[2:03] To order, roll call, missado, care, Mr. Brady, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Spirick, Mr. Bolton, we have quorum.

[2:18] Thank you. Order of business any additions, deletions or deferrals, any comments.

[2:30] I know we got a lot of people here. I guess most of these folks are for the ordinance issue.

[2:37] I was just trying to figure out as their better way to kind of accommodate those folks

[2:42] and the applications that we have in front of us today.

[2:49] Any comments on that?

[2:51] Should we listen to maybe comments from the body here?

[2:57] And then do our applications and then come back to our ordinance discussion?

[3:04] or just to do the ordinance and let the folks wait.

[3:08] Follow the agenda.

[3:12] Please sit down.

[3:15] No, I didn't ask you.

[3:17] Please sit down and I'll give you a chance for comments.

[3:25] Thank you.

[3:25] You'll have your chance.

[3:27] All right.

[3:28] No, we'll follow the agenda.

[3:30] I'd like to open it to public comments.

[3:34] And you may start us off.

[3:35] Please go to the podium and stick your name and address and you have a three-minute limit

[3:41] No, we don't yep the staker Social Security if you want further accurate. I don't

[3:55] care

[3:57] I name is Ota and I guess he has 48 defined notice one or three street and you are asking us for

[4:03] comment before the meeting. How can we make any comment before we don't know how the meeting is going done?

[4:12] Okay, make a comment. You want to know what's going on. That's why they are here. And then we make a comment.

[4:22] That's all.

[4:23] Thank you.

[4:44] I have comments before the discussion.

[4:47] I am Cindy Herbs, I'm from 1,000 North East, 96th Street, and I'm here again to reiterate

[4:55] the fact that I'm very much not in support of the current proposed ordinance.

[5:00] For the sheer fact that the information provided on the 2025 residential parcel analysis shows that a much different picture than what we were led to believe by the Cordino consultants, information which guided us in the workshops.

[5:16] Over 97% of the existing single-family residential parcels have significantly lower averages

[5:24] in the 2024 zoning amendment and the proposed ordnant.

[5:30] For instance, lot coverage ranged from 22 to 30%.

[5:34] It's now proposed at 42% for one story and 32% for two story.

[5:40] Building height averages from 13.5 to 19 feet, it's now proposed at 28 feet.

[5:48] Livable average square footage was at 1,613,100 square feet.

[5:54] There is no limit in the proposed ordinance.

[5:56] And hence the creation of the 6,7 bedroom, 7 and 1 half bath homes.

[6:02] If our goal in the purpose of this initiative is to be more effective regulating home size,

[6:08] bulk and overall scale to maintain the neighborhood compatibility,

[6:13] then we owe it to ourselves not to turn a blind eye to the fact that the information we were given by Cordino to work with was flawed,

[6:23] and as a result our results are flawed and will not align with or deliver what we want or expect.

[6:30] It will leave us with much larger build-outs of homes,

[6:33] which fly in the face of neighborhood compatibility and decrease green spaces and tree

[6:39] canapies on residential parcels. I think it's important that the board and

[6:44] Cordina go back and review the changes outlined in the 2025 parcel analysis. With

[6:51] intention, review, edit, and revise down as needed to make sure the ordinance gets

[6:57] us to where we hope to land. I just don't think we're there, the numbers don't correlate

[7:02] are too large. When I look around the community, we still have very large homes sitting on

[7:07] too small of lots, and the sad realization that younger generations of families who in

[7:13] the past would look to stay and buy in Miami shores may no longer be able to afford to, since

[7:19] we are decimating smaller homes. This board has the opportunity to guide and preserve our history.

[7:25] We don't want to look like Miami Beach, Bel-Mid, or any other nearby communities. We want

[7:30] preserve and enhance our beauty and our character and protect our tree

[7:34] canopies. Let's not be so quick to throw away our history and our legacy.

[7:40] But instead embrace and preserve that which has made us distinct.

[7:45] Because once it's gone it's gone.

[7:49] Thank you.

[8:00] Linda Schwartz, 1304 Northeast 104 Street.

[8:05] I agree what Cindy just said.

[8:07] also the whole community is changing and not for the best. Not only are we losing

[8:17] our beautiful trees to reckless and I don't give a

[8:25] and had the money to pay the

[8:27] fines but we're losing trees. I mean even though they have the little orange things

[8:33] preserving the trees. We turn around and those trees are gone. There's no explanation.

[8:43] My concern is that I see here, somebody who bought it to my attention, that it seems that

[8:50] the people, the owners, to be LLC. So that rings a little bell in my head that the user people

[8:59] who are here to invest and make profits and disappear and to sell to people that, you know,

[9:08] have the money for the means.

[9:10] We still have on our block, 104 street a house that went, I think, 7 million, now it's six.

[9:18] And it's still not a saleable house.

[9:21] I mean, I did a tour.

[9:23] And that originally they had fake foliage in the back.

[9:30] There is no thinking about some of these houses.

[9:33] And I don't know, you know, you all reading the plans

[9:38] of the houses.

[9:39] I mean, this is the house where all the bedrooms are upstairs.

[9:43] Steep stairs.

[9:45] No steps are you could see through.

[9:49] Things can fall through.

[9:50] The laundry room is beautiful.

[9:52] and downstairs. It's gorgeous, but there's no lift or no Tom waiter. And you'll really be dumb.

[10:04] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[10:15] Everybody, Carol, in a respondent one, one, six, two, northeast, one, fifth, straight.

[10:21] First, I haven't been here many times over the past quite a few years.

[10:26] I just want to thank you all for all the hard work that you put in before the meeting and during the meeting.

[10:32] I understand that it's a lot more than anybody even imagines and thank you for that and I thank

[10:39] you also for wanting to always find the middle for working together to compromise so that you can

[10:45] find the middle. I get how hard that is but I think if we don't do it, we don't succeed so thank

[10:53] you for that. Having said that, I still hope that you'll find a way I know that you've already

[10:58] done this, but I hope that you'll find a way to decrease the maximum lot coverage, especially

[11:03] for large lots.

[11:04] I hope you'll find a way to decrease maximum impervious spaces because we can see we're flooding

[11:11] like crazy whenever it rains everywhere.

[11:14] And for the garage conversions that you guys have thought about and talked about, I hope

[11:18] that you will when the bedrooms are more than four.

[11:22] I hope that you will require more parking of those places and that you will make sure that

[11:28] that new parking area is also pervious.

[11:32] That's it.

[11:33] Thank you for all your efforts.

[11:34] Appreciate it.

[11:35] Thank you.

[11:42] Good evening.

[11:43] We're in the Guinness.

[11:44] 15 North East London.

[11:46] I echo the comments that you've heard.

[11:49] I also echo the comments of every single resident that's appeared before this board

[11:52] in the past two years since the 2024 amendments were adopted.

[11:56] When those were adopted, we were shooting in the dark.

[12:00] We were looking at other municipalities.

[12:01] We were trying to see what would apply.

[12:04] Let's see if we could get to where we need to be.

[12:06] They've been in place for two years.

[12:08] Those of you who've been on this board,

[12:10] know that weekend and week out,

[12:12] month in and month out,

[12:14] you have applications coming here trying to build to the max,

[12:16] get away with the minimum,

[12:18] and it's individual houses.

[12:21] Individual houses, one by one,

[12:24] that are getting demolished and replaced.

[12:25] And it's not to say you can't demolish a house

[12:27] that needs to be demolished.

[12:29] I'm not opposed to development.

[12:30] I'm not. Surprisingly, I'm not. But I am opposed to what that development does and the outcome

[12:39] of that development on this entire community. And I'm also concerned about the future with

[12:45] the infrastructure, as we're going through septic to sewer conversion in the shores of

[12:49] states. If we're tripling the size of homes, which these numbers allow, they allow. And I don't

[12:56] anybody's really crunch these numbers. I appreciate the effort you all have done a deep dive on a lot of

[13:02] areas in this code that I agree with, but the most problematic weren't really touched at all and

[13:08] really weren't meaningfully discussed, especially in light of the study that was done by the Cordino

[13:13] group about the built-out community here. And when 97% of the homes that are here are well the

[13:20] of these numbers that were put in place in 2024?

[13:24] How can we not expect that this continual trend of things being out of size at a scale

[13:29] running off into the neighbors' yards?

[13:32] I mean, I see that you're trying to address all of these issues.

[13:36] But fundamentally, if these numbers are well at a range, which they are, I mean, they're

[13:41] well at a range.

[13:43] I mean, you heard them earlier by one of the commenters, but are far range based on the data

[13:48] in that chart is under 0.26, 0.26, our far range for multifamily is 0.5, but we have

[13:58] ours at 0.45. We're allowing multifamily buildings basically to be built in a residential

[14:04] neighborhood. It's tripling the size of homes that are existing. How can we not know that that's

[14:09] going to have an adverse effect? I also think these numbers, the increase in those four groups,

[14:13] is ridiculous. I also think the groupings are ridiculous. You have over 23,000 square foot

[14:21] differential in the fourth group in the largest lots. How does that even get passed?

[14:27] In the smallest lots, we don't even acknowledge them. And yet we're letting them be built out. There's

[14:32] two examples of shotgun homes on 95th Street, east of second-outh. They're new builds 2020.

[14:39] Go see what they look like. Do the math on them? Guess what? They're well below the number

[14:42] that you're proposing. This is just ridiculous. I don't know where these numbers came. I wasn't

[14:46] present for the meeting that you had with respect to where these numbers came from. And I

[14:50] understand the objective and the objective is good. I get it. But the numbers don't work. And they

[14:56] need to be real-valuated. So I really appreciate-

[15:00] The efforts that have been made, I think there's been tremendous progress in a lot of areas that are trying to address the issues.

[15:07] But these fundamental numbers are too much. And this data cannot be ignored because we didn't have it available two years ago.

[15:15] We haven't available, but it wasn't even addressed. So I would ask you to go and revisit. Thank you.

[15:21] Thank you.

[15:32] Good evening.

[15:33] Many don't want to.

[15:33] I'm at 40 Northeast County First Street.

[15:36] I've lived in this neighborhood for now 15 years.

[15:40] I'm also a architect and a planner with over 20 years experience.

[15:45] So I'm looking at this from a slightly different perspective.

[15:48] I'm seeing what the code was previously that we've changed.

[15:51] That the new code is obviously trying to fix wrongs, right?

[15:55] It was a much more dense code where everyone's saying that

[15:59] the community is smaller, yes, it is smaller.

[16:01] It has evolved over time, which is honestly

[16:03] what drove me to the neighborhood.

[16:06] It's a beautiful neighborhood.

[16:07] The range of architectural styles is amazing.

[16:10] You can see the natural evolution of the architecture

[16:12] through the author of the years.

[16:14] And that's not something you see common in Miami.

[16:16] Most neighborhoods try to kind of contain a style

[16:19] and they kind of go with that as years gone.

[16:22] Miami sure has had evolved.

[16:25] And much like that, the zoning code needs to evolve.

[16:27] So, it's not true to want to go back and see, okay, there's things that are not, we don't like some of the buildings over size, the houses are out of scale.

[16:36] So, we need to see what can be done to improve them.

[16:40] But what I feel as my concern as a resident and as a planner is that I'm looking at the changes,

[16:46] and we're reacting to a fear of oversight scale,

[16:50] and instead of going through and truly evaluating what the characteristics of the neighborhood are,

[16:57] What have made the neighborhood, what it is, what have made these houses that we proudly show on our newsletters every month?

[17:06] This is the historic house of the month and we show a beautiful two story home. None of those homes. None of those homes would fit under the current code.

[17:16] For whatever reason either upper-level sub-backs, front-step-backs, continuous facades, you've taken

[17:22] What has made the neighborhood what it is and you are completely ignoring it as a part of the first thing I do when I come into an neighborhood

[17:32] I try to see what's unique about it. What's made it what it is and the diversity in style the diversity in size the way that the neighborhood has naturally evolved and continue to grow

[17:43] the needs for people

[17:47] 100 years ago for a house are nowhere near the needs for families now.

[17:52] We need more space. So yes, naturally, the homes are going to be larger.

[17:56] But that has to be done responsibly. So what you're doing and looking at the code and trying to figure out,

[18:00] how do we improve that? That's great. But we can't throw the book at it.

[18:05] And what we're doing right now is throwing the book at it.

[18:08] They are law coverage, different law coverage is for one story versus two story, different

[18:14] law coverage is for law size, different law sizes.

[18:18] You're adding all these percentages on top of percentages and all you're doing is making

[18:23] it harder for the planners to evaluate.

[18:26] And I have some diagrams I can show you guys later on, if you want, to illustrate how you're

[18:32] to make the planners lives even harder because essentially they have three styles of building

[18:39] that they need to look at. One story home with one lot of percentage, a two story

[18:43] home with a pitch roof with one percentage and a two story home with a flat roof with

[18:47] different setbacks. So what you're doing in this case is now you're starting to affect the

[18:53] style, you're affecting the form and you're dictating style by doing this. The best thing

[18:59] You can do for an architect is given them the ability to come up and have flexibility to massage

[19:05] the buildings.

[19:06] If you give them an FAR and you tell them they can be two stories, they know they can only

[19:11] go so much on the ground and they can only go so much on the second floor, it repeats a

[19:15] clay.

[19:15] You're molding it.

[19:17] But if you're giving them one percentage for the ground, if you're happy with one percentage

[19:20] on the ground for one story, why would you need to do a second percentage if you're doing

[19:24] a two story?

[19:25] It doesn't change your FAR.

[19:26] If you were fine with a larger lock coverage, then you should be fine with it on a two-story.

[19:31] Side step-backs, front step-backs on the upper levels, it's not doing anything for you.

[19:35] Go look at most of the houses that are in your catalog of historic homes.

[19:40] None of them do that, and they're amazing, and why, because it's the characters, the style of the home.

[19:44] And that's what we need to focus on.

[19:46] is not the, well, it's a solid, it's a flat roof and that's an issue because now we've had more flat roof designs coming to the neighborhood.

[19:56] That's not the issue, it's the design, it's materiality.

[20:00] That is detail, its texture. That is what's going to give the change. Not all these additional requirements, that's not what's going to do it. So I really think you need to stick a step back and look at what's truly important in with the neighborhood and how you implement that into a building because it's not all these additional regulations.

[20:18] It's not throwing the book at it, that's not going to solve the answer.

[20:30] Good evening, board members, Leslie Domeante for 18 or

[20:34] These Ninety First String.

[20:36] I actually had a set of things that I wanted to say.

[20:41] And hearing the comments, I'm realizing that we're addressing an issue

[20:45] that we can't legally address.

[20:48] And that's where the flaw in this ordinances.

[20:51] The ordinance and the staff report don't actually say what everybody is saying.

[20:55] And it's because it can't legally do so.

[20:57] So, by definition, this ordinance is flawed, and it is not going to deal with what the issue that the public is identifying out there, it's not going to deal with that.

[21:10] Good zoning requires, for the minimum thresholds and the minimum regulation to be evaluated and to be applied.

[21:22] that's good zoning. You do the minimum to address the problem and it requires a rational

[21:27] nexus. I'm an architect, I'm a planner. I have over 20 years of planning experience over

[21:34] 10 of those years in municipal experience. I have worked in cities all over the southeast. I have

[21:44] never come across the city that tries, as my husband said, to throw the book at it. You are looking

[21:50] for absolutely every regulatory tool to throw at this.

[21:55] This is not built in suspenders.

[21:57] This is a 12-buckle straight jacket.

[22:00] You are tying architects, creativity.

[22:04] You are hindering exactly what made this neighborhood

[22:08] beautiful that you're doing the exact opposite.

[22:12] And the worst part is, and what I have learned

[22:14] in over 20 years of doing this,

[22:16] is that you cannot legislate good design.

[22:19] you cannot legislate good design. So you're going to do this. It's not going to work. You're

[22:24] going to come and come up with another 20 regulations to throw at it and it's still not

[22:29] going to work. We're still going to have the ugly white boxes. They're just going to taper back

[22:34] and forth. It's not going to solve anything. And we're still not going to address the character

[22:40] of the neighborhood. And yet we're putting together our noise that is not enforceable. It's

[22:45] much notoriously enforceable. The state of Florida will not legally allow us to enforce

[22:50] this ordinance. And to hear you say that you're willing to take the risk, it's quite

[22:54] callous because you're doing it with my money because you're setting up the city for liability.

[23:00] nowhere in the back up, did I see, I heard a lot of percentages here today. I haven't seen

[23:07] a single report that speaks to the amount of houses that are going to be rendered non-conforming

[23:15] as a result of this.

[23:19] Where is that percentage? What happens when a hurricane comes?

[23:25] And if there's some devastating catastrophe, I want to have to deal with that.

[23:30] Sure, there's waivers, there's things, but why are we joining a box that we got to get out of?

[23:36] Why? Why is that necessary? Why when we could actually have good zoning regulations? Why when you

[23:47] So wherewithall to comment on the design or the lot size or whatever it is before you and

[23:56] comment on it, you don't have to resort to the book.

[24:00] You don't have to resort to the book.

[24:02] So I encourage you to go back to the drawing board because what you're doing is the exact

[24:06] opposite.

[24:07] You're actually hurting lots like mine that are smaller lots and you're not going to solve

[24:12] the problem.

[24:14] Thank you very much.

[24:29] I also want to thank you guys for all the hard work that you put in.

[24:33] I know it hasn't been easy, it hasn't been fun, it hasn't been fun for us either.

[24:38] So I think the one thing that I want to remind everybody is that we've been talking about this for five years,

[24:45] at least minimum, of all the giant sugar cubes that are going up in our neighborhood.

[24:51] And I think that the part of it that disturbs me the most is that we're not taking into consideration the shores as a community.

[25:00] You have people that are building these monsters homes next to these regular sized normal size homes, and you're taking away their privacy, you're taking away their sunshine, you're pouring water onto their grounds.

[25:14] So there's a lot more at stake than just simply somebody wanting to put a house there, and so many of them are LLCs and spec homes. So the people that are putting them up aren't even going to have to have a plan on staying, but you know what whoever lives there's going to have to face those neighbors every day.

[25:30] So I think we need to be respectful at the same time when we're trying to consider this and take into account that many of us have lived in this community for years.

[25:40] I've been here for 62 years. I've seen plenty of changes. And change is good and it's going to happen. There's nothing we can do about that.

[25:48] But at the same time we can try to approach it with grace and with respect and listening to other people and having taken the time to listen to them.

[25:59] and honor what they have and all the years that they put in in this community.

[26:04] So I just ask you, don't rush into this. Take your time. Let's do it the right way.

[26:10] There's a lot of people who were still on vacation or who aren't even here who would like to be here this evening.

[26:16] So I think in my opinion, I would like to be able to table this so that everybody can think

[26:23] think it through better and perhaps come up with some better options. Thank you.

[26:45] The name of the address.

[26:50] Bernard Maton, I leave it at 53-0, is 155th Street, I've been living there since 1988,

[27:00] and the concern that I have when I drive around Miami, and I see, for example,

[27:11] I had

[27:12] construction, the problem with traffic,

[27:19] we have a place here in Miami

[27:21] shores that's unique. We need to keep it that way. And going the route of having

[27:30] these high-rise housing, I'm not exactly sure in how many flows, I think you

[27:37] And you won't go up to three floors.

[27:40] It's a concern in terms of what happens to the environment

[27:46] overall.

[27:49] So I don't know if you're going to make a decision now.

[27:55] I'm not aware.

[27:56] I just got the information on that new zoning regulation.

[28:02] I think it has to be questioned.

[28:04] I think saying with the original plan of the village is what we need to do.

[28:14] That would be my two cents based on what I've learned and what I've seen around in Miami.

[28:21] This is a beautiful village.

[28:23] We need to keep it that way.

[28:25] Thank you.

[28:31] All right.

[28:33] Any more public comment?

[28:36] No more public comment?

[28:37] minutes approval of this vlog.

