[0:40] So what you guys are signing in, we're going to start because we have a 12 o'clock. So so sorry.

[0:46] So you guys could just sign in whoever's here, just make sure you sign in. And then we're just

[0:50] going to start real quick.

[0:56] We have I.E. Nice.

[1:00] Well planned. I know.

[1:17] Hello, everyone. Welcome

[1:19] Welcome to a development and review committee meeting August 13, 20, 20, 26.

[1:26] Let's stand for the pledges just to the flag.

[1:47] Okay, so we're going to do a roll call.

[1:49] I'm Lorraine Debelle, town planner.

[1:51] You need these Martinez, building department manager.

[1:55] Brandi Daniel, town engineer.

[1:58] Okay, today review and discussion of a site plan application by 92, 91, ebh limited to construct a new 33 unit multifamily development.

[2:08] to be located at 9291 through 9301 East Bay Harbor Drive.

[2:14] Includes are the site plans and staff reports prepared by me.

[2:20] So we're going to start off with building with their comments.

[2:25] On behalf of the chief building official, Alexander Garcia, he reviewed the plans that were submitted,

[2:30] and building has approved no comments.

[2:34] Next, we have Randy Daniels, engineering comments.

[2:36] I think it'd be so easy.

[2:40] Good morning.

[2:41] As I was talking to,

[2:43] forget your name,

[2:45] so my comments

[2:47] were based on the last meeting obviously.

[2:51] At that meeting,

[2:52] the engineer who was here,

[2:54] and I'm not sure if I had a call with him on the phone

[2:57] or if he was here in person,

[2:59] but we talked about

[3:00] the system sort of holding water.

[3:05] And I was a little concerned that the system with whole water indefinitely for a long period

[3:10] of time.

[3:11] And I said to him, see if you can avoid that.

[3:14] And that's sort of where we left that off.

[3:16] Right.

[3:17] So, were you, what do we tend to know?

[3:18] My name is sort of, my name is Rodrigo Bermuda.

[3:20] I work with Ford and Levy Skiles who is the OR for the, for that part of the project.

[3:27] So, I wasn't here.

[3:29] here, I wasn't, I didn't, my boss was who had that discussion with you. I'm aware of

[3:34] the situation. So the situation is at the downstream defender, which we are proposing for

[3:40] the pollution. It works like that. So the invert elevation for the inflow is lower than

[3:45] the invert elevation for the outflow. That's why the pipe is, the pipe going north south

[3:51] on the project will be always below the outflow invert elevation. And that's why it's

[3:58] going to retain the water because that's how the system works.

[4:03] So I need an email on that because in my opinion, I can't see how that would make a lot

[4:08] of sense.

[4:10] Send me the information please.

[4:12] Are you a P?

[4:12] I'm a P.

[4:13] Yes.

[4:14] Send me the information with the brochure for the defender system.

[4:19] I need to look at that.

[4:20] It's on the plants.

[4:20] I have it here.

[4:21] If you want to review it.

[4:22] I don't know.

[4:23] Just make it easy for me.

[4:24] If you can send the brochure for the defender system to tell me how it works, I can look

[4:29] at it at a day and we can have a solution to that today.

[4:32] But for now, that's the only thing holding me up for approving this project, just to

[4:36] be clear.

[4:37] That's the only item that we talked about last week, last time we met Julie Leverler.

[4:44] And we were supposed to have had this conversation before this meeting.

[4:48] But we haven't it now, which is okay.

[4:50] but I do need to see the information regarding the defender box and what the

[4:58] manufacturers of it intended for how they intend for it to operate. It was

[5:05] sent before I can send it again of course no problem with that. It was sent. I'm

[5:11] not doubting that at all but if you can recently just to make it easier for me to

[5:16] access it would probably be a bit to I believe it to this

[5:19] around probably to day once I can read it and with a phone

[5:23] number who I can call to discuss it if I have questions

[5:27] understood can

[5:30] you show you no I mean he has it but you want me

[5:34] to resend it yeah okay is it here in plans to show you so at

[5:39] the meeting you guys can have a discussion because we're on a

[5:41] time limit to 12 so that could be at this meeting if rainy has

[5:45] time you guys can sit with him if you want to do that the

[5:48] meaning over. No, I'm not prepared to do that right now, but you have my assurance that once it's

[5:56] sent to me again, you said you sent it, I haven't seen it. I don't want to mix with a bunch of plans

[6:01] I have to shift to the data. Make it easy for me. I just need to see the data for the defender. That's

[6:07] what I'm interested in. What the defender system is about, how it works, and how the detailed

[6:13] sure of the of the product. Yes, it's actually here. Yes, okay. I'm not going to make any guarantees, but let me take a look at it.

[6:23] So let's go ahead. I can come back and. Okay.

[6:26] Just for the record, Matt Amster, with the Berk Howard, Alfred end of Zlarkin and tap it as applicant for the, sorry, attorney for the applicant. And what I just handed is a letter from

[6:41] I believe it was shared at least discussed in those prior conversations, but it was included in our response narrative.

[6:52] So we can re-centred to you again.

[6:54] So to be clear, Matt, on the podium respect, the last time we met on June 11, I guess you were here, just came up and I said I did not.

[7:04] I was against that condition to be allowed in the town, the engineer at the time, I'm not

[7:10] sure if it was who it was, I might have spoken to him on the phone and he said he was going

[7:14] to look into it.

[7:15] Michael, that's great.

[7:16] Okay, that's how we left it off on June 11th.

[7:19] So I, this could have been a submitter, I'm not saying it wasn't, but all I'm saying is that

[7:24] he said I told him what my concern was and he said he was going to look into it and that's

[7:28] where we left it off.

[7:30] So I haven't heard back from him.

[7:31] So I don't know, you know, I can look at this again.

[7:34] I mean, all this says is that this is how it's going to work,

[7:37] but the engineer hasn't really spoken to me about

[7:40] another system or something else that we can use.

[7:44] I haven't had that conversation because to be clear,

[7:47] the way this is going to work, if there's a high tide,

[7:49] not if when there's a high tide,

[7:52] this our system is going to be totally submerged in a high tide.

