I'm willing to approve it as is. So the conditions that I need to be comfortable approving this house tonight would be removing the fence, removing all light sconces, making the posts at the front elevation match in width as the back elevation, and just confirming that that aluminum railing on the, and frankly, I don't even care what color that aluminum railing is on the glass. If you want to make it aluminum, fine. If you want to match it as bronze. But it's really those first two that I care about. And I open it to other conditions from the board if you guys are willing to put some conditions to get these guys moving forward.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

So again, sorry to because probably I didn't understand. So the marble stone pieces are, what size are they normally? Because again, as they say, the house that the render looks like the pieces are bigger than the materials.

They would be customized and cut the size. What's the size? The size of what specifically?

Okay, so you have different sizes, okay.

So, yeah, that's what I was trying to say when I misspoke and said it's not a randomized pattern, but it's not necessarily an exact size.

Yeah, and look, I don't think we usually get to this level of detail on the material, so I, you know, let's...

I think we do. I think that's really what you're going to see. I would be okay with... I think that I would like to know what kind of stone this whole house is going to be clad with. I think it's an ABC of an approval. I think I don't know any board would approve a house not knowing what the whole house is going to be clad with, which I still don't.

So how do you want to?

No, I want to help in every way I can. But I think that I'm going to say something. I think that I would be willing to agree on a color of a stone here. And I think you should stick to an even pattern of stones. I think you should stay away from this random business, which is going to create a mess and a distraction.

The protrusion, you mean. The protrusions.

The protrusions on the stone, all the same size, quiet, because you have so much fenestration on this house, you don't need the stone to do any more hoopla on the house. The stone on the house should be just a background for all the fenestration, which the house is full of windows, which I love. So I would be okay with saying... one rustication, even course of stone on the facade, agree on a color so we know what color the house is gonna look like, and then I'm okay.

Okay, yes, sir.

I mean, that's my...

So are you okay with the color shown in the rendering?

I think that.

How do we agree on the color?

You prefer closer to a. Tell me, I think that it has to do with the color of the tile you're gonna put on the house because the house has a lot of tile. So I needed to know what kind of, what color the tile is.

Could we, is there, madam attorney or clerk or planner, is there a way we could condition this subject to approval of just a materials board that could be approved by at least one member of this board following this?

Like you said, if there's color preference, we can stick to closer to a gray color with an even color.

We're trying to make it work, but you see, we don't know.

We're trying to approve, but we don't know what we're approving. So again, to make sure that the color in the render versus the material where you're OK with the color shown here, for example.

It needs to be grayer than the honey, is what I think.

Well, to me, the one that leads, it's the color of the roof tile, because that's Whatever stone you cloud the house with has to go with the roof tile. The roof tile will be a dark charcoal-ish. It's a charcoal-ish gray. Right. So I don't see this golden sand color going to gray. I mean, it doesn't go to me. So I think either it's a much paler, creamier stone, which is a lot paler, or a grayer one.

One or the other. Absolutely, yeah. We will stick to those grayer tones. Okay. Okay.

Which is matching the rendering.

Yes. Yeah. OK. So if, OK, do you want me to read the conditions again?

Yeah. I would like to make a motion, but then.

That condition is additional. So the stone cladding needs to be flat, no protrusion.

Even course of, even course of, of.

In the what?

Even course. Even course. Even course.

Not offset.

Not randoms.

Not.

Yeah.

and the color to be a paler gray matching the rendering.

I think I would leave it up to you. I think it should be a paler gray or a light beige. Leave it up to them. I think whatever. Or a light beige. I think that would go fine with that.

So that's one. Removing the fence. Removing the fence. No sconces. No sconces. And the posts in the front match the width and concept of the posts in the back.

Yeah.

Are those acceptable conditions to you?

Absolutely, yeah.

Are those acceptable conditions to board members? Is that something we can move forward with approval with those conditions plus staff conditions?