[28:42] Very simple. Diana Pekio 400 Northwest. A hundred and twelve

[28:46] terrorists. All I need want to say is it hurts my eyes when I go by those big square houses that

[28:55] look like boxes and I don't feel like Miami Shorts anymore. And I imagine we allow this that I'm

[29:05] stop and it kills the beauty of the style of the shores. That's all I have to say. It really

[29:17] they're awful. That's all. I'm in of all the other environmental that damages like in

[29:32] I'm just talking about the visual impact on the shores.

[29:37] That's all.

[29:39] Thank you.

[29:45] Good evening, everybody.

[29:47] We're going to pack you four hundred and over a hundred and twelve terrors.

[29:50] Just one question.

[29:51] Have you ever seen with the news those big square white houses look like in a nice neighborhood?

[29:56] Get down north for a second Avenue and look at the white horse to the left.

[30:00] When you drive halfway down and you see all the rest of the houses looking really good, and you got this thing sitting there. Have a good day.

[30:14] I need other public comment

[30:18] hearing none, approval of minutes.

[30:22] Good to approve minutes of the April 23rd meeting.

[30:28] Second, all in favour? Aye.

[30:32] I've comments on the May 28th meeting.

[30:35] Okay.

[30:37] The first commenter who also commented this evening, the sentiments of the commenter, I think, are not captured accurately, although the commenter did, I think, invert the FAR conversation.

[30:49] The person was very clear that they do not want larger homes, and I think that that should be reflected in the comments.

[30:57] This is public comment number four.

[30:59] force into your herpsed, then beyond that, on page seven, I think, when we were talking

[31:11] about the language of the additional step back on the second story that don't recall,

[31:15] for sure, who presented that, because I thought it was me or you, but that was you.

[31:21] I support it, but I think that the record might want to be corrected.

[31:24] So that's page seven, 10, 11, Mr. Spurt proposed that in language requiring a additional step

[31:28] back. That was actually Mr. O'Hara.

[31:33] That's all I have on the

[31:34] main minutes.

[31:39] So Brandon has two comments. Do I have a

[31:41] motion to approve of this as corrected?

[31:48] Oh, I'm favor. I minutes approve. Item six A legislative item.

[31:57] In order instead of the village council, Miami Shores, appendix A zoning to

[32:02] comprehensively update regulations relating to the residential district.

[32:06] Providing for implementation, effective day

[32:13] discussion?

[32:15] Do you mind if I, I think it's important to at least give a summary to where we are.

[32:20] Thank you, sir.

[32:23] In recent years, redevelopment trends have underscored the need to more effectively regulate home-sized bulk overall scale to maintain neighborhood compatibility.

[32:32] and as part of the village's broader effort to update its land development code,

[32:36] the village initiated this review and revision of the residential arsonic code provisions.

[32:41] The purpose of the initiative is to address outdated standards

[32:44] and ensure that future residential growth aligns with the communities planning objectives.

[32:49] At the direction of the village council and the planning zone imports staff conducted a detailed analysis

[32:54] of the existing residential arcode regulations and identified provisions requiring clarification and amendments.

[33:00] staff also implemented a structured public engagement process to inform residents about how

[33:06] zoning standards function and to solicit meaningful input on potential revisions.

[33:13] Two community workshops were held on April 22nd, 2025 and July 17th, 2025.

[33:20] These sessions included visual presentations followed by moderated discussion.

[33:24] Public input was collected through live question and answer periods.

[33:27] written surveys, common cards, and follow-up email submissions.

[33:32] To ensure transparency and broad and participation,

[33:35] staff created a dedicated R code webpage on the planning

[33:40] zoning department's website.

[33:42] The webpage includes an online survey, video recordings,

[33:47] and downloadable presentation materials.

[33:50] This webpage has also been up to date and serves as a timeline

[33:54] of all of the events from the beginning and up to where we are today.

[34:00] So at any point in time, any member of the General Public can visit the webpage and view

[34:06] staff's past presentations or executive summary report and a link to all of the meetings.

[34:14] In September 2025, staff prepared the executive summary report, which compiled the public feedback

[34:21] and provided a professional analysis of the primary issues identified.

[34:25] The report evaluated recurring themes and outlined potential regulatory approaches.

[34:30] This summary served as the basis for drafting proposed amendments to the Residential

[34:35] R code provisions.

[34:38] On December 8, 2025, staff presented the draft tax amendments at a dual-unnoticed planning

[34:43] zoning board special call meeting.

[34:46] Staff summarized the public engagement process, outlined the proposed changes, and presented

[34:50] and illustrative graphics to demonstrate the practical effects of the revisions.

[34:55] The board conducted a section by section review of the draft ordinance and per second.

[35:00] Provided direction regarding provisions to retain and sections requiring modification prior to scheduling a future public hearing.

[35:09] Now, I think what's important here is that within staff's report that has been mentioned throughout the course of the public comments,

[35:19] There's data that essentially is pulled directly from GIS.

[35:23] Like this is factual data, right?

[35:26] And it essentially calls out what are the lot sizes

[35:29] where they located, when was the site built,

[35:33] what's the existing lock coverage,

[35:36] the building footprint, so on and so forth.

[35:39] And what's important to note is that in 2024,

[35:43] the village adopted the zoning and progress.

[35:45] So in essence, up until 2024,

[35:47] There were no regulations in place.

[35:50] There was no lock-overage.

[35:52] There was no FAR.

[35:53] There was no impervious data.

[35:55] Essentially a developer could build up to their setbacks.

[35:58] And there was no other type of regulations that would limit

[36:02] what someone could build.

[36:05] Unfortunately, what it does for us is that it serves as a line

[36:09] in the sand.

[36:10] Because once the 2024 zoning progress was put in place,

[36:15] there was an FAR.

[36:16] there was a lot of coverage. There was an impervious data that we now have to regulate.

[36:23] Substitute to that later in 2024, the state adopted regulations that made it difficult

[36:30] for any local municipality to draft rules that are more restrictive. So therefore, in

[36:37] staff's draft ordinance, we had to measure the community input, the board's desire, but

[36:45] And also we could not exceed the numerical values that were adopted in 2024, because otherwise

[36:53] we would be encouraging an ordinance that would be more strict than what the state of Florida

[37:01] allows in this ability to conduct.

[37:05] So that is why the numbers are where they are, and more specifically where staff kind of

[37:13] that because we had a baseline that we could not surpass.

[37:20] So prior to the March 26 planning zoning board meeting at which the revised ordinance was scheduled

[37:25] for consideration, Village staff conducted a comprehensive legal and policy review of the

[37:31] draft ordinance for consistency with the recently enacted state of Florida legislation.

[37:36] Governing local zoning authority, recent legislation adopted by the Florida legislature, had introduced

[37:41] additional parameters affecting the municipal zoning authority, including provisions that

[37:46] may limit the extent to which local governments modify residential development standards

[37:51] or regulate certain aspects of design for single-family dwellings.

[37:56] Pursuant to this review staff evaluated the board-directed amendments to assess potential areas

[38:00] of inconsistency with the applicable law. As a result of that analysis, specific provisions

[38:06] previously discussed by the board were not included in the March ordinance,

[38:10] With their implementation, could present legal concerns and create potential inconsistencies

[38:15] with state law.

[38:16] At the March meeting, the Board reviewed the proposed ordinance section by section and made

[38:21] additional changes to the ordinance including directing staff to introduce certain provisions

[38:26] that had previously been omitted following staff's legal and policy review.

[38:32] And therefore, the revised ordinance was presented once more at the planning and zoning

[38:37] boards may 28th meeting, where further additional revisions were requested, and therefore

[38:44] we are, that brings us to where we are tonight, where this ordinance essentially has all

[38:49] of the indicated amendments that the board has discussed and requested of us, and that's

[38:56] what we're going to thank you.

[38:57] Thank you.

[39:00] Any, before we get started here, any comments from the board, I mean, I guess my thoughts

[39:07] are, my thoughts are, we have this draft and we're in process of polishing it.

[39:14] Maybe we should go through and, you know, there's a few discrepancy here I'd like to

[39:20] discuss to just try to get us to a finished draft of what we started and then at the meeting

[39:27] discuss if we want to go forward and make the recommendation to pursue it or maybe table

[39:33] for another meeting, for further discussion, but I think that's the public and general needs to understand

[39:40] also that with Eddie just mentioned and that's a good point that the Florida statute

[39:46] do kind of limit us to what we have right there with our FAR and our lot coverage.

[39:53] So if we go any tighter than that, then as one of our speakers said too, we're opening ourselves up.

[40:03] I wanted to make a general general comment. Just to kind of zoom out and look at this big picture, why is we're stuck between a rock and art place.

[40:13] We have an overwhelming majority of the participating public that show up at these meetings that have asked us, pleaded with us, to try to enact regulations that prevent these larger structures being built upon these properties.

[40:26] And they don't understand why this is happening.

[40:29] I think they think that we've changed the codes and that has then therefore allowed that to happen.

[40:35] And although I know that our planning and zoning director has said that that's not the case,

[40:38] I want to try to do this in more plain language.

[40:41] The fact of the matter is, a lot of those historic homes were built and they were not built.

[40:46] They did not maximize what was allowable at the time when they were built.

[40:52] Life was different then.

[40:53] But then Holmes became and properties became much more speculative than nature.

[40:58] And as a result, we saw mostly businesses coming in looking to commoditize the properties,

[41:07] and it created structures that maximized the code that was in effect at that time.

[41:12] For one of the reasons why I ran for this position on this board,

[41:15] because I too was one of those people that had some concerns about what was being built.

[41:20] I was attracted to this village because of its quaint character and I also also saw it being

[41:27] eroded. And that is why we passed that initial measure before the state preemptive home

[41:35] role essentially. And the state's continued to do that time and time again. It seems as though

[41:41] there is no limits to the amount of ability to control our own destinies that they want to take away

[41:45] for us. But that does prevent us from further restricting these numbers. And there are little

[41:52] loopholes and little avenues that the state has left open, mainly in regulating volume

[41:57] metrics, which is the reason why we are as one of the commenters put it throwing the

[42:03] book at it, because that's what we're allowed to do legally speaking. If we had a design

[42:08] review board, that wouldn't be the case. That's an ongoing debate as to whether or not

[42:13] we actually were designed to design or do board in the past or not, but that's a subject

[42:19] for another conversation.

[42:21] The point is, I think, we're trying to find that balance between what is legally permissible

[42:27] to address the overwhelming desires of the community to prevent very, very large structures

[42:34] from being built on relatively small sized lots.

[42:38] And that's the code that we have in front of us this evening that we're trying to articulate,

[42:42] the further articulate and further clean up.

[42:44] I think that the choices that we have are to table it or to move forward.

[42:48] Moving forward in my view is an improvement to what we had back in 2024.

[42:54] It's not a step backwards.

[42:56] So provided that we are able to clean this up a bit, I think that I would advocate for that.

[43:01] And my hope is that as the government changes at the state level and we begin to see a

[43:12] actually unrestrict some of these restrictions and maybe institute a design review board which

[43:18] then we instills the ability for architects to be creative because as a currently stands

[43:23] now we're going to get more recreation centers built on properties that are going to

[43:28] infringe the rights of the adjacent property owners that really shouldn't have those rights

[43:32] infringed. So we're working within the context of what's available to us at the state level,

[43:37] pushing the boundaries where we can. But I think that's the code we have in front of us.

[43:41] just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the board

[43:49] before we get started on this?

[43:54] So I agree, I think we should go ahead and finish

[43:59] reviewing and at least get to what we started to an acceptable level of completeness

[44:07] and then we'll discuss how we want to go forward at that point with the understanding

[44:13] too that we have limitations that we're in and just mentioned about four statutes

[44:18] as far as changing some of these other metrics that we've put in place on this thing.

[44:25] So, with that said, I guess, let me just do a page turner, is there any major things?

[44:32] I just have a few comments, I'd like to discuss as we walk through this, I don't have

[44:36] a lot.

[44:38] Any comments for you tonight before we get started?

[44:40] Based on our, this is, as Eddie indicated, probably the fourth time we've gone through

[44:46] this exercise, the last P&Z board meeting, we have a discussion item to kind of clean up

[44:52] some things prior to that, where you all left off on it was that this meeting was going

[44:59] be a clean up.

[45:00] Not a page by page meeting. And so I just wanted to kind of bring that to your attention. If your attention is to do page by page, so be it.

[45:09] It's clean up. Things I think should be addressed.

[45:14] No problem.

[45:15] I mean, we're whittling it though.

[45:17] No, it's, I mean, by all means.

[45:19] No problem. Just reminding.

[45:22] That's all.

[45:22] So my first comments on page three line line seventy two anybody got anything before that

[45:31] I have a comment on building height and establish grade they go together but one I want to go first it's it's

[45:39] Building heights from where I'm the same yeah building heights from sixty nine to seventy three establish grades from eighty one three

[45:45] Here was my my comment or my question, you know for discussion with the board

[45:51] We've kind of changed the way to measure the building height for flat roofs, the overall,

[45:59] and then for pitch roofs to the tie beams, supporting a roof structure on the top floor

[46:06] for any type of roof.

[46:09] My question is this, if our further regulation says 28 feet in height, that would be from the

[46:18] finish floor to the top of Typing? Is that correct? Is that how you're understanding?

[46:24] Actually, last time when we talked about trying to establish an additional step back for a flat

[46:29] roof, I believe we agreed to revert back to the previous definition of building height,

[46:33] because a separate definition for the revised definition was no longer required,

[46:39] because there was an attempt to... So I see you can sort of minmo forward here, I guess,

[46:44] addressing this. It also cleans up what the term established grade means. I think the way that

[46:50] that that was written is, and that's further, that's further. Yeah, but they go hand-in-hand. So, so,

[46:57] so then this is, we need to, because I was, where I was leading was, if that's 28 feet to the top of the

[47:03] tidying, and then let's say you have a very steep pitched roof, then you could essentially have a very

[47:09] all structure. People were back to the previous way of measuring it, which was the mean between

[47:13] the eve and the ridge. And is that stated later on? That's the revised building height

[47:21] definition that I sent via email, shortly before this meeting.

[47:27] All right. This is the first time we've looked at it. The first time everybody had a chance to

[47:31] look at this. You want to take a few minutes and read it. And we want yourselves, you want me to

[47:36] it out loud, so I want to read it out loud.

[47:38] Not really, but I'll do it.

[47:39] Thank you.

[47:40] If it's OK, I'd like to start with the established grade

[47:43] because I think that that makes a lot of sense.

[47:47] The way that we had previously written established grade

[47:49] it looks like we were trying to regulate a finished law

[47:51] by the use of the term established grade,

[47:53] but that's not the intent of that word.

[47:55] So I'm proposing the revision as follows.

[47:57] The established grade, the minimum average grade

[47:59] of a plot compatible with the Gs and properties,

[48:02] facts of sidewalks, and the Gs and roadways,

[48:04] but in no case lower than the average crown of road,

[48:07] fronting a property.

[48:08] A finished floor shall be set a minimum of six inches above the established grave.

[48:15] It goes on for building height.

[48:17] Changing that definition to be the vertical distance

[48:20] shall not exceed 28 feet from the minimum finish floor to a,

[48:25] the top of the roof for flat roofs,

[48:27] or b, the mean level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof

[48:32] in the case of roofs of any other type.

[48:34] For those properties located in areas identified as flood zones, subsection 1, in all flood zones

[48:40] except coastal high hazard areas, the minimum finish floor shall be the elevation established

[48:45] by FEMA plus freeboard requirements and subsection 2.

[48:49] For buildings located in coastal high hazard areas such as VE and VZones, the maximum building

[48:54] height shall be 20 feet, measured from the lowest horizontal structural member supporting

[48:59] the lowest habitable level to the roof point described above, and I'm happy to answer any

[49:05] questions so that I, let's start with finished grade. So what we had here prior was, the

[49:13] finished grade of the pot shall be not less than four inches above street grade, right? And

[49:20] then, and then further, the established finished floor of the pot shall be at for above

[49:28] the minimum, that's for the flood, flood portion. So that's, that's, that's going to

[49:36] stay the same, the item number. It's a slide 85. It's only slightly different. Because

[49:42] the way it was written before, it doesn't take into account the fact that the payment does not

[49:46] specify finished floor elevations for, for coastal high hazard areas. The finished floor shall

[49:53] the theme of bass-plot plus freeboards. Where do we have freeboards?

[50:02] It's two feet.

[50:04] And there is that, we can find, unfortunately, outside of our zoning code, but in the building code section of our code of ordinances,

[50:10] have something arbitrary that talks about two feet above flood.

[50:14] We don't have, we don't have liberty to change that, unfortunately, because it's not within our review,

[50:18] at least that's what we've been told. I would love to change it.

[50:20] So as far as, you know, it's not in our, it's the zoning section.

[50:25] Not in the county, I guess, as a one foot, we'll be fine.

[50:34] So that's a confusion fact, or it is, but we don't really a purview over that.

[50:42] So this works around that because it's saying freeboard as established by FEMA, not freeboard

[50:49] as established by the village of Miami shorts,

[51:01] any of you done any comments on this?

[51:02] I just wish it was clear, you know?

[51:07] Well I think as staff definitely, I think we have a little bit of reservations referencing

[51:13] the 28 feet just because the building high definition refers to all zoning districts so there

[51:20] may be other districts to have different high numerical values so that may be an issue so

[51:29] we definitely wouldn't want to put in a numerical value in the definition so I think that in

[51:36] that in the tables other buildings not within the art district 40 feet correct but the building

[51:41] high definition as being proposed by Mr. Spurke includes that 28 feet, and so these definitions

[51:48] are not exclusive to the artistic only. It includes all, it's always going to be a good

[51:56] But our version to specify that height, I think, is causing an enormous amount of confusion,

[52:03] so maybe it would be to specifically state that this is relating to residential structures.

[52:10] So, in drafting calls, we don't do it for the immediate moment, we do it for the future.

[52:16] And I just think that best practice and for this to be a definition, it just needs to be a definition, not a regulation.

[52:23] And I think that's the issue with these two provisions, even as drafted in the proposed ordinance, is that we are going beyond just defining the term and now we're regulating within a definition.

[52:35] And that's not a useful thing to do in cold.

[52:38] You want to have your regulations set out

[52:40] and your definitions separate and part.

[52:42] I'll even go as far as saying,

[52:44] it sounds like we might need to make a separate definition for finished floor

[52:47] because the Kana is a bit completed with a finished,

[52:51] we define established grade,

[52:53] and then the last sentence we go into a finished floor

[52:56] shall be set a minimum of six inches above the established grade.

[53:00] Now, we're complaining to different terms for one and for two, now we're regulating something

[53:08] within a definition.

[53:09] Most users of cold, yes, you use the definitions to inform you, but you're going to

[53:15] first look at the regulations to tell you what you cannot do.

[53:18] So I think anything that is more soy regulation needs to be relocated in another part of

[53:25] the cold in the definition and be so defined.

[53:27] in Section 508. Correct. So, that was great.

[53:30] The savage grade of plot and finished floor and we'll add a subsection B to put that finished

[53:35] floor minimum at that point. That's not reasonable.

[53:43] All right. So, what are we concluding here then on the established grade? I've got a Brandon

[53:57] the ordinance.

[54:02] So, if there's no issue with the language that Mr. Spurke has recommended,

[54:09] then we'd add that language strike out what's included now. Well, not technically

[54:15] strike out, it's we're still at the stage where we can just swap things out. This is not

[54:20] new link. This is not currently in which in the call. So, we'll just...

[54:23] But if we just leave what is the board's opinion and I'm not sure Brandon is actually what you're trying to change from what is in right now on the ordinance proposed which just says not less than four inches above street gray this this that it started because when we when we agreed as board to

[54:46] let an additional step back for a flat roof we also said that we will

[54:50] revert to the previous building height definition so if that's what we're doing in the

[54:55] definition I think that's all we need to do is simply revert back to the previous definition.