[7:57] Okay, so the entire system is being designed to hold water, I'm going to say perpetually

[8:03] because it's going to always have water in it.

[8:06] Now, the good thing is, I guess, with the flow, the tide is going to ever move, so there's

[8:11] not going to be stagnant water, okay, that's probably a good thing, but there's going to

[8:17] be water in that pipe.

[8:17] I'm not sure how it's going to affect the capacity of set pipe to drain into the bee because

[8:23] And if it's hold in water, then how much water is it going to be able to discharge once

[8:27] there's an event?

[8:28] So, that's sort of where I'm going with this concern, okay?

[8:32] I'm not saying it can't work.

[8:34] All I'm saying is that I need to understand how it is going to work.

[8:39] And those are all I'm saying.

[8:40] And based on the last meeting we had, the engineer promised me to look into it and have a conversation

[8:45] with me.

[8:45] But not with this.

[8:46] This was submitted before, like you said, in me.

[8:48] But we also resummitted it with our response narrative for prior to this meeting, right?

[8:56] Our response narrative includes that there's a letter with that, not just the

[9:00] presentation.

[9:00] I have nothing yet.

[9:01] I was dated post June 11th.

[9:04] He didn't reissue the letter, but we submitted it as part of our...

[9:08] I guess he didn't tell me the truth at that time because on the June 11th meeting, he said

[9:12] he's going to look into it and get back in.

[9:14] And we have the passage.

[9:18] With you regarding that, but I just want to make sure it's clear in the record that we have submitted that prior to this meeting to address the concern if there's more questions and a need to clarify and fine tune will reach out to you to do so.

[9:32] Understood and for the record on the June 11th meeting, I was promised that I would have had a conversation or we see further information from the engineer on said defender system which has not occurred.

[9:44] So, to be clear, I will now go down and look at this information a little more carefully

[9:50] and see how best I can understand it and how best I think it can work for the ton of

[9:56] e-hob.

[9:56] And we'll have a day to reach out to you as well.

[10:02] But I will look into it and see what I think.

[10:07] I will look at it and see how best she waits applicable.

[10:11] But I don't even, you know, I got, I had not studied this, you know, I was only

[10:16] concerned about the water retention in the system. That was my concern. But now

[10:20] that you've sort of asked me to look into this on my own, I will, I will look into it and

[10:26] see what I think. And I'll let you all know. Azulia study. I don't want to delay this

[10:32] project anymore. No, it's been there for a while. We appreciate that. Yeah, I will look at it

[10:36] the and get back who should I get back to? Can I have your phone number, please?

[10:42] Sir, I have a car.

[10:48] Yeah, the office number is 305. Yeah, I prefer a cell phone. Okay,

[10:54] seven, eight, six, seven, eight, six, three, zero, zero, nine, one, nine, six.

[11:02] R-O-D-S-N-D-R-I-G-O, last name, B-E-R-M-U-D-S-N-D-E-Z.

[11:17] correct. Would you go I will get a hold of you later today and we will have a conversation.

[11:23] Thank you.

[11:26] Okay so now we're going to do zoning comments.

[11:33] Before we move on.

[11:35] Randy if you could there was I believe an understanding has been obtained now on the separate matter

[11:41] of sewer that I believe your your yes let me address that. Agreeing with our general teams

[11:48] is understanding. Well let's make sure about that. The last meeting we agreed to move forward on

[11:54] conditional as a conditional approval for the project and the conditions were not really

[12:01] spelled out at the meeting. What I did subsequently that meeting I sent an email to the

[12:06] building official to clarify what my concerns were with Sue. And that email I have since forwarded

[12:14] I guess to this team, outlining what I was looking for.

[12:21] So, I don't have the email handy, but it speaks to the hydraulic model at the town is in the process of doing.

[12:30] Once the model is completed, the developer will run the model for the project.

[12:37] And if there are any issues arising out of that computation from the model, the developer

[12:46] is an agreement to make whatever modifications to our system that will be required to facilitate

[12:53] the project.

[12:55] That's sort of the condition of this approval.

[13:08] We want to make sure that this is just written.

[13:10] Do you want us to write this conditional language or is that something that you would write?

[13:15] I would suggest I think in going forward we should have it written up and signed off on so it's

[13:20] clear to all to both parties. Okay, we can we'll propose it simply an email probably the quickest way

[13:28] to have you review. Yeah, we can do that. But I again, I would suggest we have something legally prepared

[13:38] unsigned as my opinion how we should go forward. Well, it's a conditional approval

[13:43] So, instead of, you know, like on your, can't, can't there be a list of conditions in the report that is, you know, voted on by the DRC, I'm trying to.

[13:57] That way it's directly in the record.

[14:03] As you were just saying, I'll give, I'll have to get back to you with that one.

[14:07] Um, um, I don't see an issue because I do have some, like, I made a list just for planning because the way.

[14:15] Right. So the way that I believe that the process would continue forward, right to memorialize.

[14:21] We move forward after DRC with a condition where the next step or DRB,

[14:26] which has a final resolution that has conditions, right? This condition is not going to be resolved unless your modeling happens in a month.

[14:35] You know, in a short period of time, so I think that would be, then we have a condition

[14:40] that we're just carrying forward that the DRB would include in their approval, right?

[14:47] Because you're going to have a review at that time as well, I mean, it's mostly because

[14:52] of our understanding here of approving technical review at the DRC that that's part of the

[14:58] the history of the project.

[15:00] That gets memorialized in a condition in the resolution. I guess we couldn't discuss that until, you know, I'm not sure if there's precedence for that. Correct. Yeah, we'll get back to you on that one today. Definitely. It's also an email. Um, was there any other engineer comments you guys? No, not at this stage. Okay. The stage project is remains disapproved until I can go through the stormwater documents in front of me right now. To be clear. Okay. And

[15:29] but hopefully we can get that resolved by the end of business today.

[15:33] Thank you.

[15:34] Thank you.

[15:36] So we're planning in zoning.

[15:38] I'm going to start in page three of the comments.