Making this work. Sorry, what about the pool?

The pool.

Sorry. Can we keep the pool? It looks nice, but really. It's really a sensitive topic with the clients. Having that at level was really like first meeting number one mentioned. I don't have a problem with the pool. I don't.

It's a bit of a compromise because they're not at eight feet.

I don't have a problem.

So I don't love it either, but, you know.

I understand they have a lot of kids and they feel safe. I would be okay with that.

So I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions.

That I read and that staff applied.

That have been read by the chair.

Okay. Thank you. Can I have a second?

I second.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Board Member Aparicio?

Yes.

Board Member Chavez? Yes. Alternate Member Pinto?

Yes.

Alternate Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Chair LeCour? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion carries. Great, thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, guys. I made this work, Salmi.

Thank you.

I know where this house is, so.

He knows where you live.

I know where you live, Salmi. But I'll tell you, it's a huge improvement. I've seen that house.

Good luck. Thank you guys. Thanks, yeah. Good luck.

Now you have to pay for it.

Yeah, sounds like it. The one to my left has a gate. Yeah.

We're trying to get away from that.

Yeah, and we need this vegetation. We have a monstrosity of a wall that's just layering over us. I know.

We know your house.

Thank you for doing that. We need that. Everyone needs to be doing that. Thank you very much. Happy holidays. Thank you.

Take care.

Okay, I'm going to come back. I see our town commission liaison is here. If I could invite him up for his report and any commentary he may have before we read the ordinances.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm a member of the town commission and the liaison to this board. I want to take a moment just to welcome alternate board member Pinto to the planning and zoning board and to thank him for his service. On tonight's agenda we have a couple of ordinances that I haven't seen in a while due to the scheduling of our respective meetings. I haven't seen them. The second one I suspect is the one where we really will have more to discuss and where the Commission I know really seeks your input once again. It's a topic that you've seen before but we are trying to come up with the right solution here to balance heights and side setbacks. So we're bringing that to you one more time for more input. There's one other item that I wanted to mention to you from the recent commission meeting that I think will not be on your agenda because it's a ballot question. But I want to make you aware of it, because it does in some way affect the stakes of the discussion that you'll be having on item 6B. There was a discussion item that was walked on at the last commission meeting from the mayor that would create a ballot question for the March Surfside election. The terms of it are still not defined, but it's another kind of entrenchment requirement that says that any future changes to the zoning code. And I'll pause here to say the phrase zoning code is not defined. I don't know what part of section 90. It includes, but we'll leave that to the side. Any future changes of the zoning code would have to meet both a super majority requirement on the commission and electoral ratification by the electorate. So it's another one of these entrenchment provisions. That's the way it's worded. It was just a discussion item, so we don't have ballot language yet, though I expect the ballot question to come back at the January meeting. I'll have to say, I'm here as a representative of the commission. The commission passed this discussion item on a vote of four to one, and I was the dissenter. But again, my personal distaste for these entrenchment provisions notwithstanding, I presented to you as the decision of the commission. So that is sort of hanging in the background. We're gonna be voting on that in January. As I said, I don't think it comes before the Planning and Zoning Board, but it does affect potentially... Everything we do. Yeah, everything we do.

Yeah, that's absolutely frightening, like most things your commission does.

I'll send the word.

Yes, absolutely.

Again, but I'm just informing you of that matter.

Again, I'm happy to take any questions about it, but... Yeah, I mean, what is the concern? Why is that continuing to come up? I mean, we elect, we have an elected... group of officials to make decisions. We have a local planning agency. I don't understand why everything has to go to a ballot vote. That just seems overly bureaucratic for a town of 5,000 people.

It raises the stakes for any decisions made in the next couple of months and then makes it very difficult to make any changes after that. I again I can't speak for my colleagues who voted for it, I don't know how the vote will go in January, but. You know I do encourage you to if you have concerns or questions to reach out, you know individually to the members of the Commission, perhaps.