[55:01] And I'm sorry. I'm on a stop and I guess I'm focused. I'm just trying to get the established grade portion straightened up first, right? And then I, okay, so you're changing what we have and so the established grade the way it was written in our current, which in what it, in the ordinance, it's, it's defining a finished grade of a structure.

[55:25] Four inches above street great. Yeah, but saying the finish grade of a plot shall be not less the four inches above street grade

[55:31] You know, but is that I don't know if that was the intent was that was the intent to take the entire grade of the plot

[55:36] And make it four inches higher than not less than four inches above right, so maybe even more than that

[55:42] I don't know if that was the intent. I don't think that was the intent. It's just saying you have at least four inches for

[55:51] But your yard doesn't

[55:53] So it's above the street, you know, not below the street.

[56:01] I think so.

[56:03] But then it goes on to talk about the finished floor, like subsection one in that definition.

[56:08] It's talking about the finished floor established by Fiat.

[56:10] And then the finished floor shall be above the minimum FEMA base flood plus freeboard.

[56:15] That doesn't have anything to do with the established grave.

[56:18] And then that's for the flood area too.

[56:20] So, if we're looking to, if we're looking to simply define what a established grade is,

[56:27] because that is ultimately the basis of measuring height later on in the code,

[56:31] I think,

[56:32] to go with what you said,

[56:33] and take out that last sentence,

[56:34] the finished floor,

[56:35] the finished floor should be set minimum,

[56:37] and then that could follow in the section that's specific to residential.

[56:44] So, that'll then go where,

[56:46] under line 81,

[56:47] the established grade is.

[56:51] Yes, yes, because I don't I don't know none of what we have written there with respect to FEMA

[56:57] Should has anything to do with the established grade of a lot. All right. I think that simplifies it

[57:02] Is that that's my perspective that he I don't know am I am I my stating that correctly think I am

[57:09] So that's for this established grade with Brandon submitted minus the last sentence starting at line 81

[57:15] Right, so so that essentially that would replace 81 and 82

[57:26] That's coming out and being relocated into regulations.

[57:31] Yes.

[57:34] I'm building height now.

[57:37] Perhaps we come back to that when we get the section 508.

[57:42] Now we're jumping.

[57:43] Let's go on the definition here.

[57:45] If we leave this as is.

[57:48] The previous definition, as it was previously written, I think we can just simply state it like that if everybody's in agreement and

[57:55] And not the one that's in this ordinance in front of correct. So removing law strike through all underlined and just the verbate on

[58:02] Building type definition. I believe that we're all

[58:05] Yeah, I believe that would be the case. Okay, except building level. It's saying the established great elevation of a plot

[58:11] Of a plot. I don't think we're referencing building level anymore

[58:13] I think we're talking about established great

[58:15] Okay, so we'll leave that first line and then we'll the vertical distance from the established grade elevation of a thawat

[58:24] to a the top

[58:28] of the roof in the case of flat roofs or b the mean level between the eaves and the highest point of

[58:36] the roof in the case of roofs of any other type I

[58:41] Think this was worth Smith

[58:43] were better

[58:45] Except we don't use building level anymore. That's what I'm saying.

[58:49] Building level was a different definition altogether that didn't make any sense.

[58:52] We got rid of that and we were saying let's go by established grave.

[58:56] So which is why I'm saying it doesn't seem like we're going to refer it back to.

[59:02] With the exception of instead of saying it's defined by the building level it's the established grave.

[59:09] So basically it's as I read it.

[59:12] people would be

[59:18] yes that's what yes that's not just any we're

[59:21] reverting to be but not the others yes yes correct we're saying

[59:25] all right so we're good at building height

[59:30] any other comments on these issues my next comment is on line 188

[59:45] of my

[59:46] question to I guess Eddie or whoever you have district this is just the type of thing district you have R-1 district shouldn't shouldn't just be R district

[59:58] we don't have R1

[1:00:02] And then I think it's a little confusing. The title you have on the far right column, you have permitted and unauthorized uses, and it doesn't read well.

[1:00:19] I should have be permitted uses period.

[1:00:24] I think we just permitted uses and then yes, but it specifies that the following is a

[1:00:30] partial list of not of uses not to be included to me it was a confusing to confuse it.

[1:00:42] You brought this up before and that's the reason why it was included is because of that additional

[1:00:46] language that includes the unauthorized uses. Typically, we just would have a permitted uses

[1:00:51] session. But because this not only has, when you say permitted and unauthorized uses, then

[1:00:59] you have to specify it beginning of each number, permitted use, permitted use, non-permitted

[1:01:04] use. Because you can't say it's permitted and unauthorized. And then just start with permitted

[1:01:09] and unauthorized use. One family dwellings. You understand what I'm saying?

[1:01:14] The following is a partialist used in not to be included in the forgling authorized uses.

[1:01:20] That specifies that. That's why I think the column should say permitted uses.

[1:01:25] And then that's obviously clearly not permitted uses one family dwellings, but not more.

[1:01:31] And then we have item three family occupation and professional offices.

[1:01:35] Is professional offices a permitted use in the art history?

[1:01:40] Home-based businesses. Home-based offices are.

[1:01:42] But if we want to or not, that's just my comment, I think it would be better under permitted uses and I'm not going to dwell on it too much here.

[1:02:04] My next comment on line 205.

[1:02:07] Anything before that?

[1:02:09] FAR.

[1:02:10] Where do we have FAR defined in our code?

[1:02:13] It is defined in there.

[1:02:18] We did it.

[1:02:19] What's not included?

[1:02:21] All right.

[1:02:23] I just looked for it.

[1:02:24] We did the streamlined artistic changes in 2020.

[1:02:28] So it is defined with what it is and what's not included.

[1:02:32] That's good.

[1:02:35] My next one is Section 412 to 28.

[1:02:40] I also have a comment on top of our coverage issues, my comment and I was just looking at it.

[1:02:48] I think we could simplify it.

[1:02:52] Like, the first 7500 square feet in above take that out.

[1:02:57] And then the second line, you know, I'm thinking just less than 15,000 square feet, 40%

[1:03:03] one story 30% and the 15,000 and over 21,000 and over.

[1:03:09] The only issue that I have with that is that having the smaller lot, well I don't know

[1:03:14] how much I was on a smaller lot.

[1:03:15] And that's the thing that I was actually going to be my comment.

[1:03:19] I don't really recall why we did that, but in 2024 we had said 30 and 40% and that's what

[1:03:32] and said yes, but that's going to allow for a very, very large structure on some of these larger

[1:03:36] lads, which is why when we talked about the other definitions, when we were talking about

[1:03:40] 12,000 square feet, 15,000 square feet, and 21,000 square feet, these were already areas

[1:03:45] that were defined, I believe, in our code, which is why we took them.

[1:03:48] And we reduced the percentages to not allow for an unreasonably sized structure next to another

[1:03:56] a lot that it would ultimately be allowed only

[1:03:58] to build something compared to, you know, much less

[1:04:02] volumetric, voluminous, I should say.

[1:04:05] But when we went to the 755 and the square foot lot,

[1:04:08] we, I think, arbitrarily just increased that.

[1:04:11] And when I've heard from the public for the most part,

[1:04:13] there has been some sending you that we've heard this evening,

[1:04:17] although I think that was really about the mechanics

[1:04:19] of how a writing a code not so much about the result.

[1:04:22] But the remainder of the people that have spoken publicly

[1:04:25] this meeting and other meetings have objective to that increase. So if we're listening to them,

[1:04:31] I think we would go back down to the minimum that we're permitted to go back down to,

[1:04:36] which my understanding would be 40 percent and 30 percent. So to your point, I think.

[1:04:44] So it just changed to less than 15,000 square feet, 40 percent, 30 percent.

[1:04:48] No, I would say, yeah, less than 15,000 square feet.

[1:04:51] thousand and above 38 28 yeah yeah that's what I'm kind of looking

[1:04:56] how were you saying yeah so we just get to the same spot

[1:05:05] So, yes, on the table, you have four rows, strike the first row, completely.

[1:05:12] The second row under a lot of size, right, less than 15,000 square feet

[1:05:19] in the rest of the

[1:05:24] day,

[1:05:24] because then the next row says 15,000 square feet in a row.

[1:05:36] So, we only have less than 50,000 square feet, yes.

[1:05:40] And less than 21,000 square feet, 15,000 square and above, and then 21,000 square and above.

[1:05:48] with the numbers that are in

[1:05:53] it.

[1:05:54] With me?

[1:05:58] All right.

[1:06:01] My next question is on, um,

[1:06:05] line, then, two, forty-eight.

[1:06:07] Does that mean somebody's got something to do with it?

[1:06:09] All right, anything before two, forty-eight?

[1:06:12] So maybe somebody can help me understand that paragraph there

[1:06:17] from two, forty-five to two, fifty.

[1:06:21] I don't know who kind of proposed that.

[1:06:24] But what I guess what I'm struggling with is,

[1:06:32] You may recall that I came in with a study in existing inventory study as flat roofs to pitch roofs

[1:06:40] Yes, and proposed a mechanism of of regulating that.

[1:06:45] Yes, but I think it was unanimously deemed to be overly complicated.

[1:06:50] And this is a very complicated.

[1:06:51] Mr. Herrera came up with an alternative suggestion because the premise of the my initial proposal was

[1:06:56] The community wasn't necessarily objecting the flat roots of some objections were heard about flat roots.

[1:07:04] More they were objecting to the volume metrics that were being presented to a street.

[1:07:08] We heard big white cubes massive oversized homes.

[1:07:15] The provisions that we had proposed up until that point really didn't address that.

[1:07:19] And it seemed as though what we were trying to do, or what I was trying to do,

[1:07:22] was really getting stuck on whether or not it was a flat root versus a slope root.

[1:07:26] ignoring the reality that the people were really talking about volume metrics, and that's why I came forward with that inventory study as a basis of trying to demonstrate that we had a character in the shores that was

[1:07:38] depending on which area of the neighborhood you looked at somewhere between 2% and 9% flat roofs to the majority pitch roofs.

[1:07:46] And so instead of trying to implement a complex way of regulating that that would put

[1:07:52] undue burden on staff, the solution was, if you're going to propose a flat with because

[1:07:57] by nature of a flat with the volume is larger than the present industry, simply set that

[1:08:01] back further.

[1:08:03] So, this is 10 feet for the second sport.

[1:08:07] Yes.

[1:08:07] And then what I did, maybe you can kind of walk me.

[1:08:10] the front shall be increased by one additional foot, for each one foot by which the height of the upper wall plane measured

[1:08:18] very quickly from the finished floor level likes.

[1:08:22] Explain, don't matter exactly who presented that, but as I read it, my understanding of that is that you're allowed by

[1:08:28] ten foot to get the ten feet.

[1:08:30] So that's like a story of ten feet, and then if that's like a story that's more than ten feet,

[1:08:34] associated with it, and you need an additional flush for it to go back, so it went up 11,

[1:08:41] and you would go back a lot of times.

[1:08:43] We've had a number of proposals that have sought to maximize height, but that's the first

[1:08:48] thing I've done.

[1:08:55] Yes.

[1:08:59] This is the height of the first floor, that's the height of the first floor, that's the height

[1:09:08] of the first floor.

[1:09:10] If it's at 12, then you're step back 12.

[1:09:13] It's 12.

[1:09:13] A one foot by which the height of the upper wall plain.

[1:09:17] Yeah, this is about, this is a really in relationship to the second story of that.

[1:09:20] What's the upper wall plain?

[1:09:22] Second story.

[1:09:24] The upper wall plain.

[1:09:25] Second story.

[1:09:26] Measured vertically from the finished floor elevation from the bottom of the second floor.

[1:09:31] The finished floor elevation of the second story to the top of the parapet or higher.

[1:09:38] exceeding 10 feet. Oh, so from if this is more than 10, this is 11 feet and I got 11 feet and I got 11 feet.

[1:09:47] That's right.

[1:09:47] Second floor.

[1:09:48] Okay, all right.

[1:09:49] But also the first floor.

[1:09:50] That's right.

[1:09:51] I just, you have to talk about that with three feet.

[1:09:54] That's right.

[1:09:55] I don't know if I read it that way.

[1:09:56] So if you have a very high second floor, you're just stepping it back even more.

[1:10:00] And these are the regulations and the metrics that we are over detailing, like our speakers said earlier.

[1:10:09] And I think the, you know, we are, there's, there's, there's no question about it.

[1:10:15] What we're proposing is a sexual, you know, it's a, it's a reaction.

[1:10:20] It's a reaction. It's an unfortunate reaction, because absent of those regulations, we don't even saw what's happened.

[1:10:26] We have the rec centers that are being built and the community hates that and they work here with pitchforks and torches

[1:10:33] So I mean we're trying to put some control in there and I think these I was just

[1:10:40] Free it way I can't remember who came up with this I guess. I would much rather argue that my design would be bored

[1:10:44] And get involved this, but I don't we can do that

[1:10:49] It came out of a discussion on how to break up mass and they're very limited tools that we have to break up mass

[1:10:56] And the stand-back is one of the only things that you can use to break up mass on the second floor.

[1:11:02] So that's why we came up with that idea, because we're already step-in-back six feet, but it's six feet is not the eye can't really distinguish six feet and also this was intended to create a little bit more of an incentive for somebody to design a pitchcrew structure because that matches the character of the character of the village.

[1:11:22] and if our charter task is too much, maybe we get rid of it, or I don't know.

[1:11:29] But if our charter task does with maintaining the character of the village as it does,

[1:11:33] it's written into the beginning of our planning zone, the work code, I believe it's also in the charter,

[1:11:38] then we have to implement whatever tools that are at our disposal to be able to do that.

[1:11:42] So that's that was the intent behind this, and I think it's just a five and ten. It's not the cleanest way to get there,

[1:11:47] but unfortunately the solution of the whole, it's something.

[1:11:51] What's the thing?

[1:11:53] The only thing?

[1:11:54] Unless you want to do the version that I came up with.

[1:11:56] No.

[1:11:56] That was too complicated.

[1:11:59] Yeah.

[1:12:01] The next one I got is section five book.

[1:12:03] Sorry.

[1:12:04] I'm okay.

[1:12:05] I just needed to.

[1:12:06] I just wanted to.

[1:12:07] I need.

[1:12:09] I need to.

[1:12:10] I need to.

[1:12:11] I need to.

[1:12:14] I need to.

[1:12:18] I need to.

[1:12:20] I think I think it's confused, what do you

[1:12:30] have?

[1:12:30] 26.

[1:12:31] I'm at 27.

[1:12:32] So I'm at 27.

[1:12:34] So on lines 28 to 289, isn't that contradictory or confusing with lines 291 to 296?

[1:12:46] Looks like we're saying one thing and then saying again a different way on item B.

[1:12:52] Well, I think there's a differentiation, right, because the proposed language that begins at

[1:13:00] 291 is to deal specifically in residential areas, where the other language pertains to

[1:13:06] the commercial and non-residential areas.

[1:13:11] Okay, so that's for the commercial.

[1:13:13] But don't we need to specify, because it says, in residential districts, so that's the difference

[1:13:19] there.

[1:13:20] Okay, but now it's

[1:13:25] not it's confusing the way this is written because it wants all of it together

[1:13:33] So the residential is that so that's where I thought now let me just read something that I'm not sure red right

[1:13:41] I'm going to read it water tanks air conditioning equipment mechanical in residential district

[1:13:46] Shobby located at grade we're feasible in no event on rooftops, should I say and in no event on rooftops?

[1:13:56] That means we're advised for feasible, but in no event and in no event on rooftops.

[1:14:05] And so we're saying you can't put it on rooftops,

[1:14:12] so we're going to and it designated to minimize visual.

[1:14:15] So it needs a little word smithing, done it.

[1:14:21] And no noise impacts on adjacent properties.

[1:14:24] Putting it great, so you're gonna have more noise impacts, right?

[1:14:29] Except the solar water heaters and associate to maybe locate on a rooftop

[1:14:33] that is not visible from public rights away.

[1:14:41] And then to make it clear, should we start the line A, water tanks

[1:14:45] and necessary a condition equipment and other mechanical purposes

[1:14:50] located outside of the R district, you know, so we don't have that confusion where that's

[1:14:56] for outside the R district and then in the R district we have.

[1:15:08] I don't disagree with you. I'm we're limited in our title and that we are talking about changes to the artistic, that's how we're advertising this and I know I know it is trust me, but we've been very hesitant. We'll get there, we'll be getting there, it's kind of how we've approached it at this point.

[1:15:28] Let me give them more thought.

[1:15:30] We give thought.

[1:15:31] I'm just moving.

[1:15:32] Push it forward here.

[1:15:33] Is that the same for this?

[1:15:35] On residential districts?

[1:15:37] Because I had it.

[1:15:38] We had it crossed out.

[1:15:40] Or edited.

[1:15:41] But it.

[1:15:45] And this is non-resident.

[1:15:46] These are non-residential districts.

[1:15:48] Yeah.

[1:15:49] Well, here we had exceeding over all five to six feet above.

[1:15:53] Key refers to the line number.

[1:15:56] Uh, well, this is 286.

[1:16:27] We can't, I can't. You've got to speak into the mic for sunshine purposes.

[1:16:33] The previous markup I had for non-residential districts, the seed and overall height of six feet above the roof slab,

[1:16:43] the flat roof or above the top of the typing pitch groove.

[1:16:52] structure it it's like it wasn't it was unstrapped. So the you're basing

[1:16:59] your previous instructions where to keep this section as is because it affects

[1:17:05] it districts outside of the art district and so to revert to the actual

[1:17:09] coal language now and then create a separate section.

[1:17:19] Section 508

[1:17:21] are in the details of the issues on that.

[1:17:23] I do not know, I don't need to address those.

[1:17:26] I'm all the way down.

[1:17:27] I'm quite a part of this.

[1:17:28] Just for the record, 508 is where we're going to add

[1:17:31] that additional information that was once included in

[1:17:35] your definitions.

[1:17:36] We're going to relocate it down to 508 and be titled

[1:17:40] from the established grade and the finished grade as well.

[1:17:43] I think that works.

[1:17:47] All right.

[1:17:49] The next one I had, and I guess it's just a reading thing.

[1:17:52] I went, I'm at line 321,

[1:17:56] does it make sense?

[1:17:57] You're starting that section.

[1:17:58] Can't it be zoning, balconies, ease, architecture, features,

[1:18:03] may project colon and then you go to three.

[1:18:07] Second story, balconies and terraces located within

[1:18:09] residents of Shonopy, permitted, so it doesn't go with them.

[1:18:13] And the line

[1:18:16] 314 says these items may project and then you're

[1:18:21] And then you go to three, which isn't anything about a projection into a projection into a setback.

[1:18:38] I mean, the right place for kind of what I'm asking you.

[1:18:47] Don't disagree.

[1:18:49] But I want to say this probably wasn't more...

[1:18:52] It's been a long time.

[1:18:54] But we'll revisit this and change it.

[1:18:57] Look out if it makes it done very dry.

[1:19:06] And I'm trying to get to our applications here.

[1:19:11] I don't have any more comments after that.

[1:19:14] I don't have any more comments.

[1:19:16] Yes.

[1:19:16] The line item 568.

[1:19:19] This is about the level of service standard.

[1:19:21] This is,

[1:19:25] if you get there, basically it says for a new single family construction or for additions that increase the existing square footage by 50% or more.

[1:19:32] and involves significant land assertives assigned in serious drainage engineering plan to

[1:19:37] demonstrate that no water run off onto not onto adjacent properties and then and the

[1:19:44] public right of way during a ten-year one-hour storm event. I think we're missing run off

[1:19:48] to the public way, public right of way. I would add those words in between properties and

[1:19:55] This is actually existing on 568 and it's in between.

[1:20:00] Any words, properties, and doring, add the words, and the public right of way?

[1:20:19] Any other comments?

[1:20:21] My next comment is on my item 622.