[15:41] So this is under the documents.

[15:51] So just with this sustainability and new elements.

[15:55] I only ask that because currently people have a lot of electric bikes,

[16:00] electric scooters.

[16:01] So I just want to point out are you guys, I guess, have a location for that?

[16:06] is not required by code, but I know a lot of buildings do not want it in the apartments.

[16:11] So that's why I'm just highlighting. So I know you guys were to respond that it will be amended

[16:14] during, but what amending are you doing? So it's like a yes and no. That's all I want. So if you're

[16:20] not doing any like extra, you know, electric car station or any charging for any electric bike,

[16:26] that's the new thing, electric bikes, electric scooters, most currently developments that are open

[16:31] now do not want that in apartments. So I just want to point that out now. So if you guys are not

[16:36] add in it, that's fine. I just wanted to let it be known. So moving forward, it's not a surprise.

[16:42] So that's for I, for one. So you're mainly concerned about bike storage?

[16:49] What electrical bikes are. Yes. So we currently are the town getting calls because a lot of the

[16:56] properties currently do not allow them in their apartments because you know obviously calls is whatever

[17:00] fire or stuff like that. So we just want to point that out. Therefore in the future, if you guys

[17:05] have to provide that you guys will have a location so it's not required by

[17:10] code but I just wanted to point that out for the development. So I have a

[17:15] question for you. I think this is basically about right what you would be

[17:19] able to accept as a change that I get the building permit time right is that I

[17:23] believe the concern that's really besides the just practical nature of you know

[17:28] people may want this if we don't show it in the plan now right I think that

[17:32] what you're calling out, correct you if I'm wrong, right?

[17:34] Yes.

[17:34] You know, there would be a change after approval in the permit.

[17:40] And then I'd say that that can't happen.

[17:42] I'm just sort of asking if that is a-

[17:46] Well, it depends on the change.

[17:47] So just thinking that, did you guys have an area that-

[17:51] So the property has, because remember,

[17:54] we were reduced from 33 to 32 units.

[17:57] So that actually means that we have more parking than necessary.

[18:01] OK.

[18:01] So I'm not committing to this. I'm just saying it could be that a parking space or two could be

[18:08] repurposed for

[18:09] Bike storage charging etc

[18:12] Bike racks, so yeah, whatever. Okay, so parking is not that bad. I just didn't want like a whole room

[18:18] Because I don't know. I want to know. I want to hold them to it. Yeah, but if that a change

[18:23] That you feel that you could approve. Yeah, I can change the parking spot. So okay, so now that we know that yeah

[18:28] For now, we're not going to show, but I think that that seems to be the way to address that.

[18:33] Yes.

[18:33] And thank you for raising the, again, practical nature of it.

[18:37] I want to make sure that we're not headed for a problem.

[18:39] And they have to go ahead and put it in.

[18:41] Correct.

[18:41] When everything comes back, they contact the town.

[18:43] And then they come after, you know, not come after us,

[18:46] explain why that wasn't thought about during a review process.

[18:50] So another thing is the analysis.

[18:52] So I did read the email between Keith Richardson.

[18:54] So that was impact fees, not concurrency review.

[18:59] So I did call him when I did review.

[19:01] So impact fees in currency review are two different things.

[19:05] What's there, but there's, they're related in that

[19:08] what is an impact fee?

[19:10] It's what is the development that's new

[19:13] and its impact on all kinds of fees, right?

[19:16] It's mobility and school and at the town level,

[19:20] there's, you know, parks, et cetera.

[19:22] there are correct, but this is just for like the word of flow, the pressure and

[19:28] currently you have a vacant lot. So the town won't be taking like we okay so

[19:34] you have the county but within the town we don't take impact fees and the

[19:37] currency as the same. So currently you have a vacant lot. So you have no

[19:42] word of flow that we can actually look within a year or two to see what was the

[19:45] pressure for our current use of our pipes. So the lot's been one lot's been

[19:50] big and full over 10 years. So putting putting that smaller a lot that's only for units aside.

[19:56] The here's my big picture and if we need to I don't want this to take the time away from

[20:02] addressing the architectural comments. Yes. So really hope that we can move this entire project forward.

[20:09] But you know we are levels of service is based on impact which is how many units that you have.

[20:17] That's water flow, that's trips on the roads, you know, and the et cetera.

[20:21] So that, to me, a level of service is treated the same way from what we're talking about, right?

[20:28] What was there before?

[20:29] So as an example, not the only thing that I can point to is that Mr. Richardson at the county

[20:36] who does impact fees, goes back a very long time to 1989 and 1992 records that they have to

[20:44] figure out pre-existing credit for impacts on the roads, right?

[20:49] The roads did not automatically shrink and change just because a building was demolished.

[20:56] And so they're very generous, I get it, you know, but that's how they handle it, and

[21:01] that's specified in the county.

[21:04] The town is actually located in the county and those impact fees do apply to all the county

[21:10] one's which again mobility is a great benefit to the town by having those

[21:14] fees paid and come back to help for you know roadway improvements over time

[21:20] probably to the bridge to so those are that's a great way to show that there

[21:29] is a acknowledgement of the credit and what's happened here this is this

[21:33] property owner purchased this both these properties to combine them together to

[21:37] come forward, you know that we've been working on this for two and a half years, more probably.

[21:44] And what did they do?

[21:45] They just an anticipation, a redevelopment, they demolished the building.

[21:50] They made a business decision to determine whether they hold onto an aging building, keep

[21:55] up the maintenance, or demolish it in the hopes of, and we haven't gotten there yet, that

[22:01] this new project would be built.

[22:02] it's not like it was done eons ago and there truly is no more impact the number of units is

[22:09] definitely well-known and documented so we can easily and we have we provided the impact

[22:14] assessment for that. We've also reviewed state law about levels of service the town's code as well

[22:21] as the county and we do not see anything that says that you can't recognize this. I wasn't and then in

[22:27] And the typical way of let's go to school concurrency and levels of service, the existing

[22:36] buildings that are there before are always been utilized for assessment of the net difference.