I don't know.

As new business, you might want to collectively say something on the matter. But it's still, there's still no concrete proposal.

Yeah, I'd like to ask board members, you know, if anyone wants to play the straw man and argue for that concept. But if not, I'd like to, as a collective body, send a message to the commission that we don't.

Well, I mean, you know how I feel about the commission. I think the commission is... undermines our authority time and time again. And as I was in the meeting that I was kicked out of, They don't really care to hear about what we have to say. And they really act in, yes, they don't. Yes, they don't, OK? And from the speed bumps, they're still like, I can drive on the streets, and they're falling apart, being done with our consulting us, which it should have done, as we've checked with the minutes. Everything that gets built in this town has to go in front of us, OK? That's very clear. I don't know how clear that can be. But your commission does not care, really. They act in whatever way they want to act and build whatever they want to build with our consulting us in any way, shape, or form.

Well, let's... And that's the truth.

It's not for discussion.

Board member, if I may, I want to say just, you know, the commission as a group and individually are always praising this board and the work that they do. I want you to know that. I know that there are... I really don't care. There have been decisions where we disagree, but there is... We collectively and individually are... EXTREMELY GRATEFUL FOR THIS BOARD AND THE MEMBERSHIP OF EACH OF YOU. IT DOES NOT SHOW. I WILL SAY SINCE YOU RAISED THE SPEED BUMP I DIDN'T BRING IT UP IN MY REPORT BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION DIRECTLY BUT WE DID ASK THE MANAGER TO BOTH INSTITUTE A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE ONES THAT WERE RECENTLY BUILT AND IT'S NOT ABOUT WORKING ON IT. IT'S THE RULES. IT'S THE RULES. IT HAS TO COME IN FRONT OF US. IT HAS TO COME IN FRONT OF US. THERE IS SOME INTERPRETATION. THERE IS SOME INTERPRETATION. WE ARE WORKING ON THE SPEED WE ARE WORKING ON THE SPEED BUMPS ISSUE AND WANT TO BRING IT happening right now. I didn't include it in the report because it's not a direct commission. It's not something that directly came out of our last meeting.

Are they aware that they're not all at the same height?

Yes, you've missed that meeting and maybe you're glad for it. Let's not bring it up again now.

My understanding and the manager could also speak to this with more information than I currently have. My understanding is that we have hired engineers both to review the ones that were built and including producing as-built drawings of them and to guide any future construction through a process that would include...

Listen, I cannot drive on the speed bumps that are built.

Okay, Carlos, we're not talking about the speed bumps tonight, please.

I know we're not talking about the speed bumps, but you're talking about... Let me finish. Let me finish, please. It's very nice that you come here and liaison with us and you consult. The truth of the matter is that every... It doesn't matter. You act without asking us, without coming in front of us. You don't need to hire an engineer to look at a speed bump that is built like it's a monstrosity. It doesn't work. You're spending more money. You spend $21,000 for each one of those speed bumps. I cannot drive on the street. You don't have to go back because my car won't go over them.

Okay, okay. We're not talking about speed bumps tonight. We are talking about... What are we talking about? We are talking about a proposal at the city commission to bring all future zoning changes to a vote of the people.

Yes, undermining.

Just as an example, we have eight or nine things on our future discussion items that arise during the conversation that we have about all sorts of design issues where we say, ooh, that might not, that doesn't quite work the way I think the code meant it to work. Let's try to make that better. We're going through these things. We're putting code changes up for you guys. It's read twice with you and once or twice with us. There is enough process to do code changes already. To bring every single one of those to a vote, that just shuts down any possible zoning code changes, which is, I think, the intention.

And for the record, it shuts down the authority of the commission as well. It's undermining us and undermining the... But yeah, it's self-undermining as well.