[1:20:26] I would strike the words for enclosed.

[1:20:33] I'm going to strike the warrant close.

[1:20:38] I'm going to

[1:20:43] go back to the section right before.

[1:20:50] Didn't we have the I.I. with drainage points?

[1:20:53] I mean, let's say line 596 at the end of that.

[1:21:01] So, a 7 B.I.I.

[1:21:13] It's already in Subsection A.

[1:21:15] Is that the first one?

[1:21:17] So, under that line.

[1:21:19] Subsection A.

[1:21:20] It's assigned a sealed drainage.

[1:21:21] A drainage.

[1:21:22] And then clearing plant.

[1:21:28] In the other.

[1:21:29] Ah, then.

[1:21:30] Have you done?

[1:21:31] Nothing else.

[1:21:36] So we've kind of gone through, we have over killing you on that.

[1:21:45] I mean, I'm just trying to honor your wishes of making it to the last meet.

[1:21:50] But I will say that we've had several changes, several changes to this ordinance and various forms.

[1:21:57] Because of that, I will do a final review before this is, if you decide to recommend this item to the Village Council.

[1:22:09] We just want some room to make none substantive changes.

[1:22:12] If we catch them, i.e. typos or items that you just mentioned.

[1:22:18] Just the final cleanup because I know we've had several reiterations.

[1:22:22] Yeah, and so because we have that next month off,

[1:22:25] you would like the ability to take a closer look from that standpoint.

[1:22:29] You want a motion for that?

[1:22:31] No, when you, when you, when you need to open up for public comment,

[1:22:36] but when you do vote, I would like a motion to recommend this with any

[1:22:41] non-suffensive changes by staff for the military.

[1:22:44] I have a general question.

[1:22:48] And, of course, we were viewing applications.

[1:22:51] We find things that are non-conforming, and on a whole weekend to give forgiveness, is that

[1:22:59] the right word to use, you know, and setbacks, because the house was built 30 years ago,

[1:23:05] or nine and a half feet, not ten feet when these things are done.

[1:23:08] And we tend to simply say it's allowable, non-conforming.

[1:23:14] Do we need a phrase in here that talks about that in terms of the zoning code pre-existing non-conforming conditions that are basically allowable?

[1:23:29] There is a section in the code that essentially talks about non-conforming uses, non-conforming characteristics.

[1:23:35] like, it's already, it's already nasty, okay, is this, is under item section 412 where we

[1:23:47] have the lot coverage in that. For existing single family residents built prior to 65,

[1:23:56] prior to the adoption of this regulation, it may be permitted up to a 2% increase in maximum

[1:24:03] lot coverage beyond the applicable standards provided the principal structure is not

[1:24:07] demolished and we change a minimum 50% of its exterior so exterior walls and 60% of its

[1:24:15] existing floor area. Does that help address what your concern is on that?

[1:24:20] I don't believe so. What is concerns is, I think, those with any property that now would

[1:24:27] legally not conforming based off of these new and far and the coverage.

[1:24:34] Yeah, anything in this code that now it's changing, we have standard non-conforming language

[1:24:42] that defaults in a code as to how many properties, whatever studies, how many properties

[1:24:49] will be non-conforming because of these regulations?

[1:24:52] No, I don't necessarily have that information.

[1:24:55] But if there were to be one like for example

[1:25:00] A big box that has no step back on the second floor. Right. And now we have step back requirements, so that it's not conformed.

[1:25:07] That almost every split level ensures has no set back on the second floor.

[1:25:14] They just don't alone to have it from the front plane and on whatever side that is.

[1:25:21] I think there are probably more of those things that people realize and I think all the changes we made were very good and very appropriate and long time coming,

[1:25:33] but I do get concerned that every now and then we do something that we're not sure we're doing.

[1:25:38] We have some of those kinds of consequences.

[1:25:41] You know the thing is the way I see it is non-conforming properties.

[1:25:46] There's a section in there that happens all the time.

[1:25:48] zoning codes, zoning codes evolve and change, and that's the point, zoning code to do evolve

[1:25:52] and to do change.

[1:25:53] And this series of evolutions has really been because of the preemption of normal for

[1:25:59] the most part, we used to be able to regulate building design language, we would be able

[1:26:03] to, without having all these codes that were restricted by your metrics, to be able to respond

[1:26:08] to the neighbors, to the neighborhoods comments about any particular application.

[1:26:12] We are, without tools to do that, and so we've made changes.

[1:26:18] Of course, as time marches on, the code will continue to evolve.

[1:26:22] They'll be other evidence in the future.

[1:26:23] Maybe even relaxation on certain restrictions that we put into place now,

[1:26:27] if the community feels differently and moving forward in the future.

[1:26:30] I mean, nothing.

[1:26:32] We get the government that we participate in, by and large,

[1:26:34] people have showed up to workshops and showed up to give their commentary here,

[1:26:38] actually want us to go much further than we have been able to go.

[1:26:42] So, for one, I feel comfortable with where we're at, it's not everything that I think everybody wants.

[1:26:49] But I think it's a good compromise that it does seem to me people halfway between those that are property rights absolutists and those that are character absolutists.

[1:27:02] Not yet.

[1:27:03] So, I mean, on that, just for the discussion on that item, on properties that are now deemed not conformist.

[1:27:14] I own the big box that doesn't conform to the step box or whatever and I want to do

[1:27:20] in addition to the house or whatever. Is that going to be a problem? I'm going to have to get

[1:27:25] variances or something like that.

[1:27:28] You just have to follow the non-conformity, non-conforming regulation. So it depends on the percentage

[1:27:35] of the amount that you might be changing and we have different non-conformity regulations.

[1:27:42] based on the district, I think the first one is popping up right now is downtown district, but I know we have one that's specific to the R and so

[1:27:52] it'll just have to conform within that range and if it doesn't then it'll have to get a new approval by not a variance, you just have to bring your property out to code.

[1:28:03] The point is that eventual rule.

[1:28:04] I'm bringing my property to how I build the step back into my house.

[1:28:08] If you are beyond what the code provides, think you're going to have to bring it up.

[1:28:16] That's the point of non-conformity.

[1:28:18] It's not that it's going to be.

[1:28:19] You had applications come before us already that we're not conforming.

[1:28:23] And what we said was you can't further extend a non-conforming condition.

[1:28:27] And we've been very liberal in that interpretation.

[1:28:29] There have been instances, for example, where a property that was required of a 10-foot

[1:28:33] side yard set back came into the 9-foot 6 side yard set back existing condition.

[1:28:37] And in the constrictive conservative reading of that code, we wouldn't have allowed in addition to further extend that, but we have allowed that here.

[1:28:45] So I think there's some subjectivity as to how we interpret it and press an incident with it.

[1:28:50] So let me ask, so I got the square box with no stepbacks in it.

[1:28:55] And I want to add on to my second floor.

[1:28:58] So I could add on the only way I could add on to my second floor is to build a step back.

[1:29:06] Ten foot for that section of the add-on.

[1:29:08] Remember there's an exception for a certain percentage structure that you're adding more than 50 percent than yet.

[1:29:15] You can apply, but let's say you're adding less than 20 percent.

[1:29:17] I don't know.

[1:29:17] Oh, groom.

[1:29:19] If you continue that wall, I could continue that wall in the front without a step back.

[1:29:24] What I'm trying to do is give you the exact language in the college, which is not

[1:29:28] populating at the moment, and I think it's trying to look as well.

[1:29:31] Maybe while you take any questions, I'm going to start at eight o'clock on our application.

[1:29:37] What you can't do, unless you, you're going to spend this application, but I'd like to.

[1:29:42] But I would like to open a public comment here once we've done a shared discussion.

[1:29:47] I think we're close, right?

[1:29:51] Any other comments on this?

[1:29:53] Let me open this to public comment then.

[1:29:55] If I'd like to open this item to public comment,

[1:29:59] they'll let you slay to bite.

[1:30:00] The ordinance that we've been reviewing.

[1:30:06] I understand. Any public comment on it before we continue.

[1:30:13] Okay. There's no further public comment on it. Any further discussion on it? Maybe we can get a motion or idea that?

[1:30:23] Just for the record, I don't want to be clear. I know you all have discussed your limitations in terms.

[1:30:29] I'm not sure we have one.

[1:30:32] I got to take her.

[1:30:34] All right, go ahead.

[1:30:36] No, no.

[1:30:36] No, no, no.

[1:30:36] In my own, I'm sure we don't have source system here.

[1:30:39] There's a set of things.

[1:30:40] Any extension of properties,

[1:30:43] not that going to affect the set of the system?

[1:30:47] Just.

[1:30:49] Well, here you're here.

[1:30:50] You can have only such a size of 60 times.

[1:30:54] I cannot cover all the air of that and support exposed

[1:30:57] is this considered in this conversation?

[1:31:04] And the final analysis, because we are a neighbor.

[1:31:10] We are a home section, so forth.

[1:31:12] What is the final height of any building you want

[1:31:16] to allow to be built?

[1:31:19] One for two for how many feet?

[1:31:22] In our code, it's 28 feet.

[1:31:24] It's 28 feet.

[1:31:25] What we're supposed to do?

[1:31:27] Yes.

[1:31:27] That's about three-fold.

[1:31:29] Two stories

[1:31:31] Two stories are 2018. That's a little bit too high

[1:31:35] Not it includes the real push-up page value. Not what I would be homes that three for huh

[1:31:40] It's it's not really a discussion item. It's more public comment for you

[1:31:45] What I mean it's public comment for you. It's not really I don't think so what I'm not to say is if

[1:31:52] the

[1:31:53] set the system does not all all

[1:31:56] and enlarger construction.

[1:31:59] Then that will control the height of the structure, absolutely.

[1:32:03] The height is at the average height.

[1:32:06] My average was none of them at 3, 4, 3, 4, 5.

[1:32:10] I can't think of it.

[1:32:12] There are these increases.

[1:32:15] 972.

[1:32:16] Is there any holes at 3, 4, 5, right?

[1:32:19] No.

[1:32:20] No.

[1:32:21] Thank you.

[1:32:22] Thank you.

[1:32:24] So, through the chair, as I was stating earlier with the non-conforming regulations, it appears

[1:32:29] it falls underneath the Mami Shore's downtown district.

[1:32:34] I would recommend you add something in the article that just crossed reference to that

[1:32:39] non-conforming regulations for, you know, specific that it applies.

[1:32:45] Is that okay?

[1:32:47] So, we should, yes.

[1:32:49] So, I'd add that amendment as well.

[1:32:51] And then the only thing is, when we counsel counsel, we'll inform them of the original recommendations,

[1:33:01] and our recommendations as I related to the SB 180 items that we've initially removed,

[1:33:06] and those items that you guys included in this version.

[1:33:09] So they're clear in terms of what we are recommending is legally sound versus what we believe should be removed from this draft.

[1:33:17] But what we believe will be included, and then we're just advising that.

[1:33:22] Right, I'm going to forward them over your ordinance, and they're going to separately indicate every item that will be violated.

[1:33:29] There's a question.

[1:33:33] All right.

[1:33:35] So what's our next thing?

[1:33:37] I guess we think we think we have it where we want to be subject to your ability to make any sort of non-substances changes.

[1:33:51] So I'd make a motion to make a recommendation to Council to approve the code as we've edited this evening with the addition of the non-conforming cross-reference.

[1:34:02] I want the prize.

[1:34:04] And the staff to make a pro community.

[1:34:07] And the authorised to have to meet non-consequent or anything else.

[1:34:11] I'm not sure if that's the best.

[1:34:12] Back in.

[1:34:13] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:34:14] I got, we beat you to the second.

[1:34:18] Mike, we'll go up the second.

[1:34:19] All in favor say aye.

[1:34:21] Aye.

[1:34:24] All right.

[1:34:24] Thank you.

[1:34:26] Check if we take a five minute break before we go into these.

[1:34:29] Yeah.

[1:34:29] I have a request to take a five minute break.

[1:34:32] and then we'll start our applications.

[1:42:09] Please be advised that the following items on the board's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made.

[1:42:20] In opportunity for persons to speak when each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item, swearing in all testimony including public testimony and evidence will be made under oath or affirmation.

[1:42:33] In accordance with section 2-100 of the village code, any lobbyists must register before addressing the board on any of the following items.

[1:42:42] Board members must disclose any expert take communications concerning any items on the agenda, pursuant section 2-86 of the village code.

[1:42:50] At this time, are there any board disclosures?

[1:42:53] No.

[1:42:54] The recording secretary will swear in any persons who wish to testify.

[1:42:59] Good evening.

[1:43:03] Well, all the applicants please raise their right hand.

[1:43:08] Do you swear to tell the truth?

[1:43:10] So I'll truth it.

[1:43:10] I think that's what the truth is in your statement today.

[1:43:13] Okay, thank you.

[1:43:28] Thank you, sir.

[1:43:29] The laws approximately 12,075 square feet in size, it contains a one-storey single-family home

[1:43:35] original built in 1948.

[1:43:37] The existing structure has an actual area of 1,672 square feet configured with two bedrooms,

[1:43:43] one bathroom and a one-car garage.

[1:43:44] The applicant seeks to demolish the single-family structure and proposes the construction of a new one-story single-family dwelling comprised of

[1:43:51] 4,368 square feet in size.

[1:43:55] The proposed site plan indicates a total of four bedrooms, four and a half bathrooms,

[1:43:59] exercise room, two cargo rods and swimming pool without door terrors area.

[1:44:03] That was confirmed that the R15 zoning district is compatible with the single-family

[1:44:08] future land use and measured the site plan amongst the 23 different zoning criteria as found in the villages zoning code and therefore we're recommending a approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your condition in your staff report

[1:44:23] sorry. Thank

[1:44:38] you

[1:44:40] it's perfect

[1:44:43] So just be sure to speak into the mic, please. Thank you. Okay. There are good evenings. The members. My name is Federico Sabata

[1:44:51] 156 northwest 89 street at the Portal Florida and I'm proud to present Casalume

[1:45:00] We sincerely appreciate the staff so on wavering support throughout this process working with Mr. Nounius and Mr. Zinn has been a pleasure.

[1:45:08] Our application has been embedded and confirmed as a hundred percent compliant with the billage and zoning code.

[1:45:16] The staff has recommended approval and we are here before you tonight seeking an unanimous vote to move forward.

[1:45:22] If you can please turn to page 3432

[1:45:30] further down.

[1:45:47] What we're scrolling will look at the renderance.

[1:45:51] Casaluma is a contextually sensitive single story residents,

[1:45:58] meticulously designed to complement the character of North East 95th Street,

[1:46:03] establishing a presence that is perfectly harmonious in both volume and mass.

[1:46:09] We deliberately chose a law profile, single story configuration that this significantly

[1:46:18] below the 30-foot to story height allowance, picking a just 5-15 feet 8 inches, or propose

[1:46:27] designing corporates, deeply recess central volumes, structure mage-masonry openings,

[1:46:39] and

[1:46:39] introduce visual rhythm, shadow depth, and pedestrian, skeleton warm. Together with my wife and

[1:46:47] my two daughters we live in Elportal and I'm certain that we would love to live in this house.

[1:46:55] The material pallet that we show selected leverages, durable elements,

[1:47:01] small white stock, natural, travel tin accents, and stain oak.

[1:47:09] Furthermore, the two car and closed garage is fully integrated into the building's

[1:47:14] massing, minimizing the visual prominence from the streetscape.

[1:47:20] For landscape is a hundred percent native or Florida adaptive species.

[1:47:24] The front perimeter hedging is restricted at 36 inch Pahama coffee, while the

[1:47:31] side yards utilize a 48 inch Spanish topper for neighbor privacy. Stormwater management,

[1:47:39] safety tank, structural engineering, and polygorous protocols all have been thoroughly coordinated.

[1:47:47] In conclusion, Casaluma replaces an aging structure with a resilient, cold compliance

[1:47:53] and beautifully articulated home that protects long-term property values and respect the

[1:47:59] village character. I respectfully request you a forward tonight.

[1:48:04] Thank you.

[1:48:12] Yeah, I have a question. In the front is you go in the front door, if you go

[1:48:17] in the front door to the right, it has something called a mood room. Yes. What's a mood room?

[1:48:24] It's a flexible space. It could be an office. It could be an other bedroom.

[1:48:28] I don't say I have a full bathroom but it just has small room and then the exercise room

[1:48:40] in the back has a separate entrance as well so that could be another bedroom.

[1:48:59] When you put the car the garage on the side you're sure you can make that turn into the space

[1:49:07] correct we better that and if you can see we put the decorated stones surface has permitted

[1:49:14] by the code so that way you can back up and then progress in these doors the driver.

[1:49:21] So, so you're going to use that area to drive over but it's permeable, it's permeable.

[1:49:28] Yes, it's a stone's a lot of decorated, it's a drive-over basically black off and if you

[1:49:37] other

[1:49:43] questions from the board to the applicant. Just wondering your

[1:49:46] articulation of your facade that fronts the street, I've noticed that it's

[1:49:50] substantially devoid of any kind of demonstrations or patterns. It's

[1:49:53] presenting essentially blank masses to the street front. What role of your

[1:49:56] design position? It's actually going to be G201. The revivic, the revivic.

[1:50:00] The official that you're presenting to the street front is substantially devoid of any massing, I'm sorry, any festerations, there are blank walls that you're presenting to the street.

[1:50:09] No, there's a finestration on the right side. Can we show the, excuse me, the rendering?

[1:50:15] You're rendering showing the void.

[1:50:18] That's why it's, that's why it's made for sure to render in base 32.

[1:50:24] I have the updated rendering in front of me

[1:50:30] and as you can see.

[1:50:32] Because the question on the garage, especially specifically on the garage, you have no

[1:50:37] fenestration or windows or anything on the side of the garage there, the not look

[1:50:41] kind of blank, referencing your north elevation, that you're seeing on it, PGA-200 to be

[1:50:47] yes, PGA-14, so they look at that, you have one window, all right, well you have two windows

[1:50:56] and the door, I see that you have a, you have a, you have a, you have a

[1:51:01] be says to facade, it's further back, but I'm talking about the facade that presents to

[1:51:06] the street, that's the first plane that we see on the street for. I'm just wondering how

[1:51:11] you find that to be harmonious when you look at the rest of the homes that are on that street.

[1:51:16] Well, we wanted to also, for us, create a house that is, is we model it, you know, and it

[1:51:23] fits within the model context. If you look at most of the windows that you drive around, most

[1:51:30] the windows that have or houses that have a lot of frustration looking into the front property

[1:51:35] for the most part of the teachers have the shades down.

[1:51:39] So we just wanted to create that privacy.

[1:51:41] That's why all the bedrooms are located on the rear on the house on the side.

[1:51:46] That way people can open the window and have that privacy that you want.

[1:51:51] I mean, many sources a lot has a lot to do with the street front and what gets presented

[1:51:55] I have a street front, for example, you have a walled in front yard and no other house on that street has a walled in front yard.

[1:52:02] What I do appreciate with your design is that you did choose to do a single story structure on this property, I think that's great.

[1:52:09] But I am having a hard time seeing how other than that particular part of the volumetric that the way that you articulated the design is actually in harmony with the rest of the homes on the street.

[1:52:22] If you look at the materiality, you look at the rows, you look at the volume metrics.

[1:52:27] That's what we wanted to...

[1:52:30] Yeah, I looked at the volume metrics, I looked at the materiality.

[1:52:34] For talking about other metrics, you mentioned that you thought that the home is small.

[1:52:39] The problem that I'm having with it is it feels like you've maximized that every single metric.

[1:52:44] If you look at your septic system, for example, you haven't submitted a design septic system,

[1:52:48] you are suggesting that you're going to do an engineer septic system, which is an alternate

[1:52:53] to the standard drain field. But the Miami-D County OSTS manuals, it doesn't allow that,

[1:53:00] unless there's a specific demonstrated hardship on the site. But this is new construction,

[1:53:04] so you're creating a self-imposed hardship where the house is so big that you don't have room

[1:53:10] for a drain field, a standard size drain field.