[22:44] So I was just giving you an example that from the county's perspective, they will.

[22:51] And I reached out to a different person who does traffic.

[22:53] And I think that this still relates to our, we have yet to get a traffic meeting that

[22:59] is about trips that is also going to be about this issue.

[23:02] What do we do for an analysis of the net change on this property?

[23:08] And I'd like to add, I did talk to the finance director.

[23:12] I think that also sheds light on what we're really talking about.

[23:16] But these are not units that were, again, eons, old, and gone that this is a vacant property.

[23:25] The roads that are there today and all of the systems in place, right, your sewer, water

[23:32] and sewer capacity, all of those things accounted for those units, just because they are temporarily

[23:38] not there at the moment doesn't mean that they did not exist and that the capacity isn't

[23:43] there for them today.

[23:44] Okay, so that is our so my concern is at least that much more recent unit count.

[23:54] Okay, so my concern with this is the water flow, the sewer and the waste.

[24:00] So that's when I'm stating that the law is vacant.

[24:02] So you can't use the number of old units that was there for the water flow.

[24:09] When technically the building doesn't exist right now.

[24:12] There's no building so we don't even have any calculations within the couple of years to see how much water pressure, how much water flow can the current pipes we have now the current system we have now hold that now when the buildings were there now we have so much development going on right now that already took over the supply we have now so you're now building a new building so when I'm stating that but impact fees doesn't count towards this is the concurrency we need to

[24:42] do the water pressure flow. You guys account on a building doesn't exist. It will be zero because

[24:46] currently we have nothing to compare it to. So that's my main concern, not really the road,

[24:51] the road that would be reviewed when we have our traffic, you know, engineer, but in the concurrency

[24:56] review, literally everyone does it at Dickhonson County, every other city, even Miami, well,

[25:02] what's next again, North Miami Beach, they usually have a spreadsheet which you're working on.

[25:06] So you have your current. The current will be what building is there. Currently you have no

[25:11] water flow, no sewer, no waste is zero. So it will be zero, and then your proposal will be what

[25:17] you're proposing in the building. So I think that's my main concern, which it's not really about

[25:23] the road, because that will be our traffic review or review in that. What I'm talking about is the

[25:27] spreadsheet that shows that it says current water flow, like the pressure, the calculation.

[25:32] Currently, you have no buildings, should be zero. So I think that's what I'm more concerned about,

[25:37] not the road. So you're going to treat things differently based on the type of analysis,

[25:44] which I don't think is. It's not true differently. It's a big and lot. Well, but my

[25:52] concern is that we're picking and

[25:55] choosing the way that the analysis is done when it's all about levels of service and the impact that is

[26:01] happening on the levels of service. And I think that this is current. The current level of service. So literally

[26:07] I don't know who you contacted besides Keith at the county, but I also reached out to you know other so you have to reach out to the public works department. They don't want to do the water and sewer.

[26:18] Okay, so maybe we can, like I said, I want to get to the architectural.

[26:23] Okay, so but back to the traffic meeting.

[26:26] Yeah, so I just talked to the finance director, our attorney was reviewing the contract, which we was just we had some things that needed to review.

[26:38] We've been.

[26:39] Yes.

[26:39] Respectfully you have our very large deposit.

[26:43] Yes.

[26:44] For months.

[26:45] And we are trying to get this project to move on to DRB.

[26:49] I don't even know where what is ahead of us because we even haven't haven't had this meeting between the traffic engineers.

[26:55] And I appreciate I know it's yes, I know some of these things are out of your hand, but I am working as fast. I assure you I've been on and every day trying to get the answer fully before it is me and after I do inspections, I'll go back and see what is the answer to that.

[27:15] We can move on to the architecture comments.

[27:18] Okay, so this is on page six. We could start with yeah, so we'll just page six number one on the sea wall the permits expired.

[27:28] So we would need to update for that update. Yeah, you just guys need to just reopen the permit.

[27:37] It was expired. I believe a week or two ago, so there was no activities on that.

[27:45] So just number two, this is just the outline of what would be a separate permit.

[27:51] So we typically only put that once we submit to the building department for permit.

[27:55] This wouldn't go in our DRC package or planning work.

[27:59] So I required that on here, there's always no surprises.

[28:02] So for some reason, not the blame people.

[28:04] When people go to DRC and DRB is usually a different contractor, a different person, and

[28:09] they're surprised that something requires a separate permit.

[28:11] Usually, the only thing that pulls a window in your apartment, the contractor.

[28:16] It's like, we have an issue with retained walls, people are building them and no permit.

[28:20] We're having issues with driveways, people are not submitting the driveway permit, fence

[28:24] permit, everyone's building it and not submitting the separate permit.

[28:27] Suggestions of knowledge, therefore, if you're not the whoever's doing the, you know, the

[28:32] work of building, there's no surprises.

[28:35] That's perfectly fine.

[28:37] Okay.

[28:38] Okay, so number two,

[28:42] oh, okay, so a number three on page A101, I just want to be clear

[28:47] there's two different color grays.

[28:48] That all, both of them count as a driveway, okay, okay, that was just more of a question

[28:53] ask.

[28:54] Not really a comment.

[28:55] And then on the next part, I had a question, okay, you're asking for the areas.

[29:00] We provided overall areas as in this is the amount of green space, landscape on the roof

[29:05] and this is the usable area.

[29:07] So which question is that one?

[29:08] that's can you please provide square footage of each area for the rooftop a of a 101.

[29:14] Correct so the green space and make sure it all equals a 15% but I provided it in a table on the

[29:19] right on the sheet. So I just want to clarify if you want to identify each one. Yes that's

[29:26] I'm going to say each one sorry you met yeah so label each one. That's only to be clear because just

[29:31] in case sometimes people do have to rearrange the roof and therefore we just know the percentage

[29:37] of each green area that will be just rearranged.

[29:40] Yeah, because we labeled it, but okay.

[29:43] We'll note every single.

[29:45] And it's really just the green that you need.

[29:46] Just the green.

[29:47] And I was fine.

[29:49] Okay.

[29:49] Number four.