And it's leaving it to a populace who may not have the same kind of background and training of looking at plans and understanding implications. I think you want some level of expertise and design experience reviewing those kinds of changes, along with attorneys and planners. I think that would just be a huge, huge disservice to our town to do that. What other town does that? Everybody has a process similar to ours. It's not like we're crazy.

I will attempt to relay your concerns. Again, if this is something you feel strongly about collectively or individually, I'd encourage you to speak to the other commissioners.

Did they look at the implications as what the county charges us for those elections? Every time we put a ballot measure, it costs the city.

Yeah.

And, you know, and that's we have a we have a representative democracy here. So now we're going to a full democracy that that's been known not to work throughout. I mean, we're we're and it just seems like a poison pill with, you know, with it. And it while I know that we had. issues with our our past council and you know you know being able to do things that we didn't feel were nefarious that were nefarious why are we you know now countering that with more nefarious uh actions i just don't see that i mean i agree with the chair there's always listen when you

there's always an end game, okay? With your commission, there's always an end game. And it's frightening, it's really frightening. I was in one of the meetings and actually was frightened by your commission. And very concerned because I think they pretend they care and they tell us that they really don't. They're undermining us, undermining, you know, asking people then don't, they're not in a position to, you know, we're experts, we're doing this. You know, the amount of hundreds of hours that we're spending here trying to put in a ballot to ask people about concerns. They don't even understand. I mean, there's certain things that we're here for a reason. I mean, we have a mandate. We're here for a reason. If you're going to undermine the reason we exist, it's like, what is the end game? And the end game is frightening. It's actually frightening to me.

I think I understand why, because of the past. And they're worried that the next board is not a board like this. And I think that's why they're trying to protect it.

Anything goes to them for two readings, any code change. There's three public hearings that have to happen for any public, for any code change. But also, is that not sufficient checks and balances?

And the commission changes, both of them are aligned. That's what they're trying to protect.

But that's the nature of government, guys.

I know, I know. We have to go out and vote. That's the thing, right? So, yeah.

You can't just lock everything down.

I just want to tell you why this is happening, right? What I think.

I know, but this is not, you know, we're not inventing the wheel here. There's many towns our size that no other town does this, okay? No other town builds speed bumps that look like that, okay? There's all the time that does what we're doing in this town. There's a mystery to the things that we're doing in this town that is frightening to me. But that's why we're here. We're correcting this.

We're not because we're being undermined.

We're not allowed to correct things. I was kicked out of a meeting when I was trying to bring some common sense into things that, you know, you don't need to hire this. We know how to do things properly. That's why we're here.

Thank you for doing that because now they're going to pass it to us, right? Any speed bumps or anything that they want? And now the awnings is the same. We didn't... They won't.

So I would encourage members of this board to please attend the meeting, which is when?

I believe it's January 13th. I can... January 13th. Yeah.

Regarding this matter, because this likely will be on the agenda.

Yeah.

Thank you for the heads up. I do think we should move into our ordinances, since we do have a couple of ordinances to discuss.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam... Clerk, would you please read number 6A ordinance into the record?

Yes, Madam Chair. An ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Surfside, Florida, amending the Town of Surfside Code of Ordinances by amending Section 90-57, Marine Structures, to allow marine structures destroyed by a natural disaster to be rebuilt to previously approved conditions, providing for separate ability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. That's item 6A.

Thank you. Who is presenting this item? Scarlett?

Yes. Yeah, just quickly some background of why this is coming before you. This item went to the commission on October 27th. At the meeting, the commission requested that this item be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and get feedback before it was brought for their second reading. They had one specific question, really, that the board included. whether or not to add a timeframe for the kind of grandfathering and of the marine structures. They did suggest five or 10 years, but wanted to get your opinion on that. Just to note that at least one commissioner didn't agree with the grandfathering any zoning changes, and they all wanted more feedback from the board on this item. If the board does desire to add a timeframe or a time limit, the following could be added to this. It would be following a natural disaster or other event resulting in total destruction, pre-existing marine structures may be rebuilt to the condition previously permitted, notwithstanding any changes to the town code. The rebuild clause would only apply for a period of blank years from the time of the building permit issuance.