[1:53:16] So we have done, I have done it,

[1:53:18] the best, what we have the third system, and I established those, those, those, those

[1:53:22] reductions.

[1:53:22] We're probably going to house our idea.

[1:53:24] How specifically is, in, in accordance with the RST as manual, doesn't allow it.

[1:53:28] So, I don't know if you had a reviewer that just didn't catch it, but they don't allow it.

[1:53:33] There's only certain accepting to what it do, and new constructions in one of them.

[1:53:38] This from their own interpretation of that particular code.

[1:53:40] So, I mean, you'll, you'll have that issue when you get to them, and maybe it'll go through.

[1:53:44] But I'm using that as a point to suggest that there's a lot of footprint on this site.

[1:53:50] There's not a lot of area that's left.

[1:53:54] There's a specimen tree, for example, that you're calling to be removed because it's in the way of your garage.

[1:54:00] You're using decorative scone for section 536.

[1:54:03] But that violates the intent of that particular section.

[1:54:05] You're not supposed to use as an extension to it right away.

[1:54:08] Decker-Destone in that section says that the intent of it is to be used to enhance the growth of landscaping.

[1:54:14] But you're using that to create your turning radius to get into a two-car garage with an 11-foot-6 inch driveway which otherwise doesn't allow you to turn into that garage.

[1:54:23] That's why the Decker-Destone's there.

[1:54:26] So I think that there's some issues that you've got to contend with here.

[1:54:29] From my point of view, I don't know how my colleagues feel about that.

[1:54:32] But my concerns would be, I think it's just a little bit too much on this site.

[1:54:38] I do have a problem with the removal of that tree.

[1:54:42] It's a very large tree.

[1:54:44] I'm sure tree that you're sitting out.

[1:54:46] Not great that we're doing that.

[1:54:49] But it's in the essence of the neighborhood.

[1:54:51] I spoke to her when we basically went into the property.

[1:54:55] Look, I would tell you this much.

[1:54:57] It's a Florida native specimen.

[1:54:58] So it's a strange little thing.

[1:55:00] It's not an invasive. It's not. It's sitting into the clearing home.

[1:55:05] Yeah, I don't know what to tell you about that. I'm just telling you that that's a mature tree.

[1:55:09] It might be sure to just characterize by his tree canopy as well.

[1:55:11] And that'll be a major subtraction to the character of that street.

[1:55:16] And you're really not proposing a lot, because you don't have a lot of area left over to plant much.

[1:55:21] So that's pretty much what I have here. I think that the design, it's a good start in my opinion.

[1:55:27] any other

[1:55:32] questions to the applicant?

[1:55:37] I have some similar comments or regarding the

[1:55:40] administration on the front just seems like your

[1:55:43] there's some elements that are fantastic but then

[1:55:48] seems like the house turns its back on the

[1:55:51] pedestrian and then opens up in the back.

[1:55:54] So I think if you added some windows or

[1:55:57] broke up that mass somehow, G201, that might

[1:56:02] That would help some.

[1:56:04] Well, what would you see in it?

[1:56:05] I don't know if it's not clear here.

[1:56:06] You have a big wind on the middle of the home.

[1:56:10] Yeah.

[1:56:10] That one has a big wind on the field.

[1:56:13] The front of the house.

[1:56:15] Which is correct.

[1:56:15] Which is also a little behind the wood.

[1:56:17] We're struggling with right here.

[1:56:20] But if you look at it.

[1:56:22] Look at this right here.

[1:56:24] It's a big wind on the field.

[1:56:26] It's a big wind on the field.

[1:56:31] There's not like I'm closing it completely, you do have windows on the front, you don't see it in order of parent because that's what we want to create.

[1:56:41] That privacy from the front is what the windows are there.

[1:56:44] The articulation of the volumes are that not creating just a blank facet or you know to store the blank facet,

[1:56:53] We create in this harmonious, we can put in a creating shadow also with the setback hook, the volume.

[1:57:05] You can clearly see it.

[1:57:10] No,

[1:57:13] we understand that.

[1:57:14] We just struggle with that big wall on the side of your image.

[1:57:20] I think in the right side, you got that one little vertical window, and then on the left side.

[1:57:25] I think it's much better than I think it's just a car garage that can go out of those.

[1:57:35] I would agree with you there, but you just have two huge expanses that are flat.

[1:57:45] I forget that there's no windows that are extremely, I know that you have one little tiny window there, I got it.

[1:57:51] But if you look at it at the rendering on the left hand side, it's just totally flat.

[1:57:59] Because it's not even broken up.

[1:58:02] You know.

[1:58:02] You know, on the left side of the windows, I can't have one look for the garage.

[1:58:05] And I think that is okay.

[1:58:06] You can bring light into the garage.

[1:58:08] And we just made make it that into,

[1:58:12] because some mimic this, create some bird cavity.

[1:58:16] Create some fenestration.

[1:58:18] I'm not a, I'm not a bird.

[1:58:19] That's a good one.

[1:58:20] That's a good one.

[1:58:21] That's a good one.

[1:58:25] This is a different one than we got in here, but basically, because the picture we got

[1:58:31] to a one does show the vertical window on the right on the right mass, but nothing on the left mass.

[1:58:39] Because it's a magical.

[1:58:39] That's something magical to that.

[1:58:41] The right side on our left side.

[1:58:44] And also, I mean, the version that they're looking at is a hard copy version.

[1:58:47] version I'm looking at is what the public sees when they go to the application. I download everything

[1:58:52] that the public would otherwise have access to. And the version that we have doesn't have the window on the

[1:58:57] budget. There is an impatient.

[1:59:05] Yes. It does show an impatient 30.

[1:59:06] It's thirty two.

[1:59:08] Thirty three.

[1:59:09] Thirty two.

[1:59:10] Yeah. So you have two different ideas.

[1:59:12] First and foremost.

[1:59:13] We were made up of made up of.

[1:59:14] In my opinion, I think there would be a step in the direction you might consider.

[1:59:18] They're stirring windows on the garage and we'll probably with you presenting a garage door to the street front isn't appealing either

[1:59:25] But believe this property is now he right is that this property is on an alley

[1:59:29] Yeah, correct, so you're also missing the indentation at the alley our code requires an invitation for refuge pickup when you're on an alley

[1:59:42] Also when you're pervious in impervious calculations

[1:59:45] you're missing the wall foundations for the wall, you're missing the pavers that wrap around the building,

[1:59:50] you're missing equipment pads, and you have no hardscape around your pool, but you have a roof that's

[1:59:54] draining right into the pool. So likely somebody's going to add some hardscape around the pool.

[2:00:00] All of this together, you're going to be passed here in pervious, pervious calculations.

[2:00:05] I think it feels a little bit too much on the site.

[2:00:10] We added the paths.

[2:00:14] That's part of the confidation we've created the excitement with the mechanical engineer.

[2:00:20] Yeah, come on.

[2:00:21] We have a civil.

[2:00:22] We have a civil union.

[2:00:23] Yes.

[2:00:24] That will take on all the of the water collection.

[2:00:26] We're not going to do it.

[2:00:27] It's been patient.

[2:00:28] It's under property.

[2:00:30] That's how it's going to be.

[2:00:31] PDA page six.

[2:00:32] The previous calculations.

[2:00:33] Let me show the one equipment pad to the right.

[2:00:35] But you have another pad that looks graphically you're having some sort of an outdoor

[2:00:39] tub in your floor plan.

[2:00:40] That's not shown.

[2:00:42] The wall foundations aren't shown.

[2:00:43] And the pavers that wrap around the edges aren't shown.

[2:00:46] I'm raising all of this.

[2:00:47] And then obviously nothing around the pool or the connection.

[2:00:49] the connection to the house, I'm sorry, G101, it should be the next page.

[2:00:57] So this is the third diagram from the left.

[2:01:00] So you're missing the connection to your paper connection to the house, the walkway connection to the house.

[2:01:05] We don't count that right now in our current code. In the new code, there is some provisions for that, but that's not in place yet.

[2:01:13] Um, you're missing all of your pavers that wrap around the outside edge of your property.

[2:01:18] You're missing the connection from the pool to the, to the house as well.

[2:01:21] And you also have no allocations for any hardscape around the pool.

[2:01:25] You've got this narrow strap strip of grass, but you have roof drainage running right into that.

[2:01:31] You, there's not going to be any grass that grows there.

[2:01:33] So people are going to wind up putting pavers there.

[2:01:35] The point is, you're going to write up to the line of what's feasible, but you're not showing certain things.

[2:01:40] So, I believe that you're going to want to be in over and that goes to the idea that you have too much on the site.

[2:01:51] Well, coordinator, it's, it's, uh, I understand your point. It's 100% compliant. We went back and forward on, on, on all the items, and we're cutting it and, like I said,

[2:02:02] we can, we have a program. The program is not there. We're not proposing a massive house. I rather, I think this is a better proposition that I have to store home.

[2:02:15] It fits with, it fits, it fits with in the context.

[2:02:19] Yeah, it's one story, only in all the homes in the studio of the story.

[2:02:22] So I don't think that you're necessarily, can say I'm going to build a two-story home here

[2:02:27] and maximize the height because we'll push back on that as well.

[2:02:31] If you add a bunch of two-story homes in the street, that would be a different story,

[2:02:33] but there is something in our code that's called Harmony's Section 5, but fourth code.

[2:02:37] And that is what we're tasked here as the gatekeepers of the same place.

[2:02:41] And you made a good effort, but my estimation really, I don't think you're there, but I'll be willing to listen to where the rest of my colleagues are.

[2:02:49] Anybody else have any comments?

[2:02:51] I would agree with you.

[2:02:54] I would agree.

[2:02:55] It's really, very, very tight.

[2:02:58] And there are items that are missing from the purviews and imperviews that I have concern about.

[2:03:08] It's an aren't you?

[2:03:12] Like what you just said, the connection from the pool deck or the pool to the house of the edge.

[2:03:22] It's all, we propose our official phone, so we're not connecting the pool to the house.

[2:03:28] It's just rusted on, if you go to the rendering, you can clearly see.

[2:03:32] Actually, if you go to L004, this is a PDF page 23, let's get a list of things.

[2:03:41] You're showing graphically, papers, not artificial turf.

[2:03:46] So I think there's ink and system season plan, that's all I, that just has a natural stone.

[2:03:54] But again, we don't count that as being, we can't count that as being purvious, that's currently counted as being purvious.

[2:04:00] if you're putting that as a paper, you've got to count that as being impervious.

[2:04:05] And it's a just a decorat, it's a stone, it's natural, all light if you go to,

[2:04:10] let's go, let's go.

[2:04:11] I want to give you some guidance here.

[2:04:13] Bottom of my corner, all those papers that are wrapping around the edge,

[2:04:16] but those are all, they need to be counted in your impervious calculation.

[2:04:21] The wall that you're including in the front yard,

[2:04:23] if you want to get rid of the wall great, you don't need to count it.

[2:04:26] Probably the neighbors would prefer that.

[2:04:28] Nobody else has walls.

[2:04:29] But right now, you've got a wall foundation there that's impervious. You've got a connection that connects to

[2:04:35] From from the sidewalk to the driveway and then from the driveway to the house. That's not being counted in your in your in your calculations

[2:04:43] When you add all that up, you're gonna be over and that's not even having the conversation about whether or not you are gonna be able to do any kind of

[2:04:50] Thing around the pool right now. You have no way of even getting to the pool other than those two steps

[2:04:54] It's likely that a future owner is going to wind up putting hard-scape around that pool

[2:04:58] and they don't push it.

[2:05:00] Over your max. For I'm not even calculating that right now. Just thinking about all the other things you're not showing. You're going to be over.

[2:05:07] But you're not showing us what we don't know for sure.

[2:05:15] Any other questions from the board to the applicant?

[2:05:18] Like to open it to public comment. Any public comment on this application?

[2:05:29] And about 37 North is a hotter street.

[2:05:34] And listen to all the comments.

[2:05:37] And the one thing that I still don't understand of most of these builders,

[2:05:46] slash, architect, slash, whatever.

[2:05:50] They're for the word harmonious.

[2:05:53] And I haven't seen too much of that building that structure there.

[2:05:58] that's harmonious to the system structures.

[2:06:02] Those homes there, the ones that I'm familiar with,

[2:06:08] are what we call common, modern, short homes for all of it.

[2:06:12] People, the working class people that basically live there for decades,

[2:06:18] and that's all they could afford.

[2:06:21] So, I don't, I don't also understand what this fascination is.

[2:06:26] building a wall in the front of the house. If you want to, if you're an architect, I would

[2:06:31] think that you would like to promote the front of your house instead of putting a wall up front.

[2:06:37] I think that's ridiculous myself.

[2:06:43] I can go on and on. Most of your answers are the questions

[2:06:47] to this gentleman here and I'm sure that what is it a 4,000 plus square foot home that

[2:06:56] once. I wasn't sure of the split. There's an icon of big for that area. I don't think that

[2:07:01] anybody has more than 2500 square foot on. And that in that area. I mean that's 4500 square

[2:07:10] big house. You're rich.

[2:07:15] I love the live there if you've been paired by mortgage. That's it for

[2:07:19] me. Thank you. Any other public comment on this item?

[2:07:27] Discussion?

[2:07:30] Can I get a motion?

[2:07:31] I

[2:07:37] assume there's no easy way to create more, bring space, sort of shrinking the overall size of the health.

[2:07:49] And I do understand and appreciate the issues with squeezing as much into a lot as possible.

[2:07:57] And some regards to the crooks and the chronic complainers about the planning board.

[2:08:03] I'd

[2:08:07] be willing to move to table it, but I'm not sure what the owner can do to really respond to our concerns, you know, short of making the house much smaller.

[2:08:29] I don't know that it needs the much smaller.

[2:08:32] I really don't, I mean, I think where I see it busting at the scenes is that you're proposing

[2:08:38] an engineered septic system, which we know is going to require maintenance.

[2:08:41] If you're not going to maintain it properly, it's going to cause a public nuisance.

[2:08:45] Day counting doesn't allow it, usually if they're following the own letter of the code,

[2:08:48] I could show you the OST as manual word, it says it's not allowed.

[2:08:52] But you're doing that because you have so much on that site that you can't do it otherwise.

[2:08:55] I think if you came back to us with a standard-sized septic system, I would encourage you highly to engineer it.

[2:09:03] Do the right-sizing, don't come to us with some performance-based system that we don't think the county is going to accept.

[2:09:10] And then articulate the, the, the, the, the, articulate your design a little bit better in the front.

[2:09:16] Maybe consider getting rid of that wall, I'm not saying how if you keep it open it up a little bit so it's not so solid.

[2:09:21] If you were to profit those kinds of things come back for something, I think you got something

[2:09:26] it's workable.

[2:09:26] I don't dislike your design.

[2:09:29] I just think if we're talking about trying to evaluate the merits of it as a relates to

[2:09:34] section 524, I think it's really because you're trying to squeeze too much on the site.

[2:09:41] I do think you have a tectonic issue with regards to how you get the occult into that garage

[2:09:45] I think you need those decorative stones to do that, but that's not really violating the right.

[2:09:51] That's not really keeping into some respecting the rights of your neighbor.

[2:09:55] We have a setback for driveways for a reason, but that will become a driveway.

[2:09:59] Somebody's going to park there.

[2:10:03] I imagine that you're doing this as a spec home and you don't need to answer the question whether you are not. So I do understand that there's a certain value calculation that goes into that. I'm not trying to screw you up there. But at the same time, we're tasked as gatekeepers to this harmony and that's what makes the shores what it is. I don't think you're far off. But I think you're too far away for us to tell you what to do and make conditions here. I think you're going to need to come back with something.

[2:10:59] I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I've narrated to you about seven or eight different

[2:11:03] items that I think that need attention, and I think that's just simply too much for

[2:11:07] us to add conditions here.

[2:11:08] I think we need to see it.

[2:11:10] I would support a table motion.

[2:11:14] I'll move to table.

[2:11:17] All in favor.

[2:11:18] Say aye.

[2:11:19] Aye.

[2:11:35] All right.

[2:11:36] Moving right along.

[2:11:36] A-B-R-S-P-2625, owner, clata, whoo, but, uh, uh, there's time. Thank you.

[2:11:47] 1-1-3, northwest, 1-0-7, streets, planning director.

[2:11:51] Thank you, sir.

[2:11:53] The laws are approximately 9,150 square feet in size.

[2:11:55] It contains a one-story single family home originally built in 1950.

[2:12:00] The existing structure is a living area of 1,600 to 2 square feet.

[2:12:03] configure with two bedrooms, one bathroom, and one car garage.

[2:12:06] The applicant seeks an approximately 275 square foot garage conversion to the existing residents

[2:12:11] to accommodate a new master bedroom suite and kitchen area.

[2:12:15] The proposed overall improvements include an interior reconfiguration of the residents with

[2:12:19] installation of hurricane impact windows and doors.

[2:12:22] The total hybridal area indicates 1,6002 square feet with three bedrooms, two bathrooms

[2:12:28] being provided.

[2:12:30] Staff has measured the, but the R15 zoning district is compatible with the single family

[2:12:37] land use and we've measured the proposed site plan along with the 22 different zoning

[2:12:41] criteria.

[2:12:42] And we found that it generally complies and therefore recommending approval along with all

[2:12:46] of the stipulated conditions as found in your staff member.

[2:12:49] Thank you.

[2:12:51] Any questions to the planning director?

[2:12:53] Put on sheet SP3 for the right order

[2:13:07] applicant. Would you like to make a presentation?

[2:13:09] Yes, hi everyone. My name's Clara Cooper, beggar sign. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and present our project today.

[2:13:17] As you can see, this house we bought it back in January. My husband and I are first home.

[2:13:22] It was well loved by the previous owner and we seek to convert the garage into a bedroom.

[2:13:29] And actually, I wanted to just point out that on our letter of intent on your request, we did

[2:13:36] state that this would be continuing a two-bedroom home because one of the bedrooms will

[2:13:40] be converted to an office.

[2:13:42] We will be getting rid of one of the closets and utilize it to a laundry kind of closet.

[2:13:48] But essentially, we're planning and hoping to get approved the conversion of the garage

[2:13:53] into a master's suite.

[2:13:54] Our kitchen will become the master bedroom and we do have a Florida room in the front of the house, which will be a new kitchen.

[2:14:02] Thank you.

[2:14:04] Questions from the board to the applicant?

[2:14:11] Open to the public.

[2:14:12] Public comment on this application.

[2:14:18] Discussion?

[2:14:22] So you're replacing the garage door with concrete block and not having any type of window.

[2:14:29] We're having a window and it will be egress.

[2:14:31] If you've turned to

[2:14:37] P2,

[2:14:43] I don't know what I just described it, it's like a block, like

[2:14:46] a breeze block, I guess, that into the current garage, we're opening that up and putting

[2:14:51] a for a key impact window there. You can see it on the side of the house.

[2:15:02] Because I know any time we're replacing garage door, we'd like to see the window go into the asset review of the real, Mr. Greas.

[2:15:13] Yeah, I've seen it in the rear too.

[2:15:17] So, understand.

[2:15:19] Do a window to the rear of the house, because the garage is below the level of the house, we will be elevating it.

[2:15:27] And we just figured that putting a window and not like an entrance to the back yard, which has the back drive like this.

[2:15:35] More suitable for that.

[2:15:44] Sorry, you have to start.

[2:15:46] You have to go to the podium.

[2:15:48] Just for the rest of the day.

[2:15:50] And this is the architect, fantastic.

[2:15:51] And then you have to take your name and address please.

[2:15:55] Uh, the reason is...

[2:15:56] And your name, your name?

[2:15:57] Oh, then you have a pagano.

[2:15:58] The reason is because the we need to

[2:16:02] high the flooring to the same level of the house.

[2:16:07] In this case the window will be lower for the timing.