[29:50] On page A2.00, it shows, I guess,

[29:54] it states that FDC signage is off the property.

[29:57] Just put the sign within the property line.

[30:27] Okay. Yeah. Oh, since we're on this page, also, so the fence, DET, discussion number three,

[30:36] the wall, where exactly is that? Oh, it's a side. Yeah. Because then that was my other

[30:41] question somewhere down here, because it points out to two and not three. Okay. Three and

[30:45] three two is somewhere else. Okay. Then I can use e-dress because I was trying to figure

[30:49] out because then I looked at the elevation and it shows in on the side. So that was a comment somewhere

[30:54] down here. Yeah, that's correct. Oh yeah, that was number five. Okay.

[31:01] Okay, number six is basically,

[31:03] I'll just move that down to a knowledge man because you guys didn't acknowledge that. So I'll move that

[31:06] down to the, okay, the parking. Let's see.

[31:15] It looks like you want us to add five future hubs in the first.

[31:17] Yes. So within a code you do have to screen it. And I think the land, no, I know for that. The

[31:22] The landscape, the bushes you guys provided was only 24 inches, which is two feet, which

[31:26] won't cover the cars.

[31:29] Yeah.

[31:29] Okay.

[31:30] It'll make them five feet.

[31:37] We have an issue with that.

[31:41] Yeah.

[31:44] We don't have a problem adding the five feet, but that's a handicap space, right?

[31:50] That we're going to block.

[31:52] So imagine an old lady parked there backing up under a five foot hedge.

[31:57] So she's not looking at the road or the driveway.

[32:00] You don't think that's going to be a conflict?

[32:01] So our code requires full screening so we do allow but my question is if there's an accident who's going to be liable for that

[32:08] Well, we don't worry about accident the thing is the code usually the parking spot has to be fully enclosed

[32:13] We work to have in the garage so in order for you guys to have enough parking you guys put it on the outside

[32:18] Would you do allow that wouldn't be a my comment the code requires it to be screen?

[32:22] So 24 inches is too short if you want to go up to three inches

[32:26] It has a cover of a cars park there. It just needs to be fully screen from the right

[32:29] You'll say for if it's like 3 feet, just worry that somebody's going to back up into the driveway and not looking into the car.

[32:37] That's all.

[32:40] It just needs to be fully screened.

[32:42] So you guys provide a shrubs and needs to be screened.

[32:46] So the code requires if we do a lot of parking spot within the 5 feet.

[32:49] I don't mind putting the 5 foot shrubs, I just think it's dangerous, but.

[32:56] This is a surface parking lot out in the front.

[32:59] This is right inside of our parking garage.

[33:02] But the code does say all parking spots should be screened, which it was an old comment

[33:08] from my other one.

[33:09] I do think that there's a difference because it's a parking structure requires the screening.

[33:15] I'm not saying we can't, this is why I'm trying to say it can the shorter shrubs be because

[33:20] we're not against having landscaping.

[33:22] It's just to accommodate the concern that Juan is raising.

[33:26] I think that this may we can double check, but I really do think that the screening requirement is for your structured parking garage, and this is outside of the garage area.

[33:37] Do you think like three feet would be okay?

[33:40] Sorry, you can still block some of the car.

[33:45] Okay, if you could just private a section, just the bushes and like an average car, the net that should be fine.

[33:51] So

[33:57] we have eight. So, okay. So on the elevations, you guys remove the little section that shows the bottom floor without offense.

[34:08] We'll add that back in.

[34:10] Okay.

[34:12] And number nine, provide this section with detail of the ground level pool.

[34:17] So when I look at the scale, the ground level pool, it looks like it's measuring from the sea wall, not the property line.

[34:28] So we look on page A40.

[34:31] So it's first A4.04.

[34:35] We'll fix the site plan was correct, but the section is.

[34:39] It wasn't picked up.

[34:40] Yeah, number 10 elevation provided is not show a lot of detail the material.

[34:49] Well, okay, 10 can just be like, I guess the 3D shows it better,

[34:56] but whoever is doing, I guess the flat elevation,

[34:58] if they can kind of like darken it because it looks, it looks flat.

[35:03] Well, the rendering, they're flat renderings of a rendered model,

[35:07] which creates the same rendering.

[35:09] So that's why we provide the renderings in the front

[35:13] in the 100 sheets is to show that the three-dimensionality of the building

[35:20] because I just kind of know the board they're going to get a little confused

[35:25] because it looks more seamless. We can enhance the renderings per your

[35:28] recommendation here today for the board. Yeah, they could just add like some shadow

[35:32] on the thing so you can kind of see the just a little bit of depth. Yeah because at

[35:36] one point I was confused it looked like it was flat but then I'm like no it's not flat.

[35:39] Yeah, I sketched when you guys saw the comment I sketched a shadow on there

[35:43] And I think it would help so we can add shadow to it based on your recommendations. Yes

[35:49] So number 11 a 4.01 the West and in east elevation and provide a setback of the rooftop structure from the edge

[35:57] So that's an old comment

[35:59] It wasn't still provided so they could just provide that yeah, and should we do it on all the rooftop?

[36:04] on just the west and the east side should be fine and the east because I think the other side was far away that it wouldn't have been a question.

[36:15] On number 12, a 5.00, the wall is being proposed. Please label it on the rooftop plan. I know we had a discussion because it's going to be screened.

[36:24] So we eliminated it.

[36:25] Oh, okay.

[36:26] You can notice this design is completely different.

[36:28] Yes, I did.

[36:29] From the previous plan, and this is,

[36:35] we eliminated that mechanical screen altogether.

[36:38] We created a well that is below the parapet height

[36:42] that will screen all the mechanical equipment

[36:44] and there's no need for that screen.

[36:46] So we eliminated it altogether.

[36:48] So that's what I thought you were referencing to.

[36:50] We wanted to just not have,

[36:54] If you go to

[36:59] A308, you can see the roof plan.

[37:04] You see we added a big stair that goes down from the roof deck so that the roof deck is five and a half feet.