Can you help me understand the rationale for treating marine structures differently than homes? What's behind that?

I do not have an answer for the background of why this was brought before the board as a difference from other grandfathered.

Can anybody in the room answer that question? Okay, come on up, state your name and address for the record.

Jeff Zomper, 8827 Emerson. I'm gonna argue, I'll answer your question, but I'm gonna argue in the alternative here. To answer the question, Mayor Burkett was asked by one homeowner to get this written into ordinance and as a favor. That's exactly what he's doing. And he admitted that. If you go back and look at the meeting, he specifically said that. So he's not hiding it. My feelings on this are you put rules into place, whether they're for safety, whether they're for aesthetics, whatever the reason, there's a logic to having the rules in place. Whether something is affected by a natural disaster, whether it's affected by aging over time, I don't see a major difference as to how it should be treated. Lastly, if you're going to make a change like this, you should make it for houses as well. There are lots of people in town, and I mentioned this at the meeting itself, and I got poo-pooed that I was trying to protect the monster houses, as Charlie puts it, that are being built in town. But there are houses, mine included, that were built prior to the monster houses that with the changes to the code, if my house got knocked down, I would not be able to build my same house. I have five foot setbacks and I wouldn't be able to build the same house. So my first preference is, this is bullshit. and you should let the town, the commission know how you feel about it. I will be there in the next meeting to let them know how I feel about it. But if you are going, if they are gonna go ahead and do this, then they ought to do it for structures as well, for all structures. Because my roof, even though it's metal, can blow off too. I don't know what the change in requirements are. between 2016 when that roof was put on and now. That's it. Thank you.

Did you want to speak as well? He speaks for you. Okay. Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this? Okay. Board members, thoughts and comments?

Well, for me, it's common sense, right? The rules, the new rules apply, or they were said because of something, right? So if it gets destroyed, you have to build it up to the current code or the current rules.

I agree.

So it's simple.

Other thoughts, or is there a general consensus on that?

Yeah, I smell a rat. I always smell a rat with a commission. So no, I think you should build it up to code.

I agree.

If...

That's the whole reason we have the current code and care about our code. Yeah, exactly. So, you know, I would be in favor of a denial, rejection of this change entirely. Does anybody want to move? I don't know. Madam Attorney, what would the exact motion be? Would it... Rejection? Denial? Rejection with a recommendation to disapprove the ordinance. Okay. Does anybody want to make that motion? Rejection with a recommendation to disapprove the ordinance.

I make a motion to reject ordinance.

Okay. And disapprove at the commission. Is there a second?

I second.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Board Member Aparicio?

Yes.

Board Member Chavez?

Yes.

Alternate Member Pinto?

Yes.

Alternate Member Sanchez? Yes. Chair LeCour? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion carries.

Great, thank you, thank you. Let's move on to ordinance under 6B. Madam Clerk, please read the ordinance.

Yes, Madam Chair. An ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Surfside, Florida, amending ordinance number 2024-1785, which amends section 90-45, setbacks, and section 90-49, law standards in the H-38 and H-30B districts, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for conflict, and providing for an effective date. That's item 6B. Thank you.

Madam Planner. Yes, just for a background of where this ordinance has gone. In September, this ordinance was passed by the commission without amendments. Then it came before you later in that month, and you recommended several changes. Basically, the changes were that if adopted, new homes over 17 feet in height or one that is substantially improved must maintain a side setback of either 7 1⁄2 feet or 9 feet based on its FAR, while a one-story home less than 17 feet in height may maintain the traditional five feet side setbacks. The change recommended by the board was to delete the clarification that increased setbacks would only apply to two-story homes, and the board wanted this to only apply to homes greater than 17 feet in height. The board noted that the height limit of 22 feet is actually taller when you consider free board. This item was then brought back to the town commission on October 22nd, which included the changes proposed by the board. And the commission had several comments and wanted to ask the board to reconsider if the greater setback should apply to substantial improvement renovations or just to new home construction. That was their main concern. Also, it was commented to have the maximum height of a one story with five foot setbacks be revised to a maximum height of 22 feet versus 17 as that was proposed by the board.