[2:16:14] So the window will be in this high if we keep the

[2:16:20] the the timing and it's down the window on the garage door today.

[2:16:25] So for that reason, we change it for the other side of the house for the current.

[2:16:34] Any other question?

[2:16:37] So if you can put the window on the other side, isn't your type beam at the same height?

[2:16:43] No, yes, actually.

[2:16:45] But the tiding is higher on the side.

[2:16:48] Because for the roof, because the roof is like this.

[2:16:52] And there is, I don't remember exactly.

[2:16:56] I don't remember exactly what, but we discussed about it. There is a section here in S.P.6.

[2:17:05] Yeah.

[2:17:07] Yes, S.P.6.

[2:17:09] Section B.B.

[2:17:12] S.P.5.

[2:17:16] S.P.

[2:17:17] Is because the garage door, now I remember.

[2:17:21] The garage door is lower than the typing on the other areas of the house,

[2:17:28] because the garage door usually has 17, from high.

[2:17:32] So in this case, we need to move the typing

[2:17:36] to cut the typing or whatever for that.

[2:17:39] We decided to leave the garage door closed

[2:17:43] and the windows for the other side,

[2:17:45] because we already have an opening the other side.

[2:17:48] And also because we need a wall to put the bath.

[2:17:56] So where the window is on the side,

[2:17:58] where the breeze block is now so same height there is one existing window in this place

[2:18:08] and we just increase the size yeah on the elevations I think that's 5 and

[2:18:21] if you see the

[2:18:23] What is the installation number 4?

[2:18:26] As P5?

[2:18:28] As P5.

[2:18:30] Yes.

[2:18:31] The number 4.

[2:18:32] That was one square window.

[2:18:36] And now we created a larger one.

[2:18:39] I'm the same place.

[2:18:43] Yeah.

[2:18:44] Any other questions for the applicant?

[2:18:46] Just a helpful comment.

[2:18:48] You might not.

[2:18:50] That might not pass.

[2:18:51] Looks like it's two.

[2:18:52] It still is too high for me to address requirements, not for us here, but just for you to look at.

[2:19:00] Put that window.

[2:19:02] Yeah.

[2:19:04] And I already opened this to public comment.

[2:19:07] Public comment on this item.

[2:19:09] Yes.

[2:19:10] Missing right.

[2:19:11] But you got to go to the podium, please.

[2:19:17] You're going to miss the plethora drawing, do you recognize your setbacks on both sides?

[2:19:27] Do they have the time sheet to be placed?

[2:19:30] This is just a grad conversion, so we're not adding them to each other.

[2:19:36] It's an existing house.

[2:19:41] No, but I can't tell you a setback from this one, but I can't tell you a setback from this one,

[2:19:52] You want to go to the PDF page to 13SP0?

[2:20:00] All right, thank you. Any other questions? Any, can I have a discussion? Motion? Motion to approve the staff conditions.

[2:20:13] I'll take it.

[2:20:17] One.

[2:20:18] You're going to go and get you on them.

[2:20:20] Catherine, I'm going to go.

[2:20:22] Catherine, I'm going to go.

[2:20:22] Catherine, and I'm going to go.

[2:20:23] Catherine, I'm going to go.

[2:20:23] All in favour?

[2:20:24] All right.

[2:20:25] Motion passes.

[2:20:25] Thank you.

[2:20:29] 8 C RSP264574 north east-90.

[2:20:34] 6.

[2:20:35] Edward Ford-type.

[2:20:37] Partition.

[2:20:42] RSP26-40.

[2:20:43] the laws of Parkman, 10,687 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1950.

[2:20:51] Existing structure is a living area of 2007, 84 square feet configured three bedrooms,

[2:20:56] three and a half bathrooms and a two-car garage. The applicants seeking a 413 square-foot garage conversion to existing residents

[2:21:04] to accommodate a new bedroom suite. The total habitable area will indicate 2007,

[2:21:10] on an 84 square feet, complete with four bedrooms, four and a half bathrooms.

[2:21:16] Staff is confirmed that the R25 zoning district is compatible with the single family

[2:21:19] land use.

[2:21:21] And we've measured the site plan along with the 22 different zoning district

[2:21:24] that's found in the village zoning code.

[2:21:28] And therefore we're recommending approval along with all of these stipulated conditions

[2:21:31] that's found in the staff memo.

[2:21:33] Thank you, sir.

[2:21:34] Could put on Che-A-402 please. Any questions to the planning director from the board?

[2:21:47] Hearing none with the applicant. Discuss the project with us please.

[2:21:52] Good evening. My name is Ed Fordage. I'm the owner of Sympj Construction with the design builders on this project.

[2:22:00] It's trying to be again, not at all.

[2:22:03] This is a very simple garage conversion.

[2:22:06] We're not touching the roof.

[2:22:07] We're not changing the footprint.

[2:22:14] It's actually the, we're not proposing any changes to the facade.

[2:22:20] This is the back alley, and it's actually a dead end.

[2:22:26] It's a very last house on the alley.

[2:22:28] And the two houses immediately behind it do not have access from the alley.

[2:22:34] So literally nobody can see this is the whole point of action.

[2:22:37] Because there's a dead end.

[2:22:38] It's the last house and the two houses that immediately behind it don't have access.

[2:22:42] So there's no real visible significant change.

[2:22:47] We are closing a window or closing a planter.

[2:22:49] So there's a little landscape buffer.

[2:22:52] It's pretty straightforward, just a garage conversion.

[2:22:55] And there are also proposed windows on the lateral size, obviously, as well.

[2:23:00] There's one from like the proposed bathroom and another one from the this room towards the pool.

[2:23:07] I have a question.

[2:23:08] So on the edge of the garage, you have a planter there, but you have a metal canopy over that.

[2:23:16] That's an existing canopy that's for me to guess.

[2:23:19] So that those plants are not going to do well.

[2:23:22] They get no sun, they get no water.

[2:23:27] And Eddie, I do have a question, they're 18 foot, 18.7 to the alley, and then they have their

[2:23:37] planter, so they can't, I don't know how that works, they can't put a car there, they're

[2:23:44] into the alley, right? Or did I not do that? We could propose removing the planter.

[2:23:50] I know, that's required.

[2:23:52] The planter needs to be there with any garage conditions.

[2:23:57] What you may not have, probably, is that canopy.

[2:24:03] I don't understand how you put a canopy over the planter.

[2:24:06] The planter needs to exist.

[2:24:07] The canopy is existing and we're not supposed to.

[2:24:09] Okay, let me put it a different way.

[2:24:11] I don't know how you enclose a garage, put a planter beneath a covered canopy.

[2:24:21] The planter there is just what kind of plans are going to grow there.

[2:24:25] Well, the point of putting the planner there with the garage conversion is to give that.

[2:24:31] I'm sure we can do the irrigation system there and things that require shape.

[2:24:38] There's also an existing driveway that's within the private property at the front.

[2:24:44] So if you're concerned about parking, they definitely meet those requirements with that.

[2:24:49] I don't know if the intent is to continue using this rear driveway or

[2:24:59] this would be.

[2:25:06] I mean this elevation of the car being there, you don't have that kind of space. You're into your alley.

[2:25:15] What

[2:25:20] about wall and the alley there's 18 minus minus the plan to properly I believe it's standard parking

[2:25:29] So like five six

[2:25:30] So yeah, you've got 13

[2:25:33] I mean the car could park parallel that's really an issue whether however they end up using this is I think we're all considering we were front drive way

[2:25:43] If it's either not parked there, I don't think the amount of roof works

[2:25:50] But it's existing

[2:25:51] I hear it's existing, but this is a change, a change of use, a renovation to a garage,

[2:26:01] and the intent is to not make it look like a garage anymore.

[2:26:06] And I would beg to differ.

[2:26:09] I think that having that canopy makes it still look like it's a garage.

[2:26:16] Should I remove the pavers or whatever the parking is that's going to be...

[2:26:22] I know, I hear you don't want to move against me, but I don't think the planters, I don't

[2:26:29] think the planer works with the canopy out there.

[2:26:36] Any other questions from the board to the applicant?

[2:26:44] Hearing none, I'll open it for public comment, any public comment on this application.

[2:26:53] Sing a public comment for their discussion.

[2:26:57] Can I get a motion?

[2:26:58] I mean, I'm overwhelmed

[2:27:04] with the fact that plants can get in the driveway, the county, the alley,

[2:27:13] but nobody can go down to the city.

[2:27:19] No, that's required.

[2:27:21] I know the distance is required.

[2:27:23] No, no, no, no.

[2:27:24] The planter.

[2:27:25] The planter is required for a grant and grant.

[2:27:29] Is that right?

[2:27:30] No, it's not.

[2:27:35] five foot space

[2:27:37] five foot of no pavement

[2:27:45] ok well green space

[2:27:49] i mean it

[2:27:52] i mean it's green space i've ever played or just leave side

[2:28:02] i mean whatever

[2:28:03] i i i think i do

[2:28:05] well this is what you have on your application right now

[2:28:07] That's what's in front of

[2:28:11] us.

[2:28:11] Can I get a motion?

[2:28:15] Not going to approve the application, I submitted it.

[2:28:20] So I have a second.

[2:28:25] I have to get a second.

[2:28:30] Maybe a little bit more discussion.

[2:28:32] The concern is that now if the garage isn't there,

[2:28:34] we're going to park it, wind it parking there, it's going to invade the alley.

[2:28:37] Yeah.

[2:28:38] And the plants are going to die.

[2:28:40] So it won't end up being here.

[2:28:42] So basically what we're saying is that by removing the canopy that's there,

[2:28:48] We give the plants a chance to survive. It greens up the area a little bit. It discourages

[2:28:54] parking there. Even though it won't. I mean, I really don't have an issue with somebody

[2:28:58] parking there. I mean, they want to pull inside ways or whatever. And yes, it's great to have a

[2:29:03] canopy, but to say that it's existing and that's why you're keeping it there. That's what if you

[2:29:18] That's a buffer there, you know?

[2:29:22] I don't believe that that's...

[2:29:24] I hate to hold up his application.

[2:29:29] If we were in the front guard, I would entirely...

[2:29:34] I mean, it's part...

[2:29:35] But is it not part of the requirement to have a green space right next to the ground?

[2:29:42] I mean, that's a whole idea.

[2:29:48] I'm out. You guys decide.

[2:29:49] Right, I have a motion to approve.

[2:29:52] questions of the applicant.

[2:29:57] If we, if we, if we, if we, if you're proud for

[2:29:59] room.

[2:30:00] Moving the canopy, are you A with that, or if you canopy, like, should a homeowner prefer the canopy, so that they would, I mean, unfortunately, they're not here on the occasion. I'm sure they would prefer the canopy. I mean, if it means that I can't close the garage, sacrifice the canopy, definitely wouldn't want that, especially over the question of some landscaping, which isn't even true code issue, because we could just put a saw on it.

[2:30:30] artificial grass. It's kind of a hard thing to tell someone, hey, we're forcing you to

[2:30:34] remove the canopy grass.

[2:30:40] Any, could you put our artificial grass there? Like, oh, sure.

[2:30:46] For, for, that's your green space? Yes. It would comply. As long as it's five feet in

[2:30:51] width, but it isn't a purpose, I guess, I'm, I'm following your argument. So it isn't

[2:30:56] The purpose of getting rid of that, putting that strip in there, is to prevent parking there.

[2:31:06] Is to provide a separation between the parked vehicle and...

[2:31:11] So you can't harm it.

[2:31:11] That's the idea.

[2:31:12] You don't look like you have an old driveway going into a house that's no longer in service, you know, just a kind of...

[2:31:19] ...to eliminate the driveway.

[2:31:21] That's the thing.

[2:31:22] Most times we see the elimination of the driveway there.

[2:31:28] which is the five foot, the elimination of driveway, right, but with the canopy, the driveway remains.

[2:31:37] But the canopy, I guess, now I have 40 to share in the base of that.

[2:31:41] Well, no, no.

[2:31:43] Which people want something over there.

[2:31:45] And we're using any garage, so it would be nice if they could sell out a car for it.

[2:31:49] That's the reality.

[2:31:51] If I get rid of the roof, now they have a garage and no car for it.

[2:31:55] I'm going to have a carpool, and you're forcing them to always use a very busy street, which is 96, yeah, I don't have a carpool either, so I mean, I got it.

[2:32:09] I got a motion.

[2:32:12] Do I have a second?

[2:32:17] Is it me totally, is it unesthetic?

[2:32:21] So, I mean, I'll pass the gavel on second, but I guess if this thing doesn't pass, I don't think the rules are you can't come back in front of this board for a year, right?

[2:32:34] If it gets denied, if it gets denied, otherwise we can table it.

[2:32:47] I mean, I'll pass it.

[2:32:54] I don't have a second.

[2:32:55] Right, so if there is a second you will cut the vote will be called on the motion to approve

[2:33:00] You have the motion fails. There's no motion

[2:33:03] There's nothing and it's a motion fail on the second motion fail is most in dies, you know, right

[2:33:10] And then we got to come up with another motion

[2:33:14] Since I got to do something with this application

[2:33:18] You got to table it pass it or fail it so right since there's no second all-make another motion

[2:33:25] them. Okay, that motion, that motion dies, dies for Laco's. I'll make a motion that it's

[2:33:32] approved without the carport, with the proper that the carport is removed. That's if it's

[2:33:41] profit. I kind of heard that that was, yeah. Is it profit by the prisoner?

[2:33:50] So you asked me to

[2:33:51] decision for the homeowner if they're willing to sacrifice that car for me.

[2:33:56] Would you prefer for it to be tabled and you can do ash?

[2:33:59] I would prefer to either Michael or Brandon to step up and say yeah, it's okay to.

[2:34:03] Because it's not aesthetic and there's not really an issue and there's no code issues.

[2:34:07] So I was really hoping that somebody was going to come through because I think he didn't know me but I mean,

[2:34:11] whatever you guys want to do.

[2:34:13] Look, they're preserving the house.

[2:34:17] It's not a violation of any code I'm going to second it all right I got a motion and a second so that motion

[2:34:25] Revived I got a motion in a second and let me take it to the fallen favor say aye aye aye

[2:34:36] All opposed motion passes. Thank you guys have a good day

[2:34:41] How's looks good in the front?

[2:34:44] Was that?

[2:34:44] How's looks good in the front?

[2:34:46] That's nice.

[2:34:47] I kept it out this day.

[2:34:49] Alright of AD.

[2:34:53] RSP 2643.

[2:34:54] 91 Northwest 92 Street.

[2:34:58] Owner Nina Pickin.

[2:35:01] Thank you, sir. The law is approximately 7,678 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home

[2:35:09] originally built in 1942. The existing structure is limit area of 1,775 square feet, configured with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage.

[2:35:17] The applicant seeks an approximately 222 square foot garage conversion and an over all 192 square foot addition to the existing one-story residence.

[2:35:28] In doing so, they would accommodate a new bedroom suite area.

[2:35:32] The total habitable area would indicate 1,000 foreign and 79 square feet, complete with

[2:35:37] two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a mud room, and then area being provided.

[2:35:42] The R17.5 zoning district is compatible with the single family future land use, and staff

[2:35:46] has measured the proposed site plan along with the 22 different zoning criteria, and therefore

[2:35:52] we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions this family

[2:35:56] your report. Thank you.

[2:36:00] Good. And she A-322.

[2:36:09] Any questions from the board to the planning director?

[2:36:16] The applicant would like to discuss the project with.

[2:36:19] Sure. So, one single car garage conversion, pretty simple.

[2:36:24] And our addition is less than 400 square feet on either side.

[2:36:28] We're replacing the roof structure, which is simplifies the addition.

[2:36:33] But, honestly, if we didn't have garage converges coming to

[2:36:42] Yoke, the remote is not responding.

[2:37:03] Thank you.

[2:37:04] 8-3.2.

[2:37:14] One more.

[2:37:20] Just to kind of show this.

[2:37:23] All right.

[2:37:23] Sorry about that.

[2:37:24] I didn't say my name.

[2:37:25] Victor Bruce, 370 or no.

[2:37:27] He's 100 in first street.

[2:37:28] So, single car garage conversion.

[2:37:31] And then adding to the north on the south of the house,

[2:37:35] Putting a new roof just simplifies the action, but this is one of those projects. Once you guys take a ride to conversions out

[2:37:41] We're not exceeding for on the square feet. We wouldn't be here to talk about this project

[2:37:45] It's a very simple very simple addition for a

[2:37:49] single

[2:37:49] Christmas

[2:37:53] Questions from the board to the applicant. I

[2:38:00] got a question

[2:38:02] Speaking of landscape buffer tell us about your your native landscape buffer in front of the

[2:38:09] existing work taking the garage door out, in this case, on your A3, your plan view, you have a native landscape buffer there.

[2:38:21] Yeah, buy feet.

[2:38:21] I don't agree with artificial turf.

[2:38:26] That's not perfect.

[2:38:29] It's not perfect.

[2:38:31] It's not perfect.

[2:38:32] It's not.

[2:38:33] It's not.

[2:38:33] It's not perfect.

[2:38:38] Yeah, I'm putting native landscape in, it's a, the client also likes it, she likes landscaping a lot.

[2:38:46] We're having to do the same thing in the past.

[2:38:48] That's not a planner box or anything that's just a scriptur with native landscape.

[2:38:53] We're removing the hard-skate and we're allowing for growth of nature in that gap.

[2:38:59] It seems closer because this house is built way back and the setbacks were different back then.

[2:39:06] So we're doing as much as we can on that side. We're not building beyond the setbacks.

[2:39:09] But we're cutting the five feet out. There's no issue there.

[2:39:14] How much space do you have between the green space and the sidewalk?

[2:39:19] Six-seven. Because that house was built like I was saying.

[2:39:24] That house had a garage built closer than it should have.

[2:39:27] Where are they going to park in the front we have a lot of things we have 16 feet with 18 and that two cars fit there

[2:39:49] Any questions from the board to the applicant we're good open the public comment public comment on this item

[2:40:00] No public comment, discussion. Move to approve of subject of staff conditions.

[2:40:06] Second. I got a second here. All in favor say aye.

[2:40:10] Time, motion passed.

[2:40:12] Regulation passed. Thank you.

[2:40:16] All right. I guess you're still up.

[2:40:18] Item A. E.

[2:40:21] R. S. P. 2644.

[2:40:24] Agents Victor Bruce 418.

[2:40:26] North East 105th Street.

[2:40:28] Planning Director.

[2:40:28] Thank you, sir.

[2:40:30] The loss approximately 16,500 square feet in size contains a two-storey single-family home

[2:40:35] rigid bill in 1956, the existing two-storey structure has an actual area of 8,714 square

[2:40:42] feet, configured with seven-bedroom, seven bathrooms and a three-car garage.

[2:40:46] The applicant seeks to demolish the single-family structure while proposing the construction

[2:40:49] of a new two-storey single-family dwelling comprised of approximately 7,080 square feet in

[2:40:59] bathrooms, sitting areas, great room, three-car car port, and an outdoor terrace area.

[2:41:06] Staff has reviewed the existing future land use and zoning criteria and determined that

[2:41:13] the land use is government and institutions with states, this land use designation is intended

[2:41:18] to accommodate a full range of community support facilities including governmental buildings,

[2:41:22] facilities, public utility installations, parking, public and private educational, medical,

[2:41:32] religious, civic, cultural, and similar institutions. As such, we conducted a little bit of research

[2:41:39] to understand how this came to be. Based on our research, we found that all of the properties

[2:41:48] in that subdivision actually have a single family of future land use and this is the only property

[2:41:53] that has this institutional. So what we believe is that it was done intentionally in our and I'll read

[2:42:00] some of that research. So official Mami-Dade County plant records by about 56 page 15 identified

[2:42:07] the subject property as comprising of lots six and seven as part of the mirror lake subdivision.