[37:14] The mechanical roof area is five and a half feet below the actual roof deck so that all the equipment sits within a well in the roof.

[37:24] and we don't require that additional screening.

[37:27] So we redesigned it to accommodate that

[37:29] and remove the wall altogether.

[37:31] Okay, so I'll remove comments 12.

[37:33] I'll send you guys an updated, I'll remove number 12.

[37:37] There are teenagers appendings,

[37:38] which is waiting on the easement thing.

[37:40] So that's not really a comment.

[37:41] It's an agreement between the town and you guys.

[37:44] So I'll put that as a condition.

[37:50] So the underground, that's just the comment

[37:52] to you guys, reach out to FPL.

[37:54] So I'll put that condition.

[37:56] So then the landscape. So 15. Let's see.

[38:08] Okay, so on 15 looks like it's missing the palm tree detail.

[38:12] Yes. It wasn't printing. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay, okay. So, okay. We'll just wait for the update for that one. And I also added the note about the ANC.

[38:23] Okay. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. So number 16 is what we just discussed earlier. So

[38:33] number 17 is basically just review the section of the code number 18. The trees are not

[38:38] tall enough that is required by code. So I gave. Okay. Okay.

[38:46] So number 19. We do have a requirement

[38:53] So it needs to be figured out because the minimum is 35 feet separate.

[38:59] The thing is that when you have power lines, the FPL over rules, everything.

[39:05] Correct.

[39:06] So we have to follow their right train, right play.

[39:09] So most likely FPLs won't let you guys go under because we notice with any lots to a board.

[39:14] They do go under the ground.

[39:16] We've done it.

[39:17] Well, I don't know if they're going underground.

[39:18] Hopefully, but so far they're not so we have per plans. We have to open code. So have you guys contact a field?

[39:26] Okay, what's out there existing? I don't remember but I know there's power lines right now, but I don't know

[39:33] Okay, but that's not for our property. Here's the conflict. I guess so out in the street

[39:38] There's maybe power lines going down the street to other properties. Our property has a connection from that being now

[39:46] and the street through the property that's going to go under the water.

[39:51] Can you stick it to the mic so when it's required to start? Thank you.

[39:54] Okay. Currently, we're negotiated with that panel.

[39:59] They have a line out there that goes across our property because under the water

[40:03] into the next city.

[40:06] So they're going to relocate that at their cost.

[40:10] They realize that's there.

[40:11] It's all going to be underground and it's going to be in our South easement.

[40:15] Okay.

[40:16] Okay.

[40:16] South Tenshi.

[40:16] Oh yes.

[40:17] So directly east to west to the river and then under the river, which we don't care,

[40:22] that's something they're going to do with the state.

[40:24] But existing that has nothing to do with us could be going across and front,

[40:31] which maybe what Wanz talked about.

[40:33] I don't know what that has nothing to do with our power.

[40:36] So, I don't think you guys have a poll in front of the property.

[40:41] My concern is the location of trees.

[40:43] They should be separated 35 feet by minimum.

[40:46] There's actually two polls.

[40:48] There's two polls.

[40:49] What page?

[40:51] I can show them on L1.

[40:53] I'm sorry, what page?

[40:54] L1.

[40:55] L1.

[40:56] There's one on the right corner of the property.

[41:06] It's in dark.

[41:07] Yes, right here.

[41:08] and then there's another one on the driveway coming out to the right of it.

[41:15] You see it? Yes.

[41:36] For another project on this street, the town gave us this specific tree,

[41:40] the cordia, to put under the power line. Yes. That's why we use this. Well, no, the tree is correct.

[41:47] It's the distance between it. And then the distance, once you take an account, the driveway,

[41:51] ways because you know it can be continuous with the driver and the visibility

[41:55] triangles and all that. So we had two, four, six, eight trees, which is what

[42:03] it's required. Well the cove acquires two per lot. So you guys only need six.

[42:09] Okay, okay. We were doing a to make it look more uniform.

[42:15] And the space is a little weird but it's because of the power lines and the the

[42:20] the power poles and the dryways and the visibility trial.

[42:24] So question to the, wait,

[42:29] let me make sure which,

[42:30] OK, I don't know which one is north, to the north east.

[42:35] So these two trees are 20 feet.

[42:37] So they can't be moved away to do 35.

[42:40] Because all that's not one tree means 35 distance.

[42:44] So this is a thing.

[42:46] I thought the 35 was the minimum.

[42:48] the maximum. No, the maximum is 40. Okay. So the, I put it on number 19. The minimum is 35 feet average. And we just

[43:00] copy, it's like this is just copy from the Miami day. Yeah. Yeah. And the maximum is 40 when, when it's

[43:06] violence and it's smaller trees like this case, we add more trees to make lack of having bigger trees. But we

[43:14] can take out a few trees and meet the 35 because that's what you guys want. I don't have a problem

[43:21] with that.

[43:24] You know what I mean? Like I'm trying to make it look okay. So the thing is if you don't

[43:29] meet the co-requirement that requires a variance from the council. So staff can't approve like anything

[43:35] under 35 because we have a minimum of 35 feet. So if you do want to keep it then that will just

[43:41] required a variance from the town council to prove the location of these trees.

[43:46] We'll remove some of them and just keep where we can, the 35, which is kind of hard, but

[43:56] because of the driveways, but in the powerful,

[44:06] we're just trying to make the street look more.

[44:09] Yeah, no, I understand.

[44:10] I understand.

[44:10] Yeah, unfortunately, staff can't override, like, unless it was like a less, like if the minimum was 20,

[44:15] then that'll be fine but that's not a staff level review. Anything that the

[44:19] co-requires if you can't meet it, then that requires a variance from town

[44:22] council.

[44:30] Are you discounting the driveways because of? Well, you guys

[44:35] designed the driveways that way. So you guys all have taken consideration. There

[44:39] would be driveways as these were as they were driveways in the past. There's

[44:45] driveways too. That's a common thing to have a driveway. Yes it is.

[44:52] This is

[44:53] You're going everybody who comes to develop this would have to have the driveways what I'm trying to say is that you are acknowledging.