OK. Any commentary from the public? Come on up. State your name and address for the record, please.

Carlosetti, 9164 Fraud Avenue. So for this one, which is very personal for the project we're trying to pass, the first thing is to understand what the 22 or 17 feet are counted from. Current code reads is from Crown of the Road, which is three feet, more or less, between three and four. So that means that currently it's 25 feet from Crandall Road to Crandall structure. There's 10 feet to get to NGVD. So that actually means that under current code, the wall, the continuous wall will be 15 feet tall. So when you're saying you when the discussion was is it 22 feet is it the wall being 22 feet or is it 22 feet from Crown Road because there is a 10 feet difference 10 foot difference there.

Now it could it could be 3 to 5 feet also right not necessarily 10 feet 7 if the Crown of Road is it's it's closer to 4 to 5 in most places in town. So to get to 10, you're five to six feet higher.

So in our house is three something, I think three, four. Okay. So that's what we're talking about. It's 15, 16 feet, right? With the current code. With the modification for it being 17 feet from Crown Road, that means that the structure itself. So from floor to ceiling, we're talking about 10 and a half to 11 feet. So that's the maximum size of the wall that we can have. from ngvd to the top of the house so the question being is it meant to reduce the height and continuity of the wall or is it meant to be reduced from the crown of the road because i personally feel that by lowering it to 17 feet from crown road you there will be significant punishment which will not be it will not seem to have a proper foundation for having homes being capped at some of them in 10 and a half feet of the structure of the house itself so that's why i think the current code works well when it being 22 because in reality it can be anywhere from 15 to 17 feet the actual wall of the house from ngvd to the top of the house so that's what i think it's uh it's what has to be clarified because you're not going to have a 22 foot house from ngvd up you can't It's going to be either 15, 16, 12, or sorry, 17 to 15, or it's going to be 10 to 12. That's kind of where it's going to stand. So I think that's the whole clarification that's needed here. And I don't, I mean, I feel strongly that it should remain the same way or else there's going to be new homes that won't have the ability to have taller roofs inside.

And Scarlett, remind me, the reason why there was concern about the 22 feet is because a single, there was a limitation on a single story that... It was 22 feet, yeah. It was 22 feet from where? From Crown of Road? Or from NGVD?

It can be from NGVD.

Let me see, just look at the language.

Yeah, I've lost a little bit of the train about why we went from 22 to 17.

Oh, okay, where we have this height, there's only one place in the code that has the height. It's underneath the table for lot standards. It's in the ordinance here. It says homes with a maximum height, there's a little asterisk at the bottom. Homes with a maximum height of 22 feet that do not exceed one habitable story may provide up to 50% lot coverage. This is really the only place that we've got a limit on our one story height. And we don't put a measurement here, but I would assume that we would go with how we do a two-story home.

That's how we got there. Just so I can refresh the board. I think we were saying, you know, because I remember we wrote down looking at limiting single-story height to 12 feet. So if you're taking 12 feet plus the five feet from the crown of road, you're at 17. So I think that's how we got to 17. Right. Recall correctly? Yeah. Yeah. So now I'm confused. Because I think the difference is that 22 would allow a 17-foot tall single-story home. And we have some concerns about that.

Okay. So my question then being, what's the, I understand the concern in that sense, but in the cases in which you'll be limited at the height of the home inside to let's say 11 and a half foot.

But how do you get to 11 and a half feet?

Because if you're 17 from the crown of the road and the crown of the road is three and a half, you had six and a half, right? So you're already at 10 with six and a half, 17 minus six and a half.