[2:42:13] The property's government and the institutions future land use designation is not generally

[2:42:17] intended to accommodate conventional residential development, however, that designation is intended

[2:42:21] to support a broad range of public and community-surfing facilities, which include religious

[2:42:26] and institutional uses. The subject property is owned by a local religious organization

[2:42:32] and is located in close proximity to an established place of worship. The proposed single-family

[2:42:37] residents is intended to provide housing for priests and other clergy affiliated with the

[2:42:42] adjacent religious institution. As such, the proposed residential use is accessory and directly

[2:42:47] supportive of the principle religious use and is consistent with the community serving purpose

[2:42:53] of the government and institutions future land use designation. As such staff reviewed the

[2:43:01] proposed site plan along with the different zoning criteria found within the zoning code and we found

[2:43:07] that it generally complies and we're recommending approval along with these stipulated conditions as

[2:43:11] your report. Thank you. Can you put a dash 105 on the board?

[2:43:34] Just kind of give us an idea.

[2:43:37] This is the building in front of the church.

[2:43:40] Yeah, but it's a direct church.

[2:43:41] I like the church.

[2:43:42] I like the church.

[2:43:43] I like the church.

[2:43:44] The priest lives and will continue to live there.

[2:43:53] It's probably a single family, it's probably a single family, it's probably a single family.

[2:44:07] You see what I mean?

[2:44:08] I can say it.

[2:44:08] So it's a single family, but the zoning had some conditions.

[2:44:13] Institution, because it's affiliated with the church.

[2:44:16] But it's in the art district.

[2:44:19] Even though, essentially, its use is not really our district use.

[2:44:23] It's not a single family use.

[2:44:25] I mean, you know, right?

[2:44:26] I mean, multiple, multiple pre-slib there.

[2:44:29] more like a dormitory use.

[2:44:31] The same as the zone is the same as the map.

[2:44:36] I've got a general question.

[2:44:42] Why are we demolishing the existing structure

[2:44:44] to build a substantially,

[2:44:46] basically the similarly sized structure

[2:44:49] to serve the same purpose?

[2:44:51] The existing structure,

[2:44:53] and we visited that first.

[2:44:55] The existing structure is

[2:44:58] peculiarly built.

[2:45:00] In relationship to the great and the slope that happens there. If you notice on when they show the survey,

[2:45:07] these properties are on like, these are any property that I've ever seen where they own a piece of pile of the lake.

[2:45:15] There's square footage in essence is bigger, but there's a slope from street down to the lake.

[2:45:21] What you see when you see the house, you see in the uppermost level, it's got levels below, which

[2:45:28] compasses things because it's almost like underground spaces.

[2:45:33] It also has a situation being underground, it needs to go uphill with the septic system drainage.

[2:45:41] They have problems with water intrusion, the building itself is in horrible shape.

[2:45:48] Some of the things that have been happening to the building because of space demands that they have,

[2:45:55] end up having spaces that are not interconnected.

[2:45:58] So there's a variety of reasons, and beyond that, there's stairs, and we want to introduce

[2:46:05] vertical circulations.

[2:46:06] There's four reasons that in the letter of intent, they're listed, but it's mostly because

[2:46:11] the building cannot be rehabbed.

[2:46:13] It's too, as I said, it's like a basement type of a building and we're doing basically the opposite, we're bringing it up and trying to get it out of there.

[2:46:23] So septic works, they have vertical circulation and they have a better connected and better quality of life for the residents.

[2:46:35] I have a question, the wall that's on the sidewalk there, how tall is that?

[2:46:40] That should be three-six.

[2:46:42] Yeah, it looks a lot higher.

[2:46:44] in that. In the elevation you'll see it when we have a dementia. Okay, and is that the reason for that is because of your septic?

[2:46:52] The reason for that is for racing grade, so that when you reach the level that we put the first main level,

[2:46:59] it doesn't look so detached from the cycle. The septic doesn't need it, but it will benefit from it.

[2:47:06] Because I don't need to do a mount system here at all, but we're going to have the septic system race,

[2:47:11] the wall will contain that grade. It's just quite a barrier from that sidewalk. You know, walking

[2:47:19] down that sidewalk, you've got one entrance.

[2:47:25] We should have two entrances because there's going to

[2:47:27] be one main one and there's going to be a secondary entrance. Look at the side plan. Yeah, which

[2:47:33] Maybe it's a service.

[2:47:36] Well, not so much the priest said.

[2:47:38] How much does the great drop going?

[2:47:42] About six to seven feet.

[2:47:45] From east to west?

[2:47:47] From north to time.

[2:47:48] From east to west.

[2:47:49] Not some of us.

[2:47:51] East to west is the street.

[2:47:53] Nor south would be towards the lake.

[2:47:55] So there's about six quarters.

[2:47:56] Drawings would look like it to climb square that way too.

[2:48:00] No.

[2:48:02] No, if you, in the survey you might see it, but there's no, the street doesn't have that much of a slope.

[2:48:07] If there is, maybe a foot between Western and East, but the changing elevation will be from the front to the back.

[2:48:23] The wall might seem like that.

[2:48:26] Miss Salo, but there's going to be landscaping, and that's part of a landscaping plant.

[2:48:31] There's going to be vegetation on the edge of it, so it's not just going to be the wall that's going to be vegetation all around.

[2:48:35] Right, but that wall is right on the sidewalk.

[2:48:38] Yeah, they have every right to do.

[2:48:44] But we'd like to raise the grade, and to raise the grade,

[2:48:46] I have to put a wall that way, the difference between the blocks.

[2:48:48] I guess I should have asked that.

[2:48:52] Why, why raising the grade?

[2:48:53] And you're saying that it doesn't have to do with the septic so much.

[2:48:58] It has to do with how you've designed your flow or your levels.

[2:49:04] Yes.

[2:49:04] Going back.

[2:49:06] At this location, septic systems don't need to be outpired from the water table.

[2:49:12] Which is literally, if you see the change in elevation, the water is backed down by the lake.

[2:49:17] So, up by the street where the church is, there should be no issues with septic.

[2:49:22] What would be the implications of reducing the grape such that that wall was required?

[2:49:28] Well, it's the effect.

[2:49:31] By now, the house that's there is slightly elevated anyway.

[2:49:34] So they have some steps, but they just have amount.

[2:49:38] If I present that amount to the building official,

[2:49:40] he's going to want something to hold the water

[2:49:42] from going to the cycle.

[2:49:44] So if I were to correct the situation that they have right now,

[2:49:47] the building official will ask for a walk.

[2:49:50] So I'm putting a walk, so I prevent that situation

[2:49:52] because I'm trying to keep the idea of that great being

[2:49:55] a little bit higher.

[2:49:56] If I just have a mound like that,

[2:49:59] it's not like that, it's not like that.

[2:49:59] Oh, it's not...

[2:50:00] No, I understand that. I just think three feet is kind of high for that. I mean, it's a heavy heavily traveled sidewalk and also coming back and forth from the front.

[2:50:13] They could be lowered, but I still need a retaining wall to hold the great. So, at three six, which is our max, we can break it down to two eight.

[2:50:21] You're a three foot now, according to your elevation.

[2:50:23] So maybe the reason why I started asking that question is because the adjacent properties don't have that and I'm worried that by bringing the elevation out

[2:50:34] I know you say there's a mountain there already and you know, I don't I don't I don't have enough actual data to contest that because it's been a little while

[2:50:41] It's been passed this particular site. You see the survey the survey will show elevations. Okay, but but the adjacent properties don't have it

[2:50:48] And my worry is, we've had a lot of issues with drainage that permeates the adjacent properties

[2:50:55] and I'm just worried that maybe that's going to happen here.

[2:50:58] Maybe I'm not understanding how you're raising the grade either.

[2:51:01] Well, you're only raised in front there and you're dropping it down before you get to the

[2:51:05] property line.

[2:51:06] If the wall is right along the property line, which is the sidewalk, you know, that's not the

[2:51:10] concern I have.

[2:51:11] It's not a concern.

[2:51:12] It's not a concern.

[2:51:13] Please tell me Jason about me, but if you, let's see it, she didn't want to want to.

[2:51:20] The wall only contains itself at the footrail of the house, so we can see it down as before

[2:51:26] you get to the property like this, let's look at it, see what we want to do.

[2:51:29] Yeah, he's going to, it's going to, the wall ends at the house, there's grass to the right

[2:51:34] and there's grass to the left, the wall doesn't meet the neighbors, the wall stops

[2:51:39] showed him.

[2:51:39] How far?

[2:51:40] So it looks like the driveway stops at the driveway on the on on the west side and it stops at the

[2:51:47] But it's essentially an existing tree on the right side

[2:51:50] If you look at 401, you'll see what the wall is and the wall once you see the wall where it ends in our relationship

[2:51:56] Then you can look at the cyclone and see because the wall doesn't extend past

[2:52:01] The house on the east side of the west side and that's the area that's raised

[2:52:07] I think I see that.

[2:52:09] It's container.

[2:52:11] It doesn't extend to the west property line or the east property line.

[2:52:21] Yes, in fact, it is three feet.

[2:52:24] The rendering is showing it higher than it is.

[2:52:28] And for one, you can see it and it's really not that.

[2:52:31] Once it's landscape.

[2:52:36] So on this property, does everything kind of drain towards the back, towards the lake, I guess?

[2:52:41] No, it can't. It can't actually. I mean, like how does the driveway drain? Well, the driveway is going to have catchbacence and we're going to collect the water and have storm drains in the property because water cannot go from the property into the dump into the way. So the houses that are around it do that now. That was all system. We're retaining the water inside the property because we have. So you have catchbacence. Catched waste, storm drains. We have a rich train or some sort of percolation or something.

[2:53:11] There will be gutters of the roof.

[2:53:14] We'll direct water to right places without having it.

[2:53:17] Because last thing we want to have is a flooded driveway.

[2:53:20] So when they come in and get out of the car, the shoes get wet, right?

[2:53:23] So we have catchbases.

[2:53:25] There's a retention area on the east side.

[2:53:27] The elevators will take it to the east side in that area.

[2:53:32] It'll be a combination.

[2:53:33] We can do storm drains on their ground.

[2:53:35] We'll do retention punt because a 30% of 1800s

[2:53:41] We have a lot of green, so we have a large area,

[2:53:45] sweet one, a one, a one, a one, a five, may please.

[2:53:47] Retention area on the east side is a large area that we're going to have there.

[2:53:50] We're going to have another retention area on the south side.

[2:53:52] Preventing it as I get soil, but we will have storm drains as well.

[2:53:58] For the driveway, you see on the right, we're going down to feed the right.

[2:54:04] That's probably mostly for the roof, whatever drains off the roof, right?

[2:54:07] Yeah, that's going to be from the roof and then you see one of the bus the back is probably for the driveway there

[2:54:14] Yeah, and we'll have a we'll have a strong drain underneath the the driveway for sure

[2:54:19] Civil engineering is going to be involved, but we have a surplus of green area to be able to retain the water

[2:54:25] You can see it on the right side and on the south side

[2:54:29] We're going to create a nice soil. That's all going to be saw. So the water's going to be able to

[2:54:35] collect itself and then just permit

[2:54:38] Well, partly, not partly.

[2:54:43] Any other questions for the applicant?

[2:54:47] Yes.

[2:54:51] So Victor, it's more of a question on how the property is used, so maybe I can put

[2:54:58] Father George on the spot.

[2:55:00] And come up and kind of walk us through the use of the building, you know, how many of the clergy would reside there, things of that nature, if you can just kind of walk us through this Father George.

[2:55:15] I didn't know you were going to put me on this board.

[2:55:18] You have followed George, I decide that the same property for not his 4-1-8 and I serve

[2:55:25] San Jose, my Catholic parish and the school and you know I can start with Brandon's initial

[2:55:31] question about why are we tearing that house down is because every time mirror lake floods I'm

[2:55:38] almost like inside my house is almost like mirror lake. You know I have water 2-3 feet of water

[2:55:43] inside. And every garage or inside the house, as I said, he's almost looks like a

[2:55:50] basement, you know. So everything underneath floods. And therefore, and you know,

[2:55:56] starts with the garage and the chapel, we have a huge chapel there for our private

[2:55:59] prayer and so on. So it starts there and gets into the entire house. And then, you

[2:56:06] know, we have to, every time there is a flood, we have to invest so much money and

[2:56:11] realize that in one year it flooded three times, in one year, you know. And then in addition

[2:56:18] to that there is a septic tank inside the house, I don't know who decided it, how it was

[2:56:22] put it in. And then we pumped that to the exterior septic tank, you know, everything that

[2:56:28] is in sense. So, as soon as you walk into the front of the house, it almost melts, it

[2:56:32] melts like a septic, right, in front of the house. So, those are the reasons why, you know,

[2:56:37] have that problem there. I know. And then with more than muskiness and everything else is making

[2:56:45] us all sick. And you know, that is the reason we need that house. And then to come back to your

[2:56:52] question, Michael, there used to be about five priests at one time, reciting there. There is

[2:56:57] we have about three priests in the parish. There are also resident priests who used to serve

[2:57:02] the pastoral center on, you know, 94-01, this game, but what, which is today's office, currently

[2:57:10] we are two, I mean, once I got there, I'm there 10 years now. So, we were, at one point,

[2:57:17] we were four priests there. So, there are two priests assigned to the Paris, there may be

[2:57:22] a resident priest or a student priest or someone who works in the pastoral center in

[2:57:26] the time, you know, or whatever else. So, there could be, you know, it depends on the

[2:57:29] Jewish army of science, you know the priest. So it could be two, three, four priests. That would be that you said you're the house.

[2:57:40] So the use of the house is strictly for the parish and the clergy. Absolutely.

[2:57:46] Okay. So there would never be a plan where this property would be sold and be used for something else.

[2:57:54] Paris was started in 1948. This house was built in 1956. It is still under the ownership of the archbishop.

[2:58:02] I don't think the Paris is going anywhere and the priest do need a restaurant.

[2:58:07] It is not going to be a play forward. It is not going to be sold anywhere.

[2:58:11] You know, God forbid unless we have to close on the church and everything else that we know.

[2:58:16] I hope that is not the case.

[2:58:17] There

[2:58:21] was actually did the design

[2:58:27] Are we actually

[2:58:32] There's names on the plan

[2:58:36] Now one thing we wanted to make

[2:58:40] I mean the

[2:58:42] Just the design

[2:58:44] I thought

[2:58:48] we were going to the else

[2:58:50] for a tour, I mean, it just...

[2:58:54] In terms of what we thought we thought we were going to like it,

[2:58:57] but it's all kind of, it's all kind of, it's all kind of stuff.

[2:58:59] But I mean, it's not offensive, there's nothing wrong with you,

[2:59:03] but it's relatively a typical.

[2:59:08] Of houses.

[2:59:09] Okay, it's actually the third house I have to style like that.

[2:59:13] Coming into the village, we did one at one,

[2:59:15] one in the second, one of these four.

[2:59:17] There's another one at ninety-first, very similar style.

[2:59:19] So it's not like not breaking up.

[2:59:23] Okay, I mean, I just, I assume you did, but, you know, then her task.

[2:59:29] And we wanted to keep, you know, keeping mind the architecture of the village and neighborhood and so on.

[2:59:34] And that's where you kept it, you know, smaller footprint than it's the current existing house.

[2:59:39] And also that it matches with everything else in the neighborhood.

[2:59:43] Why, why do you go in the middle roof?

[2:59:51] Oh, for that, for the slope. Why did you go such a steep slope?

[3:00:00] Well, I'm just following up on my colleague.

[3:00:04] I'm listening to all these boards and I'm learning as I go along and this street is a one-story street.

[3:00:12] And this house is a two-story house. So we are trying to impact as least as we can, a volume that will read as floor plan as well, two-story.

[3:00:23] So, there's a drawing now that you see the context, but we're trying to keep it as a single story with a roof and at the steepness of the roof allows us to do an attic space that's our second floor.

[3:00:35] So, we're hiding, you see there, we're hiding the second floor in the attic. It's just a 105.

[3:00:41] It's a very common way, and I only know this, my daughter went to the northeast, we've been traveling for four years up there, and there's a lot of houses that use that.

[3:00:51] It's a single story, but the second floor is hidden in the attic, and it's a full bedroom, and it's like you can see it on that middle right there, it's how much room you got in the attic there.

[3:01:02] You can see there's a couple of sections that show you where it is.

[3:01:06] So you're trying to keep the one floor, one story look with some attic.

[3:01:12] Yeah, the second floor is basically in the attic, and then we're also introducing, but we're very excited about these dormers that will allow for these

[3:01:21] Rones to have windows and to be able to look out with a full height clearance as you can see the figures that we put there

[3:01:28] That way you can walk out and go up to the window

[3:01:36] answers my question

[3:01:38] Any other questions just the statement the design wise if it weren't

[3:01:45] More of an institutional use which I think makes sense that stand out a little bit has the existing building does on her street

[3:01:52] I think I would have an issue with the steepness of the roof, but I think in this particular case, because of the use and because of its relationship to the church, it kind of makes sense.

[3:02:03] How wide is the driveway?

[3:02:08] I don't remember what it was.

[3:02:10] And then, but it's definitely, their review doesn't let me go forward with anything.

[3:02:15] So Dave,

[3:02:19] the review is very, very thorough.

[3:02:22] The driveway is going to be six new feet in width

[3:02:25] entering all the way down and then turning into the parking.

[3:02:30] And then there's a swell retention pond

[3:02:32] that are then further east of the driveway.

[3:02:36] Well, on the opposite side of the house,

[3:02:39] there's a huge about 20 feet worth of width

[3:02:43] by almost the entire of the depth for that.

[3:02:48] But the driveway will have a catch basin,

[3:02:51] because water is going to be flowing,

[3:02:53] and we're going to have to slope it in such a way

[3:02:55] to collect it and then go to the stone drain.

[3:03:00] So, yes, landscape, but that is the width of the driveway

[3:03:03] as it comes in from the street.

[3:03:04] This is your retention pond, and that's a retention pond.

[3:03:10] And the property is owned by the archdiocese

[3:03:13] You see this is or by your choice.

[3:03:16] When's the time that you're in?

[3:03:21] OK.

[3:03:23] So somebody selling it.

[3:03:27] Well, any other questions for the applicant?

[3:03:32] It's not an open-it-to-public comment, public comment on this application.

[3:03:35] Thank you.

[3:03:37] State your name and address at the bottom.

[3:03:40] Please, stay here, Named.

[3:03:41] Sir.

[3:03:42] Fundition.

[3:03:44] Yeah.

[3:03:45] Named.

[3:03:45] The foundation of the big new build, the name of the address piece, excuse me, stay

[3:03:50] hey name and address. Oh, but I don't, okay, that's 45, not this one, or three, three. Thank you.

[3:03:58] We're literally, yeah. All right, now we have a C-ball and your foundation will be about

[3:04:05] the same ball. Actually, sir, this is common only, not question the answer. Okay, so make

[3:04:13] If I want to know if the foundation is in level with the civil,

[3:04:18] when we have floods,

[3:04:22] there's going to be some overwash,

[3:04:25] because that's what we build the civil.

[3:04:27] It's nothing washes back into the lake.

[3:04:30] You know, the soil and whatever.

[3:04:32] Because it's a landlord lake,

[3:04:35] and there's no way out.

[3:04:37] So anything goes in, it stays there.

[3:04:40] So if the raised the foundation of the building

[3:04:43] of the sea of being able to have some wash it back in the lake.

[3:04:50] I think that isn't that why you have the routine edge that's not this right through here.

[3:04:57] But this one is a sea of all here.

[3:05:00] Do you see what? Okay. And the right now, right now, it's a building's foundation is the level with the bottom of the sea wall, right? So you're going to raise that, no?

[3:05:26] comes this way to get collect nothing's going to flow south of that into it.

[3:05:33] Nothing going to go into the lake.

[3:05:37] Yeah, very interesting idea.

[3:05:41] I hope it works hard.