[45:00] The driveways and the site triangles as far as the way that. No, yes, I am. So I'm just stating that if you can't meet it by code, then that just requires a variance from town council. Like I can't, I can't approve that. Do you have the, I just want to make sure that one has the guidance to redesign to meet the. We wait to meet this is remove some trees. And then work with the driveways and the distance and. I think anyways, we're going to end up having to. To ask for variance because we won't be able to.

[45:29] to meet the 35. For the six trees?

[45:35] We'll have one, two, three, four, five, six. Maybe, maybe we can.

[45:43] Like from the driveway north, would be one tree from the driveway south,

[45:50] would be one tree and then between the two dryways we've had four, we will have four trees, right?

[46:00] I'm sorry, repeat that question. I'm sorry.

[46:02] You want me to show?

[46:03] Yeah.

[46:43] Yeah.

[47:32] I don't think it is.

[47:34] But is it a mid?

[47:34] No, I think it would.

[47:35] It's a happy yard.

[47:37] I'll just roll that one time.

[47:38] I don't think it's helpful when we're

[47:39] on the couch or at 8.

[47:40] We do have to have it on trees.

[47:42] We prefer to avoid a variance if possible.

[47:47] Yeah.

[47:48] But that's what I'm trying to say is how are we

[47:52] accommodating the driveways which are needed,

[47:55] and that site triangles, right?

[47:57] So if that's a separate tree on each end,

[48:01] because of the driveway is can stand as a separate tree, right? That's two of our

[48:07] six minimum, right? If we then show then now internally centered, right? That that

[48:15] means the 35-foot average. Yeah, it means the average of 30-foot. That would

[48:20] that comply. Yep, they will comply.

[48:24] And as far as, you know,

[48:25] underbounding that's never a sure thing until FPL approves it. Yes. So that's where, you know,

[48:33] understand plan is to allow, and I don't know, I mean, if the touch trees could become taller.

[48:41] Well, the trees we pick when is underlying, I mean, if there is a FPL pose, the trees that were

[48:47] picked in the town is on an appeal that it can go under a power line. I think that if the line

[48:56] is actually formally approved and then actually under grounded, maybe depending on the timing of

[49:02] that, hopefully only through a permit revision could the trees be? Yeah, that will be staff level.

[49:07] We'll need to review it. The street trees they give of what street trees should be. Right, so

[49:13] So I think that that could be worked out.

[49:15] We just can't commit to it right now.

[49:19] The location of the trees or?

[49:20] No, no, no, the type and height of the tree.

[49:23] No, we already picked the tree.

[49:24] Like the town already picked the stallotry from the...

[49:27] No, we already have that.

[49:28] I know, but under the situation of there being power lines

[49:32] there today.

[49:33] Correct.

[49:34] My point is that it's assuming, but again,

[49:37] to be finalized under all out of our control by FPL,

[49:42] right? If the line is underground, it may be the tree species can be modified.

[49:47] No, so let's just say FPL said no, you can't go underlying. The tree that is chosen by the town,

[49:52] we follow the FPL, right tree, right place. So that tree that's picked won't grow tall to hit it.

[49:58] So the tree won't be changed because the town already did a research that that tree can go under a pipeline.

[50:04] So number 20 is not really a comment. It's just stating, you know, like obviously there are trees next door,

[50:09] Just to make sure you just put a note that there will be some type of protection. You could just note that on a plan that for

[50:16] No one damages someone else's tree. I was looking at that and

[50:21] First are gonna be behind their construction fence

[50:24] But also just the top like so one has a canopy that kind of goes out just to be alert that whoever is doing construction make sure they don't

[50:33] harm someone just put it like a note on a plan that you guys are aware

[50:36] You're talking about the part of our neighbor's trees that comes over on our private property because I'm sorry that there's no we are not responsible for

[50:46] Maintaining there. No, you're not responsible maintaining, but you can't also damage your hacks and mystery.

[50:52] I'm not here to get into the legalities of this, but I don't that's up that that's for the neighbor to

[51:03] Be mindful of.

[51:05] Let me ask you, on the note part, you want us to, we can't do the tree protection detail

[51:10] because it would have to be inside of the property.

[51:12] Yeah, yeah.

[51:13] It's just the, I don't know.

[51:15] I learned a note of that, you know, you guys are aware that there's an existing tree and

[51:19] it's not funny.

[51:20] The issue is, everything comes in effect when other people touch people's trees, so obviously

[51:24] you guys won't hopefully damage or hack someone's tree because you hack someone's tree.

[51:29] That will be more of a legal matter.

[51:30] all this stuff I'm saying is before whoever is alert because you guys are part of the DRC process

[51:35] but whoever is going out there and build does a whole different thing so they are aware that

[51:39] you shouldn't be hacking or touching someone's tree. Well when they go over your property you're

[51:44] allowed to trim. Trim but not hacked. Oh well yeah. Yeah but this is I want to make sure that we're

[51:51] not putting ourselves we're not waving any of our rights is what I'm really getting at. No I'm not

[51:59] a note that says no. No, don't say that. Just you just aware that, you know, just right, be

[52:06] aware that there are neighboring trees along the common property line. I don't want to go too far.

[52:12] There's really only two trees from the north. No, I didn't say that. Just you guys are noting that

[52:18] you guys are aware of the tree. That's what the comments saying. I didn't say like I'm just making

[52:22] sure everybody knows that yeah, but it's about protecting the neighbors existing trees.

[52:28] That's different than just being aware of the existence of trees.

[52:36] No, we can say contractor to be careful.

[52:39] I'll work at it so contractor will be careful with neighboring trees and that should cover it.

[52:44] That would be fine and that's all my comments.

[52:46] And those two trees by the way in the north are invasive,

[52:49] exalted, category one, like they should be removed.

[52:52] Yes, Australian.

[52:53] that's a property owner next door, those Australian

[52:59] countries, like reading basis, they're like, on the, on the

[53:04] list for about four times one of them. That's all zoning

[53:08] comments. Do you

[53:14] guys have any other questions? Well, this

[53:17] doesn't seem to be a very extensive list of changes. So I'd

[53:23] like to do our utmost to get this refined

[53:27] to just the few remaining comments.