So you're at 11, yeah.

Exactly. So that's my point. I feel that I would have a very strong legal argument to say that this is arbitrary and you're actually limiting, the code is limiting my ability to build a house that's over 11 foot in structure. There's a case in 1993, actually, I don't want to go the legal route because then I'll be kind of like suing myself because I'll be paying for the legal fees of the town through taxes and then my legal fees. And there's enough jurisprudence, we feel, that this will be considered arbitrary. Because there's no real strong either architectural or design argument to say your house must be capped. If it's a single-story, if you're not going to the two-story homes, then you're capped at minimum, let's say, 11.5. It could be 13, but it could also be 1.5. So I think it's kind of a disservice if you're trying to build a single-story home. I understand what the code is trying to do, and I appreciate it, but I feel this is a very... aggressive in a certain sense, because you're not going to have a 22-foot wall.

Yeah, I really feel that this is something that would benefit from some visuals and diagramming. I think it's really hard to conceptualize this in abstract. You know, I'd really love to see, you know, what avenue are you on?

Frode.

Frode. So that's apparently a three-foot crown of road. I'd love to see what this 17 versus 22 looks like from a crown of road In context, I mean if that would be helpful to other board members, it's just me then I don't want to but you know, it's I and I understand your point too is you know, we need to come up with a Rubric that makes sense across, you know all of our homes We're not trying to penalize, you know, these certain homes in any way We are trying to avoid you know, tall mass, you know, at the street. it's a tweak of a code that's already in place.

Yeah, I mean, I understand. I don't, respectfully don't agree because I think there's, the code was wrote in that way for a certain sense. And again, whatever the decision is, and it's going to determine which route we take when we move forward with the project because we feel we have all the legal basis to apply whatever code it is. Understood. We just don't want to go that way.

We did this because there are some examples around town that they kind of took advantage of this. But can we look at each project like that through variances or something like that?

I mean, historically, and maybe we decide to do things differently, we have not wanted to legislate through variance. We wanted to come up with a policy that we can stick to unless there's a highly unusual policy configuration of the lot or circumstance of that home that is really unusual. We've seen some lots shaped like this. The code just doesn't apply there in the right way.

You're saying a single family home? Single story. Huh? Single story. Single story. I'm sorry. COULD BE UP TO 22 FEET UP IN HEIGHT. FROM THE CRONAL ROAD. EXACTLY.

SO MINUS BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE FEET FROM THAT IS HOW HIGH THE WALL WOULD BE. SO IT'S AN 18-FOOT WALL OR A

The issues in our case, since we're doing an understore with the house, by applying the new code that's being proposed to bring it up to 17, there's all the space underneath because we're lifting the home, and then the home is pretty much shrunk and not allowed to have more than 11 and a half, 11 foot ceilings. Well, not to say you have to take out all the AC and all the space on top, so we're having actually like a smaller, in a certain sense.

Yeah, and we have to be careful about, you know, legislating for your home, right? I appreciate your feedback and that's very helpful.

The understory homes are a different beast. How do they qualify the understory homes? Two-story homes or the one-story homes? Single-family homes.

They're one or two-story homes. We don't have three-story homes. But you can build your understory at seven feet, at ten feet. This would eliminate The 17 feet would eliminate someone from saying, you know what, I'm going to take an extra foot of a free board because I want to make sure I'm above flood. Then if you're at 17 feet, you're just moving up towards that, right, on a single storey.

Yeah, it ends up being a two-story house. Yeah. That's our biggest fear is that some of the single storey, every house is going to be a two-story house. The height of it is going to be a two-story house.

Right. So is it better to compromise on a slightly higher single family or single story maximum to avoid going to the two story? But I'm not sure that we would accomplish that with this. So I don't know what the right height is. And we need some sort of framework or justification to set a line so that it's not arbitrary, because we don't want to be arbitrary.