[3:05:43] It's going to work out.

[3:05:45] All right, we don't get a building.

[3:05:53] Any other comments on this application?

[3:05:56] Like, Apple's still working?

[3:05:58] I mean, I think I got a splinter from it.

[3:06:01] any other comments. Motion to approve the application with staff conditions. Hang on. Let me have some silence, please.

[3:06:11] All right. Do I get any further discussion? Motion to approve. I got a motion to approve.

[3:06:18] I have a second.

[3:06:19] I'll second it.

[3:06:20] We got a second here. All in favor say aye.

[3:06:23] I application pass. Thank you very much.

[3:06:26] Good luck. Thank you.

[3:06:27] Thank you.

[3:06:42] All right, discussion and possible action items on item nine A.

[3:06:53] So I see here. All right, I guess I'll open it to you. Yes. And then I guess you were looking for a motion just to let this project continue to go forward.

[3:07:04] Yeah, the idea is, the idea is to give you the ability, should you allow the applicant to explain their current situation and give you the ability as a board

[3:07:14] Should you find it to be agreeable, to allow them to implement that as correct, all right, go ahead, please

[3:07:23] So pursuant to a development order RSP 2493 the property was granted a facade modification and cycling approvals by the board for an approximately

[3:07:31] 1,191 square foot single family addition to an existing two-story residence.

[3:07:38] The approved site plan indicated four bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, outdoor

[3:07:42] terraces and swimming pool area. The development order was executed on April 17, 2025,

[3:07:47] requiring the applicant to submit for a building permit within one year of its execution.

[3:07:51] On August 13, 2025, the applicant filed for a building permit review pursuant to RCOA-25-1848

[3:07:59] and commenced the pursuit to a required 90-day county outstate, outside agencies for the

[3:08:05] square footage edition scope of work.

[3:08:07] Furthermore, on January 26th, 26th, the applicant filed for a demolition permit review for

[3:08:14] the proposed areas of demolition within the property and upon staff's subsequent review

[3:08:18] of the provided demolition sheets, it was determined that the proposed exterior walls

[3:08:23] to be demolished, far exceeded the walls to be demolished as approved by the planning and

[3:08:28] board development order. The board had previously indicated staff that for additions to existing

[3:08:33] single-family residences built in or before 1965, any modification to the approved

[3:08:38] site plan, which included deviations from the demo plans, incorporated into the site plan that

[3:08:43] exceed 10 percent shall require a public hearing before the board. The applicant has indicated

[3:08:49] following the approval that a comprehensive structural evaluation of the existing residents

[3:08:53] was performed, including a review of the original microphone records, engineering, analysis, and structural

[3:08:59] load calculations. And based on these findings, it was determined that the existing

[3:09:04] wall reinforcement and foundation systems are insufficient to support the structural loads generated

[3:09:09] by the approved architectural design. The applicant is now seeking that the planning is

[3:09:16] on and board grant the approval of the revised demolition sheets as tied to the original

[3:09:20] cyclone approval in order to support the approved architectural design.

[3:09:25] All other aspects of the approved plans will remain unchanged as such.

[3:09:30] Cyclone approval RSP-2493 remains valid.

[3:09:34] The applicant shall construct and complete the new single family structure within 18 months

[3:09:38] of the date of the issuance of the first building permit.

[3:09:41] And with that, the applicant's age of this year to answer any questions you may have.

[3:09:48] Any questions to the planning director?

[3:09:50] Looking back to my files, I was having a hard time understanding when this came before us.

[3:09:56] The actual cover sheets as it came before us, I think in October of 24.

[3:10:00] But I looked through my files and couldn't find it. Maybe it was just I looked at the agenda too and didn't find it there.

[3:10:06] The March 27th, 2025. March 27th, 2025. The development order is part of their letter of intent.

[3:10:21] So good, good to see DA 3.01 and the existing.

[3:10:26] All right, that's 3.02. All right, that's fine, that's the new.

[3:10:30] Go back to 01.

[3:10:35] So I mean, when I reviewed this basically, the existing plan showed a couple of walls here

[3:10:42] to be left in place and due to the structural analysis investigation, apparently those walls

[3:10:52] are not adequate for what you want to do, so you need to demo those walls and build new walls

[3:10:59] there.

[3:11:00] And now those in fact are interior walls too.

[3:11:04] So it doesn't affect the look at the house at all.

[3:11:08] So when I looked at it, so these walls are going to be demoed and new walls put there and

[3:11:14] Similarly, similarly on the second floor plan, these walls here get everything on the second floor, let everything get stim of you.

[3:11:33] Yes.

[3:11:33] Unfortunately, I would like reinforcements, so I won't be substantial for the notes that we need.

[3:11:38] So you're demoing their CMU walls that are there and you're demoing them and putting

[3:11:44] reinforce the CMU back or soundtrace, okay, custom place concrete, solid walls.

[3:11:54] So these four before stick walls, concrete blocks.

[3:12:01] No, I think they were,

[3:12:06] they think of the beach space.

[3:12:17] And the storage structure,

[3:12:21] it would look like that, in the plant's package, this was from

[3:12:25] that day, that's why she asked her name in terms of the presentation to us as a day regional.

[3:12:35] My name is Rafał. I am the social interranging here working in this project. First, I

[3:12:43] like to apologize because sometimes my English is not very fluent, and so I need some

[3:12:52] time to find the right words to explain, but I do do the best.

[3:13:02] This project, the existing residence was originally designed as a conventional wood frame

[3:13:09] structure.

[3:13:11] I work the proposed renovation, replaces the original wood floor of framing with reinforced

[3:13:18] concrete floor and roof slabs. These represent a significant change in the

[3:13:24] short-track system and substantially increases the reliability laws that must be

[3:13:29] transfer safely to the foundation. Because of this change, many of the

[3:13:35] system walls cannot be effectively integrated into the new

[3:13:39] structural system while maintaining proper load path and a social

[3:13:45] material. For the resources, the demolition is now intended to maximize the scope of work.

[3:13:52] Rather, it is necessary to provide adequate structural support and establish a safe and continuous

[3:13:56] load traffic throughout the building. In addition, our film-based irrigation also

[3:14:03] identifies existing ongoing forest and foundation elements that do not meet their

[3:14:09] of the new structural design.

[3:14:13] Consequently, the structural plans include new reforms,

[3:14:17] structural elements and large foundation design

[3:14:19] to slightly resist the revised law in conditions.

[3:14:25] For this reason, we respectfully believe that the proposed

[3:14:29] demolition is structurally justified and represent the

[3:14:34] safest and appropriate solution for this project.

[3:14:39] Thank you.

[3:14:40] Any questions from the board to the applicant?

[3:14:51] So in addition to the couple of walls that are taken out on the first floor, in addition,

[3:14:58] the whole second floor.

[3:15:00] It's taken off, but if we're looking at this elevation, this is the approved elevation from before, the front page.

[3:15:10] The elevations are not changing.

[3:15:15] So the only thing changing are these three sheets that they included.

[3:15:19] These dim up sheets.

[3:15:21] So the question for the commander.

[3:15:48] It's on the condition of approval. If you'd like, I can read it.

[3:15:52] Nobody said it never happened.

[3:15:55] Well, we didn't have them update.

[3:15:58] All they're providing is the demolition sheets,

[3:16:01] because that's all they're asking to swap out.

[3:16:03] So we're fully intending that they will meet that condition.

[3:16:07] Correct.

[3:16:10] Within the building permit.

[3:16:12] Well, hold on.

[3:16:12] You said they submitted the building permit already.

[3:16:15] Yes.

[3:16:16] So did they add the windows or not?

[3:16:17] They have a comment that they need to add the building.

[3:16:20] They haven't done it yet.

[3:16:21] They have a comment for them to add it.

[3:16:23] They haven't done it yet.

[3:16:23] Now, they're coming back to us and asking us for something, but they haven't done what we ask them to do in the first place.

[3:16:29] And I say, we, I wasn't that that meeting, but that's what the meeting minutes say.

[3:16:32] Oh, thank you.

[3:16:33] I got to an issue.

[3:16:34] Otherwise, I mean, firstly, I don't have a problem with the demo plan change.

[3:16:40] If it were, if it were a retention of an historic structure, and they were looking to change the knowledge from more of that historic structure,

[3:16:48] as it happened in the six states, that would be an issue, I think,

[3:16:52] from my perspective.

[3:16:54] But my concern is that there's a convent here

[3:16:57] where we put a condition in place,

[3:16:59] or by, they clearly submitted a plan that didn't have that,

[3:17:03] didn't abide by that motion.

[3:17:05] So I think, well, we should, let me clarify.

[3:17:09] So an applicant submits and staff issues a series of comments.

[3:17:14] Typically, we'll say, hey,

[3:17:16] Where's your outside agency approvals because it's one of our conditions like we'll go through the conditions list

[3:17:23] And we'll cite all those things that are not in the initial submittal, so I think what they did was

[3:17:29] They did a dry run review which the building department the building department allows folks to do a dry review

[3:17:35] Which then would

[3:17:37] Provide them the feasibility to go to the outside agencies and I think they've underwent that course and

[3:17:44] And then that process came back and filed the demo permit.

[3:17:48] So they kind of left the original permit kind of, let's say,

[3:17:52] I don't, and I don't believe they've resimitted addressing those

[3:17:58] comments because of the, uh, what they found with the demo.

[3:18:02] I mean, you guys can speak to it that right.

[3:18:04] And we also have it.

[3:18:05] I mean, it has a representative, but it, it was done.

[3:18:08] And we are working on the windows and all of that.

[3:18:11] So, I mean, it's being worked on.

[3:18:13] It's just that we work, getting married,

[3:18:15] they kind of put all the outside agencies.

[3:18:17] And we know that we have to go ahead

[3:18:19] and revise our hearing.

[3:18:21] So that's why we're here.

[3:18:23] And instead of going back and forth more on reviews,

[3:18:26] why is that meant so many times

[3:18:27] until the approval was done here?

[3:18:30] So let's make sure we're all on some page.

[3:18:32] What was the comment, additional finestration?

[3:18:35] I'm a little second.

[3:18:36] I'm a little second.

[3:18:38] So that was the, this wall here.

[3:18:43] And you guys understand what our comment is.

[3:18:46] All right, we are adding to Windows.

[3:18:48] And if you'd like to, I can read the condition

[3:18:51] that was in the development order.

[3:18:54] Sure.

[3:18:56] So the condition reads, the applicant,

[3:18:58] at the time of building permit shall revise

[3:18:59] West elevations, sheet A401, and indicate windows

[3:19:03] along the second story of the West wall, similar

[3:19:05] to the proposed window openings

[3:19:07] as located at the second story of the north elevation.

[3:19:10] Staff shall review for compatibility.

[3:19:11] So they had that here today,

[3:19:21] absolutely, absolutely.

[3:19:24] Because I guess today, the only thing we only question in front of us is those three demo sheets,

[3:19:30] you know, as revised sheets to Jonathan from

[3:19:38] memory, you know, but common from the other one, you know, to make sure that he follows up on that.

[3:19:47] So I guess this is a discussion and possible action items.

[3:19:51] I guess I'm looking for a motion to approve the sheet's DA101, DA301, and DA1.

[3:20:14] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:20:22] Sorry to make you wait so long, but we got to be here, you know.

[3:20:25] All right.

[3:20:32] Thank you.

[3:20:33] All right.

[3:20:37] Board member comments.

[3:20:39] Any board member comments?

[3:20:42] I got this.

[3:20:43] I got this.

[3:20:44] This is it.

[3:20:46] You guys that's what my question is.

[3:20:48] has the council reviewed any applicants to replace

[3:20:58] Brady and I this is a great position has been replaced for a while down

[3:21:02] It has not

[3:21:04] Replacement has not been sworn in until we were done with the article now we're done

[3:21:09] So I think they'll proceed in that matter. I'm not completely certain or I don't think the

[3:21:16] They're discussion at any of their council meetings unless they haven't had applicants.

[3:21:22] The latest information from the clerk was that she's only received two applicants that are currently serving on the board.

[3:21:32] She has received anything.

[3:21:33] They didn't even go through.

[3:21:37] She hasn't renewed the two applicants.

[3:21:39] She hasn't brought it to the council because she's hoping to get more applicants.

[3:21:44] because it would leave a bacon, a bacon seat.

[3:21:56] You know, I don't believe anybody will ever touch the plates.

[3:22:00] But I'm, yeah, you can never let it go.

[3:22:05] But you can never let it go.

[3:22:08] All right, so I guess the next meeting September and just FYI,

[3:22:13] I'll continue to show up, to somebody else shows up.

[3:22:19] Somebody else wants to show up.

[3:22:21] Yeah, and that's expected for the call, I mean, thank you for doing it

[3:22:27] But so Dan, I just want to say it's been a pleasure. Well, thank you

[3:22:30] No, we haven't always seen night eye, but I do appreciate the back and forth and obviously the differences of opinion

[3:22:36] And thank you for everything you've done and all these years you've served this community

[3:22:39] People don't appreciate that the way they should

[3:22:44] For those comments, yes

[3:22:48] Now, this is, you're going to do what you need to do in terms of the final.

[3:23:00] What are we talking about right now?

[3:23:02] It's already 40 seconds.

[3:23:03] In other words, Dan Brady needs to show up to any more meetings.

[3:23:08] I'm officially out.

[3:23:10] I'm officially out.

[3:23:10] You're officially out.

[3:23:11] You're officially out.

[3:23:11] I replaced me a year ago.

[3:23:14] Okay.

[3:23:14] I guess that's the counsel.

[3:23:15] But still it's hard to get him.

[3:23:18] Oh, he does, he's at.

[3:23:20] But, okay, so we basically recommend an adoption of the residential code.

[3:23:27] Yes.

[3:23:28] And both the rise to you and Eddie to make.

[3:23:32] Non-substantial change.

[3:23:33] Non-substantial change is for purpose and concern of good quality.

[3:23:38] Mm-hmm.

[3:23:39] And you are hypothetically,

[3:23:41] you're going to present to the Council two documents. One that is but we're recommending and one that's going to basically say we're not sure legally you can do this.

[3:23:57] Yes, one ordinance, one staff member,

[3:24:01] but with our recommendation and one recommendation.

[3:24:03] And one with the same thing that you all received before,

[3:24:08] that called out the provisions that were questionable.

[3:24:13] And that will then go to them and all of this.

[3:24:16] No, that will go to them all of this.

[3:24:18] But they won't hear until September.

[3:24:21] We can plan for a September, but keep in mind we have budget in September.

[3:24:26] And that's priority. So, the priority is going to be getting whatever budget items are out for the manager and then, but we hope that's temporary, but that's not a guarantee.

[3:24:40] I would like to talk to the first, right?

[3:24:43] Okay.

[3:24:44] Tell me here.

[3:24:45] So we have to be going to be an October.

[3:24:47] In terms of the potential awareness probably be October.

[3:24:51] Corrective.

[3:24:52] If we were to fill as the September agenda is too conflated.

[3:25:00] With the budget items, I guess.

[3:25:09] We wouldn't be able to pass in reading some of the stuff with the amendment.

[3:25:15] I saw a thing that said that they're supposed to make public a budget that shows you 10% reduction.

[3:25:25] That law is goes in effect January 27.

[3:25:33] No, okay.

[3:25:35] So it'll be effective for the next budget.

[3:25:39] Okay. Any other board member comments? Next meeting September 60th. That was a screwdriver.

[3:25:51] Sorry about that. September 24th.

[3:26:00] Congratulations on being done with the article.

[3:26:02] I think that was a real big feat.

[3:26:11] I'm like,

[3:26:12] I'm like,

[3:26:13] I'm like,

[3:26:14] I'm like,

[3:26:15] you could just...

[3:26:18] It becomes that.

[3:26:20] You know, I never really thought of that.

[3:26:21] It comes back for 80 comes back.

[3:26:26] How many?

[3:26:27] I mean,

[3:26:27] I'm trying to...

[3:26:29] I'm trying to think,

[3:26:31] I don't remember us approving any sugarcodes

[3:26:37] have sugarcute after the 24 changes to the code.

[3:26:43] And I really don't remember a whole lot of other

[3:26:47] sugarcute's period.

[3:26:48] The one on by the park on this cane is probably the only one.

[3:26:53] I think it really comes to what a real sugarcube looks like.

[3:26:56] There's some big square.

[3:27:00] 20-thirty.

[3:27:01] Yeah, that one.

[3:27:03] There's one.

[3:27:05] Which one?

[3:27:05] Now we're going to need to go back.

[3:27:06] One and a ninety-third closer to that.

[3:27:09] Well, that actually does.

[3:27:10] That was very interesting.

[3:27:12] That was much better.

[3:27:12] That's the one that got everybody gone.

[3:27:16] It was just so big.

[3:27:19] It's so big.

[3:27:20] But it's very setback.

[3:27:23] I think it's more setback than the 25 feet.

[3:27:26] It has some variation in the, in the front plain.

[3:27:31] The parking run.

[3:27:31] One unit of parking racks.

[3:27:32] It looks like a park in Raxeno or a plastic surgery institute.

[3:27:36] That one that we're talking about on 90s,

[3:27:37] or 90s, that one looks like one of the 1960s AT&T structures

[3:27:41] that you used to see.

[3:27:42] It's weird.

[3:27:45] 93rd street on the south side,

[3:27:47] like second and third house from the beginning.

[3:27:49] Yeah, I think that's the right thing.

[3:27:51] It looks like one of the structures from AT&T

[3:27:54] that they used to build up and down the keys, 1960s.

[3:27:59] I particularly like some of their structures,

[3:28:00] it's just not a single family option.

[3:28:01] I mean, but really, I think all the other ones, we basically told no to people.

[3:28:13] Okay.

[3:28:14] I appreciate your service.

[3:28:24] Finalizing, we're doing final inspections on things that were approved in 2023.

[3:28:29] It's just the nature of these.

[3:28:30] It takes 18 months.

[3:28:32] Six of a year to get a permit.

[3:28:34] Oh, yeah.

[3:28:34] To get through the whole permitting process.

[3:28:36] Yeah, what's the latest with that house they demoed on six Avenue, just more than a hundred and third string?

[3:28:44] He came in here, we table did, and now has a wrecked car in the backyard.

[3:28:51] Oh, the one on golf course.

[3:28:53] Of course.

[3:28:55] Did that come back for us?

[3:28:57] It never came back.

[3:29:00] We didn't go.

[3:29:01] I think that's the Bernard house.

[3:29:03] You've been going back and forth trying to get you what you what you asked for.

[3:29:11] Thanks.

[3:29:13] Sometimes it's like pulling too.

[3:29:14] But how?

[3:29:15] But they're still engaged.

[3:29:17] How long is that period?

[3:29:20] Can it be table forever?

[3:29:23] Well, there's Florida statutes that basically put a timeline on applications.

[3:29:32] That's technically, I think it's like it's been within the system for like six months.

[3:29:37] You have to take it to a hearing even if you're recommending an eye.

[3:29:40] Okay?

[3:29:41] There's things like that in the pipeline.

[3:29:43] Will the developer is given the upper hand with time-lapse?

[3:29:46] And you just can't let them sit in the purgatory.

[3:29:50] So that's an indication that we would have to monitor, you know, to close it.

[3:29:56] But if they come back after the arm couldn't pass, they're so cute too.

[3:30:00] I think that's a conversation with the council as to how if they adopt the art code, they would have to instruct right, as it was affected.

[3:30:11] It becomes effective tonight or it becomes effective on extent and anything in the pipeline, do not consider it or only consider things like they would have to tell us. Consider things that are indeed public hearing things, but not anything that's in the billing prep.

[3:30:28] or don't consider any, that's something that we would have to flush out with the council at the time of their consideration.

[3:30:40] Anything else? Do I have motion to adjourn?

[3:30:43] Second.

[3:30:44] All in favor?

[3:30:45] Aye. Thank you.

Planning & Zoning Board

Agenda

Transcript