[53:29] And if it's possible, can that just be a sufficiency review

[53:32] that you all do right now?

[53:35] And have us take yet another month

[53:37] to come to another formal meeting.

[53:41] And we're just interested in moving this forward

[53:43] as soon as we can.

[53:45] A map.

[53:46] So if I may please, I did go through some of these documents.

[53:50] I'm going to have a conversation with your staff, team, team.

[53:56] And the following are my comments here at the stage.

[54:00] So I'd like to find out if this system is county approved.

[54:04] If it is, send me the approval from the county.

[54:08] That would go a long way in giving me some sort of support

[54:12] to approve this system.

[54:16] Section CC does not show the outfall pipe and you know you tell us that you

[54:22] know you're coming back to meeting but that is a such a fundamental and I

[54:26] think the way you are set up your engineering was probably meant to create

[54:29] these issues maybe maybe not but the section CC on your on your drainage plan

[54:37] does not show on its fundamental it doesn't show the pipe that's the outfall

[54:42] that you're relocating to the Northern Boundary for which you've granted us a 10 foot easement.

[54:48] So that's a really stark and fundamental effort that needs to be corrected, please.

[54:55] You're talking about that. That's because you got ocean doing the silver and for

[55:01] leaving this prior. Don't we have another set of plans for the relocation?

[55:07] I thought we did.

[55:13] I thought we did, too, because you're two silvers. And Fort Levy,

[55:19] we've gotten this done with the county beforehand. And then this civil comes with the rest of the project.

[55:26] So, but I know Fort Levy's stuff was sent with all this. I just don't see it.

[55:33] Oh,

[55:47] that's for grading.

[55:54] So, say for Jugo can make sure I get a, that section that shows the pipe, I'm not looking at the, I think the elevations are shown on C200.

[56:04] Some of the elevations are shown on that, but I just need to see the pipe diameter, I think it's 18 inches.

[56:11] Okay, so let's see. 200 is paving in and grading. Yeah, not a drainage plan. Yeah, but see the same drainage. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So again, I will try if you can send that to me this afternoon with concurrence of the invested my team, if we decide, depending on how we decide to go forward, that could potentially suffice for what I'm looking for. That in

[56:39] in addition to the county approval, Miami-Dade county approval, for that specific defender

[56:46] system. If it is, yeah, if you have it, then that would be great. If not, it would probably

[56:52] take a little more time, because if it doesn't, if it doesn't exist, if you don't have a county

[56:56] approval, I probably want to look at our reference for where you've done this before, maybe give

[57:01] it a call, see how it works, just for my due diligence. And like you said, I mean, this

[57:07] in public right away. So our public works forces would be required to maintain this system.

[57:14] So, you know, I don't want to get them into a pickle with giving them the responsibility

[57:19] for something that's difficult.

[57:25] I will share my contact information which if you

[57:29] hide that down, you have it. Yes. Give me a call on my cell phone. Okay. And we'll go from there.

[57:35] maybe if it's an email subsequent to the call then it gives me an email and we can go from there.

[57:40] Sounds good. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. So first thing we're going to do is

[57:46] motion to defer the project.

[57:53] I didn't want it to defer the project. Is there a possibility that

[57:57] I know there's some outstanding things on both of your

[58:01] to address those comments, but can we have an understanding that even though you're deferring that it's possible that you guys can make its efficiency review prior to and not have to have that next meeting?

[58:18] Well, we will have a meeting, but you can contact us and submit at the time if you want to talk to each one.

[58:25] but I want to I'm going to defer it. Just as a comment, I think for me, this second point is

[58:34] the conditional approval to itemize those things going forward. I think my engineering issues could

[58:40] be easily resolved at this point, but I think the conditional approval needs to be clearly articulated

[58:46] so that avoid confusion going forward. We've had recent instances where we've had, you know,

[58:54] two years or four years ago, somebody approved a, what was it? An outfall? There was an easement issue.

[59:02] Yes.

[59:03] And we had confusion with it. So just to avoid these things, I mean, we do this often.

[59:09] We want to make sure once your project gets started, we're not looking back.

[59:12] We're going to get it to a COD8 and we get this thing done.

[59:15] But the other project I'm speaking about now is in Limbo because that hasn't been resolved.

[59:19] out. So just to be clear, so I'm just suggesting that we clearly define what these conditions

[59:26] are, have it done properly. It's easy because I accent an email, I can forward that email

[59:31] to you. That would form the basis of really drafting of what these conditions are to be. I

[59:38] work with you as we work together and we can get that nailed down. So in my opinion, I think

[59:43] that's a real important issue here. I mean, not just, you know, not not taking anything

[59:49] be from the planners comments, which I think are also critical to get done. So, if we can get that done

[59:57] earlier and later, fine, if not, I mean, I think a month.

[1:00:00] It's not on reason, but to see us get everything kneeled out. Well, hopefully, because we would want to get this addressed immediately, that you can help us through that and Lorraine, too. Let's go ahead. I appreciate that. If making next month's meeting, hopefully just a format. So in between this month, I'm sorry. In between this and now, you guys can contact me, 101, whoever is the designer, and we can go over my comments to see if you address. So you don't always have the way to submit everything.

[1:00:28] we could do one comment at a time before when you do resummit, I won't have any comments.

[1:00:33] Okay. And did too for me. So in order to exchange information, please call me.

[1:00:39] The best time is for our days. We're looking forward to getting someone from you to D.

[1:00:42] You know, so we can get this thing done. As you say, so the next meeting would just be

[1:00:46] formality to come here together and get us approved. By the traffic meeting. Yes, it is very much

[1:00:52] important. I still, since this is a new process, I'm wearing still. I don't know what impact

[1:00:58] that has on our our process forward.

[1:01:04] I totally agree what you're saying and I'm

[1:01:08] working on it as I wish it was just one or two departments because multiple

[1:01:13] departments involved in it but meeting adjourned everyone say aye aye

Development Review Committee

Transcript