But I honestly think even the current code is arbitrary at some point. There's no way to objectively say this is too tall, this is not too tall. The logic is applied through what the city looks like, the landscape with the Crown Road and what's considered a single story home could be with the NGVD.

Yeah, I mean, the hard and fast rules that we've had in Surfside forever are 30 feet height max. No way you can go higher, right, for a two-story home. I mean, we don't even say for a two-story home, for a home. So I think there have been setbacks added after that that bring the sides in, and we just need to figure out...

I believe the reason for 22 is if you have 15 feet from NGVD to double house, you can't build two stories on 15 feet. That's why you're forced. I mean, it will be a midget house to have six feet ceilings on two stories.

Well, all it's saying, though, it's not saying you can't do that. You just have to bring the setback in more.

but then you can get to 0.5 if you are. So it's kind of like it's the- So that's the math too.

We should double check that math because if we apply 17 feet, seven and a half feet, 10%, can you get to 0.54? Because we're not trying to legislate, I don't think, away from that. We're not trying to be inconsistent with that. So that's what I'm saying. I think it's time for some visuals and some math to really dig into this and make sure it makes sense.

Can we defer this until we have this, like visuals? Yeah?

Yeah. We can.

Yeah, I understand your frustration, because you're in the middle of the process of designing a house, and you don't want to be caught. No, no.

I don't think it's that. Honestly, the frustration comes from, I understand the idea of wanting to limit.

If you're going up, you come in. That's the idea.

yeah i mean and to be honest i don't i don't know if two and a half feet of additional setback makes that much about it makes a huge difference okay that's why i'm not an expert but i i honestly in the size lots we have it makes a huge difference okay i just feel that the code change and what they're trying to do to charter into law and all these attempts are just, it, it kind of feels like if you were here before, good for you, you have, you know, beautiful understory house, three-story house, you get all setbacks, you get a big house and you get, and then if you were here after you got to, you know, do what you have to do and you have to make it smaller and humbler. So I think that it feels like it's the wrong time. I appreciate the, the idea behind it. I just think if, if, we're trying to get single story homes in the current time. It's hard to imagine a 12 foot wall with a single story home on a coastal town. It's just, it feels like it's, uh, it's too limiting in a certain sense for people.

Maybe we should put it on a ballot question.

Ask the housewives of United of Surfside. What do they think?

Okay. So I think our options here are to approve, reject, or defer for further information.

It's a motion to defer until we've done the math and we've presented with visuals.

That line up with the Crown of Road, show the FAR, show the dimensions.

Yes.

Okay. A motion on the table, is there a second? Okay.

I second the motion.

Moses seconds. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Board Member Aparicio?

Yes.

Board Member Chavez?

Yes.

Alternate Member Pinto?

Yes.

Alternate Member Sanchez? Yes. Chair Locore? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you for the discussion, everybody. Our next meeting is on January 29th. Any comments, questions about that?

No.

I'm pulling up my calendar just to make sure.

Technically, your next meeting is the design guideline workshop that Monday.

When? That's true. Okay. So we have two meetings that week, remember, everybody? Yeah. We have design guidelines on Monday the 26th at 5 o'clock. and we have our next planning and zoning board on Thursday the 29th at 6 p.m., okay? Future discussion tracker, Scarlett has included it. I'd like to just look at it briefly with you all. On it, we have, for January, we have berm and terrace on the right of way leading to a front door. So I think, again, anywhere we can have some framing of that issue and what the question, what problem are we solving? And I think in this case, we're solving tower of stairs and steep ramp up to the front door. And I think it would be great to move that forward if we can come up with some proposals that match some of the recent approvals we've done along those lines and visuals. We talked about marine structure grandfather, reducing the 30-foot maximum building height for single-family homes. That's going to be a big one for January. I think I'd rather discuss this. Maybe for January, we could instead bring this side setback and try to bring some closure to our board's opinions about that for January?